Restaurants at least 23, bars 3 in restaurants No stand alone bars Grocery 3 Gas station 5 Hardware store 1 Drug store 3 ER 0 Doc 2 Vets 3 Movie theater 0 Local Playhouse 1 Auto parts/repair 1 of each Park (including golf) 2 (no golf courses) Library 1 (two used book stores) School 2 K-8 no high school. 15 miles to closest high school Churches at least 11 Tatoo parlors and porn shops ZERO! When I get elected to the Alpine planning commission they will NEVER be allowed.
64 points.
None of those places are more than 3.3 miles from my house. No real reason to leave Alpine for anything. We have more fun than a person deserves to have.
In my town the planning board makes it so difficult to meet all the regulations that the only ones who have the resources are the McD's and the Wal-Marts. If it gets too tough they turn an army of lawyers loose and usually win.
Mom and Pop can't afford the battle so local businesses are disappearing faster than the Snail Darter behind a Tennessee dam.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Land is a premium and most of the stores are older and spread along the two main streets. With about 15k people and a real desire to stop any kind of building other than a new library we are somewhat stagnated. A very family oriented community with many activities that are well attended. Other than a couple subdivisions right in town we are all one acre minimum sized properties. Very few apartments and probably less than 100 units of condos. Walmart tried getting land several years ago and no one would sell. Hopefully we are not the victims of eminent domain. Nothing we need. When one Mexican restaurant goes out of business another moves into the shop. Giving us a wonderful variety of the best food you can eat for your health.
Here is how it looks and how I would like it to stay. McDonald's and Walmart do not fit the motif. That and the best climate in the USA makes for a very nice place to live.
A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.
Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.
But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.
The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.
Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997.
Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.
Might this be the (REAL) reason for the absolute overemphasis on C02 from transportation; to take our attention away from the emissions of NF3'a @ 17,000 times greater polution levels ??? As you know from other threads people are in deep denial that 20-40% D2 advantage actually burns less natural resources!!?? So where are the the ace regulatory agencies, anti pollution folks EPA when they certify those manufacturers that push NF3's into the environment? -starring at their TV SCREENS!!?? You know the ones they buy AT DEEP discounts from (that schmucks like you and me cant get) , due to being government agencies and all and also pay NO taxes? Name me a government desk jockey that has NO SCREEN???? :lemon: If every household had 1 TV that makes a MINIMUN of 90 M sets. Care to take a swag at how many household/government agencies have multiple sets and how many sets we are talking about total?
I think it is a riot. What are the mainstream GW media types going to say? Don't buy a TV it will flood NYC. I wonder if AL GORE has any flat screen LCDs. Of course the pollution in dumping them is probably even worse. I say stop making them RIGHT NOW. I have my LCD computer monitor. Maybe I will order a spare from Dell before they are outlawed in CA. Now Moonbeam will have to sue all the TV makers as well as the automakers. Should keep him in diet soda till he croaks.
The best of course are the oxymorons. For many years, my family actually lived on one of the "mass transit" corridors in one of the most recognizable end destination west coast cities in the world. Literally the "go to work/downtown" light rail stopped 100 ft line of sight from the dining room table. I got so I could tell the dog to watch for the light rail and signal me when it was within her sight, down the street, as she had a dogs (birds eye perch) eye view onto the street. I would literally walk out of the house to get in line (or usually the 2/3rd in line as the light rail came to a stop. The property also had a 7/8 car garage. :shades:
"A surge of wind last week jumped far beyond levels forecast by operators of Oregon's burgeoning wind-farm industry, sending more power into the regional grid than it could accommodate."
I thought it was all part of a Nation Wide Grid. It seems that CA could use the Power. Maybe not. That does present an interesting question. With all these different providers of energy. Who is forced to lose money when there is more than the demand. Does that mean I put solar on my roof and there is no demand that I do not get credit for the KWH I put back into the system. If all my neighbors have Solar, which many do have it. Who decides which ones get credit when supply surpasses demand.
These Green forms of energy are opening many new challenges. With a string of diesel generators you just bring online what is needed. Same should apply to wind farms. Sounds like no one wants to lose the revenue now that the big bucks are invested.
> How do we know if it is caused by GW or the huge under sea volcanoes that are erupting ?
I haven't found credible report saying that submarine volcanoes were concentrated around the north pole. Should it be the case, why would they become suddenly active those last years and cause the meltdown ?
>he bottom line is there is NOTHING you or I or AL Gore can do to change the course of Nature.
I think it more about changing the course of mankind and to try to prevent it from just destroying its home. Nature is just reacting to our inputs.
>It will open huge areas to oil exploration that were impossible to develop in the past.
Want to drill more ? In short, this could lower the gas price for some time (maybe a decade) some national auto makers could sight in relief and say god, this was just a flare, let us crank up our SUV production line back as in the good old times.
shall we wait for Manhattan to be underwater to start accepting that there is something wrong ?
>This proves my point. These yahoos are trying to make predictions for the future and cannot.
I just see some conservative predictions that just realized much quicker than expected. CO2 levels reached a 800000-year unprecedented level.... why worry? Even if today was worse than yesterday, it is still better than tomorrow .
>He knew how to address the arrogance of the environmentalists In my home countries, politicians who try to plainly describe problem and propose solutions (that generally are not popular) are also considered as cold, arrogant accountants. People here prefer those who make them dream. Reality is so arrogant, let us just dismiss it.
>Wasting another penny on GW studies is STUPID. This is something we agree on. I think it as been documented enough. We should discuss more action plan. Wait, which plan ?
>If Mother Nature gives us lemons we make a lemon meringue pie I think lemons are more doing with the human kind than nature.
I haven't found credible report saying that submarine volcanoes were concentrated around the north pole. Should it be the case, why would they become suddenly active those last years and cause the meltdown ?
This looks credible to me.
Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. Such violent eruptions of splintered, fragmented rock--known as pyroclastic deposits -- were not thought possible at great ocean depths because of the intense weight and pressure of water and because of the composition of seafloor magma and rock.
The article does not suggest that those explosions are numerous or powerful enough to have the Artic Ice reduced by half over 30 years already does it.
I am not sure if there have been many volcanoes eupting those last years in Greenland but it looks like the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting at alarming rates as well.
Granted, volcanoes contribute to CO2 release in the atmosphere in no little amount, but I don't find reports saying that there has been noticeably more volcanic activity in the last 20 - 10 or 5 years as to justify the steep CO2 increase.
Are you really convinced that current atmospheric CO2 levels are nature-made and that carbon-based fuel burning has little to do with this ?
Are you really convinced that current atmospheric CO2 levels are nature-made and that carbon-based fuel burning has little to do with this ?
I am sure man has contributed to the CO2. I am not convinced that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than any time in the history of the planet. I am not convinced it has that much to do with climate change. We know that Greenland was used for raising cattle a 1000 years ago. Then the climate changed and made it impossible. That is a fact that cannot be attributed to man made GHG. If Manhattan goes under water how is that any different than New Orleans or Cedar Rapids Iowa? Spending $45 trillion to change the course of nature is totally ludicrous. There is no guarantees in life. I would be a slight bit more convinced that the whole thing was not a big Charade if a few of the ones lined up to make money were moving into small apartments and limiting their carbon footprint. So far the only one that has done much on a National level is George W Bush. And he don't really believe all the baloney. He does have his house up high enough that he won't be impacted by rising ocean levels. I did the same thing and even replaced the 56 incandescent lights with CFLs, (Made in China).
From your posting: An international team of scientists, led by Dr Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, has demonstrated that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years.
So 50 years ago the ice melted at about the same rate. Was the level of GHG as high then as Now? IF we have as humans progressively contributed more GHG each year, would it not seem logical that the ice would be progressively melting at a higher rate? If GHG causes warming what caused the cooling for the last 50 years?
>has demonstrated that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years So 50 years ago the ice melted at about the same rate.
Mmm, it rather seems that 50 years is a time frame chosen by the study and that they consider for sure this was the highest ice melting level during this period.
The ice sheet is dating back from the previous ice age. There is no indication that, apart from some coastal areas, it was much smaller 1000 years ago.
>IF we have as humans progressively contributed more GHG each year, would it not seem logical that the ice would be progressively melting at a higher rate?
This is exactly what is happening
>If GHG causes warming what caused the cooling for the last 50 years? One term is climate change, as although increase of GHG increase heat absorbtion by earth, this heat is not regulary spread over earth. For instance, if the greenland ice massively melt, this would discharge volumes of water significant enough to disrupt the gulf stream. In turn, this could dramatically change climate in Europe from a tempered one to continental. This is only an hypothesis, this can't happen can it ?
> I am not convinced that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than any time in the history of the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas This is a shortcut but I saw other studies mentioning that near 400 ppm CO2 levels are unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years atmosphere history.
> We know that Greenland was used for raising cattle a 1000 years ago. Then the climate changed and made it impossible. That is a fact that cannot be attributed to man made GHG
Unless done on some very localized coastal areas in very small scale, I don't see it possible on an Ice cap dating from much earlier.
> Spending $45 trillion to change the course of nature is totally ludicrous. It is definitely.
> if a few of the ones lined up to make money were moving into small apartments and limiting their carbon footprint.
The difficult part is to live as independantly as possible from oil. Our current systems relied on cheap oil and this made research in alternative energies less of a priority. Actually, we could say the medium-poor working class which is more likely to have the larger footprint relatively speaking. They may have old gas guzzling cars, outdated oil burning heating facilities and living in cheaper less insulated homes further away from town, hence needing more gas to do anything.
Cheap oil/gas really created some unsustainable development models which clearly show their limit now.
Cheap oil/gas really created some unsustainable development models which clearly show their limit now.
I'm not convinced that it is unsustainable. For an example we touched on in another thread. When and If battery technology makes EVs competitive with fossil fuel vehicles, we could see a huge expansion in our road needs. The Northwest is already seeing larger than needed energy spurts from wind farms when the winds are high. If we add to the grid a decent number of nuclear facilities as they have in Japan and France we could cut our dependence on fossil fuel. These kind of expenditures seem reasonable for the private sector to pursue. What I am seeing are government regulations and so called green organizations adding to the cost with frivolous studies. If we are worried about flooding downtown NYC, building a solar farm that impacts the 3 toed lizard seems a no brainer. Or a wind farm that may be seen by Robert & Teddy Kennedy while sailing. An argument can be made that the legislation by Teddy Kennedy that blocked the wind farm off Nantucket Sound will be the direct cause of the seas rising and swallowing Manhattan.
Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants: German scientists Jul 8 08:40 AM US/Eastern
The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.
Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.
"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.
It is doing wonders for my plums and peaches. Drive those SUVs folks so we can eat more fruits and veggies.... Going out to pick another batch to make more Plum Brandy. Already have enough plum jam to last a couple years. CO2 is good for plants. Maybe it will increase the corn crops for the ethanol boondoggle... :sick:
Well, it is increasingly expensive due to oil price and increasingly pollutant with all the developing countries aiming at the american way of life. Sustainable means being able to mitigate economic, human and environmental constraints. Oil burning techniques really hit the ceiling and we need to switch to other techniques.
Ethanol or diester /Biodiesel (vegetable oil family) means agriculture and agriculture means 80% of oil burning in the full process. The vicious circle is complete.
Switching to Electricity for transport is self understanding for mass transit but still challenging for individual transport. If billions were to be spent by the federal govt, they should have put a big portion of it in battery development instead of some unproductive foreign venture.
> If we add to the grid a decent number of nuclear facilities as they have in Japan and France we could cut our dependence on fossil fuel
Well it could be debated that Uranium is a fossil / finite resource. Let us say it is a lesser bad. The real solution is the fusion technology which practical use is predicted to be possible not before half a century with current discovery pace.
In 1960, it was estimated that going to the moon would take another 30-50 years and look what was done in less than a decade. If the US really had the will to develop fusion as to go to the moon in the 60s, I trust the next decade would be very promising.
> These kind of expenditures seem reasonable for the private sector to pursue.
Wind and Solar technologies are still expensive (or should I say that oil is still too cheap?) and are very dependant from direct/indirect subsidiaries. Instead of relying 100% on the private sector, the US govt should put the necessary billions in R&D initiatives to improve technology in decreasing price per watt and increasing efficiency.
>An argument can be made that the legislation by Teddy Kennedy that blocked the wind farm off Nantucket Sound will be the direct cause of the seas rising and swallowing Manhattan
This is the NIMBY syndrome than imho has nothing to do with sustainable development. I would not however put all the blame of GW /CC on these anecdotal examples though.
