Sick People!

[Eagle]

I am also not the the kind of person who points out problems and leaves it up to others to find a solution. I have come up with an economically viable way for everybody who reads this to help out with this situation.


I have 2 questions for you, K9Cop:

1) What are you doing to save gas?
2) Do you love your children?

Perhaps for you owning a second vehicle is an economically viable solution, but for many people it isn't. Many people own SUVs, including but not limited to XJs, as their only means of automotive tranport.

Compared to a Hummer or Hummer 2, an XJ is hardly a "gas guzzler." No, it's not an econo box, either, but IMHO 19 MPG in mixed urban/suburban driving and 23 MPG highway is not "gas guzzler" territory.

You are also fortunate enough to live in a location where the climate favors using motorcycles for daily transport. That's not the case where I live. I used to ride a cycle. We have winter here, complete with ice, snow, slush, salt, and cold. My bike was insured on a "5-month layover" plan ... I had no liability coverage from 1 November through 31 March. So I needed a second daily driver anyway.

Also, let us not forget that the energy (gasoline) consumed in driving an automobile (or SUV) is only part of the equation. How much energy is consumed to produce the raw materials that go into a second vehicle, even a motorcycle, and then how much more energy is consumed in the manufacture of the vehicle itself?

Back in the early 70s I dropped out of motor sports and racing because I felt (at the time) that being involved in a sport that was a conspicuous consumer of petroleum products was not sending a good message. However, even as I made that choice I was fully aware of the idiocy of those who castigated auto racing while driving their station wagons to NFL football games every weekend. On average, I suspect more petroleum products are consumed in ONE weekend of NFL football than in an entire season of NASCAR racing.

Am I concerned about this country's mindless consumption of energy? Heck yes. Do I think giving up my XJ ... or buying a Honda Civic as a daily driver ... is the solution? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

All of the above aside, I cannot see how terrorism and arson are valid responses to concerns about energy consumption. If you'll remember your American history, the Boston tea party was about "Taxation without representation." Assuming they are American citizens and registered to vote, the ELF are not without representation. Their problem is that they take an extremist position and can't persuade enough people to vote their way, so they resort to terrorism as an alternative to dialogue.

 

[Handlebars]

THIS IS MOST LIKLEY THE WORST THREAD ON .

What makes this thread bad? I would say the people who come in here and attack the messenger while ignoring the message. Here’s a GREAT example:

You want a debate? What type of debate did you start? So far all Ive seen is "This is how I live, and most people in this country are wrong" Wheres the debate in that?

Yes Chewy, where is the debate? Pick any point, offer your point of view, and most importantly, offer facts to back up your assertions. BTW, I moved here from Los Angeles. I did about 40,000 miles of motorcycle commuting in the worst traffic that SoCal has to offer without getting a single scratch.

Ed, you brought up a lot of serious points, so I will respond to your post.

Begin with your yes or no answer to a simple question, "were the terrorist ELF actions justified and legitimate?"

No. Buuuut I have more to say on it later.

The eventual result of the USA exploiting non-domestic oil (or depleting our own oil)? The oil runs out.

I agree in conservation and fuel efficiency, but they only delay the eventual conclusion of depleated reserves: ours or theirs (so what is your choice).

Thank you for the acknowledgement that oil is a finite resource. You also listed several emerging technologies that will need a lot of development in order to become economically viable alternatives to oil. Wouldn’t it be a better idea to get some of those alternate forms of energy on line before the lack of oil becomes a crisis? You also listed as a disadvantage the vulnerability to terrorist attacks that some of those technologies have. Do you think that a nuclear power plant within our own borders is harder to defend than a middle eastern oil field, or a pipeline, or even a tanker on the high seas?

Does it matter, in global or local politics, that our oil will not run out in the next twenty years, or forty years? Probably not. Does it matter than the USA consumes the most oil? Probably not.
What does matter is supply and demand, and that the country that exploits the least expensive supply will have an economic advantage in global trade. As long as we exploit the low cost of foreign oil we will remain at an advantage in global trade. Why do I believe this? Look at the long term possibilities?

