Embarrased to be on the same side as these guys.

[mactastic]

Great, another bullet in the conservative gun against anyone who might want to save the environment. These kinds of things do nothing to advance the cause that I am sympathetic to, but I simply cannot support the means they are using. Boo! Hiss!

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/08/22/car.dealership.ap/index.html)


WEST COVINA, California (AP) -- Fires destroyed dozens of SUVs and a warehouse at an auto dealership Friday, and vehicles there and at three other dealerships were spray-painted with slogans such as "Fat, Lazy Americans."

"With all the evidence ... it's highly likely it's an arson fire," said Rick Genovese, fire marshal for West Covina, a Los Angeles suburb.

The radical group Earth Liberation Front issued an unsigned e-mail Friday calling the incidents "ELF actions," and the FBI was investigating the dealership fire as domestic terrorism, Police Chief Frank Wills said.

[SPG]

disclaimer: I do not support these actions, property destruction and vandalism are dangerous and childish.

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'll just throw in the opposing view: The SUV causes more environmental damage and uses more oil than necessary due to the cozy relationship between the oil industry, the auto industry, and the government. Through high profile actions like this the ELF hopes to bring people's attention to this fact and hopefully get some to reconsider their love for the gas hog.

I fully support the message, but I think the method is childish.

[RobVanDam]

I just like how they protest the pollution of cars by using spray paint and burning plastics.

[Durandal7]

The flaming polymers, chemicals and metals from the dealership fire probably ejected more pollutants into the atmosphere in the course of an hour then most of those SUVs would emit in their operational lifetimes.

[Sun Baked]

I wonder how many of the familes own SUVs and/or pickups...

Would be awsome fun to see the leader of this group pulled out of his SUV, at gunpoint, live on national TV. :p

[Maclarny]

Did anyone here see the What would Jesus Drive ad on tv? It was a very good ad because it spoke to the hypocritical Christians who are destroying "God's green earth" with their gas guzzling SUVs.

[Desertrat]

ELF has damn-all to do with environmentalism, but a lot to do with nihilism. If it weren't SUVs, it would be something equally irrelevant. Oops! I'm late. Ski lodges, anyone?

How many SUVs does it take to equal one 747?

Run an energy balance on SUVs vs. such things as the lights of Las Vegas. Then, define "wrong" and "waste". But don't forget "freedom of choice".

IOW, what you drive is not my business...

'Rat

[xpormac]

Hate SUVS and the people driving them :mad: burn more! those things are aiming for me when I'm on my bike.

[Desertrat]

xpormac, an SUV driver is no more aimed at you than that doofus in the Honda Civic. Either will ruin your day.

I've ridden bicycles and motorcycles in traffic; there was no doubt in my mind that I was a two-wheeled target! It wasn't a bunch better in my little roller skate of a Lotus Elan!

It ain't paranoia when they're ALL out to getcha!

:D, 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by SPG
I fully support the message, but I think the method is childish.

Worse then childish -- stupid, illegal, immoral, and (worst of all) counterproductive.

[wwworry]

Why do we all the sudden need SUVs? 15 years ago we didn't. Everything else in the world gets more efficient except US autos, all because of a loophole in the auto efficiency laws. I do not begrudge at all a contractor who needs the power but most of the time the large engine is a substitute/statement for personal power; stupid.

It seems these type of actions are becoming more prevalent as true political leadership wanes. (again) as political leadership becomes more and more the voice of corporate & monied interests, more in tune with 20 sec. sound bites, more about the hair and the fearful American electorate, certain types see themselves as powerless except by their own excessive displays.

1. Detroit certainly has a lack of imagination. Why is it that there is no high efficiency "macho" car?

2. I think locally oriented media where people have true prospects for a broader voice can defuse a lot of anger and resentment. Given the option of burning 10 SUVs or letting 10,000 people know their grips about SUVs on television I'm sure the little tv production would get the nod.

3. Maybe once we had leadership in Washington, now it's all about appealing to selfishness and fear - "feel good" politics.

I mean really, is it going to kill anyone to drive a six cylinder engine rather than an eight? Is it so horrible to get 0 to 60 in 8 seconds rather than 6 seconds? Isn't it worth a reduction in smog induced asthma, foreign oil dependency and the insuing wars and the POTENTIAL worldwide havoc from global warming to just drive slightly smaller and more efficient autos? People are so clueless sometimes. My 17 year old Volvo station wagon has more cargo room than a ford explorer, carries more weight and gets 10 mpg better on the highway. So it's a little slower, I still get to where I'm going at the same time.

[mactastic]

This smacks of the same fantasy enactment 'Rat was pointing to about alQuaida. These people don't seem to get the fact that this hurts their cause, not helps it. I can at least appreciate the reasoning behind sabautaging logging equipment to save old growth trees or something like that, even if I don't approve, there is a definite aim to prevent something. This is just useless. More SUV's will be sold because of this not less. It brings negative attention to the issue. And these people will face the full weight of our new terrorism laws. I guess I wouldn't mind that even so much if Eric Rudolph goes down under them too. Stupid idealistic zealots.:mad:

[RobVanDam]

1. Detroit certainly has a lack of imagination. Why is it that there is no high efficiency "macho" car?Two reasons. 1) Make an electrical engine that is as powerful as a gas engine, and costs less. 2) Make an electrical car that makes the sound and feeling a "macho" car does. Those two things are basically impossible. That's why there isn't a "high efficiency macho car". No use developing and building something no one would buy.

I mean really, is it going to kill anyone to drive a six cylinder engine rather than an eight? Is it so horrible to get 0 to 60 in 8 seconds rather than 6 seconds? Isn't it worth a reduction in smog induced asthma, foreign oil dependency and the insuing wars and the POTENTIAL worldwide havoc from global warming to just drive slightly smaller and more efficient autos? People are so clueless sometimes. My 17 year old Volvo station wagon has more cargo room than a ford explorer, carries more weight and gets 10 mpg better on the highway. So it's a little slower, I still get to where I'm going at the same time.Your Volvo however can't haul 12 foot 2x6's, and can't haul a couple tons. Oh, and it would be a bitch to take a Volvo off-road.

There are legitamate uses for big vehicles. True, some people don't use trucks or SUV's the way they're intended, but some people do. Why should someone be punished because their lifestyle, job, or hobbies are different from someone else?

Of course, there wouldn't be any "wars on oil" if we could drill for oil in Alaska, but of course, the animals would be insulted by the pipeline.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, I reckon my wife would not appreciate being called "macho". :D You're welcome to try your luck, but I'd recommend your insurance is all paid up. :D

Opinion, 'cause I haven't studied the issue that much, but I'd bet the big gas-hog SUVs are a relatively small percentage of them all. My wife's Ford Exploder (her third) gets some 21 to 22 mpg on the Interstate, loaded to the roof with stuff for her trade shows, and me cruising around 75 mph.

It's my understanding that the Izuzus and Hondas and suchlike get maybe 24 or 25 mpg on the highway. Dunno for certain. But my father's mini-van didn't do much better.

(My personal opinion is that many of them represent unwise investments of money, and aren't really all that useful to the owners. But, it's a free society, and that includes the right to be stoopid with your money.)

Me? I save money and energy by "recycling" cars. I bought an '84 4Runner in '92, and a year ago I bought a '95 GMC 1/2-ton. I bought my '85 Toy 4WD PU new, and it now has 290,000 miles on it. But I do indeed require 4WD, and need a backup if one is down. And the Jimmy is more comfortable for these old bones. :)

'Rat

[jefhatfield]

i don't need an suv..but what about those new sedan four wheel drive outbacks by subaru?

do they burn gas like a full on suv? just curious if anyone owns one

[simX]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Two reasons. 1) Make an electrical engine that is as powerful as a gas engine, and costs less. 2) Make an electrical car that makes the sound and feeling a "macho" car does. Those two things are basically impossible. That's why there isn't a "high efficiency macho car". No use developing and building something no one would buy.

Your Volvo however can't haul 12 foot 2x6's, and can't haul a couple tons. Oh, and it would be a bitch to take a Volvo off-road.

There are legitamate uses for big vehicles. True, some people don't use trucks or SUV's the way they're intended, but some people do. Why should someone be punished because their lifestyle, job, or hobbies are different from someone else?

So basically you're justifying the use of gas-guzzling SUVs that get single-digit mpg just because "some" people use them for off-road uses or for hauling stuff?

Yeah, right. That "some" should actually be "not many". I doubt that even 10% of the people who buy SUVs actually need to do any hauling or actually do any off-roading.

Furthermore, "Detroit" DOES have the technology to make fuel efficient cars. Look at the hybrid cars from Honda and other manufacturers -- they EASILY get 50 mpg. I hardly think it would be any trouble at all to modify the technology to drive a big SUV (not that anybody needs big cars like SUVs anyway -- all they do is impede your vision).

I'm all for choice, but people really need to learn that they don't need what an SUV offers.

Oh, and fuel efficient cars not sounding "macho" is no excuse to buy an SUV.

Of course, there wouldn't be any "wars on oil" if we could drill for oil in Alaska, but of course, the animals would be insulted by the pipeline.

Haha, great quote. Do you even know how much oil is there in Alaska? Not much at all. Iraq's oil reserves are MUCH bigger spoils, so yes, there would be a war on oil even if we could drill in Alaska.

I love it when people justify the war in Iraq because we need to increase our supply. Why doesn't anybody ever think about decreasing demand?! :rolleyes:

[RobVanDam]

There's another reason people get big cars. Big families. A Honda Civic doesn't work for everyone.

A Honda Civic is extremely different from say, a Dodge Durango. Most obviously in the key factor. WEIGHT. (Notice how all the energy efficient cars becides the Civic hybrid have been the most compact of compact cars?)

Lets take that Durango and put say 8 guys in it at about 200 pounds each, so that's almost a ton. Add it on to the weight of the Durango already almost 2.5 tons (4750 lbs) and you got 3.5 TONS. That's 7000 pounds. A civic is under 3000 pounds. So the Durango has 2 FULL TONS more. It has to pull more than two Civics. That doesn't even count a trailer. Don't even think a Civic can do that.

Also, you can't modify a hybrid engine like you can a conventional engine. There are alot of people who like to get under the hood and modify their engines to all end, they shouldn't have the right to do that? Also forgot that almost every single magazine, and website, that legitamately reviews cars have said that most hybrids drove horribly. Only until now with Toyota and the Honda Civic have hybrid cars almost risen to conventional levels.

Also, my family has used our Truck or SUV this summer in a job that a car, especially a hybrid car, can't do many times this summer. Probably between 50-100 times. Oh, and my family consists of just me and my Dad. Up and down the block I see many different cars, and alot of trucks and SUV's. How many times do I see people using those in jobs that cars can't do? A very large majority.

Just because you can't fill the need for a car doesn't mean you should be a deciding factor for a large majority of people that do use vehicles to their capacity.

Besides, the vehicles are not the problem. I will repeat that because you probably don't believe me. The vehicles are not the problem. The roadways are, especially in California. Traffic jams are bad for any car because MPG drops to zero for EVERYONE, SUV, Truck, Sports car, or hybrid.

[K4NN4B15]

RobVanDam: cant really speak for these people, but I dont think that anyone really disagrees with your list of many reasons why SUVs and Trucks are cool and convient. I think their beef tends to be that you pick cool and convient over enviromentally sound.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Two reasons. 1) Make an electrical engine that is as powerful as a gas engine, and costs less. 2) Make an electrical car that makes the sound and feeling a "macho" car does. Those two things are basically impossible. That's why there isn't a "high efficiency macho car". No use developing and building something no one would buy.

Your Volvo however can't haul 12 foot 2x6's, and can't haul a couple tons. Oh, and it would be a bitch to take a Volvo off-road.

There are legitamate uses for big vehicles. True, some people don't use trucks or SUV's the way they're intended, but some people do. Why should someone be punished because their lifestyle, job, or hobbies are different from someone else?

Of course, there wouldn't be any "wars on oil" if we could drill for oil in Alaska, but of course, the animals would be insulted by the pipeline.

First of all my volvo can haul 2 x 6s just as well, if not better than your explorer.
You have to put the 12 footers on the roof of your explorer as I would have to do with my volvo. That makes your explorer even more top heavy and even more prone to roll-overs. In fact, the carrying capacity of a ford explorer (at least the ones made a couple of years ago) is less than the 17 year old volvo wagon. The towing capacity is more for an explorer. THe carrying capacity is less. That's the ugly secret for the explorer. There is so much car that there is no room for cargo.

12 2x6s weigh less than 10 3/4" sheets of MDF which I have done.

I also said that contractors have a real use for bigger engines though, personally, I could never carry more than 3.9 liter v-6 could haul. No I just have my major purchaces delivered. Easier, and I have a car suited for what I do 98% of the time, not for what I need 2% of the time.

Most if not all other people have no use for such a big engine, it's a well documented fact. It's also well documented that the SUV makes Detroit the most money because it has the biggest profit margin. All these people are convinced they are going to go "off-roading" more than once a year and buy too much giving it up to the marketers for Detroit. Fools.

Driving a car like that is just like having your music cranked up all the way with the windows down.

As for Alaska, you would rather make havoc on a pristine landscape that will never be the same afterwards than drive a car that gets 2 mpg better? That just seems stupid and short-sighted.

[visor]

Gasoline is way to cheap.
Imagine paying something like $4 per gallon. Would you use a SUV for City traffic jam fun?

Btw. for all the Americans: $4 is not unrealistic, it's fact in Europe.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by visor
Gasoline is way to cheap.
Imagine paying something like $4 per gallon. Would you use a SUV for City traffic jam fun?

Btw. for all the Americans: $4 is not unrealistic, it's fact in Europe.

this will happen sooner than most of us would like to think

gas guzzling boat cars were popular in the 70s and then they died a terrible death when it got pricey to have these cars

the suv cars will prolly have a hard death when gas hits prices close to four dollars...at three dollars a gallon, i think we will still see big cars on the road

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by simX
Furthermore, "Detroit" DOES have the technology to make fuel efficient cars. Look at the hybrid cars from Honda and other manufacturers -- they EASILY get 50 mpg. I hardly think it would be any trouble at all to modify the technology to drive a big SUV (not that anybody needs big cars like SUVs anyway -- all they do is impede your vision). There no reason for the expense and complication of hybrid drivetrain to achieve high mileage.

Diesel is a solution, but the ultralow sulfer fuel and California smog laws are the current barriers to adoption.

Plus the trucking and airline industry don't need the added burden of commuter cars sucking up their oil distillates.

---

Of course if you buy a diesel car you'd be looking at 54 to 56 MPG in New Jetta Wagon (http://forums.tdiclub.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=557020&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) or be complaining in another thread how your 48 mpg sucks. ;)

But a station wagon isn't a macho SUV, even though the traction control gives the vehicle same bad weather road prowess and the wagon body style gives the vehicle the same utility. While the lighter unit body structure and lower center of gravity reduce the chance of death in a rollover.

The number of deaths are increasing for SUV drivers due to rollovers alone.

Of course the diesels also suffer from the HP myth, like the MHz myth, where a 90hp engine looks pathetic compared to the 150-200hp engines in similar sized cars. But diesel has load of lowend torque, where the high HP gas cars may suck -- ie, city driving & stop and go traffic. :p

[Desertrat]

I have to laugh when folks bring up the "rollover" bit about SUVs. The problem ain't the SUV; it's the ignorance of way too many drivers, and the American propensity to ignore maintenance.

They're not sporty cars, but idiots try to drive them as though they were. That leads to serious oopsies. And you run ANY tire of a 4,500-pound (or more) vehicle at low pressure on blacktop in August, Hey! You're a problem waiting to happen. At 35 to 40 psi, those Firestones wouldn't blow. (Michelin had the same problem, back in the '70s.)

Folks notice a solo driver in an SUV, but they tend to ignore the next dozen that are running a full payload...

'Rat

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I have to laugh when folks bring up the "rollover" bit about SUVs. The problem ain't the SUV; it's the ignorance of way too many drivers, and the American propensity to ignore maintenance. It's not always the driver or maintenance.

Every now and then we'll run through a flood of multi-car accidents on the roads that ends up with a SUV being tagged and knocking it out of control.

Those usually end with several people being killed or seriously injured in the SUV.

Like the passenger van problem that was so public not long ago, load an SUV with people and it doesn't take to much to knock one over.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by RobVanDam

Besides, the vehicles are not the problem. I will repeat that because you probably don't believe me. The vehicles are not the problem. The roadways are, especially in California. Traffic jams are bad for any car because MPG drops to zero for EVERYONE, SUV, Truck, Sports car, or hybrid.

Actually this is the one area where Hybrids win head and shoulders above ICE vehicles, when they are at a dead stop they are running off battery power alone. Zero emmisions at stoplights and traffic jams, no hit the MPG.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I have to laugh when folks bring up the "rollover" bit about SUVs. The problem ain't the SUV; it's the ignorance of way too many drivers, and the American propensity to ignore maintenance.

They're not sporty cars, but idiots try to drive them as though they were. That leads to serious oopsies. And you run ANY tire of a 4,500-pound (or more) vehicle at low pressure on blacktop in August, Hey! You're a problem waiting to happen. At 35 to 40 psi, those Firestones wouldn't blow. (Michelin had the same problem, back in the '70s.)

Folks notice a solo driver in an SUV, but they tend to ignore the next dozen that are running a full payload...

'Rat

yea and it was the ignorance of the driver that killed them before there were seat belts and air bags. The things are top heavy and over-powered. They roll over much more often than other cars. The newer ones are better but it took 10 years. and what about the placement of the bumpers so that in an accident with another car the SUV bumper rides right over the regular cars bumper causing tons of damage?

It's just another case of "to-hell-with-the-other-guy". Thank you SUV drivers for the extra smog, the extra dependence on foreign oil, the extra worse accidents and the ever heightening threshold of highway visibility. Why do you need 2 SUVs in a family? I'm sure they are lovely to drive just like it's nice to be able to cut in line. Bug off.

[zimv20]

i hate SUVs, but can't condone the ELF actions.

i live in chicago, and i've observed that:
- no more than 20% of SUVs i see have any passengers
- less than 5% have any observable cargo
- SUV drivers are the least likely to wave "thank you" when i let them in

regarding driving habits, the most obnoxious drivers drive, in order:
1. SUVs
2. BMWs
3. pontiac grand ams (go figure)

i believe the same base mentality that needlessly puts someone in an SUV also drives (no pun intended) the agression factor. those are the vehicles i'm dodging the most and force me to be so defensive. there've been a couple recent sociologic studies that help explain this behavior.

[IJ Reilly]

I promised myself I wasn't going to weigh in on the SUV debate, but -- can't -- help -- myself.

Unfortunately, SUVs are part and parcel of some other unhappy things going on in American culture. Hardly anyone has any real need for a car as big as a Hummer (how in heaven's name did we survive without them for so long?). But taking up as much space as possible, consuming conspicuously, and cultivating the image of being a mean and nasty SOB fits in with some of our culture's more unpleasant characteristics, all of which seem to be in ascendancy at the moment. The fact that people who own these urban predator vehicles tend to drive them aggressively is hardly surprising. In fact it would be surprising if they didn't, since that seems to be the fundamental motivation for owning one.

[RobVanDam]

You have to put the 12 footers on the roof of your explorerUmm...No.

It's a hell of a lot easier, and safer, to just open the back window and put them in that way.

3. pontiac grand ams (go figure)Around here mostly teenagers drive Pontiacs. That would probably explain why they're obnoxious.

[K4NN4B15]

Lol.. you are so right zimv20. I drive my grand am like an @$$h0le.

[mactastic]

I was actually more interested in the whole violence to further your political means issues this raised. Mccrain mentioned that right wingers are more likely to use violence as a means to an end, and then BAM, we get a lovely ELF action that provides a perfect counterpoint. Sucks, but both sides resort to the same low tactics.:mad:

(Sorry mccrain, not trying to rain feces on your parade;) )

[tazo]

Originally posted by xpormac
Hate SUVS and the people driving them :mad: burn more! those things are aiming for me when I'm on my bike.

If you don't like the way i drive stay off the sidewalk.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Mccrain mentioned that right wingers are more likely to use violence as a means to an end, and then BAM, we get a lovely ELF action that provides a perfect counterpoint.

violence in extremism swings both ways, imo. but i wonder if it's more tolerated if it addresses a "right" issue.

e.g. protests outside abortion clinics are more or less tolerated, but what if groups suddenly showed up on sundays outside churches and started protesting the killing done in the name of god?

(not that that's necessarily a leftist cause...)

would society at large tolerate that?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by K4NN4B15
Lol.. you are so right zimv20. I drive my grand am like an @$$h0le.

that was YOU?!??!

just kidding. of course, not ALL drivers of a certain kind of car are a******* ('cept BMWs ;-)

and my grand am observation may be a little stale, since i mostly noticed it in the 90s. the SUV and BMW observations still hold true today, imo.

