Carbon Footprint

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 27 Mar 2007 15:24:46
From: nash
Subject: Carbon Footprint

Anyone watching CTV Climate change series on the News
http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ for a footprint calculator

average is 5 tons/yr

Date: 07 Apr 2007 01:25:15
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <fEdRh.5129$YL5.1761@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <090Rh.5186$u03.4701@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> China and India may be in trouble soon as some countries have decided
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Do you really mean "countries", or do you mean multi-national
>> corporations operating under flags of convenience (some of
>> which may in fact be US-based?)
>
> I meant countries income not the pollution.

??

> China has polluted the hell
> out of itself and now finds that multi-national corporations think they
> can get still cheaper labor in Africa.

What a strange view. Where are all these African labourers?

> India has been mostly call
> centers and software. If you think Dell's customer service lines are bad
> in India wait until they start in Africa.

Africa is a large continent comprised of a lot of countries,
some of which are politically unstable. So, which African
countries will get to work Dell's customer service lines?
The Belgian Congo? Rhodesia? Libya? The UAE? Abyssinia?

>>> they can get even cheaper labor in Africa.
>>
>> Shell Oil sucks oil out of Nigeria and tells the locals
>> they can go f**k themselves and stay poor, and stay the
>> hell off their oil patches -- go make shoes or sumpthin'.
>
> And thus, I never buy Shell Oil products.

Actually, if you buy any petroleum products, you do.
We all do, directly or indirectly. None of us regular
workaday people can get around it, because all the big
oil companies scratch each others' backs in a measured
way that's almost, but not quite legally definable as
collusion.

As for cheap labour -- the multinational corps don't want
labour /at all/; they've already got more than they need.
They just want a worldful of consumers to lead by the nose.
If we don't have $$$ to gladly willingly throw at 'em, we're
just a bunch of useless nothings to 'em, no matter what
continent we live on.

....

> I am starting to think 'Globalization' is not
> such a good thing.

That's a good sign. Keep on thinking.

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

Date: 07 Apr 2007 15:32:43
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <fEdRh.5129$YL5.1761@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>> In article <090Rh.5186$u03.4701@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> China and India may be in trouble soon as some countries have decided
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> Do you really mean "countries", or do you mean multi-national
>>> corporations operating under flags of convenience (some of
>>> which may in fact be US-based?)
>> I meant countries income not the pollution.
>
> ??
>
>> China has polluted the hell
>> out of itself and now finds that multi-national corporations think they
>> can get still cheaper labor in Africa.
>
> What a strange view. Where are all these African labourers?

You would have to read all the industry magazines (electronics) to even
have a clue. China has gotten so much business that even their labor
rates are going up.
>
>> India has been mostly call
>> centers and software. If you think Dell's customer service lines are bad
>> in India wait until they start in Africa.
>
> Africa is a large continent comprised of a lot of countries,
> some of which are politically unstable. So, which African
> countries will get to work Dell's customer service lines?
> The Belgian Congo? Rhodesia? Libya? The UAE? Abyssinia?

I am not in favor of this nor the one who had the idea, but you know the
CEO of an American corporation will lay off all the Americans, and
switch to the cheapest labor possible to line his own pockets.
Shareholders love this kind of crap, since they can claim to be an
American company and not really employ Americans.
>
>>>> they can get even cheaper labor in Africa.
>>> Shell Oil sucks oil out of Nigeria and tells the locals
>>> they can go f**k themselves and stay poor, and stay the
>>> hell off their oil patches -- go make shoes or sumpthin'.
>> And thus, I never buy Shell Oil products.
>
> Actually, if you buy any petroleum products, you do.
> We all do, directly or indirectly. None of us regular
> workaday people can get around it, because all the big
> oil companies scratch each others' backs in a measured
> way that's almost, but not quite legally definable as
> collusion.

This I know. Don't you think Bush would be sending troops to Nigeria if
the oil supply was threatened? Is he the president or a colluder?
>
> As for cheap labour -- the multinational corps don't want
> labour /at all/; they've already got more than they need.
> They just want a worldful of consumers to lead by the nose.
> If we don't have $$$ to gladly willingly throw at 'em, we're
> just a bunch of useless nothings to 'em, no matter what
> continent we live on.
>
> ....
>
>> I am starting to think 'Globalization' is not
>> such a good thing.
>
> That's a good sign. Keep on thinking.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

Somehow I think that no matter how I would present the argument there
are some people who are oblivious to the decline of the USA.
Just watch.
Bill Baka

Date: 08 Apr 2007 07:33:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:GSURh.1772$w41.202@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <fEdRh.5129$YL5.1761@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>> Tom Keats wrote:
>>>> In article <090Rh.5186$u03.4701@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> China and India may be in trouble soon as some countries have decided
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> Do you really mean "countries", or do you mean multi-national
>>>> corporations operating under flags of convenience (some of
>>>> which may in fact be US-based?)
>>> I meant countries income not the pollution.
>>
>> ??
>>
>>> China has polluted the hell out of itself and now finds that
>>> multi-national corporations think they can get still cheaper labor in
>>> Africa.
>>
>> What a strange view. Where are all these African labourers?
>
> You would have to read all the industry magazines (electronics) to even
> have a clue. China has gotten so much business that even their labor rates
> are going up.
>>
>>> India has been mostly call centers and software. If you think Dell's
>>> customer service lines are bad in India wait until they start in Africa.
>>
>> Africa is a large continent comprised of a lot of countries,
>> some of which are politically unstable. So, which African
>> countries will get to work Dell's customer service lines?
>> The Belgian Congo? Rhodesia? Libya? The UAE? Abyssinia?
>
> I am not in favor of this nor the one who had the idea, but you know the
> CEO of an American corporation will lay off all the Americans, and switch
> to the cheapest labor possible to line his own pockets.
> Shareholders love this kind of crap, since they can claim to be an
> American company and not really employ Americans.
>>
>>>>> they can get even cheaper labor in Africa.
>>>> Shell Oil sucks oil out of Nigeria and tells the locals
>>>> they can go f**k themselves and stay poor, and stay the
>>>> hell off their oil patches -- go make shoes or sumpthin'.
>>> And thus, I never buy Shell Oil products.
>>
>> Actually, if you buy any petroleum products, you do.
>> We all do, directly or indirectly. None of us regular
>> workaday people can get around it, because all the big
>> oil companies scratch each others' backs in a measured
>> way that's almost, but not quite legally definable as
>> collusion.
>
> This I know. Don't you think Bush would be sending troops to Nigeria if
> the oil supply was threatened? Is he the president or a colluder?
>>
>> As for cheap labour -- the multinational corps don't want
>> labour /at all/; they've already got more than they need.
>> They just want a worldful of consumers to lead by the nose. If we don't
>> have $$$ to gladly willingly throw at 'em, we're
>> just a bunch of useless nothings to 'em, no matter what
>> continent we live on.
>>
>> ....
>>
>>> I am starting to think 'Globalization' is not such a good thing.
>>
>> That's a good sign. Keep on thinking.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> Somehow I think that no matter how I would present the argument there are
> some people who are oblivious to the decline of the USA.
> Just watch.
> Bill Baka

Don't kid yourself alot of people are counting on it.
You should see Proshares short US indexes and the dollar.
You can buy double inverse shares to double your money for every point it
goes down.
You might get rich. Not sure if there is still a chance cause people have
been wise for months but just saying if you want to put your money where
your mouth is.

Date: 08 Apr 2007 07:33:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:15:36
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
>
> Don't kid yourself alot of people are counting on it.
> You should see Proshares short US indexes and the dollar.
> You can buy double inverse shares to double your money for every point it
> goes down.
> You might get rich. Not sure if there is still a chance cause people have
> been wise for months but just saying if you want to put your money where
> your mouth is.
>
>
>
Just like the passengers on the Titanic, I can see it coming, but can't
stop it.
Bill Baka

Date: 06 Apr 2007 23:57:41
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <m2tRh.5369$u03.4343@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> All the money is 150 miles away.

You're 150 miles away from the money.

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

Date: 07 Apr 2007 22:14:30
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <m2tRh.5369$u03.4343@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> All the money is 150 miles away.
>
> You're 150 miles away from the money.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
I'm 150 miles from the million dollar starter houses, too.
Is the winner the guy who has a heart attack in his cubicle while owning
the most expensive house? Seriously, I didn't like doing any exercise
down there because of the extra smog I would be inhaling. A doctor did a
study of sorts and concluded that the lunchtime joggers were doing their
lungs more damage than it was worth.
Bill Baka

Date: 06 Apr 2007 00:53:47
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <ZhaRh.7451$EJ6.5888@newsfe24.lga >,
"di" <di9999@cox.net > writes:
>
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
>>>
>> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
>> find a solution quick.
>>
> Who's "we"

The Victorian We ;-)

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

Date: 06 Apr 2007 00:52:06
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <TZdRh.5131$YL5.2905@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country
> dwellers actually need.

We all know what you /want/ -- urban convenience inflicted
on somewhere with a rural-ish feel, and call it The Suburbs.
Otherwise you wouldn't need the car so much.

> When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a
> bike on the freeway.

The country dwellers I know have their work right
at their doorsteps. They need cars & trucks to
deliver their produce to ket, pick up livestock,
and do occasional shopping trips to the city. What
they don't do, is to fire up a Dodge Charger with a
440/six-pack or whatever, to do a 4-block tostados &
salsa run, as happens so much in the city.

> When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT
> riding a bike. When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am
> NOT going to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my
> briefcase.

Nobody's telling you to.

> Someone needs to get real.

I get the feeling the thought of a less car-dependent
system frightens you, perhaps because you can't conceive
that options may exist to the status quo with which you're
so comfortably familiar. Relax. Nobody's yanking your
rolling security blanket away from you. But maybe someday
you'll find you don't need it anymore and grow out of it,
because there'll be something better.

After all, it would be as much folly to say everything has
already been developed with transportation, as it would be
to say everything has already been invented.

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

Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:45:38
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <TZdRh.5131$YL5.2905@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
>> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
>> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country
>> dwellers actually need.
>
> We all know what you /want/ -- urban convenience inflicted
> on somewhere with a rural-ish feel, and call it The Suburbs.
> Otherwise you wouldn't need the car so much.

If I had stayed in the city environment I probably would still need a
car. Just changing jobs when they get bought or go under changes my work
location by about 10-20 miles of bike unfriendly roads.
>
>> When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a
>> bike on the freeway.
>
> The country dwellers I know have their work right
> at their doorsteps. They need cars & trucks to
> deliver their produce to ket, pick up livestock,
> and do occasional shopping trips to the city. What
> they don't do, is to fire up a Dodge Charger with a
> 440/six-pack or whatever, to do a 4-block tostados &
> salsa run, as happens so much in the city.

If you can bring electronic engineering to my doorstep, that would
impress me. I don't fire up anything for my meal trips, except maybe the
bike or just walk a mile each way. My 440 is for play or serious towing.
8 MPG around town doesn't get it.
>
>> When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT
>> riding a bike. When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am
>> NOT going to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my
>> briefcase.
>
> Nobody's telling you to.
>
>> Someone needs to get real.
>
> I get the feeling the thought of a less car-dependent
> system frightens you, perhaps because you can't conceive
> that options may exist to the status quo with which you're
> so comfortably familiar. Relax. Nobody's yanking your
> rolling security blanket away from you. But maybe someday
> you'll find you don't need it anymore and grow out of it,
> because there'll be something better.

All the money is 150 miles away. Sometimes I get lucky and land a choice
engineering project where I get to bring most of the hardware home to
work on in my own lab, or a programming job that can be done from
remote. Someday is close, and that means officially retiring and having
the government give me back some of my tax money.
>
> After all, it would be as much folly to say everything has
> already been developed with transportation, as it would be
> to say everything has already been invented.

I might use public transportation or a commuter train but it doesn't
exist here, and I have sworn off of cubicles.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
FWIW, I only work now when I want extra money to buy something big.
Bill Baka

Date: 06 Apr 2007 13:16:26
From: John Thompson
Subject: A future without cars (was: Carbon Footprint)

An interesting article on a future without cars:

Kunstler argues that the coming age of energy scarcity will change
everything about how we live in this country -- most of all our
dependency on automobiles.

http://www.alternet.org/story/50049/

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 09 Apr 2007 10:58:51
From: dgk
Subject: Re: A future without cars (was: Carbon Footprint)

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:16:26 -0500, John Thompson
<john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote:

>An interesting article on a future without cars:
>
>Kunstler argues that the coming age of energy scarcity will change
>everything about how we live in this country -- most of all our
>dependency on automobiles.
>
> http://www.alternet.org/story/50049/

Interesting and depressing. I think I'll sell all my stock and buy
gold. And a rifle. And move into the hills of Montana and raise goats
and sheep.

