Interesting posting and I think it raises hugely important issues. Cleaner energy, renewable energy and improving the efficiency of vehicles is critical. The oil price hit new record highs today of over 78 dollars per barrel it will probably not be long before even higher levels are seen. However, one ray of hope is that vehicle producers are gradually responding to the challenge. Old diesel powered cars were ghastly, but I was reading in the Financial Times of all things that BMW is seeing record demand for its latest diesel powered vehicles which are very fuel efficient. Average consumption is 5 litres of diesel per 100km (almost 60mpg) and are vastly less harmful to the environment as the emissions are way below average, but the vehicles themselves are still enjoyable to drive. Sometimes makes me wonder when I see people sitting inside vast SUVs as to whether 400hp is really necessary for the daily traffic jams on the commute between Nyon and Geneva. Although to be fair, energy efficiency is something that everyone should be thinking about and as an added bonus the cost savings add up too. Reminds me, must switch off my computer this evening and make sure the TV is not on "stand-by!"
phil, Aug 2, 2007 @ 02:06

While you can refill you tank with 60 liters of gas in 5 minutes, it takes hours to recharge your electric bateries. Reason why electric cars are especially appropriate for urban / daily commuting use. Hybrid ones are best for multiple uses: city, highways, etc.
Hobbes, Aug 2, 2007 @ 13:07

- the average engine improved efficiency doesn't compensate the ever increasing average car weight and average daily distance ran by inhabitant. ABS, airbags, electric mirrors, electric seats, air conditioning, etc. weight and consume more than the extra energy saved, and businessmen travel more km per week than our grandparents did in their entire life

- any car requires energy. Fossil energy can't be ecologically friendly. In the best case, a smaller car is just a bit less bad than others. Electric cars are only more ecological if the electricity is produced with renewable energy (solar, wind, etc), which is not often the case. Bio fuels are just not the solution either. It takes about 1 liter of gas to produce 0.9 liter of “bio” fuel

- any new car manufactured requires about 300'000 liters of water and 30 tons of raw material. In France, every year, 280'000 tons of old tires, 30'000 tons of battery waste and 400'000 tons of special waste are produced by cars

- last point, a known vicious circle kills most green efforts: whenever someone switches from an old noisy and uncomfortable 7l /100km car with crapy radio for a brand new quiet and comfortable 5l / 100km “greener” car with MP3 player, that’s person will tend to use his car much more often. Knowing that the 2 liters saved are only worth 40km, a return GVA – Nyon ride more once in a while make the new “green” car as bas as the older one.



Ways to really get greener:
- use public transportations (but airplanes), walk, cycle or car share

- don’t own a car, or if you do, use it as little as possible and drive green (gently)

- stay local whenever possible. Think about conference calls instead of traveling, or use train instead of airplanes for travels within Europe.

- think global. Transportation is only one source of pollution. Buy raw local bio fair trade goods whenever possible. Use low energy lights. Don’t air condition. Don’t buy unnecessary / disposable items (shopping shouldn’t be a hobby but a political action). Heat your flat max 20C in winter. Recycle. Eat less meat and more vegetables. Stay fit and be happy (happy people consume less pharmaceutical products) :-D
Hobbes, Aug 2, 2007 @ 14:00

Agree with you that speed has not been the problem.

Acceleration, on the other hand, has bothered many. See the Edgar review of Solectria. He wrote - "(Electric cars) don't come within a bull's roar of petrol."

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/article.html?&A=0789

Ability to charge your car quickly is indeed an interesting challenge. A lot of progress has been made there too. For example, Ford's PosiCharge can do the job in 10 minutes or less. GM's MagneCharge too takes about the same time. Toshiba and few other battery companies are claiming the ability to charge 80% of the pack in about 60 seconds - which would be faster than the taking few minutes to pump gasoline.

I do not believe electric vehicles, or fuel cells, are in our near-term future. Still, as elsewhere, activity here illustrates how human mind, passion and persistence can achieve a lot.
colorado, Aug 2, 2007 @ 16:20

Agree with some of your suggestion. It is often greener, simpler, healthier and more comfortable, to use the public transport. Also agree on energy efficient lighting, Phil's suggestion on unplugging the TV, solar and wind energies are more greener, and such ideas.

I am not convinced about a few of your comments.

For example, I would be interested in your source of the numbers - takes 1 liter of gas to produce 0.9 liter of biofuel.

