The Climate Change Climate Change

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. I see a problem with SUVs rolling over. I also don't take my kids to work with me.

What's this article say about the risks to drivers and adults? I see it is more dangerous to kids.

My risk of rollover in flat country roads is present, but not as great as a someone running a stop sign (as killed a friend of mine) or a head-on crash caused by drifting into oncoming traffic.

In los angeles, for example, the risk of high-speed head on crash is far less than here because of the divided highways.

I'm the sort of guy who says, "why have one safety precaution when I can have four?". My pool has a fende with a locked gate. The other gate is locked with two latches that must be opened simultaneously - once the kid gets past two sets of high deadbolted and alarmed doors and additional locked gate.

And there's a lock on the alarmed door from the house. And a deadbolt at 5' on the door. And security screen door behind the door that is locked.

Three entrances to the pool deck. 15 security measures (not including just getting to those gates - which requires additional steps.

Assuming my kids defeat those measures, they've got to contend with the tension net covering the pool and spa. Then they've got to defeat the alarm in the water.

This is how I roll. sure, my Suv may be more prone to roll over. Thus, avoid making high-speed performance turns. I compare a big SUV to flying a Nav 280 - no, it doesn't reduce my chance of screwing up but it increases my chance of survival.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I compare a big SUV to flying a Nav 280 - no, it doesn't reduce my chance of screwing up but it increases my chance of survival.

The advantage only exists if everyone else is driving an Escort. If they get big SUVs as well, the gain goes away, the risk shoots up due to the higher combined kinetic energy and the preexisting rollover risk.

(and gotta love the tired questions about hauling lumber around - how many Los Angelans do this exactly? 1% of 1%? )

[rushmc 23]

So, you make my point as you think as he does...

The debate can be had IF and only IF there is a premise based on some level of truth or proof. That does not exist in this case

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...and gotta love the tired questions about hauling lumber around - how many Los Angelans do this exactly? 1% of 1%?

Which might matter if you happen to live in Los Angeles.

But what about the people who live elsewhere (or are in that minority of Angelenos) and don't want a one size fits all solution imposed on them by some self-righteous lawyer from the big city?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Given that you still have a chance to get in an accident and that there is a chance that the SUV won't save you, you don't necessarily need to drive an SUV, either.

I don't think rhys is saying that it is necessary to his existence that he continue skydiving.

Also, because your interpretation of "what is important to me" is merely your interpretation, rhys can also say the same thing about skydiving quite easily. He decides to "waste" the fuel because skydiving is important to him. He feels that skydiving is a much safer sport than others. There are a whole list of things out there that are far more dangerous than skydiving, and there are also many sports that waste much more fuel than do trips in airplanes. Why is your conception of "what is important" more relevant than his?

I don't think it is.

You are very correct here. But there is a small thing you left out. He would support the government imposing his views and actions on the rest of us. While disagreeing with him, I do not support law that would force him to drive a big SUV. In my view, HE has the choice. The very choice he would have a government take away under the guise of taxes to push energy agendas that as of yet have no way to survice in the open market with out gov incentives (IE taxes) Wind generation is an example.

He and billvon can and should live as they please within the laws. But dont force me to live that way under the guise of the faulty premise of man made climate change. That is what this is really about.

If the price of gas to run the SUV REALISTICALLY represented the cost of energy sustainability and cleaning up pollution cause by burning said gas, and the extra cost of maintaining the roads damaged by heavy vehicles, I would agree with you. But since it doesn't, I don't.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[lawrocket 3]

The strange thing about the price of gasoline is that it reflects what it is worth.

People like me (which compromises pretty much everybody) buy fuel to get me from place to place. Believe it or not, the free market does a fine job of reflecting sustainability. When a product becomes scarce its price increases. Alternatives therefore become economically viable. And the move is made to a sustainable resource.

So "sustainable energy" may cost $20 per gallon. Nobody (except the fabulously wealthy) would buy it because gasoline is $3 per gallon. When gasoline hits $25 per gallon then alternatives are cheaper and more viable.

Thus, the issue is whether market forces should control or whether the government should force alternative technologies that are inefficient right now.

Inefficiency means cost. It costs in human lives.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,990]

>But what about the people who live elsewhere (or are in that minority of
>Angelenos) and don't want a one size fits all solution imposed on them by some
>self-righteous lawyer from the big city?

You're right. Instead of mandating vehicle choices, we should just raise CAFE limits. Let people buy whatever vehicles they can afford. If you want a massive SUV to carry yourself to work, and can afford it, go for it. If you want a cheaper alternative, great.

[makeithappen40 0]

>The debate can be had IF and only IF there is a premise based on some level of truth or proof. That does not exist in this case

That seems to be up for debate, still. It seems a bit hasty to say something like that, considering there are other damages being discussed regarding SUV's, in this thread.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You're right. Instead of mandating vehicle choices, we should just raise CAFE limits. Let people buy whatever vehicles they can afford. If you want a massive SUV to carry yourself to work, and can afford it, go for it. If you want a cheaper alternative, great.

A better solution would be to require complete internalization of exhaust (and it's disposal at the expense of the vehicle owner).

If you don't subsidize the fuel, and you don't allow the externalities of exhaust, people can choose whatever vehicle they want to pay the (true) costs of operating.


CAFE limits are a very strange (and silly mechanism) since they encourage the conglomeration of auto manufacturing, handicapping those smaller companies that would create very fuel efficient vehicles (and creating a distorted incentive for them to be taken over by the large conglomerates, hence putting them under management control of people who don't necessarily share an underlying "high mileage" ethos.) You might be able to make such a system work if you had some kind of tradeable credit scheme in place, but honestly, why bother making a byzantine solution yet more obscure and complex?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,990]

>A better solution would be to require complete internalization of exhaust
>(and it's disposal at the expense of the vehicle owner).

Provided that is done well (i.e. it's not just vented when you get home) I'd agree with that approach. It would have some of the same benefits, although would not be as strong an inducement for fuel economy. It would also strongly encourage the use of electric and hydrogen vehicles and lightly encourage the use of methane vehicles.

>You might be able to make such a system work if you had some kind
>of tradeable credit scheme in place, but honestly, why bother making a byzantine
>solution yet more obscure and complex?

Because it seems to work pretty well. It has resulted in an increase in average gas mileage since it was first enacted, and still people are free to buy Ford Excursions if they so choose.

>andicapping those smaller companies that would create very fuel efficient vehicles . . .

?? Tesla is having no such problems.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Okay. So, therein lies the double edged sword. Whose values are more important? My desire to have an SUV versus his desire that I not have one? Or his desire that I not put more CO2 into the air than he deems necessary.

More important in what context? Do you mean which one is more important in terms to the costs/benefits available to society? (That is, the society that will be putting forth measures to control such emissions)
Can you explain how something like that is still up to your interpretation, and therefore subjective? We can be highly objective (explicitly clear/concrete) when discussing such issues.
You are not an idiot for your choice unless your choice turns out to express the foolishness that idiocity is characterised by. Alot of people would here would say that the person who drives an SUV for the reasons you mentioned is an idiot because their delusion of safety is false given the other dangers that exist when so many people do drive SUVs.

>So when I say, "I drive an SUV because my priority is the safest vehicle I can get" I have no contradiction

Unless, of course, you accept the premise that SUV's are responsible for as many deaths as smaller cars are on highways. (Who was it here that mentioned this regarding children and rollovers?)
In that case, you would have a contradiction.
Of course, you aren't accepting that premise, so there is no contradiction in your own terms. Convenient.

> I "have to add" nothing. That being said, I believe certain limitations on human behavior are necessary to avoid another person's infringement on the quiet enjoyment and quiet enjoyment of others.

Isn't that "adding" something?

>But, such side effects that I consider "undesirable" may be considered "desirable" by you. See? "Desirable" has no objective sense.

No, your preference of big or small or red or green SUV's has no objective sense in itself. However, given that we can compare the dangers of driving large SUV's to smaller vehicles, we can uncover which vehicle is more likely to kill its occupants and under which circumstances those deaths would occur. That is not subjective. Those facts, once obtained, would be concrete i.e. objective. How have you said my statements are marked by subjectivity again?
"Desirability" is fairly subjective, but facts aren't.

Hooold on here. Ok I just saw this. Wow.

"I am not saying that my SUV is morally correct. I am saying that my SUV is morally incorrect. "

Fair enough. Interesting approach. Something is morally wrong, but you keep doing it. That puts a whole new spin on ethics. Maybe they will call the class Ethics: Doing what you think is wrong and making it not matter.

>If rhys had simply said, "I believe that the harm fromskydiving operations is small enough to justify the continuing of the operations" then I absolutely cannot objectively disagree with him.

Oh really? So forming a belief means that you cannot objectively criticize that person's belief. Interesting.
"I believe all chickens are really dinosaurs."
Well, lets be as objective as we can here. Evidence (which, of course, says that chickens aren't dinosaurs) allows us to disagree with that persons belief. They can believe all they want, it just turns out that their belief is false. Objectivity is concrete and fact-based. We can definitely use that here.

>My view of morality respects the beliefs of others even if I disagree. I'll let him keep jumping.

Well, even for you your own morality doesn't matter apparently. Just like when you said you drive an SUV yet think it is immoral.

>On the other hand, I will disagree with objective assertions of idiocy because of subkective disagreement
What? You could probably say this given that the definition of idiocity includes foolishness and senselessness. Does that mean we can't objectively criticize someone based on the criterion set forth in the definition of idiocity? Negatron.

>Note - I pointed out how you inherently used subjective analysis. It is not wrong - it's expected from everyone. But it creates logical and ethical problems, does it not?

Explain.

>I will ask again - does my preference for an SUV objectively make me an idiot? You've skirted that
Well, I suppose you can "prefer" whichever you want. But that does not mean that we cannot match a persons actions resulting from their choices with idiocity.

In common usage of idiocity there comes a bit of variability regarding what an idiot is. However, we can still match facts with the definition of idiocity.
IF driving an SUV makes you:
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

THEN you are an idiot. Pretty objective, huh?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...would not be as strong an inducement for fuel economy....It has resulted in an increase in average gas mileage...

If there are no externalities (no pollution released, full price paid for fuel), then there is no reason that anyone ought to care about other people's gas mileage--it simply doesn't have any impact on them.

Increasing gas mileage is a means to an end--not the end in itself. If you can find a better way to the end, there is no reason to continue worrying about the (obsolete) means.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,990]

>What's this article say about the risks to drivers and adults?

Nothing; it was a study by a pediatrics group, so they limited their study to children.

>I'm the sort of guy who says, "why have one safety precaution when I can have four?"

That's great. But if one of your precautions is "I don't wear my seatbelt so I can be thrown clear of the crash" then the fewer such safety precautions, the safer you are.

SUV's are perceived as safer because they're big, and people equate big with safe. As we are seeing, that's not generally the case.

>I compare a big SUV to flying a Nav 280 . . . .

If your SUV had a limiter that kept it to 40mph, and you stuck to surface streets, that analogy would make a lot of sense.

The Nav 280 doesn't protect you because it's big. No one's canopy "takes the collision" for them. It protects you because you cannot get it to go fast, even if you do something dumb on approach.

[makeithappen40 0]

I can get my Nav260 to go fast.
Just kidding.

[billvon 2,990]

>If there are no externalities (no pollution released, full price paid for fuel), then
>there is no reason that anyone ought to care about other people's gas
>mileage--it simply doesn't have any impact on them.

If:

a) Oil was not going to run out or

b) Our society did not depend so heavily upon oil

I would agree with that.

However, if your neighbors (and their neighbors, and their neighbors etc) use oil as rapidly as possible without planning for alternatives, we will run out, and our society will collapse. That WILL have an impact on you.

If, however, they do conserve, and start using alternatives, then our society will not be hit as hard when oil becomes very scarce. That will also have an impact on you.

Imagine a new industrial process (say, employed to combat global warming AND make widgets) that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere. Further imagine that this process becomes so popular that CO2 levels drop to a point where trees, crops and grasses begin to die due to lack of carbon, and temperatures begin dropping precipitously worldwide. Would you think that was OK, that the market should regulate that particular industry?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The strange thing about the price of gasoline is that it reflects what it is worth.

People like me (which compromises pretty much everybody) buy fuel to get me from place to place. Believe it or not, the free market does a fine job of reflecting sustainability. When a product becomes scarce its price increases. Alternatives therefore become economically viable. And the move is made to a sustainable resource.

Funny how it never actually succeeds in doing so. in fact, come up with an actual example of such.

What happened to the abalone fishery in SoCal? The price shot up to over $50/lb. That just made it worthwhile for people to harvest the last remaining ones. Just about every established commercial fishery has been crushed by over harvesting. Technology improvements keep increasing efficiency of take well beyond what the fishery can sustain.

Sustainability is never priced into the sale cost unless it is mandated by the feds. Oil is priced based on a combination of demand, supply, and cost of extraction. (and ignore the foreign policy costs - how much are we spending versus North Korea as we are vs Iraq?) No where is the cost of depleting supplies included. Nor is the uneven impact of the oil use - the motorcycle does a tiny fraction of the road impact, if any, versus the 6000lb giant. And there is definitely no pricing of environmental costs, which I guess is supposed to be the focus of this thread.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

a) Oil was not going to run out or

b) Our society did not depend so heavily upon oil

So? Lots of resources are scarce and depletable. Are we regulating the amount of gold, or diamonds that people can put in their jewelry? No, because we already have a very good, self-regulating mechanism for sorting all that out. People who are willing to pay more for things get them. Same situation with oil.

Quote

Imagine a new industrial process (say, employed to combat global warming AND make widgets) that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere. Further imagine that this process becomes so popular that CO2 levels drop to a point where trees, crops and grasses begin to die due to lack of carbon, and temperatures begin dropping precipitously worldwide. Would you think that was OK, that the market should regulate that particular industry?

That's an externality. The removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is an externality just the same as releasing a pollutant.

I have no idea how that example bears on this argument, but perhaps you can explain.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,990]

>So? Lots of resources are scarce and depletable. Are we regulating the
>amount of gold, or diamonds that people can put in their jewelry? No . . .

Correct. If we ran out of gold society would not collapse, since it is not "used up" in most applications. In applications where it is "used up" (electronics manufacture etc) there are alternatives to its use. Thus it is inherently different from oil.

> People who are willing to pay more for things get them. Same situation with oil.

Not quite. Once you get past a certain point (Hubbert's Peak) all the money in the world will not allow you to increase production.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We could be running our cars on salt water right now if it wasn't for them, but you are probably too blind to know about such things.

Did you get this one from the same website you got your 'controlled demolition' theory from?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

why don't you have an electric train system that would deliver commuters to neighbouring ciites faster than a plane could?

because public transport is for losers right?

No, because the US was not built around a public tranportation system like Europe was.

Next question?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,990]

>No, because the US was not built around a public tranportation system like
>Europe was.

Actually, it was - but oil and tire companies spent millions to destroy them in the 1930's and 1940's in order to promote their products.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

> People who are willing to pay more for things get them. Same situation with oil.

Not quite. Once you get past a certain point (Hubbert's Peak) all the money in the world will not allow you to increase production.

Are you absolutely certain of that?

Articles like this one suggest that given sufficient resources devoted to the issue, we can, in fact, find ways to increase production. It's just a matter of cost--how important is it to generate more oil? Your implicit contention that society would collapse without oil means that we ought to be willing to give it a lot of attention.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,990]

>Are you absolutely certain of that?

Pretty sure. It's happened once before, at the time point that Hubbert predicted. Had he predicted that and seen it not materialize, then it would not be nearly as supportable.

>Your implicit contention that society would collapse without oil means that
>we ought to be willing to give it a lot of attention.

That would imply that a free market is good at planning for long-range problems. History has shown that it is most emphatically not.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>No, because the US was not built around a public tranportation system like
>Europe was.

Actually, it was - but oil and tire companies spent millions to destroy them in the 1930's and 1940's in order to promote their products.

That's past tense. The buildup after WW2 did not take that sort of planning into consideration, and that's the country we live in now. This is particularly true for California and the Southwest where the biggest growth took place.

[billvon 2,990]

>The buildup after WW2 did not take that sort of planning into consideration . . .

Well, right - due primarily to the efforts of National City Lines, a conglomerate of General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks. Their purchase (and subsequent destruction) of intercity rail lines was just one part of their efforts. Another was zoning; they pushed hard to make cities require parking spaces around buildings for their cars, and pushed just as hard to refuse rights-of-way for new rail construction. With the money they had available for campaign contributions and bribes, they met with great success.

> This is particularly true for California and the Southwest where the
>biggest growth took place.

And which is where National City Lines concentrated their efforts.

Perhaps the most notable push to fund car-centric development came at the hands of GM President Charles Wilson, who was appointed Secretary of Defense in 1953 and immediately began lobbying for a federal interstate system - for military purposes, of course.