WE CAN'T SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT
- Thread starter railslayer
- Start date
ride-rider
Active member
YES! haha. it discusts me when i see shit laying in the snow at my mt.
ride-rider
Active member
we need to work together and change this shit we made! humins were mistakes
You dont make any sense. I'll assume you havent really looked into the issue at all, because your points are outlandish and outdated. Regaurdless of what glaciers looked like 2000 years ago (and we kjnow what they looked like, as we can get temperature data and judge the relative speed of a glacier over a slope, and then correlate it to geological features in the glaciers path), the reduction in glaciers has been so drastic over the last 200 years that they have visibly receded. Its not just those few pictures you see on so many movies and slideshows, its all glaciers. Ice shelves are collapsing all across Antarctica, and these are structures that have remained unchanged for tens of thousands of years.
Global cooling wasn't an issue in the 1970's, you're talking out of your ass. The Earths temperature didnt increase during that time, but also at that time, nobody had any idea of global environment, atmospheric pollution or any type of pollution for that matter. Lakes around my areas were toxic to swim in since people drained shit from their houses in them. It was during the 1970's when people first realized the effects we were having on the environment, and the whole 'global cooling' idea quickly evaporated. It was wrong. The slight decrease in temps from 1945 to 1970 was caused by sulfur dioxins, which blocked out light in an event called 'global dimming', causing a short lived period of cooler temps, but ultimately causing temperatures to soar to what they are today.
And as I or any ecologist will tell you, yes the earth does go through warm and cold periods. However, the rate of change in temperatures as of recently is unlike anything we've ever seen in Earths known geological history. And thats a few million years. Shifts are ok, but sudden shifts are bad news for any environment, big or small.
Global cooling wasn't an issue in the 1970's, you're talking out of your ass. The Earths temperature didnt increase during that time, but also at that time, nobody had any idea of global environment, atmospheric pollution or any type of pollution for that matter. Lakes around my areas were toxic to swim in since people drained shit from their houses in them. It was during the 1970's when people first realized the effects we were having on the environment, and the whole 'global cooling' idea quickly evaporated. It was wrong. The slight decrease in temps from 1945 to 1970 was caused by sulfur dioxins, which blocked out light in an event called 'global dimming', causing a short lived period of cooler temps, but ultimately causing temperatures to soar to what they are today.
And as I or any ecologist will tell you, yes the earth does go through warm and cold periods. However, the rate of change in temperatures as of recently is unlike anything we've ever seen in Earths known geological history. And thats a few million years. Shifts are ok, but sudden shifts are bad news for any environment, big or small.
crazyfuck
Active member
fuck the environment, SAVE US! the planet is going to be here one way or another- it's simply physically impossible for it to go anywhere. the world has been here for millions of years; humans have only been here for a few thousand years. in that short period of time, we've managed to completely fuck up everything and use a very large portion of the natural resources available. if we continue this trend, which we likely will, WE WILL BE FUCKED. it's time we move on to another planet so we can fuck that one up, too, but first we have to get some people in spacesuits out there to take a look and explore a bit. if we stay here, WE WILL BE FUCKED. i plan on living as recklessly and dangerously as possible so hopefully i can die with a shit-eating grin plastered across my face and i won't have to deal with fighting for the last seat on the last spaceship off our dying rock. we are going to kill ourselves very soon, so we might want to be looking for a good "plan B"... because "plan A"- you know, the one where we just use everything until it's all gone- is inherently flawed. well, only if you consider us all dying a "flaw".
bottom line- the earth isn't going anywhere, we are, save us.
bottom line- the earth isn't going anywhere, we are, save us.
dorikin
Active member
Dude, are you serious. It's fucking funny because greenpeace is going on a world tour to promote environmental protection on a humongous petroleum powered barge and there is a dude paddling a fucking canoe in front of them duh! And we get most of our oil from Mexico not from Arabs... but yea I agree about the whole SUV thing completely. Go down to Highlands Ranch and look at what all the fucking trophy/stay at home moms drive around. Escalades, Yukons, H2s and other humongous SUVs. IT's just absurd and retarded.
Another comment, this whole hybrid vehicle thing is wack. Sure it will have benefits if they can practice on a large scale, but Don't you guys seriously think instead of investing all this time and energy into hybrids we could just humble ourselves and take a bus or ride a bike more often?
Another comment, this whole hybrid vehicle thing is wack. Sure it will have benefits if they can practice on a large scale, but Don't you guys seriously think instead of investing all this time and energy into hybrids we could just humble ourselves and take a bus or ride a bike more often?
Dont get me started on Hybrids, such a pointless technology....
cobra_commander
Active member
I lynched a kid earlyer today for driving to safeway. it's like 200meters
almostaskier
Active member
don't confuse me with the facts, i've made up my mind!
skiminnesota
Active member
pulled it out of my ASS? do some research on the subject. Here I did it for you, http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
this is from an article in news week. from the 70s.
Now this can not be used to explain the whole subject but it does shed some light on it. If you wanna "save the world" fine, but dont be pushing it on me that we humans are evil and all that sort of stuff.
I hope you drive a Toyota prisis that gets like 40mpg or you are a hypocrite just like most of the other politicians out there complaining.
Peace Out.
this is from an article in news week. from the 70s.
Now this can not be used to explain the whole subject but it does shed some light on it. If you wanna "save the world" fine, but dont be pushing it on me that we humans are evil and all that sort of stuff.
I hope you drive a Toyota prisis that gets like 40mpg or you are a hypocrite just like most of the other politicians out there complaining.
Peace Out.
I said "talking out of your ass", not "pulled it out of your ass". I have done some research, thanks, and the article you provided was one of those 1974 scientists that was proven wrong five years later when temperatures resumed their climb. Anyone present day who seriously believes in Global Cooling is an idiot.
Have I ever said humans are evil? No. Humans are destructive however. Take it or leave it, we've been modifying our environment in some way or another long before the time of Christ.
As for cars, as previously stated, I think Hybrids are bullshit, as they're really still dependent on the existence of oil. Their costly, unavailable to the average American and time and research should be going into fully electric vehicles.
Have I ever said humans are evil? No. Humans are destructive however. Take it or leave it, we've been modifying our environment in some way or another long before the time of Christ.
As for cars, as previously stated, I think Hybrids are bullshit, as they're really still dependent on the existence of oil. Their costly, unavailable to the average American and time and research should be going into fully electric vehicles.
skiminnesota
Active member
of course i dont believe in global cooling, but the fact that the same group of scientists who were sounding the siren in the 70s, were proven wrong 5 years later according to your research, says something dont you think? what it says is they were wrong in the 70s so who know maybe in 5 years the scientists who are so alarmed about global warming, ( just like the ones on global cooling) will turn directions again and say we will have some new Phenomena to worry about.
Now on to the electric cars, are you out of your mind? do you have any idea how much electricity it would take to run every semi truck, car and gas operated vehicle. we all ready have had problems with shortages, can you imagine if every gas station was an electric station? Remember in California a few years ago when homes were with out power because there were to many air conditioners on and the power plants could not keep up. Now imagine if all those homes plus all the cars you see on the road all relied on electricity, do you want a nucular power plant in every big city in America?
Now on to the electric cars, are you out of your mind? do you have any idea how much electricity it would take to run every semi truck, car and gas operated vehicle. we all ready have had problems with shortages, can you imagine if every gas station was an electric station? Remember in California a few years ago when homes were with out power because there were to many air conditioners on and the power plants could not keep up. Now imagine if all those homes plus all the cars you see on the road all relied on electricity, do you want a nucular power plant in every big city in America?
ATLskier
Active member
I didn't really say what I meant. We can surely hurt and help the environment, just not on the scale of global climate change. I agree with those other points of African desertification, the Aral sea, easter island. I really agree we should do what we can to prevent pollution and stuff like that.
the hole in the ozone layer is also natural. It wasn't some huge gaping hole that was open all year. It closed and opened at various times in the year and many scientists proved it was a natural occurence.
Back to CO2 and global warming. Ok, trace the CO2 levels to the industrial revolution. Just because there is a sharp increase there, doesn't mean it's from the industrial revolution. Other things besides humans make CO2. the industrial revolution was from 1760-1830 Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted in 1815. An average volcanic erpution emits more CO2 than humanity has produced in its existence. Tambora was much larger than an average volcano, killing around 100,000 people and causing a world wide decrease in temperature(the summer that never was),creating frost and snow during the summer in new england. Another notable eruption during this time was Laki in Iceland in 1783.
We should do what we can to help the environment, but we shouldn't worry too much about global warming because we can't affect it that much and there are many other factors at play. Just remember that of the CO2 produced, humanity is only responsible for 1.2% of it.
the hole in the ozone layer is also natural. It wasn't some huge gaping hole that was open all year. It closed and opened at various times in the year and many scientists proved it was a natural occurence.
Back to CO2 and global warming. Ok, trace the CO2 levels to the industrial revolution. Just because there is a sharp increase there, doesn't mean it's from the industrial revolution. Other things besides humans make CO2. the industrial revolution was from 1760-1830 Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted in 1815. An average volcanic erpution emits more CO2 than humanity has produced in its existence. Tambora was much larger than an average volcano, killing around 100,000 people and causing a world wide decrease in temperature(the summer that never was),creating frost and snow during the summer in new england. Another notable eruption during this time was Laki in Iceland in 1783.
We should do what we can to help the environment, but we shouldn't worry too much about global warming because we can't affect it that much and there are many other factors at play. Just remember that of the CO2 produced, humanity is only responsible for 1.2% of it.
skiminnesota
Active member
^^^ thanks, glad someone isnt blindly fallowing what the media says.
because they will only report and hype what goes along with there agenda.
because they will only report and hype what goes along with there agenda.
almostaskier
Active member
This is an extremely important point.
A lot of people argue that temperature changes, the weather changes, etc etc. There's no problem, whatever, it happens. This is blindness on such a level, it isn't even funny. The weather is changing very, very rapidly. What the Earth does in a very long period of time, we are doing in the matter of a century.
This is not good, because the environment cannot adapt as quickly as the changes are happening, when in the long, natural run, it would have.
The northern hemisphere is going to be JUST FINE with global warming, maybe a few more catastrophic storms and whatnot. It's Africa and the rest of the Third World, located in the southern hemisphere, that is going to bite it, hard, as if they didn't already have problems. Desertification is going to get worse, here int he North it's gonna get a bit wetter or a bit drier, but nowhere on the scale of devastation Africa will see...
A lot of people argue that temperature changes, the weather changes, etc etc. There's no problem, whatever, it happens. This is blindness on such a level, it isn't even funny. The weather is changing very, very rapidly. What the Earth does in a very long period of time, we are doing in the matter of a century.
This is not good, because the environment cannot adapt as quickly as the changes are happening, when in the long, natural run, it would have.
The northern hemisphere is going to be JUST FINE with global warming, maybe a few more catastrophic storms and whatnot. It's Africa and the rest of the Third World, located in the southern hemisphere, that is going to bite it, hard, as if they didn't already have problems. Desertification is going to get worse, here int he North it's gonna get a bit wetter or a bit drier, but nowhere on the scale of devastation Africa will see...
The hole does occur somewhat naturally yes, as the poles experience massive shifts in the amounts of sunlight and UV radiation through the year. Human released CFC's expanded by 7% over the 60 years they were produced. Not a large precent, but when we're talking on a global scale, its massive.
