Hummer owner gets angry message [Archive]

View Full Version : Hummer owner gets angry message

Mixability

07-18-2007, 03:13 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19818804/?gt1=10150

WASHINGTON - On a narrow, leafy street in Northwest Washington, where Prius hybrid cars and Volvos are the norm, one man bought a flashy gray Hummer that was too massive to fit in his garage.

So he parked the seven-foot-tall behemoth on the street in front of his house and smiled politely when his eco-friendly neighbors looked on in disapproval at his "dream car."

It lasted five days on the street before two masked men took a bat to every window, a knife to each 38-inch tire and scratched into the body: "FOR THE ENVIRON."

"The thought of somebody vandalizing it never crossed my mind," said Gareth Groves, 32, who lives with his mother in a three-story home in the 3400 block of Brandywine Street NW in American University Park. "I've kind of been in shock."

Looks of satisfaction
Now, as Groves ponders what to do with the remains of his $38,000 SUV, he has been the target of a number of people who have driven by the crime scene in his upscale neighborhood and glared at him in smug satisfaction.

"I'd say one in five people who come by have that 'you-got-what-you-deserve' look," said his friend Andy Sexton, 27, who is visiting from Arkansas and has been helping Groves deal with fallout from the crime.

Neighbor Lucille Liem, 37, who owns a Prius hybrid, said that a common sentiment in the neighborhood is that large vehicles are impractical and a strain on the Earth -- and Hummers in particular are a symbol of consumer excess.

"The neighborhood in general is very concerned with the environment," said Liem, whose Prius gets about 48 miles a gallon compared with the Hummer's 14 miles a gallon. "It's more liberal leaning. It's ridiculous to be driving a Hummer."

Liem added quickly that she does not condone violence.

Another neighbor, Lani Fremaux, 58, said she bought a T-shirt months ago with a picture of a Hummer and above it the word "Bummer." She wore the shirt proudly but said she is so upset with recent events on her street that she might retire it.

"They've got everything at their disposal in this city to make a statement in a legal way," Fremaux said of the bat-wielding men who struck out at the Hummer. "I consider this a hate crime."

First attack of its kind
Police said they see small acts of vandalism in the area from time to time, but they have not seen anything so severe, or with such a clear political message, in recent years.

"This seems to be an isolated event," Cmdr. Andy Solberg said.

Investigators said they are searching for the vandals but don't have many leads. Witnesses saw two men about six feet tall with bandanas or masks over their faces smash up the car about 3:30 a.m. Monday and then run off.

Groves's mother, Phyllis Groves, 70, said she is sad for her son because he has wanted a Hummer for a while. But even she did not exactly approve of the purchase.
"I teased him because of the gas mileage," she said. "But he wanted a Hummer. He didn't have other gas guzzlers in mind."

He bought the used 2005 vehicle a month ago from a dentist in Fairfax County and left it in a shop for several weeks so it could be outfitted to his specifications -- new, bigger tires and a "lift kit," meaning it would be higher off the ground.

Groves, who grew up in the District and works in marketing for a local radio station, said he wanted the car in part because he is starting a company, Washington Sports Marketing, that is "image-based."

He said he wants to get it towed and repaired but fears extremists might not be done making an example of him.

"I'm worried about what I do now," he said. "If I get it fixed, do I put it back in the same spot three weeks from now?"

Mixability

07-18-2007, 03:15 PM

"The thought of somebody vandalizing it never crossed my mind," said Gareth Groves, 32, who lives with his mother in a three-story home

Maybe THAT'S the reason they fucked up your car. :lol

DarkReign

07-18-2007, 03:37 PM

I couldnt help but notice the same thing.

Mixability

07-18-2007, 03:38 PM

I couldnt help but notice the same thing.

The car loan is probably in his momma's name too.

Soul_Patch

07-18-2007, 03:54 PM

Arent hummers a bit more than 38k?

monosylab1k

07-18-2007, 03:56 PM

Maybe THAT'S the reason they fucked up your car. :lol
that's probably the reason he got a Hummer in the first place. Overcompensation.

Mixability

07-18-2007, 03:59 PM

Arent hummers a bit more than 38k?

Base model, I guess. He pimped it after.

AnkleBreaker21

07-18-2007, 04:43 PM

damn i didnt know those earth friendly fools were so gangsta:lol:lol

SpursWoman

07-18-2007, 04:43 PM

He bought it used and then altered it.

He bought the used 2005 vehicle a month ago from a dentist in Fairfax County and left it in a shop for several weeks so it could be outfitted to his specifications -- new, bigger tires and a "lift kit," meaning it would be higher off the ground.

Phenomanul

07-18-2007, 04:50 PM

It's all relative anyways....

If I drive a 24 mpg vehicle to work and only have to commute 5 miles per day, does my vehicle polute more than a Prius driven 20 miles daily?

CubanMustGo

07-18-2007, 04:52 PM

LOL serves the fucker right (not that I "condone violence"). Up in the 'burbs north of Dallas my Civic Hybrid is more likely to be "vandalized" by some SOB in an 8-mpg SUV running a red light and t-boning it.

E20

07-18-2007, 05:19 PM

Those enviorment and globabl warming fucks are annoying and dumb as fuck.

T Park

07-18-2007, 05:21 PM

LOL serves the fucker right

nothing justifys this, or anything else.

The guy has a right to own any damn car he wants, and its bullshit these fuckers are gonna get away with it.

dickface

07-18-2007, 05:24 PM

nothing justifys this, or anything else.

The guy has a right to own any damn car he wants, and its bullshit these fuckers are gonna get away with it.
THAT'S RIGHT!

FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT! WE'LL DO WHAT THE FUCK WE WANT!

THEY TOOK ERRRRR JOOOOOOOOOOOBS!

http://www.vladville.com/uploaded_images/southpark101-777325.jpg

SpursWoman

07-18-2007, 05:45 PM

I don't particularly like those trucks, either ... but I know I don't have the right to destroy someone else's property. WTF? :wtf

IceColdBrewski

07-18-2007, 05:52 PM

The moral of the story:

Those "friendly" tree-hugging liberals in your neighborhood really aren't all that friendly.

AnkleBreaker21

07-18-2007, 05:53 PM

I don't particularly like those trucks, either ... but I know I don't have the right to destroy someone else's property. WTF? :wtf
so she say's now, but when her man cheats on her. its play ball:lol

Flea

07-18-2007, 06:08 PM

I think hummers are stupid with gas prices but I have no right to vandalize someone's car.

SpursWoman

07-18-2007, 06:11 PM

so she say's now, but when her man cheats on her. its play ball:lol

Nah....the worst I'd do is throw all of his shit in the front yard, after I sold all of the good stuff. I'm not one of those kind of women. :lol

AnkleBreaker21

07-18-2007, 06:18 PM

:lol oh is that all

phyzik

07-18-2007, 06:32 PM

I'd fix the hummer then ram the fuck out of every little gay ass prius on the fucking street.

T Park

07-18-2007, 07:14 PM

Those "friendly" tree-hugging liberals in your neighborhood really aren't all that friendly.

Didn't the great Al Franken get arrested for assaulting someone?

ShoogarBear

07-18-2007, 08:32 PM

The car loan is probably in his momma's name too.Ew. Are you saying his mom gave him a hummer?

NorCal510

07-18-2007, 08:39 PM

good

don't hurt our environment

every hummer owner deserves this

AlamoSpursFan

07-18-2007, 09:13 PM

good

don't hurt our environment

every hummer owner deserves this

Spoken like someone who desperately needs to hear George Carlin's Earth + Plastics bit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IET1uKHPqc8)

:lol

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:06 PM

The moral of the story:

Those "friendly" tree-hugging liberals in your neighborhood really aren't all that friendly.

What utter BULLSHIT. The people who did this are extremists and criminals, and DO NOT REPRESENT the vast majority of people who have concern for the environment.

I think hummers are obscene, not to mention the extra danger they and other SUVs pose to the average sedan driver or pedestrian, but I wouldn't go out and do that to someone else's property, regardless of my opinion, and nor would 99.5% of environmentally concerned citizens.

Those enviorment and globabl warming fucks are annoying and dumb as fuck.

Usually I don't mind your posts, but this is just PURE IGNORANCE. Have you actually studied what human beings are doing to the planet? Do you know anything about atmospheric, oceanic or soil chemistry, about energy balances and water catchments, about environmental systemics, carrying capacity, resilience, etc etc??? NO? Well, then, STFU because you know NOTHING.

We are eating up this planet's non-renewable resources at an alarming and ever-accelerating rate, and in doing so polluting the environmental systems on which your and every other life on the planet are based, and yet you call the people who study these phenomena and try to come up with ways not to destroy our life support system, because that's exactly what "the environment" is, "dumb as fuck".

You know what, YOU are dumb as fuck for saying that, and you have no idea what is really happening to the world around you. Self-obsessed, ignorant attitudes like that are the problem.

good

don't hurt our environment

every hummer owner deserves this

Says the hypocrite teenager who doesn't even need a car yet drives an SUV which has, what, a 3.5L V6 in it? :rolleyes

Ever heard of a compact car with a 1.6L engine? Public transport? A bike???

I just received my latest 3-monthly electricity bill, and using behavioural change alone, reduced it by over 50% from last year, saving me $150 this quarter. In the last two years I have reduced my petrol consumption by over 70%. None of this has detrimentally affected my lifestyle one bit - in fact, I'm fitter now (from riding my bike most places) than I've been in years.

Small behavioural changes and investment in energy efficiency can lead to big savings in energy, water, AND MONEY. Check out this TV show:

http://abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/

Last week it featured four people who were living together in a house and generating 91t of CO2/yr (Australian average household - 14t/yr). Their electricity bills were $1600 a quarter, mostly because they were running a whole lot of stuff they didn't use. In a month, with minimal change to lifestyle, they reduced their total emissions by 54%, electricity use by 78% (reducing their billto around $300). Overall, under the new regime they would save $10,000 a year, not to mention the energy and emissions saving.

We are a spoiled, lazy, poorly trained generation. We assume that energy and water are limitless, and because we are distanced from power stations, we assume forget their harsh environmental impact. If we all did a little the change would be enormous. But instead, we sit around with our heads burried in the sand. Great job.

PS Cue fuckwit who tells me to go and live in a cave and get off the net. Did you read the paragraph above? We don't have to live in caves, we just have to reduce our WASTE. And this laptop uses 90W, little more than your average conventional lightglobe, so go fuck yourself with a dildo.

I really hate how otherwise reasonable people jump on a story like this to justify inaction on their own wasteful behaviours.

:devil

marini martini

07-18-2007, 10:11 PM

I'd fix the hummer then ram the fuck out of every little gay ass prius on the fucking street.

Meeeeeeeeeeeeee 2222222222222222222 :toast

NorCal510

07-18-2007, 10:15 PM

What utter BULLSHIT. The people who did this are extremists and criminals, and DO NOT REPRESENT the vast majority of people who have concern for the environment.

I think hummers are obscene, not to mention the extra danger they and other SUVs pose to the average sedan driver or pedestrian, but I wouldn't go out and do that to someone else's property, regardless of my opinion, and nor would 99.5% of environmentally concerned citizens.

Usually I don't mind your posts, but this is just PURE IGNORANCE. Have you actually studied what human beings are doing to the planet? Do you know anything about atmospheric, oceanic or soil chemistry, about energy balances and water catchments, about environmental systemics, carrying capacity, resilience, etc etc??? NO? Well, then, STFU because you know NOTHING.

We are eating up this planet's non-renewable resources at an alarming and ever-accelerating rate, and in doing so polluting the environmental systems on which your and every other life on the planet are based, and yet you call the people who study these phenomena and try to come up with ways not to destroy our life support system, because that's exactly what "the environment" is, "dumb as fuck".

You know what, YOU are dumb as fuck for saying that, and you have no idea what is really happening to the world around you. Self-obsessed, ignorant attitudes like that are the problem.

Says the hypocrite teenager who doesn't even need a car yet drives an SUV which has, what, a 3.5L V6 in it? :rolleyes

Ever heard of a compact car with a 1.6L engine? Public transport? A bike???

I just received my latest 3-monthly electricity bill, and using behavioural change alone, reduced it by over 50% from last year, saving me $150 this quarter. In the last two years I have reduced my petrol consumption by over 70%. None of this has detrimentally affected my lifestyle one bit - in fact, I'm fitter now (from riding my bike most places) than I've been in years.

Small behavioural changes and investment in energy efficiency can lead to big savings in energy, water, AND MONEY. Check out this TV show:

http://abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/

Last week it featured four people who were living together in a house and generating 91t of CO2/yr (Australian average household - 14t/yr). Their electricity bills were $1600 a quarter, mostly because they were running a whole lot of stuff they didn't use. In a month, with minimal change to lifestyle, they reduced their total emissions by 54%, electricity use by 78% (reducing their billto around $300). Overall, under the new regime they would save $10,000 a year, not to mention the energy and emissions saving.

We are a spoiled, lazy, poorly trained generation. We assume that energy and water are limitless, and because we are distanced from power stations, we assume forget their harsh environmental impact. If we all did a little the change would be enormous. But instead, we sit around with our heads burried in the sand. Great job.

PS Cue fuckwit who tells me to go and live in a cave and get off the net. Did you read the paragraph above? We don't have to live in caves, we just have to reduce our WASTE. And this laptop uses 90W, little more than your average conventional lightglobe, so go fuck yourself with a dildo.

I really hate how otherwise reasonable people jump on a story like this to justify inaction on their own wasteful behaviours.

:devil

before talking shit, do your research.

it is a V4 2.4L, 26ish MPG. it's honored as a low emissions car.

i walk/run back from work

i recycle cans/bottles, turn off unnecessary lights, conserve what i can.

fuck you.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:15 PM

Re-posting this because no-one ever reads the bottom post on the thread, and it took 1/2 an hour, dammit.

The moral of the story:

Those "friendly" tree-hugging liberals in your neighborhood really aren't all that friendly.

What utter BULLSHIT. The people who did this are extremists and criminals, and DO NOT REPRESENT the vast majority of people who have concern for the environment.

I think hummers are obscene, not to mention the extra danger they and other SUVs pose to the average sedan driver or pedestrian, but I wouldn't go out and do that to someone else's property, regardless of my opinion, and nor would 99.5% of environmentally concerned citizens.

Those enviorment and globabl warming fucks are annoying and dumb as fuck.

Usually I don't mind your posts, but this is just PURE IGNORANCE. Have you actually studied what human beings are doing to the planet? Do you know anything about atmospheric, oceanic or soil chemistry, about energy balances and water catchments, about environmental systemics, carrying capacity, resilience, etc etc??? NO? Well, then, STFU because you know NOTHING.

We are eating up this planet's non-renewable resources at an alarming and ever-accelerating rate, and in doing so polluting the environmental systems on which your and every other life on the planet are based, and yet you call the people who study these phenomena and try to come up with ways not to destroy our life support system, because that's exactly what "the environment" is, "dumb as fuck".

You know what, YOU are dumb as fuck for saying that, and you have no idea what is really happening to the world around you. Self-obsessed, ignorant attitudes like that are the problem.

good

don't hurt our environment

every hummer owner deserves this

Says the hypocrite teenager who doesn't even need a car yet drives an SUV which has, what, a 3.5L V6 in it? :rolleyes

Ever heard of a compact car with a 1.6L engine? Public transport? A bike???

I just received my latest 3-monthly electricity bill, and using behavioural change alone, reduced it by over 50% from last year, saving me $150 this quarter. In the last two years I have reduced my petrol consumption by over 70%. None of this has detrimentally affected my lifestyle one bit - in fact, I'm fitter now (from riding my bike most places) than I've been in years.

Small behavioural changes and investment in energy efficiency can lead to big savings in energy, water, AND MONEY. Check out this TV show:

http://abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/

Last week it featured four people who were living together in a house and generating 91t of CO2/yr (Australian average household - 14t/yr). Their electricity bills were $1600 a quarter, mostly because they were running a whole lot of stuff they didn't use. In a month, with minimal change to lifestyle, they reduced their total emissions by 54%, electricity use by 78% (reducing their billto around $300). Overall, under the new regime they would save $10,000 a year, not to mention the energy and emissions saving.

We are a spoiled, lazy, poorly trained generation. We assume that energy and water are limitless, and because we are distanced from power stations, we assume forget their harsh environmental impact. If we all did a little the change would be enormous. But instead, we sit around with our heads burried in the sand. Great job.

PS Cue fuckwit who tells me to go and live in a cave and get off the net. Did you read the paragraph above? We don't have to live in caves, we just have to reduce our WASTE. And this laptop uses 90W, little more than your average conventional lightglobe, so go fuck yourself with a dildo.

I really hate how otherwise reasonable people jump on a story like this to justify inaction on their own wasteful behaviours.

:devil

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:23 PM

before talking shit, do your research.

it is a V4 2.4L, 26ish MPG. it's honored as a low emissions car.

i walk/run back from work

i recycle cans/bottles, turn off unnecessary lights, conserve what i can.

fuck you.

I was pointing out the fact that at 17 you have a brand new car. Ever think about how much energy, water, metals and oil it took to MAKE the car? That is called embodied energy. If you walk/run from work/school, what do you need a car for?

