| |
Main
Date: 22 Mar 2007 10:40:03
From: Bob Dole
Subject: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:
"How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
- describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html
The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
"bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].
But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
technology versus the application of simplicity.
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:31:42
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 26, 1:05 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 26, 2:38 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > On 26 2007 10:25:53 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Totally agree. It's all about tribalism and tokenism. Let's drive our
> > >Prius to the superket and purchase organic berries flown in from
> > >Ecuador, myopia be damned!
>
> > The two of you are the tribalist, self-congratulatory ones, so I'll
> > sign off on this topic list now.
>
> Really? In what way? Seems you have cognitive and parsing problems if
> you think that.
>
I think you hit a sore spot with Mr. GreenGenes. How much jetfuel did
it take to fly those organic berries (and that organic coffeee) in,
anyway?
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:28:11
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 26, 1:38 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 26 2007 10:25:53 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Totally agree. It's all about tribalism and tokenism. Let's drive our
> >Prius to the superket and purchase organic berries flown in from
> >Ecuador, myopia be damned!
>
> The two of you are the tribalist, self-congratulatory ones, so I'll
> sign off on this topic list now. There is real nonsense with
> discussing what the autos could do from the 70s.
I *never* advocated a return to thr '70s, dipstick. Learn to read.
What I did say was that a conventionally powered, modern car in a
Prius-like body would do pretty well. One with a 4cyl engine, manual
tranny, manual windows, etc. A simple, lightweight *modern* car. Cheap
to make, cheap to buy, cheap to own and operate.
And what did you say, Mr, GreenGenes?? Oh, yeah, you said it wouldn't
sell. Brilliant.
<blather snipped >
> That Prius that you like to make fun of.
You mean the overly complex, overly expense rolling boondoogle? That
Prius? Tell us, did you buy it to get the tax rebate?
<additional blather snipped >
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone with a two digit IQ.
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:05:57
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 26, 2:38 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 26 2007 10:25:53 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Totally agree. It's all about tribalism and tokenism. Let's drive our
> >Prius to the superket and purchase organic berries flown in from
> >Ecuador, myopia be damned!
>
> The two of you are the tribalist, self-congratulatory ones, so I'll
> sign off on this topic list now.
Really? In what way? Seems you have cognitive and parsing problems if
you think that.
>There is real nonsense with
> discussing what the autos could do from the 70s.
What part of 1992 don't you understand?
>First of all, making
> any of them pass the emissions standards is damn difficult
Again, you really have a hard time with reading comprehension. I
clearly stated that I had a gasoline powered Japanese car built in '92
which got 45-50mpg and easily passed emissions testing.
> - I
> restored and drove Saabs of all stripes, mostly 99s and turbo 900s and
> they were relatively clean compared to, yes, most old Japanese autos.
> They weren't easy to pass - usually a two trip thing. Mine passed on
> their merits, everytime - most used cars pass on the $ 25 repair or
> whatever the state uses - . And this is speaking not from make
> believe, but from a whole lot of the people that worked on all stripes
> of vehicles - you get to know a lot of them, networking out from the
> junkyards.
>
> Second, I've spent time in the junkyards looking at all these autos
> you want us to drive.
I have not stated that I want you to drive any particular car, but I
have criticised the naive panacea of driving a Prius. Please educate
yourself as to what the difference is.
>Most have rusted away - they don't exist anymore
> at a level that makes them a solution.
I never said they are a solution, just used them as a way to temper
any claims of vast progress being made.
>[drivelsnip]
> That Prius that you like to make fun of. Tell me again which other
> model from any manufacturer that is available for sale in the U.S. is
> as clean with as good gas mileage.
Any number of Japanese small to medium sized cars have ultra low
emissions. They might not have the fuel economy of the Prius, but with
gasoline at $2.30, who fucking cares.
> Both. This isn't from your make
> believe life - we're talking reality, measured reality.
Something you're having issues with. You're not making a difference.
Sorry.
>Clue - there
> is one, and it doesn't carry the same amount of people or load. So if
> someone is buying a new car today, there is one other model as clean
> and in the same MPG range. It isn't a 1973 Renault or a 1998 Japanese
> three banger (and I'm not believing the purported cleanliness of the
> emissions - give me a make and a model and lets go check it out).
>
1992 Daihatsu.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Mine got 42 city, 45-50 highway. No gimmicks, just a light car.
I didn't drive it to save the world, I drove it because I bought it on
sale.
> You see, since about 1975 we haven't been working with the same set of
> rules.
Are you done patronizing, yet? Blah blah blah blah.
> The restrictions related to emmissions and safety have added
> weight, made engines more complex and cluttered up the engine
> compartment. Talking about a car made in the 70s or 80s is irrelevant
> to the conversation.
Yes, that's why I'm discussing a car built in '92 compared to a gee-
whiz piece of tribal tokenism made last year--to illustrate that we
haven't come far.
I've also never claimed that there is any good moral reason to drive a
car with super duper fuel economy--because it's just a fucking drop in
the bucket. Get a used Corolla if you must drive. Whatever. For every
smug retard in a Prius, you're going to get fifty driving Ford
Expeditions.
>
> And here is a suggestion for anyone that wants to believe that Ozark
> or Otter know what they are talking about in the here and now. Find a
> reputable mechanic that works on cars and has a really good
> reputation. Now take the cars that Ozark and Otter talk about and ask
> them it they will support that car if you purchase it.
What cars are we telling people to buy? Are you having a conversation
with us that we're not aware of? I've mentioned basic Japanese cars
and diesel VWs as options for people that desire a modicum of fuel
efficiency, not Alfas or Fiat Cinquentos. Seriously, if you're hearing
voices, see a head shrinker, and I suggest that perhaps you stop
seeing patients till you are recertified not batshit insane.
>These guys go
> from available parts from afterkets and reputable junk yards.
> You'll find that either they won't recognize the car as described or
> will tell you that they can't support them - no parts. A failure
> waiting to happen. And no solution except for car collectors and
> hobbyists.
Again, what the fuck are you talking about? That's a rhetorical
question of course. Enjoy stewing with those voices in your head.
>
> Speaking of which, if anyone has a Saab 96 in reasonable shape, I know
> there aren't any parts, but I just might buy it anyway...
I sold one a few years ago. Great car. I'm still plonking you. Bye!
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 10:25:53
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 26, 9:25 am, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> On 26, 8:48 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > On 23 2007 19:51:22 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >And Toyota *could* offer that body shape in a traditional package
> > >(especially with a 4cyl engine, manual tranny, manual windows, locks,
> > >seats, etc), but they don't. If they did, the Prius wouldn't come off
> > >as such a "star".
>
> > I rather think it is because it wouldn't sell.
>
> Thank you for helping make my point: Americans tend to want the whiz-
> bang high-tech high-cost "solution". A simple, basic, relatively
> lightweight, aerodynamically efficient car won't sell in this ket.
Nope. But they used to. I had a Japanese 3 cyl econobox between 92-96.
It got 45-50 miles per gallon. No gimmicks. Just super light and no
air con. Fun to drive notchy five speed. So clean that the emissions
testing station would often check it several times in disbelief. Yes
it wasn't the safest thing in the world, but safer than the
motorcycles I sometimes ride. I installed three orange running lights
on the roof for extra visibility and stenciled "Mighty Tonka" on the
rear hatch.
The newer breed of such small cars *is* selling. Notice that we're
finally getting quite a few of what europeans call "superminis"
stateside. Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, and friends. Problem
is that we're getting them without the super efficient engines that
the rest of the world gets. A 1.3L diesel with a five speed stick is
plenty if you know how to actually drive. But instead we're getting
pretty clean, but not very rekable 30mpg gasoline engines in these
things. That's what similarly sized cars were getting thirty years
ago. Mind, we do get mp3 players and air bags standard now...
> Americans want "all the goodies", be they "power everything" festooned
> with wings, spoilers and fat tires *or* the high-tech hybrid whjere
> they can wear their "greeness" like a geek wearing sackcloth.
Totally agree. It's all about tribalism and tokenism. Let's drive our
Prius to the superket and purchase organic berries flown in from
Ecuador, myopia be damned!
FWIW, my bicycle is powered by pork chops.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 15:38:54
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 26 2007 10:25:53 -0700, "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Totally agree. It's all about tribalism and tokenism. Let's drive our
>Prius to the superket and purchase organic berries flown in from
>Ecuador, myopia be damned!
The two of you are the tribalist, self-congratulatory ones, so I'll
sign off on this topic list now. There is real nonsense with
discussing what the autos could do from the 70s. First of all, making
any of them pass the emissions standards is damn difficult - I
restored and drove Saabs of all stripes, mostly 99s and turbo 900s and
they were relatively clean compared to, yes, most old Japanese autos.
They weren't easy to pass - usually a two trip thing. Mine passed on
their merits, everytime - most used cars pass on the $ 25 repair or
whatever the state uses - . And this is speaking not from make
believe, but from a whole lot of the people that worked on all stripes
of vehicles - you get to know a lot of them, networking out from the
junkyards.
Second, I've spent time in the junkyards looking at all these autos
you want us to drive. Most have rusted away - they don't exist anymore
at a level that makes them a solution. I drove a Saab 99 with no air
conditioning for three years. During that time the available bodies to
take parts off of went from several within five miles to getting parts
remotely from North and South Carolina. So when you go out to buy a
car, you aren't going to have a 1973 Renault as a choice. And if you
buy one, it isn't going to be the answer for someone that wants
generally reliable transportation on a daily basis. My list includes
Alfas, MGBs, Volvos and Toyotas in the over 100,000 mile list along
with the Saabs. Only a few were reliable enough for a 'normal' human
being to use it as daily transport - I've had that discussion with my
wife enough to know it must be true. It also meant that all of my cars
stayed outside because my garage was full of bikes and auto parts.
That Prius that you like to make fun of. Tell me again which other
model from any manufacturer that is available for sale in the U.S. is
as clean with as good gas mileage. Both. This isn't from your make
believe life - we're talking reality, measured reality. Clue - there
is one, and it doesn't carry the same amount of people or load. So if
someone is buying a new car today, there is one other model as clean
and in the same MPG range. It isn't a 1973 Renault or a 1998 Japanese
three banger (and I'm not believing the purported cleanliness of the
emissions - give me a make and a model and lets go check it out).
You see, since about 1975 we haven't been working with the same set of
rules. The restrictions related to emmissions and safety have added
weight, made engines more complex and cluttered up the engine
compartment. Talking about a car made in the 70s or 80s is irrelevant
to the conversation.
And here is a suggestion for anyone that wants to believe that Ozark
or Otter know what they are talking about in the here and now. Find a
reputable mechanic that works on cars and has a really good
reputation. Now take the cars that Ozark and Otter talk about and ask
them it they will support that car if you purchase it. These guys go
from available parts from afterkets and reputable junk yards.
You'll find that either they won't recognize the car as described or
will tell you that they can't support them - no parts. A failure
waiting to happen. And no solution except for car collectors and
hobbyists.
Speaking of which, if anyone has a Saab 96 in reasonable shape, I know
there aren't any parts, but I just might buy it anyway...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 09:11:42
From: Jorg Lueke
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22, 12:40 pm, "Bob Dole" <t...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:
>
> "How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
> pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
> to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
> - describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
> green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
> greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
> bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
> the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
> more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."
>
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html
>
> The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
> "bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
> such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
> biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
> the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].
>
> But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
> fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
> technology versus the application of simplicity.
For one your are not in the middle :) Two cars and no bicycles would
put you there.
The distinctions in the book sound more like the choice between
individualists and authoritarians. The latter always assumes they
have the correct answer and all others should simply see the light and
follow. The former are typically the type that would lead by
example. With issues as broad as the environment I think a positive
and inclusive message will do much more good. A billion small changes
will have a huge effect. So, don't force people to ride bikes, but do
make it easier for those who choose this method of transportation.
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 07:25:03
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 26, 8:48 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 23 2007 19:51:22 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >And Toyota *could* offer that body shape in a traditional package
> >(especially with a 4cyl engine, manual tranny, manual windows, locks,
> >seats, etc), but they don't. If they did, the Prius wouldn't come off
> >as such a "star".
>
> I rather think it is because it wouldn't sell.
Thank you for helping make my point: Americans tend to want the whiz-
bang high-tech high-cost "solution". A simple, basic, relatively
lightweight, aerodynamically efficient car won't sell in this ket.
Americans want "all the goodies", be they "power everything" festooned
with wings, spoilers and fat tires *or* the high-tech hybrid whjere
they can wear their "greeness" like a geek wearing sackcloth.
>The Prius look is not
> universally admired. I like it, but general responses from other
> people is that the majority fall into the, "well, OK, maybe" category
> at best and a lot more dislike the look than actually like it. Ain't
> my problem - the Renaults that everyone likes to mention here (among
> the worst repair record in U.S. history by the way and that's before
> the rust got to it) were IMO godawful ugly, pretty damn all of them,
Do ya remember the Toyotas, Datsuns and Hondas of ~30 years ago (the
period you seem to be addressing)? They weren't ugly, right? And, of
course, they didn't rust, right? And they were just as reliable as
today's cars, right?
The reality: all 30 year old designs leave alot to be desired (from a
practical, everyday use standpoint) compared to modern designs.
