Make America Guzzle Again!?

[Magician]

I also try to conserve and believe we should be good stewards of our planet. However, I don't buy all the "Scientific" conclusions on global warming. There certainly have to be political and financial motivations behind it all.

[freebeard]

I do not recall any discussions of human induced cooling or SO2 back in the 70's. The concern, and not an unreasonable one, was simply a return to an ice age, as happens every time we go into a period of cool years. That concern spawned the fear of Nuclear Winter, as though plain old Mutually Assured Destruction was not terrifying enough.

And some well-intentioned people in positions of power decide to geo-engineer their way out of a perceived existential threat; and in all good conscience start lacing the skies with chem-trails to retain our precious planetary heat.

...until the warming thaws out the Pre-Adamite Old Ones frozen in Antartica.

Originally Posted by acparker

I understand the desire to live an idyllic existence...

As do I, but I also think about hardening the infrastructure against having a large portion of the atmosphere blown away by the Heliosphere, the way it happened to Mars.

The new proposal is to put a magnetic generator at Mars' L-1 point and generate an artificial magnetosphere so Mars can retain an atmosphere.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

As do I, but I also think about hardening the infrastructure against having a large portion of the atmosphere blown away by the Heliosphere, the way it happened to Mars.

The new proposal is to put a magnetic generator at Mars' L-1 point and generate an artificial magnetosphere so Mars can retain an atmosphere.

Hah, literally reading your post as I watch a video about the heliosphere and L1 points.

[vskid3]

Originally Posted by Magician

I also try to conserve and believe we should be good stewards of our planet. However, I don't buy all the "Scientific" conclusions on global warming. There certainly have to be political and financial motivations behind it all.

Is that really so bad, though? I would much rather see us spending money on sustainable energy even if we don't need to than other government spending/regulations we don't need. "Oh darnit, what are we going to do with all this clean energy now that we know climate change was a hoax?"

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by vskid3

Is that really so bad, though? I would much rather see us spending money on sustainable energy even if we don't need to than other government spending/regulations we don't need. "Oh darnit, what are we going to do with all this clean energy now that we know climate change was a hoax?"

Many problems aren't solvable by simply throwing money at them. Research money is no guarantee of finding an elegant solution. Think of all the billions spent on cancer research, and cancer is still the #2 killer.

Look at how much the US spends on education and healthcare, and how poor our results are.

New solutions will come, but it will mostly take time and luck.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Many problems aren't solvable by simply throwing money at them. Research money is no guarantee of finding an elegant solution. Think of all the billions spent on cancer research, and cancer is still the #2 killer.

Look at how much the US spends on education and healthcare, and how poor our results are.

New solutions will come, but it will mostly take time and luck.

Not really a good analogy. Curing cancer is quite a bit trickier than building a cheaper battery or even developing Gen4 nuclear power plants.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by sendler

Not really a good analogy. Curing cancer is quite a bit trickier than building a cheaper battery or even developing Gen4 nuclear power plants.

Your quite right, cancer is very strongly correlated to environmental exposures found in this modern world.

Removal of exposure virtually eliminates cancer risk through old age.

In other words most cancer is preventable but who wants to give up plastic , household cleaners, synthetic flooring, ban various industrial processes, remove chlorine and ban synthetic flame retardant furniture?

[slowmover]

The point where emissions standards do 90% reduction in what is harmful is more than enough. Crosses the line where benefits don't pay off.

Federal fuel tax needs to again reflect maintenance repairs and upgrades. Hasn't changed since 1992. Pay for what you use. Etc.

Metro sprawl due to parents being forced out of city school districts and their dangers, and that women went to work to make up for the loss in their husbands income (and to afford that more distant home) after 1976, plus the general foolishness of using unsecured credit, have more to do with "gas guzzling" than vehicle design at this stage.

Long lasting efficient family transportation.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Curing cancer is quite a bit trickier than building a cheaper battery or even developing Gen4 nuclear power plants.

Everything is tricky until you know what you're doing, then it's easy.

I'm quite certain that a more elegant treatment for cancer will be found before we find electric storage that rivals the density of gasoline. Ever heard of CRISPR It might put me out of my new job in the not too distant future, but that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Your quite right, cancer is very strongly correlated to environmental exposures found in this modern world.

Removal of exposure virtually eliminates cancer risk through old age.

In other words most cancer is preventable but who wants to give up plastic , household cleaners, synthetic flooring, ban various industrial processes, remove chlorine and ban synthetic flame retardant furniture?

This is entirely false. Cancer is unavoidable. You could grow the longest beard, live in the most remote wilderness, and live the most granola life possible, and the probability of getting terminal cancer approaches 100% as time goes on.

Sure, there are environmental factors that increase cancer probability, but living itself creates massive risk because DNA replication and damage are part of living.

[Fat Charlie]

Money spent doesn't reflect quality of effort.

Carcos were told "burn less gas, and do it cleaner" and they did. There are some pricey parts, but engines today wrench more performance from every gallon and spew less crap than they did when I was a kid.

Most medical research is centered around selling pills- and the gubmint still loves its alcohol and tobacco tax revenue. So what do we get? Clean burning cars on one hand and expensive pills & painful deaths on the other, with a government that just wants a cut of the proceeds.