Air Pollution Problem

[SunfallE]

I was reading an article ?Hazy Days in our National Parks? in the June 2005 edition of Smithsonian when I came across some startling information. ?Over the past century or so, man-made haze has cut average visibility in the eastern half of the country form 90 miles to between 15 and 25 miles. In the arid and naturally clearer western states, visibility has dropped from 140 miles to 35 to 90 miles.?

Further along in the article it discussed possible causes and research found that the pollution in question came almost entirely from the United States alone. Only about 16 percent came from sources outside the US. It also discussed a little of the differences between the current Clean Air Act and the Clear Skies that the Bush administration is proposing.

Since I find the decrease in air quality appalling, I looked further into the difference between the Clean Air Act and the Clear Skies proposal and the biggest difference I found was that the Clear Skies would allow companies to continue running power plants that pollute more by buying credits elsewhere. Where the Clean Air Act would require them to be fixed much sooner.

So what do you all think? I personally think that plants that pollute more need to be fixed instead being allowed to continue, so I would prefer we stick with the current Clean Air Act. I mean if that much visibility has been lost in only 100 hundred years, I shudder to imagine how bad it will be in the next 100 years.

[Kamuro]

[COLOR=Olive][SIZE=1]I live on the east coast, and can pretty much assure you that what you're reading is true. Things have gone way to far over the years and its becoming worse and worse. Now, I was never really adamant about these things, but its horrible to think that when I have kids they'll have to live in a barren world deprived of the things I once loved. Its be horrible to think that in the "not so distant" future a flower could be nothing more then a memory, and the beautiful world we've come to know will be wasted. I'm not quite sure of the right way to go about fixing this problem, but I think it should be a top priority.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]I'm a Brit, so I didn't have any say, but I actually wanted Kerry to get into power (as much of a slimeball as he appears to be) purely because he said he'd sign the Kyoto Agreement. The USA is the biggest air polluter in the world, and yet is the only country holding back from signing the Agreement. Bush's reason? Apparently it would be an unacceptable loss of quality of life for US citizens, or some such bumph. Maybe this 'Hazy Days' report will bring him to his senses, but if he's still set on his Clear Skies proposal instead of the far more effective Clean Air Act, maybe that's too much to wish for.[/font][/color]

[Samsquamch]

Well, as a Canuck, I can tell you one thing; The air here is a lot clearer than that. The only parts that are even hazy are within 100 KM from the US boarder. The Clean Air Act is probably alot better than the Clear Skies one, but the only problem is that no country on earth will just give up all their power plants. It's like we're hooked on crack, you don't just take it all away, you give us less and less until it's cool. the Kyoto Accord would really help things. Oh, and I think that China is the most pollution-producing country on earth. They have legal open Nuclear waste dumps, almost NO pollution laws, and don't show any sign of shaping up.

[Dagger]

[quote name='x kakashi x][COLOR=Olive][SIZE=1]I live on the east coast, and can pretty much assure you that what you're reading is true.[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]Yep. During certain parts of the summer, DC's air quality is rated either code red or code orange virtually every single day. Basically, this means that it can be unhealthy (to the point of being quite dangerous, at least for those more at risk) just to step out your front door, much less participate in sports or other outside activities. It's pretty unfortunate.

~Dagger~

[Umbra II]

I agree. Industrialisim has led to the burning of petro-chemical fuels, mining, the timber industry, ect. It really disgusts me where I live, because the horizon is a fuzzy grey instead of blue. They go and destroy the exterior of the earth, then put it in the air and destroy the atmosphere. I think e should be worried about how we're going to breath in the next 100 years, and not just our vision.
Does any one know about chloroflurocarbons? They're compounds that break up hte ozone layer. I believe in the '70's, it was in just about all kinds of cleaners, and that was what caused the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica. Not only are they green house gasses, which means life gets hotter, but now we have skin cancer to worry about. Beautiful prospects.
I'm about ranted out now, so I'll just leave you in peace for now.

[SunfallE]

[quote name='Blackjack][color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]I'm a Brit, so I didn't have any say, but I actually wanted Kerry to get into power (as much of a slimeball as he appears to be) purely because he said he'd sign the Kyoto Agreement. The USA is the biggest air polluter in the world, and yet is the only country holding back from signing the Agreement. Bush's reason? Apparently it would be an unacceptable loss of quality of life for US citizens, or some such bumph. Maybe this 'Hazy Days' report will bring him to his senses, but if he's still set on his Clear Skies proposal instead of the far more effective Clean Air Act, maybe that's too much to wish for.[/font'][/color][/quote]


I hadn't heard of the Kyoto agreement, but now that I looked it up it's been around since 1997. I guess I should follow politics a bit more. :animeswea I too wanted Kerry to win, but I won't go into that as it's not the main reason I posted this thread. :animesmil But it's too bad he won't sign it. Sounds like a good idea to me to do this:

The Kyoto Treaty commits industrialised nations to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, principally Carbon Dioxide, by around 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade.

I didn't know that the US was the biggest polluter. :animeangr

[QUOTE=Umbra II]I agree. Industrialisim has led to the burning of petro-chemical fuels, mining, the timber industry, ect. It really disgusts me where I live, because the horizon is a fuzzy grey instead of blue. They go and destroy the exterior of the earth, then put it in the air and destroy the atmosphere. I think e should be worried about how we're going to breath in the next 100 years, and not just our vision.
Does any one know about chloroflurocarbons? They're compounds that break up hte ozone layer. I believe in the '70's, it was in just about all kinds of cleaners, and that was what caused the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica. Not only are they green house gasses, which means life gets hotter, but now we have skin cancer to worry about. Beautiful prospects.
I'm about ranted out now, so I'll just leave you in peace for now.[/QUOTE]

I hadn't thought about how dangerous it is to breathe in. :animestun Though I know where I live we have haze all the time, and we didn't use to when I was a kid. Everytime I leave the area and come back I am surprised by how the place actually stinks. I just hadn't thought about it for a while. And even if I drive up in the mountains way up above the valley, the haze is still there.


[quote name='SadBlue']Well, as a Canuck, I can tell you one thing; The air here is a lot clearer than that. The only parts that are even hazy are within 100 KM from the US boarder. The Clean Air Act is probably alot better than the Clear Skies one, but the only problem is that no country on earth will just give up all their power plants. It's like we're hooked on crack, you don't just take it all away, you give us less and less until it's cool. the Kyoto Accord would really help things. Oh, and I think that China is the most pollution-producing country on earth. They have legal open Nuclear waste dumps, almost NO pollution laws, and don't show any sign of shaping up.[/quote]

I didn't know that about China either. I know that the US is currently trying to turn Utah into a storage place for nuclear waste from around the coutry. We've been trying to fight it but keep getting turned down. The excuse is that Utah uses power too, but we don't use power from the plants that produce the nuclear waste so why should we have to store it?

Anyway, I guess the haze is merely the tip of the iceberg so to speak. :animesigh

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Blackjack][color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]I'm a Brit, so I didn't have any say, but I actually wanted Kerry to get into power (as much of a slimeball as he appears to be) purely because he said he'd sign the Kyoto Agreement. The USA is the biggest air polluter in the world, and yet is the only country holding back from signing the Agreement. [/font'][/color][/quote]

Maybe because the Kyoto Agreement is unmeetable tripe? It's a flawed idea that penalizes industrialized countries (IE: US, Europe), while leaving the biggest pollutors (China, for example) alone.

It's common sense that the richest nations in the world already expend the most money to clean the enviornment. The flip side is that the most pollution is done by poor nations that can't afford to monitor their enviornments. (Because when it comes to cleaning litter in the park or actually eating, guess what wins?)

The Kyoto Agreement placed restrictions that would have basically allowed the US to run at modest capacity for about three months before having to shut own industrialization completely, slightly longer for Europe. It would be moronic to sign it.

