Quirks & Quarks

I consider the destabilisation of our planets climate to be a global environmental crime aginst life on our planet. Corporate tobacco used fraudlent science while fooling millions with cool powerful sexy actors that smoking a lethal addictive cancerous product was acceptable .
The automobile corporations have used the same actors and deciet to sell an unsustainble, uneconomical and unethical agenda. If we are going to survive we need an international criminal court for environmetal crimes against humanity.

"The monster truck, surrounded by green plants as though it is environmentally friendly"

That's a bit unfair. If anything, it is the monstrous SUVs and trucks that MOST need hybrid systems. A Tahoe hybrid cuts 5L/100km from its city fuel consumption (15L->10L). A buyer getting a Tahoe hybrid over a regular full-size SUV saves more gas than 2 Prius buyers getting the Prius over a comparable small car. Assuming that the Tahoe buyer actually uses their vehicle to its fullest*, there is nothing wrong with hybrid SUVs.

*This is the main problem with SUVs, which is people buying them without needing them. . If you're a business doing mostly city deliveries, a large hybrid makes a lot of sense.

Bob McDonald should be given the order of Canada for the years he has dedicated to educating Canadians about all things science. His energy is boundless and his enthusiasm infectious. Once again his analysis is bang on. This hiatus in the economy will hopefully give industry a chance to catch up to make changes in more environmentally sound ways. From the tar sands in Athabasca to the vehicles from Oshawa and Oakville industries all over the planet need to figure out how to create products that leave a smaller carbon footprint. Not only companies but governments need to think beyond the next quarter’s stock prices or the next election. We need big ideas and leaders with a vision to do what science tells us we need to do and Bob McDonald is the guy who can communicate that information to a public who are light year ahead of the leaders!

I feel that the North American automobile consumer has to share the blame. The auto makers are not likely to produce a product that they know will not sell well. It was and is consumer demand that drives the Big Three to produce the SUV's that fly off the car lots. When an oil crisis or financial crisis occurs, suddenly everyone becomes "green" again and forces the auto makers to adapt to the fickle demands of the consumer. We have to be consistent in our wants and needs when it comes to purchasing products that have a significant impact on our enviornment.

I wish people stopped blaming corporations for the world's ill. This thinking solves nothing. We the people have to live a more holistic life and have to think more clearly.
It's a basic fact that burning certain fuels will cause pollution. When our ancenstors burned wood or coal the cities were very dirty. And we could see it in the air.
We sort of improved the cosmetics, but we are still polluting. We are faced with cleaning up our act. This means less driving and less cars or stand before the God of technology to save the day. History teaches us that this God is a delusion. Some of the solutions proposed are absolutely stupid. I have come to the conclusion that oil is actually our best hope, when combined with battery power.
Hydrogen is so far into the future that money would be better spent on battery research and building better engine technology. We have designed home heating systems that are 90+% clean. I'm sure we can design cars that are 90% cleaner.

i keep looking for unusual sources of 'quick fix' energy, and i am hopeful that obama and putin can not only reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the world (to about 50 or 100), but also use up the nuclear energy currently stored in warheads (as best as possible in current reactors)prior to other 'non-renewable resources' - a timely win-win scenario.

Art from Waterloo, you totally missed the point. It isn't that hybrid technology is going to save us all, it's that an attitude change is what is going to be the biggest factor. You seem reluctant to change yours.

Recently, when fuel prices stretched the ability of gas station signs to display the bad news, I heard from many people that they were leaving their SUV's and big trucks at home, in preference for their second vehicles, small cars, and economy sized trucks.

They started talking about getting rid of their big vehicles. After all, climate change and carbon footprint were considerations. I thought, gee, this is great. High fuel prices really are making people start to think about toxic footprinting.

Then overnight, some months later, the gas station signs sprang back to their two digit advertisements, and all the SUV's were on the road again, all the big trucks were dwarfing my small car in the parking lots.

Sadly, I realized that the flip flop in vehicle use had nothing to do with the cost to the environment, it only had to do with the cost to the consumer. Fickle friends you have Mother Nature!

And, by the way, am I mistaken, or as of Friday 20th, are the words 'walk', cycle, street car, or car pool not mentioned anywhere on this blog ? Reduce seems to be the last word we think of, still. We could give those manufacturers a run for their money you know.

Kate

The only thing that surprizes me more than our ability to adapt, is our stedfast adherance to unhealthy dependencies.

I admire the optomism, but hope only for incremental improvements that don't ultimately prove to be temporary.

The biggest science story this century is the deadly (and growing more deadly) gap between Science and Politicians. Scientists (as a globe-spanning yet tightly-knit group) need to stop playing good ol' soft-ball, but we need people like Bob McD. to help sort out the exact rules for the kind of hardball that will produce results rather than a global impasse, or mass-arrests of decent people who can speak only the truth.

Your work is cut out for you, Bob. Hop to it, please and thanks?

I think it is time we went past the hybrid stage and took a hard look at flywheel technology. With a bit of fine tuning, and some will power, this may hold the key to efficient storage of power for everyday use. By virtue of the fact that electric cars would have so few parts in them, they have to be much less expensive to manufacture and by that same virtue more reliable. Think of all the parts an electric car does not have: radiator, starter, carburetor, exhaust system, muffler, fuel pump, water pump, air filter, manifold, pistons, camshaft, sparkplugs and sparks, (and all the wire that feeds the engine,) fuel tank,gas gauges, etc etc.

These flywheels could be charged up in 15 minutes and seem to run, with no load, for weeks or longer. Mind you, there are drawbacks, but hopefully nothing that couldn't be overcome.

"Sadly, I realized that the flip flop in vehicle use had nothing to do with the cost to the environment, it only had to do with the cost to the consumer."

Kate got it right with this statement. The only way consumer habits will change is when it affects their pocket books. The Liberal Green Shift plan was correct in this regard - increase the tax on gasoline while lowering personal income tax will force people to reevaluate their spending habits.

This crisis illuminates the fundemental flaws in so many parts of our society. The automobile and what it means to us is very much under the spotlight now. Personal transportation and that we expect it as a right of our society has to be looked at very carefully. I think we will soon have to start combining energy-transportation-housing needs as an overall approach and not with hydrocarbons(oil) as the key element.Perhaps sustainability should be our focus. I personally think that we can still have personal transportation but I envision it looking much different than it does right now. Maybe generic electric cars that combine with trains that marry personal transpo with public transpo.Why not combine an improved electrical grid with the transportation system. ( a real hybrid system). Most of the technology required is available now. People who really want a Hot-Rod-SUV-CUV-HUMMUV or whatever, if they can afford them, could still indulge but at a premium price.
I guess my overall feeling is that we are not going to fix this mess we have gotten ourselves in by doing the same old thing. We NEED bold thinkers, supported by the political will to fundementally change the way we live and what we expect from our society. If we dont find a way to fundamentally change these things we are not going to like the result. Maybe if we set a 50 year goal now, to doing these kind of things, we might be able to hope for a better future.

Umm...did we forget about public transportation??? Imagine if you could go almost anywhere with public transportation, you wouldn't need a car! A really good, around-the-clock, on-time-reliable public transportation system would help ease back on automotive demand (ie gasoline, motor oil, grease, tires, etc).
Could the BIG 3, do it again? I think so. But they're going to need more than billions of bailout money to get out. They're going to need a major stimulus of innovation and ingenuity from all studies to get out of this one! As for hybrids? Please...that's just a crawling start. We will eventually move away from fossil fuels, that's a guarantee! And 'eco-friendly'? That'll be sewn into generations later, but not now, we're still learning how to make the needle and thread. And of course, generations will look back on us and laugh, "What the heck were they thinking?"

This economic downturn is a great opportunity for industrial re-tooling and consumer re-focusing. We have the chance, with the hammer of government bailout money, to focus our industrial infrastructure on re-designing itself to produce sustainable products and services. Our leaders need to move fast and effectively to ensure bailout money is used to transform, not only the auto industry but every other major industry.

With less cash in everyone’s pockets consumers now are having a moment of pause; time to shake their heads, time to say “hay I got to get me stuff that’s better for my wallet and the planet.” We need clear leadership, to show consumers the power of new technologies and the benefits of adapting to new realities.

We need our leaders (political, bureaucratic, and industrial) to tune into the facts and promise of science. For too long those of us in know (science literate) have focused on scaring the hell out of everyone; we need to make sure our leaders know the true potential of science to bring about the revolution we so desperately need.

Phil Switzer

Apart from driving smaller and driving less, why doesn't everyone force industry to make products such as toasters etc. that last as long as they used to 30 years ago?

My parents had a Sunbeam toaster that lasted more than a quarter century- and HAD IT BROKEN DOWN, they could have taken it to a small appliance repair man to fix or my Dad would have been able to buy the parts and do it himself.

Today, we would just shrug and toss today's brokent toaster onto the ever-growing piles of dead products. Sadly, that repair man is long gone also.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more for something if I could be assured it would last longer.

Yes, it's time to seriously re-evaluate our way of living - starting in our own homes.

I must admit I've bought all of my vehicles from GM over the last 30 years. When I think back the biggest reason is that their cars were at a reasonable cost and when I turned the Key it would start. Unlike the trend in the last 20 years I've been buying smaller and more fuel efficient cars. My current GM car (the exception not the rule) gets close to 6 liters per 100 kilometers. I think they have lost sight of what the public wants or needs. I predict that in the next 20 years oil is going to become too expensive to burn. Then we'll be looking at hybrid or electric or hydrogen to power our cars. The first automaker to anticipate the future and to cover all the bases will probably survive. It's all about market share. The computer industry proved this in the last 20 years. Look at the fortunes of Apple when Steve Jobs was replaced by a CEO who was more concerned about dividends. Look what happened when Steve Jobs came back and the company produced innovation and products the public wanted.

I drive a 6.1L 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8. It drinks gas, however I guarantee you I spend half or less on gas than the average hybrid owner. Why? Because I live downtown and walk to work, and I don't drive my car in the winter. My next vehicle will be a big truck to tow a big boat.

I LOVE my Challenger and every penny of gas is worth it to drive! It's massive and fast and gets me and my friends to the cottage with all our stuff. That can't be done in a little hybrid. There will ALWAYS be people like me, and car companies need to respect us and make cars for us as well. We don't live in tight quarters like in Europe or Asia; therefore we have a need for much larger cars to take us and our stuff to all the places we need to go. Building efficient large cars is equally as important for North American’s as building efficient small cars. There is a reason that the North American car companies quickly returned to large vehicles after the oil crisis in the 70’s... because we as North American consumers have a legitimate need for large cars. I am of the mindset that rather than giving up the things we need and want, we should find better ways to build them – or just use them sparingly when we actually need them.

Why has our government(s) FAILED to plan for this over congestion of these stinky, noisey things. ? Their are thousands of deaths each year from auto accidents. Injuries are tens of thousands in numbers.This is a HEALTH matter as well.
Why does the Health Department overlook all of this. Meat, possibly tainted, cheeses and spinach as well as baby bottles were removed from shelves but automobiles get the continual go ahead?
The social costs are about $200 Billion each year in Canada.Taxpayers don't complain about the money spent on roads,maintenance,hospital costs,police surveillance, courts, coroners,etc.

Governments have been in collusion with the automobile companies. They support each other. Public transit is viewed as inconvenient. There is not adequate and innovative public transit because people CHOOSE to drive and use the lack of and inconvenience of public transit as an excuse. Even if it was available, they will still CHOOSE to drive.
It is now very habitual and an ADDICTION.