Obama's Gas/Emissions regulations

[Amwrider]

Trucks will have to average 30 MPG? Did I just hear this correctly?

I would love for this to actually happen, but seriously.....will we still be able to haul rigs with these vehicles?

[EquineSublime]

Yep you heard it right..

The whole story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_bi_ge/us_autos_fleet_of_the_future

[Beasmom]

What on earth do these pinheads in Washington DC think farmers and ranchers are going to drive? Never mind us horse people. In a Socialist society, horses are so...elitist.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

[BelladonnaLily]

Depressing. All my life I've wanted a conv. Shelby. My dream car. I plan(ned) on purchasing one in the next few years, now that my children are growing up. Hell, since I have actually worked all of my life, I figured having a luxury item that I've wanted and worked for would be possible. Silly me. It would be my midlife crisis car. Guess I'd better buy it before 2012.

Just one more thing to be depressed about...having to drive one of those ridiculous looking rollar skate cars...:lol

I won't even get into how this will affect our farm and the horses, etc...

[mares tails]

Trucks will have to average 30 MPG? Did I just hear this correctly?

Not exactly. That's not the mpg for EVERY truck, it's the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), so those "baby" & hybrid trucks will get averaged in with the "pulling" trucks. And don't forget that diesel gets better mileage than gas.

.

[mares tails]

Depressing. All my life I've wanted a conv. Shelby.

Get a Tesla (http://www.teslamotors.com/roadstersport/) 0 - 60 in under 4 sec. :)

You can get one in red & still be green.

[Androcles]

What on earth do these pinheads in Washington DC think farmers and ranchers are going to drive? Never mind us horse people. In a Socialist society, horses are so...elitist.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Maybe it'll get manufacturers to finally start designing something that is fuel efficient. Up till now the 'pinheads' were perfectly glad to take money from Detroit not to be told to design anything that was fuel efficient.

[Frank B]

Oh, it's going to smart, alright! The big question is: Other than the usual bunch of overaged hippies, are real people going to buy Government Motors' Obamamobiles?

Whatever the mechanism, reducing greenhouse gases will be costly for everyone. The energy sector will feel the biggest wallop. Electric power generation produces up to 35% of carbon dioxide emissions. To rein that in, utilities will have to rely a lot less on coal burning plants, substituting a lot more natural gas and at least some additional nuclear power. If utilities can’t cut their CO2 enough, they’ll have to make up the difference by buying offsetting carbon credits, essentially paying someone else to bring down the overall emissions total. State utility boards will limit rate hikes, making it impossible for energy firms to recoup all costs.

The transportation sector will get hit hard, too. It will have to deal with higher fuel prices as emissions caps reduce refinery production and lead to more imports. That means greater costs, too, for supermarkets, shippers and other businesses. Carmakers will need to produce more hybrids so their fleets get better gas mileage overall. That means higher sticker prices for consumers.

COMPLETE KIPLINGER ARTICLE: (http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/climate_change_rules_coming_090511.html)

[imissvixen]

You guys don't have much faith in us engineers or American ingenuity.

[SaturdayNightLive]

A little reactionary don't you think? I highly doubt that the world as we know it is coming to an end. "ZOMG they're trying to reduce green house emissions AND make vehicles more efficient!?! The sky is falling the sky is falling!"
:rolleyes:

[Eventaholic]

Let's start by taking a look at a slightly more reliable, less biased source, than Yahoo- the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19emissions.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=emissions&st=cse

A more efficient car means just that- not a weaker car, not a less safe car, but a more efficient one.

Farmers, ranchers, and horsepeople will drive the same kind of vehicles they always have- just more efficiently.

Europeans have been driving cars that meet or exceed these new standards, and I would hardly say their quality of life is suffering. It is a gross exaggeration to say that only "the elite" are able to have horses in Europe, this is no more true in Europe than it is in the US.

As for affecting the farm and horses- I have yet to see a horse that thrives off of polluted air.

[deltawave]

It's an AVERAGE, folks. The trucks we have can still hog fuel, but the other cars we drive are going to be required to be much more fuel efficient. So along with my 15mpg fuel hog, I'm going to have to drive a 50mpg hybrid. I already do, so no big. :)

[Nikki^]

A little reactionary don't you think? I highly doubt that the world as we know it is coming to an end. "ZOMG they're trying to reduce green house emissions AND make vehicles more efficient!?! The sky is falling the sky is falling!"
:rolleyes:

I don't mind electric cars (Love the Tesla!!!) and I love the Honda Clarity but these cars are priced way out of our range.

If every gas/diesel car went 80 mpg, don't you think the oil companies are going raise the prices of gas to lets say, $8 a gallon? Where's the savings? You think gas prices are going to stay at 2.00 a gallon? Nope.

And you know what FIAT means right? Fix It Again Tony.:lol:

[Beasmom]

I drive a VW TDI that averages between 48-52 MPG for everyday driving. The ranch F-350 is averaging anywhere between 11-15 MPG, depending on the load I'm hauling. As it breaks in, I'm told that mileage will improve.

This is government interference in the marketplace. If everyone WANTED to drive a SmartCar, we'd see more of them on the road, never mind the mileage. In the event an accident, I'd rather be in my VW or the 350, NOT a SmartCar or equivalent.

If you've got an average-sized family of 4, with the attendant sports equipment for the kids, groceries, perhaps a child's car seat, you need a car that will accommodate that. I have plenty of faith in engineers -- but to make a car that fuel efficient, something will suffer. Power, weight, size. A lightweight car will get better gas mileage, but there will be a sacrifice in safety.

The larger vehicles that Americans tend to favor will be astronomically expensive. But that's what they like. People in rural areas and those with hobbies or businesses in town that demand a larger vehicle will still drive their big trucks and vans, but they'll pay through the nose. The costs will necessarily be passed on to their clients.

I can't wait for 2010 to roll around and get another chance to vote.

[JSwan]

Not one for partisan politics....

but don't think for one second those electric cars don't pollute.

Everything pollutes. Folks loved those light bulbs but oops - guess what's going into the landfills. Lots of mercury.

Those electric cars have batteries - and those suckers are horribly expensive to replace and you have to put the used battery somewhere.

I think all this technology is fantastic, wonderful, and especially in urban areas, really useful.

But don't think for one second that it's "green".

Nothing is "green" except not using technology at all. Everything else is just kinda shifting the sources of pollution around a little.

[BuddyRoo]

Well, on the one hand, I was kind of excited about moving up the mpg deadline because that *might* mean that my engineer friend who does such work will be able to keep his job!

On the other hand...one of the points that was brought up this a.m. on an NPR program was that they suspect that with better fuel economy, people will drive MORE because it's cheaper and therefore, pollution will not decrease as hoped.

For my own pocket book, I like the idea of more fuel efficient cars. But as someone else pointed out...I'm not too interested in driving around in a SmartCar or some similar with all the other big rigs on the road. When I lived overseas, they didn't scare me...but everyone was in stuff that size and there weren't many semis and such. Here? Eeek!

[IFG]

Funny thing. My husband and I bought our 1986 Toyota Tercel wagon new in 1986. The average MPG is 30 MPG. Since buying that car, we have bought two other new cars, and several used cars (not to mention the F250). In all of our car searches, none of the new cars are as fuel efficient as our Tercel. It is still on the road for that reason. Designers have elected to go for performance over MPG in newer cars (with the exception of the VWs someone mentioned that we avoided for reliability reasons). That is ridiculous. If my 1986, can get that gas mileage, be reliable, and be large enough for a family with 2 kids and a dog, and have the highest safety rating, so can newer cars. Why should I have to keep my poor car that is old enough to vote, and that has over 255,000 miles on it running because it is more reliable and get better gas mileage than the new cars?

[deltawave]

Nothing is "green" except not using technology at all.

True enough. The best and cleanest energy is the energy that is NOT used. :yes:

Turn off those lights! It's like a comedy in my house--I walk around switching everything off after the boys have finished turning it all on, over and over. :rolleyes:

[Mozart]

Turn off those lights! It's like a comedy in my house--I walk around switching everything off after the boys have finished turning it all on, over and over. :rolleyes:

OMG I am so glad it is not just me. I sound like a broken record "Why is the light on in here? Why is the T.V. on? Why are TWO T.V.'s on? Why is the computer on?

I swore I would not turn into my mother. Apparently I have.

[danceronice]

First aside: New York Times, *unbiased*? ROTFLMAO...that paper hasn't run a non-slanted news story in years. Possibly decades. It's almost as bad as the Boston Globe (good riddance when that finishes its death throes.)

And it's not that I don't believe in American ingenuity. I believe in physics and lighter-weight, lower-powered vehicles can't haul as heavy a load. Basic physics. Read any thread about trailering here. Also, take it from someone who drives a small fuel-efficient car, in an accident, you suddenly start planning to buy something much bigger and preferably made of steel next time. I saw a Smart Car on the turnpike today and I can't imagine being that suicidal. Maybe if you lived IN the city itself and never drove very far or on major roads and only had one person and very little else to transport.

Not to mention---no one being honest will tell you that you will, in a year or two, save the price differential between a hybrid and a conventional car by saving on gas. You're not going to save that much. For me the tax deduction is also insufficient. Also, I have to wonder what the heck is in that battery and what will happen in an accident or if I have to junk the car. (Similar to why I don't use those light bulbs--I have read how to handle breakage and I don't want to have to treat a broken bulb like a superfund site.)

As someone at another site said, at this rate, those of us who need a large truck are pretty soon going to have to have special license and apply and prove that we NEED it. And those who have just one horse and do hunter shows--wait'll you hear the government asking you why you can't just get one of those Euro-designed Brenderups that you can pull with a Volvo....

[jn4jenny]

If you've got an average-sized family of 4, with the attendant sports equipment for the kids, groceries, perhaps a child's car seat, you need a car that will accommodate that. I have plenty of faith in engineers -- but to make a car that fuel efficient, something will suffer. Power, weight, size. A lightweight car will get better gas mileage, but there will be a sacrifice in safety.

Sorry, but gimme a break. You could EASILY fit a family of four into my Subaru Outback wagon, there is tons of room in the cargo hatch in the back, and the new Subaru Outback diesel wagon gets nearly 50 mpg on the highway. And I guess those idiots at State Farm are suckers for giving me a 38% break on my insurance, which they justify because the Outback is statistically one of the safest cars on the road.

Don't we all remember the big families when we were kids who drove station wagons? Nobody died for the lack of a minivan or SUV. And for the folks who don't want to drive a small car (like Beasmom's VW TDI), there will still BE minivans and SUVs on the market.

[Beasmom]

The first CAFE standard, passed in 1975, spelled the death of the American Station Wagon. Minivans and SUVs took their place in the market. Station Wagons could not meet the fuel efficiency requirements, but SUVs, classified as light trucks, could.

My greatest faith in American Ingenuity is the ability to work around the government somehow. There will no be minivans and SUV's, but they will be more expensive. I would rather see the government allow more domestic oil and gas development. But that's not PC.

[Arizona DQ]

Most of us on this BB need a truck or bigger SUV because of our lifestyles, living conditions, etc. I live in the rural, desert southwest and used to drive a Chevy Blazer, back when they were smaller... selling it after putting 250,000 miles on it, I had the bright idea of getting a small station wagon (Ford Escort). That was fine to drive and energy efficient until the monsoons hit and the water on my roads were too deep to drive this little thing through.... My roads are all ruts and washes, I need good ground clearance not to mention good suspension. My every day vehicle is now a Toyota RAV-4. I LOVE it. I can drive anywhere and also have enough room for dog crates when I am going to shows. Our other vehicle is a Toyota Tundra (for the horse trailer, etc.)

What really gets me are the people who drive around in the BIG SUVs and trucks and these vehicles have Never seen a dirt road (God forbid it gets dirty)....:no:

Now, this is still the USA (for now) and we all have a choice of what we want and can afford to drive (for now)...... but "They" will have to pry me out of my truck and SUV as they are prying my guns out of my cold dead hands!!!!! Geesh!!!!:mad:

[IdahoRider]

You could EASILY fit a family of four into my Subaru Outback wagon, there is tons of room in the cargo hatch in the back,
I have a family of four, with my husband and oldest son both well over 6 feet in height, and we all fit very easily into our '08 Outback. And our two German Shepherd Dogs fit into the cargo space. Okay, so the fat Pug has to ride on someone's lap up front, but we all get where we are going without problem.
Sheilah

[jn4jenny]

What really gets me are the people who drive around in the BIG SUVs and trucks and these vehicles have Never seen a dirt road (God forbid it gets dirty)....:no:

And THEY are the target audience for this legislation, not you. I'm all about buying a huge SUV or a truck if you need it because no other vehicle that will do that kind of work. But that does not describe most suburban and urban American customers.

Now, this is still the USA (for now) and we all have a choice of what we want and can afford to drive (for now)...... but "They" will have to pry me out of my truck and SUV as they are prying my guns out of my cold dead hands!!!!! Geesh!!!!:mad:

NOBODY is talking about "prying trucks and SUVs out of consumer hands". The proposed CAFE standard is a FLEET AVERAGE, not a mandate that every single vehicle needs to get 35.5 mpg. It DOES NOT MEAN that the car companies need to make more efficient trucks that get 35.5 mpg, and it DOES NOT MEAN that car companies have to stop selling huge trucks.

Try this blog post below regarding how Toyota, and other car companies, could meet the CAFE standards without having to modify their truck lines at all:
http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2009/05/20/pickup-trucks-more-fuel-economy/

[Beasmom]

Whose business is it if a suburban dweller chooses to buy a big honkin' SUV or pickup?

Whose business is it if a resident of the mountains or deserts chooses to buy a zippy little sportscar?

It's THEIR business, not yours, not mine, not the government's. For now.

I looked at Toyota, and love their cars and reliability, but they do NOT make a truck big enough for what I haul or expect from a truck. Otherwise, I'd have bought a Tundra instead of the F-350. Or just kept the Dodge 1500 that smelled like cat pee.

[jn4jenny]

Whose business is it if a suburban dweller chooses to buy a big honkin' SUV or pickup?

Whose business is it if a resident of the mountains or deserts chooses to buy a zippy little sportscar?

It's THEIR business, not yours, not mine, not the government's. For now.

The government isn't stopping anybody from making or buying SUV's and trucks, so I don't really get your point. If the suburban dweller still wants the SUV, they can still have it. If the mountain dweller still wants the sportscar, they can have it. None of that is changing, and that's why I don't get why everyone's up in a craw about this CAFE stuff.

I looked at Toyota, and love their cars and reliability, but they do NOT make a truck big enough for what I haul or expect from a truck. Otherwise, I'd have bought a Tundra instead of the F-350. Or just kept the Dodge 1500 that smelled like cat pee.

It's called an example. I didn't say you needed to buy a Toyota. :rolleyes:

[Daydream Believer]

I'm all for this new law...doesn't bother me a bit and it's about time someone did something about the slow killing of our planet via our excessive lifestyles. It may not be a perfect fix but at least it's a step in the right direction instead of ignoring our worsening problems like the old administration did. Clearly those who need big trucks can still have them but if it causes a yuppie family to buy an economical car to use versus a Hummer than I'm all for it. I know a local vet who drives a Hummer because it's cool I guess. The practice I use has small SUV type vehicles that are much more practical and economical.

My Duramax 3/4 ton diesel gets 20 mpg on the highway now...so economical big trucks are not big of a stretch really.

[LMH]

Are we getting close to a new election yet? Please?

[Thomas_1]

About time too!

[Beasmom]

JN4Jenny, you stated,

"And THEY are the target audience for this legislation, not you. I'm all about buying a huge SUV or a truck IF YOU NEED IT BECAUSE NO OTHER VEHICLE WILL DO THAT KIND OF WORK. But that does not describe most suburban and urban American customers."

(Sorry about the caps, I haven't mastered italics yet... don't mean to shout!)

I'm in an uproar because the first CAFE standards did away with perfectly suitable vehicles -- the station wagon. Now the replacement vehicles (ie., SUVs) are the target of enviro's wrath and derision from aging lefty hippies. They'd like us all to drive around in roller skates, with the idea that those vehicles will save the planet. Not. People should drive whatever they want to drive, if they can afford it, be it a SmartCar or a Mack.

I disagree that the consumer should ONLY be able to purchase a particular type of car (in this case, a truck, van or SUV) because they need it for "that kind of work". What they buy is no one's business but their own.

Oh, and I understood your Toyota reference was only an example. I just wanted to point out that Toyota doesn't make a truck to fit my needs -- and never mind that a bit of tweaking makes it comply with the new proposed CAFE standards.

DB, we don't have the power to "kill" the planet. Whose extravagant lifestyle are you targeting? We all own horses. To a lot of folks, THAT's extravagant!

[LexInVA]

Bippity Boppity Boo!

[yellow-horse]

I'm looking forward to not having to base our foreign policy on energy, i think we have to move in this direction or we will fall behind the rest of the world

i think the country that developes the tech for a renewable cheap energy source that has a lower impact on the enviormnet than oil will be more powerful than the country that relies on foreign sources of fossil fuels, i look forward to hybrids, reduced oil consumption and other energy sources

i think the more energy independent we become the better for our security, hopefully we will move in the direction of other sources than oil

i am not a defender of the status quo, i think its perfectly reasonable to welcome progress and new ideas, i think we should not limit ourselves because our 1st attmepts at reducing the use of fossil fuels seems scarey to some folks

the rest of the modern world is moving forward, whats so scarey

[enjoytheride]

My friend's new truck gets 12 miles a gallon. If a regulation could make the next truck she drove cost the same, pull as well, and get 30 miles to the gallon she could purchase another horse, take more lessons, and go to more horse shows and trail rides. Think of it that way, think of all the money you would save if your tow vehicle got 30 miles a gallon.

[Beasmom]

I, too, would welcome such a truck. But I won't hold my breath.

[Frank B]

Let's start by taking a look at a slightly more reliable, less biased source, than Yahoo- the New York Times...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Now where'd I put that screen cleaner???

[jn4jenny]

I disagree that the consumer should ONLY be able to purchase a particular type of car (in this case, a truck, van or SUV) because they need it for "that kind of work". What they buy is no one's business but their own.

You are conflating my personal opinion with the government's legislation. *I* happen to feel that one shouldn't buy a vehicle unless you genuinely need it for a specific purpose. Perhaps I wasn't clear that while the legislation happens to serve my personal agenda, I don't think the government gives a rat's ass what the suburban mom is driving, or anybody else for that matter. As long as the fleet averages to 35.5 mpg, they aren't specific in the legislation about how the car companies should make it happen. And there are many options to making that happen that don't include removing farm-relevant vehicles from the lineup.

[JER]

If you've got an average-sized family of 4, with the attendant sports equipment for the kids, groceries, perhaps a child's car seat, you need a car that will accommodate that. I have plenty of faith in engineers -- but to make a car that fuel efficient, something will suffer. Power, weight, size. A lightweight car will get better gas mileage, but there will be a sacrifice in safety.

Hilarious.

I grew up in Europe. There are 6 kids in my family. We all fit very nicely into our Peugeot wagon.

When you want to talk seriously about safety, check out the safety records of those SUVs and trucks you covet.

Improved efficiency standards are a long time in coming. But this is the story of the US auto industry. The auto industry devotes many millions of dollars to paying lobbyists to fight against any improvements in safety or efficiency. The amount GM alone has spent fighting safety regulations (seatbelts, even) since the 1960s would have been more than enough to fund R & D of some really superb vehicles. but they'd rather spend their time and money fighting for their status quo, even when it's clear the business model is failing.

And why do you want to vote Republican? Don't you know who got us in the mess we're in? Do you really think the GOP is looking out for you, with all their anti-middle-class policies? If you want policy that benefits your family, really take a look at what the various parties are promoting.

(I loathe the Democrats almost equally. Almost. Our political class, with few exceptions, is a disgrace.)

[Moderator 1]

You're all welcome to discuss how these regulations may or may not affect farm vehicles, but let's keep the overall political commentary out of the thread.

We'll likely have an Off Topic Day this weekend, so save it up until then. ;)

Thanks!
Mod 1

[MistyBlue]

My friend's new truck gets 12 miles a gallon. If a regulation could make the next truck she drove cost the same, pull as well, and get 30 miles to the gallon she could purchase another horse, take more lessons, and go to more horse shows and trail rides. Think of it that way, think of all the money you would save if your tow vehicle got 30 miles a gallon.

My truck gets 10 mpg...if it got 30 mpg I'd be thrilled. But my bet is that anything fuel efficient will cost a buttload more. Look at the prices on hybrids...a lot more expensive than gas only cars of the same. :eek: I wasn't willing to pay $6100 more just for a diesel engine. And a lot of that wasn't so much as unwilling as it was putting the truck out of my budget. :no:
But if they could make the price similar...and the power the same...then I'm all for better mileage and better emissions.
I wouldn't be thrilled with the government telling me what I can and can't drive though. What about the people who go four wheeling, mudding or rock climbing with their trucks? Or people who like a sports car? Yeah, it might not be anything necessary but what's the difference of someone wanting a completely unnecessary sports car for sport of enjoyment or someone wanting a completely unnecessary horse for sport or enjoyment?
I would be leery of trying to legislate what's deemed a necessity or not.

[JER]

I wouldn't be thrilled with the government telling me what I can and can't drive though.

The Bush Administration offered tax credits to those who bought gas guzzlers and did not offer those same incentives to those who bought efficient vehicles. That's another way for the government to suggest to you what you should drive.

The auto companies have shown a uniform reluctance to pursue a profitable business model via their products. If they make cars Americans don't want, they don't go back to the drawing table, they ask for a bailout. They don't want to file for Chapter 11 because it means a trustee will be appointed who will demand that the company becomes a viable enterprise -- or it fails. The Big 3 don't want to do that. They just want to protect their failing operations.

So a kick in the pants to make more efficient cars is a good thing.

[MistyBlue]

Well yeah, the auto industry have been idiots for a long time. They can make longer lasting, better running more efficient vehicles but that hardly helps them. If people can keep a car affordably for 10-15-20 years instead of a few months past the warranty...they sell less vehicles. Idiots because that's not going to work forever and it's not working now.
Incentives to buy something are one thing...not being able to buy by choice because the government won't let you is entirely different.
And not supporting the gas guzzler tax break...but a large truck is pretty much a necessity for many farms. It's damned hard to haul horses, move large machinery off site, pick up large loads, etc in a Prius. :winkgrin:

[Thomas_1]

It's about time there was something to get better fuel economy and efficiency over there.

It doesn't mean you need poxy little inappropriate cars that don't tow a horse trailer either.

It's absurd that car manufacturers develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient for countries where there's legislation and a desire to get gas guzzlers off the roads.

I've a diesel mitsubishi shogun..... hardly a little car.... It's a 4 wheel drive and can absolutely tow a trailer with 2 hunters in it.

But because it's a vehicle manufactured for the European market where you have to have efficiency, I'm averageing 32.7 mpg and often get 36 mpg out of it.

My wife's a bit of a "motor head" and has a souped up AWD turbo-charged limited edition fancy subaru legacy which goes like sh it off a shovel and again because it's the UK even though it does 0 to 60 mph in less than 7 seconds and a top speed of 150 mph!! (faster than anyone EVER needs!) she's also getting just over 38 mpg out of it.

Here we even have a "scrappage" scheme. If you want to get rid of your more than 10 year old gas guzzler for something newer and greener, then the government lets you have £2,000

So efficient doesn't need to be rubbish, small, boring, low performance at all. It's a change of mindset and a commitment to do better that's needed. You've no idea how long awaited and well received this news is in Europe.

[Guilherme]

The Bush Administration offered tax credits to those who bought gas guzzlers and did not offer those same incentives to those who bought efficient vehicles. That's another way for the government to suggest to you what you should drive.

Indeed? What tax credits were those? I never got any. :no:

It takes energy to move iron. If you have a heavy vehicle it will take more energy to move it than would a light vehicle. That's just the physics of the thing.

Can vehicles be made lighter and retain reasonable crash-worthiness? Absolutely. The Japanese, Germans, and a few others have been doing it for years. Most of Detroits current woes are not the fault of any Administration beyond their own management.

