UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 60027  
Subject: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop driving Date: 6/11/2011 11:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Good for you, intercst! You are helping our economy. And before some yahoo talks about his travels, I am fairly confident that all that travel is good for the economy, too. Oh, and I can't forget to say congrats to Art, too. He drives very little and almost always combines trips when he does.
------------------------------
http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2011/06/09/6822871-good-graph...
<go to article for graph)
Good Graph Friday: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop driving
By Allison Linn, senior business writer

The Great Recession has prompted many consumers to say that they want to buy more American-made products, and rely less on imports.

One of the best things they could do to reduce our trade deficit is turn off their engines.

To understand why, take a look at the chart above, which comes courtesy of the blog Calculated Risk.

The blue line shows the total trade deficit, which stood at around $43.7 billion in April, according to government data released this week.

That red line? That’s what the trade deficit would be if we weren’t importing all that pricey petroleum. In April, the trade deficit not counting petroleum imports was at about $17.6 billion.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34529 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/11/2011 11:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Good for you, intercst! You are helping our economy. And before some yahoo talks about his travels, I am fairly confident that all that travel is good for the economy, too. Oh, and I can't forget to say congrats to Art, too. He drives very little and almost always combines trips when he does." - lindytoes
---------------------


It's also good for the environment to cut back as much as possible on driving.

The two kindest things you can do for the environment is #1. choose not to reproduce to help reduce the Earth's human population and #2. cut back on driving as much as possible.

Artie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34530 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/11/2011 11:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<Good for you, intercst! You are helping our economy. And before some yahoo talks about his travels, I am fairly confident that all that travel is good for the economy, too.>>



You are being a fake pocketbook patriot if, like intercst, you target fuel consumption for the working class and excuse the fuel consumption for jet airplanes and cruise ships disproportionately used by those with high incomes and elite orientations that excuse "travel" for essentially frivolous purposes.

Frankly, everyone should be free to choose what they spend their income on. That goes for blue collars taking a family trip to the seashore in the family car and intercst traveling around the world on cruise ships and jet airplanes.

But oil is oil. targeting fuel used by the working class and excusing oil use for frivolous travel by highly educated elites is just plain class hypocrisy.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: intercst Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34533 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/11/2011 11:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
SeattlePioneer complains,

Frankly, everyone should be free to choose what they spend their income on. That goes for blue collars taking a family trip to the seashore in the family car and intercst traveling around the world on cruise ships and jet airplanes.

But oil is oil. targeting fuel used by the working class and excusing oil use for frivolous travel by highly educated elites is just plain class hypocrisy.

</snip>


If I took the bus Downtown instead of driving, and happened to be the only passenger, SP would complain that I was using more fuel since the City Bus gets 4 mpg and my automobile gets 20 mpg in the city.

Of course, the proper analysis is that the bus is going to make the trip whether there are passengers on it or not. Any time you leave your car in the garage you're saving fuel.

intercst

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34535 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/12/2011 12:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<If I took the bus Downtown instead of driving, and happened to be the only passenger, SP would complain that I was using more fuel since the City Bus gets 4 mpg and my automobile gets 20 mpg in the city.

Of course, the proper analysis is that the bus is going to make the trip whether there are passengers on it or not. Any time you leave your car in the garage you're saving fuel.

intercst >>


Average passenger miles per gallon. That's shouldn't be a difficult concept for an engineer.


Take the total fuel consumption of the transit system and divide it by the number of passengers carried. That's a reasonable estimate of fuel used on a bus trip, although there could certainly be more refined estimates.

Or take the fuel used by a jet transport flying intercst to Australia or whereever, and divide it by the number of passengers carried for a reasonable estimate of passenger oil consumption.

intercst likes to uimagine that he uses oil driving to the grocery store but not while flying from Texas to Australis or whereever.

Perhaps that an endearing blind spot for intercst, a relentless realist, to have. Frankly, it's the only real such blind spot I have observed when intercst looks at the world, and I have both affection and respect for him.

But I suppose I'll have to keep chipping away at this one in a way I hope is friendly and respectful.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34536 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/12/2011 12:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
But oil is oil. targeting fuel used by the working class and excusing oil use for frivolous travel by highly educated elites is just plain class hypocrisy.
--------------
talk about a bunch of nonsense....

1st I never said the working class should stop using gasoline...where did I even mention the working class?????? .....but everyone can cut back. I try. I'm just not where intercst and Art are on this. I'm making plans to change how much I use (by moving to an easier to walk location), but I don't expect to be the best at this because we are all trapped in our own problems. I only called out intercst and Art because they are two people I know who are cutting back...and Art is by no means an elite. You are just one of the those "If I can't say something nasty, I won't say anything" types.

2nd everyone has a chance to spend their money on anything they want....where does the article say they think people should have their right to drive taken away (or even me for that matter)? this post makes no sense. Art will say it is for causing duality and separation. He is so right, because the only way I see these idiotic posts is if someone reposts, so I guess I am separated for the most part.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FCorelli Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34543 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/12/2011 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
One of the best things they could do to reduce our trade deficit is turn off their engines.

I own a 1993 Dodge Shadow. (Bought it in May of 1993) Right now it has just under 28,000 miles on it. 1000 of that came when I moved from Utah to Omaha in 1997 and, 2600 came from a trip to Pennsylvania I made in 2008. I put gas in it 2 or 3 times a year.

My problem now (just this week in fact)is I am not sure how much longer it will keep running before it starts nickle and diming me so I was poking around at some used cars. They are pricey these days. Partly because of the economy and partly because of the "cash para los clunkers" thing of a couple years ago.

Next week It is due for an look-over and tune up. I am now thinking even if it needs something expensive it might still be in my best interest to get it fixed and in effect get a great deal on a good low-mileage used car, then slap a coat of paint on it and get another 5 years out of it.

How does this sound to you people who know how to run the numbers on this stuff? $14,000-$15,000 bucks for a "new" car 3-5 yra old... or just but maybe a couple grand into this one?

They tell me the car itself is practically pristine with no rust or anything on it or under it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: salaryguru Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34547 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/12/2011 1:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 66
You are being a fake pocketbook patriot if, like intercst, you target fuel consumption for the working class and excuse the fuel consumption for jet airplanes and cruise ships disproportionately used by those with high incomes and elite orientations that excuse "travel" for essentially frivolous purposes.

I know you believe this is a great issue to bring up and attack liberals with. I know that because you do it every few months like you expect us to suddenly acquiesce to your fact-free, ill-informed perspective. I bothered to provide actual facts to one of your diatribes about air travel once many months ago, but like any good wing-nut you chose to ignore the facts in that post and have just kept bringing up your ridiculous point every few months.

First, why are you convinced that all liberals prioritize oil consumption higher than many conservatives? Outside of T-bagger circles (ie. the willfully ignorant) most polls and surveys indicate large numbers of both conservatives and liberals think energy policy and oil consumption are important issues for this country.

Second, why do you focus on air travel? Everything we do or make involves energy, and everything that involves energy involves oil. Your computer has to be powered in order for you to post this nonsense, and even if your electricity is coming from another source, it is contributing to a greater need on the power grid so more oil is being used somewhere. Every household item in your home required energy to design, manufacture and distribute. Oil, oil, oil. Want to take a hike in the wilderness? You have to get to your trailhead, carry equipment (much of which is probably petroleum based) . . . even what you're wearing requires energy use.

So, again ... why focus on air travel? You have never produced even a shred of data to indicate this particular energy expenditure should be prioritized and targeted over any other issue. No. You simply don't like people, don't like to travel, and have no curiosity about how other's live or what humans have accomplished in this world. Travel has no value to you and your incredibly limited world view. So this is something that does not affect you. You think it's a perfect issue to attack liberals over. The fact that it really isn't about liberals and has no merit is of no concern.

There are ways to estimate the fuel efficiency of airplanes and other modes of transportation. They are not perfect figures-of-merit, but they can give you some indication. For commercial jets like Boeing 737's and 747's, you can calculate a passenger miles per gallon figure. Google it and look it up. Don't trust my links. Depending on the details and assumptions in the calculation, you will find a number in the range of 60 to 100 passenger miles per gallon. You can beat that number in a passenger car if, for example, you carried 4 people in a car getting 30 mpg. Of course if those 4 people had 50 lbs of luggage that had to be strapped to the outside luggage rack, the mileage would drop significantly. And, of course, planes do not carry only passengers and their luggage. They also carry freight on the same flights. You can do similar calculations of freight hauling efficiency. And if you do your research you will find that planes offer cargo hauling options that are energy competitive when you consider all the issues.

The comparison to other modes of transportation and other cargo hauling modes are very imperfect since the time required to move the people and cargo also needs to be considered. If you had 4 people with no luggage who all wanted to go from your house to Baltimore, for example, you could get better passenger miles per gallon by driving my Saturn VUE than be taking a commercial airline flight in a 737. Of course you would have to spend 3 days on the road instead of 4 or 5 hours. Those extra hours and days of travel require extra food and lodging, and that requires extra energy. It also limits productivity of the people being transported for that added time.

So your point really is ill-informed, without merit, and . . . well . . . ridiculous. Each time you bring it up, you only bring attention to your own partisan bias and unwillingness to actually consider facts and data. Why don't you stop? That would be the smart thing to do once you have been shown that your point has no merit.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34548 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/12/2011 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<First, why are you convinced that all liberals prioritize oil consumption higher than many conservatives? Outside of T-bagger circles (ie. the willfully ignorant) most polls and surveys indicate large numbers of both conservatives and liberals think energy policy and oil consumption are important issues for this country.
>>



This is such a vague remark as to be pointless. The head of the Sierra Club and the CEO of Exxon would probably agree that energy policy and oil consumption are important issues for the country.


<<Second, why do you focus on air travel? Everything we do or make involves energy, and everything that involves energy involves oil.>>


For years many of my liberal friends promoted hate campaigns directed at SUVs and fuekl consumption of motor vehicles in general. But just as you do here, you justify and extenuate the large amount of fuel consumed flying about the world in jet transports for recreational purposes.

I see my liberal friends and our educated elites in general giving themselves a pass for the travel and style of oil consumption they favor. Intercst goes so far as to claim he uses NO oil on his numerous trips on cruise ships and jet aircraft. That strikes me as a genuinely absurd proposition, but I notice you don't take him to task for that absurdity, nor does ANY other liberal on the board.

It's really preposterous to be critical of my raising these issues when those on this board give intercst a pass and indulgently allow him to continue making his preposterous claims, even while he announces his next world traveling jaunt.

60-100 passenger miles per passenger mile sounds good, but when you are traveling about the world multiple times per year it mounts up.

My liberal friends are often critical of the use of passenger vehicles, and they are welcome to raise such issues. I happen to be interested in those who raise such issues but then ignore their own oily travel plans and methods. They wish to give their TRAVEL an exemption from the scrutiny they offer to others. Because it's, well, TRAVELL! It's what wealthy educated elites DO! And therefore it must be virtuous and justified.

And hypocritical.

Expect to see more bulletins from time to time.



Seattle Pioneer

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ariechert Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34550 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/12/2011 7:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"2nd everyone has a chance to spend their money on anything they want....where does the article say they think people should have their right to drive taken away (or even me for that matter)? this post makes no sense. Art will say it is for causing duality and separation. He is so right, because the only way I see these idiotic posts is if someone reposts, so I guess I am separated for the most part." - lindytoes
--------------------------------------------


LOL! I am endlessly amazed at how good the internet is at causing duality and separation. And message boards? Oh my god! You can't hardly say anything without some yay-hoo halfway around the world disagreeing and firing off a post saying how wrong you are.

I could say the sky is blue and grass is green and someone would end up disagreeing. <grin!>

Artie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MBAFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34556 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/13/2011 10:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The comparison to other modes of transportation and other cargo hauling modes are very imperfect since the time required to move the people and cargo also needs to be considered. If you had 4 people with no luggage who all wanted to go from your house to Baltimore, for example, you could get better passenger miles per gallon by driving my Saturn VUE than be taking a commercial airline flight in a 737. Of course you would have to spend 3 days on the road instead of 4 or 5 hours. Those extra hours and days of travel require extra food and lodging, and that requires extra energy. It also limits productivity of the people being transported for that added time.

You don't even need to do the complex cost analysis to determine that over certain distances air travel is the most efficient mode of transportation.

If it were economically more efficient for people to drive from New York to L.A., that's what they'd do. Consider travelling from New York to Shanghai and the most economically efficient mode of transportation is quite obvious.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34557 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/13/2011 10:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The comparison to other modes of transportation and other cargo hauling modes are very imperfect since the time required to move the people and cargo also needs to be considered. If you had 4 people with no luggage who all wanted to go from your house to Baltimore, for example, you could get better passenger miles per gallon by driving my Saturn VUE than be taking a commercial airline flight in a 737. Of course you would have to spend 3 days on the road instead of 4 or 5 hours. Those extra hours and days of travel require extra food and lodging, and that requires extra energy. It also limits productivity of the people being transported for that added time.
----------------
You don't even need to do the complex cost analysis to determine that over certain distances air travel is the most efficient mode of transportation.

If it were economically more efficient for people to drive from New York to L.A., that's what they'd do. Consider travelling from New York to Shanghai and the most economically efficient mode of transportation is quite obvious.
--------------------
You don't even have to travel by air to be cost efficient. Trains would be a good way. But some Republican governors are not interested in free $$$ to build rail including high speed. It is clear that some Republicans are not interested in cost efficiency. Frankly I can't tell what their motive is other than throwing the money back in Obama's face. I understand there are other states taking that money and glad to have it. Dems are really bad about touting these stories.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 34558 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 6/13/2011 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
<< If it were economically more efficient for people to drive from New York to L.A., that's what they'd do. Consider travelling from New York to Shanghai and the most economically efficient mode of transportation is quite obvious.

>>



The first thing liberals and environmentalists should consider before traveling about the world of jet aircraft and cruis ships is WHETHER THEY SHOULD GO AT ALL according to the values they espouse ---- at least for other people.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MDGluon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 35112 of 60027
Subject: Re: Want to be a pocketbook patriot? Stop drivin Date: 7/1/2011 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The comparison to other modes of transportation and other cargo hauling modes are very imperfect

Also you need to add in infrastructure costs/maintenance.

Last I heard was that interstate freeway was running anywhere from 2-3 million per mile up to 30-40 million per mile to build and to maintain anywhere from $400 to $50,000.

From an energy per ton moved per mile rail is the best as long as you are not concerned about time or comfort.

md

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (14) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement