Right now, the democrats are a party without a compelling leader, and consequently, without compelling ideas.

Ah the cult of personality...wasn't that a soviet specialty?

* domestically available,
* and sustainable for at least 100 years.
Maybe nuclear?

Nuclear has "sustainability" problems, because you accumulate nuclear waste, so the longer you use nuclear, the bigger your pile of radioactive by porducts, and the more you have to invest in some kind of permanent storage plan for it.
R

Nuclear has "sustainability" problems, because you accumulate nuclear waste, so the longer you use nuclear, the bigger your pile of radioactive by porducts, and the more you have to invest in some kind of permanent storage plan for it.
R

Still, that pile is a whole heck of alot smaller than the pile you'd have if you condensed all the poisonous crap that burning fossil fuels spill into the air for us to breathe.

The right is generally very good about how ideas are presented. The point I was making isn't about the ideas themselves, but how they are presented. I've read about how different organizations on both the left and right strategize, and in general the right is just more organized and astute than the left.

Again, the point I was making is about perception management - politicians like Reagan might have had some loonie radical ideas, but he had a very well cultivated image as a wise, likable, grandfather figure. This is what appealed to so many people - not his ideas, but his persona. This is why someone like Jerry Brown never made national headway. His appeal was among a limited demographic, specifically - leftists of varying degrees. Moderates thought he was a looney, and this is the group you need to appeal to in order to win elections and popular support for a cause.

Two other HUGE problems with presenting ideas that the left has is not staying on message (talking about everything under the sun until they find something to turn every person off) and not sounding reasonable or mainstream (our current issue of discussion).

Hydrogen powered cars and battery powered cars seem clean, but their emissions are out of sight, at the plant that created them.

Quite true, but there is probably less emissions per mile this way, and the emissions are away from the cities, which helps the local air pollution problem somewhat.

Using fossil fuels more efficiently would make a huge difference. It could be done easily, and it could be done NOW. If people kept their engines in a proper state of tune, and inflated their tires properly, that would be a good start. Staggered work hours in big cities could help to ease the traffic jams, which are a huge waste of fuel and time. I'm sure that there are some businesses where having people start at 4AM or even noon would be a viable solution. I'm not suggesting all their employees do it, but there are plenty of businesses that don't need to stick to the 9-5 hours. Just a thought.

Still, that pile is a whole heck of alot smaller than the pile you'd have if you condensed all the poisonous crap that burning fossil fuels spill into the air for us to breathe.
You have to factor in both size and time: the nuclear pile is gonna need to be contained for a few thousand more years.

Quite true, but there is probably less emissions per mile this way, and the emissions are away from the cities, which helps the local air pollution problem somewhat.

Small comfort. About 1/4 of the pollution in Toronto is from local cars, but about 1/2 drifts in from elsewhere, including power plants.


Hydrogen powered cars and battery powered cars seem clean, but their emissions are out of sight, at the plant that created them.

Very true. I scoff when I hear about "zero emission" or "emission free" electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles. Their accurate name is "displaced emission" vehicles.

Robert

Very true. I scoff when I hear about "zero emission" or "emission free" electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles. Their accurate name is "displaced emission" vehicles.

Robert

At least Honda is honest with their ULEV.

Electric vehicles make me laugh.

"It's my new zero emissions electric vehicle. No pollution, so it's better for the environment. I just plug it into the mains for 14 hours to charge it. It takes a while to charge 800 pounds of lead acid batteries".

You have to factor in both size and time: the nuclear pile is gonna need to be contained for a few thousand more years.

Sure, but at least it can be contained.

This thread is a good example of why I am not hopeful about the future. All these well meaning people trying to figure out how to keep a system going that will only end in catastrophe. Part of me would like to save the bits of civilization that I like - coffee, electric guitars, bicycles, hot showers... And another part of me would like to see it destroyed (no more global wars, pollution, genocide, human caused extinction, wage slavery, etc.) If we want to save the good stuff, we're almost out of time.

I'm going to go further out on a limb. Hybrid cars are a step in the WRONG direction. The sooner peak oil hits (if it hasn't already) the better. America needs a serious kick in the ass so that people will wake the hell up.

This thread is a good example of why I am not hopeful about the future. All these well meaning people trying to figure out how to keep a system going that will only end in catastrophe. Part of me would like to save the bits of civilization that I like - coffee, electric guitars, bicycles, hot showers... And another part of me would like to see it destroyed (no more global wars, pollution, genocide, human caused extinction, wage slavery, etc.) If we want to save the good stuff, we're almost out of time.

I'm going to go further out on a limb. Hybrid cars are a step in the WRONG direction. The sooner peak oil hits (if it hasn't already) the better. America needs a serious kick in the ass so that people will wake the hell up.

Does your household consume any food other than from a family garden? Do you purchase manufactured goods of any sort?

If you did grow your own food, you could compost the waste with any animal manure in a tank contraption and run a modified car on methane. Methane powered cars with the storage bladder on the roof were a successful component of many WWII British victory gardens. Or so I've read.

If you did grow your own food, you could compost the waste with any animal manure in a tank contraption and run a modified car on methane. Methane powered cars with the storage bladder on the roof were a successful component of many WWII British victory gardens. Or so I've read.

See, there you go again - trying to figure out how to keep the cars going. Why not grow your own food and ride your bike with a trailer to pick up other supplies or whatever it is you think you need a car for?

Trustifarian.


Yes there is such a thing. In fact, you can't throw a double soy latte without hitting one smack in the head around here (San Francisco Bay Area). Or go to any college town like, say, Boulder, Colorado - quite a few over there too. Another term would be "bourgeouis bohemian".

Does your household consume any food other than from a family garden? Do you purchase manufactured goods of any sort?

Hell yeah - I live in this world, not the world I'd like to live in. And when the **** hits the fan I'm gonna get swept up in the storm because I have no money and no property. I don't own any guns, I live in a big city, and I have very little experience growing my own food.

I have a vested interest in keeping the system going, because like everybody else (except maybe the Amish) I am totally dependent on it. But at the same time, this system is killing everything I care about and will kill us all in the end. The sooner it collapses, the more wild land will still be left, the more fish still in the ocean, and the fewer people to fight over what's left. Keeping the global economic system running longer through energy efficiency is counter productive. What is needed is to dismantle the system and learn how to live locally. That doesn't mean we couldn't trade with other areas, after all, coffee doesn't grow well in the USA. But, I actually agree with part of the sentiment behind your point (whether this is what you meant or not) and that is that we need to learn basic skills and take care of our own survival needs at the local level. Instead of sitting in front of a computer screen figuring out how to create more electronic gadgets to entertain the masses, we should be learning what foods grow locally, how to grow them, how to build homes with the local materials, etc.

Two other HUGE problems with presenting ideas that the left has is not staying on message (talking about everything under the sun until they find something to turn every person off) and not sounding reasonable or mainstream (our current issue of discussion).

Yeah, that's been written about quite a bit as well. As a recent example, a couple months ago there was a war protest in DC. Instead of focusing exclusively on the war, every left-wing cause felt compelled to get their 2-cents in: animal rights groups, womens groups, environmental groups, ethinic minority groups... It's was the disorganized hodge-podge that, at times, seemed completely ridiculous.

Yeah, to some extent I think that's true. Right now, the democrats are a party without a compelling leader, and consequently, without compelling ideas. In discussion perception, it's not so much environmental, but social issues that a problematic for the left. Most glaringly, same-sex marriage. I have no problem with it, but the most people in the U.S. are ardently opposed to it - it would be stupid for the democrats to pursue and issue most people oppose, so most are publicly opposed to same-sex marriage.

Again, this is just used as an example, and obviously, environmentally friendly technologies aren't nearly as controversial.Wrong. The reason that Democrats should support same sex marriage is that it is the right thing to do. Period. That's why Republicans should support it, and independents too.

The polls are misleading. Ask people if they support "same-sex marriage" and many say no. Ask them if they support "the right of people to form spousal unions with one other person, regardless of gender," and most say yes.

Wrong. The reason that Democrats should support same sex marriage is that it is the right thing to do. Period. That's why Republicans should support it, and independents too.

The polls are misleading. Ask people if they support "same-sex marriage" and many say no. Ask them if they support "the right of people to form spousal unions with one other person, regardless of gender," and most say yes.

Yes, there's evidence that it might be feasible to establish some kind of civil union among same-sex couples, but most people are oppossed to allowing complete marriage equality for same-sex couples. This is what I'm talking about with a moderate approach - pursue something that is feasible - civil unions.

The statement, "it's the right thing to do" is indicative of why so many people who live between the coasts resent those of us on the east and west. For many people, establishing same-sex marriage is the wrong thing to do. I don't agree, but until the majority of the country is willing to accept it, it would be stupid for Dems to pursue this issue so vehemently.

I think it's also important to note that this is a potentially harmful issue for democrats. There are many who agree with the democrats on all or most economic issues, but are hesitant to support the party because of things like same-sex marriage. As evidence of this, in the last election, many states that voted for Kerry also passed initiatives opposing same-sex marriage. If same-sex marriage advocates keep pushing so hard, in the long run, they'll be hurting their own cause.

You guys want to take this over to Politics and Religion, or can we try to keep this somewhat on topic?

Yeah, it's probably the pot calling the kettle black, but that's just too off topic and controversial.

You guys want to take this over to Politics and Religion, or can we try to keep this somewhat on topic?

Yeah, it's probably the pot calling the kettle black, but that's just too off topic and controversial.

Point taken. I'll shut my pie-hole now ;)

I'm all for picking on Leonardo and his electric car/low watt bulbs though. :D

This thread has gone in a interesting direction. Peak oil and things like that get me to thinking that no matter what the solution to the problem is, the problem still lies in the fact that we, human beings, are the problem. To my thinking, we are just like a virus that move into an area and uses up all the resource and moves on, like a virus killing off a host. We've become too sucessful for our own good. Too many people, too little room and resources. We are about due for a contraction. In this contraction, a lot of people will suffer, but, suffering is what life is all about(from my experience, anyways). People will live a more agrarian(sp?) way of life and, over many years, the population will, once again, begin to expand to unsupportable levels and get to the point of collapse.

I guess my point is that too many people(myself included) want to live as comfortably as possible with as little effort as possible. Quite the Gordian knot we have twisted ourselves into. Question is, Do we use the Sword of Damocles or Occam's Razor to cut it?

I dunno. I've got no answers. I'm just smart enough to know how stupid I am.

Gurgus=bike nerd=master of the cliche' :D

Gurgus=bike nerd=master of the cliche' :D

Point Taken! :D I guess I'm choking on my own Hubris. Whatever that means.

In college, there was a lady that used all those sayings, and more, to terrible effect. She seemed to be really good at using them out of context, which made things entertaining.

In college, there was a lady that used all those sayings, and more, to terrible effect. She seemed to be really good at using them out of context, which made things entertaining.

Yeah, it wasn't really my intention to be all cliche laden. Well, except for that last part. I've had people tell me that I'm sometime regarded as being "snobby" and a know it all just because I have a vocabulary. I guess that comes from being into books my whole life. Whatta ya gonna do?

Ok, I've gotten us off topic now. At least it's nothing controversial. And I was/am a bookworm too.

Hybrids are only part of the picture.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/may98/features/smarter/smarter.html
http://www.mjfay.com/downloads/Automated_Highway_System_Review.pdf

At half a car length drafting gives 20% fuel savings. Get a foot behind a semi or suv while driving a small car and it really goes up. End traffic problems and you get even more. If all cars can accelerate at the same instant a light turns green and everyone gets home and off the roads sooner. Have engines that can shut down part of the engine(already on sale) while crusing and you get more, do this while drafting and get more. Use the new super metals that are getting better every year(stronger and lighter) and the savings keep going up.

It's not going to be one thing, but lots and lots of little things that will add up to massive savings. By the time all this really gets going(15 years) you will then have hydrogen/eletric hybrids. Coal burning is getting very clean. Soon we will have gassified coal(fuel injected coal plants) that will be very clean and the waste will be pumped into fading oil wells, coal burning will be 100% clean. Hydrogen will be produced with no pollution.

This is also good news for bikes. When all cars have sensors and are linked in an ad hoc network thew instant a car passes you every car in the city is going to know where you are. The carnage of blood that flows on todays roadways is going to end.

But all this depends upon a strong economy and the cheap oil lasting just a bit longer. Not that we can't take higher prices, but super high prices could destroy the economy. Anyway, gas is going to drop to at least 1.75 a gallon in the near future.

Hydrogen will be produced with no pollution.

What do you know that no one else has figured out yet?

What do you know that no one else has figured out yet?

This is not a new thing, already being done. Just pump the CO2 into oil wells, they already have to do this with water to keep the pressure up in the older wells anyway so you don't even waste energy pumping it underground. Pollution is created but it goes underground so greenhouse gasses are not a problem. We could be doing this more but congress is blocking any new coal fired plants from being built.

This is also good news for bikes. When all cars have sensors and are linked in an ad hoc network thew instant a car passes you every car in the city is going to know where you are. The carnage of blood that flows on todays roadways is going to end.

.

The only problem I see with this is that it really isn't driving, anymore. People like the fact that they are driving themselves. What this is is basically a train. Why have your own car and all the expenses incured therein and have yourself being basically just a passenger?

The only problem I see with this is that it really isn't driving, anymore. People like the fact that they are driving themselves. What this is is basically a train. Why have your own car and all the expenses incured therein and have yourself being basically just a passenger?

That's why you see no hype on the subject. The automakers provide no info about this stuff because they know people will not like it. Instead they are pushing it as a safety product.(this stuff is already being put in production models but it is just basic proto-type stuff in the more expensive modles) They are going to install it a bit at a time to let everyone get use to the idea. Once gas prices go thru the roof in a big way people will be more accepting of the idea, then it will only be a few more steps to making it a reality.

It's a really cool thing. Just think what it could do for travel. Get in the car, go to bed, wake up a thousand miles away. You could travel all over the place while you sleep and not waste any vacation time.

Don't look for automakers to solve the problem. That's like looking at tobacco companies to cure cancer.

They rort the CAFE laws by selling PT Cruisers as trucks. Ford gave us the Escort cheap so they could sell Crown Vics at a huge profit. Chevy did the same with the Sprint. There's a tax benefit to buying an overweight SUV, but that requires that they're made heavy enough to qualify.

Auto makers pay lip service to the government, and the emissions standards get pushed back years. Who wouldn't want the pay packet of a lobbyist for the Big 3?

When I return to the US, I'm going to look into designing, building, and promoting more utilitarian bicycles. Pedal cabs and bikes used for local deliveries. Stuff like that. Cheap and simple designs. That's my contribution.

Don't look for automakers to solve the problem. That's like looking at tobacco companies to cure cancer.

Not the same thing at all. The tabaco companies will never have a shortage to deal with, the automakers have to deal with the end of the "Age of Cheap Oil" if they are to survive.

I understand that you want something done now, but this is not some last minute thing. Adaptive cruise control has been around for at least 20 years(only became safe enough in the last couple of years). The stuff going into cars now is at least 10th generation. The cost for doing this is HUGE, decades of research with no payback for a very long time. In order to do this they need to sell lots of cars. It is not THEIR fault people DEMAND big, powerfull cars. If they don't sell what people want they will not be around to create what needs to be created. If the guys in congress had any balls it would be a simple matter to close the loophole with the light truck thing, but that is not what the voters want. We still have time, the cheap oil is not going to start running low for a while yet.

voters don't tell congress what to do, lobbyists tell congress what to do.


Hybrids are already getting an anti industry spin, so with low gains in actual fuel efficiency, coupled with the reduction of hybrid tax credit program and consumer relief at the pump, spells a dim future for hybrids in the american vehicle pool.

Alternate fuel vehicles were always just a way to placate those wacky californians and their auto emissions schedule, you better believe the auto industry is working balls out in the halls of congress to usurp federal emission regulations.

Auto makers have told congress to keep SUVs exempt from fuel efficency standards for over a decade now.

voters don't tell congress what to do, lobbyists tell congress what to do.

That only works for the stuff people don't really understand and/or care about. If a clear majority wants something congress dares not do otherwise. People want SUV's.


[/QUOTE]Hybrids are already getting an anti industry spin, so with low gains in actual fuel efficiency, coupled with the reduction of hybrid tax credit program and consumer relief at the pump, spells a dim future for hybrids in the american vehicle pool. [/QUOTE]

The reason for the anti-hybrid spin is that people like Thomas Friedman are raising a big stink over the "foot dragging" with hybrids. You are right, by themselves they are not that great. GM does not wish to spend tens of billions on a super fast jumpstart in production of something that is only going to provide small gains. They have bigger fish to fry, they want to spend their money on fuel cells, something that is going to have a very large impact but on a longer timeframe. Even so, in another ten years Toyata is going to be selling nothing but hybrids(not sure about GMs time frame). ALL of the automakers are working on hybrids, Ford is even making a gas/hydrolic hybrid.

There are 2 problems with hybrids. First, they are still prototypes. Foolish to start mass producing something when they are still working out the bugs. Second, 200 pound batteries. They are going to need 6 times as much lead and battery acid to mass produce them. That is not going to be a small investment.

[/QUOTE]Auto makers have told congress to keep SUVs exempt from fuel efficency standards for over a decade now.[/QUOTE]

I don't think auto makers really care what type of cars they sell. If not for people voting for SUVs with their wallets it would not be an issue. The auto makers could just jack up the price of other models.

voters don't tell congress what to do, lobbyists tell congress what to do.

That only works for the stuff people don't really understand and/or care about. If a clear majority wants something congress dares not do otherwise. People want SUV's.


[/QUOTE]Hybrids are already getting an anti industry spin, so with low gains in actual fuel efficiency, coupled with the reduction of hybrid tax credit program and consumer relief at the pump, spells a dim future for hybrids in the american vehicle pool. [/QUOTE]

The reason for the anti-hybrid spin is that people like Thomas Friedman are raising a big stink over the "foot dragging" with hybrids. You are right, by themselves they are not that great. GM does not wish to spend tens of billions on a super fast jumpstart in production of something that is only going to provide small gains. They have bigger fish to fry, they want to spend their money on fuel cells, something that is going to have a very large impact but on a longer timeframe. Even so, in another ten years Toyata is going to be selling nothing but hybrids(not sure about GMs time frame). ALL of the automakers are working on hybrids, Ford is even making a gas/hydrolic hybrid.

There are 2 problems with hybrids. First, they are still prototypes. Foolish to start mass producing something when they are still working out the bugs. Second, 200 pound batteries. They are going to need 6 times as much lead and battery acid to mass produce them. That is not going to be a small investment.

[/QUOTE]Auto makers have told congress to keep SUVs exempt from fuel efficency standards for over a decade now.[/QUOTE]

I don't think auto makers really care what type of cars they sell. If not for people voting for SUVs with their wallets it would not be an issue. The auto makers could just jack up the price of other models.

Sorry xyz but you are way off base. Cars and the massive infrastructure that supports them are inherently wasteful no matter what fuel you use. Even if coal could be burned cleanly, it still requires strip mining to get it, and I don't believe for a second that you could keep carbon dioxide trapped underground with no leakage with the kind of quantities that you are talking about. You are totally blind to the fact that a growing economy will always swamp any gain in efficiency so even your computerized smart car thing won't help. Gurgus had it right - we are acting like a cancer or virus. America is destined to be the Easter Island of the future.

Sorry xyz but you are way off base. Cars and the massive infrastructure that supports them are inherently wasteful no matter what fuel you use. Even if coal could be burned cleanly, it still requires strip mining to get it, and I don't believe for a second that you could keep carbon dioxide trapped underground with no leakage with the kind of quantities that you are talking about. You are totally blind to the fact that a growing economy will always swamp any gain in efficiency so even your computerized smart car thing won't help. Gurgus had it right - we are acting like a cancer or virus. America is destined to be the Easter Island of the future.

It doesn't REQUIRE strip mining, only 1/3 of our coal come from strip mining. Even so http://www.mii.org/reclcoal.html

It doesn't matter if you don't believe it, it's going to happen. We are, after all, only replacing part of what we have taken out of the ground.
http://www.coalleader.com/carbon_coals_future.htm
"It's been estimated that billions of tons of carbon dioxide could be stored in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, in unmineable coal seems, and in other underground formations in the U.S. alone," Esposito said. "That would be enough room to store centuries' worth of emissions, at current levels."

If a oil reservoir is good enough to hold oil at high pressure for millions of years there is no reason it can't hold CO2 as well.

...a growing economy will always swamp any gain in efficiency...

You make it sound like this is a law of nature, it is not. In fact, the increases in human knowledge is just at the start of a massive explosion. The number of cars is only going to double in the next 15 years while the amount of energy needed to move them is going to be less than 25% of what it is today. Heck, we had the ability to do this long ago just by making smaller cars. Whit the new safety systems it will be safe to drive very, very small cars next to semis and SUVs.

The age of cars is not even close to being over, it has not even come close to peaking.

"only 1/3 of our coal came from strip mining"
"the number of cars is only going to double in the next 15 years"

Your use of the word "only" is odd. By any stretch of the imagination these are bad things. Obviously you have a lot of faith in techno-fixes and government to get the USA out of its currrent predicament. I'm hoping (and quite confident) that you are wrong and this earth destroying juggernaut will run out of power and die. Looking at who's running the government and noting how technology always seems to create more problems than it solves, I'd say I've got history on my side. (Not to mention current events...)

To my thinking, we are just like a virus that move into an area and uses up all the resource and moves on, like a virus killing off a host. We've become too sucessful for our own good. Too many people, too little room and resources. We are about due for a contraction. In this contraction, a lot of people will suffer, but, suffering is what life is all about(from my experience, anyways). People will live a more agrarian(sp?) way of life and, over many years, the population will, once again, begin to expand to unsupportable levels and get to the point of collapse.

Yeah, that's sounds sort of like a line from the Matrix. It's interesting... it's generally assumed that evolution will favor greater intelligence and that this is highly adaptive. But if you look at the entire spectrum of species, the most successful over the longest period of time aren't very intelligent, but are simple organism that reproduce quickly and are are highly physically adaptable: bacteria, insects, rodents... these animals have been around for millions of years (insects hundreds of millions of years, bacteria even longer) because they have the ability to adapt to, and usually don't significantly alter their environment.

Humans, on the other hand, have been successful to this point, but seem compelled to significantly alter our environments. This is typically a much more complex and difficult task for a species, than simply the species itself changing in accordance with new environments. Interesting discussion, but again we're getting off topic.

The present fascination with hybrids is puzzling. Hybrids' attraction, insofar as they have one, is their environmental-friendliness. This friendliness rests entirely on the promise of reducing gasoline consumption.

Hybrid cars are an extravagantly inefficient means to reduce gasoline consumption, though. Regenerative braking systems, with their electric motors, generator assemblies, batteries, and associated electronics, are expensive. One could just reduce the size of a car, the size of its engine, or improve its aerodynamic profile for much less money. One could also just drive less. These other means would reduce gasoline consumption a lot more than a hybrid power plant does, too.

Even leaving the above problems aside, if hybrid cars permitted much cheaper driving, the amount of driving people do would simply increase. Other activities that are now very gasoline-expensive would become more common, too. So, even if the hybrid technology weren't hugely expensive for the job it is meant to do, the reduced price for gasoline it would cause would undermine conservation goals anyway.

Hybrid cars do serve another purpose quite well: tapping into government subsidies for "alternative" automobile designs, and tapping into the wallets of unreflective environmentalists.

"only 1/3 of our coal came from strip mining"
"the number of cars is only going to double in the next 15 years"

Your use of the word "only" is odd. By any stretch of the imagination these are bad things. Obviously you have a lot of faith in techno-fixes and government to get the USA out of its currrent predicament. I'm hoping (and quite confident) that you are wrong and this earth destroying juggernaut will run out of power and die. Looking at who's running the government and noting how technology always seems to create more problems than it solves, I'd say I've got history on my side. (Not to mention current events...)

I used the word "only" for a good reason. Most of our coal comes from underground mining. In fact, according to Modern Marvels, underground coal mining will reach a state of complete automation in another ten years. It is already done with human controled "robots" and the human controlers are moving above ground.

As for the cars, the number will (only)double but the amount of work the energy that runs them can produce will go up by a factor of 4(ish). That means that twice as many cars on the road will only produce half as much pollution as today. The same thing goes for coal. From 1970-2015 the amount of coal burned will increase by a factor of three and the total pollution in 2015 will be 30% what it was in 1970. I am not sure how much the economy grew/will grow in that same peroid, but I think the clean tech is outpacing the growth rate by a very large margin.

I do not have "faith", this is just what is going to happen, or what we are going to attempt. You are right that new tech creates new problems, I don't know about the more part but it may be. But then new tech comes along and fixes those problems and so on. None of this is a given. It is very possible that it could all fall apart. I think the greatest danger is people who don't understand the time frames, people who want things done right now. Look what happened in California. The greens wanted clean power NOW, so they built all kinds of natural gas power plants. They all came on line right when North American natural gas production peaked. There was nothing to fuel them with. Something like that on a larger scale could destroy us.

Get in the car, go to bed, wake up a thousand miles away. You could travel all over the place while you sleep and not waste any vacation time.

That system already exists...it's called a train or a plane. However it's much more efficient than what you describe, because you don't have to drag your car along as luggage. All that's missing to make it work is proper true-cost tolling of highways and streets.

As for the cars, the number will (only)double but the amount of work the energy that runs them can produce will go up by a factor of 4(ish). That means that twice as many cars on the road will only produce half as much pollution as today.

That only applies to exhaust pollution, and it's a huge stretch to believe fuel efficiency could actually increase fourfold. But you also forgot that the manufacturing and eventual disposal of a whole duplicate fleet of cars will generate a lot of pollution, and a huge amount of construction energy and pollution will also be generated in building all the extra roads for all those cars to drive on. And then there's the lost agricultural productivity and the lost absorptive capacity of the fields and forests that will be paved over. YOu're dreaming if you think replacing today's cars with twice as many more efficient cars is some kind of improvment.

That system already exists...it's called a train or a plane. However it's much more efficient than what you describe, because you don't have to drag your car along as luggage. All that's missing to make it work is proper true-cost tolling of highways and streets.

So you have a landing strip and a railroad track in front of your house?

That only applies to exhaust pollution, and it's a huge stretch to believe fuel efficiency could actually increase fourfold.

Not at all. You just have to had add the smaller numbers up. There are many things in the works that give anywhere from 5% and up in fuel savings. The drafting effect alone is huge.


But you also forgot that the manufacturing and eventual disposal of a whole duplicate fleet of cars will generate a lot of pollution,

We are going to build all these new cars anyway. It happens every year. The cost is already added in. It will not happen all at once, it will take a decade to replace everything.


and a huge amount of construction energy and pollution will also be generated in building all the extra roads for all those cars to drive on. And then there's the lost agricultural productivity and the lost absorptive capacity of the fields and forests that will be paved over. YOu're dreaming if you think replacing today's cars with twice as many more efficient cars is some kind of improvment.

First, smart cars will need much less room. You can pack them on the freeways bumper to bumper. The wait at lights will be a matter of seconds. The time for a rush hour commute will be cut in half.

Second, the main growth in car driving is going to be in China. They have already built a freeway system. They are also not going to allow the import of gas guzzlers after 2008. We can already build very small cars that get 100mpg. Add the drafting effect, the same tech that will allow such small cars to be driven safely next to large trucks, and the numbers start getting very large. In the long run 4xmileage is low end.

So you have a landing strip and a railroad track in front of your house?

Oh yes, both use land and fuel incredibly more efficiently than a highway system for private cars. Which is better for conserving nature: a runway in Chicago and another one in Tampa; or a runway from Chicago to Tampa?

So you have a landing strip and a railroad track in front of your house?
Or were you asking me if they're already there? I can take a cab to the airport or train station or they both have parking lots if I want to drive, and I can rent a car (if I really need to) when I arrive at my destination. It's the whole 1000 km of highway driving in between that I would like to dispense with.