Bent over at the pump.

[CowboyFromHell]

Just like the motorcycle myth that they are cleaner.
A motorcycle engine has no pollution controls what so ever.
It spews more hydrocarbons than most 4 cylinder cars.

Not true in many cases. Sure that may be true for older bikes that are still on the roads but for approx. the past 10 years bikes are getting more and more tech including fuel injection and engine management.

[Bert]

I'm biased of course, but the Volt is pretty sharp looking if you ask me. But yes, it is expensive and it only seats 4 (though quite comfortably). All this stuff about batteries ending up in landfills, perils of mining, yadda yadda yadda, are just the usual half-truth talking points from entrenched interests. The batteries can be used in other applications long after they leave your car: http://www.iveho.com/2011/07/31/gm-p...olt-batteries/ Plus research into other recycling approaches is ongoing ... the technology around electric vehicles is developing fast and it's making big oil and some parts of the automotive industry nervous.

[canadian bacon]

I doubt the auto industry is nervous, they'll simply produce and sell whatever people choose to buy (unless the goverment incents or forces them to develop losers). Heck, if we all crush our gas guzzlers to make beer cans the auto manufacturers win by selling whatever "new" technology replaces them.

[Nightbat]

Hybrids cost less than a SUV, I've had more compliments on my insight that any car I've owed(which just kills me) but they are not that bad anymore(except for the toyota), the battery is small price to pay in a land fill compared to the our air quality, I doubt mining for the battery is no worse than mining for coal, the toxic water from nuc. plants, or drilling for oil.
you have me on the diesel cars(except the price). Diesel is less regulated than gas and the trucks that run on diesel cause more air polution then cars do but the new diesel cars do run very clean.

Bold part: what do you think you're filling your battery with
Fairypiss?
Antimatter?

How about coal, oil and gas, all of which are mined and burned to create electricity


If you really want to think "Green" think which energysources cost less energy to 'mine' compared to how much they provide:

Coal, Gas, Nuclear fission

Hydro/aero/bio-electric do not provide sufficient yield
Hydrogen needs more energy to get it contained then it puts out

[canadian bacon]

Or you could follow the example of acclaimed environmentalist, Whitney Houston, who discovered a way to dramatically reduce her carbon footprint.

[Bert]

I doubt the auto industry is nervous, they'll simply produce and sell whatever people choose to buy (unless the goverment incents or forces them to develop losers). Heck, if we all crush our gas guzzlers to make beer cans the auto manufacturers win by selling whatever "new" technology replaces them.

Sure, but that transition is going to be costly and uncertain. Some companies are going to lose out, particularly the large inefficient ones. In other words, pretty much all U.S. manufacturers... this is also why they consistently rally against increased mileage & safety standards.

[rjohnstone]

Not true in many cases. Sure that may be true for older bikes that are still on the roads but for approx. the past 10 years bikes are getting more and more tech including fuel injection and engine management.

Nope... Been busted.
The cleanest running bike on the market today still produces twice as much hydrocarbons per gallon of gas as a 1.8 litre 4 cylinder engine. You're confusing fuel efficiency with pollution released.

Still waiting for someone to show a legitmate recycling use of NiMH or Lithium ion batteries.
All I've ever seen are case recycling with the cores being stored in containment facilities.

[Rich#6]

How about coal, oil and gas, all of which are mined and burned to create electricity

I'm not filling my battery with shit, you don't plug in hybrids.:think:

[canadian bacon]

Sure, but that transition is going to be costly and uncertain. Some companies are going to lose out, particularly the large inefficient ones. In other words, pretty much all U.S. manufacturers... this is also why they consistently rally against increased mileage & safety standards.

Costly and uncertain if forced through government intervention (like Flex Fuel/ethanol). But appropriately timed and effective if done in response to REAL market conditions.

[Rich#6]

Nope... Been busted.
The cleanest running bike on the market today still produces twice as much hydrocarbons per gallon of gas as a 1.8 litre 4 cylinder engine. You're confusing fuel efficiency with pollution released.

yes and no. A motorcycle that goes 50 mpg has the same hydrocarbons as a car that has 25mpg then right? they need start putting catalytic converters on cycles.

[Nightbat]

they need start putting catalytic converters on cycles.

...my 2006 GSXR already has that

[Rich#6]

...my 2006 GSXR already has that

Shows you what I know about motorcycles. If what Rick says is true then they don't work that great.

[Nightbat]

Shows you what I know about motorcycles. If what Rick says is true then they don't work that great.

Define 'great'

It would be a better idea to put catalytic converters on volcanos, since one eruption emits 10-100's of times more pollution then all our 'polluters' combined in a year


If you think heavy industry and traffic is a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Indonesian_forest_fires#Estimated_cost

[Rich#6]

[QUOTEDefine 'great'][/QUOTE] If they still put out more emissions than cars and they have smaller engines they dont' work very well.

[CowboyFromHell]

Well since you really want to debate it, why not measure the number of cars on the road vs the number of motorcycles. Sorry but total bikes don't cause anywhere near as much polution as total cars.