WWJD

[jelloshotsrule]

What Would Jesus Drive? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0604-02.htm)

i thought this was interesting. kind of a meeting of the traditional left and right.... ie, religious folk meet environmentalism.....

as a catholic with heavy environmental concerns, i've often hoped that church leaders of all types would see the connection between treating god's creation as sacred and not driving suv's.....

word.

[sturm375]

The "Madden" bus. Modified of course so it's not football(american) oriented. How else would he take his disciples with him?

If he were by himself, he'd walk.

Hitch a ride maybe?

[jelloshotsrule]

haha. good stuff....

maybe in a bmw convertible too... gotta get the locks of hair flopping in the breeze... ha

[Rower_CPU]

Public transportation. Period. ;)

[alset]

In the interest of conserving fuel (thus lessening the perceived need for us to go to war with the Middle East), I figure Christ would order groceries, pay bills, and interact and perform miracles entirely online (negating the need to travel farther than the mailbox).

BTW - You know there's a bad-ass Mac on this guy's desk.

Then again, maybe a Segway. Ooh, now there's a thought!

Dan

[Mr. Anderson]

I saw this last week and was amazed that people actually take this seriously - and if Jesus was around today, he wouldn't need to drive, someone would be driving him around.

D

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by dukestreet
I saw this last week and was amazed that people actually take this seriously - and if Jesus was around today, he wouldn't need to drive, someone would be driving him around.


what do you mean "take this seriously"?

it's just a sign that someone made during the local christian folks' rally against suvs.

i'm not sure if anyone followed the link, i guess i should have made it more clear that it was more than just a joke question....

and no one would be driving him around.

i think rower was on the nose with public transportation, though i could also see the internet thing... though, he'd need to get out with the people more. maybe just on foot...

EDIT: i realize that it's a bigger campaign (ie, the what would jesus drive? thing) but it's obviously just to get people to think about the consequences of what type of vehicle they drive...

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


what do you mean "take this seriously"?



I read about it a month or so ago that a group of clergy of some sort in Texas desided that Jesus would not drive an SUV. I can't find it, but a search on google got me this - some people are taking it seriously.

http://fccbucc.pair.com/would_jesus_drive_an_suv.htm

D

[jefhatfield]

i never equated born again christians with environmental concerns

i thought they;

1) wanted to cut down all the trees
2) teach creationism and bring us back to a flat earth belief ;)
3) rid the world of all democrats
4) really don't serve god, but money, their real motivation

so, hats off to any otherwise ultra right wing leaning christians who actually read the bible and realize that god wants us to be good stewards of the planet

it's about time someone said something against people with suv's who buy them just to be riding something big for the reason of riding something big

for those who have an actual purpose (countryside residents, farmers, contractors, etc...the suv may make sense...but let's not try and become more dependent on iraq...opec held the usa hostage with as little as 6% of the imported oil...it's called leverage and it may be one reason we have not deposed saddam)

[diorio]

I could see him on a motorcycle or in a sports car. But he would probably drive a beat up VW bug or a station wagon.

[SPG]

I wish I could remember the link, but a while ago I saw a report on a group that was making a whole series of bumper stickers that would say things like "I'm Changing the Environment. Ask Me How!"
If you signed up they would send you a bunch of them and then you were supposed to find SUV's in shopping mall parking lots and put the sticker on their bumper. I think it was called SUV hunting or something. They had exculsions, like you weren't supposed to do it to work trucks, or in rural or mountainous areas where a SUV might be legitimately used.

edit: found the link!

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by SPG
I wish I could remember the link, but a while ago I saw a report on a group that was making a whole series of bumper stickers that would say things like "I'm Changing the Environment. Ask Me How!"
If you signed up they would send you a bunch of them and then you were supposed to find SUV's in shopping mall parking lots and put the sticker on their bumper. I think it was called SUV hunting or something. They had exculsions, like you weren't supposed to do it to work trucks, or in rural or mountainous areas where a SUV might be legitimately used.