Date: 09 Apr 2007 20:38:28
From: Jeremy Parker
Subject: Re: A future without cars (was: Carbon Footprint)

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote in message
news:v3lk131tupuqqcd2ltn0s8cav5puof6uin@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:16:26 -0500, John Thompson
> <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>
>>An interesting article on a future without cars:
>>
>>Kunstler argues that the coming age of energy scarcity will change
>>everything about how we live in this country -- most of all our
>>dependency on automobiles.
>>
>> http://www.alternet.org/story/50049/
>
> Interesting and depressing. I think I'll sell all my stock and buy
> gold. And a rifle. And move into the hills of Montana and raise
> goats
> and sheep.

I understand that making gasoline form coal becomes economical when
the oil price gets to be about $60. There's quite a lot of coal
about

Jeremy Parker

Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:22:01
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: A future without cars (was: Carbon Footprint)

On 2007-04-09, Jeremy Parker <JeremyParker@compuserve.com > wrote:

> I understand that making gasoline form coal becomes economical when
> the oil price gets to be about $60. There's quite a lot of coal
> about

It's only economical if you ignore the pollution costs. And using it
would dump even more hitherto sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 13 Apr 2007 15:04:04
From: nash
Subject: Re: A future without cars (was: Carbon Footprint)

"John Thompson" <john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote in message
news:slrnf1v4g9.n1n.john@vector.os2.dhs.org...
> On 2007-04-09, Jeremy Parker <JeremyParker@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand that making gasoline form coal becomes economical when
>> the oil price gets to be about $60. There's quite a lot of coal
>> about
>
> It's only economical if you ignore the pollution costs. And using it
> would dump even more hitherto sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> --
>
> John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Power production from coal mines is not what it use to be.
they are progressive too

Date: 12 Apr 2007 17:34:27
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: A future without cars

Jeremy Parker wrote:
>
> I understand that making gasoline form coal becomes economical when
> the oil price gets to be about $60. There's quite a lot of coal
> about

Last I heard the price of oil was something like $70, so we should be
seeing this happen any day now if it is true. But somehow I doubt that
the process has really been developed to the point of being feasable.
Apparently it was used by the Germans during WWII when we cut off their
oil supplies, but it was a filthy process.

Although there is quite a bit of coal about, they tend now to just
remove all the land above it to get at the coal. Lovely future we have
in store.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Date: 12 Apr 2007 23:03:26
From: Jeremy Parker
Subject: Re: A future without cars

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message
news:bqKdnY7aH996OIPbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>
>> I understand that making gasoline form coal becomes economical
>> when the oil price gets to be about $60. There's quite a lot of
>> coal about
>
> Last I heard the price of oil was something like $70, so we should
> be seeing this happen any day now if it is true. But somehow I
> doubt that the process has really been developed to the point of
> being feasable. Apparently it was used by the Germans during WWII
> when we cut off their oil supplies, but it was a filthy process.

[snip]

And the same process was used in South Africa when it was being
boycotted over apartheid. One didn't hear of driving being greatly
affected by that. That was recent enough that no doubt Sasol, the
local oil company there, would still have a fair amount of expertise

Jeremy parker

Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:24:55
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: A future without cars

On 2007-04-12, Jeremy Parker <JeremyParker@compuserve.com > wrote:

> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
> news:bqKdnY7aH996OIPbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@ptd.net...
>> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand that making gasoline form coal becomes economical
>>> when the oil price gets to be about $60. There's quite a lot of
>>> coal about
>>
>> Last I heard the price of oil was something like $70, so we should
>> be seeing this happen any day now if it is true. But somehow I
>> doubt that the process has really been developed to the point of
>> being feasable. Apparently it was used by the Germans during WWII
>> when we cut off their oil supplies, but it was a filthy process.
>
> [snip]
>
> And the same process was used in South Africa when it was being
> boycotted over apartheid. One didn't hear of driving being greatly
> affected by that. That was recent enough that no doubt Sasol, the
> local oil company there, would still have a fair amount of expertise

And that worked to a large extent because the SA apartheid government
didn't give a rip about the environmental impact in the Bantustans where
the coal was mined and processed.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 05 Apr 2007 01:46:27
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <090Rh.5186$u03.4701@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> China and India may be in trouble soon as some countries have decided
^^^^^^^^^

Do you really mean "countries", or do you mean multi-national
corporations operating under flags of convenience (some of
which may in fact be US-based?)

> they can get even cheaper labor in Africa.

Shell Oil sucks oil out of Nigeria and tells the locals
they can go f**k themselves and stay poor, and stay the
hell off their oil patches -- go make shoes or sumpthin'.

> Merrily they run along, polluting as they go.

Yeah.

cheers,
Tom

--
"Same as it ever was"
-- Once In a Lifetime : Talking Heads
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:13:47
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <090Rh.5186$u03.4701@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> China and India may be in trouble soon as some countries have decided
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Do you really mean "countries", or do you mean multi-national
> corporations operating under flags of convenience (some of
> which may in fact be US-based?)

I meant countries income not the pollution. China has polluted the hell
out of itself and now finds that multi-national corporations think they
can get still cheaper labor in Africa. India has been mostly call
centers and software. If you think Dell's customer service lines are bad
in India wait until they start in Africa.
>
>> they can get even cheaper labor in Africa.
>
> Shell Oil sucks oil out of Nigeria and tells the locals
> they can go f**k themselves and stay poor, and stay the
> hell off their oil patches -- go make shoes or sumpthin'.

And thus, I never buy Shell Oil products. Darfur would see US troops if
they had a bit of Oil, but since they don't we let the Muslims down
there commit Genocide. I am starting to think 'Globalization' is not
such a good thing.
>
>> Merrily they run along, polluting as they go.

It isn't like Herr Bush gives a damn.
Bill Baka
>
> Yeah.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

Date: 04 Apr 2007 17:54:57
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Apr 4, 9:10 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 4:46 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> 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
>
> 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

Date: 05 Apr 2007 14:37:26
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175734497.488013.163720@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 9:10 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>> > On Apr 1, 4:46 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> 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
>>
>> 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

'greenies' use to mean something else when I was in grade school. Do not
think I like the mental image there.
the Mining Association of BC says there have been huge improvements in coal
fire power generation plants and CO2 emmission.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 05:53:00
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

John Kane wrote:
> On Apr 4, 9:10 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 4:46 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> 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.

>> 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 Hitler might come out as the good guys.

>
> 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.
>
> 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?).
>
> 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

Date: 07 Apr 2007 12:14:35
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On 2007-04-05, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

> 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.

Well, they'd better hurry before all their potential workers die of
AIDS:

http://www.africaaidswatch.org/cold%20stats.htm

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 07 Apr 2007 15:34:18
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-04-05, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, they'd better hurry before all their potential workers die of
> AIDS:
>
> http://www.africaaidswatch.org/cold%20stats.htm
>
Nah,
There are plenty more where they came from. I think Africa has both the
highest birth rate and the highest death rate. Neither is a statistic to
be proud of.
Bill Baka

Date: 04 Apr 2007 04:40:31
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Apr 1, 4:46 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > On 31, 3:50 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> John Kane wrote:
> >>> On 28, 4:17 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> 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
>
> > 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.
>
> > I remember a planner (engineer?) from Shanghai explaining to me that
> > they don't use bricks because they are environmentally unfriendly.
>
> > 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

Date: 04 Apr 2007 06:10:51
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

John Kane wrote:
> On Apr 1, 4:46 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> 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
>
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

Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:01:26
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Date: 28 Mar 2007 06:54:54
From: pj
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:2HaOh.77601$zU1.4226@pd7urf1no...
> Anyone watching CTV Climate change series on the News
> http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ for a footprint calculator
>
> average is 5 tons/yr

Before you concern yourself too much about your carbon footprint, you should
look at this British Channel 4 program on Global Warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

It is over an hour long, but it is well worth the time. You've heard so
much on the other side of the story, now it is time to hear this side of it.

Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first and
THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag time
is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is causing
global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around, global warming
is causing higher levels of CO2.

They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what impressed
me the most.

The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete consensus
among scientists about the causes for global warming but this is a
bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's chicken
little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this discussion, but
the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people are afraid to say
so.

Do yourself a favor and see the other side of the story first and then
decide for yourself, don't just blindly take the political bull that Mr.
Gore is spreading.

Let the flaming begin - I don't care.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 00:47:40
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <wd6dnWTjwOnnH4nbnZ2dnUVZ_tWhnZ2d@ptd.net >,
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > writes:

>> 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 priy 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 shit.
>
> 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

Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:32:46
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <3k0Rh.5188$u03.615@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>> nash wrote:
>>> 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 priy 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 shit.
>>
>> 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

Date: 05 Apr 2007 14:34:16
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:e652ve.1c7.ln@bud.garden.local...
> In article <3k0Rh.5188$u03.615@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>> nash wrote:
>>>> 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 priy 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 shit.
>>>
>>> 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
>
If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
find a solution quick.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 12:25:20
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
>>
> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
> find a solution quick.
>
Who's "we"

Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:36:51
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

di wrote:
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
>> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
>> find a solution quick.
>>
> Who's "we"
>
>
Yeah,
I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country
dwellers actually need. When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a
bike on the freeway. When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT
riding a bike. When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am
NOT going to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my
briefcase.
Someone needs to get real.
Bill Baka

Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:54:48
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:TZdRh.5131$YL5.2905@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> di wrote:
>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
>> news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
>>> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
>>> find a solution quick.
>>>
>> Who's "we"
> Yeah,
> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country dwellers
> actually need. When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a bike on the
> freeway. When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT riding a
> bike. When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am NOT going
> to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my briefcase.
> Someone needs to get real.
> Bill Baka

I was not the one that brought up no cars. It is someone else if you read
the thread.
Why is my name on anything and everything that is printed here.
I say two lines in some quote out of 30 and they say it is from me.
sometimes not even a word from me.
I think it was something to do with cutting back the cars people had a love
affair with.
tongue in cheek comment by me that's all.
I guess people just love to fight about nothing.
You will not get an answer either if you keep asking me about what I never
said when someone else should be replying.
Maybe that is too complicated for some of you cause you just keep name
calling which does not show you are very enlightened.

Date: 06 Apr 2007 04:12:02
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:TZdRh.5131$YL5.2905@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Yeah,
>> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
>> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
>> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country dwellers
>> actually need. When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a bike on the
>> freeway. When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT riding a
>> bike. When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am NOT going
>> to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my briefcase.
>> Someone needs to get real.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I was not the one that brought up no cars. It is someone else if you read
> the thread.
> Why is my name on anything and everything that is printed here.
> I say two lines in some quote out of 30 and they say it is from me.
> sometimes not even a word from me.
> I think it was something to do with cutting back the cars people had a love
> affair with.
> tongue in cheek comment by me that's all.
> I guess people just love to fight about nothing.
> You will not get an answer either if you keep asking me about what I never
> said when someone else should be replying.
> Maybe that is too complicated for some of you cause you just keep name
> calling which does not show you are very enlightened.
>
You do know that with all the activity on this topic it's hard to keep
track of. I wasn't replying just to you but the group.
Don't take it personal, there are a lot of, ummm, debates here.
Bill Baka

Date: 04 Apr 2007 10:56:16
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <Q9sQh.1306$w41.337@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <zDuPh.4627$aG1.1250@pd7urf3no>,
>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> writes:
>>> 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.
....

> 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/ster/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.

> 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

Date: 02 Apr 2007 23:32:12
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <zDuPh.4627$aG1.1250@pd7urf3no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:
> 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.