For those of us who live rurally, have livestock, and need a substantial vehicle we are going to have to learn to say "BOHICA*." That's because the CAFE standards will mean a premium price for vehicles that don't meet the average, like one-ton pickups with 4WD (one of those "market oriented solutions" don't you know).

I've been to DC, LA, San Diego, Chicago, and Atlanta recently and noted large numbers of single drivers tooling about in large SUVs and pickups. I doubt any of those vehicles have ever seen mud. Or hauled an animal (beyond some yippy little dog). They are "life style choices," not a reflection of need. As long as they can afford them then they can have them.

I don't want Big Brother to come in and tell me what I "need." Either directly or indirectly.

G.

P.S. I noted to day a significant number stations where diesel is cheaper than gas. This reverses a couple of year trend where diesel has been more expensive.

*BOHICA: "Bend Over, Here It Comes Again."

[Androcles]

The first CAFE standard, passed in 1975, spelled the death of the American Station Wagon. Minivans and SUVs took their place in the market. Station Wagons could not meet the fuel efficiency requirements, but SUVs, classified as light trucks, could.


SUV's do not get better gas mileage than station wagons did and do not meet fuel efficiency requirements either. Their reclassificition as light trucks allowed them to be excluded from the calculation, thus not dragging the average down. All a big game.

[Daydream Believer]

:eek: I wasn't willing to pay $6100 more just for a diesel engine. And a lot of that wasn't so much as unwilling as it was putting the truck out of my budget. :no:


You have to remember though that a diesel will long outlast a gas powered engine also. The tractor trailer trucks get a million miles on them and any good diesel engine will outlast the body of the vehicle if it's cared for. IMO, since I plan to keep my truck until it drops, I'm way farther ahead to pay for the diesel, get better fuel economy and longevity, than to buy a gas truck that is needing replaced after 150k miles or so. My diesel has that many miles on it now (a 2003 Duramax) and it is finally broken in! :yes:

[Androcles]

Whose business is it if a suburban dweller chooses to buy a big honkin' SUV or pickup?

Whose business is it if a resident of the mountains or deserts chooses to buy a zippy little sportscar?



Everyone's. Unless it sits in the driveway doing nothing.

[Androcles]

It's about time there was something to get better fuel economy and efficiency over there.

It's absurd that car manufacturers develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient for countries where there's legislation and a desire to get gas guzzlers off the roads.

I've a diesel mitsubishi shogun..... hardly a little car.... It's a 4 wheel drive and can absolutely tow a trailer with 2 hunters in it.

But because it's a vehicle manufactured for the European market where you have to have efficiency, I'm averageing 32.7 mpg and often get 36 mpg out of it.



Wow. :yes: I've never heard of that mitsubishi shogun, but wow. It can be done, and has been done. All it takes is a little desire and motivation, and incentive, and a little push from a forward thinking politician, despite all the whining luddites who insist on no technological innovation, and staying stuck in the 20th century as if gas is a never ending source of fuel and it still costs a dollar a gallon.

[Androcles]

Indeed? What tax credits were those? I never got any. :no:



A huge tax credit for buying a Hummer, for example (in the tens of thousands) which is why that aforementioned vet was probably driving one. Many small business owners used it as a deduction for their businesses.


I don't want Big Brother to come in and tell me what I "need." Either directly or indirectly.Which is why you obviously objected to the deduction described above.

[starkissed]

wow this is a dumb topic. Apparently people aren't too familiar with CAFE standards! Average key word. What a day it will be when a hauling truck will get 30mpg, but thats a way off I think. Doesnt need to be, but it is. However getting a car to get 60 is not difficult and that will cancel out some of the gas hogs. easy as
Trust me, this is ONLY a good thing.

[MistyBlue]

You have to remember though that a diesel will long outlast a gas powered engine also.

They definitely do last longer...but my issue at that time was when I bought my truck the fuel prices just were skyrocketing. Diesel went from the cheapest gas to being more expensive than premium gas. :eek: My timing stunk. ;) Also we weren't planning on keeping the truck more than 5-10 years...it's an 05 and I just broke 11,000 miles on it.

[Amwrider]

A huge tax credit for buying a Hummer, for example (in the tens of thousands) which is why that aforementioned vet was probably driving one. Many small business owners used it as a deduction for their businesses.


Which is why you obviously objected to the deduction described above.


If I remember correctly, the tax credit was for heavy vehicles - with the intentions of it being tax credits for contractors and their large trucks and for farmers and their farm equipment. Sadly, the 6000# weight of the Hummer (and I think the Escalade also) allowed them to be included in the tax credit.

[Daydream Believer]

A huge tax credit for buying a Hummer, for example (in the tens of thousands) which is why that aforementioned vet was probably driving one. Many small business owners used it as a deduction for their businesses.


For Pete's Sake...that's crazy! No wonder he got the Hummer.

[Daydream Believer]

They definitely do last longer...but my issue at that time was when I bought my truck the fuel prices just were skyrocketing. Diesel went from the cheapest gas to being more expensive than premium gas. :eek: My timing stunk. ;) Also we weren't planning on keeping the truck more than 5-10 years...it's an 05 and I just broke 11,000 miles on it.

There were times when diesel was $4.80 a gallon that I really questioned keeping my diesel truck but I'm glad I did. It's been paid for now for a few years and looks to be holding up very well. It's also enough truck to pull my large LQ trailer.

Sounds like you bought a used one. Good for you for getting a good deal!

[Dance_To_Oblivion]

If I remember correctly, the tax credit was for heavy vehicles - with the intentions of it being tax credits for contractors and their large trucks and for farmers and their farm equipment. Sadly, the 6000# weight of the Hummer (and I think the Escalade also) allowed them to be included in the tax credit.

You are correct...and this was only able to be used by small business owners. It was not exactly a tax credit, it was the ability to depreciate the vehicle 100% in the first year of ownership.

[MaresNest]

If every gas/diesel car went 80 mpg, don't you think the oil companies are going raise the prices of gas to lets say, $8 a gallon? Where's the savings? You think gas prices are going to stay at 2.00 a gallon? Nope.

It's not strictly an economic calculation. The environment may not be an equal priority to everyone, but the fact is that it affects every one of us. And because of that, the ethical thing to do is to take steps to curb climate change. This means changing what and how we drive. It doesn't mean the government confiscating gas guzzlers. It means car companies making better cars. So that consumers have better vehicles to choose from when it's time to replace an old vehicle.


Whose business is it if a suburban dweller chooses to buy a big honkin' SUV or pickup?

Whose business is it if a resident of the mountains or deserts chooses to buy a zippy little sportscar?

We all share the planet that is being warmed by greenhouse gases. Cars are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. The responsible thing is to work to slow climate change. However, as jn4jenny said...


If the mountain dweller still wants the sportscar, they can have it.

It's just the fleet average that's changing. No one is going to come and take away our big trucks.


Clearly those who need big trucks can still have them but if it causes a yuppie family to buy an economical car to use versus a Hummer than I'm all for it.

I'm with you, DdB!


DB, we don't have the power to "kill" the planet. Whose extravagant lifestyle are you targeting? We all own horses. To a lot of folks, THAT's extravagant!

Scientists have shown that we do have the power to significantly alter the global climate, and that - indeed - it has already begun. It is certainly your right to choose not to believe them, but the overwhelming evidence is that we are causing the planet to heat up due to our use of greenhouse gases.

And, yes, we horse people do have an extravagant hobby. And we should be tightening our belt like everyone else. We may not be able to get rid of our trucks, but we can do a hell of a lot to preserve greenspace. And that helps. We can also only use the monster trucks for towing. I'm driving a used '99 Camry around town right now. Cheap and fuel efficient.

If we all do what we can, we can make a difference. And I strongly believe (you are, as always, free to disagree) that there is a moral imperative for us to do so.


I'm looking forward to not having to base our foreign policy on energy, i think we have to move in this direction or we will fall behind the rest of the world

Another good point.


It's about time there was something to get better fuel economy and efficiency over there.

...

It's absurd that car manufacturers develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient for countries where there's legislation and a desire to get gas guzzlers off the roads.

I've a diesel mitsubishi shogun..... hardly a little car.... It's a 4 wheel drive and can absolutely tow a trailer with 2 hunters in it.

But because it's a vehicle manufactured for the European market where you have to have efficiency, I'm averageing 32.7 mpg and often get 36 mpg out of it.

Thomas, I can't wait until we have trucks with that kind of efficiency over here. They are long, long overdue.

[Guilherme]

A huge tax credit for buying a Hummer, for example (in the tens of thousands) which is why that aforementioned vet was probably driving one. Many small business owners used it as a deduction for their businesses.

Can you point me to the IRC section that did that? Beyond, perhaps, the one that made sales tax on new motor vehicles deductable?

G.

[JSwan]

Here is an interesting take on electric vehicles - something I had not really thought about until I read a small article about it.

(trying to keep this horse/farm related)

What I like about the electric/hybrids is that they are pretty darn quiet. I never stopped to consider that "quiet" might be too much of a good thing.

The article I read - and I'll try and find it if anyone is interested - is the risk of pedestrian accidents have increased in places where these vehicles are popular.

Evidently - people just can't hear them coming. "They" tested sighted people as well as visually impaired people to determine if vision was a factor - nope. Both groups, when tested, would have been hit by a car if the test had been real.

"They" suggested that it may be necessary to use artificial methods to make these vehicles louder, so pedestrians and other users are not put at risk.

I was thinking of how a horse reacts when surprised by a bicycle, even if the horse is used to bicycles they can still spook or bolt - sometimes violently. Those vehicles aren't much louder than a whirring bicycle going by at what... a few miles per hour? Except now that would be an electric/hybrid doing 60mph.

NOT saying it's a reason not to use these vehicles! Just that it was something that had not really occurred to me. I was so pleased at how quiet they are I just never thought it could be a disadvantage. We're all used to vehicles making noise and we can figure out how far away they are based on that.



I'd love to ride my horse to get where I'm going- the ultimate "green" method of transportation.

Unfortunately, I'd be killed by a "green" commuter driving an expensive electric car whose battery pollutes the groundwater, whose "green" hemp clothing is made by menial labor in China and shipped to the US, who is not paying attention because he's trying to drink his "green" super vente frothy chai latte with one hand, and eating his "green" organic strawberries grown in Mexico and shipped to the eastern seaboard in January.

Green ain't that green when you look at it closely. ;)

[SLW]

I drive a VW TDI that averages between 48-52 MPG for everyday driving. The ranch F-350 is averaging anywhere between 11-15 MPG, depending on the load I'm hauling. As it breaks in, I'm told that mileage will improve.

This is government interference in the marketplace. If everyone WANTED to drive a SmartCar, we'd see more of them on the road, never mind the mileage. In the event an accident, I'd rather be in my VW or the 350, NOT a SmartCar or equivalent.

If you've got an average-sized family of 4, with the attendant sports equipment for the kids, groceries, perhaps a child's car seat, you need a car that will accommodate that. I have plenty of faith in engineers -- but to make a car that fuel efficient, something will suffer. Power, weight, size. A lightweight car will get better gas mileage, but there will be a sacrifice in safety.

The larger vehicles that Americans tend to favor will be astronomically expensive. But that's what they like. People in rural areas and those with hobbies or businesses in town that demand a larger vehicle will still drive their big trucks and vans, but they'll pay through the nose. The costs will necessarily be passed on to their clients.

I can't wait for 2010 to roll around and get another chance to vote.

Amen on all accounts.

[Daydream Believer]

I'd love to ride my horse to get where I'm going- the ultimate "green" method of transportation.

Unfortunately, I'd be killed by a "green" commuter driving an expensive electric car whose battery pollutes the groundwater, whose "green" hemp clothing is made by menial labor in China and shipped to the US, who is not paying attention because he's trying to drink his "green" super vente frothy chai latte with one hand, and eating his "green" organic strawberries grown in Mexico and shipped to the eastern seaboard in January.



I love it! Great post! I've thought several times of using my horses to run errands for short distances but the roads are impossibly dangerous for horse/carriage traffic....just see how many Amish get killed every year by some driver going to fast.

[MistyBlue]

There were times when diesel was $4.80 a gallon that I really questioned keeping my diesel truck but I'm glad I did. It's been paid for now for a few years and looks to be holding up very well. It's also enough truck to pull my large LQ trailer.

Sounds like you bought a used one. Good for you for getting a good deal!

Yep, diesel was climbing to that point when we got our truck. I did buy new back in 05. Diesel is much cheaper now around here but that's only because all fuel prices dropped...but diesel is still the highest price. :( Before the fuel issues diesel was *always* the cheapest around here.

However...I am considering trading the truck in for a horse van...one of the newer type models that uses less fuel than my truck. I'd just find the horsevan more practicle for us, I only drive the truck when necessary and still don't have a trailer for it so it's mainly used for picking up hay or feed every couple weeks and going to the dump once a week. I can still pick up hay or feed in a horsevan, won't need to buy and store a separate trailer and save on fuel. Finding the horsevan I want is proving difficult though.

Now those Smartcars...I see those and I think coffins with wheels. :eek:

[Sakura]

It's about time there was something to get better fuel economy and efficiency over there.

It doesn't mean you need poxy little inappropriate cars that don't tow a horse trailer either.

It's absurd that car manufacturers develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient for countries where there's legislation and a desire to get gas guzzlers off the roads.

I've a diesel mitsubishi shogun..... hardly a little car.... It's a 4 wheel drive and can absolutely tow a trailer with 2 hunters in it.

But because it's a vehicle manufactured for the European market where you have to have efficiency, I'm averageing 32.7 mpg and often get 36 mpg out of it.

My wife's a bit of a "motor head" and has a souped up AWD turbo-charged limited edition fancy subaru legacy which goes like sh it off a shovel and again because it's the UK even though it does 0 to 60 mph in less than 7 seconds and a top speed of 150 mph!! (faster than anyone EVER needs!) she's also getting just over 38 mpg out of it.

Here we even have a "scrappage" scheme. If you want to get rid of your more than 10 year old gas guzzler for something newer and greener, then the government lets you have £2,000

So efficient doesn't need to be rubbish, small, boring, low performance at all. It's a change of mindset and a commitment to do better that's needed. You've no idea how long awaited and well received this news is in Europe.

What's the price of petrol per liter over there? :lol:

[Sakura]

I'd love to ride my horse to get where I'm going- the ultimate "green" method of transportation.

Unfortunately, I'd be killed by a "green" commuter driving an expensive electric car whose battery pollutes the groundwater, whose "green" hemp clothing is made by menial labor in China and shipped to the US, who is not paying attention because he's trying to drink his "green" super vente frothy chai latte with one hand, and eating his "green" organic strawberries grown in Mexico and shipped to the eastern seaboard in January.

Green ain't that green when you look at it closely. ;)

Love this! :D

[sisu27]

Funny thing. My husband and I bought our 1986 Toyota Tercel wagon new in 1986. The average MPG is 30 MPG. Since buying that car, we have bought two other new cars, and several used cars (not to mention the F250). In all of our car searches, none of the new cars are as fuel efficient as our Tercel. It is still on the road for that reason. Designers have elected to go for performance over MPG in newer cars (with the exception of the VWs someone mentioned that we avoided for reliability reasons). That is ridiculous. If my 1986, can get that gas mileage, be reliable, and be large enough for a family with 2 kids and a dog, and have the highest safety rating, so can newer cars. Why should I have to keep my poor car that is old enough to vote, and that has over 255,000 miles on it running because it is more reliable and get better gas mileage than the new cars?

Good point! My dad was telling me about how he went out and bought one of the first Honda Civics that landed over here and also drove VW Beetles as a kid and they were....just as efficient or more than some of these high priced hybrid things. WTF??? Progress?? I drive a VW TDi (not sure about mpg but it averages 4.6 L/100 kms)and it is a fabulous car (those engines last FOREVER!) and it has been very reliable. I also have a Jeep Wrangler that is a PIG on gas. I only use the Jeep as a toy so between the two my fuel consumption is very low.

I'm Canadian but I think it is a good thing for you guys and the rest of us too. We, in North America, are the ultimate consumers and pollute far more than our share. We are such a throw away society I hope more people are forced to not drive a Suburban to take the kids to school every day and perhaps do as the above family has done and drive a car until it dies rather than get a new one every 3 years. I respect that in Europe they seem to drive old cars without being ashamed...makes sense!

How it is all accomplished is another matter. I will still want to have my Jeeps and I will still need a tow vehicle and would be most unhappy if I was no longer *allowed* to own such vehicles. I can't see it coming to that though and I am sure there is a happy medium which will benefit the environment without taking away our ability to get our horses to the show!

[sisu27]

Whose business is it if a suburban dweller chooses to buy a big honkin' SUV or pickup?

Whose business is it if a resident of the mountains or deserts chooses to buy a zippy little sportscar?

It's THEIR business, not yours, not mine, not the government's. For now.

I looked at Toyota, and love their cars and reliability, but they do NOT make a truck big enough for what I haul or expect from a truck. Otherwise, I'd have bought a Tundra instead of the F-350. Or just kept the Dodge 1500 that smelled like cat pee.

Whose business is it if I want to change my own oil and dump the used oil into the pond behind the house?

Whose business is it if I want to light up a smoke on a bus with a grade two field trip on it?

Ridiculous right? Well we don't do those things because we now know better and it is my business and the governments... We all need to look at the big picture..it isn't just your decision when it has an effect on the entire globe.

[wendy]

seems to me that what you drive isn't as important as is how much you drive. The communities around here are designed such that you can't get anywhere or do anything without driving vehicles (you'd get killed if you tried to walk, bike, or ride your horse to do errands), and the zoning regulations create housing that is very long distances away from any jobs. Promotion of better-designed communities, more sidewalks/walking trails/bike paths, telecommuting would probably do far more for the environment than trying to regulate what kind of vehicles are going to be available for sale. Some of the not-so-much older horse people talk about being able to hack their horses to horse events instead of hauling the trailer.

[Arizona DQ]

seems to me that what you drive isn't as important as is how much you drive. The communities around here are designed such that you can't get anywhere or do anything without driving vehicles (you'd get killed if you tried to walk, bike, or ride your horse to do errands), and the zoning regulations create housing that is very long distances away from any jobs. Promotion of better-designed communities, more sidewalks/walking trails/bike paths, telecommuting would probably do far more for the environment than trying to regulate what kind of vehicles are going to be available for sale. Some of the not-so-much older horse people talk about being able to hack their horses to horse events instead of hauling the trailer.

And how many horses would one be able to keep at home in one of these communities? I think one thing many posters have failed to take into consideration is that the USA is a BIG country! Not all of us live on the east coast. Take a drive out west some time. It is a 100 mile drive for me to get to a decent sized city (Tucson). I live 20 miles away from my place of work because I want to be able to own more than 2 dogs and I want to have my horses on my property! Yes, I have to drive to work every day and also drive to town to shop for groceries! That is the way of life in this ranching community! SO I guess I do use a lot more gas than the average city dweller. But on the other hand, growing up on Long island, I KNOW the traffic on the Long Island Expressway caused by commuters who chose to drive rather than take the good old Long Island Railroad (I used to comute to work on the LIRR, so I know)!

I would love to get better gas mileage, who wouldn't? But I do not want our government OR any other person (foreign or domestic) telling our citizens what kind of car they can drive! Should we get off fossil fuels, sure! But we have been hearing that for over 20 years! :no: I bet we have some very smart people out there who have figured out how to build better cars and trucks, but the Detroit mafia would not let these ideas see the light of day!:mad:

Sorry about the rant, but there ARE real people out in fly over country with real needs!!!:eek:

[yellow-horse]

JSwan, when i lived in nj i would ride my horse to go get a latte, we had a country yuppie store that sold the best sammichs and lattes, also rode my horse to the winery for tastings, both places had hitching posts

[purplnurpl]

It's an AVERAGE, folks. The trucks we have can still hog fuel, but the other cars we drive are going to be required to be much more fuel efficient. So along with my 15mpg fuel hog, I'm going to have to drive a 50mpg hybrid. I already do, so no big. :)


Me too. We have the truck and we have the diesel Jetta. 45 miles per gallon.
I drive 65 miles to work 5 days a week and fill that baby up once a week.
nice eh?

[BuddyRoo]

Sakura--I paid over 5 bucks per liter when I was living overseas...and that was a few years ago. It's certainly pricey.

[MintHillFarm]

What on earth do these pinheads in Washington DC think farmers and ranchers are going to drive? Never mind us horse people. In a Socialist society, horses are so...elitist.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Yes, it is wrong on many levels. Frankly, the direction this country has been recently going is very frightening.

The cars that will get 35+ miles a gallon (not all that great, frankly, tell me 75+ miles and I may get one to go around town) will be terribly made. They could be constructed out of plastic, aluminum and other materials. Cheaper to make, but the safetly factor, now a major concern and selling tool, will be the concession. They will crumble badly in an accident. I saw one of the "Smart Cars" the other day, it looked like a wheelbarrow with a roof it was so small. Not suitable for highway use...and as for what the Government expects those indutries that rely on trucks for farm/horse/construction/towing etc., to do, is not mentioned.

I would rather pay more per gallon then to drive a piece of junk to make up for a few miles per gallon. Those of us that want to keep the larger vehicles will be asked to pay more; gas tax or some other way.

Frankly, this going green stuff sounds like "green as in money, not environment".

[danceronice]

After having a car accident, I want a steel-frame vehicle again. Screw fuel efficency. I just saw a Smart Car on the pike and NEVER. Even setting aside that I couldn't fit in both my cat carriers (useless vehicle if you're more than a single person who never carries luggage or more than one bag of groceries), no way would I EVER want to be in traffic in one of those. It had no business being on an interstate highway. I'll live with having to buy gas more often in exchange for being able to carry more stuff and being the one who walks away from the accident.

I'm kind of surprised at the people who don't get that automakers want to make what people want to buy--if the #1 US seller for Ford is their trucks (F150 is the biggest moneymaker), they infer from that that people want to buy their trucks. They don't want to make a lot of small to midsize vehicles because the ones they do make don't sell. (And frankly, no, I just was pricing cars, and when my choices are an F-150 WITH certain option packages for $18,000 or a Fusion hybrid that doesn't carry as much starting at $27,000, what am I going to go for? The tax benefit doesn't begin to make up that difference.)

Also, one thing on electric being 'green'--while a hybrid generates its own power via the gasoline engine, one that needs to be plugged in is simply transferring the fuel burning from the car engine to a power plant. Unless you're lucky enough to live near a nuclear plant (grew up with one, lived near one, got a power-bill break for having one, haven't heard of any accidents in France where they've had them for what, forty years now?) you are still burning LOTS of fossil fuels, MUCH more messily than a car engine does.

I would like to be able to ride/drive everywhere provided someone comes up with a way of dealing with the inevitable waste produced...I am not curbing and cleaning up after my horse! (For starters it's easy to carry a bag for the dog, not so much a pitchfork and muck bucket.) If you have a lot of horses providing transportation, you do have to deal with THOSE byproducts...

*resists urge to make joke about Amish drive-bys*

[mares tails]

The cars that will get 35+ miles a gallon ... will be terribly made..
Bull!:eek: My current car gets 35mpg daily, 40 highway,was built in the US (by a company of asian descent), seats 4, is safe, reliable, and will last 8 or so years until I get tired of it and sell it to it's next owner.

And what's this "will get"? - some are available now

[Huntertwo]

If you've got an average-sized family of 4, with the attendant sports equipment for the kids, groceries, perhaps a child's car seat, you need a car that will accommodate that. I have plenty of faith in engineers -- but to make a car that fuel efficient, something will suffer. Power, weight, size. A lightweight car will get better gas mileage, but there will be a sacrifice in safety.



I can't wait for 2010 to roll around and get another chance to vote.

Your last sentence hit the nail on the head... I'll be damned if this administration is going to make me drive one of those ugly death traps.

Cripes that can't even get their own $hit together - now they are going to mandate what we can and can't drive?

I like my V-8 pickup and if I had the money, I'd go out and buy a brand new one before 2012.

Good job America..:no:

[Huntertwo]

Are we getting close to a new election yet? Please?

