-
The Golden Years
March 21, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Diesel Dilemmas
March 8, 2013 | 26 comments
-
Electric Lemon Aid
February 19, 2013 | 113 comments
-
The New Dart, in Light of the Old
January 11, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Speed Limiters, Too?
December 28, 2012 | 70 comments
Car Guy
The Electric Albatross
Electric cars make sense at amusement parks and golf courses.
Electric cars make sense at amusement parks and golf courses — and on the road, if the road is mostly flat, it’s nice and warm out (but not too warm) you’ve got money to waste, don’t have to go very far (especially in winter) and don’t mind waiting a couple hours before you can go someplace else.
Otherwise, they’re marvelous.
The hype about electric cars is still years ahead of the actuality. If by actuality you mean an electric car that isn’t more compromised than Arnold’s political career. I remember covering the GM Impact/EV back in the early '90s, almost 20 years ago. Most of the press swooned; a few Californians bought (well, leased) them. Some even liked them (that’s California for you and also because California doesn’t have winter; more on this below). The car was a money pit for GM, despite all the hoopla and the government kickbacks.
And today?
Cut through the farrago of Happy Talk and the real-world boondoggle’s still the same. The range of the latest electric cars is said to be better. But it is always couched in the ubiquitous marketing con, “up to.” And under ideal conditions.
Your actual mileage will vary.
Consider the Nissan Leaf. On a full charge, Nissan touts a 100-mile range. It doesn’t tout what the range will fall to when it’s 16 degrees outside and the capacity of the Leaf’s battery declines by “up to” 20-30 percent, which it will as all batteries do when it is very cold out. Now add the additional load on the battery to power things like the heater/fan — and the lights, which you will probably need when it’s dark outside.
There are other forms of loading, too. Passengers and Stuff. Everyone knows that a gas powered car goes slower and burns more fuel the more it’s loaded down with passengers and cargo. The electric car is not immune from the same physical laws. Add a few hundred pounds of weight and it’s going to need more energy to do the same work and that means more draw on the battery, which will mean reduced range as well as reduced performance.
Summer’s not so hot, either — as far as optimizing an electric car’s range. You’ll probably want to run the air conditioning, which will draw power from the battery pack. And high heat can be as unkind to batteries as bitter cold.
So, let’s say the real-word range of a car like the Leaf is 60-ish miles under less-than ideal conditions. That is, in the real world. That might work for close-in commuting. But it could be an uncomfortably close shave if you live in the ‘burbs, 20 or 30 miles out.
At least with a gas-fueled car, you can refill the tank in a few minutes and be back on your way. But when the Leaf runs out of juice, you’re not only looking at an hour or more downtime to induce a partial charge (a full charge takes several hours) you’ll need to locate one of the special 220V charging stations the Leaf requires. This EV does not just plug into any household 110V outlet. The 220V station is faster — if you can find one.
Just what our typical stressed-out commuter needs — right?
The Chevy Volt at least addresses that problem by carting around its own portable (and gas-fueled) generator, so that when your “up to 40 miles” range on electric power alone fizzles out, you’re not stuck. The car’s gas engine kicks on, pumps juice into the battery, which then runs the electric motor — and keeps you moving. (The Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid operates on the same principle.)
Which is lovely except it concedes that gas power is still better than electric power because without that gas engine, the Volt (and the Prius) ain’t a goin’ no damn where — not very damn far, anyhow.
All this would be kind of funny in a latter-day Pinto kind of way except for one thing: The government never forced the taxpaying public to underwrite Pinto ownership.
About the Author
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Eric Peters
More Articles From Car Guy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/06/the-electric-albatross
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
John Daniel| 6.6.11 @ 6:46AM
Duh. These cars make as much sense as planting fans about the countryside to generate electricity....
JayDick| 6.6.11 @ 10:37AM
Excellent!!! Two liberal birds with one well-aimed comment.
Appleby| 6.6.11 @ 6:51AM
This is what you get when Hippies Go Wild.
Teaghan| 6.6.11 @ 9:29AM
Appleby, you make me laugh out loud!
Mike Hawk| 6.6.11 @ 6:56AM
Two other things these electricity hogs are no good at. Pulling even a small trailer and going up and down hilly terrain. Mountainous country, forget it. To use a slightly changed trucker phrase, " Driving an Electric is like having a 3 inch Anthony Weiner, it's OK for local work, but don't take it out of town."
Frank Drackman| 6.6.11 @ 7:03AM
Whats with the "Pinto" Slur?
my first car was a year old 78 Pinto that I stole for the bargain price of $2200. Somehow the original owner managed to put 28,000 miles on the Pony in the year he had it..
"Highway Miles" he said, but he'd found a job closer to home and was upgrading to a Mustang II...
Curb wt just over 2000lbs, 4 speed, and a high revving 2300cc 4 banger that also powered thousands of Ford Pickups.
Clamped a big Sun Tach on the steering Column, 200W Pioneer stereo(with auto-reverse Cassette!) throw in some Blue Oyster Cult/Foghat and you be jammin'
OK, it only had 88 HP, it was 1979, even Bandit's Trans Am had less HP than a present day Honda Civic..
And so they had a little Gas Tank problem, mine ran like a tank until I got T-boned by some blue haired biddy in a New Yorker...
OK, it was a Chrysler "K" car, and thank god for the airbags...
that it didn't have, otherwhise I'd never have gotten out of that cramped coffin...
Frank
Frank Drackman| 6.6.11 @ 7:10AM
Spent the Insurance settlement (and despite the Presidents's (Peace be upon Him) advice I didn't have Collision Insurance, it was an 8 year old Pinto for Gods sake) from the crash on a REAL car, a 78' LTD ex Georgia State Patrol Cruiser, 460 Big Block C-6, and inoperative odometer cause the primitive moving radar system GSP used plugged into the odometer and they never hooked it back up..
