Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1.    #1  
    I'm starting a new thread to facilitate rational discussions about what things can be done to combat global warming. Naturally the degree to which you think action must be taken will vary depending on your perception as to how serious the problem is and what the outcome will be. But for those who believe there is a problem I'd like to engage in a discussion about what to do. Nothing is not an option - we have a thread for that if you're in the camp that are still questioning whether global warming is real or not - feel free to use that thread.

    So what shall it be? Ethenol or hydrogen? Anti-cow-farting pills or just kill all of the cows? Will it take 20 years or 100 to change wholesale to alternative fuels?

    Hobbes...if you don't repost you're suggestions from the other thread I will.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 03/01/2008 at 01:31 AM.
  2. #2  
    Some time this weekend, I will try. If you beat me to the punch I won't be offended.
  3. #3  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    04/27/2007, 05:53 PM
    Source

    I have to say, that it still amazes me that with the potential of the world's wealth as a prize, that we do not have more advancement in alternative fuel sources for cars and other modes of transportation. I enjoy reading about the advancements of electronic cars, fuel cells, to nuclear powered batteries, etc... It seems that with all the technology we have now and all the new technologies we are developing and discovering all the time that there isn't a solution yet. It seems that no matter what alternative source you look at, it is "almost there"....but that for one challenge or another they are not able to mass market it, just cannot get that extra umph of power to make it have that mass appeal, just have to make it last a little longer to make it meet every day needs, etc...

    It reminds of what someone just posted today or yesterday....remember the movie Money Pit where the contractor keeps on telling Tom Hanks for months he will be finished in two weeks.

    I have already posted most of this quite a while ago, but I think it has been lost in the massive discusions on this topic here at TC, so here it is again.......There is no doubt that we effect the climate with our fossil fuel usage, coal burning, etc...(the point of interest in this with me is how much is a natural cycle as well). Even if one wanted to ignore all data confirming this, there is little doubt that there is certainly national security issues with our economy based on the oil prices that are directly controlled by all intentions our enemies or easily could become our potential enemies in the Middle East. Or with such a narrow pipeline (figuratively and literally speaking) of oil from the ground to our pumps that a terrorist org could stop our economy cold with some luck and planning on disrupting the oil supply chain. That with all this in mind, we need alternative fuel sources.

    So if someone cannot come to grips on the impact of our climate, maybe they can relate to the security needs of our nation. It doesn't matter if one believes in one and someone else in the other, the same solutions will meet both perspectives.

    I see this needing to be addressed in two...possibly three stages...these are just off the top of my head:

    IMMEDIATE NEEDS/GOALS (1-9 years)
    • Need to decrease foreign support for oil. this may mean domestic drilling to help curve this dependence.
    • I would support a tax on the oil companies AND at the pump that will go directly to funding alternative fuel research and implementation. With public awareness of where the money is going with public progression updates at least every 6 months.
    • I am generally not a gov regulation type of guy, but I have heard talk of gov regulations for oil companies that so much research must be geared toward alternative fuel sources. I would think that this would be a logical step. The day is coming when oil companies are going to be memory of the past for the most part, I would think they want to be involved in the next step.
    • Offer federal assistance to American auto makers to develop and implement current options (like more electrical power vs fossil fuel).
    • Increased Tax savings to individuals individuals who buy these cars.
    • There are certainly ethanol solutions that could be implemented now. Some with very few or minor adjustments to current trucks running diesel. Then add incentives for companies to implement the expansion of the distribution of the the new fuel and for auto makers to support it.


    LONG TERM NEEDS/GOALS (10-25 years)
    • Develop a car that does not run on fossil fuel at all. This would be such a HUGE financial incentive that the private sector should be easy to involve.
    • Add tax breaks for companies actively pursuing this goal with reviews of progress to continue these breaks.
    • Federal funding for University research into alternatives.
    • Implement a distribution system to support the new alternative fuel if needed that will need to replace gas stations.
    • The loss of world political clout that the Middle East will experience from such a transition will be HUGE and must be addressed in how to prepare for these concerns now. It is possible that this loss of wealth and power could turn violent if face with no longer having the world dependent on them for fuel consumption.
    • Have a $100 million X prize for the first person or org to present a mass market solution for non fossil fuel car.


    Again, these are just rambling thoughts that I am sure many are not thought out very far. Please add your perspective of what we need to do now for immediate goals and long term goals to move away from fossil fuel consumption all together.
  4. #4  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    05/11/2007, 04:43 PM
    Source


    Here is an ABC article that talks about what is happening with cars right now....as I said in the post above....it is still "almost there":

    The Race for a Clean Car

    Ten years ago I interviewed an engaging young engineer named Chris Borroni-Bird, then at Chrysler, whose area of expertise was fuel cells. He said to me, “There’s every reason to expect that this technology could be affordable and competitive with today’s internal combustion engine in ten years’ time.”

    Ten years have gone by, and while hydrogen cars still seem a long way off, car companies are tripping over each other trying to show them off. Borroni-Bird is now at GM, which is showing off a prototype fuel-cell car called the Chevy Sequel.

    ---------------

    Honda, meanwhile, has announced it will maket a limited number of its FCX fuel cell cars, and have a select audience driving them on regular roads. The company says, with a straight face, that the car gets the equivalent of 68 miles per gallon.

    Toyota is in the game too; they've put out word that by 2020, every car they make will be a hybrid (except, presumably, for fuel cell cars).

    Full story with additional links: http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceands...ce_for_a_.html
  5. #5  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    05/18/2007, 02:40 PM
    Source

    Now this sounds really promising....a possibly solution that can be used with our current cars and fossil fuel engines with an easy conversion. And with greater potential as fuel cell solutions become viable on a mass production level. Again this is another....almost there thing, but one that I think shows the most potential with dealing with the issue of using it now, having to establish a new distribution system, and with the where the future of cars is heading:

    Clean energy claim: Aluminum in your car tank
    Professor says Energy Department ‘egos’ blocking hydrogen breakthrough

    A Purdue University engineer and National Medal of Technology winner says he's ready and able to start a revolution in clean energy.

    Professor Jerry Woodall and students have invented a way to use an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water — a process that he thinks could replace gasoline as well as its pollutants and emissions tied to global warming.

    But Woodall says there's one big hitch: "Egos" at the U.S. Department of Energy, a key funding source for energy research, "are holding up the revolution."

    ----------------

    "The hydrogen is generated on demand, so you only produce as much as you need when you need it," he said in a statement released by Purdue this week.

    So instead of having to fill up at a station, hydrogen would be made inside vehicles in tanks about the same size as today's gasoline tanks. An internal reaction in those tanks would create hydrogen from water and 350 pounds worth of special pellets. ...............

    The hydrogen would then power an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell stack.

    "It's a simple matter to convert ordinary internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen," Woodall said. "All you have to do is replace the gasoline fuel injector with a hydrogen injector."

    How it works
    Here's how it all happens: Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is made of aluminum and a metal called gallium.

    "When water is added to the pellets, the aluminum in the solid alloy reacts because it has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water," Woodall said. "No toxic fumes are produced."

    This reaction splits the oxygen and hydrogen contained in water, releasing hydrogen in the process.

    -----------------------

    For Woodall, the biggest speed bump lies elsewhere. "The egos of program managers at DOE are holding up the revolution," he told msnbc.com...........As evidence, Woodall said DOE last summer rejected two "pre-proposals" for funding, "i.e., I was not invited to send in full proposals on my work."


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/page/2/ or this one http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/


    whmurray.....times like this I wish I had $100 billion dollars as this would have caught my attention enough to learn more about the realistic potential it has to offer with what funding for research.
  6. #6  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    01/19/2008, 11:42 PM
    Source

    Heck I am easy. Stop wasting precious time and energy arguing. Start with mutually agreed upon common ground. Start with an issue that most everyone can agree is a concern, no matter how they come to that same conclusion. No matter what opinion one may have, I think everyone can agree that we all need an alternate energy source for transportation (cars, planes, trains, military vessels, etc..) and heat (coal, oil, source for generating electricity, etc...). For those who feel our planet is doomed I think they agree that this a major source of the earth's woes. For those that don't buy into global warming, I am sure they will at least agree it is a major issue that our whole economy is based on and/or becoming totally energy independent is vital to the future of our national security. Resolving this issue alone is a major step to meeting nearly everyone's concerns no matter where they originate. Yet still it seems that so little money, effort, and focus is dedicated to finding a solution. Why?

    -----------------
    source

    But again.....this only proves the original point I was making....there is too much time and energy arguing about sources of areas of concern that is distracting from forming solutions to these concerns. It is very easy to find a reason for nearly everyone to be concerned with developing alternative fuels sooner rather than later. Yet there is still too much profit for keeping oil as the standard now to push this very far very fast. Carbon credit sales is becoming big business. Something that will be very challenging to continue when oil is no longer the number source. Oil companies have obvious vested interests in not immediately pushing for alternative fuel development and implementation as well. Both sides have a biased corner in the fight, in the publications that are released, the grants that are funded, etc....

    I have laid out in detail my ideas for developing an alternative fuel source in both the short term (1-10 years) and the long term (10-25 years). How would you propose to do this?
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    01/22/2008, 09:01 AM
    Source

    Here is an interesting step in the right direction......

    Israel Looks to Electric Cars

    Electric cars, which have existed for more than 100 years, are becoming all the rage — both GM and Toyota have said they will manufacture plug-in hybrids by 2010. But Agassi's plan stands out because it focuses on the infrastructure for recharging cars instead of on the vehicles themselves.

    Battery technology has advanced markedly in the past few years, yet an electrically powered family-style car still can't go much farther than 100 miles on a charge, and once a battery is drained it takes hours to power back up. Agassi's solution: take the battery out of the car and make it part of the infrastructure. Agassi was being shown a battery at Tesla Motors, a California-based company developing its own electric car, when the thought struck him. "I'm looking at this thing," says Agassi, "and I'm thinking, 'Oh, I get it. This is oil. This is not the gas tank. It's the gas.'"

    In practice, that means consumers will buy cars from Renault-Nissan, then subscribe to a Better Place service that includes use of a battery and electricity from charging stations. The business model, Agassi says, is similar to how a mobile phone company sells airtime. Agassi figures that if he adds electrical outlets to at least 500,000 of Israel's three to four million parking spots, people will feel like they can charge their cars whenever they need to. Since most people seldom drive more than 100 miles at a time, wiring workplaces and public spaces like shopping malls should keep most cars juiced. For longer drives, customers will be able to pull into a battery-swap station and get a fresh battery. Better Place, and not individual drivers, owns the batteries, which should keep the price of the cars comparable to gas-powered vehicles.

    FULL ARTICLE
    If this was implemented in the US, there would need to be a spare battery compartment and battery to fill it as well. I will be interested in how much this translates in subscription cost per mile if 80% of the batteries were used before exchanging it 3 times a week.

    ------------------

    I was actually more interested in the solution rather than their motivation. The infrastructure that they plan (and are committed) to put in place very interesting....especially with an eye of the possibilities of adopting a similar plan here in the US. And if so, what changes would have to take place at what cost to who to make is practical with our larger distances we generally drive here. Apparently the company behind most of this is based in here in CA.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    01/23/2008, 01:41 PM
    Source

    Here are some ideas that I have why there is a massive lack of funding and research towards finding a viable alternative energy solution that can be implemented into a massive infrastructure to support it at an economical price for the consumer "at the pump" level:

    One: Gov Support. In spite of all the talk from Pres Bush I really have not seen any real push or incentives or aid offered to advance research. I am generally against the gov stepping in as a general principle and becoming the source of motivation for a movement & development that could be or should be handled in the private sector.

    But since the solution will have to involve a major overhaul in our national gas distribution infrastructure, have direct effects on our economy, potentially spark very harsh actions from those in the middle east that would loose the number one oil consumer as a customer for all transportation fuel, etc... This time they do need to step up and offer financial assistance for research, tax breaks, an X prize, etc... to spur this on. Research needs to be in a larger part than it is now funded by the gov to take a little of the financial risk factor out of the private sector as new ideas are tried and scrapped in R&D. Devil is in the details, but I would vote for a gas tax that went to this with published results every 6 months.

    Two: Money / Greed. Right now as I mentioned above there is too much money to be earned and taken advantage of right now with the both the oil companies on one side with the motivation to keep oil as the number source for transportation and Carbon Credit Sales on the other side with the same motivation. These two avenues need to leveraged with an invested interest in developing and deploying an alternative fuel source. They could be given a 5-10% tax break (which is massive concerning their revenues) if 100% of that money went to 3rd party organizations / companies / academic institutions developing alternative fuel source and infrastructure research. Again with progress reports every 6 months.

    Three: No sense of public urgency. There needs to be an active, massive, and on going public education program to gain public support and then hopefully public demand for this. To avoid the Right Wingers and the Left Wingers distracting from the this message bickering about what the motivations for this movement is, we need to focus on the solutions and the benefits of implementing a solution be it environmentally friendly, increasing our national security, solidify the basis of our economy, etc... To fund this we could use a tax break for the oil companies to help fund research above and since the Carbon Credits are suppose to be all about improving the environment and our awareness of our personal effects on it, their tax breaks would assist to fund this with their tens of billions industry.

    This is just as important as research as public complacency is a great environment to stall and squander money if these programs do not have a very public eye watching it's progress and demanding results.

    I fear though that it is going to take $6.85 a gallon price hike that will kill our economy to bring about this sense of urgency to look for alternative fuels. But then there will not be the money to research as we would have now.

    Four: Action Now. Every Day People Can Take Action. There is a lot that we can do now to add to this cause. It sounds cliche, but it can never be underestimated the use of local newspapers, contacting gov officials, talk radio, etc... in sharing any of these ideas and the urgency to move now.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/29/2008 at 08:36 PM.
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    01/24/2008, 12:45 PM
    Source

    See what I mean. Perfect example. I am talking about solutions to help solve one of the major sources for global warming....stopping oil burning in transportation and heating, coal burning to create electricity, etc..... I am talking about developing alternative oil energy sources by focusing on the benefits of what would come of it and not the politically charged motivations for wanting to get there.

    But you just proved my point that we need to talk about benefits of solutions. When we focus just the causes of motivation the process comes to a screeching halt.

    For those on the left the motivation for developing alternative energy source are the claims that it is the one of the major sources destroying our planet. Then the right come to a screeching halt and stop looking at the benefits of the solutions of an alternative energy and focus on the left's claims.

    When the right get motivated for finding an alternative energy source because of their perspective for the need to become oil independent, the left comes to a screeching halt (like you did) and stop looking at the benefits of the solutions of an alternative energy and focus on the right's claims.

    The solutions are the same. The solutions benefits all sides. Political bias is one of the major items in the way. Who cares if the person sees the need for oil independence so terrorists do not collapse our economy and ruin the country by bombing and destroying our oil pipelines and reserves. Who cares if the sole source of their motivation for finding an alternative energy source is to stop the ocean level from rising 130 feet in the next 3 years.

    Addressing this major issue and overcoming these major biased stumbling blocks so we can move forward is a valid and must be talked about topic to help resolve and move forward.
  10. #10  
    Okay...that is probably enough to chew on for now... ...and probably a lot more than you really wanted!
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Originally posted by HobbesIsReal
    05/18/2007, 02:40 PM
    Source

    Now this sounds really promising....a possibly solution that can be used with our current cars and fossil fuel engines with an easy conversion. And with greater potential as fuel cell solutions become viable on a mass production level. Again this is another....almost there thing, but one that I think shows the most potential with dealing with the issue of using it now, having to establish a new distribution system, and with the where the future of cars is heading:

    Clean energy claim: Aluminum in your car tank
    Professor says Energy Department ‘egos’ blocking hydrogen breakthrough





    whmurray.....times like this I wish I had $100 billion dollars as this would have caught my attention enough to learn more about the realistic potential it has to offer with what funding for research.

    Hobbes,

    I read about this, too, when it first came out. So cool. At the time, there was a lot more info about it available on the net. I didn't save any of it, and searches now aren't seeming to come up with much. Do you have anything more on it?
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Hobbes,

    I read about this, too, when it first came out. So cool. At the time, there was a lot more info about it available on the net. I didn't save any of it, and searches now aren't seeming to come up with much. Do you have anything more on it?
    In addition, the catalyst is supposedly easily regenerated for reuse. Seems too good to be true!!!
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Again, these are just rambling thoughts that I am sure many are not thought out very far. Please add your perspective of what we need to do now for immediate goals and long term goals to move away from fossil fuel consumption all together.
    Seems to me that many of the ideas in existence today aren't really viable--particularly considering the sense of urgency doled out by the science community--in terms of creating short term and long term solutions.

    I compared two vehicles, what I drive now (2005 Ford Explorer) and a 2008 Toyota Prius over at fueleconomy.gov.

    The '05 Explorer emits an annual rating of 12.2 annual tons of CO2.

    The .08 Prius emits an annual rating of 4.0 tons of CO2.

    True that is indeed almost exactly 75% less CO2, but we have a few problems as I see it:

    • What percentage of the population purchases new cars?
    • How long will it take to cycle even a Prius to make a significant impact in the US alone?
    • Look down your block right now; it is unlikely that you will see very many cars that are under 2 years old.


    With that said, I find that our 75% less emissions from cars alone won't be making any impact any time soon.

    HOWEVER, let's look at another solution (I rarely ever hear about).

    My '05 Explorer garnered a whopping 12.2 annual tons of CO2, but that was based on an annual mileage of 15,000 & roughly 50/50 split of highway/city miles.

    According to the National Travel Household Survey:

    In 1969 the average household traveled 12,412 miles annually whereas in 2001 that number rose to 21,252--a 58% increase.


    You really want to reduce emissions & quickly?


    Toll roads--everywhere.


    Plain and simple, people drive too damn much and everyone here knows it. Start erecting toll roads and people will learn (and quickly) to consolidate their trips to Wal-Mart.

    1 - Obvious, the costs
    2 - It's a hassle to have the necessary money handy
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Seems to me that many of the ideas in existence today aren't really viable--particularly considering the sense of urgency doled out by the science community--in terms of creating short term and long term solutions.

    I compared two vehicles, what I drive now (2005 Ford Explorer) and a 2008 Toyota Prius over at fueleconomy.gov.

    The '05 Explorer emits an annual rating of 12.2 annual tons of CO2.

    The .08 Prius emits an annual rating of 4.0 tons of CO2.

    True that is indeed almost exactly 75% less CO2, but we have a few problems as I see it:
    • What percentage of the population purchases new cars?
    • How long will it take to cycle even a Prius to make a significant impact in the US alone?
    • Look down your block right now; it is unlikely that you will see very many cars that are under 2 years old.

    With that said, I find that our 75% less emissions from cars alone won't be making any impact any time soon.

    HOWEVER, let's look at another solution (I rarely ever hear about).

    My '05 Explorer garnered a whopping 12.2 annual tons of CO2, but that was based on an annual mileage of 15,000 & roughly 50/50 split of highway/city miles.

    According to the National Travel Household Survey:

    In 1969 the average household traveled 12,412 miles annually whereas in 2001 that number rose to 21,252--a 58% increase.


    You really want to reduce emissions & quickly?


    Toll roads--everywhere.


    Plain and simple, people drive too damn much and everyone here knows it. Start erecting toll roads and people will learn (and quickly) to consolidate their trips to Wal-Mart.

    1 - Obvious, the costs
    2 - It's a hassle to have the necessary money handy
    Interesting post. You’ve obviously thought about it. But one question. Wouldn’t your solution be considered discriminatory? Not everyone can afford to pay tolls, especially if they are everywhere. Isn’t this one reason why there are roads adjacent to most tolls so that people who can’t afford the toll still have a way to get around? Just a thought.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    Interesting post. You’ve obviously thought about it. But one question. Wouldn’t your solution be considered discriminatory? Not everyone can afford to pay tolls, especially if they are everywhere. Isn’t this one reason why there are roads adjacent to most tolls so that people who can’t afford the toll still have a way to get around? Just a thought.
    Any solution may be deemed "discriminatory" depending on how you look at it. The fact is, IF there is to be a change that minimizes the CO2 emissions, it will in one way or another be coerced upon the people--thus will cost them inevitably.

    I'm not sure that I actually would agree that people wouldn't be able to afford a toll if they are indeed driving as they obviously had money to put fuel in the vehicle. Additionally, the toll needn't be very much; it's primary purpose is to be a nuisance which in turn minimizes trips out and about.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Any solution may be deemed "discriminatory" depending on how you look at it. The fact is, IF there is to be a change that minimizes the CO2 emissions, it will in one way or another be coerced upon the people--thus will cost them inevitably.

    I'm not sure that I actually would agree that people wouldn't be able to afford a toll if they are indeed driving as they obviously had money to put fuel in the vehicle. Additionally, the toll needn't be very much; it's primary purpose is to be a nuisance which in turn minimizes trips out and about.
    I actually don't mind the idea at all. It's a use-tax in essence, and I tend to favor such taxes anyway. I just hope that the consumer isn't the only one's being targeted to lower their carbon footprint. Big business needs to be motivated to do so as well - congress can feel free to start in Texas who has the highest CO2 emissions in the country.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I actually don't mind the idea at all. It's a use-tax in essence, and I tend to favor such taxes anyway. I just hope that the consumer isn't the only one's being targeted to lower their carbon footprint. Big business needs to be motivated to do so as well - congress can feel free to start in Texas who has the highest CO2 emissions in the country.
    Yeah, I seem to recall someone here referring to the “great” state of Texas as the anus of the country. Now, every time I look at a map, my view morph’s into this gastrointestinal picture whereby see “emissions.”

    But back on topic, seems to me that the price increase in gas would accomplish the same thing. Not only would/are people driving less, but I am starting to see more fuel efficient/prius type cars on the road. I’m going to go that route myself with my next vehicle purchase. Sadly, the love affair I had with driving and my car has ended. Too many drivers (and rude ones at that) on the road. Now I just want to get where I’m going.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  18. #18  
    The big challenge I see with tolling every road, is that our economy, society, major transportation of goods and produce, etc... are all based on our highway infrastructure and the freedom to get around. The average person would be hit on every aspect. They would have to have a budget for getting their kids to school and back home, they would have to have a budget for using the roads to getting to and from work, etc... Transportation of goods, food, etc... will rise which will raise the cost of everything the average person buys, again hitting their budget. I can't quite jump on board this idea as it is focused on limiting people with travel rather than focus on cleaner and more efficient ways to travel.

    As I stated in post #3 above, I would listen to and glad to discuss a gas tax specifically for research of alternative fuels with frequent public progress reports. This encourages people to transition to more economical cars, which in turn creates a demand for more fuel efficient cars, that generates motivation in researching and designing more efficient methods of using fuel by the car manufacturers so they can offer a car that the public is demanding.
  19. #19  
    Too bad something like nuclear power, which seems like an obvious alternative, evokes such a visceral response from the very people that champion global warming and spurn oil consumption. Why not more nuclear power plants?
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    The big challenge I see with tolling every road, is that our economy, society, major transportation of goods and produce, etc... are all based on our highway infrastructure and the freedom to get around.
    Exactly, so it really depends on how serious one is about global warming. The idea of toll roads is highly inconvenient, but highly worthwhile to the issue of global warming--much more than probably any other idea (speaking again to the notion of a sense of urgency).

    Obviously some tweaks are necessary to fully lay the idea, but I suppose the point has been made.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions