Very good considering the cheapest model starts at $60K.
In the end, it will all come down to the technology getting cheaper so it is more economical to buy an electric car. Spending $30K to get a car that would be $20K with a gas motor doesn't appeal to the masses. And that's the problem. The people that really need the savings when filling up can't afford the electric cars.
well ... i dunno ... if you can supposedly afford a car and can supposedly afford gas ... i'm not too sure it's that much more ... car ownership is pricy to begin with ... i'm not sure going to electric is that much more ... obviously, if you're buying in with used cars and stuff ... that's a different thing and like the article said - there will be a tipping point ... either way you put it tho ... electric makes the most sense right now ...
Very good considering the cheapest model starts at $60K.
In the end, it will all come down to the technology getting cheaper so it is more economical to buy an electric car. Spending $30K to get a car that would be $20K with a gas motor doesn't appeal to the masses. And that's the problem. The people that really need the savings when filling up can't afford the electric cars.
well ... i dunno ... if you can supposedly afford a car and can supposedly afford gas ... i'm not too sure it's that much more ... car ownership is pricy to begin with ... i'm not sure going to electric is that much more ... obviously, if you're buying in with used cars and stuff ... that's a different thing and like the article said - there will be a tipping point ... either way you put it tho ... electric makes the most sense right now ...
Hybrid maybe, but eletric has limitations on range.
I'd consider a Volkswagon diesel if they didn't decide to brand themselves as the car for suburban wussies.
Very good considering the cheapest model starts at $60K.
In the end, it will all come down to the technology getting cheaper so it is more economical to buy an electric car. Spending $30K to get a car that would be $20K with a gas motor doesn't appeal to the masses. And that's the problem. The people that really need the savings when filling up can't afford the electric cars.
well ... i dunno ... if you can supposedly afford a car and can supposedly afford gas ... i'm not too sure it's that much more ... car ownership is pricy to begin with ... i'm not sure going to electric is that much more ... obviously, if you're buying in with used cars and stuff ... that's a different thing and like the article said - there will be a tipping point ... either way you put it tho ... electric makes the most sense right now ...
I'm going to throw my pitch for hybrids once again here... and not because it give me the right to look down my nose at anyone.
When my old Honda Civic started costing me more to repair than it was worth I went to look at something economical with good gas mileage and figured a Toyota Corolla was a good choice. The dealer started to show me a Prius and I thought, no way- too expensive. He talked me into test driving one and I was impressed so I went home and did the math. With the saving in gas (50 to 55 MPG at 60 to 65 miles per hour on a flat road) I realized the Prius was no more expensive than a Corolla or Yaris or any other model so it made sense to go with the Prius which also (at least in 2008) had the best overall rating from Consumer Reports than any other vehicle of any kind.
While I'm at it, I'll put in another pitch for the idea of having more no-drive days, walking, bicycling, public transportation (which requires some walking) and ride sharing- all good options for better personal health us and a healthier world.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
While I'm at it, I'll put in another pitch for the idea of having more no-drive days, walking, bicycling, public transportation (which requires some walking) and ride sharing- all good options for better personal health us and a healthier world.
That would be awesome!!!! I can't wait for my company to move within walking/biking/public transportation distance to my house. Will that be a requirement of this plan?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
While I'm at it, I'll put in another pitch for the idea of having more no-drive days, walking, bicycling, public transportation (which requires some walking) and ride sharing- all good options for better personal health us and a healthier world.
That would be awesome!!!! I can't wait for my company to move within walking/biking/public transportation distance to my house. Will that be a requirement of this plan?
I didn't say anything about getting to work. I was thinking in terms of transportation in general. Obviously, not everyone can walk, bike or take public transportation to work. But it makes sense to do so when possible and it makes sense to walk, bike or take public transit when ever possible when going places other than work.
Try thinking outside the box. We won't be able to continue our endless driving habits forever. Instead of shooting the messenger, think about your future and your kids future how we can make the best of things in order to get by.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Hybrid maybe, but eletric has limitations on range.
I'd consider a Volkswagon diesel if they didn't decide to brand themselves as the car for suburban wussies.
the electrics now are essentially hybrids ... the difference is instead of the engine kicking in at a certain speed - it kicks in when you are out of battery ... the volt has a gas tank for that purpose ...
Why is climate change always the most talked about "problem" with the environment? I believe scientists are more to blame than anyone when it comes to the environment. They consistently feed the idea to the public that if we just do this, or if we just do that, then we can slow down the clock connected to the ticking time bomb.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 February 2013
Climate sceptic groups are mobilising against Obama’s efforts to act on climate change in his second term. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.
Koch Industries Executive Vice President David H. Koch : Funding climate chang deniers The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.
By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."
Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organisations working to discredit climate science or block climate action.
Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.
"Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not," she went on. "Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defence, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced."
By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.
The money flowed to Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.
The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.
Those same groups are now mobilising against Obama's efforts to act on climate change in his second term. A top recipient of the secret funds on Wednesday put out a point-by-point critique of the climate content in the president's state of the union address.
And it was all done with a guarantee of complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.
"The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It's also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing," said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records.
"These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable. There is no transparency, no accountability for the money. There is no way to tell who is funding them," Davies said.
The trusts were established for the express purpose of managing donations to a host of conservative causes.
Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful.
That opposition hardened over the years, especially from the mid-2000s where the Greenpeace record shows a sharp spike in funds to the anti-climate cause.
In effect, the Donors Trust was bankrolling a movement, said Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has extensively researched the networks of ultra-conservative donors.
"This is what I call the counter-movement, a large-scale effort that is an organised effort and that is part and parcel of the conservative movement in the United States " Brulle said. "We don't know where a lot of the money is coming from, but we do know that Donors Trust is just one example of the dark money flowing into this effort."
In his view, Brulle said: "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."
The rise of that movement is evident in the funding stream. In 2002, the two trusts raised less than $900,000 for the anti-climate cause. That was a fraction of what Exxon Mobil or the conservative oil billionaire Koch brothers donated to climate sceptic groups that year.
By 2010, the two Donor Trusts between them were channelling just under $30m to a host of conservative organisations opposing climate action or science. That accounted to 46% of all their grants to conservative causes, according to the Greenpeace analysis.
The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one.
"There is plenty of money coming from elsewhere," said John Mashey, a retired computer executive who has researched funding for climate contrarians. "Focusing on the Kochs gets things confused. You can not ignore the Kochs. They have their fingers in too many things, but they are not the only ones."
It is also possible the Kochs continued to fund their favourite projects using the anonymity offered by Donor Trust.
But the records suggest many other wealthy conservatives opened up their wallets to the anti-climate cause – an impression Ball wishes to stick.
She argued the media had overblown the Kochs support for conservative causes like climate contrarianism over the years. "It's so funny that on the right we think George Soros funds everything, and on the left you guys think it is the evil Koch brothers who are behind everything. It's just not true. If the Koch brothers didn't exist we would still have a very healthy organisation," Ball said.
Why is climate change always the most talked about "problem" with the environment? I believe scientists are more to blame than anyone when it comes to the environment. They consistently feed the idea to the public that if we just do this, or if we just do that, then we can slow down the clock connected to the ticking time bomb.
I somewhat understand, whg, the idea that there is no "problem" with the environment. As has been said by more famous and funnier people before, the planet will shake us off, patch itself up and keep on spinning long after we're gone. The problem is with our human effect on the environment, the fact that our impact is killing off large numbers of other species that would otherwise be surviving, and the likelihood that we are shortening our stay on this planet. If you read climate science information thoroughly, much of what you'll see isn't "if we just do this or that" as much as it is "this is what we are doing and these are the results of what we are doing". Many scientist are, of course, trying to find ways to slow down our impact on the environment because they know if we don't, we will continue to kill off other species that otherwise would survive and continue to shorten our stay on the planet.
Of course, if we don't care that we are killing off other species or we don't care about increasing our species odds for survival then we are wasting our time here discussing this issue.
Also, I would argue that a "ticking time bomb" may not be the most apt metaphor. Something resembling an exponential curve might serve better as an illustration.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Could Chris Christie Bring the GOP Around on Climate?
The governor of New Jersey "talks a good game" on global warming, but so far he hasn't followed through.
Chris Christie, the combative Republican governor of New Jersey, thinks that climate change is a problem and humans are causing it. "Climate change is real... [and] impacting our state," he said in August 2011. "Human activity plays a role in these changes." Christie hasn't shown much willingness to act on the issue: in the same speech, he announced he was pulling New Jersey out of a Northeastern regional plan to cut carbon emissions. But in simply acknowledging that climate change is not some liberal conspiracy, Christie is standing out from the GOP pack. He's a popular Republican with national ambitions who seems to recognize the threat. That's raised a question among some hopeful activists: Can Chris Christie shift the politics of climate change?
If Christie decided to lead on climate, he wouldn't be the first New Jersey Republican to do so. Tom Kean Sr., the Republican governor of New Jersey from 1982 to 1990, was one of the first politicians to pay attention to climate change as a threat. In 1989, Kean issued an executive order noting the scientific consensus on that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and directing state agencies to start figuring out how to deal with that. Although Kean is a Christie fan, he's also criticized him not doing more on climate. "We've got some climate change policies in the state," Kean says. "He's accepted those. I can't say he's been leader on them. He hasn't been." But that could change, Kean adds.
"The thing people love about this guy is he says what's on his mind. He's said a lot of things that aren't politic … I think if he believes in something he's going to talk about it," Kean continues. "He could be a real leader on this if he wants to be. I hope he is."
Nationally, Republicans who care about climate change are looking for a leader. "With a majority of Americans already expressing concern about climate change and most others trying to make sense of destructive and unprecedented weather, voters of all political stripes will be looking for leaders willing to tackle the problem and offer real solutions," says Rob Sisson, president of ConservAmerica, a right-leaning environmental group. "There is no political future in the climate denial game and I hope my fellow Republicans can now see the political pitfalls of being bullied by the most radical and irresponsible voices in our party."
Environmentalists in New Jersey aren't sure what Christie really thinks about the issue. In the 2009 election, the New Jersey Environmental Federation surprised many in the state by endorsing Christie over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine—the group's first endorsement of a Republican for state-wide office in almost three decades. The group knocked Corzine's failure to live up to environmental promises, and cited Christie's "impressive green agenda."
But Christie's promises faded soon after taking office—and climate hawks have been disappointed that he didn't talk more about the link between climate change and more powerful storms such as Hurricane Sandy, which pummeled New Jersey. Asked about climate change's role in the storm earlier this month, Christie dismissed it. "It's not a main concern for me," he said. "Now maybe, in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder the esoteric question of the cause of this storm." New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has spoken of the need to rebuild smarter—and not in all the same places. But Christie has put his emphasis on restoring the shore that once was.
"It was our hope that he would change the dialogue," says Amy Goldsmith, director of NJEF. "But clearly his post-Sandy remarks don't show that desire. In fact he's poo-pooing it as if it's an academic, wackoo thing to talk about." In its last report card on legislators, NJEF gave Christie an "F."
It's not just a rhetorical slight; as governor, Christie has gutted many programs that aimed to address climate change. He got rid of the Office of Climate Change and Energy within the Department of Environmental Protection shortly after taking office, withdrew the state from the Northeast's cap and trade plan known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), weakened the state's renewable energy standard, and took $210 million from the state's clean energy fund to balance the budget.
Jeff Tittel, the head of the New Jersey chapter of Sierra Club, says that Christie has tried to have it both ways by talking a good game on climate but enacting policies that actually make the problem worse. "People in New Jersey believe in climate change, so he's parsed his words very, very carefully," Tittel says. "He can give impression in New Jersey that he cares about the issue, but on national stage he pulls out of RGGI. It's an interesting tightrope walk."
As Tittel notes, the New Jersey GOP is generally moderate on climate change. When Congress voted on a cap and trade bill in 2009, three of the eight Republicans voting in favor were from the Garden State. But getting elected in New Jersey is different than surviving a Republican presidential primary, and it's long been clear that Christie has national ambitions. And although the Republican Party has deemed climate a non-issue, voters care about it nationally. Polling ahead of last fall's election showed that the vast majority of voters wanted a "green" candidate who would take action on climate change, and Americans did, indeed, pick the presidential candidate who acknowledged the problem. Christie's popularity affords him more leeway to experiment than many other Republican politicians.
"If Gov. Christie can find ways to come up with his own approach to dealing with these things and reach across the aisle, cooperate with Democrats, I think that can be an example going forward," says Ben Spinelli, the Republican former mayor of Chester, NJ, and the former head of the state's Office of Smart Growth under Corzine.
"He's in a fairly strong political position, so he can take risks that someone else might not be willing or able to take," Spinelli says. "The question is, will he be willing to do it? I don't know."
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't think scientists do enough to bring the true problem into perspective. Overpopulation. It is a very unpopular topic. It is the real problem. Everything else is secondary in my opinion. As a scientist, what are you doing if you are not attacking the real issue. All other issues are irrelevant. Even if we could stop 90% of the impact we have on Mother Nature we will still continue to ride that exponential equation.
I don't like to talk about our effects on the planet in mathematical terms such as exponential curves. Not enough people understand the idea of limits and infinity. They understand cliffs and bombs. It is hard to grasp a function that will continue to increase at an accelerating rate but will fail to cross an ambiguous value.
I just want to say that I really enjoy all you have to say on this board. I am such a cynic. I can't help but admire your style, and the fact that you always try and respond to the more positive aspects of people's posts.
Keep on keepin' on.
I don't think scientists do enough to bring the true problem into perspective. Overpopulation. It is a very unpopular topic. It is the real problem. Everything else is secondary in my opinion. As a scientist, what are you doing if you are not attacking the real issue. All other issues are irrelevant. Even if we could stop 90% of the impact we have on Mother Nature we will still continue to ride that exponential equation.
I don't like to talk about our effects on the planet in mathematical terms such as exponential curves. Not enough people understand the idea of limits and infinity. They understand cliffs and bombs. It is hard to grasp a function that will continue to increase at an accelerating rate but will fail to cross an ambiguous value.
I just want to say that I really enjoy all you have to say on this board. I am such a cynic. I can't help but admire your style, and the fact that you always try and respond to the more positive aspects of people's posts.
Keep on keepin' on.
I admire a good cynic! Keeps us on our toes.
I agree, overpopulation is very much overlooked. I'm fascinated by the ecological population concepts such as carrying capacity. Our human numbers provide an excellent example of what happens when populations climax. One of the things that separates us from other animals is our ability to understand such concepts. The fact that we (so far) haven't done anything with that understanding to me is baffling.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My dad had a '65 Beetle when I was a kid. Until the tin-can was totalled, loved riding in it. I distinctly remember the interior and its scent. And the little back triangle windows we could open.
Very good considering the cheapest model starts at $60K.
In the end, it will all come down to the technology getting cheaper so it is more economical to buy an electric car. Spending $30K to get a car that would be $20K with a gas motor doesn't appeal to the masses. And that's the problem. The people that really need the savings when filling up can't afford the electric cars.
well ... i dunno ... if you can supposedly afford a car and can supposedly afford gas ... i'm not too sure it's that much more ... car ownership is pricy to begin with ... i'm not sure going to electric is that much more ... obviously, if you're buying in with used cars and stuff ... that's a different thing and like the article said - there will be a tipping point ... either way you put it tho ... electric makes the most sense right now ...
Hybrid maybe, but eletric has limitations on range.
I'd consider a Volkswagon diesel if they didn't decide to brand themselves as the car for suburban wussies.
Once they remap computer to run cleaner VW diesels will run like Doo Doo.
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
Godfather.
no i am afraid that is one of the voices inside your head...
i kid, my man
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
Godfather.
no i am afraid that is one of the voices inside your head...
i kid, my man
shhhhhhhhh did you hear that ? Gimmmmmmmi buy a Harley LOL !
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
Godfather.
no i am afraid that is one of the voices inside your head...
i kid, my man
shhhhhhhhh did you hear that ? Gimmmmmmmi buy a Harley LOL !
Godfather.
LOL i thought about it at one time 10 years ago or so. i bought a bunch of guitars instead though....
with my luck i would lay it down and have some kind of horrific injury. i leave those to the pros who have been riding them for years.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I've been reading about the oceans and ocean life lately and realizing more than ever that it's not just climate change or not just pollution or whatever. If I had to guess which particular system should get priority I would go with oceans. Almost all life (maybe all?) depends on the oceans. And then all of it ties together- ocean die off, climate change, pollution etc. In his book, The Whale Warriors, Peter Heller covers some of this very well. Great book.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
Godfather.
Worked convention in San Diego and ran a grand prize give away. The Grand prize? A brand new Fat Boy. Picked it out and was mine for few days. Rode it just around hotel area but fell in love. Due to my love if speed never bought a bike but sure can relate.
I've been reading about the oceans and ocean life lately and realizing more than ever that it's not just climate change or not just pollution or whatever. If I had to guess which particular system should get priority I would go with oceans. Almost all life (maybe all?) depends on the oceans. And then all of it ties together- ocean die off, climate change, pollution etc. In his book, The Whale Warriors, Peter Heller covers some of this very well. Great book.
the ocean has a special place in my heart for some reason, it really bums me out that the ocean is treated like a toilet, you guy's ever been to Mexico and seen the sewer system ? if you have you might understand why the southern most beaches in Cali get closed down from time to time...friggin gross! it almost makes me feel better knowing that the ocean has the power to swallow up the entire land mass of earth(it's happened before) and heal itself over time.
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
Godfather.
Worked convention in San Diego and ran a grand prize give away. The Grand prize? A brand new Fat Boy. Picked it out and was mine for few days. Rode it just around hotel area but fell in love. Due to my love if speed never bought a bike but sure can relate.
buy a Harley Davidson, great gas mileage, feeling of freedom, lower emissions and something I just can't explain but it's awesome...your motor cycle will talk to you if you listen LOL !
Godfather.
Worked convention in San Diego and ran a grand prize give away. The Grand prize? A brand new Fat Boy. Picked it out and was mine for few days. Rode it just around hotel area but fell in love. Due to my love if speed never bought a bike but sure can relate.
Fat Boy's are nice and brand new one is a clean open canvas to build and create a bad ass ride I like the soft tail style frame it gives you that old school look with a little suspension.
Comments
well ... i dunno ... if you can supposedly afford a car and can supposedly afford gas ... i'm not too sure it's that much more ... car ownership is pricy to begin with ... i'm not sure going to electric is that much more ... obviously, if you're buying in with used cars and stuff ... that's a different thing and like the article said - there will be a tipping point ... either way you put it tho ... electric makes the most sense right now ...
I'd consider a Volkswagon diesel if they didn't decide to brand themselves as the car for suburban wussies.
I'm going to throw my pitch for hybrids once again here... and not because it give me the right to look down my nose at anyone.
When my old Honda Civic started costing me more to repair than it was worth I went to look at something economical with good gas mileage and figured a Toyota Corolla was a good choice. The dealer started to show me a Prius and I thought, no way- too expensive. He talked me into test driving one and I was impressed so I went home and did the math. With the saving in gas (50 to 55 MPG at 60 to 65 miles per hour on a flat road) I realized the Prius was no more expensive than a Corolla or Yaris or any other model so it made sense to go with the Prius which also (at least in 2008) had the best overall rating from Consumer Reports than any other vehicle of any kind.
While I'm at it, I'll put in another pitch for the idea of having more no-drive days, walking, bicycling, public transportation (which requires some walking) and ride sharing- all good options for better personal health us and a healthier world.
That would be awesome!!!! I can't wait for my company to move within walking/biking/public transportation distance to my house. Will that be a requirement of this plan?
I didn't say anything about getting to work. I was thinking in terms of transportation in general. Obviously, not everyone can walk, bike or take public transportation to work. But it makes sense to do so when possible and it makes sense to walk, bike or take public transit when ever possible when going places other than work.
Try thinking outside the box. We won't be able to continue our endless driving habits forever. Instead of shooting the messenger, think about your future and your kids future how we can make the best of things in order to get by.
the electrics now are essentially hybrids ... the difference is instead of the engine kicking in at a certain speed - it kicks in when you are out of battery ... the volt has a gas tank for that purpose ...
Amazing and very illustrative footage, oceaninmyeyes. Thanks for posting it.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 February 2013
Climate sceptic groups are mobilising against Obama’s efforts to act on climate change in his second term. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.
Koch Industries Executive Vice President David H. Koch : Funding climate chang deniers The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.
By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."
Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organisations working to discredit climate science or block climate action.
Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.
"Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not," she went on. "Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defence, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced."
By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.
The money flowed to Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.
The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.
Graphic: climate denial funding Graphic: climate denial funding
Those same groups are now mobilising against Obama's efforts to act on climate change in his second term. A top recipient of the secret funds on Wednesday put out a point-by-point critique of the climate content in the president's state of the union address.
And it was all done with a guarantee of complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.
"The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It's also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing," said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records.
"These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable. There is no transparency, no accountability for the money. There is no way to tell who is funding them," Davies said.
The trusts were established for the express purpose of managing donations to a host of conservative causes.
Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful.
That opposition hardened over the years, especially from the mid-2000s where the Greenpeace record shows a sharp spike in funds to the anti-climate cause.
In effect, the Donors Trust was bankrolling a movement, said Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has extensively researched the networks of ultra-conservative donors.
"This is what I call the counter-movement, a large-scale effort that is an organised effort and that is part and parcel of the conservative movement in the United States " Brulle said. "We don't know where a lot of the money is coming from, but we do know that Donors Trust is just one example of the dark money flowing into this effort."
In his view, Brulle said: "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."
The rise of that movement is evident in the funding stream. In 2002, the two trusts raised less than $900,000 for the anti-climate cause. That was a fraction of what Exxon Mobil or the conservative oil billionaire Koch brothers donated to climate sceptic groups that year.
By 2010, the two Donor Trusts between them were channelling just under $30m to a host of conservative organisations opposing climate action or science. That accounted to 46% of all their grants to conservative causes, according to the Greenpeace analysis.
The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one.
"There is plenty of money coming from elsewhere," said John Mashey, a retired computer executive who has researched funding for climate contrarians. "Focusing on the Kochs gets things confused. You can not ignore the Kochs. They have their fingers in too many things, but they are not the only ones."
It is also possible the Kochs continued to fund their favourite projects using the anonymity offered by Donor Trust.
But the records suggest many other wealthy conservatives opened up their wallets to the anti-climate cause – an impression Ball wishes to stick.
She argued the media had overblown the Kochs support for conservative causes like climate contrarianism over the years. "It's so funny that on the right we think George Soros funds everything, and on the left you guys think it is the evil Koch brothers who are behind everything. It's just not true. If the Koch brothers didn't exist we would still have a very healthy organisation," Ball said.
I somewhat understand, whg, the idea that there is no "problem" with the environment. As has been said by more famous and funnier people before, the planet will shake us off, patch itself up and keep on spinning long after we're gone. The problem is with our human effect on the environment, the fact that our impact is killing off large numbers of other species that would otherwise be surviving, and the likelihood that we are shortening our stay on this planet. If you read climate science information thoroughly, much of what you'll see isn't "if we just do this or that" as much as it is "this is what we are doing and these are the results of what we are doing". Many scientist are, of course, trying to find ways to slow down our impact on the environment because they know if we don't, we will continue to kill off other species that otherwise would survive and continue to shorten our stay on the planet.
Of course, if we don't care that we are killing off other species or we don't care about increasing our species odds for survival then we are wasting our time here discussing this issue.
Also, I would argue that a "ticking time bomb" may not be the most apt metaphor. Something resembling an exponential curve might serve better as an illustration.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... ate-change
Could Chris Christie Bring the GOP Around on Climate?
The governor of New Jersey "talks a good game" on global warming, but so far he hasn't followed through.
Chris Christie, the combative Republican governor of New Jersey, thinks that climate change is a problem and humans are causing it. "Climate change is real... [and] impacting our state," he said in August 2011. "Human activity plays a role in these changes." Christie hasn't shown much willingness to act on the issue: in the same speech, he announced he was pulling New Jersey out of a Northeastern regional plan to cut carbon emissions. But in simply acknowledging that climate change is not some liberal conspiracy, Christie is standing out from the GOP pack. He's a popular Republican with national ambitions who seems to recognize the threat. That's raised a question among some hopeful activists: Can Chris Christie shift the politics of climate change?
If Christie decided to lead on climate, he wouldn't be the first New Jersey Republican to do so. Tom Kean Sr., the Republican governor of New Jersey from 1982 to 1990, was one of the first politicians to pay attention to climate change as a threat. In 1989, Kean issued an executive order noting the scientific consensus on that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and directing state agencies to start figuring out how to deal with that. Although Kean is a Christie fan, he's also criticized him not doing more on climate. "We've got some climate change policies in the state," Kean says. "He's accepted those. I can't say he's been leader on them. He hasn't been." But that could change, Kean adds.
"The thing people love about this guy is he says what's on his mind. He's said a lot of things that aren't politic … I think if he believes in something he's going to talk about it," Kean continues. "He could be a real leader on this if he wants to be. I hope he is."
Nationally, Republicans who care about climate change are looking for a leader. "With a majority of Americans already expressing concern about climate change and most others trying to make sense of destructive and unprecedented weather, voters of all political stripes will be looking for leaders willing to tackle the problem and offer real solutions," says Rob Sisson, president of ConservAmerica, a right-leaning environmental group. "There is no political future in the climate denial game and I hope my fellow Republicans can now see the political pitfalls of being bullied by the most radical and irresponsible voices in our party."
Environmentalists in New Jersey aren't sure what Christie really thinks about the issue. In the 2009 election, the New Jersey Environmental Federation surprised many in the state by endorsing Christie over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine—the group's first endorsement of a Republican for state-wide office in almost three decades. The group knocked Corzine's failure to live up to environmental promises, and cited Christie's "impressive green agenda."
But Christie's promises faded soon after taking office—and climate hawks have been disappointed that he didn't talk more about the link between climate change and more powerful storms such as Hurricane Sandy, which pummeled New Jersey. Asked about climate change's role in the storm earlier this month, Christie dismissed it. "It's not a main concern for me," he said. "Now maybe, in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder the esoteric question of the cause of this storm." New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has spoken of the need to rebuild smarter—and not in all the same places. But Christie has put his emphasis on restoring the shore that once was.
"It was our hope that he would change the dialogue," says Amy Goldsmith, director of NJEF. "But clearly his post-Sandy remarks don't show that desire. In fact he's poo-pooing it as if it's an academic, wackoo thing to talk about." In its last report card on legislators, NJEF gave Christie an "F."
It's not just a rhetorical slight; as governor, Christie has gutted many programs that aimed to address climate change. He got rid of the Office of Climate Change and Energy within the Department of Environmental Protection shortly after taking office, withdrew the state from the Northeast's cap and trade plan known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), weakened the state's renewable energy standard, and took $210 million from the state's clean energy fund to balance the budget.
Jeff Tittel, the head of the New Jersey chapter of Sierra Club, says that Christie has tried to have it both ways by talking a good game on climate but enacting policies that actually make the problem worse. "People in New Jersey believe in climate change, so he's parsed his words very, very carefully," Tittel says. "He can give impression in New Jersey that he cares about the issue, but on national stage he pulls out of RGGI. It's an interesting tightrope walk."
As Tittel notes, the New Jersey GOP is generally moderate on climate change. When Congress voted on a cap and trade bill in 2009, three of the eight Republicans voting in favor were from the Garden State. But getting elected in New Jersey is different than surviving a Republican presidential primary, and it's long been clear that Christie has national ambitions. And although the Republican Party has deemed climate a non-issue, voters care about it nationally. Polling ahead of last fall's election showed that the vast majority of voters wanted a "green" candidate who would take action on climate change, and Americans did, indeed, pick the presidential candidate who acknowledged the problem. Christie's popularity affords him more leeway to experiment than many other Republican politicians.
"If Gov. Christie can find ways to come up with his own approach to dealing with these things and reach across the aisle, cooperate with Democrats, I think that can be an example going forward," says Ben Spinelli, the Republican former mayor of Chester, NJ, and the former head of the state's Office of Smart Growth under Corzine.
"He's in a fairly strong political position, so he can take risks that someone else might not be willing or able to take," Spinelli says. "The question is, will he be willing to do it? I don't know."
I don't like to talk about our effects on the planet in mathematical terms such as exponential curves. Not enough people understand the idea of limits and infinity. They understand cliffs and bombs. It is hard to grasp a function that will continue to increase at an accelerating rate but will fail to cross an ambiguous value.
I just want to say that I really enjoy all you have to say on this board. I am such a cynic. I can't help but admire your style, and the fact that you always try and respond to the more positive aspects of people's posts.
Keep on keepin' on.
I admire a good cynic! Keeps us on our toes.
I agree, overpopulation is very much overlooked. I'm fascinated by the ecological population concepts such as carrying capacity. Our human numbers provide an excellent example of what happens when populations climax. One of the things that separates us from other animals is our ability to understand such concepts. The fact that we (so far) haven't done anything with that understanding to me is baffling.
Damn you, zee Germans!
Shame on Volkswagen.
Arschlochs!
I'd consider a Volkswagon diesel if they didn't decide to brand themselves as the car for suburban wussies.
Once they remap computer to run cleaner VW diesels will run like Doo Doo.
Godfather.
i kid, my man
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Godfather.
with my luck i would lay it down and have some kind of horrific injury. i leave those to the pros who have been riding them for years.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I've been reading about the oceans and ocean life lately and realizing more than ever that it's not just climate change or not just pollution or whatever. If I had to guess which particular system should get priority I would go with oceans. Almost all life (maybe all?) depends on the oceans. And then all of it ties together- ocean die off, climate change, pollution etc. In his book, The Whale Warriors, Peter Heller covers some of this very well. Great book.
Godfather.
I like the soft tail style frame it gives you that old school look with a little suspension.
Godfather.