quote Originally posted by 2.5: Still, they shouldn't want it, it should not be a goal or means to an end. That is an opinion, yes.

Hey, I think an outright ban is silly but if it were termed the goal was to get to using only renewables (or zero emission) for vehicles and planning effecient mass transit by 2050, it would sound fine to me.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Still, they shouldn't want it, it should not be a goal or means to an end. That is an opinion, yes.

That would be the opinion of someone who doesn't live there, doesn't have a stake in any aspect of the present or future there, likely will never travel there and probably has never been there. It's their country, let them speculate and make guesses about their future without demonizing/hating them. Plenty of things closer to home to get all puffed up over.

I did some maths and here's what I came up with:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...on_dioxide_emissions the US produces 5,838,381.00 thousand metric tonnes of CO2 annually.
Converted into pounds, that's x1000x2204.62262 pounds/tonne = 12,871,426,816,778.22 pounds.
According to http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm , a mature tree absorbs 48 pounds of CO2 per year (ignoring other benefits shade etc provide to reduced energy consumption).
So we would need 12871426816778.22/48 = 268,154,725,349.5 trees in the US to absorb our CO2 emissions.
According to http://www.nationalatlas.go...iology/a_forest.html , we have 747 million acres of forest.
So we would need 268154725349.5/747000000 = 358.9 trees per acre of forest, if we don't create any new areas of trees.
According to http://warnell.forestry.uga...for96-054/index.html , that is the equivalent of a tree every 11x11 feet.
I don't know how close our reality is to those numbers, but they seem doable.

eh. If the EU is dumb enough to do this, then they can live with it. If the tree huggers want to do that here in the US, then they will have a fight on their hands.

At any rate, I have my bicycle so such a ban would not bother me much. I hate going downtown and paying for parking anyway. If they ban cars, then our floundering downtown area will die and become a urine soaked haven for bums.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: That would be the opinion of someone who doesn't live there, doesn't have a stake in any aspect of the present or future there, likely will never travel there and probably has never been there. It's their country, let them speculate and make guesses about their future without demonizing/hating them. Plenty of things closer to home to get all puffed up over.

I mean't about it happening here.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: "To artificially put limits on where you can go" ???? Norm...come on!! We don't NEED anybody to tell us where we can't drive or go..We do it to ourselves!! You SURE you want to demand your freedom to drive into cities?? This becomes worse and worse every year. And the only way to prevent it happening is NOT to tell people they can't drive into town..., but limit the number of people who can drive ANYWHERE, or own a car at all. It is all very well emulating King Neptune, but it is equally as futile when the sea threatening to engulf us is US, not the Authorities That is how I see it anyway Nick

EXACTLY

just look at them parades of idiots
unable to even fathom an alternative to the crap they put themselves thru daily
what is shown there is sheer ignornace
in people and their leaders
parades of idiots
a moving monument to selfishness

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: EXACTLY just look at them parades of idiots unable to even fathom an alternative to the crap they put themselves thru daily what is shown there is sheer ignornace in people and their leaders parades of idiots a moving monument to selfishness

Well, I largely agree with you on that.

Having said that, do we get to start legislating away ignorance and idiocy? Is that the precedent you are establishing here?

Because then I can think of a WHOLE BUNCH of legislation I can start enacting based on that foundational principle.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Well, I largely agree with you on that. Having said that, do we get to start legislating away ignorance and idiocy? Is that the precedent you are establishing here? Because then I can think of a WHOLE BUNCH of legislation I can start enacting based on that foundational principle.

impossible....lawmakers are the core idiots....but - awesome idea!

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: EXACTLY just look at them parades of idiots unable to even fathom an alternative to the crap they put themselves thru daily what is shown there is sheer ignornace in people and their leaders parades of idiots a moving monument to selfishness

For sure there are idiots out there in all walks of life.Taking their choices away because they are deemed to stupid to make their own decisions is the wrong path though.

What they could be talking about is meeting with employers about more work from home options, staggered work hours so not everyone is on the street at the same time, how about back tracking to something as simple as not having all these jobs jammed into sky scrapers on a few blocks? Yet most governmental trends seem to lean twards the result getting more folks crammed into a city.

Forward thinking and backward thinking are subjective.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Well, I largely agree with you on that. Having said that, do we get to start legislating away ignorance and idiocy? Is that the precedent you are establishing here? Because then I can think of a WHOLE BUNCH of legislation I can start enacting based on that foundational principle.

If everyone was smart and worked toward the common good we wouldn't need laws in the first place...but history has shown that there are more than enough people who act as though their own short-term future is the only thing that matters. See what that got the Eastern Island civilization...

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If everyone was smart and worked toward the common good we wouldn't need laws in the first place...but history has shown that there are more than enough people who act as though their own short-term future is the only thing that matters. See what that got the Eastern Island civilization...

I guess the question left is who then decides what is good for the commons.

Are we still talking about cars?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: EXACTLY just look at them parades of idiots unable to even fathom an alternative to the crap they put themselves thru daily what is shown there is sheer ignornace in people and their leaders parades of idiots a moving monument to selfishness

I commute about 10 miles in Chicago in my car. I sit in traffic a lot. I don't feel like an idiot though.
Some might call the Japanese crowding into a subway car like sardines, idiots. I wouldn't. I bet you and I would have different ideas of who the idiots in charge were and why the problems of congestion exist also.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Are we still talking about cars?

Not anymore. Jazzman brought up politics and religion.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: If everyone was smart and worked toward the common good we wouldn't need laws in the first place...but history has shown that there are more than enough people who act as though their own short-term future is the only thing that matters.

Still believe in Utopia, heh James ? The common good created by socialism or the common good created by the belief in the Bible ? In fact James, one's short term future is the first thing that matters to all people. Second only to one's long term future. Even the animal world has laws. The laws of nature. Which exist for us as well.
History must also show examples of people who don't act as though their own short-term future is the only thing that matters. Perhaps you could give an example. Other than Jesus, I can't think of one.

How many people want to bet that there will be exceptions to the no car zone for the politicians and other powerful and influential people?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Still believe in Utopia, heh James ? The common good created by socialism or the common good created by the belief in the Bible ? In fact James, one's short term future is the first thing that matters to all people. Second only to one's long term future. Even the animal world has laws. The laws of nature. Which exist for us as well. History must also show examples of people who don't act as though their own short-term future is the only thing that matters. Perhaps you could give an example. Other than Jesus, I can't think of one.

lol - silly person
History is full of examples, as is current times
just because you choose to ignore them is not anyone else's problem
but, feel free to continue to hound Jazzman in any thread he posts in
really shows the quality of who you are - or - more accurately - the lack of quality of who you are

Didn't mean to divert things from cars. Sorry.

I read in Car and Driver this month or last about car manufacturers working on PRACTICAL engine shut off/(relatively) instant on technology as a means to improve gas mileage.

From the looks of those traffic jams, it SEEMS that kind of technology could reduce emissions of 'green house gases' a lot. (If that is a goal. Since I am still not convinced that CO2 levels are associated with warmer global temperatures, nor that mankind is having much effect on global temperature, nor that warmer global temperatures are necessarily a bad thing, either. But, then again, I like actual SCIENCE and not widely speculative and inaccurate 'scientific' model projections)

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Didn't mean to divert things from cars. Sorry. I read in Car and Driver this month or last about car manufacturers working on PRACTICAL engine shut off/(relatively) instant on technology as a means to improve gas mileage. From the looks of those traffic jams, it SEEMS that kind of technology could reduce emissions of 'green house gases' a lot. (If that is a goal. Since I am still not convinced that CO2 levels are associated with warmer global temperatures, nor that mankind is having much effect on global temperature, nor that warmer global temperatures are necessarily a bad thing, either. But, then again, I like actual SCIENCE and not widely speculative and inaccurate 'scientific' model projections)

On a few episodes ot TOP GEAR BBC I saw some of those cars they exist. It is interesting. I think it was Porsche and BMW they had on the show. The only thing is "rush hour" city traffic is stop and go all the time. It might reduce some emissions, but imagine how short of life the starter will have.

Pyrthian, why don't you provide a couple of examples than rather than diverting to something else? Since you brought it up here, and not in the other thread, Where was Jazzman to castigate you for referring to everyone who lives and drives in a large city as an idiot?
Where are you in this thread //www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/083886.html, to lecture jazzman for hounding Fierobear and being uncivil himself.
"Us vs. them" is the same as "them vs. us".
Civility! Civility! (Pulling hair out of my head)

[This message has been edited by Scottzilla79 (edited 03-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Pyrthian, why don't you provide a couple of examples than rather than diverting to something else? Since you brought it up here, and not in the other thread, Where was Jazzman to castigate you for referring to everyone who lives and drives in a large city as an idiot? Where are you in this thread //www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/083886.html, to lecture jazzman for hounding Fierobear and being uncivil himself. "Us vs. them" is the same as "them vs. us". Civility! Civility! (Pulling hair out of my head)

why for? find them yourself. they are abundant if you choose to look. thats the point.
I live & drive in a city - yes - it is idiotic. I do what I can from home office - but - I must join the idiot parade more than enough to know it is idiotic.
thread no working - tho - I do not feel it is my job to read each & every thread - in fact - I am finding it better not to.
and - yes - I 100% agree - and try to avoid "us vs them" - but - it happens. have a hard time when I see someone following some else around thread to thread for no other reason than harrassment. whether thats actually the case or not - doesnt matter - just what it looks like from here.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Pyrthian, why don't you provide a couple of examples than rather than diverting to something else? Since you brought it up here, and not in the other thread, Where was Jazzman to castigate you for referring to everyone who lives and drives in a large city as an idiot? Where are you in this thread //www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/083886.html, to lecture jazzman for hounding Fierobear and being uncivil himself. "Us vs. them" is the same as "them vs. us". Civility! Civility! (Pulling hair out of my head)

Your linky no worky.

Also is the reason why you started the "Civility in discourse" thread because of Jazzman? I kind of agree with Pyrthian as the guy seems to have been baited and called out in many threads over the last little while IMO, I'm not sure why but maybe someone can explain.

Link fixed. I think the last few posts should speak for themselves.
Pyrthian, why should I look for evidence to support your argument? So we're all idiots but you are slightly more enlightened then us other idiots. I don't see anything wrong with my commute, I wish I could find a decent job closer to home but all the good jobs for people in my class have moved out to the suburbs because of high operating costs (Taxes) in the city. I can't afford to move closer to work either.

Newf, I get the feeling you think I had some evil ulterior motive to make the civility in discourse thread a jazzman bashing party. I was very explicit throughout the thread that I wanted to discuss the idea not people. I was hoping maybe this kind of crap would go in that thread, but ironically that thread has been more civil than most of the others on here.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Link fixed. I think the last few posts should speak for themselves. Pyrthian, why should I look for evidence to support your argument? So we're all idiots but you are slightly more enlightened then us other idiots. I don't see anything wrong with my commute, I wish I could find a decent job closer to home but all the good jobs for people in my class have moved out to the suburbs because of high operating costs (Taxes) in the city. I can't afford to move closer to work either. Newf, I get the feeling you think I had some evil ulterior motive to make the civility in discourse thread a jazzman bashing party. I was very explicit throughout the thread that I wanted to discuss the idea not people. I was hoping maybe this kind of crap would go in that thread, but ironically that thread has been more civil than most of the others on here.

you dont have to. it is up to you if interested. do you even know anymore what the arguement is? pretty trivial, eh? does it really require all this, or am I just being hounded?

and, as to your choice of work/home - it is just that - YOUR choice of work & home. unless, of course, you are living with your parents...?

quote Originally posted by newf: Your linky no worky. Also is the reason why you started the "Civility in discourse" thread because of Jazzman? I kind of agree with Pyrthian as the guy seems to have been baited and called out in many threads over the last little while IMO, I'm not sure why but maybe someone can explain.

Scottzilla79 is just trying to create a false equivalency argument to support his and others' uncivil behavior on this forum. I ignore it for what it is, a semantic trick which is nothing more than an excuse for him to not alter his behavior on PFF.

And I couldn't find any thread titled "Civility in discourse", FWIW...

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Newf, I get the feeling you think I had some evil ulterior motive to make the civility in discourse thread a jazzman bashing party. I was very explicit throughout the thread that I wanted to discuss the idea not people. I was hoping maybe this kind of crap would go in that thread, but ironically that thread has been more civil than most of the others on here.

OK now I'm really confused.... you hoped this kind of "crap" would go in a thread that you were explicit in saying that you didn't want to discuss such things??

As for an ulterior motive, I didn't think that way at all at first but after your comments here it has indeed made me question why you made that thread and why you keep bringing up the term of civility if not to bait and harass one person. I hope that's not the case so it's why I asked.

Should I cry that I'm being hounded now? I won't.
Newf. I would appreciate if you gave me the benefit of the doubt. I was trying to discuss it in a civilized manner. I don't know why anything I have said now changes your opinion. As far as crap, I meant that I hoped the civility thread could be an outlet for people to talk about how to discuss things rather than doing it in every thread like this.

Jazzman First, is it civil to talk about someone as if they are not present? you could give me the respect of directing your comments about me, to me. Also, please provide me with examples of my uncivil behavior. I could point to another thread where I was corrected and welcome the chance to improve myself.

Pyrthian, you didn't read my thread carefully. I can not afford to live close to where I work. I work on a street surrounded by sweet little houses and a golf course. The wealthy need ditch diggers too.
I don't know about where you live, but in Chicago the wealthy have moved close to mass transit and jacked up the rents. So you can either live in a safe neighborhood that isn't convenient for mass transit or or a safe one, but if you don't make enough money you cannot have both. I used to work downtown and take the train, then they cut service of the bus route i took to get to the train making my commute unpredictable and ranging from 45 minutes to 90. As it is I drive 15min to work in the am and 45 to an hour on the way home. I would be an idiot to take 3 buses and 2 hours to get where I work now. P

I hope you all also take note that I'm trying to stay on the subject of mass transit here as well.

BTW, did anyone actually read the whole story? It's only a few paragraphs, no cites or links to anything to substantiate what was said by the author, Bruno Waterfield. In fact, half the article consists of nothing more than quotes from opposing sides, back and forth. It's written with a distinct spin against the EU side, with phrases such as "..economically disastrous and as a "crazy" restriction on mobility", "I suggest that he goes and finds himself a space in the local mental asylum", "plunge us into a new dark age", " The man is off his rocker", "The EU must be living in an alternate reality", "This sort of greenwashing grandstanding adds nothing and merely highlights their grandiose ambitions". In fact, upon further study, this article is really nothing more than a hit piece. It has no real content, no information, no facts at all.

Why use an article like this to start a topic here? What was the intent? Only the topic starter can answer that question.

So far posts in this topic have mentioned socialism, claims that we'll be herded around like sheep to slaughter, aside attacks on climate science, sarcastic reference to Al Gore, "tree huggers" (itself a derogatory term), etc, not to mention the personal attacks.

Everybody is so obsessed with polution and carbon fuel wastage, they are missing the BIGGEST wastage of ALL. Take London, for example. An average 2 million people commute by car every week. They spend an average FOUR HOURS A DAY, 2 each way, sitting there, in Traffic. So let's just work that out, eh? Forget the gas, forget the fumes...4 hours a day, 5 days a week= 20 hours per person...a grand total of 2 million x 20 hours= FORTY MILLION MAN HOURS WASTED,AND UNPAID TOO, PER WEEK. Times 40 weeks per year on average...that is 160 million man-hours wasted, in ONE year, in London alone. Now...THAT is staggering...and yet everybody just doesn't bother to THINK about it, or even realise this aspect.
Nick

And as a little reality check, does anyone think that gasoline or diesel will be affordable enough in 40 years for anyone but the military or the wealthiest to use it in internal combustion engines? I would really be surprised if hydrocarbon fuel was less than 100 bucks a gallon in today's dollars by then. The population is doubling every twenty years or so, but the percentage of the earth that's been explored and drilled is only declining.

I read the article, didn't mention any socialism, Al Gore any any of that and yet I've been ignored.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Newf. I would appreciate if you gave me the benefit of the doubt. I was trying to discuss it in a civilized manner. I don't know why anything I have said now changes your opinion. As far as crap, I meant that I hoped the civility thread could be an outlet for people to talk about how to discuss things rather than doing it in every thread like this.

Hey no problem, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that's why I asked rather than accused.

I did think it was you that brought up the subject first in this post but I could have missed something.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Pyrthian, why don't you provide a couple of examples than rather than diverting to something else? Since you brought it up here, and not in the other thread, Where was Jazzman to castigate you for referring to everyone who lives and drives in a large city as an idiot? Where are you in this thread //www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/083886.html, to lecture jazzman for hounding Fierobear and being uncivil himself. "Us vs. them" is the same as "them vs. us". Civility! Civility! (Pulling hair out of my head) [This message has been edited by Scottzilla79

quote Originally posted by newf: Hey no problem, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that's why I asked rather than accused. I did think it was you that brought up the subject first in this post but I could have missed something.

If you mean civility I suppose I did and I apologize for that. No excuses.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: If you mean civility I suppose I did and I apologize for that. No excuses.

Hey, no worries whatsoever, I just wanted to point out why I questioned you about it in the first place.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: BTW, did anyone actually read the whole story? It's only a few paragraphs, no cites or links to anything to substantiate what was said by the author...In fact, upon further study, this article is really nothing more than a hit piece. It has no real content, no information, no facts at all.

OK, here are the facts directly from the "European Commission" website, directly:

Vision of an interconnected Europe

(quoting)

Plans for more efficient transport would connect Europe's road, rail, air and water networks, cut dependence on oil imports and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A new European transport plan aims to increase mobility and further integrate the EU's transport networks - while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the bloc's dependence on imported oil.

Measures to encourage major infrastructure investments, change the way freight moves and people travel would boost economic competitiveness and create jobs.
The plan - with goals to be met by 2050 - focuses on travel within cities and between cities, and on long distance journeys. It includes calls for:

cities to completely phase out petrol cars

quote Why use an article like this to start a topic here? What was the intent? Only the topic starter can answer that question.

The intent was to suggest that authorities in Europe are considering banning cars from cities. The question is whether this might be done here in the United States, as well, given that it's being done at least partly under the guise of stopping global warming. Since this is a car forum, the subject is related to cars and our ownership and driving of cars, it is a relevant discussion.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I read the article, didn't mention any socialism, Al Gore any any of that and yet I've been ignored.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: So far posts in this topic have mentioned socialism, claims that we'll be herded around like sheep to slaughter, aside attacks on climate science, sarcastic reference to Al Gore, "tree huggers" (itself a derogatory term), etc, not to mention the personal attacks.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I can respect your answer because you did it in a non-attacking and civil manner. I'll disagree with your assessment that the EU plan is anything more than speculative planning, i.e., it carries no weight, has no budget, or any real backing. I'll also disagree with your assessment that it could, or would, ever happen here in the US, and here's my reasoning for that: We consume 25% of the world's oil production even though we represent less than 4% of the population. Much of the imported oil we use is for transportation fuel, 45% of total oil consumed being to drive people around. We import 57% of our oil. 25% of all passenger vehicles in the world are here in the US. Compared to any member nation of the EU we are far more dependent on personal vehicles to support our day to day life and economy. This means that as available oil supplies dwindle over the next two generations the far more likely thing to take cars off the road will be simple economics as people are forced to give up driving due to skyrocketing fuel prices. There won't be any government plan to do this, it'll simply happen. Ironically, due to a lack of foresight and planning the process will probably be much more disruptive and damaging to the economy that it otherwise could be. http://www.americanenergyin...dence.com/fuels.aspx

I'm sure you will alert us when the EU plan moves from the speculative stage to the implementation stage. And we are surely safe in the US because no one here looks to Europe for inspiration or credibility.
If oil supplies will "dwindle" rather than vanish overnight, why would it be such a shock to the system? I'm sure as prices creep up people will slowly adjust and thus no catastrophe.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I'll disagree with your assessment that the EU plan is anything more than speculative planning, i.e., it carries no weight, has no budget, or any real backing. I'll also disagree with your assessment that it could, or would, ever happen here in the US, and here's my reasoning for that:

Perhaps you have a different perspective because you live in Texas, and I live in California. I have seen, first hand, the most stringent and draconian environmental laws put into place. It is certainly NOT out of the question that a state like mine would try something similar.

"AB 32", California's own cap and tax bill, goes into effect next year. It will be the first state to implement such a policy on the state level, and will absolutely have a major impact on the state's economy, on businesses and individuals. So please, don't tell me "it can't happen here", because I'm seeing it happen FIRST HAND.

quote We consume 25% of the world's oil production even though we represent less than 4% of the population. Much of the imported oil we use is for transportation fuel, 45% of total oil consumed being to drive people around. We import 57% of our oil. 25% of all passenger vehicles in the world are here in the US. Compared to any member nation of the EU we are far more dependent on personal vehicles to support our day to day life and economy. This means that as available oil supplies dwindle over the next two generations the far more likely thing to take cars off the road will be simple economics as people are forced to give up driving due to skyrocketing fuel prices. There won't be any government plan to do this, it'll simply happen. Ironically, due to a lack of foresight and planning the process will probably be much more disruptive and damaging to the economy that it otherwise could be. http://www.americanenergyin...dence.com/fuels.aspx

Ah, yes, the old bromide about how the U.S. uses 25% of the world's energy. What is conveniently left out of this is the fact that the U.S. also produces 20% of the world's economic output.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/W..._energy_does_usa_use

The United States uses about 25% of the world's oil energy. It's hard to calculate exactly, but when all other forms (solar, nuclear, coal, wind, natural gas, etc.) are factored in, the overall percentage used by us is a bit less; maybe 22-23%. This only makes sense when one considers that the U.S. (5% of the world's population) produces 20% of the world's economic output, China is second at about 13%. (as of 2007). Additionally, depending on exactly the numbers used; the U.S. is responsible for 20-30% of the world's GDP (Gross Domestic Pro-duct). In addition to product manufacturing, a large portion of our energy use is devoted to food production; before recent increases in Russian grain production that allowed them to be a net exporter, we practically fed the world. With our usage of lighting, computers, large screen t.v.'s, central a.c , etc. just for residential comfort, it's no wonder why the average person living in the U.S. consumes more energy than others.
Next time you hear an environmentalist deride the U.S. for her energy use, ask them about what that energy produces. They will have no idea.

WOW!! I REALLY went off on the wrong tack there...I obviously mis-read or mis-interpreted Scottzilla's meaning there, and failed to realise he was being sardonic in his statement...and I truly regret my reply as it was directed at somebody who said nothing of the sort.
So Scott, I sincerely apologise for my 'blast' at you. But you see, Americans aren't the only Patriots here
So sorry.

Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-05-2011).]