shempmcgurk wrote: >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> >>In a message dated 7/4/06 9:35:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time, >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> >> >>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >(mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com) > > >>, MDixon6569@, MDix >> >> >>>In a message dated 7/3/06 12:30:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, >>>babajii_99@ babajii_99 >>>Where is all of this electricity going to come >>>from? Did you know that an >>>enormous amount of electricity is lost, in thin >>>air, just in the transmission >>>from power station along the power line grid, >>>before anybody uses it? >>> >>> >>Hydrogen is creeping up on the inside lane. Google >>for Stanley Meyer, Linnard Griffin, Andrija Puharich. >>Some new ideas, some old. The Eldridge patent for >>striking an arc under water and getting H2 and CO >>expired in the last year of WW1. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Exactly, it's a little while down the road though, not that far >> >> >off. But you > > >>can't stop what we are doing, use of fossil fuels, until we have >> >> >something > > >>economically feasible enough to replace it. >> >> >> > >The solution will lie with the free market. > >That's why I am always admonishing people here that it is THEY that >are responsible for global warming if they continue to consume >gasoline themselves, through their cars and plane tickets. > >Exxon doesn't consume very much oil themselves; it is their >CUSTOMERS who do. And their customers are...YOU. > 1. The human race has had autonomous transportation for thousands of years either by: foot, horseback or carriage. You are not going to change the mindset overnight.
2. Therefore what we need to do is deprogram the trend towards the ownership of larger vehicles. During the energy crisis of the 1970's smaller cars caught on but then there was the "Volvo" trend where the Volvo was thought to be a safer well built car to drive because it would protect them better. Car companies jumped on that bandwagon and went back to building bigger cars. The hippie wives of the 70's became middle class soccer moms of the 80's and 90's and wanted "safer" vans to haul their offspring to practice and games. Hence the car companies responded with bigger vans and particularly SUVs. 3. Wouldn't it have been better if instead of a knee jerk reaction people sat and thought out the problem more carefully. Large SUVs should not have received the tax exemption they got which made them more attractive. The economics of the soccer mom mentality needed to be looked at more carefully. Perhaps even Americas over the top obssession with sports needed to be looked at which seems to assume every kid will become a sports star and retire their parents. This is of course unrealistic. 4. Perhaps like we have anti-smoking commercials we need public service commercials that educate the public to the expense of continuing to operate big vehicles and what they do to the environment. Unfortunately car dealers and salespeople seem to have "carny" mentality. Did you know it was the Dodge brothers who foisted this style of car dealing on us? 5. And of course we now have more behemoth trucks on the highways since they have taken over from rail shipping. Truckers hate car and SUV drivers. But we don't have the funds to do truck lanes anymore which would help. So everyone thinks a bigger car will help in a collision with a Mack Truck though probably nothing will except another Mack Truck (oops, don't give them ideas). 6. What we need of course are smaller more practical vehicles and more practical and useful mass transit. Last week we had "spare the air" days in California. Mass transit was free but many found that it was largely impractical. A commute that took 1 hour or less by car wound up taking two hours by mass transit. In the San Francisco Bay Area you have BART which is an expensive rail based system. It is often crowded and serves a limited area. In San Jose their light rail system is less expensive to maintain and often built on abandoned rail lines. Portland, Oregon also has a successful light rail system. We need more of these and less BARTs. 7. It's going to be difficult to implement any kind of solution as the "status quo" is only interested in their preservation and not in improving life on this planet. 8. And of course the root of the problem *is* overpopulation. If everyone on the planet wanted to have the US standard of living it would require 4 planet earth's to provide those resources. Houston, we have a problem... We need need to reduce the population but in a humane way, not by war, not by man made diseases, but by rational means. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
