You're right Steve, average fuel efficiency does not go up after 55mph, it goes down. It varies from car to car but you'd see something like a 20% increase in fuel consumption going from 55mph to 75mph. Consumption is also highly dependent on how you drive. See http://eartheasy.com/live_fuel_efficient_driving.htm.
The conclusion? Anyone on this list who professes to really really care about doing something about climate change yet doesn't start driving along freeways at 55 mph instead of 75 mph is - like Gore - nothing more than a posturing demagogue. Robert On 8/13/07, steve smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Glen - > > > One of the necessary steps toward a useful dialect about anthropogenic > > climate change is: stop abusing English. > > I think you lead with your chin on this one... someone deliberately > spoofing or lampooning you couldn't have picked a better mischoice of > words in this context. > > Unless you are using the term "dialect" in a sense radically different > than I am familiar with, I assume you meant "dialog". > > I think Roger's original comment still holds: > > To paraphrase Roger: > Both the global economy and ecology are complex dynamical systems > which are likely to have unpredictable (and presumably unpleasant) > responses to small perturbations. The same arguements often used by > so-called "conservatives" to protect the economy from the perturbation > of environmental regulations (interference) can as readily be applied in > the protection of the ecology from the perturbation by continued > profligate release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the > name of "industry, commerce and progress". > > While my sympathies are generally aligned with the issues favored by > Liberal or Progressive politics, I have very little use for most of the > politicians wearing those colors on their sleeves (podiums?). > > I am still waiting for Al Gore to reconcile his support of lifting the > 55mph speed limit with his profession of having been deeply aware of the > problem of releasing so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through > our extravagant use of fossil fuels. As much as I hated that > nearly-arbitrary constraint on my desire do drive like a bat out of > hell, I cannot imagine how lifting it did not increase our "carbon > footprint", as it were, significantly. If Gore is as scientific as he > professes to be and as aware of and interested in preventing global > warming as he seems to be, why in hell did he help increase our > consumption of fossil fuels (and release of carbon dioxide) in highway > transportation for personal and commercial use? > > It would be hard to convince me that increased average speeds *improve* > fuel efficiency and even more significantly, that increased average > speeds lead to fewer miles driven by private and commercial drivers. > Surely there are estimates of miles driven and fuel consumed before and > after that speed limit change. The point (as I remember it) was to > stimulate our economy through increased efficiency in transportation. > I think it worked, but Gore of all people should have known the cost in > terms of carbon emmissions. > > Anyone know the numbers around this? Or any explanation Gore has given > for these seemingly contradictory political positions? > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