I love Google!

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

[SPG]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


I love Google!

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

Thanks Rower!
I think I googeld it the exact same moment you did!

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by SPG
Thanks Rower!
I think I googeld it the exact same moment you did!

LOL! There's some really funny stuff on that site...video and pictures...

I'm surprised I haven't seen more here in SD...hmmmm...;)

[Hemingray]

So, this brings up the question... are we targeting ALL SUV's or just the big gas-guzzling ones? 'Cause I just bought a Toyota RAV4, and unlike some soccer moms, I actually got an SUV for a purpose: I need a protected area in the back to haul stuff. Mainly my instruments, and Mac hardware when I'm on the job.

My "SUV" is the smallest of the small (with the possible exception of the Subaru Forester), and it gets about 24mpg in-town and 30mpg highway. So am I a viable target? I should hope not, because I am a very environmentally conscious individual.

[whocares]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


for those who have an actual purpose (countryside residents, farmers, contractors, etc...the suv may make sense...but let's not try and become more dependent on iraq...opec held the usa hostage with as little as 6% of the imported oil...it's called leverage and it may be one reason we have not deposed saddam)

This IS actually why Bush wants to attack Iraq: to set up a US-friendly government, ie. to be independant of S. Arabia oil-wise. This is also why the French are opposed to the attacking of Saddam as some big French oil company already has contracts with Iraq.

Just my political interpretation...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by whocares


This IS actually why Bush wants to attack Iraq: to set up a US-friendly government, ie. to be independant of S. Arabia oil-wise. This is also why the French are opposed to the attacking of Saddam as some big French oil company already has contracts with Iraq.

Just my political interpretation...

almost always comes down to money

[sturm375]

Originally posted by SPG
I wish I could remember the link, but a while ago I saw a report on a group that was making a whole series of bumper stickers that would say things like "I'm Changing the Environment. Ask Me How!"
If you signed up they would send you a bunch of them and then you were supposed to find SUV's in shopping mall parking lots and put the sticker on their bumper. I think it was called SUV hunting or something. They had exculsions, like you weren't supposed to do it to work trucks, or in rural or mountainous areas where a SUV might be legitimately used.

edit: found the link!

http://www.changingtheclimate.com/

So you're advocating destruction of property. Unless these bumper stickers come off easily, you've just cost the owner of that SUV hundereds of dollars. I believe this is criminal behavior.

I am all for the environmental awareness, but only within the law.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by sturm375
So you're advocating destruction of property. Unless these bumper stickers come off easily, you've just cost the owner of that SUV hundereds of dollars. I believe this is criminal behavior.

I am all for the environmental awareness, but only within the law.

And because the environment is not anyone's property per se, it's OK to drive a vehicle that pollutes unnecessarily?

Read the site, they give instructions on where to place them so as to cause little/no damage to the vehicle. Other than the inconvenience of removing them, there should be no danger of costing anyone "hundreds of dollars".

[3777]

Jesus drives a SC Nissan Frontier Crew Cab and a Jeep CJ7

Jesus's parents drive a Jeep Liberty:cool:

[3777]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Public transportation. Period. ;)

.....:rolleyes:

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by 3777
.....:rolleyes:

Unbeliever!!! You shall burn in Hell for eternity! ;)

Seriously, though...a Jeep?!? A vehicle developed by the Army?!?!! Come on... :p

[3777]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Unbeliever!!! You shall burn in Hell for eternity! ;)

Seriously, though...a Jeep?!? A vehicle developed by the Army?!?!! Come on... :p

:cool:

[Spock]

You are all going to HELL.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by Spock
You are all going to HELL.

See you there! :p

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


And because the environment is not anyone's property per se, it's OK to drive a vehicle that pollutes unnecessarily?

Read the site, they give instructions on where to place them so as to cause little/no damage to the vehicle. Other than the inconvenience of removing them, there should be no danger of costing anyone "hundreds of dollars".

