wade_rose Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Los Angeles 5/5/06<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoneguy Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 DITTO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_lupton Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 You lucky lucky people - try 93.9p per litre. roughly equivalent to $8 per gallon - stop whinging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan park Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 You see America used to be one big forest now its one big road. Even where I live its almost unheard of to see someone walking because quite frankly its too dangerous. We need cheap gas and lots of it to keep the ants scurrying along the paths quickly moving goods from one place to the next. Without it we have no identity or purpose because what is an American except for a person who works in order to consume. That is our national psychosis, that is America and gas is our blood.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pturton Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 At 4.5 Litres per gallon it' retail cost has increased 18X since I entered the work force. If I were still working, my wages would have seen an increase of 28X. But, I'm retired and my income is only at 9X.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaskan ivan Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 dead american soldiers and utimatly the death of most of the human race is the true price of gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_taylor Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 "You see America used to be one big forest..." No, it was never "one big forest." It always contained a wide variety of environments like today, including massive deserts. BTW, in many areas there are more trees and larger forests today than there were when the pilgrims landed. U.S. forests have been growing in area for decades. "...now its one big road." No. I forget the exact percentage, but less than 10% of the continental U.S. is developed. Less than 5% of the U.S. including Alaska. We have national parks that easily eclipse our largest cities in land area, and massive swaths of undeveloped, untouched land. Take a drive (oops...maybe a train) across the country sometime and open your eyes. "Even where I live its almost unheard of to see someone walking because quite frankly its too dangerous. We need cheap gas and lots of it to keep the ants scurrying along the paths quickly moving goods from one place to the next." We need cheap energy to live and work in a land area so massive. The U.S. is the third largest nation in the world by land area. The world's entire population could fit in an area the size of Texas. Alaska is twice the size of Texas. Getting a clue as to our land area yet? "Without it we have no identity or purpose because what is an American except for a person who works in order to consume. That is our national psychosis, that is America and gas is our blood." When I was younger it was Catholics telling me I was sinful for wanting to touch my girlfriend. Now it's environmentalists telling me I'm sinful for wanting to drive. If you're going to try and make Americans feel guilty, at least get your facts straight first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan park Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Daniel I just want to start off by telling you that I am an American. Born and raised. In fact I'm even a car loving American. I wonder how I could of sounded even the least foreign to you unless you think it is un American to question America (our founding fathers didn't). As for America I've lived all over from the northwest to the southwest to the northeast and I currently reside in the southeast. So yes I'm familiar with the different ecosystems of this country. As for the forrests one of the largest roadbuilders in this country is the Forrestry survice. Don't believe me look it up. Got to get the logging trucks back up into our cache trees (which happen to live in our national parks). The point to my earlier comments was not to bash Americans of which I would be including myself as well. It was simply to state that we have gone from viewing cars as a relative novelty at the turn of the last century to having them become essentially part of our individual identity. Sort of like an armored second skin. As the population grows each year the number of cars grows causing roads to get widend and new roads to be added. Sure we got lots of room in this country but we also got lots of roads too. Just take a look at the sattelite photo of LA. Its a concrete lovers paradise. And just imagine if you can what california looked like 100 years ago. Paradise absolute paradise. Parts of it thankfully have been saved by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt the rest squandered. Sold to the highest bidder paved and a starbucks put up in its place. So with all these cars comes a high price. The price which I think is even higher than the financial burden of our current energy source fossile fuels. The price I'm speaking of is the scarring up our beautiful countryside with the roads. And I'm not talking about the sedate meandering country roads that I love to drive on. No I'm talking big honking interstates and mini interstates that connect wal marts to wal marts. Lets face it we are addicted to cars. And one thing an addicted person never does is question there addiction. We'll I'm questioning it. To what avail who knows? Dan P.S. Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy a good discussion. And since this forum is really about pictures doing our talking for us it would be a disservice not to add one. Oh and BTW super unleaded (what my car takes) is 2.99 a gallon.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katzpjs Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_kramer Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 what does that say, oowl induction? now we are wasting owls too, not just gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disneyry Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Daniel, where are you getting your statistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wade_rose Posted May 6, 2006 Author Share Posted May 6, 2006 Just sold my 70 ssls5 454 got a 69 maro now merlin 540 4mpg 116 octane 7.00 agal....:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jautey Posted May 6, 2006 Share Posted May 6, 2006 Daniel is using statistics from a 1987 USDA study that measure only urbanized land as developed land. It did not factor in agricultural, mining, timber or ranching use of the land as developed land. So if we are to use that limited definition he would be right, but I think that such a limited definition is silly, since if you turn the soil, dig a pit, cut a part of a forest that definitely constitutes development. If we were to use the broader and more reasonable definition of developed than I suspect