SUV's and Terrorism

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave,

A couple of questions for you. We know what kind of cars you drive but lets see a couple of other things.

How big a house do you have and how many people live in it ?

Is it heated by Oil ? Or Natural Gas ? Do you have Central A/C ?

What temprature do you keep it on at this time of year ? How about the summer ?

Just wondering if your green stance applies to your house too.

Thanks

</div></div>

Bill's point is more than valid. It's probably more important than vehicle choice for many people.

I bought my house a year ago. It's a 1960 model, well restored to original appearance. I've got oil heat <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> which I keep at 65, the same temperature the government keeps it's offices (so I was already acclimated), thus the sweater (actually a Jeff Gordon jacket right now). The furnace is 3 years old, and was the most efficient oil unit on the market at that time. This summer I replaced all the windows and doors in the house with super-efficient insulated units, <span style="font-style: italic">which knocked down my oil bills a FULL 2/3!</span> (At that rate the windows will pay for themselves in abour 148 years, but that's not why I bought them.)

The central air in this house sucks. I only use it above 85 or 90 degrees (outdoor temp), otherwise the extremely large volume attic fan cools the house wonderfully. I set it at 78 degrees, again just like my old office (you'd be suprised how careful the govenment can be with tax dollars sometimes!). As I mentioned before, my electric bills are about 1/3 of the previous owner's.

The house is small, about 1750 square feet, but that doesn't matter. There's nothing wrong with wealth. People who want 15,000 sq ft houses and have earned the ability to get one should have them. None of that precludes the wise use of that home, or any other no matter how modest.

The most important thing you didn't mention is recycling. Recycling one lousy aluminum can saves enough electricity to light a 60 watt light bulb for one hour! As I recall, 12% of landfilled wastes each year are plastic materials that can and should be recycled, especially since they too are made from al quaeda's chief source of funding.

None of this is a new idea. Every last one of our ancestors were doing <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> of these things between 1942 and 1945. It helped defeat evil then, and it should still be done now. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[86 2dr.ltd]

Wow !!!! I really missed out on this one. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I cant even read all the posts and dont want to. I for once actually agree with Dave about the excess and unnecessary consumption of oil products. The highways are littered with these things being used for daily transportation , one occupant , same for pickup trucks. however most familys in the country have a car and a truck and the man uses the truck for his transportation. 99.9 percent of pickup truck siteings will be a empty non loaded truck. 99.9 percent of all SUV siteings will be with a single occupant and not much in the back. I live in the mountains and have big hills to climb and we have always gotten by just fine with a FWD V6 car and a RWD V6 pickup. Knowing this when I go down to the "Capitol District" of NY I am amazed that all those flatland suburbanites need these huge 4wheel drives to get around in. Do they? I KNOW - NOT! Its got to do with TREND period. Not to mention that winter is only 25 percent of the year when someone MIGHT actually need 4 wheel drive.Then driving a car I have another issue that they obstruct my vision thus ruining my atmosphere when I have to share space with them. NO they are not just a little higher try 18-24". They need great big fat gas guzzleing tires at all four corners too. 30 years ago the government stepped in and said we have to do something about the ineffeciency of these huge cars because we have problems comming down the road. Trucks were somewhat void of that because real men needed them to perform work and they need to be able to do the work so milage was not an issue. Now the SUV and many unworked pickup trucks have benefited from this loop hole. That is what needs to be corrected. Maybe SUV & pickup truck owners should have to file highway use tax like heavy truck does only a much higher rate because they are not performing an actual job. Read WORK. you know a contribution to society. Then there is the "OFF ROAD" joke. There is no place "OFF ROAD" that these damn things can be legally driven. Where the road ends is either private land or state/federal land where they are not allowed in the first place so why do all these manicure fingered wantabe outdoors people need them ? Now combine this with a econical system (read GLOBAL)that needs to reach out far for products and jobs and were really useing the crude. We travel further for work. We ship stuff all over the country and now increasingly across the seas because we make very little on a local level or even national. Oh yea we're really a practical efficient bunch ! Maybe its time for odd/even days at the pumps again with a 5 gallon limit. Oh yea Americans like to take responsibility ! what a joke. Responsible for terriorism ? $ wise indirectly but politically yes direct and to the point. Was the Spotted Owl the only reason to stop the vast distruction of forrests on the west coast ? NO ! Thats what it finally took though , another joke. Just another fine example of "cant see it from my house", human mentality. And there you have it !

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">extreme - 2. Going far beyond the bounds of moderation; exceeding what is considered to be reasonable; immoderate, radical.

extremist - 2. One who carries something to excess. </div></div>

I could've looked it up!!!

I meant describe "extreme" in terms discussed here!

[Smartin]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I could've looked it up!!!

I meant describe "extreme" in terms discussed here!

</div></div>

Sorry Dave...It was calling my name <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I tried to pick the best definitions for this particular uh...discussion.

Jim said: That said, I wouldn't want you to infer that I think we should live our lives without respectful consideration of how we affect the environment. I just won't carry it to the extreme.

Ok, so some of the folks may think you're taking this further than what it needs to be. Most of us agree that excess oil consumption is a problem and should be dealt with. But the original issue of this thread was SUV's being gas hogs and contributing more to the doings of terrorists. That may hold water, but not much. you're talking a very minor number...insignificant compared to all the other benefactors of al queda, etc. I, for one, am not going to stop driving my Buick...which is my daily driver, so I can take away and extra few cents from the middle east countries. If everyone did this at once, the world's economy would be hit hard. You know how important oil is to the world's economy. If there's going to be a change, then it's going to be a very slow change. People like yourself will be the ones who help that change, and I respect that.

There are some things you just can't change by yourself. It's going to take a major event, such as a war, to even get people thinking about changing their consumption habits. It worked before...history repeats itself.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> That may hold water, but not much. you're talking a very minor number...insignificant compared to all the other benefactors of al queda, etc. </div></div>

If a <span style="font-style: italic">three mile per gallon</span> improvement in the overall milage achieved by the fleet of vehicles traveling this country's roads would <span style="font-style: italic">completely eliminate</span> our need to import oil from the middle east (as has been widely reported), how could your statement above be true? And even if curtailing our import of oil from that area is only a minor irritant to them (Europe's going to be their best customer no matter what we do), what is to be lost of a measure equal to preventing a mortal enemy from taking more of us as victums with money they got from us?

It just may be that buying that Saturn LW wagon (23 mpg) instead of the Explorer (15 mpg) is good kick in the nuts to Osama's buddies. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Be careful with terms like "extreme" or "insignificant". They may mean more than one intends.

[Guest]

Some of it is eye wash. But eye wash can be good sometimes.

I remember my Dad telling me about all those scrap drives during WW2 that everyone got so patriotically excited about and did their part for the CAUSE and to HELP OUR BOYS.

90% of it went to the dump he said. There was no practical way to use all that stuff. He was there and drove a taxi and got around a lot so I believe him.

[Smartin]

You're going to have a very hard time telling all the Suburban and Escalade drivers in America to start driving Saturns. In theory, yes, it would make a HUGE difference in not only the environment but this stupid terrorist "funding" we also contribute. Realistically, even if this were the case, it would take years and years....and years to make the conversion over to fuel efficient vehicles...ie - 25mpg and up. You don't see any government agancy trying to enforce this strictly because the American people as a whole would lash out and stomp the law in the ground. Then the mobs really would come out.

Idealistically, this issue of fuel economy will eventually hit America where it hurts and we will change because of it. Yes, the Oil embargo of the 70's changed the way auto makers produced cars. It didn't take long for the embargo to lift, and we could start ucking up our gas again. The change I am talking about will be a permanent change. This problem we seem to be having with the middle east right now may be the primer for that change. Let's hope it's not, because we're all in a heap of sh*t if things get ugly...just a feeling.

[Guest]

Just think. If Carter had been reelected in 1980, we would have the 2 years reserve supply of oil to stabilize oil prices that he wanted. (We would still have had the economic recovery in the mid 80's and the collapse of the Soviets. Reagan had really nothing to do with that.) We would have peace in the mid-east. We would still have the average american Joe trying to conserve energy in any way possible. We would have had massive federal funding to encourage and accomplish alternative energy sources. We would be sitting on a bed of roses right now.

Not to get too political in a car forum, but Reagan was the worst thing that could have happened to this country and Carter was the best thing that did not happen.

[Guest Reatta1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">extreme - 2. Going far beyond the bounds of moderation; exceeding what is considered to be reasonable; immoderate, radical.

extremist - 2. One who carries something to excess. </div></div>

Dave, that says it as good as I could have. Out here we have environmentalist tree huggers that go so far as to climb up into the tops of a tree in the forest to prevent loggers from harvesting them. Not too long ago one of those idiots fell out of a tree and got herself killed. I'd call that extreme. The only thing she accomplished was to end her own pathetic life. More could be accomplished in the way of saving gas if every teenager under the age of 18 had their wheels locked up till they were mature enough to understand the value of what they have rather than think that it is owed to them just because they 'want' it. Not to say there aren't a portion that don't, but the majority don't 'need' to be cruising the streets (and often getting into trouble) when they should be home learning family values. (just one of my pet peeves) The sad truth is, in this society, it's more about the 'me' gratification than it is about personal responsibility and you don't have to look far to see the results of that.

[Guest]

Don't agree with that at all.

Have you forgotten when you were 16 and just had to have a car? Even a junker was OK. I do. My first car was a 48 Nash Ambassador. Cost all of $55. Was a major part of my life until it rusted away about a year later. Learned a lot about responsibility at a young age from owning a car.

Don't deprive the teens of today what we accepted as our birthright. Pure hypocrisy.

[Smartin]

I can see both of your views...

I wouldn't want to take away the experience of being able to cruise the streets and tool around wasting gas when I was a teen (not too long ago). But I can see that some of those kids do nothing but cause trouble...ie - finding johnny on the spots to tip over, or harassing people at stop lights, etc. That's something the local governments and police have tried to curb with curfews and driving limits, permits, etc...blah blah blah.

Hypocrisy, in a way, but we're all guilty of it at one time or another.

[rtabish]

adam. you are a trouble maker! ok, lets carry this over from the V8buick posts. yes, SUV's use gas. i own a jeep cherokee with a 4L 6. its not too bad gas wise, even in 4x4 mode. but even my 74 century can get decent highway milage if i want it to. and it dont matter where the money is coming from if you are taking a passenger plane with a box cutter. it has probably cost the united states more money to "secure" out country since 911 than it cost al quada{et al}to train and finance their whole organization. you and i are the ones paying for that, too. these people kill their own with the same impunity they feel for us. and it dont matter what we do, they will always feel that way.they are megalomaniacs with a desire to control the world without the logic or forethought to even understand why they want to do that. osama ben dover is one of a large family of brothers and sisters and he never got the attention he needed as a little kid. for some that would lead to bed wetting. for him, it is blood shed. if i got my jollys burning entire tankers full of gas, it wouldnt change his point of view.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> if i got my jollys burning entire tankers full of gas, it wouldnt change his point of view. </div></div>

For the last time (wanna bet?), of course it won't change his point of view--but it sure does finance it all to hell!

<span style="font-weight: bold">Pay attention!</span>

[Guest Reatta1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Have you forgotten when you were 16 and just had to have a car?

Don't deprive the teens of today what we accepted as our birthright. </div></div>

I won't denigrate any of you guy's experience with cars as teenagers. This is just information only and no animosity involved. When I was 16 what I spent most of my time driving was a tractor on the farm in N.D. When I got to drive a car it was just to get to school and back. I never owned a car till I was 20 years old and serving in the Navy. I realize there are a percentage of teenagers who have their heads screwed on straight and have mature attitudes toward responsibility. I also know that there is a lot bigger percentage that don't and they are the ones my comment was directed to. I also believe that teenagers of a couple generations ago were much more in tune with responsibility than they are today. All you have to do is sit in front of a McDonalds or Burger King and observe. The signs of self indulgence are glaringly apparent. Just look at the super size junk food, walkmans plugged into the ear, cell phones growing out of their hands, the garbage chatter dripping from their mouths etc. et al. And before you say the obvious, I don't realy blame the kids. It's a general trend of a liberal society put on that path by organizations like the ACLU and the denial of the Christian values this country was founded on. I don't want to sound like a preacher, it's just the conclusion I've come to from my own observations over the years.

I said earlier I was going to get off my soap box. Looks like I got back on. Sorry, won't do it again. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

[Gene Brink]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody think we will cease to exist because the oil runs out? I don't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

With all due respect, I'll take the opinion of the preponderance of PhD climatoligists over yours. They say we probably will dissapear long before the oil's gone if it's not treated differently, and soon.

But you know those egghead intellectuals, they've got an answer for everything </div></div>

Dave,

As always you are tenacious, articulate and passionate however (you knew this was coming) I don't think you are as open to other opinions on this subject as you are on others. The only other subject you've seemed to be quite so dogmatic about are the Consumer Reports diatribes when the annual auto issue comes out (nothing this year??). Consider:

1) Despite a majority of opinion regarding global warming, its cause, etc... there are a number of equally educated and informed people that do not agree with the majority opinion. Because it is a majority does not actually mean it is right. One only has to look at the shake up in astronomy with regard to what the universe is, is doing, will do, how it was formed, et al since the Hubble telescope has shown things that were not expected. What was accepted as "fact" is undergoing some fairly extensive modification. Computer models can only extrapolate from data input to arrive at a prediction of what will happen. I'm not as certain as you are that the information is infallible enough for the results to be correct.