Unfortunately this country will be in the toilet before the next election.
Oh wait, it already is...;)

[Huntertwo]

This is a perfect example of Liberal America. They are all for free speech as long as it fits their agenda. :no:

[katarine]

Silly fearmongering, so stated by a Right Wing Extremist. Anyone too lazy to read for content, not worst-case-fear-generation, deserves their ulcers and frowns, I say ;)

I own a 99 RAV4 that gets 28 MPG and is safe and sound on the road. I am in the market for a new one soon.
I also own a diesel 3500 Chevy that I adore that gets about 19 MPG when not hauling. It gets used to haul while the aforementioned sipper gets to do the daily 70+ mile RT commuting.
Combine my driving patterns noted above and you think well, that's smart- save money and better use of resources. Why the Government pushing the Big Three toward 30mpg across the fleet is frightening, I'll never quite know.

Anyone pig headed enough to think you MUST drive an SUV to be safe didn't see me walk away from totalling a northbound Kenworth TT with my little Mazda MX6 back in 93. Shattered my car and his steering column, but the frame didn't fold like an old shoe, I walked away with a broken birdie finger, nothing more.

Know what I REALLY want? An Audi R8. Mileage be damned, that car is sex on a cracker.

[Huntertwo]

http://www.smartusa.com/index.aspx

Hey for $99 you can reserve your very own today! :dead:

[JSwan]

JSwan, when i lived in nj i would ride my horse to go get a latte, we had a country yuppie store that sold the best sammichs and lattes, also rode my horse to the winery for tastings, both places had hitching posts


Ahhhh - so utopia does exist.... how civilized. :)

[MistyBlue]

I walked away with a broken birdie finger,

This is hilarious. :yes: :lol:

[MaresNest]

This is a perfect example of Liberal America. They are all for free speech as long as it fits their agenda. :no:

Hmm. I'm not sure that you and I are reading the same thread. :) I have certainly seen liberals be hypocritical before. But I don't see anyone on that side of the fence ranting or raving on this thread.

And, in general, I have noticed that claiming to be for free speech until someone disagrees with you is equally common (and equally bad) on both the left and the right.

Clearly, you are upset about the Obama emissions regulations. It's noted. :) No one is trying to quash your dissent.


I'll be damned if this administration is going to make me drive one of those ugly death traps.

The new regulations don't affect what you choose to buy. They affect what the car companies have to make in the future. And they are FLEET AVERAGES. Dollars to donuts, if people want to buy gas guzzlers, GM and Ford (and probably Toyota) will be making them. They'll just be making hybrids and electric cars, too.

And, as Thomas illustrated, efficient trucks are already being made in other parts of the world. So, someday, because of these new standards, you'll have the opportunity to buy a fuel efficient truck that is still safe and still able to haul horses. Without going to Europe. Or you can keep driving your gas guzzler. But, personally, I can't wait until we catch up with the rest of the world on efficiency.

[HowDoYouLikeMeNow]

Trucks will have to average 30 MPG? Did I just hear this correctly?

I would love for this to actually happen, but seriously.....will we still be able to haul rigs with these vehicles?

WOW! 30 mpg?? That'd be awesome. They might cost a lot though.... I hope we will be able to have trucks and SUV's.

[Sakura]

Tell you what... When Obama decides to trade in his sweet presidential Cadillac limousine for a bulletproof Smart car then I'll consider going green... until then I say practice what you preach. This whole do as I say not as I do stuff is getting old really fast.

I drove a mini car made by Mazda when I lived in Japan... it was great on gas and it got me where I needed to go (heck... I even used the bench seat in the back for my saddle (http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g278/Copperleaf/02010302.jpg))... but the highway speed limit over there was 50 km/hr... what's that... like 35 mph? Sure as hell wouldn't want to be in a serious accident in a little tin can like that on I-95!

[Guilherme]

The new regulations don't affect what you choose to buy. They affect what the car companies have to make in the future. And they are FLEET AVERAGES. Dollars to donuts, if people want to buy gas guzzlers, GM and Ford (and probably Toyota) will be making them. They'll just be making hybrids and electric cars, too.

Actually, they do.

If CAFE standards require higher "fleet averages" this means the company must produce, and sell, more high milage than low milage vehicles. So they must damp demand for the lower milage vehicles. They can do this by either premium pricing (meaning a bigger profit margin, maybe even enough to pay the inevitable civil penalties) or reduced production numbers (meaning that if you need a more capable vehicle you'll be in competition with others with a similar need and will likely pay a premium at the dealership as the "Law of Supply and Demand" functions as advertised).

The hard truth is that it takes more fuel to move 8000 pounds than it does to move 6000 pounds (all other things being equal). But if you reduce weight too much you'll make the tow vehicle too light for the weight it's pulling and you create a real safety hazard.

If you want to reduce U.S. dependance on foreign oil by about 20% with the stroke of a pen re-instate the 55 mph speed limit. CAFE standards are little more than a CYA program for lawmakers so they don't have to take "heat" for making really tough decisions.

G.

[MaresNest]

Tell you what... When Obama decides to trade in his sweet presidential Cadillac limousine for a bulletproof Smart car then I'll consider going green... until then I say practice what you preach. This whole do as I say not as I do stuff is getting old really fast.

LOL, wow. It would really be awesome if someone could invent a bullet proof Smart car. Or a bullet proof solar/electric/hydrogen car, for that matter. I really hope somebody's workin' on that. Honestly. I'm sure there'd be lots of derivative safety gains for the cars that the rest of us drive.

Until it happens, though, he'll just have to keep on rollin' in his Caddy. Just like we'll have to keep haulin' horses with our big trucks. The whole point of the new standards is to get the car companies to get better vehicles on the lots. It's not about taking away the cars that consumers already have. It's about getting better vehicles into the marketplace. So that we can ALL do better. The President included. But just like we don't have Thomas' wonderfully fuel efficient horse haulin' machines over here yet, I'd daresay no one's yet invented a bullet proof Smart car. Kind of a narrow market for those, after all. ;)

[MaresNest]

Actually, they do.

If CAFE standards require higher "fleet averages" this means the company must produce, and sell, more high milage than low milage vehicles. So they must damp demand for the lower milage vehicles. They can do this by either premium pricing (meaning a bigger profit margin, maybe even enough to pay the inevitable civil penalties) or reduced production numbers (meaning that if you need a more capable vehicle you'll be in competition with others with a similar need and will likely pay a premium at the dealership as the "Law of Supply and Demand" functions as advertised).

The hard truth is that it takes more fuel to move 8000 pounds than it does to move 6000 pounds (all other things being equal). But if you reduce weight too much you'll make the tow vehicle too light for the weight it's pulling and you create a real safety hazard.

If you want to reduce U.S. dependance on foreign oil by about 20% with the stroke of a pen re-instate the 55 mph speed limit. CAFE standards are little more than a CYA program for lawmakers so they don't have to take "heat" for making really tough decisions.

G.

Hi Guilherme,

I appreciate your well reasoned post. You make some good points. I think that perhaps we have different priorities, though. The thought of trucks potentially being more expensive in the future seems to me a very reasonable price to pay for a cleaner planet. That said, I'm not entirely sure that trucks actually will be considerably more expensive in the future. I think that the public will be eager to buy snazzy new fuel efficient cars when the economy rebounds. I think the yuppies who have been buying SUV's as status symbols will switch over to buying green cars as status symbols. The zeitgeist is changing. But that's just my two cents. We'll wait a decade or so and see!

[MistyBlue]

LOL, wow. It would really be awesome if someone could invent a bullet proof Smart car. Or a bullet proof solar/electric/hydrogen car, for that matter.

It would need a bigger battery. Bulletproof glass alone weighs almost as much as the Smartcar does now. :winkgrin: Bullet proofing the side panels and engine compartment...and enclosing the fuel tanks (to avoid someone trying to blow you up)...all of that weighs a whole lot.

I just hope in the future the cost of a pick up for hauling and loading doesn't increase $10k. If they do decrease the weight of the trucks...they will have to change the trailers (made lighter) here for safety reasons which is do-able. But then how does one pick up heavy loads without payload capabilities?

And will they be changing commercial trucks? Because as many SUVs and large vehicles there are out there...this country survives by semi trucks bringing everything we need to stores. There are bajillions of those out there emitting a lot more than an F250 does. Would we rebuild and start using railways more again?

[LexInVA]

LOL, wow. It would really be awesome if someone could invent a bullet proof Smart car. Or a bullet proof solar/electric/hydrogen car, for that matter. I really hope somebody's workin' on that. Honestly. I'm sure there'd be lots of derivative safety gains for the cars that the rest of us drive.



It's not a matter of inventing a new car. "Bulletproof" cars are really just normal automobiles that have been stripped down, augmented with armor plating covering the space between the chasis and the body panels, an upgraded engine and suspension, and the chassis is reinforced. You just need lighter armor plating to go between the exterior body and the chassis. All the materials currently suitable for armor plating are too heavy for application in fuel friendly vehicles so it won't happen anytime soon.

[Kate66]

Yes, it is wrong on many levels. Frankly, the direction this country has been recently going is very frightening.

The cars that will get 35+ miles a gallon (not all that great, frankly, tell me 75+ miles and I may get one to go around town) will be terribly made. They could be constructed out of plastic, aluminum and other materials. Cheaper to make, but the safetly factor, now a major concern and selling tool, will be the concession. They will crumble badly in an accident. I saw one of the "Smart Cars" the other day, it looked like a wheelbarrow with a roof it was so small. Not suitable for highway use...and as for what the Government expects those indutries that rely on trucks for farm/horse/construction/towing etc., to do, is not mentioned.

I would rather pay more per gallon then to drive a piece of junk to make up for a few miles per gallon. Those of us that want to keep the larger vehicles will be asked to pay more; gas tax or some other way.

Frankly, this going green stuff sounds like "green as in money, not environment".

You obviously know a lot about car construction..........ehm, not.

Rented a Smart Car in Germany 8 years ago. Drove it on the autobahn at 80mph - damn those little cars are great!

[Beasmom]

Kate66, what do YOU know about car construction?

How many SmartCars (or equivalents) were on the roads there? How many 18-wheelers? Be honest. How safe did you feel when an 18-wheeler (or the German equivalent) whizzed past you?

Germany is a SMALL country compared to the USA. The autobahn has no speed limits. At 80 MPH, I bet you were being passed like you were standing still.

Evidently, you liked the SmartCar. Do you own one? Think it'll pull a Brenderup?? (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)

[AiryFairy]

It's about time there was something to get better fuel economy and efficiency over there.

It doesn't mean you need poxy little inappropriate cars that don't tow a horse trailer either.

It's absurd that car manufacturers develop vehicles that are more fuel efficient for countries where there's legislation and a desire to get gas guzzlers off the roads.

I've a diesel mitsubishi shogun..... hardly a little car.... It's a 4 wheel drive and can absolutely tow a trailer with 2 hunters in it.

But because it's a vehicle manufactured for the European market where you have to have efficiency, I'm averageing 32.7 mpg and often get 36 mpg out of it.

My wife's a bit of a "motor head" and has a souped up AWD turbo-charged limited edition fancy subaru legacy which goes like sh it off a shovel and again because it's the UK even though it does 0 to 60 mph in less than 7 seconds and a top speed of 150 mph!! (faster than anyone EVER needs!) she's also getting just over 38 mpg out of it.

Here we even have a "scrappage" scheme. If you want to get rid of your more than 10 year old gas guzzler for something newer and greener, then the government lets you have £2,000

So efficient doesn't need to be rubbish, small, boring, low performance at all. It's a change of mindset and a commitment to do better that's needed. You've no idea how long awaited and well received this news is in Europe.

Hey, I'm a big Top Gear fan and I have to say it fries me (and apparently Jeremy) that there are so many diesels over there and we have virtually none here. You've got a lot more choice in fuel economy than we do, I'd kill for a nice midsize or station wagon diesel. Here my choice is.... VW. Ford had a chance to market one of their diesels in the US and they refused, saying they wouldn't sell. That's why Detroit is in trouble - freakin' BLIND.

[Androcles]

Yes, it is wrong on many levels. Frankly, the direction this country has been recently going is very frightening.



Yes it's frightening. I personally am terrified by the possibility of having a high mileage car/truck to choose from when shopping for a vehicle.

[lassoch]

Yes it's frightening. I personally am terrified by the possibility of having a high mileage car/truck to choose from when shopping for a vehicle.

Yes, it disturbs me also that car companies would even consider moving their products in an environmentally friendly direction and using models which will successfully compete in the long run with foreign car makers. I hear America's death knell, and it's name is SmartCar.

Seriously, folks. We can't survive on a gas-guzzling, carbon spewing car model forever. We have to start down this path at some point. It won't be much good if we save a couple thousand on our car payments now if the planet is shriveled up like a prune in 30 years. Since American car companies are in the process of restructuring their entire business models at this point anyways, might as well do it now.

[foggybok]

Didn't that say "light trucks"? Larger trucks don't fall into the same restrictions. My current truck did not have to even post mileage rating because as a heavy truck it is not part of the requirements. The same thing will probably be in effect with the new standards, heavy trucks will be exempt, so none of you will have to worry about giving up your gas hogs....

[kdow]

Evidently, you liked the SmartCar. Do you own one? Think it'll pull a Brenderup?? (HAHAHAHAHAHA!)

WHY does everyone keep talking about the SmartCar like it's the only option that exists? The Prius has been around for many years now - it's a perfectly functional family car. (My family owns one, I should know.) We average about 45mpg in the summer, 38 or so in the winter - and we live in an EXTREMELY hilly area, which kills the mileage you get. (And no, it does not have performance issues. I can accelerate up a very steep hill on the highway to 70mph or so no problems. Could go faster if I wanted to.) As far as space goes, it's very comfortable for four adults - two adults and some kids wouldn't be an issue. Plus plenty of room in the back hatchback.

And that's just one example of the options. It's not like the only thing out there that gets good mileage NOW is a freaking SmartCar (do they even GET good mileage?) so why should those stupid little plastic roller skates be the only thing we get when the auto companies are being encouraged to get their asses in gear and put more energy into making their middle-range products more fuel efficient, instead of keeping it limited to 'special' models?

Why can't we get cleaner diesel fuel and more diesel cars, like they have in the UK and EU? When I lived there I have to say that my friend with the VW had NO problems with his diesel on the motorways at 80+ mph, and he was getting pretty decent mileage, too.

Have issues with the government meddling, fine. Have concerns about the prices on trucks going up. Whatever. But stop waving around those stupid SmartCars as if the government is going to take away everything else and make us all drive around in roller skates - they are NOT the only cars available now that can get good mileage, and they do not represent the only way to get good mileage out of a car - there's plenty of evidence to the contrary already.

(According to the SmartCar's own website, it gets 33 city and 41 highway by EPA 2008 testing. EPA figures for the Prius, as posted on the Toyota site, are 51/48.) (And like I said, we've seen MUCH better than that fairly often on highway driving.)

[BasqueMom]

Think one of the reasons that many of the European cars aren't marketed here is they
don't meet our emissions standards. Mercedes, for one, has a small sedan, diesel I think,
that is very popular and well-priced over there; but doesn't meet standards here. Ford
has a model or two that sells well over there but they haven't marketed here.

Also, if we got off the ethanol bandwagon, we'd get better mileage. Had an 89 Taurus,
bigger engine, 6 cylinders, automatic--called it my matron mobile as I had always driven
stick shift, 4 cylinder models. It got 30 mpg on the highway and 25 in the city--my
previous VW, Nissan and Renault hadn't done any better.

Just found the neatest website, www.mpgomatic, when checking to see what my old Taurus was rated at and it had the mpg ratings for the Taurus from the first models in
1986 to present. I got a little better than what it was rated for. But as the models and
emissions standards got tougher, mpg went down. For the models using E fuel type which
I can't tell if that's straight ethanol or a mix, gas mileage went down significantly. Interesting!

[county]

Maybe people will find out you don't need a 1 ton truck and a 20 foot plus trailer to haul a horse.

[Huntertwo]

Hmm. I'm not sure that you and I are reading the same thread. :) I have certainly seen liberals be hypocritical before. But I don't see anyone on that side of the fence ranting or raving on this thread.

And, in general, I have noticed that claiming to be for free speech until someone disagrees with you is equally common (and equally bad) on both the left and the right.

Clearly, you are upset about the Obama emissions regulations. It's noted. :) No one is trying to quash your dissent.



Umm yes there are if you read all the threads. There are a few saying it IS their business as to what kind of vehicles others choose to drive.

I'm of the belief, if you want to buy 10 Hummers, that is your business only. No one has the right to come on here and tell me a Subaru fits my needs when they have NO idea of my lifestyle.

When Al Gord stops flying criss-cross across the country in his very fuel
Inefficient Gulf Stream, and John Edwards makes condos out of his 28,000 sq ft mansion, I just might take the cause a little more seriously.

Oh, and that includes Pelosi taking a private jet to fly home to S.F.
Surely there must be commercial jets leaving from Dulles to S.F.

[LMH]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2345256,00.asp

[Sakura]

The sky is falling... The sky is falling! Wasn't there an Ice Age right around the corner according to global cooling predictions in the 80's? Ever think the crap science that convinced people they needed to invest in parkas may be the same faulty science that is telling us the planet is going to melt in 30 years???

[Guilherme]

I don't have any problems with folks who come to different conlclusions than I do on any given issue. I have a big problem with the "selective science" used to promote governmental policy (or any other policy). :)

That "selective science" includes "human induced global warming." Back in early '70s I was a back-up instructor in a Navy school for the Oceanography course. As such I had to read all the scientfific papers that came in. It was widely believed, with significant scientific support, that global cooling was real and caused by human activity (mostly particulate production, IIRC). Turns out that view was wrong. The big difference is that there was little or no "bandwagon" effect and the damage done by a serious scientific error was minimal. Now the "bandwagon" is rolling along and we are taking real, dramatic steps that have enormous consequences if we've mis-read the scientific evidence (and there is significant evidence that we have).

My skepticism on "human induced global warming" leads me to view the economic consequences of these decisions with a bit more weight that someone who is more oriented to "environmental effects."

G.

[SpecialEffects]

If people wanted these little fuel efficient tin cans, no government would have to force the car makers into manufacturing them. The fact is, with the size of the North American countries, the miles the average American and Canadian commutes and the size of what else is on the road, most people do not want them. We do not live in a small European country or in China. I've been to both and trust me - HUGE difference. Whether they have horse people or not - still a HUGE difference. Therefore the government has to force them on us and on the car manufacturers. When the sales in the truck division is covering the tin can division, I think it speaks volumes.

If I lived in a city and the cat going to the vet was the only extra use I had for my vehicle - great! Bring on the tin can to go play with the other tin cans out there. But when I have 5000 lbs to move daily, I don't see why I have to pay more to do my job. The cost of a F450 is already high enough thanks. Bales of hay on a smart car??? Feed? Towing a trailer..... and on and on it goes.

The fact that Obama has already indicated that his government will tax gas until it reaches the $4.00 a gallon mark because that's the point they feel most people will switch to the unwanted green cars.... is disgusting. Everything about the man and his government is as socialistic as it gets.

This was interesting as well....

CAFE Rules Kill More Americans Than Iraq War

In the past six years in the United States military there have been 3,444 combat deaths the last six years. I looked it up. CAFE standards, mileage standards, emissions standards for American automobiles kill 3,900 Americans per year. Five hundred more Americans die per year than combat deaths in six years because of CAFE standards. This is from CNBC: "The key to better mileage is lighter-weight cars -- in which people die more often in traffic accidents. Since CAFÉ passed in 1975, smaller cars have killed almost 50,000 more people than otherwise would have died on the roads, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," which is an arm of our government. And that was in 2002. "CAFE kills up to 3,900 extra people each year, a study by Harvard and the Brookings Institution states. It finds that for every 100 pounds less that an auto weighs, up to 780 more people die in traffic accidents in a year."

Now, the liberals told us American deaths, not just combat, but American deaths since the war began March 19th of '03, 4,296, the combat deaths, 3,444, 3,900 deaths on the highways additional because of CAFE standards. Maybe the networks will start reading off the names of those Americans killed as a result of CAFE standards at the end of their broadcasts. CAFE standards that Barack Obama ordered as a commander-in-chief would order troops into battle. His decision, the car czar in chief, has just signed the death warrants of thousands and thousands of innocent Americans. I doubt families will get letters of condolence.

Ok now he's President, but has Obama or his family ever owned or been moved around in a green car? Just curious.

[hitchinmygetalong]

Ok now he's President, but has Obama or his family ever owned or been moved around in a green car? Just curious.

I believe the family car was a Ford Escape Hybrid.

[wendy]

hmm. Well are those deaths caused by there being a mixture of small cars and big vehicles? maybe if there were only small cars it would be different. But yeah, I couldn't manage if I owned a small car. I need something that I can cram several large dogs into plus their gear for competitions. I need something that I can carry lumber and trees around in. Something that can carry piles of horse gear. I used to need something that could haul a trailer and may again in future. Not interested in buying a really small car.

[Beasmom]

So we don't want to pick on the SmartCar any more. OK!

So can your Prius pull a Brenderup?

No? Neither can my VW TDI. But it gets better gas (diesel) mileage than the Prius or the SmartCar. Or the MiniCooper.

[SpecialEffects]

Hey I bought a Fusion because of my frequent day and weekend trips to PA and WV. And I love the car! But don't punish me because my lifestyle and job require vehicles that can carry a lot of weight and/or volume. Nothing in the horse industry is light! :rolleyes: I'm on my way to the chiropractor right now because of it! :D

[mares tails]

This was interesting as well....

CAFE Rules Kill More Americans Than Iraq War
<snip>

Cool - a quote from that distinguished scientist Rush Limbaugh! :lol:
and data from a 2002 report, spun by a Fox "News expert" that assumes we won't get any better at building safer lighter cars.

.

[KSAQHA]

I'm all for this new law...doesn't bother me a bit and it's about time someone did something about the slow killing of our planet via our excessive lifestyles. It may not be a perfect fix but at least it's a step in the right direction instead of ignoring our worsening problems like the old administration did. ...Rubbish

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/report-shows-air-quality-improved-during-bush-administration/


The same could be said about the global warming hype...plenty of scientists are challenging what is being spoonfed as fact to the general public.

Me? I'll keep driving my GM 2500, but only as necessary...like when hauling a fully loaded 3H gooseneck.

[MaresNest]

Maybe people will find out you don't need a 1 ton truck and a 20 foot plus trailer to haul a horse.

That'd be a step in the right direction, too. :)

The sky is falling... The sky is falling! Wasn't there an Ice Age right around the corner according to global cooling predictions in the 80's? Ever think the crap science that convinced people they needed to invest in parkas may be the same faulty science that is telling us the planet is going to melt in 30 years???

I understand what you're saying, but just because the scientific community was wrong once does not mean that it will be wrong every time. And the consequences if they are right (I think they are) are dire enough that we can't risk it. When I was a teenager, my dad said to me that there are some mistakes you can't afford to make once. I agree with him. And I think that this is one of them. We're already seeing the glaciers melt.

My skepticism on "human induced global warming" leads me to view the economic consequences of these decisions with a bit more weight that someone who is more oriented to "environmental effects."

Guilherme, I think we must have chatted during the election, on Off Topic Days. I really appreciate your comments, even though I don't generally agree with them. ;) It's nice to be able to have a real, honest discussion, where people just say what they think and don't pollute the dialogue trying to vilify others. This is how progress is made.

Me? I'll keep driving my GM 2500, but only as necessary...like when hauling a fully loaded 3H gooseneck.

That's reasonable. And maybe in 10 years there will be a GM 2500 that gets 30 mpg. And in 20 years, maybe there will be one that runs on hydrogen.

I'm of the belief, if you want to buy 10 Hummers, that is your business only. No one has the right to come on here and tell me a Subaru fits my needs when they have NO idea of my lifestyle.

When Al Gord stops flying criss-cross across the country in his very fuel
Inefficient Gulf Stream, and John Edwards makes condos out of his 28,000 sq ft mansion, I just might take the cause a little more seriously.

Oh, and that includes Pelosi taking a private jet to fly home to S.F.
Surely there must be commercial jets leaving from Dulles to S.F.

I agree with you about Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, and folks of that ilk. (Particularly Edwards - 28,000 square feet?! WTF?!) But, just as I don't think they should be flying around in private jets and living in grotesquely huge mansions while telling other people to conserve, I also don't think that car companies should be making cars that needlessly harm the environment. If you need 10 Hummers, fine. But GM should be making BETTER Hummers. And better trucks. And better sedans. They're doing it in Europe. We can do it here.

[Jumphigh83]

Any one of you greenies ever see a Nickel mine? More desolate than the moon....yeah that's right those batteries in your hybrid are Ni Ca (nickel cadmium)..they go from Pa to China to Europe to the US...wonder how many carbon credits that trip uses...never mind the cost of the recharge ...there are no easy answers but even if you buy into the theory that "global warming" is caused by man consider that the planet has had many cycles of warming cooling WELL BEFORE the Industrial revolution.
I also was not aware that the car/truck manufacturers were required to design smaller lighter cars as part of their protocol...are warmblood breeders required to "manufacture" mini horses too, in case the warmbloods they breed prove to be "too big"?? Just wondering......

[Daydream Believer]

"The key to better mileage is lighter-weight cars -- in which people die more often in traffic accidents. Since CAFÉ passed in 1975, smaller cars have killed almost 50,000 more people than otherwise would have died on the roads, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," which is an arm of our government. And that was in 2002. "CAFE kills up to 3,900 extra people each year, a study by Harvard and the Brookings Institution states. It finds that for every 100 pounds less that an auto weighs, up to 780 more people die in traffic accidents in a year."



What a stupid study. Did it occur to anyone that there might be other factors than just smaller cars causing increased traffic deaths? Like way more people on the roads since 1975 and the major build up around many of our cities and the resulting traffic nightmares? I seriously find it harder to believe that today's cars with air bags, crumple zones, and seat belts are more dangerous than the gas hog land yachts of the 1970's with people never wearing seat belts and getting splattered all over the windshield and dashboard in a crash.

People of today also drive like freaking lunatics compared to the 70's. I've never seen such bad driving as I have in the last 10 years...people way exceeding speed limits, road rage, always in a mad hurry to get where they are going, crazy lane changes, etc...

You can make statistics like that show anything you want them to make. I do not think comparing driving, cars, roads, etc... of 35 years ago all that relevant to today.

[sisu27]

Any one of you greenies ever see a Nickel mine? More desolate than the moon....yeah that's right those batteries in your hybrid are Ni Ca (nickel cadmium)..they go from Pa to China to Europe to the US...wonder how many carbon credits that trip uses...never mind the cost of the recharge ...there are no easy answers but even if you buy into the theory that "global warming" is caused by man consider that the planet has had many cycles of warming cooling WELL BEFORE the Industrial revolution.
I also was not aware that the car/truck manufacturers were required to design smaller lighter cars as part of their protocol...are warmblood breeders required to "manufacture" mini horses too, in case the warmbloods they breed prove to be "too big"?? Just wondering......

Yes, I have a cottage just outside of Sudbury*, Ontario. That is no longer the case. The mines have come a long way in being environmentally responsible. It is quite green and beautiful now. My other cottage though is also near a mining community in Northern Quebec and they have some lingering heavy metal issues (I have elevated but not dangerous levels of Cadmium in my system...whoops :no:).

Anyways, you don't have to drive a friggin' Smart car or even a hybrid to help the situation. But those yelling the loudest on here would prefer to use that scenario and plug-ears-with-fingers while going "la-la-la-la-la..." so I won't waste my efforts.


*As a result, Sudbury was widely (although not entirely accurately) known for many years as a wasteland. In parts of the city, vegetation was devastated both by acid rain and by logging to provide fuel for early smelting techniques. To a lesser extent, the area's ecology was also impacted by lumber camps in the area providing wood for the reconstruction of Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 — while other logging areas in Northeastern Ontario were also involved in that effort, the emergence of mining in the following decade made it significantly harder for new trees to grow to full maturity in the Sudbury area than elsewhere.[2] The resulting erosion exposed bedrock, which was charred in most places to a pitted, dark black appearance. There was not a complete lack of vegetation in the region, however. Paper birch and wild blueberry patches are notable examples of plants which thrived in the acidic soils — and even during the worst years of the city's environmental damage, not all parts of the city were equally affected.

During the Apollo manned lunar exploration program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury to become familiar with shatter cones: a rare rock formation connected with meteorite impacts. However, the popular misconception that they were visiting Sudbury because it purportedly resembled the lifeless surface of the moon dogged the city for years.[2]

The construction of the Inco Superstack in 1972 dispersed the sulfuric acid over a much wider area, reducing the acidity of local precipitation and enabling the city to begin an environmental recovery program. In the late 1970s, private, public, and commercial interests combined to establish an unprecedented "regreening" effort. Lime was spread over the charred soil of the Sudbury region by hand and by aircraft. Seeds of wild grasses and other vegetation were also spread. As of 2006, 8.7 million new trees were planted in the city.[12] More recently, the city has begun to rehabilitate the slag heaps that surround the Copper Cliff smelter area, with the planting of grass and trees.

The ecology of the Sudbury region has recovered dramatically, due both to the regreening program and improved mining practices

Thanks Wiki

[Huntertwo]

The sky is falling... The sky is falling! Wasn't there an Ice Age right around the corner according to global cooling predictions in the 80's? Ever think the crap science that convinced people they needed to invest in parkas may be the same faulty science that is telling us the planet is going to melt in 30 years???

Exactly... The planet has been going through cooling and heating periods since the beginning of time.

There still is no proof that we are in a "Climate Change". Some Scientists claim we are, some Scientists claim we are not.
Who are we to believe?

Honestly- I think this going "Green" crap is just a catch phrase invented by Al Gord so his cronies could pat themselves on the back and hand him the Nobel Peace Prize...:winkgrin:

[sisu27]

Exactly... The planet has been going through cooling and heating periods since the beginning of time.

There still is no proof that we are in a "Climate Change". Some Scientists claim we are, some Scientists claim we are not.
Who are we to believe?

Honestly- I think this going "Green" crap is just a catch phrase invented by Al Gord so his cronies could pat themselves on the back and hand him the Nobel Peace Prize...:winkgrin:

I don't know...wouldn't erring on the side of the possibility of all this "Green crap" being true be kinda wise? Like, just in case there is some truth to it? I don't really need a study or a controlled experiment to convince me that we are making a mess and any change to the contrary is a good thing. Look around.

This thread makes me more sad than angry (that is rare) that people are so obtuse in this respect. I just don't get it.:confused:

[mares tails]

I don't know...wouldn't erring on the side of the possibility of all this "Green crap" being true be kinda wise?
Yeah, wouldn't that be the conservative thing to do??? Like saving some resources for future generations.

.

[TuxWink]

You can call it being "green" or "frugal" or "cheap" or "backwards" or whatever, it just means taking steps to be more respectful of our environment. Whether or not you believe in global warming or cooling, you really can't look at pictures of how polluted we've made this planet (and even outer space!) and say that everything is just peachy.

Same thing goes for emissions and gas consumption. Why is it such a bad thing to push companies into making cleaner and more efficient vehicles? Why not reward companies who do this and also reward consumers who take the steps to be a little more respectful of the planet?

I'm with the person who said this thread just makes them sad. I rarely post, but felt I had to say something!

[Guilherme]

I don't know...wouldn't erring on the side of the possibility of all this "Green crap" being true be kinda wise? Like, just in case there is some truth to it? I don't really need a study or a controlled experiment to convince me that we are making a mess and any change to the contrary is a good thing. Look around.

This thread makes me more sad than angry (that is rare) that people are so obtuse in this respect. I just don't get it.:confused:

Well, not necessarily.

A dollar spent on trying to stop the unstoppable is a dollar you won't have to spend to mitigate the effects of the unstoppable. So spending vast sums to reduce gasses that may or may not be "greenhouse" is not "conservative."

Consider, too, that those of us who doubt the connection between human activity and a changing climate do not want to return to the Bad Old Days when rivers in Cleveland used to catch fire. I, and I presume other skeptics, support and encourage increasing fuel economy in autos, enhanced energy conservation in buildings, more efficient appliances, etc. But spending several Trillions of Dollars that we don't have (and must borrow) to encourage/achieve these goals is a highly questionable practice.

G.

[Sakura]

I don't know...wouldn't erring on the side of the possibility of all this "Green crap" being true be kinda wise?

True? Not so sure about that... Wise? Sure... I'm all for a cleaner planet... but as it has been pointed out all this "green" energy out there has it's own cost to the environment. I won't be ready to jump on the band wagon until there is a true source of renewable energy that proves to be more "green" than my horse... and I don't mean training :p.

[Sakura]

You can call it being "green" or "frugal" or "cheap" or "backwards" or whatever, it just means taking steps to be more respectful of our environment. Whether or not you believe in global warming or cooling, you really can't look at pictures of how polluted we've made this planet (and even outer space!) and say that everything is just peachy.

Same thing goes for emissions and gas consumption. Why is it such a bad thing to push companies into making cleaner and more efficient vehicles? Why not reward companies who do this and also reward consumers who take the steps to be a little more respectful of the planet?

I'm with the person who said this thread just makes them sad. I rarely post, but felt I had to say something!

Why not just reward the companies... like Tesla (everyone should look up Nikola Tesla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla).. he was a BRILLANT man for who the Tesla company honored by using his name. Tesla discovered a way to make clean energy before it was cool ;) He was also the man who has been credited with the invention of the radio once it was discovered that Marconie used many of Tessla's designs)... that manufacture fully electric cars... or any other innovation that may be beneficial? Why should there be regulation and constant slaps on the hand from Washington... if big auto makers see smaller companies prospering and getting the publicity and popularity they once enjoyed then chances are they will modify their business plan and produce the same.

[kdow]

So we don't want to pick on the SmartCar any more. OK!

So can your Prius pull a Brenderup?

No? Neither can my VW TDI. But it gets better gas (diesel) mileage than the Prius or the SmartCar. Or the MiniCooper.

I have no idea, but I would imagine not simply because that's not what it's designed or intended to do. I never claimed it was, nor do I think that everyone should be forced to own a Prius instead of a SmartCar (in fact, I did actually point out that I have a friend in the UK with a VW diesel that does quite well for itself.)

My point was just that this entire thread is full of people going "omg, we're going to have to drive around in plastic roller skates!" and that is pretty obviously not the case - I assume your VW TDI is also not a plastic roller skate?

[Arizona DQ]

So we don't want to pick on the SmartCar any more. OK!

So can your Prius pull a Brenderup?

No? Neither can my VW TDI. But it gets better gas (diesel) mileage than the Prius or the SmartCar. Or the MiniCooper.

I would love to be able to drive a Prius back and forth to work every day, but it is too low to the ground and will bottom out on my roads! Build me something better AND affordable!!!

I am tired already of the "greenies" telling me what to drive and what type of paper to use to whip my butt! Heck, my mother was saving energy when I was growing up by keeping the house at 62 degrees in the winter!!!:eek:

There are Too many hypocrites, like Pelosi and Al G., etc., not to mention our esteemed President who had to fly to Chicago for Valentines Day on MY tax dollars! They dictate to us what we should and should not do, but they can do whatever they want on OUR tax dollars!

I see no reason why WE, the USA, always bear the brunt of the blame and no one even looks at the rest of the world, like CHINA and INDIA, who could care less about the emissions, etc!! DO not get me wrong, I fully support doing everything we can to keep the air clean and save resources....But why do we beat ourselves up as if WE are the problem! Some have said that we have to join the rest of the world! The REST of the world is NOT Europe!

And BTW, we have plenty of our own resources if we were allowed to drill!!!
:mad:

[TuxWink]

I'm not saying there aren't hypocrites.

I'm not saying that other countries are not destroying the environment faster than we are.

But that's NOT AN EXCUSE for sitting back and not trying to make things better. The US is a huge part of the problem. We not only buy all the cheap crap from China and India, we dump our trash there as well.

We DO need to "beat ourselves up," as one poster said. Enough is enough. One of my favorite sayings is, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." I think we've been insane for way too long.

[Huntertwo]

I would love to be able to drive a Prius back and forth to work every day, but it is too low to the ground and will bottom out on my roads! Build me something better AND affordable!!!

I am tired already of the "greenies" telling me what to drive and what type of paper to use to whip my butt! Heck, my mother was saving energy when I was growing up by keeping the house at 62 degrees in the winter!!!:eek:

There are Too many hypocrites, like Pelosi and Al G., etc., not to mention our esteemed President who had to fly to Chicago for Valentines Day on MY tax dollars! They dictate to us what we should and should not do, but they can do whatever they want on OUR tax dollars!

I see no reason why WE, the USA, always bear the brunt of the blame and no one even looks at the rest of the world, like CHINA and INDIA, who could care less about the emissions, etc!! DO not get me wrong, I fully support doing everything we can to keep the air clean and save resources....But why do we beat ourselves up as if WE are the problem! Some have said that we have to join the rest of the world! The REST of the world is NOT Europe!

And BTW, we have plenty of our own resources if we were allowed to drill!!!
:mad:

Very well stated Arizona -

Like your mom, I was doing my part LONG before it became the "In thing" to do. I never wasted electricity, certainly never littered, drove within the speed limit. I did it because it was the right thing to do, not because someone told me it was what I should be doing.

Who wastes more fuel? Me and my pickup doing 65 MPH on the highway or the *Green*people in their little *green cars* flying by me this morning and every morning like I was standing still?

When the Bureaucrats in D.C. start doing their part instead of hypocritical preaching then come back and lets talk.

How much fuel did the Presidential Jet take to make the faux paus fly over of the Statue of Liberty, when it could have been easily photo shopped, never mind sending thousands of people running from their office buildings because they thought it was another attack.

Just as someone stated that the Canadian Cadmium mines that are mined for the batteries for the hybrids have very *normal* looking surroundings, WE CAN do the same in ANWAR.

[feather river]

What on earth do these pinheads in Washington DC think farmers and ranchers are going to drive? Never mind us horse people. In a Socialist society, horses are so...elitist.



That's why Mayor Bloomberg's daughter has horses.:D

[MaresNest]

Exactly... The planet has been going through cooling and heating periods since the beginning of time.

The planet has been going through cooling and heating periods since the beginning of time. One of the reasons we know this is by studying ice cores (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm) from Antarctica. The ice sheets there are thick enough that we can look at ice that was formed over 100,000 years ago. We can analyze the gas, carbon, and particulate content of the ice and determine from that the temperature at time the ice formed.

(A somewhat more specific explanation, snagged from Wikipedia: "Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions. In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide." And, since Wikipedia is no bastion of science, here's some corroborating ice core stuff from NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore.html) and the National Ice Core Laboratory (http://nicl.usgs.gov/why.htm).)

One of the things we have learned from doing this kind of work is that periods of high carbon content in the atmosphere are associated with periods of global warming. Here's a graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png). If you follow the carbon (green) and temperature (blue) from right to left, you'll see that whenever the carbon spikes, the temperature does, too. We know that burning fossil fuels causes carbon dioxide to be released into the air. We also know that animals release carbon in the form of methane. We are currently both burning more fossil fuels and raising larger numbers of animals for meat than ever before. Here's another graph (http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/im/co2-vs-time-earth-TSmith.jpg), showing the change in atmospheric CO2 over the last thousand years. The correlation between carbon and temperature rise is well documented and not in question.

What is in question is whether or not we can/should do anything about it. Since human activities have increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, it seems to me that the ethical thing is to do whatever we can to reverse the negative impacts. I believe that we should do it because it's the right thing to do, for us (I'd rather not lose London, New York, San Francisco, and the state of Florida to sea level rise), and for the rest of the life on the planet, which innocently suffers from our mistakes.

Other carbon spikes in history have been related to crazy volcanos (not minor ones (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans) like we've had lately. I'm talking about volcanos like the Atlantic mid ocean ridge (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2641200220070427) splitting North America apart from Europe). Our current situation is different. The current situation is an artificial process that is mimicking past natural processes.

Yeah, wouldn't that be the conservative thing to do??? Like saving some resources for future generations.

Yes, that's how I see it.

You can call it being "green" or "frugal" or "cheap" or "backwards" or whatever, it just means taking steps to be more respectful of our environment. Whether or not you believe in global warming or cooling, you really can't look at pictures of how polluted we've made this planet (and even outer space!) and say that everything is just peachy.

Same thing goes for emissions and gas consumption. Why is it such a bad thing to push companies into making cleaner and more efficient vehicles? Why not reward companies who do this and also reward consumers who take the steps to be a little more respectful of the planet?

Well said, TuxWink. To me, this is every bit as much a moral issue as a scientific one.

A dollar spent on trying to stop the unstoppable is a dollar you won't have to spend to mitigate the effects of the unstoppable.

...

Consider, too, that those of us who doubt the connection between human activity and a changing climate do not want to return to the Bad Old Days when rivers in Cleveland used to catch fire. I, and I presume other skeptics, support and encourage increasing fuel economy in autos, enhanced energy conservation in buildings, more efficient appliances, etc. But spending several Trillions of Dollars that we don't have (and must borrow) to encourage/achieve these goals is a highly questionable practice.

Once again, Guilherme, I find myself on the opposite side of the argument but appreciative of your level headed contribution to the discussion.

On a substantive level, I would say that what we need to be doing is preventing things from getting any worse than they have to be. I do think that at this point we have locked in a certain amount of climate change that we're just going to have to live with. But I also think that we can take steps to prevent it from getting worse. And, back to the original topic of this thread, I think the CAFE standards are a reasonable step in that direction.

Who wastes more fuel? Me and my pickup doing 65 MPH on the highway or the *Green*people in their little *green cars* flying by me this morning and every morning like I was standing still?

When the Bureaucrats in D.C. start doing their part instead of hypocritical preaching then come back and lets talk.

Unfortunately, having had both a hybrid (sold it when my job went away) and a dually, I can say pretty confidently that speeding hybrids are still getting significantly better mileage than trucks doing the speed limit. With good driving habits, my little Civic hybrid got 48-50 mpg. With jackrabbit starts, pedal to the floor, and mountainous terrain, 38-40 mpg. There are presently no trucks on the market that can touch 38 mpg.

Sure, it's maddening when supposedly 'green' people do 'un-green' things. Probably more maddening for those of us who align ourselves with that cause than for those who don't. Everyone hates a hypocrite. But I'm sure that no one posting here would tell their children that other people behaving badly is an excuse to behave badly themselves. We can't control everybody, but we can and should hold ourselves to a high standard.

I would love to be able to drive a Prius back and forth to work every day, but it is too low to the ground and will bottom out on my roads! Build me something better AND affordable!!!

...

I see no reason why WE, the USA, always bear the brunt of the blame and no one even looks at the rest of the world, like CHINA and INDIA, who could care less about the emissions, etc!! DO not get me wrong, I fully support doing everything we can to keep the air clean and save resources....But why do we beat ourselves up as if WE are the problem! Some have said that we have to join the rest of the world! The REST of the world is NOT Europe!

And BTW, we have plenty of our own resources if we were allowed to drill!!!
:mad:

ArizonaDQ, the point of the CAFE standards is so that the car companies will build you something better. I can't guarantee that they won't screw you on price, but it's better to be cheated on price than quality. And, even with my very limited budget (I went back to grad school this year when my job evaporated), I think that a higher car payment is a reasonable price to pay for cleaner air.

Your point about the rest of the world not being Europe is certainly fair. India and China need to do their part. I agree! :)

I'll respectfully disagree with you about drilling, though. Oil is finite and dirty. Sunshine and hydrogen are forever and cleaner. I think it's time we bit the bullet and outgrew oil altogether. Of course, it will be a slow process. But drilling at home wouldn't yield any oil for at least 10 years. So that's slow, too. And we put a man on the moon in 10 years. If we put our minds to it, we can figure out electric and/or fuel cell cars in that amount of time. Time for some old fashioned American ingenuity! :)

But that's NOT AN EXCUSE for sitting back and not trying to make things better. The US is a huge part of the problem. We not only buy all the cheap crap from China and India, we dump our trash there as well.

I agree! If all the other countries were jumping off a bridge, would we do it too? ;)

[BelladonnaLily]

We too have been conserving long before it became popular. We just don't feel like we need to make a "cause" out of it and ruin the economy further with this "green" crap. I too grewup in a cold house and if I left a light on, there was hell to pay.

Now, when I had the child over a few weeks ago that went white and almost passed out when I pulled out a styrofoam plate, I explained that "after dinner, just for fun, we'll go out back and BURN them" :lol: Then we're going to go throw 6-pack rings in the local pond and leave the water running all night :lol:

We've turned our children into neurotics. We're no longer a reasonable society.

[Sakura]

We too have been conserving long before it became popular. We just don't feel like we need to make a "cause" out of it and ruin the economy further with this "green" crap. I too grewup in a cold house and if I left a light on, there was hell to pay.

Now, when I had the child over a few weeks ago that went white and almost passed out when I pulled out a styrofoam plate, I explained that "after dinner, just for fun, we'll go out back and BURN them" :lol: Then we're going to go throw 6-pack rings in the local pond and leave the water running all night :lol:

We've turned our children into neurotics. We're no longer a reasonable society.

This reminds me of my neighbor telling me about her eight year old son coming home from school sobbing due to his teacher telling him his father is a murder because he hunts deer (along with other game... which happens to go in their freezer)... Apparently that particular teacher had a few other screws loose too.

[deltawave]

eight year old son coming home from school sobbing due to his teacher telling
him his father is a murder because he hunts deer

My eight year old came home with the same story about our current President, only "murderer" was replaced with "baby killer". And that was told him by his also-eight-year-old best friend and classmate. :sigh: Kids are sponges, they learn what we teach them.

[Amwrider]

Let's keep it horse related.

I found a site yesterday on green cars that indicated that Chevy had green S10 pickups and Ford had green Ranger pickups years ago that were rented out to fleets but they were destroyed. Not sure why, I will try to find the link. Granted these wouldn't pull a horse trailer but they are great grocery-getters for the horses. I have a Ranger for my regular driving truck.

[Beasmom]

Keep in mind that even if we were somehow able to do away with gas or diesel fueled vehicles, there will still be a need for petroleum. It isn't just a fuel. It's a lubricant, we make all sorts of products from it including the plastic components in your car, packaging, pharmaceuticals, fabrics, and much, much more. Look around the room you are sitting in. How many things are made of plastic or contain plastic components? The buckets your horse's supplements come in, many of your grooming articles, your Rubbermaid tack trunk -- all contain petroleum. We cannot do completely without it, no matter how "green" we get.

The myth that we would lose New York, London, Los Angeles and other coastal/low lying places if all the glaciers and icebergs melted is just that ... a myth, but it's one that scares the dickens out of the greenies. For them, the sky is ALWAYS falling. I put Global Warming and the attendant alarms in the realm of junk science.

That said, common sense dictates doing everyday things to conserve and protect the environment without becoming neurotic about it. I have a ranching background. Care for the environment is necessary to insure a productive farm and healthy cattle. It's good business. Farming techniques have changed mightily from the days of the Dust Bowl. That was a perfect storm of a bad weather pattern and overly optimistic farming practices (trying to grow wheat and corn in soil that could never, ever support such crops, for instance). We used to rotate the herd from one range to another to conserve the grass and avoid overgrazing. Our Leasee practices the same grazing methods.

Obama is a townie. I hope he has good advisors regarding agriculture.

[MaresNest]

Keep in mind that even if we were somehow able to do away with gas or diesel fueled vehicles, there will still be a need for petroleum. It isn't just a fuel.

...

The myth that we would lose New York, London, Los Angeles and other coastal/low lying places if all the glaciers and icebergs melted is just that ... a myth, but it's one that scares the dickens out of the greenies. For them, the sky is ALWAYS falling. I put Global Warming and the attendant alarms in the realm of junk science.

That said, common sense dictates doing everyday things to conserve and protect the environment without becoming neurotic about it. I have a ranching background. Care for the environment is necessary to insure a productive farm and healthy cattle. It's good business. Farming techniques have changed mightily from the days of the Dust Bowl. That was a perfect storm of a bad weather pattern and overly optimistic farming practices (trying to grow wheat and corn in soil that could never, ever support such crops, for instance). We used to rotate the herd from one range to another to conserve the grass and avoid overgrazing. Our Leasee practices the same grazing methods.

Obama is a townie. I hope he has good advisors regarding agriculture.

Hi Beasmom, you make a good point about petroleum. We do need it for other stuff. All the more reason to stop using it as fuel ASAP.

Re: loss of low lying land areas to sea level rise. It's neither a certainty nor a myth. It's a possibility. A strong one, that the vast majority of scientists are in agreement on. No one can see the future with certainty, but the glacier and sea level data very strongly suggests that low lying areas will be significantly threatened or lost by sea level rise due to global warming. Don't get me wrong - we could turn New York and London into Venice and New Orleans type cities (and turn Venice and New Orleans into Atlantis type cities ;) ) - but surely we can agree that normal streets are preferable to levies and canals. It would be an economically devastating step to have to take.

I'm curious why you chalk global warming up as junk science. I've studied it a fair bit (minored in Envi Sci in college) and have found that the overwhelming majority of scientists are on the same page on this issue: that global warming is occurring and significantly contributed to by human activities. The only people I have ever really heard refute those concepts are folks who oppose the environmental movement politically.

Now, if a person opposes the environmental movement politically, fine. Politics is all about debate. And civilized dissent is patriotic. It helps the country be better. I think it's clear in this case, though, that the science robustly supports the theory that global warming is occurring and that we are contributing to it significantly, perhaps even causing it outright. The two related issues that are open for debate, though: What can be done about it? What should be done about it?

Obama is a townie. That's why he needs country folks (like me) and ranchers (like you) engaging in a constructive dialogue with him and his administration. It's really sad that environmentalists and people who live/work in the environment have alienated themselves from each other. In my opinion, it's all a big misunderstanding. We're all basically talking about stewardship. We're just talking past each other and getting sucked into unproductive finger pointing. ("You guys are driving inefficient vehicles!" - "Yeah, well you guys only know about nature from books!") I really hope we can stop doing that.

It sounds like you have been a responsible steward of your land. In all sincerity, good for you! Surely one of the things you have learned over the years in taking care of your property is that you have to adapt to changing conditions. When the cows have grazed down one pasture, you have to move them to the next. That's really all I'm saying about oil. The circumstances have changed, and we need to adapt with them.

[Beasmom]

Yes indeed, technologies change, but only when the new technology is an improvement over the old one. Take the evolution of light. Torches to candles. Candles to whale oil. Whale oil to kerosene and gas lights, and finally to the incandescent bulb.

Nobody would have bought into the new light technologies if they did not offer an improvement over the old. The same is true of transportation technology. Travois to wagon to steam locomotive to steam and gas powered autos. There were electric cars in the old days, too, but they lost in the automotive evolution.

The new technology that makes petroleum-fueled cars into the 21st century dinosaur will have to be just as good or better than its predecessor or it will fail. It will have to meet the needs of transporters of goods, families, and farmers and ranchers, if diesel-powered tractors are done away with. I have no doubt that another technology will emerge, but it will emerge at the right time to meet market forces, not a government mandate.

I reject global warming "science" because despite your assertion that "most" scientists agree with it. That is not so, but the liberal mass media bias makes it appear so. Read "Physics for Future Presidents" by Richard A Muller for some straight talk on global warming, the physics of 9-11, and lots of other stuff. He's a professor of Physics at Berkeley, so is hardly a right-wing nutbag.

[MassageLady]

And once you get yourself a car that doesn't guzzle gas, I have also heard that they are going to enforce you using a gps to track your miles...and charge a mileage tax. Since the tax won't be coming from the gas you are saving, they have to get their money somewhere.
Yes, great idea to vote this bonehead into washington.
Told you so.
:yes:

[Sakura]

And once you get yourself a car that doesn't guzzle gas, I have also heard that they are going to enforce you using a gps to track your miles...and charge a mileage tax. Since the tax won't be coming from the gas you are saving, they have to get their money somewhere.
Yes, great idea to vote this bonehead into washington.
Told you so.
:yes:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gce0aFdZOyN-wQXvNCg0BOUPO8vgD97RKP180

[Huntertwo]

We too have been conserving long before it became popular. We just don't feel like we need to make a "cause" out of it and ruin the economy further with this "green" crap. I too grewup in a cold house and if I left a light on, there was hell to pay.

Now, when I had the child over a few weeks ago that went white and almost passed out when I pulled out a styrofoam plate, I explained that "after dinner, just for fun, we'll go out back and BURN them" :lol: Then we're going to go throw 6-pack rings in the local pond and leave the water running all night :lol:

We've turned our children into neurotics. We're no longer a reasonable society.

HAAAAAA - I'm surprise mommy and daddy haven't tried to sue you yet for psychologically ruining Biffy. (Good mind game though) :lol:

[Huntertwo]

And once you get yourself a car that doesn't guzzle gas, I have also heard that they are going to enforce you using a gps to track your miles...and charge a mileage tax. Since the tax won't be coming from the gas you are saving, they have to get their money somewhere.
Yes, great idea to vote this bonehead into washington.
Told you so.
:yes:


Trust me I did not vote this "bonehead" nor the Congress who is trying to Legislate this law. Leave it to the Dems to further bleed us dry. Is it any wonder they have lowest approval ratings?

2010 is right around the corner and time to vote these pinheads OUT!

[deltawave]

Mileage taxes are one way of doing things, among many. I haven't sat down and thought through every permutation of it, but shifting most fuel taxes towards people who use the most fuel doesn't NOT make sense to me. Maybe the "per gallon" system could be made better, who knows? Allow every one a certain minimum, based perhaps on zip code of residence and zip code of job, and beyond that the taxes rise.

Not every new idea is a bad one. :) Although I doubt this idea is "new".

Funny how everyone seems to always be waiting for THE NEXT ELECTION, no matter what. Maybe we ought to be using the time in between elections to do some stuff for ourselves? :)

[Beasmom]

I agree with you Deltawave -- I'm not waiting for the next election -- I'm supporting my causes and candidates now, emailing, snailmailing and calling senators and representatives. Oh, yes, they're getting an earful.

A tax on mileage will be passed on to customers. Any "largesse" from the government originated from the taxpayer. In the end, WE pay for everything in terms of higher costs for goods, higher tax rates, additional "fees" (a tax by any other name would smell as bad).

Smaller government, less bureaucracy, enforcing the laws that are ALREADY on the books, enforcing the integrity of our borders would be a good start.

[MaresNest]

Hi Beasmom,

I agree that the new cars will have to be better. And I think they will be. My Civic hybrid was exactly like any other car I've owned, only it got 48-50mpg. And I drove the poor thing hard. 45,000 miles in the first year. So I was really pleased with that car, and I think the technology will only get better. I am excited that American car companies are finally getting on board. They have been, in my estimation, very late to the party.

Not to belabor the point, but my basic education on global warming doesn't come from the media. As I mentioned earlier, I minored in Envi Sci at UVa. So I have personally spoken with legitimate scientists about climate change. I do want to see if my library has the Muller book, though. I like to hear differing opinions and try to work out the merits of the various arguments. It's like working on a puzzle. Thanks for the info.

[lauriep]

"and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax."

Funny how this line is ignored, as are the paragraphs following it that basically say a mileage based tax is simply an idea put forth, with little support.

[Beasmom]

"and the White House has rejected a mileage-based tax."

For now!

And I hope it stays rejected! The middle part of this country is pretty spread out. A mileage-based tax would be murder on the people in "flyover country".

[Trakehner]

You guys don't have much faith in us engineers or American ingenuity.

What I don't have faith in is a political hack who got elected on his colour and a bunch of platitudes to fool the masses...he's doing everything he said he'd do.

That's the trouble with people, they don't realize the people and politicians they pee their pants about really consider them as something on the bottom of their shoes...peasants.

Remember, the bama knows what's best for you, medically, your family, your car and your banks...just ask him.

[Sakura]

What I don't have faith in is a political hack who got elected on his colour and a bunch of platitudes to fool the masses...he's doing everything he said he'd do.

That's the trouble with people, they don't realize the people and politicians they pee their pants about really consider them as something on the bottom of their shoes...peasants.

Remember, the bama knows what's best for you, medically, your family, your car and your banks...just ask him.

Well... Trak... you certainly don't beat around the bush :lol:.

[MistyBlue]

Ooo, a mileage tax. What a wonderful idea.
Screw all those non-urban, non-latte drinking shlubs in middle America. So they make less on average than the two busy populated coasts...those are *just* the people to screw over with a mileage tax since they drive the farthest.
Oh wait...won;t that also affect everyone else who doesn;t live in cities? I dunno, like people who have their horses home? Because I know living on the east coast...if you want small acreage enough for a horse but need to work for a living then you commute to a city. Because anything close to a city means either no zoning for livestock or prices of $100k an acre for property. So what if they commute an hour or so to work...tax them too!
Oh, and all those people who commute to cities to work from the less populated towns with better school systems. Who cares if they're doing a long commute to raise kids in a safer place with better schools...tax them too!

[JSwan]

How come all y'all seem so in favor of the cap and trade approach?

If you are truly interested in reducing emissions, or being really "green", cap and dividend is much more simple, measurable and applies equally to all.

I dislike partisan politics and there is nothing more dangerous than the cap and trade approach - because it is essentially a political tool. Whichever lobby is the most powerful, most in fashion, most generous with its campaign donations is the one that will receive the most free permits, or other favorable treatment.

Those permits don't mean the savings are passed on to the consumer - the permits are traded on the open market.

They are permits to pollute. Whoever collects the most gets to pollute the most.

Whether you are a conservative or liberal, doesn't matter. Cap and trade is nothing more than a politically driven tool that can be wielded for good or ill - whichever check clears first.

Cap and dividend would actually work. Cap and trade is smoke and mirrors.

[Beasmom]

JSwan, I think I love you....

[JSwan]

Awww.... shucks.:winkgrin:

We had a similar thread a few months ago and I posted about cap and trade versus cap and dividend.... and promptly killed the thread.

If folks really wanted to be green they wouldn't live the way they do anyway. We can all wear our hemp clothing and use our speshul light bulbs all we want.. but the fact is.. there are too many people and they all want to live like Americans.

As we speak, nations are buying up the ocean floor, nations are buying farmland in other countries and importing the food to theirs, and America is sitting on its hands hoping that change will make the world hold hands and sing kumbayah.

Again - not being partisan just pointing out what should be pretty obvious to everyone with half a brain. Cap and trade is a bad idea and is purely a political strategy.

Real conservation of energy means not using it.

[Daydream Believer]

What I don't have faith in is a political hack who got elected on his colour and a bunch of platitudes to fool the masses...he's doing everything he said he'd do.



I find your insinuation that I voted for Obama because he is black quite offensive. I voted for him because I felt he was the best person for the job. What a load of racist BS. :no:

[Beasmom]

I think a lot of people voted for him for exactly that reason. They were excited about having the first Black president and having it happen in their lifetimes. Those were the emotional and naive ones. Obviously there were plenty of other people who voted for Barak because they really did believe he was right for the job.

Really, I heard people tell me that's why they chose Barak. Others voted hoping for "hope and change". DB, I don't think Trak's being a racist, I think he's just disgusted.

His color wasn't important to me; his ideology was. There are several "people of color" that I'd vote for for President, but none of them were running. I've supported political candidates of color, based on their character and their philosophies. I would love to see a conservative Black sitting in the White House. Love it!

Isn't that what MLK was talking about in his great "I Have a Dream" speech? That we all should be able to look beyond the color of skin to the content of character? It's just that some of us didn't think Obama's character measured up.

[Daydream Believer]

Obviously there were plenty of other people who voted for Barak because they really did believe he was right for the job.


My point exactly! And how many voted for McCain because he was white? :confused: Seriously, I still find that post offensive. I do not see where race has ANY part in this discussion.

[ESG]

Not one for partisan politics....

but don't think for one second those electric cars don't pollute.

Everything pollutes. Folks loved those light bulbs but oops - guess what's going into the landfills. Lots of mercury.

Those electric cars have batteries - and those suckers are horribly expensive to replace and you have to put the used battery somewhere.

I think all this technology is fantastic, wonderful, and especially in urban areas, really useful.

But don't think for one second that it's "green".

Nothing is "green" except not using technology at all. Everything else is just kinda shifting the sources of pollution around a little.

Thank you. It's about time someone pointed that out. :yes:

With any luck, nObama will be unable to complete his plans to completely ruin this country before making all of us submit to this crap. I'm so sick of his idiocy already that I can't bear to watch TV any more.

[ESG]

What I don't have faith in is a political hack who got elected on his colour and a bunch of platitudes to fool the masses...he's doing everything he said he'd do.

That's the trouble with people, they don't realize the people and politicians they pee their pants about really consider them as something on the bottom of their shoes...peasants.

Remember, the bama knows what's best for you, medically, your family, your car and your banks...just ask him.

Pretty much. :yes:

[Huntertwo]

My point exactly! And how many voted for McCain because he was white?

Not enough obviously.... ;)

I didn't vote for nobama based on color. I didn't vote for him because of his total lack of experience, the questionable people he choose as friends and mentors plus his Socialistic views. And the list can go on and on..

If Condi were running - I would have voted for her in a second.

Sorry but the race card has been used to death.

[Beasmom]

DB, I think you intentionally glossed over my remark that some folks did indeed vote for Barak because they WANTED a President of Color, and they wanted it to happen in their lifetimes. Wouldn't you agree that people voting FOR COLOR, without examining the individual's qualifications, background, ethics, etc., is just as stupid as voting AGAINST COLOR?

Barak voted "present" more often than he ever voted for or against anything while serving in the illinois Senate. I doubt he knows or cares much about the problems faced by farmers, ranchers, livestock raisers of any stripe. He's an urban dude who probably doesn't contemplate the origins of the Wagyu beef that he serves at his fancy Wednesday night soirees. With a wave of his hand, he has his favorite pizza from some St. Louis pizza joint delivered, complete with pizza chefs, by plane. Who paid for that? WE all did, the taxpayers.

And he has the nerve to tell the rest of us that we need to tighten our belts, put our dreams on hold, bend over, grab our ankles and wait for "Hope and Change"???

[SLW]

If someone is a die hard, card carrying 'Green' person who owns a horse, get rid of the horse. A lot of fuel is used to fertilize the hay and grain fields that yield products your horse uses. A lot of fuel is used to power the tractors which harvest those products. Add to that products being loaded up on a 18 wheelers to be transported to your feed store or barn and that's a lot of fuel. And heaven forbid you actually fuel up your truck to haul your horse to a show or trail ride to do something fun.

Go forward and preach green but give up the extras that generate pollution.

[MaresNest]

Ooo, a mileage tax. What a wonderful idea.
Screw all those non-urban, non-latte drinking shlubs in middle America.

Yeah, good thing the President doesn't support it. :)

Re: race. Sure, some people voted for Barack because he is black. And some people voted for McCain because Barack is black. Both groups were casting their vote for the wrong reason.

One surefire way to keep 'the race card' in play is to keep bringing up the fact that the President is black. And, honestly, it always seems to be the critics who bring up race. The supporters, even the ones who voted on race themselves, have long since moved on to policies. Please, join us in a substantive discussion of the issues. He's black. He's President. Move on.

And he has the nerve to tell the rest of us that we need to tighten our belts, put our dreams on hold, bend over, grab our ankles and wait for "Hope and Change"???

LOL! How, exactly, is he doing that? Not being a smidge hyperbolic are you? ;) This is one of the crazy things about humanity. What one person 'knows' to be the first positive steps the federal executive branch has taken in 8 years, another 'knows' to be the rape of the nation. Amazing how blind we can be towards each other. On both sides.

[Beasmom]

You skipped the bit about the Wagyu beef and the long-distance delivery of pizza. OK for him, not OK for us, right? Nothing the Obamessiah does should be questioned?

He has long been critical of the "American lifestyle" and capitalism. If you don't understand that, you have not been paying attention.

And, funny, but I heard the race card played a lot by Obama and company during the campaign. I recall the remark HE made about not looking like the Presidents on our currency. I recall the rather insulting remarks Michelle made about FINALLY being proud of her country because a Black person had finally been nominated. Oh, they played that card, all right. It's the old double-standard. We-all can call each other the N word, but you-all better not!

MaresNest, you're a reasonable-sounding person with an apparent willingness to listen to arguments from the other side. Hats off to you! But look at ANY politician with a critical eye, Left, Right or Moderate. You're too smart to swallow all the promises he offers.

There are plenty of politicians. There are very, very few statesmen.

[Guilherme]

The only major, identifiable part of the electorate that voted for Obama because he was of racially mixed background (improperly called "Black") were people of Black or Black racially mixed. You can find the numbers with a Google search; I saw them right after the election. They were impressive.

Most folks voted for him because he is young, handsome, articulate, and was not a Republican. A lot of people voted for lower office candidates for that last reason.

He has been "annointed" by the media and that's a problem for him. If he doesn't deliver then he risks a really big backlash (for a historical example look at the elections of 1946).

G.

[Daydream Believer]

Re: race. Sure, some people voted for Barack because he is black. And some people voted for McCain because Barack is black. Both groups were casting their vote for the wrong reason.

One surefire way to keep 'the race card' in play is to keep bringing up the fact that the President is black. And, honestly, it always seems to be the critics who bring up race. The supporters, even the ones who voted on race themselves, have long since moved on to policies. Please, join us in a substantive discussion of the issues. He's black. He's President. Move on.



Thank You. You put that much better than I did.

[Moderator 1]

Again, please keep the general political commentary out of the thread/off of the board. OT Day tomorrow, so you can have at it then. ;)

Thanks!
Mod 1

[MaresNest]

You skipped the bit about the Wagyu beef and the long-distance delivery of pizza. OK for him, not OK for us, right? Nothing the Obamessiah does should be questioned?

...

And, funny, but I heard the race card played a lot by Obama and company during the campaign. I recall the remark HE made about not looking like the Presidents on our currency. I recall the rather insulting remarks Michelle made about FINALLY being proud of her country because a Black person had finally been nominated. Oh, they played that card, all right. It's the old double-standard. We-all can call each other the N word, but you-all better not!

Hi Beasmom,

I didn't realize that "the Wagyu beef and the long-distance delivery of pizza" were concrete issues. I thought those were akin to "latte drinking, Beamer driving yuppie." That is, illustrations of the kind of person you think he is. This is the first I've ever heard of him actually literally ordering pizza long distance. A quick Google search reveals that some folks on The Free Republic are, in fact, talking about him actually doing it. If it's true, then shame on him. I agree with many of his policies, but I don't think he walks on water.

The same rules should apply to politicians as apply to us 'little people'. However, a politician breaking the rules doesn't mean that the rest of us are free to do it, too. It means that the politician needs to be held more accountable. That's why civilized dissent is patriotic. The opposition's job is to keep those in power honest.

While it's bad to order pizza long distance, I also think that, on the issues I voted on, Obama is doing a good job. Back to the original topic of this thread, I like that he's supporting the new CAFE standards, even if it means that my horse trailer hauling gets more expenisve. (See, Mod1, horse related! :)) I'm confident that these are areas where you and I are going to disagree. :) But I'm glad that you and people like you are working to keep the man honest. On my side of the fence, I remember what an awful, disheartening job that was during the Bush years.

I'm not sure we're going to come to any consensus on the race issue today, but I'll just offer my perspective on the things you mentioned:

1.) the remark HE made about not looking like the Presidents on our currency.

Race was kind of the elephant in the room during the campaign. I think he was trying to diffuse tension (unsuccessfully, it seems). The point was "I know I don't look like traditionally Presidential, but I hope we can put race behind us and you'll vote for me anyway."

On the whole, I think he stayed on the issues. It was the commentators who kept coming back to race, replaying the same things over and over. And in some sense, he was kind of damned if he did (talk about race) and damned if he didn't.

As a white person, I didn't think he was 'playing the race card.' I thought that he was giving race reasonable attention and then getting back to the issues at hand. And that people who disagreed with him about other things were attempting to discredit him by saying that addressing race at all equaled 'playing the race card.'

The fact of the matter is that we do have a very painful history of race relations in this country, and many people are not over it yet. I think it's appropriate to address race as one of many issues. What is not appropriate is to harp on it as though it's the only thing that matters.

I recall the rather insulting remarks Michelle made about FINALLY being proud of her country because a Black person had finally been nominated.

She said this during the primary campaign, so he hadn't been nominated yet. She has clarified the statement many times, and says that what she meant was that she was proud of the grassroots support and the fact that people who don't usually get involved (young people, minorities) were getting involved. I believe her because I agree with her. You may not believe her or agree with her. But I can easily envision myself having the exact same foot-in-mouth moment.

We-all can call each other the N word, but you-all better not!

As neither of the Obamas uses the n-word, I don't think this is germane to the conversation. I'm sure you don't mean to lump all black people together under the umbrella of the bad behavior of gangsta rappers.

He has been "annointed" by the media and that's a problem for him. If he doesn't deliver then he risks a really big backlash (for a historical example look at the elections of 1946).

Guilherme, I think you're very right about this. And I hope that he really fully grasps this and will be goaded by it to truly deliver. For me, these last few months have been encouraging. But we'll just have to keep watching.

[poltroon]

After having a car accident, I want a steel-frame vehicle again. Screw fuel efficency.


Are you basing that on your injuries or on how the car looked afterwards?

In the good old days, cars could survive accidents with just a couple of dents, but the passengers might be killed.

Today, we value the people inside more than the cars, and design them to absorb all the energy of a crash with specially designed frames that crumple in an accident. It's the same concept as a one-use ASTM riding helmet. These cars are made of steel - they're just made to crunch in a predictable way.

Cars today are FAR SAFER than they were in the 70's, due to better engineering.

The mass in today's cars is not about surviving accidents. Indeed, mass creates more force in the accident, and is especially unfortunate in a solo vehicle accident. Intelligent engineering can make cars that are light and very crashworthy (witness formula 1 cars). Mass is added to American vehicles because it has been cheap: for example, manufacturers have used asphalt compounds to add soundproofing because it is cheaper than other forms of sound insulation.

If you look at the accident statistics of larger SUVs and pickups, they don't come out safer than regular cars.

[Sakura]

Back to the original topic of this thread, I like that he's supporting the new CAFE standards, even if it means that my horse trailer hauling gets more expenisve. (See, Mod1, horse related! :)) I'm confident that these are areas where you and I are going to disagree. p watching.

Well... this typical white woman had to cut out horse shows last year due to high gas prices... High gas prices as well as additional cost of... well, basically anything transportation related... will put a serious damper on the enjoyment of my horses... Maybe you can live with it, but many of us are already scrimping to get by and wouldn't mind a little fun/recreation to get our minds off of the real world once in a while.

[MaresNest]

Well... this typical white woman had to cut out horse shows last year due to high gas prices... High gas prices as well as additional cost of... well, basically anything transportation related... will put a serious damper on the enjoyment of my horses... Maybe you can live with it, but many of us are already scrimping to get by and wouldn't mind a little fun/recreation to get our minds off of the real world once in a while.

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to that opinion.

[poltroon]

Well... this typical white woman had to cut out horse shows last year due to high gas prices... High gas prices as well as additional cost of... well, basically anything transportation related... will put a serious damper on the enjoyment of my horses... Maybe you can live with it, but many of us are already scrimping to get by and wouldn't mind a little fun/recreation to get our minds off of the real world once in a while.

Part of the reason that gas prices went so high is because the average fuel economy is so low. Every person who is driving a monster SUV solely to tote groceries and kids is making it more expensive for those of us with hay and plywood and concrete and horses to drive.

People should drive a vehicle that meets their needs. Some of us need the big vehicles. Some of us use the big vehicles to the fullest. But we will all be better off if people who need a comfortable, safe passenger vehicle choose a comfortable safe passenger vehicle, instead of just buying by the pound for the biggest living room they can find.

[AJHorsey]

My best gas mileage comes from the reason for this BB- my horse. Heck, I have to condition him for endurance anyway, why can't I just take him to work, the grocery, etc. ? After all, I want to go green now, right? Yeah, a little manure, some more pasture and grass needed... oh but wait... we need to have all that natural pavement, perfectly mowed grass, etc. You know, that stuff that keeps the world goin' round. (Would we be charged for the gas emissions, though?;))

Seriously, why not use our horses for the local trips? I try to use my bike when I can, but goodness knows, I can talk and get better time on a horse! Would be interesting.... Hmmmm....

[subk]

My best gas mileage comes from the reason for this BB- my horse
Large animals have their own greenhouse gas issue. They are hardly "emissions free."
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15/opinion/ed-methane15

[Buffyblue]

I noticed gas in New Jersey went up about 40 cents a gallon since about 2-3 weeks ago. Is this a special summer price because they think more people will be driving? I drive the same every week no matter what. I take a bus to work 3 days a week, and only drive to the barn and back (barn is 53 miles from home) 4 days a week. I drive a VW Passat. Today I got 39 mpg on the way home. It just seems to me that they (whoever THEY are) can just raise gas prices whenever they please.

P.S. I used to be a Democrat, but I drifted...

[Sakura]

Part of the reason that gas prices went so high is because the average fuel economy is so low. Every person who is driving a monster SUV solely to tote groceries and kids is making it more expensive for those of us with hay and plywood and concrete and horses to drive.

People should drive a vehicle that meets their needs. Some of us need the big vehicles. Some of us use the big vehicles to the fullest. But we will all be better off if people who need a comfortable, safe passenger vehicle choose a comfortable safe passenger vehicle, instead of just buying by the pound for the biggest living room they can find.

It's probably more accurate to say gas prices went up due to speculators AND the fact that less people were driving, got to make up the difference somehow... solution, jack up prices.

[Guilherme]

Guilherme, I think you're very right about this. And I hope that he really fully grasps this and will be goaded by it to truly deliver. For me, these last few months have been encouraging. But we'll just have to keep watching.

I'm not encouraged. The Republicans are stuck in the 1890s (their "Golden Age") and the Democrats are stuck in the 1930s (their "Golden Age"). Neither party is looking forward.

It's said that every military is always ready to fight the last war. The same can be said about political parties. They are always ready to handle yesterday's issues.

To keep this equine related, the increased regulatory activity will negatively inmpact the equine industry. It will happen two ways. Directly, the carbon "cap and trade" system will increase the costs of production of fodder and forage. Water restrictions will likely spead (particularly in Western states) meaning reduced production of irrigated crops (like alfalfa). So you've got a direct "double whammy" of increased production costs and reduced supply.

Indirectly, you've got two possible scenarios, neither of which are very happy.

First, we're staring at some really spookey economic numbers starting next year. If the economy does respond to the massive increase in government spending then hyper inflation is a real threat. Anybody remember the late '70s and early '80s?

Second, if the economy does not respond then you'll see increasing (or maybe just steady) job losses. A high unemployment rate does not bode well for an industry that deals in "luxury goods" on a mass scale. Our equine surplus is bad now; it could get a lot worse.

There is an up-side. The U.S. was rescued from the Great Depression by WWII. It was helped enormously in the '50s and '60s by the massive military spending of the Cold War. We are about to engage in a large scale military adventure in Afghanistan. And the Iranians just test fired (successfully) a long range ballistic missle. A fight with them is not out of the question. So, once again, war may come to our economic rescue.

Something to think about as we remember those who have given the Last Full Measure of Devotion tomorrow.

G.

[Sakura]

Guilherme... a very sobering post.

[BasqueMom]

Gilherme,

Yep, a very sobering post and very much in line what I've been reading on more conservative websites or those that report the whole story and not just part of the story as prime time seems to do these days. I very much remember the late 70's and 80's as
I was newly single, spending my nest egg on finishing my flight training, bought a condo
at 14% interest through the FHA and then had to repay $2500 more to FHA than the
purchase price when I sold a year or two later to relocate. Also remembering waiting in
lines for gasoline to fill up my little Datsun.

Although I've got an empty stall, there are no plans to fill it. We've paid mega bucks for
hay for the last 4 or 5 years and don't see that changing. If something happens to one,
we'll get the remaining one a companion or contemplate boarding again. The price of the
cats' and dogs' food keeps sky rocketing. Price of people food is gonna get real interesting.
Besides all the land being used for growing ethanol (what a rip off that seems to be), much
of the farm land in central California has been denied irrigation this year to save a fish that
likes to throw itself into the blades of the water pumps. I've heard the fish is not even
indignious (spelling?) to California. So 40,000 farm workers are out of work at the moment
and three guesses what that's going to do to food prices?

I ramble--good post, Guilherme!

[JSwan]

Yup. Agreed. Cap and Trade is NOT good for anyone, including horse owners.

I'm not encouraged. The Republicans are stuck in the 1890s (their "Golden Age") and the Democrats are stuck in the 1930s (their "Golden Age"). Neither party is looking forward.

It's said that every military is always ready to fight the last war. The same can be said about political parties. They are always ready to handle yesterday's issues.

To keep this equine related, the increased regulatory activity will negatively inmpact the equine industry. It will happen two ways. Directly, the carbon "cap and trade" system will increase the costs of production of fodder and forage. Water restrictions will likely spead (particularly in Western states) meaning reduced production of irrigated crops (like alfalfa). So you've got a direct "double whammy" of increased production costs and reduced supply.

Indirectly, you've got two possible scenarios, neither of which are very happy.

First, we're staring at some really spookey economic numbers starting next year. If the economy does respond to the massive increase in government spending then hyper inflation is a real threat. Anybody remember the late '70s and early '80s?

Second, if the economy does not respond then you'll see increasing (or maybe just steady) job losses. A high unemployment rate does not bode well for an industry that deals in "luxury goods" on a mass scale. Our equine surplus is bad now; it could get a lot worse.

There is an up-side. The U.S. was rescued from the Great Depression by WWII. It was helped enormously in the '50s and '60s by the massive military spending of the Cold War. We are about to engage in a large scale military adventure in Afghanistan. And the Iranians just test fired (successfully) a long range ballistic missle. A fight with them is not out of the question. So, once again, war may come to our economic rescue.

Something to think about as we remember those who have given the Last Full Measure of Devotion tomorrow.

G.

[Trakehner]

I find your insinuation that I voted for Obama because he is black quite offensive. I voted for him because I felt he was the best person for the job. What a load of racist BS. :no:

Oh please, of course you voted for him because A) he was a raving liberal, B) got rid of a lot of racial guilt and C) he was black and probably made you feel even more liberal.

Over 96% of blacks voted for him, now that was racist voting.

"Best person for the job?" No national experience, no international experience, terrible history of crooked Illinois politics, best buds with anti-US terrorists (Dorn and her hubby Ayers) and a mysterious past with next to no answers except "you're racist if you ask any questions".

Ya' think a non-black with his record would ever have been in the running? No way.

[Beasmom]

Thank you for saying that, Trak!

Correct on all points!

[Larksmom]

I'm curious why you chalk global warming up as junk science. I've studied it a fair bit (minored in Envi Sci in college) and have found that the overwhelming majority of scientists are on the same page on this issue: that global warming is occurring and significantly contributed to by human activities. The only people I have ever really heard refute those concepts are folks who oppose the environmental movement politically.

I wonder whom did you study under? Believers in Global Warming? the problem most of us have with it is people like AlGore who WILL NOT DEBATE the issue. He says those of us who do not believe are flat earthers. Someone else threw out the CAFE study about deaths in smaller cars, because he/she didn't much like the results. Some of you guys DO want to regulate what the rest of us drive and eat, and where we live, and there is the CONSTANT comparison to Europe. GET OVER IT. Remember there are more people trying to get in here from there.
And as far as energy renuable and not, how much land do we need for a city the size of Tuscon, [or Kansas City], to run on solar? I read recently, [granted it was in a conservative rag so the greenies can discount it,] it would take about 6000 acres covered with solar panels. I honestly can't remember, it might have been 60,000. the land would have to be bulldozed, and the panels would have to be frequently washed down in the desert. Everyone talks up wind power but we kill too many birds so the windmills sit silent. We all know all the greenies who live near Nantucket and are righteously indignant over a nuclear power plant or even clean coal, but they don't want dams or water powered plants because they would spoil the view? I would be willing to discuss any of these but except for right here there IS no discussion.
Hope that wasn't too snarky

[Beasmom]

Careful Larksmom! you must mention horses or something horse related, at least till tomorrow!

When Obama visited Denver recently, he was taken on a tour of the solar panels installed on the roof of the Museum of Nature and Science. I don't have all the figures, but the solar panels will not pay for themselves in terms of energy saved for over 100 YEARS. And in 20 or so years, the panels will have to be replaced, as they become less efficient over time. So these panels will cost even MORE and benefits will be practically nil, when spread over 100 years.

I've seen passive solar work very well in riding barns as a means to heat. In some cases, it wasn't even planned. On a sunny winter day, riding along the southern wall of our indoor feels pleasant. So solar has its place. The book i mentioned earlier, "Physics for Future Presidents", cites a solar-powered electric plant in Seville that produces 11 megawatts of power. Why doesn't the rest of the world build such a plant? Cost.

The author, Richard Muller, writes that the electricity from this Seville plant costs 28 cents per kilowatt -hour. A plant powered by fossil fuels produces a kilowatt-hour for 10 cents. The Spanish government built this plant to meet the requirements under the Kyoto Protocol that limits CO2 emissions.

The problem with blaming CO2 for global warming is, global warming has occurred in the past with no human involvement. There is data that indicates that CO2 rises BECAUSE of Global Warming, not the other way around.

The fact that Al Gore will not debate the issue is fishy. It's the new religion of the Left. We are not to question the dogma when AlGore speaks ex cathedra.

[MaresNest]

Hmm, oh dear. The thread heats up again right as I have to go back to work and school for the week... Sadly, we don't all get Memorial Day off.

Guilherme, I understand that there will be changes made for the sake of the environment that make life harder for some people. Since I am a horse person with a big truck, it may make life harder for me personally. All I'm saying is that I think that a cleaner, cooler planet is worth the trouble. My priorities are different from yours, perhaps. But if enough other people think it's worth it, too, the changes will be made. Part of living in a democracy is that sometimes you're going to be overruled. (God knows I was overruled a lot during the Bush years.) Democracy allows us all to get our say, but doesn't allow us to all get our way.

I can't get on board with the idea that war is the only thing likely to bring us out of the crisis that we are in. Indeed, we are starting to see small glimmers of hope already. Real estate is starting to turn around in some markets. The banks are beginning to stabilize and lend again. We are, by no means, out of the woods, but I believe we can get out of this without a war. It doesn't have to be like the Great Depression.

But, of course, the sad truth is that we may go to war in yet another country. I just don't see it as a solution. I see it as one more failure. Better for American horse people to have to cut back than for Afghani or Irani or (God especially forbid) American civilians to lose their lives to a war. That is a whole other class of pain than even the worst case scenario that the new CAFE standards could bring.

Larksmom, I minored in Envi Sci at UVa, which - when I was there - was the #1 public university in the country. Now, minoring in something doesn't make a person an expert. But it does give me a relatively advanced layman's knowledge and familiarity that most people don't have. Yes, the professors I studied under believed that global warming is real. You would be hard pressed to find a science professor at a major university that doesn't. Muller (who Beasmom mentioned) and John Christy (University of Alabama) are the only ones I can think of. And I'm sure they're two decent, respectable people. And, who knows... in 50 years, we may find out that the two of them were right all along. But we've got over 40 years of data showing atmospheric carbon and global temperature rising concurrently, and the vast majority of scientists believe that CO2 and methane are the reason. We've got ice cores from Antarctica showing that atmospheric carbon and global temperatures are rising at a historic rate.

Because I had the opportunity to study this in college, I'm familiar with the data, and I am inclined to side with the people who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff, rather than the pundits I hear on TV poo-pooing the data because they don't like the economic ramifications of it. Sure, it's bad news that we've got to address global warming. It's going to be hard. But that doesn't mean it's okay to do nothing. In my opinion, it's irresponsible to just close our eyes and hope that the scientific community is wrong.

Beasmom, I agree with you about passive solar. My South facing house with wide porches makes good use of passive solar. It's a hundred year old farm cottage. Not all of this 'green' stuff is new. In fact, plenty of it is not. When I was a kid, my mom had a windmill on her farm. It powered the lights in one of the barns. When I have the money, I would love to put solar panels on my roof. In addition to the environmental benefits of non-fossil fuel power, I also like the idea of being self sufficient / being able to be 'off the grid.' Yes, 'alternative' energy is expensive now. But the more common it becomes, the cheaper it will get.

You're also right that there have been other periods of warming/increasing atmospheric carbon in geologic history. Unfortunately, at least three were associated with mass extinctions (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2726751.ece). (Paleocene-Eocene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum), Triassic-Jurassic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic-Jurassic_extinction_event), and Permian-Triassic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event), which is the worst mass extinction the planet has ever experienced) So, of course, that's something we'd like to avoid. Also, most of the warming periods in geologic history can be traced to either crazy massive volcanic eruptions (a la the Atlantic mid ocean ridge) or asteroid impacts, neither of which have occurred recently. (Thank God!)

I suppose I've made it abundantly clear over the course of this thread that I do believe that global warming is significantly influenced by human activities. But assume for a moment that it's not. Even if it's not our fault, it's still dangerous. And we still have the power to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we didn't 'break' the atmosphere, we can still take steps to at least partially fix it.

[bumknees]

Acually we are a Republic not a Democracy. Democracy in very laymans terms = mob rule where as a Republic esp a Repesentive Republic as we are set up to be is we elect repesentives to 'vote'/ repesent our wishes. but to bad the concept has been lost when our repesentives ( on both sides of the fence) decided somewhere along the line to rule by feelings and emotions. Ie Well I feel this would be a good idea. Instead of Here is the proof this would be a good idea.


The only 'hope and change' I can hope for is that nobamas 'changes' do not regulate all of us in the horse world out of the horse world. I also hope that history holds true in the next presidential election if so he will be a one hit wonder...

[rcloisonne]

I think those of us who voted for Obama are pleased so far. ;)

No, I don't believe in global warming as presented by the Gores of the world. Ever read, STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichton? Not one of his better stories but the facts presented are eye opening. I had completely dismissed the anti-environment crap spewed forth by Shrub, Cheney and the rest of the Axis of Oil mongers as self serving propaganda. Crickton opened my eyes and mind a bit.

As far as those with farms needing larger vehicles to haul horses, hay and whatnot, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. However, I live in a very congested part of the country and drive (a Civic) between four highly populated cites daily. Why is every other vehicle (at least) an eight cylinder SUV or a large pickup truck with one person in it? This has nothing to do with "need" and everything to do with conspicuous consumption. It's a complete waste of nonrenewable resources, never mind needless air pollution.

Don't get me started about the "greenies" (aka hypocrites) on Cape Cod and the Islands...

[Sakura]

I think those of us who voted for Obama are pleased so far. ;)

No, I don't believe in global warming as presented by the Gores of the world. Ever read, STATE OF FEAR by Michael Crichton? Not one of his better stories but the facts presented are eye opening. I had completely dismissed the anti-environment crap spewed forth by Shrub, Cheney and the rest of the Axis of Oil mongers as self serving propaganda. Crickton opened my eyes and mind a bit.

As far as those with farms needing larger vehicles to haul horses, hay and whatnot, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. However, I live in a very congested part of the country and drive (a Civic) between four highly populated cites daily. Why is every other vehicle (at least) an eight cylinder SUV or a large pickup truck with one person in it? This has nothing to do with "need" and everything to do with conspicuous consumption. It's a complete waste of nonrenewable resources, never mind needless air pollution.

Don't get me started about the "greenies" (aka hypocrites) on Cape Cod and the Islands...

Well... You have to look at it this way too... many people can't afford two vehicles... so what do they do? They buy the one that they can do the most stuff with. We have two vehicles... I have a GMC Sierra and my husband has a Chrysler Sebring. Hubby drives to the commuter lot during the week (some 25 miles one way, so he takes the Sebring)... I use the truck to run errands... some horsey some not horsey... but we live 20-30 miles from any kind of decent sized town/city... so there's not a lot we can do about cutting corners.

I'm all for public transport... Heck I lived in Tokyo for almost four years... took the train everywhere... Shinjuku station alone services 8 million people/day and even with the majority of commuters in Tokyo taking the JR breathing the air in down town Tokyo is still equivalant to smoking more than a pack of cigerets a day :dead:.

[Sakura]

Oh please, of course you voted for him because A) he was a raving liberal, B) got rid of a lot of racial guilt and C) he was black and probably made you feel even more liberal.

Over 96% of blacks voted for him, now that was racist voting.

"Best person for the job?" No national experience, no international experience, terrible history of crooked Illinois politics, best buds with anti-US terrorists (Dorn and her hubby Ayers) and a mysterious past with next to no answers except "you're racist if you ask any questions".

Ya' think a non-black with his record would ever have been in the running? No way.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[Guilherme]

I really do hope I'm wrong and this all works out for the best. But the facts don't completely support my hopes and beliefs. History is not on the side of the current Administration. At least not yet.

If anything pulls us out of this very difficult situation it will be innovation and determination of the American People. Yet those qualities can be thwarted by regulation. Not all regulation is bad, but neither is all regulation good. Any time government regulates an activity it creates winners and loosers. That's why lobbyists make Big Bucks (shaping regulation at either the legislative or executive level to favor their clients).

Times for equine industry are just going to get tougher for the reasons already noted.

This morning I heard an economist opine that as soon as any significant recovery occurs that oil prices will go to $100/barrel+. He bases this not on the OPEC ability to limit production but rather the costs of extraction from shale, deep ocean water, etc. It's going to cost that much to get it so that's what people will have to pay. In his opinion this means much less globalization (costs of transport, particularly for bulk goods, will be too high). It means likely conversion of subdivisions back into agricultural production. It means much higher urban densities. I don't agree with all his analysis, but he makes some strong points.

At the end of the day it's not what we think but what the facts are.

G.

[Huntertwo]

Oh please, of course you voted for him because A) he was a raving liberal, B) got rid of a lot of racial guilt and C) he was black and probably made you feel even more liberal.

Over 96% of blacks voted for him, now that was racist voting.

"Best person for the job?" No national experience, no international experience, terrible history of crooked Illinois politics, best buds with anti-US terrorists (Dorn and her hubby Ayers) and a mysterious past with next to no answers except "you're racist if you ask any questions".

Ya' think a non-black with his record would ever have been in the running? No way.

Oh, you are so right.

Yet they crucified Sarah Palin who was a Mayor and then the Governor of the state of Alaska for her inexperience. :no:

[MaresNest]

Acually we are a Republic not a Democracy. Democracy in very laymans terms = mob rule where as a Republic esp a Repesentive Republic as we are set up to be is we elect repesentives to 'vote'/ repesent our wishes.

You're right. We are a Republic. My bad for the colloquialism. But our Republic practices representative democracy (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500781/united_states_government.html). Copied from dictionary.com:

Main Entry: representative democracy
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives

However, as you pointed out, that is awfully similar to the definition of a simple republic:

Definitions of 'republic' (noun)

2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

I think the only distinction is that a representative democracy is unequivocal about all citizens being in charge. (All that 'of the people, by the people, for the people' stuff.) In a republic, there's some wiggle room in that the voting power rests with a body of citizens. That could mean all citizens, or it could mean a subset. In this country (in modern times), we pride ourselves on letting everyone have their say.

[bumknees]

Your right.. And rereading the way I posted above it sounded snippy and it was not ment that way... just informative not snippy.. please forgive...

Guilherme what I ment by history was voting history.. With few exceptions since the beginning of this countries elections it generally goes like this. liberal ( no matter what party name is/was) voted in for 1 term consertive ( again no matter waht hte party name is/was) is normally voted in for 2 consecutive terms. the few exceptions are back in the just after the revoutionary war as we were still 'setting' up what was what etc. But in recient history ( last centuary or so) FDr, JFK, Clinton, Regan/Bush. So when I say hope history holds I am talking nobama will be a one term president so in 2012 we can fix what he screwed up...

[ESG]

He has been "annointed" by the media and that's a problem for him. If he doesn't deliver then he risks a really big backlash (for a historical example look at the elections of 1946).

G.

He's already stepping on his wingwang to the point that even the left wing media are noticing. Stay tuned. 'Twon't be long. :p

[Beasmom]

Mare's nest, the three mass extinctions were obviously not influenced by human activity. They were wholly natural occurrences that nothing could have stopped. A good thing, too, or humans might not have come into being -- or maybe we'd have to take the family Triceratops for a walk. We might be betting on Velociraptors instead of horses in the Jurassic Derby. (Trying like mad to keep this horse-related!)

Oh, and another thing: Without the massive die-off, we wouldn't have the oil we make such good use of today.

Species come and species go. it's the way thing are and always have been. We may go extinct, too, eventually. Who knows? And when we're gone, who's left to care? We need to get over ourselves and the idea that "we're destroying the planet". The planet scrubs itself clean from time to time. We are mites on the mole on a giant's butt.

If you care to, Google "Scientists against Global Warming Theory". Among the items, you will find this:

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting- global-warming-theory-be-named-monday - 448k

So you see, not every scientist is on board with this idea.

Note it's Global Warming THEORY. If it were "law", as in the laws of gravity, it would be silly to be opposed to it. As a theory, it is unproved, and I believe, unprovable. It has more to do with the things we cannot control; the Sun, the oceans, the seasons, than it has to do with human activity.

Conservation and sensible pollution control is just good sense. Why pollute your environment if there's a reasonable alternative? Why pile garbage in the back yard when there's a trash service to take it away, for instance? My split with the greenies is they are alarmists and use imagined crises to try to get everyone on board with what they percieve as the "right" way to live. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" is how Rahm Emmanuel (I think) put the Obama Administration's attitude towards the economic "crisis". I think the same goes for the perception of Global Warming.

A word on fuel prices. OPEC controls the flow of oil to the rest of the world, mostly. When the price goes too high, oil producers here begin to contemplate developing our own resources. When that "threat" becomes too great to OPEC, they drop the price of oil. They do NOT want us to develop our apparently vast oil resources -- not good business for them. Our oil reserves will likely not be developed until it is financially feasible to do so. So why not use up the Middle Eastern oil reserves first, and then drill into our own reserves.

In the meantime, those of us who want to haul our horses to shows, trail rides, camping and whatnot, will pay whatever the going rate for a gallon of gas is -- or stay home. Or trailerpool. Or, God forbid, sell the horses.

I welcome your thoughtful responses and hope you will find time to continue to post on this subject.

[Sakura]

Beasmom... Bravo!

[LarkspurCO]

Oh, and another thing: Without the massive die-off, we wouldn't have the oil we make such good use of today.

Recent evidence has called into question whether fossil fuels are actually fossil fuels at all, with some speculation that they may be abundantly renewable by the earth itself. Scientists recently discovered carbon "stuff" (will have to look up the exact substance) venting out of the earth's mantle (technical term).

The planet scrubs itself clean from time to time. We are mites on the mole on a giant's butt.

Or are we possibly the fungi on the mites' butts?:lol:

[Larksmom]

For letting us continue this discussion, and all parties for keeping it civil! I know it seems off topic, but it really isn't. These things are going to seriously impact the economy and therefore impact how many horses we can afford. Already the economy failures are rippling thru the eventing and probably horse show entires as well. Again thanks mods!

[Beasmom]

Larkspur wrote:

Recent evidence has called into question whether fossil fuels are actually fossil fuels at all, with some speculation that they may be abundantly renewable by the earth itself. Scientists recently discovered carbon "stuff" (will have to look up the exact substance) venting out of the earth's mantle (technical term).

COOL!

[LarkspurCO]

Here's the source on that abiotic oil.





Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991)

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.

The lead scientist on the study ? Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

[feather river]

F

As someone at another site said, at this rate, those of us who need a large truck are pretty soon going to have to have special license and apply and prove that we NEED it. And those who have just one horse and do hunter shows--wait'll you hear the government asking you why you can't just get one of those Euro-designed Brenderups that you can pull with a Volvo....

Oh No, another Brenderup dealer running ads! I thought we kept those folks on their own thread.:eek:

[bumknees]

Intresitng larkspurCo. from the blurb you quoted ( and I will read the entire article in a bit) it made me think of several conversations I have had over the last oh decade or so with people irl. though not nearly as educated as thsoe who have posted to this thread with the degrees etc I have always said that ( using the premiss that oil is a fossel fuel) that it does renew iteslf becuse things are still dieing. dead things make the 'fossels' that oil comes from and it will continue to renew itself until things stop dieing on this planet. the people I have said this to couldnt grasp the idea for some reason. I guess assuming the study is correct that in my uneducated brain I was able to grashp the elementry concept that it (oil) is self renewable...

[JSwan]

I think we all need to keep this in perspective.

We're not going to destroy the earth. Nothing we can do will destroy the earth.

We're going to destroy ourselves.

Earth will get along just fine without us. ;)

[Beasmom]

Right!

[Huntertwo]

I think we all need to keep this in perspective.

We're not going to destroy the earth. Nothing we can do will destroy the earth.

We're going to destroy ourselves.

Earth will get along just fine without us. ;)

Totally agree. :)

[Sakura]

I think we all need to keep this in perspective.

We're not going to destroy the earth. Nothing we can do will destroy the earth.

We're going to destroy ourselves.

Earth will get along just fine without us. ;)

We are but a blip on the radar.

[MaresNest]

Your right.. And rereading the way I posted above it sounded snippy and it was not ment that way... just informative not snippy.. please forgive...

Hi bumknees,

No worries, and thanks very much for the kind and constructive tone!



Hi Beasmom,

Would I be right in saying that you're taking a sort of 'let come what may' and 'let the strong survive' attitude? I do understand your logic. I just would rather avoid extinctions and large scale climate change if possible. I mean, we could be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow, but why not milk the good thing we've got for as long as we can?

I do realize that the previous extinctions were obviously unrelated to human activity. What I was attempting to point out was that they were related to increased carbon and increased global temperatures. And that human activity is widely believed to be causing increased carbon and increased global temperatures. So, humans may be - in effect - playing the part of the massive volcano or asteroid. That's all I was trying to say in bringing up the historical mass extinctions.

I truly do want to hear the other side's theories. (Otherwise, I'd've quit posting to this thread along time ago. :)) I'm particularly interested in your guy Muller saying that temperature is the causative agent of increased atmospheric carbon. I don't understand how that could possibly be, but I want to read his book, because if he's right, that's even more horrifying than the carbon being the causative agent. Basically what that would mean is not that global warming isn't happening, but rather that it's happening and we don't have any known way to combat it. I'm skeptical that he could be right, but I'd like to read his theory and responses to it by other scientists. I'm going to try to find the book.

Re: theories and laws. Hmm, this may be obnoxious... I honestly hope not... I minored in Envi Sci, and I majored in Astronomy. The idea that gravity is a law is actually colloquialism. Much like the idea that the US is a democracy, when it is in fact a republic that practices representative democracy. (See my slip-up somewhere around page 9-ish.)

Gravity is a theory. (http://www.physorg.com/news85310822.html) A very long lived theory that works quite well at its job of explaining why apples fall DOWN out of trees. But it's a theory, not a law. In fact, high level astrophysicists will tell you it's not even a particularly good theory (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html). What we know as the force of gravity is now thought not to really be a force at all, but rather a symptom of the curvature of the universe. Some physicists are beginning to place it in the same category of 'fake forces' that centrifugal force is relegated to. That is, it's observable and assuming that it's real allows you to make helpful calculations, but actually it's just a symptom of an underlying structure.

I only mention this because it illustrates the fact that, in science, saying something is a theory does not discredit it. The theory of global warming is in good company alongside the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of relativity, atomic theory, and myriad others.

It's also important to note that theories remain theories. They can only be disproven, never proven. They don't evolve into laws as enough evidence is accumulated. Laws are another thing altogether. They are generally very narrowly defined, and often reducible to equations. Theories explain bigger things, encompass more variables, and are subject to change as more data is gathered. By some counts, there are only 18 laws in all of science.


Conservation and sensible pollution control is just good sense. Why pollute your environment if there's a reasonable alternative?

...

My split with the greenies is they are alarmists and use imagined crises to try to get everyone on board with what they percieve as the "right" way to live.

We are definitely in agreement on the idea of conserving resources and keeping pollution to a minimum. Ah, consensus. :)

Have you considered that perhaps not all greenies are alarmists trying to use "imagined crises" to control others? Would you not agree that at least some people in the environmental movement might have actually looked at the evidence and decided that the threat is real? Set aside Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi for a minute. We agree that their huge mansions and jet setting ways are hypocritical. I'm just trying to point out that the loudest voices in a movement are sometimes just that. The loudest voices. Not the most representative ones.

Also, I think anytime we get into 'us' and 'them' relationships ('us horse people' vs. 'them greenies', for example), communication and understanding breaks down significantly. And things don't get fixed when we retreat into our own communities and write off the other side as irrational freaks who will never understand the way things really are. None of us has a monopoly on the truth, and dialogue is a great way to learn and solve problems.

We are all in different places (literally and figuratively), and so we all see the world from different angles. Every angle is important, and - taken by itself - every angle is also an incomplete representation of reality. I think of it this way sometimes: A clear glass of water is suspended in the middle of a room with two guys looking at it. One guy is directly below it, and the other guy is off to the side of it. The guy who is directly below it can only see a clear circle. He has no idea that it's a glass or that there is water in it. The guy looking at it from the side can only see a rectangle with a line of water. He has no idea that the glass is round. If the two of them don't talk to each other, neither can have a good understanding of the reality of the glass. If they do talk together, their picture of reality improves drastically. If the two of them then get together with a third guy who is able to touch the glass and tell them that it's cold, they then have an even better picture of the reality. I'm sure you've got my drift.

JSwan, you're right. The planet will keep on going without us. We are talking about destroying ourselves. And lots of animals. Being an animal person, that's what gets me as much as anything... all the other creatures that we are potentially putting in harm's way. But you're absolutely right. The planet will go on. The movement has just united under the 'save the planet' flag because it's more concrete than 'save the creatures.' Less correct, though.

Ha, and thaaat's my dinner break. :) Back to work now. Thanks for the dialogue, Everybody. Truly.

[lauriep]

Oh, you are so right.

Yet they crucified Sarah Palin who was a Mayor and then the Governor of the state of Alaska for her inexperience. :no:

No, they crucified her for her inability to answer even the most basic public affairs questions posed by several interviewers.

[Huntertwo]

No, they crucified her for her inability to answer even the most basic public affairs questions posed by several interviewers.

No they crucified her because they were afraid of her. ;)

Which questions would those happen to be? Are you referring the the Bush Doctrine which was a trick question, since it could have meant several different things.

[Beasmom]

Wow MaresNest, that's a loooong post. I'll do my best to give you thoughtful answers and hope some don't fall through the cracks in my brain.

First of all, there are things we cannot control. Like killer blizzards, sun spots, the births of stars and the changing of the Earth's seasons. Major climate changes, such as the ones you cited, could not have been turned off their courses if humans had been around. If we are in for another major climate change, the best we can do is adapt -- but we cannot stop it. Our activity is piddling compared to the forces of nature.

Secondly, please do read Muller's book. He picks apart Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" pretty nicely. I recommend it to everyone who's participated in this thread. Many climate scientists believe that global warming CREATES higher levels of CO2, not the reverse. I have stated this before. Glaciers and ice caps advance and retreat -- it's a cyclical thing. Don't worry, as the climate cools down, CO2 drops too. Cyclical.

I'd be happy to send you my copy when I'm done.

We are NOT in control of asteroids and volcanoes. Is this what they're teaching you young'uns in school nowadays? (Kidding, just kidding!) But seriously, how can you, an obviously intelligent person, swallow that idea?

I watched a TV show (probably on Discover) a few years ago about the gigantic dormant volcano that lies under parts of Wyoming, around Yellowstone. Scientists interviewed on this show believe this enormous thing could erupt with enough force to likely kill all life in the Northern Hemisphere. (I'm going from memory here, so cut me a break if I'm off a tad.) Anyway, the upshot is, their predicted eruption would surpass anything we humans have seen before and would be catastrophic. And there'd not a damn thing we can to about it. It could happen tomorrow. Or never. Do I lie awake at night worrying about it? No. The tremendous national debt worries me more. On the other hand, if we're all killed tomorrow because of a giant Wyoming Volcano, hey, no problem!

Good points, all on the nature of theories. Thank you for that. Well, all right, but for now, gravity (or something) keeps us stuck to the ground. When I was a child, and dinosaurs roamed the earth, we called it the "law" of gravity. But then, we called "Earth Sciences" "Ecology" in those dark days.

I'm sure not all "greenies" are alarmists, but the most vocal ones, ane the most militant ones sure seem to be. I can't get into a conversation about Global Warming without discounting its biggest, most vocal and visible proponent -- Al Gore. Find a real scientist as a spokesman if you want to be taken seriously. Mr. Gore's movie intentionally skewed data to make his point. And actions speak louder than words. So if your goal is to promote a "green" lifestyle -- practice it, don't just preach it. (Understand I'm not talking YOU, you, but the "you" who is Al Gore, Pelosi, etc.) Oh, and he's poised to make a fortune on these stupid carbon credit things. What a crock. Create a crisis, then create the salve to soothe your worried conscience.

Now, when you get into the discussion of what is truth, and who has the monopoly on it, we may run into trouble. I believe in God, a Being who put all this world we know and the universe that surrounds it, into play. I think it took a teensy bit longer than 6000 years though.(!) I believe there is something called "Evolution", but I think it was based on an intelligent design. I think there are explanations for all things, but we may not get all the answers, no matter how long we search. If we're lucky, we'll get the answers when we're in the presence of God.

Truth in human terms, is often defined by where we stand on the continuum of beliefs. I hope this makes sense. Let's imagine, for instance, that the political continuum goes from Left to Right, with Communism at the farthest left, and Facism on the Right. In reality, this would be more line a circle, with Communism and Fascism running into each other at the bottom of the circle, because after all, both are totalitarian states, and "Nazi" was an acronym for "National Socialism" So they're damn near the same thing. People who are "Moderate" stand in the middle of our continuum. Most of us view ourselves as reasonable, rational people, and would place ourselves only slightly to the right or left of dead center.

However, take the viewpoint of someone who is, say, a Capitalist, an Entrepreneur, who values freedom in a society to pursue his goals. He will look at a Socialist on the other side of the continuum with disfavor, even apprehension, as a person who would take away his hard-earned gains in taxes, trade restrictions and prohibitive laws. The Socialist looks at the Entrpreneur and sees a greedy, grasping, selfish person who should be GLAD to hand over his money for the good of the hive.

Who's got the truth? This is my own way of explaining the two guys in the room with that glass of water. And, as if you couldn't tell, I'd be siding with the Capitalist.

In the end, I still must reject the "truth" of the Global Warming Theory. From my perspective, it is a falsehood, supported by questionable "data" and bad science. This is what happens when conclusion goes off in search of a reason. "The earth is warming and it's all our fault -- let's go prove it!"

So what if we are exterminated -- whether by a big volcano or an asteroid or God using this orb as a soccer ball? So what if a bunch of other creatures gets wiped out with us? We'll be gone. No one left to care. Doesn't matter. End of story. Someone or something else may emerge as the new life form. Perhaps they will dig up our bones and speculate on our lives and what happened to us, as we do with dinosaur bones today.

The problem with many of the eco-centrics is, they see humankind as the strongest force in the universe, and therefore the most destructive... or beneficial. In fact, we are neither. We are just here, and just as much a part of the natural world as trees and deer and horses and birds and bugs. The best we can do is do the best we can while we're here. I will not be stampeded into a panic about something that probably will not happen, and if it does happen, cannot be controlled anyway. Like that Wyoming volcano.

What's the benefit of trading in our incandescent bulbs that provide excellent light for the CFL bulbs that cast poor light and contain dangerous levels of mercury? Ye gods, when you drop one of those babies, you have to don the Hazmat suit and treat the room like a Superfund site. Why fix what ain't broke?

Why drive an E-85 Hybrid, when production of that gallon of E-85 uses up far more fuel to produce it? I have no problem with concentrating on technologies to make the internal-combustion engine burn cleaner, but don't throw the internal-combustion baby out with the bathwater.

It's the Greenies who are convinced we are destroying the earth and consequently ourselves. I just don't see it that way. Most of the Greens would be happy if all the humans died anyway, but that means them, too, so they wouldn't be around to see that Paradise. I worry more about threats from Muslim extremists, whether my parents are doing all right, and how much rain we got at the ranch. Global Warming doesn't show up on my radar unless i get into an exchange like this.

Did I cover everything? Time for ME to eat something...

[JSwan]

Animals will be fine too. They will go on - some will go extinct, others will adapt and thrive. The way they have done for age after age. When humans abandon a place - nature quickly fills it with its own abundance.

I disagree that there is a "movement". There isn't one - not really. It's all smoke and mirrors. One does not need to believe in human assisted climate change at all. One need only recognize that any type of consumption produces by products - almost all of which are undesirable or toxic. That humans appear incapable of limiting our numbers. That we all demand an extraordinarily high standard of living - that is unsustainable - more so because the entire world wishes to have that same standard.

We can argue about which power source is best until we are all blue in the face. The truth is - no power source is without drawbacks - including high levels of toxic waste. Wind power negatively affects bird populations. Solar power is great but manufacture and disposal produce hazmat. There is no such thing as "clean" coal. On and on and on.....

A 4000sq ft "green" home isn't green. It's a gigantic home that requires large amounts of power to heat and cool, it produces large amounts of trash, such homes require enormous amounts of infrastructure to support, including roads, schools, landfills, and more and more power - including water.

If a person drives a 3500 6 times a month and keeps the vehicle 15 years - that may be more "green" than buying a Prius, driving it everywhere, and changing the battery twice in 10 years. But the Prius drive will prattle on about how "green" they are. It's bull.

Keeping a horse for pleasure - there is nothing "green" about it. Not these days. None of us needs a horse - it is a complete waste of resources.

If you want to be "green", the only way to do that is limit the human population - and that is the one topic that is completely off limits.

The only other way for humans to reduce the impact on their environment is to STOP CONSUMING RESOURCES.

And honestly - this means living like we did 60-70 years ago. Take a random poll and see how many people want to live in a 800 sq foot house, dry their laundry on the line, own only one vehicle for the entire family, one tv - maybe - have a vegetable garden, and walk or ride their bike to visit with friends. Maybe not having a/c, the house heated to maybe 62-65 degrees, no shopping at malls, no tanning salons - you get a tan by playing outside 12 hours a day.

Earth doesn't need to be saved - Earth will do just fine without us. WE need to be saved from ourselves - but no one appears willing to change their standard of living. Forced change in the form of "green" energy won't work - because it's not really green. We're still overconsuming - but we feel better about it. And now "green" is a new marketing scheme and political tool. So - more consumption and more politics. Yeah - we're really going to save the earth that way.

Call me cynical but that's the way I see it. I see a lot of folks prating about being "green" - but they're about as "green" as I am a Hollywood starlet.

Back when I was working, I sat in on a big meeting where this guy was announcing this huge partnership with a large company to "save the birds". Two hours into his presentation - which was about marketing efforts, an "awareness" campaign, how much money was coming in, how many computers could be bought.... I snapped. I said, "How long till you see an increase in the bird population??"

Silence. You see - that's what we were there for. We were there to "save the birds". Instead - we got marketing and leveraging and "awareness".

It's all bullsh**. And you know what? We were talking tens of millions of dollars - and less than 15 years later... the one species I was most concerned about will be extinct in a few years.

So much for "saving the birds". But it was one hell of an awareness campaign.












JSwan, you're right. The planet will keep on going without us. We are talking about destroying ourselves. And lots of animals. Being an animal person, that's what gets me as much as anything... all the other creatures that we are potentially putting in harm's way. But you're absolutely right. The planet will go on. The movement has just united under the 'save the planet' flag because it's more concrete than 'save the creatures.' Less correct, though.

Ha, and thaaat's my dinner break. :) Back to work now. Thanks for the dialogue, Everybody. Truly.

[MaresNest]

Wow MaresNest, that's a loooong post. I'll do my best to give you thoughtful answers and hope some don't fall through the cracks in my brain.

Hello, Pot. I'm Kettle. ;) Ha, seriously though, I'll try to be briefer this time. But no promises.

Major climate changes, such as the ones you cited, could not have been turned off their courses if humans had been around.

...

We are NOT in control of asteroids and volcanoes. Is this what they're teaching you young'uns in school nowadays? (Kidding, just kidding!) But seriously, how can you, an obviously intelligent person, swallow that idea?

Ha, wow. That's not what I meant at all. :) I was saying that our actions cause increased carbon in the atmosphere, and asteroids and volcanoes do too. So our behavior mimics the effects of an asteroid or volcano. Never fear, you and I are in agreement that asteroids and volcanoes are firmly out of the realm of human control, and that it would be preposterous to try to convince anyone otherwise.

And, as you pointed out, we certainly could experience an asteroid impact or volcano (hopefully not without advance notice, though you never know - the Earth is big, and the sky is bigger) in the forseeable future. Then we'd be completely screwed, and global warming would be a moot point. However, I don't think that means that we shouldn't try to clean up our mess anyway.

Find a real scientist as a spokesman if you want to be taken seriously.

Your logic is sound, but one has to remember that scientists want to be out in the field doing science. You don't see real scientists acting as spokesmen for much of anything. I mean, there's Dr. Oz... does he count as a real scientist? Probably not. And he's not even a spokesman for anything controversial, anyway. Steven Hawking and Brian Greene have written some popular science books, but they don't get involved in politics, either. Scientists generally just want to do science and be left alone. And they are particularly unenthusiastic ("shy" is probably not too strong a word) about interjecting themselves into highly political movements. Politicians, on the other hand, are all too happy to thrust themselves into the spotlight and pass themselves off as 'experts.' :no:

Truth in human terms, is often defined by where we stand on the continuum of beliefs. I hope this makes sense. Let's imagine, for instance, that the political continuum goes from Left to Right, with Communism at the farthest left, and Facism on the Right. In reality, this would be more line a circle, with Communism and Fascism running into each other at the bottom of the circle, because after all, both are totalitarian states, and "Nazi" was an acronym for "National Socialism" So they're damn near the same thing. People who are "Moderate" stand in the middle of our continuum. Most of us view ourselves as reasonable, rational people, and would place ourselves only slightly to the right or left of dead center.

However, take the viewpoint of someone who is, say, a Capitalist, an Entrepreneur, who values freedom in a society to pursue his goals. He will look at a Socialist on the other side of the continuum with disfavor, even apprehension, as a person who would take away his hard-earned gains in taxes, trade restrictions and prohibitive laws. The Socialist looks at the Entrpreneur and sees a greedy, grasping, selfish person who should be GLAD to hand over his money for the good of the hive.

I think you've explained this well. Of course, I don't necessarily agree with your use of the term 'hive' ;) , but I agree with what you're saying overall.

So what if we are exterminated -- whether by a big volcano or an asteroid or God using this orb as a soccer ball? So what if a bunch of other creatures gets wiped out with us?

Ha, well, I can be sort of at peace with us dooming ourselves. I can't get comfortable with us dooming other creatures, though. Particularly since we're talking about slow deaths... polar bears drowning, for just one example. I, too, believe in God. And I believe that we are meant to be stewards of His Creation. I don't believe that we are, at present, fulfilling that role as well as we should.

The best we can do is do the best we can while we're here.

Agreed. But we're not seeing eye to eye about what, exactly, 'the best we can' means.

What's the benefit of trading in our incandescent bulbs that provide excellent light for the CFL bulbs that cast poor light and contain dangerous levels of mercury? Ye gods, when you drop one of those babies, you have to don the Hazmat suit and treat the room like a Superfund site.

I'll fess up to being a light snob. I don't particularly care what other folks use, but I really like CFL's. Mostly because they last a loooong time and lower my electric bill a little. And the daylight balanced ones are really bright and as flattering to skin tones as those blue Reveal incandescent bulbs. The non-daylight ones can be super ugly, though. And old school fluorescent lights are hideous. To the point of actually making me nauseous if I'm sitting under them for long periods of time. My eyes are sensitive. That green fluorescent light makes me queasy.

Why drive an E-85 Hybrid, when production of that gallon of E-85 uses up far more fuel to produce it? I have no problem with concentrating on technologies to make the internal-combustion engine burn cleaner, but don't throw the internal-combustion baby out with the bathwater.

I really agree with you about E-85. Everytime I hear Obama include that in his list of alternative fuels, (I can hear him saying it now: "Wind, solar, tide, biofuels...") I shake my head. I'm not into ethanol. Electric hybrids are better, IMO, but really, I'm most interested in hydrogen. We just got our first hydrogen fueling station here in South Carolina. But large scale hydrogen fuel cell fleets are unfortunately still a long way off.

Animals will be fine too. They will go on - some will go extinct, others will adapt and thrive. The way they have done for age after age. When humans abandon a place - nature quickly fills it with its own abundance.

While I agree that nature will fill in after we're gone, I don't think that our present standard of living is worth risking the extinction of any species. Call me a softie. ;)

Sidenote: There are ecologists who believe that we are already in the midst of a mass extinction.


# Holocene extinction event - nearly 70% of biologists view the present era as part of a mass extinction event, possibly one of the fastest ever, according to a 1998 survey by the American Museum of Natural History.,[4] Some, such as E. O. Wilson of Harvard University, predict that humanity's destruction of the biosphere could cause the extinction of half of all species in the next 100 years. Research and conservation efforts, such as the IUCN's annual "Red List" of threatened species, all point to an ongoing period of enhanced extinction, though some offer much lower rates and hence longer time scales before the onset of catastrophic damage. The extinction of many megafauna near the end of the most recent ice age is also sometimes considered part of the Holocene extinction event.[5] Some paleontologists, however, question whether the available data support a comparison with mass extinctions in the past.[6]

This isn't something I've studied enough to argue one side or the other. Just something I'm tangentially aware of and thought I would share.

One need only recognize that any type of consumption produces by products - almost all of which are undesirable or toxic. That humans appear incapable of limiting our numbers. That we all demand an extraordinarily high standard of living - that is unsustainable - more so because the entire world wishes to have that same standard.

We can argue about which power source is best until we are all blue in the face. The truth is - no power source is without drawbacks - including high levels of toxic waste. Wind power negatively affects bird populations. Solar power is great but manufacture and disposal produce hazmat. There is no such thing as "clean" coal. On and on and on.....

A 4000sq ft "green" home isn't green.

There is not one word in the paragraphs above that I disagree with.

If you want to be "green", the only way to do that is limit the human population - and that is the one topic that is completely off limits.

I agree. This is one of many reasons that I'm personally not having children. There are too many of us already. And too many children already on the planet who need parents. But, of course, that's not something we could ever even think of legislating. That would make us China. And we definitely don't want to go there.

I also love small houses, have a vegetable garden, and am getting chickens. I use sheep instead of weedeaters and try to let the horses mow my lawn when I can. I do still end up mowing it a couple of times a year, but far less than most folks. On the other hand, I'll admit that drying my clothes on a line is not an appealing thought. And - considering how far I live from town - biking is not either. But, see, I think we can all do something. And if we did all do something, all those somethings would add up. And we'd be better off.

It would be silly for me to sit here and try to deny that some environmentalists are out of touch hypocrites who have no practical experience of nature at all. Those people just don't define the group as a whole to me. And I'm not willing to discount what is, in my opinion, good science, because it is being bandied about by those types of people. They, after all, didn't DO the science. They're just talking about it.

Hmm, yeah. So much for brevity.

[JSwan]

Hmm, yeah. So much for brevity.

It's impossible to be brief about so complex a subject. :)

And I'm not actually arguing about any particular position, because again - it's such a vast and complex subject everybody is right. We're all right about something.

I find the cap and trade approach to be among the worst decisions the current administration has made, and I predict it will fail - as similar programs have already failed (like wetland banking). Same idea - utter failure.

Not a big fan of the UN - but it has realized that as rural communities disappear - so does biodiversity. There is a great deal of work being done trying to preserve rural communities so that history, folklore, genetic diversity in livestock, biodiversity in nature - all of that does not disappear.
However, at the same time, other agencies within the UN spend billions on bringing about the disappearance of rural communities.

Every nation does the same. Each state, regional and local jurisdiction. Big big big, pave pave pave, water water water, power power power.

We're all working at cross purposes. In my jaded, cynical world, I know the only answer is to live smaller.

You can't force people to go back - to go back and live the way we used to. No one wants it - as much as they romanticize that type of life, they don't actually want to live like that. Too much work.

But if they can feel good about driving an electric car.....

Cap and trade has not worked for Europe very well at all. In the US - it will be absolutely horrible.

[Beasmom]

Oh, my bad for not getting your point regarding volcanoes, asteroids and humans.

Forgive me, I've had a couple snifters of cognac and the rational side of my brain is really, really suffering.

I'd rather discuss the findings of scientists than the blatherings of Algore, so that's a good place to start. We're agreed he's a lousy poster child for Global Warming. Lots of fun for target practice for the anti-Global Warming crowd. (And a laaaaarge target he is!)

Unfortunately, if a mass extinction is in the works, there's probably nothing to be done about it. You'd have worried, cried and fussed over the deaths of the dinosaurs if you'd been around. But what could have been done? It was Kismet, fate, predestination. Whatever. They had to move on to make way for something else. Maybe, for better or worse, that's our fate, too. And the fate of some other critters, too. We all die.

Don't be sad. Life in some form will continue. Maybe they'll be even cuter and nicer than us and our horses, hard as that may be to imagine.

I haven't met a CFL I liked. But I'm probably older than you and really appreciate a nice bright WARM light. First, so I can see well, second, so I look better. Though the older I get, the dimmer the light should be...

I'm in ranching. I AM a steward of the earth. When I die, someone else will steward this little plot of earth. Maybe they will do a better job, maybe they won't. I can only control what is within my grasp and within my lifespan.

After my parents have passed on, there is a likelihood that I will move to the ranch and live much as you describe. Aunt Nelle used to have chickens, and even a milk cow. As a kid, I was fascinated by the chickens and the milk cow, the milking, the cream separator. That family raised and processed much of their own food -- hogs, sheep, beef, fruit trees, grapes and a garden. It is not a life for everyone, though. I like a smaller house. I have never understood the desire for a McMansion. But live and let live.

I agree with JSwan that many here desire (and have achieved) an extravagant lifestyle. Really, the only extravagance I want is my horse (well, OK, and the truck and trailer to haul him around with). It is not OUR place to dictate how others might live. Do what you wish, in terms of living a sustainable lifestyle, and encourage others to do so if it suits them. Beyond that, (for instance) legislating, demanding such a lifestyle (sacrifice, to some) will engender bitterness and resentment. Freely done, fine!

[Sakura]

I agree with JSwan that many here desire (and have achieved) an extravagant lifestyle. Really, the only extravagance I want is my horse (well, OK, and the truck and trailer to haul him around with). It is not OUR place to dictate how others might live. Do what you wish, in terms of living a sustainable lifestyle, and encourage others to do so if it suits them. Beyond that, (for instance) legislating, demanding such a lifestyle (sacrifice, to some) will engender bitterness and resentment. Freely done, fine!

:yes:

[mares tails]

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

.

[MaresNest]

JSwan, Beasmom, mares tails, lots of good points made on this page. I don't find myself in 100% agreement with every single point, but I don't find that we need to be in 100% agreement in order to have had a fruitful discussion. So I won't belabor things any more. This has been great. Thanks. :)

[mares tails]

Here's the source on that abiotic oil.
Actually, what was found were gases (e.g. methane), and the Science paper says that these appear to be abiotic, but does not say that petroleum is abiotic. "Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur"

Unfortunately, a commercially useful source (of abiotic fuel) has yet to be found.

[Guilherme]

Our society is living in a fundamental contradiction. The "green" society and the "consumer" society cannot be had at the same time.

If we want to be "green" that means no more planned obsolecsence (meaning the large loss of manufacturing, wholesale, and retail jobs), no more frivolous travel (meaning loss of jobs in airlines, hospitality, etc), no more ignoring levels of resource consumption (meaning loss of jobs in basic comodities), etc. The advertising industry will also suffer significant impact. This means, essentially, the end of the Consumer Society. This means that 2/3-3/4 of our economic activity must drastically decline. Deep societal dislocations are a certainty.

It also means that the vast majority of the people in the Third World will not, ever, reach a First World life style. That bodes ill for a lot of reasons.

Again, both major U.S. political parties are stuck in a time warp. So are the Libertarians, Greens, Naderites, etc. All want to turn the clock back. That's not, of course, what they say. It is, however, what the want.

It's still possible that we could end up returning to the Age of Horsepower.

G.

[wendy]

bottom line the real problem is too many people. Doesn't matter what changes we make, there are too many people alive right now for the ecosystem to support long-term. A real based-in-fact environmental policy would strongly discourage reproduction in some way. Everything else people propose as "green" is just denying the real problem.

[Beasmom]

I have to disagree, Wendy. There have been population-growth chicken-littles since the time of Malthus in the 1790's. He believed that population growth would outstrip the ability to feed that population.

The population has doubled several times since then and due to new technologies, improved farming practices, and so forth, the needs of the growing population are being met. Areas of starvation have more to do with distribution problems and poverty than available food.

As populations raise their living standards, their birth rates trend downward. Families in developing countries are limiting family size so they can afford to send the one or two children they do have to good schools and universities. Some countries have achieved negative population growth.

Paul Ehrlich has been predicting population disaster in the next ten years for 30 or 40 years now. He's still wrong.

[CatOnLap]

Wow. I read the first 3 pages and skipped to page 11. Wasn't this about emission standards and fuel efficiencey in farm vehicles?

I figure I am pretty green.

I have a SMART car that exceeds the EPA rating for mileage. I regularly get 80 MPG on the highway and 50-60 MPG in town. Other Smart owners in our national club report the same. A far cry from the hybrid Priuses and Camry's whose taxi fleet owners here are bemoaning the fact that NONE of their hybrids has ever met the EPA rating for mileage- they are averaging about 30-35 MPG- not any better than a regular gas powered model of the same car. It seems obvious that the EPA had an agenda in reporting falsely high mileage in the hybrids (versus refusing to allow the Smart in the USA for several years). Same agenda recently came up in crash tests trying to discredit the safety of the Smart, where ONLY foreign vehicles were tested, and most of those were tested against vehicles weighing about 30% more than them, while they crashed the Smart into a vehicle weighing more than twice as much as it. Then they crashed all these cars together at speeds that are involved in less than 5% of accidents. And still the Smart passenger compartment was intact, while the Yaris dummy's head was pushed through the steering wheel. And whereas the Smart is 88% recyclable, the Hybrids contain a lot of non recyclable toxic waste, especially in their batteries. Hybrid does not equal green.
I'd rather be in a crash in the SMART than any other small car. The guy who wrote off his Toyota when he hit me in the Smart probably agrees. I had to replace a $700 bumper. He replaced his whole car. Mercedes knows what they are doing with the Smart.

The Smart has saved me about $16,000 in fuel costs over 5 years/100,000 miles- it has paid for itself in the savings. Unfortunately, the power sunroof does not allow for placement of a gooseneck hitch.

So for that I have the diesel F350. For the last year they've been at rock bottom prices and I picked one up that was 3 years old, had 60,000 miles on it and was less than half the price of a new one. It gets between 16 and 20 mpg, depending on load. It comes out on Sundays to pull the trailer. If I really have to go green, both vehicles will run on recycled cooking oil. In fact, they both are already burning biofuel, as I do in my oil fired house furnace.

[wendy]

? being able to feed the current population by using environmentally damaging farming methods is a good thing? the problem isn't really about feeding all those people. It's that the environment can't support this many people long-term. Can't absorb their wastes or the wastes that are produced during factory farming. Can't absorb their garbage. If there were only a few people we could consume and be as wasteful as we wanted to. 100 people driving Hummers wouldn't make any impact on the environment. Billions of people doing so? doesn't work. Once you hit a critical mass of people, and I think we are well past that point, the environment cannot support them even if they are very careful about not being wasteful.

[MintHillFarm]

You obviously know a lot about car construction..........ehm, not.

Rented a Smart Car in Germany 8 years ago. Drove it on the autobahn at 80mph - damn those little cars are great!

I do know that my F-150 is about 4x the size of this car, and had I encountered a Smart Car by accident (pun intended) there would have been very little left of that car. I don't want to drive around the U.S. highways, in traffic or not, in something that is 1/2 the size of the VW Beetle...I also don't want the goverment telling me what size car to drive. Safety will become less of a priority if this is the way vehicles go. The President will still be shuttled around in a limo, I can tell you that much....

[Guilherme]

? being able to feed the current population by using environmentally damaging farming methods is a good thing? the problem isn't really about feeding all those people. It's that the environment can't support this many people long-term. Can't absorb their wastes or the wastes that are produced during factory farming. Can't absorb their garbage. If there were only a few people we could consume and be as wasteful as we wanted to. 100 people driving Hummers wouldn't make any impact on the environment. Billions of people doing so? doesn't work. Once you hit a critical mass of people, and I think we are well past that point, the environment cannot support them even if they are very careful about not being wasteful.

So what do we do with the extra people?

G.

[Beasmom]

Calm down, Wendy. You're being an alarmist. First of all, where did I say anything about "environmentally damaging farming methods"? What methods and where are they practiced? Back up your claims.

Farming techniques over the last 100 years have indeed improved. Soil conservation and increased productivity is surpassing the needs of the population. I'm involved in farming and ranching. Are you?

As I stated, the problem in areas where starvation is still a problem can be linked to poor distribution methods or poverty (or civil wars, where combatants intentionally thwart humanitarian aid).

Billions of people do NOT drive Hummers. Billions of people live in Third World countries without modern plumbing, substandard sanitation, no car at all. They'd be pleased to live as the poorest Americans live. This is Paradise to them.

Tone down the shrillness and line up some data to back yourself up, not just spewing emotion and propaganda. Then perhaps a meaningful conversation can take place, like the one with MaresNest.

[Beasmom]

Soylent Green?

[Blkarab]

I don't mind electric cars (Love the Tesla!!!) and I love the Honda Clarity but these cars are priced way out of our range.

If every gas/diesel car went 80 mpg, don't you think the oil companies are going raise the prices of gas to lets say, $8 a gallon? Where's the savings? You think gas prices are going to stay at 2.00 a gallon? Nope.

And you know what FIAT means right? Fix It Again Tony.:lol:

I'm sorry, but the oil companies in the US are not the ones who control the gas prices. It has very little to do with the oil companies and everything to do with the stock market. If you have anyone to blame for high gas prices, blame the government and wall street. The price of a barrel of oil accounts for less than 1/3 the price of a gallon of gasoline. The rest is taxes, transportation costs to the pump, manufacturing and production, and marketing to the gas stations. Taxes make up more than 50-60% of what your pump price is, so if you are angry about what you are paying at the pump, then you need to contact your local government about lowering their gasoline taxes. Speculators on wall street caused the barrel price of oil to rise sharply last summer. So don't blame the oil companies for the price per barrel, they have no control over it, in fact, they are at the mercy of it. Right now, most oil companies have been in the hole since the beginning of the year. It costs thousands of dollars to operate a well per month, far more than what it costs to produce milk or orange juice, which one typically pays over $4-5 per gallon. When the price drops below $40/barrel, then the oil and gas industry suffers, causing layoffs, job losses and downturns in the economy. When the price falls significantly as it has done this year, then domestic oil producers start shutting in wells because they can't afford to work on them. Then we are left at the mercy of OPEC, which at anytime can cut us off, causing the price to soar, and then you'll see your $8 gallon gasoline.

Your basis for the price of gas going up if everyone starts to drive more efficient cars is so far off base with basic economics as well. It's supply and demand. If more people are driving fuel efficient vehicles, the price is not going to rise, it will fall, due to the fall in demand. Simple, basic economics!

[Blkarab]

Not one for partisan politics....

but don't think for one second those electric cars don't pollute.

Everything pollutes. Folks loved those light bulbs but oops - guess what's going into the landfills. Lots of mercury.

Those electric cars have batteries - and those suckers are horribly expensive to replace and you have to put the used battery somewhere.

I think all this technology is fantastic, wonderful, and especially in urban areas, really useful.

But don't think for one second that it's "green".

Nothing is "green" except not using technology at all. Everything else is just kinda shifting the sources of pollution around a little.

Not only that, but most people I know that drive larger vehicles carpool! You can fit at a maximum 4 in a smart car, maybe only 2.

I'm sorry, but that is not more environmentally friendly than having 7 people all ride together in one vehicle.

[Blkarab]

I love it! Great post! I've thought several times of using my horses to run errands for short distances but the roads are impossibly dangerous for horse/carriage traffic....just see how many Amish get killed every year by some driver going to fast.

Unfortunately this country will be in the toilet before the next election.
Oh wait, it already is...;)

:winkgrin::D:lol::eek:

[Blkarab]

Not enough obviously.... ;)

I didn't vote for nobama based on color. I didn't vote for him because of his total lack of experience, the questionable people he choose as friends and mentors plus his Socialistic views. And the list can go on and on..

If Condi were running - I would have voted for her in a second.

Sorry but the race card has been used to death.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blkarab]

If someone is a die hard, card carrying 'Green' person who owns a horse, get rid of the horse. A lot of fuel is used to fertilize the hay and grain fields that yield products your horse uses. A lot of fuel is used to power the tractors which harvest those products. Add to that products being loaded up on a 18 wheelers to be transported to your feed store or barn and that's a lot of fuel. And heaven forbid you actually fuel up your truck to haul your horse to a show or trail ride to do something fun.

Go forward and preach green but give up the extras that generate pollution.

Well, that's okay, because pretty soon nObama is going to start having tougher EPA standards on the amount of gas your horse can produce and the amount of dust you can stir up when you farm your land. True story!

[mares tails]

The price of a barrel of oil accounts for less than 1/3 the price of a gallon of gasoline. The rest is taxes, transportation costs to the pump, manufacturing and production, and marketing to the gas stations. Taxes make up more than 50-60% of what your pump price is
Data source? (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html)
In 2005 the price of crude oil averaged $50.23 per barrel, and crude oil accounted for about 53 percent of the cost of a gallon of regular grade gasoline.

[MaresNest]

Right now, most oil companies have been in the hole since the beginning of the year.

I don't feel too bad for them though, considering their record profits in 2007 and 2008. ;) Even after a 33% drop in fourth quarter profits in 2008, they still had a profit of $45 billion, shattering the previous US record (which they also set, in 2007!). But you don't have to take my word for it... (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/)


Not only that, but most people I know that drive larger vehicles carpool! You can fit at a maximum 4 in a smart car, maybe only 2.

I'm sorry, but that is not more environmentally friendly than having 7 people all ride together in one vehicle.

I commend you if you are carpooling 7 people to a truck. However, the vast majority of people I see driving large vehicles have no passengers and no cargo at all. One little soccer mom driving an Expedition to the beauty salon. Some of those little soccer moms undoubtedly use their vehicles for reasonable purposes, of course (hauling kids/trailers/dogs around). But I, unfortunately, drive a lot, and I would be a rich lady if I had a dollar for every person I see on the road alone in a truck or SUV.

Since you've come to the thread late, and may or may not have read the previous 11 pages, I'll go ahead and reiterate that I'm for making better cars - fuel efficient cars that are still excellent in other respects - and driving what makes sense in your given situation. If you actually need an Expedition (instead of just wanting one because your neighbor has one), fine. What I don't like is the townies driving around in SUV's as status symbols. The tricky part is that the only reasonable way to decide who drives what is to trust that people will be smart and choose well. Which, history has shown, is not a great bet. So I believe in getting the car companies to make better cars in the first place, so that the pool that consumers have to choose from is better.

[Beasmom]

Better in who's estimation? Yes, I'm back from (horsey) errand running in my gigantic F-350 diesel, smashing SmartCars and Honda Elements wherever I go, leaving a great, big carbon footprint in my wake. BWAHAHAHAHA!

Life is good -- until I remember who's in the White House. Pass the Prozac.

[RAyers]

....
Note it's Global Warming THEORY. If it were "law", as in the laws of gravity, it would be silly to be opposed to it. As a theory, it is unproved, and I believe, unprovable. It has more to do with the things we cannot control; the Sun, the oceans, the seasons, than it has to do with human activity.

...



A comment on this. I suggest you look through our own federal governmental data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They have several sets of data incorporating the ice cores mentioned, atmospheric data in 100+ year range, etc. and they do ascribe to the human influence on the planet based on the 500,000 year, 20,000 year, and even 200 sets. This work was all done during the GW years, by the way.

[LarkspurCO]

Actually, what was found were gases (e.g. methane), and the Science paper says that these appear to be abiotic, but does not say that petroleum is abiotic. "Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur"

Unfortunately, a commercially useful source (of abiotic fuel) has yet to be found.

Apparently you didn't read the article or didn't understand it, because it very CLEARLY discusses the theory that petrolium deposits have their origin in these carbon "gases" emanating from the earth's mantle. It was NOT suggesting that these gases would be something to harvest and use as fuel.

Another excerpt:
"The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons."
- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991


In more recent news, the same scientists are going back for further research:
New tests could further undermine 'fossil fuels' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55476)
"At issue is the debate between traditional geologists who believe the origin of oil comes from organic material." ... "Should the scientists find advanced abiotic hydrocarbon chains on their return to the Lost City Mid-Atlantic site this coming summer, it will be further evidence for the abiotic theory of the origin of oil, advancing a 263-year-old scientific debate in favor of the abiotic theory."

[Beasmom]

A comment on this. I suggest you look through our own federal governmental data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). They have several sets of data incorporating the ice cores mentioned, atmospheric data in 100+ year range, etc. and they do ascribe to the human influence on the planet based on the 500,000 year, 20,000 year, and even 200 sets. This work was all done during the GW years, by the way.

I don't think Fred Flintstone's car had any emissions controls installed.

Keep in mind that many are misinterpreting the connection between CO2 and warming trends. I will have a look, but tomorrow. Bed time now.

[Beasmom]

OK, one last thing before I hit the sack...

MaresNest, did you say you studied the University of Virginia? Are you familiar with Patrick J. Michaels? Evidently he is a professor of environmental sciences there.

I've got a couple of his books in my queue, waiting to be read.

[Huntertwo]

I don't think Fred Flintstone's car had any emissions controls installed.



Hey, maybe that is what obama will have in store for us next... never know with this guy.

[JSwan]

So what do we do with the extra people?

G.


Soylent Green!:D

[Guilherme]

Under current EPA policy Fred Flintstone's car would be regulated. EPA has determined that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that endangers public health. They are going to begin by regulating engines that produce CO2. Fred produces CO2. Fred is the engine the powers his car. Fred gets regulated.

To the best of my knowledge this is the first time the U.S. Government has determined that CO2 is a pollutant. While they are limiting their regulation to mechanical sources, the power would also extend to non-mechanical sources. This means that they could regulate the size of animal herds. Carried to it's logical extent they could regulate the size of human population.

G.

[JSwan]

While they are limiting their regulation to mechanical sources, the power would also extend to non-mechanical sources. This means that they could regulate the size of animal herds. Carried to it's logical extent they could regulate the size of human population.

G.

I don't think they'll regulate the size of herds. I think they'll tax livestock owners. Similar to cap and trade - place a cap - issue permits - so the largest and most egregious polluters can keep polluting - they'll be the only ones that can afford to pay the taxes or permits.

Won't limit emissions at all - just be another political tool to be wielded according to who is most popular, who is in office/power or the most successful lobbyist/campaign donor.

[mares tails]

Apparently you didn't read the article or didn't understand it, because it very CLEARLY discusses the theory that petrolium deposits have their origin in these carbon "gases" emanating from the earth's mantle.
Actually, I read the primary literature, the Science report, which doesn't even have the words petroleum or oil in it.

It is your secondary reference (by a "science writer", not a scientist) that makes the stretch to abiotic petroleum.

.

[mares tails]

Fred produces CO2.
How much CO2 does Fred produce in a day?
Compared to an internal combustion engine?
Compared to a fossil fuel fired power plant?

.

[Sakura]

I just planted a tree... does that count for anything?

[JSwan]

I just planted a tree... does that count for anything?

That depends.

Is it a native species?

If so, is it native to your area?

If it is an exotic, did you plant it where no one can see it from the road?

If it is an invasive exotic, do you feel guilty?

:winkgrin:

[Guilherme]

How much CO2 does Fred produce in a day?
Compared to an internal combustion engine?
Compared to a fossil fuel fired power plant?

.

Once the power to regulate exists it's use is limited only by the discreation of the executive weilding the power.

Once upon a time the power of the Federal government to regulate "commerce" was limited by a "direct" or "indirect" approach. "Direct" influences on commerce (manufacturing, transportation, etc.) were subject to Federal regulation while "indirect" influences (agriculture, mining, etc.) were beyond Federal reach. Then, in the '30s, the Supreme Court changed the rule and Federal power could reach those things that had a "substantial" influence on commerce. Note that this does not require any specific act to be substantial. The power can be used if all actions of all the people performing them "substantially" influence commerce.

So while the Feds cannot control the price charged by one corn farmer (that being insubstantial against the entire corn market) they can control the aggregate actions of all corn farmers. Or milk producers. Or about anything else.

So while Fred, the point source of CO2 pollution, would be beyond Federal control 320 million (more or less) Fred's are clearly within the definition of a "substantial" effect on commerce.

And, as the EPA could not regulate one equine facility, they could impose regulation on the "equine industry" and it's 20 million (more or less) horses.

Cap and trade would be one approach. It might mean, for the first time, a person would have to have license to own a horse.

But, I wonder how this will affect the largest owner of horses in the U.S., the BLM?

G.

[Sakura]

That depends.

Is it a native species?

If so, is it native to your area?

If it is an exotic, did you plant it where no one can see it from the road?

If it is an invasive exotic, do you feel guilty?

:winkgrin:

:lol:

It's a Japanese Magnolia... does well in my zone, can be seen from the road... not invasive or toxic at all... And I even used organic fertilizer (horse placenta) :p

[JSwan]

:lol:

It's a Japanese Magnolia... does well in my zone, can be seen from the road... not invasive or toxic at all... And I even used organic fertilizer (horse placenta) :p

Hmmmmm..... I'll give you 50 points for good taste in landscape plantings.

Subtract 10 for not warning the neighbors that their view might be obstructed by a large tree.

Add 5 for the organic fertilizer.

Subtract 2 because I think you're supposed to plant placenta by the light of the full moon or you'll get warts. Or is that burying a potato.......

Subtract 20 because it's foreign and therefore suspicious. ;)

I'll add another 50 because every tree we plant offsets the noxious fumes emitted from Capitol Hill. :D

[MaresNest]

I just planted a tree... does that count for anything?

Yes! In my book, anyway.

MaresNest, did you say you studied the University of Virginia? Are you familiar with Patrick J. Michaels? Evidently he is a professor of environmental sciences there.

Nope. I did a little poking around on the internet, though, and it seems that he is the state climatologist, not a faculty member (http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/).

[MaresNest]

Subtract 20 because it's foreign and therefore suspicious. ;)

I'll add another 50 because every tree we plant offsets the noxious fumes emitted from Capitol Hill. :D

LOL!

[Sakura]

Hmmmmm..... I'll give you 50 points for good taste in landscape plantings.

Subtract 10 for not warning the neighbors that their view might be obstructed by a large tree.

Add 5 for the organic fertilizer.

Subtract 2 because I think you're supposed to plant placenta by the light of the full moon or you'll get warts. Or is that burying a potato.......

Subtract 20 because it's foreign and therefore suspicious. ;)

I'll add another 50 because every tree we plant offsets the noxious fumes emitted from Capitol Hill. :D

:D... Can I have my 10 points back seeing that we have a wooded area across the road thus causing no view obstruction to the non existent neighbors (think quaint country lane) :p

Oh boy... we are close enough to Capitol Hill that I may have to plant a few more to off set the global warming... ahem... hot air wafting in from D.C.

[Beasmom]

Hmmm. Maresnest, I wonder how old these webpages are. I found this:

www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

He has his PhD from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

[MaresNest]

Hmmm. Maresnest, I wonder how old these webpages are. I found this:

www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels

He has his PhD from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Interesting. It says "research professor" on that Cato page. I'm guessing that means that he either didn't teach or only taught grad students. Also, his page on Wikipedia says "a retired professor from the University of Virginia." Though, given the dates, it looks like he and I were there at the same time. I just didn't know him. I took my Envi Sci classes with Macko, Hayden, Smith... and probably several others who I'm forgetting. I took a good bit of Envi Sci. I was actually only a class or two short of the Envi Sci major.

[mares tails]

Interesting. It says "research professor" on that Cato page.
Research Professors are typically untenured/non-tenure track & are responsible for securing (external) funding to cover their salary and research project expenses.

.

[Beasmom]

Aah! That clarifies things! Thanks!