Do we have a right to breathe air?

Will have to agree to disagree then.

If you took ten people at random, they would likely know more about Brad and Angelina, than they would about deforestation, imo.

 

More personal attacks.

Reported, as per instructed.

 

Jack... you fail to realize that just about every one of your arrogant self satisfying patronizing posts includes a personal attack. You HAVE to demonize and invalidate people who disagree with you as you think it makes your opinions look more valid.

Its the epitome of self confidence issues.

But you can sit on this forum with your smug little attitude, and your hyperbolic idealism, and act as though you are somehow superior to people who disagree with you.

This simply shows me how absolutely immature you are.

 

Sounds like another classic case of cynical politicians preying on the good intentions of the public...

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. I live in a state where environmental issues confront the public more closely than they do in many other places...

 

Banning smoking in pubs is just stupid, but not as stupid as banning it in parks like in NY.

these anti-smoking policies are being developed by morons who are going to legislate the correct way to brush your teeth in a few years...

 

For what it's worth, Virginia is also better educated than most states.

The average Virginian would likely know more about environmental matters than the average North Carolinian, for example.

 

So you think a Coal powered car is the answer to gasoline engines?
You do know that almost 50% of your electricity is generated by Coal fired plants don't you? Think about all of the coal needed to power all of the cars in America!

Here, I'll let you do the math:
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm

 

I believe the OP mentioned he was Scottish, in which case, you are not terribly far off when you say 50%. In fact, Scotland gets 33% of it from coal.

The thing about electric cars is that, if they do become mainstream (as opposed to say... hydrogen cars) the electricity that charges their batteries may not always be generated from archaic power plants like coal or oil burning facilities. Ideally, these forms of energy production will be phased out over time in favor of more technologically advanced forms. Sure, your argument is valid now, but we are talking about the future here.

 

Work to pass a city ordinance too not allow cars or move out of the City. There is no smog in my town.

 

And the future is where scientists and genius creators always look to.

In the meantime, consider this.

In my city centre, the speed limit is about 30mph.

However, due to the sheer mass of traffic that sits there, selfishly spewing it's fumes all over people, including babies in buggies (just a good height for them to get it right into their tiny mouths), in reality cars generally move along at about 15mph, if that.

Even with the present electric cars and bikes that we have, most can get to at least 15mph, and would be brilliantly suited for negotiationing your way around the city centre.

Even then, I am not expecting everyone to be obligated to purchase one, but a city council could, for example, do what they do in many other cities, and that is make the centre a car free zone (which has gone down well with shoppers and retailers, in other cities). They could purchse a number of electric cars and bikes, that people would be able to rent for the duration of the trip around the city centre. That is actually offering something more than what car free city centre's give, right now. And the choice would be down to the individual whether they wished to rent one, or choose to walk.

There are many other things that could be done in the hear and now, indeed must really be done in the here and the now.

Think of the planet as a living entity.

One that we live on.

We are literally intoxicating the very planet that we rely on for our very existance.

Of course there are those that don't actually care.

There are rich men who do not care, they would happily flatten every piece of green that there is, if there was money it in for them.

There are some religionists who do not care, for quite different motives, they have these crazy ideas, and because of that, they think it is okay to pretty much mess up the planet.

In the end, it is not enforced legislation that is the best.

It is a shift in the social dynamic.

 

What town are you in?

When it was implemented, how did it go down with drivers?

 

I'm currently reading a book about behavioral economics, and part of what the book talked about is Market vs. Social norms. Basically, when market norms are involved, meaning money is involved in transactions or work, people become a lot less concerned about others and more concerned about cost-benefit. He gave in example in putting a tax on carbon emissions and suggested that putting a price on the ability to pollute might backfire and cause companies to decide to pollute more if they figured the benefit outweighed the cost. Instead he suggested we should change the public attitude and increase transparency of a companies pollutants.

I think that kind of fits in tho what you're saying.

 

The problem I have with smokers is that 95% of them toss the cigarette butt on the ground, out their car window etc when they are finished.

To those people I ask, do you toss the cigarette butt down on your living room or kitchen floor when you are done with it?

Slobs.

 

Yeah, then they get all wet and slimey, and don't break down all that well.

In my city, they gave out little personal ashtrays, that people could carry around and use. It's getting people to go on carrying that around though, no matter how small. And it is really hard to police that, in practical ways. The smoking ban in private premises, made it worse. Now groups huddle outside, and toss their ends in the pavements and roads, albeit the premises provide outdoor ashtrays.

 

Like I say, legislation can only go so far.

There is already legislation in place to protect the environment.

This is correct and proper, and any intelligent nation would want to be included in that legislation.

This legislation has not been put in place by socialists, marxists, or islamists, as some means of just makin everyone's life harder.

The legislators act on scientific advice.

All of which is right and proper, imo.

And if the scientific advice comes that engaging in (whatever) does seriously damage public health, nature, or the environment, then laws are often put in place to ensure that those that would do anything to make money, at least have some sort of measures placed on them.

As far as alternative transport, or rather alternative means of powering transport go, I think we would also find that oil companies may not be too thrilled at the idea of a society which no longer were beholden to their grip, at least, not for their general transport. These companies are rich and they are influential.

They will attack anything or anyone that threatens their profit margins.

In short, I don't think they would be advocates of a form of transport that did not need their product, and would even likely go to any possible means to suppress or hinder it.

 

Remember, this is the air that YOU breathe, and your body, and the health of your family, is only as good as that air.

There have been many car pollution facts recorded in the last 100 years. The history
of car pollution has been one of air and water contamination followed by regulated improvement. Cars may be fun, useful, and profitable, but except for shiny exteriors
and new smelling interiors, they are not clean. Cars have long put millions of tons of dirt
and bad chemicals into the air and water. This trend had been led by consumer demand followed by profiting manufacturers, oil companies, and government inaction.


Cars pollute the air, water and land.

- Cars today are in fact a lot cleaner than 30 years ago.
But, there are many more cars driving many more miles

- Cars and trucks cause a Lot of air the pollution in the world
today, and contribute a Lot to the most common and
dangerous air pollutants

- China and the USA alone produce close to half of the
worlds Carbon Dioxide...much of that from cars

- SUVs pollute a Lot more than cars

- Most ozone pollution is caused by cars and trucks

- Your car makes carbon dioxide based only on how many
gallons of gasoline your car burns

- Its not the kind of car you drive, but how many miles you
drive it and how many gallons of gas you burn that counts

- Car tyres wear out as you drive on them and the particles
from those tires go into the air

- The air near within a few hundred yards or so of big streets
is most likely polluted with harmful particulates from and
stirred up by traffic

- Car washes make our cars shine, but put pollutants into
streams, waterways, and eventually drinking water.




Car pollution facts - Amounts of air pollution

- 70% of air pollution in China cities is from cars and trucks
.
- 42% of air pollution in Dubai is from cars and trucks

- 80% of air pollution in Manila, the Philippines is from auto traffic

- CO2 emissions from U.S. cars & trucks alone is about 1 million TONS per day

- CO2 emissions from all Volcanoes is about ½ million TONS per day

- Human activities release over 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes

- About 5-7% of the particles from worn out tires heads into the air as PM10
or less sizes. These PM sizes are bad for the lungs.

- 2010 cars are about 20 times cleaner than cars 20 years ago

- CO (carbon monoxide) emissions have decreased a significant amount

- HC (hydrocarbon) emissions have decreased a significant amount

- PM 2.5 emissions have been lowered with cleaner fuels

- PM 10 emissions will only improve with less vehicular travel

- It is estimated that of the CO2 emissions produced over a car's lifespan 10% come
from its manufacture and 5% from its disposal, with the remaining 85% coming from
fuel use and servicing operations

- Sleeper cab diesel rigs at idle 28 hours per week, burning 1500 gallons of fuel per
year per rig.

- Traffic congestion wastes billions of gallons of gas


And finally..


About 80 people per DAY are killed in the USA from car induced air pollution
- 1996 EPA: cars, trucks, and buses are produce over 3,000 cases of cancer- China's 14 largest cities: air pollution kills 50,000 newborn babies - Chinas 14 largest cities: air pollution 400,000 cases of respiratory illness every year- In the formerly beautiful Hangzhou China, the sky is grey from car exhaust fumes.
- Car exhaust has also been linked to Asthma, Bronchitis, and other health hazards
-If you think bad air affects only other people, think again. New information shows
that air pollution from traffic increases the chance of heart attack for everybody
breathing that air. The results are in the Journal Lancet.
- Car pollution caused "significant damage" to neurons involved in learning and
memory, and "signs of inflammation associated with premature aging and
Alzheimer's disease." The damage was to lab mice.

Is that the world you want to leave to your grandchildren?

http://www.evsroll.com/Car_pollution_facts.html

 

I used to do this when I was a teenager, but then I started to care about things suddenly. Happened around 22-23. Anyway, I found that it was ludicrously easy to deal with used cigs in a much more sanitary method when on the road or on the street. It became clear to me that there is little reason why most smokers shouldn't adopt my methods.

When in the car, I always have an empty cig box on hand, which at least in my country, comes with a sort of flame-resistant (not 100%, naturally, but enough for these purposes) foil and paper, and serves as a cig butt box. I put the still-lit cig in there, and give it a little shake, and close the lid. I do believe that the shake and the lid closure are what almost guarantees the lack of a fire, on top of the materials comprising the box. When the box gets full of nasty butts, I toss it, and use another empty cig box. In almost a decade of doing this, I have never had a small fire and I'm so confident about this method being mostly safe that I won't even knock on wood!

The next part is even more sensible. When on the street, instead of tossing my cig, I just roll the end between my fingertips, just before the cherry, so that the cherry can fall to the ground. I put out the cherry with my foot, inspect the butt to see if the cherry is completely gone, and toss it in the rubbish bin. Simple as that.

I'm sharing this in the hopes that other fellow smokers may be inspired to try these methods instead of littering.

 

The statistics that I posted before originated from the WHO, and other sources verify and support those findings, which should cause concern to anyone who cares about their health, and that of their family.

If this were the negative effects of recreational drugs that we were speaking of, you can rest assured that there would be those using that as proof that recreational drugs should remain banned.

Hypocrisy again, imo.

 

Concern is one thing, but be concerned where it's a real problem .... china would be good start.

 

Indeed it is a huge problem there.

And yet, we cannot make do with passing the buck, every responsible nation, and it's people, they must want to stop poisoning the air that we breathe, the ground that we walk on, and the waters that we fish from.

Only a fool would not want that, right?

 

Motor vehicles, unlike cigarettes, are necessary to move passengers and goods. You're not going to make much progress trying to pass laws against cars and trucks. You might as well try to outlaw food or water.

 

Commercial vehicles are a special case, but even then, there is no need for them to be going along totally ill suited roads, in the city centre.

As for cars carrying passengers, as I've said, due to the congestion, they don't actually tend to carry them very fast or far, and there is more to consider here than just someone being bone idle, and taking a car into town, when they do not really need to. Why should others have their health damaged due to that seflishness?

 

i'll always have the right to pea off my porch into the gulf of mexico, it makes the oceans rise, but if that's the price of liberty, so be it.

i shouldn't be up here.

 

Because it is FAR cheaper, easier and faster to evolve how your power plants generate power than it is to turnover your multi-trillion dollar car fleet and fuel infrastructure.

Plus a lot of electricity off peak is almost FREE! Power usage drops off at night, so power plants do stupid things like pump water up hills to peaking pools to drive to salvage a little bit of the power that would just go up in smoke.

If we had a fleet of electric cars to charge overnight, power plants could run steadily and efficiently, running air conditioning and businesses during the day as they do now, and charging cars at night when the power would otherwise be wasted.

Battery charging is an ideal "load balancer", because the grid could be supplying everyone's instant demands when they decide to make popcorn in the microwave, but the battery charging of your car fleet can be varied moment to moment to keep the power plant loads steady.

And then when fusion works, or nuke fission plants get built safely, or solar infrastructure gets built, power simply gets cheaper, and less fossil fuels are used.

We need 30 years to convert our cars and get an electric infrastructure built. The generation will follow!

The time to start is NOW!