Peter Franks wrote:
> 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.
Well, Virginia is a good start. The Eastern half of the United States
has water, wood, tillable soil as the very basics to sup****t large
population and it does as a large ****tion of the country's population
lives there.
>> 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.
No doubt. It makes me proud to be a civil engineer. It also makes us,
as a whole, very vulnerable to anything that disrupts the functioning of
our technology to a large extent.
|
