IT salaries in India and USA contrasted

[consie89]

English is my second language infact, incromprehenseable slur is my first. Americans seem to bluntly deny the fact of what they clearly do. You cannot deny that you go into countries and suck wealth from them, or you use their poorness to your advantage.

 

[Phantasm66]

That's a fairly sweeping statement. Perhaps you should give some evidence to back that up.

 

[Rick]

Re: CO2 Emmission per head of population.

Originally posted by Nic
The USA leads the world ...

Interesting that 2 of the worst offenders (USA, Australia) are the ones refusing to do something about the problem. Sweden is already in good shape.

Why the knock on Austraillia and the U.S when tiny little Luxembourg is obviously well out of its place on the CO2 chart?

 

[Nic]

Re: Re: CO2 Emmission per head of population.

Originally posted by Rick
Why the knock on Austraillia and the U.S when tiny little Luxembourg is obviously well out of its place on the CO2 chart?

Well, I should imagine that Luxemburgh can't help but overproduce power, which it probably sells to other countries. Being so small has its drawbacks, much like when cooking meals for one, you always have some leftover.

 

[krowdpeleeza]

The USA leads the world ...

Also where is China and Russia? I believe that they have a pollution problem as well.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by krowdpeleeza
Also where is China and Russia? I believe that they have a pollution problem as well.

I don't expect that a few million bicycles will generate much pollution.

I couldn't find figures for those countries, but that doesn't excuse the US from doing something at their end.

Even the UK, which only creates half the emissions that the US does, has agreed to take action and reduce things further. The US just doesn't pull its weight when it comes down to cold hard cash. The dollar rules! We've all got to pull our weight and meet our responsibilities, so having the biggest polluter of all simply refusing to act, is inexcusable.

 

[krowdpeleeza]

Even the UK, which only creates half the emissions that the US does, has agreed to take action and reduce things further. The US just doesn't pull its weight when it comes down to cold hard cash. The dollar rules! We've all got to pull our weight and meet our responsibilities, so having the biggest polluter of all simply refusing to act, is inexcusable.

I agree! Wait until my presidency!

Krowd Peleeza for President! ......catchy

 

[consie89]

to vader, evidence, your big clothing companys like nike have most of their workers in places like china or indoneisia, places were they carnt strike for higher wadges and earn stupidly low wadges for the 18hour shifts they do, as i mentioned earlier, your country boasts the fact thatif you are prepeared to work you can make it to the top. Well you should have somthing done about these poor workers who nike doesnt care about. You flatten parts of Iraq so american contrators can come in and make money on building structures. when you see countries starting to pose a threat the CIA causes ruptions in them and brings them back down to their knees. What is worst is that you invade countries and force your belives on them. Then ou say how according to surveys they love the new way of life, well these serveys are usually being carried out by the goverment or newspapers, they arnt going to say that they dont want you in your country are they? most of your decisions are based upon what you have read in americia newspapers or government surveys. It is like history, a lot of the knoledge we ahve about "barbarains" and other germanic tribes was written by the romans, they arnt going to stress any of the positive points of their way of life, you make decisions from one sided views. you might say that about me not liking the american goverment, but the fact is, most of the world doesnt.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by krowdpeleeza
I agree! Wait until my presidency!

Krowd Peleeza for President! ......catchy

You've got my vote! That is, if I had a vote.

 

[SNGX1275]

Re: Re: Re: im here once more

Originally posted by Nic
SNGX1275: Those pollution figures are not relevent, and misleading, due to the fact that America has a very large land mass. What you should be showing is pollution per head of population, then the situation would look considerably different. Just look at all those gas gusselling cars you all drive (ok, so not all americans drive large cars like GMCs, but these types of vehicles just shouldn't be built IMHO).

Oh so now its not fair when we compare landmasses? I was simply offering a side that is never seen by everyone that likes to complain about the US pollution levels.
As far gas gusseling cars, well here is another thing the rest of the world fails to think about. Not everyone in the US lives within 100 miles or less of each other, so when people go on vacation or to visit relatives many times its over long distances. My grandparents live 16 hours away by car, so if I was to go visit them with my family we sure as hell aren't goign to fit in some little 3 cylinder Geo Metro, or that car that they drive in the movie Just Married with the luggage 4 of us need to stay a week or so - its not like they live just a short distance away like in may of the smaller countries of the world.
My point is that many people fail to see things in perspective and that is one of the reasons people complain. Think about the whole picture, rather than just the view you have from the outside looking in.

