[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

LOL, I never said we should get rid of our cars. I just said we should try reduce C02 and energy use where possible. I drive my car 6k miles a year, and it will EASILY pass smog. It burns very clean. With the pulley and tune, it'll probably burn even cleaner(and burn gas way faster....). Besides, do as I say, not as I do

I'm sorry, I must be confused when you say you want to reduce CO2. The reason to pulley your supercharger is to spin faster to bring in more O2 for the engine to burn. By definition you will produce more CO2 . . . period. Is it possible to not run a pulley, thereby emitting less CO2? Is that not reasonable?

Now see, we're getting to the crux of the biscuit: you've said we should do reasonable things to reduce CO2 production, but have exempted yourself with regards to something you personally find fun. It's almost as good as an "environmentalist" running a gutted cat . . .

[BRUTAL64]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

LOL, I never said we should get rid of our cars. I just said we should try reduce C02 and energy use where possible. I drive my car 6k miles a year, and it will EASILY pass smog. It burns very clean. With the pulley and tune, it'll probably burn even cleaner(and burn gas way faster....). Besides, do as I say, not as I do

I reduce CO2s by walking to work.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

I'm sorry, I must be confused when you say you want to reduce CO2. The reason to pulley your supercharger is to spin faster to bring in more O2 for the engine to burn. By definition you will produce more CO2 . . . period. Is it possible to not run a pulley, thereby emitting less CO2? Is that not reasonable?

Now see, we're getting to the crux of the biscuit: you've said we should do reasonable things to reduce CO2 production, but have exempted yourself with regards to something you personally find fun. It's almost as good as an "environmentalist" running a gutted cat . . .

Of course you're correct, but I rationalize it by saying that no matter what car I drive currently I will be producing C02, so because I drive so little I might as well have a fun car. Besides, my carbon footprint is relatively small, so it's okay, right?

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Of course you're correct, but I rationalize it by saying that no matter what car I drive currently I will be producing C02, so because I drive so little I might as well have a fun car. Besides, my carbon footprint is relatively small, so it's okay, right?

It's a fair rationalization, albeit ideologically inconsistent. My concern is that if certain interests gain sufficient power, we will not have the choice to find our own balance in life as you have. The government in their infinite wisdom of social planning/engineering will determine what is acceptable and necessary for you as an individual so as to achieve certain societal goals. I'm not kidding about the slow progression towards a "Brave New World" scenario. I want no part of it. It lacks beauty in every natural sense.

[gunfish]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

I'm sorry, I must be confused when you say you want to reduce CO2. The reason to pulley your supercharger is to spin faster to bring in more O2 for the engine to burn. By definition you will produce more CO2 . . . period. Is it possible to not run a pulley, thereby emitting less CO2? Is that not reasonable?

Now see, we're getting to the crux of the biscuit: you've said we should do reasonable things to reduce CO2 production, but have exempted yourself with regards to something you personally find fun. It's almost as good as an "environmentalist" running a gutted cat . . .

Hey Ben, I thought the crux of the biscuit was the apostrophe?

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by gunfish

Hey Ben, I thought the crux of the biscuit was the apostrophe?

You know, I almost wrote that, but I thought Sean might get really confused . . .

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

You know, I almost wrote that, but I thought Sean might get really confused . . .

Yeah, you did lose me, I had to look it up. Frank Zappa is before my time

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Yeah, you did lose me, I had to look it up. Frank Zappa is before my time

He's before my time too. But I can't be too harsh on someone who thinks Jamiroquai is a "great" band. Ah just teasing.

Anywho, back on subject. In the next week or so I hope to read through the Lieberman-Warner bill. I'll try to keep an open-mind, but it looks like it my be the worst of all my fears about Government trying to "save the world". Big Business ain't stupid, they'll extract massive amounts of cash out of it, meanwhile, Joe Six Pack may as well get the Astroglide out.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

He's before my time too. But I can't be too harsh on someone who thinks Jamiroquai is a "great" band. Ah just teasing.

Anywho, back on subject. In the next week or so I hope to read through the Lieberman-Warner bill. I'll try to keep an open-mind, but it looks like it my be the worst of all my fears about Government trying to "save the world". Big Business ain't stupid, they'll extract massive amounts of cash out of it, meanwhile, Joe Six Pack may as well get the Astroglide out.

Lieberman is crazy, I just saw him offering to go speak on behalf of McCain at the Republican convention. The crazy part is that he's AS LIBERAL AS IT GETS, unless it has something to do with Israel and then he gets uber conservative. I really don't like him at all.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Lieberman is crazy, I just saw him offering to go speak on behalf of McCain at the Republican convention. The crazy part is that he's AS LIBERAL AS IT GETS, unless it has something to do with Israel and then he gets uber conservative. I really don't like him at all.

This is a radically different subject . . . start a new thread. To be honest, I don't know all of his record on Israel, but I have fairly strong opinions on the subject of Israel. (Are you surprised?)