NationStates Jolt Archive

So, what do you think?

Oil/Petrol vs. Ethanol

With the technology moving forward, new ways of creating more enviromentally friendly cars arrive.
Creating cars that run on Ethanol would greaty lower the amount of pollutions and the acidifcation of the world.

Therefore I suggest:

1) Reduction in taxes for driving ethanol driven vehicles.
2) Higher taxes for vehicles driven by fossil fuels.

Too tired to debate this right now, but consider yourself warned - once I get up in the morning, and have Googled myself, you will have a major opposition on your hands.

Why not make a proposal to ban unreusable fuels and instead replace our power systems with environmentally friendly resources e.g. wind power, hydroelectrics or solar generators?

While w currently have no motor vehicles other than large trucks and earth moving equipment, we could support this idea.

Ethanol would be a good way to dispose of our huge turnip surplus.

Why not make a proposal to ban unreusable fuels and instead replace our power systems with environmentally friendly resources e.g. wind power, hydroelectrics or solar generators?

Hydropower and wind power are not environmentally friendly power sources. They are renewable energy sources, but they have costs just the same as coal fired plants.

Any resident of the eastern shore of the North Pacific can tell you about the catastrophic decline in the anadromous fish populations is directly linked to massive hydro projects. The following water quality constituents harmed by even the most benin of water projects:

Water Temperature (necessary for young fish)
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Transport (which has a host of non-biological problems as well)
Riparian Habitat Distruction (again, massive problems to farms as well)
Access / Loss of Ancestral Breeding Grounds

http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/MiningStats/Aggregate%20BMP%20Handbook/Chapters/A-2_Salmonid%20Life%20Histories%20and%20Habitat%20Requirements.pdf[/url]
]

It goes without say that wind power has a negative impact on bird populations, but I'm [i]less qualified to estatimate the costs, as I'm a water engineer (by background) not mechanical engineer nor biologist. But this isn't to say that hydro projects are completely evil or wrong. Their environmental impacts are more localized than coal fired plants, which means instead of killing your neighbors, you are only screwing your own country and many those who share water sheds with you.

The trap 99% of people who aren't into energy or environmental policy make is they fail to see that the problem is the consumption of power, not the generation of power. If you want to adopt environmental friendly policies you'll target the LARGEST plague the earth has seen: the infestation of humans. Population control, though a loss of a civil (not to be confused with a political) freedom, is effective and ironically sustainable. Until people put this on the table, they really are only trading off air pollution and respiratory illnesses for large scale habitat and wildlife destruction, coastal erosion, and economic losses to food production (better farming land is associated with seasonal flood plains, which are lost when you start damming up rivers.

10kMichael

Considering not all UN members have cars and even then they don’t use the same fuel, I don’t think legislation would be a good idea.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?