Quite OT: NYTimes.com Article: TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

[ty@festf.org (Tyler P.)]

The making of and disposal of the current batteries and other electronic
equipment used in these is very hard on the environment.  Even though the
pollution has been moved from the car to the factory doesn't make it any
better, yet many greeners are ignorant of this form of pollution.  An
electric engine is much more environmentally unfriendly to make than a
combustion engine.    

Of course fuel cells and hydrogen based engines will be a lot better for the
enviro than current batteries.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rabbit16v [mailto:Rabbit16v@attbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:00 PM
To: Scirocco List
Subject: Re: Quite OT: NYTimes.com Article: TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners
Support Terrorists 


Just curious, how is electric motor cars harmful to the environment?

Hydrogen is interesting but at the same time, wouldn't we all be driving
around in rivers of exhaust?

Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler P." <ty@festf.org>
To: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: RE: Quite OT: NYTimes.com Article: TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support
Terrorists


> If it weren't about money it would be easy to make a combustion engine
that
> got 90+ mpg without any electronic assistance and was still powerful.
> Unfortunatly everybody thinks combustion is evil and thinks electric cars
> will save us and don't realize that building an eletric car is more
harmful
> to the environment than using a combustion based vehicle.
>
> Now, I am interested to see what can be done with hydrogen, that would
mean
> clean and powerful and then you wouldn't have to pay so much for a
> musclecar.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Pieper [mailto:rapieper@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:19 PM
> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> Subject: Re: Quite OT: NYTimes.com Article: TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners
> Support Terrorists
>
>
> --- Neal Tovsen <nealtovsen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I thought I'd post this since it has been a hot issue
> > in the past. Whether you agree with it or not, it sure
> > does make you think, eh?
>
> It makes me think that the fucking liberals running the media, esp. the
> NYT, have scary power.
>
> WHY didn't they start their bitching when PICKUP TRUCKS - certainly
> higher fuel consumers than SUV's - became the largest selling passenger
> vehicles in the US?  I sell a hell of a lot more empty bed pickups than
> I do one passenger SUVs.  Tell me *they* are more practical and consume
> less fuel per man-mile!  Ha!  This is a typical liberal-dumbocrat
> selective attack.
>
> And *we* can't talk either.  Outside of Drew, name one of us who
> SPECIFICALLY aimed and succeeded at making his/her car *more* fuel
> efficient and less polluting?  Who drives conservatively?  All I see is
> no cat, big engine swap, 0-60 and 1/4 mile times...I'll offer that it's
> hypocritical for us to agree with this NYT crap.
>
> Freedom of choice, keep the government OUT of my wallet and OUT of my
> garage.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>


_______________________________________________
Scirocco-l mailing list
Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l