Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles
Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles
Most automobiles are at least 25% less efficient then five to ten year
old technologies should have given us if the auto industry had lived
up to their claims of customer service... perhaps the good thing is
that higher gas prices will result in less consumption...
Unfortunately, less than cost-optimally efficient vehicles contribute
disproportionally to environmental and public health and greenhouse
gas problems...
Urge the auto industry to make cleaner air, more fuel efficient and
safer vehicles: http :// www .autobuyology.org/tellcarmakerstocleantheair.pdf
With the real cost of subsidized gasoline now well above $10 a gallon
( http :// www .icta.org/press/release.cfm?news id), and with 'average'
automobile ownership and operation costs over a lifetime now zoom-
zooming past $500,000 (half a million dollars -- you do the math), a
few auto related conservation reminders may be helpful: Go carfree
(see savings above); go carless; buy smaller, more fuel efficient
vehicles and rent up or larger as needed; drive less; ride-share; trip-
link or group errands; negotiate a fuel inefficiency retail price
reduction for less than cost-optimally fuel-efficient vehicles; urge
the auto industry to stop fighting conservative and reasonable fuel
efficiency and green-house gas emission standards, and to adopt long-
proven, cost-effective fuel efficiency tenchologies for new vehicles;
get-SMART and support comprehensive public transportation and auto-
alternative programs, for others, if not for oneself; And etc., add
your energy conservation choices to this list. Keep it handy, and
share it.
For those who cannot avoid buying an automobile, at least you don't
have to pay to much... a list of car deal resources to help level the
car deal playing field to favor the consumers...
http :// www .autobuyology.org/thankyouforteaching.pdf
Rand
Carlessnesshood 101
If there is one thing worse then having to buy an automobile, it's
paying to much for one... "1st & 2nd law of thermo-economical-
dynamics"
http :// www .autobuyology.org
Most automobiles are at least 25% less efficient then five to ten year
old technologies should have given us if the auto industry had lived
up to their claims of customer service... perhaps the good thing is
that higher gas prices will result in less consumption...
Unfortunately, less than cost-optimally efficient vehicles contribute
disproportionally to environmental and public health and greenhouse
gas problems...
Urge the auto industry to make cleaner air, more fuel efficient and
safer vehicles: http :// www .autobuyology.org/tellcarmakerstocleantheair.pdf
With the real cost of subsidized gasoline now well above $10 a gallon
( http :// www .icta.org/press/release.cfm?news id), and with 'average'
automobile ownership and operation costs over a lifetime now zoom-
zooming past $500,000 (half a million dollars -- you do the math), a
few auto related conservation reminders may be helpful: Go carfree
(see savings above); go carless; buy smaller, more fuel efficient
vehicles and rent up or larger as needed; drive less; ride-share; trip-
link or group errands; negotiate a fuel inefficiency retail price
reduction for less than cost-optimally fuel-efficient vehicles; urge
the auto industry to stop fighting conservative and reasonable fuel
efficiency and green-house gas emission standards, and to adopt long-
proven, cost-effective fuel efficiency tenchologies for new vehicles;
get-SMART and support comprehensive public transportation and auto-
alternative programs, for others, if not for oneself; And etc., add
your energy conservation choices to this list. Keep it handy, and
share it.
For those who cannot avoid buying an automobile, at least you don't
have to pay to much... a list of car deal resources to help level the
car deal playing field to favor the consumers...
http :// www .autobuyology.org/thankyouforteaching.pdf
Rand
Carlessnesshood 101
If there is one thing worse then having to buy an automobile, it's
paying to much for one... "1st & 2nd law of thermo-economical-
dynamics"
http :// www .autobuyology.org
Re: Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles
In article <1172302252.556049.317870@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups,com >, rknox wrote:
> Most automobiles are at least 25% less efficient then five to ten year
> old technologies should have given us if the auto industry had lived
> up to their claims of customer service... perhaps the good thing is
>
> ... gibbering left-wing lunacy snipped ...
More barely disguised Communistic crap disguised as environmentalism
from the hysterical Religious Left. I see no reason to do any of this.
My own vehicle of choice delivers an honest 14-15 miles per gallon and
I have no problem with that.
--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
In article <1172302252.556049.317870@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups,com >, rknox wrote:
> Most automobiles are at least 25% less efficient then five to ten year
> old technologies should have given us if the auto industry had lived
> up to their claims of customer service... perhaps the good thing is
>
> ... gibbering left-wing lunacy snipped ...
More barely disguised Communistic crap disguised as environmentalism
from the hysterical Religious Left. I see no reason to do any of this.
My own vehicle of choice delivers an honest 14-15 miles per gallon and
I have no problem with that.
--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
Re: Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles
Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10,com > wrote:
> More barely disguised Communistic crap disguised as environmentalism
> from the hysterical Religious Left.
Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
communist?
> I see no reason to do any of this. My own vehicle of choice delivers
> an honest 14-15 miles per gallon and I have no problem with that.
And you're perfectly free to do so.
OTOH, having read a couple pages in the UN global warming study gives me
a sick feeling in the stomach, the more so as it seems very extensively
researched and the entire scientific community is basically in
agreement.
And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down substantially
any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most market experts).
Those two things have made me reconsider and future purchases will be
made with energy consumption and pollution in mind. This is not a
lifestyle change, just taking informed choices. My house will be lighted
just as before, it'll just be with CF. And the car in my driveway will
go where and when I want it to go, but at 50 mpg.
I think you'll find yourself in a similar situation - making an educated
choice about how much energy to consume. It'll take a couple years, but
you'll get there eventually...
cu
.\\arc
Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10,com > wrote:
> More barely disguised Communistic crap disguised as environmentalism
> from the hysterical Religious Left.
Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
communist?
> I see no reason to do any of this. My own vehicle of choice delivers
> an honest 14-15 miles per gallon and I have no problem with that.
And you're perfectly free to do so.
OTOH, having read a couple pages in the UN global warming study gives me
a sick feeling in the stomach, the more so as it seems very extensively
researched and the entire scientific community is basically in
agreement.
And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down substantially
any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most market experts).
Those two things have made me reconsider and future purchases will be
made with energy consumption and pollution in mind. This is not a
lifestyle change, just taking informed choices. My house will be lighted
just as before, it'll just be with CF. And the car in my driveway will
go where and when I want it to go, but at 50 mpg.
I think you'll find yourself in a similar situation - making an educated
choice about how much energy to consume. It'll take a couple years, but
you'll get there eventually...
cu
.\\arc
Re: Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles
In article <eerbb4-dr9.ln1@pascal.gerges.lu>, Marc Gerges wrote:
> Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
> article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
> communist?
The environmental movement has always been a safe haven for those of
Communistic bent, even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I know this from personal experience, having been involved
in the early environmental movement is one of my youthful
indescretions. (BTW, "global cooling" due to pollution was
the boogey man back then. Dirty hippies loudly proclaimed the
imminent ice age with placards during the first Earth Day.)
> OTOH, having read a couple pages in the UN global warming study gives me
> a sick feeling in the stomach, the more so as it seems very extensively
> researched and the entire scientific community is basically in
> agreement.
Take some Rolaids and calm down. The U.N. is a corrupt organization
with virtually no credibility. (Remember the "Food for Oil" scandal?
Just the tip of the iceberg.) The entire scientific community is
*not* basically in agreement with them, as a little searching will
reveal. Here is one resource (there are many others):
http :// www .pushback,com /environment/fraudulent-environment.html
The U.N. in particular has been looking forever for some "crisis"
that it can use to launch itself into the position of a planetary
government with taxing powers. It's part of their charter, and the
long-term goal of its founders. "Human-caused global warming" fits
the bill nicely.
In fact it should come as no surprise to find that when the U.N.
and governments fund research whose objective is to find evidence of
human-caused climate change, this is what they find. Of course evidence
to the contrary is ignored or explained away with smoke and mirrors. (You
can see the same techniques at work on a smaller scale in "creation
science," where scientists will "prove" to you with a straight face that
the earth is only 6000 years old and humans walked around with dinosaurs.)
Now we seem to be moving into a political phase where one side declares
"the debate is over," dissenting opinions are shouted down or ignored,
and those dissidents threatened with possibly losing their jobs and/or
having their credentials revoked. These are standard Soviet techniques
familiar to most anyone who lived through the Cold War period.
If you want something to make your stomach queasy, consider that
the Earth's magnetic field is collapsing at an unprecedented rate
(on Bush's watch!!). If the planet loses its magnetic field the
long-term consequences can be dire, including the solar wind
eventually stripping away the atmosphere. Can it be a coincidence
that this is occuring during a time period when our use of electricity,
electronics, and wireless technology is reaching an all-time high?
Something Must Be Done Before It Is Too Late!
> And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
> China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down substantially
> any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most market experts).
That is a political issue. There are vast energy resources, including
oil, in North America. Certain political groups have prevented us from
developing these resources. (Meanwhile, Cuba will be drilling for oil
just 60 miles off of the Florida coast.)
> Those two things have made me reconsider and future purchases will be
> made with energy consumption and pollution in mind. This is not a
I have no intention of taking such things into consideration. Already
did the enviro-wacko thing in the 1960s and 1970s, thank you. Fool me once,
shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me.
For a good time, look for the 1960s book "The Limits To Growth" by "The
Club of Rome" and see where they thought we would be today. Also take
a look at the dire predictions of the environmental community made
during that time period, at what they thought the late 20th and early
21st centuries would be like. How many of these predictions came to
pass? (Here are some clues: Zero. None. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss.)
> I think you'll find yourself in a similar situation - making an educated
> choice about how much energy to consume. It'll take a couple years, but
> you'll get there eventually...
The only "educated choice" involved is how much one can spend to
achieve and maintain the desired lifestyle and accoutrements. For me,
environmental concerns simply are not a part of that equation, and while I
am not wealthy on the scale of people like John Edwards or Ted Kennedy I
do well enough that cutbacks in that area are not likely. Judging by the
lifestyles of wealthy liberals, it is not a concern for them either. (If
you are a Democrat, talk to your representives about their multiple
huge estate homes, their private planes, and their fleets of limos &
SUVs before you bother me about my 15 mpg vehicle or my incandescent
light bulbs!)
--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
In article <eerbb4-dr9.ln1@pascal.gerges.lu>, Marc Gerges wrote:
> Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
> article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
> communist?
The environmental movement has always been a safe haven for those of
Communistic bent, even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I know this from personal experience, having been involved
in the early environmental movement is one of my youthful
indescretions. (BTW, "global cooling" due to pollution was
the boogey man back then. Dirty hippies loudly proclaimed the
imminent ice age with placards during the first Earth Day.)
> OTOH, having read a couple pages in the UN global warming study gives me
> a sick feeling in the stomach, the more so as it seems very extensively
> researched and the entire scientific community is basically in
> agreement.
Take some Rolaids and calm down. The U.N. is a corrupt organization
with virtually no credibility. (Remember the "Food for Oil" scandal?
Just the tip of the iceberg.) The entire scientific community is
*not* basically in agreement with them, as a little searching will
reveal. Here is one resource (there are many others):
http :// www .pushback,com /environment/fraudulent-environment.html
The U.N. in particular has been looking forever for some "crisis"
that it can use to launch itself into the position of a planetary
government with taxing powers. It's part of their charter, and the
long-term goal of its founders. "Human-caused global warming" fits
the bill nicely.
In fact it should come as no surprise to find that when the U.N.
and governments fund research whose objective is to find evidence of
human-caused climate change, this is what they find. Of course evidence
to the contrary is ignored or explained away with smoke and mirrors. (You
can see the same techniques at work on a smaller scale in "creation
science," where scientists will "prove" to you with a straight face that
the earth is only 6000 years old and humans walked around with dinosaurs.)
Now we seem to be moving into a political phase where one side declares
"the debate is over," dissenting opinions are shouted down or ignored,
and those dissidents threatened with possibly losing their jobs and/or
having their credentials revoked. These are standard Soviet techniques
familiar to most anyone who lived through the Cold War period.
If you want something to make your stomach queasy, consider that
the Earth's magnetic field is collapsing at an unprecedented rate
(on Bush's watch!!). If the planet loses its magnetic field the
long-term consequences can be dire, including the solar wind
eventually stripping away the atmosphere. Can it be a coincidence
that this is occuring during a time period when our use of electricity,
electronics, and wireless technology is reaching an all-time high?
Something Must Be Done Before It Is Too Late!
> And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
> China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down substantially
> any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most market experts).
That is a political issue. There are vast energy resources, including
oil, in North America. Certain political groups have prevented us from
developing these resources. (Meanwhile, Cuba will be drilling for oil
just 60 miles off of the Florida coast.)
> Those two things have made me reconsider and future purchases will be
> made with energy consumption and pollution in mind. This is not a
I have no intention of taking such things into consideration. Already
did the enviro-wacko thing in the 1960s and 1970s, thank you. Fool me once,
shame on you -- fool me twice, shame on me.
For a good time, look for the 1960s book "The Limits To Growth" by "The
Club of Rome" and see where they thought we would be today. Also take
a look at the dire predictions of the environmental community made
during that time period, at what they thought the late 20th and early
21st centuries would be like. How many of these predictions came to
pass? (Here are some clues: Zero. None. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss.)
> I think you'll find yourself in a similar situation - making an educated
> choice about how much energy to consume. It'll take a couple years, but
> you'll get there eventually...
The only "educated choice" involved is how much one can spend to
achieve and maintain the desired lifestyle and accoutrements. For me,
environmental concerns simply are not a part of that equation, and while I
am not wealthy on the scale of people like John Edwards or Ted Kennedy I
do well enough that cutbacks in that area are not likely. Judging by the
lifestyles of wealthy liberals, it is not a concern for them either. (If
you are a Democrat, talk to your representives about their multiple
huge estate homes, their private planes, and their fleets of limos &
SUVs before you bother me about my 15 mpg vehicle or my incandescent
light bulbs!)
--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
Re: Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles
Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10,com > wrote:
> In article <eerbb4-dr9.ln1@pascal.gerges.lu>, Marc Gerges wrote:
>> Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
>> article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
>> communist?
>
> The environmental movement has always been a safe haven for those of
> Communistic bent, even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Aha. So be it, then.
It's been my experience that most people nowadays starting to look at
environmental issues are not necessarily leaning left. But then, it's
just personal experience.
>
> Take some Rolaids and calm down. The U.N. is a corrupt organization
> with virtually no credibility.
The point being here that we do not need to care much about the UN, but
about the scientific study.
> Just the tip of the iceberg.) The entire scientific community is
> *not* basically in agreement with them, as a little searching will
> reveal. Here is one resource (there are many others):
>
> http :// www .pushback,com /environment/fraudulent-environment.html
Looking at the first two items on that site:
* fuel efficient vehicles are unsafe - absolutely ridiculous, physics
101 should teach anybody that there's two major factors in safety:
mass and speed. Fuel efficient cars usually haven't got a lot of either.
So by design they are safe. Apart from that they are subject to the same
kind of regulation regarding crash testing and unlike certain SUV's they
do not have a tendency to topple over in strong winds.
* Frederick Seitz does not buy global warming. The man was a great
scientist in the 1930s and 40s. Of course since the cigarette industry
paid him for 'science' he lost all credibility. He didn't buy CFC's and
the ozone layer, he didn't buy rising temperatures, he probably wouldn't
buy anything discovered within the last 30 years just out of principle.
The man's how old - about a hundred or so?
Frankly, if that's the kind of arguments and proponents that come up,
let's just stop the discussion here.
[rant about the UN being corrupt deleted - just not a topic of
discussion]
> (You can see the same techniques at work on a smaller scale in
> "creation science," where scientists will "prove" to you with a
> straight face that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans walked
> around with dinosaurs.)
You see, over here in Europe we've got a field day when it comes to
american creationism. Especially considering most fervent believers of
it fuel their cars with dinosaurs.
> If you want something to make your stomach queasy, consider that the
> Earth's magnetic field is collapsing at an unprecedented rate (on
> Bush's watch!!). If the planet loses its magnetic field the long-term
> consequences can be dire, including the solar wind eventually
> stripping away the atmosphere. Can it be a coincidence that this is
> occuring during a time period when our use of electricity,
> electronics, and wireless technology is reaching an all-time high?
> Something Must Be Done Before It Is Too Late!
Earth's magnetic field seems to switch every now and then - it is not
yet known exactly why, but evidence suggest it is not caused by outside
forces. Considering it originates in earth's core, our little
electricity generation shielded by 2900 km of earth mantle is generally
not brought into connection with any upcoming reversal. The past
reversals of course didn't 'strip the atmosphere away'.
I do not quite see where the relation to global warming is, though.
>> And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
>> China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down
>> substantially any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most
>> market experts).
>
> That is a political issue. There are vast energy resources, including
> oil, in North America. Certain political groups have prevented us from
> developing these resources. (Meanwhile, Cuba will be drilling for oil
> just 60 miles off of the Florida coast.)
If those resources are so vast and readily available, what is the reason
for the war in Iraq, for american activity in Venezuela and many other
places? It seemed to make more sense to go and drill there while giving
the middle east a rest?
> The only "educated choice" involved is how much one can spend to
> achieve and maintain the desired lifestyle and accoutrements. For me,
> environmental concerns simply are not a part of that equation, and
> while I am not wealthy on the scale of people like John Edwards or Ted
> Kennedy I do well enough that cutbacks in that area are not likely.
> Judging by the lifestyles of wealthy liberals, it is not a concern for
> them either. (If you are a Democrat, talk to your representives about
> their multiple huge estate homes, their private planes, and their
> fleets of limos & SUVs before you bother me about my 15 mpg vehicle or
> my incandescent light bulbs!)
I do not intend to bother you about your car of choice and other
economic decisions.
I do think that society as a whole will either have to start thinking
about energy consumption soon or will face a way harder time in 20 to 30
years. With currently available technology going there today may not
mean a lifestyle change at all. Ignoring the situation may very well
result in huge changes later on down the road.
cu
.\\arc
Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10,com > wrote:
> In article <eerbb4-dr9.ln1@pascal.gerges.lu>, Marc Gerges wrote:
>> Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
>> article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
>> communist?
>
> The environmental movement has always been a safe haven for those of
> Communistic bent, even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Aha. So be it, then.
It's been my experience that most people nowadays starting to look at
environmental issues are not necessarily leaning left. But then, it's
just personal experience.
>
> Take some Rolaids and calm down. The U.N. is a corrupt organization
> with virtually no credibility.
The point being here that we do not need to care much about the UN, but
about the scientific study.
> Just the tip of the iceberg.) The entire scientific community is
> *not* basically in agreement with them, as a little searching will
> reveal. Here is one resource (there are many others):
>
> http :// www .pushback,com /environment/fraudulent-environment.html
Looking at the first two items on that site:
* fuel efficient vehicles are unsafe - absolutely ridiculous, physics
101 should teach anybody that there's two major factors in safety:
mass and speed. Fuel efficient cars usually haven't got a lot of either.
So by design they are safe. Apart from that they are subject to the same
kind of regulation regarding crash testing and unlike certain SUV's they
do not have a tendency to topple over in strong winds.
* Frederick Seitz does not buy global warming. The man was a great
scientist in the 1930s and 40s. Of course since the cigarette industry
paid him for 'science' he lost all credibility. He didn't buy CFC's and
the ozone layer, he didn't buy rising temperatures, he probably wouldn't
buy anything discovered within the last 30 years just out of principle.
The man's how old - about a hundred or so?
Frankly, if that's the kind of arguments and proponents that come up,
let's just stop the discussion here.
[rant about the UN being corrupt deleted - just not a topic of
discussion]
> (You can see the same techniques at work on a smaller scale in
> "creation science," where scientists will "prove" to you with a
> straight face that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans walked
> around with dinosaurs.)
You see, over here in Europe we've got a field day when it comes to
american creationism. Especially considering most fervent believers of
it fuel their cars with dinosaurs.
> If you want something to make your stomach queasy, consider that the
> Earth's magnetic field is collapsing at an unprecedented rate (on
> Bush's watch!!). If the planet loses its magnetic field the long-term
> consequences can be dire, including the solar wind eventually
> stripping away the atmosphere. Can it be a coincidence that this is
> occuring during a time period when our use of electricity,
> electronics, and wireless technology is reaching an all-time high?
> Something Must Be Done Before It Is Too Late!
Earth's magnetic field seems to switch every now and then - it is not
yet known exactly why, but evidence suggest it is not caused by outside
forces. Considering it originates in earth's core, our little
electricity generation shielded by 2900 km of earth mantle is generally
not brought into connection with any upcoming reversal. The past
reversals of course didn't 'strip the atmosphere away'.
I do not quite see where the relation to global warming is, though.
>> And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
>> China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down
>> substantially any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most
>> market experts).
>
> That is a political issue. There are vast energy resources, including
> oil, in North America. Certain political groups have prevented us from
> developing these resources. (Meanwhile, Cuba will be drilling for oil
> just 60 miles off of the Florida coast.)
If those resources are so vast and readily available, what is the reason
for the war in Iraq, for american activity in Venezuela and many other
places? It seemed to make more sense to go and drill there while giving
the middle east a rest?
> The only "educated choice" involved is how much one can spend to
> achieve and maintain the desired lifestyle and accoutrements. For me,
> environmental concerns simply are not a part of that equation, and
> while I am not wealthy on the scale of people like John Edwards or Ted
> Kennedy I do well enough that cutbacks in that area are not likely.
> Judging by the lifestyles of wealthy liberals, it is not a concern for
> them either. (If you are a Democrat, talk to your representives about
> their multiple huge estate homes, their private planes, and their
> fleets of limos & SUVs before you bother me about my 15 mpg vehicle or
> my incandescent light bulbs!)
I do not intend to bother you about your car of choice and other
economic decisions.
I do think that society as a whole will either have to start thinking
about energy consumption soon or will face a way harder time in 20 to 30
years. With currently available technology going there today may not
mean a lifestyle change at all. Ignoring the situation may very well
result in huge changes later on down the road.
cu
.\\arc
