Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 21:12:13 -0700 From: "Abdallah Jamal" <abdallahnopsamAMnopsamrgate.ca> Subject: Re: higher octane is good
"Mark Gerritsma" <magernopsam.nld> wrote in message = news:Fb%m9.169340$H6.13856517nopsaml1.home.nl... | "KeithG" <noonenopsamspring.com> schreef in bericht | news:anfkpb$frh$1nopsam.atl.mindspring.net | > For me, I don't complain about our 'lowest in real dollars' fuel | > prices like many do... Interestingly, SAE recently had an article | > that looked at the 2 differing approaches from teh perspective of | > efficient vehicle development. US has had CAFE and CARB whereas | > Europe taxed the fuel and vehicles to a VERY high rate. The net | > effect was that the average waste was much greater here in the US. | > The tax-em philosophy had the greater benefit and fostered | > development of more fuel efficient cars over time. The way I see it | > is that we have the benefit of these highly developed cars for sale | > over here (US) and have an alternative to the BIG 'murcan, floaty | > hogs. |=20 | What has happened has happened. But what is worrying that the US isn't | really doing anything to cut their waste production. It is not only | amazing when you realise that the US uses about 30 percent of the | world energy consumption, but even more that there are no efforts at | all to reduce this. |=20 | Making processes more environmentally friendly is deemed to expensive | for the US. Germany proves otherwise. A lot of companies now make a | bigger profit because they have looked at their processes and because | of the improvements they made, they are now both more environmentally | friendly and more cost efficient. According to president Bush and his | staff that is absolutely impossible. No it isn't, but you have to make | an initial effort, which will undoubtely cost popularity. So it's just | a case of priorities. |=20 | -- | Mager |=20 |=20 well said! abdallah (the clean canadian) jamal