FORUMS > All Things Gay Forum Rules

I’m finally at the point in my life where I’m making the kinda of money to be able to go out and have some fun. I’ve always passed on many of the youthful indiscretions that many of my peers indulged in so I could build a stable base for my life.

Like most guys I want to go out and buy a Jeep Wrangler, or a testosterone-laden pick-up truck, or a Harley Fat Boy. Something loud, wild, and impractical.

But I suffer from green guilt. As a modern citizen of the world I feel pressured by my sensibilities to buy a hybrid. But Hybrids look so … ‘wimpy”. They don’t have the right feel or look and you can't go muddin' with 'em. And with gas prices rising exponentially, unless I improve my income even more, I’d never be able to afford to drive it on a regular basis. It’s Frustrating.

Do you suffer from Green Guilt? Do you do anything to alleviate the guilt, to help the environment? What does this mean for our future society?

Have you considered a Ford Escape Hybrid?

Since when has a jeep made a man?

I think you'd be hotter in a hybrid, it shows you have balls to give a shit about the environment and to not care what some small but loud part of society says!.

You wanna do something manly?? shave!

Don't get the Escape Hybrid. I owned one, and it's a fine car, but I'm guessing it's not appropriate to satisfy your "fun" requirements.

As for Green Guilt -- I really don't think guilt is the ideal motivator for behavior -- the behavior doesn't tend to "stick" (think "Food Guilt").

I work in the "green" space and I think about this daily. Here's my one bit of advice:

If you want to be "greener" -- be greener on a "system wide" basis. Don't worry too much about optimizing this particular thing, or that particular thing. If you can limit your total energy consumption for the year, and do that while owning a Hummer (for example, downsizing your house/apt, driving less, moving closer to work etc.), then bless your heart, and enjoy your Hummer. Guilt-mongering greenies will sneer at you, but ignore them. The smart greenies (like me ) will ask you what your total use of gasoline over the year is, not what the milage of your particular car is.

Oh, BTW, the Corvette? An amazing car if you rank it by horsepower for dollar, and it gets great mileage. Why? A plastic body. Many so-called "green" people would view today's (C6) Corvette as anti-green cause it's got 400 horses and can go 0-6 in 4.2 seconds, but it gets 26 MPG in on the highway, which is equivalent to the Escape hybrid with its old skool steel frame and body. The Tesla is environmentally friendly not necessarily cause it can be powered by solar panels on your garage roof, but because its body is carbon fiber, like formula one racers. In ten years, heavy metal frames and bodies on cars will be considered a quaint antique production technique (cross your fingers) -- we're already seeing commercial airplanes make this move (e.g. the 787).

Net: you can be green without guilt and still have "fun" if you focus on what's really important -- not the detailed statistics, but the long-term one: your energy use over the year. For that -- I suggest moving close enuf to work or other things such that you can walk or bike. Then buy the Jeep or the Corvette -- cause it won't matter. That will just be your "fun" car, and you won't be using it every day like that "guilty green" guy in the Prius who commutes 100 miles every day while sneering at your supposedly "un-green" lifestyle.

Congrats on hitting the money milestone, btw! Enjoy!

GM has a couple of very large Hybrids now.
And there are some other models that offer diesel engines that get better mileage.

There are also other ways to avoid the guilt. I think they like to call it "carbon offsetting". Basically, you just make up for your "sins" through other behaviors.

Well, I don't want to get going on carbon offsets, but let's just say that my opinion is you should use them only if you can't possibly do anything else. It's essentially a way to pay money for the privilege of being inefficient. In the USA anyway, there are a LOT of things the average person can do to really make a difference without spending a ton of money. The average homeowner can cut their energy use by 20%, cost effectively (i.e. with a year or two payback) without any change in lifestyle at all. It would be nice if we could capture that 20% here in the US before buying carbon offsets that plant trees in the Amazon (not that that's a bad idea -- just a little indirect and inefficient).

K

IMHO, LilTanker says it all.

Are you looking for a daily driver or a "fun" item like you said? If it was a daily driver, I'd go for something with better gas mileage, etc... But, if it's something you're only going to use for "fun" like on weekends or whatever, I see no problem with getting something that's not necessarily "green".

Going green is for chumps. If you want a Jeep, get a Jeep! After all, when the last big pollution occured and the environment was filled with toxic oxygen, life improved. You can't really reliably predict what effect you have on the environment in the long run past the whole "the temperature might increase by 2 degrees... or not" thing. For all you know global warming or CO2 emissions could lead to the next big leap in evolution, and by getting a Jeep you could in fact be contributing to progress.

Only 26 mpg in an Escape hybrid on the highway! Jez I can hypermile my mom's BMW X5 to 24 mpg. And the escape offer so many more possibilities! Shame!

Why should you need to feel guilty at all? It's your life and your own choices to make. But just remember: your choices affect how others see you as well as your own life. Your more than welcome to buy a Hummer if you wanted, but I'd laugh every time you complained about gas prices

Well here is an answer to your issue... own 2 vehicles.....

I own 3.. One is my first vehicle, an early 80's car in prestine condition and retired...

I have a 2006 Saturn Ion.. want a new car, but I have to have good gasoline mileage and the new cars aren't good enough.

I have a 2002 black Ford Ranger 4x4 (almost ready to hit 10,000 miles)..... I love it!


NO GREEN GUILT! I have "practical assessments" when I get ready to buy new cars.. what makes the most sense?

I don't have a car and I'm not a chump. Jeez.

The question is where do you live? I live in Pittsburgh Pa. Many hills to go up and down. Nice to have 4x4 or awd in the winter. I go to school in the mountains because it is the only school creited with my major. Having my 91 Gmc Safari awd was really nice for the snow up there. Now I can't afford the gas for it. I need to downsize but still need a 4x4 or awd. Another thing, Jeep does make the compass and patriot which are the 2 smallest Jeeps.

green guilt thats why i have my sports car and hybrid lol the hybrid to go to work and drive during the week or long trips then the sports car (gets 18mpg highway on high octain gas) for the weekend and crusing to the bars

It's like I tell my roommate, "if you want to eat a piece of cake after your diet is over that's fine, but don't think you've lost any progress with a single well thought out decision." You're showing you've got a conscious and want to do something, and that's Great. But don't ever compramise yourself completely for an idea, cause or lifestyle; if it's not something you're passionate about that is ;) Not everybody can be Dr. King, Gandhi or Mother Teresa.

Rune saidGoing green is for chumps. If you want a Jeep, get a Jeep! After all, when the last big pollution occured and the environment was filled with toxic oxygen, life improved. You can't really reliably predict what effect you have on the environment in the long run past the whole "the temperature might increase by 2 degrees... or not" thing. For all you know global warming or CO2 emissions could lead to the next big leap in evolution, and by getting a Jeep you could in fact be contributing to progress.

The last time a catastrophic environmental change occurred (the two major extinction events, excluding the 'little' ones), it KILLED off most life. The 'improvements' are because the survivors flourished and rapidly filled back the niches left. The oxygenation of the atmosphere happened over EONS and does not count. Today humans ARE the cause of the extinction event.

The next big step - yeah right. Humans die out and are replaced by heat-resistant intelligent cockroaches that's what.

WTF?

Yeah it's your life and all. Sure, one small car won't make much difference, several billion cars driven by people who all think "it's just one car!" does.

Jeez.

I'm booking the first spaceship out.

Rune saidGoing green is for chumps. If you want a Jeep, get a Jeep! After all, when the last big pollution occured and the environment was filled with toxic oxygen, life improved. You can't really reliably predict what effect you have on the environment in the long run past the whole "the temperature might increase by 2 degrees... or not" thing. For all you know global warming or CO2 emissions could lead to the next big leap in evolution, and by getting a Jeep you could in fact be contributing to progress.

Man...and here I thought Rune was a cool, smart guy. Sheesh.

I don't suffer from "green" guilt, because I try as much as possible to limit my carbon footprint. I didn't even own a car until I was 41. I never needed one, and I have never seen a car as a status symbol, but as a very expensive depreciating asset.

I personally think people are unwise to buy gas guzzlers in this day and age, not just because of the environment, but because of the increasing cost of fuel. Although gas prices may moderate in the future, the general trend is upward as India and China industrialize. Furthermore, easily accessible oil is becoming less and less common resulting in expensive exploration costs.

Go out and buy a hummer or a Jeep, the Arab autocrats may need to replace their VIP 747s soon and you would not want them to have to do without would you?

I have an Opel Astra 2.0 diesel and I put Biodiesel fuel in it. I have no problem going over 130 kph on the autovia and it accelerates very fast if I run into a problem while driving. Unfortunately, we take a flight at least once a year which probably blows any carbon saving we make on the car right out the back window.

It seems like you want permission to buy the hot car so IguanaSFs advice seems the most applicable in your case.

Each of us can make a small difference which adds up to a bigger difference but probably the really big differences are going to come from governmental and corporate decisions. That, however, should not be an excuse to not do your part.

Why should you suffer from Green Guilt just look up in the SKY see those planes???????????

Go buy a Truck with all those lights on top l just love those !!!!!!! Black or Silver with Black windows mmm sex on wheels!!!!!!!!

QuoteThe last time a catastrophic environmental change occurred (the two major extinction events, excluding the 'little' ones), it KILLED off most life. The 'improvements' are because the survivors flourished and rapidly filled back the niches left. The oxygenation of the atmosphere happened over EONS and does not count. Today humans ARE the cause of the extinction event.

The next big step - yeah right. Humans die out and are replaced by heat-resistant intelligent cockroaches that's what.

WTF?

Actually it doesn't matter how slow oxidation came about, it was fast enough to wipe out many species and ecosystems before life began to adapt around it. It is considered a mass extinction.

Sounds like you don't want to give new life forms the chance to develop. Are you sure you're worried about the environment and not your / our own welbeing? Can you imagine if all those anaerobes thought to themselves "Shit guys, we need to cut our O2 production, we're damaging the environment!" Of course, I guess mass extinctions that don't agree with your view should be discounted. We should only count the one we're causing.

Besides, we are nature, and therefore we are / it is taking its course. We'll see how it ends up! Heat resistant intelligent roaches would be cool though.

QuoteMan...and here I thought Rune was a cool, smart guy. Sheesh

What gave you such a silly idea? The amount of coolness or intelligence I have is generally directly proportional to how close my opinions match with the reader I'm sure there'll be a topic on which we see eye to eye in the future and my coolness and intelligence levels will rise, so no sweat.

Um...

so taking time out from the inevitable mutual bashing...

Any decisions on the car Crimthann?

K

You can save an incredible amount of gas - and therefore carbon emissions - by simply maintaining full tire pressure or replacing worn out tires.

I currently drive a Ford 4X4 Explorer. I work 30 miles from home and there is no chance of me moving closer to work as I own 160 acre ranch land and everything across the river is crap. Its a very rural area so driving is a necessity. I'm not fond of owning two vehicles, seems like a real waste of money. But it looks like I might just buy the Harley to play with. We'll see.

I'll allievate some of my green guilt when I install the solar panels, the bamboo hardwood floors and build my compost heap. I just wished they recycled around here.

RuneActually it doesn't matter how slow oxidation came about, it was fast enough to wipe out many species and ecosystems before life began to adapt around it. It is considered a mass extinction.

Sounds like you don't want to give new life forms the chance to develop. Are you sure you're worried about the environment and not your / our own welbeing? Can you imagine if all those anaerobes thought to themselves "Shit guys, we need to cut our O2 production, we're damaging the environment!" Of course, I guess mass extinctions that don't agree with your view should be discounted. We should only count the one we're causing.

Killed off what exactly? The first organisms that started massive oxygenation were mere anaerobic bacteria floating in oceans - and there were no organisms then that could be remotely bothered by it. Even then the process was so slow that when it did start to affect organisms they simply evolved around it. There were NO massive extinction events in the Precambrian era - Cambrian era - Paleozoic era borders. Those were the times when the atmosphere was still being oxygenated. In contrast, life exploded. The extinction events I was referring to was at the beginning of the Triassic period (Paleozoic era - Mesozoic era border) and the end of Cretaceous period (Mesozoic era - Cenozoic era border, the famous extinction of the dinosaurs). And the causes for those are still unknown.

Give new life forms a chance to develop, LOL. Sure. If there are any left. At the rate species are dying off, I can really foresee a sterile future in which Earth is a desert populated solely by humans and their livestock/crops.

Heck, I wouldn't mind if humans just suddenly went poof. But I do mind when we take the rest of Earthly life with us to glorious extinction.

Again, please get your facts straight. There was NO mass extinctions due to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, though there is a theory that the high O2 atmosphere content in the end of Cretaceous may have killed off the dinosaurs, but like the asteroid and cosmic rays theory, it is still only speculation. It is also highly unlikely since oxygen levels were roughly the same as today's levels by the Carboniferous Period, which was like more than a hundred million years BEFORE the ancestors of the dinosaurs even began appearing.

Compare that with the rise of human civilization. How many species have been wiped out recently?

BTW I'm not a fucking treehugger. I just give a damn.

I think suvs and large cars are expressions of inadequacy. i thought they were gross back when gas was $1 per gallon. express your confidence in your masculinity; get a scooter!
such fun!

No green guilt here. I don't believe in Global Warming either.

QuoteKilled off what exactly?

Killed off species of bacteria and archea which were unable to adapt to the oxygen. Oxygen was highly toxic to those organisms according to some views. You might not see this extinction in your typical "great mass extinctions" graphs since it is fairly difficult to quantify due to lack of fossil record, but multiple sources agree that this was a significant extinction.

Have you ever wondered why the "Oxygen Revolution" is also called the "Oxygen Catastrophe" or "Oxygen Crisis" or "Oxygen Holocaust"?

I'll provide for you two sides of the 'story' to show you that there really is no right or wrong as of yet.

On the one hand...

QUOTEIt is generally believed that life originated in an oxygen-free environment and remained strictly anaerobic for more than one billion years, until cyanobacteria started splitting water with the help of sunlight, causing free oxygen to appear in the atmosphere for the first time. According to a widely accepted theory, this event brought about the extermination of most living forms, which were victims of the lethal effects of the gas (as a strict anaerobe would be today). By chance, a few rare organisms escaped this "oxygen holocaust" by acquiring in time the necessary protective mechanisms. Eventually some descendants of these organisms gained the ability to use oxygen as an electron acceptor in reactions coupled to the assembly of adenosine triphosphate, turning simple detoxification into what was to become the highest form of biological energy retrieval. This development finally gave rise, by way of advanced aerobic bacteria, to the mitochondria that power the vast majority of eukaryotic (nucleated) cells today.

On the other hand...

QUOTEThis story is wrong, Nick Lane (PhD Biochemistry) tells us in Oxygen, and is unsupported by any solid evidence. Not that he disputes the toxicity of oxygen; on the contrary, most of his book deals with this property. What he questions is the occurrence of an oxygen holocaust and the premise of this hypothetical catastrophe. Our young planet always contained small amounts of oxygen, he informs us, as a result of the photochemical dissociation of water by ultraviolet light and loss of hydrogen to outer space. Life always had to deal with oxygen toxicity and developed adequate protections at a very early stage. It entered the oxygen age smoothly, long prepared for its onslaughts.

Or if you check Wikipedia's list of extinction events, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinction_events you can see that Oxygen Catastrophe is part of them.

Of course, the "two sides of the story" also exist when considering global warming, and our effect on the environment. It may be that you have discounted the opposing view, which has support by many leading scientists by the way, but that doesn't change the fact that we really don't know the ultimate effect of our actions on the environment. The system is just too complex to predict, not to mention probably chaotic, making prediction impossible for any significant length of time. We can bearly predict the temperature from day to day, much less what the climate will be like in 10 or 20 years.

It's not that I don't care, but I remain unconvinced that cutting C02 emissions or other so-called "environmental" initiatives will be helpfull to the environment. In fact they may end up being detrimental in the long term for all you or I know. And since I don't know which actions will produce benefits to the environment and to life in general, and which will hold it back, I don't see any reason to buy hybrid cars. You may be comfortable putting your faith in one of the two sides of the story, but I don't see you think I or anyone else should be.

EDIT:

By the way, here's some interesting quotes (from random internet places but mostly sourced):

QUOTEThe accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere catapulted the first major extinction of life in the Earth's history. Many populations of anaerobic organisms were killed off or forced to exist only in places where oxygen didn't penetrate, like deep sea muds or the bottoms of lakes. There is little doubt that vast geological, chemical, and biological changes took place as oxygen was introduced to the atmosphere. In fact, as Margulis and Sagan so rightly point out, the "industrial pollution of our present...is nothing compared to the strictly natural pollution of [these early] times."

QUOTEEarth's oxygen atmosphere is a consequence of, not a precursor to, prokaryotic life. Aerobic organisms (those organisms that require or tolerate the presence of oxygen) evolved in reaction to the environmental changes brought about by carbon dioxide-reducing prokaryotes, which produce molecular oxygen as a metabolic waste product. This is anecdotally referred to as the "Oxygen Holocaust" and is perhaps, by biomass, the largest extinction event in the history of Earth. Humans are used to thinking of oxygen as a boon to life because we breathe it, but oxygen is actually toxic to most forms of life, even today. It was even more true at the prokaryote-eukaryote transition.

Buy what you want, but avoid the Jeep. You'll need all that money to repair it. Speaking from experience, the Wrangler is fun...for the first week, if it happens to be Summer. The soft-tops are LOUD and the newer ones are such a tight fit, you really have to work at getting it up. Then there's the wind. Fun when you're in a sleeveless t-shirt and shorts headed to the beach, but not fun when you're in a shirt and tie, trying to drink a cup of coffee that is spilling on your pants with every lane change. It's a bumpy ride my friend, hold on. Oh, and forget small children or dogs. I am certain I caused an accident when the contents of my gym bag were thrown from the car by two curious nieces.

Green guilt? Yeah, a little. I hate buying plastic and when I do, I make certain it can be recycled. I have energy efficient appliances, wash only the really dirty clothes, take quick showers, water only when needed and only drive when I can't ride my bike. So if the urge to buy a donor-cycle (a term hinting at the likely outcome of a crash) or a stereotypically butch 4x4 truck comes, I feel I've offset my carbon emissions.

Oh, you could always buy the Jeep/Harley/Truck and then make a large donation to the environmental group of your choosing. That would be a funny story to share over beers with friends.

Rune said
It's not that I don't care, but I remain unconvinced that cutting C02 emissions or other so-called "environmental" initiatives will be helpfull to the environment. In fact they may end up being detrimental in the long term for all you or I know. And since I don't know which actions will produce benefits to the environment and to life in general, and which will hold it back, I don't see any reason to buy hybrid cars. You may be comfortable putting your faith in one of the two sides of the story, but I don't see you think I or anyone else should be.

Okay, I haven't heard of the prokaryote-eukaryote transition theory, which indeed sounds plausible. And yes I know how corrosive oxygen is. But yeah, I tend to agree with the lot more scientists who side more with the smooth transition into the oxygenated atmosphere/oceans.

I do not see it as 'massive' extinctions for instance. Instead, I look at it as some bacteria effectively took advantage of the new source of energy from the photosynthetic cyanobacteria ancestors and thus became oxygen breathing.

First of all, the comparison of today's industrial pollution with the 'oxygen holocaust' is like comparing a full blown war with a chess game. Life then only consisted of bacteria. Life today consists of products of billions of years of evolution, and you can safely sit back and look on as they die out?

Anyway, I agree the point is moot since no one can accurately determine what early earth is like anyway, which is why I can't understand why you brought it up.

But I don't know what you don't see at all. Bypass the popular media's hysterical assertions of the end of days and just take a look at a river near you, a mountain near you, etc. your prairies which once supported oceans of bisons, not to mention the flocks of canadian geese and other birds that once literally darkened your american skies. The animals that don't exist now. Do you still feel the change is for the best? The system is too complex to accurately predict but I'm sure you can see the general trend of things since industrialization, I hope. Or am I the only one seeing it?

If left to nature alone, no doubt life can adapt in new ways as it has always done after extinction catastrophes - the problem is, it is NOT only nature in control today. Humans can and will no doubt survive the destruction of the ecosystem. Is that your idea of 'improvement'? Literally paving over paradise for a parking lot? A sterile earth of Homo sapiens sapiens alone is the culmination of the ~2 billion years of evolution? It doesn't seem fair for the dolphins, the whales, the elephants, etc. species with potential, now is it?

So okay, since we don't know the future and don't know anything we should just ride it out? LOL In reference to Pierrecadot's thread, when do we start admitting responsibility for our actions? When it's too late?

I dunno, I'm sorry, but this 'what may be' attitude angers me. So... *shrug* Enjoy your western pleasures I guess.

fitone saidI think suvs and large cars are expressions of inadequacy. i thought they were gross back when gas was $1 per gallon. express your confidence in your masculinity; get a scooter!
such fun!

With a scooter, how would I be able to drive the 35 miles to work while transporting by briefcase, gym bag, dry cleaning, groceries, armor, mail, and lunch cooler?

QUOTEBut yeah, I tend to agree with the lot more scientists who side more with the smooth transition into the oxygenated atmosphere/oceans.

Actually just for clarification, and because I don't want to mislead you with wrong info, the smooth transition opinion is in the minority. Most people seem to accept the 'story' (which is really all these are) that tons of bacteria and archea were wiped out when oxygen came about. It is considered to be a mass extinction, but isn't often talked about because as I said, it is hard to quantify it without fossils.

QUOTEFirst of all, the comparison of today's industrial pollution with the 'oxygen holocaust' is like comparing a full blown war with a chess game. Life then only consisted of bacteria. Life today consists of products of billions of years of evolution, and you can safely sit back and look on as they die out?

This is an issue of perspective. Bacteria are no slouches when it comes to life and evolution. We tend to think of ourselves as the height of evolution, but in reality we only exist because bacteria allows us to exist. Without them we wouldn't. Whereas they can exist just fine without us. They are also far more resilient than we are, and can survive much more than we can. Bacteria also represent many more years of evolution than other life forms as well. Make no mistake, bacteria were and continue to be very highly evolved forms of life. They can be found living in nealry ANY environment, and I believe some even evolved to live in environments with temperatures higher than the boiling point of water. What you don't see as a 'massive extinction' represents what is possibly the biggest extinction by biomass of all time. Further, when you say life consisted of "just bacteria" you need to realize that the types of bacteria now and back then far outnumbers the things in the animal kingdom, which is the one you seem to be most worried about. So I think your perspective is fairly arbitrary in all of these considerations.

As far as dying out, you don't really know that this will happen. In fact it most likely won't. It's just a scare tactic. We can and do develop technology far more quickly than we 'damage' the environment.

QUOTEAnyway, I agree the point is moot since no one can accurately determine what early earth is like anyway, which is why I can't understand why you brought it up

The reason I brought it up is not to argue whether it is true or not, it is afterall the common view. There are two reasons I brought it up. One is to show that what 'appeared' to the life-forms of the time to be an environmental disaster, bigger than any disaster prior to it and after it, in fact turned out to allow you and me to exist. Without this environmental disaster you woudln't be able to log on to this website and talk about how horrible environmental disasters are. The point is, for all YOU know our environmental disaster could take a similar turn as the Oxygen Catastrophe disaster, to provide the ability for new and more complex forms of life to come about. Or maybe not, maybe it will in fact be worse. But no one can tell. The point is that if you try to stop it, you could be doing more harm to life in the long run than good. And these bacteria I mentioned serve as precedent to show you just that.

The other reason is to show you that like you say, no one can predict what happened all those years ago on the earth, and on the otherside of that, no one can predict what will happen many years in the future. Again, the results of our 'environmental destruction' could be bad, but they could also be GOOD. This is what you seem to ignore and discount, and you do this really without any good reason, or at least none that you've talked about here. You simply assume that if we let things take their course as they are, things will either stay the same or get worse. In fact they might get better, and once again I cite precedent from our friendly bacteria and archea so many billions of years ago.

QUOTESo okay, since we don't know the future and don't know anything we should just ride it out? LOL In reference to Pierrecadot's thread, when do we start admitting responsibility for our actions? When it's too late?

I dunno, I'm sorry, but this 'what may be' attitude angers me. So... *shrug* Enjoy your western pleasures I guess.

Again, the problem is, you have placed so much faith in your own opinion that what is bad for current life is bad for life in the long-run, and of how things will turn out, that you can't help but bet angry about the opposing view. No one, not even me, is saying not to do anything because we're not sure if things will be bad or remain the same. What I'm trying to tell you is that preventing or stopping our 'environmental disaster' may be in fact detrimental in the long run. If you take anything else out of this, at least take the previous sentence. That is the whole reason I discussed a previous group of earth's inhabitants (bacteria and archea) which filled the atmosphere and environment with dangerous gasses, much like we are doing now. And although most of them did poison themselves out of existance, life recovered and came back many, many times stronger, with much, much greater complexity. Their pollution and their extinction gave us the ability to exist. Do you think that if they decided to curb their pollution like we are suggesting we do, things would have been better off? If the answer to that is no, then on what grounds do you suggest we stop our pollution?

All you have to do is put yourself in the bacterias' shoes. Stop producing O2 (or CO2 as it may be) and the current life-forms which are bacteria (or humans as it may be) get to survive. On the other hand, keep up the pollution and you just might give life the ability to evolve from bacteria (or humans as it may be) to humans (or some higher, more complex form life life than humans, as it may be).

Anyway, I somehow don't think this is helping the OP so I should stop hijacking his thread. At this point in the argument we just start repeating ourselves anyways so no need to go on. If you still favor your view, which you most likely do, so be it, but I suggest you give my arguments a chance to sink in over time along with some serious consideration, and maybe you'll realize that they are in fact fairly strong ones. On the other hand if you dismiss them as you have so far, well I guess you only hurt yourself

Actually, If you read the warranties on Hybrid SUV's, I think you will find that driving them off road voids their warranties.

Crimthann,

Since you don't like the two vehicle option...

While its not very 'macho'; a friend of mine has a Rav4 that is about 5 years old, and she gets mileage in the high 30's.

Alternatively, I used to have a very small box trailer just large enough for my Armor, Archery equipment, camping gear and Pavilion. The benefit was a watertight hard cover so that I could lock it all down and just leave the stuff in the trailer without worrying about it.

lilTanker said
You wanna do something manly?? shave!

..TRAITOR! (Only going to forgive you becuase you look like a smartass punk in your pic, and you like camping... wanting pink workout gloves notwithstanding)

Know what's hot? A unshaven man, wearing a t-shirt, combat boots, shorts and a baseball cap drivin' a Jeep! It's an undeniable fact of life.
Anyhow, Crim, I would get the vehicle that suits your needs and desires. Since your concerned about going green, focus on the many small changes you can make which may dwarf your auto emissions. Ever thought about converting your vehicle to propane?

Rune said On the other hand if you dismiss them as you have so far, well I guess you only hurt yourself

I can see your point. I do, I really do. But you didn't answer why I still believe otherwise:

Humans can and will no doubt survive the destruction of the ecosystem. Is that your idea of 'improvement'? Literally paving over paradise for a parking lot? A sterile earth of Homo sapiens sapiens alone is the culmination of the ~2 billion years of evolution?

Anyway, yeah, we're hijacking crimthann's thread. I'll stop.

Im One uping seditive on all the fourms tonight.

"jeliousy is a waist of energy."

Lenne saidIm One uping seditive on all the fourms tonight.

"jeliousy is a waist of energy."

"and don't guilt your self."

Lenne saidIm One uping seditive on all the fourms tonight.

"jeliousy is a waist of energy."

rofl lenne

Sedative said[quote][cite]Lenne said[/cite]Im One uping seditive on all the fourms tonight.

"jeliousy is a waist of energy."

rofl lenne[/quote]


"One up, Im better"

Well since people are continuing the hijack, we might as well too

QUOTEHumans can and will no doubt survive the destruction of the ecosystem. Is that your idea of 'improvement'? Literally paving over paradise for a parking lot? A sterile earth of Homo sapiens sapiens alone is the culmination of the ~2 billion years of evolution?

Well I thought I provided an answer to this. Again, I point you to our friendly anaerobes which destroyed their environment. Is the outcome of their destruction a sterile earth with just them living in some sort of 'parking lot'? Doesn't seem like it to me, so what makes you think our destruction will be this way. In fact that is a very implausible outcome, as life is very creative even in the most dire of circumstances such as O2 (or even possibly CO2) pollution.

LOL. Okay, but we really shouldn't . Crimthann has gone and bought the jeep anyway. You compare humans with anaerobes, the issue is not only CO2 pollution, as you have pointed out. You are opposed to anything 'green'.

My issue is you underestimate the sheer potential of destruction humans have. A nuclear war alone would render vast areas absolutely lifeless, plastics can survive for centuries, etc. And probably in a scramble to save themselves when an ecological catastrophe finally falls down on us, I've no doubt that humans will abandon earth very readily.

ITJock saidActually, If you read the warranties on Hybrid SUV's, I think you will find that driving them off road voids their warranties.

I guess it's kinda late but the Ford/Mercury twins can be taken off road at least. The 4WD is mechanical and they have an underbody cover which can help protect the underside (unless you somehow punctured it and got it impaled on a rock)

The toyota/lexus version is not off road for certain. The 4WD uses only electric power to the rear wheels. 30 hp to each wheel might not be enough to get moving if the front wheels were stuck or out of ground contact.

Both however appear to be better than a Range Rover:

Actually I don't oppose anything green. I oppose trying to chastise or make people feel guilty when they don't go Green. There is no factual reason to go green. As it currently stands, it is a belief, one way or the other. But even by the very name of it "Going Green" you can see the attack on the opposition. The very name implies that if you don't go Green you are condemning the enviornment, which you aren't doing. The way it is presented, it is definatly a scam that many people are buying into. Not because going green can't possibly be helpful, but because we really don't know of it is helpful or hurtful or possibly neutral.

As far as deliberately trying to destroy the earth, sure we can easily invent a device to blow the earth to bits and pieces, we don't really need a nuclear war. But if we aren't deliberately tryin to destroy it, you'll have a very hard time wiping life away. Try nuking any place you want 100 times, and I bet bacteria still make it through. So I think it is you who underestimate nature. Plastics? Hah! Try abandoning a human city for just a month and you will see just how quickly nature begins to reclaim it. Do you realize just how much money is spent on a daily basis to keep nature at bay? It is constantly trying to retake our cities and it takes a lot of time, money, and effort to prevent it from doing so. So I don't think nature will have trouble dealing with any of the materials we make. Especially if we wipe ourselves out and thereby stop making them.

Green guilt my arse! If you had green guilt you would join a car club and not consider buying one in the first place. Hybrids are just as bad, several studies have shown that people that own Hybrids average annual mileage has increased by almost 30%.

Why do you think the Toyota Prius has been renamed by most the Pious.

By all means buy your jeep, just make sure ya car pool, work from home occasionally and stop driving it less than 5 miles to the shops and then you will get my respect. Otherwise its just Green-washing not guilt purely conscious appeasing.

As for the prat that said cars will create the next evolutionary change and all that spiel its happening now and its called a mutation and its called cancer! Sod the Global warming that will happen come what may, I personally give more of a stuff about the here and now impact rather than bury my head in the sand and not give two hoots about the rest of society!

bfg1 saidGreen guilt my arse! If you had green guilt you would join a car club and not consider buying one in the first place. Hybrids are just as bad, several studies have shown that people that own Hybrids average annual mileage has increased by almost 30%.

Why do you think the Toyota Prius has been renamed by most the Pious.

By all means buy your jeep, just make sure ya car pool, work from home occasionally and stop driving it less than 5 miles to the shops and then you will get my respect. Otherwise its just Green-washing not guilt purely conscious appeasing.

As for the prat that said cars will create the next evolutionary change and all that spiel its happening now and its called a mutation and its called cancer! Sod the Global warming that will happen come what may, I personally give more of a stuff about the here and now impact rather than bury my head in the sand and not give two hoots about the rest of society!

None of these are options for me, sadly. Can't work from home, there are no stores within 20 miles of my house, and there is no one to carpool with. Maybe if I were independantly wealthy I could sit home here on the ranch and write my book.

For inspiration I'd buy Obscene Wish a plane ticket to my house.

wow thats some remote place ya live that no-one at all ever passes your route on the way to the big town. Maybe I should be scared that those redneck piccys were really true You grizzly Adams really?

My office has eight people in it and the roads around here don't lead to other's people's access until I cross the river, 15 - 20 miles away,

jeeze better get the jeep cos a hybrid wont cut that and they aint that reliable!!!!!

Couldnt live so remote Id go stir crazy! Hmmmm well ya could always go for an electric car as long as ya dont have any rough terrain. Then panel the house up good and proper with solar panels and geothermal heating and you are well away. Stick up a small wind turbine and you could even sell some electric back.

I shall stop giving you a hard time as not everyone can avoid the car but its about making the small changes where you can.

What da ya do for a living?

I've actually considered the wind turbine as an option. We also sit on top of natural gas reserves here.

As for my occupation, check out my private photos I just unlocked for you.

Don't worry. We're here to help.

Crimthann said What does this mean for our future society?

So picking up on this and what does it mean? Well it means that in future with education people will work efficiently. They wont locate miles from where they work or they will plan that job so they can work remotely. An office environment will become a hub you check into occasionaly and millions of business mile a year wont be wasted on unnecesary trips.

Those that live in cities? Well if they dont take any action then natural population growth will cause gridlock so they will have to chose alternative modes, But in the meantime localised environment and air quality will be so poor that for fear of litigation from employees then companies will migrate. It will cause econmic collapse of large connurbations and property will be valueless.

But on the positive side working with children is making a huge difference, they are starting to make changes and break this "car = freedom" mentality. A car doesnt equal freedom in a large town or city environment it means an office on the road that moves slowly and is inefficient. cars especially big gas guzzlers dont have kudos with kids now they have a stigma. So its starting to work. In many cities across Europe people are starting to claim the streets back. They are just trial projects at the second, but one of the greatest benefits is the increase in safety for all and reduction in crime.

bfg1 saidjeeze better get the jeep cos a hybrid wont cut that and they aint that reliable!!!!!

Hybrids are not reliable?

A UK survey speaks differently:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/other/display.var.2254833.0.Drivers_are_most_happy_with_green_Prius_car.php

Thats interesting to see as the fist 2000 they produced had to be recalled as there were major design flaws that meant the battery pack had a tendency to blow up!

Like all new technology it has had had major teething problems when started.

I hadnt seen this latest survey but was talking with a major fleet manager last week (part of my work) who has had nothing but problems with a fair few to say the least). What he did say tho was the service in sorting them out was excellent, they dont want the reputation damaging.

Rune:

BTW, I failed to mention this (it's not significant to the discussion anyway, but...) Bacteria are NOT highly evolved. I'm curious as to what you define 'evolution' as.

By 'highly evolved', I meant in terms of biological complexity and not simply by diversity, strength, or the niches they occupy.

Their importance in the current ecosystem or their resilience notwithstanding. They are one of the simplest lifeforms in existence. In fact, the reason why they can survive in more hostile conditions is because they do not have the fragility which comes with complexity.

Please, I took BS Biology before I shifted to a computer course, LOL. Believe me, I've had enough lessons on Prokaryotes to give me nightmares on where I place my hands.

Lemme put it in non-scientific terms.

I have a son. I dropped him once when he was two while carrying him, he survived. When he was five, he crashed his bike into a ditch, he survived. When he was 16, he totaled the car on a tree, he survived. Now that he is 25, he's gonna jump from the top of a skyscraper, but I won't stop him because I'm confident that he is strong enough to survive the fall.

That's what you are saying exactly.

I think I can pinpoint exactly where we disagree.

1) You have more faith in the resilience of the biosphere's ecosystems than me. I view it as fragile. I have seen enough evidence in my part of the world to attest to that.

2) You do not put much faith in the destructive power of man. While I do, because we are after all, the most successful organism and one of the highest evolved ever to walk the face of Earth.

RuneNo one, not even me, is saying not to do anything because we're not sure if things will be bad or remain the same. What I'm trying to tell you is that preventing or stopping our 'environmental disaster' may be in fact detrimental in the long run.

The logic fails me. We have already established that too much CO2 is harmful. What could possibly be detrimental about cutting back CO2 emissions? And for what reason? Please don't pretend it's for the greater good and noble cause of 'taking evolution to a higher level' or 'not being able to predict the outcome'; because it is, whichever way you look at it, purely and simply human arrogance, hedonism, and laziness.

It's always the easy way out, it seems.

Lemme see. If you had to choose between carrying recycled paper bags for your shopping and risk having it tear and see your grocery strewn all over the pavement OR just take the plastic bags and throw it in the garbage disposal later.

Which would you choose? And why?

If you had to choose between cutting down a portion of the rainforest for a field of revenue-generating corn OR just leave it a lush jungle that provides you with no material benefits at all.

Which would you choose? And why?

If you had to choose between an ugly, slow, and difficult to maintain 'green' car (or a bike even) OR a gasguzzling, smoke-belching, sleek black hummer.

Which would you choose? And why?

See? By your logic, I know which you'll choose already. Money, looks, fun... greed and expedience. Don't pretend and justify it's for a greater good, all the while choosing the reasons which serve your OWN interests best.

Rune saidSo I don't think nature will have trouble dealing with any of the materials we make. Especially if we wipe ourselves out and thereby stop making them.

Okay. You're using the way 'nature' reclaims abandoned areas as evidence that nature is resilient? Ecosystems are NOT resilient. They are precariously balanced and even one small change will tip the whole shebang into extinction. What you are seeing are invasive/opportunistic species - kudzu vines, 'weeds', rats, roaches, Tilapia nilotica, Water Hyacinths, Duckweed, Bufo americanus and rabbits in Australia etc. that often 'invade'. They are NOT an ecosystem. In fact they are also a sort of pollution called 'introduced species'.

Rune saidActually I don't oppose anything green. I oppose trying to chastise or make people feel guilty when they don't go Green. There is no factual reason to go green.

No factual reason? Okay, I honestly don't know how you came up with that. Think of it this way, if I was a nonsmoker in a nonsmoking room and some guy decides to light up, I shouldn't stop him?

bfg1As for the prat that said cars will create the next evolutionary change and all that spiel its happening now and its called a mutation and its called cancer! Sod the Global warming that will happen come what may, I personally give more of a stuff about the here and now impact rather than bury my head in the sand and not give two hoots about the rest of society!

Minus the offensive terms, LOL. Amen!

a topcase and underseat storage would take of all your needs except your dry cleaning.
35 mile commute would be a cinch. have put 6000 miles on my scoot since purchasing in june

in the winter House is at 68 and the AC at 76. Every room has a motion detector to turn off the lights. I drive a Suzuki 650 V Storm 53 MPG fun as all hell. Filled it up last week still have half a tank. Act locally think Globally