that the percentage would reach into the forty-percentage range. I'm not including Alaska because that would skew just about any statistic on anything. I haven't found any reliable studies on the more inclusive definition of development so if anyone knows of any studies I would be happy to amend statement. Regarding the statement that there are more trees today than say 200 years ago, I've read that too. However, to state that there are more forests now than then, is simply ignorant and smacks of talk-radio. If we consider just the basic definition of a forest as any biological community of plants and animals that is dominated by trees and other woody plants and of large land area than we must exclude those areas where most of the tree population growth has occurred, tree farms and urbanized areas. And Dan from 1990 to 2000 the lane miles in the United States increased only 1.8 percent. Moreover the overwhelming amount of the growth occurred in urbanized areas. So now we aren't building roads over everything, logging roads aside. So don't sweat it, there are millions of acres in the US that haven't been developed (yet). God help us if oil is discovered under Old Faithful. If you really want to do something about "national psychosis" than drive a more efficient vehicle or even a flexible fuel or hybrid. (There are pros and cons to both flex fuels and hybrids, but there still better than any Hummer.) Encourage your friends to do the same, encourage, don't preach. I've been paying 2.25/gallion for the last couple of months and havenメt noticed an increase in gas prices. But I put E85 in my truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watermelon Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 99.99 British Pence per litre where I bought my lunch yesterday. Good job the car wasn't with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillot Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_taylor Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 "Daniel I just want to start off by telling you that I am an American.Born and raised. In fact I'm even a car loving American. I wonder howI could of sounded even the least foreign to you unless you think itis un American to question America (our founding fathers didn't)." It was your characterization of America as going from all forest toall road. "The point to my earlier comments was not to bash Americans of which Iwould be including myself as well. It was simply to state that we havegone from viewing cars as a relative novelty at the turn of the lastcentury to having them become essentially part of our individualidentity. Sort of like an armored second skin. As the population growseach year the number of cars grows causing roads to get widend and newroads to be added. Sure we got lots of room in this country but wealso got lots of roads too. Just take a look at the sattelite photo ofLA. Its a concrete lovers paradise. And just imagine if you can whatcalifornia looked like 100 years ago. Paradise absolute paradise.Parts of it thankfully have been saved by the likes of TheodoreRoosevelt the rest squandered. Sold to the highest bidder paved and astarbucks put up in its place." Some of California was a paradise. Much of what was a paradise remainsa paradise, thanks to many people including some that you mention.Much of the rest of it was fairly plain, even ugly, empty land and desert. This would include most of LA and the Inland Empire. Looking at a map, I really don't have a problem with LA's concretewhen much more beautiful areas are preserved, especially when theytend to be larger. "The price I'm speaking of is the scarring up our beautifulcountryside with the roads. And I'm not talking about the sedatemeandering country roads that I love to drive on. No I'm talking bighonking interstates and mini interstates that connect wal marts to walmarts." Picking a route maybe we've both taken, I-15 from the southernCalifornia area to Las Vegas: does that really bother you? Yeah, it'scrossing an otherwise "pristine" desert, but look at all that desert.If you got out of your car and hiked a ways, you would never know thefreeway was there. If you hiked far enough, you would die and turn to bone before anyoneever found you, if you were ever found. Is it really destroying nature to take that thin artery betweencities? How would we get between them otherwise? Railroads also takeup space. Planes burn more fuel. "Lets face it we are addicted to cars. And one thing an addictedperson never does is question there addiction." Oh yes, we are addicted. But what else would we use? Nobody hasinvented a teleporter yet ;-) "P.S. Thanks for the reply. I always enjoy a good discussion. Andsince this forum is really about pictures doing our talking for us itwould be a disservice not to add one. Oh and BTW super unleaded (whatmy car takes) is 2.99 a gallon." I paid $3.49 this morning :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_taylor Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 "Daniel is using statistics from a 1987 USDA study that measure only urbanized land as developed land. It did not factor in agricultural, mining, timber or ranching use of the land as developed land." Whoa. I might agree that agricultural and mining should be included in a definition. But timber and ranching? No. Just because humans decide where some animals should graze rather than they grazing themselves does not mean the land has lost all natural value. And forests used for lumber have ecologies every bit as important and active as protected "old growth" forests. As we have learned from fires, forests which are cleared and regrown benefit nature in critical ways. "Regarding the statement that there are more trees today than say 200 years ago, I've read that too. However, to state that there are more forests now than then, is simply ignorant and smacks of talk-radio. If we consider just the basic definition of a forest as any biological community of plants and animals that is dominated by trees and other woody plants and of large land area than we must exclude those areas where most of the tree population growth has occurred, tree farms and urbanized areas." I couldn't disagree more. It is skewed to automatically label any piece of land that a human has used in any way as "developed", where to the average person "developed" means nature does not exist there (i.e. a Walmart) but they can get gas and a coffee 24 hours a day. If I dropped the average American off in the "ranch" that my friend's parents own in Colorado, they would call it "wilderness" and die of starvation before finding their way to a "developed" area. Any way...I should probably post a photo...will do tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asafrye Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 thought the gas was bad in my area. . .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillot Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 shhhhhh !! no words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now