Who is fed up with the "green" movement?

nate_bartlet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,081
only earlier today there was on the news about a Green Taxi Cab firm in london which uses... you guessed it nothing but Toyota Prius' seems like they were just trying to prove how 'green and caring about mother Earth' they are. Quite frankly and to quote Eric Cartman "it sounds like a bunch of hippy tree hugging hippy crap"
if anyone tries to buy a Toyota Prius to prove how 'green' they are. they should be strapped into a plane entering the red bull challenge and stay there until they go as 'green' as they think the prius is.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,727
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
only earlier today there was on the news about a Green Taxi Cab firm in london which uses... you guessed it nothing but Toyota Prius' seems like they were just trying to prove how 'green and caring about mother Earth' they are. Quite frankly and to quote Eric Cartman "it sounds like a bunch of hippy tree hugging hippy crap"
if anyone tries to buy a Toyota Prius to prove how 'green' they are. they should be strapped into a plane entering the red bull challenge and stay there until they go as 'green' as they think the prius is.
A large number of NYC cabs are Hybrid Camry, Altima and Explorer.
 

edkwon

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
6,478
Location
The OC
Car(s)
2017 Kia Niro, 2015 911 Turbo
I don't really tune cars don't have the resources for it at the moment, point is more that I can't do what I want with something I own because of a stupid notion that it would kill the environment.
In theory your point is valid, in reality it holds no water because many parts of the country already have strict emissions laws, yet the modder/tuner scene is strong in those areas. They keep their cars tuned until they need to get reinspected, then throw their stock exhausts/cats back on to pass emissions, then return to their former mods again.
 

Dsemaj

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
2,956
Location
Adelaide, Australia.
Car(s)
2003 Urabus Impreza WRX, 1997 Fraud Falcs EL Wagon
I'm beyond caring anymore. If we're real quiet about it, it'll go away. On the plus side, bad stimga for V8s = cheap awesomeness.

Now excuse me while I go start up my Bluebird to let it idle for a couple of hours.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,727
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
In theory your point is valid, in reality it holds no water because many parts of the country already have strict emissions laws, yet the modder/tuner scene is strong in those areas. They keep their cars tuned until they need to get reinspected, then throw their stock exhausts/cats back on to pass emissions, then return to their former mods again.
Doesn't always work, depends on how much mods were done. For the most part they end up having to find someone who will pass their emissions. Much easier with an OBDI car obviously.
 

torqueless

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
609
Location
road atlanta
Car(s)
rsx type s
the green movement is hardly new. Teddy Roosevelt realized the need for conservation in the early 1900's this notion that the green movement is this hollywood created entity is false.

what hollywood has done, however has glamorized it. "buy this product, it's earth friendly" "if you eat this food you're saving rice farmers in laos" etc.

they've marketed being environmentally friendly and sold it to you as a product.

i'm not going to let that keep me from being environmentally friendly however...i will continue to recycle, conserve power, save water, donate to various groups...because i think it's a worthy cause.
 
Last edited:

edkwon

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
6,478
Location
The OC
Car(s)
2017 Kia Niro, 2015 911 Turbo
Doesn't always work, depends on how much mods were done. For the most part they end up having to find someone who will pass their emissions. Much easier with an OBDI car obviously.
Still do you see a severe drop in car tuning in europe, asia or america despite current strict emissions laws? No, of course not, its still going strong and if ppl want to do it, they'll figure out a way, in the meantime those who don't have an interest in that will be forced to buy and care for cleaner vehicles which offsets our bad habits. So in fact you should be happy that the green movement is being pushed. If everyone is being cleaner, that gives us a little more room to pollute the air.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,727
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Still do you see a severe drop in car tuning in europe, asia or america despite current strict emissions laws? No, of course not, its still going strong and if ppl want to do it, they'll figure out a way, in the meantime those who don't have an interest in that will be forced to buy and care for cleaner vehicles which offsets our bad habits. So in fact you should be happy that the green movement is being pushed. If everyone is being cleaner, that gives us a little more room to pollute the air.
See the problem is that neither you nor I have any figures to back up that claim. The other problem is that the "green" movement is stopping us from doing what we want with cars that we bought, which I am completely against. Its MINE I want to do what I want with it, be it running open headers or flames out the exhaust. Or putting 3 cats on it and choking the shit out of the engine to make it pollute less.
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
One of the troubles with the "Green Movement" is that it is all negative. How about giving us some fixes for the problems? No they can't do that because what ever the fix is it offends another part of the green movement - result paralysis.

Nuclear power stations to fix the pollution from coal and gas - no can't have that, building the Severn Barrage, no think about the newts, will someone save the newts. .... etc.

Makes me sick of them.

Discovery channel prog over here where 8 fixes are being investigated, if you can get it its worth a look.
 
Last edited:

edkwon

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
6,478
Location
The OC
Car(s)
2017 Kia Niro, 2015 911 Turbo
See the problem is that neither you nor I have any figures to back up that claim. The other problem is that the "green" movement is stopping us from doing what we want with cars that we bought, which I am completely against. Its MINE I want to do what I want with it, be it running open headers or flames out the exhaust. Or putting 3 cats on it and choking the shit out of the engine to make it pollute less.
Your logic has a hole in it tho. We can do whatever we like to our cars, including installing airplane wings and machine guns, provided they never go on PUBLIC tax-payer law enforced roads. But once we take our private property cars onto a public domain shared by other ppl who don't care for cars with airplane wings, machine guns and smoke generators, then we get bound by the same laws and regulations that other have to abide by, so they can't machine gun us on the road either. I can respect that because it actually benefits us. While we make our cars a little faster and noiser with some performance modding, some psycho nutcase could be installing weapons and some Mad Max style spiked cow catcher on the front grille of his pickup truck and slamming cars that are too slow out of his way and impaling passengers in the head with cow-catcher spikes...just because he feels its HIS Mad Max truck and he can do what he wants.

Ridiculous example, but you see my point. Why do you think cars that only see track (not sharing that with the majority of the public) use...you can do whatever the hell you want, while 'road-legal' cars have to have a degree of regulation. So this whole attitude of 'its MY CAR, i should be able to do WHATEVER I WANT' gets a little childish and short-sighted.
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
The damn car is not the problem it is the easy target! Get a grip. Electric cars are just cars powered by someone who is burning fossile fuels a long way away and then transmitting the power for hundreds of miles - i.e. not a solution, to the the minuscule part that the car is playing in global warming. I am sure that setting light to all the oil wells in Kuwait in the 1990s did not help much did it?
 
Last edited:

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,783
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
The damn car is not the problem it is the easy target! Get a grip. Electric cars are just cars powered by someone who is burning fossile fuels a long way away and then transmitting the power for hundreds of miles - i.e. not a solution, to the the minuscule part that the car is playing in global warming. I am sure that setting light to all the oil wells in Kuwait in the 1990s did not help much did it?
I quote. Everyone is crazy about "zero emission vehicles" nowadays. But such things just don't exist, as cobol74 already pointed out. So fighting against cars is rather pointless. It helps, sure, but what would really help would be to, for example, live in some place where you don't need to use your car to get to work or to get to the supermarket. But I don't see many people fighting against bad designed cities.

Why?

Also: it is a fact that, in cities, Buildings heating (and refrigeration) produces almost the same amount of pollution as it is produced by ALL vehicles (including commercial ones). So it amazes me that few people are screaming loud against the incredible amount of energy wasted in overheating houses during winter or abusing air conditioning during summer... Here in Italy they are just starting to barely notice this simple fact. Let's hope for the best...
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
DONOR
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
13,993
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Even people who really are in the green movement, like some profs at my university, would NEVER encorage you to buy a "green"/hybrid/whatever car as long as your old one is still running cause any energy/pollution saved by driving this "green" car could never make up the costs of producing a car first place.
The only people who want you to buy a new "green" car are the carmakers who see it as yet another way to abandon you perfectly good car for a new one. And if you find out the green car is shit, even better, you have to buy another conventional car from them to get rid of your ecomobile.
That said, i am all for more mpg in newer cars, for electric cars, hybrids, i don't care. It just should not hurt the performance/practicality/car-ness of the car. Saving energy always means saving money, and saving money is good. Everyone loves saving money. Which means: Once green cars can compete with normal cars in terms of being a car, not being green, everyone will buy them anyways.
...and don't even get me started about pseudo-green celebrities who have their new hybrid FLOWN IN so they can start saving the environment on the spot, like Paul McCartney did.

EDIT: Knowing that it will start a discussiom with Spectre, switching to nuclear energy would only buy us a couple of dozen years before we run out of uranium like we're running out of oil right now, reprocessing nuclear waste included. According to OECD data, the supply of Uranium will run out around 2070, give or take a few years, given today's consumption. Even if this date would be a hundred years off, it's still worrying if we start investing in nuclear energy, thus increasing consumption. Maybe reprocessing might buy as a couple of dozen years afterwards, but that's still not really a long-term solution.
Still it might be a short-term solution to buy us some time to really get into solar power or massive offshore water power plants, but in the long run, it will only switch the supply problem from oil to uranium, adding another waste problem along the way.
 
Last edited:

Pepto

FinalGear Forza 2 Time Attack Winner
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
241


Dear annonymous,

It is spelled "fact", not "fail".

The physiologic production of CO2 by mammals varies with the type of fuel being metabolised. The metabolism of fat produces 30% less CO2 than the metabolism of carbohydrates for the same amount of oxygen used (ie: the same metabolic rate).

An average omnivorous diet contains about 39% of its calories as fat. A lenient ovo-lacto vegetarian diet contains about 32% fat and a vegan diet, 10% fat. Given the average human daily CO2 production is about 900 grams per day* (and it is, as I measure it frequently in my line of work), it can be easily calculated that (all other things being equal) an ovo-lacto diet will produce 10kg more CO2 per year than an omnivorous diet, and a vegan diet will produce 45kg more per year.

It is, yet another, inconvenient truth. :p


* that's 328.5 kg/year (more on a leap year)
Actually:

From (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pdf): a person consuming
a mixed diet with the mean American caloric content and composition causes the emissions of 1485 kg CO2-equivalent above the emissions associated with consuming the same number of calories, but from plant sources. Far from trivial, nationally this difference amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.


Happy to help. :)
 
Last edited:

GerFix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,461
Location
Sydney, Australia
Car(s)
Jaguar XKR, BMW E92 M3, MG TF, Riv 4000
^ That article is about greenhouse gas emissions related to agriculture and other activities involved in food production ... rather than greenhouse gas emissions from the human body itself.

The main thesis is that farming vegitation produces more edible energy than farming animals; per ton of CO2 produced by each activity. It also highlights the amount of GHGs emitted by animals (800kg of the 1485kg difference you quoted is attributable to methane and nitrous oxide produced by livestock).
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,727
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Your logic has a hole in it tho. We can do whatever we like to our cars, including installing airplane wings and machine guns, provided they never go on PUBLIC tax-payer law enforced roads. But once we take our private property cars onto a public domain shared by other ppl who don't care for cars with airplane wings, machine guns and smoke generators, then we get bound by the same laws and regulations that other have to abide by, so they can't machine gun us on the road either. I can respect that because it actually benefits us. While we make our cars a little faster and noiser with some performance modding, some psycho nutcase could be installing weapons and some Mad Max style spiked cow catcher on the front grille of his pickup truck and slamming cars that are too slow out of his way and impaling passengers in the head with cow-catcher spikes...just because he feels its HIS Mad Max truck and he can do what he wants.

Ridiculous example, but you see my point. Why do you think cars that only see track (not sharing that with the majority of the public) use...you can do whatever the hell you want, while 'road-legal' cars have to have a degree of regulation. So this whole attitude of 'its MY CAR, i should be able to do WHATEVER I WANT' gets a little childish and short-sighted.
Well there is an obvious health and safety hazard with a Mad Max style truck (which sounds absolutely awesome I must add) it is not so with a tuner but I see your point.
EDIT: Knowing that it will start a discussiom with Spectre, switching to nuclear energy would only buy us a couple of dozen years before we run out of uranium like we're running out of oil right now, reprocessing nuclear waste included. According to OECD data, the supply of Uranium will run out around 2070, give or take a few years, given today's consumption. Even if this date would be a hundred years off, it's still worrying if we start investing in nuclear energy, thus increasing consumption. Maybe reprocessing might buy as a couple of dozen years afterwards, but that's still not really a long-term solution.
Still it might be a short-term solution to buy us some time to really get into solar power or massive offshore water power plants, but in the long run, it will only switch the supply problem from oil to uranium, adding another waste problem along the way.
The problem with using "natural" power is that at the moment it would not be able to server our needs. A city like NY would not be served with tidal generators (though we do have a pilot running) alone, it is not sunny enough for solar power and even though the skyscrapers are prime for wind power I suspect they would barely be able to break even for themselves much less rest of the grid.

There is also the fact that nuclear power plants can run on one load of fuel for a very long time, you should also keep in mind that uranium is not the only nuclear material around and I'm pretty sure its possible to run power plants on other materials as well. Also even if it takes 70 years before we can't use nukes we would have 70 years to implement better way of power generation.
 
Last edited:

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
DONOR
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
13,993
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
Also even if it takes 70 years before we can't use nukes we would have 70 years to implement better way of power generation.
That's what i mean by "short-time solution" to buy time ^^
 

Pepto

FinalGear Forza 2 Time Attack Winner
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
241
^ That article is about greenhouse gas emissions related to agriculture and other activities involved in food production ... rather than greenhouse gas emissions from the human body itself.

The main thesis is that farming vegitation produces more edible energy than farming animals; per ton of CO2 produced by each activity. It also highlights the amount of GHGs emitted by animals (800kg of the 1485kg difference you quoted is attributable to methane and nitrous oxide produced by livestock).
Wasn't this your original point that vegetarian diet is more harmful to the planet ("Why aren't vegitarians on the "green" radar???!!! They are killing the planet.")? :lol:
 

ahpadt

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
9,824
Location
London
*managed to post in the wrong thread and didnt notice before now*

I actually had my first ever trip in a Prius the other day in Switzerland.
As a passenger I approved of the lack of engine noise (although the taxi driver liked going fast so the petrol engine drove almost all the time), but for me as a car lover that enjoys driving I would never ever buy one. Besides, the interior was shit.
 
Top