Dark Green or Bright Green?

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.

So if you are contributing the most to the environment you are stupid and
they are bright.
Otherwise it would be light or lime green not bright. Talk about
oversimplifying. Bright green meaning smarter is the opposite then, too
simple and too stupid. I would just say lazy or not. Selfish and not.
compassionate and not. environmentalist and not.

Bob Dole said:

Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius.

Getting a Toyota Prius is not an upgrade. It takes energy and carbon
emissions to manufacture. Might as well get a '92 Corolla, make sure
it's tuned up with firm tires, and drive as little as possible. The
Prius is usually unnecessary tokenism. It's a nice enough car if you
drive a lot in the city and have the cash in hand. It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

There's a lot of stuff you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. Buy
green power, eat vegetarian (not that I chose to), buy local food,
etc. I do agree that the people that think they're saving the planet
by selling the car, wearing hemp armbands, and having whitey dreads to
go with their attitudes and odor are highly annoying. I'd slap them
with a mackerel, but I never seem to have one handy.

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

The Prius isn't just the hybrid, it is also a very efficient shape for
its size - to the point that Toyota is really hesitant to sell add-ons
that get into the wind stream. Check out a Toyota dealer and a Prius
owner could feel a bit left out in the accessory department.

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

landotter said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

I have to wonder here why a Prius is so bragged about if it only gets 40
MPG on the interstate. That should be more like 50 MPG. I have owned 5
Renaults (r-8, r-10) of 1960's vintage that got a minimum of 40-45 MPG
highway and about 35-40 MPG around town. Nice basic point 'A' to 'B'
vehicles, weighed about 1,500 pounds and were actually a bit of fun to
drive. My absolute peak came on day when I decided to draft box semis on
the highway and that trip I managed to pull 54 MPG out of the car.
My 1961 Rambler with a high tech flathead 6 got 38 MPG at 65 MPH.
I don't get why manufacturers can't get a minimum of about 35 MPG for
most cars and maybe 27-28 or so for SUV's. Maybe all the smog stuff is
messing up the mileage, as I know it did in the early 70's. No power and
no mileage. Bad decade for cars, and oil prices.
Bill Baka

at bull. SOn Mar 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-

bicycling.org said:

The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

My Passat diesel and my Golf diesel do better with roof racks to boot
<g>...

On 22 Mar 2007 13:29:55 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

There is nothing wrong with the economy at all. It has plenty of room
and can carry 4 people at 45 mpg with decent trunk space. If you want
to buy the Insight, go for it. No one said the Prius was the leader in
gas economy.

OTOH, no one is laughing at it either. What it has over the diesels
is a much cleaner total package. Toyota is commited to taking care of
the batteries and they have a better record than many other
manufacturers in that area. We'll see in the next few years when the
first Priuses start exchanging batteries.

BTW, are you under the impression that the Prius is a U.S. car? What's
this 'people overseas' [censored] - you mean the Japanese showing it to
Europeans? That would be were it was named the most 'Eco-Friendly
Vehicle in Europe' and has generally met all sales targets. Who are
these people that are doing all the laughing - Toyota dealers on the
way to the bank?

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

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

Quoted message said:

Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.

I'll just stay with my Ford Truck, four cylinder, standard shift, gets
25-28mpg, can haul 4-5 bikes & 2 people.
It fits my needs perfectly, especially until Al Gore and Robert Kennedy jr,
stop flying around in private jets preaching "Green" They don't make me
feel any guilt at all.

Quoted message said:

landotter said:

people that think they're saving the planet
are highly annoying. I'd slap them
with a mackerel, but I never seem to have one handy.

That's because of over-fishing.

In article <[email hidden]>,

di said:

I'll just stay with my Ford Truck, four cylinder, standard shift, gets
25-28mpg, can haul 4-5 bikes & 2 people.
It fits my needs perfectly, especially until Al Gore and Robert Kennedy jr,
stop flying around in private jets preaching "Green" They don't make me
feel any guilt at all.

Most of the environmental impact inflicted by any automobile is
already a done deal by the time it rolls off the production line.

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

Bob Dole said:

Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:

"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

So what do ya suppose happens to the batterys when it comes time to
swap for new ones???

Quoted message said:

But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

On Mar 22, 11:40 am, "Bob Dole" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].

Quoted message said:

So what do ya suppose happens to the batterys when it comes time to
swap for new ones???

I plan on recycling them.

--

John ([email hidden])

landotter said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

Quoted message said:

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?

Can you imagine the nightmare in 10+ years when these overly complex
rolling boondoogles migrate down to the lower end of the used market?

And, is there a bigger joke than a hybrid SUV?

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.

What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

The Prius isn't just the hybrid, it is also a very efficient shape for
its size - to the point that Toyota is really hesitant to sell add-ons
that get into the wind stream.

And Toyota *could* offer that body shape in a traditional package
(especially with a 4cyl engine, manual tranny, manual windows, locks,
seats, etc), but they don't. If they did, the Prius wouldn't come off
as such a "star".

Quoted message said:

Check out a Toyota dealer and a Prius
owner could feel a bit left out in the accessory department.

Ozark Bicycle said:

landotter said:

Curtis L. Russell said:

On 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> It's pointless if
> you do a lot of interstate miles.
What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.

So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.

The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?

Can you imagine the nightmare in 10+ years when these overly complex
rolling boondoogles migrate down to the lower end of the used market?

And, is there a bigger joke than a hybrid SUV?

A hybrid SUV could make sense if it was limited to a top speed of 35 MPH
and not licensed for highway use. Stop and go city driving is where most
of the gas goes. The absolute worst is trying to use a hybrid on the
highway where the gas engine has to make electricity (lossy) to charge
the batteries (lossy) and drive the electric wheel motors (lossiest).
A straight gear drive with the engine running at peak 'efficiency' for
the power required to maintain highway speeds means making about 15 HP
so it can be done at maybe 1,600 RPM for a four cylinder and 900 RPM for
a V-8.
So, there it is. Hybrids and highways don't belong together. SUVs and
highways don't belong together. Hybrids and SUVs should be relegated to
the world of under 35 MPH stop and go to shuttle the kids and go shopping.
Until the scientists who understand this stuff can get the average Joe
to understand that we will have the present crop of laughable cars.
Nobody gets physics these days. Do they even teach it anymore or do the
younger set just sleep through it?
Bill Baka

Ozark Bicycle said:

The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?

Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
culture and all the costs and problems that come with it? Trains are
much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, [censored] and Harry owning
a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.

--

John ([email hidden])

Bill said:

A hybrid SUV could make sense if it was limited to a top speed of 35 MPH
and not licensed for highway use. Stop and go city driving is where most
of the gas goes. The absolute worst is trying to use a hybrid on the
highway where the gas engine has to make electricity (lossy) to charge
the batteries (lossy) and drive the electric wheel motors (lossiest).
A straight gear drive with the engine running at peak 'efficiency' for
the power required to maintain highway speeds means making about 15 HP
so it can be done at maybe 1,600 RPM for a four cylinder and 900 RPM for
a V-8.

I don't know. It probably depends on the hybrid design. My Honda Civic
Hybrid gets about 48mpg in town and 52mpg on the highway. On the highway
the electric motor only kicks in when passing or going uphill. Otherwise
the 90hp gas engine keeps it at highway speed without difficulty. The
battery charges regeneratively quite quickly on downhills, exit ramps,
etc.

--

John ([email hidden])

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

Quoted message said:

On 2007-03-24, Ozark Bicycle <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?

Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
culture and all the costs and problems that come with it? Trains are
much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, [censored] and Harry owning
a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.

--

John ([email hidden])

I think it's called "Socialism" if you are looking for the proper word.
Along with it comes government hi-rise housing, controlled salaries, no
choice of the job you will do or where you work, restricted travel. There
will be no Lowes, it will instead be a government distribution center where
you get what they think you need including color, style, and model, that's
after you wait years for maybe a toilet seat.

You, my friend are an idiot.

John Thompson said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?

Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
culture and all the costs and problems that come with it?

Ya think maybe there is a happy middle ground somewhere between
needlessly complex vehicles and the virtual elimination of the "car
culture"? One that more people would find acceptable?

Quoted message said:

Trains are
much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, [censored] and Harry owning
a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.

--

John ([email hidden])