[Samsquamch]

So what's more important? The techno-paradise we lavish in or our Planet Earth? Sure, the Kyoto Accord was flawed. And sure, we probably will need to influence the poor countries more. But we need to start with the largest polluters of all, The US, Canada, China, UK etc, then deal with the 3rd world. I can tell ya, if it wasn't for the money countries make by trading oil for the industrialized nations like the US and Canada, than we'd all be driving around Electric cars and powering our houses with Solar or Geothermal energy. Frankly, almost all trade passes through the US at some point. Without the US, certain countries wouldn't be able to profit off of Fossil Fuels, and we'd be able to go back in time a bit and start over. Frankly, I think that's more important than Globilazation and Industrialization, which doesn't work to well to begin with.

[Umbra II]

[quote name='SunfallE'] I hadn't thought about how dangerous it is to breathe in. Though I know where I live we have haze all the time, and we didn't use to when I was a kid. Everytime I leave the area and come back I am surprised by how the place actually stinks. I just hadn't thought about it for a while. And even if I drive up in the mountains way up above the valley, the haze is still there. [/quote]

If you think its dangerous to breathe in the U S A, then wait 'till you hear this: In Mexico City, Mexico, standing around all day out in the open is like smoking a pack of ciggaretts.
Speaking of Mexico, I live near the border and I hate it when they burn their fields and polute us here!
And China, too. every once in a while, their smog comes over here, yet they continue.
Sorry for the short post, but I've got to go.

[Samsquamch]

Ya it's true, Mexico City is the most polluted city on earth. The rest of Mexico isn't as bad though, because they don't have the industry to create the same smog. Mexico, out in the open, is a very clean and beautiful place. Sad to say, but the USA is pretty much smog from rocky coast to golden shore.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='SadBlue']So what's more important? The techno-paradise we lavish in or our Planet Earth?[/quote]

Well, I'm far from convinced the two are mutually exclusive. After all, the lowest point in air quality was the 70's, and we've made great strides in cleaning up the enviornment while simultaneously improving our technology and standard of living.

[QUOTE]Sure, the Kyoto Accord was flawed.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't what you said a few posts back :[QUOTE][b]the Kyoto Accord would really help things. [/b][/QUOTE]

Make up your mind.

[QUOTE] And sure, we probably will need to influence the poor countries more.[/QUOTE]

We do, but not in matters of enviornmentalism. At least, that's not a top priority. It'd be maddness to demand that they create and EPA while they're still trying to put food on the table.

One of the reasons that America, Europe and other western nations can afford to care about the enviornment is that we're economically prosperous enough to have the luxery of devoting resources to it. And guess why we're prosperous? Our industry.

[QUOTE] But we need to start with the largest polluters of all, The US, Canada, China, UK etc, then deal with the 3rd world.[/QUOTE]

With the exception of China, the countries you list pollute less, proportionatly, than most South American or Middle Eastern countries. And they spend much, much more from both their governments and private industries to help the enviornment that anyone else on Earth.

Enviormentalism is a concern of the wealthy.

[QUOTE]I can tell ya, if it wasn't for the money countries make by trading oil for the industrialized nations like the US and Canada, than we'd all be driving around Electric cars and powering our houses with Solar or Geothermal energy.[/QUOTE]

And you base this assessment on...?


[QUOTE] Frankly, almost all trade passes through the US at some point. Without the US, certain countries wouldn't be able to profit off of Fossil Fuels,[/QUOTE]

Right; so, let's make poor nations poorer by stripping away their most valid export. That'll make everything better.

Here's another idea: let's try to export our economic systems to these countries so that thet became stable and prosperous, then can have the resources to conserve their own enviornment.

[QUOTE]and we'd be able to go back in time a bit and start over.[/QUOTE]

Read this next line very carefully: regression is never a valid option.

[QUOTE] Frankly, I think that's more important than Globilazation and Industrialization, which doesn't work to well to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Why, you're absolutly right! They don't work at all! It's just a lucky fluke that I can walk into a store and see more food that I could ever eat, or sleep in a bedroom that I can heat or cool to my liking, or communicate with people on the extreme opposite side of the contenent, or don't have to worry about the cleanliness of my driking water, or can survive past the age of twelve despite seasonal asthema attacks. [/sarcasm]

Globalized and industrialized nations have the highest quality of life out of any nations in the world. They have lower infant mortality rates, longer life expectencies, and more individually wealthy citizens.

And, once again, it is because of all these factors that we have the resources to conserve our enviornment in a manner pleasing to us. Yes, some factors of industrialization are causing (relativly minor) problems, but remember: you only want to dump the bath water, not the baby.

[Samsquamch]

Let me repharse. I got a might bit confused and came off differently than intended.

Ahem. The Kyoto Accord IS flawed, but it is better than noting. We need to start with the countries that, incidentally, are richer and produce more air pollution. Slowly and over time, after our own pollution issues are resolved, the pollution that the 3rd world creates can be reduced, wether by their own government, or by intervention from the mroe fortunate. Enviromentalisim is NOT a problem of the wealthy. It's the wealthy who refuse to devout money to developing alternatives to Fossil Fuels, because they profit more off of Fossil Fuels and lack the foresight to see the long term conseqeunces of their actions. Why do South American and Middle Eastern countries produce more pollution? Well, probably because hardly any of these governments have a stable government. Your right, in these countries, Enviromentalisim isn't the top priority. Now, I'm not going to name any names here, but before we can work on getting the world to all agree to the Kyoto Accord. Besides this, I'm DAMN sure that alot of South American pollution comes from the burning of the Rain Forests. Rain Forestest being burnt to provide grazing land for beef cattle which is then shipped off to McDonalds etc world wide. This is hardly the fualt of South America, they don't own McDonalds after all. By giving money to the unstable governments, we hardly stableize them. All that the oil money does is fund dictatorships and such, if we stopped buying it, then what would happen? Nothing. The dictatorship governments would collapse, the people would be free to run their own country, without all the mucking about with war. Not to mention the fact that with an oil embargo, the wealthy people would fund Alternative energy sources so that they could still profit. Granted, we can't just cut oil alltogether, but slowly but surley, Oil can be phased out. It would benifit the world in the long run. However, I understand that without Oil alot of other governments would collapse. A lot of heating and such does rely on oil. I'm afraid that this is the weak link of my plan overall. Maybe a balance could be reached, but I doubt it. Besides, so long as Bush is a puppet of the Oil industry and the Saudi's, nothing as progressive as this could be accomplished.

[Godelsensei]

A big part of the pollution problem is the fact that so many people are unwilling to accept that 1) there is a problem and 2) there are things that can be done about it, many of them quite simple.

Installing more windows/skylights in homes decreases the need for electrical lighting during the day; taking public transit cuts down on exhaust fumes released into the air; not turning up your A/C so high you need a sweater in the middle of summer. These are things that can be easily built into our daily routines.

Our lifestyles and patterns of development need to change to stop further destruction of the earth as a whole. Instead of building a sprawling suburb, from which you have to drive kilometers upon kilometers to reach the grocery store, the mall, the dentist, or work, build a smaller, self-contained town. If you can walk to many of your daily destinations, you obviously wont use your car as much.
Instead of building massive houses, equip with huge lots, we should be focussing on building condominiums and town-houses, within already flourishing cities.
Zoning by-laws have worked to make this difficult, but they can be changed, if there is enough pressure for them to be.

When pollution is so out of control, it is unsafe to [b]go outside[/b], it's time to change.
If people were more willing to accept new technologies and alternative energy sources, things like geothermal energy, solar power, and wind-mills would become more commonplace and be developed further, making them more reliable and affordable.
We have the ability to use wind, the sun, and even [i]cow crap[/i] to power at least part of our cities. The alternative is getting sick from taking a walk on a hot day.
Come on.

[Samsquamch]

[COLOR=DarkRed]The saddest part about that is that people [I]won't.[/I] It really doesn't make any sense, but people have the "Oh it's alright, I'll be dead by the time the world gets like that anyway" mentallity. One of the reasons that I live out in the country, away from the city is because the only places it will become dangerous to breath is in the citites.

A lot of those things you listed would work really well if people could just accept the fact that we need to do somthing, and fast. A lot of people in my family piss me off because their all "Oh it's too cold let's turn on the heat so we don't need to be cold." When it's only -10 C outside, I don't think that heating is neccessary. It happens everyware, and it's shocking and saddening.

