This is a discussion on "Go green or we'll kill your kids" within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; YouTube - How to Cut Carbon Emissions...
I love how they end it with Gillian Anderson getting blown up... as if to say "Yeah, yeah... you're helping our cause... unfortunately... you're still not meeting your quota and that's just not acceptable... sorry..." *boom*
It's a wonder why most comedy isn't geared towards blowing up children.
Sent from my iPadŽ
You seem more like Maddox every time I see you post.
I wonder what will happen when we finally switch our cars to mostly electric and possibly hydrogen? What will the greenies be on about then? Shutting down industry or possibly reducing the population?
Hopefully the automakers are very close to at least switching cars/trucks over to another fuel source which means eventually the economy around them will switch to. I doubt we will ever completely replace our oil-based economy within the next 50 years but more and more sectors of it will turn to other sources of energy.
So what will the greenies of the future have to whine about? Peak Lithium?
Our cars should have been switched by now already. Oil was great but we can do much better. Technology evolves, the only reason that we don't use a better form of energy and technology for cars at this moment is the economics behind them. Which is something we have created. So basically we are stopping our own progress looking it at a global perspective.
I believe that the "green" factor should be a measurement of what technology we choose. Meaning that if we could use a form of energy more environment friendly we should. But usually there is a trade-off. So keeping the balance and not going into stupid environmentalist extremes we simply take everything into account and not only the "green" factor. But an electrical car I believe technological is better than a more mechanical car that uses oil. There is no excuse not to use it.
You see, if it was between a nuclear power car and an oil car the argument would have been more interesting. Nuclear energy has a risk, which oil doesn't. But this is not the case with electrical vs oil car.
The same goes for not using sun and wind. They are free. Yes they have maintenance and a lot of other disadvantages as the first computer wouldn't easily fit in your pocket. But you don't use something don't expect it to progress. And it certainly not wise, not wise at all, to wait until there is no more oil or there is shortage of oil to start changing.
Concluding, I see the change as something completely natural. Environmentalists are just giving another marketing reason to use an electrical car, essentially speeding the process. The big change will be using a form of energy (like nuclear energy) imposing some disadvantages that we didn't have before. Electricity is something we already use in every other thing already.
The greenies will always have something to whine about But I believe that humans are like babies. They find this new toy called technology, they are experimenting with it. You can say that they abused it. But mostly I believe it was ignorance. They didn't know from the beginning the effects on the environment and it is harsh to say that they should have been more careful, even if it is true. Hopefully nature is not that fragile. But as the technology advances they get to use it more properly in ALL ways. It will be more efficient, use less resources, be more natural etc etc. Except if they get desperate which is another story...
I don't discriminate the way you use to manipulate people. If it is fear, humor or guilt it is the same for me. You should just put away your emotions and think in any case.
WLBZ2.com | Bangor, ME | Putting a new spin on lawnmowers
Paul Tukey of safelawns.org says a 10 year old gas powered mower does more polluting in one hour than a brand new car running all year long. They spew particulate matter into the air.
If I had a lawn I would kill it purposely anyway.
Plus "green" alternatives usually are more expensive and perform less well. You cannot travel as far as with the "typical" car (without recharging, that is; and how long is recharging going to take?).
Why would you need more energy? Let me analyze how I think
An electric car should need less energy to be powered up.
-Electricity has less friction than a more mechanical-oil car. The energy form is just better itself. Meaning that you will lose less energy transferring energy from the batteries to the wheels than from the gas to the wheels.
-An electric engine is much simpler. You will need less maintenance. You have less mechanical parts to replace/worry about. So the cost goes down and the energy is saved for repairs.
-The oil car as an idea is more independent. Electricity requires an infrastructure. But that infrastructure already exists. So in a way you take advantage of it when gas requires its own separate infrastructure which is more costly and less efficient. You just need an efficient oil-to-electricity power plant rather than millions of efficient oil car engines.
-Electricity is independent from the source used to generate it. You can use wind, solar, oil or anything else. Gas depends on oil. When you have a depletion on oil, your oil car is useless along with all the technology spent to make it. In the long run, the sooner you invest in electric cars the better.
Countries won't depend on others for gas so much. A poor in oil country will invest on using other forms because it might be more profitable.
-Electricity is environment friendly. That is because you can use other forms to generate it except oil. Even if you build another power plant to produce more electricity and the power plan will pollute, overall you still should have less pollution. And most importantly you don't have to use trucks and ships to transfer gas which pollute as well.
The disadvantage is one for me
-You can more easily store liquid gas than electricity for now. For this I will note that the most popular mobile devices, like phones, laptops etc don't require that much energy. If a car was in the market, batteries would probably drastically advance.
So from the above I would say that overall electricity since it is a more efficient form of energy you would need less energy for greenie cars. I don't consider electric cars greenie cars. That is just stupid marketing. They are in my eyes a car with a more efficient engine.
Now, a greenie car would be a car that is powered by the sun or water or anything else that can be natural. Electricity doesn't imply no pollution. It implies less pollution just because of its efficiency. It is like the "green" electric pulps. They are simply more efficient. There are two ways to be green
a) Use less energy
b) Use a more clear, non-pollutant energy form
Electric cars and anything that runs with electricity is on category a). Which is obviously a better choice and should be considered as that and not focusing on the indirect effect of less energy->less pollution since we mostly care about less energy->less money.
For anything that is in category a) I am in favor and I am glad that it is supported by environmentalists. They could choose not to support it and demand a product in category b). Which gives you an answer also on "what will greenies complain about in the future". They will say that electric cars are not good and when a solar powered car comes in the scene they will be against electric cars, the "green" cars they used to support. The difference is that electricity is the dominance form of energy and moving from that is a more serious challenge than moving from oil to electricity...
You seem to have thought this through. I see. I buy your arguments.
It's amazing now that when someone posts about this they don't get blasted nearly as much. In the past anyone posting something contrary to the greenie idealogy would get slammed. Perhaps it's b/c most of us now are out of college and no longer being spoon fed the greenie trash or perhaps it is because more evidence has come out in recent times about just what might be happening and what might not be. It could also be that those pushing the extreme idealogies and matter of fact opinions have found to be using straw man arguments. I would say now it is almost as popular to be non-greenie as it once was to be super greenie. We all love our planet and no one I know is going to purposely do something that destroys it. Painting non-greenies in that light is fairly absurd - what is really happening is that most of us anti-greenies are really just concerned about pushing such extreme ideas based on such shaky science. My main reason for wanting to get off of oil is that the USA cannot produce enough internally which means we are just handing out cash daily for oil and it is cash we no longer have....actually haven't had for some time. Given the current administration's tendency to write far bigger checks than they can cash writing one for oil now seems even more damaging to the economic situation than before. Quite frankly no country can operate in pure debt forever and my country needs to wake up, fire half the politicians, and get back to common sense spending tactics. Thus...my reasoning for another energy source. Also b/c i'm quite sure there are other techs out there that offer bigger bang for the buck.
I believe you can you use just as much energy but get more from said energy - IE: more efficiency. More efficiency equals more work done for the same cost. So if you make an existing car more efficient you haven't reduced the energy used but you have made better use of the energy.a) Use less energy
b) Use a more clear, non-pollutant energy form
Last edited by VirtualAce; 10-03-2010 at 04:24 PM.