Forest fires have been happening for millions of years and nature is completely capable of addressing the seasonal and localized pollution from wood stoves. Admittedly if wood burning stoves deplete the forests we have a problem. The pollution from cars and the car industry is far more widespread and is year round and includes unnatural compounds like dioxins and PCBs. Here's a source that tends to back up Bekologist's claims.
(EDIT) From this American site: "cars and light trucks are still the largest single source of air pollution, accounting for one-quarter of emissions of smog-forming pollutants nationwide."

The reason they banned lead as a gas additive is because it was a dangerous airborne pollutant largely atmosphere loaded by cars.

Still not seeing any data to back up your statements.


Yes, you're correct, I am anti-car-free. That's why I belong to BF, and why I read and post to the Living Car Free subforum. Because I LOVE CARS.

Apparently you didn't read my whole post - that data is not presented as an argument against "the ethic" - the point was to show the fallacy of your argument. You make statements but do not back them up. Is it because you can't?


Cleaner, as in less air pollution (sorry, particulate matter) in the area of the furnace, or as in, less environmental impact overall? Not that I think you know, or will bother to find out. For that matter, I don't know - I really don't have any idea. But that means I will not claim to know unless I research it.


Well, let's see, if someone is coming across as uninformed, it must be the person who continues to claim facts without backing them up, refuses to do any research, and is shown to be making inaccurate statements. Hmmm...who here does that apply to?

Now, your last sentence I can finally agree with. "Because to me it's no argument..." You don't have to convince yourself, you already believe exactly what you belive, accurate or otherwise. This is true for everybody. But others do not - if you want to convince people that cars are bad, that bikes are better, that red is green, or that frogs eat giraffes, you must prove it to them. With accurate information, proven and provable.

Plus you finally eased off a little and said quit driving so much. Good job, that's one step.

Here is the report on smog and public health from the Ontario Medical Association.

How discussing a car free ethic degenerated into having to debate pollution specifics with someone that is admitedly and deliberately baiting the argument is beyond me.

Seig Oil!

That is a valid point, cooker. Good work doing the research bekologist refuses to, however, that article appears to be from circa 1998.

From the article:

"While new cars and light trucks emit about 90 percent fewer pollutants than three decades ago, total vehicle miles driven have more than doubled since 1970 and are expected to increase another 25 percent by 2010."

So they're not 20 times cleaner than 20 years ago, they're even "better" - but we use them more.

"As a result, cars and light trucks are still the largest single source of air pollution, accounting for one-quarter of emissions of smog-forming pollutants nationwide."

Assuming this is still close to accurate, some seven years later, it does indeed tend to back up bekologist's claim that cars are the biggest polluters of Puget Sound. Although it doesn't take into account any other sources of pollution specific to the area...

yep there it is, so what.

It says 5800 people had shortened lives due to exposure to air pollution
It doesn't attribute it to cars.
How many millions live in the province of Ontario?
How many people die from falling in the bathtub each year in that Priovince?

Watch out, its the BATHTUB GAMBIT!


(smoke from sophistry fires in the woodshed contributing to the overall smog problem.)

Here's the Google definition of sarcasm for you. (Note the first entry contains "irony is wasted on the stupid.")

sometimes, people intending to be ironic are actually iconic.

Aty least i'm trying to figure pout what the real numbers are.
If it turns out 5 times as many people die from secondhand tobacco smoke, shouldn't that, in fact be your new "priority one"? Or are you just a politically fashionable college student?

So my sarcasm failed, that much is apparent. But how does that make me like an icon? You look up to me now?

iconography isn't about heroes, you dolt!

It's symbolism in meaning.

And how in the heck does people smoking in bathtubs have ANYTHING to do with air pollution?

Can't hardly see the trees thru the smog...

Iconic also means "relating to or having the characteristics on an icon." An iconic figure is often a hero.

But I still don't understand what you mean if you're saying my comment was symbolic. I guess that's because I'm a dolt.

I'm sorry this thread has turned against you so badly, LOL. May I ask what is your profession, and how it does not support, directly or indirectly, the oil fascists/military-industrial complex? You seem to feel your ***** doesn't stink, and will not stoop to give any facts or figures, which has got me wondering.... :)

I think it was Dale Carnegie that said "You mean what you say, when you say it and how you say it." But don't quote me on that.

To coppe, you sound like a real gas huffer. hence, symbolic of a car lover that wants to debate pollution minutae on a car free forum instead of the discussion of the contempt of car owners like expat had originally intended.

To Fx John, anytime someone uses the 'bathtub gambit,' honest discussion of the issues is NOT the intent, and we both know it. It's obsufucationist.


I'm not here to argue pollution statistics, this was a discussion of car free ethics. My shizzle definetly stinks.

But I do my part. We all should.

You sound like a troll who can't defend his position, and is now resorting to ad hominem attacks, which pretty well rounds out the list of logical fallacies you've used on this thread.

Ah. And don't worry, I don't plan on quoting you quoting anybody.

Actually, I haven't driven a car for several months now. As previously stated, I'm not linking to facts to debate pollution minutiae, I'm pointing out that your arguments not only aren't being backed up with facts, they don't seem to be able to be. And again, you've missed at least part of a post. Look back to where I posited the source of some people's contempt for cars. And your use of symbolic here doesn't quite make sense - perhaps you mean representative?

I'm like Spider Jerusalem - I'm just looking for the truth.

I'm no troll, oil boy. And coppe, the site you linked to pretty much qualified my assertions, as do other links in this thread about automobiles and pollution.

Leave the minutae to the belittlers.

It's all right, you'll find a job if you apply yourself.

"Pretty much," huh? I guess that's good enough for you. Although it really only addressed your early claim re: cars and Puget pollution, not any of the other things you've said. As for the other links - again, you've missed points such as: the fact that one of the studies was at least 6 years old, likely 7 or more; and the other was on poor air quality, but made no mention of automobiles, or their contribution.


Again, you've lost me.

And again, you've mispelled minutiae.

This is getting a bit repetitive.

Hey kris, I see you've changed your description. Awesome.

I think beko is exercising his right to make sweeping generalizations that "everybody knows" is true, as well as his right to insult anyone who calls him out on it. There's nothing of substance in his posts, and he is obviously not interested in discussing anything, so why not just ignore him for the rest of the thread? Boy's got a headful of crystallized dogma, and anyone who argues with anything he says gets the nazi-imagery invoked on them, so Godwin's Law says he's disqualified.

Yeah, I was thinking of changing my description to "dolt" but maybe it should be "Hitler" instead. Any more posts by bekologist here I'll likely read for the laughs, but I think I'm about done arguing. Reminds me of a joke I'm sure you've all heard. The wording is arguably insensitive, but it contains a kernel of truth.