Gas at $3.25,will affect attendance

Couldn't you directly relate the solar usage at Cedar Point to average people's use of hybrid cars which we went over earlier in the thread?

It's not cheap up front to buy a hybrid vehicle, so people don't. However, the hybrid vehicle is better on the environment and probably saves money in the long run on fuel. People got all over Loopy's case because he wasn't going the extra mile to be "green".

In the same instance, it would cost money to install a solar "farm" at Cedar Point. However, they would lessen their dependence on fossil fuels to power the park and would most likely end up saving money in the long run.

So, shouldn't all the "green people" on here be all over CP's case for not doing everything they can to tread lightly on the planet?

I really think the people who should be implementing such technology are large places like Cedar Point. They consume a TON of energy and also have the money to purchase the technology. It seems "easier" for them be friendlier to the environment than the average Joe. Sure, every little bit counts, but if you start with the big guys, the little ones will follow.

You know, I'm no hippie, but if Cedar Point grabbed a couple of diesel generators that were equipped for bio-diesel, they *could* recycle all of their used up oil from the fryers, and at least power a couple of food stands or something.

They're always about the latest in technology, and that would be something pretty sweet to show off, if you ask me.

Apples and lock washers, Tim.

No one was going after Loopy for not buying a hybrid. Loopy is going out of his way, essentially, to buy a vehicle that gets very poor gas mileage, in order to tow a trailer he doesn't even own yet, and may never own. He wants a huge SUV, when he could get by with a much more economical minivan or crossover.

CP isn't going out of their way to use more energy than they need. Its really as simple as that.

I don't think he's going out of his way to be mean to the environment. He's just not doing everything he can to be friendly - because it's not cost effective to do so.

I could easily say CP is going out of their way to over consume. Did Maverick need to have two electric launches? Does CP need electric launched coasters at all? Do they need to illuminate all the coasters to make them "pretty"? Do they need 17 coasters? Also, how much energy does it take to manufacture all that steel used to fabricate the coasters from?

If you really look at how much they consume, it's a LOT. They shouldn't be excluded from being green anymore than any of us should be.

Disney is a fine example. They just converted all the locomotives at Disneyland to BioDiesel. This saves them 150,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year and eliminates carbon dioxide emissions by up to 80 percent. Did they HAVE to do that? No. Did they want to, yes. Why? Because it probably saved them money.

If you want to go that route, then CP is not to blame at all - it all comes back to us. Without customers, they wouldn't exist. Without people riding their electrically-powered coasters, they wouldn't exist, much the same as if people weren't buying Escalades, they wouldn't exist.

Loopy wants a vehicle that can tow 4 of his trailers, at the expense of fuel economy. That's anything but cost effective, and about as far as one can get from doing what he can to be friendly.

It doesn't fall on the consumer. If Escalades were never made, no one would ever buy one. If CP didn't put in overly consumptive coasters, we wouldn't ride them. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Loopy is consuming something that is available to him. If it wasn't available, he wouldn't consume it. Blame the manufacturers first, then the consumers. They're the ones that decide to build the SUV or coaster in the first place.

I don't remember a petition going around that said the public wanted CP to put in launched coasters that suck up as much power as a small town users. :) (I'm exaggerating there by the way.)

What the hell are you talking about?!? This is a capitalist society, and as such, demand (the cart) dictates supply (the horse). There is demand for a huge SUV/supersized Big Mac meal/LSM coaster/etc, so those things are supplied to us, because someone can make a profit there.

So you're ok with that, but you're not ok with Loopy buying said product? That makes even less sense. What you're suggesting is to allow all these companies to build massive SUVs, but you don't want anyone to buy them. So, you'll end up with all these brand new SUVs just sitting around and eventually end up in landfills.

Oh yes, I see it now. That makes a TON more sense.

You can't demand something that's not allowed to be supplied.

I'm nearly at a loss...

Yes, I am OK with a company making any product that it is legal to make, because no company will make a product that doesn't have demand. Have you ever seen a submersible fire extinguisher? No, because there isn't a demand for that.

Yes, I am OK with a capitalist society.

The 'points' you're making are completely irrelevant.

djDaemon said:
I'm nearly at a loss...

After only one page of post tag with Tim? ;)

And that should say a lot - I almost always have something to say. :)

(in case that wasn't obvious)

I'm not trying to prove anything Jeff, besides the fact, and if you'd like I'll put up the proof, that there is no ozone layer. Yes there are high concentrations of ozone, but theres no "hole in the ozone layer" it just doesn't exist.

But your argument just doesn't make sense. You're ripping on people for buying products that aren't good for the environment. But, you're completely ignoring the true root of the problem - the existence of that product in the first place. If you don't think anyone should buy said product, why would you think it's a good idea to even MAKE the product in the first place?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. We've been through the same arguments about smoking. Just because it WAS legal, doesn't mean it's healthy and/or a good idea.

If your argument is companies should be able to make whatever they want to because they can make money by doing so, all of your arguments about non-efficients cars just goes out the window. If companies should be allowed to make money by producing whatever they want, consumers should be allowed to save money by buying whatever they want. In that model, there's no responsibility on anyone's part - and that was your issue in the beginning.

I think the manufacturers should have more responsibility than the consumers because by economies of scale, they cause more problems with the environment than anyone.

The problem with your argument is, as I've pointed out, that we live in a capitalist society. I don't think its good that companies make vehicles like the H2, or the Navigator, and I sincerely wish they wouldn't. That has nothing at all to do with the situation we're talking about - you're derailing the argument.

If companies should be allowed to make money by producing whatever they want, consumers should be allowed to save money by buying whatever they want.

How does driving a 6,000lb vehicle that gets 15mpg save money? He could get a vehicle that does what he needs now (tows a pop-up, and seats 8), and gets at least 25% better fuel economy, and he could get a vehicle from the same model year for less than the Tahoe! Look at that - I've just managed to save him $2,000 of the top, and 25% of his fuel cost for the next 5 years, or however long he decides to keep the vehicle. Anecdotal? Yes. True? Absolutely.

So, spare me the money-saving BS. Its not about saving money, and never was. Its about image. Its about insecurity. Its about greed.

Did you find him this vehicle? Which one and how much?

If it was about image, I'm sure he'd rather have a brand new SUV that actually IS more fuel efficient than one made in 1999.

I don't think finding the true root of the problem is derailing the argument at all. It's just shifting the focus onto the true issue. If you're honestly looking to solve a problem, you go to the root.

Who cares if we live in a capitalist society? The government regulates what companies can and can't produce ALL the time. There's nothing earth shattering about that. The government also regulates what can and can't be imported into the country. A while back, I tried to import a car from Europe that was VERY fuel efficient. However, since the car wasn't offered for sale in the US, I wasn't permitted to do so unless I bought two. The second one was for the government to do emissions and crash testing on. There's a demand for the car I wanted to import, but the government said no. Imagine that, the government saying no to something. My point is, I was trying to buy a car that would have been good for the environment, but the government said no. Yet, they say "go right ahead" to all the companies making vehicles that destroy the planet.

I think you'll find in several years, the government will start telling auto makers they can't continue along the current path. This is what I'm trying to say. If the problem is gas-guzzling cars that pollute, get rid of them. It's actually quite simple.

And what I'm saying is equally simple: we, as compassionate human beings, shouldn't need to be told not to abuse the planet.

I agree with that statement. However, the flaw is that not all humans are compassionate towards the planet or we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. So, unfortunately, someone has to tell them not to abuse the planet - and in some cases regulate things so they HAVE to be nice to the planet.

OK, I tried to set up a link to the actual research, but it's not going to work as you will need to have access to the University's server. Although, with a little digging I was able to find a summary that appeared in LiveScience.

It was either this or type out a PDF file word for word, and I'm not doing that.

A competing theory:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html"]http://http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

By the way, it's probably been lost in translation, but I don't see such a competing theory as a license to be irresponsible. I just personally don't agree with the theory that humans are the leading cause.

Wait - weren't you supposed to provide science debunking the human-global warming link? All that does is further debunk your view.

You're right Brandon, I can't wait to drive down the causeway and wave to you all by myself in my '99 Tahoe blowing all kinds of bad things into the air.

That's what I live for and my dream shall soon come true.