The long term possibilities are what I am worried about. Let’s say oil ceases to become an economical source of energy in 40 years. The United States has not developed any other viable forms of energy for industrial & residential uses or transportation. Who will have the advantage in global trade then? How does exploiting low cost foreign oil now prepare us for that day? It certainly does not give the average citizen any incentive to seek more economical cars, much less ones that are pioneering new technology. Many participants in this debate have acknowledged the need to conserve gas but haven't found the motivation yet.

Please tell me why are you so concerned with foreign oil usage? Is this concern greater than your concern regarding violent terroist actions threatening your livelyhood (or life)?

I will allow a couple of experts explain how our dependence on foreign oil leaves us vulnerable to terrorism:

From The Council on Foreign Relations

What does oil have to do with the war on terrorism?
A lot. The United States is the world’s leading consumer of oil, and the health of the American economy depends on a reliable supply of foreign oil. That dependency has shaped America’s ties to Persian Gulf countries, which pump much of the world’s oil. The war on terrorism, however, has complicated the relationship between the United States and Persian Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil exporter, is the homeland of Osama bin Laden, most of the September 11 hijackers, and key funders of the al-Qaeda terror network. The Israeli-Palestinian crisis has also raised the specter that Arab oil-producing countries might use oil as a weapon to punish the United States for its support of Israel.

From The United States Department of Energy

Reducing the transportation sector's reliance on oil is clearly the key to improving our nation's energy security…
In the current situation, the United States has little control over oil supply disruptions and oil price fluctuations. The necessity of maintaining a stable supply of imported oil imposes foreign policy constraints, and in times of crisis, forces the U.S. military into action.

Now Ed, back to your question, "were the terrorist ELF actions justified and legitimate?" I answered no. But can you see how hard it is to get my point across with polite, open dialogue? Several people have said that the ELF should have used a similar approach to get their point across, instead of vandalizing a Hummer dealership. Most everyone has avoided my assertion that we should be building fewer gas guzzling vehicles but the ELF has really gotten their attention!

 

[Glenn B]

A simple question....


How old are you?

 

[PhatXJ]

Thread Hijack in progress:

I can take a stock Liberty anywhere you guys take your built XJ's. :eyes:

 

[2offroad]

my point was just beyond my grasp.

the shots being made at people not the issue is why i said it. the issue is very much worth debate.

PhatXJ
step away from the keyboard and nobody gets hurt.

 

[PhatXJ]

PhatXJ
step away from the keyboard and nobody gets hurt.

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

Ed, you brought up a lot of serious points, so I will respond to your post.

This is why non-tech is great, civil discourse on off-topic issues (I am pleased to see the forum revved up a bit, and that you do not take the jabs personally).

Thank you for the acknowledgement that oil is a finite resource. You also listed several emerging technologies that will need a lot of development in order to become economically viable alternatives to oil. Wouldn't it be a better idea to get some of those alternate forms of energy on line before the lack of oil becomes a crisis? You also listed as a disadvantage the vulnerability to terrorist attacks that some of those technologies have. Do you think that a nuclear power plant within our own borders is harder to defend than a middle eastern oil field, or a pipeline, or even a tanker on the high seas?

Oil is a finite resource, but not as limited as all the crisis reports. The total oil reserves are a moving target, with new resource finds every year. If we believed each report since 1970 we would have ran out of oil long ago.

Look at alternative energy sources, and who is developing them? Is the EU or East Asia on the forefront, or the USA?

Wind? Does another country have anything like the wind farms in Altamonte, Banning, or Techachapi Passes (these are all in California). The current limit on wind power is distribution (power poles), NIMBY concerns for nearby residents (noise and sight lines), and environmental concerns of T&E avian species getting killed.

Solar? The world's largest solar array plant is (also) in the Southern California desert. The current limit on solar power is manufacturing cost (Ga & Si based cells), the T&E species impacts due to the vast ground cover required (for solar cell & solar thermal plants), and the distribution impacts (again, power pole easements).

Nuclear (fission and fusion)? Fission is one area where the USA leads in the available technology, as USA companies design and build the majority of plants, but France and Japan lead in total percentage of power consumption (the USA nuclear power program was stopped by internal political terror fears). Fusion power generation is always promised next decade (except by some environmental folks reading the predictions of 1965), and after over $1,000 Billion invested over sixty years we have no return.

I believe a domestic nuclear power plant is easier to defend than an oil pipeline in Iraq, but I also believe the consequence of the pipeline being targeted (rather than a powerplant) would be less of a concern to my family.

Fuel Cell? Tidal energy? Thermocline? Biomass? USA, again, leads the research and technology.

There is also the old-line energy sources to consider: hydroelectric and geothermal, domestic fossil fuels (both clean natural gas and dirty coal), ethanol (grain alcohol), and timber biomass (wood burning stoves). The USA may not exceed in the usage of each of these traditional power sources, as a percentage of total power consumed (Iceland uses more geothermal, etc.), although we do lead in clean technologies and efficiency (Btu output for therm exploited). You may not believe this, but the limit on each of these traditional energy sources has become domestic environmental concerns: water for fish stocks, byproducts of geothermal waste, gas & coal reclamation costs (and lack of non protected land to mine), lack of water and available land to place into grain production, and air pollution or timber harvest concerns regarding wood.

We need to reinforce some of these concerns to maintain the current standard of living we enjoy, but if foreign oil were eliminated, circumstances would change. It may be a shock to learn our exploitation of foreign oil supplies artificially protects our habitat from development, possibly more than the environmentalist crusade, but without foreign oil we would be advancing into protected areas for energy.

This is a long way to communicate the USA has explored and implemented alternative energy sources, and is a world leader in getting these sources on-line. The people who profess the USA is not actively researching and placing alternative energy sources on-line have never taken an honest look at who is implementing these power sources.

The long-term possibilities are what I am worried about. Let's say oil ceases to become an economical source of energy in 40 years. The United States has not developed any other viable forms of energy for industrial & residential uses or transportation. Who will have the advantage in global trade then? How does exploiting low cost foreign oil now prepare us for that day? It certainly does not give the average citizen any incentive to seek more economical cars, much less ones that are pioneering new technology. Many participants in this debate have acknowledged the need to conserve gas but haven't found the motivation yet.

When oil ceases to be available, 40-years (a guess), the entire world will suffer the impact. The USA will be on equal shaking footing as the balance of the world.

Exploiting low cost oil today provides profits that can fund research and development to prepare us for the day the oil runs out. Yes, I read about how all the current profits go to corporations and big business, and little about who hires the R&D to fund the research into energy alternatives (the same accused fat-cat corporations). An interesting thing to notice is the R&D leader corporations are not all USA based, but the majority of R&D is performed in the USA (something that may lend an advantage someday, the small companies with R&D programs that could not afford to do so with 400% higher fuel costs).

Incentive does not overcome a lack of capital. Profit is an excellent incentive, but without capital to invest (capital drained by higher fuel cost) the research may never get a chance to be explored. It's may be rewarding to realize the greatest hybred technology advancements were made when gasoline prices were at historical lows (just something to think about).

I will allow a couple of experts explain how our dependence on foreign oil leaves us vulnerable to terrorism:

I have no argument, we are vulnerable to fluctuations in our economy due to foreign actions (I lived through the two difficult oil cartel actions, and it can happen again).

We are also vulnerable to terrorism due to our lax religious freedoms (compared to other parts of the world), and due to our arrogance, and due to a number of bigoted reasons. Oil is only one dependence, and it's a dependency that we share with the rest of the world (if a pipeline gets terrorized the world suffers, not just the USA). This failure to acknowledge an attack against the USA as an attack against the world economy is part of the arrogance that makes us vulnerable to political terrorism, as well as industrial terrorism (even if it's not the USA's arrogance that blinds the public to the potential for world tragedy).

Now Ed, back to your question, "were the terrorist ELF actions justified and legitimate?" I answered no. But can you see how hard it is to get my point across with polite, open dialogue? Several people have said that the ELF should have used a similar approach to get their point across, instead of vandalizing a Hummer dealership. Most everyone has avoided my assertion that we should be building fewer gas guzzling vehicles but the ELF has really gotten their attention!

A little Shock & Awe ?

We may not agree with everyone on every issue (and I reserve my right to change my mind, or plead ignorance) but these discussions usually get past the name-calling and uncover the issues (at least on ). I get into to trouble discussing my theories on death wobble too (but that's tech-talk, and this is non-tech).

 

[Georgia Mike]

:speepin:I'm gonna go take a nap......wake me when this thread ends.....no wait....I don't wanna go out Rip VanWinkle style...:laugh:

 

[Handlebars]

Dang Ed, I think we started out on opposite sides of this argument and met somewhere in the middle to finish it.

I honestly didn't know how many alternate energy forms the U.S. had in the works, it is reasurring to know that! Hopefully we will be the first ones to find whatever will be the replacement for oil. Thanks for providing me and the good members of some enlightenment on the topic.

Glenn- I am 34. Old enough to remember paying less than a buck a gallon for gas. Old enough to (barely) remember lines at the gas stations. Why?

 

[Glenn B]

Just curious. Trying to understand where you are coming from is all.
I too remember paying less than a buck for a gallon of gas, and rationing at the gas stations. I remember the Odd/Even days when you could get fuel based on your license plate number.

Funny thing.... go to the grocery store and look at bottled water. You can actually pay MORE for water than for Gasoline. Boggles my mind a bit.
Glenn

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

Dang Ed, I think we started out on opposite sides of this argument and met somewhere in the middle to finish it.

I honestly didn't know how many alternate energy forms the U.S. had in the works, it is reasurring to know that! Hopefully we will be the first ones to find whatever will be the replacement for oil. Thanks for providing me and the good members of some enlightenment on the topic.

Glenn- I am 34. Old enough to remember paying less than a buck a gallon for gas. Old enough to (barely) remember lines at the gas stations. Why?

We may still be on opposite sides regarding who's energy resources to exploit (I say burn the foreign goods and save ours till the other countries energy runs out), although we agree on the need for R&D and implementation of alternate energy sources.

One hundred years ago a replacement for whale oil or coal was unheard of, not even on the wish list of most visionaries. Refined petroleum oil had been around since the early 1800's, and without efficient distillation it was considered inferior to whale oil and coal (for transportation and energy usage). The solution to scarce whale oil stocks and dirty coal, as a fuel, was around nearly a century before it became economically viable: refined petroleum oil. The coal mining strikes of the early 1900's and the elimination of the whale fishery, along with oil field development in Texas, motivated the adoption of petroleum as a favored energy source (and the USA, and the world, survived the energy crisis).

History will repeat itself (it will take a crisis to reveal a superior energy source).

People thought we would run out of petroleum oil by 1930, and we are still finding new reserves. People also thought oil drilling was far superior to coal mining as acceptable development. One look at a 1910 coal mine and a 1920 oil field would convince almost everyone (even John Muir) on the advantages of oil as an energy source. Compare the 1920 oil field (or the 1910 coal mine), to the oil fields on the north slope of Alaska, and the habitat impact is near zero. The USA has managed to reduce the surface habitat impact of energy development to roads and pipelines that do not significantly alter the natural migration and lifestyle of the native species. Compared to the impact of most alternative energy sources this is incredible progress (even solar has more negative habitat impact when applied outside urban areas).

