Peter Franks wrote:
> 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.
At least I don't have to water my grass in Virginia except for a few
weeks in August. IMO, every area of the country has its own brand of
beauty and my comments never said desert areas are ugly. My point is
they are not optimal for large scale human habitation. I'm not saying
that people shouldn't have a choice to live in desert areas but many of
these environmentalists use the Southwest, in general, to try and scare
the rest of the country into thinking they too have a water shortage.
This just isn't true.
If it weren't for colossal civil engineering projects (BTW, I am a civil
engineer) controlling stormwater runoff, very few people would occupy
the Southwest. There will come a point, IMO, where the number of people
living in this part of the country will be restricted as there is a
limited amount of water that they can utilize to sup****t a given
population level.
|
