4 Tons Of Plants per Mile to Ride In Your Car

Roland Piquepaille writes "As you might know, I enjoy big numbers. So it's just natural that I was attracted by this news release from the University of Utah, "Bad Mileage: 98 tons of plants per gallon." "A staggering 98 tons of prehistoric, buried plant material is required to produce each gallon of gasoline we burn in our cars, SUVs, trucks and other vehicles." For a reasonably efficient car, riding 25 miles per gallon, this translates to 4 tons of prehistoric plants per mile, or more than two tons per kilometer. The research paper also mentions that everyday, we are using the fossil fuel equivalent of all the plants growing during a whole year just for our cars. Even if these numbers are too large, this still makes you think about how inefficient our cars are. This analysis describes the calculations and contains other details about the research paper which will be published in November by Climate Change."

Comments

Re:say no to cars?

[JaredOfEuropa]

The "Environmentalists are luddites" argument is stupidity. Environmentalists want balance. Technology can help achieve that balance.

Environmentalists want control.

Environmentalists are often portrayed as selfless idealists who fight for a good cause. For many of the environmentalists, this is true (whether or not their good cause is a misguided one, is another matter). But I do not trust the environmentalists that matter: the ones in political parties, in lobbyists groups, or the loudest individuals in the green movements. They are not selfless, although it may seem so because they aren't after money. It is power, influence and control over other people's lives that they want.

Environmentalists are seen as luddites, because the top dog environmentalists often dismiss technological solutions to environmental problems out of hand. They would prefer a dirty factory to close or to produce less, rather than have its smokestacks fitted with scrubbers. Why? Selfish reasons. If the factory closes, they have shown themselves to be influential and caring for the environment. They'll garner the credits for the positive impact on the environment. And with any luck, they get to tell who can be allowed to use the now scarce products of this factory. In contrast, if the factory is fitted with scrubbers, they do not gain a lot of power, or even recognition: it's the factory owners who will, as 'responsible businessmen'. You can see this behaviour anywhere. The more rabiat environmentalists do not want cleaner cars, they want us to drive less. They don't want cheap energy, they want us using less of it.

I do realise that it might seem that I lump all environmentalists together, but that is not my intention. My point is that the label 'luddite' for environmentalists, is earned for then by the loudest few amongst them. It may also seem that I paint a rather sinister image of these environmentalists. Again, I do not include all of them; I am sure the majority of them are well-meaning individuals. But I do not trust the kind of environmentalists who dismisses solutions for vague reasons, because they are 'impractical', 'only postpone the inevitable', or are 'only seemingly clean', and try to push their preferred measures 'for our own good'. If you hear anyone utter those 4 words, you can be sure that it's their own good they are after.