Tambora was a huge volcano, yes, but the gasses released by those volcanoes are relatively small and infrequent compared to what humans create every year. Volcanic eruptions do tend to fuck things up, but it such a quick shock that its mostly absorbed within a year and things go back to normal. Constant CO2 output overstresses the ability of the ecological and climactic systems to cope. Laki brings up another important point - it mainly released sulfur dioxide, which is a much more destructive greenhouse gas. Humanity doesnt just release CO2, we're also responsible for a ton of other bad shit thats in our air.
I have to go see Pirates 3, but I'll summarize the electric car debacle - Sure, its a transition state. Its a pointless and useless one however. Most of the fuel cell technology in them still remains unchanged, and research and development into these types of engines are poor and alcking in funding. Its even worse for directly electric cars.
And thanks for citing the California blackout, whoever that was. Fully electric cars wont "drain our power supply" or cause massive blackouts. And I really fail to see how nuclear power was brought into this... thanks for trying to put words in my mouth kid!
Tambora was a huge volcano, yes, but the gasses released by those volcanoes are relatively small and infrequent compared to what humans create every year. Volcanic eruptions do tend to fuck things up, but it such a quick shock that its mostly absorbed within a year and things go back to normal. Constant CO2 output overstresses the ability of the ecological and climactic systems to cope. Laki brings up another important point - it mainly released sulfur dioxide, which is a much more destructive greenhouse gas. Humanity doesnt just release CO2, we're also responsible for a ton of other bad shit thats in our air.
I have to go see Pirates 3, but I'll summarize the electric car debacle - Sure, its a transition state. Its a pointless and useless one however. Most of the fuel cell technology in them still remains unchanged, and research and development into these types of engines are poor and alcking in funding. Its even worse for directly electric cars.
And thanks for citing the California blackout, whoever that was. Fully electric cars wont "drain our power supply" or cause massive blackouts. And I really fail to see how nuclear power was brought into this... thanks for trying to put words in my mouth kid!
skiminnesota
Active member
ok maybe im not as smart as you, but were will you get the power to drive every car on the road with electricity with out nucular power, (thats alot of juice to plug every car in America into a house hold outlet), and with out some sort of massive electric supply **cough** "nucular" it will be impossible. im no engineer but it may not even be possible at all.
As far as global warming goes I am not going to change your mind, and you are most certainly not going to change mine.
The earth has been in existence for millions of years and you have no Idea what happened 30thousand much less 1million years ago in regard to climate patterns.
peace out!
As far as global warming goes I am not going to change your mind, and you are most certainly not going to change mine.
The earth has been in existence for millions of years and you have no Idea what happened 30thousand much less 1million years ago in regard to climate patterns.
peace out!
word on riding bikes. reduce affluenza, respect the many species that have peacefully survived on planet earth for a long time and take action/realize that humans are upsetting the strings of nature. with suburbians commuting so far in cars to work or for food its become visible that animals are becoming extinct because of humans and that our natural resources are dissapearing. Unfortunatelly a minority is aware and taking action, and changes will most likely only take place until gas prices are too high and people will not be able to afford to drive so far in cars. a good way to get started to help keep snow on mountains and help our enviornment is by watching an Inconvenient Truth then starting to take action. and if you are thinking why should i care about planet earth, simply go watch Planet Earth.
I did actually, I learned about it in a class I took freshman year, Living With Volcanoes. I've seen it cited around as well because of the enormous amounts of gas it released with only a relatively minuscule eruption.
skiminnesota
Active member
have you ever done some research on the subject of creation or are you just believing what your 8th grade science teacher tells you?
saying that the world was created out of a big bang is like saying, " if I put all the parts of a computer into a box shake them up enough I will have a super computer". that is not going to happen! and I think my own human body is much better than a computer, can a computer think? NO! can a computer heal itself? NO
do some research, and you will find just as many scientists who have the same views me. the only difference is they dont get attention from the media because they are "radical christens"
put some work into your opinion, if you come to the same conclusion fine, but at least you will be thinking for your self and not what your teacher or professors tell you. it takes alot more faith to believe this wonderful beautiful world was created on accident.
