[OT] Saving the environment?

x1134x said:

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.

Pound for pound / gallon for gallon, gas is cheaper than most of the
food you buy. Even compensating for inflation since the 70's, it's not
that expensive. You are not backing up your arguments. I have no
problem reading your rants, but at least put some thought and research
into them.

Quoted message said:

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.

Why not? California grew because of a midwest drought (dust bowl).

Quoted message said:

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.

So, theft is OK?

Quoted message said:

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

Again, please do some research. It takes more energy to produce a
gallon of ethanol than the energy you get out of it. At least for now.

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

Ride-A-Lot said:

Pound for pound / gallon for gallon, gas is cheaper than most of the
food you buy. Even compensating for inflation since the 70's, it's not
that expensive. You are not backing up your arguments. I have no
problem reading your rants, but at least put some thought and research
into them.

I must not have the new fancy pc that puts words *between* the lines,
because I never said anything about gas being more expensive than food.
I even believe I said, that gas has always been cheap.

Quoted message said:

So, theft is OK?

The point is that people will cut other areas of their lives to
compensate for the gas price even if you taxed it up to 10 bucks a
gallon. In our economy some things get more expensive while others get
cheaper. Cars for example get more expensive. People live in smaller
houses so they can afford transportation. Computers get cheaper, this
helps people have more discretionary income. MS office used to cost
$400 bucks, OpenOffice.org does everything MS office does and it's
FREE, So NO you don't have to steal to find ways to compensate
monetarily.

Quoted message said:

Again, please do some research. It takes more energy to produce a
gallon of ethanol than the energy you get out of it. At least for now.

OK, so I did some reasearch and I think I learned that you don't know
how to read. Ethanol produces more energy than it takes to produce -
Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, due to the
use of solar energy to grow. Thats what I found all over the internet.
Solar energy is FREE. It may take more energy from the SUN than you
get out of it, but you don't have to PAY for it, so it comes out that
you net 35%.

x1134x

Corvus Corvax said:

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

CC

Another example of illogic. Ok, so when gas does go to 8 bucks a
gallon, why would it do so? Because making it costs so much more? If
it were the price of crude that set the price of gas, then crude @ 40
bucks a barrel making gas @ 1.15 would mean that crude would need to go
to 80 bucks a barrel to make gas go to 2.30. So it's not the price of
crude, it doesn't suddenly cost more to make gas, it's supply/demand so
all the extra money is *profit*. Right now Chevron, Exxon, etc are
recording record profits @ 3 bucks a gallon. Go they'd love to have
even more profit. They'd take that money and do more destroying of the
environment with it. Is that what you want to see? Our economy brought
down to [censored] because they only things people can buy are gas and food,
while the oil companies dig more wells, build more refineries, and do
what they do best? (spill oil all over)

If you make plastic injection-molding parts it is illegal for you to
mark them up over like 450%. Which means some companies HAVE to sell
them for less than 1 cent per piece. Its a gouging law.

Here's hoping gouging laws get passed on energy companies too.

x1134x

x1134x said:

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?

One need not go to extremes to make a difference. One can stop being a
knee-jerk super-consumer without living like a monk.

Quoted message said:

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!

Yeah, let's start with Israel.

Quoted message said:

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.

What I mean is organic semiconductors, which are anything but
biological. Organic simply implies that the materials are hydrocarbon
based. If you want to talk about that, we can. But the devices I'm
talking about are certainly not incorporating biomolecules.

x1134x said:

Let me set you straight: I live in Boise, ID.

OK.

Quoted message said:

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)

OK, I definitely believe you live in Idaho.

CC

x1134x said:

If it were the price of crude that set the price of gas, then crude @ 40
bucks a barrel making gas @ 1.15 would mean that crude would need to go
to 80 bucks a barrel to make gas go to 2.30.

The community college called. They want their C- in Freshman Economics
back.

Quoted message said:

Here's hoping gouging laws get passed on energy companies too.

Cool! Price controls = shortages. Get ready for gas lines.

CC

Corvus Corvax said:

x1134x said:

If it were the price of crude that set the price of gas, then crude @ 40
bucks a barrel making gas @ 1.15 would mean that crude would need to go
to 80 bucks a barrel to make gas go to 2.30.

The community college called. They want their C- in Freshman Economics
back.

you better get back there then, nothing is mathematically incorrect
about that paragraph. Nor economically infocorrect. Not so good at
word problems in elementary school where you? Given condition A figure
condtion B. Pretty simple [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's hoping gouging laws get passed on energy companies too.

Cool! Price controls = shortages. Get ready for gas lines.

CC

Price control <> Gouging laws.

x1134x

Sorni said:

Phil said:

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

Family newsgroup, buddy.

So buy a mommy and daddy http://www.realdoll.com/dolls.asp

x1134x said:

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.

"As long as I don't look, my convictions hold true!"

--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Quoted message said:

I'm with ya, but I'm less interested in faster drives (even though I
can't beat that into the heads of the tree huggers here who
automatically sterotype you based on your position) I'm more intrested
in reducing the rate of pollution increase.

I thought that was your argument. Cars going 0 mph generate an infinite
amount of pollution/mile, so to reduce pollution you have to increase
speed (up to about 50 mph where air resistance starts to decrease
efficiency)

If you want to reduce the rate of pollution increase then take lanes
away from cars, and give then to busses. Or take the funds away from the
highway builders and invest in light rail. If we leave the same number
of cars stuck in traffic today and move all of the new commuters to
alternatives then we can meet your objectives.

One way or another, cars are killing us. We accept traffic fatality
rates that exceed those of gun crime by a large margin, but boy, get a
few killings by gun in a city and everyone starts screaming. The
pollution is probably responsible for the massive increases in asthma
rates. We're pumping priceless fresh water into the ground to recover
oil. We fight wars over oil because we're addicted to our cars. We're
fat in part because of our cars.

We need to get people out of their cars when we can. The real problem
with most transit is that it is not convenient and cars are. Was it the
Dead Kennedys who first said "Give me convenience or give me death"? (I
checked Wikipedia and that source says it was :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/roadbuilding-futility.html

I can tell by the URL that this site is not going to be UNBIASED.

Just because the source is biased doesn't make the information wrong.
They sky is still blue, no matter who says it, it's still true. You just
may need to check for yourself. When I looked up the references I
suspected that ALL the sources would be biased. Highway construction
firms, car manufacturers and AAA are certainly not going to be
publishing these articles.

Quoted message said:

I must say I respect your opinions more than anyone else who has
replied. (except for mattb who I already knew to be an intelligent
individual from previous discussions) Lots of tree huggers here don't
like to be REALISTIC, they like to be utopian. But hey that's what
makes a greenie.

x1134x

Well thanks, but I think you're wrong on all the major points you've put
across. I just didn't think attacking the messenger was helpful since
there are a large number of people who feel the same way you do. I'm not
even going to get into your bigotted remarks about your fellow transit
users or people who live downtown.

RS

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Then it is just that, an opinion with no merrit.

Quoted message said:

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?

Yes, both ways as often I had to drive without a carpool buddy.

Quoted message said:

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.

Here's where your thinking and opinion are flawed. Opening up the HOV lane
would not improve the traffic flow as more people would opt for the freeway
thus putting more traffic onto the freeway. I-17 got to be so bad I chose
to drive down 7th Street. It took about 5 minutes longer to get to work.

Quoted message said:

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.

Finite but increasing as lanes are added since people that wouldn't normally
use the freeway would start thus creating the same bottleneck. It wouldn't
be sudden but it would be....

Quoted message said:

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?

Carpooled. Try it before you bash it. I use to carpool before HOV lanes
and I worked construction which doesn't normally lend itself to carpooling
due to the tools one needs to carry but I did it. Saved a lot on gas
(though gas was way less expensive then) and had time to catch some extra
rest at 3:30 in the morning.

I also use to ride my bike to work when playing glorified secretary
(engineer). About ten miles through the heart of Phoenix. Now I would
forego HOV lanes for more bike lanes...........

Gary

Quoted message said:

x1134x

x1134x wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I'm with ya, but I'm less interested in faster drives (even though I
can't beat that into the heads of the tree huggers here who
automatically sterotype you based on your position) I'm more intrested
in reducing the rate of pollution increase.

Yes, we can tell you're very concerned about pollution.

And on behalf of "all of us tree huggers" I apologize for stereotyping
you. I'm sure you'd never make broad generalizations or even label a
group of people, would you?

Matt

Robert Schultz said:

If you want to reduce the rate of pollution increase then take lanes
away from cars, and give then to busses. Or take the funds away from the
highway builders and invest in light rail. If we leave the same number
of cars stuck in traffic today and move all of the new commuters to
alternatives then we can meet your objectives.

I'd rather take the money from foreign aid and invest in light rail.
I'd rather take the money from welfare and spend it on light rail, I'd
rather take the money from the 1000 other things we waste money on and
divert it to infrastructure. Also, when is the great american
monorail going to go in? If you could get a 400+ mph train that runs
cross country I think it would be more efficient than airplanes.
Especially with dropoff cars. i.e. the people going to the closest
destination are toward the rear of the train. when they get close to
the stop they let go of the last car, and the front of the train keeps
going, and never stops. The last car brakes, and when the main segment
is passed the turnout, the rails switch for the stopping car.

Quoted message said:

One way or another, cars are killing us. We accept traffic fatality
rates that exceed those of gun crime by a large margin, but boy, get a
few killings by gun in a city and everyone starts screaming.

LOL! More Americans die in the state of California each month in car
accidents than die fighting in Iraq!

Quoted message said:

We need to get people out of their cars when we can. The real problem
with most transit is that it is not convenient and cars are. Was it the
Dead Kennedys who first said "Give me convenience or give me death"? (I
checked Wikipedia and that source says it was :-)

LOL! I like that saying.

Quoted message said:

Well thanks, but I think you're wrong on all the major points you've put
across. I just didn't think attacking the messenger was helpful since
there are a large number of people who feel the same way you do. I'm not
even going to get into your bigotted remarks about your fellow transit
users or people who live downtown.

well I will, because you called them bigoted. Lets 1st start with the
definition of bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group,
religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Ok, I'm probably strongly partial to my own *group* or *politics* as
most of us are. However, I am in no way intolerant of those who differ.
I've posted on other thread's my opinion on this: "freedom is
tolerating other's behaiviors that absolutely infuriate you, as long as
they do not break the law." To be bigoted by the definition of bigot
one must be BOTH strongly partial AND intolerant., thus the word "and".

The act of discussing a particular group or grouping people by common
characteristics is NOT bigoted. Telling the truth about people does not
show intolerance. It is the TRUTH that in Phoenix, the AHEM,
"homosexuals" (commonly refferred to as gays) flock to the downtown
area. It is the TRUTH that many transit riders are homeless people
trying to stay warm, and it is the TRUTH that they stink like human
waste, thus so do the transit vehicles. Merely mentioning this does
not show intolerance.

Saying something to the effect of "We should run all the gays and
homeless out of downtown" would show intolerance. "we shouldn't let
stinky people on busses" would also show Intolerance.

Nothing about "Just the same as most other cities [downtowns],
inhabited by the homeless, and the gays." nor "And man do they flock to
downtown[s]." is intolerant.

x1134x

GeeDubb said:

Then it is just that, an opinion with no merrit.

{:-) showing a keene sense of the obvious this morning. . . .

Quoted message said:

Here's where your thinking and opinion are flawed. Opening up the HOV lane
would not improve the traffic flow as more people would opt for the freeway
thus putting more traffic onto the freeway. I-17 got to be so bad I chose
to drive down 7th Street. It took about 5 minutes longer to get to work.

Again that's just relocating the pollution. The "7th streets" and
"Central Avenues" would be more efficient then.

Quoted message said:

Carpooled. Try it before you bash it. I use to carpool before HOV lanes
and I worked construction which doesn't normally lend itself to carpooling
due to the tools one needs to carry but I did it. Saved a lot on gas
(though gas was way less expensive then) and had time to catch some extra
rest at 3:30 in the morning.

I'm not bashing carpooling. Great concept, do it if you
want/can/desire. I'm bashing taxing citizens to build infrastructure
then denying them access in the name of pollution control.

Quoted message said:

I also use to ride my bike to work when playing glorified secretary
(engineer). About ten miles through the heart of Phoenix. Now I would
forego HOV lanes for more bike lanes...........

I'd shudder to do something physically strenuous in a place as polluted
as Phoenix. You're probably doing more damage to yourself than good. .
.. . when we lived there we'd head to flagstaff or show low to go
biking.

x1134x

MattB said:

x1134x wrote:

Yes, we can tell you're very concerned about pollution.

Evidence to the contrary?

Quoted message said:

And on behalf of "all of us tree huggers" I apologize for stereotyping
you. I'm sure you'd never make broad generalizations or even label a
group of people, would you?

At no point did I refer to "all of you" as tree huggers. But the TRUTH
is some of the users here definately qualify. "Tree-hugger", "nature
lover", you pick a term, I'll pick a term. Some people would rather be
called "red-headed" than "carrot-topped", doesn't stop some people.

x1134x wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I'd shudder to do something physically strenuous in a place as polluted
as Phoenix. You're probably doing more damage to yourself than good. .
.. . when we lived there we'd head to flagstaff or show low to go
biking.

x1134x

Actually research tends to show that you're better off on the bike than
in a car. The car traps noxious pollutants and increases the concentration.

This is great stuff (from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/indoor.htm - search on vehicle):

"MEASURING CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED AIR POLLUTANTS INSIDE CALIFORNIA
VEHICLES. Principal Investigator: Charles Rodes PhD. Research Triangle
Institute. 1999. 95-339.

Objectives: To determine the concentrations of PM, toxic gases, metals,
carbon monoxide, and other pollutants inside vehicles as they are
driven, under various conditions, on California roadways. Also, to
simultaneously measure the pollutants just outside the vehicle, along
the roadway, and at nearby ambient monitoring stations to determine how
pollutant concentrations in those locations differ from and affect
in-vehicle exposure levels.

Findings: Measurements of PM2.5 and PM10 were made in two sedans, a
sport utility vehicle, and a school bus under various types of traffic
conditions, roadways, and cabin ventilation. Investigators also measured
PM-associated metals and 13 VOCs, including methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), benzene, and formaldehyde, and took real-time measurements of
black carbon (soot), particle counts, and carbon monoxide. In general,
VOC and PM levels inside or just outside the vehicles were higher than
those measured at the roadside sites and the ambient air stations. In a
comparison of carpool lane vs. right-hand lane exposure levels,
pollutant levels measured inside vehicles traveling in a carpool lane
were notably lower than those in the right-hand, slower lanes. Factors
such as roadway type, freeway congestion level, and time-of-day were
also found to have some influence on the in-vehicle pollutant levels.
Under the conditions of the study, factors such as vehicle type and
ventilation settings were found to have little effect on the in-vehicle
pollutant levels. In-vehicle levels of fine particles were especially
high when following a diesel or gross-emitting gasoline vehicle, and the
increase occurred very rapidly.

Importance to ARB’s Program: Although Californians spend an average of
seven percent of their time traveling inside vehicles, few in-vehicle
measurements of particles, VOCs, and toxic metals have been made. The
results of this project will be used to improve estimates of
Californians’ current in-vehicle exposures to particles, diesel exhaust,
MTBE, and other pollutants. They will also help determine the relative
contribution of in-vehicle exposures to the total air exposures for
these pollutants. Additionally, the results will be used to identify
actions that drivers and passengers can take to reduce their in-vehicle
exposures to air pollutants. The ARB plans to follow up this study by
investigating PM levels and related factors in school buses and other
vehicles in a future research project.
Abstract
Resnote
Disclaimer -- Ch 7 (PDF - 8,025K)
Appendix A -- Appendix G (PDF - 11,616K)
Appendix H -- Appendix M (PDF - 6,371K)"

x1134x said:

MattB said:

x1134x wrote:

Yes, we can tell you're very concerned about pollution.

Evidence to the contrary?

Your evangelizing about all your petro-toys and how great they are when
you first started posting here?

I could look them up but I really couldn't be bothered. I'm pretty
convinced arguing with you (or most people) is pointless and you're not
going to change your mind.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And on behalf of "all of us tree huggers" I apologize for stereotyping
you. I'm sure you'd never make broad generalizations or even label a
group of people, would you?

At no point did I refer to "all of you" as tree huggers. But the TRUTH
is some of the users here definately qualify. "Tree-hugger", "nature
lover", you pick a term, I'll pick a term. Some people would rather be
called "red-headed" than "carrot-topped", doesn't stop some people.

I know. You just implied it.
Maybe you can't see the irony in using a term of broad generalization in
the very same sentence in which you denounce stereotyping, but it was
just too much to leave alone.
It's even a little amusing to me, so thanks for that.

That's all.

Matt

x1134x said:

Robert Schultz wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Well thanks, but I think you're wrong on all the major points you've put
across. I just didn't think attacking the messenger was helpful since
there are a large number of people who feel the same way you do. I'm not
even going to get into your bigotted remarks about your fellow transit
users or people who live downtown.

well I will, because you called them bigoted. Lets 1st start with the
definition of bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group,
religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Ok, I'm probably strongly partial to my own *group* or *politics* as
most of us are. However, I am in no way intolerant of those who differ.
I've posted on other thread's my opinion on this: "freedom is
tolerating other's behaiviors that absolutely infuriate you, as long as
they do not break the law." To be bigoted by the definition of bigot
one must be BOTH strongly partial AND intolerant., thus the word "and".

<snip>

x1134x

Actually, if you look up the definition of intolerant, we pretty much
all get to be labeled bigoted (as you said 'partial AND intolerant' :-)

That said, maybe the correct term is stereotyping. While you can argue
that your words were not bigoted or that you weren't stereotyping, you
leave everyone reading your statements wondering about the attitudes
behind the statement. Most of the readers would not attribute high
morals and objective to the thoughts that brought those statements about.

I've done transit. I do transit. There are bums. But the only problems
I've ever had were with people who were well dressed and did not stink.
One incident involved a racist (50-60 year old women, well dressed),
another just plain inconsiderate (verbally attacked when asked to remove
backpack that was pressed into another person's face) and rude
(school-girls smoking in the waiting area under the no smoking sign).

It's not the gays and the bums that are the problems in North America.
It's the average intolerant, inconsiderate and selfish people. Me first.

Unfortunately, that's the impression your original email gave. Your
arguments could be correct (although I think the research shows you're
wrong), but the manner that you presented them just got eveyone's back up.

RS

P.S. The I went and reduced the effectiveness of my own argument by
turning to personal experience rather then documented study. Oh well.

Robert Schultz said:

x1134x wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I'd shudder to do something physically strenuous in a place as polluted
as Phoenix. You're probably doing more damage to yourself than good. .
.. . when we lived there we'd head to flagstaff or show low to go
biking.

x1134x

Actually research tends to show that you're better off on the bike than
in a car. The car traps noxious pollutants and increases the concentration.
<snip>

Yeah but what's my heart rate and breathing rate sitting on my ass vs
breathing hard, and working the cardio?

x1134x

MattB said:

Your evangelizing about all your petro-toys and how great they are when
you first started posting here?

Just because I like petro toys, (they are great fun) doesn't mean I
automatically don't care about pollution.

Quoted message said:

I know. You just implied it.
Maybe you can't see the irony in using a term of broad generalization in
the very same sentence in which you denounce stereotyping, but it was
just too much to leave alone.
It's even a little amusing to me, so thanks for that.

I know what you mean, same reason I can't help but reply to a vandemann
post. It's like having a bat in your hand, someone throws you a bunny
toss, you have to take a swing {:-)

This entire newsgroup is amusing to me, thats why you find me here.
Hanging out with folks that agree with you all the time is boring, I
like to hear the arguements (or lack therof) from the opposition every
once in a while.

x1134x