Breaking News!!

"Dustin Lambert" wrote in message
m...
The San Francisco Bay Area will be car-free within the next five to
ten years starting with Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.

You taking bets on this? :-)

Bob M.

"Dustin Lambert" wrote in message
m...
Correction, you should have said:

The San Francisco Bay Area is relatively car-free from
0230-0530AM daily in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Other than that "MONEY TALKS ::: YOUR GREEN BULL**** WALKS"



Dustin, look! ----------- ahahahaha......AHAHAhahanson

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
om...
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Steve Austin" wrote in message
news
Count on all American cities, European cities, cities in Africa,
Asia,
and South America going car-free in the near future and count on
car-free
cities being built in the American Midwest, Mexico, Canada, Europe,
Africa,
and Asia. This comes from http://www.carfree.com,
http://www.carbusters.org,
various transportation websites, and European Union websites. As we
head
toward an ecologically sustainable future, count on that happening.
We're
talking about the future here. That's what we're talking about.

We're talking about committing your ass to a mental facility, Munch.
That's
what we're talking about. :O|

We're talking about an ecologically sustainable future. That's
what we're talking about.

Define "ecologically sustainable", outside of you having a steady stream of
meds to bring on this nonstop hallucination of yours...

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
om...

Which ones won't happen and if you read "Ecotopia" by Ernest
Callenbach, you'll get the picture. Also Berkeley is going car-free
from what I understand.

No, you misunderstood - they went "reality-free" about the same time you
did. :O|

"me" wrote in message
om...
(Joey Jolley) wrote in message
. com...
David Nebenzahl wrote in message
[snip]
Nice ideas. I fully endorse many of these ideas.

I also know that most of them will never happen. So let's get real.

Which ones won't happen
[snip]


Of the top of my head:

1. Not anywhere near total energy production capacity demands.
Personal guess would be about 20% tops, but even double
or triple that would leave a significant portion coming from
fossile fuels.

2. Already exists, only a matter of degree. Probably will
never achieve the kind of performance needed to significantly
impact the larger problem.

3. Already exists.

4. Already exists.

5. Already exists, doesn't attract nearly the majority of residents
needed to have a significant overall impact. Tends to result in
extremely high property prices.

6. Already exists.

7. Already exists. They are regularly abandoned by their inhabitants
and go through regentrification cycles.

8. Unsustainable. That's why the ones that existed disappeared.
People try to rebuild them to varying degrees of success. Ultimately,
not a universal solution to any particular problem.

9. Already exist. People don't use them. Individualized transportation
has existed virtually since they rode the first horse. Cars didn't
replace buses, street cars, subways, or taxis. They all existed
before cars. They all still exist. Folks want private vehicles.
They will pay to organize their infrastructure around it whether
it is hitchin' posts and horse troughs or parking garages and
gas stations.

10. See #9. Folks want individualized transportation, and access
of it to the places they want to visit. Even in very large towns
where private ownership of vehicles is less common, taxis and limos
do quite well and folks want them to get VERY close to their
destinations.

11. They exist. They are expensive, and slow to respond to
changing demographics. They tend to require very high population
densities. The kind which tend to cause folks to move to lower
densities.

12. Solar power is extremely low density and aircraft that are
directly powered by it are impracticable. It would take potentially
physically impossible efficiency levels to convert the sunlight
on the crafts to keep them airborne, and clouds and darkness
would ground them. VTOL is extremely inefficient mode of flight
and is incompatible with solar power demands of efficiency.

13. Define "big". Large corporations have efficeincies of scale
which are advantageous to research and development.

14. Major decrease in standards of living involved. Any significant
movement in this direction would result in huge decreases in employment
and truly economic disaster in the transition.

15. Been there, done that. The economics don't work out. It makes
more sense to do what I do well, get a check, and pay the guy that
grows food well to do that for a check. (Economies of scale and all)

16. Happening. Not sure why it matters to you, but it is happening.
Live theater and community viewing will still exist however.

17. Kinda neat. Not sure why you care one way or another. If
you're dead, does it matter if you're full of lead or your
brain fried?

18. Definition of "clean" will be your problem. Copper, steel,
and other relatively naturally occuring materials will get concentrated
in the oceans. It's just the way the system works.

19. Um.. Gosh, don't even know where to start on this one. How's 'bout
the fact that it wants to enshrine gender discrimination.

20. Calculate the amount of material you're planning on moving
(heck, just the body mass of the people alone) to make any
significant dent in the worlds population. Now calculate the
energy required to launch all that mass into high orbits or
the moon. Now, where does the energy come from? (Hint, it's
a REALLY big number).

21. Self contradictory. Sports do cause aggression, they come
from it. "War games" would be as violent as the games they
replace.

22. Less work, less money, less consumerism, less work, less money.....

(still trying to figure out when you stopped being anywhere near
serious).

23. Already exists.

24. Trees? Sentient? We're gonna live a lie?

25. Religion by any other name is just a violent.

26. Which "today"? They constantly change. Insisting on only
"natural" fibers will put a heavy demand upon sheep farming. Weren't
we treating them as "sentient" beings? Does this mean we need their
permission to cut off their fur?

27. Done.

28. Done.

29. Why build there at all?

I commend you to going to the trouble of answering. However, given what a
Kook Joey/Steve is, it's probably a major waste of effort.

"Dustin Lambert" wrote in message
m...
The San Francisco Bay Area will be car-free within the next five to
ten years starting with Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Dude, you're so transparent. Sheesh.

Did the tooth fairy tell you so? Or perhaps the bay area fairy?

"Dustin Lambert" wrote in message
m...
The San Francisco Bay Area will be car-free within the next five to
ten years starting with Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Jack May wrote:

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message



From records taken in England that were recently analyzed for pollution
levels, we are living in the lowest pollution time since record were first
taken in the 16th century. We are certainly living longer than any time in
the past.



I would believe that for urban areas, but not for rural. The low point was
probably early Victorian or just before.

josh halpern

"Josh Halpern" wrote in message
...


I would believe that for urban areas, but not for rural. The low point
was
probably early Victorian or just before.

Sorry, forgot the URL which is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...239182,00.html

The data is for London and the peak was in the late 1800's. Rural areas
certainly now are our highest pollution areas. For example the California
central valley is far worse than the SF Bay Area, and think but not sure,
far worse than LA. Trees grow twice as fast in NYC as they do in the
adjacent country side because of farm pollution

Primitive rural environments were filthy with a lot of particulate matter
and hydrocarbons from all those animal "emissions". That would lead to
high health problems. Of course there would be burring of a lot vegetation
to create a type of fertilizer which would also create a lot of pollution.

Although we apparently don't have rural pollution data from the 16th century
on, we do have death records. Way back then, people had a 2% chance of
living to 42. From age 5 to 42 you had the same chance of dying at ever
age. It a least indicates rural England had a lot of problems and was
probably no where near an environmental paradise.

Back then, people on the farm died mainly from not taking baths (a small cut
could kill you) and pneumonia which probably was strongly aggravated by
pollution. We may never really know.

Certainly today it is known, higher density in a city increases pollution
because it creates more congestion with cars per sq mile increasing at a
much faster rate than use of transit which also pollutes. The 19th century
home over the store looks like it would work for only a very tiny part of
the economy and probably can compete in today's economic structure.

Its a very complex problem and this thing of how great the world would be if
we just brought back the 19th century is pure crap from intellectually
incompetent people. You will probably never find any of them that have any
experience trying to design anything in society and seeing how badly ideas
can go wrong in practice.

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message
...
Did the tooth fairy tell you so? Or perhaps the bay area fairy?

The car fairy? ;O)


"Dustin Lambert" wrote in message
m...
The San Francisco Bay Area will be car-free within the next five to
ten years starting with Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.