The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin||Date: 6/12/2011 1:27 PM|
|Author: salaryguru||Number: 34547 of 61315|
You are being a fake pocketbook patriot if, like intercst, you target fuel consumption for the working class and excuse the fuel consumption for jet airplanes and cruise ships disproportionately used by those with high incomes and elite orientations that excuse "travel" for essentially frivolous purposes.
I know you believe this is a great issue to bring up and attack liberals with. I know that because you do it every few months like you expect us to suddenly acquiesce to your fact-free, ill-informed perspective. I bothered to provide actual facts to one of your diatribes about air travel once many months ago, but like any good wing-nut you chose to ignore the facts in that post and have just kept bringing up your ridiculous point every few months.
First, why are you convinced that all liberals prioritize oil consumption higher than many conservatives? Outside of T-bagger circles (ie. the willfully ignorant) most polls and surveys indicate large numbers of both conservatives and liberals think energy policy and oil consumption are important issues for this country.
Second, why do you focus on air travel? Everything we do or make involves energy, and everything that involves energy involves oil. Your computer has to be powered in order for you to post this nonsense, and even if your electricity is coming from another source, it is contributing to a greater need on the power grid so more oil is being used somewhere. Every household item in your home required energy to design, manufacture and distribute. Oil, oil, oil. Want to take a hike in the wilderness? You have to get to your trailhead, carry equipment (much of which is probably petroleum based) . . . even what you're wearing requires energy use.
So, again ... why focus on air travel? You have never produced even a shred of data to indicate this particular energy expenditure should be prioritized and targeted over any other issue. No. You simply don't like people, don't like to travel, and have no curiosity about how other's live or what humans have accomplished in this world. Travel has no value to you and your incredibly limited world view. So this is something that does not affect you. You think it's a perfect issue to attack liberals over. The fact that it really isn't about liberals and has no merit is of no concern.
There are ways to estimate the fuel efficiency of airplanes and other modes of transportation. They are not perfect figures-of-merit, but they can give you some indication. For commercial jets like Boeing 737's and 747's, you can calculate a passenger miles per gallon figure. Google it and look it up. Don't trust my links. Depending on the details and assumptions in the calculation, you will find a number in the range of 60 to 100 passenger miles per gallon. You can beat that number in a passenger car if, for example, you carried 4 people in a car getting 30 mpg. Of course if those 4 people had 50 lbs of luggage that had to be strapped to the outside luggage rack, the mileage would drop significantly. And, of course, planes do not carry only passengers and their luggage. They also carry freight on the same flights. You can do similar calculations of freight hauling efficiency. And if you do your research you will find that planes offer cargo hauling options that are energy competitive when you consider all the issues.
The comparison to other modes of transportation and other cargo hauling modes are very imperfect since the time required to move the people and cargo also needs to be considered. If you had 4 people with no luggage who all wanted to go from your house to Baltimore, for example, you could get better passenger miles per gallon by driving my Saturn VUE than be taking a commercial airline flight in a 737. Of course you would have to spend 3 days on the road instead of 4 or 5 hours. Those extra hours and days of travel require extra food and lodging, and that requires extra energy. It also limits productivity of the people being transported for that added time.
So your point really is ill-informed, without merit, and . . . well . . . ridiculous. Each time you bring it up, you only bring attention to your own partisan bias and unwillingness to actually consider facts and data. Why don't you stop? That would be the smart thing to do once you have been shown that your point has no merit.
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|