Why do they hate our planet?

[trumptman]

Biodiesel = no more rain forests (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20)

THE drive for "green energy" in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical rainforests. From the orang-utan reserves of Borneo to the Brazilian Amazon, virgin forest is being razed to grow palm oil and soybeans to fuel cars and power stations in Europe and North America. And surging prices are likely to accelerate the destruction

I thought I would bring this up because many folks latch on to trendy attempts to prove they are green instead of dealing with actual energy consumption.

Here we see how a popular alternative to oil is now becoming a threat itself.

What are your thoughts?

Nick

[Anders]

Technology isn´t good or evil in itself. Its the use. Look at white phosphorus

Bio fuel has a lot of good applications. We can use hay more effeciently converted to a gas supplement than just burned of in power stations. Bu of course if rain forest is cut down to provide fields for bio fuel thats obvious a wrong path.

The world is complex and it isn´t easy to navigate in it. Do you really help anyone by not buying sweat shop snickers. Are the 10 year old girls really going to go to shool instead of working. The sale of biodynamic milk is very high here after reports of agricultural poisioning of our beloved ground water. But the biodynamic corn feed to our cows is not produced here in Denmark, so it doesn´t help our water supply.

If anything what we can learn is that some problems just can´t be solved through the marked. Its signals just isn´t fine tuned enough to always relay the intended message.

[dmz]

I remember, back in college, sitting in physics class -- the instructor told us that Efficiency as a scientific concept was 'set' at such-and-such percent -- I think it was 28%, (but that's probably wrong.) He reiterated that this was something of a hard wall, and that, if we could only go to 30 (35?)% efficiency, it would revolutionize life as we knew it. As I understand it, this Efficiency translates to the internal combustion engine in a straightforward way.

I see this business of biodiesel, hybrid cars, etc. as a sucker's game of three-card monty. You may certainly shift the waste/emissions to areas that can accept certain negative externalities, but until we can overcome the very basic rigors of the internal combustion engine, this is a feel-good political solution that, thermodynamically speaking, isn't going anywhere.

[BR]

Just because a bunch of dumbfucks decide to cut corners and destroy rainforests to produce biodiesel doesn't mean biodiesel itself is bad. How about instead of paying our farmers to not grow anything we pay them to grow the crops needed to make biodiesel? GEEE, that would be a lot more intelligent.

Trumpet, your point is, well, rather pointless. Yes, let's attack the good people that are pushing for cleaner alternative fuels instead of the jackass CEOs who are making the decisions to further fuck up the rainforest. Put blame where is blame is due.

[BR]

Originally posted by dmz
I remember, back in college, sitting in physics class -- the instructor told us that Efficiency as a scientific concept was 'set' at such-and-such percent -- I think it was 28%, (but that's probably wrong.) He reiterated that this was something of a hard wall, and that, if we could only go to 30 (35?)% efficiency, it would revolutionize life as we knew it. As I understand it, this Efficiency translates to the internal combustion engine in a straightforward way.

I see this business of biodiesel, hybrid cars, etc. as a sucker's game of three-card monty. You may certainly shift the waste/emissions to areas that can accept certain negative externalities, but until we can overcome the very basic rigors of the internal combustion engine, this is a feel-good political solution that, thermodynamically speaking, isn't going anywhere.
Agreed. Let's do nothing and sit on our collective thumbs until we make an efficiency breakthrough. Sounds like a brilliant plan. Really. No sarcasm here. None at all.

[hardeeharhar]

What BR said!

Nothing is perfect, but something is undoubtedly more perfect than nothing.

[dmz]

Originally posted by BR
Agreed. Let's do nothing and sit on our collective thumbs until we make an efficiency breakthrough. Sounds like a brilliant plan. Really. No sarcasm here. None at all.
Come on, there's diminishing marginal utility to consider -- instead of playing a thermodynamic shell game with hybrids -- I wonder how much energy could be really saved by seeing to keeping cars tuned or switching from CRT to LCD monitors, more efficient washing machines, dishwashers, etc,. Which is something everyone could do right now.

[BR]

Originally posted by dmz
Come on, there's diminishing marginal utility to consider -- instead of playing a thermodynamic shell game with hybrids -- I wonder how much energy could be really saved by seeing to keeping cars tuned or switching from CRT to LCD monitors, more efficient washing machines, dishwashers, etc,.

Oh wait, that's something everyone could do right now, nevermind.
You act as if the two are mutually exclusive.

[BR]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Did you just call hybrid vehicles frauds?
I believe he did. Yeah. Wow.


Ya know, Shawn, we've had our fair share of heated disputes but with you it's vastly "I like what you are attempting to do but I disagree with your methods or I don't see the problem you are trying to correct is as serious or pervasive as you do." I can respect that. With dmz and his ilk, it's more often than not "holy crap you are batshit crazy. Did you REALLY just say what I think you did?" I'd take a thousand of you over one of him.

[dmz]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Did you just call hybrid vehicles frauds?
In general, I would have to say that the hybrid vehicle as we know it, has more to do with white/western guilt, than it does with saving energy.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
Just because a bunch of dumbfucks decide to cut corners and destroy rainforests to produce biodiesel doesn't mean biodiesel itself is bad. How about instead of paying our farmers to not grow anything we pay them to grow the crops needed to make biodiesel? GEEE, that would be a lot more intelligent.

It has nothing to do with just the "dumbfucks" who cut corners to destroy the rainforest. Most attempts at hybrids are already being used to be able to build larger and faster cars instead of more fuel efficient cars. Do you honestly think the best Honda can do is an ACCORD V6 hybrid?

Trumpet, your point is, well, rather pointless. Yes, let's attack the good people that are pushing for cleaner alternative fuels instead of the jackass CEOs who are making the decisions to further fuck up the rainforest. Put blame where is blame is due.

The assumption that the alternatives harm the environment less is yours. You pretty much walk face first into the point I wanted to make. Has anyone calculated the costs to the environment of dealing with all the hybrid batteries when they begin to fail in the future? If biodiesel requires more farming resources that then cause more harm, have you calculated the environmental costs of that and found it to be lower than what is conventionally used?

Instead of Miles per gallon of gas, we need to think in terms of miles per unit of environmental cost. The point is that just because they do better at gas doesn't mean they do better at environment.

Nick

[groverat]

Originally posted by trumptman
It has nothing to do with just the "dumbfucks" who cut corners to destroy the rainforest.

Isn't that what your thread is about?

Most attempts at hybrids are already being used to be able to build larger and faster cars instead of more fuel efficient cars. Do you honestly think the best Honda can do is an ACCORD V6 hybrid?

Is one car (the Accord) "most attempts at hybrids"?

Has anyone calculated the costs to the environment of dealing with all the hybrid batteries when they begin to fail in the future? If biodiesel requires more farming resources that then cause more harm, have you calculated the environmental costs of that and found it to be lower than what is conventionally used?

Yes, people have been asking those questions.
Why do you think biodiesel isn't really something people are taking seriously as a large-scale replacement?

It's amazing that you think the people involved have not already considered all of this.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
In general, I would have to say that the hybrid vehicle as we know it, has more to do with white/western guilt, than it does with saving energy.

Yeah, because that black friend of mine who drives the civic hybrid is just driving for its looks...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
Isn't that what your thread is about?

I would say it is about people who proclaim they have environmental concerns doing what they think "feels" right instead of what actually creates an improvement.

Is one car (the Accord) "most attempts at hybrids

Well in 2000 we had the Prius and the Insight. Now in 2005 we still have them but what automakers are adding are vehicles as follows...

Civic 2003
Accord V6 2005
Ford Escape 2005 (SUV)
Lexus RX 400h 2005 (SUV)
Toyota Highlander 2005 (SUV)
Chevy Silverado 2005 (Full-size pickup)

Take note of the trend friend.

Yes, people have been asking those questions.
Why do you think biodiesel isn't really something people are taking seriously as a large-scale replacement?

It's amazing that you think the people involved have not already considered all of this.

I think most of the people involved spend a little money to claim some sort of environmental status while making no truly different lifestyle choices.

