Michael Johnson wrote:
> 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.
Ok, then name a place that IS optimal for large scale human habitation.
> 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.
I look at it this way: thanks to the ingenuity of man, we have areas
that are much more habitable.
|