We were lucky that oil drilling and refining is much more environmentally benign than coal or whale oil, or the world pollution problems would be far worse. We may not be so lucky to convert to a more benign energy source in the future. The alternative energy sources we hear touted by the environmental media receive considerable unreported investigation (by the scientific community) regarding byproduct hazards. The unpublished hazards are why many sources are not exploited today (lead battery issues, ecosystem conflicts, waste storage, habitat impact from extraction, etc.).

Most people do not know the extent of the USA involvement in alternative energy development, or energy conservation. We read the papers about complaints that we are not exploiting the energy and conservation technology reported in Popular Mechanics, but little else (and if we believe PM is the guide, we deserve to be functionaly ignorant about reliable energy.)

I follow alternative energy development because it was one of the areas of specialization I studied in University. Twenty years ago the alternative list was smaller, but each was also more acceptable for an environmental standpoint. We did not worry as much about the impact of hydroelectric generation on fish stocks, or windfarms on local avian habitat stock. We certainly did not expect the fierce opposition we see today to expanding electrical transmission coridoors.

If we converted to all electric vehicles, tomorrow, the entire country would be in a blackout every night (even with odd-even charging night restrictions). The same people who demand electrical vehicles as the solution, to pollution problems, oppose the infrastructure to support their goal. It takes a tuned ear to hear what the real goal is, eliminate vehicles (and these Wildlands folks are not ignorant idiots, they know the intentional disconnect in their own policies).

I follow trends in conservation because I apply the technology at work. The operating kWh per square foot of the typical USA office building or manufacturing plant is less than most similar plants in other developed countries, and significantly less than that of buildings in undeveloped countries (those high-rise buildings you see in Nigeria and India). The tight fisted CEO's of the USA see every dollar saved in avoided energy expense (utility costs) as pure profit to the bottom line. Given a choice, most would finance $400,000 a year in capital improvements to avoid $500,000 in utility expenses (and they pay people to make this happen). You do not see this finiancially driven activist attitude worldwide.

My last issue is the argument that a worker riding to work on a 50 mpg motorcycle (or an ELF activist), is somehow more effective with practicing global conservation, compared to a CEO driving a H2. The H2 driving CEO may have championed a $100 million guaranteed energy conservation program, a great net environmental benefit to the world, and yet be painted and vandalized as an energy despot.

Is this fair, to condemn the H2 driver?

 

[Beezil]

this thread on any other jeep forum would have turned to crap.

this is why we're the best jeep forum out there.

 

[Erik]

Handlebars, you are spot on. Keep up the good fight dude. I've listened to a few lectures put on by Elves, and they do have some strong points. One is that peaceful protests rarely change anything. Sometimes you just have to pick up a blunt object and smack people up the side of the head to get their attention. Sure worked in this case.

 

[Handlebars]

My last issue is the argument that a worker riding to work on a 50 mpg motorcycle (or an ELF activist), is somehow more effective with practicing global conservation, compared to a CEO driving a H2. The H2 driving CEO may have championed a $100 million guaranteed energy conservation program, a great net environmental benefit to the world, and yet be painted and vandalized as an energy despot.

Is this fair, to condemn the H2 driver?

In theory, no.

Buuut your theory relies heavily upon the qualifier "may". What percentage of those H2 drivers would you estimate to be champions of conservation? I've found that people chose transportation to try to project the image of who they are (or think they are) to others.

 

[woody]

this thread on any other jeep forum would have turned to crap.

this is why we're the best jeep forum out there.

Yep...once the emotion burns away, ya get at some good, rational (?) debate.

As for the ELF, ALF, PETA etc... Fringe groups / underground movements and guerilla war tactics rarely succeed as an catalyst for change unless a large # of the 'target audience' support the cause. OTOH, tightly knit groups with good operational security can and do wreak all sorts of mayhem, mischief, murder etc...and as long as OPSEC is strictly observed, there is piss-little anyone can do to counter it. Of course, the reaction might be a little heavy-handed, but that's the risk one takes if they want to push the envelope.

Ed brings some good thoughts to the table (as usual) on alternative energy sources... I'd love an efficient home that was 100% off the grid, efficiently using local materials and renewable resources as much as possible...but even then folks get their panties wadded up. (Wood Heat comes to mind...local bans on wood heating)

I do see the wisdom of using up the OTHER COUNTRIES (affordable) oil first though... can someone confirm or deny that our Alaska crude production is sold entirely to Japan?

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

In theory, no.

Buuut your theory relies heavily upon the qualifier "may". What percentage of those H2 drivers would you estimate to be champions of conservation? I've found that people chose transportation to try to project the image of who they are (or think they are) to others.

You might be surprised who in business is a champion of conservation (being in the conservation for-profit business is not a bad thing)?

I believe it's no more likely to find a conservationist driving an H2, than the likelyhood of finding an Earth First! activist driving a gross polluting air-cooled VW beatle. I estimate probably 80% of the H2 buyers practice or actively support some form of conservation (in direct charity funding support of a sportsman or environmental organization). I estimate the dollar amount of the voluntary conservation charity from Hummer owners to be quite a bit more than that donated by the ELF?

Did you know that John Muir owned and operated a timber mill inside Yosemite Valley? A businessman in the timber industry could never be a proponent of conservation, could he?

 

[Handlebars]

Good points all, Ed.

You might be surprised who in business is a champion of conservation (being in the conservation for-profit business is not a bad thing)?

What kind of business might that be? Who knows, it might just be more interesting than what I currently do.

Did you know that John Muir owned and operated a timber mill inside Yosemite Valley? A businessman in the timber industry could never be a proponent of conservation, could he?

I've read some of his writings. If there was ever a tree lover, it was John Muir. I'm pretty sure he wasn't clear-cutting entire forests. Properly managed, the timber industry is an entirely sustainable resource. Is this what you meant in your first point?

I'll catch up with you next week, I'm off to Moab tomorrow. Have a nice weekend!

 

[Kejtar]

I've read some of his writings. If there was ever a tree lover, it was John Muir. I'm pretty sure he wasn't clear-cutting entire forests. Properly managed, the timber industry is an entirely sustainable resource.

Ummm there is one flaw in this... at that time there was no such thing as managed timber industry... also peole like him owned companies and had others manage them.... with all the time he spent hiking and exploring how much time do you think he spent overseeing the day to day operations? my guess... next to none... Being to all those parks, I have seen displays and articles what the logging industry did then..... they would cut the biggest tree they could find just for the hell of it!

Kejtar

 

[Matthew Currie]

Ummm there is one flaw in this... at that time there was no such thing as managed timber industry... also peole like him owned companies and had others manage them.... with all the time he spent hiking and exploring how much time do you think he spent overseeing the day to day operations? my guess... next to none... Being to all those parks, I have seen displays and articles what the logging industry did then..... they would cut the biggest tree they could find just for the hell of it!

Kejtar

And JJ Audubon shot the birds before he painted them too.

 

[whoozey1953]

Let's average that out,shall we? 13+17/2=15 MPG average vs. the H2's average of 11 MPG. A WHOPPING 4 MPG difference! Now, I'm not an idiot,and I do realize that over the lifetime of the vehicle that will add up to quite a difference,but if I were you,I would have never even brought that one up. I mean,you claim that a Lexus that gets an average of 15 MPG is so much better than the H2? And the fact that the Lexus was EPA certified and all that jazz doesn't disguise the fact that it sucks more gas than an older,simpler XJ! I'm not trying to argue your point on wastefulness,but that Lexus seems pretty wasteful to me,and you even said it was overpriced. Make up your mind

AND the money goes to the J.A. PAN company, not an Americam company. Mr. Handlebars not only bashes Americans, he works for a foreign entity subsidiary.

Put one of these hats on, Mr. Handlebars --> :anon: