Losing control of the fuel efficiency debate

He was speaking of how we should not cut down trees to build homes, nor burn gas to fuel cars.

I asked him what material constituted the materials of the home in which he lived, and he admitted it to be wood-frame.

I asked them about what kind of car he drove. He only owns a bike at present. His goal it to buy a Prius.

I then asked him how he'll charge the batteries. His answer (read for this?): "You just plug it in the wall." He seemed a bit confused when I asked him about where he thought the electricity came from, and even more so when I spoke of energy loss when several conversions were involved.

A very enlightening conversation...for me.

How old was he?

Late twenties to early thirties.

OK. That generation fell through the cracks somehow.

I really don't know what Greenpeace or any other organization does in terms of training. I know people around here from the Nature Conservancy, my favorite for hobbling the efforts of insane developers, and they're well versed about local goals. But, because NC's work is rather boring, the members are older. They don't need to get arrested to feel like they're getting things done. Greenpeace is different. They do serve a purpose, though.

I mentioned General Electric earlier. The company and its purchased politians would love for us to forget that they've been avoiding cleaning up their mess in the Hudson for decades. Greenpeace won't remove the spotlight, though. That's good.

How long have you had this penchant for understatment?

I think I've got an inkling.

I used to contribute financially when whales were their focus. There's just something wrong about slaughtering animals obviously more intelligent than most liberals. ;-) I mentioned General Electric earlier. The company and its purchased

Anyone or any company caught polluting should pay. Big time. I've just got a problem with those who only pick on the U.S., but never other countries who are far more guilty. Their agenda is obvious.

It's not the only one. What the hell happened to dbu, who still wishes he'd never made such lame excuses for not reading. Look at the result.

Was he just a guy who gave them some money and gets their mailings? Or, a serious operative?

Most environmental organizations mention other countries. But, funds and time are limited. Best to focus on our own mess, where at least they can get things done. Worst outcome: Nature Conservancy is outbid for a chunk of land they wanted to keep green. In China, worst outcome could mean vanishing into a jail cell forever.

An operative. Serious might be an overstatement.

How do you feel about 40% of the Department of the Interior's budget going to legal costs?

Very difficult but not impossible if one dares to think outside of the box. That box on 4 wheels has to be MUCH SMALLER and lighter.

First, you have to change attitudes. No amount of engineering will convince the majority of Americans they can live with a smaller car. I average 24 mpg in my full sized car, but frankly, I can live with something smaller myself. In Europe I'll get a small rental and accept it as normal. I do refuse to buy one of the big Land Barges though.

Wasn't aware of it. Not surprising, though, since at the moment, it's ceased to function as a government agency. May as well let its corporate owners run things until the pig is out of the White House.

One can get by eating chicken, but once in a awhile we want steak or lobster. When did we ever decide it was a 'good idea' to allow the government to pick what we buy? Americans do not want small cars. If they did they would buy them, there are plenty available. Can the average American afford more than one vehicle, those that can do. They own the larger safe mid size and full size vehicle they need and a small car for when they do not need the larger safe mid size and full size vehicle.

Anybody running for office that says they will require any particular MPG will not get my vote any more than one who is tries telling me what I may eat

It's been operating at or about that level for well over 12 years; the result of lawsuits filed by eco-extremists.

A similar example is the cost of housing in California. People mistakenly believe that it's due to climate, work availability, etc. While these certainly affect housing costs, developers have to pass along additional overhead to buyers due to continued battles with extremists. Ridiculous and trivial re-classifications of existing flora and fauna, and unscrupulous lawyers to their fair share to drive prices up.

What are the other options when a developer has purchased the local politicians, and wants to turn a chunk of wetlands into the next McMansion horror show?

It isn't wetlands to which I'm referring. I'm not making this up:

About 15 years ago, a dry, fairly flat area in south San Diego county got covered with six to eighteen inches of water during El Nino rains. This areas was already slated for a development of homes, and zone accordingly.

During the presence of this temporary wet stage, waterfowl started using the "pond". Due to their temporary presence, some whack-job got a court injunction to stop home construction on "wetlands". Guess who ultimately reimbursed the developer for this granted insanity?

Abuse, pure and simply. Don't make the mistake of thinking this was a unique situation.

OK, but there are valid situations where there are few options other than lawsuits, to stop some insane development plan.

I can't argue with you there, but abuse constitutes far more than it's "fair' share.

Cite time.

Already done. This happens constantly here.

Constantly: "See what you want to see." Whatever conforms.