Carbon Footprint

Curtis L. Russell said:

Bill said:

John Kane said:

On Mar 28, 9:45 pm, Bill <[email hidden]> wrote:

Still waiting for hard and irrefutable data.
> Bill Baka
Which you're unlikely to ever get. Wasn't it Lord Kelvin who suggest
back in the 1890's that young men not go into physics since pretty
well everything had been done?

I don't know if it was him, but I do recall the tale of someone saying
"Everything that can be invented already has.".
Not exactly a prophet.
Bill Baka

Charles Duell, head of the U.S. Patent Office of all places - and it
was said to support why patents should no longer be issued.

Wrong man at the wrong time, yet he gets his piece of immortality.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

That just tickled a nerve cell, and yes, it was a guy at the patent
office, who apparently did not like his job all that much. I think it
would be a pretty good job, checking out all the new ideas.
Bill Baka

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess the thing to do is to decrease the consumer demand
for autos.

[snip]

I haven' t quite worked out all the technical details, but I think
the answer is to make the only way to pay for driving expenses to be
by putting a 20p coin (UK) or quarter (UK) into a slot in the
dashboard. Each time you bought gas the attendant would clear out
the car's safe, and the money would be credited to your fund that
pays your various expenses - gas, insurance, sinking fund for next
car, tolls, maintenance, congestion charge, parking, etc.

Attempting to pay by credit card, check, large denomination bills or
coins etc. would be strictly forbidden, but it would be permissible
to preload the car's payment system with about four extra quarters.

If you ran out of coins, you could always call the AAA, or a friend,
by mobile phone. People probably wouldn't do it more than once or
twice.

Jeremy Parker

I would have to go off line and do some amount of research, but the

Quoted message said:

hybrid motorcycles are claimed to get 150 MPG. I don't think it is
physically possible to push a car at 65 MPH 150 miles on one gallon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Another example of a driver commuting 60 miles a day would achieve an
equivalent mileage of 150 mpg based on the engine running for the last 20
miles in a charge sustaining mode. As the driver's mileage drops down toward
that 40 mile threshold, the equivalent mileage rises toward infinity. The
ICE/generator combo has enough power to keep the car going when cruising at
70 mph and after the 30 minutes of running, the battery will be completely
topped up."

taken from a cool article on the Volt
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-its-here-gms-plug-in-hybrid-is-the-chevy-v/

Bill said:

According to a news special report the car makers are pushing SUVs
because if they get the sticker price there is up to $15,000 profit on
just one. No need to wonder what their motives are, and the environment
is not on their in basket, or even in the back of their heads.

So, tell me why the environment _should_ be on their in basket? No more
than the war on drugs should be a big recipient of donations from the
Colombian cartels. They are the problem, don't look to them for the
solution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or, it may be wiser to give that money back to them if they build real
enviro friendly cars that get 150mpg like the Volt.

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with
cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of
that would be helped by a 150mpg car.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

nash said:

I would have to go off line and do some amount of research, but the

Quoted message said:

hybrid motorcycles are claimed to get 150 MPG. I don't think it is
physically possible to push a car at 65 MPH 150 miles on one gallon.

"Another example of a driver commuting 60 miles a day would achieve an
equivalent mileage of 150 mpg based on the engine running for the last 20
miles in a charge sustaining mode. As the driver's mileage drops down toward
that 40 mile threshold, the equivalent mileage rises toward infinity. The
ICE/generator combo has enough power to keep the car going when cruising at
70 mph and after the 30 minutes of running, the battery will be completely
topped up."

taken from a cool article on the Volt
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-its-here-gms-plug-in-hybrid-is-the-chevy-v/

I just hope they did it with some intelligence, a rare commodity these
days. Like wise I hope they don't use a little 4 cylinder that has to
run at high RPM to get any power. A somewhat bigger ICE run at lower RPM
would not only give engine over 200,000 Miles before needing rings,
valve job, or much of anything.
BTW,
I rode down into a little town 13 miles from my house and they were all
over $3 a gallon and NASCAR racing fuel at $6.79 per gallon.
Predictions are that we will hit $5.00/gallon by summer's end.
At least things are getting better, although slowly.
Bill Baka

David L. Johnson said:

Bill said:

According to a news special report the car makers are pushing SUVs
because if they get the sticker price there is up to $15,000 profit on
just one. No need to wonder what their motives are, and the
environment is not on their in basket, or even in the back of their
heads.