My proposition for measurably cutting gas dependancy and lowering Co2 output in the US from a govt view point :
1) 500 billions USD for high speed trains and mass transit. Key US cities/megalopolis to have 200 mph trains with 500 miles distance covered in less than 3 hours, intermediate stops included. Longer distance (coast to coast) done by overnight/sleeper high speed trains. denser mass transit with high speed subways (surface on less built-up areas) 1,5 mile between stations. Top speed 75 mph Light rail (tramway) with arterial functions complemented by trolleybuses. One stop every 0.5 mile. Top speed 50 mph. GNV buses for more residential /less populated areas. Countrywide single ticketing system allowing with one single card to travel any kind of combined transport. Taxis would even have this terminal. Cargo areas in all trains allowing easy ingress/egress for people with a cart/ bulky items.
2) 200 Billions USD into R&D for developing and building fusion power plants.
3) 100 Billions USD into R&D for developing PV panels with 50% efficiency and 0.5 USD /Watt manufacturing price. this would be the opportunity to develop a US solar industry. I mean a real one.
4) 100 Billions USD into R&D for the ultimate battery able to pack 8 times as much as energy than ion Lithium equivalent for the same weight
5) 50 Billions USD into Electric cars, vans and buses R&D + Charge station
6) 50 billions USD in other initiatives (Home insulation, heating upgrade)
7) 200 billions USD in carbon trap development. Mainly tree planting /reforestation and set-up of an active forest management.
Total 1200 billions USD. This amount is being dwarfed by what taxpayers paid in Mesopotamia. I am confident the payback would be measurably better for american people.
Really another no brainer is to locate a desalinization plant in NYC or region. Again sort of the projected, "if life gives you lemons" (projected gain in H20) ... "make lemonade" (make fresh water) and sell it !!!! I mean who the hell can be against clean fresh water!!?? Sort of like GOD, Mudderhood and cherry pie!? You won't see those advocates sink money into a desalinization plant now will we !!?? Even they don't believe the horror stories they would like others to believe.
I would like to go along with the high speed rail to join the cities. It just does not make any financial sense. I did a quick calculation on taking a trip from San Diego to Florida via rail. At todays fares it is about twice what it would cost for the two of us to drive our Sequoia at 15 MPG round trip. Not to mention 4 nights on a train with no shower each direction. Can high speed rail ever be self sustaining? There is talk of a high speed train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Why on earth would I want a penny of my tax dollars spent to help LV get more gamblers from LA? Right today I can fly cross country and rent a car for less than 20% of the cost of rail travel. I don't see it becoming feasible. We do not want the massive debt that Japan has built up with trying to do all those things you mention. They are multiple times more over extended than the USA.
Then you have proposed $450 billion in R&D. It would just become more corporate welfare. WHO can you trust with that kind of money floating around? I say reward those that come up with new inventions. Don't pay some one to sit and surf the web. On going to the Moon. We were in a race with the Soviets.
Today it would take a lot longer to go to the moon than it did in the 1960s.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 NASA offered a blueprint Monday for sending teams of astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there by 2024. An editor of NASA Watch explains the plans.
GWEN IFILL: Now, let's talk money. Is there a national appetite for what it will cost? I read somewhere today $125 billion to get the first landing by 2018.
KEITH COWING: Well, that's the question, isn't it? Last year, when the initial version of this was brought out, the very first question from somebody from NPR was, and we're all there waiting to ask it, was: How much will this cost?
And we were told that it would be $104 billion to get one mission back there. Well, that was then; this is now. And you really can't get NASA to come up with a number.
And it's not -- well, I guess it is they don't quite know what it will cost because an aspect of this architecture is that it's open-sourced. They're looking for a participation from other nations. Now, how much of this would be done by, you know, Europe, for example, or by Russia is to be determined.
But NASA is looking to offer the sort of basic infrastructure, how to get people and hardware there, but they still haven't figured out exactly how they're going to do it. And therefore, they're a little shy about giving you a number, and $104 billion, $130 billion, it could be higher. Nobody quite knows.
Don't hold your breath on seeing a man on the moon this Century. Too much red tape that was not around in 1960. No incentive on the part of tax payers that are struggling to buy gas for their cars. They want to do what with my tax dollars?
I think the future of transportation rests with the Worldwide Aeros Corporation. I would post a link if I knew how but you can just google the name above.
They are developing a 1 acre sized flying ship that uses a combination of jet engines and helium to take off and land vertically so no more need for airports. Also it can land directly at warehouses, etc. to discharge cargo. Helium provides most of the lift and the engines are used to take off, land, and steer. Top speed of about 200 mph.
It is an interesting aircraft for sure. It says they are being built to haul up to 60 tons. I did not see the range. 200 MPH is not real fast for air travel. It will still have to compete against the likes of a 747 that can haul 150+ tons, at 500+ MPH with up to a 9000 mile range. Not sure how they would compare on emissions. I imagine the Aeros uses jet engines.
Whats old is new again!? We have a remaining blimp hangar not far from here at Moffit Air Field, Mountain View, CA left over from WW1 (or whatever/whereever it is currently known as)
Not to rain on anyones parade, but the first time they crash 60 tons through a warehouse roof, all the regulatory agencies will come out of the wood work to close the barn's doors. (so to speak)
High speed trains and mass transit seem to be acceptable to folks who don't mind being transported as human cattle.
Independent thinking people usually don't appreciate being treated as such on mass transit and trains & prefer the intimate privacy of their own vehicles.
When the existing rail facilities are not self supporting why should they be expanded at non user tax payer's expense?
Build more freeways, highways, & honor the automobile.
You are serious about those statements? If so, read on. If not, skip to the P.S. at the bottom.
So most Europeans "don't mind being transported as human cattle" then I guess.
I bet you would have a challenge if you called European mass transit users "not Independent Thinking People" to their faces. They call themselves "smart" for using mass transit.
In Europe, mass transit has been nearly perfected. It's cheap. It's fast. It saves time. It saves money. It opens up the roads for truckers and business drivers who MUST travel the roads.
"Appreciating the intimate privacy of your own vehicle" seems to be the American way. Almost 1/3 of the commuters in this country drive alone in their own car to work every day.
Does that make it the "good for the most people" way to travel to work? ABSOLUTELY IT DOES NOT.
It means that 97 million Americans are wallowing in their independence and not caring about the good of the many, just the good of their own little selfish selves.
Thank you for your very rational opinion and feel free to post your opinion here any time. Please ignore any ill mannered and sarcastic replies like the one preceding this one.
Some people just do not realize that in our society not everyone just drives 20 miles directly to work, sits there for 8 hours and then drives home. Many, if not most of us, actually have to be out and about while working. It is very difficult to ride a train from job site to job site or while making sales calls or calling on clients, etc. or any number of other things that some people do to make a living.
Where in my post was I being "ill-mannered" specifically?
I never said that 100 percent of Americans who drive alone ARE ABLE to use mass transit. Many millions of them cannot do so because of other obligations.
But you know as well as I do that MANY MILLIONS of them COULD use mass transit, and just choose, for mostly selfish reasons, not to do so.
Speaking the truth is sometimes misidentified as being ill-mannered.
Comparing the EU to US is like comparing Rhode Island to California. How many places in the EU are 150 miles or more between towns or cities? What is not smart is trying to emulate only part of the way the EU gets around. They also have at least 50% of their personal transportation powered by diesel. You have railed against that. So how smart are they? You can cherry pick the best from each place and build utopia in your mind. Mass transit is a waste of tax payers money. It is only practical in very dense populations. We only have a few places that it works. I doubt that any mass transit is self supporting. They ALL steal from the taxes paid by automobile drivers. You think maybe they could keep going on just the fares charged to ride the bus, train or trolley? Not even a chance. The Feds and states need to start using the fuel taxes for maintaining our highways and bridges. Not every other pet project they may consider legitimate. Personal transportation will only get bigger with alternative fuels and better batteries. When everyone can charge their car over night for 50 cents and drive 200 miles before needing to recharge. You think they wont drive more than they do now? If they charge with nuclear, wind and solar it will cut GHG but not the need for more highways. Forget mass transit and get ready for the transition to CHEAP PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION.....
I never compared Europe to here. I pointed out that people in Europe aren't cattle and are not "dependent" thinkers who have given up their independence by taking a train.
Also - for the gentleman/lady who posted that comment:
Go to NYC and stand at the Subway terminals yelling "You guys are a bunch of dependent thinking CATTLE!" and see how many work boots end up lodged in your backside.
My point is that mass transit is not "cattle moving" - it's delivering PEOPLE to work and saving the pollution created when each of those people take a car each to work.
You know I have said many times the FACT that "Mass Transit Is Not Perfect And Is Not The Perfect Solution For Every Single American."
But the problem in my estimation is that far FAR fewer people use it who COULD use it. If more people used it, more costs could be paid for by the mass transit system and less borrowing from other areas would happen. Increased ridership means increased efficiency and decreases the RED in the bottom line.
I too hope personal transportation gets cleaner and cheaper. Even then, people need to ride share and carpool more.
But bad-mouthing mass transit will not help anything.
My point is that mass transit is not "cattle moving"
You could have fooled me. It seems my times on mass transit were either jammed in like sardines with people standing in the aisles hanging on for dear life or a completely empty trolley gliding silently from one area of San Diego to the other. I have felt that way on some airlines like Southworst. Strictly a cattle car operation. Running to get a seat. Elbowing your way to be next to the aisle or window and not jammed between two fat people. If those paying the bill want to ride with 60 of their fellow citizens from one end of town to the other, fine. Let them pay the cost. Do not burden the populace with such an inefficient means of travel. If it was efficient it would be self sustaining. IT IS NOT!
How much GHG does an empty bus produce? They are empty about half the time when I see them.
That is VERY UNLIKELY to happen. I HATE BIG CITIES.... That includes San Diego and Phoenix. I will drive an extra 100 miles to avoid BIG CITIES. Like buses, big cities are where you store the masses. Warehouses for votes, I think is a common political euphemism. Big cities are huge GHG generators with little to offer in the way of carbon sink.
Nice indication that you need some reminding of current changes.
For one, SouthWEST Airlines now has assigned seating.
For two: if San Diego mass transit is that full, more power to your system !!! Good Job !!! You are moving the most people for the lowest pollution per person when the buses/trains/trolleys are FULL of people !!! But then, at the end of your post, you say they are empty. So which is it - Sardines or Echoes?
We ALL benefit from mass transit - even YOU on your little San Diego hill and your beachfront Hawaii retreat. Mass Transit means one or five or fifty or 100 or 1000 fewer cars on the road.
if San Diego mass transit is that full, more power to your system !!! Good Job !!!
My only experience on city buses was in Honolulu. They were either jammed or empty. Depending on the time of day. But then you know they run around the city of Phoenix empty much of the time. And you say a CNG bus has very little emissions when it is running with NO passengers. Very interesting idea. Even if it is WRONG. I doubt that the emissions are much different whether the bus is full or empty. I would be surprised if the average passenger mile on the buses in the US are not higher than a LEV or higher automobile. Then consider the 100s of 1000s of buses at the end of their day dead-heading 5-10-15-25 miles back to the terminal. That in itself would probably raise the temperature of the earth a couple degrees. :shades:
I have ridden the San Diego Trolley system several times it was mostly empty. It is a HUGE drain on San Diego city budget. While you like to consider those that pay their way in a private vehicle as selfish & self centered. I consider those riding the bus I am paying for as "FREE LOADERS". So that is how we disagree on mass transit.
By the way SOUTHWORST airlines is still open seating according to their website. Our pastor just came back from Seattle and confirmed that to be so in San Diego and Seattle.
Because Southwest Airlines maintains an open-seating policy, general-boarding Customers may sit in any open or unclaimed seat.
"...not caring about the good of the many, just the good of their own little selfish selves..."
Isn't that the definition of capitalism? On the other hand, you seem to be advocating a system where each person gives according to his abilities and each person takes according to his needs. I seem to remember a system like that. It's name started with a "C" also.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."
But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.
It is not just in Australia that these CC delusions are showing up. It is in the USA with some people you would expect to be mentally balanced. The GW Cult may be the most deceptive cult since Jim Jones and his kool aid drinking followers in Guyana. GW is driven by mass hysteria and alarmism that is totally unhealthy. It should be brought under control and the perpetrators tried as you would someone for falsely yelling fire in a theater.
French experience show that the high speed lines are the most profitable of any lines and even cover for money loosing ones. Despite being clogged by dark red trotskist unions (a french specialty) and the many subsequential strikes, SNCF, the national rail company managed to post profits this year.
Generally, every new high speed line opening see traffic beat initial estimates. the latest opening between Paris and Strasbourg (280 miles now in 2 hours 20 minutes) was no exeption and current booking average is more than 80%
I would agree that it won't bring short term profits in comparison with any smart investment or speculation, but -and because those transport means are electric-powered- they measurably lower the carbon footprint and power/oil use.
The question is : should we limit our scope to strict short term financial issues or try to think a little further?
>At todays fares it is about twice what it would cost for the two of us to drive our Sequoia at 15 MPG round trip.
Current train prices in France are about the same as for 2 people in a 25-30 mpg car on same distance. Current medium- Long distance Passenger train services in the US are a joke.
>Can high speed rail ever be self sustaining?
We have plenty of good examples of improved quality of life, improved economic activity and improved environment thanks to high speed lines. Airplane travel between Paris and strasbourg is down 50%. These are quite a few gallons of kerosene which were not burnt, and I don't mention that fewer planes means less noise.
More travel means means more competition. Airlines drastically dropped their prices in reaction to the train, so I have ways to travel for cheaper than before.
Is a car-only (or car + airplane only) system à la US sustainable? I am afraid the answer is simply no.
>We do not want the massive debt that Japan has built up with trying to do all those things you mention.
Japan's debt has little to do with their rail transport infrastructure and a lot to do with speculative investment (real estate or company stocks) that went wrong in the 90s and that nobody has the guts to write off.
> Then you have proposed $450 billion in R&D. It would just become more corporate welfare.
Why ? I did not discuss the implementation methods. For technological research, whether the apollo or the manhattan project, I consider the US has a pretty good track record. regardless of the motives, objectives were met.
>We were in a race with the Soviets. This is a race to save earth and to save US way of life. I understand it does not sound that sexy and the short term dangers are not so visible.
Comments
I hate leaving my hill. That saves gas and the planet.
Maybe we should make a list and assign points for every amenity within X miles. Something within walk/bike/scooter distance.
So, a point for every:
Restaurant
Grocery
Gas station
Hardware store
Drug store
ER
Doc
Movie theater
Auto parts/repair
Park (including golf)
Library
School
The more points, the more gas you save. And your carbon footprint from driving should be less.
Restaurants at least 23,
bars 3 in restaurants No stand alone bars
Grocery 3
Gas station 5
Hardware store 1
Drug store 3
ER 0
Doc 2
Vets 3
Movie theater 0
Local Playhouse 1
Auto parts/repair 1 of each
Park (including golf) 2 (no golf courses)
Library 1 (two used book stores)
School 2 K-8 no high school. 15 miles to closest high school
Churches at least 11
Tatoo parlors and porn shops ZERO!
When I get elected to the Alpine planning commission they will NEVER be allowed.
64 points.
None of those places are more than 3.3 miles from my house. No real reason to leave Alpine for anything. We have more fun than a person deserves to have.
Plus we have a big cat rescue place here..
http://www.lionstigersandbears.org/
PS
No Starbucks thank God. Are yours getting shut down as part of the 600?
You commie! :mad:
In my town the planning board makes it so difficult to meet all the regulations that the only ones who have the resources are the McD's and the Wal-Marts. If it gets too tough they turn an army of lawyers loose and usually win.
Mom and Pop can't afford the battle so local businesses are disappearing faster than the Snail Darter behind a Tennessee dam.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Not sure about the Starbucks since I rarely go to them. There's a little bitty playhouse that I haven't been to come to think of it.
The only tattoo listing is for a Botox doc that removes them. My wife likes hers though (got it in San Diego iirc :P ).
Just think how much junk you aren't putting in the air by limiting your driving. You're a regular Algoreite.
So I can't come to your neighborhood to get my pornographic tattoos, right?
As for Starbucks, $5 for a coffee. now that's pornographic! :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Here is how it looks and how I would like it to stay. McDonald's and Walmart do not fit the motif. That and the best climate in the USA makes for a very nice place to live.
http://gothere.com/California/Alpine/cbd.htm
http://www.muninetguide.com/states/california/municipality/Alpine.php
Posted Thu Jul 3, 2008 12:41pm AEST
Updated Thu Jul 3, 2008 1:52pm AEST
A gas used in the making of flat screen televisions, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), is being blamed for damaging the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.
Almost half of the televisions sold around the globe so far this year have been plasma or LCD TVs.
But this boom could be coming at a huge environmental cost.
The gas, widely used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs, is estimated to be 17,000 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.
Ironically, NF3 is not covered by the Kyoto protocol as it was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed in 1997.
Levels of this gas in the atmosphere have not been measured, but scientists say it is a concern and are calling for it to be included in any future emissions cutting agreement.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/03/2293369.htm?section=justin
Might this be the (REAL) reason for the absolute overemphasis on C02 from transportation; to take our attention away from the emissions of NF3'a @ 17,000 times greater polution levels ??? As you know from other threads people are in deep denial that 20-40% D2 advantage actually burns less natural resources!!?? So where are the the ace regulatory agencies, anti pollution folks EPA when they certify those manufacturers that push NF3's into the environment? -starring at their TV SCREENS!!?? You know the ones they buy AT DEEP discounts from (that schmucks like you and me cant get) , due to being government agencies and all and also pay NO taxes? Name me a government desk jockey that has NO SCREEN???? :lemon: If every household had 1 TV that makes a MINIMUN of 90 M sets. Care to take a swag at how many household/government agencies have multiple sets and how many sets we are talking about total?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And yeah, the desk is usually semi-clear like that - more room for the cats that way.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought about going to mouse gestures, but there are some gestures I do skimming the boards that just don't translate well. :P
Hey, we now have a new term to replace "climate change" that replaced "global warming."
Introducing Global Disruption....
Global Deception
Now the hailstorm in Germany that damaged 30,000 VWs is blamed on GW/CC/GD
Extra wind causes too much power across NW (KTVB)
Hopefully all the hybrid battery research will result in some decent electric storage tech for saving excess production like this.
These Green forms of energy are opening many new challenges. With a string of diesel generators you just bring online what is needed. Same should apply to wind farms. Sounds like no one wants to lose the revenue now that the big bucks are invested.
I haven't found credible report saying that submarine volcanoes were concentrated around the north pole. Should it be the case, why would they become suddenly active those last years and cause the meltdown ?
>he bottom line is there is NOTHING you or I or AL Gore can do to change the course of Nature.
I think it more about changing the course of mankind and to try to prevent it from just destroying its home. Nature is just reacting to our inputs.
>It will open huge areas to oil exploration that were impossible to develop in the past.
Want to drill more ? In short, this could lower the gas price for some time (maybe a decade) some national auto makers could sight in relief and say god, this was just a flare, let us crank up our SUV production line back as in the good old times.
shall we wait for Manhattan to be underwater to start accepting that there is something wrong ?
>This proves my point. These yahoos are trying to make predictions for the future and cannot.
I just see some conservative predictions that just realized much quicker than expected. CO2 levels reached a 800000-year unprecedented level....
why worry? Even if today was worse than yesterday, it is still better than tomorrow .
>He knew how to address the arrogance of the environmentalists
In my home countries, politicians who try to plainly describe problem and propose solutions (that generally are not popular) are also considered as cold, arrogant accountants. People here prefer those who make them dream. Reality is so arrogant, let us just dismiss it.
>Wasting another penny on GW studies is STUPID.
This is something we agree on. I think it as been documented enough. We should discuss more action plan. Wait, which plan ?
>If Mother Nature gives us lemons we make a lemon meringue pie
I think lemons are more doing with the human kind than nature.
This looks credible to me.
Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean
ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. Such violent eruptions of splintered, fragmented rock--known as pyroclastic deposits -- were not thought possible at great ocean depths because of the intense weight and pressure of water and because of the composition of seafloor magma and rock.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
The article does not suggest that those explosions are numerous or powerful enough to have the Artic Ice reduced by half over 30 years already does it.
I am not sure if there have been many volcanoes eupting those last years in Greenland but it looks like the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting at alarming rates as well.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115102706.htm
Granted, volcanoes contribute to CO2 release in the atmosphere in no little amount, but I don't find reports saying that there has been noticeably more volcanic activity in the last 20 - 10 or 5 years as to justify the steep CO2 increase.
Are you really convinced that current atmospheric CO2 levels are nature-made and that carbon-based fuel burning has little to do with this ?
I am sure man has contributed to the CO2. I am not convinced that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than any time in the history of the planet. I am not convinced it has that much to do with climate change. We know that Greenland was used for raising cattle a 1000 years ago. Then the climate changed and made it impossible. That is a fact that cannot be attributed to man made GHG. If Manhattan goes under water how is that any different than New Orleans or Cedar Rapids Iowa? Spending $45 trillion to change the course of nature is totally ludicrous. There is no guarantees in life. I would be a slight bit more convinced that the whole thing was not a big Charade if a few of the ones lined up to make money were moving into small apartments and limiting their carbon footprint. So far the only one that has done much on a National level is George W Bush. And he don't really believe all the baloney. He does have his house up high enough that he won't be impacted by rising ocean levels. I did the same thing and even replaced the 56 incandescent lights with CFLs, (Made in China).
An international team of scientists, led by Dr Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, has demonstrated that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years.
So 50 years ago the ice melted at about the same rate. Was the level of GHG as high then as Now? IF we have as humans progressively contributed more GHG each year, would it not seem logical that the ice would be progressively melting at a higher rate? If GHG causes warming what caused the cooling for the last 50 years?
So 50 years ago the ice melted at about the same rate.
Mmm, it rather seems that 50 years is a time frame chosen by the study and that they consider for sure this was the highest ice melting level during this period.
It seems most studies about the greenland ice sheet are starting in the 1980's and that the current trend is pretty compelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#The_ice_sheet_as_a_record_of_pa- st_climates
The ice sheet is dating back from the previous ice age. There is no indication that, apart from some coastal areas, it was much smaller 1000 years ago.
>IF we have as humans progressively contributed more GHG each year, would it not seem logical that the ice would be progressively melting at a higher rate?
This is exactly what is happening
>If GHG causes warming what caused the cooling for the last 50 years?
One term is climate change, as although increase of GHG increase heat absorbtion by earth, this heat is not regulary spread over earth.
For instance, if the greenland ice massively melt, this would discharge volumes of water significant enough to disrupt the gulf stream.
In turn, this could dramatically change climate in Europe from a tempered one to continental. This is only an hypothesis, this can't happen can it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
This is a shortcut but I saw other studies mentioning that near 400 ppm CO2 levels are unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years atmosphere history.
> We know that Greenland was used for raising cattle a 1000 years ago. Then the climate changed and made it impossible. That is a fact that cannot be attributed to man made GHG
Unless done on some very localized coastal areas in very small scale, I don't see it possible on an Ice cap dating from much earlier.
> Spending $45 trillion to change the course of nature is totally ludicrous.
It is definitely.
> if a few of the ones lined up to make money were moving into small apartments and limiting their carbon footprint.
The difficult part is to live as independantly as possible from oil. Our current systems relied on cheap oil and this made research in alternative energies less of a priority.
Actually, we could say the medium-poor working class which is more likely to have the larger footprint relatively speaking. They may have old gas guzzling cars, outdated oil burning heating facilities and living in cheaper less insulated homes further away from town, hence needing more gas to do anything.
Cheap oil/gas really created some unsustainable development models which clearly show their limit now.
I'm not convinced that it is unsustainable. For an example we touched on in another thread. When and If battery technology makes EVs competitive with fossil fuel vehicles, we could see a huge expansion in our road needs. The Northwest is already seeing larger than needed energy spurts from wind farms when the winds are high. If we add to the grid a decent number of nuclear facilities as they have in Japan and France we could cut our dependence on fossil fuel. These kind of expenditures seem reasonable for the private sector to pursue. What I am seeing are government regulations and so called green organizations adding to the cost with frivolous studies. If we are worried about flooding downtown NYC, building a solar farm that impacts the 3 toed lizard seems a no brainer. Or a wind farm that may be seen by Robert & Teddy Kennedy while sailing. An argument can be made that the legislation by Teddy Kennedy that blocked the wind farm off Nantucket Sound will be the direct cause of the seas rising and swallowing Manhattan.
Jul 8 08:40 AM US/Eastern
The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.
Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.
"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.
It is doing wonders for my plums and peaches. Drive those SUVs folks so we can eat more fruits and veggies.... Going out to pick another batch to make more Plum Brandy. Already have enough plum jam to last a couple years. CO2 is good for plants. Maybe it will increase the corn crops for the ethanol boondoggle... :sick:
Well, it is increasingly expensive due to oil price and increasingly pollutant with all the developing countries aiming at the american way of life.
Sustainable means being able to mitigate economic, human and environmental constraints. Oil burning techniques really hit the ceiling and we need to switch to other techniques.
Ethanol or diester /Biodiesel (vegetable oil family) means agriculture and agriculture means 80% of oil burning in the full process. The vicious circle is complete.
Switching to Electricity for transport is self understanding for mass transit but still challenging for individual transport. If billions were to be spent by the federal govt, they should have put a big portion of it in battery development instead of some unproductive foreign venture.
> If we add to the grid a decent number of nuclear facilities as they have in Japan and France we could cut our dependence on fossil fuel
Well it could be debated that Uranium is a fossil / finite resource. Let us say it is a lesser bad. The real solution is the fusion technology which practical use is predicted to be possible not before half a century with current discovery pace.
In 1960, it was estimated that going to the moon would take another 30-50 years and look what was done in less than a decade. If the US really had the will to develop fusion as to go to the moon in the 60s, I trust the next decade would be very promising.
> These kind of expenditures seem reasonable for the private sector to pursue.
Wind and Solar technologies are still expensive (or should I say that oil is still too cheap?) and are very dependant from direct/indirect subsidiaries. Instead of relying 100% on the private sector, the US govt should put the necessary billions in R&D initiatives to improve technology in decreasing price per watt and increasing efficiency.
>An argument can be made that the legislation by Teddy Kennedy that blocked the wind farm off Nantucket Sound will be the direct cause of the seas rising and swallowing Manhattan
This is the NIMBY syndrome than imho has nothing to do with sustainable development. I would not however put all the blame of GW /CC on these anecdotal examples though.
My proposition for measurably cutting gas dependancy and lowering Co2 output in the US from a govt view point :
1) 500 billions USD for high speed trains and mass transit. Key US cities/megalopolis to have 200 mph trains with 500 miles distance covered in less than 3 hours, intermediate stops included. Longer distance (coast to coast) done by overnight/sleeper high speed trains. denser mass transit with high speed subways (surface on less built-up areas) 1,5 mile between stations. Top speed 75 mph
Light rail (tramway) with arterial functions complemented by trolleybuses. One stop every 0.5 mile. Top speed 50 mph. GNV buses for more residential /less populated areas.
Countrywide single ticketing system allowing with one single card to travel any kind of combined transport. Taxis would even have this terminal.
Cargo areas in all trains allowing easy ingress/egress for people with a cart/ bulky items.
2) 200 Billions USD into R&D for developing and building fusion power plants.
3) 100 Billions USD into R&D for developing PV panels with 50% efficiency and 0.5 USD /Watt manufacturing price. this would be the opportunity to develop a US solar industry. I mean a real one.
4) 100 Billions USD into R&D for the ultimate battery able to pack 8 times as much as energy than ion Lithium equivalent for the same weight
5) 50 Billions USD into Electric cars, vans and buses R&D + Charge station
6) 50 billions USD in other initiatives (Home insulation, heating upgrade)
7) 200 billions USD in carbon trap development. Mainly tree planting /reforestation and set-up of an active forest management.
Total 1200 billions USD. This amount is being dwarfed by what taxpayers paid in Mesopotamia. I am confident the payback would be measurably better for american people.
I would like to go along with the high speed rail to join the cities. It just does not make any financial sense. I did a quick calculation on taking a trip from San Diego to Florida via rail. At todays fares it is about twice what it would cost for the two of us to drive our Sequoia at 15 MPG round trip. Not to mention 4 nights on a train with no shower each direction. Can high speed rail ever be self sustaining? There is talk of a high speed train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Why on earth would I want a penny of my tax dollars spent to help LV get more gamblers from LA? Right today I can fly cross country and rent a car for less than 20% of the cost of rail travel. I don't see it becoming feasible. We do not want the massive debt that Japan has built up with trying to do all those things you mention. They are multiple times more over extended than the USA.
Then you have proposed $450 billion in R&D. It would just become more corporate welfare. WHO can you trust with that kind of money floating around? I say reward those that come up with new inventions. Don't pay some one to sit and surf the web. On going to the Moon. We were in a race with the Soviets.
Today it would take a lot longer to go to the moon than it did in the 1960s.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
NASA offered a blueprint Monday for sending teams of astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there by 2024. An editor of NASA Watch explains the plans.
GWEN IFILL: Now, let's talk money. Is there a national appetite for what it will cost? I read somewhere today $125 billion to get the first landing by 2018.
KEITH COWING: Well, that's the question, isn't it? Last year, when the initial version of this was brought out, the very first question from somebody from NPR was, and we're all there waiting to ask it, was: How much will this cost?
And we were told that it would be $104 billion to get one mission back there. Well, that was then; this is now. And you really can't get NASA to come up with a number.
And it's not -- well, I guess it is they don't quite know what it will cost because an aspect of this architecture is that it's open-sourced. They're looking for a participation from other nations. Now, how much of this would be done by, you know, Europe, for example, or by Russia is to be determined.
But NASA is looking to offer the sort of basic infrastructure, how to get people and hardware there, but they still haven't figured out exactly how they're going to do it. And therefore, they're a little shy about giving you a number, and $104 billion, $130 billion, it could be higher. Nobody quite knows.
Don't hold your breath on seeing a man on the moon this Century. Too much red tape that was not around in 1960. No incentive on the part of tax payers that are struggling to buy gas for their cars. They want to do what with my tax dollars?
They are developing a 1 acre sized flying ship that uses a combination of jet engines and helium to take off and land vertically so no more need for airports. Also it can land directly at warehouses, etc. to discharge cargo. Helium provides most of the lift and the engines are used to take off, land, and steer. Top speed of about 200 mph.
Feel free to post a link.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.aerosml.com/ml866/cargo.html
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not to rain on anyones parade, but the first time they crash 60 tons through a warehouse roof, all the regulatory agencies will come out of the wood work to close the barn's doors. (so to speak)
Independent thinking people usually don't appreciate being treated as such on mass transit and trains & prefer the intimate privacy of their own vehicles.
When the existing rail facilities are not self supporting why should they be expanded at non user tax payer's expense?
Build more freeways, highways, & honor the automobile.
So most Europeans "don't mind being transported as human cattle" then I guess.
I bet you would have a challenge if you called European mass transit users "not Independent Thinking People" to their faces. They call themselves "smart" for using mass transit.
In Europe, mass transit has been nearly perfected. It's cheap. It's fast. It saves time. It saves money. It opens up the roads for truckers and business drivers who MUST travel the roads.
"Appreciating the intimate privacy of your own vehicle" seems to be the American way. Almost 1/3 of the commuters in this country drive alone in their own car to work every day.
Does that make it the "good for the most people" way to travel to work? ABSOLUTELY IT DOES NOT.
It means that 97 million Americans are wallowing in their independence and not caring about the good of the many, just the good of their own little selfish selves.
P.S. Very funny.
Some people just do not realize that in our society not everyone just drives 20 miles directly to work, sits there for 8 hours and then drives home. Many, if not most of us, actually have to be out and about while working. It is very difficult to ride a train from job site to job site or while making sales calls or calling on clients, etc. or any number of other things that some people do to make a living.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Where in my post was I being "ill-mannered" specifically?
I never said that 100 percent of Americans who drive alone ARE ABLE to use mass transit. Many millions of them cannot do so because of other obligations.
But you know as well as I do that MANY MILLIONS of them COULD use mass transit, and just choose, for mostly selfish reasons, not to do so.
Speaking the truth is sometimes misidentified as being ill-mannered.
Also - for the gentleman/lady who posted that comment:
Go to NYC and stand at the Subway terminals yelling "You guys are a bunch of dependent thinking CATTLE!" and see how many work boots end up lodged in your backside.
My point is that mass transit is not "cattle moving" - it's delivering PEOPLE to work and saving the pollution created when each of those people take a car each to work.
You know I have said many times the FACT that "Mass Transit Is Not Perfect And Is Not The Perfect Solution For Every Single American."
But the problem in my estimation is that far FAR fewer people use it who COULD use it. If more people used it, more costs could be paid for by the mass transit system and less borrowing from other areas would happen. Increased ridership means increased efficiency and decreases the RED in the bottom line.
I too hope personal transportation gets cleaner and cheaper. Even then, people need to ride share and carpool more.
But bad-mouthing mass transit will not help anything.
You could have fooled me. It seems my times on mass transit were either jammed in like sardines with people standing in the aisles hanging on for dear life or a completely empty trolley gliding silently from one area of San Diego to the other. I have felt that way on some airlines like Southworst. Strictly a cattle car operation. Running to get a seat. Elbowing your way to be next to the aisle or window and not jammed between two fat people. If those paying the bill want to ride with 60 of their fellow citizens from one end of town to the other, fine. Let them pay the cost. Do not burden the populace with such an inefficient means of travel. If it was efficient it would be self sustaining. IT IS NOT!
How much GHG does an empty bus produce? They are empty about half the time when I see them.
That is VERY UNLIKELY to happen. I HATE BIG CITIES.... That includes San Diego and Phoenix. I will drive an extra 100 miles to avoid BIG CITIES. Like buses, big cities are where you store the masses. Warehouses for votes, I think is a common political euphemism. Big cities are huge GHG generators with little to offer in the way of carbon sink.
For one, SouthWEST Airlines now has assigned seating.
For two: if San Diego mass transit is that full, more power to your system !!! Good Job !!! You are moving the most people for the lowest pollution per person when the buses/trains/trolleys are FULL of people !!! But then, at the end of your post, you say they are empty. So which is it - Sardines or Echoes?
We ALL benefit from mass transit - even YOU on your little San Diego hill and your beachfront Hawaii retreat. Mass Transit means one or five or fifty or 100 or 1000 fewer cars on the road.
And an empty CNG bus pollutes hardly at all.
My only experience on city buses was in Honolulu. They were either jammed or empty. Depending on the time of day. But then you know they run around the city of Phoenix empty much of the time. And you say a CNG bus has very little emissions when it is running with NO passengers. Very interesting idea. Even if it is WRONG. I doubt that the emissions are much different whether the bus is full or empty. I would be surprised if the average passenger mile on the buses in the US are not higher than a LEV or higher automobile. Then consider the 100s of 1000s of buses at the end of their day dead-heading 5-10-15-25 miles back to the terminal. That in itself would probably raise the temperature of the earth a couple degrees. :shades:
I have ridden the San Diego Trolley system several times it was mostly empty. It is a HUGE drain on San Diego city budget. While you like to consider those that pay their way in a private vehicle as selfish & self centered. I consider those riding the bus I am paying for as "FREE LOADERS". So that is how we disagree on mass transit.
By the way SOUTHWORST airlines is still open seating according to their website.
Our pastor just came back from Seattle and confirmed that to be so in San Diego and Seattle.
Because Southwest Airlines maintains an open-seating policy, general-boarding Customers may sit in any open or unclaimed seat.
http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/checkin.html
Isn't that the definition of capitalism? On the other hand, you seem to be advocating a system where each person gives according to his abilities and each person takes according to his needs. I seem to remember a system like that. It's name started with a "C" also.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
In NYC if you did that they would probably ignore you and all the other subway crazies who are yelling at any given time. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."
But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this "climate change delusion", too.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
It is not just in Australia that these CC delusions are showing up. It is in the USA with some people you would expect to be mentally balanced. The GW Cult may be the most deceptive cult since Jim Jones and his kool aid drinking followers in Guyana. GW is driven by mass hysteria and alarmism that is totally unhealthy. It should be brought under control and the perpetrators tried as you would someone for falsely yelling fire in a theater.
Thank you
>It just does not make any financial sense.
French experience show that the high speed lines are the most profitable of any lines and even cover for money loosing ones. Despite being clogged by dark red trotskist unions (a french specialty) and the many subsequential strikes, SNCF, the national rail company managed to post profits this year.
Generally, every new high speed line opening see traffic beat initial estimates. the latest opening between Paris and Strasbourg (280 miles now in 2 hours 20 minutes) was no exeption and current booking average is more than 80%
I would agree that it won't bring short term profits in comparison with any smart investment or speculation, but -and because those transport means are electric-powered- they measurably lower the carbon footprint and power/oil use.
The question is : should we limit our scope to strict short term financial issues or try to think a little further?
>At todays fares it is about twice what it would cost for the two of us to drive our Sequoia at 15 MPG round trip.
Current train prices in France are about the same as for 2 people in a 25-30 mpg car on same distance. Current medium- Long distance Passenger train services in the US are a joke.
>Can high speed rail ever be self sustaining?
We have plenty of good examples of improved quality of life, improved economic activity and improved environment thanks to high speed lines. Airplane travel between Paris and strasbourg is down 50%. These are quite a few gallons of kerosene which were not burnt, and I don't mention that fewer planes means less noise.
More travel means means more competition. Airlines drastically dropped their prices in reaction to the train, so I have ways to travel for cheaper than before.
Is a car-only (or car + airplane only) system à la US sustainable? I am afraid the answer is simply no.
>We do not want the massive debt that Japan has built up with trying to do all those things you mention.
Japan's debt has little to do with their rail transport infrastructure and a lot to do with speculative investment (real estate or company stocks) that went wrong in the 90s and that nobody has the guts to write off.
> Then you have proposed $450 billion in R&D. It would just become more corporate welfare.
Why ? I did not discuss the implementation methods. For technological research, whether the apollo or the manhattan project, I consider the US has a pretty good track record. regardless of the motives, objectives were met.
>We were in a race with the Soviets.
This is a race to save earth and to save US way of life.
I understand it does not sound that sexy and the short term dangers are not so visible.