KCRag Forum

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: Do you always only look at one variable in any situation? More Density generally equals More Efficiency. So, the more people in the US would bring down the per capita CO2 emissions or energy usage or whatever. There's just one other variable. There's approximately 1,000,057 others.

Population control as a globe makes way more sense than limiting immigration into the US. One doesn't step into our country and immediately start creating more CO2.

I agree that population control around the globe is vital for environmentalism.

I don't agree with a single word else, you posted.

nota wrote: Just a question-does that actually cut emissions or only save lives? I'm kind of foggy on that one.

One for sure is that we should ENFORCE the exixting speed limits for trucks on the highways. That could probably help emissions as well as save lives. Those guys pass me like I'm standing still all the time and I'm a 60mph driver.

I wouldn't like to go back to 55.  I remember driving with my grandparents as a kid to Denver and it was a 2-day drive at 55.  Now you can go, what 70 - 75?  I think Denver to KC can be done in 8 hours at that speed.

pittsburghparoyal wrote: Don't laugh - Hillary once advocated this, maybe a year ago.

Can you imagine her actively campaigning on that?

18 was standard in Europe when I lived there.  I remember getting my learners permit at 14, which thinking back, was pretty stupid.  It's too easy to get a driver's license in this country.

pittsburghparoyal wrote: I don't agree with a single word else, you posted.

Yep. There's only one variable in every situation.

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: My point was that no one is going to help the environment by making excuses. You're right, everyone has their limits and everyone has things that they have to start getting used to. But, instead of saying you'll get rid of your SUV when Al Gore does, you could actually give a real reason to have your SUV, because that is not one.

I already posted a list of stuff.

I'm so sorry I dont' measure up to your expectations.

DanCa wrote: I wouldn't like to go back to 55.  I remember driving with my grandparents as a kid to Denver and it was a 2-day drive at 55.  Now you can go, what 70 - 75?  I think Denver to KC can be done in 8 hours at that speed.

The speed limit up north on 29 is 70.

I wouldnt' like to go back to 55 either. However I don't usually drive 70 - 75 either. 60-65 is pretty much my niche.

Most fed highways have a lower speed for trucks, but you wouldn't know it on the highway. That speed limit needs enforced for emission control as well as safety.

On the KS Turnpike, I usually do about 80-85.

nota wrote: I'm so sorry I dont' measure up to your expectations.

This isn't about measuring up to MY expectations or Al Gore's expectations. I don't even have any expectations. You came on here and thought it was important enough to make a post asking people what can be done to go green. You're never going to go green if you rationalize everything you do. That's my point. If you don't want to help the environment, that's fine with me. These aren't personal attacks, I'm just telling you what needs to happen if you want to go green, which is what you asked for.

TheBigChuckbowski wrote: This isn't about measuring up to MY expectations or Al Gore's expectations. I don't even have any expectations. You came on here and thought it was important enough to make a post asking people what can be done to go green. You're never going to go green if you rationalize everything you do. That's my point. If you don't want to help the environment, that's fine with me. These aren't personal attacks, I'm just telling you what needs to happen if you want to go green, which is what you asked for.

Gimme a break. I do plenty for the environment. I just drive an SUV. I'm sorry if that pisses you off. And I really don't care one bit what Al's expectations for me are.

It does make one wonder why a certain standard is expected of ordinary people yet a lower one is expected of idols like algore.

you may have the last word in this little snit.

^ I'm pretty sure Al Gore has accomplished more for the environment over the years than you have driving your SUV, throwing recyclables in the trash, washing clothes in cold water and surfing the internet on your patio.

This thread sure has turned to shit.

nota wrote: Just a question-does that actually cut emissions or only save lives? I'm kind of foggy on that one.

One for sure is that we should ENFORCE the exixting speed limits for trucks on the highways. That could probably help emissions as well as save lives. Those guys pass me like I'm standing still all the time and I'm a 60mph driver.

Yes, driving 55 improves fuel economy of almost all vehicles significantly over higher or lower speeds.  The 55 limit was first imposed during the war to save fuel and then was just never changed until 15 years ago or whenever it was.

Gretz wrote: Yes, driving 55 improves fuel economy of almost all vehicles significantly over higher or lower speeds.  The 55 limit was first imposed during the war to save fuel and then was just never changed until 15 years ago or whenever it was.

I don't have a problem with 55 MPH on 2-lane highways that receive a lot of traffic but it is just too slow for many roads in the rural midwest.  When I lived out in Amarillo, I went from having no tickets in my life to 3 tickets in 2 years because of the tedium of driving 55 mph on interminably straight, flat highways with absolutely no traffic.  It was painful and the Texas and OK highway patrols preyed on bored drivers like myself.   

The 55 mph speed limit, by the way, was imposed not during the war (unless you mean the Arab-Israeli war of 1973) but during the fuel shortages of the 70's that resulted from the Arab oil embargo. 

live closer to home.

that's the message in an article on the sierra club website.
http://missouri.sierraclub.org/thb/cons ... -home.html

think about it.

Where should the 1M new immigrants in 2007, live?

pittsburghparoyal wrote: Where should the 1M new immigrants in 2007, live?

Johnson County

^^ A lot of them are already there.

KC0KEK wrote: ^^ A lot of them are already there.

But greenies....why should they live in JoCo? 

Aren't they going to be dependent on their cars, which causes them to drive more, which emit more greenhouse gas into the air?

Eh?

After being out of town for a week I came back to find this elipsoid title more than a bit confusing - I thought Nota wanted advice on how she can score free pot. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: After being out of town for a week I came back to find this elipsoid title more than a bit confusing - I thought Nota wanted advice on how she can score free pot.