Study says drive-thrus are cleaner than park and walk

[orange4boy]

Shutting off your hummer (permanently if possible) in the parking lot saves a lot of fuel compared to an emblem.

The point is that because of this flawed study millions of people who may have reconsidered their bad habits will have a good excuse not to shut off their engines for fear of the "Puff of bad emissions" when they restart.

I'm all for harm reduction and reducing waste. I'm not expecting the world to stop tomorrow but the amount of waste in our culture is staggering. Many of the people on this site have cut their consumption in half. We need more of this type of action on an individual basis. It could make a huge difference.

Idling accounts for up to 16% (and beyond) of and average car's fuel useage.

That ain't peanuts.

[Peter7307]

Originally Posted by shovel

This is an enormously unpopular thing to say, I know, but that doesn't make it any less realistic:

If we decide in quantity all the stuff humans do is at some level bad, then the obvious solution is fewer humans.

Until we're mature enough as a society to accept that, any other gestures toward "going green" is going to be like shoveling sand against the tide with a teaspoon.

I totally agree.
More people = more damage and one of the most beneficial environmental choices anyone , especially if they are living in any Western country , can make is not to have kids.

Sadly , it seems to be a topic most people simply won't even consider discussing let along having a debate on.

Pete.

[roflwaffle]

Kinda off topic, and probably controversial, but the reason most people get irked about population is that a lot of the vocal organizations pushing it are doing so for *financial gain while too many of the really loud individuals are closeted xenophobes/racists. For the most part, environmental impacts are caused by the wealthy, to the point where the average American emits as much in the way of GHGs as 1000+ Kenyans. Roughly speaking, the ~1.4 billion people living in the EU, Japan, and the U.S. cause as much damage to the environment as the other ~5.3 billion people in the world. If we ignore national boundaries and instead focus on wealth we would probably see that the richest hundreds of millions on the planet cause the same impact as the the other 6+ billion people do. Of course, the point isn't that we would all be better w/o wealthy people, but that our problems are due to specific facets of our economy as opposed to our population as a whole. Looking at the rich illustrates this because they consume far more than most of the world.

*Fossil fuels alone account for tens of trillions of dollars in global wealth every year, not to mention the economic winners and losers from the restriction of other environmentally damaging activities. A lot of the supposed controversy about population growth IMO is just astroturfing/PR campaigns by wealth interests who would be hurt by moving to more sustainable ways of doing things.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by shovel

This is an enormously unpopular thing to say, I know, but that doesn't make it any less realistic:

If we all are to decide that man's contributions to the planet are inherently bad - the stuff we put in landfills, the stuff we put in the air by driving around and manufacturing things, the trees we cut down to make room for raising livestock, the rubbish we dump in rivers, all the stuff we're asked to feel guilty about on a daily basis..

If we decide in quantity all the stuff humans do is at some level bad, then the obvious solution is fewer humans.

Until we're mature enough as a society to accept that, any other gestures toward "going green" is going to be like shoveling sand against the tide with a teaspoon.

What does that have to do with this thread? I'm just saying the topic of this discussion is nothing to be concerned about one way or another. It's like deciding whether or not the emblems on the side of your Hummer are contributing to its aero drag.

Ed Zachary.

The more clever humans are in evading- or I should say, postponing- crises of resources and/or pollution, the more it seems to encourage extravagant reproduction. Then someday the isht will really hit the fan but until then we can be fat dumb and happy as long as we can continue tossing about as much genetic seed as possible.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Peter7307

I totally agree.
More people = more damage and one of the most beneficial environmental choices anyone , especially if they are living in any Western country , can make is not to have kids.

Sadly , it seems to be a topic most people simply won't even consider discussing let along having a debate on.

Pete.

In the past I have found it exceedingly difficult to have any sort of constructive dialogue on the topic as the vast majority, for some odd reason, fly straight past logic and into irrational emotional ranting.

[cfg83]

Frank -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

In the past I have found it exceedingly difficult to have any sort of constructive dialogue on the topic as the vast majority, for some odd reason, fly straight past logic and into irrational emotional ranting.

Yeah, I think this subject matter is likely to get hot very quick. Sorry in advance, but don't be surprised if we have to moderate the direction that this thread is going.

CarloSW2

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Ed Zachary.

The more clever humans are in evading- or I should say, postponing- crises of resources and/or pollution, the more it seems to encourage extravagant reproduction. Then someday the isht will really hit the fan but until then we can be fat dumb and happy as long as we can continue tossing about as much genetic seed as possible.

How can you post something like this then complain about irrational emotional ranting? If you're going to look at it in a balanced manner, then even if you limit population there's still going to be a crisis of resources/pollution due to more opulent lifestyles. Either way people will hit the limit due to the product of population and lifestyle. Limit or cut one and the other increases up to whatever bounds prevent their product from growing. I'd rather see more people sucking down fewer resources per capita then fewer sucking down more, but I may be the minority in that view.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by cfg83

Frank -



Yeah, I think this subject matter is likely to get hot very quick. Sorry in advance, but don't be surprised if we have to moderate the direction that this thread is going.

CarloSW2

This is not a jab at you carlos, i understand your position. But you must admit this post proves my point exactly - we aren't ready to grow up yet.

As for the thread's topic... so a person spends 3-10 minutes idling through the drive thru or they spend 3-10 minutes cruising around trying to find the closest possible parking spot to the entrance so they don't have to walk more than 25 feet to put 350 calories of mocha latte macchiato grande six dollar cup of coffee in their pie hole. In a two layer cup with five napkins and a plastic spoon sealed individually in a plastic bag and let's not forget ten inches of receipt paper. Then either back at their parking spot or right after they get out of the drive through they'll sit there in Drive with their foot on the brake applying lipstick or texting or plucking at their moustache or whatever for nine more minutes before tearing off to their next destination five miles away to buy one, four dollar item. And so will their nine brothers and sisters 'cause there wasn't much to do in their parents' home town 30 years ago.

Some days ya drive through 'cause your car's climate controlled, and other days you walk in 'cause you had to take a whiz anyway. That's what it comes down to and probably always will.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

even if you limit population...

You know, if people watched more Back to the Future they'd realize that we live in four dimensions, not just three.

Nobody has to LIMIT anything. Just wait. Here let me simplify it: Let's say the average person "Bob" has a kid when they're 20 years old right? After 100 years you have Bob Sr., Bob Jr., Bob III, Bob IV, and Bob V. Five Bobs alive at the same time.

Now let's pretend Bob Sr. and all his kids wait five years longer, until they are 25 years old. After 100 years you have Bob Sr., Bob Jr., Bob III, and Bob IV. That's four Bobs instead of five - a 20% reduction - and nobody had to produce fewer kids, just produce them more slowly. And chances are, Bob's a better dad at 25 than he would have been at age 20 when he barely got done being a kid himself so now Bob Jr. has a better opportunity to grow up a respectable man, and so forth.

All it takes is for people to wait. Nobody needs to be oppressed, we don't need any thinly veiled eugenics nightmare. Just patience like we all exercise when we're coasting to a stop to save fuel.

Not that it matters much to me, none of my DNA's going to have to worry about it.

[roflwaffle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think slowing things down by a couple decades will make or break limits due to population at whatever lifestyle. Procrastination is very human in either case.