Great post Paradox, please keep pounding away at this issue.
Conservation is indeed a better frame that might just give enough cover for the penis-challenged rightwingers. But I'm not holding my breath. Another meme I think would be effective is "common sense". It is simply common sense that we reduce or energy consumption. Economically we save money and the business opportunities for new green technlogies will keep our economy strong. As a nation we are more secure not being dependent on foriegn sources of oil. Conservation protects the enviroment and our health. Conservation, is a win-win-win, the only people that would "lose" are those that sell us our energy and I don't think the American public has much love for the oil and electric companies.
Posted by Howd at April 21, 2007 07:55 AMAmen, paradox.
Posted by angel at April 21, 2007 08:23 AMplease refer back to the hybrid story recently about the cost of production of the batteries. IE; Sudbury Ontario I believe?
oil might be better as only a lubricant in any new vehicles. using it as a power source is irresponsible. there is no excuse for considering future use of something that causes as many problems as oil for fuel.
hybrid technology is apparently more destructive on a planetary scale for each vehicle than a gas based vehicle. we can't continue half measures to fix a major problem. we either use plants, and suffer the pollution it requires to create the fuel
or we use solar to avoid fuel
or we use hydrogen to eliminate emissions, while using a combustible fuel that adds only heat to the equation.
we can't go backwards or take half measures for future planning
we might be able to make an 8 cylinder motor that runs on 4 when in standard mode as a half fix. But that should have been done 30 years ago, 50 perhaps. we might use diesel to get the most mileage from the least refined oil source, but pay with higher pollution levels, but it is a half ass fix to what we have to do
time for real measures. time to end any talk about burning of fuel except as a measure to move forward toward non burning fuels. hybrid technology is a convenient fix for auto makers, not people.
will the people do anything voluntarily? tough call. have they ever?
Posted by oldtree at April 21, 2007 08:24 AMIt’s an absurdly easy goal to reach with vast economic, environmental and security benefits,
I could never figure it out either. There is beaucoup money to be made in energy independence along with tons of jobs. You can promise people a windfall and actually deliver. There is no downside to it. What's the problem?
Posted by Daryl at April 21, 2007 10:12 AM
So when you posted your "greener than thou" dissertation on the benefits of your "paid for" zillion mile to the gallon mamby pamby Civic a while back, how come you made no mention of harboring a planet killing, Cheney caliber evil F-150 lusting for massive volumes of gas and capable of rendering whole species extinct?
Do you pull a horse trailer, build houses, or cut palm trees for a living? Why would a tree copulating librul writer need a gas sucking platform of the devil?
disclaimer: I own 2 F-150s. A new flex-fuel Lariet, and a supercharged Lightning which gets the mileage of an Abrahms tank, and as such is calculated in gallons per mile.
At 6'7",300, an F-150 is the size of a civic to an average size person, and the Lightning is to avoid the need for anti-depressants.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 21, 2007 10:26 AMYeah, Al is a couple decades ahead of the others on environmental issues -- BUT -- he's a couple decades ahead of the others in experience and on every other issue as well.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear to me that choosing more environmentally friendly vehicles is going to do more than slow down global warming, and the effect of these "better" vehicles will take decades to kick in unless we simultaneously get real about public transit and drive less, a lot less.
Posted by Marie at April 21, 2007 01:45 PMand a supercharged Lightning which gets the mileage of an Abrahms tank,
Poser! Mine burns coal, and all of my lubricants are made from Bald Eagle chicks.
I forgot to mention in my disclaimer that I am retired, and drive the F-150s a combined total of 2,000 miles a year.
How come no one ever bitches about Nascar and the Blue Angels wasting fuel and putting pilots at risk as demonstrated in the sad crash of one at an air show today?
Posted by TIKI AL at April 21, 2007 03:18 PMThe priest across the street says the alter boys were complaining that the Bald Eagle anal lube was "kinda scratchy".
Apparantly the talons don't get ground up fine enough.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 21, 2007 03:26 PMLeave the hybrids, what a ticking money hole. Compare the Prius with a Yaris. Both Toyota's, just the price difference and gas usage. It would take 32 years to recoup the extra $10K in purchase price. The gas mileage cost difference is roughly $310.00 a year, meaning a Yaris will cost you $310.00 more a year in gas operating both vehicals identicly. Both cars have a gas motor to maintain. The big kicker is those massive batteries in the Prius. Replacement at about the nine years mark will cost you another $3K at current cost and where will they be garbaged at. Stay away from the money pit of a car, the Prius. Besides, they don't expect them to last much more than 110,000 miles anyway, it would be very difficult to maintain a Prius to last 32 years. Save the $10K and invest it to pay for the extra gas needed to run the car. 35 mpg verses 47 mpg isn't worth the extra payments. Toyota makes the money either way you go. The price per mile was recently published and they found that a Prius cost over $3.00 a mile where as an H3 Hummer only cost $1.95. They expect the H3 to last twice as long as a Prius.
Shame to see those auto workers put out of work. Too bad for the unions, too.
I still like my 01Civic EX, I've gotten as high as 41 mpg. The last two fillups gave me 37 and 34 mpg respectively all within Dallas County. The car will do over 120 mph and still get 30 mpg.
One problem with this ethanol usage is it takes corn away from the food supply. Corn's a staple of many lower income families and has seen a recent increase four fold. Mexico is seeing tortilla prices go up. Corn for fuel doesn't require the same safe guards as corn for food. It can be abused and still be viable. Many growers are turning their crops into the fuel corn and not a food crop because its cheaper to maintain.
Posted by peter at April 21, 2007 03:56 PMYeah, why doesn't anyone ever ask about NASCAR, and the million or so gallons of fuel consumed to transport all the cars and equipment across how many hundreds, or thousands, of miles in two mile to the gallon equipment trucks and motorhomes, and run the race for however many thousands of bozos who drove how many hundreds, or thousands, of miles in a two mile to the gallon motorhome towing a five mile to the gallon jacked up de-engineered suburban assault vehilce (icotp) to each one of those events to consume how many gallons of garbage food and garbage beer manufactured, processed , distributed and delivered across how many hundreds, or thousands, of miles with however many million or so gallons of fuel ... ?
Posted by Thomas Ware at April 21, 2007 03:58 PMCaveat: I've got the sweetist '85 F-150 4WD - hundert and ten thousand miles, bought it from the origninal owner, put about twelve thousand on it in six years; I love it, it's m' dream truck, the newest truck I've ever owned (operative word being own)... FOR SALE. No matter how hot I tune it, with that California low-compression 302 (and I've been hotrodding trucks since the seventies) it gets eight to the gallon and emits like a White-Eyed Jew Muslum Christian Pig.
Posted by Thomas Ware at April 21, 2007 04:12 PMJeesh, I've never owned any kind of fossil fuel conveyence in 51 years of living. My fix is to just live as if they didn't exist. I generally live in cities with tolerable public transit and focus life on a human scale.
This is not to brag, mind you. Many of us need the stinkpots to manage lives far more complex than mine. I am also a romance failure, never wanted a family and don't intend to own a home.
By eliminating all these outputs I can live a life that pleases me on less than 15k a year for an input. The basics of life can be had for relatively little. Food is cheap especially when you are a slow foodie and avoid all the overpriced packaged convenience simulacra food.
Clothes are abundant in thrift shops and cheap especially if you are indifferent to wearing the advertising that comes with goofy designer crap.
Buying as much as possible used is a ball as it saves the object from the waste stream and if you derive no status satisfaction from stuff new is meaningless.
The big failure of the dinosaur democrats, dimmacrites, dim hypocrites, is some incapacity to get that this can be a really fun way to live.
The treasure of such a life is experiences and memories and people known, even far away people never met like paradox, iamcoyote, boo, steve and many many others who are part of the fabric of my elaborately social focused life.
In tandem with the above first big failure, we have the corollary. Digging out of the dying fossil fuel hole may well be the most exciting wonderful adventure of our lifetimes.
After spending more than a century bulking up with a messy expedient model we can take the time bought as our learning curve improved to really have a ball building an amazing future.
The main obstacle is a bunch of scamming scum who stand to shrivel big time when we roll this ball. An adept transformation may well be our rescue from grasping the dying thing long after it should be tossed.
The stinkpot model really caused a huge untenable infrastructure to grow around it. Suburbs defeat a human scale as does sprawl. These layouts are now at extreme risk if the stinkpot model crashes.
I see many square miles of ghost towns-to-be, rotting abandoned McMansions left behind by the rush to a human scale like those wasteland towns in eastern montana once full of hopeful hapless souls duped by a railroad growth scam that didn't pan out.
The rain didn't follow the plow and within a few decades many fled to Seattle, the wet capital of a dry empire as a wily brit once said in a fine book about the subject.I think it was called Bad Land and I forgot the fellows name.
We may well live to see shabby future versions of Pompeii from this pompous pile of fool conceits built on a foundation of petro ooze.
Posted by Chris Rich at April 21, 2007 04:28 PMWhen I bought a new car in 2005 I opted for a Scion xA for the reasons Peter mentioned--at 4,000 miles a year the higher-priced Prius just wasn't worth it, plus the Scion gets into tiny parking places. We also converted to compact fluorescents and turning off unnecessary lights during the energy crisis and saved the obligatory 20% on the electric bill back then. Last year we got a new washer and dryer (energy and water efficient) and then the stove went out, so replaced that as well. Then the hot water heater sprang a leak. Replaced that too. (All are gas but the washer.) The upshot is we use 1/3 of the gas now, and our electricity stays low too. The big difference is the water heater, which is a standard kind but much more energy efficient. The compact one would have required repiping.
Energy efficiency accounts for all of the savings--we didn't really change our lifestyle. The real lifestyle changes come in reducing miles driven, which happened for me when I retired.
Posted by Mimikatz at April 21, 2007 04:44 PMActually Chris, my best quality clothes are from the second hand store. Who can afford wool and silk at retail?
The priest across the street says the alter boys were complaining that the Bald Eagle anal lube was "kinda scratchy".
Blasted Catholics. I'll be forced to go to that synthetic stuff the Protestants use. As long as my supply of coal stays cheap, I'll be happy.
The car will do over 120 mph and still get 30 mpg.
You forgot to mention the EX is greased lightening w/a 5-speed. I dearly love to get mine in front of a gas guzzler and row through the gears. Cut-out at 7000 RPM and lovely noise to boot. I'm a big guy and it fits me perfectly.
I tinted my windows and got an increase in gas mileage from it. The A/C isn't working as hard. Full synthetics gave me a tiny increase. Next tire purchase you should look for "low rolling resistance" tires. They honestly help your mileage.
Mexico is seeing tortilla prices go up.
That's becuase we "encouraged" corporate farms in Mexico, instead of the Mom and Pop farms. They buy our corn instead of growing their own. It also explains why so many unemployed farm workers are making their way here.
Posted by phidipides at April 21, 2007 06:57 PMPhid, we have something in common. Probably just this, but its something. Mine's been lowered by 2.5 inches, a two door coupe with rails and 205/40-17's. My tint is a mirror finish silver. I added a crome tip, I like the radio too much to add the noisemaker muffler. Sweet machine for just $10K two years ago. I know I get a lot of looks being older than the car looks. Mine's gone past 7000 rpm, I think the previous owner doctored the computer. My interior's been changed out too. No cloth on the doors, carbon fiber shifter and appointments, indiglo blue dash. Feels real nice to drive and drive I do.
Pardon me, but the corn is going into fuel. That's driving up corn prices all over Latin America. Easy money with less safety standards of cleanliness. Anything to make it grow. Anything!
Posted by peter at April 21, 2007 07:43 PMpr, ntrstng bt Tyt, hybrd Tndr V8? Thn, cmprbl hybrd F-150 mst b n th hrzn. K, f tht hppns, \'ll jst sk th wf t lt g f hr nc lkng F150 btr nd g by hr nw hybrd F150 4x4. Whn w mv bck t th cntry, w s th F150 pllng thrgh snw nd hlng cmnt, fncng sppls, tc., n rgh trrn. f \'m lcky, my b \'ll b bl t drp hybrd ngn n th btr trck.
phd, dsn\'t th X brn rc? f s, tht wn\'t cs tc nfltn, bt gss th rc mlk s gng p. :)
[Editor: ignore=off]The only reason corn/ethanol is a viable energy source is the huge subsidy granted by Senator Osama and Senator Harkin.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 21, 2007 09:33 PMEthanol is more polluting than gasoline. Link.
Alternative fuels researcher Marc Jacobson, of Stanford University, has modeled the effects on air pollution of a mass transition to E85 fuel (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline).
According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly 2 parts-per-billion increase in ozone.
This ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year.
"Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
Posted by muckdog at April 22, 2007 12:12 AMWow, a quad-troll roll directly above me.
Like being at an airhead show.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 22, 2007 12:33 AMI suggest doing research on hybrid cars, first.
It is my understanding that not only will it be much more expensive to run, it is just as much a pollutant if not more so according to some reports i've read.
And i believe it takes oil to produce energy for hybrids to run on ...
Iam not positive though ... i may be thinking of something else.
And if i re_member correctly it is also dangerously combustible -- god forbid -- someone should get in a car accident...
Before accepting any of the aforementioned statements, please do your research.
We as consumers must become educated about the product before we purchase it.
There are too many omissions -- things we are not told that would make all the difference in the world if we knew.
That is why it is necessary to take the time to do our homework before accepting CW.
Posted by serena1313 at April 22, 2007 01:41 AM
Hey Muck,
According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than burning gasoline
There's just one difference between the CO2 emitted by ethanol, which I agree is stupid if it comes form corn rather than cellulosic fermentation of bio-waste, is that
ALL of the carbon released has recently been extracted from today's atmosphere. The carbon emissions from fossil fuels comes from carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere over the past few 100 million years.
As long as we're just recycling carbon, not spewing hundreds of millions of new/old carbon, it's a net wash. We are NOT increasing the CO2 levels with biofuels! Unfortunately, they are difficult to produce in sufficient quantity and do take some energy input (which COULD come from biofuels), but every barrel of petroleum we can replace with biofuel is a major gain in curbing increases in CO2 concentrations.
Learn a little science and come back when you can contribute to the discussion.
Posted by at April 22, 2007 04:32 AM