So how much of a do you actually give about the whole 'green' thing?

[questura]

so how much of a **** do you actually give about the whole 'green' thing?

is it really worth worrying about in your opinion?

someone just sent me this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/treadlightly?CMP=OTCTreadLightly2

you register, they give you 'green' tasks to do, and you pledge whether you're going to do them or not - then confess whether you got round to doing them



the comments page is pretty amusing - it swings from the predictably smug:

"We already use energy efficient light bulbs throughout the house, switch light off when not used , don't leave TVs etc on standby. But we have learned a new way of saving on energy and water. We already made sure that the dishwasher was full before turning it on, but now we move the dial forward to exclude the rinsing cycle (unless the dishes are heavily soiled) and we reckon we save at least 18 gallons of water this way."


to the viciously amusing:

"Are we being serious when we suggest using a different cycle on our dishwashers as a radical, eco-aware strategy?
Help me out here.
Meanwhile, I've discovered that idling my Porsche Cayenne on the drive for 10 minutes warms up the engine so it runs more efficiently when I drive my child the half mile to school.
How am I doing?"

but anyway - do you give a monkey's?

 

[Mk]

All those things listed save money and I do them. Because I like money. As for doing it to help keep the world from imploding, I don't give a monkey's uncle.

 

[Chi Meson]

I have always been environmentally aware. I would guess that I am more "green" than at least half of all people who cal themselves environmentalists. But this green registry makes me feel a little ill. I have never been under the misapprehension that I am "saving the earth." I just do not choose to believe that being opulently wasteful is proof of living a significant life.

I prefer to think of my choices as keeping me freer from corporate edicts. It would be hypocritical if I felt that my edicts should apply to anyone else.

But hey, If you drive a Hummer, you will be the first to be sad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There have always been those who make a difference while the rest sit around and complain and deny the problems. Apparently many people are too selfish and just don't have what it takes to give a little, so drive that Hummer and be wasteful while you still can. Your children will have to live with the consequences more than you, so why care? It is just too hard; you're just not up to the task. I understand.

 

[DaveC426913]

1] Would I be throwing away good money if I bet you were under 30 years old?

2] As with most societal changes, it takes years, decades, generations to penetrate common culture. Even if our generation doesn't have a practical effect on Earth's health, to the coming generation, green habits will be second-nature.

3] If you don't plan to have children (and don't believe in reincarnation) then there's little practical reason to go green. But parents often have a very different view on the matter.

 

[rhuthwaite]

The registering, I believe is more about the principles and values that this encompases than anything else... Putting your name down and what you do is the least important part about it. What it is doing is making people realize that the responsibility of looking after the world is up to them, it's up to all of us, and everyone makes that little bit of difference. Even if it is using energy saving light bulbs, or skipping the rinse cycle on your dish washer atleast those people making an effort for a better greener, healthier future if not for us, for the next generations.

 

[kokain]

We should each stay "green" to make us feel better and all that karma crap. But as far a CO2 goes, give it a rest. Let's not dump toxic waste into the rivers. That will kill the fish. But in your 3000 square foot house, a few energy efficient light bulbs are not going to make "Global Warming" go away. The liberal invented "Global Warming" can apparently be fixed by me not flushing the toilet when I pee. "Global Warming" is a lie. I stay "green" to save money. I try to eat less meat and more veggies because it makes me feel better. I don't wear fur because it would make me look gay and creepy. My contribution to the environment:

I am going to start a petition. The whole world will sign it. World leaders to peasants. It will state, "Please mister sun, try to give us more constant energy. The fluctuations and flares terrify us." We will send it to the sun on a 75 trillion dollar rocket ship that uses all of the worlds old tires as fuel. No wait, that would pollute the non-atmosphere of space, having lasting negative effects on our children.

 

[Moonbear]

I was laughing at the comments from the vegans on that site who apparently think it's the fault of the animals...darn cow farts! Should I suggest that when they eat so many vegetables, they hold in all their farts so they don't contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?

A few lightbulbs isn't going to help much (especially when the "energy efficient" lightbulbs I've bought all cost so much more than regular bulbs, don't give off as much light, and die sooner...maybe they have better ones in Britain, but the ones sold here are a scam as far as I can tell). Not turning lights on when you don't need them on helps more than leaving on a housefull of "energy efficient" bulbs all the time.

But, yeah, I found the comments amusing too...but in a sad sort of way. I sort of assumed these were things people already knew, that if you wait for the dishwasher to be full before running it, or only use the shortest cycle needed to clean the dishes, it's going to be more energy and water efficient than running it only half full on the heavy duty cycle. Why do people need to be told this in this day and age? So, I guess if there really are that many people who still don't know this, such an article has a real purpose.

There are probably also plenty of people who know these things help conserve energy (and yes, money, which is often more of an incentive), but lapse into more careless habits, and making a pledge like this, or just reading about it, can help remind them to be more careful again.

 

[Chi Meson]

A few lightbulbs isn't going to help much (especially when the "energy efficient" lightbulbs I've bought all cost so much more than regular bulbs, don't give off as much light, and die sooner...maybe they have better ones in Britain, but the ones sold here are a scam as far as I can tell). Not turning lights on when you don't need them on helps more than leaving on a housefull of "energy efficient" bulbs all the time.

You must be very unlucky with the cf bulbs. All but 6 of the bulbs in my house are cfs. I have some cf bulbs that I bought in 1995 still burning in some sockets. The most common reason for needing to replace them is accidental breakage. As far as cost, in 1995 I was paying $11 to $15 per bulb. Through the local electric company I bought some nice fixtures (torchieres and desk lamps) for $30 (bulb included, still burning 6 years later), and a dozen cf bulbs at about $2.50 each. Last year I got a whole case of 75 watt equivalent (14 watt actual) for $0.79 each. I gave them out to my students while explaining I was giving them about $75 dollars (it would take 5 years to accumulate that money, but I was giving it to them nonetheless).

I usually keep one filament bulb in each bathroom, and one in the living room to add color balance since cfs are a little strong on the green light.

 

[Mk]

There have always been those who make a difference while the rest sit around and complain and deny the problems. Apparently many people are too selfish and just don't have what it takes to give a little, so drive that Hummer and be wasteful while you still can. Your children will have to live with the consequences more than you, so why care? It is just too hard; you're just not up to the task. I understand.

You could be great for winning a war, but rarely are the heros recognized who saved lives and resources by keeping needless wars from occurring in the first place.

 

[Moonbear]

You must be very unlucky with the cf bulbs.

Indeed. It's not like I only tried them once and got a defective one. I assumed that was the case the first time, and tried other brands and in different fixtures (in case it was something about the fixture location burning them out too quickly), and they've all died on me within a week to a month, and the light they gave off was pretty horrible. Everything seemed blue. That might be fine for rooms like the bedroom or bathroom where I don't need the light for much other than avoiding tripping over things, but it's no good in the kitchen or office or living room, because I can't do detail work or read under that sort of lighting.

Now, one way that they might work would be in those fixtures with multiple bulbs (like the ceiling fans with 4 lamps) that can be switched on and off in groups of two. Put two of the cf ones in, and 2 regular incandescent in, and for most days, you just need the two cf bulbs on, but if you need a little more light while reading, or working on a craft project, you can flip the switch for the incandescent bulbs.

But, doesn't matter, I've given up on those cf bulbs because they're too expensive when they only last a month for me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You could be great for winning a war, but rarely are the heros recognized who saved lives and resources by keeping needless wars from occurring in the first place.

Yes, it is a war. If you don't conserve you will be shot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've had the same problem with CFs. Often they don't last longer than a few months; even with limited usage. The ones that seem to do the best are the ones with the highest duty cycles.

 

[DaveC426913]

I sort of assumed these were things people already knew, that if you wait for the dishwasher to be full before running it, or only use the shortest cycle needed to clean the dishes, it's going to be more energy and water efficient than running it only half full on the heavy duty cycle. Why do people need to be told this in this day and age? So, I guess if there really are that many people who still don't know this, such an article has a real purpose.

I think it's less about knowing than it is about being reminded or pointed at the right things. Brain-cycles are in high-demand and constant easy reminders that don't require cycles will get through to those who don't make Green a conscious act in their lives.

 

[Gale]

I think the biggest thing I really do is trying to reduce waste. I don't use paper towels to dry my hands, and I don't use the plastic or paper bags at the grocery store. I try not to have reciepts printed, and I get banking statements online instead of in the mail. Its nothing big, but it makes a difference. I do the common sense stuff too like the lightbulbs, but I'm more concerned about all the waste we create personally.

 

[laurelelizabeth]

is it really worth worrying about in your opinion?

someone just sent me this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/treadlightly?CMP=OTCTreadLightly2

you register, they give you 'green' tasks to do, and you pledge whether you're going to do them or not - then confess whether you got round to doing them



the comments page is pretty amusing - it swings from the predictably smug:

"We already use energy efficient light bulbs throughout the house, switch light off when not used , don't leave TVs etc on standby. But we have learned a new way of saving on energy and water. We already made sure that the dishwasher was full before turning it on, but now we move the dial forward to exclude the rinsing cycle (unless the dishes are heavily soiled) and we reckon we save at least 18 gallons of water this way."


to the viciously amusing:

"Are we being serious when we suggest using a different cycle on our dishwashers as a radical, eco-aware strategy?
Help me out here.
Meanwhile, I've discovered that idling my Porsche Cayenne on the drive for 10 minutes warms up the engine so it runs more efficiently when I drive my child the half mile to school.
How am I doing?"

but anyway - do you give a monkey's?

It's important. We don't have to go back to living in caves and get rid of things that are important, but we should cut out things we can live happily without. Like lunchables, and idling the car, and in the summer hang out clothes on the clothesline.

I guess i just don't want to be responsible for desertification and forest fires and stuff. Don't want that on my conscience :)

 

[Evo]

I believe in cleaning up pollution. Everything else is speculation, so I'll stick to pollution.

 

[Andre]

In addition to that, it might be a good idea to preserve biodiversity and natural habitats. But a position about that would be quite different if your outside view is rural or if you're seeing nothing but roofs until the horizon.

 

[Chi Meson]

Have people heard Newt Gingrich's position on the environment? This formerly partisan pitbull has what seems to be the most rational, non-reactionary yet cautious stance on environmental issues. He and Ron Paul (a Libertarian-Republican) have the environmental positions closest to my own (I would never privatize the National Parks).

Go ahead, try to call them liberal. You just can't!

 

[Evo]

Have people heard Newt Gingrich's position on the environment? This formerly partisan pitbull has what seems to be the most rational, non-reactionary yet cautious stance on environmental issues. He and Ron Paul (a Libertarian-Republican) have the environmental positions closest to my own (I would never privatize the National Parks).

Go ahead, try to call them liberal. You just can't!

What is Ron Paul's environmental stance? All I could find was an interview where he appeared to be blaming global warming on communists. (he's nuttier than a Snickers bar).

This is all I could find on his environmental position. He does not even list the environment or climate change as issues on his website.

Listen to these interviews, he makes absolutely no sense, rambling on about soviets and the government taking over your property...did he ever get close to actually answering the question? No. The question was "what is your take on the environment and more specifically, what would you do to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Uhm, Earth to Ron, come in Ron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTr50dREplg&NR=1

Ron Paul Answers Global Warming Question

"The environments are always taken better care of with strict property rights". Communism was the most destructive environmental society we ever had.

Q)Do you think C02 is part of the air quality issue? Ron - I think there's a debate about it, I don't think anybody has the final answer on that, C02 comes from ocean waters and (the rest is rather garbled)

 

[Chi Meson]

All I've read on Ron Paul was a blurb printed in the latest issue of Outside Magazine. It could be way out of context, or formulated specifically for that audience.

That magazine is starting to run ads for Hummers, so maybe...

I usually have a strong aversion to half of Libertarian philosophy that is simultaneous with a strong attraction to the other half. But the blurb in Outside did strike a cord with me.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Moonbear -

The spaghetti balls (I'm in the utility industry, we have fond names for them) made overseas in China usually, have Hg in them and are very intolerant of non-nominal AC voltages. It shortens bulb life a lot. Most decent bulbs should have 2000 hours lifespan minimum.

Test your lines AC voltage. US assumed below -

If you live in an old apartment building or some such, it's a guarantee that you're on a transformer that ain't up to the job. Get a $5.00 analog voltmeter from Radio Shack. US code says single phase 120V AC +/- 5% @60Hz. Anything below 115V AC will cause problems with these bulbs. Utilities consider 108-110V AC to be a brownout voltage.

If you have a rheostat in the circuit for your spaghetti light you may be starting out closer to brownout voltage than you'd want. Look for the bulbs that say 'okay for dimmers' if you have low voltage.

 

[Evo]

Oh my, was this the blurb?

Still, his (Ron Paul's) libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming, because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?
On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development, because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol, and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property—water, air, or land. It is very strict.

But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air—that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: If you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?Certainly. Anytime there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?
You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government into review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Would you dissolve the EPA?
It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war and bring back a sound economy and solve the financial crises and balance the budget.

Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?
If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country, because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up—not by the EPA; by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute—and it's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion, and it worked out quite well.

What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?
Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, was taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that for a good number of years legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the Industrial Revolution, when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are—a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another—concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative-energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?
Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much—something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly. Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create biodiesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?
I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet I think it's a worthy discussion.

So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus—those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law-enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things-I don't think that would work.

continued...

:uhh:

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/ron-paul-interview.html

 

[vanesch]

I make a big difference between being "rationally ecologically aware", and being "green". The first part is a rational stance: we shouldn't harm our environment so much that we suffer damage from it - damage in the large sense: not only health and economy, but also "quality of life". So, yes, we should be cautious.
However, being "green" is an ideological stance, which has in fact little to do with being "ecologically aware" but is more a kind of indoctrination of "feeling guilty when we enjoy technological comfort and luxury". Very often, "green" policies are factually anti-ecological (I will not transform this thread again in a nuclear power thread, but to me this is the utmost example of green ideology which is anti-ecological).
The basic idea of the green ideology is half-anarchistic where there is a romantic desire to go back to a kind of primitive society with small villages and a minimum of technological comfort, against a capitalist/consumer global society. And the ecological argument is just a way to brainwash people, not so much the core issue.

So in as much as I try to be ecologically aware, I try hard not to fall for the "green trap".

That said, sometimes there is a coincidence between the green ideology and ecological issues, but far from always.

 

[rewebster]

oil and gas?? prices?

oil is $95 a barrel (42gal /bar) ---you get about 20 gal of gas/bar


95/20 equals about $5 per gal for gas without refinement, distribution, etc.---

Why is gasoline in the USA still around $3/ gal to $3.50/gal?
I don't know why it's still in the 3 buck range


--------------
is Bush dipping into the reserves, or what?-- -
--------------

is it because some/ a lot of US companies have oil field to pump ownership and it doesn't get to the spot market? Those are about the only two reasons I can think of.

-----------------------


http://www.gravmag.com/oil12.gif


Even if one considers the other products, 3-3.50/gal for gas still seems off

 

[Chi Meson]

Oh my, was this the blurb?

Here are the parts I agree with:

The government shouldn't be directing research and development, because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol, and it turns out that it's not economically feasible.

governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment.

In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property—water, air, or land.

Would you dissolve the EPA?
It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war and bring back a sound economy and solve the financial crises and balance the budget.

If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are—a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another—concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much—something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly. Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create biodiesel fuel or ethanol.

So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus—those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

Yes I philosophically agree with these points. They would never fly since they would fight against both Republican and Democratic powers.

I especially agree with this one:

A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.
To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

I had this opinion 20 years ago, when I was first called a "Liberal"

I hope you will still talk to me!

 

[vanesch]

Why is gasoline in the USA still around $3/ gal to $3.50/gal?
I don't know why it's still in the 3 buck range

It's maybe thinned with water ?

 

[rewebster]

It's maybe thinned with water ?

do you mean that salt water that burns?

 

[~christina~]

It's maybe thinned with water ?

I've heard they've been mixing the gasoline with ethanol and thus it's less gasoline but I don't think that's to make it cheaper but rather to make a barrel of oil go farther.

 

[ShawnD]

Apparently many people are too selfish and just don't have what it takes to give a little, so drive that Hummer and be wasteful while you still can. Your children will have to live with the consequences more than you, so why care? It is just too hard; you're just not up to the task. I understand.

On the other hand, somebody could easily argue that you're jealous you can't afford the gas for a Hummer, and you want to take it out on the world by making sure nobody else can drive a Hummer :tongue:

This may not be the case, but for a lot of issues it is the case. People who "hate money" are the people who don't have any, people who enjoy being single are the probably undatable, and people who "hate the world" do so because the world hates them and their snarky attitude.

I've heard they've been mixing the gasoline with ethanol and thus it's less gasoline but I don't think that's to make it cheaper but rather to make a barrel of oil go farther.

this is false for several reasons.
1). Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline
2). Ethanol has less energy than gasoline, so a blended barrel wouldn't go as far as a normal barrel
3). When gasoline is blended, they'll be very vocal about it since ethanol has a higher octane rating, meaning it's easier to sell it to idiots who have no idea what an octane rating actually means. Hurrr my Dodge Ram has at least 10 more hp when I use premium! (this mentality is common, and it's completely wrong)

Are you sure gasoline at $3/gallon is below market value? On some of the gas pumps in Canada, there is a cost breakdown, and about half of the price is tax (only 3% is profit). Gasoline in my city is roughly $3.80/gallon, in US dollars using US gallons. Take away half of that to account for tax, and fair market value is about $2/gallon, give or take.

 

[questura]

Oh my, was this the blurb?

:uhh:

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/ron-paul-interview.html

excellent - thanks for that :)

 

[Artman]

We've done some engineering projects that start out wanting to go green, until they get the cost. We had one in particular that was an environmental center. They started out wanting to go green, with geothermal heat pumps and composting toilets. They got the costs and went with A/C units with electric resistance heat and flush toilets with a sewage ejector pump!

As for me, I always look for energy efficient methods. I came up with one experimental method on one project that saves the facility more than 20 tons of equivalent cooling energy every hour at peak load.

 

[DaveC426913]

Our household waste has dropped off dramatically since the dawn of recycling. Some weeks there's little point to putting out the garbage bin.

Now, the recycling bin on the other hand... We have two industrial-sized bins, and we still over-fill em...

 

[questura]

any final thoughts?

 

[J77]

any final thoughts?

Why, is this thread going to self-destruct? :tongue:

My two-penneth...

I like to be green. I recycle, turn lights off, don't drive anymore but cycle...

On the other hand, I have made two flights to NA, one to Asia and a number of flights within Europe this year...

So, on the whole, my carbon footprint's not looking too good.

However, I'd never not go green if I had the choice.

I even wouldn't mind jacking in the whole technology thing and going to live on a self-sufficient farm [\hippy]