An Inconvenient Truth & Who Killed the Electric Car

Aloha,

I recently saw two movies which changed my life perspective:

An Inconvenient Truth http://www.climatecrisis.net/
and
Who Killed the Electric Car http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Al Gore failed to mention the difficulty in refreezing a glacier or of the most important geo-political issue of gas.

Martin Sheen (the Narrator) failed to sufficiently make the connection of the long term effects of automotive emissions.

However, the two movies together emphasize the dire consequences of not connecting the dots.

Mahalo.

Saw Inconvenient Truth, haven't yet seen Electric Car. Its such a shame that the Al Gore we see in the movie is nothing like the guy who ran for president. He must have had too many political advisors telling him how to behave. Gore made an excellent case in the film though. At the risk of starting a political debate; its insteresting to see a politician who actually gets the science behind an issue enough to explain it to others and a president who can't even pronounce nuclear.

[ Edited by: Digitiki 2006-07-17 11:38 ]

You have to understand that 51% of this country made "science" and "scientists" bad words. They made it so that even though Science is based on empirical evidence, Lab tests, experience, logic, common sense and educated guesses, it is not to be trusted, on ANYTHING.

Scientists routinely modify thier theories in light of new evidence. If a better or modified theory comes out, well, that's usually the consensus among sicentists (generall speaking, scientists are people with huge amounts of curiosity, impartiality and education). Not so with the 51% of this country that vote a certain way. You see, they already have the facts, and now twist everything to fit thier same facts. Anything that challenges their mindset is "of the world".

I remember an article about a woman who was a member of a harsh religious sect being in trouble with state authorities for not providing medical assistance for her sick child. The state had to finally step in. This woman's particular sect did not believe in Science or medicine whatsoever. Of course, the picture shows the same woman holding a 7-11 slurpee cup made from (drum roll please) PLASTIC!

Which I guess they believe springs magically from the ground.

At the dangerous risk of sounding political - thanks lucas for your opinion... I couldn't agree more...

You are welcome.

I have never understood those who vehemently state that "there is no way anything man can do to alter the environment" or "Ice ages and global warming are part of the natural cycle"

That may be true, but if there is even the slightest, slimmest, tiniest chance that we are indeed impacting the environment, I say: WHY TAKE A CHANCE!!!!

Go ahead and gamble in Vegas, or with the stock market, or by taking a different traffic route on the way home from work one night. These are not things that will literally kill us all.

I would rather be wrong then right. If Scientists suspect that flourocarbons from aerosol cans add to global warming, or burning fossil fuels help speed up the greenhouse effect, then that should be very seriously considered, and not just dismissed so we can pay a dollar less for something. Of course, the evidence more then just hints that we are effecting the climate. It all but proves is.

The problem is that the people who make the decisions won't be here in 60 years when it starts happening big time. Thier offspring will either do one of two things: Say " If we only knew then what we know now" (if they are fair minded people, that is, or say "it happened, now lets just move on". I already know what camp I am in. Global warming is real, and scary. I don't ever remember it being this consistantlly hot where I live when I was younger, or there being such short winters. I think we are in for routine 100+ weather.

Venus is an example of global warming gone haywire. The Soviet lander Venera burned up on the surface in what, 8 seconds?

Nice.

Were there any tikis in those movies?

-Randy

There aren't any Tiki's in those movies. That's because they are "beyond tiki".

However, there is a tie in, you see. Lush, topical environments are at risk whenever and wherever humans get thier dirty little hands in.

Easter Island probably used to have a lot of trees. There are Moais on Easter Island. Moais have a link to Tiki, however nebulous.

Mai tais are made of tropical fruit juices, but tropical fruit trees usually don't grow well next to oil wells or in parking lots.

Go Lucas!!!!!!!

On 2006-07-17 15:55, aquarj wrote:
Were there any tikis in those movies?

-Randy

My fear is that unless something on a breathtaking large-scale basis is done, in 25 years, half of the Hawaiian Islads (including the Place of Refuge, La Mariana, and Tiki's) and all of Easter Island will be reclaimed by the Pacific.

This would be even worse than the missionary contact.

I also think I saw a tiki in one of the backyards, but that may be my wishful thinking.

On 2006-07-17 14:08, lucas vigor wrote:
I have never understood those who vehemently state that..."Ice ages and global warming are part of the natural cycle"

So, ice ages and period of warming are "unnatural"? How'd the last Ice Age happen? Did Man cause that? Why did it end?

I will confidently (maybe even vehemently) state that "Ice ages and global warming ARE part of the natural cycle."

Now, whether the current warming is part of that is the gazillion dollar question. Am looking forward to the scientific answers.

JTD

Well, as I said, that is mostly true. What we should want to do is postpone it as much as possible, not hasten it. If we know of a way to forstall something, we should investigate it.

Take your own body, for example. Let's say you have heart disease. Chances are, you were destined to have heart disease no matter what. But if your Dr. says to cut down on salt and fatty foods to stem the naturally occuring heart disease, then why would you ignore your Dr. and start consuming salt like crazy? You wouldn't.

Perhaps we can do nothing to stop glabal warming. The thing is, most if not all scientists are saying it's happening, and we are helping speed it up. Why the resistance to science? Why do we question Scientists so much, and so vehemently? Do we honestly think what they are working,producing and investigating is not in our best interests?

If a family member is murdered, with few clues, it is forensic scientist that will solve it using chemistry and biology. The actually detective can only do so much, but the foresnsic scientist can prove something without a doubt (Unless you are O.J., of course).

I believe in prayer. I do it all the time, but if my sister is murdered I will not rely just on it to find out who did it. I want to know exactly, and it will be a scientist who tells me.

Beyond just the issue of global warming is the practical and aethestic and immediate: I don't want to live in a cesspool. I don't want to breath smog. I don't wan't rivers polluted, trees cut down and factories built on the land they once occupied. I don't want to see dirty plastic bottles floating near the beach. I remember all too well the smog alerts when I was a child. There were days you just did not want to go out of your house. It was because of smog laws on vehicle emmisions that the air is a bit better. People like that 51% of today did everything in thier power to fight those laws.

I am an environmentalist. 51% of you treat your aquariums with more care then you want our government and business to treat our own fishbowl.

There are religious texts which tell us we have "dominion" over the earth. other translations of the same text use the word "stewardship" and there is a big difference.

Anyway, I think I am heading into the possibility that I may insult people with these words, so I am gonna stop now.

On 2006-07-18 09:35, JTD wrote:

On 2006-07-17 14:08, lucas vigor wrote:
I have never understood those who vehemently state that..."Ice ages and global warming are part of the natural cycle"

So, ice ages and period of warming are "unnatural"? How'd the last Ice Age happen? Did Man cause that? Why did it end?

I will confidently (maybe even vehemently) state that "Ice ages and global warming ARE part of the natural cycle."

Now, whether the current warming is part of that is the gazillion dollar question. Am looking forward to the scientific answers.

JTD

JTD, your question is well taken. The movie "An Inconveneint Truth" provides ample sceintific data which addresses the very question which you have raised.

Unfortunately, the answer is that this climate change is a quantum difference than the prior ice age events.

However, do see the film, instead of my 10 word summary.

I note you are from Florida.

The movie also discusses the severe implications for Florida if nothing changes. Suffice it to say, Everglades National Park will become much, much larger and the rest of the state, much smaller.

The movie also raises the even bigger question:

What will be done with hundreds of thousands of refugees?

Their homes, employment, work is gone, never to be returned.

To me, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an individual making choices to live cleaner, or "greener". On the contrary, it's admirable for someone to walk the walk in their own life by consuming less energy and generating less emissions and waste, regardless of what the truth turns out to be w.r.t. human effects on climate.

However, there are a lot of fallacies in the reasoning provided above, especially for a discussion purportedly in praise of real science. Legitimate studies on global climate present assessments about likely trends and causes, not certainties. Unfortunately, popular reasoning is that when a large majority of studies reach similar probabilistic conclusions, then this essentially increases those probabilities to a level where dissenting minority opinions can be discounted at face value. This kind of reasoning is the stuff of junk science, which itself makes a bad name for real science and in fact is only a diversion from the actual investigation of observable facts and evidence. Dismissing anyone who would dare question such consensus, or even attacking them as luddites, is in fact the opposite of scientific method. True scientific inquiry should always welcome the opportunity to investigate contrary data or analysis, with the goal of either disproving it or modifying conclusions to accommodate it.

Some topics simply cannot be proven or disproven scientifically ("does God exist"). A stalemate is a stalemate, and people should be free to make choices based on their own faith without dogma from others attempting to characterize one particular belief as fact. I'm not trying to draw a direct analogy, however, any honest characterization of the scientific domain of global climate would acknowledge that it's more complicated than humans can correctly model (yet). The space between actual climate phenomena and the ability of scientific models to approximate them is still a space filled by extrapolation and belief, not by factual correlation.

None of this is to say that we can't get CLOSE with scientific approximation and extrapolation, and certainly we can get close enough that many people feel they have enough evidence to motivate changes in their own behavior. But I don't understand why this so frequently gets coupled with broad brush political venting, especially on this forum where that's a mutually agreed taboo. Instead of saying, "I don't want to get political but...", how about just sticking with the first instinct and not doing it?

-Randy

"people should be free to make choices based on their own faith without dogma from others attempting to characterize one particular belief as fact."

This is very, very true Randy. The problem, as I see it, is that in the last few years any person who has disagreed with anything the people currently in charge have done has been labeled "french".

Sure, I have the freedom to disagree, but there is tremendous pressure to comform.

Personally, I like to believe I can see both sides of the story, Even if I don't agree, I am still willing to listen to both sides. It's unreasonable not to listen to people you don't agree with. I can learn something from everyone, and for me, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Like this statement I believe to be true: Global warming has historically been a natural condition, but certain non-natural factors can contribute to it.

I guess I am one of those characters who loves to talk politics. I hope most people realize that I enjoy it, and I don't get upset if I hear stuff I don't agree with. Typing doesn't show your facial expressions or body language too much. Truth is, I don't have many friends that are members of my own political party. Everyone I hang with is on the other side. I still like them anyway. I still drink with them. Thier enemies are mine. Friendship, for me, comes before ideology.

On 2006-07-18 13:31, aquarj wrote:
However, there are a lot of fallacies in the reasoning provided above, especially for a discussion purportedly in praise of real science. Legitimate studies on global climate present assessments about likely trends and causes, not certainties. Unfortunately, popular reasoning is that when a large majority of studies reach similar probabilistic conclusions, then this essentially increases those probabilities to a level where dissenting minority opinions can be discounted at face value. This kind of reasoning is the stuff of junk science, which itself makes a bad name for real science and in fact is only a diversion from the actual investigation of observable facts and evidence. Dismissing anyone who would dare question such consensus, or even attacking them as luddites, is in fact the opposite of scientific method. True scientific inquiry should always welcome the opportunity to investigate contrary data or analysis, with the goal of either disproving it or modifying conclusions to accommodate it.

Wow! Are you the mayor of Rhetoric City or what?? I like the part when you say 'that when a large majority of studies reach similar probabilistic conclusions, then this essentially increases those probabilities to a level where dissenting minority opinions can be discounted at face value. This kind of reasoning is the stuff of junk science.'

Well...'when studies are done' doesn't that imply that the people that are doing the studies might be AUTHORITIES on the subject? Why the heck else would they be doing 'the studies'? Do you think that it's maybe...I don't know.. every frat house on fraternity row at XYZ University working on this stuff between bong hits and keg parties during rush week? Call me naive, but usually when these kinds of 'studies' are done and they all reach the same conclusion...it's usually a fact or very, very close to fact. Especially on global warming. Why would this kind of information be released? For fun?

I haven't seen either of these movies. I did however have the privelige of seeing Al Gore do a short lecture covering the topics in an 'Unconvinient Truth' about two years ago. That hour or so of talking and slides was enough for me to get the message COUPLED with the fact that what he's saying is NOT nonsense. He's a well spoken individual, a statesman, and a visionary with concern for the world way after he and all of us are gone. Contrast that with someone who amounts to nothing more than some fortunate son, special interest stooge, New England born guy with a fake Texas drawl, that could give a rats ass about the future. Sorry...but there. I said it. HOWEVER, politicians don't have to lecture us on these things, just pay attention to the weather conditions in the last ten years, particularly the last two years or so and maybe, just maybe it'll dawn on you that there are some very real problems with the environment. There isn't much to say except that something needs to be done, not just from politicians but from all of us. I applaud you Lucasvigor for your thoughts. It's actually made me think more about this topic and what I can do.

If we had a leader who was a forward thinking individual that payed attention and stopped the national hemorrhaging that we currently deal with in more than one area, not just global warming, we might be able to get back on track here.

[ Edited by: donhonyc 2006-07-18 18:27 ]

On 2006-07-18 13:31, aquarj wrote:
However, there are a lot of fallacies in the reasoning provided above, especially for a discussion purportedly in praise of real science. Legitimate studies on global climate present assessments about likely trends and causes, not certainties. -Randy

Randy,interestingly enough the movies addresses this very issue. It indicates that there was a peer review article on 903 prior articles of global warming and found that all, every single one, agreed as to the causes, primarily fossil fuel emissions.

However, don't take my word for it, see both of the movies, the danger of not doing action and the existence, right now, of electric-powered cars,that were snatched out of existence by GM, Toyota, etc, who sued the State of California Air Qualility Resources Board.

(the US govt, under Bush, joined the lawsuit).

[ Edited by: christiki295 2006-07-18 16:35 ]

You guys are too depressing! I hope nobodies drinking and posting on this thread! Suicidal thoughts could crop up!It is true and you all should get used to the fact that the current wave of politicians we've had will do NOTHING to help us!But don't fret TC-ers!When the floods come,we'll just paddle out to Oceania on big wooden tiki!

This is the "Science" summary on the website:

Carbon dioxide and other gases warm the surface of the planet naturally by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. This is a good thing because it keeps our planet habitable. However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.

The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.

Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and
Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.

There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now – TAKE ACTION

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

PS - I don't want this locked, so we should probably not reference each other's intelligence or political beliefs.

Besides, if W catches a clue, and switches to electric energy, which exists now, instead of hydrogen fuel cells as he said in the State of the Union, which are ridiculously expensive and may never occur, he could go down as the greatest president ever.

However, even he deserves some minor credit for publically acknowledging the problem of foriegn oil dependency, even if the Calysle group makes huge profits from it.

That's what I am the most worried about, hacking down the forests. They are the main thing that keeps us alive. If they are all gone, what then?

People have to take environmentalism seriously. It's not "Hand wringing" or "bleeding heart-ism", it's just common sense.

Heck, there are even some right-wing Christian groups that are starting to see the light...not many, but some. Called Green Chistians, they are!

More political venting huh?

Well anyway, I'd still contend that there is a tendency to be unscientific about the way science is invoked.

For example, the "903 articles" study involved searching in a publication database for abstracts containing the words "global climate change". There were several shortcomings to this study, if it was attempting to be scientific. Only abstracts were reviewed, not the content of the articles themselves. If there are any articles discussing the topic without using those 3 words, then their abstracts were ignored entirely. 928 abstracts were found and reviewed, with the conclusion that none of them attempted to refute the position that there is a human effect on recent global temperatures as a result of greenhouse gases. 75% were either "explicitly or implicitly" consistent with this position, and 25% took no position at all. This is simply not equivalent to saying something like "903 prior articles of global warming found that all, every single one, agreed as to the causes, primarily fossil fuel emissions". This statement is simply false and shouldn't be perpetuated as a scientific conclusion.

Personally, I think the study did identify a significant pattern, clearly showing some form of consensus. But it's not quite as conclusive and scientific as it is portrayed. The fact that I'm even saying so will presumably be interpreted by some as reeking of bias, and to me that's a shame because it shows a puzzling desire to suppress scientific rigor in favor of predetermined outcomes.

-Randy

The overall issue is the correlation between a lack of government proding to entice or cajole automotive manufacturers to put electric powered cars back on the market (and for sale, not just lease) and the horrific effect of not doing so.

Either one of the movies is only half of the issue.

I applaud your analysis of the study, although I'm not sure valid issues about the level of rigor or methodology of the peer review study refute its findings.

Also, we should not get lost in an analysis of individual trees when the effects to the entire forest is clear.

Haven't seen either movie but IMHO, resale price and battery cost is killing the electric car. This is from Toyota's website http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/

Check out the last sentence in the third paragraph... "The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle."

A co-worker told me (unverified) that it costs over $7,000 to replace the batteries in a Toyota Prius. What do you do with all the dead batteries? I like the concept but think there are many bugs that need to be worked out before the public will flock to electric vehicles.

On 2006-07-18 19:13, TikiTikiTavi wrote:
Haven't seen either movie but IMHO, resale price and battery cost is killing the electric car. This is from Toyota's website http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/

Check out the last sentence in the third paragraph... "The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle."

A co-worker told me (unverified) that it costs over $7,000 to replace the batteries in a Toyota Prius. What do you do with all the dead batteries? I like the concept but think there are many bugs that need to be worked out before the public will flock to electric vehicles.

I think these obstacles are created or funded, made possible or however you want to define it by powerful people who don't want this technology around. IMHO there are several environmentally friendly technological alternatives that have been developed and ready for the consumer, but are not put out on the market due to some fat-cat corporate CEO, politician, or lobbyists that feel that it will screw up the bottom line for them. So as far as the kinks that have to be worked out for the electric car, I'm not buyin' it. I'm sure that technology is ready to roll. It's electricity for chrissakes, were not talking about some new form of energy here that nobody knows about. If we can put a man on the moon, over 30 years ago yet, we can come up with a way to make a decent electric car.

On 2006-07-18 19:13, TikiTikiTavi wrote:

Check out the last sentence in the third paragraph... "The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle."

Important issue. However, the short answer is that Toyota currently uses the 2nd generation battery in its Hybrids, so the cost has decreased with increased production.

The website offers this information:

he NiMH batteries used in later-version EV1s are expensive—but not as expensive, in the long run, as an internal combustion engine. With no moving parts to maintain or repair, the battery lasted the life of the car (especially since the car’s life was abruptly terminated before its time).

GM never mass-produced the NiMH batteries, which would have reduced their cost. Toyota currently uses NiMH batteries in the highly profitable Prius.

A new generation of electric vehicles is being developed using more powerful Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries (which yield five times as much energy as lead-acid batteries) Powered with its Li-ion battery technology, the tzero boasts a range of 250 miles. Currently, a Li-ion battery pack that provides 100 mile range for an electric vehicle runs more than $10,000, or $100 per mile of range.

However, much of that cost comes from battery assembly and the very low production volume. As adoption of the Li-ion technology for plug-in hybrids and electric cars increases, the cost is predicted to decrease by at least half. For example, the Li-ion battery pack that is used in the EnergyCS plug-in hybrid prototype costs over $1000 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), but large scale manufacturing by a major automaker for Li-ion batteries in the near future is anticipated to be bring the cost to well under $500/kWh.Li-ion batteries are also expected to be competitive with today's Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries for advanced automotive applications within a few years.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

On 2006-07-18 13:31, aquarj wrote: Instead of saying, "I don't want to get political but...", how about just sticking with the first instinct and not doing it?

-Randy

You're right! I just couldn't help myself....

On 2006-07-18 20:09, donhonyc wrote:

On 2006-07-18 19:13, TikiTikiTavi wrote:
Haven't seen either movie but IMHO, resale price and battery cost is killing the electric car. This is from Toyota's website http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/

Check out the last sentence in the third paragraph... "The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle."

A co-worker told me (unverified) that it costs over $7,000 to replace the batteries in a Toyota Prius. What do you do with all the dead batteries? I like the concept but think there are many bugs that need to be worked out before the public will flock to electric vehicles.

I think these obstacles are created or funded, made possible or however you want to define it by powerful people who don't want this technology around. IMHO there are several environmentally friendly technological alternatives that have been developed and ready for the consumer, but are not put out on the market due to some fat-cat corporate CEO, politician, or lobbyists that feel that it will screw up the bottom line for them. So as far as the kinks that have to be worked out for the electric car, I'm not buyin' it. I'm sure that technology is ready to roll. It's electricity for chrissakes, were not talking about some new form of energy here that nobody knows about. If we can put a man on the moon, over 30 years ago yet, we can come up with a way to make a decent electric car.

That is absolutely, 100% correct. If they wanted these things to work well, they would make it so. We have the technology. The fact is, there is one major group of people who don't want it to happen, and that is the oil companies and everyone connected with them.

Yeah, we put a large, heavy spacecraft, people and a car on the moon, using 50's era technology. It's all about having a will to do something. You also have to have leadership that puts science and space exploration at the top of thier "to do" list. The man who should have been president, Al Gore, would have done 99% more in that direction, but alas, the public thought he was "stiff and wooden", so he loses. And we lose.

What's funny is that even if you could give two craps less for the enviroment, the benefits are in your pocketbook. Solar heating pays for itself in your house within 10 years. Then you have no more electric bills. A hybrid and even better, an electric vehicle, saves you more money then the Hummer does. (God, I LOVE the fact that they have to pay 85 bucks to fill up the tank each week)

Most important. If we don't need oil, we don't need the middle east, and we don 't need to be in a war right now with anyone, including even the Chinese, (who are in stiff competition with us for the stuff).

I would rather pay higher taxes for federally funded research into alternative energy, but guess what that makes me??

Anyway, I love talking politics. PM me if anyone wants to talk without worrying about offending anyone, even me.

On 2006-07-19 19:13, lucas vigor wrote:
You also have to have leadership that puts science and space exploration at the top of thier "to do" list. The man who should have been president, Al Gore, would have done 99% more in that direction, but alas, the public thought he was "stiff and wooden", so he loses. And we lose.

Isn't it amazing, someone like Al Gore, and even someone like John Kerry can have their credibility tarnished by a spin machine that a majority of the public (at least during the last two elections) bought lock, stock, and barrel...or so we think. But in the end neither candidate did a good job shaking all of that off, especially and unfortunately Kerry. The funny thing is, is the popular perception of George W. Bush being the guy you would 'want to have a beer with'. Guess what...he's a recovering alcoholic and cocaine user..he ain't drinkin any beer with anybody. At least not in public.

Totally off the environment topic but we're talking about a guy who aside from being totally inept, has major identity issues. He was born in Connecticut, and neither his mother or father have even a hint of a southern or Texas accent. Where the hell did W get it then? I know..it's just the way he talks, but to me it speaks volumes in terms of his own insecurity and the need to 'belong' and the 'swagger' and all that other John Wayne nonsense. When you don't know who you are, you find someone else to be. And for a president that's bad.

Ok..now back to the environment...

You see things clearly on this issue, don ho. I agree with you 100%.

I am not 100% convinced for a couple of reasons.

Though we imagine the air is all filthy, the real truth is that it is cleaner than ever. Water too. We are more and more concerned about these things and less tolerant of things that were not on the radar 50 years ago. One simply needs to look back to the turn of the century when every house was heated with coal and major cities would be so dark in mid-day that you thought it was night to know that a lot has changed. Granted, the US is not the whole world. But, even those developing nations are using technology that is far cleaner than anything available decades ago. So, we may have more industry and people, but we likely pollute less than our forefathers.

Secondly, what we humans do may well be a tiny drop in the bucket to what nature itself does. I have read studies that show there are climate changing effects caused by the rock formations in the Himilayas. That the exposed rock faces there change over time and its effects on the air are gigantic. The ocean, the life in the ocean, the deserts and mountains. All these things effect our world in ways far mightier than factories and power plants. Ways we may not be looking into and may certainly not be able to alter.

I worked in an EPA enviroment, monitoring polution from power plants. The truth is, emmisions are dropping. We pollute less than we did 10 years ago and twenty years ago.

I remain unconvinced that we know the true causes or answers, only symptoms. And, it may well be that if we did everything wanted by the advocates of global warming, we might see no change whatsoever. Man may simply be a rather insignificant piece of a larger world issue.

On 2006-07-19 19:13, lucas vigor wrote:
That is absolutely, 100% correct. If they wanted these things to work well, they would make it so. We have the technology. The fact is, there is one major group of people who don't want it to happen, and that is the oil companies and everyone connected with them.

I doubt the oil industry is wasting too much worry on electric cars. They are a marketing tool for Detroit really, nothing more. They cost more to buy, they cost more to own, they cost more to fix, and they are an illusion anyway. Sure they run on nice clean electricity, but where do we all think that electricity comes from? Something like 80% of it comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels (that figure's from memory, could be wrong). Given the lesser efficiency of generating electricity by burning fossil fuels, if everyone started driving electric cars tomorrow, the oil companies sales would probably skyrocket. Hydrogen is even worse, that comes from gas made using electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. Biofuels and ethanol are worse yet. Go to the store and look at the price of vegetable oil per gallon. More than gas. Go to the liquor store and look at the price of ethanol per gallon. WAY more than gas. Both of those fuels are less efficient than gasoline to burn (although ethanol pollutes less). What's a gallon of hydrogen cost? Got me.

I don't really think there's any great conspiracy to suppress alternative energy sources, it's simply a matter of economics. No matter how dedicated the individual consumer thinks they are to the environment they are a slave to the cheapest and most efficient energy source. Petroleum products have the greatest energy yield per dollar spent on production, and as long as that's true no business is going to invest money in a losing proposition and no consumer is going to spend very much more money in a way that really makes a difference.

What's better than petroleum for cheap energy? Nuclear. Yeah, that'll go over. We could get more cheap electricity by damming more rivers. I don't think so. The laws of thermodynamics govern this issue: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.

Swanky and Rev Griz.-You both seem to be pretty well versed in this area with some experience in the field. However, I don't think this issue can be dismissed so easily. When we talk about how 'nature' effects the environment I think we leave out one key component...HUMANS! We are part of nature and have an effect on the environment, more with the decisions we make versus stuff we 'emit from our person'...if you will. I can't argue with you point for point and have no EPA experience or environmental degree, but I know that things atmospherically speaking are different and seem off kilter. I trust my instincts enough to know that something isn't right and that this is a very real issue. In the last couple of years I have become a pretty active bicyclist. I ride my bike all over New York City, it's the best way to get around this town, provided you're not carrying a grand piano on your back and the weather is cooperating. The point being, is that I have become way more aware of pollution from cars and trucks since I have been riding. It's literally sickening. Sometimes I wonder if it's even healthy to ride a bike around here. When your breathing in all the fumes from cars while your heart rate is around 126 bpm that can't be all that good, kinda defeats the purpose. When you're in a car riding around in the city or on the highway, it's easy to not notice the pollution. On a bike it's a whole new ballgame. It's like jogging behind a smoke stack.

On 2006-07-20 08:19, Swanky wrote:
I am not 100% convinced for a couple of reasons.

Though we imagine the air is all filthy, the real truth is that it is cleaner than ever. Water too. We are more and more concerned about these things and less tolerant of things that were not on the radar 50 years ago. One simply needs to look back to the turn of the century when every house was heated with coal and major cities would be so dark in mid-day that you thought it was night to know that a lot has changed. Granted, the US is not the whole world. But, even those developing nations are using technology that is far cleaner than anything available decades ago. So, we may have more industry and people, but we likely pollute less than our forefathers.

Secondly, what we humans do may well be a tiny drop in the bucket to what nature itself does. I have read studies that show there are climate changing effects caused by the rock formations in the Himilayas. That the exposed rock faces there change over time and its effects on the air are gigantic. The ocean, the life in the ocean, the deserts and mountains. All these things effect our world in ways far mightier than factories and power plants. Ways we may not be looking into and may certainly not be able to alter.

I worked in an EPA enviroment, monitoring polution from power plants. The truth is, emmisions are dropping. We pollute less than we did 10 years ago and twenty years ago.

I remain unconvinced that we know the true causes or answers, only symptoms. And, it may well be that if we did everything wanted by the advocates of global warming, we might see no change whatsoever. Man may simply be a rather insignificant piece of a larger world issue.

Yes, emissions are dropping. Regulations have been enacted. The question everyone should ask is: What political party did the people who have worked hard to lower emmisions, enact regulations and push for conservation belong to?

I can pretty much guarantee that Karl Rove and people like him don't wake up in the morning and wonder what they can do to clean up the environment.

While I am at it, which party routinely pushed for improvements in the quality of life for handicapped people, minorities, low wage earning workers and women? What party has done anything remotely "progressive"?

On 2006-07-20 09:17, donhonyc wrote:
Swanky and Rev Griz.-You both seem to be pretty well versed in this area with some experience in the field. However, I don't think this issue can be dismissed so easily. When we talk about how 'nature' effects the environment I think we leave out one key component...HUMANS! We are part of nature and have an effect on the environment, more with the decisions we make versus stuff we 'emit from our person'...if you will. I can't argue with you point for point and have no EPA experience or environmental degree, but I know that things atmospherically speaking are different and seem off kilter. I trust my instincts enough to know that something isn't right and that this is a very real issue. In the last couple of years I have become a pretty active bicyclist. I ride my bike all over New York City, it's the best way to get around this town, provided you're not carrying a grand piano on your back and the weather is cooperating. The point being, is that I have become way more aware of pollution from cars and trucks since I have been riding. It's literally sickening. Sometimes I wonder if it's even healthy to ride a bike around here. When your breathing in all the fumes from cars while your heart rate is around 126 bpm that can't be all that good, kinda defeats the purpose. When you're in a car riding around in the city or on the highway, it's easy to not notice the pollution. On a bike it's a whole new ballgame. It's like jogging behind a smoke stack.

Again, this may be your perception today, but the truth is very different. If you could perhaps go back in time to 1975 and ride your bike on the same route, you'd know immediately that the air is better today. Vehicle emmissions are way down. There may be more on the road today, but the air coming out the pipes is cleaner by far so that the bottom line is cleaner air. And especially in a city where you have to have your vehicle inspected.

You may be unhappy with the air you are breathing today, but it is better than it was 10 years ago, and far and away better than it was 30 years ago.

We are just generally more and more aware of smaller and smaller quantities. Whether it's dirty water or cigarette smoke or emmissions, we are somewhat hyper-sensitive.

Now, it may be that countries like China and India are polluting like a mofo. They may be screwing things over in ways that make everything out of whack. I don't know. Trouble is, we can't do much about that.

I can pretty much guarantee that Karl Rove and people like him don't wake up in the morning and wonder what they can do to clean up the environment.

Well as Al Franken says, the Bush Administration's 'Clear Skies Initiative' was enacted to "clear the sky of birds".

The air is in no way "cleaner than its ever been."???? So does that mean that the dinosaurs were the biggest polluters?

Does everyone remember the Lorax? Even Dr. Seuss got it way back then!

On 2006-07-20 09:43, donhonyc wrote:

I can pretty much guarantee that Karl Rove and people like him don't wake up in the morning and wonder what they can do to clean up the environment.

Well as Al Franken says, the Bush Administration's 'Clear Skies Initiative' was enacted to "clear the sky of birds".

Indeed. That initiative would have done several bad things. First, it would have rolled back the standards and allowed more polluting than now is in force. More importantly, a lot of the oldest, largest and most polluting plants have been allowed to continue without being retrofitted with scrubbers, etc. and thus they pollute like crazy. The Bush plan would have allowed these plants to never come up to standards. As things were, those plants had to come up to standards at some point, and if there had a major overhaul of the plant, the upgrades were required. The Bush plan would have ended that. Great for these big businesses. These are the top 1% of polluting plants in the US. Plants that measure their pollution in tons per hour. They had been given a ride to allow them time to make the changes over the last decade. The Bush plan would have given them no reason to ever change. It may cost lots of money to make the changes, but you know what, we all will have to have electricity and they can raise rates a few pennies and it'll get paid for. It's not as though I am going to opt out of the power grid over it. Bush also pushed to scrap plans to include Mercury and CO2 as pollutants that EPA would measure and require control of. They like to say something about how CO2 is what we breathe. Nice. And that Coke you are drinking has carbonates in it! Yikes!

On 2006-07-20 10:03, Digitiki wrote:
Does everyone remember the Lorax? Even Dr. Seuss got it way back then!

I collect Dr. Seuss books, and the Lorax is one of my favorites. I grew up with that book. Another great book, (which I can't remember the name of, but not a Dr. Seuss) had cool drawings of mean looking little children and thier ugly parents dropping wrappers and crap all over the street. The drawings were what made the book great, as it clearly outlined in my young brain ecology and conservation. The book had all kinds of tips on how to conserve and recycle. I am guessing it came out in the late 60's or early 70s. Probably the 70's. Does anyone remember that book?

Here is the link for non-automotive steps for improvement:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/

However, the issue of hybrid and electric cars remain.

Is it this one?

I love this book! 'Litterbugs Come In EverySize'. It's not Dr. Suess, but the illustrations are great - and I still read it to my kids...

http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-BIG-GOLDEN-BOOK-Litterbugs-Come-In-Every-Size_W0QQitemZ6992138681QQihZ014QQcategoryZ1099QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

On 2006-07-20 10:02, Digitiki wrote:
The air is in no way "cleaner than its ever been."???? So does that mean that the dinosaurs were the biggest polluters?

Amend that to say, in the industrial age. Last 50 years for sure.

But, that's all with a lot of exceptions. We are doing more than ever to clean emmissions, yet, the AQI is generally going down here in Tennessee. We get the pollutants from the Ohio valley which has the largest and dirtiest power plants in the country. The stuff follows the rivers and mountains and all ends up here. Visibility in the Smoky Mountains is horrible. You can't "See 7 States" from Lookout Mountain much any more. And often, the folks coming to the mountains on vacation leave cleaner air than they find here. Air Quality alerts in the mountains. Go figure. But, acid rain is no longer an issue, as it was in past decades.

So, it's hard to say exactly where we are.

On 2006-07-21 07:12, Tangaroa wrote:
Is it this one?

I love this book! 'Litterbugs Come In EverySize'. It's not Dr. Suess, but the illustrations are great - and I still read it to my kids...

http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-BIG-GOLDEN-BOOK-Litterbugs-Come-In-Every-Size_W0QQitemZ6992138681QQihZ014QQcategoryZ1099QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

No, that's not it. I can remember one cool thing about the book, though. It had a picture of someone ripping a product out of a plastic casing at the cash register in protest of too much packaging! The drawings were all of little hippy kids, with mop-top hairdos and "wonder-years" style clothing.