So, tell me why the environment _should_ be on their in basket? No more
than the war on drugs should be a big recipient of donations from the
Colombian cartels. They are the problem, don't look to them for the
solution.

Don't get me started on that. War on harmful drugs yes, definitely. But
war on a plant that when smoked will make one feel good. Give it
legality and sell it in liquor stores to people over 21. The tax revenue
might help pay for the other silly war in the sand. A DUI is over 0.08%
blood alcohol, so I'm sure there would be a test to see if the driver is
actually under the influence. DUI of any type should be a trip to jail.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or, it may be wiser to give that money back to them if they build
real enviro friendly cars that get 150mpg like the Volt.

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with
cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of
that would be helped by a 150mpg car.

I don't think the 150 MPG will ever be achieved by the public since
people like to play stoplight drag so much.
Bill Baka

Bill said:

John Kane said:

Bill said:

John Kane wrote:
> On Mar 28, 4:17 pm, Bill <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> I would boycott China, but then I wouldn't be able to buy anything.
>> Sad.
>> Bill Baka
> The Chinese gov't is apparently starting to take the environment
> seriously. Well actuaully, they always have in some ways but they
> recently have make some moves to reduce air pollution. A major one is
> banning the construction of small coal-fired generating plants. These
> are reported to be much less efficient.
It can be made more efficient by building one huge power plant and using
the latest technology, but it is still absurd to think that one can
capture all the CO2 coming out of the smoke stack. For every ton of coal
(mostly pure Carbon) more than a ton comes out of the smoke stack. It
would take more energy to capture the CO2 and store it (where?) than
what got produced. The only thing that can scrub CO2 is plants and
forests, plus ocean plants. Unfortunately we are killing both land and
sea plants for 'Growth', as in more people and more CO2.
There is no easy answer.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Oh I agree. I just wanted to point out that the Chinese are not
(quite) as bad as sometimes made out to be in some Western media.

Quoted message said:

I remember a planner (engineer?) from Shanghai explaining to me that
they don't use bricks because they are environmentally unfriendly.

Quoted message said:

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

I think the individuals are more concerned than the 'still' Communist
government as a whole and some may be on city planning boards. If we
don't get our act together I wonder how much CO2 a whole developed
'world' might generate.?
Bill Baka

Well I don't have the citation but IIRC it was a very senior gov't
official who stated this. We're not talking local regulation here but
country-wide. Being " ' still' Communist" does not preclude the
government from being environmentally aware. I imagine many/most of
the senior officials live in or around Bejing which probably tends to
concentrate the mind on pollution problems 🙂

Ah yes, not the same cite but useful:
"The National Development and Reform Commission, which steers
industrial policy, and the State Environmental Protection
Administration issued rules late on Tuesday that target coal-burning
power stations, as the government seeks to stick to the pollution
reduction goal."

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41127/story.htm

John Kane said:

Bill said:

I think the individuals are more concerned than the 'still' Communist
government as a whole and some may be on city planning boards. If we
don't get our act together I wonder how much CO2 a whole developed
'world' might generate.?
Bill Baka

Well I don't have the citation but IIRC it was a very senior gov't
official who stated this. We're not talking local regulation here but
country-wide. Being " ' still' Communist" does not preclude the
government from being environmentally aware. I imagine many/most of
the senior officials live in or around Bejing which probably tends to
concentrate the mind on pollution problems 🙂

Ah yes, not the same cite but useful:
"The National Development and Reform Commission, which steers
industrial policy, and the State Environmental Protection
Administration issued rules late on Tuesday that target coal-burning
power stations, as the government seeks to stick to the pollution
reduction goal."

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41127/story.htm

I took a look at the site above and the only thing China appears to be
working on is the acid rain problem due to burning 'junk' coal that has
a high Sulfur content. We have had the same problem since our 100 year
supply of coal has a high sulfur content also. I don't think we have the
sulfur problem worked out either.
At any rate the main by product of coal is obviously CO2, so if China
builds more coal burning power plants it just gets worse anyway.
Bill Baka

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with

Quoted message said:

cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of that
would be helped by a 150mpg car.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.
this car(the volt) is a better idea definitely and like I said the co.s
should have to make it affordable as a penalty for polluting. It is the
size of a Cobalt by the way which I think would only need 4 cylinders.

At any rate the main by product of coal is obviously CO2, so if China

Quoted message said:

builds more coal burning power plants it just gets worse anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

And that would spread across the whole globe too. So it IS our problem too.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

Tom Keats said:

In article <zDuPh.4627$aG1.1250@pd7urf3no>,

nash said:

The manufacture of any car, including the materials of which it
is made, greatly exceeds in GHG emissions and other pollutants,
than those subsequently emitted from the car's tailpipe during
it's operating life. Just smelting metal is a dirty operation
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So true but what else might they make autos from or change production to.

I guess the thing to do is to decrease the consumer demand
for autos.

.....

Quoted message said:

You would have to reduce the consumer base.

The consumer base would have to voluntarily reduce
itself, anyway.

Some people speak of a "carrot & stick" approach.
But I think it can be done with just carrots (nobody
likes to be whacked with a stick,) the carrots being
inducements -- no, make that *enticements* to make
fewer/smarter/shorter personal auto trips, and an
environment that makes that possible by providing
viable options. As the perceived need for cars drops,
so should the demand for them. Then much of the
infrastructure that has been built to support personal
auto use could be dismantled, and the real estate it
occupied could be put to more productive use -- in some
places, by reverting it back to its natural state where
it can perform a role as carbon sink.

I think we also have to establish a hard concept of
"How fast is fast enough?" Because that ultimately
connects with the question: "How long should a trip
take," and subsequent discussions about alternative
or public transit, traffic congestion, urban sprawl
and environmental impact. For some folks, "as fast
as my car can go" isn't fast enough. That's just
plain ridiculous. We need to have reasonable
expectations.

Quoted message said:

If the guy next door buys a
new car it is human nature to try to one up him.

People are already falling all over themselves, trying
to show who's greener.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

nash said:

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with

Quoted message said:

cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of that
would be helped by a 150mpg car.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.
this car(the volt) is a better idea definitely and like I said the co.s
should have to make it affordable as a penalty for polluting. It is the
size of a Cobalt by the way which I think would only need 4 cylinders.

If you get right down to it, even a limo could get by on 4 cylinders.
The acceleration would suck, but it would eventually get to 70 MPH.
Too many people drive (full throttle, hard brake to stop sign/light),
repeat until gas tank empty.
Bill Baka

Bill said:

John Kane said:

Bill said:

I think the individuals are more concerned than the 'still' Communist
government as a whole and some may be on city planning boards. If we
don't get our act together I wonder how much CO2 a whole developed
'world' might generate.?
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Well I don't have the citation but IIRC it was a very senior gov't
official who stated this. We're not talking local regulation here but
country-wide. Being " ' still' Communist" does not preclude the
government from being environmentally aware. I imagine many/most of
the senior officials live in or around Bejing which probably tends to
concentrate the mind on pollution problems 🙂

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, not the same cite but useful:
"The National Development and Reform Commission, which steers
industrial policy, and the State Environmental Protection
Administration issued rules late on Tuesday that target coal-burning
power stations, as the government seeks to stick to the pollution
reduction goal."

Quoted message said:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41127/story.htm

I took a look at the site above and the only thing China appears to be
working on is the acid rain problem due to burning 'junk' coal that has
a high Sulfur content. We have had the same problem since our 100 year
supply of coal has a high sulfur content also. I don't think we have the
sulfur problem worked out either.
At any rate the main by product of coal is obviously CO2, so if China
builds more coal burning power plants it just gets worse anyway.
Bill Baka

Hey I didn't say that they were perfect. Of course compared to your
president or our prime minister they aren't doing all that bad. 🙂

I was just trying to make the point that they are not totally ignoring
the environment which is what your much earlier posting suggested.

As far as I can tell they have some very serious pollution problems
(well, horrendous might be a better term) but that is not to say that
the government does not realise it and some cadre at a high level may
be doing their best to deal with the problem.

The thing is that the 'communist' government of China is not a
monolith: It is faced with any number of competing demands from rival
departments just as is your gov't or mine. That they have managed
to get this far indicates that the 'greenies' seem to be gathering
strength.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nash said:

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with

Quoted message said:

cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of
that would be helped by a 150mpg car.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.
this car(the volt) is a better idea definitely and like I said the co.s
should have to make it affordable as a penalty for polluting. It is the
size of a Cobalt by the way which I think would only need 4 cylinders.

If you get right down to it, even a limo could get by on 4 cylinders. The
acceleration would suck, but it would eventually get to 70 MPH.
Too many people drive (full throttle, hard brake to stop sign/light),
repeat until gas tank empty.
Bill Baka

Bill you are the one that said it should be a 6 cyclinder. You disagreeing
with yourself now? has 0 to 60 time in the link.

nash said:

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with

Quoted message said:

cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of that
would be helped by a 150mpg car.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.

No, I'm not. What I am trying to talk about is the assumed _need_ for
cars, the lack of alternatives to them, even by those trying to
re-engineer society to be cleaner.

If we are going to promote some radical change in our way of getting
around, it seems shortsighted to think that the basic idea of every
individual or family with their own motor vehicle as their primary mode
of transportation is assumed without much serious question.

I'd like to see a society that considers the "need" to own a car along
the same lines as the "need" to own a boat. Some people certainly do
need one, but that would be for a rather unusual situation.

100 years or so ago, the automobile was quickly adopted by society since
is solved the problem of getting people to their jobs in the growing
cities, and it addressed the serious health problems caused by the
pollution of the day --- horse [censored].

I am confident that, eventually, something better will be figured out,
and cars will be replaced. But touting cars whose only real improvement
is the reduction (or re-direction, in the case of electric cars) of
pollution, which do not address the other problems caused by that mode
of transportation, is like designing better buggy whips.

--

David L. Johnson

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach
a conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw

John Kane said:

Bill said:

John Kane said:

On Apr 1, 4:46 pm, Bill <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I think the individuals are more concerned than the 'still' Communist
> government as a whole and some may be on city planning boards. If we
> don't get our act together I wonder how much CO2 a whole developed
> 'world' might generate.?
> Bill Baka
Well I don't have the citation but IIRC it was a very senior gov't
official who stated this. We're not talking local regulation here but
country-wide. Being " ' still' Communist" does not preclude the
government from being environmentally aware. I imagine many/most of
the senior officials live in or around Bejing which probably tends to
concentrate the mind on pollution problems 🙂
Ah yes, not the same cite but useful:
"The National Development and Reform Commission, which steers
industrial policy, and the State Environmental Protection
Administration issued rules late on Tuesday that target coal-burning
power stations, as the government seeks to stick to the pollution
reduction goal."
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41127/story.htm

OK, I will look at that later. One of the things I read recently is that
the rivers are pretty much devoid of life because of all the industrial
dumping. In particular Taiwan has the most toxic rivers I have heard about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I took a look at the site above and the only thing China appears to be
working on is the acid rain problem due to burning 'junk' coal that has
a high Sulfur content. We have had the same problem since our 100 year
supply of coal has a high sulfur content also. I don't think we have the
sulfur problem worked out either.
At any rate the main by product of coal is obviously CO2, so if China
builds more coal burning power plants it just gets worse anyway.
Bill Baka

Hey I didn't say that they were perfect. Of course compared to your
president or our prime minister they aren't doing all that bad. 🙂

Compared to Bush, Stalin and [censored] might come out as the good guys.

Quoted message said:

I was just trying to make the point that they are not totally ignoring
the environment which is what your much earlier posting suggested.

No, they are tackling it their way, in that they are a Communist country
and can order changes to be made a lot easier than in the states.

Quoted message said:

As far as I can tell they have some very serious pollution problems
(well, horrendous might be a better term) but that is not to say that
the government does not realise it and some cadre at a high level may
be doing their best to deal with the problem.

Horrendous is probably the smallest adjective I would use for their
pollution problem with what?? 1.3 billion people at last count (guess?).

Quoted message said:

The thing is that the 'communist' government of China is not a
monolith: It is faced with any number of competing demands from rival
departments just as is your gov't or mine. That they have managed
to get this far indicates that the 'greenies' seem to be gathering
strength.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

China and India may be in trouble soon as some countries have decided
they can get even cheaper labor in Africa.
Merrily they run along, polluting as they go.
The sorrier facts of life.
There's hope if we get rid of Bush and find an actual environmentally
aware president. Bush is just too dumb to be president, but we have him
for almost 2 more years, and I doubt that he cares much about what he
does since he is out as of the next election.
The light at the end of the tunnel is getting dimmer.
Bill Baka

nash said:

"Bill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nash said:

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with
> cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the world
> just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths -- none of
> that would be helped by a 150mpg car.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.
this car(the volt) is a better idea definitely and like I said the co.s
should have to make it affordable as a penalty for polluting. It is the
size of a Cobalt by the way which I think would only need 4 cylinders.

If you get right down to it, even a limo could get by on 4 cylinders. The
acceleration would suck, but it would eventually get to 70 MPH.
Too many people drive (full throttle, hard brake to stop sign/light),
repeat until gas tank empty.
Bill Baka

Bill you are the one that said it should be a 6 cyclinder. You disagreeing
with yourself now? has 0 to 60 time in the link.

No, I had a super low tech flathead 6 Rambler that I geared up to get 38
MPG with the engine turning about 1,500 RPM, if even that. Add to that
the fact it was a brick moving through the air and that is unreal gas
mileage. If that could be applied to new cars the new EPA standard would
be 50 MPG highway for newer and sleeker cars. 0-60 is just horsepower,
not efficiency. The Rambler got down to about 20 in the city since it
was just accelerating the mass and stopping it.
All I am alluding to is that the car makers could make every small car
get 40-45 MPG highway if they geared them right. It's running high RPM
to have that 'passing' power on tap that sells cars. Take the same car
and put a super overdrive in it and you mileage goes up.
Physics. Not simple but in a 4 cylinder engine there are 4 pistons at a
bit over a pound each being accelerated up and down 50 times per second
at 3,000 RPM. If you drop that to 1,500 RPM the losses go down as a
square root function. Maybe I should say that engine power loss goes up
as the square of the RPM.
Bill Baka

David L. Johnson said:

nash said:

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with

Quoted message said:

cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the
world just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths --
none of that would be helped by a 150mpg car.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.

No, I'm not. What I am trying to talk about is the assumed _need_ for
cars, the lack of alternatives to them, even by those trying to
re-engineer society to be cleaner.

If we are going to promote some radical change in our way of getting
around, it seems shortsighted to think that the basic idea of every
individual or family with their own motor vehicle as their primary mode
of transportation is assumed without much serious question.

I'd like to see a society that considers the "need" to own a car along
the same lines as the "need" to own a boat. Some people certainly do
need one, but that would be for a rather unusual situation.

100 years or so ago, the automobile was quickly adopted by society since
is solved the problem of getting people to their jobs in the growing
cities, and it addressed the serious health problems caused by the
pollution of the day --- horse [censored].

I am confident that, eventually, something better will be figured out,
and cars will be replaced. But touting cars whose only real improvement
is the reduction (or re-direction, in the case of electric cars) of
pollution, which do not address the other problems caused by that mode
of transportation, is like designing better buggy whips.

Dream on. The average American (non city) loves their cars and probably
will until gas hits about $8.00 a gallon. It is over $4.00 now in some
parts of California. Yet the oil execs take home tons of windfall
profits and claim they don't have the refinery power to crack the oil
into gasoline. That just means they are not fixing the plants built in
the 30's, 40's, and 50's. We already have a broken oil infrastructure.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill said:

David L. Johnson said:

nash said:

No, not really. Gas supply is only a small part of the problem with
> cars. Suburban/exurban sprawl, paving over vast stretches of the
> world just to park the things, and 40,000 annual traffic deaths --
> none of that would be helped by a 150mpg car.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.

No, I'm not. What I am trying to talk about is the assumed _need_ for
cars, the lack of alternatives to them, even by those trying to
re-engineer society to be cleaner.

If we are going to promote some radical change in our way of getting
around, it seems shortsighted to think that the basic idea of every
individual or family with their own motor vehicle as their primary mode
of transportation is assumed without much serious question.

I'd like to see a society that considers the "need" to own a car along
the same lines as the "need" to own a boat. Some people certainly do
need one, but that would be for a rather unusual situation.

100 years or so ago, the automobile was quickly adopted by society since
is solved the problem of getting people to their jobs in the growing
cities, and it addressed the serious health problems caused by the
pollution of the day --- horse [censored].

I am confident that, eventually, something better will be figured out,
and cars will be replaced. But touting cars whose only real improvement
is the reduction (or re-direction, in the case of electric cars) of
pollution, which do not address the other problems caused by that mode
of transportation, is like designing better buggy whips.

Dream on. The average American (non city) loves their cars and probably
will until gas hits about $8.00 a gallon. It is over $4.00 now in some
parts of California. Yet the oil execs take home tons of windfall
profits and claim they don't have the refinery power to crack the oil
into gasoline. That just means they are not fixing the plants built in
the 30's, 40's, and 50's. We already have a broken oil infrastructure.
Bill Baka

Cars aren't the answer, they're the problem.

More cars especially aren't the answer.

Less cars /is/.

If you don't think so, dream on.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

Quoted message said:

Your talking no cars ever. Good luck with that.

No, I'm not. What I am trying to talk about is the assumed _need_ for
cars, the lack of alternatives to them, even by those trying to
re-engineer society to be cleaner.

If we are going to promote some radical change in our way of getting
around, it seems shortsighted to think that the basic idea of every
individual or family with their own motor vehicle as their primary mode
of transportation is assumed without much serious question.

I'd like to see a society that considers the "need" to own a car along
the same lines as the "need" to own a boat. Some people certainly do
need one, but that would be for a rather unusual situation.

100 years or so ago, the automobile was quickly adopted by society since
is solved the problem of getting people to their jobs in the growing
cities, and it addressed the serious health problems caused by the
pollution of the day --- horse [censored].

I am confident that, eventually, something better will be figured out,
and cars will be replaced. But touting cars whose only real improvement
is the reduction (or re-direction, in the case of electric cars) of
pollution, which do not address the other problems caused by that mode
of transportation, is like designing better buggy whips.

I share your confidence that eventually something better
will be figured out, and cars will be replaced.

But I think that will only happen when people stop thinking
in terms of "car" like cars are necessarily necessary, like
oxygen or potable water.

I strongly suspect that what we in the so-called Developed
World call "transportation", is referred-to by the majority
of the world's human population as "mobility".

Maybe if we thought in terms of basic mobility instead of
aspiring to grandiose notions of Transportation, we could
cough-up a better way.

Y'know, I've walked past traffic jams, but the drivers in
those traffic jams still eventually get ahead of me.
Those drivers wanted something technological that would make
them faster than walking speed and they got it, but they're
still not happy. Sometimes they don't want anyone else to
be happy, either. It's Satanic. It's a lot of work to
counteract those negative vibes. But somebody's gotta
do it :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca