Edwards: Americans should sacrifice their SUVs

[stephanie]

Here ya are, folks...Vote for a Democrat and start giving up your freedoms....for the good of the goverment....:cheers2:

SNIP:
Associated Press - August 29, 2007 7:55 AM ET

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

read the rest at..
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6997982

[GW in Ohio]

Here ya are, folks...Vote for a Democrat and start giving up your freedoms....for the good of the goverment....:cheers2:

SNIP:
Associated Press - August 29, 2007 7:55 AM ET

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

read the rest at..
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6997982


This is the kind of reaction I would expect from a conservative, i.e., "Fuck you. I ain't givin' up nothin'."

BTW, stephanie, he isn't asking Americans to give up their SUVs for the sake of the government; it's for the sake of the environment that we all live in and share.

[truthmatters]

He is asking for peopel to do it on their own not sugesting a law against them.

Dont ask a con what he can do for his country they dont want to do anything for their country.

[Monkeybone]

that is a yes and no thing. the only time i think that i would agree with it is when you see the soccer moms driving those big ass excursions for one kid.

but in the same note, i love my trucks/suvs...MINE! but i also do like saying money on gas.

[stephanie]

He is asking for peopel to do it on their own not sugesting a law against them.

Dont ask a con what he can do for his country they dont want to do anything for their country.


:laugh2:

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/Edwards-1.jpg

[stephanie]

I guess we could all start riding one of these...

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/edwardsbiker-1.gif

[truthmatters]

It is a total waste of money and energy.

I live in an area where there are alot of wealthy people.

I see single people driving Hummers all the time its their go to work car.

The reason they drive them Im guessing is status and so they can look down on everything else on the road.

People can get very petty when they feel Better than their fellow man because of wealth.

[MtnBiker]

People can get very petty when they feel Better than their fellow man because of wealth.

So? do you suggest the government should do something about it?

[GW in Ohio]

I guess we could all start riding one of these...

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/edwardsbiker-1.gif

Actually, I thought that was pretty funny, stephanie.

I think the environment is the new third rail in American politics. Everyone knows we have to take some fairly drastic steps if we're going to have a liveable environment now and in the future.

But no politician wants to ask Americans to start making sacrifices and giving up some of the luxuries we've become accustomed to.

I give Edwards credit for making an effort in this direction.

[PostmodernProphet]

I want a biodiesel Hummer.....

[MtnBiker]

Large screen tvs consumes more energy than small screen, Edwards should ask people to use only small screen tvs.

Beef production consumes more energy than produce production, Edwards should ask people to be vegetarians.

Large homes consumes more energy than small homes, Edwards should ask people to live in small homes.

Airplanes consume large quatities of energy, Edwards should ask people to take less vacations.

All of these suggestions would be much better for us, we all live in and share the environment, Edwards could lead us into a better future.

[stephanie]

I'm all for conservation, and I do my best to help with it...Shoot, I've had those squiggly funny looking light bulbs, for ten yrs..way before Al Bore suggested us IDIOTS use them...

You all come up and live where I do, and then tell me you will buy and drive one of those tin can hybrids when it is -50 below zero...:poke:

[darin]

Do people know the late Ford Excursion was more enivronmentally-friendly than the Geo Metro when it came out?

[darin]

It is a total waste of money and energy.

I live in an area where there are alot of wealthy people.

I see single people driving Hummers all the time its their go to work car.

The reason they drive them Im guessing is status and so they can look down on everything else on the road.

People can get very petty when they feel Better than their fellow man because of wealth.


Maybe people drive them to feel more protected against crappy drivers. Are you a crappy driver? I think people like you look-down on SUV drivers because of your arrogance.

[PostmodernProphet]

Do people know the late Ford Excursion was more enivronmentally-friendly than the Geo Metro when it came out?

not before you posted it, no......

[Monkeybone]

i meant the excursion thing from gas milage stand point D.

but i agree with the safer thing. i feel safer in my jeep than i do when i am in a car. plus suvs and trucks are easier to get in and out of than a tiny car that has your ass touching the ground. and car have almost no head room, gotta open the fricking sun roof most of the time. stupid tiny ppl designing cars

[PostmodernProphet]

I hate the trend in auto design that makes even big cars feel small......they shape the dash and seats so you feel like you are in a coffin, then plunk in a between seat console big enough to house a refrigerator......

my brother in law just picked up a new four door Chevy pick up truck......bench seats, no console......I was in heaven.....I wanted to stick one foot up on top of the seat and the other under the parking brake pedal, just because I could.......

[GW in Ohio]

Maybe people drive them to feel more protected against crappy drivers. Are you a crappy driver? I think people like you look-down on SUV drivers because of your arrogance.

There's always a reason to drive an SUV or a gas-guzzling car. And there's always a reason to choose economic concerns over environmental concerns.

But we've gotten to the point where environmental concerns can't be ignored any longer.

And let's face it, most people won't voluntarily downsize to a smaller car or an electric car, or do similar things that are environmentally friendly.

There has to be leadership from the White House.

[Monkeybone]

exactly.

sorry, but fuck the enviroment in the sense of jamming myself into one of the effecient cars. i would rather be comfortable then be kissing my knees driving a rinky dink electric car that woul cave in cause i leaned on it. now, i would drive a bio-diesel vehicle, and just becasue those are usually trucks and what not and big enough

[darin]

There's always a reason to drive an SUV or a gas-guzzling car. And there's always a reason to choose economic concerns over environmental concerns.


Absolutely. Let the MARKET decide - not some whiny bitches in Congress - or ANY branch, even.



But we've gotten to the point where environmental concerns can't be ignored any longer.


Why?



And let's face it, most people won't voluntarily downsize to a smaller car or an electric car, or do similar things that are environmentally friendly.

There has to be leadership from the White House.

I won't buy an electric or hybrid car until it can run me around Pacific Raceways faster than the car I have now, AND seat Four adults. And Look Good. AND not cost MORE to own and operate.

Electricity isn't free. As soon as we start plugging in our cars to the power-grid, the Electric companies will start doubling and tripling our rates.

[Trigg]

There's always a reason to drive an SUV or a gas-guzzling car. And there's always a reason to choose economic concerns over environmental concerns.

But we've gotten to the point where environmental concerns can't be ignored any longer.

And let's face it, most people won't voluntarily downsize to a smaller car or an electric car, or do similar things that are environmentally friendly.

There has to be leadership from the White House.

Well for me there is no way I can go down to a small car, not enough seets. Actually anyone with more than 2 kids has to drive a van or SUV because of the seatbelt laws out now.

What he needs to do, if he wants more people to buy the hybrids is make them bigger and MORE AFFORDABLE. Cause right now they cost to darn much for most people to even consider.

[Monkeybone]

agreed with the bigger hybrids, but when you look at it, the bigger you get is the more weight which means the more time on the gas engine so it almost seems like it negates the battery part other than sitting at a traffic light. i was talking to a kid that is working on a project for fuel efficeny. they used some light weight frame with an agine about the size of a weed eater one. thing worked out great, got like 30-40 some mpgs depend on conditions. but you also had to be under 5' 2'' and a certain weight. if not, it didn't work right

[darin]

agreed with the bigger hybrids, but when you look at it, the bigger you get is the more weight which means the more time on the gas engine so it almost seems like it negates the battery part other than sitting at a traffic light. i was talking to a kid that is working on a project for fuel efficeny. they used some light weight frame with an agine about the size of a weed eater one. thing worked out great, got like 30-40 some mpgs depend on conditions. but you also had to be under 5' 2'' and a certain weight. if not, it didn't work right


We also need to keep in mind the amount of resources going IN to a product. Think Ethanol for example.

[Trigg]

We also need to keep in mind the amount of resources going IN to a product. Think Ethanol for example.

Wasn't Ethanol supposed to be so much cheaper and better for the environment?

Everywhere I look it's maybe 10 cents cheaper than regular gas.

[MtnBiker]

There's always a reason to drive an SUV or a gas-guzzling car. And there's always a reason to choose economic concerns over environmental concerns.

But we've gotten to the point where environmental concerns can't be ignored any longer.

And let's face it, most people won't voluntarily downsize to a smaller car or an electric car, or do similar things that are environmentally friendly.

There has to be leadership from the White House.


Then you would support a President who would make these suggestions of sacrafice?

Large screen tvs consumes more energy than small screen, Edwards should ask people to use only small screen tvs.

Beef production consumes more energy than produce production, Edwards should ask people to be vegetarians.

Large homes consumes more energy than small homes, Edwards should ask people to live in small homes.

Airplanes consume large quatities of energy, Edwards should ask people to take less vacations.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wasn't Ethanol supposed to be so much cheaper and better for the environment?


better for the environment, yes.....it will be cheaper if oil is over $80 a barrel, more expensive if oil is lower than that......

currently it is kept low enough to compete because it is tax exempt at the pump......

[hjmick]

People will stop buying SUVs when automobile manufacturers stop making them, plain and simple.

[darin]

Wasn't Ethanol supposed to be so much cheaper and better for the environment?

Everywhere I look it's maybe 10 cents cheaper than regular gas.

Depends, really. When you think about facts regarding ethanol, it's not an attractive alternative:

Pro and Con Case:


Congress should give American motorists a break at the pump in the pending energy bill, but special interests and legislators beholden to them are once again loading the bill down with pork barrel projects.

Ethanol is a prime case in point. Ethanol's advocates have long argued that increasing the amount of ethanol used in gasoline would be a boon to the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the air.

Yet, more than two decades and tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, tax credits and fuel mandates have done little other than to further enrich Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM), the multibillion dollar agri-giant that produces more than 70 percent of the ethanol used in America. In return, ADM has been a major campaign contributor to key farm state legislators in both political parties.

The economic impact of ethanol subsidies is negative. One report by the U.S. Agriculture department determined that every $1 spent subsidizing ethanol costs consumers more than $4.

There are several reasons for this. First, every bushel of corn devoted to ethanol production leaves less for human consumption and animal feed -- thus people pay more for corn, beef, poultry and pork than they would absent the subsidies. And prices for other goods are also higher since farmers, in pursuit of lucrative subsidies, devote more acreage to corn rather than other, unsubsidized, produce.

Second, the costs of growing, distilling and blending ethanol into gasoline makes it 51 cents more per gallon to produce that regular gasoline.

The clamor for increased use of ethanol also raises the specter of the current problems surrounding the use of MTBE, the EPA-sanctioned fuel additive that oil producers began blending with gasoline in the mid-1990s to meet stricter clean-air standards in high-smog areas like New York City, New England and Southern California.

Although not carcinogenic in humans, MTBE has caused huge problems recently because it oozes from leaky storage tanks and leeches rapidly into ground water contaminating local water supplies.

The EPA recently found that only 16 of 3,776 U.S. water systems suffered contamination and most of the spills are in the final stages of clean-up. Despite that, the issue has attracted a swarm of personal injury lawyers who are salivating about the prospect of asbestos-type multimillion dollar payoffs from MTBE cases.

