BS: Gas prices

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 May 01 - 05:17 PM

Dan I think the ZX is no longer made anyway, pretty sure it was replaced by a Xsara.

As for emmission laws, I wonder if Grab or someone can explain them to me. When we've had cars go in for MOT, I see a %CO or something like that quoted.

Am I right in thinking that once car (pulling imaginary figures out of my head) could emit 1.5% and pass and another could emit 1.6% and fail but the car that passed could atually consume 1/2 the fuel of the other one and would effectively still be putting more muck into the atmosphere?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 01 - 05:15 PM

GUEST, UB Dan,

My source for the information about California was a panel speaker on a Public Television (U.S.) news program.

As for your question about whether or not I would prefer fossil fuel energy plants or nuclear energy, I would have to say that I would prefer natural gas energy plants over nuclear energy. Oil and coal are bad for the health of the planet in different ways than nuclear, but I think they are both bad to the same degree. Natural gas is cleaner to use, but it is a finite resource.

Kim C, as far as not telling people what to do is concerned, would you extend that statement to include the government not telling people they can't grow and use industrial grade hemp?

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: UB Ed
Date: 24 May 01 - 05:12 PM

Part II Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 01 - 05:00 PM

can anyone make a part II thread

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 04:49 PM

Jon, the citroen you are talking about is not available in the U.S. because it will not meet the stricter U.S. emmission and safety standards.

Grab pointed out that cars that run on alternate energy (wind and solar excluded) will not decrease the amount of oil consumed unless the source of the power generation is also changed i.e. the electricity plants.

Carol suggested some real viable solutions such as the substitution of soy or industrial grade hemp for some products made from oil...and also the exploration of wind and solar energy. After she made her post I went to CNN to find an article on the situation she was talking about in California. I was unable to find it, but I did find an interesting article on how several European contries are trying to replace their current nuclear power plants with alternate renewable energy sources...(such as off shore wind farms) There was also a cool article about the possibility of harvesting solar energy in space and beaming it back to earth...very much in the future but neat to read about.

Generally, would you prefer fossil fuel energy plants or nuclear energy plants. (Carol, I'd love to hear your opinion...you keep giving such wonderful explanations)

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: UB Ed
Date: 24 May 01 - 04:41 PM

LOL! Jon, where did you find that?

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 May 01 - 04:33 PM

Here you go Ed tall people need SUV's do they?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Kim C
Date: 24 May 01 - 04:18 PM

Okay. Y'all come live with me for a month and then tell me what you think. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: UB Ed
Date: 24 May 01 - 04:15 PM

Jon, the only thing I'm asking you to do is stop telling others what they're supposed to do. Kim is driving the vehicle that is most practical and economical for her needs. For you to say its not is not very respectful of the postions she has set forth. Mister is freakin 6 foot 3 tall! I'm sure they perceive a level of value for his ability to walk after a long car ride.

I suggest we all retire to the tatoo parlor.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:52 PM

Kim, I get the impression that the only thing you are being asked to do is accept that the vehicles you are choosing are probably not the most practical or economical vehicles for your needs.

As for debt, perhaps Carol is right and fuel prices in the US need to rise further to make people think...

Let's say the Citroen I mentioned before averages 50mpg (probably does a little better over the year - I gave a worse case before) and we average 10,000 miles a year. For convenience, lets say petrol is £3.00 per gallon.

That gives fuel costs of £700 per year, a 20mpg guzzler would cost £1750 for the same mileage.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:50 PM

Happy you cleared that up, Kim C., and I wish I could afford a Volvo too.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Kim C
Date: 24 May 01 - 03:27 PM

No, no, the only man besides Mister who has ever actually seen the Royal Tattoo is the artist himself. :-)

Mister is 6'3" and mostly legs. And while I don't know what the AVERAGE is, I know plenty of people taller than him.

I wanted a Volvo wagon! I couldn't afford even a used one. So I should go into more debt so I can get a little better gas mileage?

Maybe this would be a less screwed planet if we'd all quit telling each other what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:39 PM

Is hemp being used to create plastic outside of the US or is soy being used for paints outside of the US.

My understanding is that the technology for making plastic out of hemp was developed in the first half of the 20th century. I don't know if it is being done today. If we could do it then, I don't see any reason why we can't do it today. Except that hemp is illegal in the U.S. Some hemp products are being produced outside of the U.S. and imported here. Maybe someone will do that with plastics made from hemp if they think there's a market for it.

Mostly I'm interested in the plastics because several people criticize the illegality of hemp in the US because it has industrial uses.

I am one who would criticize the illegality of industrial grade hemp. The whole question of whether or not marijuana should be legal is irrelevent to the discussion of industrial grade hemp. It would be pretty difficult to get high from industrial grade hemp.

Also, I don't think that consumers are hostile to alternate energy, but I can see a point being made that some industry suppresses it for fear of impact on their current practices.

I would tend to agree with that.

Do you think its the industry or the consumers who are hostile?

I think it's industry. As far as the consumers are concerned, I think they just don't know about this stuff. This thread seems to demonstrate that fact.

And if its industry, is it just oil and auto or are other industries hostile?

I think the coal, natural gas, and nuclear industries are also hostile.

Are solar and wind power more costly to produce short-term (I understand that long-range it is better) or is it just a refusal to use it.

I think that with the technology we have available today, solar and wind power are probably not more costly to produce in the short-term. I heard recently that in California, solar power producers (it might have been wind, I'm not sure) were trying to sell power to electrical utility companies in California, and were being confronted with policies that are contrary to free market practices. And it was these policies that made selling power to the utilities in question unprofitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:13 PM

Carol, sorry I didn't see your post before. Once again, I think you make great coherent salient points. Is hemp being used to create plastic outside of the US or is soy being used for paints outside of the US. Mostly I'm interested in the plastics because several people criticize the illegality of hemp in the US because it has industrial uses. Also, I don't think that consumers are hostile to alternate energy, but I can see a point being made that some industry suppresses it for fear of impact on their current practices. Do you think its the industry or the consumers who are hostile? And if its industry, is it just oil and auto or are other industries hostile? Are solar and wind power more costly to produce short-term (I understand that long-range it is better) or is it just a refusal to use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:03 PM

Kendall - I'm sorry I attributed the Jeeps to you instead of to you daughter and son-in-law. My point, though remains. Why is that where you draw the line. Cherokees and vans are okay but anything bigger is just wrong? Maybe this wasn't what you meant but I got the impression that this was what you were saying when you wrote:
"My daughter and son-in-law both have Jeep Cherokees. They both have six cylinder engines, and are not hard on fuel. They are no where near as big as the giant Explorer suv. "

Grab - You make some very excellent points especially regarding how alternately fueled vehicles may still ultimately be powered by the consumption of gasoline or oil somewhere. I also agree with you about the safety of the SUVs, I think that they are less stable than a regular car...

GUEST - maybe I can carpool with the nun over to the tattoo parlour.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:59 PM

Oops. I forgot to attribute the part of my post that was addressed to Grab, beginning with the line...

Let's forget about the plastics and paints that go into them, and just go for the fuel.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,Rambam99
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:55 PM

Carol-

are you sure you want to offer such a cogent and well thought out rebuttle? It has little place in this emotion packed gripe fest

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:51 PM

GUEST, UB Dan,

The reason you dislike the use of gasoline is because of air pollutants.

Not necessarily. I also dislike them because of the pollution that extracting and refining them adds to the environment. Just last night on the news, they were talking about an oil spill off the coast of South America (I believe) that happened recently. The ladies nearby are knitting sweaters for members of a species of small penguin who will freeze to death without them because of damage that exposure to the oil has done to their own natural protection from cold.

And the hydrocarbons from oil spills do eventually get around to people like you and me. And they poison our environment.

This means that the alternate fuel you desire must have less air pollutants than gasoline. What if the pollutants from gas powered engines could be lowered, would this be acceptable?

Only in the short term. We posess the technology to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. And it is possible to use non-poluting, renewable energy sources to do it. What is needed is for the market to catch up with the need and the demand.

But all of these need some kind of intervention from fossil fuels.

I don't agree.

Let's forget about the plastics and paints that go into them, and just go for the fuel.

I'd just like to touch on the plastics and paints for just a minute. The plastics can be produced from hemp. The paints can be produced from soy beans. These things already exist.

To produce hydrogen, you need to split water molecules. This takes energy, which must be supplied by a power plant - and until we get nuclear fusion going, most of these will be run by fossil fuels.

Once again, I disagree. The power to split water molecules can be produced by wind and solar technology (and other non-poluting, renewable energy technologies). These technologies are already with us, and have been proven to be effective. Again, it's a matter of bringing the market up to date with the existing technology, and with the need.

And the existing technologies will need to continue to be developed. But we can do it with what we have now, if we create a market place environment that is less hostile to these things. And the market place is only hostile to them because existing energy industries are so powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 24 May 01 - 01:14 PM

Mebbe so, Kim, but Spaw has seen it! Uh oh, mebbe that was before Mister (sorry!)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:33 PM

ED, If the chip monk was more concerned with enviromentally friendly renewable fuel sources, maybe the nun couldv'e driven her oversized SUV to the tatoo parlor as she originally intended and gotten the save the alaskan wildlife tatoo she always wanted before UB Dan critized her for not doing so....hypothetically... I think. Provided she wasn't to busy reading a save the world or at least a buck group rant at the mudcat cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Grab
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:31 PM

Back on the thread about cars...

There's already hydrogen-powered cars. The niftiest thing I've seen was a car run on compressed-air - a true zero-tailpipe-emissions car! And everyone knows about battery-powered cars and hybrid-electrics.

But all of these need some kind of intervention from fossil fuels. Let's forget about the plastics and paints that go into them, and just go for the fuel. To produce hydrogen, you need to split water molecules. This takes energy, which must be supplied by a power plant - and until we get nuclear fusion going, most of these will be run by fossil fuels. Compressed-gas (air, LPG, etc) - you need a motor of some kind to do the compressing. Batteries - power station again. So the deal is just to try and get the most efficiency out of the energy. Zero-tailpipe-emissions cars are fine for going around places like LA where local emissions are a real problem, but in general the issue is quantity of fuel per distance. And burning the fuel locally (ie. in the car) is usually more efficient than burning it a long way away in a power station and shipping it over on power lines - this does depend on the engine though.

Engine size. The heavier the car, the more engine you need to get it off the line. My 1.4l Peugeot goes quite acceptably, and my 2l Montego (a few years back now) was stonkingly quick in a straight line (best not mention corners ;-). These aren't particularly small cars - I've a friend who's still driving a Montego from preference, and he's 6 foot 2. Is the average height in the US more than 6 foot 2? If not, why do their cars need to be bigger than a Montego?

SUVs. Three things: engine size, front aspect and tyres. They're heavier, so they need bigger engines, but this is mostly due to the size - a minivan isn't going to be significantly heavier. Front aspect is different - a minivan has a smooth body which makes it more aerodynamically efficient, whereas SUVs are deliberately styled to be slab-sided and so suck much more petrol at cruising speeds. Lastly, tyres - the bigger tyres make a big difference to the rolling resistance. If you're not going off-road, you just don't need big tyres on a car.

I have no arguments with ppl owning SUVs or cars with large engines (such as Kendall's gas-guzzling V6 Jeep - don't try to pretend that's an economy car! :-). But I do have to argue with the belief that they are necessities and there are no other options. In the vast majority of cases, there are plenty of other options - if you want to shift lots of stuff then look at a minivan, or if you're too big for one car's driving position then look at another car. If you face the fact that your nice shiny SUV is a LUXURY, then you have no argument against paying top dollar to drive it.

One minor point - the woman who thinks she's safer in an SUV has been conned by the image. The size and weight of an SUV makes it more difficult to make them rigid, which makes them less safe in an accident - the roof's more likely to collapse if they're rolled, for instance. Buy a Volvo instead.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: UB Ed
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:22 PM

Lost on a rainy night, a nun stumbles across a monastery and requests shelter there. Fortunately, she's just in time for dinner and was treated to the best fish and chips she's ever had.

After dinner, she goes into the kitchen to thank the chefs. She is met by two brothers, "Hello, I'm Brother Michael, and this is Brother Charles."

"I'm very pleased to meet you. I just wanted to thank you for a wonderful dinner. The fish and chips were the best I've ever tasted. Out of curiosity, who cooked what?"

Brother Charles replied, "Well, I'm the fish friar."

She turns the other brother and says, "Then you must be...?"

"Yes, I'm afraid I'm the chip monk."

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: kendall
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:15 PM

Guest UB DAN, I suggest you go back and read my note again. Nowhere did I say that Jeeps are ok and anything bigger is not. It does not do your case any good when you twist other peoples' words. I dont own an SUV. I drive a van with an underpowered 6 cylinder engine. Nothing that runs on fossil fuel is "ok" but, for the time being, we are stuck with them. Some idiot from Ford was on the news last night claiming he gets over 18 mpg with his monster suv. BOLLOX!!

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: KingBrilliant
Date: 24 May 01 - 12:01 PM

Is this a comedy thread?

Kris

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: UB Ed
Date: 24 May 01 - 11:39 AM

And with that, she did:

Kim's Tatoo Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Kim C
Date: 24 May 01 - 11:23 AM

All right then. I'm going to go start a thread about tattoos. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: IanC
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:38 AM

Peg, Dan

Why'nt you both continue this in PMs. Better than a public shouting match.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:31 AM

Peg, in my own self righteous way, I'm going to suggest that you start a new thread to discuss how good and special you are and how jerks like me don't seem to recognize it. This thread is about gasoline...oh and cell phones...and maybe tattoos. But I think my condescention deserves its own thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Kim C
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:13 AM

If we all drove cars that ran on water... well, I think it's a splendid idea... but haven't we already had water shortage problems in some places? I still think fermented vegetable matter is a good one... lots of fruits and vegetables that are not pretty enough to go to market (i.e., undersized, misshapen, bruised, etc.) are simply discarded. Talk about waste!

There are plenty of new hands-free gadgets that allow a person to talk on the phone and drive at the same time with both hands still on the wheel. The new phones now have voice-activated dialing, and headsets are widely available, for those who feel like they need such.

Phones are not the only driving danger. Eating, drinking, smoking, fiddling with the radio, and disciplining unruly children all take a driver's attention away from the road. And what about this OnStar system that some of the luxury cars have now? It's almost just like talking to someone on the phone.

Like I said before, some people are going to be responsible and some people are going to be idiots. It's too bad the responsible get punished because of the idiots.

Now.... Doug, you are a sweetheart! I am very proud of my tattoo and I like to talk about it. However... Mister doesn't let me show it around, for obvious reasons. ;-)

Cheers---- Kim

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Peg
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:12 AM

No, actually, "most" people do not annoy me. I am actually a very open-minded, compassionate person with a great love of humanity.

It is self-rightous, arrogant, condescending blowhards like you that really annoy me...

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 10:04 AM

Peg, I may be the worst, but I'm sure I'm not the only one...I'm sure most people annoy you. (by the way, I'm impressed that your dialectic skills have advanced beyond "fuck you UB Dan")

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Peg
Date: 24 May 01 - 09:50 AM

UB Dan; as for people who annoy me, you are one of the worst offenders I can think of at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 24 May 01 - 09:30 AM

Yes Peg...I thought maybe it was people who annoyed you

CarolC, I really respect your argument. It is consistent and thought out. Your point of view is that gas prices should be high and hopefully this will spark interest in alternate energy . I agree with you completely on this point. Alternate fuels can be made more cost-effective either by lowering their cost or raising the cost of our current prefered choice...gasoline. The reason you dislike the use of gasoline is because of air pollutants.

This means that the alternate fuel you desire must have less air pollutants than gasoline. What if the pollutants from gas powered engines could be lowered, would this be acceptable? Because there is much work being done in this area...especially in California. Also it might be desirable to get more contries to require emmissions controls. Catalytic converters, as far as I know, are still only required in the U.S.A and are not included in vehicles sold outside of the U.S. because it lowers the power of the engine (and I think the mpg are also reduced) ebven though the pollutants are greatly reduced.

Kendall, Saying that a Cherokee is alright, but anything bigger is wrong is just silly. I drive a 4 cylinder light pick up, you use more gas than me...does that make you wrong. Maybe I should be the yardstick by which the whole world is judged instead of you.

Personally, I think Kendall should be able to drive his cherokee and Kim should be able to drive her SUV. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to own a car that ran on water...

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: kendall
Date: 24 May 01 - 08:26 AM

Use your cell phone all you want, just dont try it in Judge Bradfords' court. He'll have your guts for a necktie!

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Peg
Date: 24 May 01 - 02:12 AM

...for everyone bitching about my bringing up cell phones:

yes, I think there is a connection between the indiscriminate use of cell phones and the indiscriminate use of SUVs. The indiscriminate (unnecessary, gratuitous) use of cell phones and SUVs (or both at the same time) is generally practiced by people who, it seems to me, are so self-absorbed that they don't CARE that they are adding to the environmental problem, or the continuing insularity and narcissism of our culture, or risking their lives and the lives of others with unsafe driving practices (that's for the ones driving the SUVs while talking on their cell phones).

I did not use the word EVIL. (That was another thread I believe). But do feel free to interpret my words any way you will.

Cell phones don't annoy people; people with cell phones annoy people.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 01 - 11:45 PM

Carol, Kendall: perhaps you're right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 23 May 01 - 11:18 PM

No, DougR, cost is a big factor in my thought process. I'm all for keeping the cost of gas high enough to keep people from taking the amount of gas they consume, with its resulting polution, for granted. In fact, I think that one of the reasons this was not a front burner issue while President Clinton was in office is because prices have been so low. Even now, if we adjust for inflation, gas prices are lower today than they were in the 1960s

And if people have to pay higher prices, maybe they will agitate for speeding up the development of non-poluting alternatives. Unless they are being misled about what the real problems are. Which is what I think is happening right now. I think the cost question exists for one reason only. To make people think that what we need is more fossil fuel production and use.

What I know about President Clinton's approach to the environment is that he attempted to protect the environment and jobs at the same time. That's a very tricky balance to try to strike.

Unfortunately, just like the blacksmith at the end of the horse and buggy days, some people are going to need to find another way to make a living. But would you have chosen to not move into the automotive age because some jobs would be lost because of it? I don't think so. And if we want to, we can look at non-poluting renewable energy sources as a great economic opportunity if we want.

In fact, some business people are already doing that, but the fossil fuel, nuclear power, and coal industries have powerfull, well established lobbies. The new technologies are scrambling to try to catch up to the older, more established industrial giants. If they got a bit of a leg up from the government, rather than having that part of the budget slashed, which is what President Bush has in mind, they might be able to do this a little faster.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: kendall
Date: 23 May 01 - 10:51 PM

And what did the Nixon administration do? they created the original gas shortage by selling war materials to Iran and allowing them to pay in oil. In order to get the price up, they conspired to create a shortage. Before that, the Eisenhower administration did nothing, and before that the republican controlled congress under Truman did nothing either. That was when the original warning came out, and, it has been ignored ever since. There is plenty of blame to go around, lets not fight over it Doug! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 01 - 10:43 PM

Carol: I'm sure you would agree that the agenda you suggest is one that requires longrange implementation. I doubt it could be done within the next 60 days. Do we know for certain that there will not be a push for developing non-fossil fuel using vehicles? I don't think so. I would ask you this, Carol; this problem did not originate when George Bush moved into the White House, correct? What did the Democrats, who have held the congress, and the White House, much longer than Republicans do about the problem? There are those that would argue that instead of helping, they hindered, by passing laws that so restrict energy providers the cost of producing fuel increased tremendously. All of those increased costs are not going to be absorbed by the producers. A major portion will be passed along to consumers via higher purchasing costs.

I realize that your argument is based less on cost and more on health issues, but again, the other party didn't do a great deal to improve the situation either.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 23 May 01 - 09:57 PM

My point is that we all are impacted by the decisions that are made with regard to the environment. The technologies exist for cars to get better gas mileage, and even for petroleum to become a thing of the past. But there are people who have a vested interest in promoting the use of fossil fuels over other alternatives.

We have a choice now. We can either let these people set the adjenda, or we can set it ourselves. We, as a society need to start thinking in terms of moving beyond the age of fossil fuels. President Bush is in a position to help us move forward in a direction that would be more healthy for the planet as well as for each of us a individuals. Will he do it? It looks to me like he wants to move us in the opposite direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 01 - 09:47 PM

No, Carol, I do not intend to be callous, and I am sorry that you have health problems. Unless, however, a law is passed mandating that all vehicles manufactured must be able to operate at 20+ miles per gallon, or no more vehicles that burn gasoline can be manufactured, I don't think things will change much. And I seriously doubt such a law would pass. Do you think it would?

In the ideal world, people would take into account that the gas guzzlers do harm to some people, and they voluntarily would not buy them, but ...

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 23 May 01 - 08:54 PM

"The sky ain't falling, folks!"

--DougR

DougR, I know you don't mean to sound callous. And I know that in this free country, you needn't be concerned with my misfortunes. But having a severely limited use of my body is a bit like the sky falling. So I hope you can appreciate why I might be a little less than objective when issues relating to the environment and to my health are being considered.

I hope you never have to experience the kind of health problems I do. But don't be at all surprised if it does happen to you or to someone you care about. It can happen to anyone. And it is happening in increasing numbers. And that's why it's important for us to make these decisions carefully, being mindful of what's best for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 01 - 08:41 PM

Ah ha, Kendall, that will be interesting to watch. You don't like pigs?

The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Network is originating in Scottsdale, Arizona, today and at the moment Bill O'Reilly and another automotive "expert" are debating the advantages and disadvantages of the SUV as it affects the country and as it relates to the energy shortage.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: kendall
Date: 23 May 01 - 08:13 PM

By the way, I saw Ford's ad in National Geographic today for their new car which will run on hydrogen and oxygen. Its' only emmission is water. Now, will the oil companies kill it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: kendall
Date: 23 May 01 - 08:10 PM

My daughter and son-in-law both have Jeep Cherokees. They both have six cylinder engines, and are not hard on fuel. They are no where near as big as the giant Explorer suv. Doug, this is a free country, sure, we have liberties that most other nations lack, but, with that liberty comes responsibility. My neighbor wants to start a pig farm. Thank God the zoning laws forbid it. Get the picture? No man is an island.We are all in the same boat, and, most of us would appreciate it if no one pees in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 01 - 07:50 PM

Kim C, woman that I adore, why in the world do you feel compelled to explain to anybody why you drive any kind of vehicle? See what would happen if we allowed the extremists to run the world? Next thing you know they will be dictating what kind of guitar you can play, who can sing and who can not (some folks have bad breath and that could be considered pollution I suppose), etc. etc. The sky ain't falling, folks! Gasoline prices are just up, that's all. They'll come down.

I think you live in the US of A, Kim, and the last time I heard, you are free to drive any kind of vehicle you can afford to buy and, and the gasoline to put into it.

Objectivity? Somebody wants objectivity? I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place for that, my friend. :>)

And just how, Kim C, does Spaw know what you've got painted on your fanny?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: Kim C
Date: 23 May 01 - 05:36 PM

Ed and Carol and Kendall, thank you very much. :-) (it's a violin on my backside, which is why Spaw sometimes refers to me as Fiddlebum)

Gadgets are not in and of themselves evil. It's what we do with them. Sure, cell phones are annoying to a lot of people. I know that. Some abuse them and some don't. Why punish everyone because of a few idiots?

Before I started camping, or owning more than one large dog, I had a small car. It was a nice car. I liked it very much. But things changed. We have been on trips where the back of that Jeep was FULL even without the dogs. (yes I have a luggage rack, it's where the tent poles go) Also a Mazda 323 isn't very good for hauling firewood when a woodstove is your primary source of heat in the winter. (yes it is and I don't have any air conditioning either) And even with the seat in that car ALL THE WAY BACK, Mister's knees were still up under his chin. He can't help it that his legs are long and he'd like to drive something comfortable. Is that wrong? Should he feel guilty for wanting to drive something he can SIT in for longer than 30 minutes? Should I feel guilty because I don't want to drive something that makes me feel like I'm sitting on the ground?

Everybody has their own reason for making their lifestyle choices. Criticizing those choices of people you don't know well is unproductive and divisive.

Personally I would like to see a big push toward alternative fuels- things that cost less to produce and cause less damage to the landscape. If someone could come up with an engine that would run on decaying vegetable matter, it would be a great boon.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: CarolC
Date: 23 May 01 - 05:16 PM

GUEST,UB Dan, I don't know if you are addressing any one person specifically or not.

I don't own a car, so I'm not in a position to say what sort I would own if I did have one. I kind of like the Suzuki four wheel drive vehicles, myself. I don't know whether or not I would own one, though. For one thing, I don't know what sort of gas mileage they get. And I don't know when or if I will ever be in a financial position to buy another car. So maybe I'll never have to face that decision.

But I do know one thing. I live in a body that is extremely sensitive to environmental toxins. Sometimes it feels like not living at all would feel better than living in my body the way it is. So I know that I have a vested interest in doing whatever I can to keep the amount of pollution to which I contribute to a minimum.

And I also know that the numbers of people who suffer from the same thing I do are increasing. So for the sake of my son and any grandchildren I may have in the future, I want to leave the world as clean as I possibly can.

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: UB Ed
Date: 23 May 01 - 05:02 PM

Kendall, perfect example. Please, on what planet are V6 Jeep Cherokees not a sport utility vehicle? Don't we feel the least bit compelled to logically bound our positions?

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Gas prices
From: GUEST,UB Dan
Date: 23 May 01 - 04:55 PM

So I guess some people can have SUV's and some people can't...I don't get it. Why is somebody wrong for having an SUV? Keep in mind that cars are expensive...for most people it is not practical to buy one zip around car in addition to the SUV which they may need...or good forbid want...occassionally. Some people like them just because they are big and bulky...such as my girlfriend who has been in two terrible accidents. Neither of us has one...yet, but do I need a special dispensation from some committee to get one. If the problem is that you think people get an SUV as just a status symbol than say that you object to status symbol vehicles, such as SUV's, Lincolns, Caddillacs, Jaguars...if gas mileage is the issue than none of these get great gas mileage either, neither do lots of older cars...but I get the feeling that this isn't the issue...just like cell phones aren't the issue. But if it is, for goodness sake say so...come up with some recognizable issue and lets stick with it.