Ekdog

igmfu

cooker

I agree, it depends on perspective. Thirty five thousand American deaths a year is trivial in the big picture, but pretty important down at ground level.

cooker

Wow that "be happy" posting earlier doesn't seem to be from the same guy.

Roody

I look at it a little differently.

Although it has benefits, I think that driving is unavoidably a harmful behavior. My behavior of driving has negative consequences for other people, and can also harm non-human life and the environment itself. Some effects of driving even have consequences for future generations, including my own son and grandson. I really don't want to be a part of an activity that harms them.

I believe that living well requires planning ahead and accepting responsibility for my own behavior, both as an individual and as a member of society.

Dave Cutter

The emotions you assigned are your own. This/that was a post... and nothing more. If a simple forum affected my happiness... I'd think I'd avoid them completely. I do dislike seeing productive discussions disrupted with superstitious nonsense. No seriousness... no solutions. It's a wasteful shame.

Of course everyone also realizes that the actual death rate is [and must be] constant and consistent... in the big picture. Behavior and bureaucracies can alter the way deaths are recorded.... but nature causes the number to be changeless.

cooker

Wait, what? There are "fossil fuels" on other planets? And this is common knowledge? I really need to get out more!

cooker

Everybody is going to die, but when, say, a parent in the middle of raising a child, dies prematurely in a traffic accident, it causes hardship and creates a financial burden on the family and society. If the person doesn't die, but is perhaps maimed and disabled, that creates years of suffering and burden.

cooker

It sounds like you posted that article to support the claim that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans.

Here is the gist of that article. About 20 million years ago, CO2 levels were at 400 ppm, perhaps due to intense volcanic activity. During that time, the milocene period, the earth was much warmer than now, there was no antarctic ice cap, and sea levels were 25-40 m higher than now.

Fourteen million years ago, CO2 levels dropped to 180-220 ppm and since then we had cycling ice ages and non-ice ages.

Now CO2, thanks to humans, is heading back up towards 400 ppm, maybe eventually to 450 or higher. Scientists are concerned that these anthropomorphic CO2 increases might recreate the conditions of the milocene period and lead to a massive increase in global temperatures and a massive rise in ocean levels. These scientist think we need to be much more aggressive than we are, in setting low CO2 targets.

So the article suggests that you are right that in the past, volcanoes increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to higher than it is now. However they haven't done so for 14 million years. Now it is humans who are increasing CO2 to those ancient levels or higher.

Dave Cutter

My apologies! That's the bad thing about Internet forums.... all I saw was your username "cooker". I had no idea that YOU were the one that decided when the appropriate time for a persons die or be injured.

Dave Cutter

Sounds? You're using reading software?

Actually I just grabbed any old volcanoes study that popped up! Isn't that the Internet "linked" google knowledge protocol? All the volcanos studies are the same... or did you think dinosaurs drove cars. CO2 emissions have always been adjusted for volcanos... they have to be. But EVERYBODY knows that! Mankind has never been in competition with nature... we can't out-do nature. But you knew that... right?

cooker

We do in fact, collectively decide that. The more people drive, and the more driving is facilitated by government policies and subsidies, the more people die prematurely in traffic.

cooker

We aren't very good at controlling nature, but we can potentially control ourselves.

Dave Cutter

No. No fossil fuels. But petro fuels appear to be plentiful and everywhere.... particularly here on Earth. No need to get out more.. just have your reading software read you more scientific journals and reports. But I would guess... anyone that was unaware or mineral decomposition... never owned a bicycle.

Dave Cutter

So you REALLY do think it IS.... YOUR decision. I am blown away!

Roody

Your bicycle makes petroleum? You should tell the scientists about that!

Here is what the scientists think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

cooker

I'm having trouble understanding your point - can you dumb it down for me? Are you saying it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things how and when we die, so none of us should try to push for behaviours or policies that reduce motor vehicle accidents?

Again I'm not sure of your point? Are you talking about abiogenic oil? As far as I know there is no evidence of oil deposits on other planets and certainly no widespread public knowledge of same, as you seemed to claim. Hydrocarbon gas like methane is detectable on distant planets, as it is believed to have been on earth before biologic processes began. As far as I know there is so far no evidence of new oil appearing from deep in the earth. It might be proven to be true some day, but so far it remains a theory and certainly not common knowledge.

cooker

If I don't respond to posts in this thread for a while it's because of some kind of internet glitch where my browser won't open the last page of the thread.

Roody

Sometimes those glitches come up at opportune times.

Meanwhile, we'll just talk quietly among ourselves...about you!

350htrr

What needs to happen....
1: a, Politically, even number plates drive on even numbered days. odd number plates drive on odd number days, ( except the rich who can afford two cars)...
....b, Politically, tax the shiete out of gas/diesel so everyone drives less... (except the rich who can afford two cars and the fuel)...

2: a, edumacete everyone about what's "right"
....b, make it harder to get a drivers licence...

3: a, keep the statuss quo...
....b, let common sense prevail...


JMO after a few beers...

ro-monster

There is now evidence to suggest that the Earth's largest extinction event, the end-Permian extinction, was probably biological in origin, with volcanism only a contributing factor.

Quote from one of numerous articles on the subject:
"The team's research indicates that the catastrophic event was in fact triggered by the tiniest of organisms, a methane-releasing microbe called Methanosarcina. New evidence suggests that at the time of the extinction, the microbes appeared in massive numbers across the world's oceans, spreading vast clouds of the carbon-heavy gas methane into the atmosphere. This had the effect of altering the planet's climate in a way that made it inhospitable to most other forms of life inhabiting Earth at that time.

It was previously believed that the mass extinction, known as the end-Permian extinction, was due to either vast amounts of volcanic activity, a devastating asteroid strike or prolific all-consuming coal fires...."

Just to be clear, this is a completely different event than the miocene epoch warm period you're talking about, but it does demonstrate how little we know for certain about the causes of past climate fluctuations, and it indicates that biological factors can indeed overshadow the influence of geological factors. Plus it's a fascinating discovery!

Roody

And there is undisputed scientific evidence of what's causing the current extinction event--an organism called **** sapiens.

Roughly 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions are due to cars, so a little restraint would be proper.

gerv 

**** sapiens? A species like no other.

Actually, a lot of restraint would be even more proper.

350htrr

****sapien... ****-sapien... *****exual... ****... Just a test guys don't ban me... Restraint? WTF is that?... OK I will try...

EDIT; ****erectus... I think that IS a scientific term?

Roody

Our machine overlords won't let us print the name of our genus. I wonder what forum they will move this thread to?

ro-monster

Yes, self-discipline is definitely in order. Getting back to the original topic, here is roughly how my metric for that works.

For distances less than 5 miles, personal motor vehicles are never an appropriate choice, with 2 exceptions -- you're too ill or incapacitated to use any other transport right then, or you have to haul something large (by which I mean furniture-sized, not grocery bag-sized).

For distances 5-50 miles, personal motor vehicles are sometimes an appropriate choice, if other means of transportation are simply unavailable or require so much time that they just aren't feasible.

For traveling more than 50 miles, personal motor vehicles are often appropriate, though we could certainly have better public transportation options for this than we have now.