[K4NN4B15]

I do though.. lol. They are suprising fun to drive though so it kind of brings out the @$$h0le in you. However im just one by nature.. lol

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
violence in extremism swings both ways, imo. but i wonder if it's more tolerated if it addresses a "right" issue.

e.g. protests outside abortion clinics are more or less tolerated, but what if groups suddenly showed up on sundays outside churches and started protesting the killing done in the name of god?

(not that that's necessarily a leftist cause...)

would society at large tolerate that?

No, I think you're right. These ELF guys will go down as terrorists, while Eric Rudolph won't.

[Frohickey]

There is nothing good about this arson by the ELF loonies. NOTHING.

I'm for the environment, but the ELFs are for shutting down complete access to the wilderness from people other than their own 'conservationists/scientists' in the name of environmental science.

I used to be extremely sympathetic to all of these environmental groups, but now, I'm not as generous in assigning good intentions to them. Most are just people that want to control other people's behavior. In essence, totalitarians. Only a control freak cares about the vehicle that I drive.

If you want to help the environment, go buy a hunting/fishing license, and join some organizations such as Rocky Mountain Elk club or Ducks Unlimited. These groups have been around for decades, making animal habitats better. Think about it, a hunter/fisherman doesn't want their favorite hunting/fishing spot to deteriorate. They want it to be better than it is. More animals, larger areas, healthier animals and forests/streams, make it a better hunting experience and more enjoyable time outdoors.

I think that over the past 10 years, I have probably helped in conservation of animal habitat to the tune of $15,000. Thats because the hunters/fishermen have voluntarilly taxed themselves 10%. Each time you buy a hunting/fishing gear, 10% of that goes to habitat improvement. Hunting/fishing license, even more so.

[Backtothemac]

Ok, first off, let me say that there are no SUV's that I am aware of that get single digit mpg. Now, what about mini-vans. They are in the same neighborhood that SUV's are in. Do we ban them as well. What about Mustang GT's? Vipers? Coverttes? Ferarri's? They get worse mpg than most SUV's.

If someone is single, and drives a hummer, and never hunts, fishes, camps, or pulls a trailer, or anything like that. Then they don't need it. But you know what. If they can pay 60,000 for a SUV, they would probably have something else that did not get good mpg. And if they want it, it is their decision not mine.

Do I think some people waste fuel on SUV's when they don't need to? Sure. But I think that people waste on more than just fuel alone.

It is up to the individual to decide what to buy, and why they want that vehicle.

Remember, life cannot be all rules. I personally don't want the government or anyone telling me what I can drive. My 89 Forde Probe GT gets about 17MPG in the city, and 22 on the highway. My Dad's SUV does better than that. So, who is at fault. Him or me? I cannot afford a new car, so that is what I drive.

Life has to have some fun to it. Working 50 hours a week, paying bills, dealing with illness, etc. So who really cares what I drive.

[RobVanDam]

There are a few vehicles that get single digit MPG, but not very many.

The few that probably do.

H1
Ford Excursion
Cadallac 16 (Concept, but has a possible future)

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you want to help the environment, go buy a hunting/fishing license, and join some organizations such as Rocky Mountain Elk club or Ducks Unlimited. These groups have been around for decades, making animal habitats better. Think about it, a hunter/fisherman doesn't want their favorite hunting/fishing spot to deteriorate. They want it to be better than it is. More animals, larger areas, healthier animals and forests/streams, make it a better hunting experience and more enjoyable time outdoors.

I think that over the past 10 years, I have probably helped in conservation of animal habitat to the tune of $15,000. Thats because the hunters/fishermen have voluntarilly taxed themselves 10%. Each time you buy a hunting/fishing gear, 10% of that goes to habitat improvement. Hunting/fishing license, even more so.

In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson made it very clear that it was organizations like Ducks Unlimited that led to the banning of things like DDT. Hunters can't hunt if there isn't anything to shoot (other than each other) and they are to be commended for their conservation work.



On another note, both BTTM and 'Rat have declared that in the past there was more of a sense of personal responsibility to the community at large. Less reliance on government for support and especially less reliance on subsidies. This is a generalization and I'm paraphrasing both of you, not quoting directly. If I'm way off base, let me know.

Well, as I've said before, that was then and this is now. BUT, why do we pay so little for gas in relation to the rest of the world? Could it be perhaps the fact that the US government is subsidizing the oil industry? Could it be that our highway system receives massive input from the general fund? Could it be that little more than lip service is paid to mass transit? Amtrak subsidies are a drop in the bucket in comparison to airport and highway funds. Could it be that free trade applies to everything but the oil industry? Why aren't the costs of protecting oil shipping lanes included in oil prices? The cost of the war in Iraq?

What I see from the above is a refusal on the part of Americans to take responsibility for the fact that their habits have created the Venezuelas, the PEMEX', the Iraqs, the Indonesias of this world. The brutal dictators of this world exist largely because of the US' dependence and the denial of its dependence on oil.

For those who speak of our rights to drive whatever the hell we want, I say, what about our responsibilities as Americans? As citizens of the greatest nation in the world we have taken and taken and taken from the rest of the world. Maybe it's time to give back a little and what better way than to reduce our dependence on a commodity that we don't have enough of. A commodity that helped dictators like Suharto, Hussein and the Shah of Iran become the truly evil men they became.

All for the sake of our own greed and insensitivity. Does anyone truly wonder why so many nations hate us so much? Does anyone need to look any further than their driveway? What's out there? An efficient and safe means of transportation or a shrine to American stupidity?

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Ugg


Well, as I've said before, that was then and this is now. BUT, why do we pay so little for gas in relation to the rest of the world? Could it be perhaps the fact that the US government is subsidizing the oil industry? Could it be that our highway system receives massive input from the general fund? Could it be that little more than lip service is paid to mass transit? Amtrak subsidies are a drop in the bucket in comparison to airport and highway funds. Could it be that free trade applies to everything but the oil industry? Why aren't the costs of protecting oil shipping lanes included in oil prices? The cost of the war in Iraq?



Could it be a discount for buying in bulk? ;)

[RobVanDam]

A commodity that helped dictators like Suharto, Hussein and the Shah of Iran become the truly evil men they became.They would have been sick SOB's without us.

All for the sake of our own greed and insensitivity. Does anyone truly wonder why so many nations hate us so much? Does anyone need to look any further than their driveway? What's out there? An efficient and safe means of transportation or a shrine to American stupidity?Then, quite simply, screw them. If I even went to a hostile country saying I wanted to understand them, they'd probably swear at me, and some might possibly kill me.

Do any of these people that hate us try to understand us? Hell no. They just see things and say "That money funds evil! You should be helping us!" Yeah, well, we have lives too.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
They would have been sick SOB's without us.

Then, quite simply, screw them. If I even went to a hostile country saying I wanted to understand them, they'd probably swear at me, and some might possibly kill me.

Do any of these people that hate us try to understand us? Hell no. They just see things and say "That money funds evil! You should be helping us!" Yeah, well, we have lives too.

Sick SOB's can't do a heck of a lot of damage without funding.

Have you ever been outside the US? Have you ever tried to look at the US from another person's point of view? Is the US the only country worthy of your consideration? There's a little less than 300 million of us and there's about 5.7 billion others out there. Personally, with them kind of numbers, it sort of makes sense for us to try and understand what's going on in the world.

[RobVanDam]

My point was, they don't try to understand us, they just hate us. The hell if I'm going to go out of my way for someone like that.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
My point was, they don't try to understand us, they just hate us. The hell if I'm going to go out of my way for someone like that.

who exactly are you condemning?

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
My point was, they don't try to understand us, they just hate us. The hell if I'm going to go out of my way for someone like that.

My point was that if you'd ever been out of the US or taken the time to understand another country's point of view, it would become very clear that America is the most studied, reported upon, talked about, visited country in the world. Many of the people out there are very well informed, the majority of the educated ones could put most of us to shame when it comes to all things American.

The danger exists in not understanding why they hate us. There are a multitude of reasons and envy is to be included but it is not at the top of the list. The ostrich act doesn't get anyone very far, and all you end up doing is getting sand in your hair and in the bitter end, your blood spilled in the sand.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Durandal7
The flaming polymers, chemicals and metals from the dealership fire probably ejected more pollutants into the atmosphere in the course of an hour then most of those SUVs would emit in their operational lifetimes.

Quite true. A sledgehammer would be more environmentally acceptable, organic approach.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Quite true. A sledgehammer would be more environmentally acceptable, organic approach. Of course allowing them to practice self immolation might be less acceptable environmentally, but definitely more entertaining.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
There are a few vehicles that get single digit MPG, but not very many.

The few that probably do.

H1
Ford Excursion
Cadallac 16 (Concept, but has a possible future)

None of those vehicles get single digit mileage; the 16 will never be produced unless it can get at least 15mpg.

The H1 is actually a turbodiesel and as such gets better mileage (15-19mpg, IIRC) than the imitator H2. The Excursion also has a turbodiesel option, but the V10 was pulling near the single-digit MPG range.

About the only stock road vehicles that truly get single digit MPG figures are motor homes, which can be as bad as 2-5 MPG over mountainous regions.

[RobVanDam]

Ahh, I stand corrected.

I did find one car that got single digit milage

FUEL ECONOMY
EPA city driving: 8 mpg
EPA highway driving: 12 mpg
C/D-observed: 11 mpgFerrari Enzo

Then again, it's basically a race car, so that type of milage should be expected.

[xpormac]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Ahh, I stand corrected.

I did find one car that got single digit milage

Ferrari Enzo

Then again, it's basically a race car, so that type of milage should be expected.


An extremely overpriced one :D

[Desertrat]

The price difference in gasoline between the US and other countries is the tax. The US concept has been that of a user-fee, to pay for such things as highways. Other countries use the taxes for their general revenue funds.

I've lived for a year or more in three different countries: Philippines, South Korea and France. I've travelled extensively in another 17 (IIRC) :), mostly Europe. I like to think I know a little about the manners and mores...The various news outlets available on the Internet allow anybody to keep up with foreign viewpoints of the various goings-on around the world.

The U.S. is roughly one-third of the world's economic activity, what with imports, exports and locally-produced consumables. Energy use and economic activity go hand-in-hand, world-wide, as a direct correlation.

I tend to be a utilitarian minimalist about "things", so I tend to dislike large vehicles (other than from a "need" standpoint). It takes more energy to build them, for instance. The tires are larger. They're awkward to maneuver in parking lots...Etc., etc.

Flip side of the coin is the issue of personal freedom in one's choices of spending one's money.

It's all well and good to talk about our dealings with evil dictators as we seek supplies of oil. Problem is, whom else do you deal with? We're stuck with dealing with the government in power. If we try to make a change, we're accused of "meddling in another country's internal affairs". Iraq is a good example. And, do we pretend to like the Saudi government?

Ah, well. If we just think pure thoughts, we'll someday have a perfect world.

Not.

'Rat

[actripxl]

First Im sick of this freedom of choice reply some give all the time. Yes we live in a so called free its not truely free otherwise there would be anarchy so yes we do have rules and limitations. We'll see how well the freedom of choice argument holds 100 yrs from now when the oil reserves are virtually gone in non existent by then. Then your insurance premiums rising from all the lung related health problems affecting more and more people each day. Few people truely need an suv thats a fact, I live in miami and even with the everglades just outside the only people I have seen offroading are driving old a** jeeps, not a single Escalade. As for the large family, to he** with that the average American family has 1.3 or .4 kids, which can hardly be considred large and that number also continues to go down. As Ugg said have any of you ever been outside the U.S. and im not talking about a 2 week stay at a resort. I have and even now for the next year I'll be living in the D.R. for a bit and then come back to Miami. Lots of people hate us because of the fact we do what we want regardless of the outcome to the locals. We want disarmament yet we have nukes, we complain about drugs yet are the biggest consumer, sign an enviormental treaty then back out. These are just a few of the things we do wrong and until most of us can admit to it we will always have a bullseye on our back.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The price difference in gasoline between the US and other countries is the tax. The US concept has been that of a user-fee, to pay for such things as highways. Other countries use the taxes for their general revenue funds.

I've lived for a year or more in three different countries: Philippines, South Korea and France. I've travelled extensively in another 17 (IIRC) :), mostly Europe. I like to think I know a little about the manners and mores...The various news outlets available on the Internet allow anybody to keep up with foreign viewpoints of the various goings-on around the world.

The U.S. is roughly one-third of the world's economic activity, what with imports, exports and locally-produced consumables. Energy use and economic activity go hand-in-hand, world-wide, as a direct correlation.

I tend to be a utilitarian minimalist about "things", so I tend to dislike large vehicles (other than from a "need" standpoint). It takes more energy to build them, for instance. The tires are larger. They're awkward to maneuver in parking lots...Etc., etc.

Flip side of the coin is the issue of personal freedom in one's choices of spending one's money.

It's all well and good to talk about our dealings with evil dictators as we seek supplies of oil. Problem is, whom else do you deal with? We're stuck with dealing with the government in power. If we try to make a change, we're accused of "meddling in another country's internal affairs". Iraq is a good example. And, do we pretend to like the Saudi government?

Ah, well. If we just think pure thoughts, we'll someday have a perfect world.

Not.

'Rat

You are correct about the tax issue 'Rat, if governments could get their hands on general fund monies by taxing gas, there would be no deficit for sure.

However, I would like to suggest that while we may not pay much for gas as compared to many others, the money that we save is taken from us in the form of federal and state taxes. It would actually be better to have the taxes paid at the pump by those who are choosing to drive things like SUV's. A quick net search turned up this article (http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm) which I'm sure is thouroughly biased, which claims that the true cost of a gallon of gas turns out to be above $15.

This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors.

The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

Even if this is wildly exaggerated, the true cost is definetly higher than the $2.00 or so that we pay here. People should have the option to buy an SUV if that is what they truly need, but they should be made to pay the true costs for their choices, not have it subsidized by the taxpayers at large. Cut the federal and state taxes of all costs associated with fuel and then make the consumers pay. Seems fair. A little personal accountability would be nice to see here. Those who drive gas-efficient vehicles will see the benefits, and it will weed out most of those who don't need an SUV.

[sturm375]

According to this:
http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/faq-environment.htm

SUVs are much lower on the pollution totum pole than popular belief.

[mactastic]

Ugh, those nasty 2 stroke engines will kill us all.

[Ugg]

Just like the 4,000 square foot faux chateaus that ring our cities it's not just about the sheer waste in heating or fuel costs it is also about the material that goes into making them. Tires are made out of oil, the extra vehicle weight comes from the massive amount of steel it takes to build them, plastic another oil product is used liberally. Oil changes on SUVs can suck up 8 quarts pretty easily.

It's the whole package that matters.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
which claims that the true cost of a gallon of gas turns out to be above $15.


holy snarks!

such a pump price would sort out the SUV, public transportation, and low mileage issues in a hurry.

i say: bring it on.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
holy snarks!

such a pump price would sort out the SUV, public transportation, and low mileage issues in a hurry.

i say: bring it on.

Let's see.... 20 gallon/tank, $15/gallon... that's $300/tank of gas. Yep that would solve the problem.

[Lancetx]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Worse then childish -- stupid, illegal, immoral, and (worst of all) counterproductive.

Not to mention that the pollution put off by burning 20 SUVs is more than the things would have produced if they were driven for several years. This is just another typical hypocritical response by a wacko leftist group by doing absolutely nothing to actually solve the real problem they claim they're so passionate about...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mactastic
Let's see.... 20 gallon/tank, $15/gallon... that's $300/tank of gas. Yep that would solve the problem.

he he

that's fine by me

..but first let me get enough high tech computer clients to justify a store front so i don't have to drive to their homes and businesses for repairs...so they can come drive over to my repair shop with their vehicles

...i will just hang out there, collect my money, and keep my car in the parking lot...like the real techies with sense do when they want a truly successful computer repair network business

..failing that, i will open up a gas pump:p :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
If someone is single, and drives a hummer, and never hunts, fishes, camps, or pulls a trailer, or anything like that. Then they don't need it. But you know what. If they can pay 60,000 for a SUV, they would probably have something else that did not get good mpg. And if they want it, it is their decision not mine.


No. You are waay wrong on this one.
If someone is single and wealthy, all of their disposable income should be surrendered to the government so that government can provide for the unfortunate ones in society. In fact, if you are single and wealthy, you should pay 99% of your income to the state. How about what you owe to the state?

The wealthy have been getting a free ride all along from the poor in this country. Its time that the poor get what they deserve. Freedom has got nothing to do with it. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, forget freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness bullhockeypuck.

People should not be able to drive a Viper, Prowler, Corvette, Mustang, Hummer, etc. Everyone should be driving a small car that gets 80MPG, goes as fast as a small golf cart, going downhill.

Forget individual choice. All of this must be surrendered in order to make this world a better place. No more SUVs, pristine forests without forest roads making an ugly black mark on them. Forest biodiversity! No more large upscale developments. Burn them all down. Show them the consequence of defying Gaia!!!

[end_sarcasm] :p

Maybe I can join the FBI and become an ELF informant. :D

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson made it very clear that it was organizations like Ducks Unlimited that led to the banning of things like DDT. Hunters can't hunt if there isn't anything to shoot (other than each other) and they are to be commended for their conservation work.

What I see from the above is a refusal on the part of Americans to take responsibility for the fact that their habits have created the Venezuelas, the PEMEX', the Iraqs, the Indonesias of this world. The brutal dictators of this world exist largely because of the US' dependence and the denial of its dependence on oil.

All for the sake of our own greed and insensitivity. Does anyone truly wonder why so many nations hate us so much? Does anyone need to look any further than their driveway? What's out there? An efficient and safe means of transportation or a shrine to American stupidity?

I'm going to have to get ahold of my Ducks Unlimited member services and see what their current stance is on DDT. A lot of people had the wool pulled over their eyes on the DDT and weak eggshells phenomenon.

Americans have wanted to get out of their foreign dependence on oil. How come we can drill offshore in California and Florida? How come we can drill for oil in Alaska?

As far as the Venezuela/Iraq/Indonesia of the world, we do business with countries that have something to sell. If we care about the way these countries settle things domestically, we would probably invade them, and annex their territories, but you can't do that with the word 'empire' coming from the bleeding-heart liberals. These are the same ones that have Free Tibet stickers on their Subarus/Volvos. As if that will make China loose its grip on Tibet. Arm Tibet would be a better idea, but I digress.

There is the jealousy factor. Some societies can't stand the fact that we are dominant in world affairs. Instead of looking for the cause, within, they lash out at us. Not much I can do about that.

I drive a SUV. It gets probably 16MPG. I enjoy driving it. I like its size. I like how high off the ground, allowing me to see over traffic. I signal before I change lanes. I turn my head to look at the direction I'm turning to make sure some guy in a Mini didn't just dart into the spot that I had signalled for 100 feet.

I drive a sports car. It can get 24MPG, but it usually gets around 12. I like its speed. I like being able to pass someone at will. I like the power its got, and the confidence it gives me when I'm on the road. I do not dart into places and make people brake hard to avoid hitting me.

I guess that would make me a selfish American.

BTW, I average $20 in fuel costs every 20 days. How? I drive an econobox when I want to. For me, its economics. No one is immune to the laws of economics. Its when you make punitive laws that you create distortions in the marketplace.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg Sick SOB's can't do a heck of a lot of damage without funding.

Have you ever been outside the US? Have you ever tried to look at the US from another person's point of view? Is the US the only country worthy of your consideration? There's a little less than 300 million of us and there's about 5.7 billion others out there. Personally, with them kind of numbers, it sort of makes sense for us to try and understand what's going on in the world.

If you are trying to justify a particular viewpoint because there are 5.7billion of them, thats a bad argument to make.

If 5.7billion people said 2+2=5 (kinda like Pentium math), and 300million said 2+2=4, that does not make the 5.7billion people right.

2+2 is still 4!

Lets see. Sick SOBs with funding go and make chemical and biological weapons. They try and make some nuclear weapons too.

Sick SOBs without funding go and use food/intimidation on their people. Kinda like what North Korea did. Its soldiers are well-fed, while the population is not. And what did Carter/Clinton do with North Korea? Coddle them, gave them fuel and food, and now, we have a few nuclear tipped missiles pointed at Alaska and the West Coast.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by actripxl
First Im sick of this freedom of choice reply some give all the time....We want disarmament yet we have nukes, we complain about drugs yet are the biggest consumer, sign an enviormental treaty then back out. These are just a few of the things we do wrong and until most of us can admit to it we will always have a bullseye on our back.

First off. I'm not sick of freedom. I love it. Freedom of choice is good too. Lemme guess, you are pro-life? ;)

Clinton signed the Kyoto accord. He can sign it all he wants, but its not law until its given the approval and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate. In fact, he could sign it, but its not a treaty until the last part is done. What Clinton tried to do is strongarm Congress, plain and simple.

US Constitution (1791) Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2 "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

Not saying strongarming Congress is illegal. But its not a treaty, and so, we are not bound by its stipulations.

Nuclear weapons, I think we are not for disarmament. We are for non-proliferation. The disarmament part came about as a condition of the ceasefire agreement for the end of the UN-sanction Gulf War I.

Drugs, I'll let the libertarians and greenies in the group answer that one. :p

[simX]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you are trying to justify a particular viewpoint because there are 5.7billion of them, thats a bad argument to make.

If 5.7billion people said 2+2=5 (kinda like Pentium math), and 300million said 2+2=4, that does not make the 5.7billion people right.

2+2 is still 4!

The point is that the 5.7 billion people aren't saying 2+2=5. It's the 300 million that are saying 2+2=5. Which is definitely not right.

Lets see. Sick SOBs with funding go and make chemical and biological weapons. They try and make some nuclear weapons too.

Sick SOBs without funding go and use food/intimidation on their people. Kinda like what North Korea did. Its soldiers are well-fed, while the population is not. And what did Carter/Clinton do with North Korea? Coddle them, gave them fuel and food, and now, we have a few nuclear tipped missiles pointed at Alaska and the West Coast.

Let's see. "Sick SOBs" with funding go and hijack election to get into power. "Sick SOBs" use vague "evidence" of "nuclear tipped missiles pointed at Alaska and the West Coast" to justify an invasion of another country. "Sick SOBs" use false information to coerce legislators and citizens alike to agree to the war.

Now, we have a whole country that's in tatters, reconstruction is not going well, and the country is outputting less oil than it was before the war.

Fat lot of good these "Sick SOBs" did to all those people who were driving SUVs, and buying gas that was ultimately going to that country in the first place.

:rolleyes:

Let's not turn this into a war in Iraq discussion, OK?

[RobVanDam]

Originally posted by simX
The point is that the 5.7 billion people aren't saying 2+2=5. It's the 300 million that are saying 2+2=5. Which is definitely not right.Spending ones money how they damn well please is not right?

[Desertrat]

Somebody was complaining in an earlier post about the hazard posed to low-built cars in a side impact from an SUV, due to the high ride-height and bumber height of an SUV.

Hmmm.

What's the practical difference between an SUV and a short-bed pickup with a camper top? We've had pickup trucks around, with the same height bumpers, for longer than I've been around. IOW, it's no new hazard.

Everything loses to a semi--even a Hummer.

As an ex-Lotus/Austin-Healey/TR-3 driver, I say anything bigger than a Miata is no bueno por nada.

:), 'Rat

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Spending ones money how they damn well please is not right?

not when it hurts others.

your freedom ends when it starts to harm others

or, can i start throwing my fists around how i damn well please also?

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I like the power its got, and the confidence it gives me when I'm on the road.

i'm sorry

[RobVanDam]

Firing someone hurts them.

Talking in a hostile tone to someone can hurt them.

Driving an economy car hurts someone because you're still polluting. Oh, it's not as much so it's magically ok?

So yes, you can go throwing your fists around how you damn well please, just as long as you don't hurt anyone too much.

[mactastic]

As has been said here before, rights are not absolute. You have the right to drive whatever you want as long as you pay the costs of the vehicle you drive. That's why gas should cost $5/gal or more. Then if you still want to exercise your freedom be my guest.

Oh and for all those making the argument that you have some kind of "right" to drive.... driving is a priviledge, not a right. If that priviledge is restricted, you can't complain that your "rights" are being taken away. That's outright false.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Firing someone hurts them.

Talking in a hostile tone to someone can hurt them.

Driving an economy car hurts someone because you're still polluting. Oh, it's not as much so it's magically ok?

So yes, you can go throwing your fists around how you damn well please, just as long as you don't hurt anyone too much.

yes. firing someone and punching them are the same as far as the letter of the law goes...

i didn't say driving an SUV (when you don't need it) is against the law, but i do think it's selfish and exemplary of the affluenza that affects humans, especially americans

[xpormac]

Everyone needs to drive motorcycles.....Makes that boring trip to work/grocery store/some place fun :D . Fast and economical; can't beat that. :cool:

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
What's the practical difference between an SUV and a short-bed pickup with a camper top? We've had pickup trucks around, with the same height bumpers, for longer than I've been around. IOW, it's no new hazard.

As far as the federal government is concerned, they are the same. And that's the problem -- SUVs are passenger cars that are arbitrarily exempted from traffic safety (and pollution and milage) standards. This wasn't a big issue when these vehicles were only five percent of the traffic. Now they're closer to 50%, and they're literally driving through a big loophole created for commercial vehicles. Hey, just because you drive a car as big as a dump truck, doesn't mean it is a dump truck.

[RobVanDam]

That's the thing though. Everyone against SUV's so far have said "If you don't need it."

Well, I know a lot of people around here that do need it. I've seen people with luxury SUV's that use them to their full ability.

The fact is, a lot of people outside of big cities DO use SUV's and trucks to their limit.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
That's the thing though. Everyone against SUV's so far have said "If you don't need it."

Well, I know a lot of people around here that do need it. I've seen people with luxury SUV's that use them to their full ability.

The fact is, a lot of people outside of big cities DO use SUV's and trucks to their limit.

So let's let them pay the costs of a huge vehicle.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by simX
[B]"Sick SOBs" with funding go and hijack election to get into power.

There was no hijacking of an election. The Florida Supreme Court reinterpreted election law as written by the Florida legislature to. It clearly stated that the results had to be certified within a specified time frame, but the Florida Supreme Court determined otherwise. That is the crux of the lawsuit.

Florida, even after the recounts, had GWB win.

As to funding, did you know that the DNC is mainly funded by a small group of people donating large sums of money? While the RNC is large groups of people donating small sums? So, tell me, which is the party of the masses?


DNC has been behind a few court-interpretations of election law. The last election cycle, had New Jersey allow the Democrats to substitute Lautenberg for when Torricelli was going to lose the election. But the date for changing the candidates had already come and gone.

[simX]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There was no hijacking of an election. The Florida Supreme Court reinterpreted election law as written by the Florida legislature to. It clearly stated that the results had to be certified within a specified time frame, but the Florida Supreme Court determined otherwise. That is the crux of the lawsuit.

Florida, even after the recounts, had GWB win.

... after they purged the voter lists of thousands of black voters for having the same names as convicted felons in TEXAS.

:rolleyes:

And also, where did you get the idea that I was a Democrat, either?

[Desertrat]

IJ, forget the loophole for a minute. I was referring to the argument about the dangers from SUVs to small cars. The argument is framed in a way that one should believe this is a NEW hazard that did not exist before.

Overall, when you consider the ejecta from volcanoes, the emissions from power plants, the exhaust emissions from planes, trains, trucks and all cars, the arguments against SUVs per se are nothing but examples of "SPECIOUS!" Same for the fuel economy argument. SUVs do a heckuva lot better, per passenger-mile-gallon, than any jet aircraft.

Most--not all--of the people down on SUVs are mostly jealous of anybody who lives better than the complainer.

And I've already said why I don't particularly like them.

Sorry, actripxl, if you don't like the "freedom of choice". A lot of us do, and will continue to do so. I have noticed that messing with other folks' freedoms can lead to a certain amount of hostility...

'Rat

[actripxl]

Funny you guy keep bringing up my freedom of choice with out taking the anarchy part of my sentence with it, convenient is not to pick out the parts you like. Again freedom of choice does not mean you can choose anything you like. You can't hunt unless you have a license, you can't yell fire in a theater, these are just examples of things that are done in a "Free Society". Limits are set all the time just so happens that it depends on what society and its government feel it should mandate. To bad most of you seem that seem to value your so called "Freedom" to chose, lack the sense of "Responsibility" to the future generations that will suffer. You should feel proud of your " I'll do what I want and screw the world" attitude, its very American of you(or at least that’s what most of the world thinks, thank God some of us realized that for the U.S. to stay on top it has to play nice with its neighbors. If there is one thing that history has proven over and over again, its that the most powerful and arrogant of civilizations eventually become humble and for the most part disappear when they aren't able to adapt to changes occurring in the world.
p.s. RVD most of the U.S. Population live in cities not rural areas so for the most part they do not need SUV's just to drive to work and go out. No I’m not pro-choice what you do with your body is your business, you can snort, inject, stick anything in any orifice you want as long as what you do doesn't affect me in anyway. I have no problem in people exercising their freedom just as long as their freedom doesn’t affect my health or any other persons any more than all the pollutants and pathogens are ready out there.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, forget the loophole for a minute. I was referring to the argument about the dangers from SUVs to small cars. The argument is framed in a way that one should believe this is a NEW hazard that did not exist before.

[snip]

It's tough to overlook the loophole, since that loophole is what's allowed these dangerous vehicles to multiply like over-sexed rabbits. So yes, while the danger might not be entirely new, the threat to life and limb for occupants of all passenger cars has increased by orders of magnitude. I think the original exemption was hard to justify with the much smaller number of qualifying vehicles, and its impossible to rationalize now.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, forget the loophole for a minute. I was referring to the argument about the dangers from SUVs to small cars. The argument is framed in a way that one should believe this is a NEW hazard that did not exist before.

SUVs are heavier and much more prevalent than light trucks (with or without caps) have ever been before. Light trucks and SUVs account for over 40% of vehicle sales, up from somewhere under 10% just 20 years ago.

Most--not all--of the people down on SUVs are mostly jealous of anybody who lives better than the complainer.

Ha! That's rich!

I could easily afford an SUV, but then I'd be jealous of the guy who bought my TDI and is getting 50mpg!!

Jealousy is not a factor. SUVs can be had for pretty cheap. Try again.

Sorry, actripxl, if you don't like the "freedom of choice". A lot of us do, and will continue to do so. I have noticed that messing with other folks' freedoms can lead to a certain amount of hostility...

Since when has operating a motor vehicle been a right and not a choice bearing responsibilities?

I have to have my license, drive within the laws and limits, pay annually to keep my vehicle registered and keep it inspected for safety. Emissions inspections are probably next.

Why don't I have the freedom to tear off my catalytic converter and add a few horsepower to my car? Or install red turn signals on the front of my car? Or blacklights in place of headlights? Or a police light-bar? Or drive blindfolded? Or at 100mph?

Damn those liberals for stepping on my rights!! :rolleyes:

Simple. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. Owning an automobile subjects us to reasonable restrictions for both our own safety and others' safety.

Having someone driving around in a 3 1/2 ton, poorly braking, sloppy handling death spear of a solid ladder frame sitting at eye level of where I'm at in my mid-sized hatchback is something that needn't be and shouldn't be.

Unless you think it's someone's right to drive a monster truck on public highways. How would you feel seeing one of these coming at you in the rearview at a high rate of speed?

[RobVanDam]

That big foot in the picture is for exhibition only and I believe can't go any faster than a crawl.

One of the normal big foots though, that'd be cool.

[IJ Reilly]

The American flag in the bed is a nice touch. Monster trucks and apple pie...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The American flag in the bed is a nice touch.

it's "cargo"

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
One of the normal big foots though, that'd be cool.

Yeah, 'cause then in an accident you could be sure to crush even the biggest of SUVs!!

Time for Joe Scaredycat to go one-up from his H2, there's a new killer in town!:rolleyes:

At this rate, in ten years, Kenworth will have a 10% marketshare in the "SUV" segment.

[RobVanDam]

I'd just like the see the Big Foot go fast enough to clip the oblivious drivers.

Smart drivers pull to the side of the road, pinch themselves, then ask themselves "did I see what I think I just saw...Nah"

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by simX
... after they purged the voter lists of thousands of black voters for having the same names as convicted felons in TEXAS.

:rolleyes:

And also, where did you get the idea that I was a Democrat, either?

Didn't say you were a democrat, in my post. I'm just stating what happened last election cycle.

As far as purging voter lists, who is responsible for that? Secretary of state? Election commission?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I could easily afford an SUV, but then I'd be jealous of the guy who bought my TDI and is getting 50mpg!!

Simple. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege. Owning an automobile subjects us to reasonable restrictions for both our own safety and others' safety.


If you were rich, you could keep the TDI and get the SUV too. That way, you get 50MPG when you want to, and you get cargo carrying capacity if you want to. But do not presume to tell people to live their lives the way you live yours.

Yes. Driving a motor vehicle on public streets is a privilege. Owning an automobile, like owning property, is a right.

How would you like it if a law was passed saying people driving/owning TDIs must give them up and take public transportation instead? Would you be hopping mad?

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you were rich, you could keep the TDI and get the SUV too. That way, you get 50MPG when you want to, and you get cargo carrying capacity if you want to. But do not presume to tell people to live their lives the way you live yours.


Here, let's try it this way.... If you were sensible, you would own a TDI for your everyday uses and if and when you needed an SUV, you would rent one. My little 2WD Ford Ranger provides me what I need 360 days of the year. But I like to go Nordic Skiing in the back country and a 2WD just doesn't cut it so I rent a 4WD for the few days I need one. I would bet that most Americans only NEED an SUV very occasionally. Why spend a fortune on a vehicle that is only used to its capacity a few days of the year? Or is owning 2 vehicles, one of which is rarely used, about power and one upmanship?

[RobVanDam]

Around here, the people that need to use their trucks or SUV's absolutely have to use them at least 1/4th of the days of the year. The rest of the 3/4ths, it might be able to use something else, just a hell of alot harder.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm going to have to get ahold of my Ducks Unlimited member services and see what their current stance is on DDT. A lot of people had the wool pulled over their eyes on the DDT and weak eggshells phenomenon.



What? Are you saying that DDT is a benign substance? An explanation of your statement would be greatly appreciated.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Around here, the people that need to use their trucks or SUV's absolutely have to use them at least 1/4th of the days of the year. The rest of the 3/4ths, it might be able to use something else, just a hell of alot harder.


Where do you live? Above the Arctic Circle? I grew up on the eastern side of the Rockies. Snow and mud were the norm. I would bet that fewer than 5% of the vehicles on the road were 4WDs and of those, 95% were owned by farmers. Common sense and good driving skills were more valuable than 4WD and still are. Your "absolutely have to use them" statement doesn't hold any water with me. It's not a matter of need but want that makes people buy SUVs. Front wheel drive and good snow tires are much more important than 4WD.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you were rich, you could keep the TDI and get the SUV too.

what does a sense of responsibility have to do w/ how well-off someone is?

the underlying tone of the anti-SUV aspect of this thread has to do w/ americans' sense of entitlement. owning a needlessly wasteful vehicle is a symptom of that, especially when that vehicle is used solely as a passenger vehicle and driven aggressively.

that sense of entitlement extends to the belief that, as americans, we deserve to collect and use a share of natural resources that greatly eclipses our share of the world population. it speaks to an arrogance against which the world is reacting.

the question then becomes - is it worth it for me to contribute to factors that lead to hatred of america, or can i act just a bit more responsibly and drive something that gets better than average mileage and contribute in my own little way?

[simX]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Didn't say you were a democrat, in my post. I'm just stating what happened last election cycle.

OK, I was just checking. It's just that sometimes people seem a little hasty to label people as Democrats when they go and say things against the Republican party and the current administration.

For the record, I don't really hold the Democrats in high regard either. They haven't done anything to stop the stomping on our rights that the current administration has done -- but that's for another thread.

As far as purging voter lists, who is responsible for that? Secretary of state? Election commission?

I believe it was a combination of the Secretary of State and county procedures. If you do a Google search for [+florida +"Election 2000" +"voter lists"] or something to that effect, you'll get a bunch of pages documenting the problems that abounded in the Florida election process.

Here's (http://www.thetip.org/art_NAACP_Sued_Catherine_Harris_over_Gerrymandering_in_Florida______Election_383_icle.html) a starting article. Some other good pages are here (http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html), here (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/08/integrity/), and here (http://www.fair.org/activism/voting-rights.html). (DISCLAIMER: I didn't read the entirety of these articles, but they seemed pretty informative.)

Whether or not Bush or Gore would have won in the end is moot -- the issue is that the Supreme Court should not have blocked the recount, and should have investigated all the irregularities before declaring Bush the winner of the elections. It is entirely possible that he would've won even if there weren't irregularities.

But this is totally off-topic. I think that zimv20 gets it right when he says that many people are expressing their anti-SUV (and anti-American, to an extent) sentiments because of how Americans think they are entitled to SUVs which are needlessly wasteful. Already we consume so much and produce so much waste that it really is disgusting when compared to other countries, even industrialized nations such as France, Germany, and Italy.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by simX
But this is totally off-topic. I think that zimv20 gets it right when he says that many people are expressing their anti-SUV (and anti-American, to an extent) sentiments because of how Americans think they are entitled to SUVs which are needlessly wasteful. Already we consume so much and produce so much waste that it really is disgusting when compared to other countries, even industrialized nations such as France, Germany, and Italy.

As someone already have said, the US accounts for a large portion of the world economy, so that would translate to a large portion of the energy resources used. Its not like France, Germany or Italy can even compare to the amount of goods and services produced in the United States.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit: Sure, driving is a privilege. Stipulating one has met the requirements for a license, one's choice of what USDOT-legal machine to drive is a right.

As to responsibility, I fail to see a connection between purchasing an SUV and removing anti-smog devices, etc. You usually do better than that.

A Ford Exploder has a curb weight of about 4,500. Most of the foreign SUVs appear to be lighter. Those notably above 4,500 are a smaller percentage of all SUVs. A full-size pickup weighs 4,000 pounds and up.

However, my IROC was 3,500 pounds. Many "full-size" cars are 3,500 to 4,500 pounds.

As far as braking and handling, the onus is on the driver. Still, an SUV handles a lot better than my GMC 9000 dumptruck that's been out on the highway with many a "mid-sized hatchback". :)

Given my own preference in cars, a mid-size hatchback can be an oncoming large monster. I worry about the loose nut behind the wheel, not the size or shape of the car.

'Rat

[simX]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As someone already have said, the US accounts for a large portion of the world economy, so that would translate to a large portion of the energy resources used. Its not like France, Germany or Italy can even compare to the amount of goods and services produced in the United States.

No, but the resources consumed per capita is far greater here in the U.S. than it is in other countries. There's no justification to the wastefulness here in the U.S. that stems from rampant consumerism.

[simX]

Frohickey, let's break out the numbers to drive the point home, shall we?

You can confirm all the numbers quoted below by going to the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) online publication.

USA
----
pop: 290342554
energy consumption: 3.479 trillion kilowatt hours per year
oil consumption: 19.65 million barrels per day

Using a simple calculation, we can figure out the resource consumption per capita:

energy consumption per capita: 11982 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per capita: 0.068 barrels per person per day

-----------
France
----
pop: 60180529
energy consumption: 0.4153 trillion kilowatt hours per year
oil consumption: 2.026 million barrels per day

energy consumption per capita: 6901 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per captia: 0.034 barrels per person per day

Hmm, looks like we (Americans) consume almost twice as much oil and energy per capita than France.

-----------
Germany
----
pop: 82398326
energy consumption: 0.5068 trillion kilowatt hours per year
oil consumption: 2.813 million barrels per day

energy consumption per capita: 6151 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per captia: 0.034 barrels per person per day

SURPRISE! We consume almost twice as much per capita as Germany, as well.

-----------
Italy
----
pop: 57998353
energy consumption: 0.2891 trillion kilowatt hours per year
oil consumption: 1.866 million barrels per day

energy consumption per capita: 4985 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per captia: 0.032 barrels per person per day

Oops, it looks like we consume over twice as much oil and energy per capita as Italy, too. Noticing a pattern yet?

-----------
Japan
----
pop: 127214499
energy consumption: 0.9642 trillion kilowatt hours per year
oil consumption: 5.29 million barrels per day

energy consumption per capita: 7579 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per captia: 0.042 barrels per person per day

Hmm, let's see. We ALSO consume about 50% more oil and energy per capita than Japan. Let's do one more calculation just to be sure these weren't all flukes.

-----------
China
----
pop: 1286945768
energy consumption: 1.312 trillion kilowatt hours per year
oil consumption: 4.975 million barrels per day

energy consumption per capita: 1019 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per captia: 0.004 barrels per person per day

Ouch! Looks like we consume over 10 times as much energy per capita and over 15 times as much oil per capita as China.

-------------

Maybe you'd like a graph to see the differences more clearly? Since I went this far, I might as well just make a graph, too:

http://homepage.mac.com/simx/.Pictures/nrgoil.jpg

Frohickey, please don't try to let the U.S. hide behind the "we're bigger so we can consume more resources" argument. It just doesn't hold water.

[RobVanDam]

Originally posted by Ugg
Where do you live? Above the Arctic Circle? I grew up on the eastern side of the Rockies. Snow and mud were the norm. I would bet that fewer than 5% of the vehicles on the road were 4WDs and of those, 95% were owned by farmers. Common sense and good driving skills were more valuable than 4WD and still are. Your "absolutely have to use them" statement doesn't hold any water with me. It's not a matter of need but want that makes people buy SUVs. Front wheel drive and good snow tires are much more important than 4WD. I live in Wisconsin, where a lot of people work hard for their money and like to spend it on things they use.

I'm not saying everyone drives SUV's or trucks around here, it's that the people that do spend their money on a truck or SUV actually use them. It might be a matter of want where you live, it's a matter of need over here. Sorry I don't live in the rich town full of American *******s you picture all Americans live in.

simX, France, Spain, Italy, Britain, they're fair to compare us to, and yes, we do comsume a hell of alot more than them per capita (one of the biggest reasons, we have California, they don't). Comparing us to China holds little water seeing as though they're still trying to pull themselves up to the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

[simX]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
simX, France, Spain, Italy, Britain, they're fair to compare us to, and yes, we do comsume a hell of alot more than them per capita (one of the biggest reasons, we have California, they don't). Comparing us to China holds little water seeing as though they're still trying to pull themselves up to the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

Right. I was just providing China in the statistics to show the vast differences between U.S. consumption and consumption of a not-so-modern nation such as China. It's still shocking to see how much more we consume, given that about 1/6 of the world's population lives in China.

[SPG]

Just want to throw in my two cents in to the fury of anecdotal hyperbole here...I used to live near the top of a mountain in the Sierras, above lake Tahoe at 7000' altitude where we'd get snowbanks as high as 20-30 feet on the side of the road regularly. What did I drive? A Honda Civic with good snow tires. How often did I get stuck? Never. When things got slick and the car started to slide, I could recover faster and easier than when driving my buddy's old full size Blazer (the one that's now ironically the "Tahoe"). Every time it snowed I would drive down the mountain to town and look at all the SUV's in the ditches. Saw maybe one car to every dozen SUV's. I don't buy into "I NEED an expensive SUV to satisfy my outdoorsy lifestyle." BS. An SUV would probably be better in the snow if you drove it right, but at what cost? What's the mileage difference? half? That means you're paying twice in fuel, $10,000-$15,000 more for the vehicle, 50% or more in insurance. And for what? To think you can drive fast in the snow a couple times a year and eventually wind up in the ditch? No thanks, I'll save my money for lift tickets.

[RobVanDam]

I'm sorry, people around here haul alot of stuff, tow even more, hunt, and go off-roading.

I haven't seen a Civic that could even come close to an SUV or truck in any of those situations, no matter what tires it had.

Snow driving isn't even a factor here, hell, snow just makes for an interesting drive into work.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
I'm sorry, people around here haul alot of stuff, tow even more, hunt, and go off-roading.

I haven't seen a Civic that could even come close to an SUV or truck in any of those situations, no matter what tires it had.

Snow driving isn't even a factor here, hell, snow just makes for an interesting drive into work.

I agree there probably is more of a need for SUV's in your area. Just like there is a need in countries like Iceland where everyone drives really beefed up SUV's.

All the countries mentioned in simx's post have areas like yours where it is difficult to get around without an SUV, yet they manage to somehow consume much less energy. Perhaps this is due to the people who don't need them don't have them. THe trouble is we are getting like you guys, over here, the "surrey tractor" is the nickname for the land rovers owned by ppl in London which have never even seen anything other than tarmac. Other european countries are better at this, in fact, The major european car manufacturers specialise in small economic cars. (Renault, Peugeot, Seat, Fiat, etc etc) With perhaps the exception of the German Crowd, but then their major market is the US.

Can you see the pattern here?

As for pickups, w e have them in europe, and they are very useful to people who need them. LEt me jsut say that they are about a quarter the size of those monsters you have over there, we get along fine with them, I know many farmers and contractors who are fine with them. What on earth do you guys use a Ford F350 for, somebodys in my village has just had one imported from the US and frankly I'm scared for the future.

[mactastic]

Have your SUV. I wouldn't care so much, if those who owned them paid the full burden of ownership. I strongly object to my tax money going to subsidize your vehicles poor mileage. They cause more damage in an accident, thus higher insurance. They suck up more of our gas, so shift the tax burden from income tax to a gas tax that reflects the amount spent per gallon to take care of all the problems from ICEs. SUVs are harder on the roadways than regular cars, require larger parking spaces and wider lanes than others, so higher licensing fees should also apply. Stop giving tax breaks to the Hummer! Put the burden on the owner and let the market decide.

Hmmm... that actually sounds like a conservative solution.

[Desertrat]

simX, from your numbers, we are double the energy usage, per capita, of France. What's the per capita GDP comparison?

The complaint about "waste" reminds me of the argument about the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". One person's waste is another persons comfortable living... Who defines?

mactastic, you said, in part, "They cause more damage in an accident, thus higher insurance."

SFAIK, your insurance premiums are based on your vehicle, not the vehicle likely to hit you.

"SUVs are harder on the roadways than regular cars, require larger parking spaces and wider lanes than others, so higher licensing fees..."

They already pay higher license fees, either as a function of value or as a function of weight. And except for the narrow streets of older cities, traffic lanes are designed for the eight-foot maximum legal width. SUVs are no wider than full-size pickups or vans.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Exactly 'Rat. If you are more likely to totally destroy a car or some other piece of property, in other words if the SUV driver makes my insurance company pay more for the results of a heavier vehicle hitting something, then that person is a greater risk, and should pay a higher premuim. If your vehicle is more likely to roll over as a result of poor driving skills, you should pay more. Maybe get a discount for taking an advanced driving class. Teenagers are singled out as a high risk group, I don't see why SUVs shouldn't be classified as riskier investments for the insurance company.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
I'm sorry, people around here haul alot of stuff, tow even more, hunt, and go off-roading.

I don't know where "around here" is for you, but "around here" for me is Southern California, the SUV-drivingest place in the nation. You can be sure that 90% of the Lincoln Navigators, Hummers and Ford Expeditions in these parts never see anything but pavement (unless you count parking them on the front lawn -- don't get me started). In fact, would any owner actually try to take their $40k luxury truck off-road? And risk getting a scratch? Oh, sure they would. And snow? Don't make me laugh -- we get a dusting about once every fifty years! Hell, it barely even rains here.

I know it's hard to admit, but for the vast majority of people, owning an SUV is to participate in a national fad. It will probably pass eventually, like all fads do, but in the mean time it's creating a danger for those of us who don't buy in, and it also forces all of us, no matter what we drive, to pay the wasteful use price for fuel.

[Sun Baked]

Sort of funny then that SUV drivers are helping keep prices of small cars low.

Heck there's enough profit in a couple of the luxury SUVs to buy a small car, or help pay for the rebates on the manufacturers other vehicles.

[sturm375]

Insurance:
Rates are based on one thing and one thing only, who can pay the most. Case in point: Statitistically females are more likely to get into an accident, and comprise more than 50% of the population. Males are statistically less likely to get into an accident, and comprise less than 50% of the population. Guess who pays more for their auto insurance. That's right, Males! Why? Because, we still on average make more than females. We are where the money is at, therefore we are the ones that can afford to pay more.

SUVs based on truck frames, not the cheap SUVs based on car frames, are safer, less likely to be totaled in an accident, and last longer. They cost the insurance companies less money to insure. Also, because these truck frame SUVs are safer for the passengers, the Human Life Cost (And don't even for a minute think that the insurance companies don't put a dollar amount on human life) is less, for the insured.

Gas:
I've heard it said that raising gas prices to $15/gal would solve all the problems. Do you want to revisit the Great Depression? That is what would happen, very quickly. People would stop commuting to work, make less money, get rid of their cars (even economy cars would cost too much at this point), and a major portion of the US's GDP would be destroied (Ford & GM). As much as I hate to say it, we are dependent on such companies to provide income, and maintain a prosperous nation. Not to mention the fact that it would be very hard to do. The federal government cannot constitutionally put a sales tax on gas. Only the States have that right. And within each state, diferent regions have different taxes on gas. This is why I can travel about 30mi from my home and get $.10/gal less expensive gas. It would require an Amendment to the Constitution to do such a thing.

Solution:
We americans are a strange people, we don't want to change to something most percive as an infearier product. And right now, alternative fueled cars are seen (and often rightfully so) as infearier to the internal combustion engine. Push, as hard as you can, then push some more, to open up R&D on Fuel Cells, Solar Power, Hydro Power, Wind Power, even Nuke power. Without a viable alternative, we americans won't change. Telling someone that they should switch to an economy car, when they can afford a luxury SUV, is like telling somebody with a 3.2 Ghz P4 that they should switch to a G4 1.2 Ghz because its more efficient. As true as it may be, they will still see it as a downgrade, and we don't like t downgrade.

[simX]

Originally posted by sturm375
Solution:
We americans are a strange people, we don't want to change to something most percive as an infearier product. And right now, alternative fueled cars are seen (and often rightfully so) as infearier to the internal combustion engine. Push, as hard as you can, then push some more, to open up R&D on Fuel Cells, Solar Power, Hydro Power, Wind Power, even Nuke power. Without a viable alternative, we americans won't change. Telling someone that they should switch to an economy car, when they can afford a luxury SUV, is like telling somebody with a 3.2 Ghz P4 that they should switch to a G4 1.2 Ghz because its more efficient. As true as it may be, they will still see it as a downgrade, and we don't like t downgrade.

That sounds more like a conclusion than a "solution". Your solution is just to accept the fact that we're accelerating the destruction of the only planet on which we can currently live? Some solution.

Originally posted by Desertrat
simX, from your numbers, we are double the energy usage, per capita, of France. What's the per capita GDP comparison?

The complaint about "waste" reminds me of the argument about the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". One person's waste is another persons comfortable living... Who defines?

You can go and look up the numbers yourself at the link I provided, but heck, here (per capita GDP):

USA: $37600

France: $25700

Germany: $26600

Italy: $25000

Japan: $28000

China: $4400

The differences in the numbers are much less striking. We have about only a 33-50% greater per capita GDP than France, Germany, Japan, or Italy. We have about a 750% greater per capita GDP than China (that is, if I'm doing my math correctly -- I'm always a bit confused by % greater calculations)

But I don't see how that's relevant to the waste we create. Wouldn't you expect that as a nation becomes more technologically advanced and has more purchasing power, the country would find better products and technological advances to LOWER the waste that you produce per capita? By contrast, our country wastes the most, even though we are sometimes billed as the most technologically advanced country (which is a debatable point).

[Desertrat]

simX, I'm not sure that there can be a solution, vice a conclusion as you saw in Sturm's comment.

Part of my reasoning is that I've read that the largest single-country sales for Gucci, Mercedes and Rolex occur in China.

IOW, with affluence comes a desire to buy toys, to live high on the hog. It's a universal human trait: Like monkeys, grab at the shiny and pretty.

That line of reasoning doesn't mean I don't think folks shouldn't try to change things, but it does affect the way I think changes should be brought about.

'Rat

[sturm375]

Originally posted by simX
That sounds more like a conclusion than a "solution". Your solution is just to accept the fact that we're accelerating the destruction of the only planet on which we can currently live? Some solution.



It's your choice. You can fight against the stream so to speak, or you can try to use human nature (or at least American nature) to your advantage. I am not accepting anything, other than basic mass psychology. Until there is an alternative that is attractive to the consumer, yes we (American pigs) will continue to get big, luxury SUVs. We will also, as I pointed out in a previous post, a single lawn mower running for 1 hour, pollutes more that 100 cars, or 1 car running for 100 miles.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by sturm375
It's your choice. You can fight against the stream so to speak, or you can try to use human nature (or at least American nature) to your advantage. I am not accepting anything, other than basic mass psychology. Until there is an alternative that is attractive to the consumer, yes we (American pigs) will continue to get big, luxury SUVs. We will also, as I pointed out in a previous post, a single lawn mower running for 1 hour, pollutes more that 100 cars, or 1 car running for 100 miles.

but autos account for nine times the pollution that all factories put out...i remember saying that during a speech in college at a business school...it kind of pissed off those yuppie wannabee types who love the idea of an suv for the image it adds to their cell phone, suit, and latest shoes:p

for the right application, like many posters have mentioned before, an suv is the right vehicle

but for basic, one passenger point a to point b transportation, it's a gas hog...as are large station wagons and mini vans

some worry that we will use up all the fossil fuels in the world supply...but most likely, from what i have read, things will change from the internal combustion engine by then...well in to the 21st century, we won't be riding around in a mid 19th century invention

[RobVanDam]

IJ Reilly
I don't know where "around here" is for you

Originally posted by RobVanDam (at the top of page 5)
I live in Wisconsin, where a lot of people work hard for their money and like to spend it on things they use.

I'm not saying everyone drives SUV's or trucks around here, it's that the people that do spend their money on a truck or SUV actually use them. It might be a matter of want where you live, it's a matter of need over here. Sorry I don't live in the rich town full of American *******s you picture all Americans live in.

[actripxl]

Gas prices should be raised, and no people would not stop commuting to work that is just a silly conclusion. I live in Miami and here has got to be some of the worst public transportation in the country(my opinion). Well I don't have a car(thats another story) and I get around without any problems. My friends couldn't belive how I would get to some places without a car. So raise the gas prices, improve public transportation and watch how people will get around just fine. Sure somedays its a bit of a pain waiting for the bus, but once you get used to it and a iPod full of songs its no big deal.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by sturm375

Gas:
I've heard it said that raising gas prices to $15/gal would solve all the problems.


it would solve many problems but create many more. i don't advocate it.

i do advocate slowly raising the price to $5/gallon and letting the market take care of fuel efficiency problems. the extra tax can be used to fund alternative energy R&D and public transportation.

[K4NN4B15]

Most people who drive SUVs can afford to live in the cities that they work in. A lot more people commute back and forth in clunker sedans that might get 30-40mpg but still end up burning way more gas to get you where you have to go. I dont see how taxing gas even three or four more dollars a gallon is going to fix anything.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by K4NN4B15
Most people who drive SUVs can afford to live in the cities that they work in. A lot more people commute back and forth in clunker sedans that might get 30-40mpg but still end up burning way more gas to get you where you have to go.

don't suppose you've got a source to back up those claims?

[SPG]

Way better solution for the ELF:

Lower or raise the "max vehicle height" bars to inflict the most damage.

Think about it. If there is a parking garage with a really low ceiling, then raise the bar at the entrance. If the ceiling is high, then lower the bar to keep the SUV's out. Let the SUV owners wreck their own monsters.
If you look at the bars, they're usually just chained or hanging on a rope, and are easily adjustable, probably without tools. Also any SUV really being used to haul stuff over rough terrain wouldn't be in a parking garage situation too often.

[K4NN4B15]

Originally posted by zimv20
don't suppose you've got a source to back up those claims?

Id be too ashamed to quote any source that wasted its time compiling trivial facts like that.

Its just common sense. Tons of people commute to work because its expensive as hell to live in many major cities that have alot of decent jobs. If you have to drive 45 minutes - an hour to get to work because you cant afford the suburbs.. chances are you arent cruising around in a 40k SUV.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by K4NN4B15

Its just common sense.


"Feel free to provide authoritative references; in the meantime, you won't mind if we conclude that you're simply making this up." -- Ian York

[SPG]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
I'm sorry, people around here haul alot of stuff, tow even more, hunt, and go off-roading.

I haven't seen a Civic that could even come close to an SUV or truck in any of those situations, no matter what tires it had.


Sure, but the point is that you really don't need a 2ton monster truck to go to the grocery store even if you do live every day of your life in a rural snowy mountainous area. You seem to think that you can justify the greed of the majority by the need of the minority of SUV drivers. Last time I heard, even the auto industry admitted that well under 5% of SUV's ever leave pavement. That's EVER leave pavement.

[SPG]

I've been spending a lot of time in rural Japan this year and I've seen what the farmers and contractors out there drive. They all drive very small simple cheap trucks that are smaller than even a Ford Ranger. Flat front, low bed, high clearance, and the ones that get used in the rice fields are even four wheel drive. After seeing the Japanese work truck and the US full size pickup I'd much rather use the Japanese version for doing actual work. The sides fold down and the bed is really low, so it's easy on your back to load them. They're short cab style, so you see the ground right in front of you and they're super easy to maneuver.
Short of towing a backhoe, in which case you'd have a dump truck anyway, I can't think of how a F350 is any easier or better to use as a work truck...oh yeah, they don't roar when you stomp on the gas, so you don't have the macho compensator effect.

[Desertrat]

SPG, there's just a heckuva lot more to it than utility.

Small cars really began in Europe, with their very narrow streets and high gasoline taxes. It is far easier to walk to stores in a European town; the physical layout of the larger cities facilitates public transportation. Last, it's not very far from one point in a country to some other poiint. Europeans just don't spend as much time "living" in their cars.

Ferry Porsche came to the US in the 1960s to go to the "Porsche Parade", held in Aspen, Colorado. For whatever reason, he flew to Kansas City and then drove to Aspen. In a Ford sedan. When questioned about it, he commented that Porsches were not suitable for US "autobahns", but the Ford was. :)

So, US trucks have included creature comforts as well as utility. I know of no reason a work truck has to be ugly or uncomfortable, if one can afford to pay for the conveniences.

There are many areas of clay flats where I live. One night, a local scored with a sweet young thing and took her home in his Honda Civic. Later that night, it rained. This led to the comment that, "The difference between a one-night stand and a relationship is three inches of rain." Most of us learned years ago that 4WD is a necessity, not a luxury.

'Rat

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
The major european car manufacturers specialise in small economic cars. (Renault, Peugeot, Seat, Fiat, etc etc) With perhaps the exception of the German Crowd, but then their major market is the US.

Sorry, when I have to correct you on this one... but the german luxury cars are not the only cars produced in Germany. Volkswagen also builds small and fuel efficient cars (and SEAT is part of VW and their cars are based on VW parts). The "smart" car is a project by Mercedes. They just gave it a different because they thought it wouldn't go well with the brand name Mercedes to build a small car like that. Opel (part of GM) as well has little cars in their line-up. And to claim that the US are the major market for german cars is just plain wrong. Of course a percentage of the cars produced goes to the US, but it is only a little part. So please get your facts straight before you post them...

Thanks.

groovebuster

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Sorry, when I have to correct you on this one... but the german luxury cars are not the only cars produced in Germany. Volkswagen also builds small and fuel efficient cars (and SEAT is part of VW and their cars are based on VW parts). The "smart" car is a project by Mercedes. They just gave it a different because they thought it wouldn't go well with the brand name Mercedes to build a small car like that. Opel (part of GM) as well has little cars in their line-up. And to claim that the US are the major market for german cars is just plain wrong. Of course a percentage of the cars produced goes to the US, but it is only a little part. So please get your facts straight before you post them...

Thanks.

groovebuster

Okay, hold on. All I meant by the german crowd was Mercedes and BMW. Of course I have heard about VW, my dad drives a VW subdivision Skoda. I know Mercedes and BMW make smaller cars too, but their main market, as it stands are big saloons with powerful engines. ANd, america may not be their biggest market, but compared to the other European manufacturers they sell a lot of cars in the states. I don't think they even have Peugeots over there, definitely not in Canada anyway.

SO I forgot about a couple of things as I was rolling the thoughts out my head, but the facts are basically true, nevermind, I know what I meant! :p

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by simX
USA: $37600

France: $25700

Germany: $26600

Italy: $25000

Japan: $28000

China: $4400

The differences in the numbers are much less striking. We have about only a 33-50% greater per capita GDP than France, Germany, Japan, or Italy. We have about a 750% greater per capita GDP than China (that is, if I'm doing my math correctly -- I'm always a bit confused by % greater calculations)

It should be considered, that those numbers reflect last year estimates. The dollar was very strong compared to the Euro. Since then the Euro gained 30% compared to the US$. Considering that Germany e.g. would equal a GDP of $33,990 by now. Also considering the high unemployment we are facing at the moment and the ongoing economical problems in the eastern part of Germany it looks not too bad I guess...?

Statistics are a bitch, when you are not providing the references you are using to "translate" numbers into your own currency.

Just a thought...

Greetings,

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
I know Mercedes and BMW make smaller cars too, but their main market, as it stands are big saloons with powerful engines.

Sorry, but still not correct... :cool: :rolleyes: :p

Merecedes and BMW are selling mostly their "small" cars, like C and 3xx class. The bigger cars have a bigger margin, but don't sell that well by far (of course). Now we could start argueing if a BMW 320i is a small car or not... but I think compared to the "standard sizes" sold in North America they are pretty small. The size and fuel consumption is comparable to the smallest cars US manufacturers are offering... just the prize is "a little bit" higher. But especially Mac users shouldn't be concerned about that little side fact... ;)

Anyway... I know what you meant, I just didn't agree how you presented the "facts". ;)

groovebuster

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Sorry, but still not correct... :cool: :rolleyes: :p

Merecedes and BMW are selling mostly their "small" cars, like C and 3xx class. The bigger cars have a bigger margin, but don't sell that well by far (of course). Now we could start argueing if a BMW 320i is a small car or not... but I think compared to the "standard sizes" sold in North America they are pretty small. The size and fuel consumption is comparable to the smallest cars US manufacturers are offering... just the prize is "a little bit" higher. But especially Mac users shouldn't be concerned about that little side fact... ;)

Anyway... I know what you meant, I just didn't agree how you presented the "facts". ;)

groovebuster


Exactly, that proves my original point. THe 3-series may be a small car by american standards but its pretty medium by ours. That is sorta my point, I was trying to say that Mercedes and BMW's are sold in the US but not things like Renault Clio's or Fiat Seicento's etc because there simply isn't market for them.

You think of the C-class and 3 series as a small car and yes they are not exactly gas guzzling American monsters, but they don't quite get the mileage of a Smart now do they?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what choice I have of really small cars in America, I mean something along the lines of this:

[FatTony]

Originally posted by sturm375
Solution:
We americans are a strange people, we don't want to change to something most percive as an infearier product. And right now, alternative fueled cars are seen (and often rightfully so) as infearier to the internal combustion engine. Push, as hard as you can, then push some more, to open up R&D on Fuel Cells, Solar Power, Hydro Power, Wind Power, even Nuke power. Without a viable alternative, we americans won't change. Telling someone that they should switch to an economy car, when they can afford a luxury SUV, is like telling somebody with a 3.2 Ghz P4 that they should switch to a G4 1.2 Ghz because its more efficient. As true as it may be, they will still see it as a downgrade, and we don't like t downgrade.

I was flipping through the channels last weekend and saw a bit of the NASCAR race at Bristol. I will leave out my personal feelings on nascar, but it occurred to me that they should switch to alternative fuels. Make them race on natural gas or something else. It would raise awareness among the masses and maybe disprove the "inferiority" of alternatives.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Desertrat
SPG, there's just a heckuva lot more to it than utility.

Small cars really began in Europe, with their very narrow streets and high gasoline taxes. It is far easier to walk to stores in a European town; the physical layout of the larger cities facilitates public transportation. Last, it's not very far from one point in a country to some other poiint. Europeans just don't spend as much time "living" in their cars.

Ferry Porsche came to the US in the 1960s to go to the "Porsche Parade", held in Aspen, Colorado. For whatever reason, he flew to Kansas City and then drove to Aspen. In a Ford sedan. When questioned about it, he commented that Porsches were not suitable for US "autobahns", but the Ford was. :)


Your first point is right on the money. Local solutions for local problems. It is interesting to look a little closer though at what caused our "problem". It is well known that Detroit bought up a lot of the street trolleys and put them out of business, forcing people to buy a car. Zoning laws in the US since WWII have encouraged sprawl instead of intelligent planning which has forced Americans into the car.

One of the biggest problems with mass transit in the US today is the lack of a center. The typical transit system in western US cities, is a nightmare of crisscrossing lines. Zoning in the US has encouraged commercial only and residential only areas forcing people to drive long distances to shop and work. Is this "freedom" or simply a lack of foresight?

If we look at Europe as the European Union then they face some of the same distances that we do. Stockholm to Lisbon is about 2000 miles.

Well, times change and I doubt that Mr. Porsche would do the same today. What I think is more telling is that one will find very, very few American cars on European roads. They are too big, guzzle too much gas, handle poorly and historically aren't as dependable. Isn't Japan really responsible for the high quality of autos in the US today?

[sturm375]

Originally posted by FatTony
I was flipping through the channels last weekend and saw a bit of the NASCAR race at Bristol. I will leave out my personal feelings on nascar, but it occurred to me that they should switch to alternative fuels. Make them race on natural gas or something else. It would raise awareness among the masses and maybe disprove the "inferiority" of alternatives.

Great idea, but will never happen. NASCAR still mandates carberators, because they don't think they can "control" the cars if they went to fuel injection. I know for a fact the fuel injection is much better than a carberator, and is even easier to control like NASCAR want. (My boss is a car enthusiest, NASCAR fan, and electrical engineer).

Some suggestions:
Relax the intellectual property laws, such that companies can't hold onto them for decades. The reason this would help is that there are rumors that the big three (GM, Ford, and Crysler) have been buying up designs that are much more fuel efficient. I know I read about a person who fully designed, and prototyped an 60-80 mpg mid-size sedan (Intrepid size). I also know about other alternative fueled cars that get some press when they do something amazing, but never see them come to market.

[RobVanDam]

sturm, the reason why you see all these designs for fuel efficient cars is because many times a year there are competitions to see who can make this, or who can make that. A recent competition was to see who could make an environmental SUV.

The reasons why most environmental vehicles don't come to market:

- New engine design, which needs a different form of manufacturing, meaning new plants would most likely need to be built

- Not enough market share, they can't make anything that only a few people will buy. If there is only an option between a gasoline or hybrid engine, I'll pick the gas because I can fix it in most cases and modify it much easier.

- Many of the times where a car goes 60-80mpg, it doesn't use gas, it uses some other type of fuel. Where the hell would a consumer get that?

- Fuel cells are currently very far off, and are inherantly insanely dangerous to drive considering you're carrying pure hydrogen in your vehicle.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
sturm, the reason why you see all these designs for fuel efficient cars is because many times a year there are competitions to see who can make this, or who can make that. A recent competition was to see who could make an environmental SUV.

The reasons why most environmental vehicles don't come to market:

- New engine design, which needs a different form of manufacturing, meaning new plants would most likely need to be built

- Not enough market share, they can't make anything that only a few people will buy. If there is only an option between a gasoline or hybrid engine, I'll pick the gas because I can fix it in most cases and modify it much easier.

- Many of the times where a car goes 60-80mpg, it doesn't use gas, it uses some other type of fuel. Where the hell would a consumer get that?

- Fuel cells are currently very far off, and are inherantly insanely dangerous to drive considering you're carrying pure hydrogen in your vehicle.

This post reminds me a lot of quotes that appeared when the "horseless carriage" first appeared. Sort of funny when you think about it!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
sturm, the reason why you see all these designs for fuel efficient cars is because many times a year there are competitions to see who can make this, or who can make that. A recent competition was to see who could make an environmental SUV.

The reasons why most environmental vehicles don't come to market:

- New engine design, which needs a different form of manufacturing, meaning new plants would most likely need to be built

- Not enough market share, they can't make anything that only a few people will buy. If there is only an option between a gasoline or hybrid engine, I'll pick the gas because I can fix it in most cases and modify it much easier.

- Many of the times where a car goes 60-80mpg, it doesn't use gas, it uses some other type of fuel. Where the hell would a consumer get that?

- Fuel cells are currently very far off, and are inherantly insanely dangerous to drive considering you're carrying pure hydrogen in your vehicle.

You left the most important one out:

- Car manufacturers are being rewarded greatly by the market for not innovating at all -- SUVs use old engine and chassis designs, are cheap to make, and carry a huge profit margin for the automaker.

My car gets over 50mpg using diesel. I can get that just about anywhere -- and for less than regular gasoline costs right now too!

As far as poo-poo'ing hydogen because it's "insanely dangerous," ever think about how safe it is to have 20 gallons of gasoline stored in a collapsable tank?

[RobVanDam]

pseudobrit, they aren't being rewarded, they're being smart because it costs a huge amount of money to make new plants or completely renovate plants in order to create a type of car that isn't even guarenteed to sell.

And about gas being dangerous, yes, it is very dangerous. But hydrogen is even more dangerous, that's the problem.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
they're being smart because [...]


i blame the auto manufacturers least of all. they're responding to customer demand (granted, they use marketing to increase it) and trying to maximize profits.

i blame:
1. the responsibility-free public
2. gov't for not taking responsibility to raise mileage requirements

[RobVanDam]

The mileage requirements? Those aren't always accurate.

It all depends on how someone drives.

[simX]

Originally posted by groovebuster
It should be considered, that those numbers reflect last year estimates. The dollar was very strong compared to the Euro. Since then the Euro gained 30% compared to the US$. Considering that Germany e.g. would equal a GDP of $33,990 by now. Also considering the high unemployment we are facing at the moment and the ongoing economical problems in the eastern part of Germany it looks not too bad I guess...?

Statistics are a bitch, when you are not providing the references you are using to "translate" numbers into your own currency.

Yeah, true, this *IS* something that you have to take into account... but it would only make the U.S. wastefulness look even more alarming, right?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
The mileage requirements? Those aren't always accurate.

It all depends on how someone drives.

And the tune of their vehicle.

Consumer Reports has the TDI coming in with lower-than-EPA sticker mileage for my car, but with conservative or highway driving coupled with tires inflated much closer to the limit than the manufacturer suggestion, I often get mileage over the EPA rate.

But either way, you're looking at about 15% deviation from the EPA mileage, which is precisely why the light truck segment needs to have the bar raised immediately. There's simply no excuse for every automobile sold to not be getting at least 20mpg, or maybe 16 with a leadfooted driver who neglects his car/truck.

[Sun Baked]

How many people would be willing to give up their SUV monster for a commuter car?

Then there's the Tango (http://www.commutercars.com/intro.html), smaller than a commuter car -- but 0-60 mph in 4 sec.

Tango in autocross.mov (http://www.commutercars.com/images/theater/marinaAutocross/marina_mov.html)

But would you go 130mph in it?

---

Front page...

http://www.commutercars.com/

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
Exactly, that proves my original point. THe 3-series may be a small car by american standards but its pretty medium by ours. That is sorta my point, I was trying to say that Mercedes and BMW's are sold in the US but not things like Renault Clio's or Fiat Seicento's etc because there simply isn't market for them.

You think of the C-class and 3 series as a small car and yes they are not exactly gas guzzling American monsters, but they don't quite get the mileage of a Smart now do they?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what choice I have of really small cars in America, I mean something along the lines of this:

I believe the point you might be making is that the smallest cars manufactured by the likes of BMW and Mercedes aren't sold in the US. Last year I recall seeing a very tiny Mercedes urban runabout plying the streets of London. Don't recall the model, but I imagine you'd know. I doubt we'd ever see anything quite that small here.

The smallest car you'll find in the US market today happens to be one built not far from where you live -- the MINI. It also happens to be the car I own.

[xpormac]

lol, looks like something out of japan.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Last year I recall seeing a very tiny Mercedes urban runabout plying the streets of London. Don't recall the model, but I imagine you'd know.

was it the smartcar? i love that thing.

VW has two models smaller than the golf -- the lupo and the polo. i wish they were available in the US.

when i was in mallorca a few years ago, i saw a VW golf and it was decidedly larger than most other cars on that island.

also saw a jeep cherokee unable to make a turn in a town -- the road was too narrow. it was gridlock. a bunch of people stood around and gawked at the idiocy of driving something so large on those streets. he had to make a 20-point turn to unstick himself.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by zimv20
was it the smartcar? i love that thing.

also saw a jeep cherokee unable to make a turn in a town -- the road was too narrow. it was gridlock. a bunch of people stood around and gawked at the idiocy of driving something so large on those streets. he had to make a 20-point turn to unstick himself.

The Smart's are incredible little cars. Their acceleration is mind boggling. In Stuttgart a couple of years ago I was at a stoplight in my Opel wagon and a Smart was next to me and it just flew when the light turned green. i would have been very hard-pressed to match its acceleration. On a rather depressing note, a couple of German towns have ruled that parking two mini autos like the Smarts in one parking space means that both have to pay the parking charge.

I saw a Chevy 3/4 ton with dual rear wheels in Germany whose rear fenders were almost torn off from too many tight squeezes.

It is interesting that in Europe there are very, very few pickups and those that do exist are small Toyotas and Nissans with 4WDs being in the minority. It is true that farms are, in the west at least, smaller but the farmers are much more likely to use their tractors for what many Americans would use a pickup.

Closer to home, both sets of my grandparents were farmers, each had about 500 acres of dairy cows, pigs, corn, taters, etc. Neither of them ever owned a pickup. It was seen as sort of wasteful and extravagant. Wonder what happened in the last 30 years to change that attitude? The corporatization of the American farm or just laziness and greed?

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I believe the point you might be making is that the smallest cars manufactured by the likes of BMW and Mercedes aren't sold in the US. Last year I recall seeing a very tiny Mercedes urban runabout plying the streets of London. Don't recall the model, but I imagine you'd know. I doubt we'd ever see anything quite that small here.

The smallest car you'll find in the US market today happens to be one built not far from where you live -- the MINI. It also happens to be the car I own.

Yeah may not have been a smart car cos they have no markings on them that are mercedes. It was probaly the A-Class, even that is what we call a "Super-mini" not the smallest cars but smaller than a Ford Focus. Interestingly enough these super minis have been getting bigger and then the manufacturers come out with a new smaller car to fill in the gaps left. Eg, the VW Polo was in the Mini hatchback class but now it is as big as the golf was back then with the Lupo being brought in to fill in the gap, very odd. This is happening with ford too, ie the Ford Ka and Fiesta. Check out the UK websites of these Marques to see what I mean, (jsut put .co.uk after their names).


this is the A-Class, and incredibly, my mate has one, it has a huge amount of space inside. As much as a people carrier.

[amnesiac1984]

forgot the pic

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
Yeah may not have been a smart car cos they have no markings on them that are mercedes. It was probaly the A-Class, even that is what we call a "Super-mini" not the smallest cars but smaller than a Ford Focus. Interestingly enough these super minis have been getting bigger and then the manufacturers come out with a new smaller car to fill in the gaps left. Eg, the VW Polo was in the Mini hatchback class but now it is as big as the golf was back then with the Lupo being brought in to fill in the gap, very odd. This is happening with ford too, ie the Ford Ka and Fiesta. Check out the UK websites of these Marques to see what I mean, (jsut put .co.uk after their names).


this is the A-Class, and incredibly, my mate has one, it has a huge amount of space inside. As much as a people carrier.

I did a bit of research, and I was thinking of the Smart, which is a real eye-catcher especially if you're used to American cars. The look reminds me of a Nike sneaker! How I knew it was by Mercedes I don't recall. Maybe I asked someone. I did also see quite a few Mercedes A-Class as well as Audi A2s. Both are very interesting small cars which I think could find at least a limited market in the US, especially with our volatile fuel prices lately. The Japanese manufacturers also make small cars they don't market here. It's a shame really. Maybe with the success of the MINI, they'll start to get some courage. The MINI is really turning heads here -- I still get questioned about mine often, and everyone thinks it's about the cutest car they ever set eyes on. What they don't know is that there's a lot more where that comes from...

[Desertrat]

The question in Ugg's "Neither of them ever owned a pickup. It was seen as sort of wasteful and extravagant. Wonder what happened in the last 30 years to change that attitude? The corporatization of the American farm or just laziness and greed?" is easily answered--and only halfway facetiously:

Country/Western music, line-dancing and TV ads.

Another little bit of perspective on cars: You can put up with a lot of discomforts when you're young. I was thirty-seven before I bothered to own a car with air-conditioning. The "buzzing" of a four-banger engine didn't really ever get to me until about a year or so ago, nor a relatively harsh ride. So, at age 68 I opted for comfort as a large part of the reason for my purchase of a good used GMC 2WD PU Xtra Cab. Captain's chairs. :) I can drive to the low end of the fuel gauge, not the high end of my fatigue. And after 30,000 miles I'm still glad I got it.

One reason for urban sprawl in the US, and not in a country like Germany is that of land prices. An awful lot of rural US land still sells for under $1,000 an acre in larger tracts. In Germany, the same sort of land sells in the range of $8,000 to $12,000 per acre, per a Swiss land-hustler I knew. My son's house in southern Bavaria, with 2,700 sq ft above ground and some 1,000 sq ft of basement, cost him right at $250,000 BEFORE he rendered it habitable. Same condition, that house in a similar town in Texas would run maybe $60,000 to $80,000 at most. He tells me that many home-loan notes are generational. A fella buys it; his grandson finally clears the mortgage. Some 80% of German consumer debt is for real estate.

'Rat

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I did a bit of research, and I was thinking of the Smart, which is a real eye-catcher especially if you're used to American cars. The look reminds me of a Nike sneaker! How I knew it was by Mercedes I don't recall. Maybe I asked someone. I did also see quite a few Mercedes A-Class as well as Audi A2s. Both are very interesting small cars which I think could find at least a limited market in the US, especially with our volatile fuel prices lately. The Japanese manufacturers also make small cars they don't market here. It's a shame really. Maybe with the success of the MINI, they'll start to get some courage. The MINI is really turning heads here -- I still get questioned about mine often, and everyone thinks it's about the cutest car they ever set eyes on. What they don't know is that there's a lot more where that comes from...

Don't Daihatsu sell small cars in America? I did some research and found that they do and Chevrolet do as well, although i have to say, Chevy really do make **** cars from the look of them. In fact in most of the GM cars are really generic rubbish with horrible styling to try and look different. (I spent today looking at GM websites for some reason, boredom most likely).

[Ugg]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
Don't Daihatsu sell small cars in America? I did some research and found that they do and Chevrolet do as well, although i have to say, Chevy really do make **** cars from the look of them. In fact in most of the GM cars are really generic rubbish with horrible styling to try and look different. (I spent today looking at GM websites for some reason, boredom most likely).

I've occasionally seen some small Daihatsus but they're not common. Mostly I've seen their incredibly narrow vans. Suzuki sells some compacts here and Hyundai is very popular. Chevy does have their Geo lineup and yes they are ugly. GM's design group is inhabiting another planet lately. Their odd looking pontiac and chevy van thingies are unbelievably ugly. The new Cadillac sedans also have that odd and unappealing sharpness to them.

I spent some time at the MINI website and it is great. Lots of flash animation and a sense of humor, especially on the American site.

Toyota has a newish small car that is selling well too. There are a lot of small cars here it's just that when the average SUV takes up the space of 3 subcompacts and blocks the view in front on the road, the SUV is much more memorable.

I saw a Golf TDI today and they are fairly big cars. I was very envious when I realized that the driver was getting twice the mileage that I do.... Too bad the Mini doesn't get better mileage.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat


One reason for urban sprawl in the US, and not in a country like Germany is that of land prices. An awful lot of rural US land still sells for under $1,000 an acre in larger tracts. In Germany, the same sort of land sells in the range of $8,000 to $12,000 per acre, per a Swiss land-hustler I knew. My son's house in southern Bavaria, with 2,700 sq ft above ground and some 1,000 sq ft of basement, cost him right at $250,000 BEFORE he rendered it habitable. Same condition, that house in a similar town in Texas would run maybe $60,000 to $80,000 at most. He tells me that many home-loan notes are generational. A fella buys it; his grandson finally clears the mortgage. Some 80% of German consumer debt is for real estate.

'Rat

Sounds like my area. Median house price here just hit $391,000 in July. Makes me wonder how long its gonna take me to save up enough for a down payment. :(

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ;
Too bad the Mini doesn't get better mileage.

It isn't truly an economy car, it's a sports coupe tuned more for performance then mileage. Even so, I can approach 40 MPG on the highway if I'm careful, which isn't too shabby. What the MINI may have started to do in the American car market is change the perception of small cars as being automatically dull. What happens next is up to the manufacturers, but I hope they're paying attention.

[vniow]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sounds like my area. Median house price here just hit $391,000 in July. Makes me wonder how long its gonna take me to save up enough for a down payment. :(

Yeah no kidding, I'm moving out soon and there is no way in hell I can live by myself, I'm going to have to have at least a roommate or two just to get the price down to an affordable level, apartments out here are absolutely insane.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
Here, let's try it this way.... If you were sensible, you would own a TDI for your everyday uses and if and when you needed an SUV, you would rent one. My little 2WD Ford Ranger provides me what I need 360 days of the year. But I like to go Nordic Skiing in the back country and a 2WD just doesn't cut it so I rent a 4WD for the few days I need one. I would bet that most Americans only NEED an SUV very occasionally. Why spend a fortune on a vehicle that is only used to its capacity a few days of the year? Or is owning 2 vehicles, one of which is rarely used, about power and one upmanship?

Been there, tried it already.
I am sensible. I own an econobox, even prior to when the hybrid cars came out touting their 50MPG highway. Mine is 49MPG highway, but I regularly get 45MPG on combination highway and street driving. Been doing this for 10+ years now, so do not presume to say I am not miserly about my gasoline usage. Bought this without the tax breaks that people are claiming for buying a ULEV.

As to renting a SUV for a particular weekend or 20, I've tried that already. A 4WD vehicle costs quite a lot of money to rent for a weekend, and you are not guaranteed to be able to rent one during that particular weekend. When I was into hunting, I couldn't just make a spur of the moment decision, I would need to plan out the trip. Plus, they are not cheap to rent. $300 or so for a small SUV, more for a 4WD truck or Suburban if you can get it! At $400 a weekend, you'd pay off a $36K SUV in 90 weekends. 90 weekends in 5 years. And you OWN the vehicle.

If renting is good for you, then do so. But do not assume that if renting is good for you, then renting is good for everyone. To do so means to me that you think you are better at living my life than me. And that, my friend, is repulsive to a lot of freedom-loving Americans.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by simX
Frohickey, let's break out the numbers to drive the point home, shall we?

Frohickey, please don't try to let the U.S. hide behind the "we're bigger so we can consume more resources" argument. It just doesn't hold water.

There is no hiding behind any numbers...
1995 GDP breakdown per country (http://www.geocities.com/combusem/WORLDGDP.HTM)

$19.63 trillion 1995 GDP
United States $5.45trillion (27.8%)
Japan $3.0trillion (15.3%)
Germany $1.5trillion (7.6%)
France $1.0trillion (5.1%)

Economic activity is closely related to the amount of energy used.

[pseudobrit]

A few points from a gearhead:

Geo no longer exists.

The Mini Cooper can indeed return 40mpg.

The smallest cars currently sold in the US, off the top of my head, include the Honda Insight, Toyota Echo, Suzuki Aero and Mini Cooper.

Once you get into Golf-sized territory, AFA I'm concerned, you're in mid-sized car land, where the Chevy Cavalier, Dodge Neon, Ford Focus, MB C Coupe and Toytoa Corolla sized cars are. This, to most Americans, are "small cars" and for some reason people feel unsafe in them.

I'd much rather be in a Golf in an accident than one of those chintzy cute-utes that get crushed AND roll over.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
To do so means to me that you think you are better at living my life than me. And that, my friend, is repulsive to a lot of freedom-loving Americans.

But most Americans don't know what freedom is unless they've owned a car that only needs fueled once a month.

Also, your math is misleading. Even with 0% interest, a $36K SUV runs over $600 a month. I don't know anyone that goes hunting in places that require a 4wd vehicle 90 weekends over five years. That's about 35% of their year-round free time spent hunting.

Even the hardcore hunters I know only go hunting maybe a dozen times a year (Pennsylvania is the biggest gun and hunting state in the Union), about half of what your projected five-year estimate would require.

Plus, you must factor in the cost of owning and fueling said SUV and driving it 7 days a week.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
I don't buy into "I NEED an expensive SUV to satisfy my outdoorsy lifestyle." BS. An SUV would probably be better in the snow if you drove it right, but at what cost?

Could you see yourself and a friend hauling a tent, 2 sleeping bags, sleeping mats, 2 rifles, coolers, food and water enough for 4 days, rain gear, first aid kit, backpacks, clothing, etc up a mountain road with large ruts and still have enough room for a full grown deer or two in the back of a Honda Civic?

[Abercrombieboy]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i don't need an suv..but what about those new sedan four wheel drive outbacks by subaru?

do they burn gas like a full on suv? just curious if anyone owns one

My brother-in-law had a 2001 Subaru Outback wagon. MPG was poor for a car, he got around 22-24 MPG on the highway. I get right at 20 Highway with my Mountaineer V6 All Wheel Drive. The Subaru was a nice car, their AWD system is amazing in bad weather, but underpowered and small. For the engine size and the size of the car it should do much better then an Explorer or Mountaineer.

I love my SUV. It is the 2002 model and the redesign made them much more stable. Lower and wider with 4 wheel independent suspension. I am aware it could rollover easier then a car, but they have came a long way in SUV design in the past 10 years. This is no Jeep CJ, Bronco II, or S-10 Blazer. I love being able to fold down the back seats and laydown. I am 6'1 and I camp very comfortably in the Mountaineer all the time.

Yes, I will admit things have gotten out of hand with SUV's. I am not talking about the small or mid-sized ones. I am talking about the Hummer H2, Excursion, Yukon XL. Things like that are more then anyone really needs, unless you tow a big camper or have a very large family. Then I don't understand the H2 because it really is not that roomy. A Trailblazer, Explorer and Pilot actually have more room inside then the H2.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But most Americans don't know what freedom is unless they've owned a car that only needs fueled once a month.

my tdi is in the shop (body work for an accident couple of weeks ago) and i've rented 3 different gas cars.

i can't believe how often i have to refuel. and these are for supposedly efficient cars. i've really spoiled myself w/ the diesel.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Could you see yourself and a friend hauling a tent, 2 sleeping bags, sleeping mats, 2 rifles, coolers, food and water enough for 4 days, rain gear, first aid kit, backpacks, clothing, etc up a mountain road with large ruts and still have enough room for a full grown deer or two in the back of a Honda Civic?

of course it is possible to come up w/ real-world examples that favor an SUV. i don't think anyone is denying they exist.

my POV is urban -- people just don't need them in chicago. and frankly, i'm sick of not being able to see around them and sometimes seeing nothing but grill in my rearview mirror.

anyway -- no pro-SUV aka pro-freedom-of-choice argument in this thread would be nullified if those vehicles got better mileage. if congress mandated 30 mpg, the automakers could do it. THAT'S what i want. and for them to stop tailgating me, too :-)

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'd much rather be in a Golf in an accident than one of those chintzy cute-utes that get crushed AND roll over. If anybody has spent any time on Fred's TDI Page or VWVortex, the accidents people have walked away from in VW accident in the Golf, Beetle, and Jetta are quite amazing.

Especially the idiots in the GTIs and Turbos that have rolled em.

Or bounced off everything when they spun em.

They're tuff little things.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
some worry that we will use up all the fossil fuels in the world supply...but most likely, from what i have read, things will change from the internal combustion engine by then...well in to the 21st century, we won't be riding around in a mid 19th century invention

Some contend that oil/gas/petroleum are not even fossil fuels, but hydrocarbons that are collected in the porous rock of the earth and are constantly upwelling from the deeper regions of the Earth.

If 'fossil fuels' are indeed from fossils, why is it that some of these are found in wells far deeper than any fossils could be found?

Thomas Gold "The Deep Hot Biosphere (http://www.eraline.com/data/0_1_2_0_1_3_0387985468_1_226710_index.html)

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
[B

If 'fossil fuels' are indeed from fossils, why is it that some of these are found in wells far deeper than any fossils could be found?

Thomas Gold "The Deep Hot Biosphere (http://www.eraline.com/data/0_1_2_0_1_3_0387985468_1_226710_index.html) [/B]

It's sort of a moot point though if the majority of them are located in highly unstable/fragile geopolitical regions.

Let's face it, the ICE is at the end of its sell by date. Oil is the past not the future.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
As far as poo-poo'ing hydogen because it's "insanely dangerous," ever think about how safe it is to have 20 gallons of gasoline stored in a collapsable tank?

No. Poo-poo hydrogen because there are no underground fields of hydrogen gas waiting to be tapped. Hydrogen gas would have to be separated from water, or made from hydrocarbons dug up from the ground.

Why not just use the hydrocarbons directly instead of using it to make hydrogen? Its more efficient to do it that way.

Reminds me of when California mandated the use of MTBE in its gasoline. Supposed to reduce emissions of the vehicles. Nevermind that the efficiency dropped and you ended up using more MTBE fuel to do the same thing.

[simX]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There is no hiding behind any numbers...
1995 GDP breakdown per country (http://www.geocities.com/combusem/WORLDGDP.HTM)

$19.63 trillion 1995 GDP
United States $5.45trillion (27.8%)
Japan $3.0trillion (15.3%)
Germany $1.5trillion (7.6%)
France $1.0trillion (5.1%)

Economic activity is closely related to the amount of energy used.

Hmm, can we do a little math before we go quoting random statistics? OBVIOUSLY the U.S. is going to have a higher GDP, because it has OVER TWICE the population of Japan, Germany, France, or Italy! I mean, sheesh, you really can't overlook simple things like that.

See, GDP when measured absolutely means nothing when comparing it to other countries. You have to take into account the number of people in the country. Like I did, you have to divide the GDP by the population. Like so:

$5.45 trillion / 263.43 million = $20688 per capita for the U.S.

$3 trillion / 125.2 million = $23961 per capita for Japan

$1.5 trillion / 81.64 million = $18373 per capita for Germany

$1 trillion / 58.15 million = $17196 per capita for France

OMG LOOK! JAPAN HAS A HIGHER PER CAPITA GDP THAN THE U.S. THAT MEANS THEY MUST BE USING MORE RESOURCES PER CAPITA!!!!!

Oh, wait, I already proved that wrong:

Originally posted by simX
USA [...]
energy consumption per capita: 11982 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per capita: 0.068 barrels per person per day [...]

Japan [...]
energy consumption per capita: 7579 kilowatt hours per person per year

oil consumption per captia: 0.042 barrels per person per day

:rolleyes:

Oh, and do I *REALLY* need to point out that you're using 1995 numbers? This is nearly a decade later, Frohickey -- surely you realize that?

:rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Some contend that oil/gas/petroleum are not even fossil fuels, but hydrocarbons that are collected in the porous rock of the earth and are constantly upwelling from the deeper regions of the Earth.

If 'fossil fuels' are indeed from fossils, why is it that some of these are found in wells far deeper than any fossils could be found?

LOL.

So now we should just use it all up and hope that more comes from some mysterious faerie-land in the centre of the Earth?

They're not "constantly upwelling" because the wells do indeed run dry. To think that they're going to refill themselves is nothing but oil-industry junk science.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Could you see yourself and a friend hauling a tent, 2 sleeping bags, sleeping mats, 2 rifles, coolers, food and water enough for 4 days, rain gear, first aid kit, backpacks, clothing, etc up a mountain road with large ruts and still have enough room for a full grown deer or two in the back of a Honda Civic?
Replace the deer and rifles with snowboards and camera gear and I used to do it every week. Like I said, a big SUV may have been easier for things like that, but it's not a requirement. Besides, how many of SUV drivers do either of the above? Not many.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Also, your math is misleading. Even with 0% interest, a $36K SUV runs over $600 a month. I don't know anyone that goes hunting in places that require a 4wd vehicle 90 weekends over five years. That's about 35% of their year-round free time spent hunting.

Plus, you must factor in the cost of owning and fueling said SUV and driving it 7 days a week.

Just because you don't know any hunters that spend 35% of their freetime hunting doesn't mean they aren't there.

Who said that you drive a SUV 7 days a week? Maybe its only 2 days a week. Maybe more. Why does it matter to you?

At $400 a weekend, you'd have 2/3rds of your monthly premium for the SUV already.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by simX
[B]Hmm, can we do a little math before we go quoting random statistics? OBVIOUSLY the U.S. is going to have a higher GDP, because it has OVER TWICE the population of Japan, Germany, France, or Italy!

Oh, and do I *REALLY* need to point out that you're using 1995 numbers? This is nearly a decade later, Frohickey -- surely you realize that?


Population has a loose correlation with GDP. If your agument about population and GDP is true, why is China behind the US in GDP? Hmmmm?
I think someone needs to understand the underlying reasons for the high GDP, and its definitely NOT population.
You keep going back to your argument that GDP is determined by the population of the country, its not! Energy usage is strongly correlated to GDP.

As to using 1995 numbers, that was what I could find without digging too much. And even with the 1995 numbers, my argument still holds true.

[simX]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Population has a loose correlation with GDP. If your agument about population and GDP is true, why is China behind the US in GDP? Hmmmm?
I think someone needs to understand the underlying reasons for the high GDP, and its definitely NOT population.
You keep going back to your argument that GDP is determined by the population of the country, its not! Energy usage is strongly correlated to GDP.

As to using 1995 numbers, that was what I could find without digging too much. And even with the 1995 numbers, my argument still holds true.

China is behind the U.S. in GDP because it is not as technologically and industrially advanced as the U.S.

I think someone needs to understand a little thing about numbers. You need to eliminate all the factors that can bias a set of statistics. Total GDP is not determined by the population is the total purchasing power of the every person in the country. But comparing the GDP of one country to the GDP of another country WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the population just doesn't make sense!

It's like taking a group of 10 people, each who have $10, and one person who has $50, and saying that just because the 10 people have $100 total means that they have more purchasing power than the one person. But, in reality, they'd have to share whatever they purchase, so the one person with $50 actually has a better deal, since he gets to keep everything for himself.

Surely you'd rather be the one that had $50, than be one of the 10 that had $100 collectively.

Oh, and by the way, you had to actually SEARCH for those numbers when I literally gave them to you on a silver platter (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)?! It really doesn't take that much to find up to date statistics.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Just because you don't know any hunters that spend 35% of their freetime hunting doesn't mean they aren't there.

Hunters that spend 35% of their free time hunting in areas that require an SUV can not possibly comprise 50% of all automobile buyers.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit So now we should just use it all up and hope that more comes from some mysterious faerie-land in the centre of the Earth?

They're not "constantly upwelling" because the wells do indeed run dry. To think that they're going to refill themselves is nothing but oil-industry junk science.

There have been documented cases of 'dry wells' being found capable of production again. Something caused it to be refilled.

No one said to use it all up. There is still the cost of extracting it from the earth, paying for the mineral rights, refining, formulation, distribution, etc that would add to the cost of the goods. I'm comfortable with the fuel costs that I incur doing my normal routine. Everyone needs to find their comfort zone, and not everyone has the same limitations as everyone else. People here that are arguing for punitive measures for SUV owners need to understand that.

I'm not going to discount a theory when there is valid science behind it. If everyone thought like you, the earth would still be flat.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If everyone thought like you, the earth would still be flat.

If everyone thought like you, we'd be popping out retarded kids from sucking on leaded gas fumes.

Tit-for-tat.

I am a scientific-minded person (my mother's a science teacher), and an avid reader on the many subjects under the umbrella of science, so don't even try telling me that I'm a flat-Earther.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Country/Western music, line-dancing and TV ads.

One reason for urban sprawl in the US, and not in a country like Germany is that of land prices. An awful lot of rural US land still sells for under $1,000 an acre in larger tracts. In Germany, the same sort of land sells in the range of $8,000 to $12,000 per acre, per a Swiss land-hustler I knew. My son's house in southern Bavaria, with 2,700 sq ft above ground and some 1,000 sq ft of basement, cost him right at $250,000 BEFORE he rendered it habitable. Same condition, that house in a similar town in Texas would run maybe $60,000 to $80,000 at most. He tells me that many home-loan notes are generational. A fella buys it; his grandson finally clears the mortgage. Some 80% of German consumer debt is for real estate.

'Rat

You got me on the first one, marketing is responsible for many sins in this country. Maybe my protest should be directed towards Madison Avenue as much as Wall Street.

When there are 80+ million people living in a country roughly the size of Montana land prices are going to be slighly on the high side. There is nothing like scarcity to make people value what they have more strongly. Housing prices in Germany are moderate for western Europe. The average overall is lower than western Europe but the cheapness of land and housing in eastern Germany skews things a bit. If you were to look at prices around Hamburg or Munich, they are in line with housing costs in the US.

Southern Bavaria is known for its expensive real estate and if you don't mind me saying so the view is probably a bit nicer from his house than it is from yours in Texas ;)

A friend of mine in Munich complained endlessly about the regulations and restrictions when he remodeled his house in north Munich. Some of the restrictions are pretty stupid but, in the end, he ended up with a home that was harmonious with its surroundings, its assessed value on completion of the remodel was greater than the cost of the home and the remodel costs AND the train station is only 5 blocks away. As he works in Marienplatz, that is priceless. As a bonus, the house will stand solid for another 75-100 years before any major remodeling is required. He also ended up with what is known as a "six litre house" That is one that uses only 6 litres of heating fuel or its equivalent in amonth. So, is it better to invest for the long term or the short term?


By the way, there are very, very strict rules about converting farmland to residential or commercial uses.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Ugg

he works in Marienplatz

lucky.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by zimv20
lucky.

His office overlooks the Glockenspiel and he must not have a lot to do because he has some hilarious tourist stories to tell.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by simX
Yeah, true, this *IS* something that you have to take into account... but it would only make the U.S. wastefulness look even more alarming, right?

Actually, that was my intention...

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I did a bit of research, and I was thinking of the Smart, which is a real eye-catcher especially if you're used to American cars. The look reminds me of a Nike sneaker!

Yup! It is cute... you see them a lot here in Berlin...

http://smart.com/smart/images/citycoupe/galerie/citycoupe_galerie_06.jpg

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
How I knew it was by Mercedes I don't recall. Maybe I asked someone.

Maybe because I mentioned it in a previous post in this tread?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I did also see quite a few Mercedes A-Class as well as Audi A2s. Both are very interesting small cars which I think could find at least a limited market in the US, especially with our volatile fuel prices lately. The Japanese manufacturers also make small cars they don't market here. It's a shame really. Maybe with the success of the MINI, they'll start to get some courage. The MINI is really turning heads here -- I still get questioned about mine often, and everyone thinks it's about the cutest car they ever set eyes on. What they don't know is that there's a lot more where that comes from...

Actually my brother-in-law in Canada would die to have a smart car over there, since he saw it the first time in real when he visited us here in Berlin. But the strange thing is that there doesn't seem to be a big enough market for cars like that over there. In North America "size matters"!!!... how else do you explain the dozens of ***** enlargement spam e-mails I get every day, even though I am not even living in North America for now? ;)

Companies only sell what can be sold and I think it tells a lot about the north american mentality regarding saving resources and energy... When we'll move to Canada one day I hope that more choices for little fuel efficient cars will be available over there... I just hate big cars and even with a family you don't need a huge SUV... we'll see... :rolleyes:

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

OK, I was just curious how much my car consumes converted to US measures...

I drive a FIAT cinquencento with a 899ccm engine (29 kW) and a top speed of 87mph. I bought the car new 6 and a half years ago.

The average fuel consumption is as follows...

36.2 mpg in the city
42.8 mpg autobahn/countryroads

Not too bad I guess.. and it is not a diesel engine. :) It could be even better, if I wouldn't floor it all the time on the autobahn. On country roads only or going straight 55 mph I can reach 52 mpg. Maximum fuel is about 9.25 gallons and I stop at the gas station about every 3 weeks when we are not on a trip.

And it is even good for a little family like us (2 adults + 1 little kid). We did several trips over the weekend with it so far without having any problems regarding comfort...

So my conclusion is... for the several occasions you could need a bigger car than that per year it doesn't make sense to waste a lot of money for it. I prefer to spend it on something more useful than that. In case you need a bigger car, just rent one! When you look at how much money you safe per year by driving a small car like this, you can rent car every month for a weekend and you are still way better off.

When I bought the car (all new) back then I paid about 7.250,- Euros (incl. tax) for it. Spare parts are cheap and repairs costed not a lot so far, since the car is very reliable.

groovebuster

P.S.: By the way... where I live I pay 4.05 Euros per gallon for gas at the moment.

P.P.S: Frohickey, what kind of car are you driving, claiming 49 mpg?

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There have been documented cases of 'dry wells' being found capable of production again. Something caused it to be refilled.


I would like to see a source. According to new scientist, we are finding more oil in these wells because the technology is getting better to extract it. When an oil well is gets to less than half full then production begins to slow exponentially and it becomes too costly to extract it.

I will endeavor to find this article on their website because it also claimed that scientists are warning that oil prices will skyrocket way before the oil starts to run out. From What I remember it looks like their will be a major crisis within the next 5-10 years. bare with me while i find this link.

[amnesiac1984]

Here is the article, long but very scary. I had to post it cos you need to register.

Brace yourself for the end of cheap oil

A MOMENT of truth is fast approaching-perhaps sooner than we can prepare for it. "The world faces at best a global recession. At worst, war, famine and mass migration," says Richard Hardman, trustee of the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre and a former president of the UK Geological Society. He is talking about the day we no longer have enough oil to meet energy needs. The result is likely to be skyrocketing fuel prices and economic chaos-far worse than the worldwide recession caused by the oil shocks of the 1970s.

But this crisis isn't centuries away. The crunch point comes not when we have run all the oil wells dry, but when demand outstrips production. And a growing number of experts are warning that this is likely to happen within the next few years. "There is a growing consensus that we are heading for an imminent peak [in oil production], if not already past it," Hardman says.

In previous crises, new reserves always seem to have been found to make up the shortfall. But the declining rate at which new fields are being discovered suggests it won't happen this time, at least not for conventional oil(see Graphic). We now find just one barrel of oil for every four we consume. And with production already declining in the US and the North Sea, the world must rely increasingly on the politically volatile Middle East and other parts of the developing world(see Graphic).

So how long have we got? To estimate when the world will run short of oil, you need to know how much oil there is overall. In principle, this should be easy to calculate:geologists know which kinds of rock are likely to hold oil and they know where these reservoirs are and how big they are. "They know all the regions where it's possible to find oil by now," says Kjell Aleklett, physicist at Uppsala University, Sweden, and president of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas. "There are no new regions to be found."

Oil companies keep detailed information about individual basins secret, but most of the educated guesses made over the past few decades fall close to the same estimate:the world's oil reserves began with a total of about 2 trillion barrels(see Graphic)of which some 900 billion have now been used.

The 1.1 trillion barrels that remain represent about a 40-year supply at current consumption levels of about 25 billion barrels per year. At first glance this seems a comfortable cushion, but don't be fooled-we won't get the chance to use it all at anything like our present rate. The flow rate from any single oil well begins to decline as soon as production starts, because the pressure in the reservoir drops. Companies can maintain the flow for a while by injecting water to boost the pressure, but the flow inevitably dwindles and the last of the oil must be wrung out.

Good half of the pie

This means that the rate of production follows roughly a bell-shaped curve. The peak, whether from a single basin, a region, or the entire world, comes when about half the oil has been extracted-once most of the wells are in and before they taper off too much. After that, the rate falls inexorably. "It's not that you've eaten half the pie; you've eaten the good half of the pie," says Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, an expert with the National Iranian Oil Company. If production rates fall while demand continues to rise, oil prices are likely to spike or fluctuate wildly, raising the prospect of economic chaos, problems with transporting food and other supplies, and even war as countries fight over what little oil is available. "That's when all hell breaks loose," says James MacKenzie, an energy analyst at the World Resources Institute in Washington DC.

If the general consensus of a 2-trillion barrel reserve is correct, the world has almost finished the good half of the pie and this day of reckoning is not far off. Indeed, many prominent analysts, Aleklett included, foresee oil production peaking in the next 5 to 15 years, far too short a time to find alternative fuels, especially for transportation, and barely long enough to bring effective conservation measures into play.

Some believe the peak is already here. "I am 99 per cent confident that 2004 will be the top of the mathematically smoothed curve of oil production," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a geophysicist at Princeton University. And he believes the highest single year may already have passed. "2000 may stand as a blip above the curve and be in the Guinness Book of World Records." Other leading analysts, including Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, have reached the same conclusion(see Graphic). These analysts use variations of a method pioneered by geophysicist Marion King Hubbert, now something of a folk hero for correctly predicting in 1956 the US production peak in the 1970s, despite widespread dismissal of the idea at the time.

Not even the optimists believe we have much more than 20 years to prepare for the peak, if demand grows at its historical norm of 2 per cent per year. In a recent analysis, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) controversially estimated the world's extractable oil at more than 3 trillion barrels. Based on that figure, the US Department of Energy calculates that oil production may not peak until 2037.

As well as predicting the discovery of new fields, USGS analysts tracked changes in estimated reserves for 33,000 known fields and found that they crept upwards over time, either because earlier estimates were too conservative or because technological improvements allowed the companies to extract more oil. Applying this reasoning worldwide, they forecast that known fields should yield 612 billion barrels beyond current expectations.

But will new technology wring enough oil out of existing fields to maintain production rates? "I don't buy it," says David Pursell, an energy analyst with Simmons & Company International, an investment banking firm in Houston, Texas, that specialises in the energy sector. "You've got to spend a ton of capital to get an extra 1 or 2 per cent out."

Others who favour later dates, such as Shell and Exxon, include less accessible, dirtier sources such as heavy oil. But using these sources would release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than conventional oil, a price that many feel is too high(see "Can heavy oil avert an energy crisis?"). "The most important problem we face with oil is not its availability but its carbon," says MacKenzie. "We have to move away from fossil fuels if we are to deal with the climate issue."

Whatever the exact timing of the peak, we still need to find a new source of energy. "In the end there's no way to know who's right, but it doesn't matter," says Jeremy Rifkin of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC. "We're only arguing about 20 years. If we think oil is a problem now, just wait 20 years. It'll be a nightmare."

Why oil is king

We use energy for three main things:electricity production, heating and transport. For the first two, we have options such as solar and wind power, or natural gas. But oil is still the world's number one dependency, and for transport at least, there is currently no viable alternative. "If we took a blank piece of paper and tried to design the perfect car fuel, within 20 minutes we'd come up with petrol," says David Cope, director of the UK's Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. "To find an alternative we are going to have to make horrible compromises."

Our addiction is set to get worse as developing countries become more industrialised. In China, domestic energy use at the moment is equivalent to just one light bulb burning continuously per person. That demand is expected to increase exponentially over the next few years, and it's not just in China. Central America, India and pretty much all developing regions, except Africa, are catching up fast.

Increasing energy efficiency must be a priority. But while energy is being used more efficiently in the developed world, demand, stoked by the west's bigger-is-better culture, stubbornly refuses to decline.

Bob Holmes

Nicola Jones


In short, I don't care whether or not you can afford inflated prices for your big fat SUV's stop ****ing using them NOW!

:mad:

[mactastic]

Interesting. I can see this being used by both sides, one saying we should drill more wells, and others (like me) arguing that dependence on fossil fuel, particularly foreign sources of them, is a national security issue. If fuel prices spike here, it could cause untold economic destruction. This is why the arguement that because we are such a huge part of the world economy, we have a right to consume the largest share of energy. Per capita or total numbers, it doesn't matter. The problem is that these levels of consumption are not sustainable. We simply can't bring the rest of the world up to our levels of energy use, there's not enough to go around. All we're arguing about is the timeframe it happens in, there is little doubt that it will happen.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Yup! It is cute... you see them a lot here in Berlin...

http://smart.com/smart/images/citycoupe/galerie/citycoupe_galerie_06.jpg

Maybe because I mentioned it in a previous post in this tread?

Ah, possibly -- but I'm pretty sure I returned from my trip to England last year knowing this was a Mercedes product. Is it not badged in any way, even inside?

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by mactastic
Interesting. I can see this being used by both sides, one saying we should drill more wells, and others (like me) arguing that dependence on fossil fuel, particularly foreign sources of them, is a national security issue. If fuel prices spike here, it could cause untold economic destruction. This is why the arguement that because we are such a huge part of the world economy, we have a right to consume the largest share of energy. Per capita or total numbers, it doesn't matter. The problem is that these levels of consumption are not sustainable. We simply can't bring the rest of the world up to our levels of energy use, there's not enough to go around. All we're arguing about is the timeframe it happens in, there is little doubt that it will happen.

Its pretty common knowledge in these parts that we've got to save oil, but not much is being one. Although we are meeting our kyoto targets, that is not directly related to Oil consumption.

It seems that a lot of americans have the attitude that there must be more oil. Why can't frohickey, for example, except that he is going to have to be using alternative fuels sometime this century, so why not start using them now (or in the next few years). Reserve our remaining oil for those critical uses that will be harder to live without and will take longer to develop replacements for. For example materials made from oil are generally taken for granted and widely used. If we cut down greatly on our consumption for transport then we could have plastics long enough to learn to recycle properly before they all run out. Or it will give us some breathing space in implementing renewable electricity sources.

Maybe the Cargo transit industry should implement alternative fuels first, and lead us the way. After all, trucks don't need to go really fast and accelerate fast, they need to take a lot of weight from A-B.

[RobVanDam]

Why can't we use alternative fuels now? Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost.

It costs to have them installed, it costs to have everything researched, it costs to remove the old technology, it costs to change the entire system over to a completely different system.

It would actually be smarter to drill up absolutely everything right now. Why? Because then we (the world, not just the USA) sit on this surplus, ration it out, and go "Ok, we have ____ years to find an alternative for everything. Lets set up a timetable and do this."

[mactastic]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Why can't we use alternative fuels now? Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost.

It costs to have them installed, it costs to have everything researched, it costs to remove the old technology, it costs to change the entire system over to a completely different system.

It would actually be smarter to drill up absolutely everything right now. Why? Because then we (the world, not just the USA) sit on this surplus, ration it out, and go "Ok, we have ____ years to find an alternative for everything. Lets set up a timetable and do this."

Oh and that will be cheaper than funding alternative fuels research? You don't just store this stuff in a hefty bag. Yeah, lets build a whole bunch of storage facilities only to have them slowly go obsolete...:rolleyes:

[simX]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
It would actually be smarter to drill up absolutely everything right now. Why? Because then we (the world, not just the USA) sit on this surplus, ration it out, and go "Ok, we have ____ years to find an alternative for everything. Lets set up a timetable and do this."

Um, what's stopping us from doing exactly this right now? Why is it that we have to wait until we deplete all our fossil fuel reserves before we start thinking about alternative fuels?

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Why can't we use alternative fuels now? Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost. Cost.



I think you missed the point of the article. Costs for oil are going to go up dramatically over the next few decades. If we're paying 2x the amount for fuel 20 years for now, how can we afford to develop alternate energy sources? It's better to start now so that the crisis is lessened.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
I will endeavor to find this article on their website because it also claimed that scientists are warning that oil prices will skyrocket way before the oil starts to run out. From What I remember it looks like their will be a major crisis within the next 5-10 years. bare with me while i find this link.

What if fossil fuels aren't fossils and are actually renewable? (http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex12752.htm)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
It seems that a lot of americans have the attitude that there must be more oil. Why can't frohickey, for example, except that he is going to have to be using alternative fuels sometime this century, so why not start using them now (or in the next few years).

Or it will give us some breathing space in implementing renewable electricity sources.

Maybe the Cargo transit industry should implement alternative fuels first, and lead us the way. After all, trucks don't need to go really fast and accelerate fast, they need to take a lot of weight from A-B. [/B]

Alternative fuels...like what? Which fuel do you see out there is renewable, and is at least a net positive as far as manufacturing? I'd use any fuel out there that is inexpensive, economical to produce, and safe to use.

Hydrogen? No, unless you find a hydrogen well, of which there is not any. Making hydrogen from sea water and solar power, you lose in efficiency from both sides.
Ethanol? No, it takes more energy to produce ethanol that you can get out of ethanol.
Gasoline? Yes, until it becomes uneconomical to pump out of the ground.
Nuclear? Yes, but its not really suitable for a passenger vehicle.
Hydroelectric? Yes, but its not suitable for a passenger vehicle.
Geothermal? Same as hydro
Biomass/methane? Maybe, but its evidently not as cost effective as Gasoline or else it would be the dominant form.

Cargo transport industry already uses diesel, which yields more per barrel than gasoline does. It gives them the torque they need to haul large amounts of cargo from point A to point B.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Ugg
I think you missed the point of the article. Costs for oil are going to go up dramatically over the next few decades. If we're paying 2x the amount for fuel 20 years for now, how can we afford to develop alternate energy sources? It's better to start now so that the crisis is lessened.

What?!! :eek:

If you are paying 2x the amount for fuel 20 years from now, the people you are paying that money to will be able to afford to develop alternate energy sources.

Money doesn't disappear in the course of economic transactions. It moves around and gets steered towards endeavors that allows it to accumulate more transactions.

The only time money disappears is when you give it to government and its spent on government programs. :p

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If everyone thought like you, we'd be popping out retarded kids from sucking on leaded gas fumes.

Tit-for-tat.

I am a scientific-minded person (my mother's a science teacher), and an avid reader on the many subjects under the umbrella of science, so don't even try telling me that I'm a flat-Earther.

I'm not going to discount a theory when there is valid science behind it. If everyone thought like you, the earth would still be flat.

So, if you are a scientific-minded person, why are you discounting a theory when there is valid science behind it? You avid reader on the many subjects under the umbrella of science. :p

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What if fossil fuels aren't fossils and are actually renewable? (http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex12752.htm)

That is a very interesting theory. Of course it is unproven and perhaps unprovable until we know more about the core of the earth. In all honesty, just because it flies in the face of current scientific belief does not mean that it is invalid. Plate tectonics was considered lunacy not that long ago.

It does pose more questions than it answers though. Just as with water wells and aquifers that are being pumped dry because of overuse, at what rate does this process "refill" dry wells? Are we using it up faster than the earth can produce it? Seems likely given that most wells are not refilling themselves. How deep is it possible to drill for this stuff and at what cost? As was mentioned in a prior article, getting the easy stuff out has been accomplished and costs skyrocket when trying to extract every last drop.

Just because this may be a natural process of the earth's core does not mean that it is a long term solution to the coming lack of sufficient supply. China and India have just started to enter the automobile ownership race. If car ownership in the two countries was half that of Europe's, I'm sure oil supplies would not be able to keep up with demand. What then? Might equals right? Or would you let the marketplace dictate the terms? I remember only too well the oil embargo of the 70s and it was not a very pleasant experience. Are you still sure that your SUV is a wise choice? Given that even if there is some kind of a replenishable supply of oil, current technology has no way of drilling deep enough at a cost that would be close to today's prices.

Wealth has always been built upon new ideas and technology not old and wasteful ones.

[zimv20]

i'm a long-term thinker. both personally (e.g. finances) and globally (e.g. energy concerns).

i read the "oil production has peaked" article. what if it's right? for those who favor their SUVs and couldn't give two craps about investing in alternative energy, would you change your mind if that article is correct?

or is near term satisfaction your only concern?

are you expecting hollywood-like scientists to appear on the scene and solve all the energy problems just in the nick of time? or are you aware that such breakthroughs occur only through hard work, cleverness, time and luck? what's the harm in investing in our future now?

[RobVanDam]

I don't think anyone is against the research of alternative energies.

Just some are very extremely optimistic about them.

It would help to know how long we have left. That way, we need to know if we should focus on a short term fix right away, or a long term fix that we can use once oil is all gone.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by RobVanDam

It would help to know how long we have left.

the trend is clear. absence of specifics isn't reason to put off the inevitable research.

getting everyone to agree on "how long is left" isn't going to happen. it's like trying to get everyone to agree on global warming. the administration's position is that it's cyclical and human actions have no bearing on the climate. what if they're wrong?

[Ugg]

Here (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3346010) is a company that is trying to make a difference. There are many obstacles ahead, the biggest, how to obtain hydrogen. There is no magic bullet but through increased research maybe one day some of the hurdles will become easier to overcome.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Alternative fuels...like what? Which fuel do you see out there is renewable, and is at least a net positive as far as manufacturing? I'd use any fuel out there that is inexpensive, economical to produce, and safe to use.

Hydrogen? No, unless you find a hydrogen well, of which there is not any. Making hydrogen from sea water and solar power, you lose in efficiency from both sides.
Ethanol? No, it takes more energy to produce ethanol that you can get out of ethanol.
Gasoline? Yes, until it becomes uneconomical to pump out of the ground.
Nuclear? Yes, but its not really suitable for a passenger vehicle.
Hydroelectric? Yes, but its not suitable for a passenger vehicle.
Geothermal? Same as hydro
Biomass/methane? Maybe, but its evidently not as cost effective as Gasoline or else it would be the dominant form.

Cargo transport industry already uses diesel, which yields more per barrel than gasoline does. It gives them the torque they need to haul large amounts of cargo from point A to point B.

As far as renewable sources goes, I meant those for use in power stations. Then we can use that electricity to drive mass transit. Maglev trains for example, teh same principle, over time, could be applied to our highways. If we develop battery technology we can use electricity for all transport, instead of just trains.

You say the cargo industry is using diesel, so what, its still oil isn't it? Oil is being used up so fast that we need to do anything in our power to reduce its use. WOuld it not be nice to still have some oil for critical uses 150-200 years from now?

Maybe that is way on the optimistic side, but if we think like this things will happen. In this sort of issue I don't see a choice but to be optimistic about the development of new energy sources. You should really get a description to New Scientist, its balanced and incredibly informative about this sort of issue.

ANyway, more on this later, i must sleep now, night all.

[RobVanDam]

Originally posted by zimv20
the trend is clear. absence of specifics isn't reason to put off the inevitable research.

getting everyone to agree on "how long is left" isn't going to happen. it's like trying to get everyone to agree on global warming. the administration's position is that it's cyclical and human actions have no bearing on the climate. what if they're wrong? It's very easy to decide on how long we have.

Drill everything. Alaska, The Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East. Everywhere.

That way we know if we have 25 or 25,000 years. We can decide to work for a quick, short term solution right now if it's 25, or we can work on finding the near perfect or perfect solution if we have say 25,000 years. The effectiveness of the product depends on how much time, energy, money, and effort we put into it. Something we churn out in 25 years will probably be obsolete, or uneffective shortly after. That is a waste of money, and a waste of time. If that is our only option though, that is how we must proceed.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
It's very easy to decide on how long we have.

Drill everything. Alaska, The Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East. Everywhere.

That way we know if we have 25 or 25,000 years. We can decide to work for a quick, short term solution right now if it's 25, or we can work on finding the near perfect or perfect solution if we have say 25,000 years. The effectiveness of the product depends on how much time, energy, money, and effort we put into it. Something we churn out in 25 years will probably be obsolete, or uneffective shortly after. That is a waste of money, and a waste of time. If that is our only option though, that is how we must proceed.

So, ummm, what you're saying is that when it comes to energy, mankind needs to take a totally different tack than it has with every other invention. The telephone was a pretty ugly critter when it was invented but there's no way that it could be otherwise until things like fiber optics, software, computer chips and voicemail were invented. But, if Edison hadn't proceeded with his rudimentary telephone there is no way we would have ended up with what we have today. Progress grows by fits and starts, it is not linear. The first autos were ugly, noisy, unreliable, dangerous and expensive as all get out. It is only through continued experimentation and refinement that new technologies come to fruition.

Nobody in their right mind would totally use up a resource before looking for a new one. Especially one like oil. We have pretty good ideas of how much might exist but there are too many variables and the chances are we will never know how much until the last drop has been extracted.

It's not just about fuel to run our cars. What about plastics? They are oil based and in everything we own.


Tick, tock, tick, tock.......

[RobVanDam]

Ok then. Lets go hypothetical.

We decide, lets go the smart route, lets develop good products that will last us a great deal of time. They'll take probably 100 years from now to develop to an acceptable consumer level.

75 years from now we run out of oil. We're screwed for a generation.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Ok then. Lets go hypothetical.

We decide, lets go the smart route, lets develop good products that will last us a great deal of time. They'll take probably 100 years from now to develop to an acceptable consumer level.

75 years from now we run out of oil. We're screwed for a generation.

i think some people want to start 75 years from now.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Ok then. Lets go hypothetical.

We decide, lets go the smart route, lets develop good products that will last us a great deal of time. They'll take probably 100 years from now to develop to an acceptable consumer level.

75 years from now we run out of oil. We're screwed for a generation.

You still don't get it. There will be no sudden flash of a miracle.

At first we (males) could only count to 21, then there was the abacus, then mechanical adding machines, punch cards, tube based computers and so on. At some point in time there will be a dna based computer and so on. Technology just doesn't appear out of the blue, it is an improvement over previous technology. Logs became wheels which were then covered in iron, then became iron which were covered with rubber which in turn was made out of oil and steel.

Hybrids have always had their place in the advancement of science. They have their place now, whether solar powered cars, or gas/electric hybrids or mag lev trains. We need to look into as many options as possible now so that at some point in the not too distant future when oil either disappears, becomes too expensive and or is controlled by the Sauds, Enrons and Halliburtons of this world, there will be workable alternatives available.

Alternatives are needed and the only way to find them is to start experimenting. And who says that there will only be one viable alternative? We would be much better off if we could choose from a multitude.

[groovebuster]

@IJ Reilly: No, there is no Mercedes badge anywhere in or on a smart car...

@Frohickey: Would you bother answering my question? :)

groovebuster

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
It's very easy to decide on how long we have.

Drill everything. Alaska, The Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East. Everywhere.

That way we know if we have 25 or 25,000 years. We can decide to work for a quick, short term solution right now if it's 25, or we can work on finding the near perfect or perfect solution if we have say 25,000 years. The effectiveness of the product depends on how much time, energy, money, and effort we put into it. Something we churn out in 25 years will probably be obsolete, or uneffective shortly after. That is a waste of money, and a waste of time. If that is our only option though, that is how we must proceed.



The facts as it stands are that we know we've got anything from 25 to 100 years. So that is a moot point. We don't need to drill it all now, we can work out how much we have in the ground. As said before that way we'd have to build massive storage facilities, and I mean MASSIVE. That would be obsolete once we'd moved onto some other fuels.


Churning out something in 25 years is cutting it fine if you ask me. Oil is not gonna be 2x the price in 20 years, it will be much more than that. If its true that we've peaked already then we're in for some hard times in the next 5 years. I really think people should be taking this more seriously.

[RobVanDam]

We don't know what we have. There's estimates of what we have left while we still have other places like the Gulf to drill.

A large part of the market won't buy any hybrid or electric cars and such if they don't have to because they don't like them.

Public transportation is virtually useless outside of large cities, so who's going to use it?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
We don't know what we have. There's estimates of what we have left while we still have other places like the Gulf to drill.

A large part of the market won't buy any hybrid or electric cars and such if they don't have to because they don't like them.

Public transportation is virtually useless outside of large cities, so who's going to use it?

Oh the ignorance. The market won't buy hybrids because they are allowed choices. When seatbelts and other saftey mechanisms were put in the auto industry made these same silly arguments, that it would bankrupt them, that consumers wouldn't buy them etc etc. Mandate by law what people can buy and they will buy it.

Public transportation doesn't work because we have deliberatly built our cities to make it almost useless. Cities need density levels of at least 10units/acre to sustain public transit, and our zoning laws in many areas prevent this from happening. In addition, rather than adding density to our city cores, we build sprawling developments at city edges.

Here is an article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/08/29/unhealthy.sprawl.ap/index.html) talking about the health consequences of sprawl, but it has some interesting tidbits.

"How you build things influences health in a much more pervasive way than I think most health professionals realize," said Dr. Richard Jackson of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped edit the research, published in the American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion.

"Look at many new suburbs -- there are not any sidewalks at all. ... The result is we just don't walk," added John Pucher of Rutgers University, who uncovered the U.S.-European disparities.

Why can these Europeans walk and bike more, and more safely, than Americans? It's not just travel distance -- 41 percent of U.S. trips are shorter than 2 miles, yet most are by car.

In other words, we use a quart of gas to go get a quart of milk.

Some groups plan to use the research to back so-called smart-growth initiatives, including a battle in Congress next month over whether $600 million in transportation funds should go for safer cycling and walking programs and other transit alternatives, or for highway construction.

Hmmm... I wonder which way that money will go?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Except alot of people don't wear seatbelts to this day. You can't buy marijuana, yet somehow, that's readily available.

Exactly. Now how the hell do we fix that? Answer: We don't.

Not towards a useless biking/walking program, lets put it to something useful that can conserve oil in the long run by creating better highways instead of having to drive on bad highways.

Are you suggesting people will grow ICE SUV's in their basements if we outlaw them? Nearly everyone wears seatbelts here, the rate is nearly 90% compliance due to the mandatory seatbelt laws. I don't know where you get the idea that "alot" whatever that is, don't do it.

How the hell do we fix it? I could give you lots of ways we could fix it. "We don't" is not an acceptable answer. In addition to being simply stubborn and uninformed, it is defeatist and immature to suggest that there is no solution to a growing problem.

You say that building new roadways will solve pollution problems, but I don't see you offering any evidence other than your own opinion - which is perfectly valid, but lacks any authority on the subject. New roads are only a temporary fix. It only puts off the inevitable congestion problems brought on by poor initial planning.

[mactastic]

Here's the data to back up my claim.

California motorists buckled their safety belts in record numbers during 1998, pushing belt use to 90 percent during 1998 -the highest in the nation.
That means nearly 19 million of the state’s 21 million drivers buckle up. It’s an astonishing record, considering that in 1985, the year before California’s secondary safety belt law became effective, 26 percent fastened their safety belts.

Link (http://www.chp.ca.gov/pdf/per98-22.pdf)

It's a pdf, so don't be surprised when it downloads.

If you are unwilling to supply any proof, I can only conclude you either know very little about the subject, or are simply making things up as you go.

[RobVanDam]

I guess personal life long experiences don't mean anything to you.

That's what I'm basing my arguement on, what I've seen in my life, if that isn't good enough for you, well then, I don't care if you think it's good enough or not I'll still argue it because that's what I see.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Exactly. Now how the hell do we fix that? Answer: We don't.

Sure we do. It's called "planning." As city planners like to say, "trend is not destiny." We created this problem over time, so over time, we can fix it. A great deal of thought is going into this very problem, and the development model adopted in the US after WWII is in the process of being replaced by something wiser, even as we speak.

[mactastic]

Long personal experience would mean something if you were involved in the planning field, or you knew something other than just what you have observed.

I don't care either, argue however you want. There is a tradition on these boards of supporting what you spew however. If you can't or won't do that, don't expect many of us to take you seriously.

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
A lot as in a large majority of the people I ride in cars with I don't see wear seat belts. From my experience at looking at other people I highly doubt that 90% of the people around here wear seatbelts. (And yes I have looked, I was argueing with a friend about it around the time they made it possible for police to pull you over just for not wearing a seatbelt.)

SO these guys are not wearing seat-belts yet you still ride in a car with them. Did you know that if the guy sitting behind you is not wearing a seat-belt he will crush your skull in an accident, killing you, but only breaking his nose (depends on the speed of impact), this is a low speed crash as well.

In this country it is a simple common courtesy to wear a belt and I always make ppl belt up or get out an walk in my car. Not cos of their own safety but of mine!

[Desertrat]

WRT where people live and residential densities: What I'm reading is that we've gone from urban sprawl to suburban sprawl and now, the latest, is exurban sprawl: "Five acres, five miles from town."

When people speak of planning and the expanded use of mass transit, I keep asking who's gonna use it? I don't think we're going to tear down any houses and move folks to "growth corridors" along some sort of mass-transit lines.

Dense cities and "strip cities" (San Francisco and Manhattan, e.g.) lend themselves to mass transit just by their layot. Cities in hilly country inherently don't, as they're much less laid out in a square-grid fashion.

Lifestyle is another problem for mass transit: It's difficult to stop for a couple of beers on the way home, and check by the vet's and then pick up some last-minute groceries when you're using a bus. The problem is compounded for two-worker families.

Another view of the automobile is that it's "independently-controlled mass transit". The problem in part is that a commuter car is not just a commuter car insofar as its use; folks are thus using a general-purpose vehicle for commuting--which is what started all this SUV fuss.

IMO, a mix of tax incentives, vehicle definition by weight, and a higher CAFE could change the general pattern of vehicle purchase and reduce the total demand for gasoline. No one thing will "fix" the problem.

'Rat

[RobVanDam]

Yes, it will take a lot of time, and a lot of money. How do we pay for it? It's one of the reasons I forgot when I was talking about drilling everything right now. If we have a solid deadline for when oil will run out, the government can go to major car companies and work with them to create a solution. They have a lot of money more money they'd be willing to put towards development when they realize that before long almost all their R&D money would be going to vehicles that won't even work.

[mactastic]

How does drilling all our oil up pay for alternative energy research? You say this stuff like saying it makes it true. Oil companies would not like having to pump oil out and store it. Why do you think companies like to keep inventory lean? Because it helps keep overhead costs low. If the oil companies (who I have little sympathy towards) suddenly had to fund storage facilities they would not be profitable. On top of that, what's to stop someone who knows where it is from blowing it all up? That would cause a little problem. In addition, I believe it is fairly settled science that the longer you pull oil from a well, the more expensive each barrel gets. Thus the oil companies would be hit with the double whammy of paying for the most expensive extraction on top of having to store it when they do get it out. And what business wants to be told to produce all this product just to hold on to it without making any money off it? Would you like that if the government came and told you to lay out billions on top of your current expenditures without being able to make a return on the product just because they wanted to count it all?

Produce some backing for these claims or stop making them.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Ok then. Lets go hypothetical.

We decide, lets go the smart route, lets develop good products that will last us a great deal of time. They'll take probably 100 years from now to develop to an acceptable consumer level.

75 years from now we run out of oil. We're screwed for a generation.

Doubt it. Market forces will solve the situation pretty efficiently. Its when you start passing laws that distort that market that things start breaking down.

Maybe if oil runs out, or is more scarce than it is now, some people will perceive the necessity to go find some other energy source.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Making a law calling for the halt of oil production would not spur invention. Instead, it would spur the necessity to remove the politicians that made that law. ;)

[RobVanDam]

I don't mean storing it, I mean drilling everything everywhere. Alaska, the Gulf, and so forth. We get a general idea how long we have left, and then development will come from places other than the government.

Car companies only have pet projects right now as the cars of the future but as a whole, not much is being done. How does that change? You get an accurate measurement of how long until we have no more oil.

You get alot of conservation elsewhere too. If you can legitamately back up by showing that we've drilled everywhere and only have about this much left, a good deal of people would change. Of course, that's a total lie, Americans would just waste more and more and more. We'd probably double our oil consumption, right?

[mactastic]

But there are conflicting estimates right now of what is left. How do you think anyone can agree on a number? If we aren't arguing the need to make the switch, only the timeframe, why not start sooner rather than later? Better to err on the safe side right?

[RobVanDam]

Ok, I think you're misunderstanding my point.

How much money is required to fund this research? More than we have. Far more.

How do we chip away? Pull in other people.

How do we pull in others? Convince them.

What would convince the major people (the car companies)? An accurate estimate of everything we have left.

We don't have the slightest clue of that right now because places like Alaska and the Gulf are not being actively drilled. Once we have drilling operations everywhere we can, only then can we really get an accurate count of how much oil we have left.

With that, the major car companies see "geez, we can't make money off of a 3 1/2 ton vehicle that doesn't run, we need to figure out something that works."

Do you understand what I'm getting at now?

[mactastic]

Yes I get your point, I just think you are dead wrong. I think if we are increasing our oil supply, there will be little incentive for the auto companies to shift research dollars. Like I said before, this isn't an argument about the outcome, it is only over the timeframe. You think we have ample oil for 100 years, while others think it may be as few as 5-10 years before oil production peaks. I'm assuming we have at least 20 years left, but that means we need to start NOW! If I'm wrong, we end up with some leftover oil in the ground. If you're wrong, we get total economic destruction.

If we can't agree on a number now, how do you think we will be able to agree later? Different scientists with different agendas will always disagree.

Why do we have to exhaust a resource before we find a replacement? Why is it not better to be safe rather than sorry? Are you understanding my point yet?

[Ugg]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Ok, I think you're misunderstanding my point.

How much money is required to fund this research? More than we have. Far more.

How do we chip away? Pull in other people.

How do we pull in others? Convince them.

What would convince the major people (the car companies)? An accurate estimate of everything we have left.

We don't have the slightest clue of that right now because places like Alaska and the Gulf are not being actively drilled. Once we have drilling operations everywhere we can, only then can we really get an accurate count of how much oil we have left.

With that, the major car companies see "geez, we can't make money off of a 3 1/2 ton vehicle that doesn't run, we need to figure out something that works."

Do you understand what I'm getting at now?

No, I don't.

1. Who is going to pay for the drilling?

2. How much would it cost to do the drilling and wouldn't it be better spent on developing alternative energy sources?

3. Much of the oil is located in un-safe areas or is controlled by governments that may or may not agree to do this. What are you going to do if Russia doesn't want to? Nuke 'em?

4. Future technology will be much more likely able to extract oil at a much lower environmental and financial cost. Why do it now and pay a premium?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
others think it may be as few as 5-10 years before oil production peaks.

and the only guy to accurately predict the demise of the american oil industry in the 70s says it peaked in 2001.

[Desertrat]

The first time I saw a graph of "Hubbert's Pimple", back around 1966, the peak was roughly 2011.

I've haven't kept a close eye on it, but roughly half of all oil goes to transportation. This includes air, rail, heavy trucks and personal transportation. I think the DOE website has a breakdown of the various % of use for these sectors.

There are ongoing efforts to increase the efficiency of jet engines. The heavy truck folks have improved the fuel economy of semis some 20% or so since the 1970s, is my understanding, and the computerized mapping system they're using makes for more efficiency in scheduling.

The CEO of FoMoCo claims they've spent over $1 billion on fuel cell research. He has stated the IC engine will be done for by around 2010. Ballard is selling cells to Daimler Benz--among others.

IOW, it's not like everybody's ignoring the future.

Ethanol is a better street fuel and is cheaper than methanol, but the BATF worries somebody might do a moonshine thing. :)

And so it goes...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
What?!! :eek:

If you are paying 2x the amount for fuel 20 years from now, the people you are paying that money to will be able to afford to develop alternate energy sources.

Okay. Let's test that.

We're paying 2x the amount for fuel that we were 5 years ago ($.89 -1.89).
The money must be there according to your logic. Where are the alternate energy sources?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
So, if you are a scientific-minded person, why are you discounting a theory when there is valid science behind it? You avid reader on the many subjects under the umbrella of science. :p

Because it's junk science, just like the "science" that said volcanoes emit more CFCs than humans.

When you see something far outside the mainstream that sounds like an oil industry's wet dream, it's probably bought and paid for by -- guess who -- the oil industry.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
I don't mean storing it, I mean drilling everything everywhere. Alaska, the Gulf, and so forth. We get a general idea how long we have left, and then development will come from places other than the government.

Car companies only have pet projects right now as the cars of the future but as a whole, not much is being done. How does that change? You get an accurate measurement of how long until we have no more oil.

You get alot of conservation elsewhere too. If you can legitamately back up by showing that we've drilled everywhere and only have about this much left, a good deal of people would change. Of course, that's a total lie, Americans would just waste more and more and more. We'd probably double our oil consumption, right?

Do you have any idea how supply and demand works? If you did, you'd not be proposing such a silly concept.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, I dunno if he means it this way, but it's not uncommon for oil companies to drill exploration wells. They're not cheap, of course, but they do give some idea of what a field might have. This can change "estimated reserves" to "proven reserves" and give a better indication of remaining totals.

I doubt there'd be much point to it in the lower 48, but many areas around the world are as yet unexplored...

I've been reading that the oil companies are wanting to expand efforts along the central west African coast--which might be why we're making nice in Liberia, even though it probably has less chance of "pacification" than Iraq.

'Rat

[Sun Baked]

Honda to Mass Market Natural Gas Civic (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-honda29aug29,1,6885798.story?coll=la-headlines-business)

* The GX, which is set to go on sale in the second half of '04, will cost $3,000 more than the gasoline-powered one.

From Associated Press

American Honda Motor Co. plans to become the first automaker to mass market a vehicle that runs on natural gas.

The Civic GX would go on sale to the general public sometime during the second half of 2004, said Andy Boyd, a spokesman at Honda's U.S. headquarters in Torrance. It would sell for about $20,000, approximately $3,000 more than a gasoline-powered Civic.

The GX would cost about one-third less to operate than a car that runs on gasoline and would be much better for the environment, Boyd said. It would have a driving range of about 200 miles, about half of a regular Civic.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
The GX, which is set to go on sale in the second half of '04, will cost $3,000 more than the gasoline-powered one.


i would support a tax break of $3k for buyers of that car, or even a subsidy in that amount.

how much do we think such a buyer would actually receive? what if the $100k writeoff for a hummer was reduced to $97k? anyone think that would fly?

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/20030122a.asp)

A one-time federal tax deduction of $2,000 may help soften the blow. Any car shopper who purchases a new hybrid through 2003 is eligible for the full tax deduction. A smaller deduction will be available through 2006.



Some states offer tax breaks to hybrid-car buyers, as well. For example, in Oregon you receive a $1,500 credit when you buy any hybrid vehicle. Be sure to ask your state's tax department about hybrid cars. It could save you some serious cash on a state tax bill.

:D :p ;)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
Any car shopper who purchases a new hybrid through 2003 is eligible for the full tax deduction.

(cleaning up orange juice shot out of nose....)

still, $98k less than the hummer writeoff.

[Desertrat]

Perfect timing for natural gas. The use rate now exceeds the discovery of reserves; the US is now importing natgas from Canada, and their exploration drilling isn't finding much in the way of new gas fields.

And California has built a bunch of natgas elec. generating stations. Duh.

Octane (gasoline; six pounds per gallon) has what, 19,000 BTU per pound? And natural gas is selling for around $5 per million BTU? (I may be off on the units; I'm used to cost/1,000 cu.ft.) But natural gas prices are expected to go back toward $10.

Anyway, just some "stuff".

'Rat

[groovebuster]

Nice feeling to be ignored...

[RobVanDam]

Originally posted by Desertrat
pseudobrit, I dunno if he means it this way, but it's not uncommon for oil companies to drill exploration wells. They're not cheap, of course, but they do give some idea of what a field might have. This can change "estimated reserves" to "proven reserves" and give a better indication of remaining totals.

I doubt there'd be much point to it in the lower 48, but many areas around the world are as yet unexplored...

I've been reading that the oil companies are wanting to expand efforts along the central west African coast--which might be why we're making nice in Liberia, even though it probably has less chance of "pacification" than Iraq.

'Rat Thank you, finally someone understands.

[mactastic]

Again, we're not arguing the outcome, only the timeframe. I'd rather start now and leave 20 years worth of oil in the ground, than start later and have 20 years of economic ruin if we do run out. Seems like this would be a "pre-emptive strike" against running out of oil for those who like to think in such terms. I just can't understand the opposition of some people to funding research and maybe kicking down some tax credits for a good cause. Fuel cell technology is sound, NASA has found it good enough to use for decades now. All that remains is to work out the technical details. But no, we have to drill every drop of oil out first before we will consider alternatives. Why?

[Desertrat]

mac, from your last post it seems to me that we're already in an orderly process; you're seemingly wanting instant gratification based on your worldview.

R&D money is tax-deductible. The problem for GM (moreso than Ford) is that they're in so much doodoo over pension funding requirements that they don't have the uncommitted capital to do more than a few hundred million dollars per year on altenative powerplants/fuels.

'Rat

[RobVanDam]

Another reason the car companies won't spend excessive amounts of money on R&D is that they probably won't get any profit off of it until 25 years down the road when it becomes the standard.

One reason why we don't use fuel cells is because there's a lot of technical details to work out. Carrying a hydrogen tank in your trunk is like carrying a bomb in your trunk.

NASA isn't in any real danger of getting rear ended by some stupid 16 year old girl on a cell phone and doesn't risk getting blown to all hell because of it.

I don't think anyone is against alternatives, the issue is more the money. We have a good deal of oil left, so we can take our time and develop something that works and that people will buy.

[Desertrat]

Well, Rob,. if the Ford CEO is correct about fuel-cell cars being the norm by 2010, I'd think they expect profits before 25 y ears.

Hydrogen burns; it is not inherently explosive. Gasoline burns, but the vapors are highly explosive. IMO, the same psychological problem exists with hydrogen as with nuclear power. The real problem with hydrogen is storage--the molecules leak through the walls of containers.

Growth of the auto population worked hand in hand with the expansion of the refueling network. We'd have to start from scratch for using hydrogen; it's a similar problem to diesel for cars, and propane for dual-fuel pickups and for RVs. Can be done, but not overnight.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
pseudobrit, I dunno if he means it this way, but it's not uncommon for oil companies to drill exploration wells. They're not cheap, of course, but they do give some idea of what a field might have.

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Thank you, finally someone understands.

Well, if that's what you meant, you sure have a funny way of saying "exploration wells" with the phrase:
We don't have the slightest clue of that right now because places like Alaska and the Gulf are not being actively drilled. Once we have drilling operations everywhere we can, only then can we really get an accurate count of how much oil we have left.

You weren't describing oil exploration, you were describing active wells.

:rolleyes:

The only thing worse than trying in vain to defend an indefensible position is trying to backpedal out of the position and act like you were just misunderstood once you realise the idea is indefensible.

I'd have a little more respect if you just admitted your idea was a little silly.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Lets take that Durango and put say 8 guys in it at about 200 pounds each, so that's almost a ton. Add it on to the weight of the Durango already almost 2.5 tons (4750 lbs) and you got 3.5 TONS. That's 7000 pounds. A civic is under 3000 pounds. So the Durango has 2 FULL TONS more. It has to pull more than two Civics. That doesn't even count a trailer. Don't even think a Civic can do that.

Hey, that's a good point -- except I can count one hand the amount of times I've seen an SUV with more than two parents and maybe three kids in it.

Certainly I've never seen one with eight full grown adults in it. If every SUV carried that many people, it actually would be an efficient transportation method.

Oh, and the Durano only has seating for 7, and only 6 of those get full safety belts.

Hey! That's only one more person than my hatchback! Which is quite quick even with 5 full grown people inside.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
One reason why we don't use fuel cells is because there's a lot of technical details to work out. Carrying a hydrogen tank in your trunk is like carrying a bomb in your trunk.

And carrying a petrol tank in your trunk is like carrying a petrol bomb in your trunk. But you're not worried enough about 16 year-olds hitting you and burning you all to hell that you'll stop buying gas, are you?

I don't think anyone is against alternatives, the issue is more the money. We have a good deal of oil left, so we can take our time and develop something that works and that people will buy.

But we don't. We are running out quickly; we're already just about out of "cheap" oil, the easy-to-extract stuff, and as Asia becomes a new market for oil (and the potential to be the biggest market for oil, having the most people and all...) we're going to see quite a crunch in the coming years.

It's hard to understand how people are deluded into thinking the good times will just keep on rolling even as prices for gasoline have doubled in five years.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
And carrying a petrol tank in your trunk is like carrying a petrol bomb in your trunk. But you're not worried enough about 16 year-olds hitting you and burning you all to hell that you'll stop buying gas, are you?.

Remember the Ford Pinto? Anyway, early garages were detached from residences in part because people were concerned about explosions and fires. After cars has been around for about 30 years, it became apparent that this was not a significant risk, and garages began to be attached.

[RobVanDam]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, if that's what you meant, you sure have a funny way of saying "exploration wells" with the phrase:


You weren't describing oil exploration, you were describing active wells.

:rolleyes:

The only thing worse than trying in vain to defend an indefensible position is trying to backpedal out of the position and act like you were just misunderstood once you realise the idea is indefensible.

I'd have a little more respect if you just admitted your idea was a little silly. Gee pseudo, I'm sorry I didn't explain the entire process to you since you're arguing something you don't understand.

You drill everywhere you can, when you drill, you drill exploration wells to see if there's even anything there.

Places that are real good for exploration wells right now are Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. There could be a great deal of oil in the Gulf alone.

See, I was thinking the whole time "People actually know how oil is drilled...they have to know" but apparently you didn't. I didn't want to look like an idiot and say how oil is drilled to an educated person who knows what they're arguing, but I guess I should have.

I'd gain a little more respect if you actually read up on things before you started to argue them.

It's hard to understand how people are deluded into thinking the good times will just keep on rolling even as prices for gasoline have doubled in five years.I don't remember oil being 80 cents a gallon 5 years ago.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by RobVanDam
Gee pseudo, I'm sorry I didn't explain the entire process to you since you're arguing something you don't understand...[snip -- insults galore]

BACK OFF IT.

Not only did you not explain it, you didn't claim that that process was the one you supported. You said that we should "actively" drill all the known oil and now you're insulting me by saying I don't understand the concept you never proposed.

You're giving me hell for allegedly not understanding a position you never took until someone else suggested it.

IT'S NOT MY FAULT IF YOU CAN'T ARGUE PROPERLY. I'm not responsible for your misrepresentation of your own position. You said we should "actively" pump all known oil deposits. IF THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU MEANT, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID IT!

I don't remember oil being 80 cents a gallon 5 years ago.

I paid 89 cents a gallon for awhile 5 years ago.