Actually, Heidi Hautala and Oras Tynkkynen do use public transportation quite often. So do Satu Hassi and Janina Andersson.

And nobody is “taking away” anybody’s automobiles, just trying to give people a real choice on whether to buy a car or not.

Personally, I don’t own a car. I have a driver’s licence and occasionally drive eg. my parents’ car, but prefer not to own one until it is absolutely necessary. I am more than happy to be able to make this choice and to live in a country where I can make this choice. I have nightmares about moving somewhere where I would be completely dependable on a car for transportation. No way would I survive in, say, Texas. Ever.

I do not live in the Helsinki area but every time I visit I cannot help but be pissed at the sight of all of the folk from Espoo who consider themselves too fancy-shmancy to take the bus and end up clogging the streets of Helsinki with their automobiles. And then they complain about traffic.

Not everybody loves and reveres cars as much as Americans do. For some of us they are merely a mode of transportation and a necessary evil at that.

Phil, check practically any Asian mega-city. They are densely built and populated compared to European, Finnish or American cities, people get to places without cars as these cities were built for people, not for cars. Also very many of the people there have relatively low incomes. Those are very dynamic entrepreneurial cities where bikes and mopeds + buses are the most important means of transportation.

Majority of our city area is dedicated to cars. That makes distances longer so you need cars to get to them. There is virtually no rational thinking involved in the way we build our cities. Our cities evolve by consecutive attempts to correct our previous mistakes with short term patches and fixes.

As far as I know, Hautala lives in an apartment and if you step out of your car you can easily spot her walking or taking a bus in Helsinki.

Oh, btw, you should consider joining the Perussuomalaiset. They also like very much that populist rhetoric about the poor people tossed around by the elites.

Actually, Heidi Hautala and Oras Tynkkynen do use public transportation quite often.

Is “taxi” considered “public transportation”?

And nobody is ???taking away?? anybody???s automobiles, just trying to give people a real choice on whether to buy a car or not.

With insane taxes or cars and gasoline – there’s not much “choice” for many people.

No way would I survive in, say, Texas. Ever.

Actually, Dallas is known to have quite good public transport. I think it’s Helsinki with quite pathetic public transport, especially the subway, it’s just one line.

And then they complain about traffic.

You’ll never hear me complain about traffic, you should check out traffic in Baltimore and DC, it’s insane.

Not everybody loves and reveres cars as much as Americans do.

Is that so? If more Europeans could afford them like Americans can, I wonder if they’d still ride the bus?

The same arguments like yours Phil, came up in Germany 25 years ago.
Since then the greens became more and more powerful here and the’ve brought lots of good ideas and influences to our society. I can only hope that the finnish greens will become more present in the finnish parliament in the future.
They won’t steal your cars and they won’t put the poor people into unattractive appartement buildings. Dont be afraid of some new thought-provoking impulses!

Oh, btw, you should consider joining the Perussuomalaiset. They also like very much that populist rhetoric about the poor people tossed around by the elites.

Naw, that’s totally left-wing speak. “Gap between the rich and poor”, “top 1%”, “Bush and all his rich Texan buddies”, “CEOs of big corporations”….left-wing, and I guess us liberals too…and Perussuomalaiset.

Since then the greens became more and more powerful here and the???ve brought lots of good ideas and influences to our society

I wish I could say the same for the U.S. Greens.

Actually, Dallas is known to have quite good public transport.

Really now? My friend from Dallas has visited Finland twice this year and has been very impressed by our public transportation. She told me that it is virtually impossible to get anywhere in Dallas without a car and that most suburbs don’t even have sidewalks. I have heard many things about Dallas and Texas but “good public transportation” is not among them. My friend also told me that most of the people she knows have never taken the bus in their life.

So excuse me when I call “bullshit”.

I think it???s Helsinki with quite pathetic public transport, especially the subway, it???s just one line.

Well, there is the difference in size….

Is ???taxi?? considered ???public transportation”?

No, but buses and trams are. I’ve seen Heidi on the bus very often and Oras Tynkkynen rides his bike whenever possible. No bullshit.

Is that so? If more Europeans could afford them like Americans can, I wonder if they???d still ride the bus?

Well, the Germans for example certainly love their cars but you won’t find among them the same kind of attitude problem towards public transportation that you see in the States. Most of the Americans I know treat their cars like their second homes or extensions of their personality or whatever. Most of the Europeans I know (including a whole bunch of 1950′s old-car enthousiasts) treat their cars like modes of transportation.

What I’m saying is that cars in Europe are not the same kind of pop-culture icon they are in the US.

The picture. Come on.

Gotta love my Photoshop skillz.

The one thing I truly missed while living in Helsinki was not having a car. While public transport is good in Helsinki, having a car is still better.

Try living in Siltamaki, where it takes 20 minutes to drive downtown, or 40 minutes by bus. Then there is the issue of trying to go somewhere other than downtown. You still need to get downtown to catch another bus, train, tram to go where you want to.

Ever go to Ikea by bus. Fun, but not as much fun as going home from Ikea with a box or two in tow.

Sure public transport is great, but there is no way that it can cover all of your transportation needs. Cars are not evil. They are a very useful transportation aid. They are even more useful once you have babies that you need to lug around, and groceries, and skis, etc…..

Cars provide freedom of movement.

If the greens want to limit the amount of car polution, they should make it easier for Finns to buy new, less polluting cars to replace the old wrecks all these Finns are driving around. New cars are something like 90% less polluting than cars made 10 years ago. Now that is a step in the right direction.

“The picture. Come on.

Comment by masmad ??? 18.7.2005 @ 3:26 pm
–
Gotta love my Photoshop skillz.

Comment by Phil ??? 18.7.2005 @ 3:51 pm”

Phil does anyting he can to discredit THE ONLY Finnish politician who has ever demanded Finland to officially deal with the unholy past of the period of Finlandization. Phil, the warrior of the status quo, the defender of all ass-kissers. Hurrah, he knows how to use Photoshop.

“New cars are something like 90% less polluting than cars made 10 years ago. Now that is a step in the right direction.”

First of all, that’s a load of rubbish. The cars made 10 years ago already had catalysers and used lead free fuel. The most acute emission problem today and 10 years ago is/was CO2 and surely the mileage per volume of fuel has not improved by ten fold. It might have improved by 10% or so.