Ethanol has similar drawbacks -- ones that also could spark costly litigation. Because it absorbs water, ethanol cannot be shipped through existing pipelines used to transport unblended gasoline -- the water it absorbs could separate causing pipelines and fuel lines to freeze, and perhaps burst, during cold weather. The same problem will make engines run less efficiently in cold-climate areas.

Worse, most studies show that it takes more energy to produce and deliver a gallon of ethanol than the energy it produces -- a net loss of energy. Imported fossil fuels are used to produce, distill and transport ethanol.

Thus requiring that the United States use five to eight billion gallons of ethanol -- a mandate that Congress is currently considering -- means burning more, not less, imported oil and natural gas.

Ethanol would likely disappear from the marketplace absent federal subsidies and mandates. Like so much of the pork Congress bestows upon special interests, ethanol is bad for the economy, bad for consumers and bad for the environment.

Corn deserves a place on the nation's dinner table for its nutritional value, but it doesn't belong in the gas tanks of millions of U.S. motor vehicles.

:) (http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050605.htm)


More:

The proponents of this “miracle fuel” are silent on the fact that any alcohol-based fuel is extremely hard on small engines like outboard motors, snowmobiles, chainsaws, and a wide variety of lawn and garden equipment. Ethanol is also destructive in older vehicles that were not designed to accommodate fuels containing alcohol. And, it is no illusion that ethanol fuels deliver poorer fuel economy, regardless of what kind of vehicle you may drive
....
To sum it up; to benefit corn farmers in Illinois and Iowa and related corporate alcohol producers we will mandate a fuel that will damage many millions of dollars worth of recreational and utilitarian engines, hasten the demise of older vehicles, reduce fuel economy, increase the possibility of fuel shortages, and ratchet up the price of livestock feed.
:D (http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=3514)

[Trigg]

People will stop buying SUVs when automobile manufacturers stop making them, plain and simple.

But people would buy hybrid SUV's if they were the same price as regular. Right now the little bitty cars are the price of a Van.

[darin]

More on Ethanol:


In fact, it takes a gallon and a half of ethanol to give you the same energy as a gallon of gas.

Let's do some math.

To get a gallon of ethanol, you need a little more than 26 pounds of corn, and an acre of land can yield about 9,400 pounds per year. In other words, one acre of land can generate about 362 gallons of ethanol per year.

But people in the U.S. use about 174 million gallons of gasoline per day just for their cars (so says the Department of Energy). If the Magic Fairy came down and all our cars suddenly ran on ethanol we would need about 261 million gallons per day.

That would require more than 260 million acres of corn to produce. Considering that in 2000 farmers in the U.S. harvested about 73 million acres of corn, it looks like they'll need to get cracking.

They'll also need to get spraying. See, you can't get that kind of yield without fertilizer, and I'm not talking about manure. Corn growers in the U.S. use about 137 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre, according to the 2002 Agricultural Chemical Usage. They'll also need weed control — about a pound per acre of atrazine, the most popular herbicide. And let's not forget all the fresh water for irrigation.

So let's cut to the chase: To get enough ethanol from corn to power our cars, Americans would need to use almost 13 million tons more fertilizer, and dump more than 93.5 million tons of atrazine into the environment every year. (The potential health effects of atrazine read like the small print in a drug ad: congestion of the heart, lungs, and kidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands. And that's in the short term.)

Still think ethanol is a "clean" fuel? (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x.htm)

[GW in Ohio]

Then you would support a President who would make these suggestions of sacrafice?

Large screen tvs consumes more energy than small screen, Edwards should ask people to use only small screen tvs.

Beef production consumes more energy than produce production, Edwards should ask people to be vegetarians.

Large homes consumes more energy than small homes, Edwards should ask people to live in small homes.

Airplanes consume large quatities of energy, Edwards should ask people to take less vacations.

I'd support a president who'd ask Americans to make reasonable sacrifices. Some of the items on your list are silly or impractical.

But the new president also has to bring the Chinese to the table and hold their feet to the fire. They have become completely irresponsible about the environment and are now the biggest polluters on the planet.

[remie]

Wasn't Ethanol supposed to be so much cheaper and better for the environment?

Everywhere I look it's maybe 10 cents cheaper than regular gas.

Hell around here the ethanol blends are substantially more expensive and the fuel economy is less than straight gasoline. That makes a lot of sense.

[MtnBiker]

I'd support a president who'd ask Americans to make reasonable sacrifices. Some of the items on your list are silly or impractical.



They are all true statements, they would all require less energy consumption and they all still fulfill the needs of americans.

Some might argue that asking people to sacrifice their SUV is silly or impractial.

[MtnBiker]

Dont ask a con what he can do for his country they dont want to do anything for their country.

Conjecture

[avatar4321]

maybe he should sacrifice all that money he made off of foreclosing on Katrina Victims.

Nevermind, we cant expect Edwards to actually lead by example or help people with his money.

[Gaffer]

Fuck edwards, he's just another elitist pretending to be something he's not.

[PostmodernProphet]

DMP?....I hate to question the author's math, but.....

at an average yeild of 180 bushels per acre, 260 million acres of land will produce 468 billion bushels of corn.

a bushel of corn will produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol with a feed residue of 17.5 pounds of distiller's mash.....

that means 260 million acres of land will produce 1.310 trillion gallons of ethanol.....at a consumption rate of 174 million gallons a day, it would provide 7531 days worth of fuel a year......

I would consider that overproduction....

for sake of comparison.....this year it was projected that 90.5 million acres would be planted to corn in the US.......which was up 15% from the previous year......

http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3a.html

[nevadamedic]

This is the kind of reaction I would expect from a conservative, i.e., "Fuck you. I ain't givin' up nothin'."

BTW, stephanie, he isn't asking Americans to give up their SUVs for the sake of the government; it's for the sake of the environment that we all live in and share.

What about the SUV's hes gets driven around in for his campaign? Can we say hipocrit?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Guernicaa]

What about the SUV's hes gets driven around in for his campaign? Can we say hipocrit?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Can we say hooked on phonics?!?!?!?!?

[Guernicaa]

As for John Edwards telling people not to drive SUV's, well hes quite brave. No other American politician is going to stand up and say that.

As for me, I'm taking other steps like stephanie is to help the enviroment. I like cars too much to give up the V6/V8 advantage.

But, Toyota makes some pretty sweet small SUV's that give you the same feel as bigger ones like Chevy makes.

The RAV4 has amazing pickup and generates about 170 hp with a 4 cylinder engine. It all has to do with the way Toyota gears their transmissions.

[Nukeman]

DMP?....I hate to question the author's math, but.....

at an average yeild of 180 bushels per acre, 260 million acres of land will produce 468 billion bushels of corn.

a bushel of corn will produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol with a feed residue of 17.5 pounds of distiller's mash.....

that means 260 million acres of land will produce 1.310 trillion gallons of ethanol.....at a consumption rate of 174 million gallons a day, it would provide 7531 days worth of fuel a year......

I would consider that overproduction....

for sake of comparison.....this year it was projected that 90.5 million acres would be planted to corn in the US.......which was up 15% from the previous year......

http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3a.html
Thanks for pointing that out I noticed the math error as well but you explained it very well. good job

[glockmail]

This is the kind of reaction I would expect from a conservative, i.e., "Fuck you. I ain't givin' up nothin'."

BTW, stephanie, he isn't asking Americans to give up their SUVs for the sake of the government; it's for the sake of the environment that we all live in and share.
Edwards is a hypocrit. His mansion uses way more energy than my 4WD Explorer.

[retiredman]

Edwards is a hypocrit. His mansion uses way more energy than my 4WD Explorer.

polluting energy, like your explorer, or non-polluting, renewable?

do you know?

[glockmail]

More on Ethanol: Does that take into account that it takes 4 gallons of ethanol to make 5?

I have a flex-fuel vehicle and topped off with E85 one time. There was about 1/3 tank of gas in the tank when I filled up. Instead of 18mpg I got 14.

It was pretty interesting fighting the grasshoppers at the pump though.

[glockmail]

polluting energy, like your explorer, or non-polluting, renewable?

do you know?
WTF difference does it make? If Liberal Democrats don't support nuclear power and windmills in Nantucket than any talk about renewable energy is just talk.

[GW in Ohio]

What about the SUV's hes gets driven around in for his campaign? Can we say hipocrit?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

nevada: The right reaction to our current environmental crisis is to ask, "What can we do as a nation? What can I do as an individual to bring about a cleaner environment for all the earth's inhabitants?"

The wrong reaction is to point fingers at other people and say, "He does it, too." That solves nothing.

BTW, if you don't think we have an environmental crisis, you must live in a very remote area. All American cities of any size have had multiple bad air days this summer, when the haze hung heavy and old people were advised to stay indoors.

And BTW, I'm not even talking about global warming here....just your garden variety air pollution that's reducing our quality of life and slowly killing us all.

[remie]

DMP?....I hate to question the author's math, but.....

at an average yeild of 180 bushels per acre, 260 million acres of land will produce 468 billion bushels of corn.

a bushel of corn will produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol with a feed residue of 17.5 pounds of distiller's mash.....

that means 260 million acres of land will produce 1.310 trillion gallons of ethanol.....at a consumption rate of 174 million gallons a day, it would provide 7531 days worth of fuel a year......

I would consider that overproduction....

for sake of comparison.....this year it was projected that 90.5 million acres would be planted to corn in the US.......which was up 15% from the previous year......

http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_3a.html


Some random thoughts from a farm boy. Iowa is blessed to be able to average 180 Bu/Acre. Those kinds of yields happen under ideal growing conditions in certain regions of the country but not all, therefore your total bushels may be somewhat inflated. DMP is correct that those production levels are achieved with aggresive managemnet (irrigation, fertilizers and weed killers) there are costs associated with that too. Corn prices are already increasing for cattle feed, so production costs for feed lots are already increasing. The link you provided threw out a lot of numbers that I dont have time to research but I have a feeling they are slanted pro ethanol.

Dont get me wrong. I am for coming up with alternative fuels but I am not convinced that ethanol from corn is the bottom line answer.

[glockmail]

.... All American cities of any size have had multiple bad air days this summer, when the haze hung heavy and old people were advised to stay indoors.

And BTW, I'm not even talking about global warming here....just your garden variety air pollution that's reducing our quality of life and slowly killing us all.

Air pollution peaked in the friggin' 60's pal, and the air's getting cleaner ever since. Get with the program.

[GW in Ohio]

Air pollution peaked in the friggin' 60's pal, and the air's getting cleaner ever since. Get with the program.

If air pollution peaked in the '60s, how come you can see the air, and smell it, on certain days?

And are you aware that air pollution now hangs over the middle of the Pacific Ocean? And that air pollution from China is now affecting parts of California?

And of course the Chinese haven't even gotten their industrial machine fully cranked up yet.

[glockmail]

If air pollution peaked in the '60s, how come you can see the air, and smell it, on certain days?

And are you aware that air pollution now hangs over the middle of the Pacific Ocean? And that air pollution from China is now affecting parts of California?

And of course the Chinese haven't even gotten their industrial machine fully cranked up yet.

I could see, smell it worse in the 70's. My Dad use to come back from a week at the mill in Maine and the whole car would stink. I remember going up there to see the shit-hole myself. You could not breathe fully within a mile of the place. And the water pollution was worse. Upstream was a pristine river; downstream was a brown sluggish mess.

The Ohio River actually caught fire back then. You young pukes have no idea.

China's a commie country. Why don't their Liberal policies fix their problems? :poke:

[remie]

If air pollution peaked in the '60s, how come you can see the air, and smell it, on certain days?

And are you aware that air pollution now hangs over the middle of the Pacific Ocean? And that air pollution from China is now affecting parts of California?

And of course the Chinese haven't even gotten their industrial machine fully cranked up yet.

Seems to me you need to talk to China about that.:poke:

[truthmatters]

I could see, smell it worse in the 70's. My Dad use to come back from a week at the mill in Maine and the whole car would stink. I remember going up there to see the shit-hole myself. You could not breathe fully within a mile of the place. And the water pollution was worse. Upstream was a pristine river; downstream was a brown sluggish mess.

The Ohio River actually caught fire back then. You young pukes have no idea.

China's a commie country. Why don't their Liberal policies fix their problems? :poke:


See enviromental legislation works huh?

As for China I think you are confused ,you see communism is restrictive of the people Us Democrats and liberals want to monitor and regulate industry for public safety reasons which is how the air got cleaner and the water got better.

There is still more we can do to make it even better and that would be nice huh?

[retiredman]

it makes a great deal of difference. green power is green. period. There is enough green power on the grid for those who want it now, and if demand grows, so will supply. so.... do you KNOW whether Edwards uses green power in his home or not?

[glockmail]

See enviromental legislation works huh?

As for China I think you are confused ,you see communism is restrictive of the people Us Democrats and liberals want to monitor and regulate industry for public safety reasons which is how the air got cleaner and the water got better.

There is still more we can do to make it even better and that would be nice huh?

1. The CWA was signed into law by Richard Nixon (R), 1972, after years of vetos in order to negotiate a law that would not bankrupt indusrty.
2. About 1/2 of my education and professional career has been involved with some aspect of pollution control. I consider myself a conservationist (one who acts pragmatically to respect nature), in no way an environmentalist (one who acts emotionally with policies that many times do nothing or make the problem worse).
3. "Even better" requires aggressive development of nuclear power, wind farm development on mountain ridges and near beaches (including Teddy Kennedy's), and posibly vertical ocean turbines off the east coast in the Gulf Stream. It will also require use of such things as natural gas reserves off the coast of North Carolina, currently off limits due to environmentalist lawsuits.
4. My experince has been that profit oriented people, free of lawsuit threatened by environmentalists, are the ones with the resources to clean up pollution. I can cite a case on the shore of Onondaga Lake in NY State, where a heavily polluted area that went neglected for years was finally cleaned up when a developer bought the site to build a shopping mall.

[glockmail]

it makes a great deal of difference. green power is green. period. There is enough green power on the grid for those who want it now, and if demand grows, so will supply. so.... do you KNOW whether Edwards uses green power in his home or not? It makes no difference, as the "green" power will be produced and used whether or not Edwards elects to pay 10 or 20 percent more per KWH. If he lived in a regular hose, say 3000 sf instead of ten times that, he would produce a far smaller "carbon footprint".

These Gucci Liberals can't buy their way out of their hypocrisy.

Besides, Edwards is a faggot. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/MakeupYourMind.jpg

[retiredman]

It makes no difference, as the "green" power will be produced and used whether or not Edwards elects to pay 10 or 20 percent more per KWH. If he lived in a regular hose, say 3000 sf instead of ten times that, he would produce a far smaller "carbon footprint".

These Gucci Liberals can't buy their way out of their hypocrisy.

Besides, Edwards is a faggot. :laugh2:


no. in fact, green power generators would not generate power if there were no market for it. I would suggest a basic economics class that covers the law of supply and demand.

[glockmail]

no. in fact, green power generators would not generate power if there were no market for it. I would suggest a basic economics class that covers the law of supply and demand. The fact that a single (albeit mansion dwelling) consumer elects to pay 10-20% more to claim green has no effect on the industry. Econ 103, Umass 1982, Ace'd.:pee:

[PostmodernProphet]

Some random thoughts from a farm boy. Iowa is blessed to be able to average 180 Bu/Acre. Those kinds of yields happen under ideal growing conditions in certain regions of the country but not all, therefore your total bushels may be somewhat inflated. DMP is correct that those production levels are achieved with aggresive managemnet (irrigation, fertilizers and weed killers) there are costs associated with that too. Corn prices are already increasing for cattle feed, so production costs for feed lots are already increasing. The link you provided threw out a lot of numbers that I dont have time to research but I have a feeling they are slanted pro ethanol.

Dont get me wrong. I am for coming up with alternative fuels but I am not convinced that ethanol from corn is the bottom line answer.

I'm an old Iowa farm boy myself (and I have already confessed here to owning farm land in Iowa, so it is no secret that I am slanted pro-ethanol), but I think the numbers are accurate. I am sure that you are aware that the current government programs have paid farmers NOT to produce corn because it was in oversupply, and corn prices have pretty much stayed the same as they were fifty years ago until the ethanol situation came along. How much of the economy can you say THAT about.

The subsidy program guaranteed farmers a certain price for their corn. If the market was lower than that farmers could 'seal' their corn and agree not to sell it in the current market and the government would pay them a set amount. If by the end of the next growing cycle the price had still not gotten above the seal price the farmer was paid the set amount and the corn was released into the market by the government, with the taxpayer picking up the loss.

With corn prices up because of ethanol it has not been necessary for the government to pay any losses, which has saved the taxpayers far more than the subsidy paid for ethanol.

As far as feed prices are concerned, one of the byproducts of making ethanol from corn is distiller's mash, which can be used to feed cattle with no nutrition loss versus the ground up un-fermented corn. Thus, if handled right there is no loss to the animal feed market due to ethanol production. If anything, the increased production of distillers' mash should provide an oversupply of cattle feed in the next few years.

More importantly, the political ramifications of ethanol production exceed the economic ramifications.....alternate fuels will permit us to get out from under our reliance on foreign fuel supplies. We will no longer be at risk of the political friendliness of Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.......

finally, if you don't like ethanol from corn, look into all the research being done on how to produce it from any surplus vegetable matter.....the great thing about ethanol is that each region can use what they have in overabundance, whether it be corn or sugar cane or sagebrush....there is even research being done on seaweed.....imagine!....fuel from something that can be grown in saltwater.....

[remie]

I'm an old Iowa farm boy myself (and I have already confessed here to owning farm land in Iowa, so it is no secret that I am slanted pro-ethanol), but I think the numbers are accurate. I am sure that you are aware that the current government programs have paid farmers NOT to produce corn because it was in oversupply, and corn prices have pretty much stayed the same as they were fifty years ago until the ethanol situation came along. How much of the economy can you say THAT about.

The subsidy program guaranteed farmers a certain price for their corn. If the market was lower than that farmers could 'seal' their corn and agree not to sell it in the current market and the government would pay them a set amount. If by the end of the next growing cycle the price had still not gotten above the seal price the farmer was paid the set amount and the corn was released into the market by the government, with the taxpayer picking up the loss.

With corn prices up because of ethanol it has not been necessary for the government to pay any losses, which has saved the taxpayers far more than the subsidy paid for ethanol.

As far as feed prices are concerned, one of the byproducts of making ethanol from corn is distiller's mash, which can be used to feed cattle with no nutrition loss versus the ground up un-fermented corn. Thus, if handled right there is no loss to the animal feed market due to ethanol production. If anything, the increased production of distillers' mash should provide an oversupply of cattle feed in the next few years.

More importantly, the political ramifications of ethanol production exceed the economic ramifications.....alternate fuels will permit us to get out from under our reliance on foreign fuel supplies. We will no longer be at risk of the political friendliness of Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.......

finally, if you don't like ethanol from corn, look into all the research being done on how to produce it from any surplus vegetable matter.....the great thing about ethanol is that each region can use what they have in overabundance, whether it be corn or sugar cane or sagebrush....there is even research being done on seaweed.....imagine!....fuel from something that can be grown in saltwater.....

:beer:

[hjmick]

They can have my FJ Cruiser when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[Guernicaa]

They can have my FJ Cruiser when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Those are nice! We test drove one. Have you tried the V6 RAV4???
Thats what made us decide not to get the FJ.

[glockmail]

Those are nice! We test drove one. Have you tried the V6 RAV4???
Thats what made us decide not to get the FJ.
Hypocrit. All libs should ride bicycles, public transit, or own a Prius.

[hjmick]

Those are nice! We test drove one. Have you tried the V6 RAV4???
Thats what made us decide not to get the FJ.

I didn't even look at anything else. I first saw the FJ at the Los Angeles Auto Show in 2003, it was still just a concept then, and I fell in love instantly. Then, one day last year on my way to Vegas I saw one being trailered and was stunned that they were on the lots. A couple of months later I owned one.

I learned to drive in a '67 Landcruiser (not one of those long ones) with three on the tree. The FJ, for me, harkens back to the classic Landcruiser and that was a large part of the appeal. To me it looked like the LC might look like if they had continued to manufacture it for the U.S.

It is a very nice SUV. I have no complaints except for a couple of bad blind spots for which I have learned to compensate.

[retiredman]

The fact that a single (albeit mansion dwelling) consumer elects to pay 10-20% more to claim green has no effect on the industry. Econ 103, Umass 1982, Ace'd.:pee:

now...if you could show that Edwards was the only consumer who elected to pay a premium for green power, you might have a point. But I do and I know hundreds of my colleagues, neighbors and friends who do too, so I guess your basic econ course didn't really help you here, did it?

[glockmail]

now...if you could show that Edwards was the only consumer who elected to pay a premium for green power, you might have a point. But I do and I know hundreds of my colleagues, neighbors and friends who do too, so I guess your basic econ course didn't really help you here, did it? We're not talking about all your mansion dwelling liberal butt buddies. We're talking about the Mansion-dwelling Faggot, $1400 hairdo John Edwards.
:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

own your own ethanol plant.....buy it now price only $209....on ebay

http://i4.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ac/98/630f_1.JPG

rev'nuers license required......

[glockmail]

own your own ethanol plant.....buy it now price only $209....on ebay

http://i4.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ac/98/630f_1.JPG

rev'nuers license required......
We got stills back in the woods here but they're much bigger and not nearly as purdy.... :coffee:

Seriously there is the remains of one about 1/2 mile from my house.

[retiredman]

We're not talking about all your mansion dwelling liberal butt buddies. We're talking about the Mansion-dwelling Faggot, $1400 hairdo John Edwards.
:laugh2:

no...actually you made the statement:

"The fact that a SINGLE (albeit mansion dwelling) consumer elects to pay 10-20% more to claim green has no effect on the industry."

which was erroneous (surprise surprise)

I merely pointed out that Edwards was not "a single". If you insist on spewing smelly vacuous rhetoric, expect folks to point it out to you.

("butt buddies", eh? and here I thought you frowned on personal attacks... I guess only when other do it, eh, you hypocritical fuck?)

[glockmail]

no...actually you made the statement:

"The fact that a SINGLE (albeit mansion dwelling) consumer elects to pay 10-20% more to claim green has no effect on the industry."

which was erroneous (surprise surprise)

I merely pointed out that Edwards was not "a single". If you insist on spewing smelly vacuous rhetoric, expect folks to point it out to you.
....
:lol: Does the Faggot pay more than one bill? Pitiful.

[Yurt]

Here ya are, folks...Vote for a Democrat and start giving up your freedoms....for the good of the goverment....:cheers2:

SNIP:
Associated Press - August 29, 2007 7:55 AM ET

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.

The former North Carolina senator told a forum by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, yesterday he thinks Americans are willing to sacrifice.

Edwards says Americans should be asked to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. He says he would ask them to give up SUVs.

read the rest at..
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=6997982


Tell ya what slick eddie, I have a great apartment that is very energy efficient. Why don't you trade me your mansions for my "cute" downtown SLO apartment. Hell, you don't even need a maid, it is so "cute" you can clean all the rooms without moving from your chair.

Now that is energy efficient!

[retiredman]

:lol: Does the Faggot pay more than one bill? Pitiful.

do you have any interest in debating these issues with at any level above schoolyard trashtalking? If so, now would be a nice time for you to step up to the plate and show that you really ARE an adult.

I rebutted your ridiculous assertion and all you can do is toss out adolescent bullshit?

isn't it time for another negative rep from you? You're the only person who has given me any.... don't stop now, you fucking whiny little pussy.

[Yurt]

do you have any interest in debating these issues with at any level above schoolyard trashtalking? If so, now would be a nice time for you to step up to the plate and show that you really ARE an adult.

I rebutted your ridiculous assertion and all you can do is toss out adolescent bullshit?

isn't it time for another negative rep from you? You're the only person who has given me any.... don't stop now, you fucking whiny little pussy.

Uh, you are the one whining.........:poke:

[retiredman]

Uh, you are the one whining.........:poke:

I'm curious...do you wanna defend his stupid statement in his absence, or will you rely on smilies as well?
:lol:

[PostmodernProphet]

"The fact that a SINGLE (albeit mansion dwelling) consumer elects to pay 10-20% more to claim green has no effect on the industry."which was erroneous (surprise surprise)

I merely pointed out that Edwards was not "a single". If you insist on spewing smelly vacuous rhetoric, expect folks to point it out to you.


so basically, if you're rich enough to pay for it, it doesn't matter how much energy you waste.....if so, why complain about folks driving SUVs?

[Yurt]

so basically, if you're rich enough to pay for it, it doesn't matter how much energy you waste.....if so, why complain about folks driving SUVs?

Because silly, when you sit down with your "friends" you can all "hoohah" about your wonderful environmental cares/concerns you have. And then immediately get into discussing more important things like those recycled jeans and like, stuff.

[retiredman]

so basically, if you're rich enough to pay for it, it doesn't matter how much energy you waste.....if so, why complain about folks driving SUVs?

what if you were rich enough to build your own windfarm so that all of your electricity came from there. would that be wasting energy?

[retiredman]

Because silly, when you sit down with your "friends" you can all "hoohah" about your wonderful environmental cares/concerns you have. And then immediately get into discussing more important things like those recycled jeans and like, stuff.

I see you follow glock along like a fucking puppydog. congratulations.

[PostmodernProphet]

what if you were rich enough to build your own windfarm so that all of your electricity came from there. would that be wasting energy?

hmmm.....no, I think it would be producing energy....conversly then, if you are rich enough to keep a windfarm from being built so you can see the sunrise over the Atlantic, would that be wasting a chance to produce energy?

[retiredman]

hmmm.....no, I think it would be producing energy....conversly then, if you are rich enough to keep a windfarm from being built so you can see the sunrise over the Atlantic, would that be wasting a chance to produce energy?

so are you abandoning your defense of Edwards in cowardly fashion and switching to Ted Kennedy?

Why not just admit that you don't have a case against John and start and new thread about Ted?

fucking pussy.

[PostmodernProphet]

your defense of Edwards

????.....you must have me confused with someone else......I have no intention at all of defending Edwards.......

[retiredman]

what does ted kennedy haved to do with this thread other than your weakass attempt to divert the discussion when your side was losing?

[retiredman]

seriously. what does Ted Kennedy's opposition to a windfarm have to do with whether or not John Edwards is "wasting" electricity in his home?

[MtnBiker]

fucking pussy.

That really is not necessary.

[nevadamedic]

I see you follow glock along like a fucking puppydog. congratulations.

C'mon man no need to drop the F'bomb everyother post. Yurt isn't a bad guy and doesn't follow anyone around.

Whats up with all these attacks on Glock? He's not a bad guy either, you two fight like an old married couple. :poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

what does Ted Kennedy's opposition to a windfarm have to do with whether or not John Edwards is "wasting" electricity

my comment was directed at the thought that as long as you paid extra for your energy you ought to be able to use as much as you can afford.....that same attitude underlies the driving of SUVs as well as the trading system set up by the Kyoto agreement....

its the theory that if you are rich, you can do anything you want.....which is identical to Ted Kennedy's opposition to windfarms.....

now, in specific answer to your question, the statement you posed simply begged to be responded to in the way I did......and I never intentionally pass a begger without helping out in some way.....

[retiredman]

That really is not necessary.

having a running dog as an avatar really is not necessary.

[retiredman]

my comment was directed at the thought that as long as you paid extra for your energy you ought to be able to use as much as you can afford.....that same attitude underlies the driving of SUVs as well as the trading system set up by the Kyoto agreement....

its the theory that if you are rich, you can do anything you want.....which is identical to Ted Kennedy's opposition to windfarms.....

now, in specific answer to your question, the statement you posed simply begged to be responded to in the way I did......and I never intentionally pass a begger without helping out in some way.....

I will ask you again and maybe this time you can answer it:

if you had enough money to build your own private windfarm, if you then used all of the totally green, totally renewable electricity that the farm produced, would you be wasteful?

[nevadamedic]

having a running dog as an avatar really is not necessary.

C'mon dont be an ass.............

[PostmodernProphet]

if you had enough money to build your own private windfarm, if you then used all of the totally green, totally renewable electricity that the farm produced, would you be wasteful?


???...I don't know....how much money did you spend to build the windfarm and how much electricity is it producing?......if, for example, you spent a million dollars to produce $100 worth of electricity, it would be very wasteful......

[retiredman]

???...I don't know....how much money did you spend to build the windfarm and how much electricity is it producing?......if, for example, you spent a million dollars to produce $100 worth of electricity, it would be very wasteful......

stupid obfuscation.

wasting money or wasting energy? My guess is that the contractors who built the windfarm would not think that the money had been "wasted".... the suppliers of the wind turbines would not think that the money was "wasted". How is spending one's own money on a wind farm project any different than someone else buying a Van Gogh...other than the fact that the windfarm actually gives you something other than eye candy?

At issue is: if you pay for and use totally renewable non polluting sources of electricity, how is that wasteful and how is that hypocritical?

So...quit spinning. quit running away. quit changing the subject. Just answer the goddamn question.

[MtnBiker]

having a running dog as an avatar really is not necessary.

And neither is your further presence in this thread.

[actsnoblemartin]

The problem I have with your statement is, if you look carefully, what is killing our planet more then cars is meat eaters, because the raising of cattle is destroying the environment. Dont believe me?, research for yourself, you will find, that the united nations and peta, will support what i just said.

Oh, and let me tell you, Im tired of this argument over, is it global warming or climate change, how about we just be rational, instead of chickens with our head cutoff, so we dont just throw money at the problem, and make it worse or the same?

Im a conservative, and let me know, do i sound that unreasonable?, also, many politicians either use tons of energy in their homes, or cars, or private jets, will they do, what they are asking us?


This is the kind of reaction I would expect from a conservative, i.e., "Fuck you. I ain't givin' up nothin'."

BTW, stephanie, he isn't asking Americans to give up their SUVs for the sake of the government; it's for the sake of the environment that we all live in and share.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think the dog is cute.


And neither is your further presence in this thread.

[nevadamedic]

And neither is your further presence in this thread.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[actsnoblemartin]

Mtnbiker is nice. I cant believe that dork, criticized his dog lol


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[glockmail]

I see you follow glock along like a fucking puppydog. congratulations. This coming from someone who followed me from USMB. What a fucking hypocrite. Who did you blow to get off your perm-ban after OCA found you posting here under two different names? :laugh2:

[GW in Ohio]

I would say an essential difference between conservatives and liberals, when it comes to the environment, is:


Liberals are ready and willing to change their lifestyles....to drive smaller cars, use less energy in general, recycle more, walk or bicycle whenever possible, etc. The only thing they're lacking is leadership at the top (i.e., leadership from the White House).
Conservatives, on the other hand, will seize on almost anything to keep from changing their lifestyles. If Edwards says people should give up their SUVs, they'll say, "Who is Edwards, to tell me what to do? He wastes energy himself." Notice they haven't done anything to alter their own wasteful lifestyle; all they've done is justify it by accusing someone else of being wasteful.

[glockmail]

I would say an essential difference between conservatives and liberals, when it comes to the environment, is:


Liberals will never propose a solution that makes sense economically, and in fact oppose all measures that produce energy for man’s benefit;
Conservatives, on the other hand, propose solutions that benefit the environment and mankind, like nuclear power, and wind turbines off the coast of the Kennedy compound.

[GW in Ohio]

Here's a solution, glockie.....

Shut your cake hole. That'll cut down on a lot of pollution.

Makes sense economically, too.

[glockmail]

Here's a solution, glockie.....

Shut your cake hole. That'll cut down on a lot of pollution.

Makes sense economically, too. Doesn't surprise me that you have no valid argument against the points that I raised, so instead resort to mindless insults. Par for the course from someone who argues from a purely emotional perspective, deviod of all logic.

[PostmodernProphet]

How is spending one's own money on a wind farm project any different than someone else buying a Van Gogh

well, I certainly think buying a Van Gogh would be a waste....the jury's still out on the wind farm....


Just answer the goddamn question.

I've answered two of them already...it wouldn't be a waste of energy, it would be production of energy......it might be a waste of money, depending on what you get for what you spend......do you have a third question?......