"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html

Yeah, these guys living off Global Warming funding say it's rising
.06C/yr!

By the year 5485, it may be warm enough, if this rapid trend continues,
TO
SWIM IN!

Global Warming - Your CO2 tax dollars at work.....



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

I really think the resistance to anything that could be considered as
environmentally responsible stems from the same "me generation" thinking
as people who want to do something about the homeless but just can't skip
thier next latte and give the $4 to the man/woman on the corner instead.
It's like the friggin stupidity (not caring if this insults -it is
incredibly stupid) of the "conservative" legislators squealing about Obama
setting new mileage standards.
"It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to protect my family" by driving a friggin
SUV that's as big a tractor trailer. These sure look like the same
assholes that were preaching energy independence not too long ago.
Yeah. We Americans can get behind anything as long as we aren't expected
to sacrifice anything AT ALL for it. Well, maybe we can buy the $1.95
yellow ribbon to show our support for the troops but it's only because we
don't want to be seen as unsupportive!
We couldn't support a WWII nowadays like our parents did - we're too
friggin spoiled. We're 5 year old children being told to share our cookies
with a sibling.
memememe, I got mine but I want more, more, more! has screwed america.



I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All
they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel
costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the
morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the
first to the next stop light.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 07:11:32 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"mmc" wrote in message
ng.com...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html

Yeah, these guys living off Global Warming funding say it's rising
.06C/yr!

By the year 5485, it may be warm enough, if this rapid trend continues,
TO
SWIM IN!

Global Warming - Your CO2 tax dollars at work.....



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

I really think the resistance to anything that could be considered as
environmentally responsible stems from the same "me generation" thinking
as people who want to do something about the homeless but just can't skip
thier next latte and give the $4 to the man/woman on the corner instead.
It's like the friggin stupidity (not caring if this insults -it is
incredibly stupid) of the "conservative" legislators squealing about Obama
setting new mileage standards.
"It's my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN to protect my family" by driving a friggin
SUV that's as big a tractor trailer. These sure look like the same
assholes that were preaching energy independence not too long ago.
Yeah. We Americans can get behind anything as long as we aren't expected
to sacrifice anything AT ALL for it. Well, maybe we can buy the $1.95
yellow ribbon to show our support for the troops but it's only because we
don't want to be seen as unsupportive!
We couldn't support a WWII nowadays like our parents did - we're too
friggin spoiled. We're 5 year old children being told to share our cookies
with a sibling.
memememe, I got mine but I want more, more, more! has screwed america.



I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All
they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel
costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of the
morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be the
first to the next stop light.


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.

--
KLC Lewis

Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations!
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Love it or leave it.



Can't. It's mine.



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

Bruce in Bangkok wrote in
:

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



The politicians, who work for the big oil companies, will do everything in
their power to keep microcars like the Tata Nano....OUT OF AMERICA. Smart
cars came in the back door as a specialty car and have been effectively
defeated by making them so expensive, $18000 is normal, that people are
refusing to buy them, now in the depression. The dealer that told me I'd
have to be on a waiting list, now calls me weekly to see if they have the
car, IN STOCK, I want. I want a Smart DIESEL fortwo and they are NOT
imported into America because 1) too high mileage and too low maintenance
2) lower priced as plain car. America has only the upper models.

India, Japan, Korea, China all have very fuel efficient micro vehicles
Americans cannot own.

Government by, of and for the BIG CORPORATIONS.....

I'd love to open up a Tata Nano dealership right in the middle of "Car
Row" on Savannah Hwy, here in Charleston, selling Nanos for $2000. Tata
couldn't supply the demand for a CHEAP CAR....

Of course, GM has some idle factories to build more....

--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Love it or leave it.



Can't. It's mine.



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?


But, you claim Americans are stupid? What's your excuse?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in
:

Pollution is a serious, but quite separate, issue. Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) is not considered to be a pollutant in normal concentration
levels.

Come on... "normal concentration levels"? It's not a separate issue.
It's a global problem.


The more CO2 in the air, the MORE WE HAVE TO EAT! Eliminate CO2 and WE
ALL
WILL STARVE!



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

Don't loon out Larry. You know damn well that no one is talking about
eliminatnig C02.

No they want to store 3 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide every year from
those plants. (National Geographic figures not mine). That means every
power plant will have an increasing number of pressurized containers
buried around their plant for the storage of the gas, that will have to be
maintained for eternity.

If one of those thing fails in the next dozen centuries, 100% of every
thing living within hundreds of square miles will die.


You need to restrict your comments to something you know about. You do know
about something right?



If you know of another disposal method for the 3 billion tons Carbon
Dioxide that is proposed to be captured from of coal fired energy
plants please post to the group so we all will know. Don't just say I
don't know what I am talking about.

There is one other way to handle it but that will create 7 billion
tons/year of metal salts that will have to be treated as toxic waste for
eternity. This could be more depending on the metal they used to react
with the carbon dioxide.

I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for
many years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations
for chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your
comments?

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ions...

I have no problem allowing people to drive SUVs the size of a big rig. All
they have to do is agree to pay for the privilege, including higher fuel
costs, pollution tax, insurance, etc. That should also cut out a lot of
the morons leaving rubber at one stop light after another, so they can be
the first to the next stop light.

Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big
SUV?

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...

If you know of another disposal method for the 3 billion tons Carbon
Dioxide that is proposed to be captured from of coal fired energy plants
please post to the group so we all will know. Don't just say I don't know
what I am talking about.

There is one other way to handle it but that will create 7 billion
tons/year of metal salts that will have to be treated as toxic waste for
eternity. This could be more depending on the metal they used to react
with the carbon dioxide.

I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for many
years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations for
chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your
comments?

The current method of sequestering co2 is to pump it into underground
chambers left empty from oil deposits. A more long-term solution would be to
create calcium carbonate by pumping it through lime slurry, or use it to
grow simple plants (algaes) and create more oxygen, trapping the carbon in
the plants' cellulose. The algaes can then feed people and animals, and be
used as fertilizer for other food crops.

--
KLC Lewis

Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations!
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:19:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in
:

Pollution is a serious, but quite separate, issue. Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) is not considered to be a pollutant in normal concentration
levels.

Come on... "normal concentration levels"? It's not a separate issue.
It's a global problem.


The more CO2 in the air, the MORE WE HAVE TO EAT! Eliminate CO2 and WE
ALL
WILL STARVE!



--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

Don't loon out Larry. You know damn well that no one is talking about
eliminatnig C02.

No they want to store 3 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide every year from
those plants. (National Geographic figures not mine). That means every
power plant will have an increasing number of pressurized containers
buried around their plant for the storage of the gas, that will have to be
maintained for eternity.

If one of those thing fails in the next dozen centuries, 100% of every
thing living within hundreds of square miles will die.


You need to restrict your comments to something you know about. You do know
about something right?



If you know of another disposal method for the 3 billion tons Carbon
Dioxide that is proposed to be captured from of coal fired energy
plants please post to the group so we all will know. Don't just say I
don't know what I am talking about.

There is one other way to handle it but that will create 7 billion
tons/year of metal salts that will have to be treated as toxic waste for
eternity. This could be more depending on the metal they used to react
with the carbon dioxide.

I have a degree in Chemistry and worked in the chemical industry for
many years so know my chemistry. I know federal disposal regulations
for chemical disposal. Can you tell me the educational basis for your
comments?

How much of which chemicals did you ingest?