Gas at $3.25,will affect attendance

bholcomb said:
People shouldn't be told they can't drive what they want to drive or what is practical to them.

No - people shouldn't need to be told what to drive. Even if global warming doesn't exist, we still face rising oil costs and dependence on imported fossil energy.

I just can't see any reason to spend trillions of dollars on 'fixing' a problem that may or may not even exist.

Claiming that it costs trillions of dollars to 'fix' this is both inaccurate and irrelevant. We're talking about minor changes at the individual level, combined with some intelligent legislation. And, if we're willing to spend trillions on a war, then why are we so reluctant to spend an equal amount of money on something productive?

bholcomb said:

"Science" (and media) isn't always right.

Yeah, and they're not always wrong, either. Do you have a point?

EDITED to delete double-post.
*** Edited 5/24/2007 7:49:50 PM UTC by djDaemon***

The government doesn't have any problem telling people what they can and can't do. You used to be able to smoke inside. Now you can't. What's to say they won't outlaw cars that produce "X" number of hydrocarbons? I don't see that as totally outside the realm of possibilities.

If I'm not mistaken, Ohio still has E-Check. If your car can't be "clean enough", you can't get a license for it. (That is unless it is a historic vehicle.) All the government has to do is raise those standards so more cars fail and can't be driven anymore. I'm pretty sure California does the same thing.

It all comes down to money really. The car manufacturers are pressuring the government to be more lenient on emissions. They claim if they have to make cleaner cars, they'll go out of business - or at least loose billions of dollars. They said the same thing about seat belts, airbags, third brake lights and crash testing. But, look at all those examples. The government has said you HAVE to have those things if you want to make a car. I'm sure there were people back in the day that said they'd never buy a car with airbags too. But, they have them now.

Again, until someone forces people to go green they won't. The easiest way to "force" people to do that is by making it cost more to be non-green. Then people will think they're deciding to be good to the environment on their own.

bholcomb said:
Forcing everyone else to be like you sounds a lot like facism...

Um, where is anyone suggesting forcing anything? That's not even part of the argument.

Read the stats from the DOT: The majority of people driving SUV's are doing so without passengers and not hauling anything, the majority of the time. Those are the facts.

Maybe it's because im not a self-hating 'progressive' who thinks everything is his fault and must blame himself. Give me a break.

Again, a distractionary tactic that has nothing to do with the issue. Who are you implying is a "self-hating progressive?" You're the one labeling, not me.

I just can't see any reason to spend trillions of dollars on 'fixing' a problem that may or may not even exist. It seems as foolish to me as religion seems to you. For some people, extreme environmentalism IS their religion (I worked with a bunch of kooks that were like that too).

It's not extreme. Furthermore, as I've said countless, times, there is endless financial opportunity in green tech.

Besides, whatever happened to that Ozone hole? I never hear about that anymore. It makes me sad. That was going to be the next biggest crisis!!!1111oneoneone OMG!!1111

Well if you were paying attention, you'd know that we've slowed, perhaps reversed the problem, by not using CFC's anymore.

Tim actually makes a good point (wow it's cold down there ;)), in that driving is not, and never had been a right. You need a license, and you can have it revoked. You need to have your car inspected in many places. California and a number of states are pushing for tougher emissions standards. Bravo to them.

Like I said, show me the science. Responding with "it's indefensible science," when it has been peer reviewed, journaled, published and spread throughout the world, is just plain insulting to my intelligence.

I would expect nothing less.

Interesting enough, I just gave a 20 minute speil on my research to the faculty (which has nothing to do with this by the way), and I mentioned this discussion, and it started an argument that to my knowledge is still going on down the hall.

:)

I dont know where he got that snippet, it was just sent via email.

Apparntly the link did not work before; so I will try again (and apologies as I have no more time to devote to this right now)...I dont know if this will work as it was sent via an atmospheric research database in the university.

link
*** Edited 5/24/2007 8:40:29 PM UTC by Kevinj*** *** Edited 5/24/2007 11:08:22 PM UTC by Jeff***

Jeff said:
The emotional issue I have is that too few people give a damn, and that eventually comes at the expense of everyone, whether we like it or not.

People do give a damn, but not for the morally good reason. Our overdemand for crude oil products drives their price up for which Americans complain. I'm for higher taxes on gasoline. Yes, it costs more money per gallon, but it also has the side effect of putting less money in the middle east's pockets.

Consumers will also send the signal to auto manufacturers that they want more fuel efficient options. The auto manufacuturers should be pushing the currently existing technology onto the market harder than they are. Simply put, fuel cells should already be in mass production, but there isn't the derived demand strong enough for them yet. If you think $4/gal is ridiculous, wait until you pay double that for gasoline.

We don't solution to eliminate petroleum use. We need to increase efficiency, and provide alternate energy sources. Cars that can run E85 aren't an all solution, but they will help as the prices go through the roof. Hybrids are another partial solution with lower fuel use and tax incentives. Fuel cells could play a large roll in reducing petrolum use when they hit the mass market. Electric cars are the comedy option, but play a roll for local use.

In the investment world, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" is preached. I think it can be applied to our fuel consumptions to not use just gasoline and diesel. I think the market should be opened up to larger production of the different solutions. Especially multiple fuel autos such as cars that can run ethanol/gasoline/E10/E85, fuel cells that can used different fuels, Hybrids which can use any of the above with electric in different forms including those which plug in and other types too. Basically having cars run on different fuels for different people's needs.

There are more to hybrids than Toyota's Synergy Drive. They got their foot in the door early and are getting the worm. There are many other hybrid types that are useable including other fuel sources or those that have the option of being plugged in. It would be nice to have a hybrid that can run just on electricity for shorter runs for example 50 miles or less. When going on trips, it could get 400 mile range between fillups like simular cars. For example, an overestamate for the cost of electricity assuming your paying the highest price in the country of the same energy of a gallon of gasoline is $3.34. More likely your going to be paying less than that. Also, the energy transfer from the plug to the shaft on the motor is better than an internal combustion motor giving more milage for the energy.

What wasn't practical at all 5 years ago is quickly becoming practical. If you have a hybrid with plug in capability, you don't have to plug it in when gasoline or E85 prices are low. You can plug it in when the prices goes sky high to save.

What all of this does is makes gasoline prices more elastic and will force the prices down.

Since this thread has veered so far off of gas affecting attendance, I wanted to bring up something else too.

Why aren't large companies and the like going more green? Like in Florida, why aren't more people using solar - on a large scale? You could easily clad half a skyscraper in solar panels and power more than just that building. In windy areas, why aren't more people installing wind farms?

It seems like changes have more effect in large scale applications. So, why aren't cities, big companies and the government investing in alternative energies?

My guess is because it's expensive and oil is cheap/easy to get right now.

Forcing people to go green can only work if the car companies are made to do the same thing. If they're not willing to put out more than one or two models a year, and make them widely available, then who's going to buy into it?

Force the hand of the car companies, and once they're green, I gurantee that it'll be a simple matter to "force" people to go green too.

On a sidenote: there is no "ozone layer" as by the definition of a layer in our atmosphere. So please don't say that there's a hole in a non-existent layer of our atmosphere. Pay more attention to your science next time.
*** Edited 5/24/2007 9:47:38 PM UTC by mk522***

Loopy said:If you choose to have a car payment, Coastern3rd, that's fine, it's your choice. Don't try and tell me what I need to do.

Calm down there tight pants. Don't take a suggestion as someone telling you what to do.

Mk522. Our hands are already being forced. They want us to increase our CAFE standards by 25% Almost as much as what Toyota lost in the change from earlier EPA calculations in Fuel Economy.

The city bussing company in Grand Rapids recently bought a biodiesel bus that is more fuel efficient and puts out less emissions for the fuel burned. In fact, I seen that bus today. It runs something like 14 hours a day 7 days a week. It won't have a big impact in any regards but it is a step in the right direction.

Read the stats from the DOT: The majority of people driving SUV's are doing so without passengers and not hauling anything, the majority of the time. Those are the facts.

The same can be said for drivers of Hybrids. what good does that do?

Coastern3rd said:

Loopy said:If you choose to have a car payment, Coastern3rd, that's fine, it's your choice. Don't try and tell me what I need to do.

Calm down there tight pants. Don't take a suggestion as someone telling you what to do.

First off, there wasn't any excitement in that post.

Secondly...

Coastern3rd said:
Loopy. Bite the bullet and take a car payment.

That's as far from a polite suggestion as I think I've ever seen. Get real man.

Kevinj said:
link

That's not a scientific paper. There is no science in there at all. It's political, without an ounce of peer-review, published science. Try again.

halltd said:
Why aren't large companies and the like going more green? Like in Florida, why aren't more people using solar - on a large scale? You could easily clad half a skyscraper in solar panels and power more than just that building. In windy areas, why aren't more people installing wind farms?

It seems like changes have more effect in large scale applications. So, why aren't cities, big companies and the government investing in alternative energies?

My guess is because it's expensive and oil is cheap/easy to get right now.

You're partially right. A lot of the alternative energy tech right now is certainly not less expensive, mostly because they just can't reach the economy of scale. Solar is an interesting example though, because it's certainly getting there. Every other month you read something in Wired about a company getting closer. That's what I mean about the opportunities... the company that gets there first stands to make a boat load of money.

mk522 said:
On a sidenote: there is no "ozone layer" as by the definition of a layer in our atmosphere. So please don't say that there's a hole in a non-existent layer of our atmosphere. Pay more attention to your science next time.

Oh, come on. What are you trying to prove? A portion of the stratosphere has relatively high concentrations of ozone that filter UV light, which keeps it off Antarctica.

^^I never said it was polite. Calm your self down. That was not a suggestion.

Get yourself some grammar lessons. That IS a suggestion.

I really don't care if I look "cool" as you say. Rather it's done to bring out the true dope smoking car salesman you really are.

*** Edited 5/25/2007 1:32:24 AM UTC by Loopy***

That's not a scientific paper. There is no science in there at all. It's political, without an ounce of peer-review, published science. Try again.

[url][url]

I know. And I doubt anyone took the time to read it, but that's fair. In hindsight it was a bit hypocrytical of me. That said...I guess I'll start here;

The link is to one (of many) peer-reviewed articles (yes, I actually do know what that means) :)

If this wets your appetite, I got a pocket full o' empirical studies as well.

The reason I am starting with this one, Jeff, is that it lead to over 17,000 scientists (yes, scientists) to sign a current circulating petition.

Something tells me that you may be the only one who actually reads it, though, but here it is anyway...a nice "starter", if you will.

I expect a full critical analysis of the research method, by the way ;)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm"]http://http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

And this is just one, with plenty more if you actually are interested, I was given a lit review of pertinent literature on the topic.

I thought I would add a second, just in case you get bored.

Again, a review of the pertinent literature;

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf"]http://http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf

*** Edited 5/25/2007 1:35:57 AM UTC by Kevinj***

In response to the first link posted by KevinJ: I quit reading the article immediately after reading the phrase "impending ice age". Using that to show the infalibility of the science of climate change is senseless considering we are possibly still on the verge of an "ice age". A global warming leads to melting of sea ice, inturn leading to an decrease of the salinity of our ocean, slowing the ocean current. With a slowed ocean current, temperate air is not recirrculated to the higher lattitudes, which, according to hypothesis, would lead to an "ice age". Adding to this process is the increased amount of carbon that the ocean now has to sequester. Regardless of where the carbon is coming from, the end game of global warming is likely to be an ice age.

The flaw in the first linked article is that it (conveniently) uses a small sample of time and data to "disprove" the going theory about the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the average temperature. The irony is that it points out the increase in both over the last several decades and says that's not enough to identify a trend. No, but the 400,000 years of data generally accepted as valid from the Antarctic ice cores is good enough for me. Let's face it, the comparison of these two metrics before and after the industrial revolution is conclusive enough for me.

The second article goes a long way just to say that the data is presented in a dishonest way and that scientists are being pressured into some kind of outcome. Are you kidding me? Again, that's not science, that's politics. Arguing the semantics of what's conclusive enough is not science.

If human history has made anything obvious, it's that we affect our environment. You don't need a PhD to see that.

I do believe we as humans affect our environment. And I do care. I'm the first to go back & turn off multiple rooms lights & heaters on my floor. I used cloth diapers for much of my boys early years. We don't use central AC.

But I don't understand why only those of us with not very fuel efficient vehicles are the target of all the global woes. Is everyone that is on the side of this view really doing all they can in all the other areas of their lives to be able to be throwing stones at others? Using only solar energy, no AC, walking or bike riding unless they travel very far, vegans,...etc, etc.?

I find it hard to believe that there isn't a few glass houses out there.
*** Edited 5/25/2007 3:33:36 AM UTC by Good Grief...***

I must've missed something, but how is being a vegan good on the environment?