Would you drive 55mph to slow global warming?

Carolyn · Post by **Carolyn** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:21 am

Since there is proof that driving slower saves on gasoline, why haven't our speed limits been reduced?

"For every mile per hour faster than 55 mph, fuel economy drops by about 1 percent, the drop-off increases at a greater rate after 65 mph. The faster you go, the faster the fuel goes."

http://acrosstheboard.blogspot.com/2005 ... leage.html

Would you be willing to slow down to help global warming and also save money on the gas you use--- and also cut down the loss of life in car accidents by 15%?

Just saving lives makes driving slower a good deal to me. And saving money? Sure! If it would slow global warming down, I'd be willing to do it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:37 am

I think in order to take measures as drastic as that 1) There would have to be considerable amounts of evidence that global warming is a threat(And considering it's still in the 30's (F) here going into the middle of April I seriously question the credibility of anything claiming that global warming is something to worry about 2) Reducing the speed to only 55 mph in such an instance of actually proving that global warming is a threat would be completely irrelevant compared to countless other things that would be more affective...

I just don't believe in it one bit...

Seriously it's still winter here...

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:41 am

I always drive 55 in a 35

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:44 am

K.Snyder;592353 wrote: I think in order to take measures as drastic as that 1) There would have to be considerable amounts of evidence that global warming is a threat(And considering it's still in the 30's (F) here going into the middle of April I seriously question the credibility of anything claiming that global warming is something to worry about 2) Reducing the speed to only 55 mph in such an instance of actually proving that global warming is a threat would be completely irrelevant compared to countless other things that would be more affective...

I just don't believe in it one bit...

Seriously it's still winter here...

Global warming is about global average temperature - not the temperature in a specific location at a specific time.

If you change a steady state system then you will get turbulence within the system until it settles into its new state. That turbulence can take local conditions up or down even though the overall trend is upwards.

I could give you many examples of the large increase in local average temperatures in my area but, being local, it's no more conclusive than your decrease.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:53 am

55 mph ? Yea right :rolleyes: Since when do motorists obey speed laws ? If Im doing 65 mph, 70% of the other drivers are going 80 mph. The state doesnt have the resources to fund the amount of cops it would take to make an impact so its only the occasional driver that gets a ticket.

They cant saturate the roads with patrol cars so people are gonna do what they wanna do.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:45 am

Nomad;593089 wrote: 55 mph ? Yea right :rolleyes: Since when do motorists obey speed laws ? If Im doing 65 mph, 70% of the other drivers are going 80 mph. The state doesnt have the resources to fund the amount of cops it would take to make an impact so its only the occasional driver that gets a ticket.

They cant saturate the roads with patrol cars so people are gonna do what they wanna do.

I am beginning to believe that Global Warming is in fact occuring. Previous posts here mention the drastic weather variations in their "local" areas. Even New England, is currently expecting a Nor-Easter storm! It seems weather all over the world (Global) is screwed up! Thus fueling (excuse the pun) the speculation/belief of Global warming effects!

Anyway, like Nomie said, people will always speed. If "they" (who ever they are) were really serious about slowing down speeding cars, a cost effective way to make that happen would be to force the installation of "speed goveners" on all cars "globally around the world", that would not let cars mph exceed 60! No policing required!:)

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:51 am

Wah, a car that wouldn't let you go over 60! I would miss the runs across the desert at a high number of mph!

*can't do it here anyway, but I am looking forward to this summer, and vrooming it...............*

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:54 am

cars;593106 wrote: I am beginning to believe that Global Warming is in fact occuring. Previous posts here mention the drastic weather variations in their "local" areas. Even New England, is currently expecting a Nor-Easter storm! It seems weather all over the world (Global) is screwed up! Thus fueling (excuse the pun) the speculation/belief of Global warming effects!

Anyway, like Nomie said, people will always speed. If "they" (who ever they are) were really serious about slowing down speeding cars, a cost effective way to make that happen would be to force the installation of "speed goveners" on all cars "globally around the world", that would not let cars mph exceed 60! No policing required!:)

MIRA (the UK's Motor Industry Research Association) have been looking into the use of governers to enforce the speed limits.

So far it appears that it would increase the number of accidents as it tends to cause a concertina with cars bunching together far more closely than is safe.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:11 am

Nomad;593089 wrote: 55 mph ? Yea right :rolleyes: Since when do motorists obey speed laws ? If Im doing 65 mph, 70% of the other drivers are going 80 mph. The state doesnt have the resources to fund the amount of cops it would take to make an impact so its only the occasional driver that gets a ticket.

They cant saturate the roads with patrol cars so people are gonna do what they wanna do.

Nomad makes a point here. To most drivers the speed limit is just a suggestion, it seems. Want people to drive 55? Post the speed limit at 40 or something.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:18 am

Marie5656;593156 wrote: Nomad makes a point here. To most drivers the speed limit is just a suggestion, it seems. Want people to drive 55? Post the speed limit at 40 or something.

The more unrealistic the posted speed limit is the more it will be ignored

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:21 am

Bryn Mawr;593164 wrote: The more unrealistic the posted speed limit is the more it will be ignored

Would love to know what they would do on the Autobahn in Germany. Is there really no posted speed limit on it??.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:26 am

Marie5656;593167 wrote: Would love to know what they would do on the Autobahn in Germany. Is there really no posted speed limit on it??.

Large parts of it are unrestricted but I don't believe that there's an inordinate number of accidents because of it (and most of those are out of towners being stupid).

I've ridden on them and it's not that bad

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:55 am

55 miles an hour i'd love to do 55 mph to save the planet the trouble is i live near london and i'd be lucky to do 20mph ,while red ken goes 80mph past me in his special bus lane :-5 :-5

aristotle · Post by **aristotle** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:25 am

This is a good question. Those that truly believe that manmade global warming is a problem should be riding their bike, else they are hypocrites.

There is a lot of evidence that global warming has nothing to do with mankind. For instance, global warming is currently occurring on Mars and Pluto. So, driving slower will do nothing to slow global warming. This, in spite of Al Gores politically motivated movie (not documentary).

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:40 am

aristotle;593194 wrote: This is a good question. Those that truly believe that manmade global warming is a problem should be riding their bike, else they are hypocrites.

There is a lot of evidence that global warming has nothing to do with mankind. For instance, global warming is currently occurring on Mars and Pluto. So, driving slower will do nothing to slow global warming. This, in spite of Al Gores politically motivated movie (not documentary).

Firstly, why should warming on Mars and Pluto prove that man is not affecting the climate on Earth and secondly, could you show what degree of warming they are experiencing so that we can get some idea of relative rates?

aristotle · Post by **aristotle** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:51 am

Bryn Mawr;593198 wrote: Firstly, why should warming on Mars and Pluto prove that man is not affecting the climate on Earth and secondly, could you show what degree of warming they are experiencing so that we can get some idea of relative rates?

Good questions. Firstly, Mars global warming shows that the sun is going through another one of its cycles and warming the solar system a bit more than usual.

As for evidence, i will dig it up, again, and provide in a little while. I am just saying that driving slower may well be like cutting your lawn with fingernail clippers, both being waste of time to have the desired effect.:guitarist

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:04 am

aristotle;593204 wrote: Good questions. Firstly, Mars global warming shows that the sun is going through another one of its cycles and warming the solar system a bit more than usual.

As for evidence, i will dig it up, again, and provide in a little while. I am just saying that driving slower may well be like cutting your lawn with fingernail clippers, both being waste of time to have the desired effect.:guitarist

Then you should find evidence of the increased output level of the sun and, given that, can calculate the expected increase in average Earth temperature to compare it to observational fact. It's been done and is not significant.

I would agree that driving a bit slower is like darting in a hurricane but not because global warming does not exist but because the degree of reduction in CO2 output is so small in relation or man's overall output.

aristotle · Post by **aristotle** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:25 am

here is some science for you to chew on, regarding other planets that are also experencing global warming.

http://www.nationalsummary.com/Articles ... s_mars.htm

This shows that other planets are also experiencing global warming.

I am not convinced that if we actually are in a period of global warming, that we can necessarily do anything about it anyway, no matter how much money we throw at it. If it really is happening, and if mankind is not the principal culprit, how do we fix this? If, for example, the largest component of warming turns out to be increased solar output, what can we possibly do about that? Science fiction movies aside, if a major component turns out to be increased underwater volcanic activity, how do we fix that one?

and another article

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_artic ... tary_1.htm

Here are some highlights:

Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field ¦ for a supposedly “dead planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: “Global Warming, huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun

None of these statistics are from “fringe scientists; they are all very, very real, and what you have just read is only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.

This Report’s scientific data, from a variety of highly credible institutions (including NASA itself), reveals that startling “climate change phenomena are occurring, not just here on Earth, but, in fact -- throughout the entire solar system. This material has been publicly available for nearly a decade in some cases, but it was simply never assembled into a coherent picture of “a System in significant transition ¦ until this writing

According to a September 20 [2005] NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."

aristotle · Post by **aristotle** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:27 am

Bryn Mawr;593213 wrote: Then you should find evidence of the increased output level of the sun and, given that, can calculate the expected increase in average Earth temperature to compare it to observational fact. It's been done and is not significant.

I would agree that driving a bit slower is like darting in a hurricane but not because global warming does not exist but because the degree of reduction in CO2 output is so small in relation or man's overall output.

darting in a hurricane:) You mean playing darts in a hurricane. Funny analogy, i like it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:38 am

aristotle;593221 wrote: here is some science for you to chew on, regarding other planets that are also experencing global warming.

http://www.nationalsummary.com/Articles ... s_mars.htm

This shows that other planets are also experiencing global warming.

and another article

http://www.enterprisemission.com/_artic ... tary_1.htm

A quote from the second site you reference :-

4“There is only one possible explanation for the editors of Pocket Books accepting and publishing this sorry piece of pseudoscientific propaganda: Profit with a capital "P."

and another :-

7The BBC article later quotes Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored. “Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. It’s hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defense. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group; generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act.

and from the New Scientist report quoted in the scare story in the first article :-

However, Caplinger warns it is hard to make long-term predictions using observations over such a short period.

David Smith of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center thinks the shrinkage may be part of a multi-year climate cycle, like the terrestrial El Nino/Southern Oscillation. Recent dust storms might also have aided the melting of the cap.

Seasonal cycle

Planetary scientists have long recognized a seasonal cycle of growth and shrinkage of the frozen cap on Mars.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:09 pm

Would you drive 55mph to slow global warming?

NO

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:54 pm

Heh, I think it's funny that some people think 55mph is slow. I suppose it would be if your commute included the highway, but I don't see much of a need to go any faster than 60mph, unless you're passing. I think driving under 60 is a pretty minor sacrifice, and if we can't do that what the hell are we willing to do??

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:26 am

Bryn Mawr;593086 wrote: Global warming is about global average temperature - not the temperature in a specific location at a specific time.

If you change a steady state system then you will get turbulence within the system until it settles into its new state. That turbulence can take local conditions up or down even though the overall trend is upwards.

I could give you many examples of the large increase in local average temperatures in my area but, being local, it's no more conclusive than your decrease.

So do you believe that global warming is a threat?...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:29 am

Nomad;593089 wrote: 55 mph ? Yea right :rolleyes: Since when do motorists obey speed laws ? If Im doing 65 mph, 70% of the other drivers are going 80 mph. The state doesnt have the resources to fund the amount of cops it would take to make an impact so its only the occasional driver that gets a ticket.

They cant saturate the roads with patrol cars so people are gonna do what they wanna do.

You know what's funny...

Is that I think that if they put simple decoys out in the middle of the highway that resemble police cars I can almost guarantee with motorists not knowing which is real and which isn't will eventually lower their perceived need to speed...

Thus ultimately saving in tax payers expenditures in trying to keep the roads safe...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:41 am

No but I would use a car powered by alternative fuels to petrol.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:46 am

K.Snyder;593525 wrote: So do you believe that global warming is a threat?...

Very definitely - the evidence for it is overwhelming

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:28 am

K.Snyder;593525 wrote: So do you believe that global warming is a threat?...

I give it to you, we are screwing up the world. But, the scenario that Hollywood has between it's teeth about the ice caps melting and flooding the whole world, (Waterworld, anyone?) is ridiculous. Put an icecube in a glass of water and let it melt. Does the water overflow the glass? Seriously, find out. The earth has been going through phases of cooling and heating since it was formed. Hello... the Earth was once an inhabitable place with rivers of lava. And then.. the Ice Age. The Earth has natural cycles.

As for my belief about going 65 and under.... I just don't think it's reasonable to go that fast. It really has nothing to do with the environment, in my opinion. It's dangerous number one. And if you want to go over 100 and get a nice little adrenaline rush, get a snowmobile or ATV, find a trail and ride as fast as you'd like. At least if you crash you won't be hurting anyone else.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:40 am

laneybug;593641 wrote: I give it to you, we are screwing up the world. But, the scenario that Hollywood has between it's teeth about the ice caps melting and flooding the whole world, (Waterworld, anyone?) is ridiculous. Put an icecube in a glass of water and let it melt. Does the water overflow the glass? Seriously, find out. The earth has been going through phases of cooling and heating since it was formed. Hello... the Earth was once an inhabitable place with rivers of lava. And then.. the Ice Age. The Earth has natural cycles.

As for my belief about going 65 and under.... I just don't think it's reasonable to go that fast. It really has nothing to do with the environment, in my opinion. It's dangerous number one. And if you want to go over 100 and get a nice little adrenaline rush, get a snowmobile or ATV, find a trail and ride as fast as you'd like. At least if you crash you won't be hurting anyone else.

Main problem with your argument is that a large amount of the worlds ice is not floating freely. The Antartic ice cap is sitting on solid rock as is a lot of the periphery of the northern ice cap. When this melts it will add to the sea level as it is effectively new water in the sea.

As for it not being reasonable to go more than 55 or even 65. The national speed limit in the UK is 70 and the roads where this apply are listed as the safest in the country in the abstract of statistics from the National Audit Office.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:52 am

Pinky;593645 wrote: It's not so much speed that causes the accidents, it's people driving too closely and not being aware of other road users usually.

As for global warming, there's a lille place outside Yarmouth called Scratby.

The row of houses right next to the sea used to be quite a way from it and the people who own them can't sell because of it.

Absolute speed does not kill - it's speed differential that's the killer (that and stupid driving but that's another argument).

CrazyCruizChick · Post by **CrazyCruizChick** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:59 am

I had some one visit me yesterday taking a survey for cutting down on driving emissions and it was very interesting as you do get to find out how ignorant you can become without knowing.

I think the government should do more things like this and make people more aware of the little things that help in a big way.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:55 am

laneybug;593641 wrote:

As for my belief about going 65 and under.... I just don't think it's reasonable to go that fast. It really has nothing to do with the environment, in my opinion. It's dangerous number one. And if you want to go over 100 and get a nice little adrenaline rush, get a snowmobile or ATV, find a trail and ride as fast as you'd like. At least if you crash you won't be hurting anyone else.

Your emphasis was more so about speed then?...

Well I happen to agree with you...

Although I think 65 mph is that of a snails pace I don't feel the need to to speed excessively on public streets...

CrazyCruizChick · Post by **CrazyCruizChick** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:12 pm

Even taking out items from your car which really don't have to be there can help by lighting the load in the car in which you would use less petrol or gas and excessive speeding which would increase in fuel consumption and that leading to unnecessary pollution.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:29 pm

K.Snyder;593671 wrote: Your emphasis was more so about speed then?...

Well I happen to agree with you...

Although I think 65 mph is that of a snails pace I don't feel the need to to speed excessively on public streets...

Yes, 65 is rather slow, when you consider the speed of trains and planes (sounds like that movie title :-2 ) I'm not sure how I got onto the rant that, in general, humans are going faster and faster as time goes on, other than I just found it funny that some find 65 or 70 or even 80, slow.

And no, speed is not the killer. It's the use of that speed. But even if you are in perfect control of your vehicle, there are other factors that are not in your control and all of a sudden you could be in a full spin, and we all know hitting something at 45 is just a little better than hitting something at 70. But, don't get me wrong, there's nothing like getting behind the wheel and going for it. I just don't think it should be a regular habit.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:33 pm

Bryn Mawr;593643 wrote: Main problem with your argument is that a large amount of the worlds ice is not floating freely. The Antartic ice cap is sitting on solid rock as is a lot of the periphery of the northern ice cap. When this melts it will add to the sea level as it is effectively new water in the sea.

As for it not being reasonable to go more than 55 or even 65. The national speed limit in the UK is 70 and the roads where this apply are listed as the safest in the country in the abstract of statistics from the National Audit Office.

You're right. There's a huge problem with my argument, and admittedly, I don't know too much about this particular subject (obviously.)

Thanks for giving more information.

I suppose "global warming" is a catch phrase of the radical left used to incite people into a panic, and therefore, it can be sometimes easy for me to dismiss. Hmm... now this is something else I need to learn more about before flapping my virtual gums.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:40 pm

laneybug;593858 wrote: You're right. There's a huge problem with my argument, and admittedly, I don't know too much about this particular subject (obviously.)

Thanks for giving more information.

I suppose "global warming" is a catch phrase of the radical left used to incite people into a panic, and therefore, it can be sometimes easy for me to dismiss. Hmm... now this is something else I need to learn more about before flapping my virtual gums.

Global warming is NOT a political issue it's a matter of survival!

It's only in the US that it is treated so.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:02 pm

Bryn Mawr;593872 wrote: Global warming is NOT a political issue it's a matter of survival!

It's only in the US that it is treated so.

Very true, and I happen to be in the US. :rolleyes:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:48 am

laneybug;593975 wrote: Very true, and I happen to be in the US. :rolleyes:

How on earth (no humour intended) does an environmental issue become an issue of right or left wing politics? It's not just global warming that is an issue.

Next time you have a MacDonalds ask yourself what the cow you are eating was fed on and as you swallow it ask yourself whether it matters to you.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:53 am

gmc;594089 wrote: How on earth (no humour intended) does an environmental issue become an issue of right or left wing politics? It's not just global warming that is an issue.

Next time you have a MacDonalds ask yourself what the cow you are eating was fed on and as you swallow it ask yourself whether it matters to you.

just gone on a health kick thanks buddy :wah:

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:24 am

gmc;594089 wrote: How on earth (no humour intended) does an environmental issue become an issue of right or left wing politics? It's not just global warming that is an issue.

Next time you have a MacDonalds ask yourself what the cow you are eating was fed on and as you swallow it ask yourself whether it matters to you.

An environmental issue becomes an issue of right or left politics very easily. What issues do you think they debate about for voters, etc?

As for McDonald's...I'd have to know what the cow was fed, and secondly, I highly doubt it's only McDonald's that uses the meat of those cows. And, if this is turning into some vegan debate, I'll just state right here and now that I disagree with a lot of vegan principles.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:19 pm

laneybug;594212 wrote: An environmental issue becomes an issue of right or left politics very easily. What issues do you think they debate about for voters, etc?

As for McDonald's...I'd have to know what the cow was fed, and secondly, I highly doubt it's only McDonald's that uses the meat of those cows. And, if this is turning into some vegan debate, I'll just state right here and now that I disagree with a lot of vegan principles.

As for McDonald's...I'd have to know what the cow was fed, and secondly, I highly doubt it's only McDonald's that uses the meat of those cows.

That was rather the point I was making. MacDonalds probably would prefer you not to ask.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6496977.stm

What does it have to do with right or left wing politics? This isn't anti business although it seems some some like to portray it as such presumably to stop people listening to what is being said and making up their own minds.

Why should it be an odd thing to do to ask what the cow was fed on? Scots beef tastes different from french beef because the eat differently. Wild venison is completely different from farmed for the same reason. Wild salmon is different from that from a fish farm. If you think giving cattle (chicken as well) extra female hormones to bulk them up is is a good thing and you are unlikely to be affected by it then good luck to you. If you think it something you should not know about or is not your concern I would ask why do you believe you don't have the right to know?

I'm not a vegetarian (this weekend I had some cow and a bit of baby sheep) nor is it a vegan issue whatever that is. I just watch where my food comes from. On the other hand maybe you should find out what they spray on the crops and what effect it might have on you if not used properly. When it runs off in to the water supply hopefully the water treatment plant will have removed all residue.

In the UK environmental issues are relatively apolitical. I find it really hard to see it as a right or left wing issue. People here don't like being patronised and told not to worry about it by politicians and especially not when they are seen as being in the pockets of big business. After the BSE crisis nobody trusts the govt on health issues any more. If they say it's safe it probably isn't. There was a massive boycott of GM foods here and in europe that had most supermarkets taking them off sale and bringing in organic and fair trade produce to meet consumer demand.

On the other hand the more the politicians go on about global warming the more cynical the public get-especially when they start talking about road tolls and charging yuppie tractors extra to park. Though personally I like the last one but I admit that is because I hate the things in a town. They're horrible to drive as well-get a proper car.

I need a car for work because public transport is crap and my business mileage is 25,000 per annum, in total I cover 40,000 a tear. When politicians cycle to work every day and don't fly off on their holidays I'll take them seriously when they try and tell me they care about global warming.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:31 pm

gmc;594356 wrote: That was rather the point I was making. MacDonalds probably would prefer you not to ask.

Why should it be an odd thing to do to ask what the cow was fed on?

In the UK environmental issues are relatively apolitical. I find it really hard to see it as a right or left wing issue.

It isn't an odd thing to ask what a cow was fed on. It's just not something I actively think or worry about, just as there are issues close to my heart that you may not think about in your everyday life. We all choose our battles.

I think it's great that in the UK environmental issues are apolitical. It's not the same in the US, which may be hard to understand, but that's the way it is. A lot of US politicians use environmental issues, as well as other current issues, as a means to gain votes, as I said before. Or, as a way to point out the less-than-appealing nature of another politician, based on where they stand on the same issue, environmental or not.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:50 pm

laneybug;594382 wrote:

I think it's great that in the UK environmental issues are apolitical. It's not the same in the US, which may be hard to understand, but that's the way it is. A lot of US politicians use environmental issues, as well as other current issues, as a means to gain votes, as I said before. Or, as a way to point out the less-than-appealing nature of another politician, based on where they stand on the same issue, environmental or not.

But not to the extent of making the fact themselves a political stance surely?

Your statement that, effectively, "he holds that global warming is happening therefore he's a left wing loony" is totally shocking here. A paraphrase maybe but definitelty how it came across.

laneybug · Post by **laneybug** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:11 pm

Bryn Mawr;594401 wrote: But not to the extent of making the fact themselves a political stance surely?

Your statement that, effectively, "he holds that global warming is happening therefore he's a left wing loony" is totally shocking here. A paraphrase maybe but definitelty how it came across.

I never said that global warming was entirely left wing rhetoric. I was just stating that in the US environmental issues are often used politically.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:51 pm

laneybug;594638 wrote: I never said that global warming was entirely left wing rhetoric. I was just stating that in the US environmental issues are often used politically.

I thought that :-

I suppose "global warming" is a catch phrase of the radical left used to incite people into a panic, and therefore, it can be sometimes easy for me to dismiss.

was pretty specific myself.

aristotle · Post by **aristotle** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:08 am

Far Rider;594669 wrote: Nope.

I drive heavy duty diesel trucks and I get the same gas miliage wether I go 55 or 75 even loaded to the gills.

And global warming is a lie...

Which part of global warming is a lie?