Why The World Is Ending As We Know It

[PLAYER57832]

Yes we are going to have to do without a lot of things; the old Hummer, the huge SUV; most people won't need them and those people who do won't have to use them for every day driving. The new people's car is already here, the SMART car gets 30-40 mpg and costs $11,000 which makes it down right affordable in more ways than one.

Try to buy one of those lately? They are not really available.

Also, 30 -40 is chicken change to what we should be getting.

That depends on the technology. 30-40 is a reasonable range before technology is applied. Technology costs money.

Any system that relies on electricity for partial or full power is going to need good battery technology. The best battery the NiMH battery has been locked awy under Chevron Texaco pattent until 2010 and can only be used for Toyota hybrids. They in turn have only recently built a plant in the US, expected output inso't until 2009. Other companies have delays because of supply of traditional battery arrays.

As for the supply demand of SMART cars, they did a recent article in my regional newspaper. Currently demand is relatively low and thus the supply is not critically short. I think they were talking about a few hundred sold in Long Island, which has a hige population.

You can also go to "old" technology. Old Geo Metros are selling for big bucks. (I wish I hadn't traded in my Geo Metro for my Prius but that's another story.)

The important thing to remember is we don't have to go cold turkey. If we dropped our consumption in half that in and of itself would be massively significant.

It would help, but at this point, is not enough to stop global warming OR to head off gas shortage issues.

We may have to agree to disagree on the Global Warming issue. As fog gas "shortage" this isn't the 1970's. There is no gas shortage and there will not be one for the forseeable future. The problem is the gas price issue, not the shortage issue. As for the price issue, at least in the United States we had beenliving on borrowed time for so long that even this crisis is only a natural correctionfor having an era of cheep gas where the price increses were always way below inflation.

We live, we adjust. At least we are now talkin about raising the price to change our coffee habits.

No, sorry, but you are just plain wrong ... but If you won't listen to the leading scientists ON EARTH, you will hardly listen to me. The information is out there if you wished to pursue it, but you would obviously much rather believe in your comfortable existance.

One thing I will say ... no, this is not the 1970's. In the 70's we still had the artic refuge and some more mideastern reserves yet to find. Now experts (those without a creationist bias, anyway) agree that chances of finding any more oil are almost zero.

I maintain a very traditionalist viewpoint with regards to wood. Anything made from wood should last as long (or longer) as the age of the tree used to make the product, so when it needs replacement the replacement tree is old enough to be used. The problem with environmental regulations in this regard is that in order to "reforest" cut areas with the prefered fast growing pines, they have to get rid of the slower growing trees because those trees grow faster as saplings than the pine trees.

I agree, to a point on what you say about wood, but you have a lot of information incorrect or dead backwards. That is, there probably are a few plantations here and there that do this, but it is not wide-spread forestry either in the west, the east OR the south.

Sorry about that, I should have qualified my statement. "Traditional" as in traditional barn builders, not as in typical woodcutters. They only had to cut down a few trees every time they needed a new barn. We've never had good forest management. In the 18th century we deforrested whole areas of New York because the iron ore smelters needed wood for fuel.

[/quote]
Again, you seriously underestimate the issue and the complexities involved. Most of the East was already deforested long before the 1800's and it was not just for iron smelters, it was also for the tannery trade, for many other uses -- even just to "make" farmland.

The whole idea of regrowing trees was considered laughable clear into the early 1900's.

Among other issues, the scale of barn builders would never meet the timber needs of our nation. Taking trees is really not a bad thing when you consider the alternative ... using more oil and such. The problem is that they have to be harvested sustainably and with respect to the streams, other features (caves, for example) contained within. And, also right now, we expet too much from what few national forests we have. They are supposed to supply timber and recreation and promote species diversity. Throw in small businesses (such as wildcrafting) and hunting (part recreation, but also plain survival in many rural areas... with little exaggeration)... and you have a real mess!

There is an old saying "try to catch too many rabbits and you don't catch one."

Tzor ... I respect your thoughts in areas where you have knowledge, but this is just not one. If you want to actually take the time to really look into these issues (I can give you a few guideposts to get you started, if you like), I can debate this. Right now, I am just correcting basic information (make that misinformation).