> but evidently some people think they were the pinnacle of automotive
> history. I'd just as soon get a Peugeot 504 deisel from back then.
>
> Camry will sell better with a lower gas mileage because it is a better
> look for most people and Toyota isn't as concerned about the impact of
> adding heated leather seats to the package. All those people that
> start their cars on a mild winter morning and let them run for ten
> minutes will buy the Camry...
>
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 07:19:37
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 24, 8:20 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote:
> On 2007-03-24, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> > The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
> > situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
> > efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
> > is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?
>
> Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
> culture and all the costs and problems that come with it?
Ya think maybe there is a happy middle ground somewhere between
needlessly complex vehicles and the virtual elimination of the "car
culture"? One that more people would find acceptable?
>Trains are
> much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
> public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
> short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
> trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry owning
> a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
> could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
> else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.
>
> --
>
> John (j...@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 15:32:00
From: nash
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1174832377.320581.94350@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 24, 8:20 pm, John Thompson <j...@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote:
>> On 2007-03-24, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
>> > situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
>> > efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
>> > is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?
>>
>> Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
>> culture and all the costs and problems that come with it?
>
>
> Ya think maybe there is a happy middle ground somewhere between
> needlessly complex vehicles and the virtual elimination of the "car
> culture"? One that more people would find acceptable?
>
>
Yeah, Ya think
>>Trains are
>> much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
>> public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
>> short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
>> trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry owning
>> a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
>> could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
>> else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.
>>
>> --
>>
>> John (j...@os2.dhs.org)
>
>
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:51:22
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22, 3:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 22 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's pointless if
> >you do a lot of interstate miles.
>
> What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
> interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
> mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
> when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
> was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
>
> The Prius isn't just the hybrid, it is also a very efficient shape for
> its size - to the point that Toyota is really hesitant to sell add-ons
> that get into the wind stream.
And Toyota *could* offer that body shape in a traditional package
(especially with a 4cyl engine, manual tranny, manual windows, locks,
seats, etc), but they don't. If they did, the Prius wouldn't come off
as such a "star".
> Check out a Toyota dealer and a Prius
> owner could feel a bit left out in the accessory department.
>
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 10:48:03
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 23 2007 19:51:22 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>And Toyota *could* offer that body shape in a traditional package
>(especially with a 4cyl engine, manual tranny, manual windows, locks,
>seats, etc), but they don't. If they did, the Prius wouldn't come off
>as such a "star".
I rather think it is because it wouldn't sell. The Prius look is not
universally admired. I like it, but general responses from other
people is that the majority fall into the, "well, OK, maybe" category
at best and a lot more dislike the look than actually like it. Ain't
my problem - the Renaults that everyone likes to mention here (among
the worst repair record in U.S. history by the way and that's before
the rust got to it) were IMO godawful ugly, pretty damn all of them,
but evidently some people think they were the pinnacle of automotive
history. I'd just as soon get a Peugeot 504 deisel from back then.
Camry will sell better with a lower gas mileage because it is a better
look for most people and Toyota isn't as concerned about the impact of
adding heated leather seats to the package. All those people that
start their cars on a mild winter morning and let them run for ten
minutes will buy the Camry...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:40:38
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22, 2:29 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>
> > On 22 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It's pointless if
> > >you do a lot of interstate miles.
>
> > What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
> > interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
> > mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
> > when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
> > was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
>
> So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
> disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
> mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
> passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
> Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
> when you show it to people overseas.
The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?
Can you imagine the nighte in 10+ years when these overly complex
rolling boondoogles migrate down to the lower end of the used ket?
And, is there a bigger joke than a hybrid SUV?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 21:20:43
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 2007-03-24, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
> The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
> situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
> efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
> is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?
Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
culture and all the costs and problems that come with it? Trains are
much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry owning
a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 22:23:22
From: di
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
"John Thompson" <john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote in message
news:slrnf0bn3u.gm7.john@vector.os2.dhs.org...
> On 2007-03-24, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
>> situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
>> efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
>> is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?
>
> Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
> culture and all the costs and problems that come with it? Trains are
> much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
> public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
> short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
> trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry owning
> a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
> could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
> else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumer.
>
> --
>
> John (john@os2.dhs.org)
I think it's called "Socialism" if you are looking for the proper word.
Along with it comes government hi-rise housing, controlled salaries, no
choice of the job you will do or where you work, restricted travel. There
will be no Lowes, it will instead be a government distribution center where
you get what they think you need including color, style, and model, that's
after you wait years for maybe a toilet seat.
You, my friend are an idiot.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 21:44:53
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 2007-03-25, di <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
> "John Thompson" <john@vector.os2.dhs.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnf0bn3u.gm7.john@vector.os2.dhs.org...
>> Agreed, but why not go all the way and ditch the whole automobile
>> culture and all the costs and problems that come with it? Trains are
>> much more efficient at moving freight and people long distances, and
>> public transportation and non-motorized transportation can pick up the
>> short haul for people at least. Businesses would still have a need for
>> trucks for deliveries, but rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry owning
>> a half-ton pickup truck for their twice a year trek to Lowe's, Lowe's
>> could have their own delivery fleet (or subcontract it out to someone
>> else) to deliver bulky goods to the consumers.
> I think it's called "Socialism" if you are looking for the proper word.
> Along with it comes government hi-rise housing, controlled salaries, no
> choice of the job you will do or where you work, restricted travel. There
> will be no Lowes, it will instead be a government distribution center where
> you get what they think you need including color, style, and model, that's
> after you wait years for maybe a toilet seat.
>
> You, my friend are an idiot.
How do you get to "socialism" from what I wrote? Looks like plenty of
opportunity for private entrepaneurs to pick up the slack in building
railways, providing short-haul delivery of bulky goods, etc.
What do you call the massive government investment in automobile
infrastructure (e.g. maintenance of multilane freeways designed for
peak "rush hour" traffic flows, destruction of established
neihbourhoods for construction of above, parking, traffic control, law
enforcement, &etc.) then?
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 12:32:40
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On 22, 2:29 pm, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It's pointless if
>>>> you do a lot of interstate miles.
>>> What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
>>> interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
>>> mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
>>> when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
>>> was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
>> So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
>> disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
>> mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
>> passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
>> Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
>> when you show it to people overseas.
>
> The whole hybrid thing is such an "American" response to the
> situation. Why do something simply (i.e., smaller, aerodynamically
> efficient cars that are cheap to build, to buy and to own), when there
> is a whiz-bang high-tech high-cost "solution"?
>
> Can you imagine the nighte in 10+ years when these overly complex
> rolling boondoogles migrate down to the lower end of the used ket?
>
> And, is there a bigger joke than a hybrid SUV?
>
A hybrid SUV could make sense if it was limited to a top speed of 35 MPH
and not licensed for highway use. Stop and go city driving is where most
of the gas goes. The absolute worst is trying to use a hybrid on the
highway where the gas engine has to make electricity (lossy) to charge
the batteries (lossy) and drive the electric wheel motors (lossiest).
A straight gear drive with the engine running at peak 'efficiency' for
the power required to maintain highway speeds means making about 15 HP
so it can be done at maybe 1,600 RPM for a four cylinder and 900 RPM for
a V-8.
So, there it is. Hybrids and highways don't belong together. SUVs and
highways don't belong together. Hybrids and SUVs should be relegated to
the world of under 35 MPH stop and go to shuttle the kids and go shopping.
Until the scientists who understand this stuff can get the average Joe
to understand that we will have the present crop of laughable cars.
Nobody gets physics these days. Do they even teach it anymore or do the
younger set just sleep through it?
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 21:24:57
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 2007-03-24, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
> A hybrid SUV could make sense if it was limited to a top speed of 35 MPH
> and not licensed for highway use. Stop and go city driving is where most
> of the gas goes. The absolute worst is trying to use a hybrid on the
> highway where the gas engine has to make electricity (lossy) to charge
> the batteries (lossy) and drive the electric wheel motors (lossiest).
> A straight gear drive with the engine running at peak 'efficiency' for
> the power required to maintain highway speeds means making about 15 HP
> so it can be done at maybe 1,600 RPM for a four cylinder and 900 RPM for
> a V-8.
I don't know. It probably depends on the hybrid design. My Honda Civic
Hybrid gets about 48mpg in town and 52mpg on the highway. On the highway
the electric motor only kicks in when passing or going uphill. Otherwise
the 90hp gas engine keeps it at highway speed without difficulty. The
battery charges regeneratively quite quickly on downhills, exit ramps,
etc.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 12:17:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-03-24, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> A hybrid SUV could make sense if it was limited to a top speed of 35 MPH
>> and not licensed for highway use. Stop and go city driving is where most
>> of the gas goes. The absolute worst is trying to use a hybrid on the
>> highway where the gas engine has to make electricity (lossy) to charge
>> the batteries (lossy) and drive the electric wheel motors (lossiest).
>> A straight gear drive with the engine running at peak 'efficiency' for
>> the power required to maintain highway speeds means making about 15 HP
>> so it can be done at maybe 1,600 RPM for a four cylinder and 900 RPM for
>> a V-8.
>
> I don't know. It probably depends on the hybrid design. My Honda Civic
> Hybrid gets about 48mpg in town and 52mpg on the highway. On the highway
> the electric motor only kicks in when passing or going uphill. Otherwise
> the 90hp gas engine keeps it at highway speed without difficulty. The
> battery charges regeneratively quite quickly on downhills, exit ramps,
> etc.
>
>
It is totally design dependent. Since it only takes between 10-20 HP to
maintain 60-65 MPH a big engine can loaf at near idle speed and the
smaller engines have to have more RPM to make up for the less torque
they make. My big boat Chrysler only takes about 15 HP to maintain 65
MPH and I am reasonably sure that even the worst aero-designed SUV can
only suck 20 HP, with the smaller economy cars taking more like 10 HP.
I know that city driving is pretty much weight dependent and a perfect
place for regenerative braking and electric cars. Highway driving is
just a continual drain dictated by the aerodynamics of the vehicle, but
more than a battery pack can put out for a 200 mile drive. If it was
aerodynamic enough a stretch limo could get 40 MPG on the highway, but
would still be down to 10-15 MPG in town due to the mass.
City and highway are really 2 different worlds and what we are seeing
now is the result of trying to make one car for both.
I am a bystander, so we will all just have to wait and see how it works out.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 21:49:09
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 2007-03-25, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
> It is totally design dependent. Since it only takes between 10-20 HP to
> maintain 60-65 MPH a big engine can loaf at near idle speed and the
> smaller engines have to have more RPM to make up for the less torque
> they make.
That's what's nice about the hybrid design. The electric motor can
provide full torque even at low rpms, allowing a smaller gas engine to
maintain cruising speed.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 09:03:52
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-03-25, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> It is totally design dependent. Since it only takes between 10-20 HP to
>> maintain 60-65 MPH a big engine can loaf at near idle speed and the
>> smaller engines have to have more RPM to make up for the less torque
>> they make.
>
> That's what's nice about the hybrid design. The electric motor can
> provide full torque even at low rpms, allowing a smaller gas engine to
> maintain cruising speed.
>
You kind of got what I meant. If the gas (whatever fuel) engine starts
up do they run it at 3,000+ RPM or let it loaf at under 2,000 RPM? A
small engine at high RPM is no more efficient than a larger motor at low
RPM. It's that physics thing again, about moving pistons up and down.
At least they are moving in the right direction.
The newest cars may not have batteries at all as the Ultra-caps are
coming close to batteries in energy density and have unlimited lifetimes
compared to batteries.
It will be interesting to follow.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 16:23:19
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 2007-03-26, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
> You kind of got what I meant. If the gas (whatever fuel) engine starts
> up do they run it at 3,000+ RPM or let it loaf at under 2,000 RPM?
In the Honda design, the gas engine is running and providing torque
whenever the car is in motion and the clutch is engaged (it shuts off
when the car stops and automatically restarts when you put it back in
gear to start). At low rpms that would ordinarily cause "lugging" the
electric motor kicks in at full torque to help accellerate the car.
> The newest cars may not have batteries at all as the Ultra-caps are
> coming close to batteries in energy density and have unlimited lifetimes
> compared to batteries.
There are hydralic hybrid vehicles (mostly things like garbage trucks
and buses that stop frequently) that don't use batteries either.
Instead, torque during braking and decelleration is used to pump
hydralic fluid between a pair of cylinders, compressing the gas
contained in them. When the vehicle restarts, the pressure is released
to provide additional torque during accelleration. This type of energy
recovery is said to be close to 80% efficient, versus less then 40%
efficiency for regenerative braking on electric hybrids.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 22:52:17
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-03-26, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You kind of got what I meant. If the gas (whatever fuel) engine starts
>> up do they run it at 3,000+ RPM or let it loaf at under 2,000 RPM?
>
> In the Honda design, the gas engine is running and providing torque
> whenever the car is in motion and the clutch is engaged (it shuts off
> when the car stops and automatically restarts when you put it back in
> gear to start). At low rpms that would ordinarily cause "lugging" the
> electric motor kicks in at full torque to help accellerate the car.
Semi-sensible. The gas engine should stay off at speeds under 35 MPH and
only be called upon when the batteries actually get low. That's the
whole point of regenerative braking. As far as lugging the engine goes,
in a really proper design that would be impossible.
>
>> The newest cars may not have batteries at all as the Ultra-caps are
>> coming close to batteries in energy density and have unlimited lifetimes
>> compared to batteries.
>
> There are hydralic hybrid vehicles (mostly things like garbage trucks
> and buses that stop frequently) that don't use batteries either.
> Instead, torque during braking and decelleration is used to pump
> hydralic fluid between a pair of cylinders, compressing the gas
> contained in them. When the vehicle restarts, the pressure is released
> to provide additional torque during accelleration. This type of energy
> recovery is said to be close to 80% efficient, versus less then 40%
> efficiency for regenerative braking on electric hybrids.
>
In this case I'm glad somebody had some working brain cells. The garbage
trucks here just have diesels and heavy duty automatic transmissions, so
they might get maybe 2 MPG doing their route. Hydraulic energy storage
is just as good as electric in this case and might even apply to city
buses. Electronics is the big buzz word thing these days, but it is
pretty hard to push regenerative braking down to that last 5 or 10 MPH.
Electricity is made by motion and magnets so once you get below a
certain point the regenerative braking becomes useless.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 05:20:35
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22, 11:40 am, "Bob Dole" <t...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:
>
> "How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
> pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
> to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
> - describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
> green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
> greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
> bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
> the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
> more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."
>
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html
>
> The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
> "bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
> such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
> biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
> the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].
So what do ya suppose happens to the batterys when it comes time to
swap for new ones???
>
> But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
> fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
> technology versus the application of simplicity.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 20:58:37
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 2007-03-23, Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On 22, 11:40 am, "Bob Dole" <t...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>> The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
>> "bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
>> such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
>> biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
>> the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].
> So what do ya suppose happens to the batterys when it comes time to
> swap for new ones???
I plan on recycling them.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 18:44:48
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
In article <ysDMh.11304$Ng1.2872@newsfe19.lga >,
"di" <di9999@cox.net > writes:
> I'll just stay with my Ford Truck, four cylinder, standard shift, gets
> 25-28mpg, can haul 4-5 bikes & 2 people.
> It fits my needs perfectly, especially until Al Gore and Robert Kennedy jr,
> stop flying around in private jets preaching "Green" They don't make me
> feel any guilt at all.
Most of the environmental impact inflicted by any automobile is
already a done deal by the time it rolls off the production line.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 17:30:56
From: di
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
"Bob Dole" <tsdev@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:1174585203.855861.47080@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:
>
> "How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
> pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
> to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
> - describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
> green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
> greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
> bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
> the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
> more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."
>
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html
>
> The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
> "bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
> such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
> biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
> the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].
>
> But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
> fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
> technology versus the application of simplicity.
I'll just stay with my Ford Truck, four cylinder, standard shift, gets
25-28mpg, can haul 4-5 bikes & 2 people.
It fits my needs perfectly, especially until Al Gore and Robert Kennedy jr,
stop flying around in private jets preaching "Green" They don't make me
feel any guilt at all.
>
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:31:20
From: Will
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
at bull. SOn 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-
bicycling.org > wrote:
>The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
> was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
My Passat diesel and my Golf diesel do better with roof racks to boot
<g >...
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 13:29:55
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 22 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's pointless if
> >you do a lot of interstate miles.
>
> What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
> interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
> mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
> when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
> was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
when you show it to people overseas.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:30:53
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
landotter wrote:
> On 22, 4:03 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
>> On 22 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <landot...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's pointless if
>>> you do a lot of interstate miles.
>> What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
>> interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
>> mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
>> when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
>> was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
>
> So, when you add in the extra energy in manufacture and battery
> disposal, it's not stellar at all. A Jetta diesel can get such
> mileage, hell even my old Japanese hatch got 45mpg. Most medium sized
> passenger diesels, which are surprisingly clean out the tail pipe, in
> Europe get in the 50s. The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
> when you show it to people overseas.
>
>
>
I have to wonder here why a Prius is so bragged about if it only gets 40
MPG on the interstate. That should be more like 50 MPG. I have owned 5
Renaults (r-8, r-10) of 1960's vintage that got a minimum of 40-45 MPG
highway and about 35-40 MPG around town. Nice basic point 'A' to 'B'
vehicles, weighed about 1,500 pounds and were actually a bit of fun to
drive. My absolute peak came on day when I decided to draft box semis on
the highway and that trip I managed to pull 54 MPG out of the car.
My 1961 Rambler with a high tech flathead 6 got 38 MPG at 65 MPH.
I don't get why manufacturers can't get a minimum of about 35 MPG for
most cars and maybe 27-28 or so for SUV's. Maybe all the smog stuff is
messing up the mileage, as I know it did in the early 70's. No power and
no mileage. Bad decade for cars, and oil prices.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 17:40:46
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22 2007 13:29:55 -0700, "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
> The Prius's supposed "economy" is pretty funny
>when you show it to people overseas.
There is nothing wrong with the economy at all. It has plenty of room
and can carry 4 people at 45 mpg with decent trunk space. If you want
to buy the Insight, go for it. No one said the Prius was the leader in
gas economy.
OTOH, no one is laughing at it either. What it has over the diesels
is a much cleaner total package. Toyota is commited to taking care of
the batteries and they have a better record than many other
manufacturers in that area. We'll see in the next few years when the
first Priuses start exchanging batteries.
BTW, are you under the impression that the Prius is a U.S. car? What's
this 'people overseas' crap - you mean the Japanese showing it to
Europeans? That would be were it was named the most 'Eco-Friendly
Vehicle in Europe' and has generally met all sales targets. Who are
these people that are doing all the laughing - Toyota dealers on the
way to the bank?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 12:25:02
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22, 12:40 pm, "Bob Dole" <t...@mailcity.com > wrote:
> Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:
>
> "How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
> pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
> to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
> - describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
> green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
> greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
> bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius.
Getting a Toyota Prius is not an upgrade. It takes energy and carbon
emissions to manufacture. Might as well get a '92 Corolla, make sure
it's tuned up with firm tires, and drive as little as possible. The
Prius is usually unnecessary tokenism. It's a nice enough car if you
drive a lot in the city and have the cash in hand. It's pointless if
you do a lot of interstate miles.
There's a lot of stuff you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. Buy
green power, eat vegetarian (not that I chose to), buy local food,
etc. I do agree that the people that think they're saving the planet
by selling the car, wearing hemp armbands, and having whitey dreads to
go with their attitudes and odor are highly annoying. I'd slap them
with a mackerel, but I never seem to have one handy.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 19:27:50
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
landotter wrote:
> people that think they're saving the planet
> are highly annoying. I'd slap them
> with a mackerel, but I never seem to have one handy.
That's because of over-fishing.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 17:03:55
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
On 22 2007 12:25:02 -0700, "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>It's pointless if
>you do a lot of interstate miles.
What bull. So I get 40 mpg on the Interstate in a car with the usable
interior space of my previous Saab 9-5, instead of the 45 mpg I get in
mixed use. The Saab was considered to be pretty good on the Interstate
when it got 28-30 mpg. The lowest I have ever gotten with the Prius
was 38 mpg - on the Interstate with a severe wind.
The Prius isn't just the hybrid, it is also a very efficient shape for
its size - to the point that Toyota is really hesitant to sell add-ons
that get into the wind stream. Check out a Toyota dealer and a Prius
owner could feel a bit left out in the accessory department.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 19:16:03
From: nash
Subject: Re: Dark Green or Bright Green?
|
"Bob Dole" <tsdev@mailcity.com > wrote in message
news:1174585203.855861.47080@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Here's a distinction I'd made, but not with such clear labels:
>
> "How shall we save the world? ... We must renounce all the dirty
> pleasures of modern life. .... Alex Steffen and the other contributors
> to worldchanging.com - and this big book which the website has spawned
> - describe that puritanical branch of ecological thought as "dark
> green" and, in opposition, describe themselves as "bright green". Dark
> greens demand that you dismantle your car and get a bike instead;
> bright greens recommend you upgrade to a Toyota Prius. Dark greens say
> the world is already overpopulated; bright greens suggest that with
> more efficient farming, we could feed another few billion."
>
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2035002,00.html
>
> The distinction is a little loaded: "dark" sounds a bit gloomy, and
> "bright" could be intended to imply intelligence. And, like most
> such distinctions, most of us are somewhere in the middle. [I'm mostly
> biking, walking, and taking public transport, but we own a Prius so
> the rest of the family isn't forcibly made car-free].
>
> But it's a good distinction in tht it reflects whether one is
> fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the application of
> technology versus the application of simplicity.
So if you are contributing the most to the environment you are stupid and
they are bright.
Otherwise it would be light or lime green not bright. Talk about
oversimplifying. Bright green meaning ster is the opposite then, too
simple and too stupid. I would just say lazy or not. Selfish and not.
compassionate and not. environmentalist and not.
|
|
