Read this (from Carsguide.com.au) and have a laugh. Firstly: "The eco-friendly cars hold the potential of zero emissions and a sustainable source of energy produced when hydrogen and oxygen are mixed." How can a car be eco-friendly? It takes energy and resources to make it, distribute it and service it. It takes energy to melt it down and recycle it. It requires roads, which tar over the soil that would otherwise support plants and animals. Need I go on? It's not 'eco' friendly at all. And what the heck is 'a sustainable source of energy when hydrogen and oxygen are mixed'? Where does this 'sustainable' energy come from? By using energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen? Where did that energy come from? Thin air?
It gets better - or worse, if you like: "Car makers claim they need help from governments in developing the infrastructure for hydrogen fuelling, he (Rick Wagoner of GM) said. 'Developing new technologies is really a team sport that requires business and governments to work together,' he said. 'It's doable, it's not that expensive, but it's going to require some work.'
It's not enough that car companies can wreak havoc on the environment and expect communities to fork out billions for road infrastructure, they also expect a subsidy for being such nice people. Please, please - catch a train instead. I love cars but I don't expect them to subsidised to the hilt. If they are worth having - and they are - they should be priced to cover the real cost - the opportunity cost - of what we lose as well as gain. And they should bear the full cost of the infrastructure. Only then will we appreciate how much it really costs when we jump in the car to go a kilometre down the road to buy some bread or milk.
These market distortions - call them externals if you like - are hiding the real cost of what we are doing to this planet. Wake up. Get a bike instead!
No comments:
Post a Comment