High-end plug-in hybrids
Dave Thompson
It isn’t great news that we turn to technology to “solve” our GHG problems. But plug-in hybrids are coming – this one and others.
Dave
Plug-in sports car to hit showrooms in 2010. From Grist: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/9/145814/981/?source=daily
Terry Dyck
If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate GHG, why is that not a good thing? Right now technology is being used to create many electronic devices that are increasing energy needs; is that not the type of technology we should critisize instead?
Terry Dyck
From: davidt...@telus.net
To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [trans-action] High-end plug-in hybrids
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:51:11 -0700
Dave Thompson
If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate GHG, why is that not a good thing?
- Plug in hybrids won’t address crashes, the more cars – more sprawl – more car dependency vicious circle, or the huge embedded energy and pollution of car manufacturing (about ¼ of a car’s lifetime environmental footprint). And given the methods of generating electricity employed across the North American electricity market, plug-ins also won’t eliminate GHGs. Yes, they are better than fossil fuel powered cars, but they are far from being an adequate “solution”.
Right now technology is being used to create many electronic devices that are increasing energy needs; is that not the type of technology we should critisize instead?
- Well, transportation is the topic of this particular list serve, and it is by far the fastest growing sector of GHG emissions in Canada. But I certainly agree we need to think beyond transportation. However, criticizing isn’t what we need; we need to make environmental damage more expensive, and other things cheaper. Until we do so, our pricing system will continue to encourage environmental harm.
Cheers,
Dave
</html
Jym Dyer
> If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate GHG, why is
> that not a good thing?
=v= It turns out that hybrid technology, as currently deployed,
isn't doing much about GHG. Carbon and fuel efficiency are very
closely linked, and hybrids aren't as fuel-efficient as we'd
been led to believe.
=v= The U.S. standards for calculating MPG ratings were revised
for the 2008 model year so as to more accurately reflect actual
results. Under the new formula, the 2008 Toyota Prius is the
most fuel-efficent new car, with 48 MPG/city and 45 MPG/hwy:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml
However, on the same website, we can look at the comparable fuel
efficiency of cars all the way back to 1985, when we see that
the car with the highest MPG was the 1985 Honda Civic, which got
40 MPG/city and 48 MPG/hwy.
=v= That's not a lot of progress over the last 22 years. There
are better uses for this technology, but primarily it's been
deployed to make people complacent about wasteful individual
car use.
> Right now technology is being used to create many electronic
> devices that are increasing energy needs; is that not the type
> of technology we should critisize instead?
=v= The plug-in hybrids are poised to do exactly the same thing.
More complacency: The technology is touted as a way to achieve
a hundred miles per gallon or more, completely ignoring the
"gallons" that go into the electricity.
=v= As we've seen with electric cars, advocates will swear up
and down that they'll only recharge their cars off-peak, that
they'll only use renewable energy sources, etc., but when they
find that to be inconvenient, they'll plug in at high noon.
<_Jym_>
Mike McArthur
From: Dave Thompson <davidt...@telus.net>
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:48 pm
Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
> If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate GHG, why is
> that not a
> good thing?
>
>
>
> more car dependency vicious circle, or the huge embedded energy and
> pollution of car manufacturing (about ¼ of a car’s lifetime
> the North American electricity market, plug-ins also won’t
> eliminate GHGs.
> Yes, they are better than fossil fuel powered cars, but they are
> far from
> being an adequate “solution”.
>
>
>
> Right now technology is being used to create many
> electronic devices that
> are increasing energy needs; is that not the type of technology
> we should
> critisize instead?
>
>
>
> it is by far the fastest growing sector of GHG emissions in
> Canada. But I
> certainly agree we need to think beyond transportation. However,
> criticizing isn’t what we need; we need to make environmental
> damage more
> expensive, and other things cheaper. Until we do so, our
> pricing system
> will continue to encourage environmental harm.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> act...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Terry Dyck
> Sent: November 13, 2007 11:04 AM
> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate GHG, why is
> that not a
> good thing? Right now technology is being used to create
> many electronic
> devices that are increasing energy needs; is that not the type
> of technology
> we should critisize instead?
>
> Terry Dyck
>
> _____
>
> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [trans-action] High-end plug-in hybrids
> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:51:11 -0700
>
>
> It isn’t great news that we turn to technology to “solve” our
> GHG problems.
> But plug-in hybrids are coming – this one and others.
>
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Plug-in sports car to hit showrooms in 2010. From Grist:
> <http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/9/145814/981/?source=daily>
Richard Campbell
Seriously Mike, the embedded energy involved in making a bicycle is
much, much less than than of producing a plug-in hybrid and the
batteries for the hybrid. If you are concerned about the energy that is
involved in producing a bicycle, there is no way you could support the
production of plug-in hybrid. The reality is that there are over 6
billion people on the planet. We must come up with sustainable
solutions that can be used by everyone on the planet. The environmental
impact of 6 billion people owning plug-in hybrids would be
devastating. The bicycle, on the other hand, can be reasonable
transportation for 6 billion people. If there is a concern regarding
embedded energy, bicycles can even be made from bamboo.
With hundreds of millions of people in China and India working very
hard to improve their standard of living, we must show leadership by
rejecting automobile use here and massively improve transit and
cycling. By showing that people in the so-call developed world are
willing to give up automobile use, hopefully people considering buying
automobiles in other countries will be inspired to continue bicycle and
us public transit. I really don't see any other option.
It is time to get out of the North American mindset and start thinking
globally.
Richard
Terry Dyck
I totally understand the need for bicycles and transit, however, those are great solutions for transporting people but there is also a need for transporting goods. We need cleaner freight carriers. There is also the problem in rural Canada were there is no transit and the winters are too cold and icy for bikes.
Terry Dyck
Terry Dyck
Isn't the idea of plug in hybrids to be totally electric when driving in the city? We need to work on our other energy needs as well so we should be using solar, wind, waves, geothermal, etc. for all of our electricity needs. Then we can work on the biggest cause of GHG which is methane. Eat those vege's.
Terry Dyck
> From: j...@econet.org
> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
Mike McArthur
> November 13, 2007 11:04 AM> > > To: trans-
> end plug-in hybrids> > >> > > > > >> > > Hi David,> >
> > > > > If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate
> GHG, why is> > > that not a> > > good thing? Right now
> technology is being used to create> > > many electronic> > >
> devices that are increasing energy needs; is that not the type>
> > > of technology> > > we should critisize instead?> > > >
> > > Terry Dyck> > >> > > _____ > > >> > > From:
> davidt...@telus.net> > > To: trans-...@googlegroups.com>
> > > Subject: [trans-action] High-end plug-in hybrids> > > Date:
> Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:51:11 -0700> > >> > >> > > It isn’t great
> news that we turn to technology to “solve” our> > > GHG
> problems.> > > But plug-in hybrids are coming – this one and
> others.> > >> > >> > > Dave> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Plug-in sports car
> to hit showrooms in 2010. From Grist:> > >
> R U Ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5? Try it today!
> http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/WindowsLiveMessenger
>
Terry Dyck
What is the adequate solution?
Terry Dyck
Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:47:28 -0700
Daniel Say
> Hi Richard,
>
> I totally understand the need for bicycles and transit, however, those are great solutions for transporting people but there is also a need for transporting goods. We need cleaner freight carriers. There is also the problem in rural Canada were there is no transit and the winters are too cold and icy for bikes.
>
their bikes through the snow, as carriers, if nothing
else and downhill rides, because they buses are too
few, too full (all those fat winter coats means fewer
can get on) and dangerous (pickpockets and pocket/purse
slashers mainly).
So some do ride their bikes. But they'd love a car
instead.
Consider winterized tricycle recumbents which have
been featured in Ottawa bike news.
[ 3 wheels don't fall down, studded tires, thick/thin
lube and carrying all sorts of thermos heating fluids ]
Linkname: Winter Riding notes from the Edmonton Bike Club
URL: http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/ebc/winter.htm
Linkname: contents (html version of PDF)
URL:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ZhVs48VhByUJ:www.velovision
.com/mag/issue9/contents.pdf+Ottawa+recumbent+velovision+winter
&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=sh&ie=UTF-8
Linkname: http://www.velovision.com/mag/issue9/contents.pdf
Dave Thompson
Just forwarding this on behalf of Paul Bogeart.
List Admin – could you please contact Paul about his inability to post?
Cheers,
Dave
From: paul bogaert
[mailto:pol...@gmail.com]
all good points but the main point is we will have to dramatically change
the way we do almost everything in order to hope to have the planet remain
liveable for our grandchildren. this main point includes not using almost
any motor vehicles and not being able to live in the countryside and hope
to drive to wal mart every weekend. that will just not continue to work for
very long and it has already gone on far too long! the hope that too many
people have that clean burning technomobiles will allow us to keep buying
farmland for subdivisions and reducing highway congestion to reduce
greenhouse gas is distracting from the real discussion that should be
happening. we have to slow down and stop racing over the planet and filing
our pockets with loot. we have to fundamentally change the way we live. NO
CARS. they ARE killing us no matter what they are powered with and the list
is long with so many other things we need to stop using. Hybrids and biofuels
are not solutions. they slightly mitigate the huge problem of overuse of
motor vehicles.
paul
--
world bicycle domination approaches!
Dave Thompson
I don’t pretend to know “the” solution, and doubt that there is one. But there are several things that would move us closer to a sustainable transportation system – much closer than banking on a technological salvation.
- Conservation is essential; we cannot forever increase our environmental load on a finite planet and think that bandaids are going to make it all OK. Many cultures have learned this lesson the hard way in the past; unfortunately there are a lot of people that don’t know history (or pre-history) and prefer to keep their heads firmly in the sand (which is, like, so Mayan).
- We need to develop our cities and transit systems to accommodate efficient transportation needs of a majority of people. Over 80% of Canadians live in cities, so let’s not make the rural few into an excuse not to do anything about the transportation options of the majority.
- We need to employ full cost accounting and internalize environmental externalities. If we continue to allow a flawed market to steer people and corporations into environmentally-harmful choices, guess where we’re all gonna end up.
OK so there are a few thoughts. No silver bullets. Not an exhaustive list. But it’s clear that we need to think big – well beyond the kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. That guy with the bad hair put it better: “problems cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them”.
Cheers,
Dave
PS Just to repeat, transportation is the largest and by far the fastest-growing sector of GHG emissions in Canada; not sure what an earlier post was referencing with methane, but whatever it is, it’s wrong; methane isn’t significantly involved in transportation.
</html
Jym Dyer
> driving in the city?
=v= I've never heard that, nor do I quite understand it.
> We need to work on our other energy needs as well so we should
> be using solar, wind, waves, geothermal, etc. for all of our
> electricity needs.
=v= Of course. Unfortunately, nobody has really bothered to
tally up the increased demand for electricity from plug-in
hybrids if they were to be deployed in large numbers. There
are just blithes assumption that they'll be recharged off-peak
(which, as I've mentioned, has already not held true for EVs)
or that renewable energy sources will suffice.
<_Jym_>
Richard Campbell
all really just part of the propaganda campaign from the automobile
industry to try and convince people that there is a future for the
automobile. The green car is simply a carrot hung in front of people so
they continue to drive their polluting cars with the illusion someday
they will be able to drive a car that does not harm the environment.
Unfortunately that day never comes. The last 40 years is clear evidence
of that. It is time to say enough is enough and provide people with
great transit and cycling facilities. The automobile industry has had
its chance and blown it.
We won't get fooled again!!!
Richard
Terry Dyck
Some very good thoughts there and hopefully there is a solution. It is interesting that you mentioned the Mayans. Maybe the solution will happen when we reach the new age of the Mayan calender. A society that focusses more on good social and natural values rather than materialistic values.
About methane. The international panel on climate change has a 400 page U.N. report entitled, Livestock's Long Shadow, which states that Livestock produce a huge amount of methane, which is 24 times more potent than CO2 as a Green House Gas. The report claims that livestock produce more GHG than cars.
Regardless we still need to work on eliminating CO2 from transportation.
Terry Dyck
From: davidt...@telus.net
To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:10:29 -0700
Mike McArthur
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Campbell <richard.cam...@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:55 am
Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>
Terry Dyck
You will still have to address the need to transport goods and services. We need an alternative, sustainable source of energy to deliver basic products that we need such as food from farmers feilds, etc.
Terry Dyck
If driven properly at low speeds a plug in hybrid car could totally
run on electric power. What would be a good aproach is to have hybrids no bigger than a smart car and with a diesel engine to use only recycled restaurant oils or other biodiesel made from non food crops. We can develop transport trucks, trains and buses on this type of hybrid - biodeisel energy.
One of the biggest users of energy and water is the oil industry. They use enormous amounts of energy, especially in the tar sands. To eliminate that polluter alone would greatly reduce GHG. Then we can work on alternative sources of energy to produce electricity.
Terry Dyck
> From: j...@econet.org
> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
Chris Keam
> Going "cold turkey" off cars for the aging boomers who've driven
> all their lives just isn't going to fly in a country as dispersed
> as Canada.
90% of Canadians live within 160 km of the U.S. border (CIA
factbook). Four-fifths live in urban areas (Statscan). Geography is
not the issue.
As for the aging boomers (I'm 44 so I almost qualify)... they can
take a bite of my hairy biker ass if they think they deserve to be
coddled all the way to the grave so my kid can freeze in the dark.
Excuse my impoliteness, but the belief that one's comfort is somehow
an inherent right is a load of bollocks, esp. when it comes at such a
high environmental cost.
Further, the roads are dangerous enough without a large cohort of
citizens with failing eyesight and reduced reaction time driving
around in S.O.V.s.
paul bogaert
paul bogaert
resting here after riding and
being killed by a biodiesel smart car
1965 - 2025
grow more food in your community garden
yes the boomers and the technogeeks and all of us spoiled people are not going to go willingly down the path of sustainability and especially not cold turkey if our lives depended on it.
because it might nay WILL be uncomfortable.
how will we pull the big plows and deliver the food when oil runs really low? there are needs or functions which arguably are reasonably met with the use of motor (biodiesel, hydrogen, plastic bag burning) vehicles, but moving all of our lazy coddled bodies around one by one is not reasonable by a long shot.
pol
Andrew Gray
>
>
>
>
> Just forwarding this on behalf of Paul Bogeart.
>
>
> we have to fundamentally change the way we live. NO
>
> CARS. they ARE killing us no matter what they are powered with and the list
>
> is long with so many other things we need to stop using. Hybrids and
> biofuels
>
>
> are not solutions. they slightly mitigate the huge problem of overuse of
>
> motor vehicles.
>
>
>
> paul
>
I agree with this. I don't really care what's under the hood. Cars are
everywhere and we keep giving more space over to them and building
more infrastructure for them.
I watched the Orson Welles film "The Magnificent Ambersons" on the
weekend. He made it in 1942 and it is set around the turn of the
century, in the early days of the automobile. This is a speech from
the movie, made by the character Eugene Morgan who is a pioneering
horseless carriage entrepreneur (George has just said that cars are no
good, as a way to personally attack Eugene):
"I'm not sure George is wrong about automobiles. With all their speed
forward, they may be a step backward in civilization. It may be that they
won't add to the beauty of the world or the life of men's souls. I'm
not sure. But automobiles have come. And almost all outward things are
going to be different because of what they bring. They're going to alter
war and they're going to alter peace. And I think men's minds are going
to be changed in subtle ways because of automobiles. And it may be that
George is right. It may be that in ten or twenty years from now, if we
can see the inward change in men by that time, I shouldn't be able to
defend the gasoline engine but would have to agree with George: that
automobiles had no business to be invented."
Chris Keam
Eleanor Blue
bikeportland.org/wearealltraffic
If any of you will be in town this weekend, please consider joining us.
Elly
Jym Dyer
>> increased demand for electricity from plug-in hybrids if they
>> assumptions] that they'll be recharged off-peak (which, as
>> I've mentioned, has already not held true for EVs) or that
>> renewable energy sources will suffice.
> If driven properly at low speeds a plug in hybrid car could
> totally run on electric power.
=v= Oh, you've tallied that up, have you? Not just making
blithe assumptions, right? Because otherwise it seems as if
you completely and absolutely and totally ignored what I wrote
right there in the text that you excerpted and replied to.
=v= Therefore, I look forward to your rigorous math supporting
that statement.
> What would be a good aproach is to have hybrids no bigger
> than a smart car and with a diesel engine to use only recycled
> restaurant oils or other biodiesel made from non food crops.
> We can develop transport trucks, trains and buses on this type
> of hybrid - biodeisel energy.
=v= And I look forward to more rigorous math supporting this.
<_Jym_>
Terry Dyck
No math, however, lots of philosophy. What ever small steps we can take right now to slow down global warming is better than burning fossil fuels. Why was there no response to my statement about the energy used to produce petroleum?
Terry Dyck
> From: j...@econet.org
> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
Richard Campbell
materials to make the batteries, to power enough electric cars to make
a difference, at a reasonable cost (or at all).
Lithium seems to be the worse off:
http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/EVRsrch.htm
Nickel is not far behind:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aRI2UXm5EuJE
Zinc is making some noises:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/zinc-supplies-quietly-running-
out/story.aspx?guid=%7B665D425C-2280-42D8-9BDC
-78FDB342005E%7D&print=true&dist=printTop
Beyond the batteries, we just don't have the materials available for
even a quarter of the people on the planet to own a car.
Richard
Dave Thompson
Sorry for the delayed reply.
Agree we need to reduce GHGs from both. And yes, that UN FAO report does state that livestock is responsible for more GHGs than transport http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm . But:
1. it also points out the methodology, which it acknowledges is not one that scientists “usually” use, and which actually counts some transportation in with the livestock emissions.
2. also, it’s a global report, and the rest of the world don’t drive like Canadians drive. The Canadian data is here: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_e.cfm.
Don’t take the above as me defending Big Agribiz; it’s an incredibly polluting business. As the Union of Concerned Scientists notes, cars and meat are the two biggest areas where individuals could do something to reduce their ecological footprint - not recycling, not switching to compact fluorescents - but reducing car use and meat consumption.
</html
Terry Dyck
Excellent summary comment. Drive less and consume less meat; an easy solution to help people with their ecological footprint.
Thanks for that.
Terry Dyck
From: davidt...@telus.net
To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:31:48 -0700
Richard Campbell
won't really get the job done.
Richard
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=45617
Energy Efficiency Fails to Cut Consumption - Study
TORONTO - American consumers are driving bigger gas-guzzling cars and
buying more air conditioners and refrigerators as the overall energy
efficiency of such products improves, a report released on Tuesday
found.
In what the study calls "the efficiency paradox," consumers have taken
money saved from greater energy efficiency and spent it on more and
bigger appliances and vehicles, consuming even more energy in the
process.
"While seemingly perverse, improvements in energy efficiency result in
more of the good being consumed -- not less," said Jeff Rubin, chief
economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets, which conducted
the study.
The study concludes that stricter energy efficiency regulations aren't
the answer to concerns over climate change and the depletion of oil
supplies.
"The problem is, energy efficiency is not the final objective," Rubin
said. "Reducing energy consumption must be the final objective to both
the challenges of conventional oil depletion and to greenhouse gas
emissions."
The study found that energy use increased by 40 percent from 1975 to
2005 while energy efficiency improved in the same period. The sectors
with the greatest increases in energy use -- transportation and
residential -- are also the areas where the US government is promoting
energy efficiency the most.
The average mileage per gallon of gasoline has increased since 1980,
but Americans have responded by driving larger vehicles and further.
The average American drove 9,500 miles annually in 1970. These days he
or she drives more than 12,000 miles.
The energy used to heat and cool homes is also rising as homes become
larger. The study notes the area of the average home has increased from
1,000 square feet in the 1950s to the current 2,500 square feet. More
households are also buying air conditioners.
Rubin believes energy efficiency is needed more than ever, but that
government's current initiatives won't help.
"In order for efficiency to actually curb energy usage, as opposed to
energy intensity, consumers must be kept from reaping the benefits of
those initiatives in ever-greater energy consumption," he said.
(Reporting by Sharon Ho; editing by Frank McGurty)
Story Date: 29/11/2007
On 27-Nov-07, at 8:59 PM, Terry Dyck wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Excellent summary comment. Drive less and consume less meat; an easy
> solution to help people with their ecological footprint.
> Thanks for that.
>
> Terry Dyck
>
>
>> From: davidt...@telus.net
>> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
>> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:31:48 -0700
>>
>> Sorry for the delayed reply.
>>
>> Agree we need to reduce GHGs from both. And yes, that UN FAO report
>> does state that livestock is responsible for more GHGs than transport
>> http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm . But:
>> 1. it also points out the methodology, which it acknowledges is
>> not one that scientists “usually” use, and which actually counts some
>> transportation in with the livestock emissions.
>> 2. also, it’s a global report, and the rest of the world don’t
>> drive like Canadians drive. The Canadian data is here:
>> http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_e.cfm.
>>
>> Don’t take the above as me defending Big Agribiz; it’s an incredibly
>> polluting business. As the Union of Concerned Scientists notes, cars
>> and meat are the two biggest areas where individuals could do
>> something to reduce their ecological footprint - not recycling, not
>> switching to compact fluorescents - but reducing car use and meat
>> consumption.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> From: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:trans-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Dyck
>> Sent: November 15, 2007 10:34 AM
>> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
>>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Some very good thoughts there and hopefully there is a solution. It
>> is interesting that you mentioned the Mayans. Maybe the solution
>> will happen when we reach the new age of the Mayan calender. A
>> society that focusses more on good social and natural values rather
>> than materialistic values.
>> About methane. The international panel on climate change has a 400
>> page U.N. report entitled, Livestock's Long Shadow, which states that
>> Livestock produce a huge amount of methane, which is 24 times more
>> potent than CO2 as a Green House Gas. The report claims that
>> livestock produce more GHG than cars.
>> Regardless we still need to work on eliminating CO2 from
>> transportation.
>>
>> Terry Dyck
>>
>>
>> From: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:trans-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Dyck
>> Sent: November 14, 2007 12:48 PM
>> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
>>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> What is the adequate solution?
>>
>> Terry Dyck
>>
>> From: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:trans-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Terry Dyck
>> Sent: November 13, 2007 11:04 AM
>> To: trans-...@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [trans-action] Re: High-end plug-in hybrids
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> If technology could reduce or maybe even eliminate GHG, why is that
>> not a good thing? Right now technology is being used to create many
>> electronic devices that are increasing energy needs; is that not the
>> type of technology we should critisize instead?
>>
>> Terry Dyck
>>
Katherine Muncaster
----- Original Message -----From: Richard Campbell