Will someone please give me a logical explination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Genius

What if we killed all of the idiots like you in Europe? How would that in improve my life here in the USA?

---

don't know blurry genius. you'd have to ask montanaskier. he wanted that debate not me. i was just giving him an example why that debate, which btw. you my friend if i remember correctly were alluding to while you were whining about gas prices in your own thread a couple of month ago too, is pretty cynical and quite pointless.

apart from that statistically it would mean, i figure math is not your strength, for every killed european another half or one third american could live or two - three average human beeings. but since you only asked for your personal advantage and not that of some asian, it means you could raise your birth rate from 1.1 to 1.3-1.5. so after all the math, i know it was tough, the most reasonable thing to do would be kill an american.

the math becomes a bit more complicated when it comes to you personally blurry genius. since you don't plan on breeding which i totally agree with you, is a very good thing, but on the other hand have to drive a huge truck and can't afford a second vehicle with more mpg for the daily shores - you know one of those gay ones - since you also have to ride a bike and a sled and ski have the year - it really tore my heart apart when you kept on whining over gas prices for pages and pages.. :) - well, since you don't breed but are probably way above the average american consumer, i'm not so sure if it wouldn't be the best thing for you and your country if you killed yourself. i'm really sorry - but i can't do the math on that one.

edited for qote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grapedrink

there's no reason why there can't be high speed rail along major corridors

---

With everything spread out, what do you do when you get off the train?

PS I wish we had high speed trains. I'd definitely ride them... but I'd be limited in where I would because of the need to go places once off. It would work better on the coasts than in the heartland.

Quote:

---

there's no reason why cars on average get 40mpg in europe vs 20.4mpg in the united states.

---

There is a reason the US buys big gas guzzling SUBs and the Euro's buy tiny little efficient cars.:
US = low gas prices, big open roads, spread out population (suburban sprawl and the open west)
Europe = high gas prices, skinny little road made for wagon carts, countries smaller than US states and counties

Higher gas prices may change our average mpg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DougW

Now the oil shale, don't know that much about it but don't you have to mine it then cook it to get the oil out? If its anything like the oil sands mines not going to get much relief very fast.

---

Yes it would absolutely take time to develop. Mine, heat, and dump was the old method and the reason that extractoin was banned. There are new extraction methods they want to use that involve in ground heating and pumping water so that you don't decimate the landscape.

2 letters......GW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grapedrink

there's no reason why there can't be high speed rail along major corridors, and there's no reason why cars on average get 40mpg in europe vs 20.4mpg in the united states. there's also no reason why north american cities can't have better public transportation.. yeah it'll never be like european cities because of the urban sprawl and endless suburbia but it can sure as hell be a lot better than it is. thats the problem, people making excuses instead of making changes.

---

Amtrak's been in operation along the NE corridor for years, and needs constant subsidies because no one uses it. Maybe the oil prices will be the catalyst to get people on it.

I live in CT, and used to commute to NYC -the trains were absolutely packed then, I'd hate to see them now.

One of the things that surprised me about Vancouver and the '010 Olympics is that it seems all the money is being piured into the sea to sky highway, and only lip service to the trains that go to WB. I know they're putting an YVR to downtown Van service in, but it'll still be a PITA to take the train to WB - wtf?

It may be a mere 8% but they continue to report record profits year after year. I mean Exxon Mobil's profit of $40.6 billion isn't bad. I'm just with the rest of the people sayin it's only going to get worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

8 % profit is hardly milkin' is it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pow4Brains

You're wrong. Most of Eruoland would fit in Nebraska alone.

---

Nebraska = 77,355 sq miles
EU = 1,707,642 sq miles

That's 22 times bigger......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Having a FWD Merc Vito or VW Transporter diesel w/ chains would get you and your gear where you need it 99.5 % of the time... And if you really, really need 4WD for getting into real offroading, well then both are also offered in a 4WD version (naturally with more ground clearance).

---

You've obviously never been to the PNW. It's not like Europe where 300 inches of snow is a good year. Mt. Baker has been known to get 300 inches in one month. It's hands down the gnarliest winter driving conditions, probably on the planet. Grant's not being a pussy, he needs 4WD and a truck to haul his sled, there's no way around it. His dream has always been to be a pro ski photographer, and he's finally making it. It sucks for him, and lots others me included, that we are making it at a time when it all might get taken away.

And you'll appreciate all his sick shots of skiing when thumbing through The Ski Journal is as much of escape as you'll get cause you can't afford to travel anywhere.

And seriously, you can't compare what Euros do to ski to the US. I traveled from Munich to St. Anton in Feb, on trains and it was a cake walk. I could've gotten off the train and walked a few blocks and gotten on lifts to take me into the high alpine. There is NOWHERE in north america where you can do this, although I really wish there were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Nebraska = 77,355 sq miles
EU = 1,707,642 sq miles

That's 22 times bigger......

---

Hey, never let facts get in the way of bible thumbing... and similar narrow minded uneducated and ignorant opinions:tongue:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunder

Dude it isnt that simple. Having a truck and a sled is a REQUIREMENT for my job.

What really pisses me off is how gas in Bham is ALWAYS 20~30 cents a gallon more than it is in seattle. Bham is the first stop for all of the oil tankers coming from AK, and has most of the PNW oil refineries. It costs less to ship it from Ak to bhm, than to seattle, and it costs less to ship it from the refinery here to the station in town, then it does to ship it too seattl, and you CANT FUCKING TELL ME ITS SUPPLY AND DEMAND when all of the supply for the PNW is in Bham, yet Seattle obviously has a much high demand.

---

Holy shit, I can't believe the sense of entitlement you and Go Nads have. If you don't like paying these prices for gas, but feel you still "need" a snowmobile buy a four stroke sled and tow it around behind a station wagon. It's not a revolutionary idea, and it's not that difficult. You may not be the coolest kid at the trailhead but you're going to save a tonne of money. Until you do that quit whining like a 5 year old.

Bellingham may have the supply coming in from Alaska but economics dictate that the majority of the refined product be shipped to Seattle. The gas you fill your tank with doesn't magically appear from the refinery, it is piped or trucked to the final destination. More of the refined product is sent to Seattle therefor higher supply. Deal with it. Gas is more expensive in Alberta than it is in Ontario even though we have monstrous oil reserves. Difference being most of the refined product is sent east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossass

You've obviously never been to the PNW. It's not like Europe where 300 inches of snow is a good year. Mt. Baker has been known to get 300 inches in one month. It's hands down the gnarliest winter driving conditions, probably on the planet. Grant's not being a pussy, he needs 4WD and a truck to haul his sled, there's no way around it. His dream has always been to be a pro ski photographer, and he's finally making it. It sucks for him, and lots others me included, that we are making it at a time when it all might get taken away.

---

If it is a clearence issue, then you are right. But from what I have understood, the roads will be closed when the clearance of a Transporter isn't enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

greg's seeing dollar signs at the thought of another holocaust. understandable, it profited his people so well the first time around.

---

sorry not swiss, i'm german. and my family didn't really profit from the third reich. i also wasn't advocating another holocaust, especially not of helplessly suppressed people as is yours. :) i was merely addressing montanaskier s question asking why nobody was hitting on that debate by suggesting that it is a rather cynical argument. was that such a tough one? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bite me

Amtrak's been in operation along the NE corridor for years, and needs constant subsidies because no one uses it. Maybe the oil prices will be the catalyst to get people on it.

I live in CT, and used to commute to NYC -the trains were absolutely packed then, I'd hate to see them now.

One of the things that surprised me about Vancouver and the '010 Olympics is that it seems all the money is being piured into the sea to sky highway, and only lip service to the trains that go to WB. I know they're putting an YVR to downtown Van service in, but it'll still be a PITA to take the train to WB - wtf?

---

Cross country, Amtrak is slower than driving and costs as much as airfare. That I do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Genius

The long term solution isn't better mpg.

We need to go electric NOW. I'm guessing you agree.

---

Define long term? 10-15+yrs from now, no question. But in next 5-10, whether we like it or not, going full electric "NOW" with current infrastructure is logistically and fiscally too difficult of an obstacle to quickly overcome. Economic factors will dictate that we transition onto the hybrid & natural gas stepping stone before going full electric (Hydrogen, battery etc). Ex, Toyota has recently come out stating all their vehicles by 2015 will be of hybrid nature. Historically they tend to have good market demand foresight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Hey, never let facts get in the way of bible thumbing... and similar narrow minded uneducated and ignorant opinions:tongue:.

---

Finland, being large for a European country, is roughly the size of the US state of New Mexico, or roughly 1/30th the size of the US.

Now, Finland may have a lower per capita consumption. Yes, Finland has lower overall density but most of population lives in the south. I don't know if you guys have an awesome transit system or if you have the same problems of suburban sprawl we have. I do know that Norway is part of the European market and so you guys tend to buy smaller European efficient cars. That would be the biggest reason why your consumption is lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greg

don't know blurry genius. you'd have to ask montanaskier. he wanted that debate not me. i was just giving him an example why that debate, which btw. you my friend if i remember correctly were alluding to while you were whining about gas prices in your own thread a couple of month ago too, is pretty cynical and quite pointless.

apart from that statistically it would mean, i figure math is not your strength, for every killed european another half or one third american could live or two - three average human beeings. but since you only asked for your personal advantage and not that of some asian, it means you could raise your birth rate from 1.1 to 1.3-1.5. so after all the math, i know it was tough, the most reasonable thing to do would be kill an american.

the math becomes a bit more complicated when it comes to you personally blurry genius. since you don't plan on breeding which i totally agree with you, is a very good thing, but on the other hand have to drive a huge truck and can't afford a second vehicle with more mpg for the daily shores - you know one of those gay ones - since you also have to ride a bike and a sled and ski have the year - it really tore my heart apart when you kept on whining over gas prices for pages and pages.. :) - well, since you don't breed but are probably way above the average american consumer, i'm not so sure if it wouldn't be the best thing for you and your country if you killed yourself. i'm really sorry - but i can't do the math on that one.

edited for qote.

---

I'm really enjoying your rant. Your anger towards Americans being so much more successful than you shines through with every pathetic post you type.
Yes, we're humans. More successful humans consume more. That's how it works. Gotta love it when the losers like you get jealous though, and whine about the winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

You actually have MPG standards... Who knew:p

---

Yeah, you're right. MPG "Average" would be more appropriate :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Cross country, Amtrak is slower than driving and costs as much as airfare. That I do not understand.

---

Cheaper than driving. More fun than a plane. Amtrak is a blast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Mebbe you should really look into it more thoroughly, see my earlier reply to Summit.

Eg. Sweden has ~52 persons per square mile, and Norway 31. France is at a bit shy of 300, but then again that is still about the same as in Florida.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

Yet in France they annual gas consumption per capita is a bit shy of 70 gallons, where as in Florida it is around 496 gallons. (sources in earlier post)... I could go on about it, but simply population density just isn't the main cause.

---

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ensity_map.PNG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grapedrink

there's no reason why there can't be high speed rail along major corridors, and there's no reason why cars on average get 40mpg in europe vs 20.4mpg in the united states. there's also no reason why north american cities can't have better public transportation.. yeah it'll never be like european cities because of the urban sprawl and endless suburbia but it can sure as hell be a lot better than it is. thats the problem, people making excuses instead of making changes.

---

Agreed. Becuase the have the technolgy we should not burn as much shit. Trucks should be limited to ~50 miles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powslut

Gas is more expensive in Alberta than it is in Ontario even though we have monstrous oil reserves. Difference being most of the refined product is sent east.

---

It may be cheaper in Ont but refined product is not shipped out east. No refined product pipelines to Ont, only crude which is refined in Ont. Might be some refined product pipelines to Manitoba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CherryMoon

Define long term? 10-15+yrs from now, no question. But in next 5-10, whether we like it or not, going full electric "NOW" with current infrastructure is logistically and fiscally too difficult of an obstacle to quickly overcome. Economic factors will dictate that we transition onto the hybrid & natural gas stepping stone before going full electric (Hydrogen, battery etc). Ex, Toyota has recently come out stating all their vehicles by 2015 will be of hybrid nature. Historically they tend to have good market demand foresight.

---

I agree with you, but I think the real concern is our dependence on foreign oil, so developing hybrids doesn't really address the problem, and only prolongs it. It will take time to develop an electric infrastructure, but all progress takes time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powslut

Holy shit, I can't believe the sense of entitlement you and Go Nads have. If you don't like paying these prices for gas, but feel you still "need" a snowmobile buy a four stroke sled and tow it around behind a station wagon. It's not a revolutionary idea, and it's not that difficult. You may not be the coolest kid at the trailhead but you're going to save a tonne of money. Until you do that quit whining like a 5 year old.

---

Entitlement? Fuck off.

I towed for most of the season with a chevy blazer. The only reason that I am still not, is that the engine literally caught fire. Second you have no fucking clue what the access roads are like out here. There is no way a station wagon will make it. Hell my blazer almost didnt. Plus unless you plan on buying a 1000cc 4 stroke, you are not going to make it much farther than the end of the road. And a station wagon towing sleds is actually going to get a lot less gas mileage than a truck towing the same sleds. Hince, I now get way better mileage with the truck than the blazer.

So I've run numbers... and considering these things:
-I drive about 10k per year (~6200 of which are commuting, 12mi each way)
-My current vehicle is a 95 GMC Jimmy and I get 18-19mpg on average
-I own my vehicle outright
-If I bought a more fuel efficient vehicle, I would need to consider upfront cost, insurance, and maintenance
-New cars have a huge energy deficit due to the energy used to produce them
-If I buy a used car, most likely someone along the line is buying a new one (see above).
-The more fuel efficient the vehicle is, in general, the less versatile it is. For instance, a Vespa gets great mileage but would take 3 times as many trips to get my bi-weekly groceries home. And I wouldn't be able to haul myself and my climbing/skiing/MTB partners + gear around - minimizing the use I'd get out of it besides commuting.
-Hybrids arguably have many detrimental environmental impacts such as unfriendly chemicals in the batteries, energy used to produce batteries, etc.
-Public transit isn't particularly feasible, although it might be once the new light rail line to Golden is installed.

The bottom line is, I at most can save $700-800 per year on gas by buying a more fuel efficient vehicle (factoring in the amount I would drive each vehicle and the mpg gain, assuming $4.50/gal for gas). When considering the less tangible factors like energy used to build new vehicles, my conclusion is the BEST thing I personally can do both financially and ethically for my transportation needs is:

-drive less (bike or walk when possible)
-stay closer to home, no long trips
-carpool
-keep my Jimmy and drive it into the fucking dirt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossass

There is NOWHERE in north america where you can do this, although I really wish there were.

---

Actually you could in the past at Sugar Bowl and Snoqualmie. They used to run ski trains to both places. Sun Valley was built to stimulate demand for rail travel.

If you think Mt. Baker is the gnarliest conditions in the world, well, not much you can do to pierce that bubble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Sun Valley was built to stimulate demand for rail travel.

---

That rail is a really sweet bike path now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gunder

Dude it isnt that simple. Having a truck and a sled is a REQUIREMENT for my job.

---

At least you can use business mileage as a tax deduction. I hope you are keeping track of all the miles you are driving/sledding for business. I'm sure the per mile rate will go up quite a bit this year due to the price of gas.