 

[consie89]

But you could bring down these massive levels if you wanted to, what annoys people is that you didnt even bother, even pretend you were doing somthing about it, and whats even better, your chopping down large quantaties of woodland that help suck up large quantaties of polution.

 

[SNGX1275]

Originally posted by consie89
to vader, evidence, your big clothing companys like nike have most of their workers in places like china or indoneisia, places were they carnt strike for higher wadges and earn stupidly low wadges for the 18hour shifts they do,

I have to go back to a point I continually have to make, you aren't seeing things in perspective.
Many of those people are now happy to have a job at all, they are now able to provide their family with food and shelter. Those "stupidly" low wages I bet aren't much if any lower than the median wages of anyone else in that country.
Minimum wage is $5.somethign an hour in the US now I believe, but if you convert that to rupees or something in India, and it will probably buy you much more than $5 in the US would.

 

[consie89]

but these people should earn more than the normal wage, they work a lot longer in horrible conditions, they carnt strike becasue they just go wihout work, nike will just get someone else to replace them.

 

[SNGX1275]

Originally posted by consie89
But you could bring down these massive levels if you wanted to, what annoys people is that you didnt even bother, even pretend you were doing somthing about it, and whats even better, your chopping down large quantaties of woodland that help suck up large quantaties of polution.

Didn't even bother because its not feasible at all to do something that drastic that suddenly. There are so many environmentalist groups in the US and many are pretty extreme, and they are getting their way many times in passing government regulations (mainly through EPA but there are many others). We are striving towards all this minimal pollution stuff, but it costs an extreme amount of money to replace the current industry with a less polluting one.
As for your trees argument, what about the rain forest? Why not go after those countries? They are cutting down at extreme rates. Cities in the US are planting trees everywhere there isnt' a house or a road, Oklahoma City is a huge example, they have signs everywhere reminding the public what they are doing. The US is turning woodlands into state and national parks left and right which prevents logging. And all these environmentalists are making sure at least 1 tree is planted for every tree cut down in a lot of cases. There are more trees in the US now than there were in the 1970s I imagine. If I had more time I'd look up all this crap for you but classes are kicking my butt so they get most of my time now, and my freetime I don't feel like looking up the exact numbers.

 

[SNGX1275]

Originally posted by consie89
but these people should earn more than the normal wage, they work a lot longer in horrible conditions, they carnt strike becasue they just go wihout work, nike will just get someone else to replace them.

A lot longer and in horrible conditions compared to what?
And why do they diserve percentage wise more than others in their country? Does your country pay more for a factory job than say a retail sales job? Factory jobs are by nature not as good of working conditions as an office job, but somebody has to do it.

 

[consie89]

well you seem to be doing a great job with the amazon. You say that replacing the power output to a more efficent one would cost huge amount of money. now im not one for looking crap up but i think your power system could do with some reinventing, and you a country who has a gdp of something like 1.6trillion, im sure you could manage, and if not im sure you could divert some of the money used for military spending, witch is soon to equal the rest ofthe world. Americia prioritys shine though here, they spend enough money to make sure every grunt in the army has 18 m16's in reserve but leave their power producing unchecked and let the polution levels do as they will.

 

[consie89]

in horrible conditions compared to most of the west, if a factory worker was to do overtime, he would get more money, they are forced to do overtime and if they dont they lose their job.

 

[Nic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: im here once more

Originally posted by SNGX1275
Oh so now its not fair when we compare landmasses? I was simply offering a side that is never seen by everyone that likes to complain about the US pollution levels.
As far gas gusseling cars, well here is another thing the rest of the world fails to think about. Not everyone in the US lives within 100 miles or less of each other, so when people go on vacation or to visit relatives many times its over long distances. My grandparents live 16 hours away by car, so if I was to go visit them with my family we sure as hell aren't goign to fit in some little 3 cylinder Geo Metro, or that car that they drive in the movie Just Married with the luggage 4 of us need to stay a week or so - its not like they live just a short distance away like in may of the smaller countries of the world.
My point is that many people fail to see things in perspective and that is one of the reasons people complain. Think about the whole picture, rather than just the view you have from the outside looking in.

When you are on the outside, then the only thing you have to go by is what you see on television, or read in books, etc. That applies both ways, not just to outsiders looking in.

Not everywhere in the UK is close by, and there are those that live in more remote areas, such as Scotland. This would be comparable to your own situation, and if you really needed to travel many hundreds of miles, then you don't necessarily need to go by car.

The 'car' thing was just an example, as I'm sure that cars aren't the only cause of pollution. One thing that I do know with certainty, is that large cars, such as GMCs aren't particularly fuel efficient, which was my point.

There are many large cars that can easily accomodate many people, yet don't guzzle fuel in the way GMC's do (most any japanese car would suit as an example).

It's probably because of fuel prices being so low over in the US that most consumers simply don't see fuel efficiency as a big issue. Better they can boast about how many cylinders their engine has, and how much horsepower it produces.

Only when there is real pressure does anything get done. At least smaller, and more fuel efficient, cars are seeing more of a market in the US than they did 10 years ago, so that's something at least.

 

[conradguerrero]

as the nation with the strongest economy and millitary on the planet, the US impacts every other nation, either directly or indirectly. our baby boomer generation makes up the largest group in the US and it is who they vote for president, buy, or dont buy that most effects politics in the US. i hear all the time how people just hate the Bush administration, how Bush has ruined laws designed to protect the environment or how the highest 10% of income in the US suddenly got a huge break. wake up and realise that this is what the baby boomers 'want.' now if you who are reading this do not like what i just said then do something about it, join a political group, register to vote, and vote with your friends, family, whoever. there is a real apathy among our younger generations that, "even if I vote im not gonna affect anything."

As far as those people who live outside the US, remember that much of the world is a very hard place to live ie India, imagine growing up in India well what are u doing there, surprise u have been born into the lowest caste... guess what that means u are now shunned by all who recognise your caste which btw is 'the Untouchables' and must clean out cess pools by hand without protection and beg someone for a bucket of water when u are finished (dont forget that many people wont even look at u)

or say u are born in Jordan and your parents are exiled from Palestine by Isreal. You see your peoples poverty, suffering, and anger and so when u turn 12 u join Hamas or another millitant organisation because their is no money, no jobs, no future...

it is important to realise that we are in the lap of luxury compared to the rest of the world. while many people are no doubt disolusioned by the economy it is important to note that captialism is fueled by workers output and also workers education. a recent survey showed the US in the top 4 nations in terms of worker effeciency, coupled with a high education (college), capitalism will not be limited. however, i must point out the basic flaw in capitalism, greed is rewarded. since the 50's union membership in the US has dropped from around 35% to around 10% while top executives make millions of dollars in BONUSES and even then some try to make even more money by violating laws ie ENRON. and this is the real problem in the US, greed. think about that, we are taught as children that what is excluded from others is desireable hence everyone needs a flashy car or that nice boat or that fabulous wardrobe. it is not surprising then that as income rises, so does spending, often lucky winners of lotteries (sic?) find themselves working agian after a few years of big spending.

hear is how i propose we beat this thing, eliminate monetary units. only then can greed also be reduced, of course this requires more advanced technology ie startrek.

but in the short run, if anyone is so lucky as to be working and have extra money i recommend that u save ten percent into a 401k and if anyone has the luck to have a 6 figure job or win the lottery then for ur family i would save even more. while this may seem simple it is not in reality with so many temptations around who can blame you if you just cant resist that fancy luxury item - YOU.

 

[conradguerrero]

here is the link for the worker productivity research:
un report

 

[Nic]

The quest for ever increasing profits, to fuel the ever increasing greed, will one day make our lives even more miserable. Capitalism needs to change, and the rewards more fairly distributed. Greed is bad, and will one day ruin us all, and our little planet.

Good post conradguerrero :=).

 

[Roderick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: im here once more

That's a fairly sweeping statement. Perhaps you should give some evidence to back that up.

consie89 is pretty good at both making broad generalizations and failing to back them up with any sort of coherent arguments. And I'm not talking about his English either.

Well, I should imagine that Luxemburgh can't help but overproduce power, which it probably sells to other countries.

This is exactly what I mean when I said pop anti-American criticism. No amount of justifications is enough when it comes to other nations.

Also where is China and Russia? I believe that they have a pollution problem as well.

