

| Subject: | Re: Global Warming My Vanagon? |
| From: | David Milo |
| Date: | Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:49:32 -0400 |
"The whole Earth Catalog" yes, and what a wonderful thing it was. Very useful. Dave On 3/14/07, Jim Felder <felder@knology.net> wrote: > > Right on. I remember that during a past energy crisis in the > seventies, when I was driving a loaf 7-passenger, that vehicle got > very high praise in a magazine article (whole Earth Catalog? Anybody > remember that?) as having a very high passenger mile ratio. That was > the name for it back then, passenger miles. People just aren't > thinking that way anymore, apparently. HOV lane qualification means > two, where I can recall. > > Thanks for reminding me of one more good thing about Vanagons. > > Jim > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 4:48 PM, kenwilfy@comcast.net wrote: > > > One other factor to consider is the amount of people you are > > carrying in your van. We typically carry 6 people. Say your > > Vanagon gets 16 mpg. 16x6 would be 96. If you owned a toyota > > prius, got 40 mpg and only carted two people you are talking about > > 80. So in that case the Vanagon is being more efficient. That is > > why Buses and Trains (not really fuel efficient at all if you just > > look at mpg) are considered green ways to travel because you split > > the crappy mpg between 50 people on a bus or hundreds of people on > > a train. So I say keep your van on the road. And when you pass > > someone in a hybrid just wave and say to yourself, "Nanny, nanny, > > noo, noo, I am greener than you, you!" I'm glad there isn't a law > > against being immature (yet)! > > > > Ken Wilford > > John 3:16 > > www.vanagain.com > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Jim Felder <felder@KNOLOGY.NET> > > > > > When you do, be sure you include the cost of manufacturing all the > > > parts of that new vehicle compared to the "already paid for > > > carbonwise Vanagon," which can be said for all existing cars kept on > > > the road to displace the creation of new ones... > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Tom Buese wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Joy Hecht wrote: > > > > > > > >> Haven't noticed any flaming but yours, Robert! I have no > > interest in > > > >> starting a discussion about global warming here. > > > > > > > > Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of our beloved > > vanagons & > > > > compared it to a newer more energy efficient vehicle? > > > > > > > > Just cur ious, > > > > > > > > Tom B.-talking about overheating > > > > > > > >> If you want to show > > > >> support, great. If not, fine. The events are the same weekend as > > > >> Every > > > >> Bus, which I don't want to miss just for a demonstration - hence > > > >> the post > > > >> here. > > > >> > > > >> As my mother would say, yes please or no thank you will do > > very well. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Joy > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> :::-----Original Message----- > > > >> :::From: Vanagon Mailing List > > [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On > > > >> Behalf > > > >> :::Of Robert Keezer > > > >> :::Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:47 AM > > > >> :::To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM > > > >> :::Subject: Re: going to Everybus? Concerned about global > > warming? > > > >> ::: > > > >> :: :Jeff Lincoln wrote: > > > >> ::: > > > >> :::"50 years ago smoking wasn't a health risk, but > > > >> :::now we know it is." > > > >> ::: > > > >> :::I have a 1952 Life Magazine with an article about > > > >> :::how doctors were claiming cigarettes were the > > > >> :::cause of cancer. > > > >> ::: > > > >> :::As far as global warming goes this science is > > > >> :::exactly why I am subscribed to the Vanagon list. > > > > >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »