More procedures automatically equals more pollution? How can turning corn, a food, into a useable fuel produce more pollution than taking #4/6 oil and turning it into gasoline? BTW, I use to work for an oil company.
What I think needs to be done about oversized trucks and SUV's.
- Thread starter All Else Failed
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
More procedures automatically equals more pollution? How can turning corn, a food, into a useable fuel produce more pollution than taking #4/6 oil and turning it into gasoline? BTW, I use to work for an oil company.
-
220Replies
-
5KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
TheLightedPath
Active Member
One word.
Motorcycles.
Motorcycles.
Damn, I'd like to see you put 5 people on a bike. LoL!! :24:
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
I hardly have more than two people in my car, at most.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Not a bad idea really. Motorcycle sales have been going up over the past years.
Which is why you have an Elantra and not an SUV. You personalized your vehicle for your needs, which is the smart thing to do.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Here's a few links that get into it:More procedures automatically equals more pollution? How can turning corn, a food, into a useable fuel produce more pollution than taking #4/6 oil and turning it into gasoline? BTW, I use to work for an oil company.
Ethanol Fact Sheet :: Energy Justice Network
NPR : Study Says Ethanol Pollution Could Rival Gas
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
If I HAD to transport more people I would just get the extended version of it. Its kind of like a station wagon.
Which would only get you more cargo space, not passenger space. So basically, what you're saying is that all these... nevermind.
Thanks for the info, glanced at it real quick, seems you are correct, but I have to get to work now, I will research more and get with ya later tonight. Take it easy AEF.
IntruderLS1
Active Member
I never figured you for an anti-capitalist.
You complain so much about America and our freedom being "stolen", but here you are preaching that the government should tell us what to drive. :smiley24:
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
Regulating products that are helping destroy this planet isn't bad.
And yeah, capitalism isn't my favorite thing, but what I'm proposing isn't anti-capitalist at all since this is done with a lot of things.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
No there's a second row seat.
See, I'm be all for the government offering incentives to companies to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, as well as taxing/penalizing people that choose to buy less efficient vehicles.
But I have to draw the line at being forced not to be able to buy an SUV or truck. To me, that just sounds completely un-American.
But I have to draw the line at being forced not to be able to buy an SUV or truck. To me, that just sounds completely un-American.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
I think this reasoning as your basis of argument is flawed. As long as you keep repeating this over and over, this argument has reached an impasse.
There are many products that you and I do not need, that we have no reason to buy, because there are alternatives. Don't make me write out a list. I am just telling you that this debate cannot continue if you do not cease the ridiculous notion that just because a consumer purchases a product that they have no reason to own is grounds for claiming that they do not have the right to buy it. You keep asking for "proof" and documentation of where it says we are given the right to own anything. It's in the concept of supply-and-demand. It's in the concept of consumerism. These are well-known aspects of our economy and there are no "rules" written down about rights of purchasing power. So what you are proposing is that since there is no law governing a person's ability to purchase a product that he/she has no reason to own...that there SHOULD be one.
Not.going.to.happen.
Next thread please?
This is now boring.
All Else Failed
Well-Known Member
do they lend to destroying the environment as much as gas guzzling SUV's?
yeah this is getting boring.
All products have costs, including environmental, in their manufacture, packaging, advertising and distribution. Think about that.
ALL products.
Whether or not a particular industry affects the environment to the extent that SUVs do is not within my scope of available knowledge. I would venture to say that the entire automobile industry, including SUVs, impacts our world dramatically.
But take any business. The manufacture of those little papers that have the fortunes on them in fortune cookies. That is one small business that truly has no need to be in existance. Add the entire concept of those workers who consume fossil fuel to get to-and-from work, the use of trees to supply the paper, the ink and whatever other solvents are used in printing, the machines themselves that make the product and use resources, the plastics involved in packaging, the cardboard used to ship cases of them out, the fossil fuel invovled in trucking them to market....
Where I am going with that silly example is what I said previously...ALL businesses impact the environment, when you take into account the entire process.
Like I also stated previously, you propose that this SUV business should be stopped or severely curtailed because there is no need for it.
Repeat: Not.going.to.happen.
Seriously: next thread please?
IntruderLS1
Active Member
UncleBacon
OTz original V.I.P
communism...a great idea on paper that would make everyone equal but will never work because of greed and power hunger
78,874Threads
2,185,388Messages
4,959Members