Either fight the envriomental fight within the law, or accept the legal consiquenses of destroying property.

It may be only small claims court issues, but any damage to personal property is illegal. All I'm saying here is that if anyone put a bumper-sticker on my vehicle, I'd attempt to have the person arrested and either remove it without damage themselves, or pay for the restoration of my vehicle.

Yes, cars, all cars, cause damage to the enviroment. Electric cars damage the envirnment (Where does the electricity come from?). According to some activists say that cow farts cause damage to the environment. I'm sure that if all of us humans just killed ourselves, the world would be a better place, right?

What about the internet? I'll bet that if we destroyed the internet, there'd be a lot less pollution. There is a lot of electricity produced to run the internet. Plus, without the internet, less people would be inclined to own a computer. Less computers equals less plastics which equals less pollution.

My point is this, argue your points within the law. Do not attack anybody, or damage anyone else's property in your fanaticisim.

[Rower_CPU]

I'm simply playing the Devil's advocate here...

I'm not condoning their means of spreading the message, but I do support the message they are spreading.

Methane pollution is still a secondary form of pollution to fossil fuels, etc. Let's focus on the big problem at hand first, rather than try to confuse the issue. Electric powered vehicles do far less damage to the environment than vehicles using fossil fuels. Electricity can be produced in many non-polluting ways: biothermal, hydropower, wind, solar, etc.

It's unfortunate that huge SUVs have become status symbols. If people realize the damage they are doing, then they might stop buying them, which would cause the auto industry to stop producing them. If some stickers get people to realize what they're doing...

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm simply playing the Devil's advocate here...

I'm not condoning their means of spreading the message, but I do support the message they are spreading.

Methane pollution is still a secondary form of pollution to fossil fuels, etc. Let's focus on the big problem at hand first, rather than try to confuse the issue. Electric powered vehicles do far less damage to the environment than vehicles using fossil fuels. Electricity can be produced in many non-polluting ways: biothermal, hydropower, wind, solar, etc.

It's unfortunate that huge SUVs have become status symbols. If people realize the damage they are doing, then they might stop buying them, which would cause the auto industry to stop producing them. If some stickers get people to realize what they're doing...

i was around the first time the yuppies came along and they either had beemers or volvos, not jeeps and hummers:p

what will the next generation of yuppies drive? cooper minis and ultra small, and expensive electric cars?

who knows:p ;)

[Moxiemike]

Originally posted by Hemingray
So, this brings up the question... are we targeting ALL SUV's or just the big gas-guzzling ones? 'Cause I just bought a Toyota RAV4, and unlike some soccer moms, I actually got an SUV for a purpose: I need a protected area in the back to haul stuff. Mainly my instruments, and Mac hardware when I'm on the job.

My "SUV" is the smallest of the small (with the possible exception of the Subaru Forester), and it gets about 24mpg in-town and 30mpg highway. So am I a viable target? I should hope not, because I am a very environmentally conscious individual.

I'd so you aren't a target, and I know a few musicians who have SUVs, and sure its better than a 1985 Dodge Van with no exhaust that gets 5 mpg... but... I must say that I used to haul a Hartke 7000 series head in a rack with a korg tuner, a 4x10 peavey cabinet that was probably the half the size of a refrigerator when stacked, a 1969 jazz bass in a VERY hard and VERY large case, a 1962 p-bass reissue in a std case, our vocalists' fender tele in hard case, her amp (a fender chorus deluxe or something-- 2x12) and a bunch of our drummers extras hardware, as well as myself and Emily to gigs. And I did this in a 1997 VW Jetta. Sometimes I would also ride our guitarists' three guitars in my car as well...

