[oclug] Parking for Aug Meeting

[Dave O'Neill]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Brad Barnett wrote:

> Nope, its still a non-polluting car.  You can blame the energy source
> (as even oil refinement pollutes!!), but don't blame the car.  Hydro
> isn't polluting, as well as wind and solar.  (The "solar panels take
> more to produce than you get back" myth is a tool of the US Oil
> giants...).

Your semantic games avoid the issue.  Whether or not your mythical
"non-polluting" car directly produces pollution, it still _causes_
pollution in the production of its energy, be it under the hood or at a
generating plant.  Less cars == less pollution.

Now, that's not to say that electric (or other alternate-fuel) cars are
the same or worse than a fossil-fuel powered vehicle.  Most numbers I've
heard show them causing less pollution than traditional cars after taking
into account the production of the vehicle and the electricity or hydrogen
generation.  It's also easier and cheaper to make a generation plant
pollute less than it is to do the same with hundreds or thousands of small
gasoline engines.

> At any rate, there is still orbiting solar stations that can beam the
> power to earth, and so on.  Yes, some of these methods aren't here
> yet, but that's not the point.  The point is, with hydrogren
> technology, the smog alerts in cities will disappear, and there is
> hope when it comes to *greatly* reducing greenhouse gases, while
> maintaining our current lifestyle.

Right... but right now that's all a pipe dream, and unlikely to happen
within your lifetime or ours.  The current system is rather
self-perpetuating.

> We have to work in the system to effect change, not change the system.

And why is that?  If Linus had worked within the system, he would have
used Minix and hated every minute of it.  =)

Dave
--
aitchteeteepeecolonslashslashtripledoubleyoudotevilplotdotorgslashtildedave
"Not much call for a barbarian hairdresser, I expect.  I mean, no-one
 wants a shampoo-and-beheading"   -- ``Sourcery'', Terry Pratchett