Rail Transit a Poor Choice for Reducing CO2

[Jack May]

The MTC in the SF Bay area (and probably others) are pushing for tax
increases to build rail to reduce CO2. Its a grab for money and won't be
effective.

http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/489015.html

In the last 15 years, American cities have spent $100 billion on new rail
transit projects. Proponents now justify the expense with claims that rail
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but these projects fail to meet their
promised reductions, a new Cato Institute study reports.

"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.

"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile

"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more promising
and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects. Using biodiesel fuel,
for example, "costs less than 10 cents per pound of CO2 saved, making it
more than 25 times as cost-effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
light rail."

"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects, cities
should look at proven alternatives. These include powering buses with
alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses on heavily used
routes, building new roads, implementing tolls, coordinating traffic
signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases more fuel-efficient cars."

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May
The MTC in the SF Bay area (and probably others) are pushing for tax
increases to build rail to reduce CO2. Its a grab for money and won't be
effective.
http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/489015.html
In the last 15 years, American cities have spent $100 billion on new rail
transit projects. Proponents now justify the expense with claims that rail
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but these projects fail to meet their
promised reductions, a new Cato Institute study reports.
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile
"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more promising
and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects. Using biodiesel fuel,
for example, "costs less than 10 cents per pound of CO2 saved, making it
more than 25 times as cost-effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
light rail."
"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects, cities
should look at proven alternatives. These include powering buses with
alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses on heavily used
routes, building new roads, implementing tolls, coordinating traffic
signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases more fuel-efficient cars."

Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

[Jack May]

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of reality? You
just want to destroy the environment by keeping transit at any and all cost?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of reality? You
just want to destroy the environment by keeping transit at any and all cost?

I'm just thinking about the poor clerk in Montauk who may have to get a
car and drive into Manhattan every day. You do not understand the lives
of ordinary folk.

[Jack May]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of reality? You
just want to destroy the environment by keeping transit at any and all cost?

I'm just thinking about the poor clerk in Montauk who may have to get a
car and drive into Manhattan every day. You do not understand the lives
of ordinary folk.

The world is not Manhattan. Another cherry pick lack of an argument.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:12:24 -0700, in misc.transport.urban-transit

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of reality? You
just want to destroy the environment by keeping transit at any and all cost?

I'm just thinking about the poor clerk in Montauk who may have to get a
car and drive into Manhattan every day. You do not understand the lives
of ordinary folk.

The world is not Manhattan. Another cherry pick lack of an argument.

I'm having a hard time imagining a 'poor clerk' who lives in Montauk and
commutes to Manhattan.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Free Lunch
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:12:24 -0700, in misc.transport.urban-transit

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of reality? You
just want to destroy the environment by keeping transit at any and all cost?

I'm just thinking about the poor clerk in Montauk who may have to get a
car and drive into Manhattan every day. You do not understand the lives
of ordinary folk.

The world is not Manhattan. Another cherry pick lack of an argument.

I'm having a hard time imagining a 'poor clerk' who lives in Montauk and
commutes to Manhattan.

OK, Union City NJ.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of reality? You
just want to destroy the environment by keeping transit at any and all cost?

I'm just thinking about the poor clerk in Montauk who may have to get a
car and drive into Manhattan every day. You do not understand the lives
of ordinary folk.

The world is not Manhattan. Another cherry pick lack of an argument.

Actually I know that, being in the UK. My feeling is that you would not
understand examples from here, inasfar, of course, as you understand
anything about the topic at all.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards
Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum,..............................

You are trying to prove you can not deal with any level of
reality? You just want to destroy the environment by keeping
transit at any and all cost?

I'm just thinking about the poor clerk in Montauk who may have to get
a car and drive into Manhattan every day. You do not understand the
lives of ordinary folk.

The world is not Manhattan. Another cherry pick lack of an argument.

Actually I know that, being in the UK. My feeling is that you would not
understand examples from here, inasfar, of course, as you understand
anything about the topic at all.

What makes you think he'd understand Manhattan? :\

Either way, I doubt your example is common. A clerk isn't likely to
commute from Montauk to Manhattan.

But is a clerk supposed to drive fro Jersey City every day? That'd
easily run $28 before gas is even taken into account.

[Jym Dyer]

=v= We've been over this before. There are rail failures
and road successes, but as with all human endeavors these
are subject to many, many variables. The only honest way
to look at these variables is with a statistical analysis,
which falls in a bell curve pattern. Instead, what O'Toole
does is cherry-pick outliers to fit his foregone conclusion.

=v= Will Jack May ever cite a source that reflects reality?
<_Jym_>

[Bolwerk]

"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."

'Nuff said.

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

As usual you show your total lack of understanding of transit or anything
else. You have no response of any value and are not man enough to deal
with any form of truth.

[Greg Sutherland]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

As usual you show your total lack of understanding of transit or anything
else. You have no response of any value and are not man enough to deal
with any form of truth.

Hey! Jack hasn't been taking his medication again.

Greg

[Jack May]

Post by Greg Sutherland

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

As usual you show your total lack of understanding of transit or anything
else. You have no response of any value and are not man enough to deal
with any form of truth.

Hey! Jack hasn't been taking his medication again.

In other words you have absolutely nothing to contribute.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Greg Sutherland

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

As usual you show your total lack of understanding of transit or anything
else. You have no response of any value and are not man enough to deal
with any form of truth.

Hey! Jack hasn't been taking his medication again.

In other words you have absolutely nothing to contribute.

But maybe your gp has.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

As usual you show your total lack of understanding of transit or anything
else. You have no response of any value and are not man enough to deal
with any form of truth.

Om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani
padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om
mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum,
om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme hum, om mani padme
hum, om mani padme hum,....................................

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

Is that the guy who used to be in the Klan?

[Bolwerk]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Bolwerk
"A new study by the David Duke Center for Racial Understanding...."
'Nuff said.

Is that the guy who used to be in the Klan?

He headed it in the 1970s.

[Jack May]

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= We've been over this before. There are rail failures
and road successes, but as with all human endeavors these
are subject to many, many variables. The only honest way
to look at these variables is with a statistical analysis,
which falls in a bell curve pattern. Instead, what O'Toole
does is cherry-pick outliers to fit his foregone conclusion.

They did not cherry pick anything. It is certainly not Gaussian as anybody
that understands statistics knows. You just have shown that you have
absolutely nothing of any usefulness to contribute.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= We've been over this before. There are rail failures
and road successes, but as with all human endeavors these
are subject to many, many variables. The only honest way
to look at these variables is with a statistical analysis,
which falls in a bell curve pattern. Instead, what O'Toole
does is cherry-pick outliers to fit his foregone conclusion.

They did not cherry pick anything. It is certainly not Gaussian as anybody
that understands statistics knows. You just have shown that you have
absolutely nothing of any usefulness to contribute.

Gaussian Schmaussian.

[Tadej Brezina]

[...]
"O'Toole recommends ... cities should look at proven alternatives. These include ... building new roads ..."

Uahahahaaa, joke of the day?

BTW, biofuels already put stress on poor countries food supply without
being somewhere near significant replacement rates of fossil fuel. How
in hell should they ever provide fuel amounts that we are used now from
fossil fuel?


Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina

[...]
"O'Toole recommends ... cities should look at proven alternatives. These
include ... building new roads ..."

Uahahahaaa, joke of the day?
BTW, biofuels already put stress on poor countries food supply without
being somewhere near significant replacement rates of fossil fuel. How in
hell should they ever provide fuel amounts that we are used now from
fossil fuel?

Corn bio fuels are the problem, not bio fuels in general which is extremely
well known. Switch grass is not food crop for anything and has been clearly
shown to be have a very high production of energy above the energy required
to produce that energy. Your comment is obviously wrong.

[James Robinson]

Post by Jack May
Corn bio fuels are the problem, not bio fuels in general which is
extremely well known. Switch grass is not food crop for anything and
has been clearly shown to be have a very high production of energy
above the energy required to produce that energy. Your comment is
obviously wrong.

Of course.

So if switchgrass is so much better, then why aren't the farmers planting
their fields with it instead of corn?

[Bill Blomgren]

Post by James Robinson

Post by Jack May
Corn bio fuels are the problem, not bio fuels in general which is
extremely well known. Switch grass is not food crop for anything and
has been clearly shown to be have a very high production of energy
above the energy required to produce that energy. Your comment is
obviously wrong.

Of course.
So if switchgrass is so much better, then why aren't the farmers planting
their fields with it instead of corn?

That's simple: They are getting LOTS of money for CORN... the government
subsidizes corn ethanol, so we have lots of farmers planting corn and selling
it to the ethanol producers. If the government got out of the picture, corn
would fall back down where it belongs, and the ethanol plants would shut down
until the switch grass plants could get built. The weed is out there,
waiting to get "harvested".... Sugar cane also does *very* well.

By the way, along that line, the Greens have started protest use of plant
life. You violate the rights of a plant by picking its fruit and pulling
petals off the flowers.. You hurt it, and its "Feelings". Really.

I wonder if they live on air in that unusual group.. .

[James Robinson]

Post by Bill Blomgren

Post by James Robinson

Post by Jack May
Corn bio fuels are the problem, not bio fuels in general which is
extremely well known. Switch grass is not food crop for anything
and has been clearly shown to be have a very high production of
energy above the energy required to produce that energy. Your
comment is obviously wrong.