Here is what I know - Corn is currently the leading source of biofuel for automobiles (Brazil, USA, etc.). Corn needs fertilizers, tractors, etc. to farm. It takes energy to deliver seeds to the farms and it takes energy to deliver the harvest to the biofuel refineries. The biofuel refineries themselves use energy. If you add up all the energy needed to produce and deliver biofuel from corn, and compare it with conventional fuel, you win. It takes 1 liter of fuel to produce 1.3 to 1.35 liter of equivalent-performance biofuel. Furthermore, if you examine this closer, you find that it takes 1 liter of petroleum fossil fuel to produce 6 to 7 liters of equivalent-performance biofuel. For more, consider the Shapouri analysis (Brazil, Japan, European analyses seem quite similar):

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf

It gets even more interesting when we look at global warming issues. Biofuels in automobiles offer a better balance and reduce the rate of greenhouse gases.
colorado, Aug 2, 2007 @ 17:12

There are few other interesting comments Hobbes made. Let me address some in this post. Other comments - may be when I have a bit more time.

Lets consider Hobbes suggestion - eat less meat and more veggies. Is that greener - that is, more environmentally friendly?

The technical answer is: it depends. Producing veggies requires far less amount of energy and ecological resources than meat. However, for the same protein amount, veggies need a lot more energy to transport and deliver. The advantage sort of washes out. Locally produced meat can be more environmentally advantageous than veggies produced in distant markets. They are also fresher, more nourishing, taste better and support local community. So, even if you care about the environment, enjoying locally produce meat as part of your nutrition is a great option.

Everything has environmental impact. Producing wine. Traveling to meet your loved one. Business meetings. GoL events. Whatever.

Should we stop eating meat, stop drinking wine, stop traveling to look someone in the eye?

My answer - No.

I champion that we pursue our dreams, our passions and our happiness - at work and beyond work. Additionally, actively invest our resources and talent to understand, make better choices and thereby help solve problems of today and tomorrow.
colorado, Aug 3, 2007 @ 18:47

Many people driving their Mercedes/ 4x4 sport automobiles to shopping mall buying shits they do not necessarily need and thinking bringing their own shopping bags is a meaningful and environmental act! Something is wrong here…

It certainly makes a significant environmental sense to eat more veggie and less meat apart from other many benefits. In a study which compares different protien choice, Soy v,s Meat, meat production took more land (6 to 17 times as much), water (4.4 to 26 times), fossil fuels (6 to 20 times), and biocides (a lumped-together category of pesticides and chemicals used in processing -- 6 times as much). Meat lost in every category in compared with Soy as protein source.

When processing/ transport is factored in to the equation, the difference becomes less extreme, but it's still there (1). That says to me, going to local farmer market to get local veggie stuff seems to be better than consuming processed frozen veggie burgers. There are similar studies which have concluded same results…in vegetarian active groups’ websites and factsheets.

A recent UN report even warms that: raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. This certainly a shocking fact.
"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.” Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report; Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Many other reasons to go for more a veggie life, for instant, yellow baby chicks are cute, baby sheep are cuddly….

1. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices(September 2003, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition )

p.s. Some friends told me that they need to eat meat to feel strength and power. But how come I have never seen cow, horses, elephant, giraffe, rhino that are any less powerful then carnivore? They seem to be more enduring physically than most carnivores to me! Lions spend most their times sleeping and yawning! I feel tired watching them!

In # seconds a car runs from 0-100 KM seems to be an important index for many car lovers. But apart from ambulance for life or death purpose, why do car lovers need this acceleration function? Explain?

wayne, Aug 4, 2007 @ 19:37

Don't eat meat, blah blah blah

OK so maybe we can get the same amount of proteins and b vitamins from plants, but then we would all be aenemic from the lack of iron in our system, which would lead us feeling weak and sickly most of the time (I used to be a severe aenemic) not to mention the fact we would also be lacking Zinc. Zinc deficiency results from inadequate intake of zinc, or inadequate absorption of zinc into the body. Signs of zinc deficiency include hair loss, skin lesions, diarrhea, and wasting of body tissues. Eyesight, taste, smell and memory are also connected with zinc. A deficiency in zinc can cause malfunctions of these organs and functions.

So although maybe it is less environmentaly friend ly to eat meat, I prefer to stay healthy by eating meat.
DJ_Symcard, Aug 5, 2007 @ 15:47

....enormous 400bhp SUV, red meat eating and alcohol drinking camp.

By the way, cows produce more methane and harmful smelly stuff than cars, so dont drink milk, eat the damn cows. That will save the planet.


.... oh and go plant a tree or two.

Bicycles are the sole domain of people with small nuts, why dont they make comfy seats any more, these razor blade racing seats on every bike sold these days are bad for your reproductive health. Tried it once...walked like a constipated John Wayne for hours afterwards... never again.
Charlie, Aug 6, 2007 @ 11:44

Wayne asks: Apart from an ambulance rushing to save lives, why do we need acceleration?

Acceleration (0 to 100 km/hr) is an important measure for even casual drivers. Acceleration indirectly measures one's ability to merge safely into autobahnen and other highways. It also effects the design of freeway ramps and traffic light junctions.

On soy and meat...

Soy and its other forms (tempeh, miso, tofu, etc.) are indeed an interesting and often tasty protein alternative. The Dutch/US Soy study you mention confirms that the environmental difference is remarkably smaller when you consider the effect of transportation.

Here is what makes things complicated (from memory of my past meetings with NGOs and others)

- 80 to 90% of world production and export of soy is currently in Brazil, Argentina and USA. The climate and land in these parts of the world are suited for soy farming. Switzerland, Europe, China - all import a large part of their soy supply from the Americas.

- WWF and nature preservation NGO/charities claim that soy farming in Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina has caused massive amazonian, cerrado and pampas rain forrest burning and destruction. It is claimed that this has led to huge impact on environment, wildlife, ecosystems and climate change.

- Something must be done. Good news is that Coop (or was it Migros), WWF and others recently came up with the so-called Basel standards for soy farming to make a difference in the environmental impact of soy imported by Switzerland. Yet, majority of soy farming in South America continues to raise serious concerns and request for action.

- In addition to the economics and ecology, nutritionists question if soy can completely replace other animal-based protein sources (meat, milk, cheese, etc.). Some natural ingredients in soy mimic harmones, saponins, etc. - these are claimed to cause health imbalances if soy becomes the predominant food for some.

Beyond all the technical debate, there is a bigger question. This question is important to me. What to do with the natural impulses in man - the impulse to explore, to experience a race car at 250+ kilometer per hour, to solo fly a light plane watching the sunset, experiment with the dangerous situations, drive the roads less travelled, to travel a distance so as to celebrate the perfected art of a chef.... and so on and so on.

All this has eco impact. Yet, experiencing life and new discoveries require more than guts, it requires investment of resources. Respect ecology - yes. Stop exploring and living - no. How do you do both?
colorado, Aug 6, 2007 @ 20:24

What do you see from a country when you fly over it ? Not much. What are usually people's best travel stories ? Some sort of interaction with the locals off track.

Let's only consider last sunday Slow Up. All GOLers attending it had flewn at least once (and some more than 20 times I guess) over Geneva. But when we arrived up the hill of Cologny, we were all amazed by the beautifull scenery on the Lake and countryside. It's less than 5km from the city center, and we reached it on bike in about 20 min. The week before, we had a barbecue on the lake side, just outside Geneva. Same pleasure. Have you even noticed that the scenera from a mountain is much nicer if you've walked all the way up than if you had taken the cablecar ? Some things need time to be fully appreciated. So, do we really need to go further, faster, higher, to enjoy ourselves ? Not sure.
Hobbes, Aug 7, 2007 @ 12:27

If your objective was to see that country by flying over it, but say I'm on my way over to India or Trinidad, then exploring every country on the way is very impractical. Also I don't know any people, all though I'm sure they exist, that when they want to see a country they just fly over it!!!

The hill of Cologny has a great view of the lake, but you would get an even better view from St Cergue, or one of the jura mountains, that way you get the alps in the background, pretty awesome.
DJ_Symcard, Aug 7, 2007 @ 15:19

Patiently walking up a mountain, reaching the summit, then looking over can indeed be a heavenly experience. Just like patiently learning a musical instrument, perfecting the notes, then hearing a music composition come alive.

But then, thanks to human ingenuity, there are numerous musical instruments and sounds. Harmoniously combining them creates symphonies, operas, choreography - musical experiences that a single instrument can never provide alone.

Like musical journey, scenic journeys too can be enjoyed in multiple ways. Walking provides one perspective. Driving another. Flying yet another. Experiencing life isn’t as much an Either-Or question. Rather life’s symphony can be best enjoyed when explored in diverse ways. Stand, walk, run, drive, fly while you look, hear, smell, taste and feel. Each has its distinct, beautiful beat.

Is one way better than the other? The answer is subjective.

Should our love for ecosystems and environment prevent us from exploring the universe around us and enjoying life's music? I do not think so.

I feel that our natures have inherent impulses - the impulse of curiosity, of asking questions, of a desire to learn, to discover, to imagine, to dream, to compose, to express, to build. We can not just keep our heads down, follow the herd, eat, sleep and breed – no matter how environmentally better this might be! As humans, there is something encoded with us – this need to know, this passion for truth, this instinct for love, this reverence for self.

This encoded nature and impulses are a force to reckon with. Download and watch, for just one example, Steve Job’s 2005 commencement address at Stanford University.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/videos/53.html

Environmentalists and ecology activists would be better off seeking answers that recognize human nature as part of nature. Success would then be deeper and lasting.

With best wishes from Colorado.
colorado, Aug 7, 2007 @ 19:31