[OT] Saving the environment?

cc said:

You've clearly demonstrated that you believe
efforts to mitigate our destruction of the planet are pointless, so it's
frankly hard to take your argument based on *your perception* of the
"effectiveness" of the program seriously.

This is you stereotyping me. Where did I "clearly demonstrate" that I
"believe efforts to mitigate our destruction of the planet are
pointless" That's a giant leap from what I said. I am talking
specifically about HOV lanes, and I don't say they are pointless, I say
they actually *cause* more pollution than there would be without them.
x1134x

Corvus Corvax said:

x1134x said:

The most unbelieveably boneheaded idea do introduce itself to the
highway system is the "carpool lane" Whoever's pregnant idea this was
ought to be shot, and all of their progeny should also be executed to
prevent this type of stupidity from spreading. The entire concept is
oxymoronic. "We're going to cut down on pollution by encouraging
people to carpool" What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going.

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

It's already at nearly that price in the UK and car usage hasn't
noticeably changed. We do however tend to drive more fuel efficient
vehicles than yanks and spend less time commuting.

James

x1134x said:

Corvus Corvax said:

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

LOL! at that point you'd have anarchy, you couldn't hire enough police
to pull everyone over. . . . {:-)

Quoted message said:

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

Never happen. But if it did, it wouldn't hurt the gas companies, nor
help the environment. It would help walmart though, because they sell
cheap [censored]. People still *HAVE* to drive they have no choice, so other
things they would have bought will go unpurchased, and the economy will
take a big dump. Instead of Prada people will buy Levis. No one will
be able to buy the new specialized and will have to go to walmart for a
walgoose {:-) I've offset the cost of gas by stopping buying xbox
games, now i rent them from blockbuster and just copy them. savings:
about $45 a game. One tank of gas. I also do not buy music CDs
anymore, which I used to spend about 50 bucks a month on. I use
Morpheus. People will adapt and overcome.

x1134x

$8/gallon is just around the corner and people don't 'have' to drive as
far as they do, they don't 'have ' to drive as big a vehicle as some
do. Average miles driven per year in the UK is about 12000, the average
in the US is about 20000. Walmart will be one of the first companies to
suffer due to high gas prices as part of their business is based on
transporting cheap goods using cheap fuel.

Laters,

Marz

x1134x said:

Ride-A-Lot said:

He doesn't realize that on 98% of HOV lanes, they are open to all
traffic at non-rush hour times. Rarely have I ever seen an HOV lane
crawling unless there is a flat or accident. Those effect all lanes
anyway from rubber necking. I for one support HOV, even if I am a
single driver. My problem is not being able to find people who want to
travel at the same time I do.

Funny you mention that. I find (especially in phoenix) that people
really don't get that on weekends and during the day (not 7-9 am and
4-7 pm) that you can drive in those lanes no problem. But *I* did get
that after reading the sign for the 1st time. Still doesn't make it a
good idea. It doesnt' reduce pollution during rush hour. If that lane
were open to ALL traffic, then everyones cars would be getting better
mileage, thus less pollution total. If you are from AZ you will
remember the alternative fuels fiasco where people were allowed to
deduct from their state taxes, (not deduct from income but directly
deduct from taxes) the cost of converting their cars to natural gas.
Since converted cars could drive in the HOV lane with single occupants
MANY people took advantage of this so much that it bankrupt the state
budget.

x1134x

So encouraging people to share car journeys, hence reducing the number
of cars on the road is a bad idea????? By opening the HOV lane to all
traffic all you do is add one more lane of stationary traffic. When I
used to crawl along I10 in Houston in the mornings, I'd watch the long
line of HOV drivers whip past me and I'd think it would be great to
have a couple of mates who work the same hours and place as me to share
the drive with and that at least thats 3 cars that are not on my piece
of road. I10 HOV was 3+ passengers at rush hour and it was still a very
busy lane.

You stupid child!

Laters,

Marz

Marz said:

x1134x said:

Corvus Corvax said:

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

LOL! at that point you'd have anarchy, you couldn't hire enough police
to pull everyone over. . . . {:-)

Quoted message said:

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

Never happen. But if it did, it wouldn't hurt the gas companies, nor
help the environment. It would help walmart though, because they sell
cheap [censored]. People still *HAVE* to drive they have no choice, so other
things they would have bought will go unpurchased, and the economy will
take a big dump. Instead of Prada people will buy Levis. No one will
be able to buy the new specialized and will have to go to walmart for a
walgoose {:-) I've offset the cost of gas by stopping buying xbox
games, now i rent them from blockbuster and just copy them. savings:
about $45 a game. One tank of gas. I also do not buy music CDs
anymore, which I used to spend about 50 bucks a month on. I use
Morpheus. People will adapt and overcome.

x1134x

$8/gallon is just around the corner and people don't 'have' to drive as
far as they do, they don't 'have ' to drive as big a vehicle as some
do. Average miles driven per year in the UK is about 12000, the average
in the US is about 20000. Walmart will be one of the first companies to
suffer due to high gas prices as part of their business is based on
transporting cheap goods using cheap fuel.

Laters,

Marz

Ah, but this might be a plus for the US manufacturing companies.
Expensive out sourcing means cheaper local sourcing. If a t-shirt that
costs .10 to make in China, .15 in import duties, .50 to transport
across the ocean, and then .35 across the US sells in Wallyworld for
$8.50, then a t-shirt that costs .75 to make in the US and just the .35
for US transport becomes a viable product for them.

The more fuel goes up, the more it will cost to import the goods. I see
this as a plus for the US economy. More local manufacturing jobs
returning to the states. I think this explains the record stock market
highs. Of course, I am no economist but it just seems to make sense.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

Sorni said:

Ed Pirrero said:

Sorni said:

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

> There are full-size dolls for this exact purpose...

Family newsgroup, buddy.

Wow, snipping context to make a joke?

Unheard of.

Jokes aren't mean-spirited, "Ed".

Depends on what end of the joke you're on, "Bill".

And you're ability to take a joke, of course.

E.P.

Sorni said:

[snip]

That would be "your" rather than "you are"

E.P.

"x1134x" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

cc said:

You've clearly demonstrated that you believe
efforts to mitigate our destruction of the planet are pointless, so it's
frankly hard to take your argument based on *your perception* of the
"effectiveness" of the program seriously.

This is you stereotyping me. Where did I "clearly demonstrate" that I
"believe efforts to mitigate our destruction of the planet are
pointless" That's a giant leap from what I said. I am talking
specifically about HOV lanes, and I don't say they are pointless, I say
they actually *cause* more pollution than there would be without them.
x1134x

and your documentation to back this up?

jftr, it took me 20 minutes less time to go from T-bird and I-17 to 7th St
and I-17 when using the hov lane in morning rush hour.

though I have no pollution documentation, your hyposthesis is full of [censored]
since I was driving 20 minutes less to get to work because of the hov lane
equating to less pollution. The hov lane is usually bumper to bumper but
moving way faster than the other three lanes (thus everybody else in the hov
lane getting to work much faster). If it were open to all vehicles then it
would be stop and go, just like the other lanes.

Gary

GeeDubb said:

Quoted message said:

I say
they actually *cause* more pollution than there would be without them.
x1134x

and your documentation to back this up?

I do not need documentation to back up an opinion.

Quoted message said:

jftr, it took me 20 minutes less time to go from T-bird and I-17 to 7th St
and I-17 when using the hov lane in morning rush hour.

Less than what? you drove it in both HOV and non HOV lanes and timed
it?

Quoted message said:

though I have no pollution documentation, your hyposthesis is full of [censored]
since I was driving 20 minutes less to get to work because of the hov lane
equating to less pollution.

Less from your vehicle, but *more* from all the other vehicles
bottlenecked into the remaining lanes.

Quoted message said:

The hov lane is usually bumper to bumper but
moving way faster than the other three lanes (thus everybody else in the hov
lane getting to work much faster). If it were open to all vehicles then it
would be stop and go, just like the other lanes.

This is where your thinking derailed. There is a finite amount of
traffic. If you opened the lane the finite amount of traffic would
divide evenly among ALL lanes. All cars would get better economy
thus, LESS pollution. Just because you opened it up doesn't mean
suddenly MORE cars would show up to congest the same lane.

The other lanes must be operating at HIGH pollution output before
people are encouraged to carpool.

BTW on your jftr, did you actually CARPOOL, or were you just driving
with the Ms?

x1134x

x1134x said:

I do not need documentation to back up an opinion.

Except in helm*t threads.

Marz said:

So encouraging people to share car journeys, hence reducing the number
of cars on the road is a bad idea?????

No ENCOURAGING people is not a bad idea. Buy a billboard.

Quoted message said:

By opening the HOV lane to all
traffic all you do is add one more lane of stationary traffic.

No it wouldn't the amount of traffice is FINITE, for there to be
another lane of stationary traffic, there would have to be more cars
suddenly appearing.

Quoted message said:

When I
used to crawl along I10 in Houston in the mornings, I'd watch the long
line of HOV drivers whip past me and I'd think it would be great to
have a couple of mates who work the same hours and place as me to share
the drive with and that at least thats 3 cars that are not on my piece
of road.

And at no point you thought "who the f's stupid idea was it to
bottleneck the rest of us onto these lanes, causing my vehicle to be
less economical than it could be?"

Quoted message said:

You stupid child!

A child who understands exponential population growth and the effects
that it causes.

Let's pipe dream it out a little here. Say that the program was SO
effective that EVERYONE who drove on the freeway was 2 passengers or
more. Eventually traffic will catch up to where it is now, through
exponential population growth. (It took Maricopa county only 4 years to
go from 3 million to 3.5 million people. This is 14% population
growth. At this rate it would double every 28.5 years.) Are you then
going to requre 3+ and 4+ or are you going to build more freeways?

x1134x

Marz said:

$8/gallon is just around the corner and people don't 'have' to drive as
far as they do, they don't 'have ' to drive as big a vehicle as some
do. Average miles driven per year in the UK is about 12000, the average
in the US is about 20000.

If you add up all the Landfill acreage in the US it is roughly equal to
the entire acreage of the UK. A better comparison would be the UK vs
one US state.

Quoted message said:

Walmart will be one of the first companies to
suffer due to high gas prices as part of their business is based on
transporting cheap goods using cheap fuel.

He he. . . rather Walmart employees will be the 1st to suffer

x1134x

Hang on my little single watt friend your bulb is burning out.

Quoted message said:

No it wouldn't the amount of traffice is FINITE, for there to be
another lane of stationary traffic, there would have to be more cars
suddenly appearing.

The number of cars in any city is very far from finite as you yourself
have given evidence for below...

Quoted message said:

Let's pipe dream it out a little here. Say that the program was SO
effective that EVERYONE who drove on the freeway was 2 passengers or
more. Eventually traffic will catch up to where it is now, through
exponential population growth. (It took Maricopa county only 4 years to
go from 3 million to 3.5 million people. This is 14% population
growth. At this rate it would double every 28.5 years.) Are you then
going to requre 3+ and 4+ or are you going to build more freeways?

x1134x

So in 28.5 years Maricopa county is going to have double the number of
cars on the road and it seems you expect there to be double the amount
of roads/highways. Why don't you just tarmac the whole county now and
save time?

By building wider roads, with more lanes, you are allowing more cars on
the road and not easing congestion over the long term. Think of your
favorite piece of highway, say it's 6 lanes across, you scrap the HOV
and double the number of lanes. That's 12 lanes of open space to drive
on, heaven. Not wait 28.5 years, the number of cars has doubled, you're
back to where you started with major congestion. Nice planning sparky!

The answer? Alternatives; car sharing, cycling, buses, working from
home, walking, etc.

Laters,

Marz

Marz said:

Hang on my little single watt friend your bulb is burning out.

Quoted message said:

No it wouldn't the amount of traffice is FINITE, for there to be
another lane of stationary traffic, there would have to be more cars
suddenly appearing.

The number of cars in any city is very far from finite as you yourself
have given evidence for below...

Think about that one again. If it *isn't* finite what is it? Because
it sure as hell isn't INFINITE.

Quoted message said:

So in 28.5 years Maricopa county is going to have double the number of
cars on the road and it seems you expect there to be double the amount
of roads/highways. Why don't you just tarmac the whole county now and
save time?

By building wider roads, with more lanes, you are allowing more cars on
the road and not easing congestion over the long term. Think of your
favorite piece of highway, say it's 6 lanes across, you scrap the HOV
and double the number of lanes. That's 12 lanes of open space to drive
on, heaven. Not wait 28.5 years, the number of cars has doubled, you're
back to where you started with major congestion.

and at that point we go to 24 lanes. . . .{:-)

Quoted message said:

Nice planning sparky!

You will always be building new roads as long as the population
increases, whether you're building them for busses full of people,
SOVs, bicycles, sidewalks for pedestrians etc.

x1134x

Corvus Corvax said:

x1134x said:

The most unbelieveably boneheaded idea do introduce itself to the
highway system is the "carpool lane" Whoever's pregnant idea this was
ought to be shot, and all of their progeny should also be executed to
prevent this type of stupidity from spreading. The entire concept is
oxymoronic. "We're going to cut down on pollution by encouraging
people to carpool" What really happens is you increase pollution by
having 5 lanes of parking lot with thousands of cars getting 0 miles
per gallon, while there is a free open empty lane that could get
traffic going.

I agree totally. They should ban SOVs from all the lanes.

Here's hoping gas goes to $8/gallon.

CC

Amen.

cc

x1134x said:

Oh there's plenty of Sidewalks. Try walking 80 miles round trip
everyday.

So let me get this straight: you move 40 miles away from your job and
then [censored] about having to spend so much time in your car?

Pardon me while I point and laugh derisively.

CC

Corvus Corvax said:

x1134x said:

Oh there's plenty of Sidewalks. Try walking 80 miles round trip
everyday.

So let me get this straight: you move 40 miles away from your job and
then [censored] about having to spend so much time in your car?

Pardon me while I point and laugh derisively.

CC

well-put.

"Ride-A-Lot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Marz said:

x1134x wrote:
$8/gallon is just around the corner and people don't 'have' to drive as
far as they do, they don't 'have ' to drive as big a vehicle as some
do. Average miles driven per year in the UK is about 12000, the average
in the US is about 20000. Walmart will be one of the first companies to
suffer due to high gas prices as part of their business is based on
transporting cheap goods using cheap fuel.

Laters,

Marz

Ah, but this might be a plus for the US manufacturing companies. Expensive
out sourcing means cheaper local sourcing. If a t-shirt that costs .10 to
make in China, .15 in import duties, .50 to transport across the ocean,
and then .35 across the US sells in Wallyworld for $8.50, then a t-shirt
that costs .75 to make in the US and just the .35 for US transport becomes
a viable product for them.

The more fuel goes up, the more it will cost to import the goods. I see
this as a plus for the US economy. More local manufacturing jobs
returning to the states. I think this explains the record stock market
highs. Of course, I am no economist but it just seems to make sense.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

You make a lot more sense than these idiots who "want" gas to cost
$8.00/gallon. They don't realize that at that price the economy would
make the 1930's look like good times.

cc said:

Maybe every one you know.

you're not greedy? Then sell your computer and send the money to the
christian's children's fund. Do you know how many people they could
feed with what's sitting under your desk?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They do need that SUV for those purposes, sad thing is they can't
afford an additional economy vehicle for when they don't.

No, they don't. That's akin to saying "Officer, I had to drive home from
the bar. I had no other way to get back." You set yourself up to be in a
position like that. It is very possible to set yourself up so you don't
"need" an SUV. What do you think we did before autos and cheap gas?

Right, they could make 2 trips in their hybrid to bring all 8 kids
along {:-)

Before autos, life pretty much sucked. And before cheap gas? Huh?
there was a time BEFORE cheap gas when it was expensive? Its getting
more and more expensive. Its pretty much always been cheaper. Even in
the 70s with the prices now, it was cheaper.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the fastest growing metropolitan area in the US. Maricopa County
recently passed SanDiego County and Orange County to become the 4th
most populated county in the US.

So what? Ever hear of a "ghost town" ?

Not in a nations 4th largest metro area.

Quoted message said:

Speak for yourself. What happens when you have to sell that car off your
lawn to put gas in your SUV? Maybe real terms like this will wake up
those that can't do it out of respect for their grandchildren . . or the
rest of the planet, for that matter.

I have neither a car in my yard NOR an SUV, but like I said, I stopped
giving money to microsoft and the RIAA to compensate for the gas hike.

Quoted message said:

Not if you force them to buy their fuel from the states or pay the same
tax on it when bought from out of the country.

I now know your political affiliation when you use the word "force" in
a sentence referring to how money ought to be run. {:-) If you used
the word "force" in a sentence regarding social rights, you'd be a
Republocrat.

Quoted message said:

The POINT is that you don't see how, and that you can't see that it IS
reality. In one sense, you are right: there is no ONE energy souce to
replace fossil fuels. But the combination of many could very easily help
to overcome our dependence on them. Solar, wind, biomass, and many
others all have very nice niche applications, and can be used in
conjuction with reduced consumption to avert a crisis while the
technologies continue to develop.

I agree, the big plus is *we* can produce it and no money goes over
seas for it. Infact, lets cut ALL foriegn aid, and use that money to
get it started. We give billions away for free every year that could
get those things started. Also damming the Colorado river another 5 or
6 places would help HUGE!

Quoted message said:

I don't think you are right about the most efficient solar panels, btw.
Organics are going to do it, and in the not too distant future.

What did i say? hmm let me quote myself. "The most promising
technology is guanine solar panels, which are basically biological
solar panels that are much more efficient than the semiconductor based
ones used today." Um biological = organic. So you don't think I'm
right, you think I'm right.

Quoted message said:

In any case, of course we CAN be prepared. There just needs to be money
in it first. If FFs are expensive enough to make it worth it, you'll see
more behind alternative technologies.

FLEX technology will probably be the answer for cars, (FLEX cars can
run on gasoline or ethanol) we'll eventually switch to burning ethanol,
and *hopefully* grow and produce it here. Bushy wants to *import*
(gasp) more ethanol.

x1134x

Corvus Corvax said:

x1134x said:

Oh there's plenty of Sidewalks. Try walking 80 miles round trip
everyday.

So let me get this straight: you move 40 miles away from your job and
then [censored] about having to spend so much time in your car?

Pardon me while I point and laugh derisively.

CC

Let me set you straight: I live in Boise, ID. I work out of my home.
My daily commute is 0 miles. My daily commute pollution is 0. I'm
DOING *my* part. Although it is a pain in the ass to separate the
aluminum cans, so i just throw them away. Well, that's a lie just to
make you angry, I even recycle. But I do *refuse* to wash the plastic
containers, F 'em If you wan't me to put it in a different pile, sure.
You want me to wash my garbage? F.O.!

And at no point did i [censored] about having to spend so much time in my
car. I said the HOV lane idea is oxymoronic, and you ASSUMED I said
this because I get stuck in traffic.

When I did live in Phoenix, I lived 11 miles from my work. I worked
10-7 so I never ran into a problem with traffic, and if I did, I could
legally utilize the HOV lane during my drive. It never negatively
impacted me ever. But I still think it's a bad idea and causes more
pollution NOW than is neccessary. Phoenix is a perrenial on the EPA's
fine list. They pay the fine every cycle, as they never are under the
EPA guidlines for pollutants.

Those who worked downtown and lived in my area had about a 35 mile
commute one way. Tell them to move closer to downtown? Get laughed
at. Downtown is a hellhole. Just the same as most other cities,
inhabited by the homeless, and the gays. (not being discriminatory
just saying birds of a feather flock together) And man do they flock
to downtown.

x1134x