Bush and the environment

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Nov. 19 2002,20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,147)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$!<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, that's why you European guys have to drive super-mini-compact 4-cylinder cars where you're stuffed tighter than sardines in a can while we arrogant Americans get to sit in our big block V8 cars like kings in a sofa      

On the other hand bottled water here costs twice as much as gas.  No sarcasm.<span id='postcolor'>

lol try the VW Passat! no difference between an american car for me. you don't really need more space in a car! so it's not that our cars are crappy little sardine tins. they can be as comfortable as US cars, but more economic.

we always had a german and an asian car, the asian cars really are small! but our last "asian" is a van now.

i've heard that car salesmen in the US promise you low leasing rates if you lease a car, but the rates become higher within time. and if you can't pay them anymore they'll send people that steal and return the car. is this true?? a pretty scary situation for a member of a "motorized" society?

hmm i like the german water, bottled not out of the valve! i never drink anything else.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Nov. 19 2002,21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"so what US needs is good public transportation system that can compensate for driving."

A society that cant develop proper bus and train communications must surely be underdeveloped... : )<span id='postcolor'>

well, for example, in suburbs around LA, roads are minimum of 3 lanes wide. and it was built that way from the beginning. laong the roads are dense residential areas, also making a public transporation system within that not easy.

and the original planning of the suburbs were maed so that you can drive within short distance to get neccesities.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ Nov. 18 2002,21:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,147)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...What's the prize for petrol in the US?? i think it's 50 cents for a litre(i've read this a while ago). in germany we have to pay around 2$!<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, that's why you European guys have to drive super-mini-compact 4-cylinder cars where you're stuffed tighter than sardines in a can while we arrogant Americans get to sit in our big block V8 cars like kings in a sofa      

On the other hand bottled water here costs twice as much as gas.  No sarcasm.<span id='postcolor'>

Um, i dunno about other people their car, but the 'european' cars you are talkin about don't look like that where i live.

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 19 2002,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if any european lived in US cities for longtime, especially in suburbs, there is no way you can take either public transportation or walk. due to sheer size of suburbs and their land developement, finding a shop closest usually means 1-2 miles away. no, i'm not living in a freaking farm land, but a well developed suburb. it is to the point where 1 block is about half a mile or so long. so that's why we have freaking 3 cars per house hold. 1 for dad, 1 for mom, and maybe one for kids since mom can't be everywhere at once.<span id='postcolor'>

i know this problem of city planning. there aren't any shops or public locations in the suburbs. and the Mall is outside the cities. the cars are probably needed.

i live in an average german town on the countryside like many germans do. it only takes ten minutes to get into the "city" (the core of european towns with shops, restaurants, etc..). we mainly need the cars to get to the small villages around, to our workplaces, or for shopping. the next big city (Hamlin ) is 45 minutes of car driving away.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 19 2002,14:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if any european lived in US cities for longtime, especially in suburbs, there is no way you can take either public transportation or walk. due to sheer size of suburbs and their land developement, finding a shop closest usually means 1-2 miles away. no, i'm not living in a freaking farm land, but a well developed suburb. it is to the point where 1 block is about half a mile or so long. so that's why we have freaking 3 cars per house hold. 1 for dad, 1 for mom, and maybe one for kids since mom can't be everywhere at once.<span id='postcolor'>

So that's the problem, lack of Quicky Mart close to home.  So then the US should open it's doors to more people like Apu so they can open up a billion more Quicky Marts all over the place so people could walk shorter distances to get food/beer/porn.

When I visit some relatives in up-state New York, they're in a semi-rural area.  It's maybe 100 feet between house, and there's no farms, just big yards.  In order to get to the closest store, it's a 10 minute drive one way.  

Here in the city, i'm 2 blocks from a food store, video store, subway station, post office, everything i need is more or less in walking distance.  But I still use a car more often.  Why?  Did you ever try to walk while holding 48 bottles of beer and food for a week?  I'd have to make like 3 trips.  This isn't 1800s, we get in our cars and go and pick up all the shit in one trip, thus giving us more time to play OFP.  Sure when I go downtown i'll take public tansit (i hear parking in NYC is $30 a day in a lot!.  Anyways, SUVs/light trucks are needed for winter driving.  20cm of snow fell yesterday, you know how many VW Beatles i saw on the road yesterday or today? None.  Why?  They're all stuck in their driveways.  Sure they look fun and have good MPG, but they can't cut it with the weather goes bad.  And since it's snow here from november to March, it's pretty much needed to get anywhere.

-=Die Alive=-

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Nov. 19 2002,21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, SUVs/light trucks are needed for winter driving.  20cm of snow fell yesterday, you know how many VW Beatles i saw on the road yesterday or today? None.  Why?  They're all stuck in their driveways.  Sure they look fun and have good MPG, but they can't cut it with the weather goes bad.  And since it's snow here from november to March, it's pretty much needed to get anywhere.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

we usually just change the tyres for the winter season.

the roads are always cleared of snow where i live. my dad was driving in his 4x4 Subaru Impreza to work in the woods every morning. he had to drive on real dirttracks where the snow sometimes was about 50 cm high. he even did this in a Fiat Panda!

so there's no problem with weather and snow here. but there are somitimes heavy accidents on the freeways when it's slippery in the winter.

Subaru Impreza

Fiat Panda

hmm i think we have to change the title of this thread, or we have to stop the offtopic discussion.

[Tydium 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Anyways, SUVs/ light trucks are needed for winter driving.

<span id='postcolor'>

Really ?

I wonder how we can manage without them. Most people in Finland drive normal sedans.

[brgnorway 0]

-=Die Alive=

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, SUVs/light trucks are needed for winter driving.  <span id='postcolor'>

Rubish! But of course, I bet the car salesmen would like you to believe that and the trend oriented hyped up people as well. Fact is a front drive small car is all you need on most roads or in urbanized areas. The weight of the engine make the front tyres grip rather well on slippery surfaces. A rear wheel drive car will suffer from poor grip. A SUV has the advantage of 4x4 but is at the same time much more prone to tip over because of it's high center of gravity. That is possibly the most dangerous thing you could be facing because there is obviously no crash/deformation zone in the roof. A SUV also needs a considerably longer braking distance because of it's sheer weight. The 4x4 system is however always a good thing in slippery conditions - but you don't need a SUV/light truck. Most Volvos, Audis, Subarus etc are better alternatives than a SUV. If I had to drive a car in the norwegian mountains in the middle of the winter I'd go for one of these instead of a SUV. Imagine yourself sliding around in a car weighing close to 3500 kg on tight mountainroads with mountain on the one side and a 200 meter drop off on the other side.  

[Balschoiw 0]

Fact is:

US population compared to world population: 5 percent

US power consumption compared to rest of world: 75 percent

It´s not only cars, it´s fridges, light, heating, airconditioning, electricity consumption....

US does not rock in power saving, do they ?

We have city busses running here in germany that are powered by natural gas. Only thing that comes out of their pipe is steam. Also BMW, Mercedes Benz and other companies are developing alternative methods of firing a car. They are already running with no difference to regular fueled cars.

We do a lot here for our environment only to find out US pack anything into plastic and put a heater into the atmosphere...

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US population compared to world population: 5 percent

US power consumption compared to rest of world: 75 percent

<span id='postcolor'>

Canada is just as bad. But:

You're over looking the fact that the U.S. and Canada alone are easily twice and three times the size of Europe. Hell, Ontario is almost the size of Europe but only has 10 million people in it. Because of the huge size differece, we have to use lots of gas just to get where we are going. Climate also makes a difference as well, in North America we have everything from burning deserts, humid swampland, open plains, and arctic tundra. The amount of energy needed to keep people warm/cool in those places also requires us to use more energy.

Things might be easier for you Euro-peons because you are all crammed into your countries like sardines.

I don't think Canada or the U.S. should ratify the Kyoto agreement, it simply wasn't tailored for our size.

Tyler

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 20 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-=Die Alive=

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, SUVs/light trucks are needed for winter driving.  <span id='postcolor'>

Rubish! But of course, I bet the car salesmen would like you to believe that and the trend oriented hyped up people as well. Fact is a front drive small car is all you need on most roads or in urbanized areas. The weight of the engine make the front tyres grip rather well on slippery surfaces. A rear wheel drive car will suffer from poor grip. A SUV has the advantage of 4x4 but is at the same time much more prone to tip over because of it's high center of gravity. That is possibly the most dangerous thing you could be facing because there is obviously no crash/deformation zone in the roof. A SUV also needs a considerably longer braking distance because of it's sheer weight. The 4x4 system is however always a good thing in slippery conditions - but you don't need a SUV/light truck. Most Volvos, Audis, Subarus etc are better alternatives than a SUV. If I had to drive a car in the norwegian mountains in the middle of the winter I'd go for one of these instead of a SUV. Imagine yourself sliding around in a car weighing close to 3500 kg on tight mountainroads with mountain on the one side and a 200 meter drop off on the other side.  <span id='postcolor'>

I think the fiat panda came in a 4x4 version also equipped with bull bars on front.

ps what does suv stand for exactly?

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Nov. 20 2002,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think Canada or the U.S. should ratify the Kyoto agreement, it simply wasn't tailored for our size.

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Tell me something - why should you bother at all? You'r only doing your best to fuck up the environment - hurting other people is ok with you, isn't it?

Large distances are not a problem for at least trying to reduce emissions.Facts about Norway:

Area  323 878 sq km (125 050 sq miles)

Population  4 423 300

If no one are willing to try - nothing will happen, and we will all suffer. I'd say I would hold people like you responsible for possible future environmental catastrophies. Bloody crybabies whining about the price of fuel! That's pure egoism!!!

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Nov. 20 2002,01:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 20 2002,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-=Die Alive=

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyways, SUVs/light trucks are needed for winter driving.  <span id='postcolor'>

Rubish! But of course, I bet the car salesmen would like you to believe that and the trend oriented hyped up people as well. Fact is a front drive small car is all you need on most roads or in urbanized areas. The weight of the engine make the front tyres grip rather well on slippery surfaces. A rear wheel drive car will suffer from poor grip. A SUV has the advantage of 4x4 but is at the same time much more prone to tip over because of it's high center of gravity. That is possibly the most dangerous thing you could be facing because there is obviously no crash/deformation zone in the roof. A SUV also needs a considerably longer braking distance because of it's sheer weight. The 4x4 system is however always a good thing in slippery conditions - but you don't need a SUV/light truck. Most Volvos, Audis, Subarus etc are better alternatives than a SUV. If I had to drive a car in the norwegian mountains in the middle of the winter I'd go for one of these instead of a SUV. Imagine yourself sliding around in a car weighing close to 3500 kg on tight mountainroads with mountain on the one side and a 200 meter drop off on the other side.  <span id='postcolor'>

I think the fiat panda came in a 4x4 version also equipped with bull bars on front.

ps what does suv stand for exactly?<span id='postcolor'>

That's right - the Panda also came in a 4x4 version.

SUV= Special Utility Vehicle. To me it stands for something silly simply because most of them never will see any terrain except for the occasional curb!

[brgnorway 0]

On the lighter side of it - Tradgedy for you english fellows:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2490725.stm

[FSPilot 0]

I think Americans need to use more fuel efficient cars. And yes, some companys (I think Mazda?) are coming out with cars that use batterys for the unefficient gears and a fuel motor for the more efficient gears.

But anyway, I do a lot of driving, and I see a lot of gas-guzzling SUVs and smoke belching tractor trailors driving around. So I do recognise that the U.S. does have a problem with this. But before people start pointing figures and crapping all over George Bush, why don't we do something productive and brainstorm solutions? Arguing isn't going to help at all.

[ralphwiggum 6]

SUV= Sport Utility Vehicle

and seldom i see those SUVs going nuts on unpaved road. it's all about the image.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Large distances are not a problem for at least trying to reduce emissions.Facts about Norway:

Area 323 878 sq km (125 050 sq miles)

Population 4 423 300 <span id='postcolor'>

population of 4 mil? i think that is about the size of LA or slightly bigger. if i remember correctly LA city alone has 3.8 mil population. if LA county is put in calculation..ouch....and now you can guess how big US is, and Canada which is bigger.

[ralphwiggum 6]

speaking of fuel efficient cars, Honda and Toyota already has one step advantage over Ford. one time Bush showed how hybrid cars would save environment and said, they are coming...well, typical Bush's loss of info Honda and Toyota already has that.

los angeles city parking officers drive hybrid honda civic(seen some 2yrs ago) and Toyota's small one(forgot the name) is also around(Prius?)

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 20 2002,02:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">population of 4 mil? i think that is about the size of LA or slightly bigger. if i remember correctly LA city alone has 3.8 mil population. if LA county is put in calculation..ouch....and now you can guess how big US is, and Canada which is bigger.<span id='postcolor'>

I understand your point - but look at it this way:Norway is not a "compact" country, it is stretched out - so we are talking about long distances.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/illus/1056500.html

My point was that long distances are no excuse to not trying to reduce pollution. Many countries are large. Should China or India not think about pollution because of that?

[ralphwiggum 6]

in US, job places are furhter than rest of the world thinks. my shooting range is 8 miles away, and my school is about 30 miles away.

most working ppl drive at least 20 minutes on car, meaning they goto work place that is about 10miles away. so distance is the problem when it comes to US. LA is an extremity, but from downtown to suburbs( ) it takes 1 hour driving during rush hours. and that is about 20-30 miles.

and that means more time on the road, more gas spent. change in environmental policy would mean we have more public translportation, which is a good solution, but it's hard to come by. so using Europe's transit models onto US cities is not a good idea. problem is, developing takes time.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">problem is, developing takes time.<span id='postcolor'>

problem is : There is not much time left till things get out of hands for all of us.

I know major oil companies bought patents up to keep them in the desk. They dont want alternatives to oil come up till they got their oil business made and then they will offer alternative power sources.

The Saudis are developing major Hydrogen plants at the moment. As Hydrogen will be an alternative fuel for the future they are starting to build huge solar plants at the moment to get liquid Hydrogen. They have the money and their fuel reserves are not endless. So they decided to invest into their future. For sure for money reasons, but I don´t mind as long as the planet will benefit.

What really needs to be changed is the attitude of people towards pollution and power consumption. We have to save ressources and get away from the consuming society to another one that thinks a bit more.

Global heating is no joke and the effects are visible. So there should be no argueing about the effects or reasons but a immedeate change in pollution policy. US is not known to be very cooperative at this. Most of the other world countries are. There has to be a change. If little isles are sunk and the ozon hole is bigger than US there will be nothing left to do.

Australia suffers a lot from Ozon Hole. Skin cancer rate is growing worldwide, but profits seem to be more important than human life.

I agree that all should work together in this case as it affects the whole planet, but I doubt US is a good partner in this at the moment. They simply deny the ozon hole and global warming. That is not very good for the future.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([TU]$33ker @ Nov. 19 2002,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we usually just change the tyres for the winter season. <span id='postcolor'>

we do too. I just put my Hakka Q's on yesterday

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 20 2002,02:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and that means more time on the road, more gas spent. change in environmental policy would mean we have more public translportation, which  is a good solution, but it's hard to come by. so using Europe's transit models onto US cities is not a good idea. problem is, developing takes time.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe it is a good idea - but as you say - developing takes time. But we also have to start sooner or later, and I'd like it to be now. There are several things one can do - many of them unpopular. Motorway tolls are very unpopular but could be used in a way that would encourage people to travel together instead of one person - one car. Double the toll on the people driving alone in a car. Dump the ticket prices on trains and busses. Reduce taxes on electric and hybrid cars. In Norway the electric cars are free of taxes when purchased and there is no motorway tolls either. For most people these cars would work perfectly well in urban areas, but as allways the lack of prestige of owning one makes people have second choice about buying one.

On a larger scale one could implement wind- and wave-generated electricity, solar powerplants, hydrogen fuelcells etc.

Personally I love cars and I'm no hippie, but not doing anything at all scares me. Maybe I'll get a Think when I have finished my studies at uni?

http://www.thinkmobility.com/overview.asp?ProdCode=CITY&TID=916279

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Global heating is no joke and the effects are visible. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the glaciers have been melting since the ice age, what's your point?

When the advantages of owning a Hybrid car outweigh those of a normal one, ie: cost of repairs, bigger savings on gas, and so on, I'll get one.

So far, you only save a few hundred bucks on gas per year. I could buy a used Honda Civic in good shape for $3000 (CDN) or buy a new Honda Hybrid for $20,000+. Combine this with the cost of replacement parts and repair which is expensive for new technology. That's alot of money. I would only save about $500(CDN) per year on gas. You do the math. In just over 30 years I might actually break even!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Norway:

Area 323 878 sq km (125 050 sq miles)

<span id='postcolor'>

The Province of Ontario:

Area:1,076,395 sq km (415,598 sq mi)

Not even close.

When I go to University next year, I might be going to McMaster in Hamilton Ontario, that's about a half-our drive on the Highway: one way. Roughly 50km one way.

Right now I put about 20km on my car per day, just to go to the nearest High School, and I live in the city!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hurting other people is ok with you, isn't it?<span id='postcolor'>

WTF are you on about?

I'm all for reducing pollution, so long as it makes sense. Canada can come up with it's own ways of cutting pollution amounts, we don't need someone else to tell us what to do or how to do it, they don't live here.

Tyler

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Nov. 20 2002,03:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, the glaciers have been melting since the ice age, what's your point?

<span id='postcolor'>

What's your point? Ignorance?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Province of Ontario:

Area:1,076,395 sq km (415,598 sq mi)

Not even close.  

<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that your county or country is so large that there is no point in taking actions to reduce pollution? After all, carbon dioxide from cars are not the only source of pollution. Much can be done putting restrictions on industry, developing alternative energy sources etc.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I go to University next year, I might be going to McMaster in Hamilton Ontario, that's about a half-our drive on the Highway: one way. Roughly 50km one way.<span id='postcolor'>

Use another way of transport such as buss or train - or join up with other people going the same way - hell, you might even save a few bucks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right now I put about 20km on my car per day, just to go to the nearest High School, and I live in the city!<span id='postcolor'>

I live in a city too. Im using my bicycle every day to get to work and uni. Thats 16 km every day. Big deal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm all for reducing pollution, so long as it makes sense. <span id='postcolor'>

Reducing pollution does indeed make sense. So do it!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Canada can come up with it's own ways of cutting pollution amounts, we don't need someone else to tell us what to do or how to do it, they don't live here.  <span id='postcolor'>

....wich brings to my mind the US way of thinking (even though you are canadian). International treaties are considered to endangour the Constitution - must not happen!

[cybrid 0]

No offence but you Euro's seem to be bitching and whining about somthing that you don't really understand. Everything here in Noth America (and by that I mean U.S. and Canada) is big, really big. I live in a well developed grid pattern subdivision and all the lots are 150 x 100ft, and prices range from $150,000-300,000 (can). I drive more than 15km to get to school, my closest living friend lives 2 km away. I've seen pic's of european cities and wonder how people can live there, and I think I'd struggle to fit my mom's car on those extreamly narrow streets. These are big countries and everything here has to be large so it all fits together, for instance, have any of you ever seen an American freight train? x4, 5000hp diesel locos pulling 100 or more cars each with a length of around 50-80ft.

Just have to ask, Does anyone here from Europe have a realistic solution for N/A's energy use? And to say, we already have alot of efficent cars, you euro's seem to be under the impression that we all drive big SUV's (although there are more of them around then there should be).