Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6771 messages, Last post on Nov 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 15, 2009 7:27 am) What can you "build on" to a waterfront property to "generate income?" Blocking MORE fast food restaurants to try and help people control themselves is not a bad idea. If another new fast food restaurant was NEVER EVER built again in LA, they would have enough as is. I'd welcome the reduced electricity bills if Phoenix forced an 85 degree home. I already hang out at around 81-83 anyway.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 15, 2009 7:05 am) The one thing everyone did that bugged me was burning leaves in the fall - this was back in '84 and even frigid Anchorage was composting them citywide by then. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 7:18 am) When Hitler restricted where Jews could live and what occupations they could work at a lot of Germans thought that was a good idea. When Stalin came up with the idea of starving 6 million farmers because they didn't share his vision of land use some Russians though it was a good idea. When Mao started shooting drug dealers and charging their families for the cost of the bullet many Chinese thought it was a great idea. Me? I'm not so sure that more government control over me is EVER a good idea. 
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 15, 2009 9:10 am) Indeed Stalin and Mao had many more folks to kill!!!?? Some estimations put Stalin's killing spree (my .02cents) at 23 million Russians. Mao's killing spree is estimated at 23 to 26 M Chinese. I guess it is not genocide when you wipe out your own peoples'   !!???
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 15, 2009 9:10 am) Guvmint already "controls" you. They force you to pay taxes, to not murder someone, to wear a seatbelt, to pay for the roads you drive on, etc etc. Having guvmint tell you "if you kill a tree, please plant two to replace it" or "try to find smarter ways to get to work other than the "one person, one car" method" is not akin to anything you mentioned in your post. Keep it Real, YO.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 9:22 am) (You or) anybody can google this, about the Lake Tahoe, CA issue. Short version : development, population and so called tree cutting has been severely limited to banned. ANY incident of forest fire is instantly stamped out. Short version result: the policy over time has led to a figurative as well as literal powder keg situation. There are HUGE untold supplies of dead to rotting fuel instantly available for a conflagration (literal hell on earth fire). Proably closer to you, you can also google about a past conflagration which enveloped a large percentage of New Mexico. Just keeping it REAL. 
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 7:32 am) Wrong again. I live within city-limits, a small city, but I have 12 acres, 11 of which are trees. The only cleared are for my leachfield, driveway and house. I will cut any or all the trees I want, as the government did not contribute $0.01 to the purchase. I believe in the rights of the owner to do anything with their property they want, unless it is really egregious, such as turning it into a strip-mine. What can you "build on" to a waterfront property to "generate income?" LOL, as you live in the desert! Blocking MORE fast food restaurants to try and help people control themselves is not a bad idea. Sure it is. Let people decide for themselves. We let people drink alcohol, smoke, and gamble all they want - probably a lot of negatives. but it's peoples' rights. I'd welcome the reduced electricity bills if Phoenix forced an 85 degree home. Before the 1940's didn't everyone who lived in places like Phoenix NOT have AC at all. Why not live like people in 1900, and shut the AC off altogether?
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 15, 2009 10:00 am) I did not say "Impossible" I said "rare" And in most CITIES it IS RARE. No city that has a huge number of people with more than 1 acre of trees is going to put in a policy that would harm those people, because they have political power. If the people in the city that Gary mentioned who are large land owners want to stop the law, they CAN do so. Just as if it were to happen in YOUR town you could stop it if there were enough citizens who would be harmed. Last I checked, guvmint is still BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. kernick says, "but it's peoples' rights. " Sorry, having a Jack in the Crack on every city block is NOT a "right." I'd shut off my A/C if it became law. But there are enough people to block any such silliness.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am) Again it is whose ox is getting gored. Here is an easy example, San Francisco used to use or have NO air conditioners or a very very small percentage. Now I do not think code allows building of a high rise structure without adequate A/C !!!! So to ask the REAL question. How is that LESS consumptive? |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am) The new law does not stipulate the size of lot. I just used an acre as an example. Their new law just says if you remove a tree you have to plant two in its place. Makes no difference if your lot will not support it. I guess you could get around the law planting a couple Bonzai trees. Making laws based on a theory "Man made GW/CC" is scary. Protect trees, but when they are lost in the process of development they must be replaced. (e.g., if 1 tree is removed, 2 or more must replace it). http://www.cityofmadison.com/clerk/documents/2008/SustainabilityAg20081210.pdf
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