saying that the world was created out of a big bang is like saying, " if I put all the parts of a computer into a box shake them up enough I will have a super computer". that is not going to happen! and I think my own human body is much better than a computer, can a computer think? NO! can a computer heal itself? NO
do some research, and you will find just as many scientists who have the same views me. the only difference is they dont get attention from the media because they are "radical christens"
put some work into your opinion, if you come to the same conclusion fine, but at least you will be thinking for your self and not what your teacher or professors tell you. it takes alot more faith to believe this wonderful beautiful world was created on accident.
In regards to the argument that electricity is a harder or as hard resource to come by as petroleum may or may not be correct. In fact, it is my understanding that nuclear power plants when operated within safe means, are actually an exceptional way to generate gobs of electricity with low environmental impact. Other resources such as coal burning generates a substantial amount of emissions. The only threat provided by Nuclear power is that of a catastrophe such as the event at 3-mile island and another in germany in the 80's. Both of these events were direct result of poor management and improper safety precautions.
If nuclear plants can be run more responsibly and accepted by a wider audience, they most certainly can be an answer to electricity. The last interesting point is that although we will have to again use an unreplenishable resource, the masses of uranium necessary to generate electricity for society are far less than the relative quantity of petroleum coal etc.
I encourage you guys to read about nuclear power as it may be the answer to some problems or dilemnas
If nuclear plants can be run more responsibly and accepted by a wider audience, they most certainly can be an answer to electricity. The last interesting point is that although we will have to again use an unreplenishable resource, the masses of uranium necessary to generate electricity for society are far less than the relative quantity of petroleum coal etc.
I encourage you guys to read about nuclear power as it may be the answer to some problems or dilemnas
tribefan226
Active member
"WE CAN'T SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT"
well actually we can limit pollution and stuff but we can't stop global warming because it is a load of bullshit.
well actually we can limit pollution and stuff but we can't stop global warming because it is a load of bullshit.
The vast majority of astrophysicists would disagree with you, so you must be talking about Christian scientists or something.... the Big Bang is the best theory we have to date to explain the universe, and theres a whole shitload of astrological evidence that supports it, such as background microwave radiation and the existence of quasars.
Your analogy to the big bang being like mixing a box of parts together an ending up with a supercomputer is... well... I've heard that one in arguments against evolution as well. But I think it makes even less sense in this context. From a universe with matter and a few governing laws of physics, you can pretty much create stars and galaxies (just simple fusion reactions of hydrogen and heluim) without having to do shit. Laws of gravitation and such encourage matter to stick together and form what we see today. Yes, its on a truly massive and magnificent scale, but if we use our current understanding of the way the universe works and roll the clock back, the Big Bang is what we see. Many scientists dont like it, but still agree with it, because its the best explanation we have as of now.
Your analogy to the big bang being like mixing a box of parts together an ending up with a supercomputer is... well... I've heard that one in arguments against evolution as well. But I think it makes even less sense in this context. From a universe with matter and a few governing laws of physics, you can pretty much create stars and galaxies (just simple fusion reactions of hydrogen and heluim) without having to do shit. Laws of gravitation and such encourage matter to stick together and form what we see today. Yes, its on a truly massive and magnificent scale, but if we use our current understanding of the way the universe works and roll the clock back, the Big Bang is what we see. Many scientists dont like it, but still agree with it, because its the best explanation we have as of now.
almostaskier
Active member
As a side note...
Big Bang theory states that the universe started in one point, and there is much evidence for this and that it is still expanding. Creation theory in no way contradicts the fact that the universe started in one point.
anyways.
Big Bang theory states that the universe started in one point, and there is much evidence for this and that it is still expanding. Creation theory in no way contradicts the fact that the universe started in one point.
anyways.
skiminnesota
Active member
so if our body's cant be compared with a super computer what do you compare them with. and if all it took is one big bang why isnt there an earth number two, just like the one we live on. and if when this(BIG BANG HAPPENED) why was earth the only one given this fancy little thing called an ozone, oxygen and the rest of the things that make life possible.
it takes way more faith to believe that you and i and all the living things on this earth were just an accident.
and for the man with the answer to all the questions. lets here some spin about the whole electric car and having enough power to power them all question.
peace out!
it takes way more faith to believe that you and i and all the living things on this earth were just an accident.
and for the man with the answer to all the questions. lets here some spin about the whole electric car and having enough power to power them all question.
peace out!
Ok, why do you think this is the only Earth-like planet in the universe? We're not the only planet out there that could support life, I never claimed that. Earth like objects and planets that could support life have been discovered outside our solar system, and I fully believe that if we exist, life exists elsewhere in some form in the universe.
As for electric cars, I was hoping to avoid such a rediculously dumb question, but since you asked:
"Production and conversion BEVs using NiMH battery chemistry typically use 0.3 to 0.5 kilowatt-hours per mile (0.2–0.3 kWh/km).[8][9] Nearly half of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. The US fleet average of 23 miles per gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 1.58 kWh per mile and the 70 MPG Honda Insight gets 0.52 kWh per mile (assuming 36.4 kWh per US gallon of gasoline), so battery electric vehicles are relatively energy efficient."
-Source - Wikipedia
Basically, electric cars are rediculously efficient, and continuing research into better ways to charge batteries will only make them better. Already, they take about 3 times less energy per mile than a gas powered car. Gasoline is a transition fuel anyways, and you can produce energy out of it much easier and efficiently in large power plants rather than small independent engines. Converting to gasoline itself takes an extraordinary amount of energy.
Would we have to make millions of new power plants to switch cars from gas to electric? No. The amount of energy that would be drawn from the grid would be miniscule compared to what the fertilizer industry uses every day, or the aluminum industry does in a few hours.
Many people also bring up that "clean" cars arent actually clean, as coal power pollutes. I say, better to have a system where a completely renewable is possible (from wind, solar, etc) than one that pollutes no matter what.
As for electric cars, I was hoping to avoid such a rediculously dumb question, but since you asked:
"Production and conversion BEVs using NiMH battery chemistry typically use 0.3 to 0.5 kilowatt-hours per mile (0.2–0.3 kWh/km).[8][9] Nearly half of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. The US fleet average of 23 miles per gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 1.58 kWh per mile and the 70 MPG Honda Insight gets 0.52 kWh per mile (assuming 36.4 kWh per US gallon of gasoline), so battery electric vehicles are relatively energy efficient."
-Source - Wikipedia
Basically, electric cars are rediculously efficient, and continuing research into better ways to charge batteries will only make them better. Already, they take about 3 times less energy per mile than a gas powered car. Gasoline is a transition fuel anyways, and you can produce energy out of it much easier and efficiently in large power plants rather than small independent engines. Converting to gasoline itself takes an extraordinary amount of energy.
Would we have to make millions of new power plants to switch cars from gas to electric? No. The amount of energy that would be drawn from the grid would be miniscule compared to what the fertilizer industry uses every day, or the aluminum industry does in a few hours.
Many people also bring up that "clean" cars arent actually clean, as coal power pollutes. I say, better to have a system where a completely renewable is possible (from wind, solar, etc) than one that pollutes no matter what.
dorikin
Active member
I pretty much agree spot on with everything you have said in this thread, awesome job dude.
One thing I disagree with is your strong support of electric vehicles. Sure, they are awesome. The only problem is where that electricity comes from, and at this point is primarily petroleum based conversion. If we can diversify our methods of energy production I am all for Electric vehicles.
I guess what I am trying to say is, I am sick of the government putting all of their faith in E-85 and singular solutions. I think that if we hope to really make a huge difference in the direction our world is going we are going to have combine different forms of energy production such as wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro etc.
One thing I disagree with is your strong support of electric vehicles. Sure, they are awesome. The only problem is where that electricity comes from, and at this point is primarily petroleum based conversion. If we can diversify our methods of energy production I am all for Electric vehicles.
I guess what I am trying to say is, I am sick of the government putting all of their faith in E-85 and singular solutions. I think that if we hope to really make a huge difference in the direction our world is going we are going to have combine different forms of energy production such as wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro etc.
Meh, its not just that I dislike the current hybrids on the market. I think its just more to do with where I see the money going. I think we've already achieved a lot with Hybrid vehicles and technology in that respect. It up to the public to catch on now and use them. However, I see a lot of potential in purely electric vehicles, and thus would love to see someone actually make and market a 100% electric car. Though I would also be happy with a hybrid that doesnt look like ass.
Ski1erman
Member
ok on the electric car thing a lot is going to have to change if that technology is ever going to become practical and cost efficient.. the chevy concept car the, "volt" due to come out in 2010, has some huge problems( like catching fire) and the fact that after charging all night it cam only drive 40miles before its out of juice... that makes this electric car totally obsolete...
"It up to the public to catch on now and use them."
this is a really rash comment, for one the
Toyota Pris has a list price of 23,000$$ at this price the "hybrid" is out of reach for many Americans, and the fact that they are small,ugly and useless for putting anything other than people..
I respect, but totally disagree with your views on everything you have said in this thread, but that is the great thing about America we can disagree and won't end up in civil war over it..
"It up to the public to catch on now and use them."
this is a really rash comment, for one the
Toyota Pris has a list price of 23,000$$ at this price the "hybrid" is out of reach for many Americans, and the fact that they are small,ugly and useless for putting anything other than people..
I respect, but totally disagree with your views on everything you have said in this thread, but that is the great thing about America we can disagree and won't end up in civil war over it..
I agree with you actually. A lot is going to have to change if electric cars are going to take over the roads. And yes, I know that people can't all be expected to buy a hybrid, as they are both unappealing (the prius looks like shit, I'm sorry) and expensive, especially to maintain. Thats why I think our government should start federally funding some fuel cell technology so we can start making these cars cheaper. I'm also for incentives to buy these cars, like whats being set up in California (I dont give Arnold much, but agree with him on this).
I think whats valuble here to know is that we've been refining the gasoline engine for over a hundred years. It can do amazing things now, yes, but the first cars that ran on it were shit. If you give technology time and put in a real effort to scientifically advance it, it will work. Electricity does in my opinion have the greatest potential. We've only just started to seriously use fuel cells, and what you can do with torque and acceleration on a purely electric car could be beyond what many gas engines are capable of. Theres a lot of promise in what we might be able to do, and the technology is still in its infancy. But we cant expect car companies that have been making gas powered engines for years to just suddenly start making great electric cars. I think its going to take a federal effort, lots of research money and a lot of incentives to switch our nation onto electric cars. We're going to have to do it eventually anyways, so why not start now before its a crisis?
I think whats valuble here to know is that we've been refining the gasoline engine for over a hundred years. It can do amazing things now, yes, but the first cars that ran on it were shit. If you give technology time and put in a real effort to scientifically advance it, it will work. Electricity does in my opinion have the greatest potential. We've only just started to seriously use fuel cells, and what you can do with torque and acceleration on a purely electric car could be beyond what many gas engines are capable of. Theres a lot of promise in what we might be able to do, and the technology is still in its infancy. But we cant expect car companies that have been making gas powered engines for years to just suddenly start making great electric cars. I think its going to take a federal effort, lots of research money and a lot of incentives to switch our nation onto electric cars. We're going to have to do it eventually anyways, so why not start now before its a crisis?
Ski1erman
Member
I agree with some of your points until you say
"Thats why I think our government should start federally funding some fuel cell technology so we can start making these cars cheaper. I'm also for incentives to buy these cars, like whats being set up in California (I dont give Arnold much, but agree with him on this)."
I assume you have not looked at a pay check lately when the taxes (this is all the taxes under the sun state and federal)
are reaching 40% and higher for some people.. there is something wrong when 40% of all the money you make is taken away for taxes. and if the government stated offering incentives to buy hybrids this tax bill would clime even higher.
we need to cut taxes then people will have more of the (money they worked) for, this alone would help some people buy hybrids and other things they could not afford before,
this would also stimulate the economy much better than government incentives.
"Thats why I think our government should start federally funding some fuel cell technology so we can start making these cars cheaper. I'm also for incentives to buy these cars, like whats being set up in California (I dont give Arnold much, but agree with him on this)."
I assume you have not looked at a pay check lately when the taxes (this is all the taxes under the sun state and federal)
are reaching 40% and higher for some people.. there is something wrong when 40% of all the money you make is taken away for taxes. and if the government stated offering incentives to buy hybrids this tax bill would clime even higher.
we need to cut taxes then people will have more of the (money they worked) for, this alone would help some people buy hybrids and other things they could not afford before,
this would also stimulate the economy much better than government incentives.
I agree, money for this is a problem. However, why not re appropriate some of the huge cuts and incentives oil companies and refineries enjoy? There are lots of places money is going in our government that would be better spent on this problem. Something needs to be done to get this technology jump started, and car companies are only going to shift when we run out of oil. You need the technology there before you can attract consumers to it. As soon as a company makes a sport hybrid that can 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, there will be a market, but as I've said, no car company would ever engage in such a risky experimental venture. It needs to happen though, you have to agree on that.
And as for the economy, I will say right now that I'm a biologist, not a economist. I have no idea whats good for the economy, and after all that I've heard about it, I dont think many people have an idea either.
And as for the economy, I will say right now that I'm a biologist, not a economist. I have no idea whats good for the economy, and after all that I've heard about it, I dont think many people have an idea either.
JaphyRyder
Active member
NOTE: Everyone who is reading this, go out and buy compact flourescent lightbulbs to replace your incandescents you have now. CFLs cost a bit more, but last about 12x as long as standard bulbs and use a fraction of the energy to produce the same amount of light. DO IT!!!!
ALSO, suppport wind power and solar power. Write a letter to the editor of your paper about this, or about biodiesel. There's soooo many options its rediculous. this stuff gets me so pumped, message me if you wanna talk bout it!
ALSO, suppport wind power and solar power. Write a letter to the editor of your paper about this, or about biodiesel. There's soooo many options its rediculous. this stuff gets me so pumped, message me if you wanna talk bout it!
Kevski
Active member
On fluorescent bulbs, sure they work, but they also don't look as nice. I have some, and they are taking forever to get used to.
On creationism, it's not real. Any scientist trying to prove that it is, probably uses patchwork science. Patchwork science is when scientists take patches of facts, and put them together out of context to argue a point that doesn't have sufficient suppport. This also applies to the global warming/climate change situation. People saying it doesn't exist probably use patchwork to make their bullshit sound plausable, and nice.
And sorry about the creation thing, that is just about the "no evolution, world was created in exactly 7 days" belief. I actually know people who deny fact, and swear by that concept. They annoy me.
On creationism, it's not real. Any scientist trying to prove that it is, probably uses patchwork science. Patchwork science is when scientists take patches of facts, and put them together out of context to argue a point that doesn't have sufficient suppport. This also applies to the global warming/climate change situation. People saying it doesn't exist probably use patchwork to make their bullshit sound plausable, and nice.
And sorry about the creation thing, that is just about the "no evolution, world was created in exactly 7 days" belief. I actually know people who deny fact, and swear by that concept. They annoy me.