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

Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:04:29
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <zDuPh.4627$aG1.1250@pd7urf3no>,
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> writes:
>> 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.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
You would have to reduce the consumer base. If the guy next door buys a
new car it is human nature to try to one up him. CO2? "Oooops, didn't
think about that, just had to have a better SUV than my neighbor.".
Tell a consumer that this SUV is environmentally friendly because it has
all the latest smog equipment on it and they actually believe it because
the want to so they can buy that monster. NOx and CO1 might be reduced,
but at 15 MPG average the CO2 is fully twice that of a 30 MPG average
small car. What bothers me is that there seem to be more single
passenger SUV's than small cars lately. With all their newness, they
will be polluting for years to come.
Bill Baka

Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:36:41
From: Jeremy Parker
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

[snip]
>>
>> 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

Date: 03 Apr 2007 16:44:45
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:Q9sQh.1306$w41.337@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <zDuPh.4627$aG1.1250@pd7urf3no>,
>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
> You would have to reduce the consumer base. If the guy next door buys a
> new car it is human nature to try to one up him. CO2? "Oooops, didn't
> think about that, just had to have a better SUV than my neighbor.".
> Tell a consumer that this SUV is environmentally friendly because it has
> all the latest smog equipment on it and they actually believe it because
> the want to so they can buy that monster. NOx and CO1 might be reduced,
> but at 15 MPG average the CO2 is fully twice that of a 30 MPG average
> small car. What bothers me is that there seem to be more single passenger
> SUV's than small cars lately. With all their newness, they will be
> polluting for years to come.
> Bill Baka

Hate to say it but I think you are right on this BB
You forgot giving away free mtbs with the SUVs. Denali was one.
Is that not the name of a huge mt. in Alaska or hwy. To get people to buy
for recreation.
If oil co.s were made to give tax money after a certain profit level to
transit I think we could kill two birds with one stone. Also, car co.s
since you cannot use oil without a vehicle. 3 birds with one stone. let's
be generous.
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. And make it affordable.
BTW, I think the US needs a black president to get you out the hole your
in.
Bet he would know how to fix a bike not just ride one.

Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:43:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> You would have to reduce the consumer base. If the guy next door buys a
>> new car it is human nature to try to one up him. CO2? "Oooops, didn't
>> think about that, just had to have a better SUV than my neighbor.".
>> Tell a consumer that this SUV is environmentally friendly because it has
>> all the latest smog equipment on it and they actually believe it because
>> the want to so they can buy that monster. NOx and CO1 might be reduced,
>> but at 15 MPG average the CO2 is fully twice that of a 30 MPG average
>> small car. What bothers me is that there seem to be more single passenger
>> SUV's than small cars lately. With all their newness, they will be
>> polluting for years to come.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Hate to say it but I think you are right on this BB
> You forgot giving away free mtbs with the SUVs. Denali was one.
> Is that not the name of a huge mt. in Alaska or hwy. To get people to buy
> for recreation.

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.

> If oil co.s were made to give tax money after a certain profit level to
> transit I think we could kill two birds with one stone. Also, car co.s
> since you cannot use oil without a vehicle. 3 birds with one stone. let's
> be generous.

I like that logic because I saw NBC stating that while we have the
highest gas prices ever, the oil executives are just wetting themselves
with glee over the 'Windfall' profit. So we all get screwed at the pump,
Bush spends us into the ground with his war, and life goes on, right?

> 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.

I would have to go off line and do some amount of research, but the
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.
I don't think there are that many BTU's usable in one gallon. 70 or
maybe 80 I think is the upper limit since a lot of heat energy goes out
the radiator or the exhaust pipe. City traffic under 25 should be almost
a wash in stop and go traffic if the regenerative braking works.
Research needed.
Highway MPG = 1/wind resistance.
City MPG = 1/weight.
Lead foot drivers should be factored in to get the real average MPG.

And make it affordable.
> BTW, I think the US needs a black president to get you out the hole your
> in.
> Bet he would know how to fix a bike not just ride one.

Nah,
When it breaks he can just steal another one.
I don't know what to make of Obama, but if he joined with Hillary as her
VP they would positively wipe the floor with the Republican candidate.
This is going to be an interesting year and a half.

BTW,
I don't know of any fuel except H2 that burns clean, and I just can't
envision the general public using en masse H2 fuel stations without a
'Hindenburg' happening.
Nuclear power plants will happen, nuclear car isn't going to happen.
Bill Baka

>
>

Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:26:10
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Bill wrote:

> 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.

>> 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!

Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:23:13
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>>> 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

Date: 09 Apr 2007 17:13:29
From:
Subject: Re: A future without cars (was: Carbon Footprint)

dgk wrote:

> Interesting and depressing. I think I'll sell all my stock and buy
> gold. And a rifle. And move into the hills of Montana and raise goats
> and sheep.

Don't sell your oil and defense stocks
for a while.

Robert

Date: 09 Apr 2007 18:56:41
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A future without cars

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>
>> Interesting and depressing. I think I'll sell all my stock and buy
>> gold. And a rifle. And move into the hills of Montana and raise goats
>> and sheep.
>
> Don't sell your oil and defense stocks
> for a while.
>
> Robert
>
Gold. Just steal a ton of catalytic converters. They each have about
$100 of Platinum in them. A very precious metal and Detroit found a way
to waste it.
Bill Baka

Date: 04 Apr 2007 15:58:19
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

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.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 01:00:38
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> 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 priy 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 shit.

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

Date: 05 Apr 2007 06:04:47
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

David L. Johnson wrote:
> nash wrote:
>> 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 priy 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 shit.
>
> 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

Date: 04 Apr 2007 14:24:41
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Date: 05 Apr 2007 03:39:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:WAUQh.1442$w41.1010@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> 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.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 06:01:21
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:WAUQh.1442$w41.1010@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>>> 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

Date: 05 Apr 2007 14:31:10
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:Rg0Rh.5187$u03.4717@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:WAUQh.1442$w41.1010@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>> nash wrote:
>>>> 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

or they could add a turbo booster and increase horsepower 2-3X. That just
increases air flow.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 12:26:52
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:OK7Rh.33053$aG1.25216@pd7urf3no...
>
>
> or they could add a turbo booster and increase horsepower 2-3X. That just
> increases air flow.
Not really that ignorant are you?

Date: 05 Apr 2007 17:58:54
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:pjaRh.7453$EJ6.3495@newsfe24.lga...
>
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:OK7Rh.33053$aG1.25216@pd7urf3no...
>>
>>
>> or they could add a turbo booster and increase horsepower 2-3X. That
>> just increases air flow.
> Not really that ignorant are you?
Your the ignoramous. It was on a Car driver show 2 days ago.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 11:18:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:

> Your the ignoramous.

Classic! LOL

Date: 05 Apr 2007 16:02:13
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:18:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>nash wrote:
>
>> Your the ignoramous.
>
>Classic! LOL
>

Not to mention, a turbo doesn't just increase air flow or it wouldn't
accomplish much. I guess you could come up with an alternate fuel that
would accept a 50-60% boost in air in the mixture and fire OK, but I'm
guessing the warranty would be void real quick. Does nitro run thin?

Not sure if there are any regular diesel versus turbo diesel engines,
where the cars and engines were as identical as the Saabs when they
settled on the fuel injected only version of the non-Turbo. At best,
those Saabs would get maybe a 25-30% boost in hp over the non-turbo.

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

Date: 05 Apr 2007 16:03:58
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:qkoa13drqqhso2fa0mmnirs19ihbet45o7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:18:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>>nash wrote:
>>
>>> Your the ignoramous.
>>
>>Classic! LOL
>>
>
> Not to mention, a turbo doesn't just increase air flow or it wouldn't
> accomplish much. I guess you could come up with an alternate fuel that
> would accept a 50-60% boost in air in the mixture and fire OK, but I'm
> guessing the warranty would be void real quick. Does nitro run thin?
>
> Not sure if there are any regular diesel versus turbo diesel engines,
> where the cars and engines were as identical as the Saabs when they
> settled on the fuel injected only version of the non-Turbo. At best,
> those Saabs would get maybe a 25-30% boost in hp over the non-turbo.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Besides you won't get anything without increasing the fuel supply along with
the turbo boost. Just to add a turbo alone and pump more air into a
gasoline engine will only create heat, if it would even run. A turbo
charged diesel works entirely different to a turbo gasoline engine, the
diesel engine does not regulate the intake air flow, only the fuel. Even
with a fuel increase on the gasoline engine you will never get 2 -3 times
horsepower increase on a normal engine. The sad thing I think he's
probably talking about are those little fan gimmicks they sell to put into
the air induction, a big do nothing scam. But who am I to know, just
another ignoramus.

Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:34:11
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:WudRh.9671$EJ6.1900@newsfe24.lga...
>
> "Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message
> news:qkoa13drqqhso2fa0mmnirs19ihbet45o7@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 11:18:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>nash wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your the ignoramous.
>>>
>>>Classic! LOL
>>>
>>
>> Not to mention, a turbo doesn't just increase air flow or it wouldn't
>> accomplish much. I guess you could come up with an alternate fuel that
>> would accept a 50-60% boost in air in the mixture and fire OK, but I'm
>> guessing the warranty would be void real quick. Does nitro run thin?
>>
>> Not sure if there are any regular diesel versus turbo diesel engines,
>> where the cars and engines were as identical as the Saabs when they
>> settled on the fuel injected only version of the non-Turbo. At best,
>> those Saabs would get maybe a 25-30% boost in hp over the non-turbo.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
>
> Besides you won't get anything without increasing the fuel supply along
> with the turbo boost. Just to add a turbo alone and pump more air into
> a gasoline engine will only create heat, if it would even run. A turbo
> charged diesel works entirely different to a turbo gasoline engine, the
> diesel engine does not regulate the intake air flow, only the fuel. Even
> with a fuel increase on the gasoline engine you will never get 2 -3 times
> horsepower increase on a normal engine. The sad thing I think he's
> probably talking about are those little fan gimmicks they sell to put into
> the air induction, a big do nothing scam. But who am I to know, just
> another ignoramus.
Was not a fan gimmick It looked like a square on top of the whole engine.
pushing air in and sucking air out. I do not know much about cars but the
host was totally surprised too.

Date: 06 Apr 2007 09:06:56
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:34:11 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:

>Was not a fan gimmick It looked like a square on top of the whole engine.
>pushing air in and sucking air out. I do not know much about cars but the
>host was totally surprised too.

Sounds more like a supercharger. Pushing boost past 50% without an
engine designed for it is a bad idea. Since boost is directly related
to the additional fuel and hence power, minus system losses, you will
not get better than 50% improvement in any system normally used (and
it will be closer to 30%). You want 100% or better, go for it, but
since a 50% supercharger voids most warranties related to your
engine's top end, don't plan to drive a 100% or better boosted engine
around for long.

Yep, they have done interesting things to engines siting in test beds
with lots of cool air in the immediate area, but you aren't going to
find that in an afterket supercharger pushed into a typical crowded
engine bay today. And if you plan to add a supercharger and an
intercooler, plan to have plenty of bandaids for your knuckles.

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

Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:58:37
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:34:11 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Was not a fan gimmick It looked like a square on top of the whole engine.
>> pushing air in and sucking air out. I do not know much about cars but the
>> host was totally surprised too.
>
> Sounds more like a supercharger. Pushing boost past 50% without an
> engine designed for it is a bad idea. Since boost is directly related
> to the additional fuel and hence power, minus system losses, you will
> not get better than 50% improvement in any system normally used (and
> it will be closer to 30%). You want 100% or better, go for it, but
> since a 50% supercharger voids most warranties related to your
> engine's top end, don't plan to drive a 100% or better boosted engine
> around for long.

The new Chevy Volt uses a turbocharger on a 1 liter engine to get 71 HP
at 1,800 RPM. That struck me as really dumb and over stressing a small
engine. At that RPM a lot of torque is needed to get HP. A 3 liter
engine running at about 1,200 RPM would be more economical and reliable
even if a bit bigger. The rod bearings would still need to be huge to
take the beating at low RPM, like diesel bearings.
>
> Yep, they have done interesting things to engines siting in test beds
> with lots of cool air in the immediate area, but you aren't going to
> find that in an afterket supercharger pushed into a typical crowded
> engine bay today. And if you plan to add a supercharger and an
> intercooler, plan to have plenty of bandaids for your knuckles.

