Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I believe that I operate in a system where if I did not have a car, it could reduce my social condition to the point which I may not be able to run my life as I want.

In my current situation, I need a car and cannot afford one to which it would produce less emissions. Ergo, I drive my polluting car because it would undermine me economically and socially to not have one and cannot afford one that will not pollute given my current situation and economic ability as well as social expectations.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Nobody else has had any issues understanding me so if you can't wrap your head around a couple of grammatical errors that don't actually alter what I say theres nothing I'm willing to do to help.

No else one has stated that they had a problem understanding you. That doesn't mean that no one else has had a problem understanding you.

rocklord2004 wrote:
As for usage of the word environment as far as I've seen your the only person in this discussion/argument that insists on using the word that way. There is no other logical reason other than just wanting to drag on an argument to refuse to use an alternate definition of a word, especially when the rest of the group has an understanding of what is meant.

Interestingly, my definition of environment is not likely to be different from yours. The difference is that I track the implications of that definition more closely than others seem to.

rocklord2004 wrote:
I will not respond to anything about usage of words or grammer with you in this thread again. Should you insist on picking this post apart as you have the others I wil simply ignore you. If you want to bring new information to this debate and stop dragging on a pointless argument I would be happy to debate with you all day long. If you want to have an argument PM me so others don't have to bear further witness to this asinine spectacle.

Again, if we cannot agree on the fact the environment cannot be helped we cannot have a conversation about it. Personification is the bane of well reasoned debate.

dogma wrote:Personification is the bane of well reasoned debate.

Well my debate can beat up your debate any day of the week, granted the day will allow them to get near week as week is a close girlfriend of day and if both debates come anywhere near week, both will have broken legs that will be unable to compete in the 100 meter dash next week.

That was well played.

rocklord2004 wrote:Nature, as a whole, can be helped and harmed.

Nature helps and harms itself all the time. The Ice Age eliminated most life on the planet. A volcanic eruption certainly kills all life in its area, just like man. On a smaller scale, a lightning strike sterilizes the area it hits, often killing everything it touches. Asteroids, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and mudslides all cause tremendous devastation. Nature is as destructive as it is nurturing. Animals go extinct all the time. Others adapt until they barely resemble the creature that they came from.

All of this is natural. Man does do the same sort of thing- but nature started it!

I suppose my point is that nature will eventually destroy almost every aspect of itself, and another aspect will rise to take its place. As evidence, I point to dinosaurs. Very few of the creatures we see fossilized from those ages when dinosaurs walked the earth are still alive today- and man had nothing to do with their eradication. When you compare killing off the dodo to killing off dinosaurs, it becomes obvious that we are amateurs in the extinction game.

Gitzbitah wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:Nature, as a whole, can be helped and harmed.

Nature helps and harms itself all the time. The Ice Age eliminated most life on the planet. A volcanic eruption certainly kills all life in its area, just like man. On a smaller scale, a lightning strike sterilizes the area it hits, often killing everything it touches. Asteroids, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and mudslides all cause tremendous devastation. Nature is as destructive as it is nurturing. Animals go extinct all the time. Others adapt until they barely resemble the creature that they came from.

All of this is natural. Man does do the same sort of thing- but nature started it!

I suppose my point is that nature will eventually destroy almost every aspect of itself, and another aspect will rise to take its place. As evidence, I point to dinosaurs. Very few of the creatures we see fossilized from those ages when dinosaurs walked the earth are still alive today- and man had nothing to do with their eradication. When you compare killing off the dodo to killing off dinosaurs, it becomes obvious that we are amateurs in the extinction game.

That is not true apparently. My understanding is that when looking at the rate of extinction of species, many scientists say that extinctions caused by man have occurred at a rate that is unprecedented in the history of the planet, even when looking at, say, the Permian event. In terms of absolute number, of course it isn't even close to that, but the extinctions caused by man have occurred in a very short period of time relative to the age of the earth.

Of course, I think what the argument has turned to is how do you define something hurting nature, or especially nature hurting itself. How do you define a "hurt" state or a non "hurt" state? I think the consensus now is that Mars at one time probably had some form of life, but no longer does because of environmental changes ( "natural" ones not caused by man of course). Did nature "hurt" itself in this instance? If you define "healthy" as life being present, then I guess it is yes, but that is a "life-centric" definition.

The question is not whether we're "hurting" the environment, I think, but rather if we desire to continue making certain changes which might be detrimental to the way the world was before industrialization and might be detrimental to our health, or whether we want to stop making those changes?

Dogma, I don't know if that is what you're getting at, but I think that is. My question is do you think it is somewhat an argument of semantics? Doesn't it seem natural that people project personalities into things? For instance, one of the oldest toys is a doll, which is something that a child projects a personality into? Don't you think that the whole disagreement about the gender of God and the use of the masculine pronoun for God result from people projecting human attributes to something that is beyond human understanding?

In other words, does it matter if people talk about helping or harming the "environment" ( meaning the "natural", non "made", world) if that accomplishes practical goals?

dogma wrote:

Henners91 wrote:We don't... it's simply just convenient to refer to nature/our environment as an entity, under one word...

But neither I, nor anyone else, knows what you mean when you mask your intent with convenience. We might have a belief with respect to what you've said, but we don't know.

Well, now you're talking s**t, essentially everyone here has understood the premise of the post... If I start twiddling my thumbs about definitions you'll just pick that apart just as you are now, because, at the end of the day you're here to be a smart alec :-/

WarOne wrote:I believe that I operate in a system where if I did not have a car, it could reduce my social condition to the point which I may not be able to run my life as I want.

In my current situation, I need a car and cannot afford one to which it would produce less emissions. Ergo, I drive my polluting car because it would undermine me economically and socially to not have one and cannot afford one that will not pollute given my current situation and economic ability as well as social expectations.

There is a lot of debate on if we are actually causing harm to the environment. My personal opinion is that humanity can cause harm to the environment. Yes there is more carbon released into the air with a single forest fire than a weeks worth of an L.A. traffic but there are other things we have created that nature doesn't account for. Nuklear fallout is something that caused massive damage to the environment. The heat and radiation caused by it wipes out everything on a microscopic level and takes quite some time for things to correct itself. We are having an effect on the environment. The level of effect is debatable over what nature does to itself and how relevant we are but I believe humanity is currently detrimental to the environment. I'm not gonna do anything to help the situation mind you but I will at least acknowledge the problem.

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

Henners91 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

I see the point though. Much of our oil consumption is involved in creating and shipping the things we use, including food. If you decide to get rid of your gas guzzler, that car is eventually going to end up as waste, and at some point an additional ( though better mileage ) car was created, even if you buy used.

I think if people are concerned about it they should work on consuming less crap, rather than being concerned about what they're driving.

Henners91 wrote:

Mattlov wrote:I drive a gas guzzler. I'll admit it. I choose to do so.

Until they make an efficient car that can bring me the joy of my 414 horsepower, rear wheel drive, 6-speed GTO, I'm not interested.

I drive a work vehicle most of the time. When I'm in my car, I want to enjoy every friggin' second of it. And I do.

Do I care that I average about 14 MPG? Nope. I still only put gas in my car every 3 weeks or so. Because filling up only put more weight in the back end so I can work the throttle harder without the back end coming around.

Efficiency can go to hell. I'm having fun.

That reasoning's so selfish I'm convinced it was intended as a trolling jibe o.O

Nope, not trolling. That's just how I feel about it. I have worked hard to own my car, and I enjoy driving. Why is it selfish that I want to enjoy myself behind the wheel? Why should I be looked down upon because I used to RACE, and a midget-mobile hybrid with no soul doesn't interest me?

Not all people are the same. You want to save the planet? Fine. Guess what? Can't do it yourself. I don't want to destroy it, but my car will have such a negligible impact on anything environmental over it's life I'm just not worried about it.

I am only going to live once. Why should I compromise my ability to have fun in an aspect of life because others say I should? No thank you, I live here in good ol' America to be free, and to have that choice to drive a gas guzzler. I have worked hard to earn it. And if you have earned something, it is rather silly not take it.

I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

egor71 wrote:I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

I don't see how that is apropos.

Henners91 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

Unless you're suggesting that if I don't drive a gas guzzler that everyone else won't either, this argument is invalid. And if you are, then it's very unsound; what I drive has little to no influence on what others drive.

It's also why I don't vote. It simply doesn't matter who I vote for; the voting population is sufficiently large that my vote is statistically irrelevant.

Grignard wrote:

egor71 wrote:I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

I don't see how that is apropos.

(psst: plastic minis are primarily oil based products)

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Now, granted some people think Global Warming is a ton of rubbish (for some reason) how can ANYONE argue against this logic:

Oil = Finite resource.

While oil is a finite resource, what I utilise over the entirety of my life pales into utter insignificance when compared to what industry uses in a single day. It simply does not matter what I drive.

What about every individual as opposed to industry as one collective group?

Unless you're suggesting that if I don't drive a gas guzzler that everyone else won't either, this argument is invalid. And if you are, then it's very unsound; what I drive has little to no influence on what others drive.

It's also why I don't vote. It simply doesn't matter who I vote for; the voting population is sufficiently large that my vote is statistically irrelevant.

Grignard wrote:

egor71 wrote:I guess the hippies here only use metal minis.

I don't see how that is apropos.

(psst: plastic minis are primarily oil based products)

I would bet the house that there is more oil used in the transport of metal minis than what makes up a plastic mini. Of course, you're adding the plastic to the transportation costs, but still, I don't think its terribly significant or apropos to the topic.

Probably.

But the same amount of oil is used to transport the plastic minis as the metal minis. And you're making about the same impact by only buying metal minis as you are by driving a fuel economical vehicle, ie: none.

So while it isn't terribly significant, neither is what kind of car you drive.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Probably.

But the same amount of oil is used to transport the plastic minis as the metal minis. And you're making about the same impact by only buying metal minis as you are by driving a fuel economical vehicle, ie: none.

So while it isn't terribly significant, neither is what kind of car you drive.

I bet its a lot more significant than minis. But still, I think focusing on consumption of resources is probably better than focusing on cars themselves.

We can agree on that much, at least.

Why drive a polluting car? Because I need to in order to get to work.

Sometimes I ride my scooter... it gets 90 mpg. I'm being responsible. Of course sometimes it's raining, or I need to haul a pickup bed full of stuff somewhere, and for that I use my SUV. It gets around 16mpg.

Point being I use an appropriate vehicle for the appropriate job.

I always thought this was funny for some reason. Can't find the original article but this one sums it up...

PRIUS OUTDOES HUMMER IN ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

The Toyota Prius, the flagship car for the environmentally conscious, is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America, and takes more combined energy to produce than a Hummer, says the Recorder.

Consider:

- The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers.
- Dubbed the Superstack, the factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin.
- After leaving the plant, the nickel travels to Europe, China, Japan and United States, a hardly environmentally sound round the world trip for a single battery.
But that isn't even the worst part, says the Record. According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius (consisting of electrical, fuel, transportation, materials and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime), is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer:

- The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles -- the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
- The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.
- That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it.

Source: Chris Demorro, "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage," The Recorder, March 7, 2007.

It all depends on where you live.
I live in breezy, sunny (lies) Washington, where there is ATM 3" of snow per year and it rains for the rest.
I don't need an SUV. It doesn't have a purpose here. The biggest driving dilemma you have down here, as far as I'm concerned, is where to grab munchies.
I think really having a gigantic SUV in fething Washington is really useless because you are basically using it in the same way as I would a sedan (in 2 years, of course).
Now if I lived in Alaska, what with all the mountains and snow, an SUV would be useful.
Simply put, if your environment requires the type of vehicle, do it, but if it doesn't, why bother at all? Saves money for the car and gas.
Also, due to the fact that the Prius is an overhyped, electrically powered crap-box driven by young urban professionals from Seattle (because 'yuppies' is just cheesy), it really isn't worth it.
Giggles,
Mr. Self Destruct

The worst part about those hybrids, what happens with the batteries after they finally die? They get buried and leak acid and other fun chemicals into the aquifer. Yay Hybrids!

Stormrider wrote:The worst part about those hybrids, what happens with the batteries after they finally die? They get buried and leak acid and other fun chemicals into the aquifer. Yay Hybrids!

Well, I think you need to consider if the extra batteries make up for the fuel savings. Remember, regular automobiles have lead acid batteries that need to be disposed of, and there is pollution involved in the production of those batteries.

Remember, the burning of gasoline isn't just a carbon problem, it is an enormous groundwater chemical pollution problem. There is an entire branch of the Tennessee department of environment and conservation devoted solely to regulating underground petroleum storage tanks, and that is from a state that is not known for funding environmental agencies. I've encountered examples of tanks that have leaked and people around were able to smell gasoline in their tap water.

I'd like to know if the author of the quoted article has any political affiliations that might effect his viewpoint, and if he has explored any examples of pollution from conventional car batteries.

I really don't think there needs to be a debate about eco-friendly vehicles... This was more of an SUV vs a Saloon discussion: Don't WASTE oil even if it's impossible to be totally efficient with it!

Henners91 wrote:I really don't think there needs to be a debate about eco-friendly vehicles... This was more of an SUV vs a Saloon discussion: Don't WASTE oil even if it's impossible to be totally efficient with it!

I disagree. I think that if you ask why you drive a polluting car, suggest people dont, then associate SUVs with pollution, it would make sense to suggest alternatives other than just a smaller car, and if those alternatives are *really* better. I think it is just as valid to consider ways of driving more efficiently as well as not driving an SUV. Like I said, some people actually use their SUVs for reasons other than status symbols. I actually used mine offroad. Some people need the covered carrying capacity, though I would argue that a truck with a topper would be a better deal if they're just using it for that. Some people are larger than me and need at least a big sedan to be comfortable.

Also, as has been mentioned, my country is very different from yours. We tend to be much more spread out. When I lived in Denver, the airport was something like 80 km or so from where I lived, and I lived nearer to it than someone living downtown. Culturally, we prefer larger cars that drive differently. One thing I've noticed having the opportunity to drive a European luxury car and an American one is that I personally felt that the steering and feel was tighter and more sporty than the American one, which felt softer and "floatier". I liked the sportier feel but many people do not. I would also say that we have more rugged terrain for the off roaders but someone from Wales or Scotland would probably tell me I was full of crap.