For all the environmental wackos out there and the ones that think they might be

I hate all competitive sports where anybody makes money for doing it, driving included. Stupid and makes no sense....

 

It's interesting you only address one part of a complex equation and then base all of your opinions on that one aspect. I'm sure Austin has a great community college were you could take the following classes to help inform you on the other aspects. I urge you to do more research and educate yourself in a truely interdisciplinary way before you run around spouting off opinions in which you may not be qualified to evaluate. I do it occasionally and I get called on it just as I am calling you on it now.

Check out the following classes:

Natural Resources Conservation
Ecology
Biology
Chemistry (especially anything with a green chemistry component)
Geography
Geology
Botany
Environmental economics (economics studies that includes true cost analysis)


You can start by checking this list I found at Austin Community College.

Finally I'll add a few quotes from various institutional websites that pertain to a couple of the classes mentioned above.
...................................................................................................
Economics and Environmental Science (UC Santa Barbara)

The field of environmental and resource economics is the study of the economy and its interaction with the environment. There is an increasing need for utilizing economic tools in developing new environmental approaches and policies.
Environmental economists have the ability to:

· Correctly conceptualize economic problems related to environmental issues
· Design and implement appropriate research methods, and
· Apply appropriate quantitative and qualitative techniques

The economy and the environment are intimately connected:
Economic activity stresses the environment, generating pollution.
The economy uses environmental resources, including:
Fisheries
Forests
Minerals
Energy resources
The government regulates the economy's impact on the environment. Society is always looking for better ways of achieving balance among environmental, economic and social objectives.
The Environmental Literacy Council provides an excellent, though elementary, overview of the field of environmental and resource economics. Their site includes annotated links to resources on principles of the field, educational programs, reports, books and other organizations.
...................................................................................................

Texas has a similar program to our California Rangeland Conservation Coalition I believe. This is where real work is being done to eliminate the petty bickering and name-calling between two former enemies and forge alliances that protect wildlife habitat and the ranching heritage:

"A ranch in the San Francisco Bay Area was the backdrop for a meeting between environmentalists, ranchers, and resource professionals from federal and state agencies. From this meeting of former foes in the Summer of 2005, participants drafted a resolution documenting common ground for the conservation of the rangeland encircling the Central Valley, including the Sierra foothills and interior Coast Ranges. The California Rangeland Resolution (Resolution) recognizes that these rangelands and the diversity of species they support is largely due to grazing and other land stewardship practices of the ranchers that own and manage them.
The resolution is signed by over 75 agricultural organizations, environmental interest groups, as well as state and federal agencies. New signatories continue to sign on to the resolution on a regular basis. Together these signatories form the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition. The signatories have pledged to work together to preserve and enhance California’s rangeland for species of special concern, while supporting the long-term viability of the ranching industry. Partners either conceptually support the work of the coalition or are actively engaged in working with other partners to fulfill the underlying principles of the coalition stated in the Resolution."

 

You first.

 

NASCAR = gasoline porn. But fear not; after a few more years of hybrids and electric cars it will go the way of steam tractor demos.

 

Amusing... Attacking someone's spelling because you cannot come up with a better argument is the first sign of ignorance.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were ignorant in the ways of environmental science and was trying to help you out by pointing to some classes that you may benefit from. Now you state that you are fully aware of the environmental, social, and economic implications of consumerism so I must assume you understand why "environmental wackos" fight for the things they do yet you seem to enjoy rediculing them. All that is left now is to label you a selfish nice person who cares for himself and not for the health of his country, it's people and the environment that sustains them. Futhermore, you created a post with the obvious intent to antagonize so don't get all uppity when your ignorance is called into question as well as your integrity.

 

opcorn:

 

There will be no more entertainment forthcoming from my end my friend. If he wants to learn something I will help point him in the right direction. If all he wants to do is redicule and antagonize then I will not play victim. So consider this my last post in this thread.

btw, I need to listen to your system sometime. I'm dying to listen to a set of Diamond D6s in a Prius. lol

 

I singled you out because of the "I hate high gas prices" sentiment. I'm one of those millions of drivers in the US, and I don't believe that gasoline is nearly expensive enough. I for one, do NOT hate high gas prices. Gas should be priced to compensate what it costs us as a society - not priced at a level that makes it comfortable to use.

And I'll assume that the ridicule part of my post was accurate.

Surprisingly, this isn't just about the money you pay at the pump, nor the extra you have to pay for delivered goods. It is also about our air that you are crapping in. We should work toward making it cheaper and easier to screw up our air and water? Do we ignore the fact that billions of dollars leave our economy every year to purchase oil? Today we don't pay for the damage that our gasoline use causes. At least not at the pump. Who *should* be paying for those consequences? The people who get sick and die from it? Making gas artificially cheap serves one purpose: Keeps us from finding alternatives that are sustainable. The oil party is over - no amount of wishing or bitching or praying or politics is going to change the fact that the world's oil reserves are finite, and that we're currently using it faster than we're finding it.

Drilling more locally is a joke! Would benefit us about two year's worth. Whoopdy doo! Suck the US dry... then what?

If you want to see what's bad for the economy and terrible for everyone's well being - just keep finding ways to continue using oil into the future. We start switching to something sustainable now, or we do it later. It all depends on how bad we want it to hurt. The longer we wait, the bigger the hurt. Cheap gas prices today creates longer wait.

 

Hey, how about a Prius or Hybrid race?

Cars must be 100% stock. They drive around the track for an hour or a set number of laps. Whoever gets the best MPG wins.

It would have the added benefit of allowing the fans to take a nap during the race due to the lack of noise.

You know, then more I think about this, the more I like it.....

Bob

 

I can go one better than that.
Why not head down to the nearest Pedal Prix?

 

A hundred billion barrels of oil? How did I miss that?

MPR: North Dakota oil finds a big one

" The USGS study says with todays technology, about 4 billion barrels of oil can be pumped from the Bakken formation."

Yes, there's a lot of oil embedded in that ND rock formation, but at present, nobody knows how to get most of it up to the surface.

Current US consumption is about 21 million bpd:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

which translates to 7.6 billion barrels per year. So the Bakken formation in ND would supply about half a year's US oil use. Until somebody figures out how to get the rest of the oil out of the rock and make a profit doing it.

Now, natural gas, that's a different story. See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/business/08gas.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

The recent estimated reserves in those fields (NY/PA and bordering areas) amount to two years' worth of US usage. And they seem to be finding exploitable natural gas all over the place.

But for oil, if an oil magnate like T Boone Pickens say the peak's here and gone, I wouldn't bet against it.

AP INTERVIEW: T. Boone Pickens says global oil production has reached its peak - International Herald Tribune

 

Pay for cleaning up the problems it causes - environmental restoration and healthcare. But finding a price to put on a human life is a tough one.

The secret is that we are ALREADY paying these prices. But who pays how much is not based on who does the most damage! We pay for all of this through our health insurance, through military spending, through all kinds of environmental funds. We need to pay it at the SOURCE. That way you can make a more informed decision as to just how much a certain action will cost. If it seems easy/cheap, then there are no worries, right? It used to be easy/cheap to just dump untreated waste directly into rivers, lakes and oceans. Why do anything different that costs more? Well, when the tourist and fishing industry goes belly up, suddenly there's a big cost disproportionate to who caused the problem.

Just about everything we do causes harm. Our goal should be to find the things that do the LEAST damage, and keep making them better. Assume that we have a choice to buy a gasoline car or an electric car. We know that driving the electric car harms the environment because of how electricity is generated in this country - but it harms the environment and our health much less than a gasoline car. And it doesn't screw up our domestic security, economy or foreign relations. Yes, in a perfect world all things should be priced on par with the cost to society. You don't need to charge more for the device that uses the energy (washing machines, etc) - you charge the proper price for what it consumes. If I buy a washing machine and rarely use it, I should not be penalized for the electricity it did not consume!) Buy an energy hog, and it should be painful in the wallet. Bringing this back to gasoline - if we make gasoline cheaper - as you suggest is a good thing - then people don't respect it for the foul, deadly product that it is. This inspires people to buy SUVs for their commute vehicles and such... and basically gets us into the problems we face today. Cheap gas is bad for everybody - certainlyh in the long run. I don't think anybody can intelligently argue that.

Even if this were true - even if we found unlimited oil... we shouldn't be using it like it is somehow GOOD for us in the long run. If I find a gun and free amo, it doesn't mean that I should shoot somebody.

We need to set some ground rules. "Finite" means something that human civilization will see the end of. "Sustainable" means something that will be usable for as long as we inhabit the earth. Solar, wind, hydro are all sustainable in this way. When the sun goes out, we won't be needing any more energy, so that "finite" source of energy can and should be considered sustainable. Currently both my home and my main car are powered by the sun. But the biggie? Conservation. The greenest source of power ever invented. Building cars, driving cars... is not sustainable. Driving those cars on gasoline is so far out of the sustainable realm that you can't even see it from here. Running those cars on sunlight brings us closer to the goal at least.

 

chogan2 and darelldd,

thanks again for putting the real in reality.

I learn everyday on this forum.

sustainable knowledge I call it.

 

As repeatedly confirmed by the Rocky Mountain Institute and others, efficiency and conservation are the most cost effective and most sustainable. Regardless of our individual ego wishes, use of individual vehicles is not sustainable. We are 100 years behind Europe and need intensive investment in walking and bicycle paths, PHEVs, light and high speed rail - all based on renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Fossil fuels (coal, oil) are the "devil's excrement" and are not sustainable for transportation or air quality. We need to rethink our entire transportation system for efficiency vs. cheap and quick short-term.

In the mean time watch The Car of the Future a NOVA program just released. Also watch A Crude Awakening regarding our increasing use of finite oil. The paradigm is in the process of shifting.