It's more realistic to assume that we've reached the peak of technology and that innovation has ceased...?
And they won't have been discovered using any Republican ideologies. They will have been discovered b/c of good old Socialistic California Law. BTW MadMax, I glazed over reading this too, but Sen. Harry Reid of Nev. said that Bush doing this won't help the Western states at all. I don't know how valid that claim is, but I haven't been able to find anyone challenging that claim either. ------------------ (===)
When "It" gets here, it will fix everything. Go ahead and waste all the fossil fuel you want. We won't need it when we're all riding those unicycles everywhere. ------------------
Uhhh, not very good logic. We will never reach a technology peak, new innovations will continually occur. This means that we should never implement our "will be obsolete in a few decades" technology? See, BK...the longer you do stuff with finite resources that are harmful for our biosphere, the more damage it inflicts on said biosphere. That is irreversable. Sure, a few million years will lead to restoration, but what good will that do then? If we can do anything now to stop it (or slow it) -- no matter how "primitive" it will seem in 100 years -- we should do it. Besides, wouldn't energy increase (IF they were to occur) be offset by all those huge refunds Bush will give the american family? ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Exactly rimbaud! I bought the Dreamcast even though the PS2 was coming out... so what, I got to play awesome technology for a year and a half longer than PS2 people... You have to **** or get off of the pot. Besides, the combustion engine is from the 1800s, we could do much better than that in an environmentally friendly manner. ------------------ (===)
Poor Kagy, don't you understand sarcasm? The whole tax refund thing? i am fully aware the $500 refund will not offset these huge enrgy bills. As per your serious arguments... No one is sayin, "scrap the system, only use solar power." People are sayin, start using this technology instead of sitting on it. Toyota and Honda have finally come out with electric hybrids...and they are not expensive and go plenty fast enough. That isn't the issue, though. This hybrid technology has been around for some time, but no one has done anything with it. Don't you think i it is encouraged and used (publically in tess, etc..better products will result? Sitting on a patent does nothing for technological progress. We did not fly to the moon with a wright brothers plane but we also did not hold off working on flight until we were sure we had the technology to reach the moon. Additionally, your argument becomes irrelevant when dealing with public health concerns. I realize that we are all spoiled americans and cannot deal with a few years of having cars that max out at 70 mph...but come on! I also realize that you enjoy your stance (screw the air, I love pollution, etc) and feel empowered by it as you rail against people like Jeff. That is fine. However, enjoyable as it may be, it is uneccessary in a discussion of technological progress. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Exactly. Toyota and Honda wouldn't have made their 600 mpg cars if it weren't for California's initiatives. The electric Audi A3 wouldn't be going off in Western Europe if Europeans weren't a bit more aggro about clean air than Americans. Hell, Smartcars wouldn't exist. Blah Blah Blah. Don't worry Brian, these cars are coming soon. They're also not expensive (the Toyota is a little bit less than 20K, half of what the gas guzzling plastic interior pieces of crap people call SUVs are these days. What arguments? Just b/c conservatives don't recognize immediacy or would rather grease the palms of their friends in the Industry doesn't make any enviro. points less salient. Why do conservatives protect the biotech industry??? B/c the biotech industry pays for R&D, and they have to pass those costs along. Hell... I admit that (it took me a while to accept it). Just b/c you don't put clean air on the same par as research in diabetes, or you don't recognize the simple point that if every country had the same pollutant production as the US, then our O3 layer wouldn't exist in a few years doesn't make environmental points less salient, it just suggests that you have a lack of vision or don't truly respect the immediacy of the problems (it's our grandkids problem, eh??). It is awesome than California has the laws that they have now. The Dreamcast is cheap right now b/c the PS2 is around. Like Jeff pointed out, imagine doing this if the gas reserves were less, or if OPEC actually took a stand against the US (whoa). In SLC this past Dec/January, there was an "inversion" (cute word for smog) that was so bad that babies and seniors were told not to be outdoors if at all possible (warning at 60, levels were at 150 on whatever scale). We weren't supposed to exercise at all. That's gross. That is a problem. That is immediate, regardless of the conservatives that remain on the fetchin' pot. But what do I expect? ------------------ (===)
I think I'll let rimmy and achebe handle the argument. They are doing quite well. As for the market doesn't want it scenario, car companies were never interested in making fuel-efficient cars because many of them are directly and indirectly supported by oil companies who make their money from the gas those cars guzzle. And Achebe and rimmy are both right. The new electric/gas hybrids go plenty fast, get great gas mileage and perform very well. The Honda Insight goes 700 miles on one tank of gas for Pete's sake!!! As for solar power, you mean to tell me that $20K for solar cells for your house is more expensive than $100 per month for the next 50 years assuming your light bill is $100 or less, which of course it won't be? Check the technologies before you decide they are too expensive or no one wants them. No one gets told about them or the dangers of not using them, so the problem goes ignored. No one REALLY wants to get fat and die prematurely of a heart attack, but people keep cramming Whoppers down making Burger King (or McDonald's or Wendy's) richer every day thanks to the power of advertising. The problem is that burgers don't make ME fat and sick too. Pollution does. ------------------ The Walrus was Paul.
Now THIS is funny: ...and... Thank you for the laugh. And *I* am saying let the marketplace dictate that. If people want it, great, but you don't have any business dictating purchasing preferences. That is your opinion. If you like them, go buy one. I personally do not find that those cars fit my needs. And you don't have the right to tell me otherwise. Because people don't want it yet. I do not think this is really as hard to understand as you are pretending. Yes, and when Honda develops a hybrid car that it can sell at the expense of its gas-powered market share, people will buy it. In the current market, people are choosing not to buy hybrid cars. Who is 'sitting on it'...? Yes, and we also didn't outlaw or tax flight into oblivion until something better came along. Now THAT is a compelling argument. "Aw come ON!!!" Achebe, if you honestly believe that Toyota and Honda built those cars because the state of California told them to, as opposed to the belief on the part of those corporations that there was a profit to be made in doing so, then I have just lost a tremendous amount of respect for your understanding of the business community. Ah, accusals of ignorance and accusations of illegality. Now THAT is the way to convince someone your argument's a winner. I'm sorry I don't "recognize immediacy"; I prefer to think of it as DISAGREEING WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE IMMEDIACY. Your condescension towards those of us who are willing to tell Chicken Little to go **** himself amuses me. And I don't HAVE any friends in "the industry". What do you base that on? Can you provide documentation proving this? Or is it just a hypothesis sponsored by an advocacy group? I'm not going to touch conspiracy theories. Wow, so you only have to stop once every 700 miles to refuel...? Or are there additional recharging stops you're not mentioning? PS, I don't consider 0-60 in 10.5 seconds particularly impressive. If more people want solar panel-powered houses than I think, then where is the marketplace demand...? ------------------ Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are! [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited March 15, 2001).]
I said: Toyota and Honda wouldn't have made their 600 mpg cars if it weren't for California's initiatives. This is of course true. It's also one in the same w/ your notion that they did it b/c of profit. If you want to sell your cars in California, then you'll do a few things. Do you think California's 30,000,000 people aren't a sufficient marketplace for a company to change its plans? Is that why you're incredulous? I have a Honda ad on my lap right now from the National Geographic 01/01. "... the California Air Resources Board has recently issued an even stricter emissions standard for 2004: Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV). Naturally, we've decided there's no reason to wait...". Gee, it sounds as if California very easily shapes the marketplace. You can find additional info/hardline data on requirements for auto makers on sites such as evworld. First off, conservatives have been telling Chicken Little to go **** himself for some time now. I don't know what's different about now... except for the fact that the Republican party happens to be able to tie Chicken Little to one of their big contributors right now. Plus, as far as I know, "lobbying" and "greasing palms" hasn't become illegal yet. If you didn't get the analogy, Republicans didn't care too much for Chicken Little when it came to Health Care reform... or the Patient's Bill of Rights, etc. But why should they, the Health Care Industry made such pretty charts, and you get tons of money for looking at the pretty charts. I'm glad though that you recognize that there is a problem Brian. Now it's just getting Conservatives to postpone "conserving" and get on to "fixing". When I get more time I'll make the argument that Chicken Little actually isn't getting fetched, b/c of all of the benefits that s/he gets w/ clean air, the ability for Little Little to see Polar Bears (they'll probably be gone in 50 years) when they're kids, etc. You only have to stop once. Just look up Honda Insight or Toyota Prius or Hybrid and you should be able to find a ton of info on the new technology. The car goes off battery when it needs to/can and charges the battery itself as it's running. These cars are totally viable. I personally would just rather have a pure electric car for commuting. Most people drive less than 40 miles per day... and I should be able to revamp an old 914 to do better than that for only 5K (plus my wife'll look cute driving around, reeeeoow!). You could have a hybrid, in the meantime, for road trips, etc. ------------------ (===)
Don't worry Brian, these cars are coming soon. They're also not expensive (the Toyota is a little bit less than 20K, half of what the gas guzzling plastic interior pieces of crap people call SUVs are these days. I've actually seen several Honda Insights driving around town (even saw a couple in Amarillo), and I assume I'll see some of thos Toyota Prius (or whatever they're called), too. I wouldn't mind having one myself for commuting (if I had anywhere to commute to). It wouldn't replace a traditional automobile for me, but I would use one a good bit. Here's a question, though, was it CAFE that led us down the road toward more fuel efficient cars, or was it the oil embargoes driving up the price of gasoline (and driving folks to buy imports such as the original Honda Civic, etc.) Do the car companies make better cars because government rules required them to or because the marketplace started demanding them? Personally, I think it's a little of both. As with many questions, the answer isn't clear cut, and as with many large-scale innovations, it isn't just the free market or the government that pushes the innovation along. So, why don't you quit arguing and realize that you're both right (or both wrong, depending on how you want to look at it). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Help Finance My Movie - Buy A T-Shirt
Bravo mrpaige. It's obviously both. That's great that you have seen the Insight around. It's awesome to hear that it's doing well in Texas too. Is that Houston or Austin? I'll be even more excited if it's Houston, merely b/c it seems like a bigger accomplishment (I guess there are hippies like Jeff in Houston though, so I shouldn't be as suprised ). BTW Brian, my wife's seriously considering UT Austin for grad school, so maybe we'll be able to have some of these fun debates more often during Rocketball, etc. ------------------ (===)
Actually, it's the DFW area (aside from Amarillo, which I already mentioned) where I've seen them (I live in Arlington). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Help Finance My Movie - Buy A T-Shirt
PS, I don't consider 0-60 in 10.5 seconds particularly impressive. You have a Honda Accord. So, what exactly is your point? It isn't like you're blazing around in a Ferrari or even a vehicle with room like an SUV. It's not like you are drag racing or hauling around the kids to soccer practice. As for people not wanting them, if you live in a city where gas/hybrids don't exist, how would you even know to buy one? Until car manufacturers agressively market them, they won't sell. People buy what is marketed to them, plain and simple. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be an entire industry dedicated to retail marketing. In that case, people would buy only what they needed and most of the worthless junk bought in America would never be made. What people want only drives a small percentage of the sales industry. My wife and I have been reading A TON about retail marketing recently in order to grow our business and I can tell you that the vast majority of people who write about marketing will tell you that only about 10% of the things bought in the US are purchased because people really need or want them. Most everything else sells because companies know how to convince people they need whatever it is they are selling. If you think something isn't cool to wear - out of style, whatever - you stop wearing it and buy something new. Why? It is based on image. Your image? No, an image someone somewhere arbitrarily created as a way to sell clothes. By changing styles, you became a willing victim in that process. No one demanded we go from skinny ties to fat ties. No one said, "Damn it, bell bottoms MUST come back in style." A clothing manufacturer decided for us and people bought into it. Why would anyone buy soft drinks? Carbonated, colored sugar water. Does anyone REALLY need it or really even want it? It doesn't do anything to help anyone. It doesn't make you smarter or healthier. Many studies suggest the opposite. Yet, every year millions buy it and the majority buy Coke. Why? Because the people at Coke are marketing geniuses. They know exactly how to sell their product - how to make you want it, how to play on your emotions to make you believe that drinking their product is that much better than drinking Pepsi, when it really isn't. Do you believe that the masses were demanding carbonated, colored sugar water before it was created? Would they have just kept drinking water, alcohol or juice if soda never existed? Absolutely. That is the beauty in marketing to people. They buy what you tell them to buy. I'm not suggesting that we are automotons, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that people base their purchases on how they feel about themselves and how they think others feel about them, not because they really need or want anything other than food, water, air and shelter. Achebe: I just saw the Honda Insight in Houston the other day. They are VERY cool looking - basically like an old CRX. ------------------ The Walrus was Paul.
You're right, of course; I keep forgetting about how much faster socialism advances scientific innovation compared to the free market. Er, no-- it means that if what we've got is unacceptable, we don't scrap what we're currently doing until something better comes along. Damn, we didn't try to fly to the moon using the Wright Brothers' plane. I know solar energy exists, and I know that using expensive electric-hybrid cars we can get 80 miles to the gallon. The marketplace, however, does not like or want these innovations. Their implementation is not rare because of a conspiracy on the part of big business. It's because people don't want to drive cars that go 0-60 at the same speed as a moped. When attractive products that are environmentally friendly are invented, people will buy them. If my Accord had an electric engine that got the same performance and required the same number of fuel stops as its combustion engine at the same price, I'd buy one. Until then, forget it. ??????????? "Let's give people a tax cut so we can raise the cost of living by taxing business"...? I hear this a lot from you people when you want to dismiss disagreements from the right-- never mind your arguments, we have to do something about this right now. That is not a good argument. I think there is a very reasonable case against the poorly-thought-out suggestions I'm hearing here. I'm certainly not going to change my mind and accept the proposals because we have to do something NOW. As for doing better than the combustion engine, that's an awfully specious statement. 'The internal combustion engine is old and produces pollution, so we can do better'...? Where is your proof we can do any better...? If you really think so, why haven't we done better? ------------------ Pollution rules! Clean air sucks! I hope you're coughing, where ever you are!
BK, I'm glad you got some laughs...that was the point of those comments. Incidentally (for everyone -- not just Brian), there is a new 3 wheel electric car that I read about. It costs $12,000, maxes out at 60 mph, is pure electric, and plugs into any outlet. Anyway, 3 days ago I saw one driving around here in Atlana - it was funky. Two wheels in front, one in back, very space-age looking. It kept up with traffic just fine as well. I also know there is a bigger one for about $18,000. Back to BK... The flight comparison really is irrelevant. Of course banning flight is not the way to perfect flight, but no one is suggesting the banning of transportation to get to ideal transportation either, so that needs to go away. In regards to market dictating development...as Jeff pointed out, it is reverse. People are not buying hybrids in droves yet because they have only been out for a few months. many people do not buy cars in thier first run, anyway -- regardless of engine type. If people do not know hybrid technology exists, how can they demand it? Consumers don't dictate much of anything in our economy, thinking otherwise is simply walking around with blinders on or sticking religiously to the idea of pure, perfect capitalism at the expense of being realistic. Again, no one is saying completely stop making combustion engines, tear down factories, etc. They are simply saying start incorporating newer, cleaner technology in the hopes that the old can eventually be phased out. It happens in every form of technology growth, why can't it happen here? Especially when there is a public health risk. Even if you do not think it is as immediate as others, do you not agree that it is and will continue to be a problem/concern? This is in line with my "come on" argument. No, it was not an attempt at great argumentation, it was simply pointing out my befuddlement at people weighing acceleration, max speed (above speed limits anyway), etc over global health concerns. It is simply too provincial and self-centered for me to comprehend. Even with the excuse, "it is not a problem now.." comes problems. Putting it off until everyone in the world agrees it is a problem is going to be too late. Continually passing it down to future generations creates a mindset that also gets passed down. That is one of "it will never be a problem." That whole y2k thing was a small example. It was put off until the last minute, only that putting off did not cause irrepairable damage. Ever heard the term "superconsumers"? That is the term given to americans. As achebe was saying, we consume much more than the rest of the world. I literally spent one year researching environmental issues in '92 and that phrase appeared in US and international studies. Something like 80% of the world's consumable resources are consumed by the US. Do you see that as a problem? It is all mindset. That is what I advocate abolishing most. Once people realize this is a global communinty, we are dealing with finite resources, etc. other things will follow. Of course, it usually takes a catastrophe for mindsets to change. Especially since the big car and energy companies will continue to use their propaganda -- also known as advertising/marketing. Look at how well it has worked for the tobacco industry. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Found this in the Chronicle today ironically... Printer-friendly format March 15, 2001, 10:40PM Users have power to control energy By THOM MARSHALL So there I was sitting on the sofa reading the big story about how Reliant Energy is planning to hit us in our budgets again. It'll be the third big haymaker in under a year. At the rate power costs are escalating, another couple of hits and maybe the easiest way to handle our bills will be to switch our paycheck direct-deposit instructions from the bank to Reliant. Yes, the price of fuel that is burned to generate power has gone up, as we all know. And, as we all know, it is only sound business practice for the cost of the product to go up, too. No one wants the power company to go broke. This is something to remember every time you drive past, or see on a TV screen, or read some reference to Reliant Astrodome. Reliant paid $300 million for the rights to name all facilities in the Astrodome complex. It is something to remember when comparing HL&P rates for Houston customers ($98.26 per 1,000 kilowatt hours) to Southwestern Electric Power rates for customers in Texarkana, Marshall and Longview ($53.73 per 1,000 kilowatt hours). It is something to remember when recalling those world-class fireworks shows that Reliant put on downtown. I don't believe anyone ever mentioned exactly how much the company spent on those impressive displays. Of course, if we had known when we were watching them that those skyrockets were symbols of Reliant's future pricing practices, we might not have enjoyed them as much. The energy we purchase from Reliant subsidiary HL&P is expected to cost us about 30 percent more this summer than last, all other things being equal -- that is if our weather is just as hot and you want to stay just as cool. It is too much. But it will be next year before anyone can buy power from any other company. And then only 5 percent of Reliant's customers will get to sign up for a pilot program to test how deregulation is going to work. In the meantime, the way to spend less for electricity is simply to buy less of it. One way to do that is to make your own. After one of the previous big rate jumps was announced, I called Mark Wiener of Southwest Photovoltaic Systems. After living and working many years in Texas, he moved to Tennessee, where he was building his energy-efficient, solar-powered dream house. Its special features include a photovoltaic system on the roof. When that system is producing more electricity than he needs, he can send the extra to a power company for credit against the times he uses more than he produces. He had to get permission from the power company to do that in Tennessee, but in Texas, electricity customers have a legal right to do it. Wiener estimated the retail cost for a battery-backed solar system, installed, would run you between $10,000 and $15,000. Prices for such equipment are coming down, he said, at the same time that electric company rates are going up, so it won't be long before it is cost effective to have such a system in Houston. Another way to buy less electricity is to conserve. Insulation, attic fans, efficient lights and appliances are measures that come quickly to mind. And we use a huge amount of electricity for air conditioning, cooling the entire house with central air. So I'm sitting on that sofa wondering if it would make more sense to go back to window units and cool only the rooms where we spend most of our time. Turn them off when no one is there to feel them. I really wanted to discuss this rate hike with the other members of the family, let them know that we are going to be fighting back, solicit suggestions, issue instructions. But they all were out of town on a spring break trip. Deciding to make some notes for when they got back, I got up for paper and pen. And that is when I noticed the lights. I'd spent a good half-hour sitting on that sofa stewing about those three big rate hikes in less than a year, and about costs increasing by 30 percent this summer over last, and all that time I had left bulbs burning in four unoccupied rooms. Old habits are not just hard to break, they can get expensive. ------------------ The Walrus was Paul.
