help save the environment!!

I have no problem with drilling in ANWR. As an American citizen, I want the government to sell oil leases to expand our domestic oil production and make money for the treasury and provide employment. I want to find a petition to support the drilling!!

NOt because it's the WWF, in fact I am VERY surprised to se eNO mention of it on David Suzuki's site, most probably because it is a US issue and not a Canadian one?

Either way, they have been trying to drill this land for years and have lost by petition 25 times already. This particular one [i]"Embedded in the Budget Reconciliation Act, which only needs the support of 51 of the 100 senators to pass"[/i] has a greater likelihood of passing.

The end result. JOBS? It WILL take a predicted 10-30 years to complete the pipeline and get oil flowing, which would create a few jobs. THAT'S the most important part to some of you though? People who haven't been able to create new opportunities for themselves,will gain employment?

Big deal.

What does the US gain? And estimated 3% of thier anual oil consumption? You get more oil than that from Canada and Canada is not deemed a worthy source of oil in the US by most citizens. Most don't even know Canada supplies US oil! 3% is gonna help? Less than one year's oil?

Impact on Canadian residents is FAR greater than that, "As Canadians, we have a vested interest in the outcome of the Budget Reconciliation bill. The Porcupine caribou herd winters in Canada, providing an essential resource to the Gwitch?in people of north Yukon who rely on caribou for food, their livelihoods and their very survival.

This herd is supposed to be managed and conserved through a Canada/U.S. agreement that dates back to 1987."

SO despite the fact that this goes against yet another agreement between our two countries, you still feel that if it gives some US citizens a job then it's worth walking on agreements? If Canada doesn't JUMP to your side when asked, regardless of reason, we are slagged-off and called names by everyone in America. But if America ignores agreements with Canada, it's okay because Americans found work? Are these the true colours of the USA being shown once again?

Nice to see where you really stand after all, I suppose.

Jobs for Americans are mroe important than anything else, especially at the expense of another country's people or environment.

For Jaqui, don't give up, these petitions DO work. The recent Nanaimo power plant was nixed due to a massive petition from the Suzuki Foundation. On ething about Canada, our politicians DO suck up to the people when they need to.

Drilling more oil wells is only a short-term solution. The real solution is conservation. If we have to starve and live without electricity because we are too selfish and hard-headed to save a few kilowatts of electricity or a few gallons of gasoline, then we'll just have to learn to do that in order to save the environment. Birds, fish and animals were here on this earth living peacefully for thousands of years before humans came and f'd everything up. Maybe we will finally get a clue when all our rain forests are turned into shopping centers and most of our animals are hanging on our walls and our rain has more acid than water and the polar ice cap shrinks to the size of Rhode Island.

U. S. persons, i.e. U. S. citizens and green-card holders, are subject to U. S. taxation wherever they are. In most countries income tax is higher than in the U.S. so the foreign-tax credit means they don't owe the U. S. anything, but in Sa'udi Arabia there is no income tax so they are liable just as if they had earned the money in the U. S. Whether they actually pay I do not know (I filed from abroad for 5 years), but they are legally obliged to.

When in California I noticed MILES AND MILES of wind farms. THey were beside the Interstate (or just before the 101) and were actually far better to look at than the void of brown dust they occupied. Not quite a distraction on a country trip in that particular case.

We get a great deal of our power in BC from Hydro, in fact we have so much, we sell TOO MUCH hydro to California. We actually had a drought declared (though only for a couple of weeks) a few years back. TWO massive watersheds wre full yet they declared a drought due to the California reserve supply being needed. So when they waste electricity in Claifornia, we actually pay by having a declared water shortage when there is more than AMPLE supply for BC still.

Now if they could only make energy out of hot air and BS, the governments would be useful at last.

and the people that keep their jobs pay taxes, and earn wages to buy stuff from other people.

Environmental damage in an artic wasteland where no one lives BECAUSE it is a wasteland? Hasn't been a perserve for that long. It isn't like the rain forests that are provide so much air that are getting clear cut. Which is the bigger problem?

My problem with people that are against drilling for new oil, are still right there complaining about the price of gas and electricity. Do you drive a hybrid car? My car gets 30 mpg on the highway.

Need to see people offering solutions to problems instead of just saying don't drill for more oil. Dams give clean energy, but the get protested because of the wildlife that gets killed or disrupted by them.

Windmills give clean energy, but people don't want to see 40 story windmiles, and yes, they kill birds.

Nuke plants give lots of energy, but you have the waste that needs to be disposed of.

We could all go back to living in caves, and start riding horses again? Sorry Jaqui, I just don't think that is going to happen, but drilling will.

If not drilling, what are you offering as the solution?

We have a delimma.

On one hand, we are being told by the environmentalists that we need to stop being dependant on forign oil.

On the other hand, we are being told by the environmentalists that we need to stop trying to drill for domestic oil.

I think Penn & Tellers episode on the environmentalists is right on the nose in that it is bullinugoo (AKA Bull$hit), as their program exposed when people of this nature signed up to ban dihydromonoxide. They signed up to ban it, the problem was, these jokers were drinking it as they were signing up for the ban. It was water.

I think we need to weigh options and critically go through the process of figuring out what the needs are than attempt to meet them. If we can't do that, then it is time for us to talk to the manufacturers of the vehicles and tell them no more 6 or 8 bangers unless they have to carry 2 or more tons.

Unfortunately, I would trust everything that Greenpeace would say if the founder did not defect because of how lob sided the whole thing is. I have yet to be able to sit down and have a conversation that did not wind up with them screaming at the top of their lungs.

I am a conservationist. I don't burn things that ain't dead. But there is a difference between reality and fantasy. And I prefer to live in reality than a long list of what if's. I would never go to the bathroom if there was sprayback, would anyone else?

This mess is designed to draw out an emotion of fear without having all of the facts. Last time I visited the Alaskan Pipeline, the Elk were very nicely fat and were eating in the middle of the winter. So I am not sure if I can subscribe to whining without having facts.

If you think I am joking here are some clip links:

For Recycling:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r

For Environmental Hysteria:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=eh

go into these big cities, shut down all the factories and all will be well.

By doing this, no one can afford the big gas guzzlers or even to get the econo models.

this will cut down on people driving on the highways so we get an added bonus.

Of course cities like Toronto would also need to get shutdown because they generate waste (more than they can deal with) and have a huge congesgen of cars driving all over the place. Need to take this all away and declare martial law.

Global warming. I wish I could be an expert on something that had never happened and get a lot of grant money to live off as long as I can keep people scared. Never mind that the things they say that will happen in thirty years are the same things they were saying thrity years ago. remember the 70's anyone when the world was going to run out of oil? Hmmmm. Oh yeah, I forget it is "climet shifts" now that is the problem. Modify your therory as you go along so you can keep getting your grant money.

How many cars in Canada are using alternative fuels? Throw more rocks at that one.

We get it, you hate Bush and this is one more thing you can beat your chest about.

The US is the biggest, but not the worst offenders. Many countries do not have ANY enviromental standards, but we don't look at that do we? No, lets blame the US for this too.

Trees, who is it that is clear cutting the rain forests? Who actually ones a large portion of the worlds lumber. Look at just how much Japan owns and controls.

well...production of alternative fuel units would make jobs too, but you don't see the execs at BP and Texaco chasing that down to keep people employed.

The number of jobs it would create would be insignificant and pose a real and imminent threat to the environment in the area.

Just look at what happened in the 70s with all the wildcatting in Oklahoma and Texas. There was practically a spill every year on the Gulf of Mexico. Yeah, it made jobs for a couple thousand oil workers. But, how many shop owners, waitresses, barbers, bartenders and stuff did it put out of work for months due to lack of tourist trade in Padre, Galveston and all along the Texas coast while there was 1-4 inches of crude on the beaches???

Ya gotta look past the immediate fiscal benefit to what happens if a probable scenario (like an oil spill) occurs. Guaranteed once they approved it, the Bush administration would let oil companies move in there without a fully comprehensive analysis and plan. Those are, after all, his old running buddies.

We may not agree on the ANWR issue, but I understand completely how you feel about what is going on in BC to sell electricity to California. However, the USA has not invaded Canada to force BC to sell electricity. The people of BC and Canada can solve this by refusing to expand electrical production just to sell to California. It is your electricity production capacity to use as you see fit, so the blame goes to the government of Canada and BC for this one, not California for seeking other sources of electricity. It is your electricity, exercise your sovereignty over this issue. However, I would guess that someone in BC saw a benefit to selling electricity to California (perhaps it contributes to the economy of BC), otherwise it would not be done. It is the choice of BC and Canada to determine if the revenue from California is worth the costs of production.

Just like the oil in ANWR is the USA's oil, and it is the right of the USA to exercise our sovereignty over it and use it as we see fit without Canada telling us what to do. However, I have no problem with free trade between our two great countries, and I am glad that Canada is willing to sell oil and electricity on the open market to the USA to help fulfill our needs.

Perhaps some Canadians oppose the development of ANWR's oil resources, since it would reduce the USA's dependence on Canadian oil? Maybe the USA can use ANWR oil for power plants to reduce California's dependence on BC's electricity, and reduce the money flowing into BC from California for the electricity.

My comments from a previous discussion still stand.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=172692&messageID=1757983

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=172692&messageID=1758480

It was warmer 1000 years ago (when Eric the Red settled in Greenland and King Canute attempted to stop the rising seas and failed (to prove a point that his power was limited)) than it is now. We must learn from King Canute the folly of trying to fight natural forces.

Also, remember that over 30 years ago, many climatologists thought the world was getting cooler, not warmer. Anecdotal evidence can still support that claim. 100 years ago, Jacksonville (100 miles north of Orlando) was the center of the Florida citrus industry, but colder winters forced it to move south to Orlando. When I was a young boy growing up in Florida, there were thousands of acres of orange groves thriving north of Orlando in the 1970s. However, the cooling climate and colder winters killed them off with hard freezes over the years. The citrus industry moved south of Orlando in Florida in order to avoid the colder winters, and is now centered just north of Palm Beach instead of around Orlando. The southern migration of the Florida citrus industry is good evidence of a cooling trend.

Electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars require an energy source. We need power plants to generate electricity to recharge the batteries of electric cars, and to produce hydrogen from water for the fuel cells. So we would need more power plants (using oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear) to provide energy for these cars. If you support using such cars, then you need to support further development and extraction of oil, coal, and natural gas, and building nuclear power plants.

We could build more hydroelectric dams, but then the environmentalists would complain about the flooded valleys, and most economically viable dams have already been built, and buying the land for the lakes would be very expensive. Wind and solar sources would not provide enough energy, and people would complain about windmill farms and solar collector arrays.

I realise it was a rhetorical question, but Canada is working on alternative fuels. All the major automakers are dealing with Ballard Fuel Cells out of Vancouver. They have buses in use today in major cities that run off of fuel cells. Many fleets of taxis run off of propane - which is much cleaner.

If you drive through southern Alberta, you will find massive wind farms, some within sight of drilling rigs. In Ontario, we have windmills downtown, and at one of the nuke plants. We are more reliant on nuclear power than the US, and we are shutting down all coal fired plants in Ontario by 2007.

As for Toronto's garbage, you may complain, but if you compared us with say, Chicago(which also ships garbage to Michigan), you would find, we ship less per capita because we divert more to recycling, and its cleaner garbage because we strictly enfore hazardous materials dumping. So if you deny us the right to ship garbage, will you turn back Chicagos too, or perhaps they could pick up the slack , and pollute you even more? Simple answers are not always correct.

As for shutting down all the traffic in Toronto, we already have a massive transit system and much higher tranist usage than most cities (maybe New York might be higher per capita). When we have a transit strike, its virtually impossible to cope.

James

Hydrogen is made by lightning hitting water drops in a thunderstorm and forming 2H2 and O2. I don't think we're gonna stop having thunderstorms.

Then by using fuel cells, the hydrogen is used and during the fueling process simply comes out as pure water.

Totally clean process.

the answers would vary depending on the car. I'm not willing to go hunt every URL for you, but I'll supply you with a couple of examples:

Toyota Prius:

$20,975
5 yr/ 60k mi warranty
gas/electric hybrid
5 person seating capacity
Range: 714 miles
tank: 11.9 gal

Honda Insight:
$20,530
3 yr/ 36k mi warranty
gas/electric hybrid
2 person seating capacity
Range: 636 miles
tank: 10.6 gal

Here's one Honda spec on the FCX, which is about 2 years old. It's supposedly improved in range and what not. It's a Fuel cell car. And, you don't have to wait for it to charge. You stop and refuel on hydrogen like you do gasoline.

http://automobiles.honda.com/info/news/article.asp?ArticleID=2003100837086

There are SUV, sport coupe and pickup variants of alternative fuel and hybrid cars. You could go find them on most major car sites.

Anyways...there are alternatives to using strictly internal combustion.

So we will go get lightning to create the hydrogen, but that still doesn't put it into the cells so we can use it, right?

The charging process still uses electricity, and if I recall correctly CA has been having a shortage of what?

You solve one problem by making another.

How many times can that same cell be recharged? What kind of disposal is involved?

The environmental NUTS won't allow new plants to be made no matter what type of plant they are, making all of their arguments invalid because they don't allow any solution except to just stop using ANY resource. These same invalid people are now irrelevant because they are unwilling to make rational decisions or have rational conversations. It is not rational to fight every alternative source and still complain about the old source still being used.

Firstly, I will ignore your rash comments about shutting down factories and production. That has NEVER been suggested by ANYONE regarding GW.

As for GW being a scare tactic, give your head a shake. GW doesn't exist? The Earth has warmed and cooled naturally for millions of years, FACT. Global Warming is occuring, FACT. It's not some greenie theory, history has proven otherwise. THis planet continually cools and warms so Global Warming DOES occur and is uncontestable.

The question is HOW MUCH do we contribute to the process by releasing gases into the atmosphere that do not break down?

We KNOW CO doesn't and it is a very harmful gas. We KNOW hydrocarbons DO, and at low altitude become multple rather harmless/natural gases.

Therefore, emissions of CO (for example) are harmful to our atmosphere and create an INCREASE in the natural GW process.

What are Canadians doing about it? Well seeing as you asked, there are MANY natural gas, diesel, fully electric and hybrid cars around Canada. They are actually quite trendy in Vancouver and moreso Richmond these days. The BC bus service runs a lot of Ballard Fuel cell buses in urban reas too. Alternae fuels have been a great interest of many for many years now. SO to answer your question, LOTS of Canadianas are buying more efficient cars an dare aware of thier driving habits, taking transit or walking, riding, carpooling more than ever before.

YOUR president even acknowledges that GW is real and thta people are a contributor to increasing/speding up the process. What he fails to reckognize is that whilst human emissions are a factor, that companies in America are also a factor. He wants studies to be conducted in countries that have been emissions aware for decades now. They have extremely low emissions rates due to a VERY expensive internal infrastructure to reburn and reuse emissions so as to reduce wasteed emissions. But THESE are the companies GWB wants sampled, not the massive plants in the US that do NOT have any measures in place and that DO create the most emissions. His friends/bum buddies would be losing revenue and production woul dbe reduced if they were to come up to snuff with the rest of the world.

To say that GW isn't a reality is to say the world is flat. It's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the rest of the world recognizes and understands it, why don't you? US media spin or something? The rest of the world are just greenies that don't know any better? Don't be so arrogant/stupid. Its a proven, natural process that will change the face of the world, just as it has many times in history. People are just expediating the process inanattampt to pretend it isn't happening. Anyone who doesn't realize this is happening and has happened for millions of years is truly blind, deaf and dumb, or just scared to face the truth.

What do trees and lumber have to do with emissions control? Perhaps the mills used to procss the trees are emitting harmful gases but clear cutting and emissions control are two different aniumals.

As for China, they do buy our premium lumber at a fair price. The US is IN BC, cutting down trees and pushing for lower and lower tarriffs for doing so. Canadian companies that farm trees and seel them to Asian markets are in the spotlight too, but this is in a somewhat controlled environment and not just a massive ruch to cut them down and sell thm off. If you lived where I do, you'd see it happen, I wonder where they get all the trees sometimes, you can spend a weened watching an endless line of US trucks leaving the mountains loaded with trees for thier local (BC) plants to process, almost 24/7. I amnot talking the rain forests, I am talking ALL the forsts. You drive down a highway on th islandand it's gross to see what they have done here. On the mainland it's not so bad, since Canadian companies started more responsible forestry prectices, but Weyerheauser is another story altogether.

So close your eyes, stick your head in teh sand and plug your ears if you need to. Global warming is FACT, not theory. Our emisison contributions to increase the process of GW is also FACT not thoery. HOW MUCH, is the question now, and only because your president is reluctant to let people actually confirm and strudy these issues where the largest plants exist, America.

As for other countries, most have been aware of and working toward better processes for decades now, Emissions laws in Canada wer eintroduced shortly after the California clean air act. Even in teh early 70's companies like Ford, GM and Chrysler were facing this reality, thermactors and air pumps helped a great deal in reburning HC and reducing CO emissions. Hydrocarbons dissipate and break down into harmless gases relativey low in the atmosphere. Carbon Monoxide literally kills people via Carboxyhemogloben, it's been seen in traffic cops and street workers in teh cities for some years now. Ever get a headache in the city, it's rarely due to noise pollution, it's almost always contributed to by CO emissions, the most tightly controlled vehicle emission.

It's no joke, unless you CHOOSE to ignore it. It's not just greenies and tree huggers that support this reality, it's pretty much anyone with a brain. I understand that in the US it is grudgingly recognized, but it is still a reality you all need to come to terms with sooner than later.

As long as GWBrefuses to subject US plants to testing procedures, the tests will not be deemed worthy of major change. The countries SUGGESTED to be tested are all countries that have enforced strict emissions control laws for decades. Businesses spend MILLIONS creating ways to reuse waste, someeven resell that waste to other plants to reduce THEIR waste for raw fuels. This s where much of Europe's enineering has been focused for a long time, while proof will arise that they do accelerate the GW process, it will b deemed feasible as the levels are so low. Now if we could get those tests done on Haliburton, for example, things would be much different i'm sure. Unless GWB is gone and no longer protects his bum buddies from spending money on refitting their factories, the whole process is pretty useless actually. America is undoubtedly has the largest manufacturing processes on Earth. It has the the greatest emissions (noting that VEHICLE emisisons in Tokyo may be higher) from manufacturing than any country on earth, yet is not allowed to be sampled?

Gee why not, BUSH, I thought it didn't matter?

I thought these companies were upstanding paradigms of how companies around the world should be. What are you trying to hide from America and the world THIS time, hiding reality again?

You don't understand the concept of lightning releasing the hydrogen...and that it's in the atmosphere all around us already?

Man...ok...lemme go real slow...

We have this thing called wind here...and it blows something called air around...and that air is made up of many things, including water vapor and gases...of which hydrogen is one of them.

So...we can trap that hydrogen and use it...pressurize it...put it in tanks..and use it in fuel cell cars.

As for the exact mechanics of the different cars, I couldn't tell you exactly how they all work. But, I bet batteries aren't charged on a fuel-cell car from a wall outlet...bet it's done with electromagnetic generators attached to the axle or drive shaft or something in the drive train.

Oh...and in my opinion...anyone who'd totally cut short the idea of looking into efficient or clean alternatives because of a few overly-vocal environmental nuts...is operating in the same manner on the opposite end of the spectrum. You're taking the extreme stand. Try to be moderate and at least look into the particulars yourself.

Go look at getting you a Prius, man...I think you still get a tax rebate from the IRS for it. Or a Ford Escape mini-suv hybrid. You'd like that money back...right? Pays for a lot of rounds of golf and Jaeger.

(see...I know how to motivate people...)

Casual city driving, make that NECCESSARY city driving only. That's where the majority of the CO is emitted from though, so it's a pretty good start.

As James already mentioned BC's Ballard Fuel cells are used in buses all over the place. They travel all day, every day and travel hundrds of miles per day, the concept is not exactly an unrealistic one.

Should you require more than that, there are hybrid vehicles that also provide better range and speed while still reducing emissions. It's a start and at least it is being recognized by some people and not simply laughed off as a waste of time, that doesn't get anyone ahead.

Here's another car, the SMARTCAR, sorry it's from Germany but is a 100% subsidiary of Daimler Chrysler. They are NOT avaiabnle in the US YET.

THey run a diesel hybrid, 3-cyl inline (the smallest diesel engin built), they aer unfortunately elctronically limited to a top speed of 135mph though, so if you want a lot of tickets you need to stay, well anywhere I suppose. A diesel hybrid will take you anywhere you want to go, don't worry about our longer trips , it will get you there as fast (if not faster) than our current car and at a lower cost, all th ehwile providing much cleaner emissions that are not harmful to our atmosphere as they will compltely break down into H2O at low altitude.
http://www.smart.com/-snm-0150526428-1121782077-0000024653-0000001104-1122057799-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-ca-content-Site/en_CA/-/CAD/SVCPresentationPipeline-Start?Page=issite%3a%2f%2fsmart-Site%2fsmart%2ecom%2fRootFolder%2fsmart%2fhome%2epage
SMART- "Open your mind"

We only have global figures for the last 150 years or so and the temperature has been rising - on average - everywhere for all of that time. Glaciers have been retreating for all of that time. Deserts have been getting bigger for all of that time. Lakes have been getting smaller for all of that time.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been rising for all of that time.

Prehistoric measurements or even those from the Eric the Red days are at best patchy results from tree-rings, ice cores, peat bogs and the like.

All we can deal with is what [b]is[/b] happening now. If we choose to gamble the lives of millions of people on anecdotal evidence about Greenland and ignore what is obvious then so be it. I have my "I told you so!" t-shirt ready (the one I keep for Novell to Windows "upgrades") and I hope not to have to wear it.

Neil :)

(I love a good argument)

global warming warms the seas...causes hurricanes to develop earlier in the season and farther out to sea.

It won't bother the rich who rape the land though. They'll just keep getting their rich insurance corp CEO friends to insure their houses on the coast no matter what.

yee haw...I got me a dog and a ranch...and a beach house too!!! *wheeez*

Hyrids actually do have a brake induced electrical generator. It uses energy wsted in the brakin system to create electrival energy and keep itself charged.

I didn't realize the new SMART cars weren't available in the US yet, sheck these babies out:
http://www.smart.com/-snm-0150526428-1121782077-0000024653-0000001104-1122057799-enm-is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/mpc-ca-content-Site/en_CA/-/CAD/SVCPresentationPipeline-Start?Page=issite%3a%2f%2fsmart-Site%2fsmart%2ecom%2fRootFolder%2fsmart%2fhome%2epage

Th ewordl's smallest 3-cylinder diesel engine, coupled with hybrid charging systems.

Peoplejust don't get it you know. THey think alternate vehicles mean these cars that only go a few miles a day at 20mph in the city.

I believe YOU have a Pruis right? A nice looking mid-sized sedan, nice interior, great acceleration and brajing energy, excellent comfort, great distance etc. It's not th emythical car that so many still think it is.

IN Canada those little SMART Cars from Germany are selling like crazy, you see them all over the place in Richmond and other suburbs of Vancouver now, you can rent them almost anywhere as they are quite trendy too. But apparently unavailable at this time in the USA.

One day peopl ewill catch on, until then, it will be more coal, more oil and more cars, "I NEED IT TO BE LIKE THAT" "I NED a fast gas guzxler, electric cars only go aout 20mph and only go 500' per charge" It's all oure BS of course, this isn't the 80's anymore, and some people will just never catch on.

Does not include any economic theory at all. The people who live in and rely on the area for life, the widlife that was there LONG before America (that didn't get to vote on it either) is directly effected.

As for electrical energy sales, eth California act has always been accepted by people in BC. Every year it seems the government is pusing for more though. People of BC oppose th egovernment seeling out like this, they DO stand and protest tey do vote against these issues. We don't support it just because our government does, that's for damn sure!

I do see hybrids as a way to go, especially as the technology improves, and costs decrease to make them more competitive, and availability increases. The beauty of the hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline (or petrol, as our friends in the UK and Australia call it), so a new infrastructure is not needed for fueling them, and they do not waste energy while idling at traffic stops. Instead, they use the idling time to store their batteries. Some hybrids (such as the Ford Escape) even make use of braking to generate electricity, instead of wasting that kinetic energy when coming to a stop. The Ford Escape is so efficient, it even gets better miles to the gallon in stop and go city traffic than it does on the open highway.

Now the hybrid vehicle concept shows what the free market can do. Companies such as Ford and Honda saw a demand and made a product to fulfill that demand, showing that money can be made with more efficient vehicles.

That people never learn or never change?

I was asking what the new cars do, and explained what my driving needs are. Isn't that looking at the future?

I currently get 28 to 30 on the highway, and about 35 on the back ways if under 65mph.

From reading and listening, many of the hybrids are not getting the milage that that they claimed they were supose to get, and some don't get any more than the gas counterpart.

Desel would be the way to go, but I can't get a bmw right now.

The problem with the envonmental NUTCASES is we need to offer affordable solutions instead of whining that people are still using oil.

Oz, you are quick to point out "not available in the US". Can I bop up to Canada and buy one of these great cars? Or are they as bad as the US about getting this? Next time set your bias asside and say "North America" if that is the more acurate location, instead of just the USA.

Hybrid technology is decades old.

The motor runs completely electric up to 40mph, then the gas engine starts up and takes over. Th ebreaking energy is used to recharge the battery,

Stop and start in the city and the engine rarely runs at all, unless electricity drops below a threshold. For highway driving they are superb, better on gas and more efficient.

But this is just the very tip of the ice berg and a QUICK fix for todays manufacturers. Did you know a Ford in England and a Ford in the USA has completely different engineering and materials usedin many of it's compnents? IN America nobody caes, it's just lower cost that matters. In Europe, people care about environment and more importantly to them fuel efficiency.

If a gallon of fuel holds X-KJ of potential energy, that fuel can be used to create Y or Z as far as output energy to the wheels is concerned.

By using cheaper metals, manufacturers keep proces affordable insome countries, where they use much better metals and engineering processes to create MORE efficiency in the fuel burn and better mileage, reduced emissions in teh EXACT same car sold elsewhere. WHY?

Because some people just don't care.

Thos who do care, pay more but get a better car even if the exact same model as sold here.

Those who don't care and just want to buy on price, force manufacturers to cheap out on manufacturing and materials, creating a less efficient, less reliable and less eco-friendly conbustion process.

All cars burn the same gas, the POTENTIAL energy of the gas is the same from that pump whether in a Civic or an Escape. It is how the car is designed that actually decides how much POTENTIAL energy from the fuel is wasted in heat or friction and how much is delivered to the wheels.

We force manufacturers to provide cheap cars and we get cheap cars, even luxury cars that don't last 5 years now is the norm. If peopl ewer willing to pay more, as they aer on some countries for a BETER car, they get better car. Often with the same name, same manufacturer, same look and feel, but a better quality, more efficient car overall.

Price dictates quality, if we buy on price we lose quality. Hasn't anyone been to WalMart or MacDonlands lately?

Now ifpeople wer ewilling to pay more up front and foret about teh gas bill, we'd have streets full of high quality electric cars by now.

There is a cycle that happens. The last one ended about 1971, I think. The most recent one started around the time of Andrew (1994?).

However, it has never been (in recorded history) that 5 named hurricanes have developed before August 1. Weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are becoming more frequent as well as more intense.

No one can say for sure what's causing it. But, we do have an idea of the major contributors to these things. The only thing that keeps us from curtailing their effects is vanity and gluttony.

Anyways...hopefully Ireland doesn't get hurricanes in the future. :)

I gave you car sites, jdclyde.

The Prius would seat you and all 3 boys and any potential future wife. It's $20k or so...it is a hybrid so you can still burn gas...and it gets about 50+ mpg and and get over 70mph.

So...what u waiting for? Get down there, get that car, and apply for that tax refund for getting an environmentally friendlier car. ;)

YOu just finished explainig you wer interested in exploring your alternatives, yet the link to one alternative I provided answers your question very clearly as did my post.

These cars are the latest trend here, as I said, there are many driving in Richmond and other suburbs of Vancouver (daily commuters).

SO yes, you can buy them here, they are POPULAR here and if you want to drive it across the border you are okay, but would never get it repaired in teh US. If you are America wanting to buy one and bringit back to the USA< too bad, US laws won't allow it yet.

So, I specifically pointed out they are not avaiable the in USA, and NOT North America because they ARE available and trendy in Canada. Perhaps read the link next time before offering such a defensive post for no reason.

Smart is a super light car with a 3 cylinder diesel.

http://www.smartcar.ca/go/portal_External.asp?strHTTP_Refer=http://www.smartcar.ca/go/home.asp&TempLinkID=60&LinkName=The%20Smart%20-%20Official%20World%20Site&URL=http://www.smart.com

It can do 135 kms an hour, which is above our highway speed limit by 35 Kms. I read much about a test conducted by auto journalist about using it in the winter - with the stability and traction controls built in it handled very well. There was another article where they took a group of them from Toronto to upstate New York - they handle fine on the highway

Hybrids never get plugged in for charging, they generate power through regenerative braking - when you brake they make electrical power. So they actually get better mileage in stop and go/city traffic. .

James

Yo usaw a fat elk, so what? Did everyone say ALL the elk would starve? Did it have NO impact on thier population? Did iit have no impact on any of the other several thousand birds and wildlife in Alaska? I think not. Again,skinny Elk are not the only concern.

Shall we just go ahead and then weigh the inhabitants of the area and see if they have enough food to sustain themselves eternally then?

What do hese pople do when you moce thier food source? Move?

Nice one.

I have explained in several posts here that it is the world's smallest 3-cylinder diesel, hybrid.

A freidn rented one a few month sback and they are a blast, a little odd (size and wheelbase) but still really cool and fun to bomb around in.

Anyhow, diesel is not a major concern to the atmosphere, it also breaks down at extremely low altitude. This also goes for all those poeple who complain about trucks belching black smoke while THEY are forced to deal with Air Care. THEY BURN DIESEL, NOT GASOLINE, there is no harmful CO emission from Diesel fuel.

And the government sticks little electrons into our water supply so that they can read our minds.

Made your tinfoil hat yet?

Don't you see that your comments are as radical and applied as generally as those you oppose?

I saw your first post, and then you SNUCK the second in while I was replying to the first so I NEVER saw it until wondering what you were going on about I went back to the start.

If you wuzzent a sneaky little hobbitz, precious would have seen this the first time. Nice precious....

NOTE: not many people going through a divorce go out and drop 20K on a car, even if it does get them a tax break.

First of all, the question isn't whether or not the earh is warming, we KNOE it is and has doen sicne the dawn of time, or cooled of course.

The problem is are WE increasing the speed of this proven natural process? Well recently even your president had realized that 'GEE, PEOPLE DO HAVE AN EFFECT!' Now if a dummy like that can see thw point, obvioulsly you can too, unless you are all waiting for GW to announce it to you and make it real.
Sometime threads like this are so futile and useless, it's like people STILL believe the world is flat until they sail it themselves. I have seen the most absurd reasons for disbelief shown here today, Greenland being colder, Eric the Red, Florida's oranges, and now even someone wondering how much warmer it is now than 1000 years ago, YOU have a browser look it up. W

e are also not talking about dinosaurs farting, but somehow they DID become extinct, and the Earth cooled naturally (proving this phenominon DOES happen). To speak out against any threoy based on an occurace several million years ago, is pur eignorance. Can you prove it wasn't due to dinosaur farts? Just pure 100% ignorance.

The principle we base all of our modern day discoveries on say it did have an effect. who are you to second guess it because you don't believe in it?

What Scientific proof do you have to the contrary?

There are millions of square miles of unwanted land where the junk can be buried with no ill effects to anyone. It should be dropped in the wastelands of Texas a few hundred miles from the nearest road, and a no-fly zone created all around it so it can't be taken and used as a weapon.

It isn't that difficult to store nuclear waste much more intelligently than our fabulous government and military have been doing it.

Harvey Groves is huge over there, and they have groves all along the coast...even up to St. Augustine (about 15 miles south of Jax).

And besides that...100 years ago, Miami was a bigger sea port than Jax and still is to this day (now mainly because of population difference). It's just that reaching Miami by road then took forever when you could get through (100 years ago they didn't have I-95, I-75 or the Florida's Turnpike). Most people went to Miami by boat then. Most only the wealthy had the cars there and would use them locally.

Anyways...you can go to the NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) website and they will show you the statistics for Florida 0802 where Jax is...over the past 50 years, the standard deviation has increased and the temperatures are staying warmer later in the year. This would be condusive to growing citrus.

hehehehe

seriously...hybrids aren't bullets...but, they run forever, are twice as efficient as conventional cars, and are just as cheap...and you get a tax refund for it.

BTW, jdclyde...I know you're strapped right now...but...think about it for the future...what other car can you get that you can go 700+ miles on 12 gallons of gas? 58 mpg? seats 5?

I'd say that's the way to go...it's how I'll go when I get another car...that's for sure.

Carbon dioxide does deteriorate ozone in conjunction with sulfur dioxide. However you are basically right that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the biggest contributor to the ozone deterioration.

Hell, even methane is an ozone destroyer...don't see me holding my farts in forever.

I just buy stuff that doesn't have CFCs and isn't made with them as a by-product. Just like I buy paper products made from recycled paper if I can.

No reason to ruin things if you can keep from it.

Plant a tree...kill a nutcase :)

doesn't negate the real problem of the sky changing color. Have you ever seen Los Angeles' surreal orange tint?

One of the most common ways of commiting suicide is to use high concentrations of carbon monoxide, usually a running vehicle in a garage, though a carport will work if there is little wind. So is it really bonkers to wonder what will be the effects of more dilute, but still higher than pre-industrial, levels of carbon monoxide?

I like business. I LOVE money. I think that having a universal medium of exchange and the freedom to pursue profit are among the most important contributing factors to the improvement of our species' condition, collectively. But it's about time that the passenger vehicle industry make its first substantial advance since Henry Ford introduced mass production. The big 3 have been greasing hands for 100 years to avoid the trouble of real innovation. All their R&D amount to variations on the theme of the cylinder/piston internal combustion engine. There are much better alternatives.

http://www.acpropulsion.com/

You aren't the only person in the industry. I happen to be in it at the moment. In your one post, you call the Smart a hybrid. It is not.

"Here's another car, the SMARTCAR, sorry it's from Germany but is a 100% subsidiary of Daimler Chrysler. They are NOT avaiabnle in the US YET.

THey run a diesel hybrid, 3-cyl inline ..."

A hybrid is defined as a car with mulitple power sources, i.e. the Prius, Hybrid Escape, Insight which have gas motors, a system for generating electric power(through braking), storage batteries and electric motors.

The Smart car does not use these technologies. It is not a hybrid. It does use a newer injection system, which does help efficiency. Its also very light weight.

I have seen the 4 door version out and about, though not sure if its on sale yet.

James

Man

Well if our emissions were Co2 We'd have no problems at all.

CO-Carbon MON-oxide is a deadly poisonous gas that kills people every year. Ever stick a hose in the exhaust pipe? You'll only do it once.

Carbon monoxide is created when buring gasoline, all manufacturing processes emit CO, mainly as a result of the conbustion process.

The CO at ground level is deadly. It does not rise as fast as other emissions, it does not deplete as other emissions and people get sich and die, so do animals and plant life.

To suggest that emissions control does not have firect effect on the ozone layer, the health of people and other life of the area as well as global warming is completely ignorant.

The suggestion is reduceing emissions, this will help our earth in so many different ways, yet it seems to be a foreign concept for many south of here.

"Solution" was the wrong term to use. In this context, drilling for oil is a [i]range of the moment evasion[/i] of a blatantly obvious fact of reality. The alarmist, factually-wanting qualities of "peak oil" propaganda do not change the fact that once all the oil is burned, there will be no more supply for tens or hundreds of millions of years, and it will be our own decayed carcases that produce it.

The importance of the "information economy" is vastly exaggerated. If the entire Internet failed then trade in pornography, pirated music and pirated software would come to a halt. The products we need for survival would be distributed as efficiently as ever inside a week. But if you subtract all at once the Joules contributed by fossil fuels from the global energy budget, there is no workaround. Most of the population perishes and the survivors live like Mad Max.

So, supposing the technology is developed to extract oil from Canada's sand, then what? We have a few more decades to face the same fate.

Economic forces are more effective than governmental imposition of "demand", especially when GWB claims his 2 sheckels of support for hydrogen cells, at this point, are worth mentioning in a State of the Union address. What a punk! The impetus has to come from the market, not from the manufacturers. Boards of directors really don't have any motivation to think about the effects that their industries have, even on their own grandchildren.

My mistake. I knew it wasn't a hybrid but was under the impression the 'fourtwo' model was.

I never implied I was the only one who understood this market tough, sorry, that's your assumption.

Either way, what I ment was that there is another alternative (to the suggested hybrids mentioned) and throug diesel ina far more eficient engine, and lighter car is just as feasible for most single owners who drive long distances and need highway speeds. As the original comments implied were the problemsd with new concepts weren't covering.

My post was merely supposed to provide an alternative option to the electric designs being discussed.

First of all I see where you misunderstood my first post, wording is everything I suppose and perhaps my grammar missd the boat as it often does.

As for you closing argument, very nice try but hardly accurate. Buchdi dNOT fool the rest of the wolrd into believing in WMD. EVERYONE in the world knew Saddam HAD WMD, everyone knew where he got them and how a blind eye was shown when he used them for 'other people's' benefit.

BUT, if Bush was successful in convincing the world that Saddam needed to be rid of WMD or that they too should be scared, why didn't the rest of th eworld support invading Iraq? Britain did, on thepremise of liberating Iraqi people, after they pleaded for Blair's support. Don't know too many pepl eon England who supported the war as a weay to save themselves from WMD, that's purely an American thing. Bush decieved Americans and some STILL believe what he said, even now.

He didn't fool the rest of th eworld though, as you suggest, most peopl esaid he was an paranoid idiot who had no viable reason for invading Iraq. They supported using force to finish inspections if needed, but it wasn't because BUsh yanked the inspectors himself this time, BEFORE invading Iraq. Nice move Georgie boy, way to uphold your word!

As I was also joking with my dinosaur reference. I think your intent was still quite clear though. "Prove it."

Well they haven't one back several million years and read the weather reports, but archaeologists HAVE been able to determine definite climate changes over millions of years,science and stuff ya know. We know the world has changed, frozen, warmed etc.

Now they are able to monitor this warming and hae done for many years, it has beenshown that this warming increases due to the emissions we exhaust into the atmosphere, therefore they can fairly accurately predict the future based on similar trends in history without actualy being there to witness it.

1) Strong acid such as HCl, H2SO4, etc
2) A bit of metal, chosen according to electronegativity so that it replaces the hydgrogen in the acidic compound, poof, you've got your hydrogen gas!

When I visited South Africa 2 years ago I read in a magazine about a BMW that used just this sort of fuel system, called a "fuel cell". Instead of a petrol tank it has an acid tank, and the acid (I think they use suplphuric) is pumped across a lattice of magnesium, which looked a lot like a radiator, at least in this diagram. The gas then rises to the combustion chamber, there's probably a valve or something controlling that, similar to our traditional cars...well, this car produced 315J of energy, which corresponds to 232 ft-lbs of torque in a mid-sized sedan with a normal-sized engine compartment!

I haven't seen anything about this vehicle since, unfortunately, but it was advertised for sale, not theoretical research.

There is a compnay in BC called Ballard Power Systems. SO far they have DOZENS and DOZENS of buses across Canada (mostly in BC) that use the hydrogen 'fuel cell' technology, Ballard Fuel Cells.

http://www.ballard.com/be_informed/fuel_cell_technology/how_the_technology_works#

Excellent descriptions and even a video show of how it works and power is generated.

The Saciety of Automotive Engieers (SAE) has a great deal of info on thier site, I don't know what is or isn't available without login access though.

GM is currently working on several Ballard fuel-cell powered vehicles, the BMX's are the 745 and 750HL models. There were first showcased at expo 2000 and since have been tested and in Mini's (now owned by BMW) as well.

But to see a bus with 70+ passengers cruise uphill in ruchhour wit hno poblems and do highway speeds between suburbs is pretty cool really. They are quite widely used now in BC, ther are all over the Island too, where 'eco-awareness' is synonymous with Vancouver Island residents.

Some people still feel this is new or unproven technology, but for Canada to run so many city buses on a daily basis for many years now (I think it started in the mid-late 90's) proves that it is a viable and effective method of powering an automobile. Now if only poeple were willing to PAY more to get better technology. Then again, if nobody bought a computer for $3000.00+, they would never have come down in price and would still cost thousands instead of hundereds of dollars today.

We need ot invest in technology in order to make it affordable, manufacturers are reluctant to bring ou tfuel cell cars for a higher cost than a normal combustion engine car, because of people's opinions such as those that are shown here.

People just don't believe there's a better option and any increase in price automatically stops that option being worthwhile for most people, regardless of long term benefits, too many people think of short term expenditures instead.

But I understood the 'F&CKLO@D of energy' reference okay. :^O

P.S. Some of your comments have really cracked me up today. Who needs a Friday yuk when we have discussions like this?

As global [i]mean[/i] temperatures increase, it is [i]predicted[/i] by the global warming model that temperatures will become more extreme at [i]both ends[/i] of the spectrum!

Colder summers would be evidence contrary to "global warming". Colder winters that alter farming practice [i]are evidence that global warming has already begun to affect the world economy[/i]. How much longer would you like to wait for evidence of a problem?

It's been a difficult week. I think I'll get sloshed tonight.

The greatest lefty, and the looniest loon, respectively, of all time!