I really like this poster. I'm taking environmental governance in university and the most important thing I have learn is it is the system we currently have that is allowing climate change to happen. If we can change to a new system (one that doesn't favour rich men and oil tycoons) then maybe we might be able to stop climate change before we reach the tipping point.
illegalizing carbonic acid(you niavely call it soda pop) illegalizing baking cakes with baking soda, the chemical reaction causes Co2 to make bubbles in the cake which is why it is porus. WE CAN"T HAVE THAT!!!! illegalizing breathing, all creatures that produce CO2 must be destroyed,
We don't run a two party system, there are a number of parties that can be joined, they just don't carry weight. Now that's not the Republican's or Democrats fault, people join them out of their own free will, if everyone decided to change to a third party then it would be different. But until a vast majority of at least 40% between Rep's & Dem's decide to move to other parties there will always be mainly these parties acting. But its by peoples free will to choose these parties, otherwise we'd have a third party in power.
Electric cars is not science fiction,its science fact, and they dont have to look like a prius.
A lot of people forget, in 2000 GM rolled out a 100% electric car, and it looked good. Big oil bought the patent on the car, and ROUNDED UP ALL THE CARS, that people had purchased, taking them back.
Also High Mileage Carburetors [ Many of us have heard that there were people years ago, back in the 60's(?), who developed very efficient "carburetors", that got 100 mpg or more. I do remember an article in Popular Mechanics back in the 1960's which even got the cover photo for the month, telling about a guy who built a carburetor for his sedan which vaporized the fuel and enabled his V8 to get over 100 mpg. -- editor, FEV ]
From Popular Science, December 1957, page 79: “The fuel, of course, goes along in suspension.” “… Raw, indigestible fuel slobbers into the cylinders — into some more than others.” “… Slobbering engines are fuel hogs.”
“Gasoline in the liquid form does not even burn, much less, explode. Only the vapor that comes from the gasoline will burn. Therefore, to mix raw gasoline with air, and attempt to explode it in an internal combustion engine is a very wasteful, costly, and polluting practice. It also shortens the life of the engine and exhaust system.”
“Exceptional Mileage Claimed For New Carburetor”, Mass Transportation, December 1936, page 406. This carburetor was the invention of Charles Nelson Pogue, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The Pogue carburetor system received widespread news coverage in 1935 and 1936.
“Test made with passenger automobiles indicates that cars equipped with this new carburetor will operate 200 miles per gallon. Although the exceptional mileage is of greatest importance, the new carburetor is said to have many other advantages in the way of reducing maintenance.”
In the course of our research, we have personally interviewed several older citizens (from Canada and the U.S.) who remember the Pogue test and widespread publicity…. some were eyewitnesses.
“100 Miles On One Gallon Of Gas? Chicago Members Say It’s Possible” The Machinist, October 8, 1953 page 7.
This I.A.M. Lodge 48 member-inventor says 100- 400 miles per gallon of gasoline is indeed possible. [link]
From this link, you can do your own research about the "conspiracy" surrounding all this. *hint, one of the guys who who came up with the "super carbureter" found dead in the desert stuffed full of heroin and alchohol
its all well and fine, but I don't understand how greed is bad.
greed runs our economy, without greed we would be living in primitive hutts. I'd rather be greedy and have this computer and the hot cup of coffe in my hand, than be not greedy and live like an animal.
I am not talking about a 'greedy cheapskate pawn shop owner' or even a business owner who cuts free coffee from the workpace, or even decides to give a pay cut to his employee's. I am talking about corporations making profits(PROFIT, not gross income) in the BILLIONS and still moving the companies oversea's...to me this is greed, not being a simple "cheapskate"
The kind of greed I am refering to makes someone else's life better, while simultaneously making someone in a foreign land's life worse.
You dont have a problem with an oil company buying a patent on an all electric car(which looked nothing like a prius) and then dumping it? Why would GM sell such an idea, which ultimately led to it's bankruptcy(main reason being they kept pumping out the big SUV's) This doesn't smell funny to you? This is the Oligarchy, not capitalism.
You dont have a problem with a corporation OWNING the cancer gene so no one else can research the cure without being sued(look that up if you dont believe me)
How does that kind of greed better anyone's life?
what is the purpose behind all this? This isn't greed for money, this is greed for global power.
with all the govt's regulations and rules here in America if I could move my business somewhere that makes it more profitable to me, I would do the same thing.
There is nothing wrong with a profit, only communists think profits are a bad thing. unless you are a commie, in which case, well, you want fascism?
GM is not the only one who can build electric cars that look like real cars, Tesla motors, Fisker motors, me in my garage with my electric converted van. There is nothing wrong with GM having the patent to a completely piece of shit car (trust me the Volt is a piece of shit)
People don't sell electric cars because GM owns a patent, people don't sell them because there is a very low demand for it.
And the cancer gene thing the problem is the govt not the greed of a corporation.
You must realize that electricity doesn't grow on tree's either. So though you might have an amazing car that runs off 100% electricity that doesn't mean its clean... That electricity has to come from somewhere and last I checked the last solar power car didn't get very far. What might you propose to end that other end of it. Rather than stating big oil robbed the people of a clean and green car, where do you think the electricity comes from? So instead of filling up at the gas station you fill up at home, which runs up your electric bill.
I don't think "going solar" will solve that either, as a vast majority can't go solar. Also these electric cars don't go far like the Volt off just electricity. Try spending an average of 1hr per way in a car to work and I doubt you'll be getting home.
So though it may be dandy to have these cars, they aren't science fiction, they are just impractical.
I always wonder what the problem is with CNG cars. why hasn't that caught on? Methane is definatly natural and very clean to burn I mean for God's sake it Methane comes from our own bodies as a gaseous waste
I know burning methane make CO2 and water vaper (those are the only two products). The danger's with methane are about the same with gasoline, if you made a spark in the gas tank there would be just as bd an explosion, hydrogen doesn't scare me, neither does methene.
But once I heard some kooks who made a car powered by pnuematic motors, it would get 40 miles on one tank full of air.
Pneumatic sounds similar to what the engine in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. I wouldn't worry so much either about hydrogen or methane powered cars, I just don't think its going to be anytime soon. Nor do I think we have the capability to change to it overnight like many environmentalists wish us to do. Its not about designing a new car, that in itself is a challenge but its replacing the fueling stations nation wide to make the car able to run. No on wants to go home everyday and charge their car so it makes a 30min drive, granted 30min is all its going to get off that charge, it doesn't make sense. Electric cars aren't advanced enough to charge fast like regular fueling. No one wants to refuel for an hour to two to just drive another 100 miles or so, seems pointless.
There are lots of alternative fuels its introducing them to the public and making them, affordable, the car affordable, the charge or refuel logic etc. Many look at the Volt as a great car while I look at it as a disaster, its selling at a loss... That's not economical at all?!
we are very capable of making cars run off of other fuels, there just isn't a demand for it seriously. people still drive SUVs and big trucks regardless of gas prices (which are actually very low if you account for inflation gas prices would be 5 dollars per gallon if it was the same value as it was 50-60 years ago)
I may sound strange but I think we need more CO2 in the air at least raise it to 25% to 35% because it would make plants and trees grow larger faster.
Correct, but there are also many anti-geothermal people in the states that don't like the waste that it creates or the half time that it takes, or the possible leakage and destroying surrounding environment. We have wind here as well, near Palm Springs, CA, there are literally hundreds of these wind towers that produce electricity, but in the 20+ years they have been there they haven't even begun to pay off their own debt with the electricity that they produce, mostly due to maintenance or environmentalists stating it might kill a bird...
You talk "practicability" and make it sound like there is some solution that will rid the world of a humans beings carbon footprint completely. This is not what I proposed. You just assumed i was a hippie.
I proposed there is a solution to the excessive release of pollution, and could be brought down significantly in a manner that solves the solution as best as it can possibly be solved.
Analogy: What your saying is, pot is as bad as heroin because neither is good for you. You have access to weed, and it would be cheaper and cause less problem in your life..but since they are both not good, you might as well just stick to the heroin, because leaving your "guy" that deals heroin, would be a minor inconvience, even though in switching from heroin to weed would be better.
The essence of what you said in your response was "weed is as bad as heroin"
I never said electric cars rid of all pollution ANYWHERE in my post. I never even implied it.
I dont think you realize the technology exists and is practical.
How are you denying that shell gasoline did research in the 40's and created a carburetor that got 400 mpg? If that was the 40's, where do you think we could be now?
How much would less gasoline affect big oil? Who generates the most money in the world? Why would oil allow themselves to take a financial hit even though, it would be cleaner(even when you use bleach to clean a floor, their is still bacteria present on the floor after you've finished...but your logic says because bacteria is still present, cleaning and using bleach is pointless, because it leaves behind bacteria...again, INSANE logic)
How are you denying how much help solar panels would help people's energy bills, and deter pollution on a global scale?
It doesn't mean we go "all solar", you have obviously been brainwashed by the foxnews bunch, and have been debating with MSNBC hippies. I represent neither of these entities.
Every time an advancement is made in solar technology, or electricity, the big oil buys it. I dare you to find me documentation that says otherwise.
Your post actually makes me laugh considering I don't watch television so please pardon my lack of watching Fox News being a extremely conservative individual.
Secondly, if "Big Oil" or companies such as Royal Dutch or Exxon and any other oil company wishes to buy out patents to designs what says that they can't? If I were their CEO's and CFO as well as on their board of directors I would do the same, its called business, and that makes sense, whether that hurts the environment or not.
You might not claim that electric cars solve the problem of our energy dependent society but you also don't claim that it wouldn't help reduce our carbon foot print. You must realize that most electricity is produced by carbon emitting fuels, or fossil fuels in term. These fuels create electricity, which in turn power a car to run 400 miles lets say. That 400 miles isn't bad, its just instead of a 20 gallon tank of gas your burning that same amount if not more to create the electricity needed for it.
As to your analogy as to weed not being as bad as heroin, I find it rather laughable, though heroin effects you faster there isn't anything that pot is safe either, except quite the contrary. But that is a separate issue.
""Secondly, if "Big Oil" or companies such as Royal Dutch or Exxon and any other oil company wishes to buy out patents to designs what says that they can't?""
I didn't say the can't...I said they did.
And as far as it helping the economy, after GM "sold"*cough*forced to sell*cough* the patent, how well did their business do? bailout....
"""""""'You might not claim that electric cars solve the problem of our energy dependent society but you also don't claim that it wouldn't help reduce our carbon foot print. You must realize that most electricity is produced by carbon emitting fuels""""""""""
I must "realize"...i know they arnt 100% clean, but what you need to "realize" is the current model of vehicle has a great carbon footprint...Also, with further advancements in technology, the emission could only lessen. And the only reason we don't have it, is because the Oligarchy. The Oligarchy doesn't represent "capitalism", you fool.
You find my analogy "laughable." what are you going to say next.."With that said", followed by a high pitched "really?"
i find it "laughable" you use the word "laughable" like every other internet goon who has no idea...really?
"With that said" you are naive..."with that said" I find that "laughable" "With that said" you have no real idea how business works in the world right now, and an Oligarchy doesn't "buy" companies patents, they take them. It's greed, not capitalism. Capitalism inspires competition, and advancements in technology, not "buy" out patents on fully functional electric cars that never see the light of day again, and then the vulture speculators come "cawwwing" in jacking up the oil prices, blaming it on some hurricane which they say was caused by this bullshit global warming 'al-gorian" radical non-sense.
Grow up little boy. Maybe you wont find everything so "laughable"
I would hope I would be able to understand how a corporation works I own one. As to finding things laughable, I'd say that only so far pertains to you on DA thus far out of my 600+ comments. I'm not sure how using the word "laughable" really makes one ignorant or a goon, but that's not for me to judge.
"I would hope I would be able to understand how a corporation works I own one"
General motors owns a corporation to, and dont know how to run it. Bailouts, government buying their stock. So your logic of simply "owning a corporation" means, what? You have no argument so you have reverted to bringing in non sense.
But your "corporation" would put GM to shame in sheer size right? I find that "laughable"l