Theirs is just as bad as the US. But try criticizing the Chinese government on the 7 Gorges Dam project and see what happens. Little wonder self serving and self righteous people usually do it outside country.

There's and old saying: There are 3 kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

If you compare the methane output of a prime beef heifer to that of field mouse, of course the cow is going to be smelliest. But cattle not only provide food but also labor to allow man to exponentially increase his output. If it's true that US workers are the most productive, then it stands to reason that in the course of the day, our flattulence will be much more than the field mouses of Europe as well. Bicycles aren't as productive much in comparison to a motorcycle, less than a small car, even less than a small pick up, and insignificant to an 18-wheeler, or a lorry to you UKers. Are there any indications that the Chinese are willing to remain a non- or minimally motorized society, thereby being romanticized by environmentalists, and remain a backward nation compared to the West ? The vastness of China demands more than ordinary transportation requirements. China is still considered 3rd world, in her progress to modernizes her infrastructures to better serve the people, most likely there'll be gas guzzling SUVs running around just like the US. Same will be for Russia.

The intellectual, linguistic, and statistical deceit here is to compare the continental US to tiny landlocked serfdoms and principalities of Europe as if none of those nation/states have any commerce whatsoever with their neighbors. I could use population sparse US states such as Montana or Wyoming and assert with factual truth that we pollute less than they do, if comparable landmass is the only criteria. If Europe, and that include the UK, is taken as whole, then you'll demographically ended up with similar statistics as the US. I've been to East Berlin when it existed. The air smelled and at times even taste bad, West Berlin was twice as productive but it was like night and day when compared between the 2. If NA is taken in its entirety, then we'll probably be even lower than Europe given the still relatively undeveloped Canadian frontiers. How honest would I be if I use Samoa or Fiji to indict the UK, each you are surrounded by water ?

Not everywhere in the UK is close by, and there are those that live in more remote areas, such as Scotland. This would be comparable to your own situation, and if you really needed to travel many hundreds of miles, then you don't necessarily need to go by car.

The 'car' thing was just an example, as I'm sure that cars aren't the only cause of pollution. One thing that I do know with certainty, is that large cars, such as GMCs aren't particularly fuel efficient, which was my point.

There are many large cars that can easily accomodate many people, yet don't guzzle fuel in the way GMC's do (most any japanese car would suit as an example).

It's probably because of fuel prices being so low over in the US that most consumers simply don't see fuel efficiency as a big issue. Better they can boast about how many cylinders their engine has, and how much horsepower it produces.

Only when there is real pressure does anything get done. At least smaller, and more fuel efficient, cars are seeing more of a market in the US than they did 10 years ago, so that's something at least.

I lived in the UK from 84-87, and the only place I haven't been is Ireland. Your social programs are supported partly by fuel taxes that are much higher than US taxes. My experience is that it's a toss up between those of your countrymen who are for less social programs and lower fuel taxes and those who are for the current state of affairs. That's no criticism of your national character, but just an observation. If Americans are as dependent on our government as you are to yours, then we'll have mass transits that would be the envy of the world. But we like our independence and the will to do and go (within legal reasons) as we please. We like our individualities, and we see our vehicles are just another set of such self expressions. National/cultural ethos do matter and does influence, overtly and subtly, on every level of government. You're a island hence limited on where you can travel, whether business or pleasure. We're not so confined as a nation. By the way, I've been to Scotland and have seen Nessie live, I swear to God, but my camera broke.

The "car" thing wasn't just an example, it's misleading. Much more petroleum and its variants are used in non-automotive industries. If fuel efficiency is your concern, are you willing to tell your wife and/or girlfriend to stop putting on makeup prior to your boinkfests. Are you going to stop building your own PCs or stop buying/using them all together ? How much, in terms of gallons of gas, does oil make up in the plastics used to assemble your PC and its peripherals ? How much, in terms of gallons of gas, does oil make up to make possible the Internet ? Dino-oil is in your PC, in your wife's lipstick and face cream, in your condom. How much, in terms of gallons of gas and mileage, are the oil in the handlotion used used by millions of geeks in front of their favorite porn websites ? Dino-oil is in your credit cards, in your food, and if you're an old fashioned guy like me and still enjoy an old fashioned paper and cloth book, dino-oil is in there as well.

The car and the inevitable finger pointing to Americans are strawmen targets. A few gallons of gas is much more visible hence easier to demonize than that ballpoint pen and printer used to publish flyers to condemn Americans for being polluters.

 

[conradguerrero]

thats interesting, i did some research for a pro-vegetarian paper and one of the facts i found was that it takes one gallon of gas during the 'production' of one pound of beef.

 

[Nic]

I think you've missed the whole point of this pollution argument. No one is saying you can't use your car, or you can't have lipestick, or make plastic.

It's time to think about how all these things are produced and used, so as to lower they bad effects they have on the environment. The United States is way too inefficient in its use of natural resources, and you eat way to much beef also.

If other nations can reduce CO2 levels, despite the fact that they already produce vastly less than the US, then I think you need a wake up call so that you can start pulling your weight.

If one of the richest countries in the world won't do anything, then how can you expect others to do so. The poorer countries, such as China and Russia, will also have to tow the line at some point, especially when they will lose trade if they refuse to comply.

Now let's be honest here, you can't possibly be saying that driving a 7 Litre engined GMC (just one example) that returns about 10 mpg and has but one person on board, is a sensible use of resources. And yes, we all know that beef cattle flatulence is one of the biggest producers of methane.

The point is that where there is obvious scope for reducing world pollution levels, then we should take it. Killing all beef cattle is not a sensible option. Driving more fuel efficient cars is, and also improving the efficiency of our manufacturing plants and processes.

And not all makeup is manufactured in an environmentally unfreindly manner. Ways and means can be found, provided users will accept the increased cost that sometimes comes with these changes.

Environmentalists in the UK criticise the UK government for not doing enough, fast enough. The US simply doesn't care, despite being the top offender, and tells the rest of the world to go away, as the the cost of changing is too high and they don't believe that they have a pollution problem.

So you see why the rest of the world has a problem with the USA. The USA only cares about the dollar, and doesn't meet her own obligations in important issues that concern us all (pollution).

The USA is seen as moving into Iraq because of oil, and of not dealing with Saudi Arabia (which played a part in sept 11), because of cheap oil, and for exploitation of poorer nations so that they can obtain cheap goods and resources.

The USA is fueled by greed and money, which obscures any of her good points, of which she has many, but she is seen as a bully that doesn't comply, and instead wishes to do as she sees fit, rather than work as a team.

That is the picture as it is looking in from the outside, though the problem that we all face is that america doesn't see this image, because it focuses only on her good points, and ignores the bad. We are both looking at the same USA, but we both see different things. That's going to be difficult to change until we can lose any bias in our viewpoint and examine things as they really are.

 

[Roderick]

I think you've missed the whole point of this pollution argument. No one is saying you can't use your car, or you can't have lipestick, or make plastic.

I don't think so. Most of the pollution arguments against US have been (falsely) focus on our wheels. Whereas any intellectually honest enough scientist in the field would've no choice to admit that the automobile is a small part of the whole picture. Leave out the automobile and you would still have more petroleum variants in other parts of society than the auto industry doing damage to the environment as well.

If other nations can reduce CO2 levels, despite the fact that they already produce vastly less than the US, then I think you need a wake up call so that you can start pulling your weight.

Other nations have benefitted from our higher productivity and consumerism mentality, but now they're being hypocritical about the whole thing. Why have Australia and Sweden refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty ? Is it possible that they're fed up with their economy being dependent upon a higher running one such as US ? Giving an increasingly interdependent world, that's not such a farfetch idea, isn't it ? You want US to run ahead, take risks, and pull you along with our strength, but you don't like to smell the sweat odor and flattulence we produced ? You now have 2 choices, either eat more beef, rev up your economy and run alongside with US, or take off the technological harness and eventually put yourself back into the Stone Age.

The poorer countries, such as China and Russia, will also have to tow the line at some point, especially when they will lose trade if they refuse to comply.

Wrong. You've underestimate human nature. People want comfort and ease of living at the end of the day. They not only want to keep up with the Joneses, the Changs, or the Ivans, but beat them as well. Trade and commerce isn't primarily about the environment, altruistically, it should at least be a major consideration. But altruism is affordable only by those whose stomachs are full and whose lifestyles are decadent enough to allow them to sit on their behinds to think about altruism.

Realistically, while they publicly vilify US for environmental issues, earning praises from pop anti-American critics everywhere, behind closed doors, they sneered at them with the understanding that without the economic engine of US, those critics wouldn't have the decadency to enable them to be self righteous. Do you really think the people of Moskva cares about the soot build up on your Big Ben, or something a little more local ?

Now let's be honest here, you can't possibly be saying that driving a 7 Litre engined GMC (just one example) that returns about 10 mpg and has but one person on board, is a sensible use of resources.

I agree that it's a nonsensible use of resources. But your example is still misleading. The best selling SUV doesn't mean the highest numerical value of vehicle sold. Demographic considerations must be made. NYC has one of the highest population concentration of any city in the world but one of the lowest licenced and actual driving population in America. Most New Yorkers either don't drive or rarely do. An informal survey of adult New Yorkers revealed nearly one third of them possesses only a learner's permit. Yet NYC proper is one of the most polluted in the country. The Ford Explorer is the best selling SUV in America but the 6th best selling VEHICLE. If it's only the 6th best selling VEHICLE, what do you think the TYPE of vehicle are the other 5 best sellers, M1 Abrams tanks and the likes ? Passenger cars with much better fuel efficiency are selling close to 50%. The rest are made up with family oriented vans, sport cars and motorcycles. Like I said, the finger pointing at the SUV is misleading.

The USA is seen as moving into Iraq because of oil, and of not dealing with Saudi Arabia (which played a part in sept 11), because of cheap oil, and for exploitation of poorer nations so that they can obtain cheap goods and resources.

Therein lies another set of intellectual dishonesty. By that I meant of what is "seen", meaning "perceived as", as opposed to what is real. The US is "seen" as being in Iraq for cheap oil. What is real is that Russia, France and Germany has been in there years before for the same source of oil. What is real is that Syria has been pumping illegal embargoed oil to the profit of 200k barrels a day for Saddam since the end of the 1st Gulf War. What is intellectual dishonest is that critics have known about this for years but kept silence, waiting for the opportunity to use any sort of US mishaps in the region to accuse US being in there for cheap oil. Nevermind the fact that they can't reconcile the fact that the control the Kuwaitis still have of their oil AFTER the US have been there.

The USA is fueled by greed and money...

I've asked consei89 to explain the UK's East India Trading Company's history in order to clarify his similar accusation that somehow mercantile greed is uniqe to the US. Care to take it up ?

===================

I would take those "facts" with a grain of salt (or with some A1 steak sauce) considering that beef predate the discovery of dino juice and the obvious bias of the originator of the researchers.

Why has dino-oil (hydrocarbon form) so impacted the world and its development ? We must also include along with oil its cousin natural gas as well. Since the current finger pointing is at the automobile, specifically American automobiles in the current pop anti-American tirades, let's for now confine the discussion to the car, shall we ?

From an engineering perspective, an explosive force immediately translated into a mechanical force is still the best method to produce near instant, on demand locomotion. Hydrocarbon form is still the best explosive producer that we can control to date. So now we have the internal combustion engine. A controlled explosion confined within a chamber exerting expanding gases against a piston, connecting rods, crankshafts, etc...The problem isn't about the oil. Lab engines burned with virtually no pollution. The compromise lies with the designs of commercial engines that must have tolerances built in to compensate for wear and tear, abuse, inclement weather and badly formulated fuel. Because of these, engines absolutely CANNOT be made burn the fuel completely, hence the resulting pollution.

Internal combustion engines have burned everything from vegetable oil (see the veggievan website), to liquid nitrogen (see dragracing), LOX or LNitro burned pure with only an occasional bad smell as pollutant. That pretty much leave out mechanical contraptions invented by man, be it compression or spark ignition, as the cause.

The solution lies in the formulation of a new fuel that will still have the explosive force potential of the original dino-oil without compromising real world requirements, consistent formulation throughout the world, and easier to refine. But currently, gasoline as we know is still the best of the combination between the fuel of the veggievan and the highly dangerous and difficult to handle liquid nitrogen. So now the next problem is corporate inertia, but that's another story.

Simply condemning Americans or telling us to cut back on our usage of the automobile is being naive. The rest of the world uses the same source of dino-oil as we do. Whatever form of fuel is in use, industry and technology must progress not regress, and the internal combustion engine burning dino-oil is only a part of it.

Originally posted by conradguerrero
thats interesting, i did some research for a pro-vegetarian paper and one of the facts i found was that it takes one gallon of gas during the 'production' of one pound of beef.