Ecofriendly and Fuel Efficient Cars

[G35COUPE]

Whats gonna happen to the developing world when we start buying less and less crude oil from them, with an ever increasing range of fuel efficient cars in our countries?? Is it immoral or not, for us to stop buying as much crude oil from developing countries as we used to??

I always feel that policy makers are so quick to move toward environmental friendliness, without taking into account the economic and social consequences of such moves. Will the world be a more chaotic place? And, what have developed nations done to prepare developing nations of the eventual move away from fossil fuels? Just wondering

[clutch-monkey]

it will balance out with the increase in population. the oil will be used one way or another.

[W.R.]

If anything like that happens, the price of oil would surely drop, leading to a new surge in demand for it, pushing the price back up.

[allangering]

A full tank will cost around half the cost of petrol, although the cost of new LPG cars will be higher - typically £1200 - £2000 more than for non-LPG versions.And Electric cars With no exhaust emissions, electric cars are currently the most eco-friendly way to drive.

[lightweight]

FACTS

-Oil consumption from cars is just a small factor of the total Oil consumption. 13% of world oil consumption is for transportation purposes (cars + ships + planes + trains). Cars is a very small fraction of that consumption and any new technology will not affect it significantly (Yes, that's right, the whole low emission thing aimed at car buyers is BS. Instead of focusing on big industries, governments point the finger on the car buyer)

-The rest of it is for other uses, but mainly industrial use - power plants etc.

-The developed world wants to cut carbon emissions by using other fuels, as stated, but doing so is expensive.

-The developing world (China, India) right now emits about 10% of the carbon emitted by the US.

- Annual growth of carbon emissions by India, China is around 10% and rising because of the bigger growth that these countries enjoy.

CONCLUSION

Because the rate of adoption of low carbon / non carbon technology is WAY smaller than the growth of developing countries and their respective emissions, Oil use will continue to be a very big source of income for the Middle East.

PS The Middle East is NOT part of the developing world. Check out Dubai and see for yourself

[switters78]

FACTS
PS The Middle East is NOT part of the developing world. Check out Dubai and see for yourself

Yeah, the average household income there is around $180,000 a year. Although, with respect to the countries that are part of the developing world, in many cases their cultures were better off before they had industrialization thrust upon them. Many of those people are used to living off the land, and now that's not an option, plus it's becoming more expensive to buy things they used to be ably to find in nature/make for themselves. I think if the oil industry pulled out of any of those countries, a return to simpler means could be a welcome return to a simpler, happier way of life.

[lightweight]

I think if the oil industry pulled out of any of those countries, a return to simpler means could be a welcome return to a simpler, happier way of life.

Well, I don't really think that adopting modern ways is the problem that these countries have.

The real problem is that a few people (ministers, warlords etc) have a lot of power and influence and do not allow the distribution of wealth to the masses.

So whether the wealth comes from farming or industry, it makes a very small difference to the distribution of wealth.

But, since the money generation capability of the industrial activity is far greater than that of farming, I highly doubt it that de-industrialization will ever happen.

[NicFromLA]

As my Grandfather would say: The leaders of these countries are going to need to go out and get real jobs. Without the huge amounts of money being pumped into these countries (And I count Dubai and Saudi Arabia in that) as they pump out oil they, have nothing to support their economies. No manufacturing, no entrepreneurship, no financial sector, and without being able to sell oil their economies will collapse and the governments will fall apart.

[lightweight]

No manufacturing, no entrepreneurship, no financial sector, and without being able to sell oil their economies will collapse and the governments will fall apart.

That is absolutely true. But until that happens, a lot of time will pass.

Just remember that the biggest part of the world hasn't yet had its "industrial revolution", so to say. China, India, Africa and other parts of Asia at the moment have very low energy needs. In the future, though these energy needs will rise exponentially.

The cheapest way (and environmentally unfriendliest way) is energy through coal & oil. Until science finds a cheaper alternative to oil, the rest of the discussion is mere utopia, among people that are willing to make the energy transition, but cannot afford it.

[wstander]

China, India, Africa and other parts of Asia at the moment have very low energy needs.

Uhh, I see you have not noticed who is polluting the most while buliding and buying former Western World companies: China and India....far from basket weavers anymore

Gee, even some Buicks have Chinese built engines, and you did notice who bought Jaguar and Hummer??

[G35COUPE]

Doubts and despondency aplied to energy and natural resources, will be the triggers and catalyst for World War III.

[lightweight]

Uhh, I see you have not noticed who is polluting the most

FACTS

http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...6/27266501.jpg
US population: 307,458,000 [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States]United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

US TOTAL emissions (2008): 6 gigatones Carbon Dioxide http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...6/27266501.jpg

China population: 1,345,751,000 People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China TOTAL emissions (2008): 6 gigatones Carbon Dioxide http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...6/27266501.jpg

India population: 1,198,003,000 [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India]India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

India TOTAL Emissions (2008): 1.5 gigatones Carbon Dioxide http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...6/27266501.jpg

CONCLUSION

China's Carbon Dioxide emissions PER PERSON is 25% of what US emits
India's Carbon Dioxide emissions PER PERSON is 6% of what US emits
China and India COMBINED emit 31% less Carbon Dioxide PER PERSON compared to US

Gee, even some Buicks have Chinese built engines, and you did notice who bought Jaguar and Hummer??

Of course they are expanding because, after all, they are 33% of the world's population and only produce 15% of the world GDP (PPP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP)

[lightweight]

Doubts and despondency aplied to energy and natural resources, will be the triggers and catalyst for World War III.

Well, wars were always made for resources.

Up to the industrial revolution wars were made for territorial claims (land is considered in economics a resource). That was no fluke, since wealth could only be produced by the sheer number of workforce available to each country, so the more land, the more people, the more wealth produced.

After the industrial revolution, technology was an important factor in generating wealth. The more factories you had, the more wealth you produced. This time, though, production was dependent on natural resources such as iron. Hitler suffered a severe blow after loosing Norway and its iron reserves, so his war machine slowed down.

It's true that energy is the blood supply of the modern world. Without it, the world just stops. The climate debate stems from the distribution of the world energy "pie". The nation / corporate entity that will benefit most from the transition of the world economy from fossil fuels to the next energy source, will quite simply be able to influence MANY aspects of the future

[4wheelsonline]

Whats gonna happen to the developing world when we start buying less and less crude oil from them, with an ever increasing range of fuel efficient cars in our countries?? Is it immoral or not, for us to stop buying as much crude oil from developing countries as we used to??

I always feel that policy makers are so quick to move toward environmental friendliness, without taking into account the economic and social consequences of such moves. Will the world be a more chaotic place? And, what have developed nations done to prepare developing nations of the eventual move away from fossil fuels? Just wondering

That's why electric cars are made to make some changes in car world. Instead all cars are using fuels they can use electric operated cars.

[G35COUPE]

Well, wars were always made for resources.

Up to the industrial revolution wars were made for territorial claims (land is considered in economics a resource). That was no fluke, since wealth could only be produced by the sheer number of workforce available to each country, so the more land, the more people, the more wealth produced.

After the industrial revolution, technology was an important factor in generating wealth. The more factories you had, the more wealth you produced. This time, though, production was dependent on natural resources such as iron. Hitler suffered a severe blow after loosing Norway and its iron reserves, so his war machine slowed down.

It's true that energy is the blood supply of the modern world. Without it, the world just stops. The climate debate stems from the distribution of the world energy "pie". The nation / corporate entity that will benefit most from the transition of the world economy from fossil fuels to the next energy source, will quite simply be able to influence MANY aspects of the future

Excellent analysis.