Going "green" has gone ridiculous

[CZroe]

There's one at a drug store here in San Diego (more specifically, the intersection of Camino Ruiz and Mira Mesa, behind the Carl's Jr). I took pictures and laughed at it too. I get better fuel economy than any mainstream hybrid I know of but the original Insight, and yet I can't park there?! I parked in the "Golf Cart Only" spaces in Peachtree City, GA for the same reason ao, if I had to, I'd park there too.

I remember momentarily dropping a friend off at a grocery store to use the ATM and STOPPING, not PARKING, in the expectant mothers' space with the engine running and another one still available directly across from me. An employee came out and asked me when it "was due." I snapped back that my friend was going inside to retrieve my pregnant wife and then told him that it is a discriminatory and not legally enforcable, private property or not.

There was an Engadget article over the weekend about an A/C with improved efficiency that also supposedly didn't used any CFC/HCFCs. They said that it was green because those were the leading "cause" of "Global Warming." FWIW, the SUN is the leading cause, WATER VAPOR is the most influential greenhouse gas, and the concern over CFCs and HCFCs are over their effect on the OZONE LAYER, which has nothing to do with "Global Warming."

Even if it were CO2, the implication is that it is the leading cause of ANTHROPOGENIC (mad-made) Global Warming. Even then, the vast majority of the wavelengths it absorbs are absorbed by other greenhouse gasses and atmospheric absorption has no change with additional CO2. The atmosphere is complex, so artificial CO2 emissions may be affecting it regardless. If science eventually proves that we are a little warmer due to CO2, water vapor and solar activity are still the primary "cause" of observed global warming... and that part is not even debatable.

[cifex]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Even if it were CO2, the implication is that it is the leading cause of ANTHROPOGENIC (mad-made) Global Warming. Even then, the vast majority of the wavelengths it absorbs are absorbed by other greenhouse gasses and atmospheric absorption has no change with additional CO2. The atmosphere is complex, so artificial CO2 emissions may be affecting it regardless. If science eventually proves that we are a little warmer due to CO2, water vapor and solar activity are still the primary "cause" of observed global warming... and that part is not even debatable.

You are absolutely correct that water vapor along with the sun are by far the largest factor in global warming. You may be overlooking the fact that increased CO2 increases global temperature and thus adds to more water vapor in the atmosphere....

Vapor pressure of water vs ambient temperature




PS....those roach (termite?) commercials are hilarious!

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by cifex

You are absolutely correct that water vapor along with the sun are by far the largest factor in global warming. You may be overlooking the fact that increased CO2 increases global temperature and thus adds to more water vapor in the atmosphere....

Vapor pressure of water vs ambient temperature




PS....those roach (termite?) commercials are hilarious!

Not exactly. If that were true, the water vapor alone would cause it's own run-away greenhouse effect. Like I said, it's complicated. If CO2 drove climate then we never would have escaped the correlation shown in the ice core samples and the hockey-stick graph.

The oceans store more CO2 when cool. It takes hundreds of years for them to warm. The CO2 graph is about 600 years behind the temperature graph, which shows that the temperature controled the release of carbon from the oceans and not the other way around. It doesn't mean that the CO2 released few hundreds years later didn't contribute to the higher temperature a few more hundred years later, but it clearly reversed for us to get where we are today and, thus, did not drive/control climate.

Like I said: It's complicated.

H2O and CO2 aren't the only greenhouse gasses. Many absorb light in the same wavelength as others so the lack of one gas would be partially picked up by the absorptive abilities of others. In the case of CO2, the entire wavelength is absorbed by other much more prevalent gasses.

It's like covering your windows with five vertical boards and gaps between (unabsorbed energy). Water may use board 1, 3, and 5. Other GH gasses may occupy 2 and 4 as well as add a more boards behind 1 and 5 (does nothing due to the presence of water). CO2 comes in and adds boards behind 2 and 5. Because 2 & 5 were already covered, they don't do anything unless you get rid of one of the other gasses. That's a large part of why the atmosphere is so unresponsive to CO2's known GH gas properties.

[Hadyn]

No laws governing 'hybrid only' spots?
Time to go troll some environmentalists!

As far as the Prius, they're slow and boring and thus I do not like them.

[2WheelGuy]

The fact is that if we all drive Hybrids, change to florescent bulbs and, use our recycling bins and all the other green stuff we are still doomed!



When I was born there were about 3 billion people on this planet. Now there are well over 6 billion people, more than double the population. When I am an old man there will be 9 billion people on this planet, triple the people that were here when I was born. This growth is unsustainable.

Under current conditions in the United States each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent (1). If a good green soccer mom uses a Prius, with an average of 3.4 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year (2), rather than say a Ford Escape FWD with 7.7 metric tons of emissions(2) it would only take 2195 years of Prius driving to offset the emissions created by having that one child.



There will soon be more cars in India and China than the US. (3) They won't be Prius' or for the most part even have the most basic emission controls. Just because we are going green here doesn't mean they are going green over there.

Going green may feel good. It gives politicians easy answers for a much bigger problem. No one wants to talk about population growth. Heaven forbid that someone even mention that people should stop having children.

I am not having children. The reason is not to help save the world. The reason is that I don't think there will be a world for them to grow up in. That really makes me sad.

(1) http://www.livescience.com/environme...footprint.html

(2) http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=629

(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364195.stm

[almost40]

The whole global warming argument is a complete waste of time. For those that believe, its almost like a religon. Try telling everyone in church that there is no God. You will NEVER convince them.

Some of us see global warming or "going green" as nothing but a tool. A tool to control your liberty and property.

Seriously if there are 6.5 billion people on the planet and if you managed to get all 300 million plus americans to give up there liberty (freedom to choose) and property (money and things bought with it) to save the planet. What do you have??? 6 billion people who still dont give a damn and ALL want there liberty and property which some of us no longer appreciate.

Crunch the numbers and think about it. CO2 represents 3 seats in a 10,000 seat stadium. Now to regulate those 3 seats you must give up your liberty (and buy only those stupid curly light bulbs , new cafe fuel standards for cars and trucks. toilets that you have to flush twice etc etc) and your property (pay more for electricity, fuel , heating oil, food, etc etc) and all for what?? so China can spew all the "bad stuff" in the air and the westerly winds can carry it right on over to the USA. China will NEVER follow any rules for "going green" They know its an economy killer. They have over a billion people to keep under control. Most of whom are just getting a taste of property and the liberty that comes from having money to buy things. They (the people in china who have just now tasted liberty and those who seek to keep them under control) will NEVER repeat NEVER go along with any rules that will hinder growth in China. It would be a death nail in the leaders coffin.

Be a sheep if you want. I for one, will not be led to the slaughter.
VOTE come November, its our only hope.

[foxpaws]

I feel like you are underestimating India and China, who don't have a thoroughly ingrained industrial infrastructure to support the sort of potentially-planet-destroying (and actually, *AHEM* indefinitely ocean-, marsh-, and beach-befouling) consumption that we have. A completely decentralized model, including things like locally produced...well, f-ing everything....really is the best way for them to expand luxuries to their populace - give every damn village, homestead and outhouse the KNOWLEDGE to add themselves to the industrial revolution. Running a big truck or a train may still require fossil fuels or a third rail, but running a house? A full commercial grid isn't required...isn't even an option in many places around the globe. By demanding efficiency - in China, this sometimes appears to be a cultural imperative - and conservancy, in tandem, a little can go a long way. I just don't see that the 2 billion people you speak of are going to refuse to get what they wish in a way that ensures their progeny will also thrive. Not in two of the most ancestors-and-progeny focused cultures of the world. And as far as saving everything by voting in November...how about standing up and saying what you really feel to whoever has been chosen by majority to represent you, regardless of whether you like them or not? How about organizing a rally, or a protest? Your vote isn't the only place where you can voice your opinion. And, just maybe, *shouldn't* be. I'm still pondering that, though, what do you think?

[Seattle_Chris]

Man, the thing I hate about the "Greeners" is that they make being concerned about the environment seem screwball. Just like Jim and Tammy Fae Baker made all TV preachers look screwball.

I'm ALL for helping the environment. Cutting down on Carbon Monoxide, stopping deforestation of old growth forests, and the paving over of the entire globe. I would LOVE to be "Green" but it's been so bastardized by Gore and friends (who chairs and partly owns a multi-billion dollar carbon trading company. Pretty convenient yeah?)

Google for speeches by Christopher Monckton about global warming. He actually uses Numbers, Graphs, and Science to debunk man-made, CO2 based global warming instead of pictures of drowning polar bears (Yeah, I guess they don't know how to swim after all. Who knew?)

The whole "Green" movement is SUCH a scam. It's unbelievable.

With that said, I'd like to bring up some thinking/conversation points about "global warming". Things that "Greeners" SHOULD be doing, but aren't. Am I trolling? Hmm, maybe a little. But it's good to talk about things that people disagree on.

Boats have NO emission standards. They get HORRIBLE 'mileage'. Instead of running on proper diesel fuels they typically run a sluge like fuel and pollute more in one month than a family ever could in their lifetimes. So when shopping for things such as cars, look into not only the cost of the final product, and the green'nes of the parts, but the transport of the parts. Do some research into maritime pollution and I think you'll be shocked. How about we pass some emission laws on cargo vessels, cruise ships, and ferries? It would make Chinese goods cost a LOT more. Wal-Mart would go out of business, and we would be forced to make our OWN goods. Providing employment. America does after all have a LOT of resources if we stopped shipping them all out.


Theirs a LOT of cars and other things with gas/diesel engines. Each one running roughly 1hr a day every day of the year (30 minute commute, errands, and longer trips, I think 365 hours a year is fair if not generous) Each of this is putting out exhaust at well over 100 degrees. That can't help global warming. How about working on more NEW power sources for our cars besides internal combustion?


As humans spread so does over paving. Ever step from a paved surface to a grassy one in bare feet at the hight of summer? Same thing. Only bigger. It only makes sense that all of our building would cause more retained heat. Without having ANYTHING to do with CO2. Pavement is hot, rooftops are hot, car bodies are hot, everything we make gets HOT in the sun. Plants and vegetation don't. They convert the energy for their own uses. How come "Greeners" don't push for planting roof top gardens and planting tree's who's branches will shade paved roads?


Theirs tons of new tech for Solar panels. But they're not getting to market, because theirs not much market for solar panels. Theirs not much market, because they are SOooo expensive. They are SOooo expensive because not many units are sold, and to make a profit the price has to be high. If you're into Government waste, why not have the government waste some of that money buying solar panels in BULK so that they're CHEAP, then re-selling them at cost to the public. That action would drive DOWN the price of solar panels, creating a viable market for new solar tech to be introduced into. It would lead to competition in solar power which would in turn lead to innovation and lower prices still. Not to mention, it would employ more people assuming we made them here in the states.


Energy Patents. We've all heard that this is an energy crisis. I kinda agree. And extreme times warrant extreme measures. We've all heard or seen the cases wherein a company will buy a patent or patent rights for a competing technology to simply shelve it to keep their product in the spotlight. I advise a energy patent nullification. This would allow ANY energy patent to be ignored if you are improving upon it, or using it as a basis of your own technology. i.e. you can't steal the "Energizer Bunny" patent to simply make knock off Energizer Bunnies, but you CAN use the Energizer Bunnie patents to make Mecha-Godzila-Bunnies that would be a GREAT improvement. Kind of like seizing private property to make a new highway. I'm pretty sure that if we opened up ALL the energy patents, that we'd improve the speed at which we come up with new power solutions.


Hmm, yeah. I think that's enough Kerosene tossed in. I'm gonna step back and enjoy the fire now.

[almost40]

Earth to foxpaws China alone is set to surpass the US in total exports in less than 5 years. Been to a Walmart lately?? Find me 10 items inside not made in China. Add India into the mix and those 2 countries well surpass the USA in exports. Its not the "people" that are the problem its the leaders who have to maintain control over an ever growing liberty loving population.

[headshrink]

More "green" thoughts here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/123218/sto...009#s-p5-so-i0

I personally resent the "green" movement hijacking the color green. This was not long after I designed my webpage, business cards, etc...... all in GREEN. Green is my color, go get your own!

[almost40]

I hate to revive a dead topic but poof heres and interesting article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/937fdd2c-9...44feab49a.html
Still think the chi-coms will go green??

[hubcapbandit]

Sort of off topic (sort of on too), I saw a guy smoking in a "Smart" car last week. I was confused.
Posted via Mobile Device

[foxpaws]

that link wants me to register to read the article, and i refuse.
but let me put it this way: i don't think it's a given that they will or won't choose non-polluting fuels for their infrastructure and people/freight movers.

i feel like i need to come with a warning label atm...still hopped up on painkillers a lot of the time from crashing my beast. sorry. i'll try to be more cogent at a later point if you wish.

[almost40]

Well the article basicly states that China will/has become the worlds largest energy consumer. Now given the fact that over half of the Chi-coms still live in poverty and emit basicly 0 emmissions what do you think will happen?? Will those 500 million + people be happy to sit in the woods in a hut with no electricity, water or sewer. Eating rice and tree bark and eeking out an exsistance???? Will they keep riding the one bike with no tires that the village has, or the ox they use to plow the rice field??
As the world consumes cheap Chi-com goods and manufacturing grows at a 10+% a year in China those 500 million + people will be put to work, slowly but surely. They will buy homes and cars and have electricity etc etc. Do you really think that they, or the Chinese goverment gives a DAMN about emmissions?? WAKE UP. They lived in a hut without electricity, running water or sewer for most of there lives. They WANT energy consuming greenhouse gas spewing stuff. Do you really believe that they care how, why or what effect it has on the enviroment?? They were in the dark and riding an ox last year.
The goverment of China MUST mass produce the things that the people of China want. In LARGE LARGE quantities.(homes, electricity, cars etc etc) They MUST also continue to mass produce goods for the rest of the world at dirt cheap prices just to keep lifting the people out of poverty. If they dont, the leaders of China will have a revolt on there hands. The people of China have tasted liberty and proprety and its a great meal. THEY WANT IT.
None of the above is favorable to the enviro-statist polices that some of us have been convinced is going to kill us all. The Chi-coms MUST maintain control over the population or they are screwed. What better way to control than to give them jobs, homes, lights, cars refrigerators etc etc.
Thats just China. Do you think India is any different?? How about the countless other Third world countries That are looking to better the population?

[revstriker]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to post my comments:

I do think that "going green" is a marketing scheme and if there is not $$ in it for companies, they would not do it at the same levels.

As for the handicap parking, and I mean no disrespect to those who are disabled, as long as they are meeting the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disability Act, and any other local laws, then they are fine. AFAIK, according to the ADA, there is a requirement for an accessible route into the building, but not necessarily a requirement that those spaces be the most convenient or the closest to the building.

As for the company designating "good spaces" for hybrid vehicles, if it works for the company, then I am all for it. Of course, if I was driving a non-hybrid vehicle and had to park even further away, I may choose to patronize a different business.

I'll end by asking if those who are against it would feel the same way if the green story designated some close spots for fuel efficient motorcycles instead.