And we could get five people, four amps, a drumkit, 7 guitars, and sometimes even a PA to one show in two cars. We were horribly efficient. So yea... pack that **** into a smaller car. It can happen. Of course, my jetta's mpg went from like, 34/28 to 32/25 but still.....less pollution huffing from the small exhaust. :D

[jelloshotsrule]

i agree. rav 4 doesn't seem so bad, though those mpg's seem higher than i'd expect....

the fact of the matter is, some people have a legitimate use for suv's, but very few of them.

more often than not these people are driving alone, back and forth to work everyday.

not to mention all of them within cities.

what exactly are you hauling in the middle of nyc? by yourself? mr. suit and tie.....

[3rdpath]

our automobiles are just an extension of our gluttonous tendencies.

while the average family size has decreased, the average home size has almost doubled. factor in the huge amount of storage units leased and you can see we have some serious issues. and people are outraged over their utility bills.

61% of the nation is overweight. many people are morbidly obese. and some people feel the answer is to sue macdonalds....

our automobiles have never been larger and less fuel efficient...and the government feels the need to mandate fuel efficiencies.

notice the lack of personal responsibilty and shame.

if you really care about where the U.S. is heading read:

The Overspent American.

and

Affluenza.

two illuminating books on our society and it's not so pleasant evolution.

[SPG]

As the person who pointed out the website, I thought that I should come back and say that it's more of a funny little thing than something I wholeheartedly endorse. anyway, if you look these guys aren't endorsing damaging the SUV's, just bringing the boorishness of the owners to light.
If I went outside everyday and stacked up a dozen tires, poured ten gallons of gas on it and then lit it what would you think? All the people who drive theSUV's don't consider themselves to be part of the problem.

I don't drive an SUV, even though I toyed with the notion of buying one when I lived at 7000' elevation. 99% of the people who drive them have no need for them, and I'd say that most of the people who think they have a need for them can get by just fine without them. I drove a Honda Civic for 180,000 miles for work in the mountains and never got really stuck. A good set of snowtires will do wonders. Until Americans can look at themselves as part of a community and not as a rugged individualist who deserves the spoils, then we will continue on the path to our own destruction.

[whocares]

In France we pay the best part of $1 for just 1 liter of gas (maybe $4 to $5 a gallon!). People who don't NEED insanely big SUVs/engines just don't buy them.

A bit of "financial incitation" plays wonders on peoples environmental habits...

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by whocares
In France we pay the best part of $1 for just 1 liter of gas (maybe $4 to $5 a gallon!). People who don't NEED insanely big SUVs/engines just don't buy them.

A bit of "financial incitation" plays wonders on peoples environmental habits...

great call.

that is why i don't mind when gas prices go up. sure, it sucks because the people who struggle to pay for gas when they have to drive too far to work because they have no other option, they pay the biggest price. whereas the people who can afford SUVs can also afford to pay more for gas. so it helps, but it can also hurt the "wrong" people.

3rd and spg- great points.

i made a note of this interesting item for sale to 3rd previously, but i have seen a place (mooshoes.com), at the actual store itself... it sells belts made out of old bicycle tire inner tubes... as well as sandals made out of recycled tires

these are 2 great examples of minimizing usage through REusage. not just recycling in the sense of separating plastic and glass and trash... but taking it the extra step

hope to see more and more of these types of things for sale (though they ARE a little pricey)

[sturm375]

Originally posted by whocares
In France we pay the best part of $1 for just 1 liter of gas (maybe $4 to $5 a gallon!). People who don't NEED insanely big SUVs/engines just don't buy them.

A bit of "financial incitation" plays wonders on peoples environmental habits...

The reason this won't work: American's by and large travel further to and from work, than other cultures. I myself consider my trip small, 13 or so miles each way. At one time I was traveling 45 miles each way to and from work.

At that time, it wouldn't have mattered if gas were $1/gallon, or $5/gallon, I'd still have to travel 45 miles to work.

They've increased the cost of cigerettes(sp?) dramatically with taxes. Has that curtailed smoking? I believe it's close to $1/cigerette in NY.

People still, even now, still trust the government. So until you have an american government actually acknowlage the problems combustion pollution causes, we'll still have pollution. While it's cheaper to "buy" a pollition than to produce clean energy, we'll still have dirty power plants.

[SPG]

Originally posted by sturm375


The reason this won't work: American's by and large travel further to and from work, than other cultures. I myself consider my trip small, 13 or so miles each way. At one time I was traveling 45 miles each way to and from work.

At that time, it wouldn't have mattered if gas were $1/gallon, or $5/gallon, I'd still have to travel 45 miles to work.

They've increased the cost of cigerettes(sp?) dramatically with taxes. Has that curtailed smoking? I believe it's close to $1/cigerette in NY.

People still, even now, still trust the government. So until you have an american government actually acknowlage the problems combustion pollution causes, we'll still have pollution. While it's cheaper to "buy" a pollition than to produce clean energy, we'll still have dirty power plants.

If your 90mile roundtrip was costing you $45 per day, you'd find another way, another job, or another home. That's the reality. We all have a threshold of financial pain before we're "forced" to make a change. This is the same reason why many people who live outside NYC take the trains.

In California when the cigarette taxes jumped dramatically it spurred the biggest drop in smoking too. So there IS a correlation. Also if you're cigarrettes are $1each, then a pack is $20? I don't think so. It should be $1 a puff just to pay for the medical expenses down the road though!

Unfortunately our government is a big part of the problem now. Remember who's running things now...oil men and their buddies, so I don't think that we'll see enforcement of any of the clean air, fuel efficiency, or other use reduction initiatives.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
our automobiles are just an extension of our gluttonous tendencies.



i am a left leaning born again christian, former missionary who lost a partner to a bullet (british anglican killed by a british soldier...the irony) and by most accounts a middle of the road liberal...like clinton or gore

but my dad bought me a gift...a tan volvo...and it's a nice gesture but he's a nixon/ford old school republican, trickle down fan...so i graciously take the gift of the used tan volvo

but every time i drive up to certain areas of the mostly liberal bay area in california, i get dirty looks like i am W's vaseline butt buddy in the oil biz:p

am i supposed to have a volkswagon bus????? ;)

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Methane pollution is still a secondary form of pollution to fossil fuels, etc. Let's focus on the big problem at hand first, rather than try to confuse the issue. Electric powered vehicles do far less damage to the environment than vehicles using fossil fuels. Electricity can be produced in many non-polluting ways: biothermal, hydropower, wind, solar, etc.



My turn to play Devil's advocate... ;)

So instead of factories burning fossil fuels we should level hundreds (thousands?) of acres for solar and wind farms which are very ineffcient and then screw up the ecosystem a bit more by damning up rivers for hydro-electric power. Sounds like a great way to save the environment... instead of pollution we'll just bulldoze it and dump on some concrete.

:P

Lethal

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
My turn to play Devil's advocate... ;)

So instead of factories burning fossil fuels we should level hundreds (thousands?) of acres for solar and wind farms which are very ineffcient and then screw up the ecosystem a bit more by damning up rivers for hydro-electric power. Sounds like a great way to save the environment... instead of pollution we'll just bulldoze it and dump on some concrete.

:P

Lethal

Hardly. Wind and solar collectors can be mounted anywhere and do not require levelling acres and acres of land. Likewise, hydropower need not cause damage to rivers if done correctly. Are you saying that the pollution we have now is acceptible? What do you suggest then? What immaculate solution do you have up your sleeve that makes these alternative power sources less attractive?

What will the power companies do when their supply of coal, oil, etc are gone and they are stuck because they never put any R&D into new energy sources? :rolleyes:

[jelloshotsrule]

how about windmills and/or solar panels on top of buildings in cities? come on now... someone needs to implement that crap... man.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Hardly. Wind and solar collectors can be mounted anywhere and do not require levelling acres and acres of land. Likewise, hydropower need not cause damage to rivers if done correctly. Are you saying that the pollution we have now is acceptible? What do you suggest then? What immaculate solution do you have up your sleeve that makes these alternative power sources less attractive?

What will the power companies do when their supply of coal, oil, etc are gone and they are stuck because they never put any R&D into new energy sources? :rolleyes:

Easy trigger, I had the smilies in my post for a reason...

Wind and solar collectors can be mounted anywhere. But putting wind collectors where there isn't constant wind and solar collectors where there isn't much sun isn't a very helpful solution. There is a reason why there are miles and miles of windmills in/around Palm Springs, it's cause it takes that many to harness enough wind power to do anything with (and that's with the near constant air movement in SoCal). Or how about the huge solar farms out in the desert? You can put as many wind and solar collectors in Indiana as you can fit but I know they won't generate near enough power.

Wind and solar power might work in some places as supplimental power sources, but I can't see them as primary power sources anytime soon.

Nuclear power is the future.


Lethal

[SPG]

I didn't see any smilees with that nuclear comment!
Solar and Wind aren't the only solution. There is almost never a single magic bullet that solves everything and we should be mature enough to realize that. With that said, we should look at what we are doing now and what we've done over the past hundred years and then see what we'll be able to do a hundred years from now.
We realize that there is a limited amount of fossil fuels available and that when we don't burn them cleanly there are very problematic consequences, so what do we do? We loosen the fuel effeciency regulations and go out and buy big SUV's. How is that helping?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by SPG
We loosen the fuel effeciency regulations and go out and buy big SUV's. How is that helping?

Well, the faster we consume our fossil fuels the sooner we'll be forced to find alternative energy solutions. :D See, the whole SUV crowd is just excelerating<sp?> the proccess. :p


Lethal

[SPG]

Okay, the smileefaces were there on that one. I think we can all agree that SUV's are a wastefull means of transportation for the vast majority of people who own them.
Another question I'd like to pose is that when will people, especially Americans, learn to live in a society where they consider how their actions will affect the other members of society?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Easy trigger, I had the smilies in my post for a reason...

Wind and solar collectors can be mounted anywhere. But putting wind collectors where there isn't constant wind and solar collectors where there isn't much sun isn't a very helpful solution. There is a reason why there are miles and miles of windmills in/around Palm Springs, it's cause it takes that many to harness enough wind power to do anything with (and that's with the near constant air movement in SoCal). Or how about the huge solar farms out in the desert? You can put as many wind and solar collectors in Indiana as you can fit but I know they won't generate near enough power.

Wind and solar power might work in some places as supplimental power sources, but I can't see them as primary power sources anytime soon.

Nuclear power is the future.


Lethal

Sorry, I must have missed the sarcasm. I wasn't trying to flame. :)

I agree that in their current form they are not viable, but they won't have the chance to improve without a concerted effort by the powers that be to ensure development of new technologies.

I think nuclear is OK, other than all the byproducts it generates and the potential risks it entails. Another Chernobyl is unlikely, but not impossible.

[whocares]

Originally posted by sturm375
At that time, it wouldn't have mattered if gas were $1/gallon, or $5/gallon, I'd still have to travel 45 miles to work.


Sure. But if you have a 5liter thursty V8 SUV you'll be spending more money on gas than with a 2liter i-4 sedan which will get you there just as fast and just as comfortably.

I also used to travel 20miles to college every day and get pi$$ed off every time the price of gasoline goes up... but the upside is europeans tend to have cars with more fuel-efficient, environmentaly-friendly (ok -less-damaging) than in the US (and other countries were gas is cheap, for that matter)...

[whocares]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Well, the faster we consume our fossil fuels the sooner we'll be forced to find alternative energy solutions. :D See, the whole SUV crowd is just excelerating<sp?> the proccess. :p

I have to disagree somewhat... Right now, we are only producing between 25-50% of the oil in known reserves. That's because it too darn expensive to produce the rest... As the need for gasoline increases, so does it's price and new reserves are just *magically* created.

Waiting for the stuff just to run out ain't gonna happen some time soon. Maybe 50, 100, 150 years? No one knows for sure.
Tis the mentallities that need to be changed :mad:

[jefhatfield]

to respond to the off topic comment about nuclear being the future for power...now, what about terrorists and their desire to get raw materials for dirty bombs?

and another off topic thing i saw on cnn...what would jesus eat?

healthy to give a good example for his disciples?

or fast food because he has a very limited time to do his bidding?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by whocares
Tis the mentallities that need to be changed :mad:


I agree. As a society we Americans tend to react rather than act. If we see trouble a head we (as a society) will say "eh, it will probably miss me" instead of taking the extra time, or spending the extra $1 to aviod the trouble before it becomes trouble. Just like Rower pointed out, as long as Americans can purchase cheap gas no one is going to push for big R&D into alt fuels.


RE: Nuclear power and terrorists... We can't aviod tech that could possibly be used as a weapon 'cause anything can be used as a weapon.


Lethal

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe



I agree. As a society we Americans tend to react rather than act. If we see trouble a head we (as a society) will say "eh, it will probably miss me" instead of taking the extra time, or spending the extra $1 to aviod the trouble before it becomes trouble. Just like Rower pointed out, as long as Americans can purchase cheap gas no one is going to push for big R&D into alt fuels.


RE: Nuclear power and terrorists... We can't aviod tech that could possibly be used as a weapon 'cause anything can be used as a weapon.


Lethal

i once had a boss, microsoft dude, who mentioned the biggest threat to the world is not nuclear, chemical, or biological, but the everyday computer

commerce could be messed up, medical infrastructures could be compromised, and a possible computer virus once stranded a us nuclear vessel offshore that had to be towed home

his big fear is that one day, some hacker will start a nuke exchange like in the movie "war games"

[etoiles]

Alternative energy sources are great, but there is a much easier short term solution: it is called planning. The average European consumes half as much energy than the avarage American. Europeans pay more for gas but I think the main reason is that land is more sparse, so naturally, they need to find ways to optimize things. City planning is very important, they don't just build supurbs after supurbs, people live closer to where they work, you don't have to drive 20miles to go shopping.

Another area: buildings. Building standards in the US are PATHETIC. Build it out of plywood and then just add a heater and AC. Crank it up ! In Europe, there is laws that tell you how 'energy efficient' a building has to be, so they add better insulation and natural ventilation is part of the building design.

Again, as someone mentioned before in this thread, Americans should start to think more in terms of symptoms, rather than just dealing with the consequences.

rant over

[SPG]

I ran into a guy last night who was walking around and posting flyers with a picture of an SUV that said "Your SUV SUX" and another one with "SUV = *****" (with a one inch ruler under it).
It's nice to see the Seattle poster ban ruled unconstitutional!

Edited for clarification: ***** was the word for male genitalia before the censor software got to it. In case genitalia was also censored, think manhood.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by etoiles


Another area: buildings. Building standards in the US are PATHETIC. Build it out of plywood and then just add a heater and AC. Crank it up ! In Europe, there is laws that tell you how 'energy efficient' a building has to be, so they add better insulation and natural ventilation is part of the building design.



in california, at least in the area i live, we are not plagued with hurricanes/tsunamis, harsh winters, tornados, and earthquakes are actually very few and far between...in the last 140 years, there have been only two structually damaging earthquakes

so i have lived in plenty of super thin walled apartments, especially as a college student

thank god i was a lot more tolerant to noise in those days:p

[SPG]

The building code comment is very telling about the state of this country. The quick fix. Why build a building that will be here in a hundred years or more if you won't be? Hell the mortgage will be paid off in thirty, so who cares if it falls down right after.
I think we all need to start looking at more of the long term, the results and what it will take to keep us sustainable.