> Mister Spock wrote:
> Undeath,
You're arguing that, globally, more people should remain homeless, more people should starve, more people should suffer for lack of medical care, in order to stop using internal combustion engines?
Because using more expensive modes of transportation has real costs. That's what expensive means. At this point in time it's hardly arguable that the pollution from engines does far less harm than the benefits of their extremely economical energy.
We're all happy that you're satisfied with your standard of living. And that you can make some sort of alternate-fuel transportation work, even though the technology is in its infancy and many of us even commute to work on it, let alone do more. And that you can afford the extra costs of these more expensive energy sources. But the fact is, most of the world does not enjoy this standard of living, and they're going to use oil for a long, long time. And they could care less what anyone thinks.
Unless plant and animal life is dying in western nations today, I think we can safely conclude that cars aren't going to cause the apocalypse.
Actually, I'm arguing that this argument is just part of a conspiracy to keep us from finding Sasquatches.
But considering that 90% of my transportation is done via bike which cost me $25, or walking...yes, you're correct in saying that many people are unable to afford my standard of living.
