Forum Home | Login

terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

Really protecting the environment...

I hope that Dabe and a few others are reading this blog entry, as I may surprise them with my thoughts and what they read here.

Several articles and topics that all circle around the same competing issues have come up in the news lately, and in other sources. I may refer to a couple, and will link what I can, but readers can find a lot more information by doing just a little searching on the web.

First, in The Washington Post, there were a pair of articles:

New Approach to Managing Growth Town in W.Va.'s Eastern Panhandle Tries to Buy Farm Before Developers

Getting Around the High Cost of Living RV Dwellers Find Affordable Housing In Pricey Suburbs

Among other sources, there was also this site Historic Preservation of American Civil War Battlefields

Fairly current issues of National Geographic had an indepth series of articles of the "loss" of many historic sites from the Civil War era. As an example, check out the following article, or better yet, see the print editions. Article link here: U.S. Civil War battlefields see new conflict.

Additionally, there are many other historical sites being lost along the way, rather from the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, or many other important historical events.

If readers will indulge for a bit, I may ramble on here a bit about the many competing interests at work in these various articles.

As someone that has seen much of the area I grew up converted from farm lands and wooded rural area into many housing developments, all featuring large and luxurious over-sized single family dwellings or large shopping centers featuring the "mega" sized grocery stores, the obligatory Starbucks, fast food sandwich shops and the like, I'm saddened to read more and more articles like these knowing that slowly but surely we are obviously consuming the space we have available, and destroying the resources necessary to do it as we go.

Some readers may have seen a recent article: Ack! time to panic - two thirds of worlds resources used up that noted this problem.

Unfortunately, we also have the competing interests noted in the second Washington Post article above, that of providing cheap and affordable housing to individuals that need homes in the areas where they find jobs and employment. On the one hand, there's a desire to protect historic monuments and preserve open spaces and land, but on the other hand, people have to be able to find homes.

Much of the problem, at least to me, is the ever increasing demand among humanity for more, bigger and better. Where I used to drive around in a fairly small car, I too have succumbed to Explorer-itis, and now am driving around in an SUV. Though I'd like to save some gas, save on expenses for the vehicle, etc., I've had to balance that desire with a desire to be safer, knowing that if I were to be hit by, or hit an SUV while driving a compact car, I'd be the loser in the equation. Do I really need an SUV? At times perhaps, for hauling things around, many times when I may be hauling my family around (as my son has definitely outgrown the back seat of a compact car).

I'm actually fairly well astonished and embarrassed to see the sizes of many homes today. In the DC metropolitan area, I see homes that would have been considered mansions when I was a child. Now they're "average". People have to have 20x20 living rooms or great rooms, with huge vaulted ceilings and more wasted space. Never mind that many of us grew up in homes where the largest rooms were 14x12, if that. More, more, more.

What people aren't thinking about (obviously) is that in order to build that huge home, land must be consumed. More and more of it. In order to have even a reasonable sized yard, you have to have about 2x or 3x the size of the home in ground space (if not more), so even more space is consumed as the home gets larger and larger.

I drive around some areas where there were small rancher style homes by the thousands (or so it seems). Traditional city blocks where my aunts and uncles bought homes in communities that made up the suburbs for places like D.C. and Baltimore. Those homes are still there, but with longer and longer life expectancies, or with grown children now living in the homes having replaced their parents, the grandchildren (my age) and great grandchildren are left moving further and further out in search of homes and places to build them.

What are we to do about the problem? I honestly don't know. I'm saddened that so much history is being lost along the way, even if it's just the history of an empty field, or a large wooded area. I don't want to see the environment destroyed, and have these monster homes built in those spaces. I really wish that people would learn to be happier with smaller and more cozy, but (at least in this area, and many others -- try the Dallas-Ft. Worth surrounding areas as an example) -- it's obvious that is not what people want.

I admire the creative individuals at work in the first article above. I know that many others are doing similarly to help protect the Civil War battlefield areas. (Again, please check out a recent copy of National Geographic magazine for a wonderful article on same). I'd encourage others that feel strongly about the environment (such as Dabe has demonstrated concern for) to be more concerned about the environment here in the lower 48, than in areas of barren land in Alaska. The problem is most definitely closer to home.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you're so concerned about the environment here in the lower forty eight, then why aren't you outraged over the Clean Skies Initiative, which enables power corporations to pocket profits and trade in pollution credits rather than pay to upgrade their facilities? Or, the Healthy Forests Initiative, that enables logging industries to clear cut forests and build roads in the name of preventing forest fires, which is a total scam, because they do not have to conduct environmental analysis on the downstreams their fucking up? How about the fact that dubya has allowed trading in mercury pollution credits, at the expense of children, infants and fetuses? Just to name a few issues....... and to which I have been writing about.

Then, you have the freakin' audacity to drive around in a gas guzzling and pollution spewing suv in the name of your own personal safety. Does the word "hypocrisy" even enter your pea brain?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Then, you have the freakin' audacity to drive around in a gas guzzling and pollution spewing suv in the name of your own personal safety. Does the word "hypocrisy" even enter your pea brain?

Dabe, you write words like above and then wonder why you are "called out" in other's posts?

Hypocrisy, huh? Are you yet so sure? Perhaps you should drive a few days in my life and then reconsider. Perhaps you should tell me how you ride a bicycle everywhere you go, or even perhaps a moped (which I've done over my many years). Or how you use mass transit exclusively. Or how many mpg you get in your very well maintained vehicle which you maintain well enough to really control emissions on? Perhaps you should offer to buy me the Hybrid Escape I really wanted, but which I knew there was no way I could afford at present or for the next 10 for-seeable years?

And really, perhaps you should again be reminded to watch your language. It's uncalled for, and does not help you get your point across.

Meanwhile, about my efforts to help the environment -- Lets see, i've driven, over the last many years a Geo Metro, 33 (give or take) miles to the gallon. Forgive the requisite creature comfort of the air conditioner that taxed the 3 cylinder engine to the point that at 100k miles the car literally fell apart. That car had replaced a P.O.S. Ford Tempo that was one of the nastiest pieces of junk on the road. That Tempo pulled about 22 mpg, if that. It also ate up literally thousands in maintenance costs after it blew a head gasket because it was assembled as a piece of junk that would self destruct after it was driven off the lot. Prior to that car, I had a nice little Ford Mustang. Again, built to self destruct. Standard transmission, with a clutch. Clutch blew at 48k miles (give or take), and very soon there-after the tranny went. Traded it for the Tempo so that we'd have an automatic tranny so my wife could drive it. Before that, again mostly for safety reasons I had a Pontiac Gran Prix that sucked up gas when no one really cared. It was a fine two door car that was used when I got it. Turned out that car had been an Avis rental car during it's history and it fell apart around me. At least it held up better than the little Datsun B-210 that was literally crumpled like tin-foil when it was crashed in a head-on.

During some of my driving days, and the many hundreds of thousands of miles I've had to cover in the name of work, school and more, I've driven a 65 Dodge Dart, a Datsun 510, a Plymouth Monaco, the B-210, the Grand Prix, the Mustang, the Tempo, a used and well worn Plymouth Volare wagon that was a hand-me-down and literally dripped transmission fluid as I drove it (that was fixed, but the car was really beyond repair) that I drove during periods when the weather wasn't hospitable enough to ride the Suzuki GS650 that I rode (which never got more than approx. 35 mpg). After that Volare came the Geo Metro (whose engine blew at 100k miles, right after 5 years of payments were finished). Then came 2 Neons, one of which was pretty much totalled in a nasty snow storm, the second of which went to 103k miles before it's transmission started slipping like crazy.

I almost killed myself -- with a young newborn son at home at the time -- on the motorcycle because idiots pulled out in front of me and never saw me coming. So much for saving gas and the environment in that manner.

I saw that Datsun (then current name for Nissan) B-210 crumple like tin-foil when it skidded on rain soaked pavement. That led me away (for a while) from small cars until I realized I couldn't afford bigger and safer for a while.

I tried the fuel savings again to the point of cramming my family and myself (2 children by then) into a 2 door, 2 and a half seats Geo Metro which made road trips to my wife's family in Atlanta GA. That was such a fun ride to take, even though the kids were both under 5 years old. You try sitting in such a car for such a trip and then try telling me what I should drive again.

The Neon that I just replaced had done 100k miles also. It was about 4 months past paid for. It owed me nothing, but unfortunately it really was showing it's mileage. The transmission slipped badly when I started it for a day. My 16+ year old, 6 foot, 225+ pound son was literally tearing up his knees to get in the back seat, even though the vehicle had 4 doors.

In trying to get equipment moved around at my work, I was stuck carrying computers around in the back seat floor of my car, stuffing computers in the trunk and hoping they didn't get destroyed moving them around.

I've been a victim of having to wait just a few too many times to get help getting new appliances to replace well worn hand-me-downs that are breaking faster than I can replace many of them -- why? because I had nothing to haul them in.

My wife, who is very much (sadly, like myself, though worse) over-weight and is handicapped was soooooo looking forward to riding around just a bit more crammed into the front seat, with my son stuffing his knees right behind her.

And finally, seriously, not just for my own personal safety, but because I'm a single bread winner for a family of four, with a son about to go off soon to College on whatever spare money my wife can scrounge up, yes, I switched to an SUV. One of the best rated vehicles for safety in a collision. One which costs me $4 less every 6 months, even though it's just as old as the car was, for insurance. You see, your friends at the IIHS that love to crash vehicles just for fun had done their dirty deed with the liberal media and had convinced my liberal mother that I was riding in a death trap. My mother that worries about her son, and his family when they ride with him. My mother that worries about the other many millions of people that are out there waiting to try to kill you as they ride around in those nice safe tanks while you ride around in a small car waiting to become an orgain donor.

Oh, one other concern and issue - there's this big factor called "cost" and "affordability". Rather than driving a Ford Focus, which might be a bit safer in a crash than the Neon would have been, I'm driving a well worn used Explorer. The Explorer offers me space to haul materials and bodies as needed. It was just affordable enough, even though in good condition for it's age, to be able to make payments that were affordable, versus literally taking food from the mouth of my family to try to drive even the cheapest new vehicle or go the alternative route of trying to repair the Neon and then watching the next part on it die for an even bigger repair. Would I have liked to get the Hybrid Escape? Hell yes. Or even a nice Toyota Prism? Possibly (depending on passenger space in it). A Honda Accord Hybrid? Perhaps. Any of which would have cost me 3x or more as much as the used Explorer, all of which are well out of my price range.

As to your other pea brained concerns about Clean Skies - do you have jobs ready to replace the ones that would be lost if you got your way? If people lose their jobs and can no longer pay taxes, that's not your concern is it? If states lose that tax revenue, and can no longer take care of lesser fortunate individuals, again, not your problem, right?

You complain about Healty Forests, yet you ignore what happened just a few short years ago when wild fires literally destroyed many more acres than man could in multiples of years. If those forests had been thinned, and fire breaks had been cut along the way, then many acres of trees could have been saved. Forests can thinned while still maintaining healthy growth. If we manage it properly, and work to make sure that companies like Weyhauser, Georgia Pacific and others do their jobs, we can do it right and renew the resources as we go.

Circling back on clean skies, yes, more can and should be done. We must eliminate the dependence on oil. Perhaps we should do more of what we had where I grew up at -- Nuclear fuel, except that Nuclear scares the crap out of most people. They fear it, and they really fear what terrorists could do to a Nuclear plant. People like you cry over where we will dispose of the waste, which is a valid concern, but given the alternatives of using Coal or Oil for power, which choice to you want to make? Solar, sure, it's an alternative that is woefully behind in development, very inefficient, and too expensive for mass use. Wind, how about all of those birds that have killed by the wind turbines out in California -- just collateral damage, right?

There are no easy answers -- no matter how many nasty words you toss around. There are things we can all do better, no matter how hypocritical some may seem. The best that many can do is all try to do their own little parts where possible. That may mean doing ones part by washing laundry during off hours, lowering the thermostats when possible (using programmed timers if possible can help), by driving a vehicle that is, despite it's size, as fuel efficient as possible, as well maintained as possible, and driving the vehicle at recommended speeds, and in recommended manners to get the best mileage possible while still hauling around an efficient number of passengers.

So, please put that pea in your brain and chew on it. Or sit on it. Or whatever.

Oh, one more thing you might try doing -- try lobbying to get the tax credits for purchase of Hybrid vehicles extended. Try lobbying so that Virginia doesn't eliminate the Hybrid vehicle exceptions for their otherwise under-used HOV lanes. Those efforts do work for many. It helps people afford to get the Hybrids in many cases. It encourages the use of the Hybrids for many that might not consider it.

And yes, even -- to some extent -- lobby for more rules requring improved CAFE standards for all vehicles sold in the U.S. Dodge (Daimler-Chrysler) should be bitch-slapped for building damn near all Neons without putting an over-drive tranny in them. 25 MPG. Chrysler's favorite number. Just about any car they make that you buy gets that number and no higher. Neons could get (easily) 30 MPG by putting in an OD tranny. The PT cruiser is the same vehicle, just different body. Same deal. They've retired the Intrepids, but they were built for 25 MPG. The mid-sized vehicles were the same. They could do better, and should be strongly encouraged (as in legislated) to do better. Ford is trying with the Escapes, and is working on Hybrid versions of the Explorer also (at least by what I recall). All of these manufacturers should be trying harder to drop our dependence on fossil fuels, and expressing more concern to Congress could help. Of course just bitching here at Joe user will do nothing, as unfortunately most of the idiots in Congress (both parties) don't even have a clue this place exists.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

Much of the problem, at least to me, is the ever increasing demand among humanity for more, bigger and better. Where I used to drive around in a fairly small car, I too have succumbed to Explorer-itis, and now am driving around in an SUV.

Unfortunately, you identified yourself as part of the problem. If you are driving an SUV, why shouldn't everyone? Are you sure that you are safer in your SUV, or do you just feel safer? What about the fuel mileage? Why did you go to an SUV versus a larger car (like an Impala which will get 30mpg)?

Do you live in a small house? The average sized house used to be less than 1300 sq ft, now it is double that.

The problem is that everyone wants everyone else to change. Change has to start with one person at a time.

I live in a "too big" of a house. It was built bigger than we needed because my parents used to live with us. Though it would be better to have a smaller house, I can't afford to move, and it's not like somebody wouldn't be living in it. However, we are very energy conservant. We are also not wasteful people. We recycle everything that we can, and compost organic garbage to be used on our land and in our gardens. I throw away about 1/2 bag of garbage a week (would be less if all containers could be recycled). We also use hot water heat and take advantage of zones. We only heat the areas of the house that need to be heated when we are there and using them, and most of the time only the living room is heated by a stove to conserve energy. We have high efficiency appliances, including our washer and dryer. The washer only uses 1 - 1 1/2 gallons of water per load, and we use laundry disks + 1tsp of detergent to wash our clothes.

We drive fuel efficient cars, and my next car will be a hybrid.

Some of that requires more work than an average person wants to do, but I can guarantee that my standard of life is not worse for it. But, I know many people who are not like me, and I know very few who are. However, some of the things I do rub off on other people, and I see them starting to do the same. I also feel good when I here my daughter tell somebody not to throw away something that could be recycled because "that is being wasteful".

Individuals have to change before we can expect big changes.

Does the word "hypocrisy" even enter your pea brain?

dabe, you have to be one of the most anger filled, nasty people I have seen on this site. You seemed so normal on WC, what happened? Do you really think that you can change somebody's view by insulting them? I have no idea how you justify your words.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You obviously didn't read what he said.

One of the best rated vehicles for safety in a collision. One which costs me $4 less every 6 months, even though it's just as old as the car was, for insurance

And please enlighten me... just what does the size of ones house have to do with SUV's? And although the Impala may get 30 mpg it has at best a mediocre safety rating.The following info is from crashtest.com

The most significant safety determinant, worth as much as all the others put together, is Weight. It is so important that it would overwhelm all other factors if included in the assessment. We recommend that you note BOTH of the last 2 squares, Weight and Overall, when you consider the ultimate crashworthiness of a particular model.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today announced that crash test results for model year 2004 sport utility vehicles (SUV) are posted on the agency's World Wide Web site, www.safercar.gov. The Infiniti FX35, Saturn VUE and Toyota Highlander received the government's top rating in both the frontal and side-impact crash tests.

There's nothing wrong with having SUV. The ones that I think are wrong are ones like the Cadillac or Lexus SUV. I mean come on, what's the point? SUV=sport utility vehicle. How many people are going to carry anything home from say Home Depot in those particular SUV's?

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

You obviously didn't read what he said.

Obviously (since you can't see the time stamps) you can't see that I was writing a response at the same time he was. His response to dabe was posted while I was responding.

But, that does not matter. You may want to look into actual crash test data before you call the Impala "mediocre". It scores better than the Explorer (which is why I picked it) in almost every year It typically gets a 5/5 star in front collision and 4/5 in roll over. Don't assume that a vehicle will save you just because of it's size. A great deal of expressway accidents are single vehicle. When you are rolling, weight is not your friend.

just what does the size of ones house have to do with SUV's?

I guess you missed that they were separated (ie: not being compared). However, you can't complain with a statement like "Much of the problem, at least to me, is the ever increasing demand among humanity for more, bigger and better" then say it's OK to drive an SUV. His complaint was a lot about houses (their size). But, driving an SUV is the car equivalent of a large house. They are both wasteful.

It's always easy to justify things when it is yourself, or a particular thing that you think is "OK". However, you can't complain about other people being wasteful if you are wasteful yourself. People want other people to change, but they don't really want to change much themselves (except, of course, if it becomes convenient).

There's nothing wrong with having SUV

http://www.suv.org/economic.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

I DID and it does NOT! Maybe *you* should go look at the data. Here's the links:

Impala: Link

Exlorer: Link

Now wanna try again? And how is having a large house wasteful?

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

Now wanna try again? And how is having a large house wasteful?

Yep. You used IIHS which is funded by auto insurers and doesn't provide roll-over studies. Not exactly the best or only source when talking about Explorers, which if you recall, has had roll over class action lawsuits against.

How is a large house wasteful? Why don't you ask the author? (Or, did you maybe miss the main point of this article while you were side tracked with the car issue?)

And, to note, I agree with the author and his main points of the article. (I just don't agree with the "SUV" justification.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I honestly don't agree with the SUV justification either, but it's become a fact of life (at least in the Washington, D.C. metro area, much like the Dallas-Ft. Worth area that I witnessed back in late 1999) that SUVs are taking over the roads.

In the D.C. metro area the ratio of cars to SUVs seems to be near 1:1, at least from my visual inspection of the roadways. I may be exaggerating, but it's no better than 3 cars:1 SUV. Mix in 18 wheelers, double tandem tractor trailers, Fedex/UPS trucks (the Big Brown trucks), Large tow trucks, and a host of other obstacles and you see that if you are unfortunate enough to get into an accident with one of these other vehicles you are going to be on the losing end of the fight.

I would much rather be driving something that gets me 40+ MPG, and seriously wish that Congress had the guts to clamp down on Detroit and it's friends to "encourage" them to make more efficient vehicles. To some extent, the rise in gas prices will help in that area, as people move away from gas guzzlers, and towards more efficient vehicles. The auto makers can and should do much better. I'm not saying it should happen at the complete expense of jobs in the industry, or that it should happen without any worries about adding cost to vehicles that will be sold to customers. GM / Ford / Daimler-Chrysler / Toyota / Honda / etc., are not in the business of being charities. They have a profit motive, and must be allowed to make vehicles that meet customer demands.

In my case, I needed a vehicle which could satisfy several requirements: hauling space, safety concerns, fuel efficiency given the other purposes, and comfort for driver and passenger and also cost -- including maintenance, monthly payments, fuel as it's consumed, etc. I can't say that any one factor out weighed the others that much. All were weighed heavily before choosing one of the least expensive *used* vehicles I could choose that met my needs. When I bought the truck, I faced a choice of a mini-van which did not have as much passenger room as the truck, or going with a car that had been literally abused by it's driver in the form of cigarette smoking. The seats of the car had holes burned in them, and worse yet, the vehicle literally reaked of the smoke. I don't know that 100 air fresheners would have eliminated it, and I (and my family) have enough health issues that we don't need the exposure to the smell. The cost for the mini-van was much higher, making monthly payments skyrocket in comparison to the truck that met the other needs I had.

Finally, I looked at the 1 gallon of gas that I'd use *each way* in all of the above to go to or from my job each day, and decided that in the end it wasn't going to matter if I got either vehicle. At between 18 - 24 mpg, I consume one gallon of fuel in any of the above to make the trip. In the car, jack rabbit starts away from stop lights consume more fuel faster than slow and steady plodding does in the truck. So again, I'm at a net zero for the results unless I go nuts and take long road trips (not likely, but possible if my family does manage to save enough for a vacation).

I still use mass transit when I can (for going in and out of D.C. as an example), and did that for many years when working in the actual city. Of course I also found that was a losing equation, as I paid more for parking and the ride in and out of town than I did in just driving the extra 7 - 10 miles from the Metro stop on into D.C. (D.C.'s metro works great if you live within the Beltway, or in some more populated suburbs, not great at all if you live in outer areas of the poorer MD suburbs, which have seen short shrift in any possible extension of Metro to areas that might pick up literally thousands of passengers a day).

I still walk from building to building in the campus where I work so I can leave the truck parked, get some exercise, and avoid wasting gas.

As to homes and space that I use, I live in a mobile home. 24 x 60 (roughly). Do the math. 1440 sq. foot. 2 adults (my wife and myself), 2 young adults (son and daughter). I'd like a bit more room (about 8 x 12, give or take, for an enclosed porch to house our zoo full of birds in, and to give us more room in our family areas of the home), but not that much more. Our home is in a trailer park, with about 12 - 14 feet of space between us and our neighbors on either side. I think (not sure, but guessing) that our park includes about 300 - 400 homes. Many of my neighbors are elderly and retired. Some are families. In the few acres that are used for our homes, I'd say we get maximum efficiency out of the space. Others might beg to differ and wish to stuff us into some cramped apartment spaces, or some sort of condo units, but I would beg to differ and prefer to own my home, even if I don't own the space it sits on.

Either way, I've probably wasted enough time defending my own use of the limited resources we have here. I see that Dabe hasn't bothered to answer. I guess she's out riding a bicycle or moped and can't spare the time to reply. Or perhaps Dabe is feeling a bit like a hypocrit herself because she had to use some electricity to reply, and the electricity may have come from oil or gas, or resources that may have been hauled by innefficient vehicles once they left trains or ships which aren't that efficient in and of themselves.

And by the way KarmaGirl, your reply came about 12 hours after mine hit the forums. Not sure what took so long to happen there

Successfully updated karma reason!

Either way, I've probably wasted enough time defending my own use of the limited resources we have here. I see that Dabe hasn't bothered to answer. I guess she's out riding a bicycle or moped and can't spare the time to reply. Or perhaps Dabe is feeling a bit like a hypocrit herself because she had to use some electricity to reply, and the electricity may have come from oil or gas, or resources that may have been hauled by innefficient vehicles once they left trains or ships which aren't that efficient in and of themselves.

Well, I haven't replied because I'm just reading the response right now. I have a job, which occupies upwards of 10 hours/day, so don't have time to sit at the computer waiting for a response so I can respond. Whatever.

Anyway, Terpfan, I do owe you an apology. Truly, I am sorry. I just felt that you had singled me out in your original article as someone who should read your long post. Then, after the discussion about environmental conciousness, you mentioned your affinity towards the big SUV. I really did feel that there was some degree of hypocrisy, and I took umbrage to it. I am sorry.

Having said that, I don't entirely dismiss what I've said. I find it amazing that there are so many huge SUV's on the road. Yes, maybe they are safer in an accident, but what the hell are we who drive smaller cars supposed to do? Buy bigger and better SUV's to protect ourselves. Personally, I do not want to drive an SUV. I find them to be mostly wasteful, obtrusive, and gas guzzling. And, I hate having to ride behind one on the road. You cannot see around them, ahead of them, lights that your coming up on, traffic coming the other way, etc. They are really a drag. But, I'm sure they are safer when matched against a small car.

I drive a Saturn Ion. It's fairly new, a 2004 model, so it's not burning oil or guzzling, or other stuff. It' gets about 26mpg, which is not great. But, I like the fact that it has a lighter body because of the plastic panels, so running on four cylinders isn't as slow as a 4-cylinder heavy car, like a Volvo (which are very safe cars).

Anyway, I have been where you have been regarding cars. I used to be the last stop for a jalopy before the junk yard. I've really driven wrecks, and it sucks. But now that I can afford driving a newer car, I do. I would like my next car to be a hybrid.

As for the Clean Skies Initiative, it really is a terrible law written by the power industry. They did not want to spend money upgrading their plants with new scrubbers, so they got dubya to drop the requirement from the law. Now, they can upgrade to their hearts' content and not worry about clean air. They trade in pollution, like it's a commodity. If they were required to install scrubbers, it would not sacrifice jobs. That's ridiculous. All it would do is cut into their already huge profit margins.

Jobs are not sacrificed because of new and cleaner technology. Jobs are being lost because we have been outsourcing everything overseas, where labor is cheap and environmental laws do not exist. We're trashing other countries, paying lousy wages to foreign workers, and we're not penalizing companies who do that, at all. It's like we encourage their off-shore industries with tax breaks and the like. That's where our jobs are going.

As for Healthy Forests Initiative, that's another corporate give-away. Logging industries can now clear cut forests, under the guise of preventing forest fires, without any kind of environmental review that would have otherwise been required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), legislation signed into law by Nixon. The Bushies have set back environmental policy in this country decades and decades. It's disgusting. And, again, good concientious industry would not necessarily mean lost jobs. However, I do agree that there would be market shifts to accommodate logging requirements.

I ask you...... how much is our environment worth? How much is the health of our children worth? Is it really a good idea to sacrifice our environment and health and clean air and rivers and forests and animals so that corporate CEO's get rich? I don't think so, and I would hope that most people would agree. But, apparently they don't. They have bought into the notion, and the scare tactics of this administration about jobs, so that their corporate buddies will continue to contribute to their campaign coffers.

I definitely do not feel like a hypocrit. I actually am an environmental professional, working with NEPA policies daily. I care about the environment, and do what I can to maybe, maybe make a difference. My home is a small cottage. I keep my thermostat set to 65 degrees in the winter, and I do not have air conditioning. I really don't need it, because I like fairly warm temperatures, so I'm lucky in that regard. I drive to work because we do not have any kind of public transportation worth a damn out here on Long Island. I recycle whatever I can. I fight for clean air and clean forests and healthy coasts. I know that we can never turn back the clock on technology, but I really do hope that we can convince our governments to spend more on alternative fuels and less on drilling the Arctic Plains for oil that will not solve our oil problems. The answers will be alternative fuels. That is where we must influence governments.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you mentioned your affinity towards the big SUV

actually Dabe, I still very much hate SUVs myself, and despise basically being forced into them because they are what everyone is driving.

I wish we had safer, smaller cars, or lighter trucks, but the automotive manufacturers are not still not building them, and U.S. citizens still aren't buying them -- even with gasoline prices at record levels. Believe it or not, even for as much as it pains me when I fill up now, I actually sort of cheer when the price goes up because I hope it drives just a few more Hummer's, Escalades, Expeditions and other big behemoths off the road.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And how is having a large house wasteful?

If the space is needed, it may not be wasteful, but then again, how much space is enough, and how many resources have to be used to heat it? cool it? provide water for showers, toilets, baths, shaving, etc.?

In and of themselves, large homes are not necessarily bad. Design them right, take into account passive solar energy for heating, good planning for placement of trees and shrubs for natural cooling and shade, and a very large house can be just as energy smart as a much smaller home.

But if you build an energy smart smaller home, it's gonna beat the crap out of the larger home for energy usage. Balance is the key. Build what you need, and use what you built.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And how is having a large house wasteful?

Successfully updated karma reason!

provide water for showers, toilets, baths, shaving, etc.?

Sorry but you can't figure these into the equation. Large house, small house will use the same. They are "entirely" dependant on the amount of people in the home, not the space used.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

And by the way KarmaGirl, your reply came about 12 hours after mine hit the forums.

You are right. I have absolutely no idea what I was looking at or why I didn't see your response. When I responded, there was only one response, and it was Dabes. I'm wondering if our new database system is playing tricks (which is the same reason that some articles don't show up on the forums for up to 30 minutes). I don't know....

I drive a Saturn Ion. It's fairly new, a 2004 model, so it's not burning oil or guzzling, or other stuff. It' gets about 26mpg, which is not great. But, I like the fact that it has a lighter body because of the plastic panels, so running on four cylinders isn't as slow as a 4-cylinder heavy car, like a Volvo (which are very safe cars).

The plastic panels aren't what causes your car to be "faster" than a 4 cylinder Volvo. The Volvo is heavier because it's a bigger car and has a more substantial cage. 4 cylinder power and gas mileage also varies greatly depending on the actual engine specifications and transmission. Do you do mainly city mileage? We have a 2004 Ion (5speed) and it gets 37mpg with our driving style.

Large house, small house will use the same. They are "entirely" Dependant on the amount of people in the home, not the space used.

I questioned that when we were building our home. We had to get a bigger sewer in our new home than what we had in our old one because we had an extra 1/2 bath. I asked them why it's not based on occupants (since that didn't change, nor did the number of bedrooms). They claim that the more bathrooms you have the more they will be used. People will stay in them longer using more water. If you have a one bathroom house with 4 people, you tend to use less water because you end up taking quicker showers since you are limited on time.

I'm not sure that I completely believe it, though. I guess in some homes it might be the case, but not in ours. Our energy costs are almost the same even though our house is about 1,000 sq ft bigger. Our electric hasn't changed at all (which means that we're not using more water, since it requires the electric pump to be delivered) and if anything, we probably use less water, because part of our electric is used on a sump pump in the crawl space, which we didn't have in the old house.

The point of the large houses being wasteful is that a lot of them are. A lot of the space in my house is not used anymore, and I wish that I could just remove it and sell it (too bad it doesn't work that way). Most people who have big houses don't use all of the space, yet they still have to heat, cool and maintain that space. Which, is wasteful. The point of the main article was also that a large house needs more land than a small house. Though you can see a small house on large land (typically in the rural areas), a sub with large houses will be able to fit less houses in than if they were moderate, therefore requiring more land to be used just for housing. This also raises the costs in urban areas since land becomes a premium. Then urban sprawl results and people have to drive longer to get to work which causes higher commuting costs, etc., etc.

In either the last issue of Vegetarian times or Organic living (I don't remember which it was in because I read them both on the same day), there was an article on a new trend to make efficient small houses. It appears that a lot of "Urbans", as they were called, are preferring to make very efficient houses that are 1500 sq ft or smaller. A lot of the examples were 2 story houses so that they left a smaller footprint. They focused on the details versus the size of the house and designed them specifically for the occupants style of living.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your right, to bad it don't work that way. Because I'd buy what your selling. My wife and I live in a 975 sq ft house that just is NOT big enough.

Do not believe this. The first part is a correct answer. The second is BS made up to justify the first part answer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"small and cozy" houses are a relative term. 200 years ago, a cabin of less than 500 square feet was considered more than adequate to raise a family. When I was a child, about 1000 square feet of living space was considered to be fairly substantial. Now, I get strange looks from people that ask me how we fit our (large) family in a 1200 square foot dwelling. More and more people are opting for 3 to 4,000 bedroom models and larger. Not only do these houses consume more land and greater resources to build, they additionally require more energy to run.

We need to rethink our priorities considerably. Good article.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

My wife and I live in a 975 sq ft house that just is NOT big enough.

Yeah, that might be a bit small, especially if it is not well designed (which most homes really aren't) Our old home was about 1600sq ft with three people, and it was a perfect size. Unfortunately, we needed to move closer to where my husband's job was (hence the new house).

Do not believe this. The first part is a correct answer. The second is BS made up to justify the first part answer.

I agree. Did I mention that the permit is based on the size of the septic? Always seemed like a scam to me. I could run a diaper washing business out of my house and it wouldn't change the requirements of the septic....but one 1/2 bath does. Makes perfect sense to me.

"small and cozy" houses are a relative term.

"Depression" homes were around 600sq ft (I lived in one right after I got married). The structure of older homes are much different. The dining room was the most major room. The living room was not very big, as it didn't need the room for a big TV and over-sized furniture. The kitchen was also not huge, as it was intended for cooking and usually only contained the wife. (Yes, this is a generalization, but that is what they were designed around).

Our need for "stuff" makes us "need" bigger homes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I watched Captain Planet when I was younger so I think I know how to take care of the enviroment well enough...

Get four other people to say "Earth, Wind, Water and Fire" than I say "Heart" and than we say together "Go Planet!!"

Or did I miss something?

By the by, do people know that some forms of recycling actually don't work because they produce more pollution than if we did not recycle those items in the first place plus the huge amount of bureaucracy involved in the business makes it run less cost effective than it should be working at.

- GX

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: