Originally Posted by
dynaryder
It's also never talked about how bad pets are for the environment. Not just in ecological footprint,but also in the number of wild animals killed by pets every year.
it's not that it's never talked about... but it's incredibly unpopular to talk about it, especially in the country with the highest ratio of domestic cats per person...
Morgan calls for cats to be wiped out - National - NZ Herald News
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10860618
That little ball of fluff you own is a natural born killer
http://garethsworld.com/catstogo/
for better or worse, that guy is branded as a loon. logically, what he's actually proposing makes sense, but it's fiercely opposed, even by most environmental/conservation groups.
Originally Posted by
David Bierbaum
The NASA Crawler statistics are somewhat misleading, since they forget to mention the amount of freight it transports, which must be included in the calculation, as mpgpt -- Miles Per Gallon Per Ton.
I just tried to appear smart. Someone is going to give me a huge wallop with actual facts, and I'll end up feeling like the total idiot I am! 
not so crazy... "Fuel efficiency for trains is measured in terms of ton-miles, because the length and weight of trains varies greatly" -
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-c...el-efficiency/
of course there's a little bit of self-congratulatory spin and green-washing in CSX's conclusions, but it's not entirely wrong.
the other thing to bear in mind with the NASA crawler is that almost half of the distance it covers, it's empty. it rarely does a round-trip with a full load.
there's also "passenger miles per gallon" which is a real metric -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_miles_per_gallon
in simple terms, using round numbers, one person on a motorcycle is more fuel efficient than one person in a small SUV... but 2-3 people in a small SUV is more fuel efficient than 2-3 people on 2-3 motorcycles.