Of course.
So if switchgrass is so much better, then why aren't the farmers
planting their fields with it instead of corn?

That's simple: They are getting LOTS of money for CORN... the
government subsidizes corn ethanol, so we have lots of farmers
planting corn and selling it to the ethanol producers. If the
government got out of the picture, corn would fall back down where it
belongs, and the ethanol plants would shut down until the switch grass
plants could get built. The weed is out there, waiting to get
"harvested".... Sugar cane also does *very* well.

Not quite that simple. The proponents of switchgrass claim so much
better returns over corn that they should overpower the subsidies. That
isn't happening. So either the claims are exaggerated, or the farmers
somehow don't feel they will get the benefits from switchgrass
production.

As far as I'm concerned, it is immoral to be subsidizing the use of prime
agricultural land for energy crops which should be reserved for food
production. The end result has been a surge in the value of the land,
which has been reflected in higher food prices. Farmers have also
overextended themselves financially, to the point that if the subsidies
are pulled, there will be a mini-mortgage crisis with farms failing.
Can't let that happen, so yet more subsidies will be coming down the
road. It has been a really, really bad policy.

[Jack May]

Post by James Robinson
Not quite that simple. The proponents of switchgrass claim so much
better returns over corn that they should overpower the subsidies. That
isn't happening. So either the claims are exaggerated, or the farmers
somehow don't feel they will get the benefits from switchgrass
production.
As far as I'm concerned, it is immoral to be subsidizing the use of prime
agricultural land for energy crops which should be reserved for food
production. The end result has been a surge in the value of the land,
which has been reflected in higher food prices. Farmers have also
overextended themselves financially, to the point that if the subsidies
are pulled, there will be a mini-mortgage crisis with farms failing.
Can't let that happen, so yet more subsidies will be coming down the
road. It has been a really, really bad policy.

Switch grass grow on land in the US that is not good enough to grow crops.
That also means it does not have a lot of farmers there to lobby politicians
for subsidies as do the corn farmers.

The venture capitalist and bio-technology people are the ones that have
discovered that switch grass is an ideal plant for efficient, low cost
production of alternative energy.

[James Robinson]

Post by Jack May

Post by James Robinson
Not quite that simple. The proponents of switchgrass claim so much
better returns over corn that they should overpower the subsidies.
That isn't happening. So either the claims are exaggerated, or the
farmers somehow don't feel they will get the benefits from
switchgrass production.
As far as I'm concerned, it is immoral to be subsidizing the use of
prime agricultural land for energy crops which should be reserved for
food production. The end result has been a surge in the value of the
land, which has been reflected in higher food prices. Farmers have
also overextended themselves financially, to the point that if the
subsidies are pulled, there will be a mini-mortgage crisis with farms
failing. Can't let that happen, so yet more subsidies will be coming
down the road. It has been a really, really bad policy.

Switch grass grow on land in the US that is not good enough to grow
crops. That also means it does not have a lot of farmers there to
lobby politicians for subsidies as do the corn farmers.

Switchgrass will grow even better on prime agricultural land. If the
economics of switchgrass are as good as the proponents claim, it will
displace corn and other foodstuffs as the crop of choice. Just because
it grows on less desireable land doesn't mean it will be grown there
exclusively. Agriculture is all about making the best return on land
value.

Post by Jack May
The venture capitalist and bio-technology people are the ones that
have discovered that switch grass is an ideal plant for efficient, low
cost production of alternative energy.

That's nice. It will still displace food, or the price of food will
shoot up to be competitive. It's the wrong thing to do.

[Jack May]

Post by James Robinson
Switchgrass will grow even better on prime agricultural land. If the
economics of switchgrass are as good as the proponents claim, it will
displace corn and other foodstuffs as the crop of choice. Just because
it grows on less desireable land doesn't mean it will be grown there
exclusively. Agriculture is all about making the best return on land
value.

I don't know if the undesirable land is better or not for switch grass.
Switch grass evolved to grow than other plants in the land that is
undesirable for crops.

You have a good point, but the question is will the low cost of present
unused land that grows switch grass make alternative fuel cheap enough where
more money can be made growing food on crop lands. I don't know.

What will probably happen is that the poor lands in major parts of the third
world. Alternative fuel from switch may be able to significantly increase
the income in the poorest parts of the world.

Post by James Robinson

Post by Jack May
The venture capitalist and bio-technology people are the ones that
have discovered that switch grass is an ideal plant for efficient, low
cost production of alternative energy.

That's nice. It will still displace food, or the price of food will
shoot up to be competitive. It's the wrong thing to do.

The cost of alternative fuels is expected to be low because it is cheap
land, does not need fertilizer, and will be converted to fuel with
genetically engineered micro-organisms using sun and water. Food farmers
may not be able to produce competitively priced fuel with their present
farms. That is TBD.

[Bill Bolton]

Post by James Robinson
Not quite that simple. The proponents of switchgrass claim so much
better returns over corn that they should overpower the subsidies.

Since subsidies are essentially risk free farm income, you need a lot
more than potential return from another unsubsidised crop to shift
actual plantings.

Post by James Robinson
Farmers have also overextended themselves financially, to the
point that if the subsidies are pulled, there will be a
mini-mortgage crisis with farms failing.

That has been generic behaviour in many farming environments in
"Western" countries for a very long time, there's nothing new about in
respect the current discussion.

Post by James Robinson
Can't let that happen, so yet more subsidies will be coming down the
road. It has been a really, really bad policy.

That I agree with!

Cheers,

Bill

Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

[James Robinson]

Post by Bill Bolton

Post by James Robinson
Not quite that simple. The proponents of switchgrass claim so much
better returns over corn that they should overpower the subsidies.

Since subsidies are essentially risk free farm income, you need a lot
more than potential return from another unsubsidised crop to shift
actual plantings.

If the returns are high enough, farmers will take the risk. The big
concern I have is that subsidies will be shifted to switchgrass, which
will accelerate the supplanting of food crops, and put upward pressure on
remaining food crops.

Post by Bill Bolton

Post by James Robinson
Farmers have also overextended themselves financially, to the
point that if the subsidies are pulled, there will be a
mini-mortgage crisis with farms failing.

That has been generic behaviour in many farming environments in
"Western" countries for a very long time, there's nothing new about in
respect the current discussion.

Yes, subsidies seem to be the order of the day, yet this is both
perpetuating them, and shifting what had been historically justified to
support farms with food production to now supporting energy. That is what
is new.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by James Robinson
As far as I'm concerned, it is immoral to be subsidizing the use of prime
agricultural land for energy crops which should be reserved for food
production. The end result has been a surge in the value of the land,
which has been reflected in higher food prices.

Around here, our best agricultural land has gone to tax subsidized
electronics plants and other nonsense that should be built elsewhere.

[Bolwerk]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by James Robinson
As far as I'm concerned, it is immoral to be subsidizing the use of prime
agricultural land for energy crops which should be reserved for food
production. The end result has been a surge in the value of the land,
which has been reflected in higher food prices.

Around here, our best agricultural land has gone to tax subsidized
electronics plants and other nonsense that should be built elsewhere.

Look what was done to Long Island. :|

[Jack May]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by James Robinson
As far as I'm concerned, it is immoral to be subsidizing the use of prime
agricultural land for energy crops which should be reserved for food
production. The end result has been a surge in the value of the land,
which has been reflected in higher food prices.

Around here, our best agricultural land has gone to tax subsidized
electronics plants and other nonsense that should be built elsewhere.

Around here in Silicon Valley, where most the technology of the US is based,
there are no subsidies to build a company. Out away from Silicon Valley,
obviously a lot of areas want the high paying good jobs and resulting tax
revenues that come from high tech companies.

Because a high tech plant can solve a lot of local problems, we essentially
have turned cities and counties into completive enterprises trying to get
the tax income instead of one of their competitors in another city getting
those dollars. Actually interesting that it is forcing local governments
to become highly competitive. Maybe not a bad thing making governments
competitive.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Jack May

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Around here, our best agricultural land has gone to tax subsidized
electronics plants and other nonsense that should be built elsewhere.

Around here in Silicon Valley, where most the technology of the US is based,
there are no subsidies to build a company. Out away from Silicon Valley,
obviously a lot of areas want the high paying good jobs and resulting tax
revenues that come from high tech companies.
Because a high tech plant can solve a lot of local problems, we essentially
have turned cities and counties into completive enterprises trying to get
the tax income instead of one of their competitors in another city getting
those dollars. Actually interesting that it is forcing local governments
to become highly competitive. Maybe not a bad thing making governments
competitive.

In the Tualatin Valley (west of Portland, Oregon) we have an assortment of
high tech firms that have gone in, including Intel, etc. Pretty much all
of these plants have been built with agreements that significantly reduce
the taxes on those facilities.

The result has been in recent years that schools in the region have become
severely under-funded, while at the same time the high-tech companies
demand better quality schools - so long as someone else pays for them.

All of this is done on land that is reputed to be some of the most fertile
crop land in the world - or at least was until it got filled with
industrial complexes. If those had been built in Bend, it would have been
on soil that is far less fertile, requires expensive federal tax
subsidized irrigation projects to keep crops growing, and needs those jobs
far worse than the Portland area does.

The "high paying good jobs" that you talk about: the fact is that those
high paying jobs in those facilities are very few, while average assembly
line workers at, say, an Intel chip fab facility are not really that well
paid. Sure, they make more than minimum wage, but the fact is they
certainly are not the cash cow jobs that the high-tech companies gush
about to our local politicians. For every $100,000 a year job there are
probably 15 in the $30,000 a year range. I don't have statistics for
Oregon handy, but the state of Washington did a detailed examination of
these policies and their effect on their state. The result, which
appeared in our newspaper here, indicated that the average job created in
the state of Washington over the past several years paid $26,000 a year.
Consider for a moment that Washington has far higher wages than Oregon
because of Boeing (where someone with a high school education and a bit of
machinist experience can make the same income you usually boast of
making), and the overall failure of these policies to really work for the
purpose of creating "high paying jobs" seems to me to have missed the
target.

Thus, I am not convinced that this "can solve a lot of local problems" in
the current fashion it is being executed.

And certainly if the food prices are of such importance, these vast
industrial complexes should be built elsewhere than some of the most
fertile crop land in the country!

[Miles Bader]

Post by g***@yahoo.com
In the Tualatin Valley (west of Portland, Oregon) we have an assortment of
high tech firms that have gone in, including Intel, etc. Pretty much all
of these plants have been built with agreements that significantly reduce
the taxes on those facilities.

Why _there_, incidentally?

If the state's willing to throw tax money around, surely they had some
flexibility to choose the location, right?

-Miles

[Bill Blomgren]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by g***@yahoo.com
In the Tualatin Valley (west of Portland, Oregon) we have an assortment of
high tech firms that have gone in, including Intel, etc. Pretty much all
of these plants have been built with agreements that significantly reduce
the taxes on those facilities.

Why _there_, incidentally?
If the state's willing to throw tax money around, surely they had some
flexibility to choose the location, right?
-Miles

NC has been pouring tax subsidies at all sorts of businesses to get them to
locate here. Unfortunately, that means that they RAISE taxes on all the
existing businesses and people to get those new plants. Google? a half
billion in subsidies to locate a data center in a rural depressed area. (Close
a rail line that was near by because it MIGHT shake the building..,) - For
that money? probably 25-30 jobs. Hard drive swappers. <sigh>

Dell was given a huge subsidy to locate up north of here. Assembly jobs there
are not highly paid... Same thing for other manufacturing jobs, resulting in
other established folk either threatening to move (to get those tax subsidies)
- or just picking up and leaving, taking hundreds of jobs to adjacent states
that don't tax them out of existence.

I work in a cost center. If it were a profit center, it would have probably
moved out of NC years ago. With all action here being a loss, there isn't
much for NC to tax other than the income tax for the people working there.
(And THAT is substantial..) - but no corporate profits from this facility to
go after...

[p***@panix.com]

Post by Jack May
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.

Bus networks that transit agencies would still run even if the rail
lines weren't there. Furthermore, I suspect that buses are a bit
easier to convert to alternative energy sources than cars, because
there is a smaller number of them and because their management is more
centralized.

Post by Jack May
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile

Where did he get those numbers from? The numbers I've seen indicate
that trains come out *ahead*.

Post by Jack May
"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more promising
and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects. Using biodiesel fuel,
for example, "costs less than 10 cents per pound of CO2 saved, making it
more than 25 times as cost-effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
light rail."

Except when you start running out of land for biodiesel crops.

And that calculation might *only* be valid if that LRV's electricity
is generated with fossil fuels. Most non-biomass alternative energy
sources are best adapted for generating electricity, which can be fed
right to a LRV.

Post by Jack May
"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects, cities
should look at proven alternatives. These include powering buses with
alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses on heavily used
routes, building new roads, implementing tolls, coordinating traffic
signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases more fuel-efficient cars."

Except that building new roads can be expensive.

Also, trains tend to attract a much more upscale ridership than buses
do, and they are often much more traffic-proof than buses.

Seems like Randal O'Toole is grasping at straws.

[Bolwerk]

Post by p***@panix.com

Post by Jack May
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.

Bus networks that transit agencies would still run even if the rail
lines weren't there. Furthermore, I suspect that buses are a bit
easier to convert to alternative energy sources than cars, because
there is a smaller number of them and because their management is more
centralized.

Post by Jack May
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile

Where did he get those numbers from? The numbers I've seen indicate
that trains come out *ahead*.

He made them up. Jack May is one of the few people gullible enough to
take O'Toole seriously.

[Jack May]

Post by Jack May
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations," O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.
Bus networks that transit agencies would still run even if the rail

lines weren't there. Furthermore, I suspect that buses are a bit
easier to convert to alternative energy sources than cars, because
there is a smaller number of them and because their management is more

Post by Jack May
centralized.

The press release seems to indicate that feeder buses for trains were a
significant reason for the poor effiency for trains

Post by Jack May
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than a
Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile
Where did he get those numbers from? The numbers I've seen indicate

that trains come out *ahead*.

The statistics published by the transit parts of the Federal Government use
simple Gaussian techniques that give very inaccurate results for the power
law type statistics for actual real world transportation systems

Post by Jack May
"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more promising
and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects. Using biodiesel fuel,
for example, "costs less than 10 cents per pound of CO2 saved, making it
more than 25 times as cost-effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as
light rail."
Except when you start running out of land for biodiesel crops.

Only politicians support crops for fuel. The private sector is developing
for things like switch grass that grows best on lands that can not even
support crop production. There is a lot of poor quality land in the world
that can grow thing like switch grass but not crops

And that calculation might *only* be valid if that LRV's electricity
is generated with fossil fuels. Most non-biomass alternative energy
sources are best adapted for generating electricity, which can be fed
right to a LRV.

Post by Jack May
"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects, cities
should look at proven alternatives. These include powering buses with
alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses on heavily used
routes, building new roads, implementing tolls, coordinating traffic
signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases more fuel-efficient cars."
Except that building new roads can be expensive.

Passenger light rail is about $50M per mile compared to a fraction of that
price for most roads (depending on the area). Further electronics that is
being developed for car over the next decades will more than double the
capacity of existing roads with no building of new roads.

There is essentially no chance that rail will ever provide more than a few
percent of the transportation needs of society even if there are technology
advances which are highly unlikely.

Post by Jack May
Also, trains tend to attract a much more upscale ridership than buses

do, and they are often much more traffic-proof than buses.

Post by Jack May
Seems like Randal O'Toole is grasping at straws.

No, it is obvious that his conclusions are major and rock solid. You are
assuming a lot of things that are well known to be false.

[Greg Sutherland]

Post by Jack May

Post by p***@panix.com
Seems like Randal O'Toole is grasping at straws.

No, it is obvious that his conclusions are major and rock solid. You are
assuming a lot of things that are well known to be false.

ROTFLMAO

Greg

[Jack May]

Post by Greg Sutherland

Post by Jack May

Post by p***@panix.com
Seems like Randal O'Toole is grasping at straws.

No, it is obvious that his conclusions are major and rock solid. You
are assuming a lot of things that are well known to be false.

ROTFLMAO

So you want lies to continue to be spread in the desperate hope that what
you believe will might actually come true some day. The flat Earth and
vinyl record people have the same attitude. Sorry, the transit myths have
about as much chance of coming true as the flat earth myths.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Greg Sutherland

Post by Jack May

Post by p***@panix.com
Seems like Randal O'Toole is grasping at straws.

No, it is obvious that his conclusions are major and rock solid. You
are assuming a lot of things that are well known to be false.

ROTFLMAO

So you want lies to continue to be spread in the desperate hope that what
you believe will might actually come true some day. The flat Earth and
vinyl record people have the same attitude. Sorry, the transit myths have
about as much chance of coming true as the flat earth myths.

"It's lies! you're all lying 'gainst my boys!" -Ma Barker

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by p***@panix.com

Post by Jack May
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than
a Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than
the average automobile

Where did he get those numbers from? The numbers I've seen indicate
that trains come out *ahead*.

Trains come out ahead _on average per passenger_. The ones with the highest
patronage are also, not coincidentally, the ones with the lowest
per-passenger energy consumption. The smaller and less popular systems can
easily be operating at a loss while not skewing the average much.

However, also consider that he's attributing the inefficiency of feeder
buses to light rail. While we're at it, let's count the inefficiency of
cars for the majority of people that drive to the rail station... Yeah,
that's fair.

Post by p***@panix.com

Post by Jack May
"He suggests that technological solutions to emissions are more
promising and more cost-effective than expensive rail projects.
Using biodiesel fuel, for example, "costs less than 10 cents per
pound of CO2 saved, making it more than 25 times as cost-effective
at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as light rail."

Except when you start running out of land for biodiesel crops.
And that calculation might *only* be valid if that LRV's electricity
is generated with fossil fuels. Most non-biomass alternative energy
sources are best adapted for generating electricity, which can be fed
right to a LRV.

"Might"? The majority of our electricity here, and in some other regions as
well, comes from non-fossil fuel. You can also pay to buy only non-fossil
power for a slight premium (as I do -- it only costs about 5% more and helps
encourage new nuke construction, which I favor).

Cars could get the same benefit if plug-in hybrids or pure electrics take
off, though I'm not holding my breath. The grid has nowhere near enough
capacity today to shoulder the load from the automobile sector. The only
power plants that can be built quickly enough to cover the gap are NG, which
is only moderately more efficient than gasoline or diesel in a car, minus
the usual transmission losses to make it a wash.

Post by p***@panix.com

Post by Jack May
"O'Toole recommends that instead of pursuing costly rail projects,
cities should look at proven alternatives. These include powering
buses with alternative fuels, increasing the concentration of buses
on heavily used routes, building new roads, implementing tolls,
coordinating traffic signals, and encouraging drivers to purchases
more fuel-efficient cars."

Except that building new roads can be expensive.

Which is why you toll them, instead of paying for them out of general funds
as is usually done.

As an example, the state is building a new highway near my house; the
construction cost is just under $1B for 25mi -- nearly $40M/mi. That
doesn't include land acquisition, which here, as a general rule, is about
equal to construction cost, bringing the total to _more_ than a rail line of
similar capacity (and which would need 1/10th the land). However, since
it'll pay for itself, I have no objection; there will be no general fund
subsidy except the usual property tax exemption for roads -- which also
usually applies to rail transit.

Unfortunately, our legislature has banned tolling any highways already open,
so we're still using scarce general funds to repair and expand those, which
results in horrific congestion and poor maintenance. The local toll road
authority is now working tunneling under the existing freeways, which gets
around that law handily and will provide much-needed capacity -- at a
ridiculous cost ($1.7B for 8mi, or $213M/mi).

S

[Jack May]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by p***@panix.com

Post by Jack May
"Only a handful of rail systems are more environmentally friendly than
a Toyota Prius, and most use more energy per passenger mile than
the average automobile

Where did he get those numbers from? The numbers I've seen indicate
that trains come out *ahead*.

Trains come out ahead _on average per passenger_. The ones with the highest
patronage are also, not coincidentally, the ones with the lowest
per-passenger energy consumption. The smaller and less popular systems can
easily be operating at a loss while not skewing the average much.

The normal data used for energy per passenger comes from extremely bogus
number from statistical nonsense put out by a Government transit agency.
They just used simple averages which are essentially meaningless for the
statistical characteristics of transportation. The wide variation of real
statistics compared to the usual Gaussian statistics are what make the
number totally useless.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
However, also consider that he's attributing the inefficiency of feeder
buses to light rail. While we're at it, let's count the inefficiency of
cars for the majority of people that drive to the rail station... Yeah,
that's fair.

Compared to the extremely heavy light rail mainly running mainly empty all
day. Don't bet on it.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Which is why you toll them, instead of paying for them out of general funds
as is usually done.
As an example, the state is building a new highway near my house; the
construction cost is just under $1B for 25mi -- nearly $40M/mi.

Damn moron. You know a single example is useless, especially a multilane
freeway compared to a fraction of a lane equivalent for most light rail
systems.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Jack May
"While most rail transit uses less energy than buses, rail transit does not
operate in a vacuum: transit agencies supplement it with extensive feeder
bus operations,"

Which is a good thing to do.

Post by Jack May
O'Toole writes. "Those feeder buses tend to have low
ridership, so they have high energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions per
passenger mile.

There are plenty of 100% lowfloor buses, which don't use more energy
than the average US passenger car, and /less/ energy than the average
US SUV.

As one example, this bus of Dietrich Véhicules
Loading Image...
is based on the Renault Master (also known as Opel Movano or Nissan
Interstar), and needs 9 - 10 l / 100 km. For Americans, that's 25 mpg.
It transports a maximum of 33 people (sitting + standing), and can be
outfitted with 10 - 17 seats, depending on operator's wishes.

This is just one example for small lowfloor buses adapted to fetching
passengers from residential areas.

Here's another one, a little smaller and not 100% lowfloor, but at least
low-entry, based on the Freightliner Sprinter:
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...


Lito, Israel, based on Volkswagen Bus, 100% lowfloor:
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
That's how it is done:
Loading Image...


As long as you have one passenger, such a bus uses less energy than the
average US private vehicle.


It can't be done with light US trucks, because these are much cheaper
than European light trucks, but have less payload per weight, so the
first standing passenger makes you illegal. But the Freightliner
Sprinter is certainly a sound basis for such attempt. Is the Nissan
Interstar sold in the USA?



Hans-Joachim

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
http://www.hermann-ae.com/index_files/image003.jpg

Manufacturers can buy the Volkswagen Bus in this form,
Loading Image...
and the production will leave behind
Loading Image...


I assume, that the same is possible for the Renault Master, Opel Movano,
Nissan Interstar, Peugeot Boxer, Citroen Jumper, Fiat Ducato.


Hans-Joachim

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
http://www.hermann-ae.com/index_files/image003.jpg

Manufacturers can buy the Volkswagen Bus in this form,
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen004.jpg
and the production will leave behind
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/KoopmansB058.jpg

WTF is this? (seriously)

Tadej

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
http://www.hermann-ae.com/index_files/image003.jpg

Manufacturers can buy the Volkswagen Bus in this form,
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen004.jpg
and the production will leave behind
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/KoopmansB058.jpg

WTF is this? (seriously)

The concept is called "Zugkopf" in German, "pulling head". You design
a bus, for which you take the whole drivetrain, dashboard, driver
interface, including the front nose, of a lightweight transporter with
front wheel drive. This way, you have all the economies of scale for
the drive parts out of mass production, and only have to build a bus
body. This bus body needs a different rear axle, because none of the
front-wheel-drive transporters comes with more than 4 metric tons gross,
and you need about 5.5 metric tons gross plus a wider footprint in the
rear.
You can't use the transporter frame, because for a low-floor bus, you
need to go down to either 32-35 cm plus kneeling, or 25 cm without. So
you aren't interested in anything but the front of the vehicle, you'll
have to cut away the rest anyway.

If you are doing just 1 or 2 buses, you'll buy a standard version with
frame, and cut it away. If you are building 30 or 100 buses, Volkswagen
will happily deliver what you want, in the form pictured, at a lower
price than with a rear frame.

You are located in Austria? Visit Kutsenits (okay, I think their
production is in Slovenia, only office in Austria), and have a look.
Kutsenits uses the Volkswagen bus, too.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yccpcc&noresize=1&nostamp=1&quality=70



Hans-Joachim

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
http://www.hermann-ae.com/index_files/image003.jpg

Manufacturers can buy the Volkswagen Bus in this form,
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen004.jpg
and the production will leave behind
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/KoopmansB058.jpg

WTF is this? (seriously)

The concept is called "Zugkopf" in German, "pulling head". You design
a bus, for which you take the whole drivetrain, dashboard, driver
interface, including the front nose, of a lightweight transporter with
front wheel drive. This way, you have all the economies of scale for
the drive parts out of mass production, and only have to build a bus
body. This bus body needs a different rear axle, because none of the
front-wheel-drive transporters comes with more than 4 metric tons gross,
and you need about 5.5 metric tons gross plus a wider footprint in the
rear.
You can't use the transporter frame, because for a low-floor bus, you
need to go down to either 32-35 cm plus kneeling, or 25 cm without. So
you aren't interested in anything but the front of the vehicle, you'll
have to cut away the rest anyway.
If you are doing just 1 or 2 buses, you'll buy a standard version with
frame, and cut it away. If you are building 30 or 100 buses, Volkswagen
will happily deliver what you want, in the form pictured, at a lower
price than with a rear frame.
You are located in Austria? Visit Kutsenits (okay, I think their
production is in Slovenia, only office in Austria), and have a look.
Kutsenits uses the Volkswagen bus, too.

Where in Slovenia?

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
http://www.hervabuss.no/bilder/20031008_103.jpg
http://xover.htu.tuwien.ac.at/%7Etramway/stvkr-a-wiki/images/3/3c/Kb235-8356.jpg
http://members.chello.at/busse-wien/kleinbus.JPG
http://www.freeweb.hu/jgergely/Kutsenits%20teszt%20kepek/Kutsenits%20(18).jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/jgergely/Kutsenits%20teszt%20kepek/Kutsenits%20(11).jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/jgergely/Kutsenits%20teszt%20kepek/Kutsenits%20belulrol%20(1).jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/jgergely/Kutsenits%20teszt%20kepek/Kutsenits%20belulrol%20(2).jpg
http://www.freeweb.hu/jgergely/Kutsenits%20teszt%20kepek/Kutsenits%20muszerfala.jpg
http://oepnv-frankfurt.eu/wagengalerien/bus/957.jpg
http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yccpcc&noresize=1&nostamp=1&quality=70

All nice and fine!
What you are describing above, is the use of a modular concept of using
some standardized, large scale production cab and combine it with some
custom-made bus body that fits the special customer needs. Fine!
But, what I see on photo
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen004.jpg
is, two volkswagen-van-cabs including their frontwheels assembled to a
common frame showing into opposite directions with some space in between.
What's that good for? Two drivers trying to overpower each other in a
vehicle capable for bi-directional driving without turning? Reminds me
of modern tramways!? ;-)
Or might that be only a temporary assembly for reason X?

regards
Tadej

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
You are located in Austria? Visit Kutsenits (okay, I think their
production is in Slovenia, only office in Austria), and have a look.
Kutsenits uses the Volkswagen bus, too.

Where in Slovenia?

Murska Sobota.

Post by Tadej Brezina
All nice and fine!
What you are describing above, is the use of a modular concept of using
some standardized, large scale production cab and combine it with some
custom-made bus body that fits the special customer needs. Fine!
But, what I see on photo
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen004.jpg
is, two volkswagen-van-cabs including their frontwheels assembled to a
common frame showing into opposite directions with some space in between.
What's that good for?

How do you deliver front cabs without rear frame, and without rear axle,
in a practical fashion to the customer?
Loading Image...

Post by Tadej Brezina
Or might that be only a temporary assembly for reason X?

Sure.


Hans-Joachim

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
You are located in Austria? Visit Kutsenits (okay, I think their
production is in Slovenia, only office in Austria), and have a look.
Kutsenits uses the Volkswagen bus, too.

Where in Slovenia?

Murska Sobota.

Post by Tadej Brezina
All nice and fine!
What you are describing above, is the use of a modular concept of using
some standardized, large scale production cab and combine it with some
custom-made bus body that fits the special customer needs. Fine!
But, what I see on photo
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen004.jpg
is, two volkswagen-van-cabs including their frontwheels assembled to a
common frame showing into opposite directions with some space in between.
What's that good for?

How do you deliver front cabs without rear frame, and without rear axle,
in a practical fashion to the customer?
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u44/wietze_2007/koopmansreizen002-2.jpg

Post by Tadej Brezina
Or might that be only a temporary assembly for reason X?

Sure.

Yeah, you're right. Wasn't really smart from my side! ;-\
On the other hand ... it could have been one of those new, super secret
private transport solutions that the car industry is working on. (C)
Jack May
;-)
T.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tadej Brezina
On the other hand ... it could have been one of those new, super secret
private transport solutions that the car industry is working on. (C)
Jack May

Certainly a secret prototype for the military, supporting fast moves
after tactical change of direction.


Hans-Joachim

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
On the other hand ... it could have been one of those new, super secret
private transport solutions that the car industry is working on. (C)
Jack May

Certainly a secret prototype for the military, supporting fast moves
after tactical change of direction.

Hehe, yes, the vehicle for fierce attack AND orderly retreat!
Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina
Yeah, you're right. Wasn't really smart from my side! ;-\
On the other hand ... it could have been one of those new, super secret
private transport solutions that the car industry is working on. (C)

There is nothing secret about the advances in technology that are being
developed for cars. You only have to do some reading.

We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of technology
development to keep the US competitive. The US economy tends not to hold
on to obsolete old technology because it destroys our competitive
advantages.

[Greg Sutherland]

Post by Jack May
We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of technology
development to keep the US competitive. The US economy tends not to hold
on to obsolete old technology because it destroys our competitive
advantages.

And what competitive advantage does the US have in the multibillon$$ and
growing world market for railway rolling stock, light rail vehicles,
railway signalling (where there is a worldwide shortage of engineers) etc?

Greg

[Jack May]

Post by Greg Sutherland

Post by Jack May
We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of technology
development to keep the US competitive. The US economy tends not to
hold on to obsolete old technology because it destroys our competitive
advantages.

And what competitive advantage does the US have in the multibillon$$ and
growing world market for railway rolling stock, light rail vehicles,

Freight rail is an extremely effective part of the container shipping market
and of course has a unique market in transporting bulk materials.

Passenger rail, especially light rail has been an almost total failure for
reducing congestion or handling any significant part of the urban traffic.
Urban passenger rail is being built only because of politics and very
gullible politicians.

These are the same type politicians that causing starvation of people in the
third world now because of their support of ethanol production using food
crops.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Jack May
We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of technology
development to keep the US competitive. The US economy tends not to hold
on to obsolete old technology because it destroys our competitive
advantages.

With the balance of trade being the common judgement about such
advantages.


Hans-Joachim

[Jack May]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of technology
development to keep the US competitive. The US economy tends not to hold
on to obsolete old technology because it destroys our competitive
advantages.

With the balance of trade being the common judgement about such
advantages.

Too narrow a view. The US exports more than four times as much as China for
example. A lot of US exports do not fall under the definitions of balance
of trade. For example movies and TV shows I think are not part of the
definition of balance of trade. The US also exports a lot of high tech
services that may or may not be under the definition.

The US economy is far stronger, far more technically advanced and more
competitive than the European economy. The future is bright for the US
economy. Europe has significant economic problems.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Jack May
Too narrow a view. The US exports more than four times as much as China for
example. A lot of US exports do not fall under the definitions of balance
of trade.

Like export of high-technology Jack-May-talk.

Okay, where are those gigantic exports, which nobody else knows about?


Hans-Joachim

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
Too narrow a view. The US exports more than four times as much as China for
example. A lot of US exports do not fall under the definitions of balance
of trade.

Like export of high-technology Jack-May-talk.
Okay, where are those gigantic exports, which nobody else knows about?

CO2?

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
Yeah, you're right. Wasn't really smart from my side! ;-\
On the other hand ... it could have been one of those new, super secret
private transport solutions that the car industry is working on. (C)

There is nothing secret about the advances in technology that are being
developed for cars. You only have to do some reading.

Jack could it be that you either
a) forgot to insert your 'humour module' or
b) evolution didn't provide you with one?

Post by Jack May
We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of technology
development to keep the US competitive. The US economy tends not to hold
on to obsolete old technology because it destroys our competitive
advantages.

The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing amount of
suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through ignorant
behaviour and lifestyle - zhe chances of many others, the rest of the world.
I do not exclude us, the EU, as many of our political leaders in many
ways aspire the nonsensical race to become the 'better USA'.

Tadej

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tadej Brezina
The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing amount of
suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through ignorant
behaviour and lifestyle - zhe chances of many others, the rest of the world.

Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!



But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO₂ for Kyoto, and achieved +18%.



Hans-Joachim

[Jack May]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!

Unfortunantly there was a betrayal in the wrong direction.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO? for Kyoto, and achieved +18%.

13% is extremely low and not significant compared to what the US expect to
achieve with technology. Kyoto is an extremely stupid approach with
bankrupting economics and no hope of any useful future. Most of Europe
talks a lot but has been far less than successful in turning Europe into a
success story for Kyoto because of the horrible economic of Kyoto's
incompetence.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Jack May
13% is extremely low and not significant compared to what the US expect to
achieve with technology.

Fine. Therefore no problem, to sign for -30%. Great news!

Post by Jack May
Kyoto is an extremely stupid approach with
bankrupting economics and no hope of any useful future. Most of Europe
talks a lot but has been far less than successful in turning Europe into a
success story for Kyoto because of the horrible economic of Kyoto's
incompetence.

Nobody denies, that the Kyoto goals aren't enough. But while the US
government provided nothing but hot air and great promises for some
distant future (with a tendency towards more and more distant), the
EU 15 have indeed reduced CO2 to -1.5% by 2005 (with some more years to
achieve the promised -8%), while the USA added another 16.3% on top of
its record emissions.

The -1.5% of the EU 15 are provided by some member states fulfilling
their promises (like the UK, France, Greece or Finland), some member
states doing much more than promised (especially Sweden), some member
states grossly failing the goal (like Spain, Austria and Luxembourg).


Hans-Joachim

[Bolwerk]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
13% is extremely low and not significant compared to what the US expect to
achieve with technology.

Fine. Therefore no problem, to sign for -30%. Great news!

Post by Jack May
Kyoto is an extremely stupid approach with
bankrupting economics and no hope of any useful future. Most of Europe
talks a lot but has been far less than successful in turning Europe into a
success story for Kyoto because of the horrible economic of Kyoto's
incompetence.

Nobody denies, that the Kyoto goals aren't enough. But while the US
government provided nothing but hot air and great promises for some
distant future (with a tendency towards more and more distant), the
EU 15 have indeed reduced CO2 to -1.5% by 2005 (with some more years to
achieve the promised -8%), while the USA added another 16.3% on top of
its record emissions.
The -1.5% of the EU 15 are provided by some member states fulfilling
their promises (like the UK, France, Greece or Finland), some member
states doing much more than promised (especially Sweden), some member
states grossly failing the goal (like Spain, Austria and Luxembourg).

No, no, no, no. You don't understand. You're technological laggards.
As a matter of fact, I learned from freerepublic.com that you're so
primitive that you still beat antelope to death with thigh bones.

So you reduced your emissions. Big deal. You don't have an economy!
You never heard of software, internal combustion, or television!

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!

Unfortunantly there was a betrayal in the wrong direction.

I think that was rather the point. Can you have a betrayal in the right
direction?

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO? for Kyoto, and achieved +18%.

13% is extremely low and not significant compared to what the US expect to
achieve with technology. Kyoto is an extremely stupid approach with
bankrupting economics and no hope of any useful future. Most of Europe
talks a lot but has been far less than successful in turning Europe into a
success story for Kyoto because of the horrible economic of Kyoto's
incompetence.

I am unable to make anything of this paragraph. Can anyone help out?

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!

Unfortunantly there was a betrayal in the wrong direction.

I think that was rather the point. Can you have a betrayal in the right
direction?

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO? for Kyoto, and achieved +18%.

13% is extremely low and not significant compared to what the US
expect to achieve with technology. Kyoto is an extremely stupid
approach with bankrupting economics and no hope of any useful future.
Most of Europe talks a lot but has been far less than successful in
turning Europe into a success story for Kyoto because of the horrible
economic of Kyoto's incompetence.

I am unable to make anything of this paragraph. Can anyone help out?

You should probably ask the master himself to translate.
Tadej

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!

Unfortunantly there was a betrayal in the wrong direction.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO? for Kyoto, and achieved +18%.

13% is extremely low and not significant compared to what the US expect to
achieve with technology. Kyoto is an extremely stupid approach with
bankrupting economics and no hope of any useful future. Most of Europe
talks a lot but has been far less than successful in turning Europe into a
success story for Kyoto because of the horrible economic of Kyoto's
incompetence.

The actual world recort in the men's 100m sprint is extremely slow to
what I expect to achieve by sporting technology gimmicks!
Train, eat less, loose weight, work out? Not me!

Tadej

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tadej Brezina
The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing amount of
suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through ignorant
behaviour and lifestyle - zhe chances of many others, the rest of the world.

Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!



But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO₂ for Kyoto, and achieved +18% (until 2005). For
comparison: USA + 16.3%.

/Signing/ a treaty is for free...



Hans-Joachim

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing amount of
suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through ignorant
behaviour and lifestyle - the chances of many others, the rest of the world.

Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that Austria
has signed -13% CO₂ for Kyoto, and achieved +18% (until 2005). For
comparison: USA + 16.3%.
I do not exclude us, the EU, as many of our political leaders in many
ways aspire the nonsensical race to become the 'better USA'.

That's exactly what I meant, although we (EU, Austria) aren't putting up
"don't care for the environment" language as the US do, at least on a
nationally perceived level, were nevertheless racing towards meeting
their level of pollution. Although they (USA) have got quite an
advantage in absoulte per capita numbers.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
/Signing/ a treaty is for free...

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I
can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how
we as westerners act in respect to the lesser blessed.

Tadej

[Bolwerk]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing amount
of suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through ignorant
behaviour and lifestyle - the chances of many others, the rest of the world.

Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that
Austria has signed -13% CO₂ for Kyoto, and achieved +18% (until 2005).
For
comparison: USA + 16.3%.
I do not exclude us, the EU, as many of our political leaders in many
ways aspire the nonsensical race to become the 'better USA'.

That's exactly what I meant, although we (EU, Austria) aren't putting up
"don't care for the environment" language as the US do, at least on a
nationally perceived level, were nevertheless racing towards meeting
their level of pollution. Although they (USA) have got quite an
advantage in absoulte per capita numbers.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
/Signing/ a treaty is for free...

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I
can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how
we as westerners act in respect to the lesser blessed.

Keep in mind, we in the US aren't all bad either. I bet my personal
ecological and carbon footprint (living in a dense city with no car,
sharing a relatively large, well-insulated flat with another person,
depending on my own feet and the Subway) rivals that of all but the most
frugal Europeans. ;)

The only areas where I might be able to reduce consumption more are
things I have little to no control over, like when my landlord chooses
to run the heat (this is shared amongst the other 5-10 people living in
the building anyway) - and granted, sometimes I keep my computer on too
long. The other measures I'm (slowly) taking are supplanting
incandescents in little-used areas of my apartment, and installing
dimmers so that light intensity is low except when otherwise needed to
be high.

Also, many Americans are simply ignorant of what they do. There's no
way to change overnight, but I bet many would be willing to change if
they could be shown the damage they do to themselves and others. I
think there's a great deal of unintentional damage done even by the
"green" community in the U.S.. For instance, cities are often seen as
something to be avoided because they are obviously environmentally
intense, when actually the per capita impact of a city is much lower
than other forms of settlements. Another thing is the obsession with
setting up parks and green spaces (which are necessary for aesthetic
purposes to some extent), when really it's rain forests and wetlands
that need protecting for sake of our (global) oxygen supply.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Bolwerk
Keep in mind, we in the US aren't all bad either.

Not? :-)

Post by Bolwerk
I bet my personal
ecological and carbon footprint (living in a dense city with no car,
sharing a relatively large, well-insulated flat with another person,
depending on my own feet and the Subway) rivals that of all but the most
frugal Europeans. ;)
The only areas where I might be able to reduce consumption more are
things I have little to no control over, like when my landlord chooses
to run the heat

The main difference in energy consumption, USA - EU, is created by

1) Passenger transport
2) Household heating/cooling, mostly by very different insulation
standards.
3) Power station efficiency, especially for the coal plants.

The US industry does not look that bad in comparison.


Hans-Joachim

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The main difference in energy consumption, USA - EU, is created by
1) Passenger transport
2) Household heating/cooling, mostly by very different insulation
standards.

Also, rather different climate numbers. If we moved most of Chicago and
the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to, say, Texas we would probably be
able to beat the EU in energy use reductions.

Many large European cities are in more reasonable climates.

Also, except for, say, the British Royal family and the like, most
European homes seem to be of a much more reasonable size for a family to
live in.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
3) Power station efficiency, especially for the coal plants.
The US industry does not look that bad in comparison.

[Bolwerk]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The main difference in energy consumption, USA - EU, is created by
1) Passenger transport
2) Household heating/cooling, mostly by very different insulation
standards.

Also, rather different climate numbers. If we moved most of Chicago and
the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to, say, Texas we would probably be
able to beat the EU in energy use reductions.
Many large European cities are in more reasonable climates.

What makes you think Texas is more energy efficient than Chicago or
Ohio? I would think given the sprawl in newer development and the
likely increased use of air conditioning (possibly 9 months of the
year), that Texas would be about the worse place to move people if you
want to pursue a lower energy use policy.

You'd only be taking people out of areas where they might commute
shorter distances, or even take transit, and sticking them where they
commute longer distance, probably with more traffic jams.

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Also, except for, say, the British Royal family and the like, most
European homes seem to be of a much more reasonable size for a family to
live in.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
3) Power station efficiency, especially for the coal plants.
The US industry does not look that bad in comparison.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Also, rather different climate numbers. If we moved most of Chicago and
the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to, say, Texas we would probably be
able to beat the EU in energy use reductions.
Many large European cities are in more reasonable climates.

What makes you think Texas is more energy efficient than Chicago or
Ohio? I would think given the sprawl in newer development and the
likely increased use of air conditioning (possibly 9 months of the
year), that Texas would be about the worse place to move people if you
want to pursue a lower energy use policy.

Air conditioning from 120 degrees F to human comfort temperatures (say, 68
degrees F) requires a temperature difference of 52 degrees F.

Heating from -10 degrees F to 68 degrees F requires a temperature
difference of 78 degrees. In extreme cases in Chicago the lower
temperature might be -20F or -40F.

So, if all insulation, infiltration, and other losses to the outside are
kept the same, there is less energy used in maintaining the same
temperature indoors with air conditioning than with heat in those
particular climates because the temperature difference tends to be
considerably greater in those cities.

Also, those cities can get quite warm and humid during the summer months
too, which means the "9 months out of the year" problem is still a
problem.

[Bolwerk]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Bolwerk

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Also, rather different climate numbers. If we moved most of Chicago and
the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to, say, Texas we would probably be
able to beat the EU in energy use reductions.
Many large European cities are in more reasonable climates.

In any case, I would think most European cities away from the
Mediterranean are, at best, comparable in climate to the northeast
United States. These countries (Germany, the UK, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and much of France) are also among the most developed
European countries - easily comparable to the United States in standard
of living, level of development, etc.. With the exception of Italy,
most of the rest of the continent is somewhat less developed (this
includes Spain, Greece, Portugal, among others).

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Bolwerk
What makes you think Texas is more energy efficient than Chicago or
Ohio? I would think given the sprawl in newer development and the
likely increased use of air conditioning (possibly 9 months of the
year), that Texas would be about the worse place to move people if you
want to pursue a lower energy use policy.

Air conditioning from 120 degrees F to human comfort temperatures (say, 68
degrees F) requires a temperature difference of 52 degrees F.
Heating from -10 degrees F to 68 degrees F requires a temperature
difference of 78 degrees. In extreme cases in Chicago the lower
temperature might be -20F or -40F.
So, if all insulation, infiltration, and other losses to the outside are
kept the same, there is less energy used in maintaining the same
temperature indoors with air conditioning than with heat in those
particular climates because the temperature difference tends to be
considerably greater in those cities.

Given that even the most energy-efficient air conditioners require more
energy to operate than they remove heat from the air, I don't think it's
quite that simple. Regarding high summer temperatures, the only truly
energy-efficient option is to do what the Mediterranean peoples do: deal
with it, which often means taking a break from work during the day.

I wasn't just talking about A/C though. Lifestyles in Texas are
undoubtedly less energy efficient than transit-friendlier places. Part
of that is that much of Texas is simply newer construction.

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Also, those cities can get quite warm and humid during the summer months
too, which means the "9 months out of the year" problem is still a
problem.

Yes, it's an issue to some extent just about anywhere. I'm guessing, in
energy expenditure, they're consuming less than Texas because they
aren't using air conditioning for as many months.

Re heat, in denser cities with multi-dwelling units, heat escaping from
a lower unit helps warm the units above it. No such benefit is found
less dense housing.

[R.C. Payne]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Bolwerk

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Also, rather different climate numbers. If we moved most of Chicago and
the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania to, say, Texas we would probably be
able to beat the EU in energy use reductions.
Many large European cities are in more reasonable climates.

What makes you think Texas is more energy efficient than Chicago or
Ohio? I would think given the sprawl in newer development and the
likely increased use of air conditioning (possibly 9 months of the
year), that Texas would be about the worse place to move people if you
want to pursue a lower energy use policy.

Air conditioning from 120 degrees F to human comfort temperatures (say, 68
degrees F) requires a temperature difference of 52 degrees F.
Heating from -10 degrees F to 68 degrees F requires a temperature
difference of 78 degrees. In extreme cases in Chicago the lower
temperature might be -20F or -40F.
So, if all insulation, infiltration, and other losses to the outside are
kept the same, there is less energy used in maintaining the same
temperature indoors with air conditioning than with heat in those
particular climates because the temperature difference tends to be
considerably greater in those cities.

Problem here is that, while it is easy to produce a high temperature
heat source artificially, it is difficult to produce a low temperature
heat sink artificially. Basically you get knobbled by the second law of
thermodynamics. Also, in cold weather, the solar radiation (such that
it is) acts against the loss of heat to the atmosphere, while in hot
weather, direct solar radiation adds to heat ingress from hot surroundings.

Robin

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing
amount of suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through
ignorant behaviour and lifestyle - the chances of many others, the
rest of the world.

Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that
Austria has signed -13% CO₂ for Kyoto, and achieved +18% (until
2005). For
comparison: USA + 16.3%.
I do not exclude us, the EU, as many of our political leaders in many
ways aspire the nonsensical race to become the 'better USA'.

That's exactly what I meant, although we (EU, Austria) aren't putting
up "don't care for the environment" language as the US do, at least
on a nationally perceived level, were nevertheless racing towards
meeting their level of pollution. Although they (USA) have got quite
an advantage in absoulte per capita numbers.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
/Signing/ a treaty is for free...

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport,
I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame,
how we as westerners act in respect to the lesser blessed.

Keep in mind, we in the US aren't all bad either. I bet my personal
ecological and carbon footprint (living in a dense city with no car,
sharing a relatively large, well-insulated flat with another person,
depending on my own feet and the Subway) rivals that of all but the most
frugal Europeans. ;)
The only areas where I might be able to reduce consumption more are
things I have little to no control over, like when my landlord chooses
to run the heat (this is shared amongst the other 5-10 people living in
the building anyway) - and granted, sometimes I keep my computer on too
long. The other measures I'm (slowly) taking are supplanting
incandescents in little-used areas of my apartment, and installing
dimmers so that light intensity is low except when otherwise needed to
be high.
Also, many Americans are simply ignorant of what they do. There's no
way to change overnight, but I bet many would be willing to change if
they could be shown the damage they do to themselves and others. I
think there's a great deal of unintentional damage done even by the
"green" community in the U.S.. For instance, cities are often seen as
something to be avoided because they are obviously environmentally
intense, when actually the per capita impact of a city is much lower
than other forms of settlements. Another thing is the obsession with
setting up parks and green spaces (which are necessary for aesthetic
purposes to some extent), when really it's rain forests and wetlands
that need protecting for sake of our (global) oxygen supply.

The day I left Lafayette, I met a guy who was cycling across country
from /Brownsville/ with an ordinary street bike and a tiny trailer. I
don't know how far he got, but A1 for effort.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing
amount of suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through
ignorant behaviour and lifestyle - the chances of many others, the
rest of the world.

Just imagine, where we could stand today, without a little election
betrayal in Florida!
But you might want to check your wording against the fact, that
Austria has signed -13% CO₂ for Kyoto, and achieved +18% (until
2005). For
comparison: USA + 16.3%.
I do not exclude us, the EU, as many of our political leaders in many
ways aspire the nonsensical race to become the 'better USA'.

That's exactly what I meant, although we (EU, Austria) aren't putting
up "don't care for the environment" language as the US do, at least
on a nationally perceived level, were nevertheless racing towards
meeting their level of pollution. Although they (USA) have got quite
an advantage in absoulte per capita numbers.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
/Signing/ a treaty is for free...

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport,
I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame,
how we as westerners act in respect to the lesser blessed.

Keep in mind, we in the US aren't all bad either. I bet my personal
ecological and carbon footprint (living in a dense city with no car,
sharing a relatively large, well-insulated flat with another person,
depending on my own feet and the Subway) rivals that of all but the most
frugal Europeans. ;)

Yeah but you and me and a lot of others are still a minority compared to
the ones who do not think or do not care. Or think that technology as a
kind of Mother Theresa will cure any misbehaviour.

Post by Bolwerk
The only areas where I might be able to reduce consumption more are
things I have little to no control over, like when my landlord chooses
to run the heat (this is shared amongst the other 5-10 people living in
the building anyway) - and granted, sometimes I keep my computer on too
long. The other measures I'm (slowly) taking are supplanting
incandescents in little-used areas of my apartment, and installing
dimmers so that light intensity is low except when otherwise needed to
be high.
Also, many Americans are simply ignorant of what they do.

Yeah I think that's probably the main reason, nobody actually claims
that American individuals might be more bad than others.
Ignorance in combination with bad information (media and the picture of
reality that's being perceived in everyday's actions9.

Post by Bolwerk
There's no
way to change overnight, but I bet many would be willing to change if
they could be shown the damage they do to themselves and others. I
think there's a great deal of unintentional damage done even by the
"green" community in the U.S.. For instance, cities are often seen as
something to be avoided because they are obviously environmentally
intense, when actually the per capita impact of a city is much lower
than other forms of settlements. Another thing is the obsession with
setting up parks and green spaces (which are necessary for aesthetic
purposes to some extent), when really it's rain forests and wetlands
that need protecting for sake of our (global) oxygen supply.

Tadej

[Jack May]

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to support
the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average carbon
footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I can't be
ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering approaches.
Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has no break through
strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into economic problems with
little resulting progress. Technology is going to beat taxing approaches
every time

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to support
the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average carbon
footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I can't be
ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering approaches.
Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has no break through
strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into economic problems with
little resulting progress. Technology is going to beat taxing approaches
every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I
can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has
no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into
economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is going to
beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good

All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.

Got it?

:-)

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I
can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has
no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into
economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is going to
beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Thanks

A puzzled islander. :-)

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I
can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has
no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into
economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is going to
beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport,
I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame,
how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development
of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has
no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into
economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is going
to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?

No, I think is more:

"Nobody should take responsibility, because that would admit there are
things we are doing now that are causing the problem."

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in
transport, I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do
cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the
development of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic
engineering approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead
in approach has no break through strategy, just dragging Europe
deeper and deeper into economic problems with little resulting
progress. Technology is going to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

Yes, but you have to allow for the deep ignorance of Americans about the
outside world, which is not all their fault. For an English person, eg,
it is difficult to explain where you are from if it is not London or
Liverpool, which they perceive as virtually twin cities. Even Edinburgh
is considered nearby which, on an American scale, it is.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in
transport, I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary
the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development
of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach
has no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper
into economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is
going to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

Yes, but you have to allow for the deep ignorance of Americans about the
outside world, which is not all their fault. For an English person, eg,
it is difficult to explain where you are from if it is not London or
Liverpool, which they perceive as virtually twin cities. Even Edinburgh
is considered nearby which, on an American scale, it is.

My husband runs a conference in Europe, which Americans go to speak at and
attend. The two years we were in Edinburgh, we tried to get an English
colleague to speak at it. Too far, he said...

[Pat]

On Apr 24, 10:12 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in
transport, I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary
the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development
of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach
has no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper
into economic problems with little resulting progress.  Technology is
going to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

Yes, but you have to allow for the deep ignorance of Americans about the
outside world, which is not all their fault.  For an English person, eg,
it is difficult to explain where you are from if it is not London or
Liverpool, which they perceive as virtually twin cities.  Even Edinburgh
is considered nearby which, on an American scale, it is.

My husband runs a conference in Europe, which Americans go to speak at and
attend.  The two years we were in Edinburgh, we tried to get an English
colleague to speak at it.  Too far, he said...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There are often stories (I don't know how reliable) of foreign
tourists who go to NYC and then want to make a quick day-trip to
Niagara Falls since they are in NY. Then they find out how far away
it is. What is it, something like 400 miles.

[Martin Edwards]

On Apr 24, 10:12 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in
transport, I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary
the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development
of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach
has no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper
into economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is
going to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

Yes, but you have to allow for the deep ignorance of Americans about the
outside world, which is not all their fault. For an English person, eg,
it is difficult to explain where you are from if it is not London or
Liverpool, which they perceive as virtually twin cities. Even Edinburgh
is considered nearby which, on an American scale, it is.

My husband runs a conference in Europe, which Americans go to speak at and
attend. The two years we were in Edinburgh, we tried to get an English
colleague to speak at it. Too far, he said...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There are often stories (I don't know how reliable) of foreign
tourists who go to NYC and then want to make a quick day-trip to
Niagara Falls since they are in NY. Then they find out how far away
it is. What is it, something like 400 miles.

Yes, it is also true that many British people have no idea how big some
states are. They also think that New York means Manhattan. Many people
will watch cop shows based in New York or LA and have no idea that there
is a very large continent in between. This is not helped by the shows
themselves, in which our heroes in NY get a plane to LA as if it was
Poughkeepsie.

[Bolwerk]

On Apr 24, 10:12 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in
transport, I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary
the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development
of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach
has no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper
into economic problems with little resulting progress. Technology is
going to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

Yes, but you have to allow for the deep ignorance of Americans about the
outside world, which is not all their fault. For an English person, eg,
it is difficult to explain where you are from if it is not London or
Liverpool, which they perceive as virtually twin cities. Even Edinburgh
is considered nearby which, on an American scale, it is.

My husband runs a conference in Europe, which Americans go to speak at and
attend. The two years we were in Edinburgh, we tried to get an English
colleague to speak at it. Too far, he said...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There are often stories (I don't know how reliable) of foreign
tourists who go to NYC and then want to make a quick day-trip to
Niagara Falls since they are in NY. Then they find out how far away
it is. What is it, something like 400 miles.

Yeah, I've had friends fall into that trap. But I've had American
friends fall into the trap of planning weeks to journey around Germany,
when they could have done with much less time.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
There are often stories (I don't know how reliable) of foreign
tourists who go to NYC and then want to make a quick day-trip to
Niagara Falls since they are in NY. Then they find out how far away
it is. What is it, something like 400 miles.

Yeah, I've had friends fall into that trap. But I've had American friends
fall into the trap of planning weeks to journey around Germany, when they
could have done with much less time.

I guess if they're only interested in seeing a couple of things in each
major city and that's it. You could spend weeks in the Lake Constance
region, for instance, and just scratch the surface.

[Pat]

On Apr 24, 10:12 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to
support the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average
carbon footprint and working in the field of reducing it in
transport, I can't be ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary
the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development
of alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering
approaches. Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach
has no break through strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper
into economic problems with little resulting progress.  Technology is
going to beat taxing approaches every time

Can anyone translate this pidgin?

Self-discipline=bad
Technology=good
All problems will be solved through the wonders of American brain power.
Got it?
:-)

Could this be compared to
"Everybody except me take responsibility!"?
Tadej

Yes, but you have to allow for the deep ignorance of Americans about the
outside world, which is not all their fault.  For an English person, eg,
it is difficult to explain where you are from if it is not London or
Liverpool, which they perceive as virtually twin cities.  Even Edinburgh
is considered nearby which, on an American scale, it is.

My husband runs a conference in Europe, which Americans go to speak at and
attend.  The two years we were in Edinburgh, we tried to get an English
colleague to speak at it.  Too far, he said...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There are often stories (I don't know how reliable) of foreign
tourists who go to NYC and then want to make a quick day-trip to
Niagara Falls since they are in NY.  Then they find out how far away
it is.  What is it, something like 400 miles.

Yeah, I've had friends fall into that trap.  But I've had American
friends fall into the trap of planning weeks to journey around Germany,
when they could have done with much less time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

When I was in college, I met a guy from a local company (I think
Carborundum but I don't really remember). He carried 2 sets of
business cards. For Americans, he told everyone he was from Buffalo
because they had heard of that. For Europeans, he said he was from
Niagara Falls because they had heard of that. I thought that was an
interesting way to get around the cultural issues of location.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Jack May
The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering approaches.

Great! Thus the USA have no problem, to sign for -50%.

Post by Jack May
Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has no break through
strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into economic problems with
little resulting progress. Technology is going to beat taxing approaches
every time

That's fine, as soon there isn't just empty talk, but action. Judgement
looks at /results/, not blahblah.


Hans-Joachim

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

I'ts a "national shame" that our politicians didn't do anything to support
the treaty's (and moral) obligation within the last 10 years.
But actually as one of the one with personally a way below average carbon
footprint and working in the field of reducing it in transport, I can't be
ashamed much of myself. Nevertheless I do cary the shame, how

The US is predicting I think over 60% CO2 decline with the development of
alternative fuels with venture capital and genetic engineering approaches.
Europe with its carbon tax and equally dead in approach has no break through
strategy, just dragging Europe deeper and deeper into economic problems with
little resulting progress. Technology is going to beat taxing approaches
every time

Well there have been predictions for every imaginable thing on earth.
How much the then compere to reality is written on another sheet of
paper (probably a germanism!?).
Tadej

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tadej Brezina
That's exactly what I meant, although we (EU, Austria) aren't putting up
"don't care for the environment" language as the US do, at least on a
nationally perceived level,

As long as they reduce emissions, I don't care how much "don't care for
the environment" language is issued by the US government. It's the facts
that count.

Post by Tadej Brezina
were nevertheless racing towards meeting
their level of pollution.

If "we" means Austria - yes.

If "we" means the EU - no. The EU 15 have achieved a reduction, albeit a
very small one. Germany showed -18.4% by 2005, though that was rather
easy thanks to the inefficient and dirty GDR industries, plus emissions
in Germany being rather high.

Post by Tadej Brezina
Although they (USA) have got quite an
advantage in absoulte per capita numbers.

# 1: Qatar (40,6 t)
# 2: UAEmirates (28,2 t)
# 3: Kuwait (25 t)
# 4: Bahrain (20 t)
# 5: USA (19,6 t)
# 6: Luxembourg (17,9 t)
# 7: Canada (17,0 t)
# 8: Trinidad & Tobago (16,8 t)
# 9: Australia (16,5 t)
# 10: Singapore (13,8 t)



Hans-Joachim

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
# 1: Qatar (40,6 t)
# 2: UAEmirates (28,2 t)
# 3: Kuwait (25 t)
# 4: Bahrain (20 t)
# 5: USA (19,6 t)
# 6: Luxembourg (17,9 t)
# 7: Canada (17,0 t)
# 8: Trinidad & Tobago (16,8 t)
# 9: Australia (16,5 t)
# 10: Singapore (13,8 t)

Figures that I saw published by the BBC suggested that Australia is now
ahead of the USA in terms of per capita. Most of that is due to reliance
on coal and the significantly less hydro potential of Australia. It
wasn't a huge difference.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Figures that I saw published by the BBC suggested that Australia is now
ahead of the USA in terms of per capita. Most of that is due to reliance
on coal and the significantly less hydro potential of Australia. It
wasn't a huge difference.

It would mean quite an increase, though, given the increase of emissions
in the USA.

At least, there's some fairness in it, because Australia will be one of
the worst affected countries.


Hans-Joachim

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by g***@yahoo.com
Figures that I saw published by the BBC suggested that Australia is now
ahead of the USA in terms of per capita. Most of that is due to reliance
on coal and the significantly less hydro potential of Australia. It
wasn't a huge difference.

It would mean quite an increase, though, given the increase of emissions
in the USA.
At least, there's some fairness in it, because Australia will be one of
the worst affected countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm

"Australians were found to be the world's worst polluters per capita,
producing five times as much CO2 from generating power as China."

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
That's exactly what I meant, although we (EU, Austria) aren't putting up
"don't care for the environment" language as the US do, at least on a
nationally perceived level,

As long as they reduce emissions, I don't care how much "don't care for
the environment" language is issued by the US government. It's the facts
that count.

Yes. And? Are they? Not to my knowledge.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
were nevertheless racing towards meeting
their level of pollution.

If "we" means Austria - yes.
If "we" means the EU - no. The EU 15 have achieved a reduction, albeit a
very small one. Germany showed -18.4% by 2005, though that was rather
easy thanks to the inefficient and dirty GDR industries, plus emissions
in Germany being rather high.

Yeah, it's easy to stink with full diapers! ;-)
I did underline the catastrophic performance of "us" (=Austria)
somewhere before in this thread.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tadej Brezina
Although they (USA) have got quite an
advantage in absoulte per capita numbers.

# 1: Qatar (40,6 t)
# 2: UAEmirates (28,2 t)
# 3: Kuwait (25 t)
# 4: Bahrain (20 t)
# 5: USA (19,6 t)
# 6: Luxembourg (17,9 t)
# 7: Canada (17,0 t)
# 8: Trinidad & Tobago (16,8 t)
# 9: Australia (16,5 t)
# 10: Singapore (13,8 t)

Where are those numbers from?
But I stand corrected, that I did not account for the beyound any
reasonability energy consuming and CO2-spewing gulf countries.
What surprises me is, that Luxembourg and T&T are so high up?
Reasons? Is that some remaining heavy industry? Don't the have a quite
efficient public transit system in Luxembourg?

regards
Tadej

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina
Yeah, you're right. Wasn't really smart from my side! ;-\
On the other hand ... it could have been one of those new, super
secret private transport solutions that the car industry is working
on. (C)

There is nothing secret about the advances in technology that are
being developed for cars. You only have to do some reading.

Jack could it be that you either
a) forgot to insert your 'humour module' or
b) evolution didn't provide you with one?

This is a cultural problem which often crops up in newsgroups. I often
crack what I think is a joke, only to elicit a line by line rebuttal.

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
We live in a society where the economy is heavily dependent of
technology development to keep the US competitive. The US economy
tends not to hold on to obsolete old technology because it destroys
our competitive advantages.

The rest of the world looks upon you, the USA, with increasing amount of
suspiciousness as you, the USA, tend to destroy - through ignorant
behaviour and lifestyle - zhe chances of many others, the rest of the world.
I do not exclude us, the EU, as many of our political leaders in many
ways aspire the nonsensical race to become the 'better USA'.
Tadej

This is certainly the case in the UK. An anti-Atlanticist has nobody to
vote for, as the only two parties with any chance of power are
Atlanticist to the core.