2) The only people that I've heard express ideas like the oil lasting longer than humans are those doomsayers at the extreme. There are many people that indeed believe global warming, etc. are major problems but do not think human extinction is apt to happen.

3) By far the greatest environmental disasters have been caused by nature. Man certainly has a great effect on the planet but we are getting better in almost all-measurable parameters and will continue to improve across the board. There really isn't any reason to think otherwise.

4) Do you know of a single Ph.D. climatoligist who had an inkling that the ozone hole was going to diminish in size and close from one single hole into two small ones? I only remember predictions that it would continue to grow. There clearly is at least one variable that they don't have down pat - I suspect there are many others. (For example Lake Erie is about 80 years ahead of the recovery rate that was predicted for a "dead lake.")

5) Indeed those egghead intellectuals do have an answer for everything. Unfortunately they, like everyone else, can and do bring their individual biases to the plate, which results in wrong conclusions and beliefs on occasion.

6) Finally - .....Don't believe the hype. Isn't that applicable here?

Always fun...

[Dave@Moon]

Gene:

1. The number of "environmental scientists" that professionally disagree with the major tenants of global warming, as a percentage, exist in number in rough equivalency to number of geologists or geneticists who believe in strict creationism. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Unfortunately the monetary incentive for contrary findings is also overwhelming, and usually very difficult to trace. (Just because some works <span style="font-style: italic">at</span> SUNY or Cornell doesn't mean they work <span style="font-style: italic">for</span> SUNY or Cornell).

2. Actually, you're right. I mis-stated. I should've used the term "fossil fuels" in general rather than "oil". Also "human extinction" is a pretty strong term for what's most likely to happen. "Cultural collapse due to uncontrollable mortality of whole populations" may be more like it. Conjures up such a pretty image, too!

3.. Extinctions are virtually certain to be going on at a rate right now that is vastly higher than at any time in geologic history, including the mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous Period. And it ain't natural!

4. The ozone problem is much more complex than global warming. There was no way of accurately guaging how long the released chloro- and fluorocarbons would take to either break down or be absorbed into biomass fat, as this material simply never existed before 1920. Also exposure to UV for atmospheric materials (I would guess) would be a very difficult thing to precisely predict. Also the nature of the ozone layer is not known beyond 35 years ago. Global warming results from much more well known chemicals (CO2, CH4, etc,), and we have accurate data going back many, many thousands of years on the low-level atmosphere's content from antarctic ice core studies.

Also, Lake Erie is by massive amounts the shallowest and lowest volume of the Great Lakes. I don't have the flow through hydrology data with me, but I know it was expected to be a fairly rapid recovery. Also the massive infestation of Lake Eire by the filter feeding zebra mussel from China has probably done more to improve apparant water quality than anything else there. Just don't look for any sympathy for them from any fisheries biologists!

5. It's been my experience that any true scientist worth his of her salt will <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> allow outside biases to effect their conclusions. But that premise aside, why is it that people insist that people study the environment with an incentive to find and overestimate trouble? There isn't an environmental scientist on earth that doesn't buy his own gas, soap, paint, meat, or anything else. Nobody wants to throw hundreds of loggers or anybody else out of work, because we all have families and they have to eat too (and most of them aren't environmental scientists). It is only with great trepidation that <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> scientist puts forth a serious problem to the public, and then only after pier review that makes the approval of Viagara look like the Good Housekeeping seal!

6. I wish it were just hype.

[65Jayone]

The PEER review process gave us a certain Fleischmann-Pons publication in Nature magazine in 1989.

[Gene Brink]

Dave,

1. Total disagreement - certainly. Degree of disagreement - certainly not. There is a range of opinion as to severity of problem and possible consequences. There are people (including "environmental scientists") that have honestly arrived at significantly different conclusions than others and don't consider the evidence as "overwhelming" one way or the other. My real point here is that the probably "correct" finding is somewhere between the two polar opposite viewpoints.

2. Indeed if "uncontrollable mortality of whole populations" should occur there will be a cultural collapse. I don't think this will happen (although there are certainly cases in the world where this is happening on a small scale [hate to say "small" given it is hundreds of thousands of humans annually and totals in the millions] without apparently causing the "haves" to take action to curtail the cause(s). We (the collective world) have the ability to do better and while I am a pessimist I think we will do so.

3. What is natural? Given that humans are "natural" why isn't extinction caused by our actions as natural as extinction caused by say an ice age? Granted we have the ability to, by our actions, have a greater effect on the earth than does any other species but... I'll stick by my earlier statement that whatever we do it will not come close to what mother nature has dealt out (although that same force has maintained a wonderful place for us to abide in and she won't turn down any help we can give).

4. I've never understood backwards application of what one finds today by comparing readings of _______ (name the measured item) and extrapolating what the cause/effect is/will be, etc. I do know that the same type of process went into astronomical theories regarding the birth of the universe, etc. and there has been a real change in perspective in the last few years. Seems to me that the same thing might happen in other areas as well. Study and extrapolation from studies based on our knowledge is all we can do (and we should do it) but it seems to be that we can't really "know" for certain in some things.

5. I never said that people who study the environment have an incentive to find and overestimate trouble. Some certainly may since they are like any other group having vested interests in _________ (fill in the blank) protecting their livelihood, book sales, organization, etc. In fact having been around people for all of my life (55 years for a few more days) I'm certain this is the case. Not right for anyone on either side of the issue and most people honestly arrive at what they feel is "right" whether or not it is to preserve virgin territory, log virgin territory, farm virgin territory, etc. There has to be room for compromise of absolutes for humankind to effectively get the best out of what we have.

6. I have no doubt that <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> of it is.

This reminds me of discussing the merits of Fords vs Buicks with my best friend when we were kids (Fords really don't have any merits since they are much too big to use as doorstops) and wish we were face to face to discuss (never argue).

[Guest John Chapman]

For a different perspective, I invite your attention to this article:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=718860

Cheers,

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

Gene,

There is no extrapolating for back information of atmoshperic content. Ice cores drilled from the antarctic and other ice flows have entrapped air (bubbles) inside them. Once dated and analysed, they show that until the industrial age the content of the near earth atmosphere was unchanged for as far back as can be measured (as I recall, that is thousands of years). Around 1880, CO2 levels are seen to begin to rise logarithmically, to the point where they are now roughy double what they've historically been. There is a concommitant, but relatively small and insignificant drop in oxygen levels, as would be expected.

I'm now a housewife because the salary levels for environmental science work are so low as to be unlivable in many cases for those <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> working to save industry money (I'll get to your post in a minute, John!). There is no concept of protecting vested interests ("protecting their livelihood, book sales, organization, etc.") when you're in envy of the post office clerk's salary. The highest paid environmentalist in the country seriously wouldn't make the 50th percentile of income among Hershey attendees. As the lead hazardous waste inspector in one of the nation's most heavily industrialized areas, I probably never broke the 10th.

And finally, if everything you and I do is "natural", what isn't?

[Dave@Moon]

Checking ten minutes after that last post of mine I see that 5 people are reading this thread right now. Obviously there's a lot of interest here.

I thought of a question that might intrigue people:

<span style="font-weight: bold">What is the single best device you can install in your home to save energy? The one item that, if used, will reduce energy consumption the most in the home (in any terms, such as kilowatts, calories, therms, etc.).</span>

Here are two hints:

1. They are banned outright by 97% of the homeowners associations in California, which is one of the areas they'd be most effective.

2. In the early days of the forum I was ribbed on an environmentally related thread for using one.

I'll post the answer tomorrow night. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[86 2dr.ltd]

Edit: This is in regards to the artical John put forth

Well thats all I needed to hear. I'm going to go get me a big old 1 ton with a 454 , drive up on the mountain and kill me some trees , buy 3 snomobiles and 3 ATVs , find a few women get them pregnant , run the sewer pipe down into the creek , and get some coal for the stove. Throw the garbage out on the street. Then get some bleeding heart to donate some food for my 20 sewer living children that have no shade over their head because hey is OK.

Sorry I was taught to know and recognize what was right and what was wrong. All the people that publish that kinda crap are of the same mentality of those that used to dump the barrels out back , let the stuff go in the rivers because of some natural filtration theory.

The smog in the cities appears to be better than 1890 because coal is no longer burnt and the highways are paved not run dusty by tons of pounding hoofs , mixed with straw and manure. Exhaust fumes are a different kind of the same old thing.

The original forests on the east coast of this country were pounded into oblivion through out the 1800's for the bark of the Hemlock tree. The rest was burned little at a time because there was no demand for the amount of lumber by/product of the tanning business. Lots of slash and large timber was left to lay because even the controled burning could not keep up. Fires ran rampant during the dry spells and the skys were choked with smoke. Wow you mean were actually cleaner than that. Oh its OK then. Then the rains came an washed the once fertile but shallow soil down into the mighty Hudson (or name your river) where it now entraps the PCB's of the next mess soon to come. Wow we really have improved on that, must have been a challenge.

The South American and African forests are now being treated the same way and its large corporations from America and other industrialized Eurpoean countrys that are doing it just like it was done here. only they have a new batch of morons producing huge volumes of exoctic lumber and wood for pulp, and hey they'll work for 4 dollar a day.

The Adirondacs are still loaded with dead lakes but so long as they are on the rebound while were destroying another part of the world its OK. Must be the balance theory.

Population is not growning at alarming rates ? You got to be kiding me ! Close your eyes - boom theres a new developement. Urban sprawl is a myth? Go spend some time in the inner cities and tell me people are not breedin'. Then tell me hows the gene pool doing. Go to South America, Africa and tell me their having less children. Oh please help us feed these 20 poor children that just crawled out of this couples shack. When is it all this levels out ? When it gets to the point of China , Japan , India, Mexico . Is it a great place to live in those Countrys ? Do we have boatloads of Americans emigrating to those countrys ?

Theres always been lots of food grown in this country but the government controlled its distrubition. Hows it growing down in the middle east ? The promised land ? Did food sources have a natural control of the birth rate in these impoverished areas ? If they burned the amount of fuel we do here would there be enough vegatation to produce the necessary amount of oxygen ?

Is quality water sources not a problem ? There is enough water pulled out of the ground here in the NY , MASS area that wells at 250-300 ft that were good for 80+- years are now dry and in those areas you now need to go to roughly 500. yes there is still pockets at less depths but in the more populated areas everyone needs to go deeper. Does no one believe the Federal concerns about the water availability is real ?

If there is more known available resources today why are they moving entire mountains for a few small onces per ton ? Why was is necessary to develope machines bigger than we can beleive to be productive enough to make the moving of entire mountains profitable ?

If population and pollution dont go hand in hand why does California, the highest populated area in the US have the largest pollution issues and regulations ? Why when I just drove down to the NYC area did I notice a much duller color blue in the sky on a otherwise cloudless day? Why did all the cars and 4 wheel drive SUV's backed up on the Whitestone bridge only have one occupant? Why do we not have a mass transit system in those areas ? Why arent the tops and sides of all those huge buildings not producing solar electric ?

If human population pollution and environmental impact dont go hand in hand why are all these problems just a little over 100 years old ? I guess its still OK because we are not as powerful as a giant meteor.

[Tom Deering]

Dave@Moon,

I have to take a stab at your quiz question. You have to be making reference to clothes lines being banned by 97% of homeowner associations in California. I understood clothes lines were a violation of county code in Santa Barbara over 30 years ago.

Tom

[Dave@Moon]

A big thank you to Tom for renewing my faith in humanity!

Can you imagine the arrogance of outlawing clotheslines in 1972? I don't have any market penetration data for dryer sales at that time, but I'm pretty sure "Mrs. Brady" on TV didn't have one yet! She lived in a pretty good neighborhood and was still hanging her clothes. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I guess its still OK because we are not as powerful as a giant meteor.

</div></div>

Actually, no. We're much more powerful. Like I said, zoologists' best estimates are that extinctions are going on now much faster than those at the end of the Cretaceous.

But I'm sure Halliburton can find some alcaholic dentist from Johannesburg who'll publish a paper contrary to that finding as well! The world is full of Shell Answer Men if you look hard enough.

[Guest]

Have you all forgotten this is America and its not about need but want.

And there is not a vehicle on the road that can not be converted to alcohol.

<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

[ol' yeller]

OK, I'm convinced. I am driving my '99 Mountaineer with 43K miles to the crusher this afternoon along with my new 24' travel trailer. I am taking a bulldozer, no make that a 5# sledgehammer to my 2800 square foot home to reduce it to rubble so it won't pollute any more. I am resigning from my job (after 28 years of productivity)because I don't want to use any fossil fuel to get there not to mention how much fossil fuel they use in their pursuit of the almighty buck. I am errecting a yurt in my backyard (without a polluting firepit) to live in as long as the mortgage company will let me. I will grow only organic vegetables to eat. My Buicks will be drained (and recycled)of all their precious terrorist supporting fluids but I can't quite bear to part with them so I will keep them as yard ornaments to sit in and remember how it used to be. I will vote for Jimmy Carter next time because he must have been the best president we ever had. That mess in Iran and the 20% home interest rates were all propoganda and of course, not his fault nor the liberal congress which was in the majority at that time. I will cower in my yurt awaiting the invasion of mighty Irainians or Iraqis or Afganistans, or North Koreans, or whoever can get a weapon over here to terrorize us.

NOT!

Last I checked I was living in America. With that comes freedom of choice. I don't have to justify my lifestyle or choices to anyone. I believe in the capitalistic model and the principles upon which this country was founded. People who twist logic and figures to limit my freedoms are not supporting America. I'd much rather live in my current world than the one environmentalists like Dave would want to foist upon you and I. I vote with my dollar, along with millions of other Americans to buy the type of vehicle I want. People like Dave will always be in the minority and as long as we live in a democracy only be able to be a rabble rouser not a policy maker.

[Dave@Moon]

And now we're back to <span style="font-style: italic">I'm an American and I can have whatever my mommy says I want!</span> Thanks for paying attention, guys!

As long as being informed that your actions have consequences is being interpreted as having your actions dictated to you, you've lost the essence of democracy (but I'm sure that one group or other will find you to be a <span style="font-style: italic">great</span> team player! Particularly al quaeda.).

Think. It helps. And the last time I checked it was a more important American right that Quadratrack!

[Guest]

I have been reading this thread with great interest but have sat back until now. Mr. Chapman invites readers to check out a link and article at The Economist. This is a perfect example of how difficult and complex issues around the environment have become. The article is by Bjorn Lomborg who sounds rational enough but has been completely discredited since he published his book [The Skeptical Environmentalist] and hoodwinked a number of wishful thinking people who should have known better. Among other things he says the fisheries are better off now than ever [but bases this on fish farming statistics, ignores the environmental risks of ocean fish farming, and ignores the collapse of the Atlantic fishery and the looming extinction of the Atlantic Cod. Lomborg is a Statistician and not an environmental scientist of any repute. Check out http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=533

[ol' yeller]

Again you missed the point. I think that I can have whatever I can afford to buy and justify according to my values. You are the one who wants to be Mommy and tell me what I want. My social conscience begins with my family, extends to my community, and then to my country then to the world community. Your priorities are backwards in my opinion. I am aware of consequences of my actions but they are focused in the order above. Democracy stops for the most part at the USA border. I will defend the freedoms my forefathers died for, not sacrifice them for what "one world" thinkers like you would want to foist upon us.

[Guest Reatta1]

<img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[color:"purple"]Me thinks this has turned into more of a political debate than a discussion of Buicks <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Wouldn't you [color:"red"]REALLY rather have a BUICK?

[Gene Brink]

Dave,

Don't want this to spin off in another direction but everyone should know that the number of people living in homeowner association controlled housing is a minority (by far). I do, however, have no doubt that most people do use dryers. Sad, even here in the Los Angeles area line dried clothes just plain smell nicer although ironing the wrinkles out is a lot more work <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My social conscience begins with my family, extends to my community, and then to my country then to the world community. </div></div> An excellent rationalization for sanctimoniously limiting one's vision as well as one's interests. Also almost completely irrelevant, yet somehow manages to sound involved. And well practiced at referencing higher sounding levels of responsibility without actually making any case whatsoever that those interests were at cross purposes to the argument.

It almost made me believe I was "telling you what you want". All-in-all and excellent job in a <span style="font-style: italic">Fox News</span>/<span style="font-style: italic">Rush Limbaugh</span>/<span style="font-style: italic">Bill Clinton</span> sort of way.

[Smartin]

Jim,

Couldn't agree with you more. I feel like I'm sitting listening to a radio talk show that I can only hear parts of because it's AM radio.

Rush? Yes...something like that.

[Guest Reatta1]

Smartin,

He forgot [color:"pink"]Dr. Laura <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[ol' yeller]

An excellent rationalization for sanctimoniously limiting one's vision as well as one's interests. Also almost completely irrelevant, yet somehow manages to sound involved. And well practiced at referencing higher sounding levels of responsibility without actually making any case whatsoever that those interests were at cross purposes to the argument.

This is a perfect example of someone who is more impressed with his education than his practical reasoning ability. Lots of big words with no thought behind it and circular logic. Your further attack in belittling and name calling is a typical liberal tatic that I won't engage in any further. I find it amusing that environmentalists and liberals who profess such a strong social conscience and inclusion of diverse opinions want to foist their opinions as the only ones with merit. You might notice that Dave in his responses attacks my logic, credibilty and social conscience without adressing any of the points I made. Now who's thinking???? Again, you are the minority in your opinion and in a democracy the majority sets policy. Maybe you need to go back to school and learn some history. Remember it is people like Dave who first questioned our patriotism over our choice of transportation. The last point I'd like to make is Dave is critisizing my involvement in my community and social conscience without any knowledge of my history of service to my country or community. I will put my record of volunteerism and service up against his anytime, even without knowing his.

[Smartin]

Dr. Phil may want to butt in here and try to heal us all by putting us down...but I think Oprah has a leash on him.

Mr. Mackey, mmkay?

[Dave@Moon]

Sorry Greg, but:

<span style="font-weight: bold">Points:</span>

<span style="font-style: italic">"I don't have to justify my lifestyle or choices to anyone."

"I believe in the capitalistic model and the principles upon which this country was founded.

"I vote with my dollar, along with millions of other Americans to buy the type of vehicle I want.

"I think that I can have whatever I can afford to buy and justify according to my values." </span>

So far, not problems. O.K....

<span style="font-style: italic">"I am aware of consequences of my actions..." </span> --and yet you're still compelled to read and discover new things, how commendable!

<span style="font-style: italic">"Democracy stops for the most part at the USA border." </span> --An interested concept for Canadians, Britons, Germans, Isrealis, and more than a few hundred million others. What was that about limited vision again?

<span style="font-style: italic">"I will defend the freedoms my forefathers died for, not sacrifice them for what <span style="font-weight: bold">"one world" thinkers like you would want to foist upon us.</span>

"I find it amusing that environmentalists and liberals who profess such a strong social conscience and inclusion of diverse opinions want to foist their opinions as the only ones with merit.

"The last point I'd like to make is Dave is critisizing my involvement in my community and social conscience." </span>

Cite one example, just one, of any of this tripe from any of my posts. Intolerant of other's opinions? Hmmm.... Of course there was that utterly discredited study of wishful thinking, but that was a discussion of facts and numbers. Maybe the distinction between fact and opinion has been blurred over the years by people with vested political and economic interests. Hmmm....

<span style="font-style: italic">"Your further attack in belittling and name calling is a typical liberal tatic that I won't engage in any further.."</span> Good, I'd hate to see you compromising your principles by using phrases like:

<span style="font-style: italic">"'one world' thinkers",

"someone who is more impressed with his education than his practical reasoning ability"</span>, and

<span style="font-style: italic">"rabble rouser",</span>

not to mention suggesting things about people like:

<span style="font-style: italic">"Maybe you need to go back to school and learn some history."</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">And if the point of this thread has yet to set in, it was simple <span style="font-style: italic">linear</span> logic, not circular in any way:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If my car burns half the gas of your car, you paid for twice as much of the 9/11 airline tickets as I did. Period.

</div></div>

If you can't deal with it, then you may want to reconsider just how aware of the consequences of your actions you want to be. </span>

[ol' yeller]

OK, OK I took my dog (can I call him my dog?) for a walk to think further about this exchange. Dave threw down the bait & I rose to it. After rethinking my emotion, here's what I have come up with. We will never convince Dave of the merit of our side. Dave will never convince me of the merit of his side. Here's the difference. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree. I would defend to the death his right to drive a Geo or Prius, or a Buick and live in a commune, a Yurt, or a mansion. Dave and his ilk want to legislate their choice on me. They are not content to disagree, they want to force their views on us. I further defend his right to spout any kind of logic or statistics in any forum he wishes. I don't have to agree or even listen if I don't want to (I know you will have fun with that statement). In the world of the "one world" thinkers (I thought that term was descriptive not belittling), they believe that the almighty weight of their argument should force their minority opinion on the majority. I'd much rather live in my America with freedom of choice and where the majority rules. By calling someone a terrorist supporter based solely upon their choice of vehicle invites a knee jerk adverse action from those so accused. I did rise to that challenge and probably shouldn't have. I aplogize if I gored your ox, but remember you gored mine first. By the way Dave, I read in the paper today that SUV sales are up again.