When we started to study physics at the institute are lying to us. They do not do evil, but the fact is that all that physics at some point we have told us to move a mass between two points that are at the same level does not involve any work, if we apply a force to an object keeps moving indefinitely or a pen and a lead ball fall together at once. These are all wonderful things, but applies only to a world in which no air or friction. A world quite different from ours. In our country, none of this is true.
One of the problems posed by the physical "truth" of the world in which we live, is that nothing is so beautiful. Friction, while allowing that we can brush your teeth, it has some drawbacks. One is that the farther we want to go, the more it will cost. The air, besides keeping us alive, also has his own guilt and want to go faster, it also cost us more. The universe does not discriminate speciesists and these problems affect all people equally, which has meant that if an animal (Or any other living creature) moves or moves away quickly do, always, for a reason and not just because he can.
For our part, through the creation of new means of transport that can reach farther and farther away faster and faster, little by little we have broadened our horizons. Not long ago, nobody would have thought of living 30 kilometers from their place of work. Today is lucky who live so "close" and there are even those who live in a country and go to work in another. But while we go further, faster, does not mean that we should it. The physical laws that govern the world are not subject to a vote, can not be changed by decree or by subsidies and, like it or not, go further and go faster still costing us more. And that costs money is not only money but also energy. And, until we discover a truly clean energy, that extra energy consumption can be translated in a very simple further or faster is (always) more polluting.
Ban plastic bags in supermarkets or give away energy saving light bulbs are certainly measures that reduce pollution. But like anyone believes that you can actually save on leaving home to buy chocolate for the parrot, it takes further action. If our goal is, or has ever been, trying to pollute less, an essential step should be to make the maximum effort to limit the need for transportation. Encourage consumption crops grown (or made) closest to our house and as good demos of our goal in life is to work, live closest work.
Unfortunately, once again, it appears that the shots to go around. The transport of proximity, that is, encourage short journeys above all else, is not something that is fashionable. Which should support have chosen a completely different way and prefer to focus their efforts on just the opposite. As an example, from Madrid, it takes ten minutes less to reach Segovia Collado Villalba, although the distance to the first city is twice the second. Segovia is suddenly closer to Madrid and this will make anyone who doubts between living in both cities may consider opting for the city that is (falsely) closer, increasing the need for a greater distance transport. Villalba's case and Segovia is repeated in many other parts of English territory, distant cities to be artificially pass by while people are still virtually cut off almost neighbors, forcing the people to live farther away to be closer.
The truth is, back at first, promoting long-distance transport while transport proximity abandon not only our interest by pollution or even the absurd. Is, in fact, can not forget that this nonsense has a price. And it's incredibly expensive. High speed train to Galicia, which allow "any" Galicia is at the heart of Madrid in less than three hours, will cost as much money as they would join if all Galicians Full save his salary of fifteen months and a half. The vicinity of Illescas, which would allow any resident of this town were at the center of Madrid in three quarters of an hour, would cost as much money as they would join if each put illescano 100 euros. One such project is "armored" and will no matter what happens, the other is being gradually slowing down until better times. Guess which is which.
One of the problems posed by the physical "truth" of the world in which we live, is that nothing is so beautiful. Friction, while allowing that we can brush your teeth, it has some drawbacks. One is that the farther we want to go, the more it will cost. The air, besides keeping us alive, also has his own guilt and want to go faster, it also cost us more. The universe does not discriminate speciesists and these problems affect all people equally, which has meant that if an animal (Or any other living creature) moves or moves away quickly do, always, for a reason and not just because he can.
For our part, through the creation of new means of transport that can reach farther and farther away faster and faster, little by little we have broadened our horizons. Not long ago, nobody would have thought of living 30 kilometers from their place of work. Today is lucky who live so "close" and there are even those who live in a country and go to work in another. But while we go further, faster, does not mean that we should it. The physical laws that govern the world are not subject to a vote, can not be changed by decree or by subsidies and, like it or not, go further and go faster still costing us more. And that costs money is not only money but also energy. And, until we discover a truly clean energy, that extra energy consumption can be translated in a very simple further or faster is (always) more polluting.
Ban plastic bags in supermarkets or give away energy saving light bulbs are certainly measures that reduce pollution. But like anyone believes that you can actually save on leaving home to buy chocolate for the parrot, it takes further action. If our goal is, or has ever been, trying to pollute less, an essential step should be to make the maximum effort to limit the need for transportation. Encourage consumption crops grown (or made) closest to our house and as good demos of our goal in life is to work, live closest work.
Unfortunately, once again, it appears that the shots to go around. The transport of proximity, that is, encourage short journeys above all else, is not something that is fashionable. Which should support have chosen a completely different way and prefer to focus their efforts on just the opposite. As an example, from Madrid, it takes ten minutes less to reach Segovia Collado Villalba, although the distance to the first city is twice the second. Segovia is suddenly closer to Madrid and this will make anyone who doubts between living in both cities may consider opting for the city that is (falsely) closer, increasing the need for a greater distance transport. Villalba's case and Segovia is repeated in many other parts of English territory, distant cities to be artificially pass by while people are still virtually cut off almost neighbors, forcing the people to live farther away to be closer.
The truth is, back at first, promoting long-distance transport while transport proximity abandon not only our interest by pollution or even the absurd. Is, in fact, can not forget that this nonsense has a price. And it's incredibly expensive. High speed train to Galicia, which allow "any" Galicia is at the heart of Madrid in less than three hours, will cost as much money as they would join if all Galicians Full save his salary of fifteen months and a half. The vicinity of Illescas, which would allow any resident of this town were at the center of Madrid in three quarters of an hour, would cost as much money as they would join if each put illescano 100 euros. One such project is "armored" and will no matter what happens, the other is being gradually slowing down until better times. Guess which is which.
0 comments:
Post a Comment