Why $2.00 a litre for petrol will be good for Australia and the World
Individuals in developed nations are used to, and indeed addicted to, cheap oil and petrol.
While oil and petrol has been relatively cheap, governments around the world have become lazy and uncommitted to developing alternative sources of energy.
On TT, we have had a succession of posters noting the potential effects of forestry burns on health and greenhouse gases.
Distaste for industrial forestry
What they hate is the fact that forest remnants are being burnt, forest is being knocked down, the rest is a smokescreen (pardon the pun) to rationalise their distaste for industrial forestry.
What is ignored is that a major cause of the accumulation of greenhouse cases are cars and industry. When we drive our cars around town and country, we are as guilty as any in adding to the increasing load of these gases in the atmosphere.
Obviously, the older the car and the further we drive, the more we add. And this is one area where Greens hypocrisy drives me crazy — many Greens I know live outside of the city, commuting in daily, usually solely in a car, and have woodheaters.
Given the scenario above, particularly as Greens supporters also have penchant for fuel inefficient cars, these cars are producing several tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
Yes, there is some controversy on the relationship between the accumulation of greenhouse gases and recent worldwide warming events. Also, there is good sense in maintaining forests as carbon sinks.
Why I have time for industrial forestry in Tasmania is that it is committed to regrowth so there is not a considerable permanent loss of forests in this regard. Contrast this to unregulated forestry operations in many places throughout the world which result in permanent clearing of forests.
Human greed for cheap travel and industry
The major factor leading to the accumulation of greenhouse gases is human behaviour and human greed for cheap travel and industry.
It can only be a good thing for the planet if the petrol price increases so that we are forced to drive our cars less and industry is forced to become more efficient in its energy usage.
Immediate side-effects I would welcome would be the refocus of human living in cities, which would decrease impact on the margins between the human and the natural world.
I would welcome a necessary refocus on improving our public transport system. I would welcome our governments becoming interested in developing energy-efficient strategies for human living.
I would especially welcome more tangible support for developing alternative energy approaches.
And this is where I also depart from the Greens. The Greens in general have a deep mistrust of science, scientists and technologists (see GM Trees and the Uni of Tas).
In addition to changing human behaviour, technical innovation will provide many answers to our current dangerous energy use activity — wind farms, geosequestration, hybrid and electric car technology, solar technology, efficient farming practises, hydro technology etc.
But I suspect it will only be until oil and petrol costs represent such a crisis for governments before the development of these technologies is adequately supported.
The other reason I would welcome increased cost of oil and petrol is that there will be a flow-on effect on the costs of consumables as well as other ‘must-have’ goods we feel the need to surround ourselves with.
This will have a positive knock-on effect on our selfish consumerism that will hopefully lead to less wasteage and greater efficiency in the distribution of resources.
Roll on $2 a litre!!