Nick

[addabox]

Originally posted by trumptman
I would say it is about people who proclaim they have environmental concerns doing what they think "feels" right instead of what actually creates an improvement.



Well in 2000 we had the Prius and the Insight. Now in 2005 we still have them but what automakers are adding are vehicles as follows...

Civic 2003
Accord V6 2005
Ford Escape 2005 (SUV)
Lexus RX 400h 2005 (SUV)
Toyota Highlander 2005 (SUV)
Chevy Silverado 2005 (Full-size pickup)

Take note of the trend friend.



I think most of the people involved spend a little money to claim some sort of environmental status while making no truly different lifestyle choices.

Nick

I'm not sure why you would feel it necessary to ridicule the mindset of someone choosing a higher mileage vehicle. Do you have people in your neck of the woods who drive around in hybrids shouting "Fuck ya'll! I'm environmentally sensitive and your not!"?

Sure, hybrids are no panacea, but any improvement in the energy profile of a high volume item has a real impact on all over energy consumption, which is a net good, no?

For instance, California has regulations and rebates to encourage the use of higher efficiency appliances. Now, it would be easy to say that a person purchasing a more efficient refrigerator is "claiming" to be more environmentally friendly while" not making any different lifestyle choices", but the fact is when you add up a whole bunch of refrigerators (and washing machines, and heating systems) you get some serious energy savings.

I'm sure you've seen the figures that show that various improvements in automobile fleet mileage, or home insulation, or appliance efficiency end up being the equivalent of new oil production, but without the environmental negatives.

While large scale paradigm shifts like "the hydrogen economy" or "pebble bed nuclear reactors" have their appeal, there are enormous energy savings to be had by making incremental improvements in massively deployed point sources of consumption.

[dmz]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Again, hybrids don't save energy? They're frauds?

The answser is lifestyle changes, switching to mixed-used development, that sort of thing. Bolting on a hybrid that may or may not be getting the mpg claimed (http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html) to the suburbia model -- getting 50 mpg instead of 45 is not a serious solution.

[groverat]

trumpt:

I would say it is about people who proclaim they have environmental concerns doing what they think "feels" right instead of what actually creates an improvement.

And in your eyes biodiesel is now completely invalid because of what some people are doing to the rainforest? Is there something about biodiesel fuel that requires its sources be grown from torn-down rainforest?

Well in 2000 we had the Prius and the Insight. Now in 2005 we still have them but what automakers are adding are vehicles as follows...

Civic 2003
Accord V6 2005
Ford Escape 2005 (SUV)
Lexus RX 400h 2005 (SUV)
Toyota Highlander 2005 (SUV)
Chevy Silverado 2005 (Full-size pickup)

Take note of the trend friend.

And every single one of those models will be more fuel efficient as a hybrid than it was before.

How many more small, fuel efficient hybrids can one automaker produce?
Toyota has the Prius/Camry (coming), Honda has the Insight/Civic.
The tiny cars are already there, what is it you are actually complaining about?

Is your contention that moving pre-existing lines to hybrid technology is actually a problem in some way or is this just more short-man complex posturing?

I think most of the people involved spend a little money to claim some sort of environmental status while making no truly different lifestyle choices.

So your problem is actually with the people who buy hybrids, some kind of angry white man "YOU AIN'T BETTER THAN ME!" rage?

I'm going to go watch Squidbillies.

[groverat]

Originally posted by dmz
The answser is lifestyle changes, switching to mixed-used development, that sort of thing. Bolting on a hybrid that may or may not be getting the mpg claimed (http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html) to the suburbia model -- getting 50 mpg instead of 45 is not a serious solution.

Does everything have to be "a serious solution"?

Why do you people care if people buy hybrids?

[dmz]

Originally posted by groverat
Does everything have to be "a serious solution"?

Why do you people care if people buy hybrids?
It's fine if people buy hybrids, it actually funds the way for technology down the road might make a significant difference.

But hybrids, for the most part are held up as a expiation of environmental guilt. When you look at the suburbia model, especially the post-children of DFW and Houston, it's -- admit it -- essentially a ridiculous solution.

[Chris Cuilla]

I would certainly hate to assume I know what dmz is saying (or put words in his mouth)...but I think what he's talking about is the aggregate cost of a particular solution.

For example, hybrids bring certain benefits (less fuel consumption per mile driven) and certain costs (battery disposal down the road). We don't know whether energy used to produce these is an increase from other (existing) technologies.

We ought to be looking at these solutions in aggregate. Higher level optimizations tend to work better overall than localized optimizations.

I think we would all admit that our culture today tends to focus excessively short-term, often with negative longer-term consequences. We tend to treat symptoms rather than curing the diseases. We see examples of this all over the place...environmental issues are not immune to this thinking.

[groverat]

Before any of you keep going on and on about the environmental impact of hybrid batteries, why not try and do a little research?

Afraid facts might get in the way of your hectoring?

Originally posted by dmz
But hybrids, for the most part are held up as a expiation of environmental guilt. When you look at the suburbia model, especially the post-children of DFW and Houston, it's -- admit it -- essentially a ridiculous solution.

It is an improvement over conventional automobile technology. The idea that we have to go straight to the perfect solution is what is ridiculous here.

Why are you concerned with people choosing to drive more environmentally friendly vehicles?

I'm sure a lot of progress is made with angry white men grumbling about them damned hippie liberals and their stupid wasteful environmental stances. :rolleyes:

I think you guys should take a long hard look at yourselves and ask yourselves why you get angry when you think about someone buying/driving a hybrid. I park my 19mpg Lexus SC-300 near a 60mpg Honda Insight every day in my apartment complex. I don't feel guilty about it, why is that?

If people want to spend extra money on a hybrid, why is it your concern?

[dmz]

Originally posted by groverat
Before any of you keep going on and on about the environmental impact of hybrid batteries, why not try and do a little research?

Afraid facts might get in the way of your hectoring?



It is an improvement over conventional automobile technology. The idea that we have to go straight to the perfect solution is what is ridiculous here.

Why are you concerned with people choosing to drive more environmentally friendly vehicles?

I'm sure a lot of progress is made with angry white men grumbling about them damned hippie liberals and their stupid wasteful environmental stances. :rolleyes:

I think you guys should take a long hard look at yourselves and ask yourselves why you get angry when you think about someone buying/driving a hybrid. I park my 19mpg Lexus SC-300 near a 60mpg Honda Insight every day in my apartment complex. I don't feel guilty about it, why is that?

If people want to spend extra money on a hybrid, why is it your concern?
A Lexus?! -- you sinning cretin!! I have your and ShawnJ's penenance right here:
http://www.harleysandsportbikeshawaii.com/Moped.gif

[Chris Cuilla]

Is groverat erecting a straw man? Let's see...

Originally posted by groverat
I'm sure a lot of progress is made with angry white men grumbling about them damned hippie liberals and their stupid wasteful environmental stances. :rolleyes:

I think you guys should take a long hard look at yourselves and ask yourselves why you get angry when you think about someone buying/driving a hybrid.

Sure smells that way.

I don't see anyone here expressing anger about others buying hybrids.

[groverat]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is groverat erecting a straw man?

Why else do they assign those types of motives to people buying hybrids?
Why else does it concern them?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
You know what, if I actually believed that you approved some sweeping new plan that addresses the structural problems that lead to environmental degradation, then I wouldn't consider this line of argument completely disingenuous. The fact is that you're not endorsing some McDonough-like solution like "cradle to cradle" design. And the reason we only have incremental improvements as opposed to structural changes is precisely because of the people you personally vote into office. To blame it on a general failing of the culture, while not completely untrue, still strikes me as evasive.

More straw men.

Why is it necessary for you to make this personally about me?

I am not supporting/opposing any particular thing. I simply tried to inject a wee bit of reasonable dialogue (that'll teach me!)

I am also not evading any particular thing.

:rolleyes:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by addabox
I'm not sure why you would feel it necessary to ridicule the mindset of someone choosing a higher mileage vehicle. Do you have people in your neck of the woods who drive around in hybrids shouting "Fuck ya'll! I'm environmentally sensitive and your not!"?

I'm not ridiculing it. I'm simply stating that a technology must prove that it has a smaller environmental footprint in terms of it's impact on the planet before I will declare it to be environmentally friendly.

Sure, hybrids are no panacea, but any improvement in the energy profile of a high volume item has a real impact on all over energy consumption, which is a net good, no?

Do they take more barrels of oil to produce? Does the fact that they weigh 10% more mean that they run through tires faster which has an environmental impact? What is the energy costs of dealing with the batteries once they are removed from service?

For some reason people seem to understand that biodiesel would require a lot more farmland and can fathom the impact. For some reason they don't seem to do this with hybrids.

For instance, California has regulations and rebates to encourage the use of higher efficiency appliances. Now, it would be easy to say that a person purchasing a more efficient refrigerator is "claiming" to be more environmentally friendly while" not making any different lifestyle choices", but the fact is when you add up a whole bunch of refrigerators (and washing machines, and heating systems) you get some serious energy savings.

Or they could decide they will allot a certain amount to electrical costs and just buy a bigger fridge. They might take the savings and decide to buy a bigger house with a larger heating/air conditioning bill which they can afford with their savings. This is why even though we are more efficient, our per capita consumption has not been going down.

I'm sure you've seen the figures that show that various improvements in automobile fleet mileage, or home insulation, or appliance efficiency end up being the equivalent of new oil production, but without the environmental negatives.

I haven't seen it adding up that way. The parties always seem to assume that the energy saved will simply be conserved. Often it seems to simply promote MORE energy use but in a different capacity.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's true that performance-hybrids are gaining popularity among domestic automakers (particularly for their regenerative braking and increased power at low rpm). But the trend towards hybrid vehicles in general is a good thing. Light SUV's like the Ford Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid offer much better gas mileage than their gasoline counterparts.

But before they would have given up the SUV and instead perhaps considered a vehicle that would get better gas mileage as a gas only vehicle and gotten even better mileage as a hybrid.

The trend right now is for larger, heavier vehicles. If hybrids help continue that trend, how is that a good thing?

Hybrid offer much better gas mileage than their gasoline counterparts. Even though the Accord V6 Hybrid is the most powerful sedan in the lineup, it still offers better fuel economy than the gasoline Accord.

Yes, but the Accord of 20 years ago would have gotten better gas mileage because it weighed a 1,000 lbs less than the gas or hybrid cars of today.

Here is a good example, the 1986 Civic got 40 mpg in part because it was smaller and had a 1.3l engine. The gas Civic of today gets 33 mpg because it is larger and has a more powerful engine. The hybrid Civic gets a claimed 50 mpg but what would it get if the car were the size of the 86 Civic? Would it get perhaps 60-75 mpg instead?

I would not be surprised if these gains just allow cars to keep getting bigger and heavier instead.

Putting hybrid engines in trucks, typically the worst offenders, is a fantastic move across the board. More progressive automakers like Toyota have pledged to sell a much greater percentage of hybrids relative to its total car sales in just a decade.

The trend is much better than you think.

One would hope the trend would be better. However I can also imagine these new efficiency gains being used to outfit cats with heavier luxuries that then move them back to their old gas mileage. They will be heavier and larger, but just more efficient than past cars. I think this is the true trend we have been seeing in vehicles.

Nick

[BR]

If every excursion is replaced with a hybrid SUV of slightly smaller stature it's still a good thing.

As long as the gov't refuses to promote drastic changes, baby steps are better than no steps.

"One of these days, this little lady right here is going to be driving an automobile with a hybrid engine in it, and a fuel cell in it. And it's going to work. And I hope I'm around to see it, too."

George W. Bush February 25, 2002

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
If every excursion is replaced with a hybrid SUV of slightly smaller stature it's still a good thing.

As long as the gov't refuses to promote drastic changes, baby steps are better than no steps.

What if every Excursion is replaced with an even larger and heavier Excursion that seats 9, has a built in satellite receiver, small fridge and LCD television screen in the back of each headrest. It weighs 2,500 lbs more and is 10 cu ft larger than the old one but gets the same gas mileage due to a hybrid design.

Is that a step in the right direction?

Nick

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
What if every Excursion is replaced with an even larger and heavier Excursion that seats 9, has a built in satellite receiver, small fridge and LCD television screen in the back of each headrest. It weighs 2,500 lbs more and is 10 cu ft larger than the old one but gets the same gas mileage due to a hybrid design.

Is that a step in the right direction?

Nick
I'm just going to call this a specious slippery slope argument until something even remotely like that comes about. Frankly, with gas prices, it's doubtful something like that would survive anyway at this point.

[groverat]

trumpt:

For some reason people seem to understand that biodiesel would require a lot more farmland and can fathom the impact. For some reason they don't seem to do this with hybrids.

When you say "don't seem to" what you are really saying is that you have no real information but feel like making an argument anyway.

Yes, but the Accord of 20 years ago would have gotten better gas mileage because it weighed a 1,000 lbs less than the gas or hybrid cars of today.

Why do cars weigh more today?

What if every Excursion is replaced with an even larger and heavier Excursion that seats 9, has a built in satellite receiver, small fridge and LCD television screen in the back of each headrest. It weighs 5,000 lbs and is 10 cu ft larger than the old one but gets the same gas mileage due to a hybrid design.

Is that a step in the right direction?

Absolutely.

[Mitlov]

Originally posted by trumptman
Do you honestly think the best Honda can do is an ACCORD V6 hybrid?

:???:

Are you forgetting that Honda also makes two other hybrid models--the Insight and the Civic? The Insight is for people who want a 60+mpg go-cart-like-thing. The Civic is for people who want a slow, 45mpg compact car. The Accord is for people who want a midsize car that accelerates like a normal car. But this way they get 35mpg instead of 25mpg. Isn't that a good thing?

[Mitlov]

Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Here is a good example, the 1986 Civic got 40 mpg in part because it was smaller and had a 1.3l engine. The gas Civic of today gets 33 mpg because it is larger and has a more powerful engine. The hybrid Civic gets a claimed 50 mpg but what would it get if the car were the size of the 86 Civic? Would it get perhaps 60-75 mpg instead?
The 2006 Civic gets 40mpg highway (with an automatic), not 33 as you said. You must be thinking of the Acura RSX, which gets 34mpg with a manual. And for the record, the modern Civic also has other advantages over the 1986 Civic...like not being a complete deathtrap in an accident. Airbags and strong frames add weight, remember. Oh yeah, and don't forget that someone who is taller than, say, 5'2" can comfortably fit in a 2006 Civic.

EDIT: You're wrong on another count. The EPA rated the 1986 Civic as 30mpg city, 35mpg highway. source (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/1831.shtml). So the modern Civic is actually MORE fuel-efficient than the 1986 Civic.

Sounds to me like you should buy the Honda Insight, a tiny two-seat deathtrap that gets 66mpg. Just don't make me drive one.

[shetline]

Imagine that some hybrid design increases fuel efficiency from 25 mpg to 30 mpg. Further imagine that the vehicle is in use for 100,000 miles.

Lifetime fuel consumption, non-hybrid: 4000 gallons
Lifetime fuel consumption, hybrid: 3333 gallons
Savings: 667 gallons

This is not a great way to save money. Even at $3/gallon, you'd only save $2000 after 100,000 miles, much less than the extra cost of a hybrid vehicle. I'd say it looks like there's still a significant energy savings over the life of the vehicle, however, because (while I can't find hard numbers right now) 667 gallons of gasoline represents quite a bit of energy, and I don't see having to expend anywhere near that much energy manufacturing, disposing and recycling the batteries used in a hybrid vehicle.

It looks like it's fair to say that someone buying a hybrid is doing something to help the environment, not just soothe their guilt, and that helping the environment comes at a price. If we can get the costs of hybrid cars down so that it's a complete energy efficiency and cost efficiency gain, that and higher fuel prices should help to make hybrids much more popular.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Mitlov
Sounds to me like you should buy the Honda Insight, a tiny two-seat deathtrap that gets 66mpg. Just don't make me drive one.
First of all, many heavier vehicles only feel safer, but because of high centers of gravity and roll-over problems, either are more dangerous, or at least not significantly safer for the passengers for all of their increased mass.

The reason I refer to safety for the passengers is that using vehicle mass as a means to increase safety can be merely a way to move risk around -- other vehicles become less dangerous to you, but you become more dangerous to other vehicles. It's a very "looking out for #1" approach to safety.

From these 2002 USDoT statistics (http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/2255/event=view):
In fatal crashes between passenger cars and LTVs (light trucks and vans, a category that includes SUVs), the occupants of the car were more often fatally injured. When a car was struck in the side by an LTV, the fatality was 20.8 times more likely to have been in the passenger car. In a head-on collision between a car and an LTV, the fatality was 3.3 times more likely to be among car occupants.
It's harder to find as much detail for more recent years, but from what I'm seeing vehicle fatalities per mile hit a recent peak around 2002, and have fallen a bit since. 2004 (http://nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.a8131659c3c0a2381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef 9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a _viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=7cdc058224b36010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard), however, did see an increase in fatality for drivers of large trucks and SUVs over 2003. More SUVs now having to deal with collisions with other SUVs, perhaps?

All in all, I see no overall increase in safety brought about by having an inefficiently more massive transportation system -- it's more like people trying to get ahead in a zero-sum game, gaining only temporary individual advantages in a game of escalating vehicle mass.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Mitlov
The 2006 Civic gets 40mpg highway (with an automatic), not 33 as you said. You must be thinking of the Acura RSX, which gets 34mpg with a manual. And for the record, the modern Civic also has other advantages over the 1986 Civic...like not being a complete deathtrap in an accident. Airbags and strong frames add weight, remember. Oh yeah, and don't forget that someone who is taller than, say, 5'2" can comfortably fit in a 2006 Civic.

EDIT: You're wrong on another count. The EPA rated the 1986 Civic as 30mpg city, 35mpg highway. source (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/1831.shtml). So the modern Civic is actually MORE fuel-efficient than the 1986 Civic.

Sounds to me like you should buy the Honda Insight, a tiny two-seat deathtrap that gets 66mpg. Just don't make me drive one.

I went and looked those numbers up directly at fueleconomy.gov, the EPA website. I compared the cars side by side. I have no ideal what you are talking about with the different numbers unless you are talking about a different configuration. I even stated what size engine I looked at.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
I'm just going to call this a specious slippery slope argument until something even remotely like that comes about. Frankly, with gas prices, it's doubtful something like that would survive anyway at this point.

You need to go to a dealer. The number of passengers and the home entertainment option are already available. I think we might have to wait until oh, 2007 on the dealer installed satellite receiver and small fridge though.:lol:

Nick

[BR]

Originally posted by trumptman
You need to go to a dealer. The number of passengers and the home entertainment option are already available.
Oh, so it exists.
I think we might have to wait until oh, 2007 on the dealer installed satellite receiver and small fridge though.:lol:

Nick
Oh, so it doesn't exist.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BR
Oh, so it exists.

Oh, so it doesn't exist.

The entertainment package that includes lcd screens in the back of every headrest for an 8+ passenger Expedition does indeed exist as a factory installed dealer option. I have seen the fridge and roving satellite dish installed as a dealer option, but not as a factory dealer option. That is why I was teasing about it being another year or two until it was a factory option.

Nick

[Mitlov]

Shetline--Never ONCE did I say SUVs were safe. Actually, most are less safe than well-made passenger cars. What I said was that the Insight is unsafe. That's true. I also said that twenty years ago, the Civic was unsafe. That's true too. Compared to a 2006 diesel VW Jetta or a 2006 Civic Hybrid, which both get about 50mpg, the Insight and the 1986 Civics are absolute deathtraps. I stand by that assertion. The Insight has terrible passenger space compared to most compact or midsize passenger cars. I stand by that assertion as well. If you thought I was an SUV fanboy, though, you're dead wrong.

Trumptman--My first post included ballpark numbers. As for my second post, the fuel economy numbers I cited (for the modern Civic and modern RSX) are EPA ratings available at the Honda and Acura webpages. I gave you the link for the EPA testing of the 1986 Civic.

EDIT: I looked up crash test ratings for the Insight, and they're not as bad as I thought they would be. However, the car is still lacks side airbags--a major safety concern in my book.

[midwinter]

Big and Bad (http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html).

[addabox]

Big and Bad

Very enlightening article (although I wish he hadn't equated the surprising success of the SUV with the original iMac on account of, well SUV = lumbering evil, iMac = sweet nectar of the Gods :) ).

The author's discussion of the misplaced emotional cues that drive the SUV market remind me of a book whose name I can't recall (I think the author had a brief appearance in "Bowling for Columbine") about the irrational fear epidemics that sweep the country with some regularity and how those fears starkly contrast with the real dangers that many of us ignore (for instance, child stranger abductions versus childhood obesity-- guess which one is vastly more likely to do harm to your kid?).

In your linked article I was unnerved to learn that the automobile industry makes use of a guy who plumbs the secret workings of the lizard brain to find out how to speak to the pre-cognitive reaction machine in us all; sometimes I wonder if living in a culture steeped in messages targeted at our brain stem isn't actually creating a feedback loop wherein we crave more and more sub-linguistic, fight or flight stimulation at the expense of our capacity to reason.

Maybe the terrorists should target the advertising industry.....

[midwinter]

It's all about the cupholders.

[addabox]

And soft round things.

[BR]

Originally posted by addabox
And soft round things.
Mmm boobs should be a standard option. Give your hand something to do in traffic jams.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BR
Mmm boobs should be a standard option. Give your hand something to do in traffic jams.

What do you think those airbags are for?

[sammi jo]

According to Jack Herer, longtime hemp activist:

“Farming only six percent of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass [from hemp] crops would provide all of American’s gas and oil energy needs, ending dependence upon fossil fuels.” He added, “Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol. Fuels from hemp, along with the recycling of paper, etc., would be enough to run America virtually without oil.”

Herer explained the versatility of hemp by saying, “It can be grown in virtually any climate or soil condition on Earth, even marginal ones.”

Some facts on Industrial hemp here: (http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/FAQ/industrial_hemp_facts.html)

The mass cultivation of this renewable energy source could make significant inroads into America's dependency on foreign oil, providing clean fuel for cars etc. There are perceptual problems unfortunately, mostly rooted in ignorance and vested interest.... For examples: many politicians are still under the bogus impression, fed by years of idiotic propaganda and lies that industrial hemp = marijuana. Hemp cultivation is illegal (or restricted) in the US, and to legitimize the cultivation of hemp is still! seen by the more weakminded and/or ill-informed lawmakers in D.C. as "going soft on drugs".

There are 10s of thousands of industrial products than can be manufactured from hemp, many of which are currently derived from fossil fuels. It is one of the hardiest crops on the planet and will grow in places, climates and soil types far too hostile for most other crops. Also, it is one of the most environmentally friendly crops to raise... as it's disease resistant and doesn't require the use of toxic herbicides/fungicides. But that presents yet another problem as regards the powerful chemical industry lobby.

Unfortunately, people do not venture to even comment on this potential money spinner, perhaps because of its associations with another variety of c. sativa ... the source of the psychoactive drug of choice used by those horrible hippy types who hate America so much.

[jamac]

I can drive my hybrid by myself in the carpool lane. This saves me about 2 hours per week or 104 hours per year of my life. This also means I spend less time on the Freeway which leaves more space for other people and maybe everybody gains a few minutes. Yes also opponents and ridiculers including Hummer drivers will save time and money.

BTW Toyota says the batteries last for the life of the car and can be recycled.

I do not feel guilty about the environment, too late for that. Also guilt is is reserved for religious people.

My other car is a 1998 Porsche Carrera. I'll convert it to bio diesel soon :) until then eat my dust. The Prius has better pickup than the Porsche. Of course when you hit 3000 rpms the Porsche is just a tiny bit stronger.