Save Your Breath, Money & Planet: Tell Auto Makers to Make Cleaner-air Vehicles

Most automobiles are at least 25% less efficient then five to ten year
old technologies should have given us if the auto industry had lived
up to their claims of customer service... perhaps the good thing is
that higher gas prices will result in less consumption...
Unfortunately, less than cost-optimally efficient vehicles contribute
disproportionally to environmental and public health and greenhouse
gas problems...

Urge the auto industry to make cleaner air, more fuel efficient and
safer vehicles: http://www.autobuyology.org/tellcarm...leantheair.pdf

With the real cost of subsidized gasoline now well above $10 a gallon
(http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12), and with 'average'
automobile ownership and operation costs over a lifetime now zoom-
zooming past $500,000 (half a million dollars -- you do the math), a
few auto related conservation reminders may be helpful: Go carfree
(see savings above); go carless; buy smaller, more fuel efficient
vehicles and rent up or larger as needed; drive less; ride-share; trip-
link or group errands; negotiate a fuel inefficiency retail price
reduction for less than cost-optimally fuel-efficient vehicles; urge
the auto industry to stop fighting conservative and reasonable fuel
efficiency and green-house gas emission standards, and to adopt long-
proven, cost-effective fuel efficiency tenchologies for new vehicles;
get-SMART and support comprehensive public transportation and auto-
alternative programs, for others, if not for oneself; And etc., add
your energy conservation choices to this list. Keep it handy, and
share it.

For those who cannot avoid buying an automobile, at least you don't
have to pay to much... a list of car deal resources to help level the
car deal playing field to favor the consumers...
http://www.autobuyology.org/thankyouforteaching.pdf


Rand
Carlessnesshood 101
If there is one thing worse then having to buy an automobile, it's
paying to much for one... "1st & 2nd law of thermo-economical-
dynamics"
http://www.autobuyology.org

Roger Blake > wrote:
> More barely disguised Communistic crap disguised as environmentalism
> from the hysterical Religious Left.

Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
communist?

> I see no reason to do any of this. My own vehicle of choice delivers
> an honest 14-15 miles per gallon and I have no problem with that.

And you're perfectly free to do so.

OTOH, having read a couple pages in the UN global warming study gives me
a sick feeling in the stomach, the more so as it seems very extensively
researched and the entire scientific community is basically in
agreement.

And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down substantially
any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most market experts).

Those two things have made me reconsider and future purchases will be
made with energy consumption and pollution in mind. This is not a
lifestyle change, just taking informed choices. My house will be lighted
just as before, it'll just be with CF. And the car in my driveway will
go where and when I want it to go, but at 50 mpg.

I think you'll find yourself in a similar situation - making an educated
choice about how much energy to consume. It'll take a couple years, but
you'll get there eventually...

cu
.\\arc

Roger Blake > wrote:
> In article >, Marc Gerges wrote:
>> Not entirely subscribing to the opinion expressed in the original
>> article, but I do find your description funny. What makes green-ness
>> communist?
>
> The environmental movement has always been a safe haven for those of
> Communistic bent, even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Aha. So be it, then.

It's been my experience that most people nowadays starting to look at
environmental issues are not necessarily leaning left. But then, it's
just personal experience.
>
> Take some Rolaids and calm down. The U.N. is a corrupt organization
> with virtually no credibility.

The point being here that we do not need to care much about the UN, but
about the scientific study.

> Just the tip of the iceberg.) The entire scientific community is
> *not* basically in agreement with them, as a little searching will
> reveal. Here is one resource (there are many others):
>
> http://www.pushback.com/environment/...vironment.html

Looking at the first two items on that site:

* fuel efficient vehicles are unsafe - absolutely ridiculous, physics
101 should teach anybody that there's two major factors in safety:
mass and speed. Fuel efficient cars usually haven't got a lot of either.
So by design they are safe. Apart from that they are subject to the same
kind of regulation regarding crash testing and unlike certain SUV's they
do not have a tendency to topple over in strong winds.

* Frederick Seitz does not buy global warming. The man was a great
scientist in the 1930s and 40s. Of course since the cigarette industry
paid him for 'science' he lost all credibility. He didn't buy CFC's and
the ozone layer, he didn't buy rising temperatures, he probably wouldn't
buy anything discovered within the last 30 years just out of principle.
The man's how old - about a hundred or so?

Frankly, if that's the kind of arguments and proponents that come up,
let's just stop the discussion here.


[rant about the UN being corrupt deleted - just not a topic of
discussion]

> (You can see the same techniques at work on a smaller scale in
> "creation science," where scientists will "prove" to you with a
> straight face that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans walked
> around with dinosaurs.)

You see, over here in Europe we've got a field day when it comes to
american creationism. Especially considering most fervent believers of
it fuel their cars with dinosaurs.

> If you want something to make your stomach queasy, consider that the
> Earth's magnetic field is collapsing at an unprecedented rate (on
> Bush's watch!!). If the planet loses its magnetic field the long-term
> consequences can be dire, including the solar wind eventually
> stripping away the atmosphere. Can it be a coincidence that this is
> occuring during a time period when our use of electricity,
> electronics, and wireless technology is reaching an all-time high?
> Something Must Be Done Before It Is Too Late!

Earth's magnetic field seems to switch every now and then - it is not
yet known exactly why, but evidence suggest it is not caused by outside
forces. Considering it originates in earth's core, our little
electricity generation shielded by 2900 km of earth mantle is generally
not brought into connection with any upcoming reversal. The past
reversals of course didn't 'strip the atmosphere away'.

I do not quite see where the relation to global warming is, though.

>> And then there's the issue of raising gas prices as demand from
>> China/India is skyrocketing. I don't see them coming down
>> substantially any more, but that's just my opinion (shared by most
>> market experts).
>
> That is a political issue. There are vast energy resources, including
> oil, in North America. Certain political groups have prevented us from
> developing these resources. (Meanwhile, Cuba will be drilling for oil
> just 60 miles off of the Florida coast.)

If those resources are so vast and readily available, what is the reason
for the war in Iraq, for american activity in Venezuela and many other
places? It seemed to make more sense to go and drill there while giving
the middle east a rest?

> The only "educated choice" involved is how much one can spend to
> achieve and maintain the desired lifestyle and accoutrements. For me,
> environmental concerns simply are not a part of that equation, and
> while I am not wealthy on the scale of people like John Edwards or Ted
> Kennedy I do well enough that cutbacks in that area are not likely.
> Judging by the lifestyles of wealthy liberals, it is not a concern for
> them either. (If you are a Democrat, talk to your representives about
> their multiple huge estate homes, their private planes, and their
> fleets of limos & SUVs before you bother me about my 15 mpg vehicle or
> my incandescent light bulbs!)

I do not intend to bother you about your car of choice and other
economic decisions.

I do think that society as a whole will either have to start thinking
about energy consumption soon or will face a way harder time in 20 to 30
years. With currently available technology going there today may not
mean a lifestyle change at all. Ignoring the situation may very well
result in huge changes later on down the road.

cu
.\\arc