Michael Johnson wrote:
> one80out@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On May 9, 1:56 pm, Michael Johnson <c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>> On May 9, 7:38 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
>>>> <rander3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> A much-needed $260 million shot in the arm for Chrysler Canada.
>>>>> 6.1 litres, 425hp, mileage like a Durango SUV. But do you know why
>>>>> this is no threat to the environment? Because none of the buyers of
>>>>> these cars are going to use it as a daily driver. They will see
>>>>> weekend use in the summer, like most muscle cars.
>>>>> Which begs the question, why do they charge a $1200 gas-guzzler tax
on
>>>>> it in Canada? If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
>>>>> 200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a
guy
>>>>> with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work.
>>>>> Environmental laws need "adjusting."
>>>> How do you really know when and how far such cars will be driven?
SUVs
>>>> with ****y mileage are widely used for commuting, even with
$4/gallon
>>>> gas. You still hear non-conscientious people saying "I can afford the
>>>> gas" - as if it's only about money.\
>>> Look at how many drivers are trying to dump their SUVs and look at the
>>> sales figures for low mileage cars and trucks for your answer. All
that
>>> matters is how far the daily commute is and if the batteries can get
>>> them to work and back with an errand or two thrown in for good
measure.
>>> Then they charge the car overnight for a $1.50 and do all over again
>>> the next day. If they have to take a trip then use gas and get 45+
mpg.
>>>
>>>> That obsession with taxes shows the disconnect between physical
>>>> resources and dollar wealth. Money is not a true resource, just a
>>>> measure of what people _think_ something ought to be worth; to other
>>>> people, not the planet, which ought to be the benchmark for wealth.
>>> You want to save the planet? Then make it economical to do so. If
>>> people can get 300 miles for a $3.00 charge then electric cars will
>>> happen and fast. People aren't going to live like paupers to satisfy
a
>>> bunch of limousine liberals that burn more fuel in a month than most
>>> people will in their lifetime.
>>>
>>>> Money has taken too long to reflect physical resource depletion. Few
>>>> cared to listen when these things were predicted long ago. They
>>>> assumed all they had to do was get a paycheck and resources would
>>>> materialize from Heaven.
>>> What has been depleted? There is basically just as much iron, copper,
>>> aluminum, carbon, water etc. on the planet as there was ten million
>>> years ago. All we do is move it around from one place to the other.
In
>>> 100 million years God knows where it will be.
>>>
>>>> http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm
>>>> Nature can't hear your excu$e$.
>>> Nature doesn't give a **** about mankind. We are nothing more than a
>>> slight itch on her backside. Life on Earth has taken hits far worse
>>> than anything mankind can dish out (comet hits, massive volcanic
>>> eruptions, total global ice coverage etc.) and has rebounded every
time
>>> with even more diversity of life than before. Mankind is one arrogant
>>> life form to think he is the best the Earth can produce. Mankind is
>>> just the latest organism to affect the planet. Where do you think all
>>> this oxygen we breath came from which makes life as we know it
possible?
>>> It came from another organism that run a muck for about a billion
>>> years. Our impact on the planet is infinitesimal compared to it.
>>>
>>> These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a
billion
>>> years and the Earth should never change during that time. When it
comes
>>> to the planet Earth, the more things change the more they stay the
same.
>>> If we are going to survive we had better get good at adapting and
>>> overcoming changes instead of thinking we can change the entire planet
>>> to our liking. What's next on our list of improvements for the
planet?
>>> Stopping plate tectonics?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> If you really believe that man-made greenhouse g***** are warming the
>> climate there is one thing that should become an international
>> priority, and that is to manage fresh water. We need to make sure
>> that the use of all runoff and underground resources are optimized.
>> That would be worth multiple trillions of dollars, it is somethng we
>> can actually do, and it would yield benefits regardless of climate
>> change.
>
> Even with water there are many areas where supply is more than adequate.
> I live in Virginia and we have water running out of our ears. If we
> need more then we build another dam. The real problem when it comes to
> water is too many people want to live in places where it is scarce. For
> some reason we think living by the millions in Phoenix, Las Vegas,
> Southern California etc. is the way nature intended. I hear these
> people complaining about water shortages and I just scratch my head and
> want to scream "You live in a f***ing desert, what do you expect?!?!"
> The same goes for many other parts of the world.
I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't complaining,
but we are concerned.
Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.
It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
|
