Would you give up your hobbie to save the planet?

[rookie]

CO2 output must cease altogether, studies warn
Research points to years of warming even with ambitious emission cuts.
From MSN.
Studies: CO2 output must cease altogether - Washington Post - MSNBC.com

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

I wonder how many people would be willing to make a total life change to benifit those around them, even if those around them don't change a thing.

[Belgian1979vette]

Probably gasoline will be to expensive to use it in cars by 2020 so I really don't think it will be an issue anymore after that. Moreover because of the economical recession caused by high oil prices, everything else will be very expensive by then (not at least food which is something that is becoming more expensive as we speak). I would think people would have more problems than just the climate alone.

It is something like choosing between a certain death and possible death. What would people choose do you think in that situation.

Perception is that the CO2 problem is a luxury problem. I do not agree with that. If possible I would not use any energy because it is getting rapidly very expensive. Thing is that you need to, just to live, work and whatever necessary to keep yourself and your family alive.

[seattle smitty]

I'll duck your question (and will refrain from commenting on the assertion that we must "stop all CO2 emissions") by saying that if we make big changes to our regular practices, and minor changes in some of our hobbies, we can keep the hobbies.

Speaking to the hobbies first, I'd like to see most of the motor-racing organizations start doing their part by switching from gasoline to alcohol (methanol can be made from garbage, and is a better racing fuel than gasoline except in endurance racing and airplane racing). If NASCAR and the others voluntarily initiated this change, before the more bellicose motor-hating Greens start screaming at racers, we could actually get credit for being part of the solution. But since sanctioning bodies typically lack imagination, and since nobody thinks they should be inconvenieced, we can expect the enviro-Leftists generate a lot of pressure against us from the non-racing public by pointing out to the public just how much petroleum we are wasting for our private ammusement. Too bad for us.

[rskrause]

Clearly, that choice is not necessary. Assuming it really is necessary to severely decrease carbon emissions, we will simply switch to racing something else which produces less carbon. A couple of buddies and I were talking about some of this just this evening. We (racers) will race anything. Doesn't have to be carbon powered.

Richard

[seattle smitty]

It is going to be politically necessary, Richard. I'll say it again, anti-engine greens will start shining a spotlight on the petroleum consumption of racers, and they will be able to present big numbers that will put us in a bad light in the eyes of the general public. It is already d@mned hard to keep tracks open for amateur racing, and you probably have seen more than one track lost in your area.

I'm saying that racers can preempt the extreme-greens and get valuable public relations points by switching to carbon-neutral fuels now. If we wait, we'll be screwed. See what your buddies say to that.

[BLK98MK8LSC]

NO. Im not swayed by propaganda.

[rskrause]

Originally Posted by seattle smitty

It is going to be politically necessary, Richard. I'll say it again, anti-engine greens will start shining a spotlight on the petroleum consumption of racers, and they will be able to present big numbers that will put us in a bad light in the eyes of the general public. It is already d@mned hard to keep tracks open for amateur racing, and you probably have seen more than one track lost in your area.

I'm saying that racers can preempt the extreme-greens and get valuable public relations points by switching to carbon-neutral fuels now. If we wait, we'll be screwed. See what your buddies say to that.

I see what you mean. It makes sense and would open up a whole new cohort of potential sponsors for the pros. Companies trying to green up or those already with a presence in "green tech". I think it would most likely start with the pros, but it would be neat if amateurs could lead the way. I love the IC engine, but racing is what it's about, not so much what you race. I think it (racing) will never die. But like any organism or dynamic player in an ecosystem the rule is "adapt or die".

Richard

[panic]

Interesting, and rather irrelevant question.
Fairly similar to one I have encountered a few thousand times in the last half century: "What do you mean, you don't vote? What if everyone didn't vote?"

Both of these pre-supposes that the behavior of anyone else is predicated on mine (viz. they will not act until I do, and then only to imitate me), which of course is absolute nonsense.

I'm extremely careful concerning matters where my action has an effect.
With matters where nothing I can possibly do, or say, have even the slightest effect - not so much.
Or does anyone believe that if I throw away my car keys the planet will change?

[seattle smitty]

The Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest, the field so big that it heretofore allowed the Saudis to moderate world oil price fluctuations by themselves, has recently been determined to be drawn down far below its halfway point. Short-sighted politicians tell us that we are very far from "running out" of oil, which is true on some scale, but we very definatly are running out of easily-extracted AFFORDABLE oil. Opening up the wilds of Alaska to drilling won't change this, Canadian tar-sands won't, the Spratly Islands won't.

My attitude is that expensive petroleum should be reserved (as soon as we can do it) for its "highest and best uses." As a non-oil example of this principle, take knot-free old-growth Sitka spruce timber, which has been cut and shipped to Japan in large volumes for decades. Most lumber today is punky, open-grained cr@p, but old-growth Sitka Spruce is a wonderfully old-fashioned lumber, good for building small airplanes and watercraft and musical instruments, and to my mind these are its highest and best uses, NOT building houses in Japan. The Japs tell us (and I lived there for half a year, with a carpenter's family), "It is our tradition to build houses with clear, fine-grained beams!" To this I say, "Times change, tough luck." Similarly, times are changing for the American driver and consumer. Tough luck. Adapt. If we drive smaller, less powerful, lighter vehicles during the week, burning fuels that are farmed or reconstituted from garbage, we save petroleum for higher and better uses, such as organic chemicals, airplane fuel, and so forth. Motor racing is a higher and better use for petroleum than is daily commuting; so is pleasure boating, so is motorcycling. And even then we can substitute bio-fuels in many cases. Petroleum, like Sitka Spruce, should be reserved first for those applications in which nothing else will do, the highest and best uses.

[seattle smitty]

To Panic's rational and valid observations, let me counter-pose a ancient truism from the world of motorsports

The Hundred Pound Rule of Motor Racing states, "There is no place you can take a hundred pounds out of the car. But there might be a hundred places you can take out one pound."

I believe the Hundred Pound Rule to be one of the most widely-applicable and profoundly wise and useful principles going. Hardly any public problem of consequence can be solved with a single big change. In almost every field, from the economy to education, to national defence, to the war on drugs, to whatever topic interests you, the solution requires a great many small steps. This is emphatically true of what we're addressing here: dependence on (expensive) foreign oil, environmental pollution, and the possibility of cllimatic alteration by eight billion industrialized humans.

The Hundred Pound Rule confirms that neither Panic, nor I, nor all of us at this site can solve or even measurably affect these problems. But the Rule says that the problems may still be solvable.

Politicians are utterly oblivious to the Hundred Pound Rule. They think only in terms of big answers, of the big bills that they argue for months, pass in a blaze of headlines, and brag about forever after, while the problems continue, only slightly affected. It will require a major attitude adjustment (possibly spurred by an actual national emergency) to get them to realize that what's called for is continuous small improvements, few of which will be front-page stories.