Used the same tach from the Pinto, painted over the Blue/Silver with flat black, and who cares if you got a little hot during an Alabama Summer, the 475 AC(4 windows down and 75 mph) worked like a champ...
And who cares if she got 10 mpg (Highway)? it was 1986, gas was cheap...
And with a curb wt approaching 5,000 lbs lets just say nobody T-boned that baby...
Frank
dsayne| 6.6.11 @ 7:16AM
Despite all it's notorious shortcomings, the Pinto was still a relative dependable way to get from point A to point B in reasonable comfort (for two people, anyway; the back seat was pure torture). A famously dangerous design flaw and poor quality control were not enough to deter people from taking advantages of it's good qualities; gas mileage, low price, and fairly good looks. It did, for the most part, what it was designed to do, at least as well as most of it's contemporaries.
When I was young and idealistic (and liberal) I dreamed of super electric (and steam) cars , super efficient windmills, blindingly fast (and affordable) intercity trains, self-sufficient organic farming, and the perfect passive solar house. Then I grew up.
Frank Drackman| 6.6.11 @ 7:18AM
and the Pinto was rear wheel drive, had a funky exhaust note, and never blew a power steering pump, cause it didn't have power steering, and if BMW had manufactured it and called it a "2002" pompous A-holes would still be waxing poetic about her virtues...
which included, you could actually change the sparkplugs yourself, or take off the cylinder head to change a blown head gasket, and when you hacked off the catalytic converter you didn't set off any annoying "Check Engine" light, and when the AC started blowing hot(yes it had AC) you just poured in a few cans of Freon while enjoying a New Coke and you were Chillin...
Frank
chuck| 6.6.11 @ 7:26AM
Enjoying a New Coke? I'd rather drink the Freon!
Teaghan| 6.6.11 @ 9:31AM
Fresca for me!
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 9:47AM
Vodka and Bitter Lemon, for me. - I never had a pinto. I had a Vega. That'll start you drinkin' for sure.
Albert| 6.6.11 @ 10:43AM
I still think one of the greatest oxymorons in automotive history is "Cosworth-Vega." :-)
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 11:16AM
Albert,
Didn't Lotus do something just about as silly?
HALOMan| 6.6.11 @ 10:46AM
Had a '73 Vega GT that was never intended to be released to the buying public. Didn't burn an ounce of oil and drove like a scalded ape (down hill). Was the ride of my life until I got rear-ended and folded the car in half. Was so impressed, I bought another '73 Vega GT with the insurance money. Got the version that was meant for mass distribution. Every time I pulled into a gas station, I gave the same standing order, "Check the gas and fill it with oil"!!!
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 11:15AM
HALOMan,
Did it have sleeved cylinders, or what? I had the plain '73 which I bought one-year old with 12K miles. Had it three days in Houston summer before the head gasket blew. I had the first long-block replacement in Houston (I think in the U.S. - my dad did legal work from GM) when they added the coolant recovery system. It never was the same.
You are right about the oil.
Pzkfw| 6.6.11 @ 5:22PM
My Mom bought a Vega, despite my advice, and the car was a complete piece of sh*t. Rusted through at the corner of the windshield in one year!!! Fought GM for the next year for compensation and finally won. Her next car was a Nissan... that car, after being replaced by a Honda, went to both my daughters in sequence. That car was donated to charity after over 15 years on the road. She still has the Honda, it works fine and is now 12 years old ...sorry Detroit.
Melvin| 6.6.11 @ 7:38AM
For a guy like me, an unadorned electric vehicle/cart would be perfect for me. My work is six miles one way, no hills, and in a small city.
Don't need nothing like the Chevy Volt, but a simple device that goes forward and backward. If it gets hot I take the doors off.
Going to work is all I would use it for, and I never go over 45 MPH. The designers of these things are thinking to grand, start small and efficient and use that as a test bed.
But the hidden monster here is, the cost of electricity to recharge this battery driven vehicles. At least in NC electricity isn't cheap, and may end up costing more than gasoline to get people to and from work.
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 9:50AM
Melvin,
A couple of years ago, when gas was sub-three dollars, I calculated the energy cost equivalent between the two and came up with electricity (at $0.11/Kw) to be about half the price of gasoline. I suspect it would be better today. It passed the sanity test as electricity is generated from relatively inexpensive fuel sources and, despite line losses, is transported cheaply.
Autoacct628| 6.6.11 @ 5:15PM
Yes, John...but the dirty little secret in all this...which I haven't seen mentioned yet, but I haven't read ALL the comments...is that generating the electricity to power one of these little buggies creates more hydro-carbons and thus POLLUTES more than a same-size car with a typical engine. Plus, the battery and electrical motor manufacturing processes pollute the water stream and air WA more than the state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques for similarly powerful internal combustion engine. So, the ecological footprint of one of these poseur-mobiles is actually substantially higher over it's lifetime than a similar sized ICE powered car...so tell me again, why are we doing this?
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 6:51PM
Autoacct628,
I don't know why we are doing it. CNG is also about half the price of gasoline. Still we do have electric golf carts and milk, in London in the '60s, was delivered by electric cart.
I question if a gasoline engine burning (roughly C8) with its quench zones and 30-40% thermodynamic efficiency actually generates more Co2 than the power plant, but I don't buy into the AGW argument anyway. In any case, peak load is natural gas and base load could well be nuclear instead of coal.
If, in fact, battery and electric motor manufacturing pollute the water and air more than engine manufacturing, I ask if we aren't in trouble anyway as batteries and electric motors are every where. Also, you don't consider things like ethylene glycol coolant and engine oil which are not required for electric cars - not arguing, just making sure when you can "all in" you count everything.
Mutch Moore | 6.6.11 @ 2:35PM
Thanks Melvin, not just for the funny golf cart imagery, but for that "hidden monster" not mentioned in the article. With all the other downers to electric car ownership. I suppose Eric Peters regarded that as overkill.
