|   Why is it so UN-HIP to be green? | Choncy
Jul 16, 2003 3:14 PM | | I'd post this in Passion, but they get mad at me when I do. I figure General might be a good place for this.
My question, why is it so unhip to be green and care about the environment? For some reason people automatically lump you in with the enviro-wackos if you care one bit about the environment. I guess its just more hip now to drive SUV's and stuff like that?
I was on another board where somebody posted Gwenthy and Camerons website http://www.actgreen.com/index.asp. People freaked out and called them hypocrits. What? A couple of pretty actresses can't try to spread the word about being environmentally responsible? Why is that.
Some good facts from their website...
- If every family in the US replaced one regular lightbulb with an energy saving model, we'd reduce global warming pollution by more than 90 billion pounds, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road.
- The average driver releases 25 pounds of global warming pollution for every gallon of gas used--if you drive a car that gets 35 mpg, you'll create 40% less global warming pollution than the average driver. |
| warming | george_da_trog
Jul 16, 2003 3:31 PM | | Man, I wish it would hurry up and global warm.... the winters get too cold to ride sometimes.
george |
| re: Why is it so UN-HIP to be green? | Gazz
Jul 16, 2003 3:31 PM | | Interestingly I just did MEC's quiz for measuring your ecological footprint (www.mec.ca). Even though I bike to work 3X per week, drive a 4 cyl SUV (it's not a Segway, but it's no V8 either) and live in an apartment, I still came out worse than average. |
| re: That's why I ride a bike.... | Loose Screw
Jul 16, 2003 4:55 PM | | instead of an ATV. I walk through the mud pits instead of making them bigger. Even blocked off a run down a steep hill next to some steps on my favorite trail.... A little public relations I suppose. |
| re: That's why I ride a bike.... | daddog
Jul 17, 2003 9:52 AM | | Sorry guys, but I ride an ATV. Does that make me ungreen? I also drive a car that gets 34 MPG. Does that make me green again? It is O.K. to support a cause, as long as your support does not infring on the rights of others, i.e. throwing blood on fur wearers, blowing up abortion clinics, scattering nails in "2 Lane" trails or mud holes, etc. Unfortunatly, most causes have "radical fanatics", and it only takes 1 radical fanatic to undo the good done by thousands of others that care for a cause. A perfect example would be ATV riders and bicyclist. How many of you think that ATVs should be banned on public property because of a single incident of an ATVer not riding responsibly? Just as you do not represent all biker, a lone ATVer does not represent all ATVers. When we ride, if we meet a hiker or bike rider, we pull over and offer them the right of way. Some appreciate the fact that we are enjoying our sport, others take the opportunity to let us know that all ATVs should be destroyed and their owners flogged in public! Maybe someday we will meet on the trail and can swap rides for a while. |
| It's not "un-hip", ....it's the right thing to do.... | Fuelish
Jul 16, 2003 5:18 PM | | Who cares what someone sees as "un-hip???" As of now, it's for the most part voluntary to be "green", and it's the right thing to do - we're going to be "paying the piper" very, very, VERY soon !!!.....in the future, it's very likely to be criminal (or at least severely penalized) to be "un-green". Am scouting out potential bike routes to my new job starting within the next month or so (maybe 10 miles at the most) - I've used bikes as at least part-time transport to the majority of jobs I've held (luckily, I've had supportive employers in terms of showers/lockers/locking facilities, etc.)
I may not necessarily agree with the statistics quoted, but I agree with the intent !!! We can, as a nation/world, accomplish a lot by collectively doing just a little bit more "green".
"One man's meat is another man's poison"
"It's hip to be square"
"YaddaYaddaYadda" |
| It's not un-hip to be green. It is un-hip to be | AK Ken
Jul 16, 2003 5:29 PM | | a condescending zealot no matter how righteous your cause.
Your posts (apparently under a variety of handles?) have the tone of a relatively young person, probably a student, who buys into the cause du jour of their current mentors.
You're posting on a board (especially Passion) that has a high percentage of adult professionals with education, life experience, and family priorities that probably surpass yours in every category.
It also seems that this is the only stuff you post--let's see some ride reports with positive content and photos. Maybe you'll build some credibility on a bike board, and thereby be able to influence people by example.
Ken
PS You're gonna hafta explain to me how 25 pounds of pollutants come from a gallon of gas that weighs 6.7 pounds. |
| huh? | wayneosdias
Jul 16, 2003 6:52 PM | | condescending zealot? i dont hear him calling anyone a "home owning sellout" who's too worried to about making a buck to care about the envirenment. wow howd you get so bitter?
your suggesting the guy should blow off his desire to keep the envirenment clean until he, a either gets some biking skills or, b grows up and gets a real job?
gotta tell ya, as a guy w/a family who owns his own practice, I applaud this "condescending zealot". I only seem to rember how bad pollution really is until i pull a diaper off the nose of my board after a duckdive. |
| huh? | AK Ken
Jul 16, 2003 9:32 PM | | I'm referencing his similar post on Passion, and an apparent long history of similar posts under a variety of handles over the last year or so for my 'condescending zealot' reference, not just this one relatively inocuous post. He wondered why his SUV bashing wasn't always well received; I offered a possible explanation.
What do diapers have to do with SUVs?
Leave the ducks alone!
Ken |
| diapers and SUVs | wayneosdias
Jul 17, 2003 10:12 AM | | So Cal is on its 19th day of worst air quality in 25 years, the culprit as reported by the EPA is the GRWOING trend of using SUVs as commuter cars.
last summer huntington beach was closed some 21+ days due to a potential hepititis outbreak due to fecal matter in the water.
so the diaper SUV parallel is this, in CA you cant ride your bike w/o breathing shit in the air from SUVs and you cant go surfing in the ocean w/o paddling thru shit from diapers.
wayne |
| Whew! I was afraid it was due to the roomy SUV | AK Ken
Jul 17, 2003 12:05 PM | | being conducive to pregnancy causing activities.
I visited LA in 1966 and remember my lungs burning BAD while riding a bicycle.
Good luck.
Ken |
| You own your own practice? | Spaz
Jul 17, 2003 9:34 AM | | Wow. I certainly hope your practice doesn't require much written correspondence.
Anyway, you should look up some of Choncy's (also know as Gipple, Gipple II, elppig) posts on the passion board where he was condescending to a large number of people.
The guy's a proven jerk when he's spouting his cause. He shows up for while, stirs in his anti-SUV and anti-SUV owners propaganda and never listens to any other arguments: transportation, shipping, older cars, etc. His argument is based entirely on ridding the world of the SUV.
-Spaz |
| yep | wayneosdias
Jul 17, 2003 10:17 AM | | Yep
and i dont liken patient care documentation to the written content of this board, maybe you shouldnt either.
wayne |
| I was wondering the same thing | kanaka
Jul 16, 2003 7:03 PM | | I too was wondering how you get 25 pounds out of a gallon of gas - even if you consider CO2 to be "global warming pollution". I consider CO2 to be "plant food".
I also highly doubt that replacing some 100,000,000 light bulbs (one per family in the US) would be the same as eliminating 7,500,000 cars. That means that one car causes the same pollution as 13.33 light bulbs. If those are 75 watt bulbs, that's a whopping one kilowatt. I don't know about you, but my car wouldn't go very fast on one Kw.
I think the "facts" in this case are made up to bewilder and amaze the ignorant masses, not to stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. |
| As a famous scientist once said... | Choncy
Jul 16, 2003 7:26 PM | | "its not currently a hip thing in America to care about how ones actions affect the environment and planet as a whole. This will change in the coming years as our oil and gas reserves dwindle, and our planet becomes more polluted. Until then, most people will continue to brush aside these real problems as they persue 'the American Dream'...no matter what the cost." |
| Green is to be naive | DMKIM
Jul 17, 2003 12:35 AM | | To be "Green" is to be stigmatized as unintelligent over emotional and guillable. Understanding how human actions affect the global environment is not so clear as the average person might think. Also, to be "Green" is somewhat a loaded word. What are we talking about here? Is it the atmosphere? Are we talking about the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming that could make the earth harsh place for all organisms? Is it the preservation of wildlife? Are we worried about protecting animal rights (philosphically) by preserving their habitats or are we concerned about nice places to visit for ouselves or both? Are we talking about some earth religion? Are we worried that the lack of forest will lend to global warming? There are a lot of topics that come to mind when one thinks of "Green". The general appearance of a Green Peacer is someone with a diffuse but deep conviction about something they (and some scientists) know little about.
There is deep debate in the scientific community over whether human fossil use is really significant at all to "global warming" and the "depletion of the ozone layer". Those with simplistic views of earth entering its human induced dotage are too sure without any reasonable demonstration. Scientists who too easily draw cause effect relations between recent correlations are also too hasty. Sure, it may be true that the earh is warming, but how can we show this to be attributable to human actions? The earth, has afterall, emerged from an ice age (and I don't think anyone will argue that this global warming was man made). A correlation may be suggestive, but hardly a cause, though specious causal relations are made by even so called "scientists". Now, I'm not an expert by any means, but I've read of scientific arguments challenging the premature fears of global demise. Carbon dioxide, for example, is in such natural abundance that the calculated human contribution is but miniscule (sorry I don't know the figures offhand). I've also heard that the earth undergoes seemingly cyclical changes in extreme global climate (i.e. ice ages and warm periods) cause by such things as the earths tilt or orbit. I emphasize that I don't know the details, but the point is, green people rarely seem to care about true scientific method in arriving at their limbically rooted conclusions but preach like theirs no tomorrow.
Sure, even if it we don't know, we can still be "better safe than sorry", but are people willing to sacrifice their quality of life and stifle human progress and is it worth it? Like any animal, humans just want to flourish and at the very least surive. Unlike most of our cohabitants, we have the facility to drastically affect our environment for our own good or bad. I don't know that this facility and consequent actions can be contained, as I think it's biological.
Their are risks and benefits to technology. Our technology that may negatively affect all of earth, ultimately give humans more power over their environment in cascade effect (how many revolutions have we had?). Perhaps we would not be in a position to even consider these concerns of environmental disaster and their potential solutions if we had not had pursued the technologies that would have caused them (the environmental issues, that is) in the first place. Perhaps the so called exploitation of the earth may lead us out of earth and into new frontiers. It may even give us the ability to escape global and even cosmic catastrophes (i.e. asteriods, natural disasters) that we would otherwise succumb to had we been blindly bowing to gaia. I think the benefits of technology are far better than the purported negative side effects, if we are agreed that preservation of humankind is foremost.
Now, I do think that we are paying a cost for technology to some extent, but in more localized way. For example, local pollution is probably not good for our health, but it's effect on our global atmosphere is dubious. AGain, these are costs to pay for overall human advancment; however, I do think that we are already entering the new technological shift away from "pollutants" (i.e. computer and information age). We may have just paid are dues, but then again, what new technology brings can be surprising.
Another aspect of green people that I have an issue with, is that some think of human technogology as "unnatural" because it is "bad" to something or other. That, I think is true arrogance. Nature is not always as we see fit. It can be described as what is called "destructive" in same way it is called "good" and "natural". Nature is what it is. We are a product of nature. Our computers are "natural", though with arrogance we think it's something novel in the universe. If we destroy ourselves, that is "natural", though it may not be desireable. Religous and emotional feelings try to make sense of nature for our comfort. Science simply trys to predict it. |
| Excellent response DMKIM , clear thinking w/less emotion n/m | kneecap
Jul 17, 2003 6:38 AM | | |
| No global warming here this morning..... | AK Ken
Jul 17, 2003 6:55 AM | | .jpg)
I'll do my penance for owning the SUV by not heating the house, okay?
Ken |
| Sad response kneecap, not thinking w/ emotion n/m | Locoman
Jul 17, 2003 8:43 AM | | . |
| Hey, that hurts my feelings | kneecap
Jul 18, 2003 7:17 AM | | I am an emotional guy. I just think a lot of people let emotion obstruct the logical thinking process. Nothing wrong with combining both, as long as "feelings" don't rule the day. Emotions/feelings seem to be more prevalent in the mtb comunity ,thankfully, & thats what bonds me to this sport. |
| Your Own Naivete is Showing | DCS
Jul 17, 2003 7:58 AM | | |
| Your Own Naivete is Showing | DCS
Jul 17, 2003 8:10 AM | | While much of what you say sounds superficially reasonable, it is founded on some false preconceptions. First, the amount of bona fide dispute in the scientific community about the impact of burning fossil fuels on global warming has dramatically declined over the past few years as data has accumulated. Fewer and fewer bona fide scientists dispute the connection between fossil fuel consumption and global warming. BTW, your discussion of human contributions to CO2 levels as being insignificant, given the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere, is simply incorrect and conclusory.
Second, as to drawing causal connections, your assertions are misleading and somewhat naive. Outside of small scale, self-contained laboratory experiments, which can be reproduced over and over again changing one variable at a time, it is virtually impossible to definitively prove a cause and effect relationship. Thus, the tobacco industry's long held contention that cigarette smoking did not cause lung cancer or emphysema. It is true, even today, that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer has not been definitively proven as a scientific matter. However, the statistical evidence and understanding of the underlying processes at work make the point pretty much indisputable. The same is true of the link between global warming and fossil fuels.
Third, while some environmental zealots may not be scientifically sophisticated and may perhaps be over-emotional, those faults do not discredit the underlying and real merits and scientific validity of many environmental causes. |
| No, it's my "agnosticism" | DMKIM
Jul 18, 2003 12:03 AM | | I will admit I am not at all up to date with the latest research, and as such I can't really justify my "feelings" either way; however, Greeners (represented by liberal celebrities and like) are rather passionate in contradictory fashion about "in progress" research. Media has a way of simplying true research that makes irresistble to certain folks. (A side note about media: Everyone thinks fat is a killer. "Junkfood" is seen as something different from "health" food. A snickers is lesser a comestible than an apple, so the the public thinks. Fatty food, salty, sugary, and other tasty foods are seen as direct causes of heart disease, type II diabetes, etc. In reality, obesity is the main cause of coronary diseases. A fat vegan is likely unhealthier than a fit burger muncher given all else equal (i.e. negating genetics). Obese people's hearts have to work harder, they have higher blood lipids due to constant conversion of excess fuel into fat, etc. A normal person having indulged in a greasy meal will have a momentary rise in chylomicrons resulting in milky blood, but fat people will be chronically subjected high blood fat levels. You see, humans like tasty things because it gives us the best bang for our buck, and so we are programmed to eat and eat. The result is we get fat, and then we get health problems. FAt by itself is not a the grim reaper. It's the natural survival instincts in world of plenty (USA) that is the problem. But of course, ask anyone on the street what is healthier, they'll choose an apple over a snickers anyday.)
Sure, statistical evidence is readily accepted. AGain, I'm no expert, but I refrain from being so passionate if I cannot support my beliefs. I'm sorry I could not remember the figures, but could you point me some scientific literature which supports your claims? I am open.
I don't doubt there are true scientists who can support their claims (either for or against) in true disinterested fashion, but that's not my comment. I was commenting about why Greeners may be perceived negatively. If they were calmer and more disinterested, they would be perceived differently. Green is not a good word, it just brings to many wacky images to mind. I can't help thinking they are all vegans bankrupt philosophies and religions. I then start thinking about liberals, which is another loaded word. |
| complete babble | air_jeffro
Jul 17, 2003 8:31 AM | | no scientific basis. Do you think there is some benefit to pollution? what, like asthma? |
| complete babble | DMKIM
Jul 18, 2003 12:28 AM | | Pollution is bad. Was the industrial revolution beneficial or not to you?
You are right, I have no first hand scientific basis, but only know what I've heard in class or having talked to folks and what I can learn myself if I get the energy to do so. I guess I have bias for calm and reasonable and disinteresed arguments. |
| regurgitated babble.. as I suspected | air_jeffro
Jul 18, 2003 5:52 AM | | We can have an industrial revolution and clean air. We can also rid ourselves of foreign petroleum dependance, one of biggest problems in the US in my opinion. All without giving up cars! Ask your professor how. I'll bet he won't have any solid answers for you. At least, that was my experience with history professors. They have close to zero scientific background.
If we all took your (or your professor's) stance nothing would ever change. Perhaps, seek more knowledge in the advancement of technolgy and you'll see that its out there. The majority of people that don't believe there is any benefit or don't believe there is any credibility to reports of negative impacts on the environment aren't demanding the technology. That leaves the environmentally conscious minority completely puzzled as to what has to be done to prove it to the majority. The majority doesn't seem to even acknowledge any impact to health, even though medical journals show statistics about the rise of asthma and other respiratory ailments in polluted cities. How can changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere be a good thing? I get the impression that you feel that pollution doesn't impact you directly, so you're really not convinced that there's any truth to it. That's the impression I get from most people in the U.S. |
| to disabuse... | DMKIM
Jul 19, 2003 12:05 AM | | I don't disagree with most of what you say, though I'm taken aback by your fervor. My initial post an attempt to answer why I think "it's unhip to green", not that there is anything wrong with the true approach to protecting our environment through clearly thought approaches. To be green is like labeling oneself as a "liberal" or some other word that is heavily stigmatized, over generalized, and misunderstood. There are a lot of negative connotations out there. I've known many people who care about the enviroment (as most sane people would), but they would refrain from calling themselves "green". So forgive me If I responded diffusely to generally to a overused, overloaded, and generalized term.
I would disagree about your suggestion the majority of people aren't convinced that the environemental issues are real. I would daresay many blindly accept media hype and political correctness, but simply don't care or are unwilling to follow through with their media fed "beliefs". Most people I know "believes" that the environment is in great danger, but little know why. I too little know why, and so am cautious but concerned. I just can't stand the oversimplified research findings spread by media, and as such I am always skeptical or jaded. I think I may have given an example of media hype in another reply. What do you think is healthier, an apple or a snickers? |
| "sacrifice their quality of life and stifle human progress"..ba! | Locoman
Jul 17, 2003 8:35 AM | | Environmentally sound principals don't necessarily call for sacrifice, change maybe, but not necessarily sacrifice. You insinuate that quality of life and human progress means you give the green light (no pun intended) to industries with the most power and strongest lobbyist, that is -keep with the status quo.
There truly is such thing as environmentally sound and economically viable practices. I can come up with plenty of examples if you'd like.. covering everything from food to energy production.
Your argument makes it sound like everything is done for the best reasons and that there's no other model that would be more appropriate.
And the fact that you think pollution is just a localized event shows that you haven't done your homework.
I agree with you that technology is not unnatural. But there are extremely different ways in which technology can be used to meet the same goal. And just because a goal is met through a current process does not mean that it is the best process.
You don't sound like a stupid person, but definitely ignorant. |
| complete babble | air_jeffro
Jul 17, 2003 8:37 AM | | no scientific basis. Do you think there is some benefit to pollution? what, like asthma? |
| the 26 lbs came from | heatstroke
Jul 17, 2003 9:33 AM | | Thinking about your 26lbs of pollutants from 6.7 lbs of gas. Comes from combustion. Hydrocarbons are C(n)H(2n+2). C has a MW of 14 (or is it 12 - I cant remember). So most of the 6.7 lbs of gas is carbon. Convert that to C02, and you pratically triple the weight with the addition of O2 (16x2 = 32)
If I am not mistaken. |
| the 26 lbs came from | george_da_trog
Jul 17, 2003 1:47 PM | | But some of that O2 is getting with the H to make water. So not all that O is going to polution. More that CO2 and H2O is coming out of the tail pipe so this is really over simplified, but I'd like to know how they come up with their numbers too.
OH, don't for get the CO (carbon monoxide), but you still need to do something with the H.
george |
| but... | heatstroke
Jul 17, 2003 7:07 PM | | The by products are mostly H2O and Co2. The 26lbs quoted is almost purely C02, the rest H20 is not included in that number. Fuel is mostly in the C10 range, so 22H to the 10 C. Hence the gal of gas weighing 6.7 lbs would combine with 02 generating something like 26 lbs CO2 and about the same in H20. |
| oops.... | heatstroke
Jul 17, 2003 7:44 PM | | Sorry, I mean about 1/2 the weight in H20 |
| Hipness is not the problem. | mbiggy
Jul 16, 2003 7:20 PM | | It's not about being cool.
it's about people being Lazy.
do bypass and ignore the green aspect is efficient and requires less energy to just ignore. The short term benefits are too great, and the energy needed to go green is way too high. Our society so completely based on efficiency and time budgeting simply does not foster a green movement simply because people either dont have the time, or couldnt be bothered to make it. |
| Yep, exactly... | Choncy
Jul 16, 2003 7:30 PM | | Most people are too busy with the daily grind to give a damn about the environment. Ya know, cuz they have to work to pay off the big house, 2 SUV's sitting in the driveway, ski boat, and so on. America is all about more more more and bigger is better. Caring about the environment is for the wackos. |
| Gwyneth & Cameron; my enviro-fantasies have finally come true! | I'm Going Hungry
Jul 16, 2003 8:47 PM | | ok that was off topic and immature but true none the less. |
| Been fighting that for years; finally think I've got the answer | Sporty car racer
Jul 16, 2003 9:41 PM | | I'm an ex-sports car racer, automotive writer AND a Sierra Club member, and I've been running into that wall for years. I've finally decided the problem is that people are selfish, short-sighted and generally not all that smart. We all know that SOMEDAY we'll run out of clean water, clean air and petroleum, but nobody thinks it will happen soon enough to affect them. If you look at polls, 70 percent or so of people say they're concerned about the environment--but then they go and elect (well, almost) a complete wack-job like George Bush, who made Texas the dirtiest state in the union and has kept up the fine work as president. People are more worried about where their next paycheck is coming from than about what their children will drink in 30 years. Mountain bikers are no different--we say we want clean, pretty places to ride, but overwhelmingly, we'll oppose any steps to protect wilderness if it means we might not be able to ride anywhere we want. Morons, all of us. |
| Been fighting that for years; finally think I've got the answer | Scavenger
Jul 17, 2003 7:29 AM | | What makes you so enlightened and smart to call everyone else a dumbass?
This post is nothing but an emotional piece of trash with every green generalization made. |
| Huh?? | RobW
Jul 17, 2003 3:14 AM | | - The average driver releases 25 pounds of global warming pollution for every gallon of gas used--if you drive a car that gets 35 mpg, you'll create
40% less global warming pollution than the average driver.
Where the hell did these numbers come from? Gasoline weighs less than water, and water weighs about 8 lbs./gallon. So lets say gas weighs 6 pounds per gallon just for this example. What G+C are telling me is that my gas combines with 19 pounds of air, and the total 26 pounds of emission is all pollution? Come on, if someones going to lecture me about environmental responsibility I don't want it to be a person with multiple 6000+ sq. ft. central air homes, multiple cars, jet setting, environmentally irresponsible, yada, yada,yada, hypocrites. Not unhip to care about the environment, but make sure your impacting it less than the people you are preaching to. |
| Makes as much sense as | I'm Going Hungry
Jul 17, 2003 6:57 AM | | a long line of recent presidents being multimillionares from birth but preaching and trying their best to fit in with the "common" man |
| SUVs....... | JohnDuh
Jul 17, 2003 6:05 AM | | Welp, I love it when someone makes a generalization. I am a single, white male with no kids. I own a newer 4x4 SUV. Why do I own it?
A. To tow my boat
B. To haul camping gear and get to places off road
C. So I can carry my bikes inside the vehicle, thus creating less drag and better gas mileage.
D. To get through the 2 feet of snow that is on the roads daily 4 months out of the year.
So next time you want to bag on single people and their SUV's, try an easier target: Commercial Vehicles... then have no regulation. Or limo's since they get even worst mileage and frequently carry the famous whom love to make the above generalizations.
If you want a cleaner environment, press the government. Fuel Cells are the future and without government pressure, automakers will never do it. |
| SUVs....... | RobW
Jul 17, 2003 6:41 AM | | I'm not trying to flame you, just wanna make a point. When you talk about pressing the gov't for alternatives to oil, are you talking about the same Bush administration that lied to the whole world so oil companies could have access to another source of oil paid for by the US taxpayers and the lives of some of our boys in service? Geez, I remember when Clinton lied about an extramarital affair - they tried to impeach him. Where is the outrage now? |
| He said it was because of the threat of nukes and WMD... | hedgehog
Jul 17, 2003 9:58 AM | | nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD nukes and WMD.
Just keep repeating it over and over and eventually it will be accepted as fact (at least that's what the Bush administration thinks/hopes).
Oil, Halberton and tricky Dick Cheney had nothing to do with it.
Oil, Halberton and tricky Dick Cheney had nothing to do with it.
Oil, Halberton and tricky Dick Cheney had nothing to do with it.
Oil, Halberton and tricky Dick Cheney had nothing to do with it.
Oil, Halberton and tricky Dick Cheney had nothing to do with it. |
| He said it was because of the threat of nukes and WMD... | RobW
Jul 17, 2003 10:02 AM | | Wow...I...have...heard...it...so...much...I...almost...believe...
(the whistle in downtown Stepford blows, interupting his sentence and reminding him to take his pill.) |
| Yeah, limos, good point. What about Winnebagos? | kanaka
Jul 17, 2003 7:01 AM | | If you want to be consistent, there are a lot of other vehicles to whine about besides SUV's. Motor homes, custom vans, excessively large work trucks. What about police cars? They get terrible mileage. |
| Don't forget sports cars, luxury sedans, even mini vans... | fonseca
Jul 17, 2003 12:14 PM | | ...often get worse mileage than many SUVs. To target SUVs alone is simply moronic. And how about the huge 18 wheelers clogging the interstates, that don't have to meet the same pollution standards? |
| SUVs....... | air_jeffro
Jul 17, 2003 7:03 AM | | You could add recreational equipment, such as wave-runners which emit more pollutants per gallon of fuel used(typically 300 times??? although, honda's wave-runner might be cleaner).
Roughly 50% of all pollutants in the atmosphere are transportation internal combustion related, 80% of those pollutants from I.C. engines originate from 5% of the vehicles on the road - those without catalyst or old technology diesel. So I think a good first step would be to clean up the off-highway vehicles/engines that aren't regulated as strictly and get rid of the polluting $hitboxes you see on the road. As far as a new (gasoline burning) SUV goes, your burning much cleaner than any of the old cars and trucks. Despite being cleaner burning, I still can't understand how anybody without a serious need could justify a large SUV that gets 15 mpg. I believe that is socially irresponsible.
By the way, the government can push for Fuel Cells but ultimately the consumer has the power to make the choice to buy the more expensive, cleaner fuel cell or opt with the cheaper gas vehicle. Pay now or pay later.
Jeff |
| The thing is | RobW
Jul 17, 2003 7:09 AM | | Oil money is the biggest money in the world. If you think this bunch of gangsters is gonna give up their meal ticket without a major fight, you got another thing coming! I really do believe there are viable alternatives to powering our personal transportation with petroleum, I just think they've been co-opted. Read about what happened to innovators like Tucker or Tesla... |
| I agree... | air_jeffro
Jul 17, 2003 7:24 AM | | I hope all of the hype about fuel cells keeps the interest of the public. With enough interest, I believe this could be very succesful. However, I still would expect some sort of a gasoline utilizing fuel cell system. Instead of compressed hydrogen you could strip hydrogen from gasoline using another system. To me that defeats a major part of the fuel cell capability. It may still emit CO2 and H20 but it uses a resource that we've become enslaved by. Heck, another alternative is to take over all of the countries that produce oil but that's a whole different subject. Wouldn't that be just be 'darn great'? Let's hope that the greed of a select group doesn't get in the way of technology that will benefit the environment. |
| Conservation and environmental awareness is good, but.... | Jaybo
Jul 17, 2003 9:44 AM | | individuals that are so freaking self-righteous and imposing of their values are a pain. For example, we have a group in Oregon who believes everyone should be riding bikes (and thinks cars are evil). Screw 'em! Just because they work at some coffee shop or other crappy job doesn't mean I should give up my lifestyle to live their ways. Screw 'em! I think they should cut their hair, take a bath, and get a life.
Jaybo |
| I can't figure out how...maths help ? | heatstroke
Jul 17, 2003 9:50 AM | | I can't figure out how the lightbulb replacement equates to 7.5 million cars. Let me play out some numbers here
Assume 100 million families.
Assume 100 watts replaced by 20 watt
So a saving of 80 watts
So total wattage saved = 8e9 (or 1.23E7 HP)
Under nomal running a car is generating 50 hP ?
1.23e7HP is equavilent to 246,153 cars
But the bulbs run 8hrs/day versus 1hr/day for the car
So that brings it up to 1.969E6 Cars
Well I suppose if you assume powergeneration efficiency is 80% versus 25% for a car. That could bring it up nearer the 7.5million mark.
Anyone else tried to figure out the numbers ? |
| I can't figure out how...maths help ? | kanaka
Jul 18, 2003 10:35 AM | | You are correct that automobile efficiency is around 25%. Power generation efficiency is less than 80%. GE just broke the magical 60% barrier a few years ago with their new H series turbines. 0lder turbines are less efficient - somewhere in the 50's. Then you've got the losses from transmission - I can't remember exactly what it is. But you are right, it is still a lot more efficient than cars. |
| You're going to clobbered in here, too, Gipple. | Spaz
Jul 17, 2003 9:55 AM | | Allow me to repost this for you:
"My Jeep Cherokee is used for hauling a bunch of stuff around as I need it (bikes included). Do I use it for grocery runs? No, it spends a lot of time in the garage. I have a Saturn for the every day stuff, unless my wife needs the Saturn. In fact, she and I carpool to work every day with the Saturn.
Do I feel safer in the Jeep than in the Saturn? Not really. The advantage the Jeep has over the Saturn is the engine has more power for hill-climbing and passing.
As soon as Jeep releases the Commander 2 (dual electric motors with a fuel cell battery pack) to the public, I'd be more than happy to trade my Cherokee in for one. Or, there's also the Liberty Hybrid with a gas-electric motor. Again, when one of these are available to the public, I'll take it.
By the way, while it certainly isn't as good as many cars, the Jeep gets an average of 22-23 miles to the gallon with the type of driving I use it for. The Saturn? 33-36 mpg. Not bad for either, in my book.
Here's what I'm adding today:
I do plan to start doing actual off-roading (like the Rubicon, etc.) Should I take my Saturn up there to do that? I think that would be a great idea!!
What's your beef with the SUV? Don't have the money to afford one? If you want to talk gas consumption, let me know."
I'll give you some numbers from http://www.fueleconomy.gov
2003 Toyota Sienna
19-24 MPG
9.0 tons of Greenhouse Gases
2003 Ford Mustang
17-23 MPG
9.7 tons of Greenhouse Gases
2003 Jeep Liberty 4x4
17-21 MPG
10.0 tons of Greenhouse Gases
2003 Honda Accord
21-30 MPG
7.8 tons of Greenhouse Gases
All four of these vehicles have the largest available engine with automatic transmission. That Ford Mustang doesn't have that much better fuel consumption than the Jeep Liberty, now does it? And what about those greenhouse gases? That Toyota Sienna isn't that far off from the Liberty, too.
Here's something for you to remember: not all vehicles are available in all parts of the US. The Honda Accord has a very eco-friendly version that is only available on the western and eastern seaboards.
So, while your cause is noble, your approach and your research to date is lacking.
-Spaz |
| so that is where 90billion lbs came from | heatstroke
Jul 17, 2003 10:05 AM | | Average car 25 miles/gal
Average commuter = 15000miles/year
Averager yearly consumption = 600gallons
1 gal of fuel generates 26 lbs co2
so 600 gals = 15600 lbs
so the 7.5 million cars equates to over 100 billion lbs of CO2.
I thought the numbers were total rubbish when I first saw them. But they do add up. |
| |
