Posted By: Dauric  on Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Ultimately the problem is that the Conservationists have no voice of leadership. The middle ground is, like most American politics, unrepresented, but rather fought over by the extremes that miss completely what the middle stands for.

Mr. Goldberg has given the examples of the environmentalist side, however there are those who invest in making new conservation technologies fail. An example:

Gm developed a Hydrogen Fuel Cell prototype they called te "Skateboard" it was a single basic chassis that combined the fuel cell engine, wheels, suspension, and steering mechanism in to a large flat package. Their concept was to use this "Skateboard" as the basis for all fuel-cell production vehicles.

Some of you may have noticed the first issue: Trucks, Sedans and Sport Cars have widely varying needs when it comes to engine and suspension. By creating a "One Size Fits All" chassis you eliminate the possibility of using HFC for working trucks that require the heavier suspension and higher ground-clearance. Or maybe it works great for trucks and SUV but lacks the responsiveness that you want in a sports car or a commuting car.

Then apparently because being a hydrogen-fuel vehicle wasn't enough they "revolutionized" the steering mechanism. One of their big new ideas? A steering wheel that would shut off the engine of you let go of it. You needed to apply firm pressure the whole time you drove the vehicle.

I live in Colorado, you end up driving a lot out here even if you live in the urbanized areas. Clenching your fists on a dead-man switch for the twenty minutes it takes me to get to work won't cut it. I used to have to drive for two hours to get to college from my parents house. It takes an hour for them to get to the suburbs. A steering wheel-mounted dead-man switch wont' cut it in Colorado, and it won't sell anywhere else in the world either.

And it couldn't have taken the engineers at an automotive manufacturing firm long to know that standardized chassis wouldn't work in all cases, and it wouldn't have taken long to realize that you can't firmly grip the wheel for as long as most people drive on a daily basis. These ideas never should have made it past the white-board and sketchpad, much less have been incorporated in to a functioning prototype.

Now, I'll admit that the following is my own speculation, but it's not hard to imagine that the "Skateboard" was designed to give GM the ability to say "We designed a car that ran on Hydrogen, but customer testing found it wasn't popular enough to go to production with."

There's more examples of this kind of research-sabotage, like GM's electric car program, the EV1, where people leased the cars from GM, then the company discontinued the program, recalled the cars, and scrapped every last one of them.



The responsible people are in the middle surrounded by Neo-Luddites on one side and change-fearing profiteers on the other.



$0.02

Posted By: ml johnstone  on Tuesday, June 03, 2008

I believe the media created and perpetuates DIVISIONISM with this ter. To my mind ever human being is or should be an environmentalist rather than a quick fixer or fast bucker.

Even the Vatican has said: THOU SHALT NOT POLLUTE>

So why do we allow automobiles to rule our world and lifestyle? Could it be the capitalistic model where waste is a virtue?

Do you think the governments of earlier times would have allowed the marketing of combustible engines using fossil fuel had they been shown the logical consequences.... like...traffic jams, pollution, noise, deaths and maimed citizens. These weapons of mass destruction need to be returned to their elements. I and my children and grandchildren are exhausted from this bad habit that governments everywhere permit . Here in Canada our Health Canada pulled off the shelves plastic baby bottles deeming them harmful. Does this mean they are ENVIRONMENTALISTS?

We need to Consumer Control Boards that study thoroughly the consequences of use of proposed products. Am I an ENVIRONMENTALIST to say this?

I dont think so. To me its just common sense. Would you have your child stand beside your gas guzzler while you sit there idling? If I said this was harmful to your child am I just another ENVIRONMENTALIST?

Everyother article is headed: "ENVIRONMENTALISTS say.... blah blah blah? What the heck does this mean? Environmentalists?? WHAT IS THE WORD for those who are not ENVIRONMENTALISTS?? NONENVIRONMENTALISTS?  

So.... NONENVIRONMENTALISTS say.... pollution is good for you.

Posted By: Nancy  on Saturday, June 21, 2008

Environmentalists are anti-economics? Not by a long shot, buddy. They are against hidden subsidies (such as using taxes to pay for garbage and letting industry avoid paying for the cleanup from their toxic wastes and exhausts) that encourage the wholesale destruction of the planet and the economy.



Read more about green economics (which is now taught at most universities), and you'll understand more about full-cycle stewardship and full-cost accounting. What has become known as "traditional" economics leaves out too much of the math, which is what has got us into this ecological mess in the first place.  



Like all changes, the switch to green economics will feel overwhelming at first, and many rich and powerful people will oppose it because it threatens their fiefdoms. But once we get into the change, it will start to feel normal, and we'll all learn how to flourish in it.



I too am concerned about the religiosization of non-religious things. Would you not agree that too many people think Jesus invented conservative economics and that kneejerk patriotism is a sign of Christian devotion? I find that far too many conservative Christians think that anything that "belongs" to the "left" (such as peace, social justice, equal rights, the environment, etc.) is a type of satanism (never mind how much those ideas are based on Jesusian teaching!). In effect, they have turned left-right into a kind of theology!