Living Car Free - How does this effect being green?

Finally a major manufacturer has released a EV for the average person.
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index.jsp

Just a bit higher priced than I would like but still a new direction. It will not help with car free but it will challenge the concept of what being green is. I am not looking foward to getting a new car ever but if it got to the point where I couldn't ride it would be an option to mass transit that everyone says the Suburbs will never get. With the way I use my car one charge would last close to a week. Not as green as my Bike but it beats a sharp stick in the eye.

Interesting, but electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. Though I don't know the efficiency of using electricity compared to burning gasoline directly. IIRC gasoline powered vehicles are about 25% efficient meaning only 25% of the energy in gasoline is used to move the vehicle. The rest of it is lost as heat. I think diesel is in the neighborhood of 30% or so, but a volume of diesel also has mer energy than an equiv volume of gasoline.

There is one serious safety issue though if this thing only runs on electricity. As a pedestrian, and I'm sure many as bicyclists, use the sound emitted from cars to determine what is around you. Could be worse for those with certain disabilities if they cannot tell a vehicle is approaching.

I sure don't tell if a vehicle is near by the sound. Madison is very hybrid infested (both bikes and cars), and if I'm mostly *listening*, I'll miss over half the bikes, and perhaps 25% of the cars. It does make it a bit harder for the visually impaired, but I try to assume every pedestrian is like my blind neighbor and use my bell for passing. Most people appreciate the warning.

I really like quieter cars. It's not as startling when they pass me.

I really like quieter cars. It's not as startling when they pass me.

Agreed...
Loud pipes annoy they don't save lives...

Interesting, but electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. Though I don't know the efficiency of using electricity compared to burning gasoline directly...

Some say over 70% for charge/discharge.
EVs are best suited to places where power generation isn't so dependant on coal.
It's dismaying that cars like these will be seen by some as actually good for the environment, instead of less destructive.

There is one serious safety issue though if this thing only runs on electricity. As a pedestrian, and I'm sure many as bicyclists, use the sound emitted from cars to determine what is around you. Could be worse for those with certain disabilities if they cannot tell a vehicle is approaching.

I tend to not worry about that one. With the exception of some motorcycles and cars with aftermarket exhaust systems, the average gasoline-powered car from the factory is very quiet. As a cyclist, what I hear are the tires humming down the highway. That I can hear blocks away sometimes.

I agree that super quiet cars are a safety hazard, because everyone expects cars to be audible. Certainly I rely more than I should on sound when I cross the street at the blind curve near my house. Some adaptation will have to take place - people will have to learn to look for quieter cars instead of assuming they aren't there, or the cars will have to be equipped with low-level noise emitters, or something.

Used to be, the noise of an engine starting or revving up would give me a few seconds extra warning that a car is about to pull out of a parking space. Hybrids and EVs just start moving.

I never paid that much attention to the sound before I started riding more miles on my bike. I often find myself listening for cars as I get to a corner where I can't see down the cross street. I guess that is why I get so upset with fellow cyclists that just have to ride on the sidewalk on the wrond side of the street and then come blasting off of the curb. Many times they have shocked me doing just that.

My primary interest is that if I ever "have" to buy another car an EV would be my vehicle of choice. I live near San Onofri so much of our power comes from Nuclear power so the power generation isn't from coal. Before I got my bikes I thought seriously of getting a GEM for traveling around town. I also looked at electric scooters because I could do small shopping trips with one. Ended up with a bike and trailer for shopping because even wally world is only 3 or 4 miles away. I have been interested in EVs since the mid 70s but everytime it looked like they were about to be introduced something would fall through. This will be a big improvement unless the economy allows it to fall through as well. At least from a green perspective this should be a move forward even if it might be a set back for bicycling advocates.

I never paid that much attention to the sound before I started riding more miles on my bike. I often find myself listening for cars as I get to a corner where I can't see down the cross street. I guess that is why I get so upset with fellow cyclists that just have to ride on the sidewalk on the wrond side of the street and then come blasting off of the curb. Many times they have shocked me doing just that.

Yes, this. So this. My one and only moving accident, I got t-boned by a wrong way biker on a one way street.

I *really* can't afford to depend on my ears to warn me of danger.

I sure don't tell if a vehicle is near by the sound. Madison is very hybrid infested (both bikes and cars), and if I'm mostly *listening*, I'll miss over half the bikes, and perhaps 25% of the cars. It does make it a bit harder for the visually impaired, but I try to assume every pedestrian is like my blind neighbor and use my bell for passing. Most people appreciate the warning.

I really like quieter cars. It's not as startling when they pass me.

You certainly are kind to give a warning. Sidewalk bicyclists here just buzz people at 20MPH.

I tend to not worry about that one. With the exception of some motorcycles and cars with aftermarket exhaust systems, the average gasoline-powered car from the factory is very quiet. As a cyclist, what I hear are the tires humming down the highway. That I can hear blocks away sometimes.

That depends a lot on the tires. SUVs with off road tires, eg those for mudding or rock crawling, will generate a lot of noise. Slap-slap-slap-slap type noise.

The tire market is starting to have this green movement due to the the number of hybrids or other "green" vehicles that are on the road now. So a lot of new tires have lower rolling resistance which may further reduce emitted noise. Using different rubber compounds and tread designs can have a big effect on this.

I don't really give a **** about electric cars, but I have to put a word in for the Chevy Volt. It's being built here in my home state of Michigan, in Hamtramck. The design, software, engineering and batteries are also being done here in the USA.

On the negative side, the EV has western societies invest big-time in more infrastructure while at the same time not dealing withing major issues with automobiles... how they support unhealthy lifestyles, allow us to spread out cities so that traffic and congestion continue to be an issue and the issue of the intense amount of resources required to build the damn thing in the first place. I once saw a statistic that claimed that the fossil fuel required for the manufacture of a car would allow us to travel 55,000 miles.

Before we spent a gazillion dollars in developing infrastructure (particularly bigger electric grids), we need to ask ourselves if it would be better to invest in more compact cities primarily serviced by public transit. The longer the investment in EV infrastructure is delayed, the better the possibility of dealing with this central issue is.

There are some really circular answers in the "FAQ", particularly about vehicle range and how it is determined with regards to cold weather and passenger load. Most people around here knows what happens when it is -20C and you go to use your nimh battery.

On the negative side, the EV has western societies invest big-time in more infrastructure while at the same time not dealing withing major issues with automobiles... how they support unhealthy lifestyles, allow us to spread out cities so that traffic and congestion continue to be an issue and the issue of the intense amount of resources required to build the damn thing in the first place. I once saw a statistic that claimed that the fossil fuel required for the manufacture of a car would allow us to travel 55,000 miles.

Before we spent a gazillion dollars in developing infrastructure (particularly bigger electric grids), we need to ask ourselves if it would be better to invest in more compact cities primarily serviced by public transit. The longer the investment in EV infrastructure is delayed, the better the possibility of dealing with this central issue is.
This is a great answer, IMO. I think us carfree people have a lot to offer on this subject, and I hope people listen to us.

On the negative side, the EV has western societies invest big-time in more infrastructure while at the same time not dealing withing major issues with automobiles... how they support unhealthy lifestyles, allow us to spread out cities so that traffic and congestion continue to be an issue and the issue of the intense amount of resources required to build the damn thing in the first place. I once saw a statistic that claimed that the fossil fuel required for the manufacture of a car would allow us to travel 55,000 miles.

Before we spent a gazillion dollars in developing infrastructure (particularly bigger electric grids), we need to ask ourselves if it would be better to invest in more compact cities primarily serviced by public transit. The longer the investment in EV infrastructure is delayed, the better the possibility of dealing with this central issue is.

Except at best the issue you mentioned is only a concern of at the most one out of ten people. Nine out of ten of our fellow citizens will either dive gas rigs or diesel and burn fuel that people trying to be green say we should avoid buring. If Mass transit doesn't go EV then that group as well will be burning fuel even if it is at a lower percentage. It doesn't seem as if our big cicies can support the people they already have let alone any massive increase in people. ;)

I contend that because there is little interest either by our society or by our politicans to deal with any "Central issues" that the longer EV research is put off the more fule is burned. If green isn't an issue to be worked on in the short term it will more than likely not be delt with in the long term. Putting it off may not be an option that can be reversed years down the line. Car sales have started to increase again and not just in this country. Bicycle sales have not reached the percentage it was in 1974 for adult bikes. China and India are coming on line with car manufacturing so I don't think we can wait till people have a change of heart before we start dealing with gas verses EV. But that may just be me.:eek:

I did a search on the central core of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Milwaukee and all were way over budget and shrinking in population and putting together budgets to learn how to live with less. So it seems as if that will not be turning around anytime soon. I don't believe it is a good idea to wait and see if things are going to change before we try and address the greeness of our major form of transportation. If you want to site address for my assumptions I saved them.

I never paid that much attention to the sound before I started riding more miles on my bike. I often find myself listening for cars as I get to a corner where I can't see down the cross street. I guess that is why I get so upset with fellow cyclists that just have to ride on the sidewalk on the wrond side of the street and then come blasting off of the curb. Many times they have shocked me doing just that.

My primary interest is that if I ever "have" to buy another car an EV would be my vehicle of choice. I live near San Onofri so much of our power comes from Nuclear power so the power generation isn't from coal. Before I got my bikes I thought seriously of getting a GEM for traveling around town. I also looked at electric scooters because I could do small shopping trips with one. Ended up with a bike and trailer for shopping because even wally world is only 3 or 4 miles away. I have been interested in EVs since the mid 70s but everytime it looked like they were about to be introduced something would fall through. This will be a big improvement unless the economy allows it to fall through as well. At least from a green perspective this should be a move forward even if it might be a set back for bicycling advocates.

In a previous post I believe you had indicated you had driven a scooter. I saw today that Honda is introducing an EV scooter in Japan (no plans to export it so I suppose this is moot). Honda indicated that they would only lease them not sell them. I suppose the advantage for cyclists is that most cars carry only one person (especially during commuting hours) put a number of those people on EV scooters and it saves a lot of road space for cyclists as well as making parking easier. My guess is that the scooters would have a more limited range although be much more quickly recharged.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303695604575181512503429520.html

In a previous post I believe you had indicated you had driven a scooter. I saw today that Honda is introducing an EV scooter in Japan (no plans to export it so I suppose this is moot). Honda indicated that they would only lease them not sell them. I suppose the advantage for cyclists is that most cars carry only one person (especially during commuting hours) put a number of those people on EV scooters and it saves a lot of road space for cyclists as well as making parking easier. My guess is that the scooters would have a more limited range although be much more quickly recharged.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303695604575181512503429520.html

I have said I am seeing more Electric scooters in our area. They sell them at Sporting goods stores and even Pep Boys and of course stores specializing in mobility issues. I have tried one and they are easy to ride and as has been mentioned they are very quiet. Range is an issue for some because they only have a range between 20 and 35 miles. Our LBS even sells electric bikes that have a range of 20 miles that can be extended with an extra battery pack.

Because I don't believe we will ever move to a ultra compact city structure like some have suggested I believe range has been one of the factors holding back EVs for some time. 100 miles would be reasonable for a city vehicle or even a commuter in many areas.

My point is that from a green perspective the move towards EVs is an improvement over what we now have and its chances of happening are far greater because the government and major manufacturing are behind it. It would also seem that they would be more acceptable to more people over a shorter period of time. Even if it isn't the best solution for some it is a solution society can start on right now if being green is a concern.

I don't really give a **** about electric cars, but I have to put a word in for the Chevy Volt. It's being built here in my home state of Michigan, in Hamtramck. The design, software, engineering and batteries are also being done here in the USA.

You're one of our most staunch car-free advocates, so it's an interesting juxtaposition when you talk about how wonderful car-jobs are for the economy.

Your post also makes it seem as though you are a real supporter of American jobs (and Michigan jobs) and aren't very interested in jobs for Mexicans, Taiwanese, whatever.

(Says the guy who's still not pleased about subsidies for a Boeing plant that allowed us Pennsylvanians to "steal" a factory away from Arizona)

You're one of our most staunch car-free advocates, so it's an interesting juxtaposition when you talk about how wonderful car-jobs are for the economy.

Your post also makes it seem as though you are a real supporter of American jobs (and Michigan jobs) and aren't very interested in jobs for Mexicans, Taiwanese, whatever.

(Says the guy who's still not pleased about subsidies for a Boeing plant that allowed us Pennsylvanians to "steal" a factory away from Arizona)

Ideally, I'd like to see a nearly carfree society. But pragmatically, I think I'm closer to Robert Foster on the issue of electric cars. They are currently a little greener than ICE vehicles, and have the potential to be much greener. So it would be better to switch to EVs than to make no changes at all.

I'm afraid that I'll always be a Michigander first. I admire your universalism, but I can't quite get there myself. So yeah, if EVs are the wave of the future, I want to see them being built first and foremost in Michigan, where more than half of the world's automotive engineers still live.

Except at best the issue you mentioned is only a concern of at the most one out of ten people. Nine out of ten of our fellow citizens will either dive gas rigs or diesel and burn fuel that people trying to be green say we should avoid buring. If Mass transit doesn't go EV then that group as well will be burning fuel even if it is at a lower percentage. It doesn't seem as if our big cicies can support the people they already have let alone any massive increase in people. ;)

Unfortunately, you are 100% correct. Almost no one is willing to look at the bigger picture, which is the impact of the automobile on our lives and our landscape. I agree that there will even be advantages for me if many more EVs are introduced... better air, quieter environment.

But a couple of things are worrisome:
1) we export the pollution basically to an area outside the city (ie, a coal-fired electrical plant.)... out of site, out of mind.
2) we spend major dollars in a new infrastructure... only to realize its use cannot be sustained on many levels (point of view of resources needed to manufacture, energy needed to power, devastation to vast areas of our cities.)
3) we develop the mindset that we've gone green and solved our environmental issue... when it is quite the opposite.

[Edit] In thinking about this issue, I am reminded of a section of the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, where a small Pacific island nation is able to look at the growing population and come to the conclusion that they needed to change their diets drastically or they would all starve to death. That island survives even today. Most of the examples in his book are quite the opposite... societies just keep the status quo and eventually run themselves into devastation. At some point, societies need to take a breath and ask "where the hell is this leading us?"

You know, not many people are concerned about this... but maybe they should be.

I have said I am seeing more Electric scooters in our area. They sell them at Sporting goods stores and even Pep Boys and of course stores specializing in mobility issues. I have tried one and they are easy to ride and as has been mentioned they are very quiet. Range is an issue for some because they only have a range between 20 and 35 miles. Our LBS even sells electric bikes that have a range of 20 miles that can be extended with an extra battery pack.

Because I don't believe we will ever move to a ultra compact city structure like some have suggested I believe range has been one of the factors holding back EVs for some time. 100 miles would be reasonable for a city vehicle or even a commuter in many areas.

My point is that from a green perspective the move towards EVs is an improvement over what we now have and its chances of happening are far greater because the government and major manufacturing are behind it. It would also seem that they would be more acceptable to more people over a shorter period of time. Even if it isn't the best solution for some it is a solution society can start on right now if being green is a concern.

According to the best info I can find the average driver drives around 35.5 miles per day, that is well with in the range of most EV vehicles. But that doesn't do anything for getting rid of the road clogging single driver in a multi passenger vehicle.

Aaron :)

It's just another car. No it's not as green as your bike.

Why does OP think it's so earth shattering?

It doesn't seem as if our big cicies can support the people they already have let alone any massive increase in people.So where do you propose those people go?

So where do you propose those people go?

Truthfully it seems like they are going to the outskirts of the inner cities. Detroit and the others I have mentioned are losing people from the city core into a form urban sprawl. I don't know where people will go but it doesn't look like our cities have the room to support any major influx of citizens. Nor do they have the funds to make room for them. I think with all the space we have in the us our cities will tend to look more like Atlanta and less like Detroit, Milwaulkee, Chicago, New York and Baltimore.

At least in the west it wouldn't do any good to move people because so many of the jobs were moved to industrial parks where land and buildings were less expensive and the companies got tax incentives.

That wasn't what I was posting about. Tonight the news reported the economy was growing again and the credited some of that growth to increased auto sales. If they are selling more cars anyway it would seem EVs are better than nothing. At least the green coalition I have been attending seems intrested in a major manufacturer moving into this direction.

I realize riding my bike is greener but very few people ride bikes and a lot of my fellow citizens do drive cars. So if the cars they were going to drive anyway were EVs it would seem that it was a move in the right direction.

Like I have said I doubt if I would drive any more in a EV than I do with my old paid for compact. EVs have got to be better on us than riding behind a diesel bus and having to stop at a stop light.

There are cleaner power sources than coal-fired generators. Much of Canada's electricity, and almost all here in British Columbia, comes from hydroelectric power. Nuclear power also can be generated without the air pollution problems, although the wastes must be disposed of carefully.

However, no matter how a car is powered, some of the basic problems still remain — problems such as traffic congestion, the demand for additional roads and parking spaces and the costs involved in owning a vehicle. Traffic congestion is an inconvenience for everyone on the roads. It doesn't give any breaks to electric vehicle owners or hybrid owners. Road costs are borne by all taxpayers and when there is a lot of traffic, the costs of roads will increase.

And the personal costs of car ownership can be staggering for those who think about them. When a new car costs what a worker earns in six months to one year, and when it has a limited lifespan, it is extremely difficult to dig out from under the debt load of vehicle ownership. That doesn't even take into consideration the costs of licensing and insurance, fuel and maintenance.

An electric vehicle may be cleaner and less polluting, but a lot of the other issues involved with a culture dominated by cars will remain.

There are cleaner power sources than coal-fired generators. Much of Canada's electricity, and almost all here in British Columbia, comes from hydroelectric power. Nuclear power also can be generated without the air pollution problems, although the wastes must be disposed of carefully.

However, no matter how a car is powered, some of the basic problems still remain — problems such as traffic congestion, the demand for additional roads and parking spaces and the costs involved in owning a vehicle. Traffic congestion is an inconvenience for everyone on the roads. It doesn't give any breaks to electric vehicle owners or hybrid owners. Road costs are borne by all taxpayers and when there is a lot of traffic, the costs of roads will increase.

And the personal costs of car ownership can be staggering for those who think about them. When a new car costs what a worker earns in six months to one year, and when it has a limited lifespan, it is extremely difficult to dig out from under the debt load of vehicle ownership. That doesn't even take into consideration the costs of licensing and insurance, fuel and maintenance.

An electric vehicle may be cleaner and less polluting, but a lot of the other issues involved with a culture dominated by cars will remain.


Still the question is, will it make people greener? All the other solutions we have ever talked about to being green are not on the launch pad yet and may never be. This is an option people interested in being green can at lest take a look at.

To that question, a practical, workable, modestly priced electric vehicle is an important step in moving to a greener lifestyle. It's not the end of the journey but it's a necessary part of the process.

Still the question is, will it make people greener? All the other solutions we have ever talked about to being green are not on the launch pad yet and may never be. This is an option people interested in being green can at lest take a look at.

A lot depends on where you live. If you live someplace where most of the electricity is produced from coal, you might actually be less green if you switch from an efficent ICE car to an electric vehicle. If your electricity comes mainly from a cleaner source, it might be slightly greener to drive an EV.

There are many websites that will tell you the source of your electricity. I believe utility companies are also required to provide this information to the public.

A dense urban environment provides a more efficient way to house and transport people than our current suburban sprawl ever will. If anything, EV's will make that way of life more pleasant, though scooters would be far better than full sized sedans, and bikes would be even better than scooters.

Going from a major city where public transportation was the way to go to a town where a car is king has made me appreciate how important mass transit is.

Whether they are fueled with fossil fuel or not, one bus must roughly represent
10-20 car drivers that are not on the road because they are on the bus.

However, if mass transit is to take hold in the burb/rural areas, public transporation must be as near convenient to use as in a big city.

For example, my public transporation system (SCAT in Central Florida) sucks big time. It has very limited hours and routes and works in a loop format. There is only one route that has corresponding return bus stops across the way.

The system doesn't work on legal bank holidays, which strangely enough is not enjoyed by a lot of residents and doesn't work on Sundays at all.

I'm not sayhing that providing better public transport will make everything peachy keen with the earth but it is a tangible and cost saving way that most people can understand and opted for.

Whether they are fueled with fossil fuel or not, one bus must roughly represent
10-20 car drivers that are not on the road because they are on the bus.


Whether or not it is "green" might be argued, but anything that helps reduce car traffic is a benefit.

I'm so surprised that people don't mention the issue of a huge vehicle, normally about 3000 pounds, carrying one passenger (something my 26 pound vehicle also accomplishes...).

We should talk less about being green and more about being less wasteful. That's one thing about the green movement that always sets me back. So many goals seem nebulous or idealized. We should talk in plain English. My parents always talked to me about being wasteful. I might be able to replace my car with a Japanese hybrid and apply the label "green". However, according to my parent's definition of "wasteful", a hybrid or EV would still fit the label.

I suppose I need to apologize to some in this forum because I have caused them to defend their living choices rather than address the issue I introduced. I chased a rabbit about big cities living because every time the issue of mass transit comes up there are those that say the solution is move into dense population districts first and then the problem will be solved. And just maybe if we were starting from a clean slate that might have some merit. But just like big city dwellers like their choice so do those of us that prefer our space and less dense living. So if the solution is to do away with our preferred way of life we will resist till our last vote. Just as a city dweller would if told the cities need to be leveled to decrease the heat island they have become. And I am not suggesting people move out of the cities to reduce the heat island effect I only said it to make a point.
It would seem that if EVs can make a dent in the automotive would that we already live in it will be a lot easier to see the effects than to try and find a way to get people into busses. The consumer himself will be buying the EVs. The strapped governments in most states now can’t afford to support the mass transit they now have let alone find the funds to buy more equipment to try and lure people into busses. It is just as wasteful if you are car free and yet have a bigger carbon footprint than your neighbor and their EV or even Prius.

[FONT=Verdana] And just maybe if we were starting from a clean slate that might have some merit. But just like big city dwellers like their choice so do those of us that prefer our space and less dense living. So if the solution is to do away with our preferred way of life we will resist till our last vote.

Since you live in California, you naturally believe you can vote your way out of the inevitable. I

However, many local governments -- if not their citizens -- understand the cost of sprawl.

A couple of years ago. we had a regular poster here describe the efforts of Ottawa, capital of Canada, to move towards densification of the city. Most initial efforts were quite modest, like suddenly allowing all those basements and back yard buildings to become apartments. Then in-fill housing. The reason for this was that the city saw the true cost of running water, sewer and asphalt out to suburbs. As well, they saw the opportunity to provide transit that could pay for itself. I'm guessing a lot of citizens were a little miffed at some of these moves, which is why the city underwent a broad education program.

At a certain point, though, the law of inevitability settles in.

Since you live in California, you naturally believe you can vote your way out of the inevitable. I

However, many local governments -- if not their citizens -- understand the cost of sprawl.

A couple of years ago. we had a regular poster here describe the efforts of Ottawa, capital of Canada, to move towards densification of the city. Most initial efforts were quite modest, like suddenly allowing all those basements and back yard buildings to become apartments. Then in-fill housing. The reason for this was that the city saw the true cost of running water, sewer and asphalt out to suburbs. As well, they saw the opportunity to provide transit that could pay for itself. I'm guessing a lot of citizens were a little miffed at some of these moves, which is why the city underwent a broad education program.

At a certain point, though, the law of inevitability settles in.
Yeah. 9 billion people in just a few years. It's gonna get a little tight, no matter how you vote.

Yeah. 9 billion people in just a few years. It's gonna get a little tight, no matter how you vote.

We don't occupy very much of the available land even in California. We have a lot of land to spread out to. fly over the country a few times and you well see it isn't like we are living elbow to elbow. Try Going through Wyoming. You can go for hundreds of miles and not see one city or even a house. People live on ranches as large as small cities. Montana is like that as well. Texas isn't packed with people so I don't think the us will be the first place to get stacked like cord wood. So I think there is a far greater chance we will see a spike in the population that will suddenly drop off as the food supply to the most compact countires dries up. But that is just historical speculation. I remember when 40 years ago some suggested we would overpopulate our planet in 15 years. Many college women vowed not to have children because they didn't want to contribute to the problem. 40 years later people are saying we only have a few years and we will be over populated. call me skeptical.

I suppose I need to apologize to some in this forum because I have caused them to defend their living choices rather than address the issue I introduced. I chased a rabbit about big cities living because every time the issue of mass transit comes up there are those that say the solution is move into dense population districts first and then the problem will be solved. And just maybe if we were starting from a clean slate that might have some merit. But just like big city dwellers like their choice so do those of us that prefer our space and less dense living. So if the solution is to do away with our preferred way of life we will resist till our last vote. Just as a city dweller would if told the cities need to be leveled to decrease the heat island they have become. And I am not suggesting people move out of the cities to reduce the heat island effect I only said it to make a point.
It would seem that if EVs can make a dent in the automotive would that we already live in it will be a lot easier to see the effects than to try and find a way to get people into busses. The consumer himself will be buying the EVs. The strapped governments in most states now can’t afford to support the mass transit they now have let alone find the funds to buy more equipment to try and lure people into busses. It is just as wasteful if you are car free and yet have a bigger carbon footprint than your neighbor and their EV or even Prius.

You still don't get the heat island concept. It's perhaps more noticeable in a city due to density, but the suburbs actually produce far more heat per person.

Nobody is going to round up the residents of suburbia and force march them into inner city camps. If they want urban services, they should move to the city of their own volition. If they want a suburban lifestyle, they should live with their choice and not carp about the lack of public transit.

We don't occupy very much of the available land even in California. We have a lot of land to spread out to. fly over the country a few times and you well see it isn't like we are living elbow to elbow.

LOL. And what will they drink? Just because land exists, doesn't mean that it will support people, especially at current American levels of services.

We don't occupy very much of the available land even in California. We have a lot of land to spread out to. fly over the country a few times and you well see it isn't like we are living elbow to elbow. Try Going through Wyoming. You can go for hundreds of miles and not see one city or even a house. People live on ranches as large as small cities. Montana is like that as well. Texas isn't packed with people so I don't think the us will be the first place to get stacked like cord wood. So I think there is a far greater chance we will see a spike in the population that will suddenly drop off as the food supply to the most compact countires dries up. But that is just historical speculation. I remember when 40 years ago some suggested we would overpopulate our planet in 15 years. Many college women vowed not to have children because they didn't want to contribute to the problem. 40 years later people are saying we only have a few years and we will be over populated. call me skeptical.
Why is that land empty? And should we we ship in people from over-populated countries to live there?

Why is that land empty? And should we we ship in people from over-populated countries to live there?

Traditionally land is empty because there is either no people to fill it or there is no reason to fill it. Looking at the expansion of the LA area in particular we see as the population increased the people moved into unoccupied land. Most of the two largest counties in our state were formed just that way. Las Vegas was formed just that way and Atlanta continues to be formed that way. That is just how it has always been. Once we had the ability to move jobs outside of a central core of a city the ability to spread out became even easier. Many places in Colorado have grown doing just that. The western States have more land than most of us realize and it can be used.

As hard as it is to say after reading the United Nations population forecasts I see that Europe and the United States will have flattened out as far as population increases are and some of the other countries we trade with will as well. The problem is in Asia, Africa, India and Latin America. If we believe these areas have the right to govern without our interference they it logically follows that we are not responsible to sacrifice ourselves for their inability to reduce their population growth.

We seem to be living in a time when no one wants to require anyone else to accept responsibility for their own actions and that goes as far as other countries. I am not responsible for how you live and you are not responsible for how I live.

So no I don’t believe we should provide room for overpopulated countries that haven’t made as much effort at controlling that population as we have. Nor do I believe does Europe. Looking at the graphs it seems the areas with the greatest population growth will suffer greater. And that is just how nature works.

I can do all I can to be as green as is practical for my lifestyle. As I said before I will not take advice from someone on how to be green or environmentally friendly if the person giving the advice is not greener than I. Until they have removed the log in their eye I don’t care if they see a splinter in mine as the saying goes. I feel the same about countries and governments.

If you are asking if I feel it is a looming tragedy then the answer is yes. But Asia, India, Latin America, and Africa have received the same information as we have and have been receiving it just as long as we have. I look to solutions that will work for the most people with the fewest changes in their way of life as they can because that is what works with human beings. I am not trying to be cold or uncaring but it is simply my view of human history.

I know it is a wordy answer but it is where I am coming from. It is consistent of why I was against the bank bailout, Wall Street bail out, automotive bail out and homeowner bail out. People gambled on stocks, homes, financing and things they knew they couldn’t afford and when they failed they turned to those of us that never bought a House they couldn’t afford, never invested in a get rich quick stock and paid off their homes, cars and credit cards. It reminds me of someone going to Atlantic City and betting all they have on a card game and after they lose they want someone to help them. My answer is no.

What would you do?

[ I am not responsible for how you live and you are not responsible for how I live.
What would you do?

That is true, but it strikes me as funny that most of the people who talk loudest about "personal responsibility" tend to drive bigger cars. I think its a tenet of libertarianism, a world view that always struck me as odd. To me, it seems to say, "I'll do my thing and **** you."

My own view is that I am personally responsible for your life (to a small degree at least...) if you are unfit or unable to look after yourself. I think most libertarians have good paying jobs and aren't worried about health care. (Ok... this is probably a gross misrepresentation... but it is my observation...)

This usually changes if they or a loved one gets sick or they lose a job.

Gosh, Robert, I was looking for a simpler answer to why the west is empty. Like it's too far from markets and lacks seaports. Or there isn't enough water, the food has to be trucked in, and the weather is lousy.

You're right about aging and declining populations in Europe and North America. I think we're already starting to see an influx of people migrating into those regions. If it wasn't for the Latin Americans, U.S. population would be declining already. Populations in Eastern and Southern Europe are shrinking because nobody wants to move there, while Western Europe is holding more steady because of immigration. And of course almost all of those immigrants aremoving to the cities.

That's the way the human species survives and spreads--migration from economically depressed areas to more prosperous areas. This has been going on for millions of years, according to anthropologists and historians. It will be interesting to see how global warming affects this pattern. People will soon be moving inland to get away from the rising seas,and fleeing drought in some of the world's bread baskets.

That is true, but it strikes me as funny that most of the people who talk loudest about "personal responsibility" tend to drive bigger cars. I think its a tenet of libertarianism, a world view that always struck me as odd. To me, it seems to say, "I'll do my thing and **** you."

My own view is that I am personally responsible for your life (to a small degree at least...) if you are unfit or unable to look after yourself. I think most libertarians have good paying jobs and aren't worried about health care. (Ok... this is probably a gross misrepresentation... but it is my observation...)

This usually changes if they or a loved one gets sick or they lose a job.

I don’t know what to say other than 9 out of 10 households in the US have a car and if 10 percent of them switched to EVs the impact would be seen far sooner than anyone can refurbish mass transit at the rate things are going. As far as someone driving a SUV flipping everyone off I think the same attitude is shared by those who fly in a commercial jet more than once a year, at least from a green perspective.
We have a lifestyle in the US we have gotten used to and tends to be envied by the rest of the world. Not everyone in the world envies it but immigrations figures tend to show more do than do not. If that life style can be maintained and made greener by the use of EVs what can be wrong with that? We know there will not be any massive movement towards Mass transit in the next few years and we know there will be no mass movement in cycling or walking to work because work has moved. As like 1 in 6 people look for work they will have to go farther away from homes they can’t afford to sell either inside or outside of the city. One of the few bright spots on the economic recovery horizon is there has been a slight increase in the sales of motor vehicles in the last quarter. To me that means we are faced with more cars on the road and if those cars aren’t EVs or Hybrids the carbon footprint will be going back up. Does that mean those people don’t care about anyone and are buying with lifted finger? No it doesn’t but it does indicate people are going back to doing what they did before and that is having 9 out of 10 households with cars. So nothing has changed in the last two or three years even after a recession.:innocent:

For those interested in being green EVs like the one I posted are a quicker fix than any fix on the horizon. I didn’t say they were the best but it is something people could do. And I doubt if Libertarians have a higher employment rate than Democrats or Republicans. If they did more people would be libertarians and we would have less government.:lol:

Heat Islands are not a theory they are fact and can be researched easily. Their effect is measurable and any comparison to suburbs or rural areas would be speculation. But I would imagine with the later two larger green belts the heat signature would be smaller and at least less intense. My speculation anyway.

Interesting, but electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. Though I don't know the efficiency of using electricity compared to burning gasoline directly. IIRC gasoline powered vehicles are about 25% efficient meaning only 25% of the energy in gasoline is used to move the vehicle. The rest of it is lost as heat. I think diesel is in the neighborhood of 30% or so, but a volume of diesel also has mer energy than an equiv volume of gasoline.

There is one serious safety issue though if this thing only runs on electricity. As a pedestrian, and I'm sure many as bicyclists, use the sound emitted from cars to determine what is around you. Could be worse for those with certain disabilities if they cannot tell a vehicle is approaching.

The disabilities thin I get. But the pedestrians cant hear vehicles thing? How many times has a pedestrian stepped into the road and THEN thought of looking for traffic (then upon seeing a car, either gets back on the sidewalk or stands his ground).

As to fossil fuel being used in the city thru cars/trucks/buses/etc, I'd rather have the fossil fuel burned outside the cities, thus keeping the cities relatively clean and noise-free. The only sound that'd really annoy me then is construction work.

How many times has a pedestrian stepped into the road and THEN thought of looking for traffic (then upon seeing a car, either gets back on the sidewalk or stands his ground).

More often than you think - I've done it myself, and I certainly see pedestrians all the time veer towards the curb without looking back, as I am overtaking them on my bike, only to be startled and jump back (and sometimes thank me) when I ring the bell.

Gosh, Robert, I was looking for a simpler answer to why the west is empty. Like it's too far from markets and lacks seaports. Or there isn't enough water, the food has to be trucked in, and the weather is lousy.

You're right about aging and declining populations in Europe and North America. I think we're already starting to see an influx of people migrating into those regions. If it wasn't for the Latin Americans, U.S. population would be declining already. Populations in Eastern and Southern Europe are shrinking because nobody wants to move there, while Western Europe is holding more steady because of immigration. And of course almost all of those immigrants aremoving to the cities.

That's the way the human species survives and spreads--migration from economically depressed areas to more prosperous areas. This has been going on for millions of years, according to anthropologists and historians. It will be interesting to see how global warming affects this pattern. People will soon be moving inland to get away from the rising seas,and fleeing drought in some of the world's bread baskets.

Then it will survive 9 billion people. But we as a nation have no obligation to open the doors to populaations from countries that can't control their growth. And it is still easier to build out than up. As long as you have somewhere to build to. Unlike having to tear down before rebuilding.

A few years ago I wanted to add 50,000 square feet for office space to one of our buildings. I got bids from several contractors and quickly discovered I could get 100,000 square feet for the same price if I went for new construction.

And according to the UN global report people aren't migrating to Asia, India, Latin America and Africa it is the birth rate that causes them to grow. They also have shown no indication they care how their life effects the world air quality. If they have created the problem that you have expressed doubts about, the increasing of the population to 9 billion, they should have to deal with the problem and it is not the responsibility of nations that are dealing with it to sacrifice for them. If we are responsible for our actions as a person and as a nation so are they responsible as a person and as a nation.

That was maybe a more direct answer to your origional question.

We keep getting off subject but because you opened the door. If cities are thriving why are so many talking about tearing down whole city blocks in cities like Detroit and others? Why is the city core losing people and the metro area continues to grow? Why would a sprawling type of city like Atlanta continue to grow if it was a bad growth plan? In my area LA has expanded its commuting area all the way to Lancaster/ Palmdale. After signing off hear I will look up the fastest growing areas in the US and see how many are large city cores to see if they are growing. My answer would be because that is the direction people would prefer to go given a free choice. And I believe you will have a better chance of making people green if you work with what they want to do.

IHeat Islands are not a theory they are fact and can be researched easily. Their effect is measurable and any comparison to suburbs or rural areas would be speculation. But I would imagine with the later two larger green belts the heat signature would be smaller and at least less intense. My speculation anyway.Obviously the heat generated or retained by a rural or suburban area is going to be less than for an urban area, per square mile. But if everybody who lived downtown moved to suburbia or the countryside, and took their furnace and airconditioner and fridge and car with them, they are going to take their contribution to global warming with them too, and spread it out over a lot more area. But they don't stop generating heat. Or do you think that 1000 ranch homes at the end of 20 mile commute and the many square miles of pavement that support and connect them somehow generate or retain less heat than a single downtown condo building?

Obviously the heat generated or retained by a rural or suburban area is going to be less than for an urban area, per square mile. But if everybody who lived downtown moved to suburbia or the countryside, and took their furnace and airconditioner and fridge and car with them, they are going to take their contribution to global warming with them too, and spread it out over a lot more area. But they don't stop generating heat. Or do you think that 1000 ranch homes at the end of 20 mile commute and the many square miles of pavement that support and connect them somehow generate or retain less heat than a single downtown condo building?

Humans and their homes aren't all that produce heat and as you said per square mile cities produce more. It is the difference between a concentrated torch pointing skyward and a warming plate. The research is there and it points out the effects of that much glass, pavement, steel, concreet and lack of green belt. I didn't invent the term. many Western states like new mexico are even designing their buildings to represent the natural landscape and get away from traditional large heat generating buildings. Simply type in heat islands in a search engine and you can tell the researchers they are wrong. I only delivered the message.

There has to me more than one way to go green besides massive movement of people from one area to another. I am simply pointing out one such solution in addition to Cycling. Because I do not believe for a minute 9 out of 10 households are going to give up self propelled vehicles for human powered ones. I also do not believe diesel busses are a long term solution. Nor is living in a converted basement that someone has decided to scrap the building codes to allow as some have suggested.

Business week has posted the 50 fastest growing cities in the US and if you care to take a look many of them are just as I posted earleir, spread out and smaller than the traditional big city.
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/10/01/0128_americas_fastest_growing_cities/1.htm

At least this will give you some research time between heat islands and where the growth is going to.

Check this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=170895 Some really good ideas about pollution/environment and how even electric/clean-energy cars have drawbacks to them.