The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Generic wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:
Throwing your hands in the air and saying "A fundamental reason for this is the layout of our cities" is just plain dumb. That is what you need to change. That is what you need to aim for. Not a pointless and ineffective goal of "in the next decade, we will be 100% off foreign oil."

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the goal that Gore set, and which the Democratic Party (i.e. Obama) has gotten on board with, was not to be 100% off foreign oil, but rather, to be 100% free of fossil fuels entirely. And that's not ineffective. That's solving the problem. Not in the same way you've got in mind, CR, but still solving the problem nonetheless.

What, by the way, would be the problem with owning personal vehicles that don't run on fossil fuels and don't produce unsafe emissions? We're not there yet, but we're working on it. If there were a high-speed personal vehicle with the same ecological footprint as a bike, that would be fine, right?

I have no idea (nor any particular interest in) what Al Gore has ever said. I was addressing Sober's comment. But as for your question - read Spud's posts above for a brief primer on why you are on the wrong track. While there is definitely merit in reducing reliance on petrol as a fuel for personal motor vehicles - it is far the whole ball game. Modern cities and their infrastructure have not been designed for sustainability.

Spud wrote:I take it you don't have kids.

Probably won't for the next 6-10 years.

Reïst wrote:

Spud wrote:I take it you don't have kids.

Probably won't for the next 6-10 years.

Probably longer if you keep hanging around with old Uncle Elton

Caravan Ray wrote:

Reïst wrote:

Spud wrote:I take it you don't have kids.

Probably won't for the next 6-10 years.

Probably longer if you keep hanging around with old Uncle Elton

ZONG!

Caravan Ray wrote: Modern cities and their infrastructure have not been designed for sustainability.

I agree with you. What do you propose be done about it? And furthermore, how is scaling back oil use not going to help?

Generic wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote: Modern cities and their infrastructure have not been designed for sustainability.

I agree with you. What do you propose be done about it? And furthermore, how is scaling back oil use not going to help?

We can start by giving 800 billion for restructuring old bridges so they don't collapse while oil tanker trucks haul me my juice for my vette.

Kidding aside, the solution is already working and has been proven.
1. Solar power
2. Hydrogen power
3. Energy efficient everything

The utility companies don't want you to know about anything that could potentially cut them out of the loop. They don't care about natural gas, they care about renewable energy that they make and sell us. They CRINGE every time they have to give a rebate for energy efficient appliances. That makes me smile.
BUT, it has to be enforced for commercial use. Buildings, manufacturing plants, etc.

The thing no one seems to realize, is that when this stuff is in use, that's when it will be improved on. There is a great mind born every second, give him or her the prototype to work on. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Let's climb on ~BLT 2008

Please do not get all smart assed to me and say dragons and dinosaurs dragons were real and were not because its not true. Just look at the Komodo dragon. Seeing is a dragon and esiste. What are the main difference between a dragon and a dinosaur?

Having existed.

....I was going to say, the ability to breathe fire.

Marina_Svet wrote: What are the main difference between a dragon and a dinosaur?

Simply, dragons, ie. bearded dragons and water dragons (genuses Pogona and Physignathus) are lizards. As is the large monitor lizard of Indonesia which is also referred to commonly as a "dragon", although it isn't one.

Dinasaurs were not lizards, but a completely separate group of reptiles.