(This was actually meant to be a comment to Alex's post. Surprisingly trying to submit my very simple response below didn't work!!! I tried everything I could think of, removing the dollar signs and other punctuation, etc. Makes me wonder how many legitimate comments I miss out on in my posts.) With that, here's Alex's words:
Unless you don't like science (defined here as knowledge derived through observation and experimentation) and would prefer to live in the Dark Ages, it should be clear that humans can't continue polluting Earth without severe consequences. There are several kinds of people in this world: those who believe that non-cyclic global warming is happening (whether they care or not); those who know nothing about it because they're too concerned with their own lives (rightly or wrongly); those who believe that the current warming is part of a natural cycle because that's what they were told; and those who believe that the current warming is part of a natural cycle because they (a) don't want to deal with the decrease in standard of living necessary to sustain life on Earth, or (b) have actually been convinced by a segment of data that makes things seem unclear. Need I remind this last group that things are rarely 100% certain in science?
Now that we've established that burning fossil fuels causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that science has led probably 99% of "experts" to believe strongly that increased carbon dioxide has resulted in global warming, why is it so hard for government representatives--especially those who call themselves environmentalists--to understand that while low gasoline prices are great for the expansion of the economy, both in the U.S. and worldwide, they may be one of the worst things possible for the human race, not to mention every other living thing on the planet? Maybe they do understand it, but they know that if people don't have jobs, they won't re-elect incumbents. They probably also realize, to their credit, that high gas prices hit the poor a lot harder than they hit the wealthy (even if a company goes out of business because of high petrol prices, the executives are still a lot more likely to land on their feet than those at the bottom).
I agree completely. Plus I think that the economy will expand in different ways if there were high fuel prices. The real long-term cost is so much higher than what we pay at the pump, even at $3 to $5 a gallon.
If we give poor people cheap petrol then what happens? They try to come up with the money necessary to afford a vehicle, and idle away in traffic for a couple of hours a day, further clogging what is already an over-extended system. I guess being out on the road gives them something to do. But if we instead have high gas prices then we can work together to implement light rail, subways, and other truly useful means to make the world more effective. Perhaps the bigger cities in developing nations could then skip past the unproductive step of having their entire transportation infrastructure rendered almost useless twice daily. I hate American rush hour. But I love visiting Japan and Europe where it's so easy and cheap to get around on the train.