Always, when talking about city and traffic planning, people tend to believe that the city will remain the same but they just have to get along without a car. Structural community and traffic planning is a very long term process covering periods of time extending to several generations and will also include the time decades after we’ve run out of oil. Therefore the normal laymans horizon of say 1 year or the maximum of a politicans horizon of 4 years (until the next elections) are way too short sighted. For the reason that people with any kind of vision or ability to understand complex systems are deemed to be in a marginal minority, we don’t seem to have any other alternative but to correct the problematic course only after a crisis and to waste an enormous amount of resources in the process by shear stupidity. Of course nobody is going to ban car use. Of course there won’t be a simple solution that would solve all of our problems at once but that is no reason to continue building the cities more and more unsustainable while waiting for that one big all-at-once idea.

If the greens want to limit the amount of car polution, they should make it easier for Finns to buy new, less polluting cars to replace the old wrecks all these Finns are driving around.

Excellent point, Fred!

Someone did a study recently of some plants in New York City, and contrasted that with the same plants in the woods of the Hamptons, a couple hundred miles away. It turned out that the NY plants had grown much bigger, and were healthier, than the same kinds of plants in the woods.

The reason? Pollution. The plants loved pollution, especially the kinds from car exhaust. And there wasn’t enough of it in the Hamptons.

So if you really care about the environment, you should feed it, by polluting it.

Good point Finnpundit.

I had asked an expert “If there is more CO2 in the world now, what is there less of, or is the atmosphere denser?” He did not know, and actually did not like my comments when I started asking if there was less oxygen. What else has changed? Don’t the plants like the additional CO2? He was completely lost. I was suppossed to get a follow-up once he had a chance to look into it. I am still waiting.

The volume percentages of CO2 that are significant in terms of increased infra red trapping in atmosphere are very small. If you suppose that the increased CO2 displaces all other gases equally (N2 almost 80%, O2 around 19%), the displacement doesn’t have much of an effect in absorption spectrum. This is even more so with other GH-gases than CO2 (for example CH4 has 21 times stronger green house effect with an equal amount of CO2). I am very aware that spectral physics is not something totally intuitive and that it can be hard to “believe” that. You either are a physically thinking person or you aren’t. Just as climate physics is hard, so is ecology and therefore all this bullshit about “plants loving pollution” is just plain ridiculous. “Someone did a study…” oh give me a break.

As Bjorn Lomborg has demonstrated, the environmental lobby consists of interests that have their allies in the media. Studies that don’t pass muster with accepted wisdom are often ignored, relegated to an interesting footnote.

The Copenhagen Consensus, consisting of scientists from all around the world, determined that environmentalism is not as crucial an issue than all the other problems facing the world. Yet there is something appealing about being concerned with nature: it has a lot to do with sentimentality. For some, those kinds of feelings will be their guiding light throughout their lives.

For others, the overriding concern should be that we do not let such sentimentalists distract us from more serious concerns.

Here’s more info on Lomborg, for you neophytes:

http://www.ps.au.dk/Lomborg/books.htm

And here???s info on the Copenhagen Consensus:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

Check out the list on the left side of the web page. Look at what???s at the top??¦ then look at what???s on the bottom.

It???s interesting to note the position of ???Subsidies and Trade Barriers??, in relation to ???Climate??.

Nice go Finnpundit.

You say that CC is “consisting of scientists from all around the world”, which of course is utter crap. No wonder you found ideas to your liking from their pages, since when one checks the Basic idea (can be found under the about), the following is rather soon before one’s nose

The basic idea was to improve prioritization of the numerous problems the world faces, by gathering some of the world’s greatest economists to a meeting where some of the biggest challenges in the world would be assessed.

Emphasis mine. So it was not a gathering of scientists (as in experts of different fields, say sciences like physics, chemistry, biology or even the better suited social scienses (political science, sociology and economics

“???New cars are something like 90% less polluting than cars made 10 years ago. Now that is a step in the right direction.??

First of all, that???s a load of rubbish. …”

OK…

So Tom will also discuss that newer cars are not so much safer than 10-15 year olds, given that you cannot speed on these roads.

(So unlike in Germany, people do not speed up from 120 km/h to 200 km/h upon buying a new car)

ABS, ASR, airbags etc, are not that crucial to safety…

By taking these ecxessive taxes on cars, new or old, in my opinion, the finnish government is undertaking a crime, in the region, “remote assistance in injury or death”

And also, even a car polluting by 10% less, adds up to a huge amount, when you realize there is not only one car in this country.

Should be:

Maybe he will also conclude that ABS, ASR, airbags etc, are not that crucial to safety??¦

Is ???taxi?? considered ???public transportation”?

ah phil, its as if you dont care about the truth, as if someone who points out that you are wrong is just inviting another snide comment to justify your opinion.

“I think it???s Helsinki with quite pathetic public transport, especially the subway, it???s just one line.”
its almost as if you say these things just to get a rise from people. its incredibly frustrating and i find myself visiting this site less and less because of it.

dw

No I’m dead serious. I think Helsinki public transportation is weak compared to many other cities I’ve visited. Unfortunately Helsinki doesn’t seem to have the money for any big projects like an expanded subway, they’re too busy patching up other services that are lacking funding.

Just because me and others disagree on something, doesn’t mean I’m trying to get a “rise” out of them.

I’d like to see subway expanded to Espoo and Vantaa airport, and I’d love to see new tram lines. For example, one from Ullanlinna/Eira to Hietalahti, (L?¤nsiatamama?), Ruoholahti, Kamppi… In addition, more walking streets to the center, and more cars to new underground ways and parking halls.

Allthough it’s true all these investments would be expensive, sometimes it would be refreshing to see some balls among decision makers instead of persisting over carefullness.

I don’t know: the treatment Lomborg got from the scientific community was not scientific: the first articles were often just personal attacks and concentrating on fairly meaningless mistakes in details. I hope that something more substantive has been written later on. In any case much of this is hard science and it seems to be undeniable that the climate is warming up – maybe we should think in a bit longer term than just the next quarter or the next election… I have a hunch that one day our politicians will be bitterly cursed and the environmentalists seen as the last best hope of the modern Western civilization. It’s just that these issues do require lots of rational collective long term action which is an area that our species have not exactly excelled…

Lomborg, above all, is a statistician, practising in the field of economics. He started his cause as he was troubled by his inability to trace the statistical facts that were currently being cited about the environment to original, scientific studies. What he found was not an overt campaign to deceive, but a phenomenon that has now come to be know as the “Lomborg effect”: one scientist cites statistics in a study, then, to support his own thesis, will use the higher range of those numbers as the mid or low end starting point for his numbers, giving the facts he had uncovered as a sort of extenuating justification for such an assumption. The next scientist that comes along will use that paper as back-up, and on and on the process goes until there is a “crisis” of global proportions.

Lomborg was, of course, the victim of vicious attacks not only from the academic community – there was an attempt to get him fired from his university – but also from politicians, especially from the Green Party. But he resolutely stuck to what he had learned; perhaps the experience of being gay had shaped his ability to think outside of the box and not care about the consequences.

In any case, he is one European academic that stands out as an exception in a sea of academic conformity in Europe. A worthwhile voice to listen to.

Yes, I tend to agree – I could not believe the stuff they wrote to “refute” him. If someone makes a scientific argument, you make a scientific counter argument. Or shut up. To me it was not so much his view than their reception which was most telling. But we should remember that this really is an industry which is protective of its turf – the fact that they do that and exaggarate and inflate does not change the reality of climate change.

“I had asked an expert ???If there is more CO2 in the world now, what is there less of, or is the atmosphere denser??? He did not know…”

I wonder what sort of an expert he was if he didn’t know this? This is so basic chemistry, I think it’s one of the first things in chemistry that they teach in school. When you burn something containing carbon: C(s) + O2(g) => CO2(g). So, yes there is less oxygen in the atmosphere and more carbon dioxide. And yes, the plants like it, they bind it and release oxygen back into the air. There’s a balance of sorts there, there’s 21% oxygen and ca. 0,04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (at present). When we start releasing more carbon dioxide that plants (and seas) can bind, is when you get the green house effect. And the plants like it again. Some people seem to think climate change = better weather and t-shirts throughout the year. Too bad we’re not all plants.

Phil, Helsinki has for a long time wanted to expand the subway to Espoo. Local politicians in Espoo have decided to stall the project forever so that it will never happen. I remember around 1990 when there was talk that Espoo politicians were considering that maybe the subway would be a good idea in the next century, maybe 2005 or something and nothing ever happened. Some people in Espoo still think that low-class neighborhoods come with the subway.

Even if the Helsinki subway still mostly is just one line, I think the Vuosaari subway is a serious improvement to the system. Still, they could build more lines inside Helsinki, not just the one to Espoo that everyone’s been waiting to happen for ever.

Fred Fry:

You complain about public transportation IN HELSINKI, and then you ask:

“Ever go to Ikea bus”

I don’t think there has been an IKEA in HELSINKI EVER. Until recently the only IKEA in the region around Helsinki (the p?¤?¤kaupunkiseutu, or whatever) was in Espoo, a city with incredibly bad public transportation. This is also the city, where Phil seems to live and work (?), and he has (if I’m not wrong) claimed that he rarely goes to the centre of Helsinki, which is the ONLY place you can – conveniently – reach by public transportation from ANYWHERE in Espoo. And he complains about public transportation in Helsinki, what does he know.

“If the greens want to limit the amount of car polution, they should make it easier for Finns to buy new, less polluting cars to replace the old wrecks all these Finns are driving around. New cars are something like 90% less polluting than cars made 10 years ago. Now that is a step in the right direction.”

So everybody buys a new car every 3 years? Right? That stops pollution? Have you ever heard that BUILDING a car might have environmental impact?

I am delighted to see that my colleague Oras and I have managed to generate a rather good debate on transport of persons! – Firstly, I?“d like to answer the question marks about my own modes of transport. I live in the city center & do not have a driver?“s licence.I find possessing a car a shere economic madness (parking place in the hall under my house costs 150 EUR/month). I walk, ride my bike, use public transport and taxis. I do regret sometimes that I do not have licence to drive if I need to get around in the countryside. – Secondly, the green policy on cars takes into account the fact that people living in the countryside mostly cannot manage without a car. We would like to have road fees (like in London, Bergen, now in Stockholm) in larger cities, but no additional burden in the more rural areas. Since the dependence on mineral oil is going to limit our activities constantly more, it is quite rational to expect that alternatives to transport by cars will benefit, and so do such alternative fuels which are cost-efficient and ecologically sound. – Thirdly, back to our original comment to minister Manninen: town planning is essential for keeping people’s mobility needs at a sensible level. Unfortunately an American-style urban sprawl is a reality in Finland, and it is fed by the myth that all Finns want to live in a small house of their own. At least I do not!

Ms. Hautala – but isn’t it the poor who suffers from this? If you want less cars on the street, you’ll simply increase taxes (cars, fuel etc..) – the wealthy have no problem with this, the middle-class only struggles, the poor go without.

And how is the enviornment affected when people are forced (due to lack of funds) to drive older, less safe, less gas-efficient, more polluted automobiles?

Less traffic on the streets is a nice idea, but it will again be the poor who trudging two hours a day on public transport while the wealthier Finns zip to and from work in their cars (with now even a faster commute since there’s less traffic), and the politicians take their tax-payer funded taxis to parliament.

And it’s true, not everyone wants to live in a house, there are some who do prefer apartments, especially in Helsinki (although if cost wasn’t an issue, I’d bet many of those people would take a house). But by focusing on small apartments and neglecting single-family homes, you’ll raise the prices of single-family homes, putting them further out of the reach of lower income families. Let’s give all income brackets more of a chance to live in a nice house if they want one, not just the upper classes.

Phil, your logic is twisted. Expensive fuel is a highly effective incentive to buy fuel efficient vehicles and drive less. Making cars expensive also makes insuring them expensive. Many middle-class Finns either don’t buy a car in the first place or buy a smaller more fuel efficient car because of high taxes. (The main reason why Americans often drive such gas guzzling monsters is that they can afford it. For the same reason Germans like driving fast on their autobahns, which is also highly wasteful use of fuel.) For example, if cars and fuel cost less than half of what they do, I might consider buying a car, but cars and fuel being as expensive as they are, I have decided to rather spend my money otherwise.

I believe our heavy taxation of cars and petrol will prove to be a blessing in the long run. The price of a barrel of oil has nowhere else to go but up because of rising demand and geological constraints. The global peak discovery years of petroleum reserves were about 40 years ago. Peak production tends to follow peak discovery with predictable delay of a few decades. It was 40 years for lower-48 USA (peak discovery about 1930, peak production about 1970) and 27 years for North Sea. Unconventional sources of oil such as ultra-heavy oil and substitutes like coal liquification and gasification will undoubtedly help a lot but using those resources is more expensive than using conventional oil reserves. The era of cheap fuel is permanently over barring technological breakthroughs like commercial fusion power in the near future. This would be the worst time to ease the tax on fuel. The world needs to start adapting to a more energy scarce future as of yesterday. The American single-family house model is very energy-inefficient. James Howard Kunstler calls it “the greatest misallocation of resources in history”. The whole idea of leading an urban lifestyle in the countryside is based of cheap fuel which is a thing of the past.

Expensive fuel is a highly effective incentive to buy fuel efficient vehicles and drive less. Making cars expensive also makes insuring them expensive.

Right, so the wealthy Finns don’t give a damn, they can afford the expensive fuel and SUVs. The middle class need their cars, so they struggle to afford one. And the poor barely can afford an old jalopy if they’re lucky. So all you’re doing is just fucking the poor so the wealthier Finns can zoom their SUVs through the city cause there’s so little traffic.

Phil, but wealthy people will never care, whether you do the right or the wrong, so I think they shouldn’t be the standard to messure things on. So the majority of the poeple should be taken into account and whether it makes sense and is the right thing in the long run.
Note that I don’t think that the poor people should be necessarily the loosers (in fact there should be ways to help them too), just the “wealthy” argument doesn’t seam completely right to me.

Phil, you really should join Perussuomalaiset judging by your rhetoric.

“So all you???re doing is just fucking the poor so the wealthier Finns can zoom their SUVs through the city cause there???s so little traffic.”

Bullshit. The goal of heavy taxes on fuel and cars is to decrease the use of fuel, which is exactly what it does.

Incidentally, high taxes on cars and fuel are a net benefit for the poor because the wealthy, many of whom drive expensive cars that consume a lot of fuel, thus carry a greater share of the tax burden as they otherwise would.

It’s telling that you totally ignore the arguments for another key benefit of high motor fuel taxes. Namely the fact that artificially high prices of motor fuels force society as a whole to adapt to the depletion of easily exploitable petroleum resources. Those countries that wisely hold back their consumption through taxation voluntarily use non-renewable petroleum at a slower rate allowing others to waste it frivolously. We don’t need your gaswasting culture of stupidity and greed here. It’s going to bite you in the ass when the world gets to the depletion side of the petroleum production curve.

I definitely would like to have an American-style small house of my own.

Bullshit. The goal of heavy taxes on fuel and cars is to decrease the use of fuel, which is exactly what it does.

Your right, but the only reason why fuel is used less are because more people are riding the bus – which is exactly my point.

many of whom drive expensive cars that consume a lot of fuel, thus carry a greater share of the tax burden as they otherwise would.

Oh I see, so the bigger the SUV and the more that person drives it – the more he/she is helping out society through taxes!! How kind of them. I drive an old little VW Golf, so I’m really fucking society over cause my car is so fuel efficient.

Phil, you really should join Perussuomalaiset judging by your rhetoric.

You obviously no nothing about my views or of Perussuomalaiset.

Phil:

“I drive an old little VW Golf, so I???m really fucking society over cause my car is so fuel efficient.”

What car you are driving around (US-like – car dependancy creating) Espoo, is not really interesting. But you choosing an “fuel efficient car” shows that the logic that Markku describes, is working.

Yeah but it’s 11 years old, signs of rust, engine ain’t all that. If I actually had some money I’d go buy a new Golf – safer and probably more fuel efficient.

Like Heidi, I’d like to use taxis. Unlike Heidi, I can’t afford it.

I believe our heavy taxation of cars and petrol will prove to be a blessing in the long run.

Haahaa – it won’t. Expect to see it happen again that Americans will find the most efficient ways to deal with environmental issues and the rest of the world will follow – and keep on nagging at Americans at the same time. Our environmental “friendly” ways are so dependable on what goes on in the US.

I wrote:

“I believe our heavy taxation of cars and petrol will prove to be a blessing in the long run.”

Mikko Sandt replied:

“Haahaa – it won???t. Expect to see it happen again that Americans will find the most efficient ways to deal with environmental issues and the rest of the world will follow – and keep on nagging at Americans at the same time. Our environmental ???friendly?? ways are so dependable on what goes on in the US.”

My friend, I assure you “environmental issues” were not on my mind when I wrote high taxes on cars and petrol are a good thing. There are bigger things to worry about concering the use of petroleum.

Petroleum accounts for about 40 percent of primary energy used by humans. Natural gas and coal account for 20 percent each. The world as we know it runs on non-renewable fossil fuels. Renewables (solar, wind, biomass, hydroelectric etc.) and nuclear fission account for the rest.

Petroleum will be very hard to substitute with something else. There is about 200 years worth of coal at the current rate of use, but replacing petroleum means that coal will have to be used at least three times as fast to replace primary energy from petroleum. Then there’s the little problem of increasing use of primary energy as the global economy grows. It is likely that conventional petroleum reserves capable of yielding an energy profit are depleted within the next 30-40 years while declining according to a logistical curve. (Peak annual discovery rate of new petroleum reserves occurred four decades ago.) Global natural gas production is expected to peak 5-20 after the peaking of global oil production. North American natural gas production has already peaked according the the CEO of Exxon [1]. The problem with gas depletion is that it’s much faster than oil depletion.

As the world is forced to turn to coal and nuclear fission for bulk primary energy, supply constraints are faced again. Suppose natural gas and petroleum were completely substituted with coal. There’d be about 60 years worth of coal left. Assuming a reasonable 1.5 percent growth of coal consumption per year, in 60 years the rate of use would be 2.5 times the rate at the beginning. Clearly, the lifetime of the world’s coal resources would be much shorter than that if petroleum and natural gas had to be substituted with coal.

Nuclear fission has considerable potential for expansion as the currently used fuel cycles are so inefficient (without breeding only about 0.7 percent of the energy contained in of U235 can be utilized). If all our primary energy needs had to be met by nuclear fission using reactor types currently used in industrial scale, the world’s uranium reserves would last only THREE YEARS. Breeder reactors need a lot of development before they become safe and reliable.

As you can see, it’s pretty damn fucking stupid to frivolously waste our precious energy resources that enable to entire modern way of life. Strict fuel efficiency standards for cars and buses and high taxes on motor fuels should be a given in all major consuming nations, unless the goal is to squander the window of time we all need to develop nuclear fusion or some other entirely new resource. If we’re not succesful at that, we’re eventually have to descend back to the dark ages.

[1] http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2005/06/exxon_natural_g.htm

Here is an example from today’s Sunday Telegraph how REGULATION can choke to death even the most laudable green businesses (Sorry for extensive quote, Phil, the column is behind registration wall):

Impost on compost

As EU rules make it ever harder to dispose sensibly and legally of “waste”, ever more valuable becomes the part played by small firms such as County Mulch, run in Suffolk by Ed Bastow. Last year he collected 65,000 tons of “green waste” – grass cuttings, tree branches and other vegetable matter – most of it from local councils in East Anglia and London, to be composted and spread on farmland as organic fertiliser.

Under rules issued this month by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a separate “exemption” allowing “waste” to be disposed of in this way must be registered for each site on which the compost is spread, at a cost of ?£500. Because of other EU rules on nitrates, the quantities which can be legally deposited are limited to 30 tons per hectare, which means the compost must be spread thinly over many separate sites.

Mr Bastow discovers that, to register his “exemptions” with the Environment Agency, is going to cost him up to ?£44,000 a year.

Along with the added paperwork and operating costs involved, he will have to charge an extra ?£60,000 to carry on doing his job. But the real service he is providing is to local councils whose “green waste” he is taking.

In order for this service to service, ratepayers will have to stump up an extra ?£60,000, just so that much of this money can be transferred from one set of public bodies to another – all to achieve no benefit whatever, other than to the officials the agency will have to recruit to handle the paperwork.

(Source: Sunday Telegraph 31.07.2005, Christopher Booker’s Notebook, author Christopher Booker)

Gas taxes really screw the poor and middle classes, and they are the ones who really need the additional flexibility to try and get ahead (and around.) So why not make the gas taxes progressive just like the speeding ticket fines. If you are poor, you pay very little in gas taxes. This will give the poor a better chance at affording a car which can then greatly improve the quality of their life. It will also instill in them a sense of ownership and build self-responsibility, especially for those who do not own their own home.

You will never tax the rich out of their cars and will only help drive the rich from the country, and what effect will that have when Finland loses it’s best tax-payers? It will make the country ‘greener’ but at what cost? What will people do for work? Worst of all, the pollution generation is merely shifted elsewhere. Gas not used in Finland is surely used elsewhere.

If Finland really wanted to make the world greener, it would buy up as much oil as possible and store it. since production is constant, the end result would be less consumption as the Finnish share was not used.

Then, when the world starts going dry, Finland could become the new middle east and it can then sell to the world with a huge green tax included in the price.

Storing large amounts of oil is not practical. Taxing the use of oil is sensible because it has the same effect.

I’m afraid it’s the poor and the middle-classes that need to be discouraged from using too much petrol. They constitute the majority and their use of petroleum constitutes the majority of the total use of petroleum. You really don’t get it, do you. The inconvenience of using public transportation or bicycles for commuting will be the least of our worries when the price of oil per barrel climbs above the $150-$200 range. Taxing the use of petrol now that it’s still very cheap should be continued or even made heavier because otherwise we’ll be stuck with a living arrangement and infrastructure we’ll not be able to afford to use.

The best policy would be to maintain our railroad lines and build new ones along which new residential areas could be built. That way, our economy could tolerate much higher petroleum prices in the future. Car dependency is poison in a world where petroleum resources, the drilling of which is capable of yielding a high energy profit ratio, are getting scare. Besides, the degree of inconvenience – or convenience – of using public transportation depends a lot on zoning.

“Storing large amounts of oil is not practical. Taxing the use of oil is sensible because it has the same effect.”

I have two comments on this point:
1. Please expand on your ‘not practical’ comment. The US managed to create the worlds largest reserve:
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/spr/spr-facts.html
(The reserve will actually be full in August allowing more cruse into the regular market.)

I bet there are huge holes in the ground that the Finns could fill with oil. Think of it as an investment. If you are so sure the price of oil will double, Finland would be stupid not to store huge reserves of it. The oil could be purchased with the money the state earns with the gas taxes you advocate. Then it can be sold or used in the future.

2. Taxing will work if you tax all of the worlds oil. If you take your car to Estonia, would you fill the tank before returning?

“I???m afraid it???s the poor and the middle-classes that need to be discouraged from using too much petrol. They constitute the majority and their use of petroleum constitutes the majority of the total use of petroleum.”

Now that is a statement! So not only do we have to pay taxes to support the poor, we can now also thank them for the high price of gas. There are any number of ways to slice this statement. Hmmm. How about the gas used by the poor (those with the least amount of money to waste) could be classed as ‘required use’ such as purchasing groceries, going to work, emergencies. This could hardly be considered wasting or using too much gas. There is a certain amount of gas people will use no matter the price.

Now if you look at the middle class and the rich, these are the ones that would be using too much and wasting gas. It is just that there are not so much of these people. So in addition to going to work, the rich will use their car for everything.

One thing that struck me with Helsinki transport, most of the lines will be packed in one direction and completely empty in the other. The busses need to run whether they have passengers or not. With a car, once it is at its destinaton, it is turned off.

Lets say the price of oil doubles, doubling the price of gas. That would bring the price of gas in the US to about $5 a gallon and about 10 Euros a gallon in Finland. I will still drive to work every day, despite the ability to take the bus to work. I will still travel to NY by car. the cost of gas for the trip would double from $50 to $100 for the trip, bring the cost almost near the cost of taking the train or flying, the difference being that I would have the use of my car while in NY.

I spent three years living without a car in helsinki. I survived but it was still a hassle.

The US strategic petroleum reserve contains enough oil to run the country for a mere couple of months. A much better idea if one wants to invest in oil is to buy shares in a petroleum fund.

You sure have trouble connecting some dots. Should the price of oil double, the price of a lot of other products would also rise. That would cut spending power and slow down the economy, possibly stopping growth and leading into a recession. Cost inflation would also lead to higher interest rates. A lot those with large mortgages living in areas not easily accessible by public transportation would be fucked as the value of their houses would suffer, possibly enough to leave them with debts even after selling their house in case of unemployment. (There is a range of petroleum prices where this scenario becomes a certainty for the majority of people living in said areas.)

To put it mildly, this is not a good time to build a North American style living arrangement where almost everybody is totally dependent on the car for commuting. Forget that house in the suburbs. We should focus on stopping the car-dependent sprawl and investing into a living arrangement that tolerates high transportation fuel prices considerably better.

“A much better idea if one wants to invest in oil is to buy shares in a petroleum fund.”

Here is something we both agree on. I already own a small piece of Exxon Mobil and BP. My XOM stock has doubled since I started buying it in 2002. I also think GE is a good energy investment and have some of them. So I have my own ‘Energy Fund.’

“You sure have trouble connecting some dots.”

Have YOU ever been in an oil refinery?
Have YOU ever sailed on an oil tanker?
Have YOU ever been on an offshore oil platform?
I am well aware of how the price of oil effects the rest of the economy. For example:

It will be more expensive to ship cheap products from other parts of the world.
The cost of manufacturing items will grow faster in countries that use petroleum less efficiently, which will probably encourage more US-based manufacturing.
High oil prices wll foster the development of more efficient cars just like it did in the 70′s.

It has been discussed that the US economy is less dependant on the price of oil than it was in the past. The US has huge coal reserves and the rise in the price of oil has increased coal demand.

A rescession and inflation at the same time? Not likely. One reason people buy a house in the country is that the mortgage is cheaper than in the cities. Where are you more likely to have a huge mortgage, in the middle of Helsinki or farther out in the countryside? I know, you’ll just put all the people like me on the outskirts of the city and bus and tain us around. No think you! I would prefer to be right in the center where I can walk around.

“Forget that house in the suburbs.”

You forget the house in the suburbs and live in thecity with a huge mortgage. I want the house in the countryside with the lake and forest view. I am willing to pay the transport cost to live out there. And this is perfect because in the US and Finland you are able to make choices like this. You however are more interested in making choices for everyone. Let me make my own mistakes.

“???Forget that house in the suburbs.??”

“You forget the house in the suburbs and live in thecity with a huge mortgage.”

As you said, I’d create incentives for living in suburbs populated densely enough to be efficiently served by public transportation.

“I want the house in the countryside with the lake and forest view. I am willing to pay the transport cost to live out there. And this is perfect because in the US and Finland you are able to make choices like this. You however are more interested in making choices for everyone. Let me make my own mistakes.”

If you lived on a planet of your own, I’d have no problem with that. But the fact is that if a sufficient majority wants to shoot themselves in the foot, I will also suffer.

“If you lived on a planet of your own, I???d have no problem with that. But the fact is that if a sufficient majority wants to shoot themselves in the foot, I will also suffer.”
– The you should look at countries like China and India which have huge population growth which needs to be addressed or there will be less of everything for the rest of us.
– There there are the actions of a large part of Africa which the fake solutions cause us all to suffer.
– So population control is something you should be advocating as the trickle-down effects will be more dramatic than taxing gas..
– Then there are the actions of Iran, which implications can cause lots more suffering.

I think you fail to take into account the benefits of living in the countryside. I can live very green out there. Sure I need gas for my car, but I can grow food which would be impossible in the city. I can better recycle natural waste. I would also be less likely to go out on the town and party, creating waste and eating out, creating more waste in the end resulting in a more monitarily healthy family.

As for saving gas in Finland, the government should end all commercial farming in the country. It can be done much more efficiently in warmer climates.

I would like to keep my comment very brief, and to two points made in the latest interventions. Several people complain about the (anti-)social impact of environmentally sound decisions such as higher fuel and vehicle prices. This is obvious. But, please, the conclusion of this would be that environmental policy would be rendered impossible or at least ineffective. I believe it is necessary to address both social justice and environmental issues – mostly separately. Income and wealth caps should be narrowed with the means of income transfers, progressive taxation etc. So noone will suffer too much from the necessary and inevitable raise in the cost of energy.

And what about old and polluting car wrecks on our roads? It is true that Finland has the oldest car fleet of the old 15 EU-countries. I would like to see a differentiation of vehicle taxes on the grounds of their CO2- and other emissions. E.g. hybrid cars are a real innovation. Finland has been a forerunner in differentiation of road fuel taxes and has turned the fuel markets 100 % to cleaner gasoline and diesel grades almost overnight (lastly to sulphur free). Some alternative and biofuels would deserve a similar reduction of fuel tax. Eventually, the EU will have to move together.

Someone was celebrating the Americans because they find the most effective environmental policies so the rest of the world will have to follow. I suppose this is about the newly published until now SECRET agreement between USA and about five other Pacific countries on addressing climate change. I am sorry but this is probably nothing more than the old approach of George W. Bush who wants primarily to “protect the American worker”: some investment in cleaner technology in order to achieve a RELATIVE decrease of greenhouse gas emissions. I as the rest of the EU is insisting that the atmosphere is a limited space and can only accommodate a limited amount of those gases. It follows that it is necessary to agree internationally on an ABSOLUTE rather than a relative decrease of emissions. The Americans invented the “cap and trade” approach of emissions trading with an absolute ceiling to emissions, sold it to the rest of the world through Kyoto Protocol – and refused to ratify. – I am still optimistic and believe that George W. will have to change his attitude now that he actually has finally confessed that climate change is a reality and that it is to some extent caused by human activities.

Heidi Hautala

Heidi,

just a comment on biofuels. Farming is energy intensive business. Before intruducing any form of subsidies in favor of any type of energy production, it is VITAL to perform a very thorough analysis of the energy profitability of the form of energy production in question. Under the free market, energy profitability is automatically included in the economic feasibility analysis. But as soon as any kind of subsidies enter the picture, growing biofuels as far north as in Finland needs to undergo a very rigorous scientific analysis concerning energy profitability. It might turn out that producing one barrel’s worth of biodiesel or ethanol in Finland takes more than one barrel’s worth of diesel fuel and petroleum (or natural gas) based fertilizers. According to what I’ve read, corn ethanol and biodiesel are barely energy profitable even in the USA! For that reason, fueling the entire US car fleet on biofuels it would take the entire arable land of the US. Only countries like Brazil with intense solar radiation throughout the year and huge amount of arable land at their disposal are capable of meeting a signifigant proportion of their energy needs with biofuels.

On another note, if third world countries are to rise out of abject poverty, I believe there is little choice but to develop nuclear fission power based on breeder reactors.

” – The you should look at countries like China and India which have huge population growth which needs to be addressed or there will be less of everything for the rest of us.”

I am.

“- There there are the actions of a large part of Africa which the fake solutions cause us all to suffer.”

I cannot parse that sentence.

“- So population control is something you should be advocating as the trickle-down effects will be more dramatic than taxing gas..”

I’m absolutely for stopping population growth.

“- Then there are the actions of Iran, which implications can cause lots more suffering.”

What are you talking about? (By the way, Iran has managed to control population growth very effectively. During the past 20 years, the total fertility rate among Iranian women has dropped to 1.9 per woman. It’s a remarkably low number. It’s below replacement level, which is about 2.2.)

“I think you fail to take into account the benefits of living in the countryside. I can live very green out there. Sure I need gas for my car, but I can grow food which would be impossible in the city. ”

Why didn’t you say right away that you were talking about being a small farmer?

There is a difference between rural and exurban lifestyles. I’m afraid living in Nurmij?¤rvi while working in Helsinki, using a car for commuting will soon prove to be economically very difficult.

“I can better recycle natural waste. I would also be less likely to go out on the town and party, creating waste and eating out, creating more waste in the end resulting in a more monitarily healthy family.”

Your entire approach sounds more like window-dressing kind of green than anything substantial. If you continue working in a city, you’ll be consuming energy resources much faster than if you lived in a condo in the city.

“As for saving gas in Finland, the government should end all commercial farming in the country. It can be done much more efficiently in warmer climates.”

Farming up here is indeed much less efficient than in warmer climates. On the other hand, importing food requires more long-distance transportation. I’m not entirely sure how it works out in the end from the point of view of energy.

Haahaa – it won???t. Expect to see it happen again that Americans will find the most efficient ways to deal with environmental issues and the rest of the world will follow

Indeed, they already have: denying that there are any issues.

My comments concerning Iran were more about their crazy drive towards obtaining their own nuclear bomb. This is a problem that the EU has yet to solve and it is something that we can all suffer under the wrong conclusion.

“Your entire approach sounds more like window-dressing kind of green than anything substantial.”

– This reminds me of my theory that it is easier to teach a politician to be green than it is to teach a ‘Green’ to run a country.

“Expect to see it happen again that Americans will find the most efficient ways to deal with environmental issues and the rest of the world will follow”

– Have you seen the proposal to put objects into orbit to reduce the amount of sun hitting the surface to control global warming. I am not sure where the idea came from but you can image who would fund it. Might be a crazy idea, but there are studies out there that claim that we are already in for a 4+ degree as a result of gasses released even before any talk about greenhouse gasses. Of course we need to address carbon emmission as well.

I would like to thank Heidi Hautala for expressing her views here.

“My comments concerning Iran were more about their crazy drive towards obtaining their own nuclear bomb. This is a problem that the EU has yet to solve and it is something that we can all suffer under the wrong conclusion.”

I don’t think trying to obtain their own nuclear bomb is such a crazy idea of Iranians. There are other local powers in their part of the world that already have the bomb. Like Israel and Pakistan. More importantly, they are perfectly aware that the USA never invades a country that has the Bomb. That’s why North Korea is perfectly safe.

I’m not saying any further nuclear proliferation is necessarily good. I’m just pointing out that the Iranians are not crazy for wanting the bomb.

“More importantly, they are perfectly aware that the USA never invades a country that has the Bomb.”

They should also be perfectly aware to countries that are/were trying to develop the bomb. Iraq’s nuclear program did them no good. Neither has North Koreas. Sure they have the bomb to defend themselves, but in the process of being nuclear bullies, they have lost most if not all of the humanitarian aid they receive from their two largest donors; the US and Japan.

“That???s why North Korea is perfectly safe.” – Try to keep in mind that it was North Korea that attacked the South back in the 60′s creating the situation they are in now. Also, it was the Iranians that attacked the US back in the 70′s that has them in the situation they are in now. As a result of their past (and ongoing) stupidity, they now need a nuclear weapon program to protect themselves….

Opps, I think this thread has strayed from it’s original subject. Apologies.

Phil answered to me:

“You obviously no nothing about my views or of Perussuomalaiset.”

I know that both the views of Perussuomalaiset and yours have one characteristic in common: ignorant populism.

I know that both the views of Perussuomalaiset and yours have one characteristic in common: ignorant populism.

Yeah, when a liberal is looking out for the poor and blames the left-wingers – it’s “ignorant populism”. Riiiight.

Your crocodile’s tears fool no one. You just want the car and fuel taxes away because you like to drive and they’re money away from your pocket.

Like a true populist, you spew bogus arguments like the claim that removing the car tax would enable people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles together with demanding that the fuel tax be abolished.

You just want the car and fuel taxes away because you like to drive and they???re money away from your pocket.

Not at all. I don’t smoke, yet I think smoking should be perfectly legal. I don’t do drugs, yet I think drugs should be perfectly legal etc… – It’s called “principles”, something the left and right know very little about.

Like a true populist, you spew bogus arguments like the claim that removing the car tax would enable people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles together with demanding that the fuel tax be abolished.

What’s so “bogus” about that?

“”You just want the car and fuel taxes away because you like to drive and they???re money away from your pocket.”

“Not at all. I don???t smoke, yet I think smoking should be perfectly legal. I don???t do drugs, yet I think drugs should be perfectly legal etc??¦ – It???s called ???principles”, something the left and right know very little about.”

Diminishing the incentives in place to care about fuel consumption would be sheer idiocy when the world is about to face the peaking of conventional crude oil production capacity. Global oil production capacity already seems to have reached a plateau at slightly below 85 million barrels per day. Despite the recent price hike, not even the Saudis seem to be able to increase their production enough to ease the price. It seems that there is no producer left in the world with signifigant spare capacity.

Encouraging people to increase their car dependency in this situation would be downright criminal!

“”Like a true populist, you spew bogus arguments like the claim that removing the car tax would enable people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles together with demanding that the fuel tax be abolished.”

What???s so ???bogus?? about that?”

It’s at odds with both logic and empiria.

The more expensive fuel is, the more of a factor fuel efficiency becomes for buyers of cars. Economics 101.

Encouraging people to increase their car dependency in this situation would be downright criminal!

But it’s the poor who suffer, the middle class just struggle, and the wealthy continue flying around in their SUVs.

“”Encouraging people to increase their car dependency in this situation would be downright criminal!”

But it???s the poor who suffer.”

You still don’t get it, do you. Mass motoring will soon be a thing of the past regardless of what do about it. It’s only a matter of smooth vs. abrupt transition. The sooner we begin preparations for a world in which driving is prohibitively expensive, the less painful the transition will be when geological constraints really kick in. That is, when the relentless downward slide from the current plateau of production capacity begins.

Mass motoring will soon be a thing of the past regardless of what do about it.

And like some tax hike in Finland is going to prevent that?

It???s only a matter of smooth vs. abrupt transition.

Right, so first we transition the poor away from cars, then we transition the middle class away, then the rich. Is that the plan?

“”Mass motoring will soon be a thing of the past regardless of what do about it.”

And like some tax hike in Finland is going to prevent that?”

Certainly not, and I never said it would.

“”It???s only a matter of smooth vs. abrupt transition.

“Right, so first we transition the poor away from cars, then we transition the middle class away, then the rich. Is that the plan?”

Physical fuel shortages eventually transition all but the richest away from car dependency completely irregardless of what we do. Effectively the car tax lessens the pain of the inevitable transition because it prevents our car addiction from becoming as severe as it would otherwise become. In a typical Finnish city, owning a car is very much optional, whereas in a typical American city not owning a car makes life very difficult. We may in large part thank taxes for making driving less attractive. Thus our living arrangement is already better suited for the future world of very expensive motor fuel than, say, North American socities.

And like some tax hike in Finland is going to prevent that???

Certainly not, and I never said it would.

So it’s inevitable no matter what we do?

Markku, I think you’re avoiding my questions here. Just come on out and say it, it’s okay… “You’re right Phil, the poor will get railed. But SOMEONE needs to ‘take one for the team’ in order to save the global oil reserves.” C’mon, just say it

“”"And like some tax hike in Finland is going to prevent that???”"

“”Certainly not, and I never said it would.”

“So it???s inevitable no matter what we do?”

Pretty much. It’s very hard to find hydrocarbon resources the production of which yields as high an energy profit ratio as the production of conventional crude oil can. The availability of substitutes is such that it can only make the inevitable decline less steep than it would otherwise be. I’m guessing the available substitutes will keep the price of oil from crossing the $200 mark per barrel for the next 10-15 years. It’s not only a question of supply. Demand is also growing because many large developing countries are becoming industrialized rapidly.

The only things that could allow us to continue business as usual would be a crash program of building breeder reactor farms. Too bad it takes liquid metal cooled fast neutron reactors to breed signifigant amounts of fissionable nuclear fuel. Those things are too expensive and unreliable to be introduced as producers of bulk electricity at this point. Commercial fusion power would be cool, but unfortunately, that’s still in the domain of sci-fi.

“Markku, I think you???re avoiding my questions here. Just come on out and say it, it???s okay??¦ ???You???re right Phil, the poor will get railed. But SOMEONE needs to ???take one for the team??? in order to save the global oil reserves.?? C???mon, just say it ”

Of course the poor will get poorer! EVERYBODY will be impoverished. And it’s not my fault or anybody elses fault.

Please try to understand that the infrastructure that we build today will outlast the remaining oil reserves by several DECADES or more. If we fail to anticipate and prepare for this, especially the poor will be really fucked. Not getting to drive is NOTHING compared to the troubles that await us if we misallocate our precious energy capital that we still have on a living arrangement that becomes useless after that capital is spent.

Besides, I’m wondering what gave you such a strong idea that driving is some sort of a human right.

Things that pollute the environment should be taxed. Whoever uses those things, rich or poor, should have to pay for the damage they cause. Period.

The whole idea of high taxes on cars “punishing” the poor is ridiculous. If you want to pollute the environment you should pay. It should be difficult and expensive if people want use things that pollute the environment. Tax breaks should be given to environmentally friendly alternatives. That way people would be rewarded for making an environmentally friendly choice. Those cars old or new that pollute more should be taxed higher.

High taxes make it so everybody can’t afford a car. I applaud that. People should use public transportation. Look at the big picture.

You say it’s the poor that suffer because of high car taxes. It’s the whole WORLD everybody that suffers from pollution – rich, poor, fat, ugly, stupid, handsome. If you damage something (via pollution in this case) YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PAY whether you are poor, rich, middle class. If you can’t afford to pay to compensate for the damage then you shouldn’t do it.

3

4

I like that perspective on it. I have to think about that and get back after I have had a chance to think about it more.

Dear friend I am Bangladeshi. My name is Wasim Uddin, 30 yrs old. Now I am working in a bank. Our very large number of population are helpless, unemployment. The large number of poor old people are facing many problems. I am trying to develop their life with my little monthly salary. But I can not solve their problem. I am not a rich man, I am average income person. I contribute many unemployed people to start their little business. Now the very little number of people are not needy. They are happy with their family. I want to develop every needy & helpless people. My every donation is all kind of interest free and un-returnable. Every month I try to help different needy people and after middle of month I have no balance amount to help more poor people and can not continuo my MBA study.then i suffer a lot of problems. dear friend you are rich and sucessful nation. that why i am pray from your side please give me some money in my adress. it’s help me for help to the poor. please friend help me. pleasr as early as posible give me help. you and you country most of the time come to help our poor people. villagers old people are suffering a lot of problems. their own children don’t take care of their old parents. most of the time the old people are hungry. and facing so many sickness. our larhe number of enemployment young people going to useless. because they have energy, well business plan but no fincial support. dear friend trust me and give me some help. i want to do some devlopmet works for my poor country. your little help can give many sucess for poor people. there is very few schools in village area. and that’s why most of the children are educationless. this is one of the main fact why they can not prosper in life. i am trying to devlop themself. when i see tears in their eyes then what kind of pain feel in my heart i can not discribe. most of the time mothers are hungry they give their food in their hungry children. i love lige and thay’s why i want to do some for their innocent lige. My income is very limited that why I can not start a NGO. Dear friend help me to help our poor and helpless people. I have many project to established our many poor and helpless people the project are as follows: – 1. Conformed primary education for poor children, 2.Arrange totally free computer training program to develop manpower in Information Technology Sector, 3.Fisheries form, 4.Local domestic animals development program, 5.Help AIDS and all kind of diseases effected people, 6.Helping program of old helpless villagers by giving food and others logistics supports, 7.help unemployment people to gives little donation amount to start their earning way such as (Little Business, growing crops, fish ring etc.) Please remit me some financial help to start my all kinds of projects to help our poor and helpless people. I will give you my all kind of projects activities report time to time. And you always most welcome to visit our country to see our project development. Dear friend I pray again please remit me some finical help to start my all projects and NGO. Dear friend help me and God will help you.

My contracts details:-

Wasim Uddin
51/1 Nobendo Nath Boshak Lane, Nawabpur, Dhaka-1100.
Phone:-008801717212653 Or. 00880152390442
Email:- wasim­­­­­_uddin01@yahoo.com