it's not happening, we need another 5-year study

[AlpineK]

Greg the cost of using biodiesel just isn't that much. I run a business, I use it, and I make money.

 

Edited December 17, 2002 by AlpineK

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Have faith Iain, they willl learn..... look how many people just automaticly recycle now

 

Hate to rain on your recycling parade (one in which DFA is a happy participant, it should be noted), Muffy, but we in the Pacific NW have sort of a skewed view of things like recycling. The Doctor used to think that way, but a trip to Omaha last year (styrofoam cups, everything in the trash) showed an entirely different set of attitudes towards politics, the environment, and culture. Keep up the good work and the good attitude, but make no mistake, much of the rest of this fine nation is still, as they say, fucked.

[iain]

It is clear automakers don't give a rat's ass about fuel efficiency and smog reduction unless they are prodded with laws. It is also clear the people are driving over-powered cars for commuting if a V-8 is somehow justified in a light truck that sees no hauling or towing duty. Don't give me the "how do you know" stuff either, I know plenty of people like this. You DON'T need a Land Rover Discovery V-8 full-time 4wd in suburban Portland. People still buy these even though Prius, etc is available, and they do not go offroad or anything even close.

[Greg_W]

AlpineK - I understand, but you can write it off as a business expense (covered by your overhead markup). What about individuals? What is the cost comparison with regular diesel?

[Greg_W]

Yeah, Iain, but shouldn't that be their choice? What is your alternative? Should people only be allowed to purchase certain types of vehicles based on some perceived "need"? I don't "need" a pickup all the time, but it is handy when I do and I feel safer driving it than some little car. I understand what you are saying, but I wonder what the solution is.

[glen]

A little thing called the Kyoto accord...

 

As I understand it from canadian newscasts, they are implementing it and have actually found that implementing the measures at industrial facilities actually results in an increase in efficiency? Updating makes fiscal sense too.

 

China, a major pollter due to the use of dirty coal, has made environmnetalism a major push of it's new administration and has started hiring many western scientists to just "make it happen."

 

There are many reasons to implement reductions in pollution, most of which aren't based on "hippie idealism," although some are not easily placed into the current models of economic viability (ie, might need to think on a longer than quarterly timescale), such as quality of life. As to the perception that the west has to do the "majority" of the work, well that just isn't true. Right now, the US is lagging behind many of the other industrialized nations.

 

As to global warming... Nobody in their right mind would say that global warming hasn't been occurring for the last 10,000 years, long before industrialization and significant proudciton of CO2 by humans. Just look at the glacial record across north america to figure that one out. The debate is about how much we have been affecting the RATE of global warming. This is an issue because of the couple decrease in ability of ecosystems to adapt to increased rates of change and direct impact due to urban and agricultural growth (example: slash and burn the rainforests). That there is an impact from humans isn't even debated anymore, other than a few hangers on, and hasn't been for a while now.

 

Solar variability (ie, milakovich effects) are not a significant effect over short time scales, but are included in some longer time scale models. Solar wind does have an impact, but the effects tend to be of short duration as the increases in solar wind are transient in nature. Models of stochastic events (ie, asteroid impacts, massive freshwater floods into the ocean, and volcanic eruption) are generally modelled on a case-by-case basis as evidence for the particular event are independently constrained in the geologic record.

 

Maybe more of the concepts for this type of stuff should be taught at the k12 level so that citizen joe/jane could make a more informed choice, in whichever direction they choose, when they go to the ballot box. My impression is that most people couldn't even tell you a good description of what globabl warming actually is. The coverage by most major media is biased to tidbits and disjointed factoids, that without context, probably seem contradictory even if they tell complimentary parts of the same story.

[Jim]

Now Greg - you're crying about gettin' govmnt off our backs, yet you're getting quite the handout if you're writing off business expenses. There's one fat subsidy. Able to write off expenses such as luch, travel, etc? Why not just let the market decide who's most efficient and lob off all these write-offs?

[allthumbs]

Hey Greg, your boss just called me and wanted me to tell you to get to work. He called you a sandbaggin' lacky.

[j_b]

We cannot just enact policy with the attitude that "individual freedoms be damned" no matter what the cause.

 

Funny, I did not hear you cry about our governement profiling its citizen. Yet I heard you say that Sean Penn was "fraternizing with the enemy" as if his going to Bagdad should have consequences.

 

Until these hybrid engines are perfected and made large enough to replace the V-8 engines currently offered in today's light trucks, they will remain small potatoes.

 

almost nobody 'needs' a v8.

 

It is the job of the automakers to present an attractive product, not the government.

 

well, our governement new fuel efficiency rules are below what the manufacturers intend(ed) to implement. How do you explain that one?

[iain]

I don't want to see a totalitarian system where someone dictates what you can buy, but when such ridiculous decisions are being made that clearly jeopardize our collective well-being, what are you going to do? I, for one, don't believe these people will ever say "well for the good of the community, I won't drive my troop transport today." I consider that selfish. You seem to consider that a god-given right. Maybe it is, but I can't fly an F-14 to work everyday either.

 

I believe you are living proof of the need for regulation, as you clearly do not prescribe to the "good of the many" argument, which is exactly what is needed to initially drive improvements in personal transportation. Could you imagine how nice life would be without traffic jams? If everyone chips in, it could happen. Now you would call that last statement naive. Why? Because that will never happen. Why? Because people most often do not make decisions based on the "good of the many". So where do we go from there?

[AlpineK]

Greg,

 

Your fuel bill would increase by about 60%. I know that isn't a trivial increase, but knowing you are buying an American product and drasticly reducing your contibution to smog is worth it. At least I think so.

 

This is an area where the big bad government could help by reducing the tax burden of the biodiesel user and increasing the tax burden of the non user.

 

I also should add that I never realized how unpleasent breathing diesel fumes from my chipper was until I switched. I believe there are a number of studies that indicate that diesel exhaust is carcinogenic.

[Jim]

It's me, me, me, me first. I think the quote I saw was "We are becoming an increasingly cruel, greedy, and selfish society."

[iain]

diesel exhaust is now considered much worse for our atmosphere than gasoline due to the heavy particulate matter produced. I'd also like to add that I did not mean to totally restrict auto purchases, but perhaps some serious financial incentives to think about a better commuter choice.

[Greg_W]

almost nobody 'needs' a v8.

 

Who are you to define what my needs are? Even Iain sees government intervention in this arena as a bad thing.

 

well, our governement new fuel efficiency rules are below what the manufacturers intend(ed) to implement. How do you explain that one?

Don't really understand you here. If the manufacturers (i.e., the market) planned to implement higher fuel-efficiency standards than the government required, wouldn't that mean they ARE regulating themselves for the "better"?

 

Funny, I did not hear you cry about our governement profiling its citizen.

I believe in profiling, it only makes sense. However, I do not believe in throwing away personal freedoms in the name of creating a "safe society". I think you are confusing profiling and unlawful seizure or incarceration.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

However, I do not believe in throwing away personal freedoms in the name of creating a "safe society". I think you are confusing profiling and unlawful seizure or incarceration.

 

Is this a vote against the Dept. of Homeland Security from Greg W?!

[Greg_W]

Depends on what they come out with. Haven't made up my mind yet; need more study.

 

One thing I have done, personally, for National Security is recommend that Dr. Flash Amazing be remanded to a Mexican jail for the duration of the War on Terror. Wrote Mr. Rumsfeld this morning.

[glen]

starting to sound vaguely like mc carthyism...

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

As long as they're serving asada tacos and Negra Modelo and there's a guitar to play, that'll work. See if you can get the Doctor into someplace coastal while you're at it.

 

[Greg_W]

You think McCarthy viewed sportclimbing as un-American, too?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

McCarthy was a 5.4 trad climber with striped tube socks and homemade tube chocks. Total gaper ...

[MtnGoat]

"how about a majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH RELEVANT PHDs??? "

 

Is this what you are claiming is the case?

 

And in what way does this address a majority belief, vs reality?

[MtnGoat]

"I mean, what do we have to lose by cleaning up our act?"

 

We lose the right for the owners of the cash used to "clean up our act" to determine where else the resources would have been used instead, and we also lose the use of those same resources on other issues that may well have represented a better cost/benefit tradeoff.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"Let's see first Mtn Goat said the majority of scientists despute global warming; then he said it doesn't matter what the majority of scientists think. Hmmm I'm not following the logic."

 

The first point is a political one, the "fact" that a majority of scientists (or even climatologists) agree is a popular idea but one I believe is mistated.

 

The second is a view of a "majority" view vs what actually happens in nature, to point out reality is not bound to a show of hands, from *either* proponents or skeptics.

 

No matter what any "majority" believes about natural processes they happen as they happen, period. That a majority believes warming is occurring, or another that it is not, doesn't make a darned bit of difference.

 

What's happening is happening and what relates to that is actual, physical, concrete *proof*, not a show of hands, and certainly not models which cannot possibly recreate an entire planet nor the millions of variables active on it.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"Doesn't everybody who has even casually commented on the state of our industrial infrastructure agree that high energy-use industries like aluminum and steel are in drastic need up updating in the United States?"

 

Then what you do is you remove subidies on *all* energy sources, and production, let use and price float to resolve supply and demand, and the industries will streamline themselves as costs demand. The experts on what infrastructure "needs" are those in the industry, and how they intend to make their products at a profit. Remove subisidies on on oil *and* solar *and* nuclear *and* mining and allow the market to balance itself.

 

 

[j_b]

Who are you to define what my needs are?

 

I am not defining anything, society is. If your vehicle is bad for our environment (not yours) and you don't have a specific need for such vehicle that offsets the societal cost of your owning it, you don't need it. As simple as that.

 

If the manufacturers (i.e., the market) planned to implement higher fuel-efficiency standards than the government required, wouldn't that mean they ARE regulating themselves for the "better"?

 

wrong assumptions they are not regulating themselves for the better. CO2 emissions are increasing every year, as we know, we should thus spew as little as possible, not spew as much as is allowable to maximize profit.

 

I believe in profiling, it only makes sense. However, I do not believe in throwing away personal freedoms in the name of creating a "safe society". I think you are confusing profiling and unlawful seizure or incarceration.

 

Oh I see, personal freedom is only relevant as it relates to property or going to jail. You do need that dictionary we were talking about.