Frank Drackman| 6.6.11 @ 8:16AM
Melvin,
there's already a vehicle perfect for your commute.
It's called a "Bicycle"
at least thats what I used for a similar commute when I was 14, oh sure, I could have taken the School bus to my Intergrated Pubic School that just happened to be 80% Afro American, and I had 3 bikes stolen before I figured out Afro Americans, I mean criminals wouldnt steal crummy bikes with only one forward gear...
Frank
Melvin| 6.6.11 @ 2:53PM
Frank, there is one thing you never, never do in Jacksonville NC, and that is ride a bicycle. This is the most bicycle unfriendly town in existence.
It is getting better in that respect, but there is just way too many idiots texting, and chatting on their cell phones when they should be driving.
Jack Olson| 6.6.11 @ 8:22AM
What will the maintenance cost be like on an electric car? Today's gasoline engines can go 100K miles before you need a tune up but you still need to change the oil and filter, the transmission fluid, the coolant, the air filter, the fuel filter, and once in a while the belts and hoses. If it's a manual shift, you will eventually replace the clutch. On the other hand, batteries have only a certain useful life. I seldom get more than four years out of the lead acid batteries in my car, even the so-called 72 month ones. Will electric cars have lower maintenance expense?
Ned| 6.6.11 @ 11:39AM
... think 500 pounds of Lithium ion, at $18/lb...
wodiej| 6.6.11 @ 8:28AM
It doesn't matter what they make. If all vehicles were electric, electricity costs would skyrocket and it would be no cheaper than gas. As for emissions, anything that involves production is going to impact the environment in some way. Most electricity is generated from coal. Just being born has an impact. Most are born in a hospital and think of all the resources used for new babies.
But as long as we continue to have recycling, replant forestry, low emissions vehicles like the Honda Civic and do what is reasonable and rational to replace the consumption, there is no need to go off the green rails.
JimH| 6.6.11 @ 8:35AM
I understand that Tesla is suing Top Gear, primarily because their testing revealed the truth about the mileage of their purported super car.
John Corkery| 7.9.11 @ 5:19PM
I tend to agree. Tesla should have taken their cars back, repaired them and then asked Top Gear to have a second test. As it is I saw the original video when it was broadcast and I reviewed it after I heard about the suit and I think Tesla are only doing harm to themselves. The review was mostly positive with a demonstration showing that the Tesla was as fast as a Porsche 911 GT3 around the test track. Tesla's real problem was James May's review of the Honda Clarity which is also electric but uses a hydrogen fuel cell. The car operated like a normal Civic and a driver wouldn't have to do anything different from a conventional gasoline powered vehicle except fill it up with hydrogen. I bet Honda didn't need to supply two vehicles as well as technicians to ensure that the test drive went without a hitch. It's everything the Tesla should be but isn't. I bet it won't cost much more than a conventional Civic if Honda ever decide to market it.
Kurt in S.L.C.| 6.6.11 @ 8:35AM
The Chevy Volt(rhymes with dolt)because you would have to be one to buy one.
L. Ross| 6.6.11 @ 8:40AM
I drove a Chevy Volt. It is reasonably comfortable, had good room inside and good acceleration. It has a 40 mile range on batteries alone. For most American's, the Volt is a car that could be filled with gasoline about once a month. That said, if I wanted to drive it down to visit my brother in Florida, no problem. The Volt is a terrific idea, just overpriced. If they can get the price down by 1/3rd, it would be a fantastic car.
Groad| 6.6.11 @ 9:08AM
So go buy one. Nobody is stopping you. I still need my SUV.
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 9:56AM
L. Ross,
All vehicles need to fit the mission. You don't drive to the Home Depot to buy lumber in your Porsche. It seems the Volt will fit a certain mission, but it doubt that it fits "most American's" requirements. If all you do is commute to a job within 20 miles, fine. Otherwise you will be buying gasoline just to haul heavy batteries around. And then there is the price.
In my mind, the Aston Martin Virage "is a terrific idea, just overpriced. If they can get the price down by 1/3rd, it would be a fantastic car." :)
Autoacct628| 6.6.11 @ 5:18PM
The government wants it the other way around....it wants Americans to 'change their mission' to fit the vehicle, rather than design the vehicle to fit the mission. Liberals are, like, so 1936.
John Navratil| 6.6.11 @ 6:52PM
Autoacct628,
Indeed they do. We'll all be in bullet trains to places we don't want to go.
George S| 6.6.11 @ 10:23AM
Terrific idea + overpriced = entrepreneur
I suggest you gather investors and start building an electric vehicle at that 1/3 lower price. It's nice to want when you do not have to risk your money. That's the round-about point of this article.
Kevin Compton| 6.6.11 @ 11:16AM
I drive a 1998 Pontiac Gran Prix and I only have to fill it up once a month.
Pecos Pete| 6.6.11 @ 9:11AM
I ride a horse, sometimes. Horse eats grass and some oats for fuel. Reasonably comfortable for short trips. I don't think horse commuting would work very well, or for long trips. On the other hand , my horse doesn't use fossil fuels or derivatives thereof. Now, if the gubmint would provide monetary incentives for buying/using horses we could all enjoy a return to cave dwelling.
Electric cars use some fairly exotic metals. Where does that metal come from? Mining. Oh dear, tearing up the earth and more regulations.
How's the government going to regulate the disposal of said metals; think about those car batteries in your local landfill. If the gubmint can regulate the use and disposal of CFL lightbulbs, just imagine the fun they will have with electric cars.
squalis| 6.6.11 @ 10:18AM
Gov't is exceptionally gifted at providing waivers to the right sort of people.
MM| 6.6.11 @ 10:45AM
I'm sticking with my donkey. It's great for around town, and maintenance beats a car of any kind. A vet check up once in a while is so much cheaper than tires, brakes and oil changes.
dc| 6.6.11 @ 12:07PM
Pecos: hate to tell you, but your horse will soon be confiscated from you for two reasons: 1) when it farts it expels methane, a notoriously powerful "greenhouse gas"; and 2) "ownership" of animals is likely to be banned, as (per PETA, EarthFirst, and others, like Maobama's new Commerce Secretary, "a horse is a dog is a rat is a boy." So you can't enslave any animals anymore. But the regime will ration your emissions (and thus your energy use) as a precursor to rationing your children. Brave new world, no private ownership of any means of production allowed. Just read anything that Van Jones has written or said, and keep in mind, he's one of Dear Leader's spiritual advisors--this is not at all farfetched.
Dr. X| 6.6.11 @ 9:27AM
Hey!!! I had a couple of Pintos too! They weren't nearly as bad as people think! If you could keep a cam in 'em they were fine. The Chevy Vega was MUCH worse and I can't recall a Chevette that didn't have floorboards rotted out so you could see the pavement.
Pinto fans of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your Vegas!
Teaghan| 6.6.11 @ 9:36AM
I had a VW Carmen Gia that had a view of the road below. Ah, those were the days!
dnha14| 6.6.11 @ 10:03AM
I get down on my knees and thank the governmental lords:
Thank you for taking my tax dollars to give people richer than me a rebate so they can purchase a car that I could never afford. I know it's for a good cause and you have good intentions. Please follow those good intentions on the path to where they lead you.
Talk about the funny farm.
BTW my favorite car ever was a 1957 Volkswagen Beetle. Good gas mileage and easy to fix on your own. This is why people dream about the "good old days".
Greg| 6.6.11 @ 10:31AM
I'm probably a young whipper-snapper for this site...but anyway...
First vehicle was an '84 Dodge Ram pick-'em-up...360 with a 4 barrel...with a (personnaly installed) glasspack.
I drove that all through highscrewl...great truck...I could drive that thing anywhere...except past a gas station
On good days (and not hammering on the right peddal so the 4 barrel would kick in) I would get 12 mpg
I learned alot of proper car maintenance on that truck...
now-a-days...good luck finding the engine under the hood!
Frank Drackman| 6.6.11 @ 10:38AM
@ Greg,
high 5! and while Fuel Injections nice and everything, there was just something right about the Giant Sucking Sound of a big Motorcraft 4350 when your right foot would get into the secondaries...
and on a side note, wonder who was the last President who rebuilt a Carburetor? I'm thinkin Maybe LBJ??
Nahh... he'd just start a Government program and have someone else rebuild it...
Frank
Fairbanks99| 6.6.11 @ 2:48PM
I recently bought an 84 Chevy C20 long bed from a neighbor. The previous owner installed an Edelbrock 1406 carb, headers and glasspacks. It sounds awesome at a red light when I pull up next to a Prius. Lots of work to do to get it looking good again, but I love my truck.
Professional | 6.6.11 @ 10:58AM
I was thinking an electric car would be a good chice for me one day, but now I'm having second thoughts.
Steve A| 6.6.11 @ 3:35PM
Professiona, Just go ahead & hit yourself in the head with a hammer. It's cheaper & the pain won't last as long.
MikeN| 6.6.11 @ 11:08AM
I think you have a typo. YOu said the Nissan Leaf's range is 10 miles.
JayDick| 6.6.11 @ 11:21AM
If EPA in their infinite wisdom hadn't made them nearly impossible to sell in the U.S., diesel engines seem to give the best combination of economy, performance, and longevity. I think I read that they are the biggest selling type of engine in Europe now.
Ned| 6.6.11 @ 12:34PM
Biggest sellers in Europe by about 60%....
Alky| 6.6.11 @ 11:48AM
Lets assume the electric car really is the best thing since the Pinto and it became the car to have. What happens when 100 million people plug them in at night for a recharge? Lights out baby!
Skippy| 6.6.11 @ 3:06PM
Bzzztt!
It has been said that, if every toilet in Manhattan were flushed at the same moment, the island would slip beneath the waters and the East and Hudson rivers would flow as one.
Sounds like it's worth a try!
Oldmanriver| 6.6.11 @ 12:19PM
Why is it that conservatives are anti conservation? We should be the ones leading the charge on conserving energy and not let the Democrats lead. It doesnt make any sense at all. I used to drive a 3/4 ton pick up but parked it when gas went over $3 a few years ago. Thats just common sense. Republicans are supposed to be the party of common sense. Republicans used to be at the forefront of conservation...what happened?
Roger Pol | 6.6.11 @ 12:50PM
@oldmanriver -- We are leading, but we are leading with common sense. The Volt, Leaf and Prius are reasonable first steps. The problem is that the govt. decides to subsidize them. This not only inhibits innovation which leads to legitimate commercialization, but also leads to corruption. Just take a look at the trading going on between the Chevy dealers and Toyota dealers. They buy the Elec cars from each other, title them and then sell them as low mileage used cars so they can keep the tax credit. Just another example of what happens when the govt. inserts itself into the marketplace.
Oldmanriver| 6.7.11 @ 4:39PM
I agree with you Roger that Gov intrusion isnt preferable at all. There just seems to be a general bias against conservation by Conservatives. You can see it in the response below. I wasnt even suggesting that the guy trade in his F350. There are some things where the solution isnt going to be an electric car. Although most large mining equipment is all electric drive. I dont understand why saving money and resources is viewed with such disdain by a lot of Conservatives. Its almost as if Im not a REAL Conservative because I want to save money...huh? Im really getting tired of that. At some price point alternative energies will become feasible and most people will move enmasse to them. Not because they are lilly livered effeminate marxist communist pillow bitters but because economics will dictate it. Its as simple as not being able to afford one over the other. Thats not even a political stance, its just common sense.
Steve A| 6.6.11 @ 12:29PM
Oldmanriver, Nice try. First off, the whole premise that you are saving the Earth by parking your F-150 is idiotic. Secondly, when some genius invents an electric vehicle that can tow my horse trailer & costs me the same as my F-350, I will be first in line to buy it. Until then, you can drive your smart car, risk your life & read the NY Times under your curly Q light bulbs for all I care. Just leave me alone. I pay my own bills.
Oldmanriver| 6.7.11 @ 9:04AM
Oh horse person...nevermind. You dont have the sense God gave a rock.
DeDe| 6.7.11 @ 4:21PM
Wow, nice comeback, full of facts 'n all....
Oldmanriver| 6.7.11 @ 4:31PM
I responded in the way he responded to me. He just spewed a bunch of lies at me. He doesnt even know me. I parked my truck to save money bought a $300 car to drive back and forth to work and saved about $75 a week in gas...I didnt even drive an F150. I dont have a smart car, Im not risking my life and I dont read the NYT. I do have the lightbulbs and my electric bill averages about $25 a month its been as low as $12. Who is the fool I ask? I used to sell hay to horse people and I know how irrational they can be.
fwb| 6.6.11 @ 1:32PM
Electric cars are great. I thank all those drivers for saving me gas to fuel my gas-guzzling 3/4 ton 4x4 8.1L Chevy truck. Thank you. Thank you. There's plenty for me.
Actually electric cars can be run all over. I have a booklet written in 1896 by a xxxxxcousin about riding in an electric car up in Maine going out in the country.
The problem is not the cars or the concept. The problem is the government, the same problem that drives EVERY other problem in the world. Govt regs would mess up a wet dr...m.
GENE HAUBER| 6.6.11 @ 3:30PM
F, A BIG EFFING F, TO OBAMA AND HIS ADHERENTS.
Bob Grant| 6.6.11 @ 3:40PM
Couple all the problems mentioned in the article along with the fact that peak lithium reserves will arrive before peak oil does. Oh, and lets not forget lithium reserves are only available in a hand full of countries like Bolivia, China, and Afghanistan - three of our closest allies :-)
All of that aside, pushing battery operated vehicles is a form of control to get more people out of their cars and off the roads in general. Think about it, if you own a battery operated vehicle you wont be able travel farther than 60 miles before "Range Anxiety" kicks in. Just another way to get people out of their cars and into public transportation.
Mutch Moore | 6.6.11 @ 3:46PM
Wall Street Journal Writer Mike Ramsey noted a year and a half ago that "... 20-odd electric models will be offered in the U.S. market within three years.." He better revise those notes. A.S.'s Eric Peters is spot on. Just like those squiggly, mercury content florescent bulbs (which was another bungling governement "green" initiative), the electric car hype will fade sooner than later. And not soon enough for me.
Pat| 6.6.11 @ 5:24PM
Eric Peters is high mileage in his comments about Californians but, as a Californian, I say we’re not totally at fault – we let just anyone move here. Drive a U-Haul to our borders and we’ll anally probe your rig’s cargo box for rogue vegetables carrying various diseases or parasites, those organisms we don’t allow into the state through a vigorously applied legal inspection. But we never administer IQ tests at the border such as would keep the mentally challenged out of our cherished diversity. And few things exemplify our collective shortage of brain cells more than our love/hate affair with automobiles. For instance, in Northern California, our light rail system (BART) offered prime parking spaces once upon a time, just steps away from the escalators, to those commuters driving electric cars - we even included free charging stations to complement the free parking for your electric go-kart.
Of course, these desirable parking spaces sat empty each and every day of the year – the electric car fad had long since passed before the BART folks went and got all sanctimonious about saving energy by catering to electric car owners - they never did get around to saving taxpayer money on yearly operating costs though, you can only carry sanctimony so far.
And then there are the freeway lanes reserved exclusively for the car poolers – the Soviet Union had originally pioneered this reserved lane concept for the Party Bosses. But, here in our sun drenched asylum, we sit on our freeways during rush hour edging forward at 10 miles per hour while casting envious glances at that vacant left lane and fervently wishing we had one of those blow-up dummies in the right hand seat – you know, like the anatomically correct plastic bimbos they sell in the sex toy stores. So we waste oodles of energy curtailing freeway movement to save a little energy through car-pooling – I’m serious, we’re just that smart here.
And our diversity requires we’re also consummately stupid about SUV’s – although it’s not required by a state law. Only Hawaiian residents have less reason to own a 4 wheel drive than Californians living within the high density coastal communities - it never snows, we have untold miles of freshly paved highway thanks to Obama and his stimulus money. Ask a Californian why the dire need for 4 wheel drive and he or she will tell you they’re needed in the mountains, except the state police require chains when there are heavy snows. So, you buy your 6,000 pound Yukon, drive it to Tahoe once a year for skiing, stop where the CHP tells you to, put on your chains and continue on your way – aren’t you glad you paid extra for all that 4 axle power? So, in summary, the electric car folks know exactly where to market their latest models – and, here in California, we can hardly wait to flaunt our stupidity once again.
Mutch Moore | 6.7.11 @ 4:15AM
Pat, you covered some really salient points on several fronts, especially your final paragraph. On Florida's turnpike, as well as I-95, those car pool lane restriction signs are an ignored joke. Few obey them, blow up doll in passenger seat not needed. And just like sunny, dry California, Floridians have no traction in their reasoning to own fuel wasting 4-wheel drives. It is beyond belief that the SUV culture has endured so long. I thought it would be a passing fad. The automakers convinced cell phone talking babes and others they're so much safer with all that Sherman tank-like armor of a 6000+ pound SUV that they overlook the comfy fuel efficient sedan. But, gas hogs are not completely a consumer driven phenomenon; I suspect federal government complicity. The gov. doesn't really want fuel consumption to dry up because so it will be for federal motor fuel tax (a huge revenue source for the gov.).
As far as viable electric cars for mass consumption: electricity works fine for digital cameras and small gadgets, but the tremendous amounts of electricity required for thrust to propel airplanes or drive heavy land vehicles will never be workable. The reason is simple; the on board storage box (battery) would need to be bigger and heavier than the vehicle itself. Sure, lithium ion and other battery technologies have come along way but, nonetheless, has reached its zenith. Volatile liquids (gasoline) can simply be concentrated in a metal or plastic tank. Transitory electricity, though easily harnessed, is not conducive for storage in a box. I agree with Eric Peter's implication that electric cars just aint ever gonna happen on much other than golf carts.
Renaissance Nerd | 6.7.11 @ 4:57PM
The SUV fad is a result of government action. They killed the station wagon--which would still be the suburbanite choice if still around. In order to meet their CAFE standards every car manufacturer had to increase the number of trucks in their fleet, which have different standards. The popularity of minivans and SUVs are the result. Simple fact is people don't feel safe in a Geo Metro because they really aren't. They buy what's available so they'll feel safe. Personally I think safety doesn't exist, so I don't care whether I have the illusion of safety or not, but a lot of people (particularly women) do believe in safety and are actually better drivers when they feel safe. That said, I have an SUV and it's got lots of Arizona pinstripes on it, because it has been well past the back of beyond--but it's not 4WD, and it gets (so they say) 29 MPG. I've never seen better than 26, but maybe my foot is too heavy.
The stupid thing is that nobody would object to having a 'safe' car that would do the work. If someone came out with a Suburban that got 60 MPG they'd never be able to build enough of them. Electric cars are toys for the wealthy, just like Cadillac SUVs. Like anybody is going to put Arizona pinstripes on their $60k 'SUV.' Just one more evidence that the Democratic Party is just the party of corrupt elites and howling mobs.
Mutch Moore | 6.7.11 @ 10:03PM
Renaissance Nerd: Yes, the government was either asleep at the wheel or duplicitous for allowing the loophole for SUVs to escape CAFE standards. Not to disparage folks who opt to drive one, my concern is for the larger policy issues that resulted in manufacturers filling up our highways with them in an era in time when politicians profess and prattle about the need of the U.S. to be liberated from OPEC oil.
As for any safety advantage, of course, the law of physics prevails when a heavy object collides with a light object. However, if the lighter objects were the norm (as in U.K. and most of Europe) the safety advantage would diminish. But in real world, people purchase behemoth, excessively heavy vehicles for personal transportation because they can. I'm sure you are aware that the the additional drive components necessary for 4WD vehicles adds around 12oo pounds. As you alluded, the Cadillac Escalade will enjoy it's niche market. But for the masses, the era of largess is ending before our eyes - a renaissance that will rein in profligate fuel consumption.
Thom| 6.6.11 @ 5:35PM
The problem with the Volt can be demonstrated by comparing it to its Cruze gasoline version. The Cruze will go for about $17,000 tops without having someone else subsidize your purchase. Assuming the average life time average mpg for the Cruze is about 30 mpg and is driven about 12,000 miles a year, the annual cost of fuel would be about $1600 at $4.00 a gallon.
The price difference between the Cruze and the Volt is about $24,000 up front. Ignoring things like the annual insurance cost and the property tax differences between the two vehicles (several hundred dollars a year) and assuming the Volt never ever uses a drop of gasoline over its life, it would take 20 years or about 240,000 miles to get pay back just on the purchase price alone at $4.00 a gallon and it costing just a dollar a day to charge the Volt’s 40 mile charge. The moment you put gas in the Volt you extend this payback out to Never Never land and beyond.
Given the life expectancy of the battery in all practical terms will barely exceed half this time or miles the Volt could never recover the cost difference under optimum conditions that have no practical value for 99% of the population. In practical terms the Volt is nothing but a very much more expensive Prius which itself won’t recover the price premium it has but a lot more people can afford to own it at least and it beats Volts city/highway mpg on gas by a large margin. The resale value of both vehicles goes to zero the moment you have to replace the batteries.
All three domestic car companies have gone technically bankrupt in the last decade because they can’t design and manufacture practical cars that most Americans can afford to own and operate. Given the Volt/Cruze basic car is a South Korean design it strikes me the Volt is being subsidized by the Cruze after Government Motors plants some trees with some of your purchase price.
Mutch Moore | 6.6.11 @ 9:29PM
It's like back to the future. The diminutive, gasoline powered Chevy Metro of the 1990s got 50+ mpg and therefore was useful to raise the fleet average mpg requirements under Clinton. The Metro was so small you felt more like you were wearing it than driving it. However, it beat a golf cart by far and, unlike an electric car, you could drive it cross country - and it even came with air conditioning. Production ceased in 2002 when manufacturers no longer needed this runabout in their line up to achieve a high mpg average. Also, the subcompact gasoline car concept would compare far too favorably with the pricier hybrids that were to be coming to showrooms. Even though the hybrids are somewhat bigger and roomier, their price tag, as this Eric Peters article mentioned, is getting into BMW luxury car money. Europe and U.K. have continued to enjoy the choice of small gas cars over the past decade while Americans have not. Flash forward: Ford, Fiat (Chrysler) and others are fast tracking midget 3 cylinders gas cars to be ready for U.S. consumers by 2012. Back to the future!
Thom| 6.6.11 @ 10:09PM
My friend is still driving to work every day a Honda Civic VX, circa 1995 with nearly 500,000 miles on it. 50+ mpg with the AC on in top form and he is still driving it because he can't replace it for anything not 2x the price he paid in 1995.
Mutch Moore | 6.6.11 @ 11:42PM
Yeah Thom, quietly and barely noticed, compact cars got bigger and heavier each model year. For example: a new Honda Civic is much larger than the Accord was in the 1990s. Even the Cruz you mention, used to be badged as a Cavalier. It sported a 1.8 liter, 4 cyl. and was Chevy's best seller and even America's top seller through most of the late 1980's and early 1990s. Now, by necessity, the trend will be to return to lighter, smaller, shorter wheelbase cars. We've come full circle - back to the future! Ford will have a straight gasoline 3 cyl. ready for U.S. market in 2012. Chrysler's Fiat gasoline (midget car) is already here. Despite all the Obama hype, these pricey electrics are going nowhere in the U.S. market. Government motors rendition, the Volt, will short circuit after 2 or 3 model years.
dee see| 6.6.11 @ 11:58PM
----Interesting '70's Show' Popular Science
op. Of course the 'benny violent' foundations
and NGOs, busy with their larger sterilization
and genocide agendas ---are also calling for an
eventual END of the private car.
"Remember folks, Globalism, 'Free Trade'
and EUGENICS (-and of course TREASON)
are always intertwined. ALWAYS."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)
That's right ---ALWAYS. WE KNOW.
Remembering too today's once again buried,
61st Anniversary of the 'EUGENICS very friendly'
KOREAN WAR.
AS the RED China sellout, set up and TREASON
op comes around the FINAL bend we've decided
this would be a good time to move on.
SO, farewell one and all, keep up with ALAN
WATT and ALEX JONES. We ourselves are
not 'truthers' ---but are partial to truth wherever
we find it.
HOPE to see you at
-----HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012-------
Oldmanriver| 6.7.11 @ 8:59AM
I wasnt saving the earth I was saving money. It was a GMC2500 anyhow.
Morgan| 6.7.11 @ 11:59AM
And don't forget: you aren't getting the $7500 rebate because the auto dealerships already got it by titling the car to themselves, so you're technically buying a "used" car, so no rebate. Not to mention the cost of buying a new battery, estimated currently to be somewhere between 8 and 10K.
An electric car may be a good idea; at some point in the future it may be a great idea. Right now it's an idea whose time has not come, and the government has no business trying to make wishes come true.
Mutch Moore | 6.7.11 @ 12:55PM
Morgan, you're eloquence itself! Great post!
JeffT| 6.7.11 @ 2:45PM
Buying an electric car now is like buying a train when there aren't tracks to support it. Who builds the vehicle BEFORE the support network is up and running? This is a terrible, and doomed to fail, business model, forgetting about all the other things wrong with the electric car as noted in other comments.
Mutch Moore | 6.7.11 @ 4:39PM
JeffT: Yeah, an unsound business model indeed. The train track analogy, in electric cars, speaks to battery technology which has reached its zenith and still not really adequate. Unless some new pinnacle in battery science is attained, electric cars will, as Eric Peters suggests, peter out. Government Motor's venture into this is understandable with all the political influence bearing down in their boardroom. But I cannot imagine how Nissan decided to bring their rendering, the Leaf, to market? We'll just have to see but it does not look promising for the investors who got on board this all electric concept.
Mutch Moore | 6.8.11 @ 12:08PM
Back to the future! A 50+ mpg, sub 1800 pound, 3 cylinder mini has already been marketed in the U.S. from early 1990s to 2002. It was the Geo Metro, remember? It was killed in 2002 when gov. mpg fuel standards were relaxed and GM realized the gas sipping Geo would appeal far too favorably with their then upcoming hybrids. Not wanting to pull potential buyers away from hybrids, the Geo Metro was quietly cancelled. What a scandal that all the major manufacturers market the mini's in Europe where they enjoy good sales, but they withhold them from the U.S. market in deference to the pricier hybrids as well as SUV behemoths. Ford is planning a new introduction of a 3 cylinder all gas mini in 2012, which will take us back to the future, nonetheless, will be welcome by America in this new era of oil prices.
john| 6.8.11 @ 8:20PM
I'd rather drive an electric car than a piece of shit bmw or lexas or a chevy truck with a noisy muffler
Mutch Moore | 6.8.11 @ 8:49PM
john, like the author here, Eric Peters said about electric cars: ". . . they're marvelous" ". . . if the road is mostly flat, it's nice and warm out (but not too warm) you've got money to waste, don't have to go very far (especially in winter) and don't mind waiting a couple hours before you can go someplace else."
I loathe a Chevy truck with a loud muffler as mutch, or even moore than you do. And indeed, just say no to a pricy beemer or an over-priced Lexes as well. But gosh, don't gimmee a glorified electric golf cart either. Until science can figure out how to put lightning in a bottle, I'll opt for a frugal gasoline mini car instead of any of the above.
Vasu Murti | 6.9.11 @ 1:57PM
Transitioning to a Vegan Economy is Easier Than Electric Cars or Space Colonization.
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983).
"A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."
I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling.
Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.
A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today.
According to a recent United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined.
Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.
"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."
--Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Association
Nearly 75% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are consumed by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)
Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)
It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)
Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.
The following points and facts are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by the mother-daughter writing team of Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:
"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources.
"Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."
--John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation
One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.
A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.
A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.
One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.
Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.
Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from nine million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.
"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."
--Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York
Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.
The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.
The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.
Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.
Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.
The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.
The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.
Thirty-three percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only two percent of our resources will go to the production of food.
"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."
---Jeremy Rifkin, pro-life AND pro-animal author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004:
"The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future--deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease."
Brother David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, similarly says in the February 1995 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future (a peace and justice periodical on the relgious Left):
"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging--to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."
Les Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only ten percent per year, it would free at least twelve million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed sixty million people.
The number of animals killed for food in the United States is nearly 75 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is challenging those who think they can still be "meat-eating environmentalists" to go veg, if they really care about the planet.
peta2 is now the largest youth movement of any social change organization in the world.
peta2 has 267,000 friends on MySpace and 91,000 Facebook fans.
A few years ago, PETA was the top-ranked charity when a poll asked teenagers what nonprofit group they would most want to work for. PETA won by more than a 2 to 1 margin over the second place finisher, The American Red Cross, with more votes than the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity combined.
“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in an interview with PETA's Animal Times magazine from 2001, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it.
"Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”
There are different approaches for transitioning from flesh-eating to veg*ism. Some prefer going "cold turkey."
Dr. Rudolf Ballentine's 1987 book, Transition to Vegetarianism takes it on a chapter-by-chapter basis: first giving up "red meat", then giving up chicken and fish, and the chapter entitled "Now That You're a Vegetarian" discusses the health hazards with meat and dairy products.
Of course, this book is nearly twenty five years old! You might want current medical data.
Some find it easier to be vegan on certain days of the week as a way to transition to being completely vegan. Sir Paul McCartney has endorsed a "Meatless Mondays" campaign.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently signed a VegDay Resolution encouraging a plant-based diet on Mondays. They point out that if everyone in San Francisco went veg one day per week, it would save 37,000,000 lbs. of greenhouse gas emissions. That is the equivalent of taking 123,822 cars off the streets of San Francisco!
"Meatless Mondays" are not a new idea. They were observed during World War II due to war rationing. During that time, in England, George Bernard Shaw reassured his countrymen that they could abstain from meat due to war rationing and need not fear becoming carbon copies of George Bernard Shaw... just as the Maoris kept their own individual identities when giving up cannibalism!
Vegetarianism is relevant to both our modern world and its religious teachings. The livestock population of the United States today consume enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population. American cows, pigs, chicken, sheep, etc. eat up 90 percent of our wheat, 80 percent of our corn, and 95 percent of our oats. Less than half of the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for human consumption. Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.
In The Wealth of Nations, economist Adam Smith noted the advantages of a vegetarian diet: "It may indeed be doubted whether butcher’s meat is anywhere a necessary of life. Grain and other vegetables, with the help of milk, cheese, and butter, or oil, where butter is not to be had, afford the most plentiful, the most wholesome, the most nourishing, and the most invigorating diet. Decency nowhere requires that any man should eat butcher’s meat."
Ronald J. Sider, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.
Pound for pound, many vegetarian foods are better sources of proteein than meat. A 100-gram portion of lentils yields twenty-five grams of protein, while a hundred grams of soybeans yields thirty-four grams of protein. But although meat provides less protein, it costs more. A spot check of supermarkets in Florida in August 2005 showed sirloin steak costing $7.89 a pound, while staple ingredients for delicious vegetarian meals averaged less than $1.50 a pound.
Becoming a vegetarian could potentially sve an individual shoper at least several hundred dollars each year, thousands of dollars ove the course of a lifetime. The savings to consumers as a whole would amount to billions of dollars annually. Considering all this, it's hard to see how anyone could afford not to become a vegetarian.
The realization that meat is an unnecessary luxury, resulting in inequities in the world food supply, has prompted religious leaders in different denominations to call on their members to abstain from meat. Paul Moore, Jr., the Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of New York, made such an appeal in a November 1974 pastoral letter calling for the observance of "meatless Wednesdays."
A similar appeal had previously been issued by Cardinal Cooke, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York. The Reverend Eugene Carson Blake, former head of the World Council of Churches and founder of Bread for the World, has encouraged everyone in his anti-hunger organization to abstain from eating meat on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays
"Is this not the fast I have chosen? To loosen the chains of wickedness, to undo the bonds of oppression, and to let the oppressed go free? Is it not to share thy bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless? Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own?"
--Isaiah 58:6-8
What does the future hold? If the world population triples in the next century, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.
But this is slightly more than the total land mass of the six inhabited continents! We are already desperately short of groundwater, topsoil, forests and energy.
Even if we were to resort to extreme methods of population control—abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc.—modest increases in the world population during the next century would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption.
On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.
Father Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, author, and founder of the Riverdale Center for Religious Research in New York, endorsed Steven Rosen's Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions when he wrote in 1987: "...vegetarianism is a way of life that we should all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being, and spiritual integrity."
Would it be unusual for a Christian teacher to teach compassion towards animals to the point of vegetarianism? Abstinence from meat as nonviolence and as asceticism has its place in the Christian tradition. Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity were vegetarian.
The early Christian fathers followed a meatless regimen. Until the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church had ruled that Catholics observe certain fast days and abstain from eating meat on Fridays in remembrance of the death of Christ. After 1966, the rule was relaxed, so that Catholics need only abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent.
There is nothing, therefore, in Scripture or the Christian tradition that would prohibit Christian denominations from admitting that the concession to kill animals reluctantly granted by God in Genesis 9:3 along with the prohibition against consuming animal blood which is repeated in the New Testament (Acts 15) does not represent His highest hopes for humanity (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9); recognizing God’s love and goodness towards the animals; citing the lives of the saints and religious leaders in Christianity who taught compassion for all living beings; and recognizing the virtues of vegetarianism.
In his book, Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man’s Treatment of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, writes with regret:
"It has, I think, to be sadly recognized that Christians, Catholic or otherwise, have failed to construct a satisfactory moral theology of animal treatment."
Vegetarianism is ethical, healthier, "environmentally correct," and economical. It has been said that if each of us had to kill animals every day for his or her own meat, most of us would choose vegetarianism. The vegetarian way of life is consistent not only with human anatomy, the Bible, and Christian tradition and theology, but with Western spirituality in general.
Random thoughts| 6.15.11 @ 12:35PM
Vegetarians think globbally and act locoly.
johncarcar | 7.28.11 @ 7:48AM
Castles n camera Productions is a Jaipur based Shooting Handlers in Rajasthan having base at Jaipur and regular offices at Udaipur , Jodhpur , Jaisalmer , Bikaner , Mandawa & Pushkar .
http://www.rajasthanshooting.com/