The environment thread

[mr_genius]

any of you drive a hybrid? if so, what has your experience been?

[NorthSideSox72]

any of you drive a hybrid? if so, what has your experience been?

*raises hand*

 

You may even recall, I put a big thread in here before I bought it, showing how the math worked. Including in the tax credit and all else, I had projected a payback period of about 1.5 years, but variable depending gas prices. Well, 2008 gas prices were absurd until about August, so I actually did better than projected, and was in the black on the 4k difference in just over a year.

 

Mine is a Ford Escape Hybrid, 2008 model. We love it so far. There are a few plastic bits on the dash that could be higher quality, they aren't too solid, and the car isn't terribly quick off the line, but other than that we have no complaints. Averaging about 31 mpg overall, which fits about right into the 30/34 rating that car is supposed to get.

 

Be aware, the ECVT takes some getting used to if you haven't driven one before. Its weird to have the car not shift.

 

Long story short, we have been in the black on savings for a while now, really like the car, and would absolutely to the same thing again.

 

[BigSqwert]

We don't own a car now but have used a couple of different hybrids from I-Go's fleet. I know we'll be getting a hybrid of some sort once we're ready to make a purchase. Might be a couple years down the road though.

[mr_genius]

thanks for the input. i think i'm buying one soon. currently looking at 2010 models for the esape, fusion, and prius

[bmags]

My friend just bought a fusion. I'll give you input when I see it.

[Balta1701]

My next car will be a plug-in.

[NorthSideSox72]

For those curious on the hybrid topic, the last of the Japanese companies to not have a hybrid in production or close to it, Subaru, will be entering that market in 2011. That makes all 4 of the big Japanese makers in that market by 2011.

 

[mr_genius]

Bill Gates to save the day!

 

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07...oft_envisi.html

 

Bill Gates of Microsoft envisions fighting hurricanes by manipulating the sea

 

Edited July 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

You know that's actually kind of creative.

[mr_genius]

You know that's actually kind of creative.

 

i wonder how many you would actually have to put out in the ocean for it to work

[NorthSideSox72]

i wonder how many you would actually have to put out in the ocean for it to work

I'd think a lot. Still though, neat idea.

 

But you'd want to be selective in turning them on and off. You don't want to constantly screw with the themoclines in the ocean on a large scale, as I'm pretty sure there would be unintended consequences.

 

[BigSqwert]

Boo!

 

Obama Administration Approves First Logging Contract In Alaska's Tongass National Forest

 

The Tongass National Forest is a 17 million acre temperate rain forest in southeast Alaska, which is home to both endangered species and native Alaskan tribes. It is the largest temperate rain forest in the United States.

Edited July 16, 2009 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

But you'd want to be selective in turning them on and off. You don't want to constantly screw with the themoclines in the ocean on a large scale, as I'm pretty sure there would be unintended consequences.

By reading it, it looks like the driving force would be large waves spilling over the edge. You'd need to be able to do it such that they don't turn on for normal storms but that their edges are overtopped whenever there is a swell of a certain height.

[NorthSideSox72]

Boo!

 

Obama Administration Approves First Logging Contract In Alaska's Tongass National Forest

As a general rule, I hate to see more roadless areas cut into. However, in a multi-million acre roadless area, they are cutting 381 acres. Not exactly a gigantic impact. Logging is still necessary, and Vilsack is reviewing these applications carefully. This I am sure included looking at impact on the ecosystem. I can live with this.

 

One note though, a lot of people don't know this... most of the time, logging done on USFS property is actually done at a loss, and the government picks up the tab. So we're actually paying taxpayer dollars for this logging to occur. Not a good thing, and makes me wonder if it makes more sense to actually sell these small parcels to the timber companies, to generate a little revenue instead. Or heck, do a trading system, where they get the 381 new acres to cut under expectations to re-develop it, in exchange for the USFS taking back lands they had re-developed years back that are now healthier forests. Its like recycling.

 

 

[bmags]

As a general rule, I hate to see more roadless areas cut into. However, in a multi-million acre roadless area, they are cutting 381 acres. Not exactly a gigantic impact. Logging is still necessary, and Vilsack is reviewing these applications carefully. This I am sure included looking at impact on the ecosystem. I can live with this.

 

One note though, a lot of people don't know this... most of the time, logging done on USFS property is actually done at a loss, and the government picks up the tab. So we're actually paying taxpayer dollars for this logging to occur. Not a good thing, and makes me wonder if it makes more sense to actually sell these small parcels to the timber companies, to generate a little revenue instead. Or heck, do a trading system, where they get the 381 new acres to cut under expectations to re-develop it, in exchange for the USFS taking back lands they had re-developed years back that are now healthier forests. Its like recycling.

 

Yes, not USFS, but state forests, in missouri with that effin no burn policy, logging is needed to help prevent overcrowding and create healthier forests. Not sure of the case with this forest though, just .02

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, not USFS, but state forests, in missouri with that effin no burn policy, logging is needed to help prevent overcrowding and create healthier forests. Not sure of the case with this forest though, just .02

Definitely also true, though in a temperate rain forest in this case, I'm not sure that the wildfire risk is particularly high, nor will there be much population nearby, so I tend to think that is a lower priority in this case. But definitely elsewhere the fire hazard is a factor, and forest health as well, as you state.

 

[BigSqwert]

It just seems to be opening the door for further exploitation in the future.

[NorthSideSox72]

It just seems to be opening the door for further exploitation in the future.

As I said, you can't just stop all logging. Therefore, you have to have the door partially open.

 

[BigSqwert]

As I said, you can't just stop all logging. Therefore, you have to have the door partially open.

YES WE CAN

 

[NorthSideSox72]

YES WE CAN

 

No, we can't. We still use wood for a lot of stuff. Other options are often more expensive AND have an even heavier environmental impact.

 

[BigSqwert]

No, we can't. We still use wood for a lot of stuff. Other options are often more expensive AND have an even heavier environmental impact.

I was just being silly using Obama's catch phrase.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I was just being silly using Obama's catch phrase.

 

OK, I couldn't tell - some people really do seem to think we can just outright stop logging, or stop mining, and everything will just go on like normal.

 

[mr_genius]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11...?nclick_check=1

 

Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

 

He dismissed scientists’ predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

 

“We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,” he said.

 

Mr Ramesh said the rate of retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas varied from a “couple of centimetres a year to a couple of metres”, but that this was a natural process that had taken place occurred over the centuries. Some were, in fact, growing, he said

[Balta1701]

McKinsey & Co. Study: the U.S. could blow past the Waxman-Markey requirements by 2020 easily through fairly robust energy efficiency efforts, and at the the same time save over $700 billion in energy costs over the next 10 years (investment of $500 billion gives $1.2 trillion return in the form of cost savings)...and at the same time cut carbon emissions by the equivalent of the entire U.S. vehicle fleet. And that is without doing anything at all regarding installation of renewable energy generating capacity or doing anything at all to increase the efficiency of the automobile fleet. It takes serious regulatory work and actually challenging the energy companies, but the numbers are gargantuan. And it's all effectively waste; money and CO2.

[NorthSideSox72]

McKinsey & Co. Study: the U.S. could blow past the Waxman-Markey requirements by 2020 easily through fairly robust energy efficiency efforts, and at the the same time save over $700 billion in energy costs over the next 10 years (investment of $500 billion gives $1.2 trillion return in the form of cost savings)...and at the same time cut carbon emissions by the equivalent of the entire U.S. vehicle fleet. And that is without doing anything at all regarding installation of renewable energy generating capacity or doing anything at all to increase the efficiency of the automobile fleet. It takes serious regulatory work and actually challenging the energy companies, but the numbers are gargantuan. And it's all effectively waste; money and CO2.

Yeah but apparently we'd rather spend the $500B on construction jobs, government health care, wars, and everything the hell else. Nevermind that energy infrastructure changes are without a doubt the best ROI candidate. No no, we can't be getting off our oil, now, can we? We have to create LOW paying jobs! Tech sucks, why invest in that?