How many fridges in your house? How many TVs? How many lights? How many appliances sitting around on standby doing nothing and chewing through power 24/7? The people I posted about had 6 FRIDGES running:

http://abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/bettenays.htm

I'll give you some kudos if you do an electricity audit on your house. Look at your parents' electricity bills today. Count the number of electrical appliances in your house, chase down their wattage to work out what really chews electricity. Turn off everything you're not using and be diligent about not just leaving shit running (so many people leave the 3kW plasma TV on while they are in another room not using it... why?), do this until your next bill comes through and check out the energy savings. Then you are making some effort.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:27 PM

And I know a lot of you will read this and say:

"What right does he have to tell me how to live? This is AMERICA and I can do what i damn well please." (in the voice of Jimbo from South Park)

Well, you know what, do whatever the fuck you like, I can't stop you, but you are shooting yourself in the foot. Put in a little effort, make a few small changes to your lifestyle, basically be conscious that EVERYTHING you consume comes from somewhere in the environment and has attached to it an environmental AND ECONOMIC cost, and you can save THOUSANDS of dollars a year. Wouldn't you like that going to your mortgage rather than a utility or oil company?

As I posted above, the Bettanys changed a few small aspects of their life, felt better about it afterwards, and put an extra $200 A WEEK in their pocket. Incredible, huh? Not really, just takes a little bit of common sense.

NorCal510

07-18-2007, 10:27 PM

I was pointing out the fact that at 17 you have a brand new car. Ever think about how much energy, water, metals and oil it took to MAKE the car? That is called embodied energy. If you walk/run from work/school, what do you need a car for?

How many fridges in your house? How many TVs? How many lights? How many appliances sitting around on standby doing nothing and chewing through power 24/7? The people I posted about had 6 FRIDGES running:

http://abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/bettenays.htm

I'll give you some kudos if you do an electricity audit on your house. Look at your parents' electricity bills today. Count the number of electrical appliances in your house, chase down their wattage to work out what really chews electricity. Turn off everything you're not using and be diligent about not just leaving shit running (so many people leave the 3kW plasma TV on while they are in another room not using it... why?), do this until your next bill comes through and check out the energy savings. Then you are making some effort.
it's a used car, again, do your research. the way you are talking sounds like you don't own a car, or at least a hybrid, and live in a house surrounded in solar panels.

trust me, i contribute probably triple the effort of an average human. and still people like you try to bring me down with BS.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:37 PM

it's a used car, again, do your research. the way you are talking sounds like you don't own a car, or at least a hybrid, and live in a house surrounded in solar panels.

trust me, i contribute probably triple the effort of an average human. and still people like you try to bring me down with BS.

Fair enough, but how can I "do my research" to find out that your car is used? You still didn't tell me why you need one. How much petrol do you go through? Tank a week, tank a month?

So do the bloody audit. It'll take you about an hour and you'll be surprised to find just how much power your family is wasting. Make it a family project. The site I've linked you to gives all sorts of tips on how to save energy and money with minimal effort.

That you think about these things is good, but the fact is that you have no idea what your environmental footprint really is, so why don't you start counting your consumption of everything and find out? Information the first step in any change for the better.

I don't have any solar panels or other generating devices, most of my electrical equipment is old, and I haven't yet invested in simple energy efficiency - I reduced my energy consumption through BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE alone, as did the case studies I cited (actually, no, they did install 5W halogen lightbulbs, but that's it). Next comes investment in better insulation, updated electricals, etc.

I'm talking purely about minor behavioural change. None of us realise how wasteful our normal, patterned, everyday behaviours are until we EXAMINE them. I certainly didn't. Then I did some examination of my lifestyle and was shocked by how wasteful I was. In less than two years, I have cut my total energy consumption (household, travel, etc) by over 50%, with no monetary investment except buying a bike which I wanted for recreation anyway. ANYONE can do this. Most people choose not to because it takes some effort, but point out the monetary incentive and hopefully people start listening a little more.

inconvertible

07-18-2007, 10:41 PM

Liberal Totalitarians.

you know in 500 million years the sun is going to grow, turn red, and swallow the earth. how is not buying a hummer going to stop that you shits.

NorCal510

07-18-2007, 10:47 PM

Fair enough, but how can I "do my research" to find out that your car is used? You still didn't tell me why you need one. How much petrol do you go through? Tank a week, tank a month?

So do the bloody audit. It'll take you about an hour and you'll be surprised to find just how much power your family is wasting. Make it a family project. The site I've linked you to gives all sorts of tips on how to save energy and money with minimal effort.

That you think about these things is good, but the fact is that you have no idea what your environmental footprint really is, so why don't you start counting your consumption of everything and find out? Information the first step in any change for the better.

I don't have any solar panels or other generating devices, most of my electrical equipment is old, and I haven't yet invested in simple energy efficiency - I reduced my energy consumption through BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE alone, as did the case studies I cited (actually, no, they did install 5W halogen lightbulbs, but that's it). Next comes investment in better insulation, updated electricals, etc.

I'm talking purely about minor behavioural change. None of us realise how wasteful our normal, patterned, everyday behaviours are until we EXAMINE them. I certainly didn't. Then I did some examination of my lifestyle and was shocked by how wasteful I was. In less than two years, I have cut my total energy consumption (household, travel, etc) by over 50%, with no monetary investment except buying a bike which I wanted for recreation anyway. ANYONE can do this. Most people choose not to because it takes some effort, but point out the monetary incentive and hopefully people start listening a little more.
You could have searched my thread about my new "used" car.

if you really want to help, you should get on others about helping the environment, i'm already doing my part.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:48 PM

Liberal Totalitarians.

you know in 500 million years the sun is going to grow, turn red, and swallow the earth. how is not buying a hummer going to stop that you shits.

As I said, by acting wastefully you waste YOUR OWN MONEY, and OUR environment (yours, mine, everyone's - the environment is a public good). It's your right to be a stubborn fucker about our common future and not care, but why you want to continue to throw away your own money is beyond me.

As for the Sun, no shit Sherlock. And exactly how long do you think this civilisation will last? We are dependent on fossil fuels for over 90% of our energy, and energy is the basis of everything (your food, transport, housing, EVERYTHING). The International Energy Agency predicts that at current use rates we have 43 years of oil and 64 years of coal left. What happens then, genius? modern civilisation will collapse. Who gives a fuck about 500mil yrs into the future when our civilisation will be lucky to survive the century?

Once again, people like you just show how pig ignorant you are.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 10:54 PM

You could have searched my thread about my new "used" car.

if you really want to help, you should get on others about helping the environment, i'm already doing my part.

Um, no. You have no idea whether you are doing your part or not because you can't quantify your impact. That was actually my point - don't rest on your laurels, move forward, learn and do more. You can, it's within your power. Once you can tell me a bit more about your environmental footprint in quantifiable terms, I'll respect you, but your statement that by doing a little recycling, turning lights off and walking to work you are "doing your part" is naive. Quantify what you do now, do a little more, then look again in 6 months and see how things changed. You will save money and feel better about your impact on the environment.

NorCal510

07-18-2007, 11:00 PM

bitch please

ploto

07-18-2007, 11:02 PM

No one has the right to destroy his car- but what annoys me are the women- yes, I said women- who drive around in huge stegosauruses that they have no clue how to drive or how to park- just to take their 3 year old 2 miles to pre-school.

AlamoSpursFan

07-18-2007, 11:05 PM

Melmart1

07-18-2007, 11:09 PM

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 11:10 PM

I purposely do everything I can opposite of what the tree hugging commie bastages want me to do, because I figure all of the liberal fucktards "saving the planet" more than make up for my transgressions against Mother Earf.

Chloro Fluoro Carbons, anyone?

:lol

I just laugh at people like you because your attitude is so ridiculous - you're cutting off your nose of to spite your face. You could save money and do a good thing at the same time, but you do the opposite out of stubborness. Kudos! :rolleyes

Do you have children? Grandchildren? The people you are really hurting are future generations. It's their climate we are wrecking, their resources we are wasting for the sake of bloodymindedness. Once again, congratulations.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 11:16 PM

While I understand Ruffy's points and do agree with some of them, you will NOT get through to most Americans by being sarcastic and acting like we are all evil. Most will just tune you out and your message will be ignored.

You presume to know what some Americans will say, before they even say it. I had no intention of saying such a thing. But sending your message the way you did will cause others to assume they know what you are about to say as well, without listening. And what ends up happening is neither side gets listened to, and both messages fall by the wayside. And no progress is made.

True, good point.

My comments about what will be said came from direct experience on this and other message boards, not supposition.

Re-read my first post though - how was it in any way inflammatory? I talked about ignorant generalisations made by others in the thread, then practical solutions. I only got inflammatory when the real stupidity came out.

Let's face it, most people see this as a "political" issue, something "the government should fix", and "not my problem". No matter what I say or how I say it to these people, it will take a real world crisis to change any part of their minds or behaviour, and I need to blow off some steam.

The absurdity of it is that everyone can SAVE MONEY while helping the environment, as I have said repeatedly, but so few people choose to.

Oh, and you're right, I shouldn't have been so hard on Norcal, at least he's doing something, but that was just habit. Also, I really object to the "resting on laurels" attitude - we can all do more, and often it makes us money for little effort.

NorCal510

07-18-2007, 11:18 PM

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 11:22 PM

Okay, how about this:

YOU CAN SAVE LOTSA $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Go around your house and turn off everything unless you're using it.

Buy a bike, use public transport sometimes, plan your car trips better and drive less.

Look at your bills now and in a year, you'll be surprised how much you save.

(PS This ignores EMBODIED ENERGY, which is the energy it takes to make the things we all buy and contributes greatly to our environmental footprint, but i was trying to keep things simple, so...

Oh, and BUY LESS STUFF YOU DON'T NEED!

Melmart1

07-18-2007, 11:23 PM

true

i read 5% of what he posted, the parts directed towards me.
And I am sure you are not alone. There will be others who read this thread and miss out on his good points entirely cus they see the sarcasm dripping or because it seems too preachy.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 11:35 PM

And I am sure you are not alone. There will be others who read this thread and miss out on his good points entirely cus they see the sarcasm dripping or because it seems too preachy.

Dude, I know that. I have written about this stuff 100 times before, many times being careful NOT to be inflammatory, and all I get is flamed by ignorant trolls anyway, so who cares?

See, these issues are actually scientific and economic, but most people view them as POLITICAL. Al Gore was THE WORST THING that ever happened to the environmental movement, because it polarised people along political lines. Post-Gore, otherwise reasonable conservatives, who, without Gore would have actually read the scientific and economic arguments for change, won't even touch it and instead write environmentalism off as "totalitarian liberalism" (see above) or "commies" or "tree huggers".

I'm none of those things. I live a very similar lifestyle to most people, only I take a bit more care not to waste anything or consume anything I don't need or really, really want. However, there is no talking sense to people once they are in the "two tribes" political mentality.

The info and links are there if anyone has the attention span to follow them up... apart from that, I have let off some steam.

Human ecology is my life, and sometimes it gets very depressing because it is like going to work every day and hitting your head against a wall for 8 hours, so sometimes I like to send some flames back. I'm only human.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-18-2007, 11:43 PM

And I am sure you are not alone. There will be others who read this thread and miss out on his good points entirely cus they see the sarcasm dripping or because it seems too preachy.

Also, please tell me how you inform people about these things without coming off as "preachy"? That is a common criticism against agents of change of all kinds, but by their very nature suggestions for change usually come off as preachy.

Read my posts - I didn't preach. I emphasised that you can SAVE MONEY by doing a few simple things, then put in some useful links as examples. If that's preaching, how the hell are you meant to spread the message???

Melmart1

07-18-2007, 11:51 PM

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 12:00 AM

First of all, I a girl, not a dude. And I never said you shouldn't be preachy, just that many don't respond to that.

I dont have the answers you seek, I am just advising you to stop with the vitriol regarding Americans, or you can be preachy all you want but it will fall on deaf ears.

I consider "dude" to be genderless, although I didn't know you were a woman. How's dudette? :lol

Where did I direct it at Americans??? It is directed at all of us - Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Europeans of all stripes, Japanese, Koreans, a growing number of Chinese... anyone who lives in a modern economy. You took this to be directed at Americans on your own... which is interesting in itself.

I never specifically targeted Americans or any other nation. We are all wasteful - it is the nature of our societies. Actually, I study the underlying systems in our cultures that drive wasteful behaviour. It is those systems that we need to modify to reduce our wastefulness.

Even though per capita Americans are the worst greenhouse polluters in the world, Aussies aren't far behind, nor Canadians. We're all pretty bad. I never made this nation-specific, nor greenhouse specific. it's more a comment on the absurdity of our wastefulness, which also COSTS US MONEY!

Melmart1

07-19-2007, 12:18 AM

I consider "dude" to be genderless, although I didn't know you were a woman. How's dudette? :lol

Where did I direct it at Americans??? It is directed at all of us - Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Europeans of all stripes, Japanese, Koreans, a growing number of Chinese... anyone who lives in a modern economy. You took this to be directed at Americans on your own... which is interesting in itself.

!
Nope, you brought American into it with this:

And I know a lot of you will read this and say:
"What right does he have to tell me how to live? This is AMERICA and I can do what i damn well please." (in the voice of Jimbo from South Park)

You are assuming that "a lot" of us on this board who are American are going to act like ignorant asses and tell you that we can do whatever we want because we are the USA. That's total bullshit for you to assume this, and it makes me not want to read anymore of your post.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 12:32 AM

Nope, you brought American into it with this:

You are assuming that "a lot" of us on this board who are American are going to act like ignorant asses and tell you that we can do whatever we want because we are the USA. That's total bullshit for you to assume this, and it makes me not want to read anymore of your post.

As for your example, as I said I have posted on these issue on this message board 100 times and been flamed mercilessly with exactly the attitude and words I quoted by at least 50 different handles, as against maybe 20 who have said something constructive. that seems like "a lot" to me. I know what will be said by these neanderthals because I've seen it 100 times before. Also, that example was a direct reaction to the South Park picture on the first page, which is from an episode about environmentalists being douchbags (thus the "Jimbo's voice" comment). South Park is set in America, is it not?

Anyway, for you to highlight one tiny bit of the thread and say I'm vilifying Americans is RIDICULOUS. Anyway, I apologise for the fact that I said "a lot" (despite that being my experience).

Just in case you don't get the message - EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN ANY MODERN ECONOMY IS RESPONSIBLE.

This is why I left the political forum. My bad. I'll never bring any of this up again. There's no point. Let's all just enjoy the music as the Titanic sinks...

sabar

07-19-2007, 12:58 AM

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 01:34 AM

Most Americans ARE ignorant asses that will pollute on purpose just to spite the opposition. I'm glad that one day I'll be dead and all links with this pitiful human race will be dead.

But that's besides the point.

RuffnReadyOzStyle, your argument is pointless here for the same reason the political forum is pointless; people will not change their opinions based on logical argument.

I say let people burn more fuel. Necessity's the mother of invention. The sooner our planet is a toxic wasteland with no metals, fuel, or natural wildlife left on it, the sooner people will realize there is a problem and attempt to fix it. People could care less if they damn their own future generations. Defeatism will reach more people than argument will, especially on the internet. Sad but true.

Emboldened - absolutely, and isn't that ABSURD. Moreover, they will not change behaviours even though it will SAVE them MONEY. Go figure.

As for your final paragraph, the problem with that is that once all the resources are gone we won't have the tools to fix anything. What people don't get is that once the energy starts to run dry and costs skyrocket, the global economy will collapse - EVERYTHING WE CONSUME is underpinned by cheap energy. Your idea describes basic human nature - humans only respond en masse to crises, not warnings of impending crises. How foolish we are.

The most frustrating thing - we can live in a sustainable world without destroying our quality of life! The technologies have been available for 30 years, they just cost a bit more than coal and oil. If we gradually change our behaviours and switch to sustainable technology over the next 50 years, we could alleviate our problems, but no-one is listening.

In a way I wish I was blissfully ignorant about human ecology and the worsening state of the global ecosystem, I wish I could dump it all from my head and just live in happyily but it's too late for that... so occasionally I vent on the net. Bah, bad day for me today.

OldDirtMcGirt

07-19-2007, 02:49 AM

Whoever did that was an asshole.

And my car gets somewhat shitty gas mileage (it has a V8), but I don't mind because I love driving it and I can afford to spend the extra money on gas. I only save money if I really have to, otherwise I think people are overly concerned with pinching pennies and don't bother just to enjoy everyday stuff.

inconvertible

07-19-2007, 06:39 AM

As I said, by acting wastefully you waste YOUR OWN MONEY, and OUR environment (yours, mine, everyone's - the environment is a public good). It's your right to be a stubborn fucker about our common future and not care, but why you want to continue to throw away your own money is beyond me.

As for the Sun, no shit Sherlock. And exactly how long do you think this civilisation will last? We are dependent on fossil fuels for over 90% of our energy, and energy is the basis of everything (your food, transport, housing, EVERYTHING). The International Energy Agency predicts that at current use rates we have 43 years of oil and 64 years of coal left. What happens then, genius? modern civilisation will collapse. Who gives a fuck about 500mil yrs into the future when our civilisation will be lucky to survive the century?

Once again, people like you just show how pig ignorant you are.

Yeah, but if our lesbian and gay societies continue to grow. the human race will cease to reproduce and either monkeys, dogs, dolphins, or roaches will take over the earth. :clap

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 08:56 AM

Yeah, but if our lesbian and gay societies continue to grow. the human race will cease to reproduce and either monkeys, dogs, dolphins, or roaches will take over the earth. :clap

I'm sure you make sense to someone, but it ain't me.

You're like one of those social activists who go to serious meetings and yell out non-sequiturs to disrupt proper debate.

xrayzebra

07-19-2007, 09:41 AM

I'm sure you make sense to someone, but it ain't me.

You're like one of those social activists who go to serious meetings and yell out non-sequiturs to disrupt proper debate.

Well RNR, see you are still spewing your "consensus" of
opinion crap.

Your view of life is most pessimistic view possible. You
assume that most people want dirty air, dirty water,
to live in filth, have no thought of future generations.
You run around hollering live like me and save the earth.
BS mankind has done well by this earth. Some mistakes
has been made, but looking back they are few and far
between and when really proven have been corrected and
in the case of most the environment today, over
corrected. Mankind is not destroying the earth. Earth
has taken care of itself since the beginning and will
continue to take care of itself. We are but a pimple in
time. You and people like you give us too much credit.
We couldn't destroy earth if we set off every atomic
weapon that exist this day and time. Mankind maybe
but not earth. I am not even sure that we could
kill off all of mankind. Tell me something Mr. smart guy,
scientist of the world, how much rain falls in a single day
all over the earth. No one knows, because there is
no worldwide system in existence to measure rainfall
everywhere. Also tell me, what should the average
temperature of the earth be. You cant. Because no
one knows. There are plenty of people with more
knowledge than you that dispute your findings. So
go spout your crap to someone who cares, I don't and
will continue to be a member of mankind and live in
the manner I desire, so long as I pay the bills. Now
if you want to pay my bills, feel free, and then I will
listen to your crap, maybe!

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 10:00 AM

You know what Ray, fuck off. I'm not even going to debate you, there's no point. I've destroyed you on the evidence every single time, yet you're too stubborn and set in your frame to acknowledge it.

I am at a university every goddamn day, 16th best university in the world, and not one of the scientists in the environment school didn't accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change years ago...

As for your rainfall question, actually, yes, that could be done. Most countries collect very accurate figures on the flows of their river systems on monthly timeframes. Every drop of rain ends up in a river (or aquifer) except that taken out by humans, which is also measured! YOU TALK OUT YOUR ARSE. You have no experience of research or peer-reviewed science.

You say humans are a pimple - that was true in the 1880s when there were only 1bil of us using a 1/100th of the resources per capita that we are today, but now there are 6.6billion of us chewing up the planet at an astounding rate. Where do you think all your food, consumer goods, buildings, malls, planes, etc etc come from Ray? The planet. We can't affect the planet? What about urban heat islands, the hole in the ozone layer, fisheries that have "disappeared", soil erosion, coral bleaching, desertification, deforestation, the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which is an incontrvertible FACT. Here is the Keeling curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

LOOK at it! The annual oscillations you see are the global carbon cycle, the lungs of the planet, breathing every northern spring-summer as photosynthetic plants grow leaves! And the upward trend, that's US mate. US HUMANS adding about 2,000,000,000,000kg of Co2, 2 Gt, every year, and rising.

Look at it!

We ARE affecting the planet in 1000000000000 ways.

You are a foolish old man.

nkdlunch

07-19-2007, 10:12 AM

revenge of the tree huggers

IceColdBrewski

07-19-2007, 11:41 AM

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3666/ph2007071701884em1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

After spending thousands for a Hummer/Big tires/lift kit, etc, you'd think he'd be smart enough to spend an extra two hundred on a good alarm system.

Mixability

07-19-2007, 12:04 PM

he is starting a company, Washington Sports Marketing, that is "image-based."

:lmao

image based?

What kind of image does living with your momma project?

DarkReign

07-19-2007, 01:32 PM

Mark in Austin

07-19-2007, 02:10 PM

I don't support vandalism. But setting aside the current debate for a second, I think it's safe to say that when you're shopping for a car it's not that hard to buy one that fits in your garage.

It does take a special kind of asshole to spend $38,000.00 on a vehicle while still living with his mother though.

xrayzebra

07-19-2007, 02:47 PM

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 10:57 PM

Man, if Yoni seen this thread, some folks would squirt themselves.

But who wants to rehash old arguments in a recycled fashion. If youre actually looking for a good, competitive argument Ruff, take it to the political forum.

Because I dont believe a person as passionate as you would derive any pleasure from owning-up mental midgets like NorCal.

I used to go to the political forum but the ignorance got to me. Everything divides along political lines rather than the evidence, whether it be scientific, economic, whatever. I got so frustrated with it that I vowed not to go back, now freakin Ray has come over here to bug me. Trust me, I won't mention anything like this here again, there's no point.

Ray, I have looked at both sides of the argument and the side you refer to uses lies and misconceptions to confuse people, while peer-reviewed science offers a rigourous explanation of the observed phenomena.

My reply to your post was only in answer to your claim that the earth is "too big to be affected by humans", which is pure tripe as anyone can see.

YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, NOR AN ECONOMIST, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOT STUDIED OR UNDERSTOOD THE SCIENCE OF ANTHROPO CLIMATE CHANGE, NOR THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION.

In tens of threads in the political forum you "debated" me. What sort of evidence did you provide? Drudge report articles, misrepresentations of the science from sites like junkscience, and half-baked theories about how it's all a big conspiracy to take away your pension check. I picked you up time and again as you displayed your ignorance, and linked you to mainstream primary scientific and economic sources that explained why you were wrong, none of which you refuted or even understood I think. I OWNED you time and again, but I can't be bothered any more. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

What exactly do we have left to discuss?

TheSanityAnnex

07-19-2007, 11:13 PM

a 3.5L V6 in it? :rolleyes

I agree with most of what you said, but this??? Come on. Not all of us like to zero to 60 in nine seconds.

TheSanityAnnex

07-19-2007, 11:16 PM

The International Energy Agency predicts that at current use rates we have 43 years of oil and 64 years of coal left. What happens then, genius? modern civilisation will collapse. And you actually believe this?

TheSanityAnnex

07-19-2007, 11:18 PM

TheSanityAnnex

07-19-2007, 11:19 PM

Ruff, your 5,000 internet posts are wasting valuable electricity, and I know you aren't solar. :nope

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 11:34 PM

You know what Ray, fuck off. I'm not even going to debate you, there's no point. I've destroyed you on the evidence every single time, yet you're too stubborn and set in your frame to acknowledge it.

You accuse me of being stubborn. My God man, you want even look at the other side of the argument. I do acknowledge the fact the earth may be getting warmer but not because of mankind. And your statement you have destroyed me.....that is just laughable. No conceit in your family. Cause you got it all I suppose you really don't want to recognize the fact that the earth has warmed and cooled several times that man knows about. And I will even go a little further and surmise it may have happend without mans knowledge

I am at a university every goddamn day, 16th best university in the world, and not one of the scientists in the environment school didn't accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change years ago...

So you are in class everyday. Big damn deal,
you certainly haven't learned much, have you. Except
that man is bad. Do they even try to teach you to use a little thing the called "common sense". Or possibly look at an opposing view.

As for your rainfall question, actually, yes, that could be done. Most countries collect very accurate figures on the flows of their river systems on monthly timeframes. Every drop of rain ends up in a river (or aquifer) except that taken out by humans, which is also measured! YOU TALK OUT YOUR ARSE. You have no experience of research or peer-reviewed science.

Could it now. How, there is so much empty
space on earth I find it unlikely it could be done. And
you talk about me spouting out of my orifice, you might
want to check yours occasionally for leakage. And as
for me and peer review. You are correct. Not me, but
plenty of well educated people who do have peer review
disagree with you and your idols. And every drop of rain ends up in a river. What a dumb statement. What a wrong statement. I suppose that an aquifer here in San Antonio doesn't count. And they have no idea whatsoever how much water is contained in it. And that my friend is a fact.

You say humans are a pimple - that was true in the 1880s when there were only 1bil of us using a 1/100th of the resources per capita that we are today, but now there are 6.6billion of us chewing up the planet at an astounding rate. Where do you think all your food, consumer goods, buildings, malls, planes, etc etc come from Ray? The planet.

Well RNR, I guess you are one of the bunch that say, like some before you, we are all going to starve to death. Which according to some "experts" before you should have already happened. Guess what it didn't. And guess what again, we, people are producing more food today than ever. Gee, how did that happen.

The planet. We can't affect the planet? What about urban heat islands, the hole in the ozone layer, fisheries that have "disappeared", soil erosion, coral bleaching, desertification, deforestation, the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which is an incontrvertible FACT. Here is the Keeling curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...bon_Dioxide.png

LOOK at it! The annual oscillations you see are the global carbon cycle, the lungs of the planet, breathing every northern spring-summer as photosynthetic plants grow leaves! And the upward trend, that's US mate. US HUMANS adding about 2,000,000,000,000kg of Co2, 2 Gt, every year, and rising.

Look at it!

We ARE affecting the planet in 1000000000000 ways.

You are a foolish old man.

You've pissed me off now, so I'm going to own you again.

1. Of course there are natural cycles in climate. No-one disputes that. For example, the world came out of the most recent ice age between 12,000 and 9,000 BC. However the current increase in mean global surface temperature is occuring 100 times the natural rate of change faster than that recorded during natural climatic events and correlates with the 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration observed in the last century and beautifully illustrated by the Keeling Curve I linked you to above. The guys you like to cite say that "solar forcing", changes in the sun's output, are responsible for the change, however solar forcing and temperature have been going in opposite directions for the last 30 years.

2. University teaches you to BE SCEPTICAL, to go to primary sources, seek out contrary opinions and sort it all out for yourself. That's exactly what i have done over the last 10 years, and you knw what, I think the thousands of peer reviewed articles adding up to the scientific evidence makes more sense than the contrarian, fossil-fuel funded witchburning.

3. We know, to within a giga litre, how much water flows into and out of every major catchment system in the world - how else do you think catchment managers plan consumption? Want to know about the Edwards aquifer (and note that I said aquifer or river, you blind old fool), it took me 30 seconds to find this:

http://www.saws.org/our_water/aquifer/

So you don't know how much water is in the aquifer, huh? :rolleyes

See, every drop of rain that falls anywhere finds its way into either an aquifer, river, or evaporation. We can measure evaporation using temperature and humidity records, and aquifer levels, and river flows, and this is currently being done by scientists and resource managers across the world. On an international scale, the United nations Environment Program compiles this information and thus can tell you, for example, that: "Asia is home to 60% of the world’s population, with only 36% of the world’s freshwater resources. "

http://www.unep.org/themes/Freshwater/Regions/index.asp?case=roap

I study and work with scientists who actually carry out this work every day, but you're trying to tell me it doesn't exist!? Once again, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You are an old man with muddled opinions based on NOTHING.

I'm not going to bother with your bullshit any more, but I had to show the people in here just what nonsense you spew.

4. The Green Revolution of the 60s and 70s vastly increased the food output of the world. How? Use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicdes, which are made from OIL, and widespread monoculture farming. At what price? Pollution of river systems, soil degradation and erosion, loss of ecosystem richness and biodiversity, groundwater salinity. All over the world countries are losing farmland to desertification and watertable salinity at an alarming rate, but what would you know about that? Nothing, because you haven't studies it. The guys I see every day do that for a living. As for farming methods, what happens when the oil runs out and there's no more artificial fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides? What sort of damage is monoculture GM cropping doing?

5. I have said 1000000000000 times, no-one is asking anyone to go back to caveman living. That is NONSENSE. The challenge is making modern living standards sustainable, which will take some work on all of our parts, but is entirely within our grasp. The prevailing attitude of people like you is what halts the progress of people like me in making change.

6. I cited the Keeling curve only to illustrate the rapid accumulation, at about 2Gt per year, of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have measured the global carbon cycle and our input to it, which through industry and land use change (ie. deforestation), is about 8Gt per year. The biosphere absorbs about 6Gt of that, but every year about 2Gt is added to the atmosphere. That is why CO2 concs have gone from 280ppm to 380ppm in a century.

General public, who makes more sense here, Ray or I?

That is all.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

07-19-2007, 11:47 PM

Ruff, your 5,000 internet posts are wasting valuable electricity, and I know you aren't solar. :nope

If you'd bothered to read my posts in this thread rather than skimming to the end and tut-tutting like a little whore, you'd know that my laptop consumes 90W, or 1 1/2 conventional lightglobes.

You'd also know that comparing this quarter with the same quarter last year, I reduced my electricity concumption by over 50% using behavioural change alone. And that I use 1 tank of gas A MONTH because I ride my bike everywhere.

Who said we all have to grow our own food? That is simply not feasible with populations on the scale of modern humanity. However, I shop at the local farmer's produce market to reduce food miles, and buy Australian products in the supermarket for the same reason, even when they are a bit more expensive

Don't pull the "practice what you preach card" on me pal, I DO practice what I preach, and if everyone lived like I do we'd be half way to the 2050 targets already.

Actually, my electricity comes from renewable sources, I pay extra. Why only solar? What about wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass?

Don't bring the weak sauce. I don't actually talk out of my arse about this stuff like most people, I know it, I live it. :ihit

As for peakoil and peak coal, we have detailed surveys of every coal and oil deposit in the world. thus, we can predict pretty well how much of each there is. We also know the rate at which we use these products. Oil, for eg, about 85mil barrels a day and rising. So why shouldn't we be able to estimate pretty accurately how much we have left? Those figures come from the foremost energy agency in the world, the IEA, and if they get things wrong people let the world know very quickly. Who should I go to? Put "IEA" and "peakoil" into google and you'll get 100 sources about how the IEA has confirmed the theory over the last 2 years.

xrayzebra

07-20-2007, 09:13 AM

You've pissed me off now, so I'm going to own you again.

1. Of course there are natural cycles in climate. No-one disputes that. For example, the world came out of the most recent ice age between 12,000 and 9,000 BC. However the current increase in mean global surface temperature is occuring 100 times the natural rate of change faster than that recorded during natural climatic events and correlates with the 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration observed in the last century and beautifully illustrated by the Keeling Curve I linked you to above. The guys you like to cite say that "solar forcing", changes in the sun's output, are responsible for the change, however solar forcing and temperature have been going in opposite directions for the last 30 years.

2. University teaches you to BE SCEPTICAL, to go to primary sources, seek out contrary opinions and sort it all out for yourself. That's exactly what i have done over the last 10 years, and you knw what, I think the thousands of peer reviewed articles adding up to the scientific evidence makes more sense than the contrarian, fossil-fuel funded witchburning.

3. We know, to within a giga litre, how much water flows into and out of every major catchment system in the world - how else do you think catchment managers plan consumption? Want to know about the Edwards aquifer (and note that I said aquifer or river, you blind old fool), it took me 30 seconds to find this:

http://www.saws.org/our_water/aquifer/

So you don't know how much water is in the aquifer, huh? :rolleyes

See, every drop of rain that falls anywhere finds its way into either an aquifer, river, or evaporation. We can measure evaporation using temperature and humidity records, and aquifer levels, and river flows, and this is currently being done by scientists and resource managers across the world. On an international scale, the United nations Environment Program compiles this information and thus can tell you, for example, that: "Asia is home to 60% of the world’s population, with only 36% of the world’s freshwater resources. "

http://www.unep.org/themes/Freshwater/Regions/index.asp?case=roap

I study and work with scientists who actually carry out this work every day, but you're trying to tell me it doesn't exist!? Once again, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You are an old man with muddled opinions based on NOTHING.

I'm not going to bother with your bullshit any more, but I had to show the people in here just what nonsense you spew.

4. The Green Revolution of the 60s and 70s vastly increased the food output of the world. How? Use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicdes, which are made from OIL, and widespread monoculture farming. At what price? Pollution of river systems, soil degradation and erosion, loss of ecosystem richness and biodiversity, groundwater salinity. All over the world countries are losing farmland to desertification and watertable salinity at an alarming rate, but what would you know about that? Nothing, because you haven't studies it. The guys I see every day do that for a living. As for farming methods, what happens when the oil runs out and there's no more artificial fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides? What sort of damage is monoculture GM cropping doing?

5. I have said 1000000000000 times, no-one is asking anyone to go back to caveman living. That is NONSENSE. The challenge is making modern living standards sustainable, which will take some work on all of our parts, but is entirely within our grasp. The prevailing attitude of people like you is what halts the progress of people like me in making change.

6. I cited the Keeling curve only to illustrate the rapid accumulation, at about 2Gt per year, of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have measured the global carbon cycle and our input to it, which through industry and land use change (ie. deforestation), is about 8Gt per year. The biosphere absorbs about 6Gt of that, but every year about 2Gt is added to the atmosphere. That is why CO2 concs have gone from 280ppm to 380ppm in a century.

General public, who makes more sense here, Ray or I?

That is all.

My I feel so owned by such a learned person as you.

Only problem is those references I gave you, which you
blew off as nonsense were of "peer reviewed"
scientist in the field of climatologist. Which your
group didn't agree with, hence they are "nothing".
Maybe you need to go back and look at their
findings again.

And I am sure everyone is so proud of you, since you
work with all those learned University Professors. I
think you did say you were in University, didn't you?

And I know it is really great you are reducing your
carbon footprint. Now I can increase mine. It is
so thoughtful of you. I may just go out and buy
myself one of those Hummers.

I was wondering, did you check to see how much
carbon it took to make that bicycle and laptop you
use that you are so proud of. And do you fart
going up those steep hills, you know if you do
you are polluting.

Oh, never mind. I am just an old rambling guy
who you own. Which reminds me, master, where
do I send the bills so you can pay them, since you
own me........ :dizzy :hungry:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/Global.gif

xrayzebra

07-20-2007, 09:47 AM

RNR, here is a little more "research" on the Edwards. Now I know
this must have been peer viewed, since you quoted the same
source. Maybe you should do a little more depth in your research.

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are answers to some of the questions I get asked most frequently regarding the Edwards Aquifer and issues surrounding it. Let me know if you have a question you would like to see answered here!

Will we run out of water?

Unless we start mining the resource by using more than goes in on a long term basis, we will always be able to get plenty of good water for critical uses like eating and bathing. We have never seen the Aquifer less than 90-95% full, so there is lots of water down there we can use if we have to in an extreme drought. However, we sometimes DO run out of water in the top 5-10% of the Edwards formation, and when that happens the springs stop flowing. Lots of people, along with endangered plants and animals, depend on water from the springs. To keep them flowing we have to keep the Aquifer almost full.

Do we have a water shortage?

Maybe it's more correct to call it a money shortage. If money were no object, we could do very expensive things like desalinate ocean water and have an unlimited supply. What we are running short on is the cheap, seemingly limitless aquifer water that we have been used to using without restriction. All of the alternative water sources seem very expensive by comparison.

So is our water shortage more related to environmental protection and economics and equitable sharing than an actual physical shortage of water?

Yes.

How much water is in the aquifer?

Because of the complexity of the Aquifer system, it is difficult to narrow down the range of how much water we think it contains. One thing that is clear is there's a big difference between how much water the Aquifer contains and how much water could be extracted. Some researchers have estimated the Aquifer may contain as much as 175 million acre feet. However, that figure includes water locked up in pore spaces that are not connected to any other pores, so that water can't move anywhere and is therefore not available. A more reasonable estimate of 25-55 million acre-feet is based on effective porosity, which is a measure of the percentage of pore spaces within the rock that are connected to other pore spaces (see Maclay, 1981 and Ogden, 1986). Pores must be connected for water to move through the rock and to the surface through springs and wells. Additionally, one should not picture the Aquifer as a vast underground pool. There are undoubtedly many large caverns, but most of the water is in small pore spaces that are probably no larger than your finger.

Some people say there is enough water in the aquifer to supply our needs for several hundred years, even if it never rains again. Is that true?

If there's 25-55 million acre feet of water available, and if we use only 450,000 acre feet a year, then it sounds like there's enough water to last 200 years! However, the aquifer contains a lot of water that we can't really get to in legal or practical terms. The problem is the springs go dry when the aquifer is still 95% full. So as long as we are going to maintain at least minimal natural springflows for the sake of endangered species, recreational economies, downstream ecosystems, and downstream economies, then the large amount of water below the level of the springs is essentially unavailable to us. Even if we did decide to let all the springs go dry and pump out as much water as we need, it is very expensive to pump large amounts of water up from great depths and it would soon get prohibitively expensive.

If the problem is the springs go dry, why can't we artificially augment springflows? Is that feasible?

Proponents of springflow augmentation argue that if we can keep the springs flowing artificially, endangered species would be protected and we might be free to draw the Aquifer down below the level of springs. This would increase the amount of water that is available to us and allow us to utilize the Aquifer to a greater capacity as a reservoir. McKinney and Sharp, 1995 studied the technical feasibility of augmenting springflows and concluded that artificial supplementation could provide protection in times of drought for federally protected species, but a lot of unknowns still exist. Other analysts are concerned that augmentation might be prohibitively expensive and that systems to deliver water to the springs might provide little or no benefit when needed most, during times of extended drought.

On one side of the issue, proponents argue that artificial augmentation at least deserves a fair and impartial evaluation, which has not been completely done. Opponents argue that artificially augmenting springflows is like robbing Peter to pay Paul...the water has to come from SOMEwhere, and the source would probably be the Edwards Aquifer. The endangered species prefer the chemistry and temperature of Aquifer water, so water from surface water or other sources might not suffice. Besides, opponents say, artificially augmenting springflows completely misses the point....what is desired is natural springflow.

The 1995 study looked at injecting water into the Aquifer near the springs; enhancing local and regional recharge; and direct addition to the surface at the spring openings. Sharp said further studies could answer a lot of unknowns, such as specific flow paths to the springs and whether any of the aquatic species require water to be flowing from the spring orifices. Those studies are not being done, because "people are afraid of the answers," Sharp said.

Some say that we should manage the Aquifer as a reservoir. Will that solve the problem?

Proponents of managing the aquifer as a reservoir suggest there are many ways we could use the Aquifer to a greater extent in dry times, and then let it fill back up when the rains come. This is certainly the approach that water managers use to get the maximum benefit from a surface water reservoir. Such an approach could involve recirculation and/or augmentation systems to keep the springs flowing. A number of studies are underway regarding Aquifer optimization, and many are focused on gaining a better understanding of the flowpaths and discrete units or "pools" within the Aquifer.

It might be possible, for example, to draw more water from particular units while leaving springflows largely unaffected. Or it might be possible to bring water from behind the "Knippa Gap", which is a narrow opening within an extensive, complex system of barrier faults and a major controller of flow within the Aquifer. Huge amounts of water cannot pass quickly through the Gap, so water piles up in storage units behind it, causing water levels in wells to the west to display much less variability than wells to the east. Water that recharges in western Medina and Uvalde counties has to flow through the gap to reach the main freshwater zones in Medina and Bexar counties.

Many questions are unanswered. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that recharge will be increased during rainy times simply because we have drawn the level down low in dry times. The recharge conduits are fixed in size and may not be able to recharge the same volume of water drawn out.

What about putting more water into the Aquifer? Will building recharge dams help?

Though many questions and issues exist, there is indeed some potential to build a few Type II recharge dams in addition to the ones that already exist. They would not be a magic-bullet type of solution and could only supply a small percentage of overall projected water needs. The draft plan of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group estimates an average of 21,000 acre-feet per year could be added to the Aquifer. In short term droughts additional recharge could help get us over the hump, but recharge dams can't help in a long term drought because there will be no water to recharge. The Edwards is not a good storage aquifer where water stays put for use tomorrow. As long as enough hydraulic pressure exists to force water up of the level of springs, significant amounts of water will flow out. In a 3-5 year drought, all the water that was recharged during wet times will have left the Aquifer. And there are some thorny issues involved, such as the fact that Type II dams are constructed on the recharge zone which is the most environmentally sensitive area. Also, most people don't want their land to be sacrificed for such projects, but somebody's would have to be. Further, it is unclear who would pay and who would benefit. For more on recharge dams, such as what the difference is between Type I and Type II dams, see the section on Edwards Alternatives.

I've heard that if the Aquifer goes low, salt water would intrude into the fresh water areas. Is that true?

The US Fish & Wildlife Service includes the possibly of salt water intrusion into the fresh water zone among the reasons that some species have been listed as endangered, but I have never talked to a hydrologist who felt that saline water intrusion was anything to be even remotely concerned about. During dry times or when the Aquifer is drawn down to low levels, very small volumes of salt water might intrude along the interface between the fresh and saline sections of the aquifer, but the saline water would be flushed back out again quickly when water levels rose. A study by Ewing and Wilbert, 1991 concluded that water quality deterioration, in all cases except actual ground-water mining, would be temporary and limited largely due to the significant difference in permeability between the fresh and saline sections of the aquifer and to the flushing action that would occur with renewed increase in recharge. The reason the water is saline to begin with is because the rock in that area is much less permeable, so water moves slowly and stays in contact with the rock for a long time. Because the saline water is tied up in the rock, it will be difficult for it to move from that area. Also, the saline zone lies downhill from the fresh water zone, and it seems very unlikely that salt water would suddenly start to run uphill toward the fresh water zone. Additionally, salt water is more dense than fresh water, so it tends to sink below fresh water and the two do not readily mix.

What exactly is this "bad water line" that separates the fresh water from the salt water?

The fresh water / saline water interface, usually known as the "bad water line" is the convergence of two flow systems within the Aquifer. It is actually a zone and not a line. The freshwater area is generally updip, closer to the land surface; while the saline water area is farther downdip, deeper underground. In the freshwater portion of the Aquifer, the limestone is highly permeable and transmission rates are high, so water moves through it relatively quickly. By contrast, deeper down in the formation, the saline water portion of the Aquifer has low transmission rates and much higher residence times. When water is in contact with limestone, it continually dissolves mineral solids from the surrounding rock matrix. Eventually, the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) becomes greater than about 1000 ppm, and the water is considered saline and not drinkable (seawater is about 33,000 ppm). The "bad water line" is a natural phenomenon that occurs along the southern and eastern edges of the fresh water zone where water has been in contact with limestone for a long time. Since the rock in the saline water zone is less permeable and does not transmit water as easily, the movement of water is slower. As a result, water stays in contact with limestone longer and becomes more saline.

How old is water in the Aquifer?

Because the movement of water in the Aquifer is highly complex, the waters we pump from the ground and drink are a mixture of waters of many different ages. In some places water moves only a few feet a day, but in other places water may move 1000 feet a day (see Maclay, 1981 and Ogden, 1986) . The average residence time for water in the aquifer is around 200 years.

How much water goes into the Aquifer each year?

Average annual recharge for the period 1934-2005 is about 719,000 acre feet. However, averages do not mean that much in this region...recharge is highly variable from year to year (see recharge chart).

Does the Aquifer filter water?

The Edwards provides treatment that would otherwise cost us billions of dollars. Whether or not it is a filter depends on which definition you like. According to Webster's dictionary, a filter is "a porous article or mass that serves as a medium for separating from a liquid or gas passed through it matter held in suspension or dissolved impurities or coloring matter." In the field of water treatment, a filter is usually composed of paper or sand, where pore spaces are small enough so that water will pass through but small suspended particles will not. The Aquifer is not what people in the water resource field traditionally think of as a filter. However, there are many pore spaces within the Aquifer that are so small that large suspended particles cannot pass through. In this sense, and according to a strict definition, the Aquifer is indeed a filter and does provide some filtration.

Regardless of what one thinks is a filter, there's one thing for sure: the Aquifer transforms dirty brown polluted recharge water into crystal clear spring water and well water that we safely drink without any additional treatment. The same processes used by a conventional water treatment plant occur naturally in the Edwards. For more on water quality, filtration, and treatment that occurs within the Aquifer, see the section on water quality.

What sort of treatment does Edwards water receive before distribution to customers?

None. Well, it receives chlorination, and that's a treatment, but Edwards water does not require the kind of conventional treatment that costs most other cities millions every year. All surface water sources require treatment, as do many other groundwater sources, but Edwards water is drinkable straight from the ground. It wasn't drinkable when it went into the ground, so Aquifer protection is all about protecting the ability of the Edwards to naturally filter and cleanse stormwater runoff, so that we don't have to pay for it.

In Houston, drawing down groundwater supplies caused subsidence of the land surface. Could that happen here?

The limestones of the Edwards appear to have sufficient bearing capacity so that subsidence will not be a major problem. On the other hand, no one really knows if underground caverns would collapse or if flow patterns would change should the level be drawn lower than ever before.

Will building surface water reservoirs help?

Right now it seems highly unlikely that any more large surface water reservoirs will be built. Environmental concerns would be many, and landowners would fight tooth and nail against sacrificing their beautiful river valleys to slake San Antonio's thirst. Reservoirs eventually silt in and have to be replaced, so in terms of a management scheme that will last hundreds and thousands of years, reservoirs have limited value.

Are there any technical solutions to this problem at all?

We probably won't be able to build ourselves a solution with concrete and pipes, at least not a solution that uses Edwards water. Many of the world's best engineers and planners have been working on this problem for a long time and if there were technical solutions, they probably would have found them by now. Technology can help a little, but the solution lies in developing effective management institutions and changing cultural attitudes toward the value and use of water. There is certainly much potential for using traditional technologies like pipes and treatment facilities to bring in new water from elsewhere, but that's different than using technology to augment or manage Edwards water. The basic issue is we are already using all the water the Aquifer can make available and there is only limited potential for making it yield any additional water on a sustainable basis.

We must be able to build SOMEthing that will help! What can we do?

Regarding traditional structural projects like dams and pipes, one helpful thing we can do will be to build a system for moving recycled water to people who can use it. Farmers and miners in the area use drinkable water from the Edwards to grow crops and produce rock products, and these are ideal uses for recycled water. In the long run it may be necessary to build some small reservoirs for storing recycled water. For more on this topic, see the sections on water recycling and using recycled water.

What about clearing cedar in the Hill Country to create more recharge? Will that help?

This one deserves its own section! See Brush Management in the Edwards Alternatives section.

On the news they always report the Aquifer level in feet above mean sea level. Does this measure how far down it is until you hit water at the water table?

No. Generally, confined aquifers do not have water tables. The Edwards limestone is confined between two relatively impermeable formations and is always saturated; the only place where a water table exists is near the recharge zone where there are no overlying layers (see graphic in Intro Section). The "Aquifer level" reported on the news has nothing to do with how far down it is until you hit water in the main body of the Aquifer. It is a measure of how much pressure is being exerted on water in the formation at the location of the test well. When recharge enters the Aquifer, its weight exerts pressure on water already inside. This pressure forces water up through openings such as springs and wells. The "Aquifer level" indicates the top of the water surface in the test well, which is hundreds of feet above the actual Edwards limestone. A good "indicator well" is one that never becomes artesian...water is never forced so high that it flows out without pumping. See the section on the J-17 index well for a graphic that illustrates what the Aquifer level means.

People say we need to keep Comal and San Marcos Springs flowing because of endangered species. Why didn't the endangered fountain darter become extinct the last time Comal Springs went dry during the 1950's drought?

The Comal River population of the fountain darter was completely eliminated by the 1950's drought when the river was reduced to isolated pools of water. The species was reintroduced using individuals from another population in San Marcos, where the Springs never dried up completely.

If lots of water goes into the Aquifer when it rains, why do we still have floods?

Water enters the Aquifer easily in the recharge zone, but the subsurface drainage is generally inadequate to hold all the water that falls in large rain events. Recharge conduits and sinkholes quickly become filled and the remaining water has to flow over the surface. Flash floods are the result.

How did the Edwards Aquifer get its name?

This seems like a question that would have a straightforward answer, but the answer is not simple and it involves a mystery!

The credit for naming the Aquifer goes to the first people who accurately described the Edwards and how it works, even though they never used the word "aquifer". They were two geologists, R.T. Hill and T. W. Vaughan, who wrote an 1898 report entitled:

The Geology of the Edwards Plateau and Rio Grande Plain adjacent to Austin and San Antonio, Texas, with references to the occurrence of underground waters. US Geological Survey 18th Annual Report, pt. 2-B, p. 103-321.

In this report, the authors gave the limestone that makes up the Aquifer the name "Edwards". It had previously been known as Caprina limestone. That name was abandoned because it is a paleontologic term and geologists prefer that rock formations have geographic names. The geographic area in the vicinity of the groundwater that Hill & Vaughan were describing was the Edwards Plateau, so they substituted the geographic name Edwards for Caprina. The Edwards Plateau was named after Edwards county, which was organized and named in 1883. And Edwards county was named for Hayden Edwards, who lived in Nacogdoches in east Texas. So far, historians have not been able to explain why Edwards county was named for someone who lived so far away, but a few are trying to unravel the puzzle.

Although Hill & Vaughan never actually called it an 'aquifer', they referred to the Edwards as an artesian groundwater system, accurately described the catchment and transmission of water in the system, and recognized its large extent from Brackettville to Austin. They even accurately predicted the existence of the large contiguous artesian zone between San Antonio and Del Rio in which a good water can be obtained anywhere. Before their publication, the widely held belief was that waters supplying the artesian wells and spring rivers came from the distant Rocky Mountains. They recognized that was impossible, and explained the true source is the rainfall of the Edwards Plateau.

Gregg, why did you do this web page?

I got interested in the Edwards Aquifer shortly after I came to San Antonio in 1972. I started collecting reports and photographs and reading all I could about it, and I always assumed I would write a book. During those years when I was collecting a lot of material, I was also sort of a computer geek. When the web was invented in the early 90's, that was about the same time that all the Edwards issues were really coming to a head. I decided I wanted to learn this new web programming language and started fooling with html tags using a text editor. Meanwhile, since the Edwards was becoming such a hot issue, I knew there was going to be a real need for untechnical, unbiased information, so that the public could make informed decisions and choices. A that time, I was doing consulting work for many of the regional water agencies, and I knew none of them had the resources or wherewithal to put anything online. And even if they did, I knew it would have your typical institutional bias, and that sort of information doesn't always necessarily serve the public very well. So I decided I would put my burgeoning webmaster skills together with all my Edwards resource material and hack together a web page. The first version went online in early 1995. Part of keeping the material unbiased and unslanted has meant not accepting sponsorships or advertising. I don't get anything from webmastering these pages except the satisfaction of knowing they are widely regarded by educators, students, and interested citizens as a reliable, unbiased resource. About 30,000 people visit this site each month, each one viewing an average of about 12 pages.

=======================================

That's okay, RNR, I know you meant well. But old rascals know
how to google too......LOL

Also did you note something, some researchers. Now
to me that means some people might just disagree on
much water is there. Wonder if that could hold true on
the reasons for global warming.

xrayzebra

07-20-2007, 02:02 PM

...^^^....