Been there, and the knuckles always get the worst of it.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Progress is being made, just too damn slow. This should have been done
ten years ago instead of pushing SUVs and macho pickups.
Bill Baka

Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:51:39
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:WudRh.9671$EJ6.1900@newsfe24.lga...
>> "Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message
>> news:qkoa13drqqhso2fa0mmnirs19ihbet45o7@4ax.com...
>>
>> Besides you won't get anything without increasing the fuel supply along
>> with the turbo boost. Just to add a turbo alone and pump more air into
>> a gasoline engine will only create heat, if it would even run. A turbo
>> charged diesel works entirely different to a turbo gasoline engine, the
>> diesel engine does not regulate the intake air flow, only the fuel. Even
>> with a fuel increase on the gasoline engine you will never get 2 -3 times
>> horsepower increase on a normal engine. The sad thing I think he's
>> probably talking about are those little fan gimmicks they sell to put into
>> the air induction, a big do nothing scam. But who am I to know, just
>> another ignoramus.
> Was not a fan gimmick It looked like a square on top of the whole engine.
> pushing air in and sucking air out. I do not know much about cars but the
> host was totally surprised too.
>
>
I just looked at the Chevy Volt Hybrid/plug-in and they are sort of on
the right track. Having a tiny 1 liter engine with a turbocharger and
running at a constant 1,800 RPM is a bit off the k. A 2 liter
non-turbocharged engine running at a constant 1,200 RPM would make more
sense. It is possible to make power at lower RPM with a lot of torque
but the rod and main bearings would have to be diesel heavy duty.
What ticked me off though was them bragging how high mileage could be
achieved by short trips and plugging in at night, thus making the car a
non-polluter but now needing more electric power plants.
We, as a country, have plenty of coal to burn, but it not only makes CO2
but has high sulfur content to make acid rain. Do we really want that?
More plug-in electric cars will just mean putting the pollution at a
central location.
Now what?
Solar photovoltaic farms?
Windmills?
Nuclear?
Cars aren't going away and plugging one in is definitely not free.
With the electric utilities already raping the bank accounts of
Californians, that would be like paying $10 per gallon of gas.
Just running the A/C in the summer puts the bill for a typical house up
to $300-$400/month, so just think what your bill would be with a plug in
car.
Bill Baka

Date: 03 Apr 2007 23:30:59
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

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

Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:17:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

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

Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:27:36
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:

> "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. T

The real question here is why we think it is reasonable to commute 60
miles per day.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Date: 01 Apr 2007 03:28:06
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <ZcDPh.4356$u03.3642@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

> Nobody under about 55 remembers when this WAS a great country to live.

Living with The Draft and being shipped off to SE Asia
to kill people, citizens having to fight & claw for
Civil Rights and getting rid of Jim Crow, getting busted
for vagrancy, "restricted" country clubs, barefoot & pregnant
women dutifully and submissively performing their household
duties. McCarthy. J. Edgar Hoover. The Red Peril, Civil
Defense tests, air raid sirens, kids having apocalyptic
nightes. Thalidomyde, Thornwell, the Arms Race, DDT,
Blue Whale[tm] fertilizer.

> In 1993 I went to all the houses I lived in growing up playing in
> cornfields from 3 years old until 14 years old. All the cornfields had
> been turned onto condo fields, and my favorite house which had been on
> the fringe of Chicago was now in the city along with absurd traffic.
> I didn't even know what a Mexican was until California. Now Chicago is
> flooded with them.
> Seeing all my old farm fields turned into housing really hurt.

You can't go home again. That's how it's always been.
That's why "you can't go home again" is a saying.

Rod Serling did some nostalgic Twilight Zones about that.

We've just gotta keep looking ahead. Yesterday is finished.
Tomorrow is what we have to sculpt with. Maybe with the help
of some Mexicans. Maybe by Mexicans, with the help of us.
We're all in it together. Cooperation is revolution.

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

Date: 01 Apr 2007 13:56:24
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <ZcDPh.4356$u03.3642@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Nobody under about 55 remembers when this WAS a great country to live.
>
> Living with The Draft and being shipped off to SE Asia
> to kill people, citizens having to fight & claw for
> Civil Rights and getting rid of Jim Crow, getting busted
> for vagrancy, "restricted" country clubs, barefoot & pregnant
> women dutifully and submissively performing their household
> duties. McCarthy. J. Edgar Hoover. The Red Peril, Civil
> Defense tests, air raid sirens, kids having apocalyptic
> nightes. Thalidomyde, Thornwell, the Arms Race, DDT,
> Blue Whale[tm] fertilizer.
>
>> In 1993 I went to all the houses I lived in growing up playing in
>> cornfields from 3 years old until 14 years old. All the cornfields had
>> been turned onto condo fields, and my favorite house which had been on
>> the fringe of Chicago was now in the city along with absurd traffic.
>> I didn't even know what a Mexican was until California. Now Chicago is
>> flooded with them.
>> Seeing all my old farm fields turned into housing really hurt.
>
> You can't go home again. That's how it's always been.
> That's why "you can't go home again" is a saying.
>
> Rod Serling did some nostalgic Twilight Zones about that.
>
> We've just gotta keep looking ahead. Yesterday is finished.
> Tomorrow is what we have to sculpt with. Maybe with the help
> of some Mexicans. Maybe by Mexicans, with the help of us.
> We're all in it together. Cooperation is revolution.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
I would like to look ahead and see everybody in this country able to
talk to each other and not have to have the children as translators.
Funny thing about that, I went to a Taco Bell that was entirely staffed
by Mexicans, in Mundelein, Illinois and had to basically point to things
on the wall menu to get my order. I really felt like I stepped through a
door to Mexico.
Oh well, It is what it is.
Bill Baka

Date: 01 Apr 2007 21:16:46
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

>>
> I would like to look ahead and see everybody in this country able to talk
> to each other and not have to have the children as translators.
> Funny thing about that, I went to a Taco Bell that was entirely staffed by
> Mexicans, in Mundelein, Illinois and had to basically point to things on
> the wall menu to get my order. I really felt like I stepped through a door
> to Mexico.
> Oh well, It is what it is.
> Bill Baka

At least it is authentic. I hate getting Italian food made by Chinese or
others.
Same as Chinese food here is not even Chinese.

Date: 01 Apr 2007 23:23:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
>> I would like to look ahead and see everybody in this country able to talk
>> to each other and not have to have the children as translators.
>> Funny thing about that, I went to a Taco Bell that was entirely staffed by
>> Mexicans, in Mundelein, Illinois and had to basically point to things on
>> the wall menu to get my order. I really felt like I stepped through a door
>> to Mexico.
>> Oh well, It is what it is.
>> Bill Baka
>
> At least it is authentic. I hate getting Italian food made by Chinese or
> others.
> Same as Chinese food here is not even Chinese.
>
>
Well, yeah, we have a good Chinese population here and some really good
all you can eat Chinese places. They, at least make sure they can talk
good English (American?) so they can get your order right.
Dang.
Now I'm hungry for Chinese.
Bill Baka

Date: 01 Apr 2007 07:24:00
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Tom Keats" <tkeats2005@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:mf1oue.0s.ln@bud.garden.local...
> In article <ZcDPh.4356$u03.3642@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Nobody under about 55 remembers when this WAS a great country to live.
>
> Living with The Draft and being shipped off to SE Asia
> to kill people, citizens having to fight & claw for
> Civil Rights and getting rid of Jim Crow, getting busted
> for vagrancy, "restricted" country clubs, barefoot & pregnant
> women dutifully and submissively performing their household
> duties. McCarthy. J. Edgar Hoover. The Red Peril, Civil
> Defense tests, air raid sirens, kids having apocalyptic
> nightes. Thalidomyde, Thornwell, the Arms Race, DDT,
> Blue Whale[tm] fertilizer.
>

Add to that, children respecting their parents, not having to lock your
house or car every minute you weren't near them, schools that actually
taught you something worthwhile to use in life, neighbors that talked to
each other, news media that reported what has happened not what fits their
political agenda, TV and movies you could take children to, being able to
walk the streets at night without fear, children that could play outside
unattended, no sexual predator lists, the list could go on and on. I
have to agree with Bake here, (well over 55)

Date: 02 Apr 2007 11:25:57
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 07:24:00 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:

>Add to that, children respecting their parents, not having to lock your
>house or car every minute you weren't near them, schools that actually
>taught you something worthwhile to use in life, neighbors that talked to
>each other, news media that reported what has happened not what fits their
>political agenda, TV and movies you could take children to, being able to
>walk the streets at night without fear, children that could play outside
>unattended, no sexual predator lists, the list could go on and on. I
>have to agree with Bake here, (well over 55)

Well, let me parse some of the memories:

Didn't have to lock the doors, but we simply had nothing worth
stealing - nor did the neighbors. The big ticket items were the
Frigidaires. One black and white TV and a radio. My son had more stuff
to steal in his room before he left home.

Neighbors that talked to one another. Actually, we talk to our
neighbors, across the four or five decks. We live in a group that
pefers sun to air conditioning, other than one of my Scotties, who is
a weather wimp. Neighbors talked a lot because they were outside a lot
more, what with no air conditioning. Now they make porches you can't
put a chair on. If you did, the watch committee complains.

The news media reported damn near nothing in most parts of the
country. That's why we had third day delivery of several national
newspapers, led by the NY Times. Wichita had two papers, which
generally gave two versions of the same football games and the grain
prices in different layouts. Their merger was one of styles, not
content. Had a lot on the VFW and the Kiwanis.

Kids can still walk the streets, except front porches that worked with
people on them would add to the safety a bit. The problem is more with
parents looking for perfection. So there are more leagues, less
sandlot. Entire days spent without grownup interference. Now there is
a loss...

And do remember that one of the things that led to the degradation in
schools was the increase in opportunities for all of those talented
women that worked at low salaries in one of two professions really
open to them back then: teaching and nursing. Ah, yes, the good old
days, and my wife would be making about $ 20,000 less as an oncology
nurse if we still had those limits.

The good old days didn't work for everyone, just as these days aren't
perfect either.

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

Date: 02 Apr 2007 18:29:42
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 07:24:00 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Add to that, children respecting their parents, not having to lock your
>> house or car every minute you weren't near them, schools that actually
>> taught you something worthwhile to use in life, neighbors that talked to
>> each other, news media that reported what has happened not what fits their
>> political agenda, TV and movies you could take children to, being able to
>> walk the streets at night without fear, children that could play outside
>> unattended, no sexual predator lists, the list could go on and on. I
>> have to agree with Bake here, (well over 55)
>
> Well, let me parse some of the memories:
>
> Didn't have to lock the doors, but we simply had nothing worth
> stealing - nor did the neighbors. The big ticket items were the
> Frigidaires. One black and white TV and a radio. My son had more stuff
> to steal in his room before he left home.

Same here. One black and white TV, which may have been valuable in 1950,
but like you said, the big ticket items were theft proof. Big
refrigerator and cast iron giant Wedgewood stove that actually burned
wood or heating oil.
>
> Neighbors that talked to one another. Actually, we talk to our
> neighbors, across the four or five decks. We live in a group that
> pefers sun to air conditioning, other than one of my Scotties, who is
> a weather wimp. Neighbors talked a lot because they were outside a lot
> more, what with no air conditioning.

Yeah,
We used to be friends with all the neighbors except one drunk who lived
next door. Air conditioning? Open a window. Neighbors actually helped
each other. Sort of country living since each house was on a half acre
but we all knew each other.

Now they make porches you can't
> put a chair on. If you did, the watch committee complains.

Screw controlled housing. If I buy it, it's mine and I'll damn well do
as I please. My sister bought a house in an over 55 community and she
gets pissed about the 'restrictions for the greater good', like no
outside television antennas, cable pretty much mandatory, and more rules
than you would want to read.
>
> The news media reported damn near nothing in most parts of the
> country. That's why we had third day delivery of several national
> newspapers, led by the NY Times. Wichita had two papers, which
> generally gave two versions of the same football games and the grain
> prices in different layouts. Their merger was one of styles, not
> content. Had a lot on the VFW and the Kiwanis.

3 networks and one educational public TV station and my father bringing
home the Chicago Tribune every day since he worked there. Local news?
Talk to the neighbors.
>
> Kids can still walk the streets, except front porches that worked with
> people on them would add to the safety a bit. The problem is more with
> parents looking for perfection. So there are more leagues, less
> sandlot. Entire days spent without grownup interference. Now there is
> a loss...

City living it sounds like. We have a new park here with 2 baseball
fields and one basketball court. The baseball fields are mostly unused
and the basketball court is filled with kids who think they are going to
have a shot at the NBA. Yeah, right! I took my granddaughter and 3
friends to the park and might be getting some people together to
actually play baseball. Progress.
>
> And do remember that one of the things that led to the degradation in
> schools was the increase in opportunities for all of those talented
> women that worked at low salaries in one of two professions really
> open to them back then: teaching and nursing. Ah, yes, the good old
> days, and my wife would be making about $ 20,000 less as an oncology
> nurse if we still had those limits.

Damn, that sounds like my sisters complaints. She had every type of
nursing certificate you could get short of being a doctor and got paid
dirt wages. My daughter is going into teaching mainly because she has
seen electronics and other jobs go off shore and they just CAN'T off
shore teaching. A stable lower paying job or the threat of unemployment.
Some choice.
>
> The good old days didn't work for everyone, just as these days aren't
> perfect either.

They worked better though.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Bill (wants a certain DeLorean) Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 17:20:50
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <JdhPh.17412$nh4.6449@newsfe20.lga >,
"di" <di9999@cox.net > writes:
>
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:80hPh.10578$JZ3.9679@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> nash wrote:
>> So what part of putting 'solar skin' on the car brought this on? If
>> someone drives 10 miles to work and can park in the sun all day that might
>> be enough to charge up the batteries and make the car plug in or liquid
>> fuel independent. Look Ma, ZERO Carbon footprint.
>> THAT was the point, simple.
>> Bill Baka
>
> What they're trying to tell you is that you don't plug the Prius or any
> other hybrid into an electrical power source. They're not golf carts.

Furthermore, in the so-called "developed" (industrialized)
world, there's no such thing as ZERO Carbon footprint.

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.

Once a car has been manufactured, the damage is already done.

I wonder how much building and maintaining paved roads
contributes to GHG emissions?

Photovoltaics rely on certain rare metals, too -- cesium,
indium, etc. So I also wonder, what is the ultimate cost of
extracting (and ultimately disposing of) those? I know they
are in part a byproduct of -- get this -- /coal/ mining.

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

Date: 31 Mar 2007 14:55:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

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.
Re: Tail pipe emissions: The gov't is now confessing after years of and
billions of $ that ethanol does not reduce tail pipe emissions.
In other words that which affects us riders directly.
Indirectly, ethanol is renewable. Oil development is causing pollution,
degradation of nature (flora and fauna), is not renewable and getting
ludicrously expensive to extract. So I opt for the indirect reasons.
Bio-diesel is the best isn't it if you do not use food for fuel that the
rest of the world needs. Which ironically the industrial world caused in
the first place. None of this would have happened, IMHO, if we just stuck
to horses, bicycles and oh yes hemp oil for autos. 99% usable because of
food, paper, cloth, maybe board and 100% renewable. No starvation, no gov't
corruption and over powering war starved countries.
Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?

Date: 31 Mar 2007 19:59:16
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> 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.
> Re: Tail pipe emissions: The gov't is now confessing after years of and
> billions of $ that ethanol does not reduce tail pipe emissions.
> In other words that which affects us riders directly.
> Indirectly, ethanol is renewable. Oil development is causing pollution,
> degradation of nature (flora and fauna), is not renewable and getting
> ludicrously expensive to extract. So I opt for the indirect reasons.
> Bio-diesel is the best isn't it if you do not use food for fuel that the
> rest of the world needs. Which ironically the industrial world caused in
> the first place. None of this would have happened, IMHO, if we just stuck
> to horses, bicycles and oh yes hemp oil for autos.

I just read up on hemp seed oil being used LEGALLY for a nutrition
supplement as long as the THC content is almost non-existent.
Add to that the plant is so robust it will grow unattended almost
anywhere. But of course Herr Bush would never admit to that.

99% usable because of
> food, paper, cloth, maybe board and 100% renewable. No starvation, no gov't
> corruption

(No corruption in this lifetime?)

and over powering war starved countries.
> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?

Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
Bill Baka

Date: 01 Apr 2007 00:15:53
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> 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.
>> Re: Tail pipe emissions: The gov't is now confessing after years of and
>> billions of $ that ethanol does not reduce tail pipe emissions.
>> In other words that which affects us riders directly.
>> Indirectly, ethanol is renewable. Oil development is causing pollution,
>> degradation of nature (flora and fauna), is not renewable and getting
>> ludicrously expensive to extract. So I opt for the indirect reasons.
>> Bio-diesel is the best isn't it if you do not use food for fuel that the
>> rest of the world needs. Which ironically the industrial world caused in
>> the first place. None of this would have happened, IMHO, if we just
>> stuck to horses, bicycles and oh yes hemp oil for autos.
>
> I just read up on hemp seed oil being used LEGALLY for a nutrition
> supplement as long as the THC content is almost non-existent.
> Add to that the plant is so robust it will grow unattended almost
> anywhere. But of course Herr Bush would never admit to that.
>
> 99% usable because of
>> food, paper, cloth, maybe board and 100% renewable. No starvation, no
>> gov't corruption
>
> (No corruption in this lifetime?)
>
>
> and over powering war starved countries.
>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>
> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
> Bill Baka

I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.

Date: 01 Apr 2007 00:33:19
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> I just read up on hemp seed oil being used LEGALLY for a nutrition
>> supplement as long as the THC content is almost non-existent.
>> Add to that the plant is so robust it will grow unattended almost
>> anywhere. But of course Herr Bush would never admit to that.
>>
>> 99% usable because of
>>> food, paper, cloth, maybe board and 100% renewable. No starvation, no
>>> gov't corruption
>> (No corruption in this lifetime?)

Shit, man, politics===corruption. Always has in my lifetime.
>>
>>
>> and over powering war starved countries.
>>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.
>
>
I hear you. Having made it to 58 and seeing so much go downhill so fast,
makes me wonder if I want to tie my grandmother at 100????? Watching the
news kills me when I see some damned politician pushing 'Growth'.
Grow where? Not in my backyard I hope. When I retire I have 2 choices,
stay in a growing into a city area, or head for the hills, like Wyoming,
Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, something like that. Wide open spaces for
me to ride and plenty within bike in trunk of car range.
I'm taking option #2.
Bill Baka

Date: 31 Mar 2007 19:27:12
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:ZQCPh.8014$aG1.7499@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>> and over powering war starved countries.
>>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>>
>> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.
>

Not much of a page is it?

Date: 01 Apr 2007 00:48:57
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:B%CPh.57458$mJ1.44528@newsfe22.lga...
>
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:ZQCPh.8014$aG1.7499@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>
>>> and over powering war starved countries.
>>>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>>>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>>>
>>> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.
>>
>
> Not much of a page is it?
did someone say something

Date: 31 Mar 2007 20:49:12
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:ZjDPh.7593$6m4.676@pd7urf1no...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:B%CPh.57458$mJ1.44528@newsfe22.lga...
>>
>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZQCPh.8014$aG1.7499@pd7urf3no...
>>>
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>
>>>> and over powering war starved countries.
>>>>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>>>>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>>>>
>>>> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>>
>>> I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.
>>>
>>
>> Not much of a page is it?
> did someone say something
>

That's what I was thinking

Date: 01 Apr 2007 05:24:31
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:pcEPh.287858$BK1.249969@newsfe13.lga...
>
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:ZjDPh.7593$6m4.676@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:B%CPh.57458$mJ1.44528@newsfe22.lga...
>>>
>>> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ZQCPh.8014$aG1.7499@pd7urf3no...
>>>>
>>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>> and over powering war starved countries.
>>>>>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>>>>>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>
>>>> I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not much of a page is it?
>> did someone say something
>>
>
> That's what I was thinking

Good for you. I just luv cryptic messages.Not
>
k seems to know who is talking about him even if he says nobody does.
Too bad the message didn't come in one after the other. boo hoo
take your rant elsewhere
ever hear of etiquette

Date: 01 Apr 2007 05:40:42
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

k seems to know who is talking about him even if he says nobody does.
Too bad the message didn't come in one after the other. boo hoo
take your rant elsewhere
ever hear of etiquette

And how is that titanium neck tie working out k?
Pointing out people's typos seems to be a major pasttime for you.
Little things interest little men.

Date: 01 Apr 2007 00:41:29
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

di wrote:
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:ZQCPh.8014$aG1.7499@pd7urf3no...
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:o4zPh.4324$u03.748@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>> and over powering war starved countries.
>>>> Being human however, we will always destroy everything around us
>>>> including each other for no good reason anyway. : > 0 ?
>>> Well, at least you are a realist and see it coming.
>>> Bill Baka
>> I hope I am dead by then but at least 2 of us are on the same page.
>>
>
> Not much of a page is it?
>
>
Nobody under about 55 remembers when this WAS a great country to live.
In 1993 I went to all the houses I lived in growing up playing in
cornfields from 3 years old until 14 years old. All the cornfields had
been turned onto condo fields, and my favorite house which had been on
the fringe of Chicago was now in the city along with absurd traffic.
I didn't even know what a Mexican was until California. Now Chicago is
flooded with them.
Seeing all my old farm fields turned into housing really hurt.
Bill Baka

Date: 31 Mar 2007 08:47:02
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:

>Bio-diesel is the best isn't it if you do not use food for fuel that the
>rest of the world needs. Which ironically the industrial world caused in
>the first place. None of this would have happened, IMHO, if we just stuck
>to horses, bicycles and oh yes hemp oil for autos. 99% usable because of
>food, paper, cloth, maybe board and 100% renewable. No starvation, no gov't
>corruption and over powering war starved countries.

So you're saying if we were using primitive farming methods, there
would be more food production to feed the world? Hmmmmmm. That's a
bit of "logic" I've never heard before. Or maybe it's just that the
way you wrote the above is such tortured syntax that it's really
impossible to discern your true meaning...

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 01 Apr 2007 00:01:28
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

no? How about this
fueled by Bio Diesel. No War Required.

maybe you are a lame brain

Date: 31 Mar 2007 18:01:26
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:

>no? How about this
>fueled by Bio Diesel. No War Required.
>
>maybe you are a lame brain

Maybe no one can tell what / who you're talking about / to.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 31 Mar 2007 03:33:36
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <JdhPh.17412$nh4.6449@newsfe20.lga>,
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> writes:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:80hPh.10578$JZ3.9679@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>>> nash wrote:
>>> So what part of putting 'solar skin' on the car brought this on? If
>>> someone drives 10 miles to work and can park in the sun all day that might
>>> be enough to charge up the batteries and make the car plug in or liquid
>>> fuel independent. Look Ma, ZERO Carbon footprint.
>>> THAT was the point, simple.
>>> Bill Baka
>> What they're trying to tell you is that you don't plug the Prius or any
>> other hybrid into an electrical power source. They're not golf carts.

I have seen, maybe prototypes, that DO plug in for a boost or recharge.
Whether or not to do it depends on gas prices (which just went over
$4.00 a gallon in Sacramento) and your electric bill. Use the cheaper.
A plug in charge might get you 30 miles without ever having to start the
engine, fuel cell, or whatever.

>
> Furthermore, in the so-called "developed" (industrialized)
> world, there's no such thing as ZERO Carbon footprint.

Of that I am aware, more aware than I want to be.
>
> 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.
>
> Once a car has been manufactured, the damage is already done.

At least it's being done in China and not here.
>
> I wonder how much building and maintaining paved roads
> contributes to GHG emissions?

Probably not that much unless you count the vegetation that was cleared
for the roads.
>
> Photovoltaics rely on certain rare metals, too -- cesium,
> indium, etc. So I also wonder, what is the ultimate cost of
> extracting (and ultimately disposing of) those? I know they
> are in part a byproduct of -- get this -- /coal/ mining.

Photovoltaics are almost never just tossed, but sold to someone else who
wants solar volts, and the seller may be buying a bigger set. At end of
life, which hasn't happened to any panels made in the last 20 years or
so, end of life hasn't happened. Once they are made they just keep
cranking out the power. Can't say anything positive about gasoline
burning though since it is a repetitive waste.
Us normal people actually do need a car, like it or not. I have to drive
to business/customer meetings and showing up on a bicycle just doesn't
cut it. Sorry, but cars are not going away.
Bill Baka
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>

Date: 30 Mar 2007 16:51:50
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <K3hPh.10579$JZ3.2624@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > writes:

>>> If you put a beany type cap on your car would that work as a wind energy
>>> generator.
>>
>> Hey, and electric autogyro.
>> Perpetual motion to boot! <grin>
>>
>> Just gotta watch out for decapitations,
>> getting out of the vehicle.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tom
>>
> None of the above. Since I get to retire in 3.5 years I am moving out of
> California first, but the where is a big question.

Washingtonians and Oregonians have heard about you
California refugees.

> Maybe a house on 5
> acres in the middle of nowhere and no zoning restrictions. Wind and
> solar for a totally free powered house and maybe car, too.

Get something with creek/river frontage, and hook up a
boat generator to a waterwheel. With the right gearbox
between the wheel and the generator you could tune your
power production to the water flow. A hydraulic ram pump
feeding a water tower can motorlessly assist with keeping
your indoor plumbing going (if you opt for indoor plumbing.)

> I'm just thinking ahead, because when that time comes I will not want to
> be spending $6.00 a gallon on gasoline.

Just don't turn into one of those nutbar, gun-hoarding
survivalists, riding shotgun on a pile of sacks of
dessicated legumes & jerky recipes, wishing the
revolution/apocalypse would hurry up and happen so
they can shoot somebody.

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

Date: 30 Mar 2007 14:25:59
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

In article <dGdPh.473$DE1.180@pd7urf2no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > writes:

>> I mentioned solar cell on the car and for this you want to rag on me?
>> Solar at home and a windmill too if you have any property.
>> Less oil is better, and that's the way I'm headed.
>> Now I need to find a house with a bigger lot so I can have my own wind
>> farm.
>> Bill Baka
>
> If you put a beany type cap on your car would that work as a wind energy
> generator.

Hey, and electric autogyro.
Perpetual motion to boot! <grin >

Just gotta watch out for decapitations,
getting out of the vehicle.

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

Date: 30 Mar 2007 23:29:46
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <dGdPh.473$DE1.180@pd7urf2no>,
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> writes:
>
>>> I mentioned solar cell on the car and for this you want to rag on me?
>>> Solar at home and a windmill too if you have any property.
>>> Less oil is better, and that's the way I'm headed.
>>> Now I need to find a house with a bigger lot so I can have my own wind
>>> farm.
>>> Bill Baka
>> If you put a beany type cap on your car would that work as a wind energy
>> generator.
>
> Hey, and electric autogyro.
> Perpetual motion to boot! <grin>
>
> Just gotta watch out for decapitations,
> getting out of the vehicle.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
None of the above. Since I get to retire in 3.5 years I am moving out of
California first, but the where is a big question. Maybe a house on 5
acres in the middle of nowhere and no zoning restrictions. Wind and
solar for a totally free powered house and maybe car, too.
I'm just thinking ahead, because when that time comes I will not want to
be spending $6.00 a gallon on gasoline.
Bill Baka

Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:19:53
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

pj wrote:

> Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
> temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
> correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first and
> THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag time
> is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is causing
> global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around, global warming
> is causing higher levels of CO2.

Hmm. But then those who poo-poo global warming usually trot out
evidence from 1950-1970 of global cooling. Which is right?

800 years ago is probably the little ice age (although most of that was
later), and, yup, the climate is warmer than then. It is also warmer
than 1970. Is all this due to coming out of the little ice age? Half
of that warming has come since 1970, so, you're going to say it's just a
continuation of the long-term trend from then?
>
> They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what impressed
> me the most.
>
> The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete consensus
> among scientists about the causes for global warming but this is a
> bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's chicken
> little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this discussion, but
> the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people are afraid to say
> so.

Yeah, you'll get flamed for this. Which scientists are claiming this?
If you've read Michael Crichton's novel, as I suspect, you have seen the
names of most of the denials. Choose whom to believe, but know why
people are saying what they are saying.

Who has something to gain in this discussion? Where can research
dollars be put in order to increase profits and postpone taking stock of
the costs? Crichton et al want you to believe that there is an evil
conspiracy of environmentalists to take over the government for some
sort of socialist utopia. If you believe that, then we have nothing to
discuss. Most of these scientists, and I am not one of them, are really
just reporting what they are finding, and making the best predictions
they can. On the other hand, each of the scientists I looked up from
Crichton's novel were supported by --- the oil companies. Coincidence?
Do the oil companies have something to gain by not discouraging use of
their product? Do they have something to gain by belittling the
research of those who claim that product causes harm? Which "side" is
more likely to have a financial stake in the issue that might sway their
arguments? Crichton himself has made a pretty penny over the years
making wild claims about the excesses of science, and is continuing to
do so.

On the other hand, no, these scientists do not know what will happen.
They run their models, and their models are far from perfect --- they
cannot predict next week's weather, much less 22nd century climate.
However, climate is not as chaotic a system as is weather, precisely
because it is averaged out. So, in that sense there is a better chance
of getting a reasonable climate model than a weather model.

Whatever way the academic argument goes, we will, however, keep burning
oil and coal until it runs out, and then worry about the consequences.
One side will be able to say that it was right, but the society will
continue on the path it has set until the costs become unbearable, or
until the remaining oil takes more energy to get out of the ground than
it will provide. The timetables for both of these events are similar,
so it doesn't really matter unless you live at a low elevation or are
unlucky enough to get a worse-than-average effect.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Date: 29 Mar 2007 06:49:38
From: pj
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Let's look at who benefits from the hysteria:

Lots of money is being dolled out for research on global warming - don't
you think those scientists have a vested interest in keeping up the hype of
gloom and doom?

I do not know for a fact, but I read that Gore is CEO of an investment fund
aimed at carbon credits. It sure sounds like he has a financial interest in
perpetuating the hype. He also has a huge political interest. This comes
to you from the man who "invented the internet."

Believe me, I FULLY AGREE that we should be consuming far less
non-renewable energy than we do. I'm the type who goes around turning off
unused lights both at home and at work. It is a losing battle. Everyone
else at work is too &#%!! lazy to simply flip the switch to off when not in
use. I even turn off the power supply to my laptop computer when not in use
to save a bit of energy. I'm all for saving the environment, but we need to
spend our resources wisely. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars to cut
CO2 is madness if that isn't the cause of the problem. It will also cause
the "cried wolf effect" if we spend all that money and it doesn't make a
dent in the problem. Lets find out what the root cause is before wasting
time and money fixing a problem that isn't even a problem.

If you close your mind to the other side of the story, you are cheating
yourself. At least watch it and then flame me if you still think a flame is
in order.

Another big point made in the program is that sun activity is a much better
predictor of global climate changes. And yes, they do point out the global
cooling hysteria of a few decades ago, but they make a valid point.

You can lead a hard-core 'environmentalist' to the facts, but you can't make
him think.

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message
news:mN6dnahLovumiZbbnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@ptd.net...
> pj wrote:
>
>> Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
>> temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
>> correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first
>> and THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag
>> time is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is
>> causing global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around,
>> global warming is causing higher levels of CO2.
>
> Hmm. But then those who poo-poo global warming usually trot out evidence
> from 1950-1970 of global cooling. Which is right?
>
> 800 years ago is probably the little ice age (although most of that was
> later), and, yup, the climate is warmer than then. It is also warmer than
> 1970. Is all this due to coming out of the little ice age? Half of that
> warming has come since 1970, so, you're going to say it's just a
> continuation of the long-term trend from then?
>>
>> They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what
>> impressed me the most.
>>
>> The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete
>> consensus among scientists about the causes for global warming but this
>> is a bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's
>> chicken little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this
>> discussion, but the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people
>> are afraid to say so.
>
> Yeah, you'll get flamed for this. Which scientists are claiming this? If
> you've read Michael Crichton's novel, as I suspect, you have seen the
> names of most of the denials. Choose whom to believe, but know why people
> are saying what they are saying.
>
> Who has something to gain in this discussion? Where can research dollars
> be put in order to increase profits and postpone taking stock of the
> costs? Crichton et al want you to believe that there is an evil
> conspiracy of environmentalists to take over the government for some sort
> of socialist utopia. If you believe that, then we have nothing to
> discuss. Most of these scientists, and I am not one of them, are really
> just reporting what they are finding, and making the best predictions they
> can. On the other hand, each of the scientists I looked up from
> Crichton's novel were supported by --- the oil companies. Coincidence? Do
> the oil companies have something to gain by not discouraging use of their
> product? Do they have something to gain by belittling the research of
> those who claim that product causes harm? Which "side" is more likely to
> have a financial stake in the issue that might sway their arguments?
> Crichton himself has made a pretty penny over the years making wild claims
> about the excesses of science, and is continuing to do so.
>
> On the other hand, no, these scientists do not know what will happen. They
> run their models, and their models are far from perfect --- they cannot
> predict next week's weather, much less 22nd century climate. However,
> climate is not as chaotic a system as is weather, precisely because it is
> averaged out. So, in that sense there is a better chance of getting a
> reasonable climate model than a weather model.
>
> Whatever way the academic argument goes, we will, however, keep burning
> oil and coal until it runs out, and then worry about the consequences. One
> side will be able to say that it was right, but the society will continue
> on the path it has set until the costs become unbearable, or until the
> remaining oil takes more energy to get out of the ground than it will
> provide. The timetables for both of these events are similar, so it
> doesn't really matter unless you live at a low elevation or are unlucky
> enough to get a worse-than-average effect.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
> You soon find out the pig likes it!

Date: 29 Mar 2007 15:35:48
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

pj wrote:
> Let's look at who benefits from the hysteria:
>
> Lots of money is being dolled out for research on global warming - don't
> you think those scientists have a vested interest in keeping up the hype of
> gloom and doom?

Most of the money, at least federal research dollars, is not tied to any
vested interest. On the other hand, even if you did claim all that
money was the point of all that research, you'd have to admit that it
would be a drop in the bucket compared to the money in the oil business,
who are funding the "other side" research, which does indeed have an agenda.

> Believe me, I FULLY AGREE that we should be consuming far less
> non-renewable energy than we do.

Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going to
keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until we
run out.

The worst thing about the environmental activists is the
holier-than-thou attitude while they make meaningless gestures at
reducing their own footprint. A Prius is just another car, not a
solution to anything. Even electric cars create essentially the same
amount of greenhouse gasses, but at the powerplant rather than the
tailpipe. This is of course not counting the pollution generated making
the fancy batteries. Asking people to do without, to live where they
work, will fall on deaf ears as long as they can afford it.

> spend our resources wisely. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars to cut
> CO2 is madness if that isn't the cause of the problem. It will also cause
> the "cried wolf effect" if we spend all that money and it doesn't make a
> dent in the problem. Lets find out what the root cause is before wasting
> time and money fixing a problem that isn't even a problem.

Never fear, this sort of thing will never happen anyway. Oh, by the
way, you and anyone else talking about how terrible this would be all
know full well it's not going to happen.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Date: 29 Mar 2007 19:33:26
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

David L. Johnson wrote:
> pj wrote:
>> Let's look at who benefits from the hysteria:
>>
>> Lots of money is being dolled out for research on global warming -
>> don't you think those scientists have a vested interest in keeping up
>> the hype of gloom and doom?
>
> Most of the money, at least federal research dollars, is not tied to any
> vested interest. On the other hand, even if you did claim all that
> money was the point of all that research, you'd have to admit that it
> would be a drop in the bucket compared to the money in the oil business,
> who are funding the "other side" research, which does indeed have an
> agenda.
>
>> Believe me, I FULLY AGREE that we should be consuming far less
>> non-renewable energy than we do.
>
> Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
> that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
> promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going to
> keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until we
> run out.

They may go out because of the weather, if we are that dependent on oil.
Coal we have plenty of but the darned high Sulfur content.
>
> The worst thing about the environmental activists is the
> holier-than-thou attitude while they make meaningless gestures at
> reducing their own footprint.

That sounds like you should get a job on a Japanese whaling boat. They
kill 850 a year for ***Scientific Research***.

A Prius is just another car, not a
> solution to anything. Even electric cars create essentially the same
> amount of greenhouse gasses, but at the powerplant rather than the
> tailpipe. This is of course not counting the pollution generated making
> the fancy batteries. Asking people to do without, to live where they
> work, will fall on deaf ears as long as they can afford it.

One thing I would do with the Prius is bury it in solar cells. That way
if you park it in the sun all day you may not need to plug in at home.
>
>> spend our resources wisely. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars
>> to cut CO2 is madness if that isn't the cause of the problem. It will
>> also cause the "cried wolf effect" if we spend all that money and it
>> doesn't make a dent in the problem. Lets find out what the root cause
>> is before wasting time and money fixing a problem that isn't even a
>> problem.
>
> Never fear, this sort of thing will never happen anyway. Oh, by the
> way, you and anyone else talking about how terrible this would be all
> know full well it's not going to happen.
>
Like we didn't extinctify the Wooly Mammoths by hunting them to death.
Rain forests are being cut down for no good reason, so how ling will
they last? May we can make trees extinct if we try heard enough.
Bill Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 09:40:59
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Thu, 29 2007 19:33:26 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>One thing I would do with the Prius is bury it in solar cells. That way
>if you park it in the sun all day you may not need to plug in at home.

You do know that you never plug in a Prius, don't you? It isn't how it
works.

You 'plug it in' at your local gasoline station.

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

Date: 30 Mar 2007 18:30:55
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 2007 19:33:26 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> One thing I would do with the Prius is bury it in solar cells. That way
>> if you park it in the sun all day you may not need to plug in at home.
>
> You do know that you never plug in a Prius, don't you? It isn't how it
> works.
>
> You 'plug it in' at your local gasoline station.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Yeah,
Which means you are still supporting the oil industry.
Less, but still doing it.
Bill Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 15:36:13
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Fri, 30 2007 18:30:55 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>> You 'plug it in' at your local gasoline station.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
>Yeah,
>Which means you are still supporting the oil industry.
>Less, but still doing it.
>Bill Baka

And this is supposed to be a revelation? FWIW, probably everyone on
this list supports the oil industry at some point, maybe less, maybe
more, but to some degree at some level. What's your point?

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

Date: 06 Apr 2007 06:35:11
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Apr 5, 5:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> di wrote:
> > "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote in message
> >news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
> >> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
> >> find a solution quick.
>
> > Who's "we"
>
> Yeah,
>> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country
> dwellers actually need.

Bill, you've lost a clause or something here. :)

> When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a bike on the freeway.

Move closer to work ?

>When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT
> riding a bike.

Train, plane etc? If I were going to be in Paris on business for a
week I would probably not try to bike there, either. I might be nice
to have one while there though.

When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am
> NOT going to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my
> briefcase.

Don't wear the suit? I don't usually turn up in full lycra but grey
flannels, a turtle neck shirt and a tweed jacket go a long way. :)

> Someone needs to get real.

An interesting Canadian statistic is that the median commute for
adult Canadians is 7.2 km. So, while you may not be able to ride to
work, it looks like at least 50% of the Canadian population is within
a 20-30 minute ride. Does anyone have comparable US stats?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
> Bill Baka

Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:51:13
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

John Kane wrote:
> On Apr 5, 5:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> di wrote:
>>> "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote in message
>>> news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
>>>> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
>>>> find a solution quick.
>>> Who's "we"
>> Yeah,
>>> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
>> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
>> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country
>> dwellers actually need.
>
> Bill, you've lost a clause or something here. :)
>
>
>> When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a bike on the freeway.
>
> Move closer to work ?

What, sell my house and everything I own for the luxury of a tiny condo
in the middle of the muck? You nuts?
>
>> When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT
>> riding a bike.
>
> Train, plane etc? If I were going to be in Paris on business for a
> week I would probably not try to bike there, either. I might be nice
> to have one while there though.

Can't be done. I would have to take a Greyhound bus to Sacramento, then
local transit to the train station, then a real train to Silicon valley,
then light rail to somewhere near work, etc.....
I'm too far out so I either telecommute or do something locally.
>
> When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am
>> NOT going to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my
>> briefcase.
>
> Don't wear the suit? I don't usually turn up in full lycra but grey
> flannels, a turtle neck shirt and a tweed jacket go a long way. :)

Yeah,
I don't actually do suits either. I tell them I am interviewing based on
knowledge and not dress code. If they demand a suit, then it is "Later."
>
>> Someone needs to get real.
>
> An interesting Canadian statistic is that the median commute for
> adult Canadians is 7.2 km. So, while you may not be able to ride to
> work, it looks like at least 50% of the Canadian population is within
> a 20-30 minute ride. Does anyone have comparable US stats?
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>> Bill Baka
>
>
You calling ME average?
Bill Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 18:44:33
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 30 2007 18:30:55 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> You 'plug it in' at your local gasoline station.
>>>
>>> Curtis L. Russell
>>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>>> Just someone on two wheels...
>> Yeah,
>> Which means you are still supporting the oil industry.
>> Less, but still doing it.
>> Bill Baka
>
> And this is supposed to be a revelation? FWIW, probably everyone on
> this list supports the oil industry at some point, maybe less, maybe
> more, but to some degree at some level. What's your point?
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

I mentioned solar cell on the car and for this you want to rag on me?
Solar at home and a windmill too if you have any property.
Less oil is better, and that's the way I'm headed.
Now I need to find a house with a bigger lot so I can have my own wind farm.
Bill Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 19:37:45
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:lUcPh.19865$uo3.19263@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 2007 18:30:55 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You 'plug it in' at your local gasoline station.
>>>>
>>>> Curtis L. Russell
>>>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>>>> Just someone on two wheels...
>>> Yeah,
>>> Which means you are still supporting the oil industry.
>>> Less, but still doing it.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> And this is supposed to be a revelation? FWIW, probably everyone on
>> this list supports the oil industry at some point, maybe less, maybe
>> more, but to some degree at some level. What's your point?
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
> I mentioned solar cell on the car and for this you want to rag on me?
> Solar at home and a windmill too if you have any property.
> Less oil is better, and that's the way I'm headed.
> Now I need to find a house with a bigger lot so I can have my own wind
> farm.
> Bill Baka

If you put a beany type cap on your car would that work as a wind energy
generator.
The faster you go the more energy you could use. Maybe as a supplement to
the solar power roof.
I like the wind farm. Maybe you can buy some wind farm stock?

Date: 06 Apr 2007 13:45:21
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Apr 6, 10:51 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > On Apr 5, 5:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> di wrote:
> >>> "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:IN7Rh.32746$DE1.9017@pd7urf2no...
> >>>> If we did not let anyone buy any more cars after today we could probably
> >>>> find a solution quick.
> >>> Who's "we"
> >> Yeah,
> >>> I'm not a we. I actually have to have a car. No dimwit who thinks living
> >> in an apartment and pedaling his ass a few miles to work in the city is
> >> capable of rational thinking about what suburbanites and country
> >> dwellers actually need.
>
> > Bill, you've lost a clause or something here. :)
>
> >> When work is 45 miles away I am not riding a bike on the freeway.
>
> > Move closer to work ?
>
> What, sell my house and everything I own for the luxury of a tiny condo
> in the middle of the muck? You nuts?

Naw, get one of these: http://www.sustain.ca/ . A bit small but
versitile and you can add rooms later.

> >> When it is 150 miles and a week in a motel I am NOT
> >> riding a bike.
>
> > Train, plane etc? If I were going to be in Paris on business for a
> > week I would probably not try to bike there, either. I might be nice
> > to have one while there though.
>
> Can't be done. I would have to take a Greyhound bus to Sacramento, then
> local transit to the train station, then a real train to Silicon valley,
> then light rail to somewhere near work, etc.....
> I'm too far out so I either telecommute or do something locally.

> > When I have to talk to a business person or persons I am
> >> NOT going to show up on a bike wearing a business suit and carrying my
> >> briefcase.
>
> > Don't wear the suit? I don't usually turn up in full lycra but grey
> > flannels, a turtle neck shirt and a tweed jacket go a long way. :)
>
> Yeah,
> I don't actually do suits either. I tell them I am interviewing based on
> knowledge and not dress code. If they demand a suit, then it is "Later."
>
> >> Someone needs to get real.
>
> > An interesting Canadian statistic is that the median commute for
> > adult Canadians is 7.2 km. So, while you may not be able to ride to
> > work, it looks like at least 50% of the Canadian population is within
> > a 20-30 minute ride. Does anyone have comparable US stats?
>
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
> >> Bill Baka
>
> You calling ME average?

Well, it's certainly something you can aspire to. :)

Date: 06 Apr 2007 21:04:11
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

John Kane wrote:
> On Apr 6, 10:51 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka
>> You calling ME average?
>
> Well, it's certainly something you can aspire to. :)
>
>
Average is just soooo boring.
Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 23:25:56
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lUcPh.19865$uo3.19263@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 2007 18:30:55 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You 'plug it in' at your local gasoline station.
>>>>>
>>>>> Curtis L. Russell
>>>>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>>>>> Just someone on two wheels...
>>>> Yeah,
>>>> Which means you are still supporting the oil industry.
>>>> Less, but still doing it.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> And this is supposed to be a revelation? FWIW, probably everyone on
>>> this list supports the oil industry at some point, maybe less, maybe
>>> more, but to some degree at some level. What's your point?
>>>
>>> Curtis L. Russell
>>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>>> Just someone on two wheels...
>> I mentioned solar cell on the car and for this you want to rag on me?
>> Solar at home and a windmill too if you have any property.
>> Less oil is better, and that's the way I'm headed.
>> Now I need to find a house with a bigger lot so I can have my own wind
>> farm.
>> Bill Baka
>
> If you put a beany type cap on your car would that work as a wind energy
> generator.
> The faster you go the more energy you could use. Maybe as a supplement to
> the solar power roof.
> I like the wind farm. Maybe you can buy some wind farm stock?
>
>
So what part of putting 'solar skin' on the car brought this on? If
someone drives 10 miles to work and can park in the sun all day that
might be enough to charge up the batteries and make the car plug in or
liquid fuel independent. Look Ma, ZERO Carbon footprint.
THAT was the point, simple.
Bill Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 18:40:26
From: di
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:80hPh.10578$JZ3.9679@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
> So what part of putting 'solar skin' on the car brought this on? If
> someone drives 10 miles to work and can park in the sun all day that might
> be enough to charge up the batteries and make the car plug in or liquid
> fuel independent. Look Ma, ZERO Carbon footprint.
> THAT was the point, simple.
> Bill Baka

What they're trying to tell you is that you don't plug the Prius or any
other hybrid into an electrical power source. They're not golf carts.

Date: 06 Apr 2007 19:49:58
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Apr 6, 5:04 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 10:51 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> Bill Baka
> >> You calling ME average?
>
> > Well, it's certainly something you can aspire to. :)
>
> Average is just soooo boring.
> Baka

Nonsense! What average are you? (This is similar to your astrological
sign :). I'm sure there is a short but amusing film on what average
is what and once we get 99% of the audience to rate it highly we're in
business. :)

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Date: 07 Apr 2007 22:10:34
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

John Kane wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:04 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> On Apr 6, 10:51 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>> You calling ME average?
>>> Well, it's certainly something you can aspire to. :)
>> Average is just soooo boring.
>> Baka
>
> Nonsense! What average are you? (This is similar to your astrological
> sign :). I'm sure there is a short but amusing film on what average
> is what and once we get 99% of the audience to rate it highly we're in
> business. :)
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
After having me post here for about 3 years now, would you call my posts
average? If you ever meet me in person you will know how non-average I
can be.
I'm the overgrown kid who climbs those steel towers with the million
volts on the wires just for the view or a photo op, or some other not
quite average behavior. I do have pictures from the top of one to back
that up. Whatever catches my interest is the direction I ride in, hence
the mountain bike.
The 'Average' people I have for friends are predictable to a fault,
where I am mostly spontaneous.
Bill Baka

Date: 30 Mar 2007 16:10:02
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On Fri, 30 2007 18:44:33 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>
>I mentioned solar cell on the car and for this you want to rag on me?

WTF are you talking about? What in my reply has anything to do with
that?

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

Date: 29 Mar 2007 20:22:52
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

David L. Johnson wrote:

> Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
> that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
> promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going to
> keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until we
> run out.

The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.

The same will be true for the "oil age". When the cost of
the resource gets high enough, alternate technologies will
emerge. It's finally starting to happen now, but quite
frankly, the price of oil *still* isn't high enough.

Furthermore, the price of the resource will reign in its
consumption. You can talk all you want about social or
environmental responsibilities, but it all eventually
comes down to economic imperatives.

SMH

Date: 29 Mar 2007 23:48:56
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Stephen Harding wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>> Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
>> that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
>> promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going
>> to keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until
>> we run out.
>
> The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.

Now there's a great analogy.
>
> The same will be true for the "oil age". When the cost of
> the resource gets high enough, alternate technologies will
> emerge. It's finally starting to happen now, but quite
> frankly, the price of oil *still* isn't high enough.

Agreed. And we never will "run out", but eventually not only will the
remaining oil be too expensive, but much of it will require more energy
to extract than it will provide. At that point it will no longer be
viable to extract the oil, and that will occur much sooner than some
would claim. Much of the oil shale (where vast repositories of oil
reside) fits this category.
>
> Furthermore, the price of the resource will reign in its
> consumption. You can talk all you want about social or
> environmental responsibilities, but it all eventually
> comes down to economic imperatives.

Of course. But those costs will not be borne equitably. Just as it
costs more to run a car than we tend to consider, it will cost some a
great deal for others' reliance on oil. Tough luck for those who live
at low elevation, I guess.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Date: 30 Mar 2007 05:21:38
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Should be and gonna happen are two different things. I don't believe
>>> that the oil companies are actually getting their money's worth by
>>> promoting this denial research, because we all know that we are going
>>> to keep driving, keep the thermostat up, and keep the lights on until
>>> we run out.
>>
>> The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.
>
> Now there's a great analogy.
>>
>> The same will be true for the "oil age". When the cost of
>> the resource gets high enough, alternate technologies will
>> emerge. It's finally starting to happen now, but quite
>> frankly, the price of oil *still* isn't high enough.
>
> Agreed. And we never will "run out", but eventually not only will the
> remaining oil be too expensive, but much of it will require more energy
> to extract than it will provide. At that point it will no longer be
> viable to extract the oil, and that will occur much sooner than some
> would claim. Much of the oil shale (where vast repositories of oil
> reside) fits this category.
>>
>> Furthermore, the price of the resource will reign in its
>> consumption. You can talk all you want about social or
>> environmental responsibilities, but it all eventually
>> comes down to economic imperatives.
>
> Of course. But those costs will not be borne equitably. Just as it
> costs more to run a car than we tend to consider, it will cost some a
> great deal for others' reliance on oil. Tough luck for those who live
> at low elevation, I guess.
>
How about this for a twist? I rode my into the next town about 12 miles
away and it has a Shell station. They sell "Racing" gas for $6.69 per
gallon. Regular is at $3.09
I think it is going up.
Bill Baka

Date: 29 Mar 2007 20:05:03
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

On 2007-03-29, Stephen Harding <smharding16@msn.com > wrote:

> The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones.
>
> The same will be true for the "oil age". When the cost of
> the resource gets high enough, alternate technologies will
> emerge. It's finally starting to happen now, but quite
> frankly, the price of oil *still* isn't high enough.

That's true, but chances are if we ignore the problem and "let the
ket work it out" there will be a great deal of largely unneccessary
suffering, mostly among people who had very little to do with the
problem itself. Burgeoning populations in 3rd world countries, for
example, that depend on petroleum-dependent economies will likely bear
the brunt of the suffering, even though their per capita fossil fuel
consumption is only a small fraction of say a typical North American.
While this can be cast as a simply simple humanitarian issue, I beleve
it will go much deeper than that and become a serious political issue as
well, exacerbating tension between the developed and developing
cpountries and leading to extensive violence and suffering. The Iraq war
can be seen as an attempt to position the United States in a favorable
location to control increasingly scare energy resources. Indeed, it's
difficult to interpret it as anything else and still have it make sense.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 28 Mar 2007 08:31:33
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

pj wrote:
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:2HaOh.77601$zU1.4226@pd7urf1no...
>> Anyone watching CTV Climate change series on the News
>> http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ for a footprint calculator
>>
>> average is 5 tons/yr
>
> Before you concern yourself too much about your carbon footprint, you
> should look at this British Channel 4 program on Global Warming:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
>
> It is over an hour long, but it is well worth the time. You've heard
> so much on the other side of the story, now it is time to hear this
> side of it.
> Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to
> global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough
> there IS a correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet
> heats up first and THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall
> correctly, the lag time is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak
> argument that CO2 is causing global warming. It is FAR more likely
> the other way around, global warming is causing higher levels of CO2.
>
> They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what
> impressed me the most.
>
> The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete
> consensus among scientists about the causes for global warming but
> this is a bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr.
> Gore's chicken little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in
> this discussion, but the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most
> people are afraid to say so.
>
> Do yourself a favor and see the other side of the story first and then
> decide for yourself, don't just blindly take the political bull that
> Mr. Gore is spreading.
>
>
> Let the flaming begin - I don't care.

The True Believers won't watch that, of course, because "the debate is over"
they've proclaimed. Accomplished scientists, climatologists and
meteorologists who speak up against the global warming myth (specifically,
that man is causing is) are threatened and ostracized and ridiculed and
ignored. Politicians, Hollywood and a Willing Media make a hard combination
to overcome.

Why did /previous/ ice ages end? Why are the polar ice caps shrinking...ON
S? Why does Gore say the oceans will rise by 24 /feet/ when even the
bogus UN "sumy" (of something not yet completed!) gives a range of 10-25
/inches/ (and no one calls him on it)? The very same alarmists today were
on the cover of Time Magazine in the '70s warning about the Coming Ice Age.

It's a purely political agenda about power and wealth redistribution.

It's pathetic but not laughable, due to gullible mass hysteria. (Children
are literally having nightes, for God's sake.)

Rant over. BS

Date: 28 Mar 2007 16:15:07
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"pj" <pj1999pj@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:eudl2k$74f$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:2HaOh.77601$zU1.4226@pd7urf1no...
>> Anyone watching CTV Climate change series on the News
>> http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ for a footprint calculator
>>
>> average is 5 tons/yr
>
> Before you concern yourself too much about your carbon footprint, you
> should look at this British Channel 4 program on Global Warming:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
>
> It is over an hour long, but it is well worth the time. You've heard so
> much on the other side of the story, now it is time to hear this side of
> it.
>
> Al Gore shows this very impressive chart showing a correlation to global
> temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, true enough there IS a
> correlation, but it is the other way around. The planet heats up first
> and THEN there is an increase in CO2 - and If I recall correctly, the lag
> time is 800 years! That makes it a pretty weak argument that CO2 is
> causing global warming. It is FAR more likely the other way around,
> global warming is causing higher levels of CO2.
>
> They make a lot of other very good points but the above was what impressed
> me the most.
>
> The hard core environmentalists claim there is an almost complete
> consensus among scientists about the causes for global warming but this is
> a bold-faced lie. A lot of scientists do not buy into Mr. Gore's chicken
> little hysteria. I know, HERESY - I'll get flamed in this discussion, but
> the emperor has no clothes, it is just that most people are afraid to say
> so.
>
> Do yourself a favor and see the other side of the story first and then
> decide for yourself, don't just blindly take the political bull that Mr.
> Gore is spreading.
>
>
> Let the flaming begin - I don't care.
>
I may not have seen your link but what makes you think I have not seen the
other side.
CTV is on climate change not Al Gore. I saw his movie, as well as "who
killed the electric car", "global dimming" which is the best and newest was
PBS
If their is global warming what are you doing about it is CTV's stance.
Anyway I think it is both. CO2 adding to Global Warming and the greenhouse
effect causing more warming and more C02 being captured. Global Dimming is
what really matters. I already know I do not have even half the footprint
of the average Canadian so I should really watch GD doc again. National
Geographic I think. or maybe BBC. It was on the US PBS.
Since Kyoto is a bad word in the US I just thought I would bring it up.
Canadians are doing their part. Flame away.
Sidney BC has the most environmentally friendly building in all of Canada.
Branch office for the Gulf Islands probably gov't.

Just a toot for BC

Date: 28 Mar 2007 16:42:17
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> Since Kyoto is a bad word in the US I just thought I would bring it up.
> Canadians are doing their part. Flame away.
> Sidney BC has the most environmentally friendly building in all of Canada.
> Branch office for the Gulf Islands probably gov't.
>
> Just a toot for BC

Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The
global warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect of
so many humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests, natural
gas, whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere and maybe
100 - 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2 degrees
worth of waste heat into the air.
Thing of your computer. The processor has a big heat sink and fan to
take the heat away from the processor, but where does that heat go? Into
the atmosphere, so even your computer is contributing to global warming
by dumping heat into it.
Different point of view, but it 'ALL' adds up.
Bill Baka

Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:26:01
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

Bill wrote:

> Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The
> global warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect of
> so many humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests, natural
> gas, whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere and maybe
> 100 - 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2 degrees
> worth of waste heat into the air.

The waste heat in and of itself is not a problem. That is a minor
factor and would radiate out into space were it not for an increase in
the insulating capacity of the atmosphere.

The vast majority of the heating effect is from the sun; a small change
in the efficiency in dissipating that heat has an effect.

--

David L. Johnson

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

Date: 29 Mar 2007 01:45:34
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The
>> global warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect
>> of so many humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests,
>> natural gas, whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere
>> and maybe 100 - 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2
>> degrees worth of waste heat into the air.
>
> The waste heat in and of itself is not a problem. That is a minor
> factor and would radiate out into space were it not for an increase in
> the insulating capacity of the atmosphere.
>
> The vast majority of the heating effect is from the sun; a small change
> in the efficiency in dissipating that heat has an effect.
>
I'll buy into that theory for now. The sun for one day probably amounts
to at least a years worth of human generated heat.
Still waiting for hard and irrefutable data.
Bill Baka

Date: 28 Mar 2007 18:50:03
From: nash
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:JVwOh.3678$Kd3.2976@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> Since Kyoto is a bad word in the US I just thought I would bring it up.
>> Canadians are doing their part. Flame away.
>> Sidney BC has the most environmentally friendly building in all of
>> Canada. Branch office for the Gulf Islands probably gov't.
>>
>> Just a toot for BC
>
> Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The global
> warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect of so many
> humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests, natural gas,
> whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere and maybe 100 -
> 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2 degrees worth of
> waste heat into the air.
> Thing of your computer. The processor has a big heat sink and fan to take
> the heat away from the processor, but where does that heat go? Into the
> atmosphere, so even your computer is contributing to global warming by
> dumping heat into it.
> Different point of view, but it 'ALL' adds up.
> Bill Baka

And Global Dimming is about the particles in the air. Trapping that heat.
Man made ones are causing the droughts in Aftrica. Ethiopia Crisis caused
by drought 40 years ago from because of global dimming in that doc. The
natural particles were always there. It is the short term build up in the
industrial world that caused the drought. Making us the cause of millions
dieing of starvation. You might might as well be a murderer cause no one
in this day is innocent of killing.

Date: 28 Mar 2007 20:17:16
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Carbon Footprint

nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:JVwOh.3678$Kd3.2976@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> Just a thought here since I don't want to get into a flame war. The global
>> warming might not be due to CO2 but just the cumulative effect of so many
>> humans burning everything in sight, oil, rain forests, natural gas,
>> whatever. The waste heat dissipates into the atmosphere and maybe 100 -
>> 200 years of the Industrial revolution has just put 2 degrees worth of
>> waste heat into the air.
>> Thing of your computer. The processor has a big heat sink and fan to take
>> the heat away from the processor, but where does that heat go? Into the
>> atmosphere, so even your computer is contributing to global warming by
>> dumping heat into it.
>> Different point of view, but it 'ALL' adds up.
>> Bill Baka
>
> And Global Dimming is about the particles in the air. Trapping that heat.
> Man made ones are causing the droughts in Aftrica. Ethiopia Crisis caused
> by drought 40 years ago from because of global dimming in that doc. The
> natural particles were always there. It is the short term build up in the
> industrial world that caused the drought. Making us the cause of millions
> dieing of starvation. You might might as well be a murderer cause no one
> in this day is innocent of killing.
>
>
I was born into the present mess, and it just happened to be in the
right (sort of) country. My childhood was in the suburbs north of
Chicago and I didn't really become aware of all the bad stuff until we
moved to California in 1963. We stopped to get our bearings at my great
aunt's house in L.A. and I got my first taste of...yech...smog. We knew
that there were mountains only 2 to 3 miles away and yet we couldn't see
them through the smog. That was a rude awakening to the downside of so
many people and cars crammed into one small area. Global dimming could
be a result of soot particles (and who knows what else) in the air.
I have heard many reports from around the world that what used to be
unlimited visibility is now limited by a global haze.
So much for progress.
I read the bicycle link yesterday about even an American bike being a
conglomeration of pieces from Taiwan, China, Japan, the USA, and
elsewhere, and how the rivers in Taiwan have no life, fish or otherwise
due to the dumping. The same thing holds true for mainland China with no
regard about pollution, thinking that the oceans are an infinite waste
dump. That sort of thing makes me wonder how much longer this 'progress'
can keep going with no regard for the planet. Businesses are falling all
over themselves to have manufacturing done in China for el-cheapo
everything, but the pollution has been shifted from us to China, and
they clearly don't give a damn.
I would boycott China, but then I wouldn't be able to buy anything.
Sad.
Bill Baka