I think we can all learn a lesson from Japan. In Japan, almost everything is built to run on electricity and be compact and save space. I mean comon, they have electric cars (That is to say, an experimental car) that can hit 180 KM using 8 wheels.

The biggest problem, IMO, is that too many people make money selling oil products etc, that they won't invest in things like elctric cars and mass-transit systems. If the corperations could be brought down, we could easily be driving Electric/Ethanol fueled cars that barely pollute and we'd all be able to live in a happy world without the threat of chokeing to death on our own smog.

A good example is a bacteria culture. If you put a fast gorwing population of bacteria in a controlled enviroment, it shows what will happen to human beings on a scale 3000000x faster. First, the bacteria will spread. Then, once it's established itself, it will grow and grow and grow, becomming thicker and more populated. Than, finally, when their is no more room, they will die. How? A, they will run out of food, and B, they willl suffocate in their own waste products.[/COLOR]

[Kamuro]

[COLOR=Olive][SIZE=1]Personally, I don't see how the problem can be ignored any longer. When breathing has become the equivalent of smoking, shouldn't someone take notice? Well truth is they have. As DeathBug stated earlier, we've made several strides over the years to make things cleaner and we've accomplished a lot. However, the blame cannot be placed solely on a few large countries. Yes, they do cause a lot of pollution, but what do you suppose the pollution is for? The US as well as other countries depend on the products of the large industrialized countries. It seems quite hypocritical to accuse us of polluting the environment and then buy the goods we make by that very pollution.

Instead of everyone pointing fingers at one another, I propose that we work together to find an alternative to the extremely harmful pollution we use as of now. Countries shifting the blame back and forth gets us nowhere fast, and soon enough there will be nothing to argue about and the problem will have escalated so much that theres nothing left for us to do. One-sided treaties will get us nowhere (Kyoto), they will only surpress the problem momentarily, which will do us no good. We're not looking for quick fixes, we're looking for a cure.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Samsquamch]

One of the only problem I have with the US pollution laws is Ethanol. Let's face it, if it's not sold through the US, it's not going to be sold. Ethanol is a combustable fuel that isn't harmful for an engine, and it produces 10% of the pollutents of Petrol. The only thing is that it's not being sold. It's cheaper than Fossil Fuels, it's been around longer, in fact the Model T was built to run on it, and realistically it should dominate the market. Its production produces byproducts like animal feed and Corn syrup, thousands of 3rd world countries could make a better profit off of this than fossil fuels, but the US corporations WON'T, which is why I think that the only reason our enviroment is as it is, is because of the American corporations. Let's face it, I hate to admit it too, that the US controls everything in the Western world fuel-wise, and unless the corporations lose control, the world is going NO WHERE.

[Godelsensei]

Hey, tell ya what: [b]never enter the dollar store again.[/b] Do not buy useless crap you will never use just because it's "so cute". These things are unnecessary, yet mass-produced, creating tons and tons of pollution.

Don't shop at stores like Walmart and Costco, because they screw up our development patterns. They encourage the growth of suburbs, as oppose to smaller towns and cities. Relying on them for everything gives them control over how things are produced.

Don't drive cars that use ridiculous amounts of fuel. Don't drive when you could walk/bike, period.

[Samsquamch]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I don't use corporations. I am morally opposed to Walmart, K-mart, Dollerama, and anything else ending in [I]mart[/I]

I would walk/bike to places, but where I live it's simply not possible. The nearest building is around 5 KM away, cars are the only solution. If their was any E-85 gas stations in the province I'd go to them, but their aren't any. And I do go to Costco, I mean comon... Where else can you get 7 liters of Cheezewiz at an affordable price? (Sarcasim)[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]I think alot of the problems would be solved by switching to the hydrogen-cell cars. Unfortunately, this won't be a viable option while most of the world has an oil-reliant economy. It's like post-WWI and WWII. You can't switch the economy from mass producing wartime materials to mass producing peacetime materials. You'd lose too many jobs in the process, and utterly cripple the country.

It'll have to be a slow, gradual change if we want to stop the car pollution. Besides, gas is getting depleted quickly, so we're going to have to adapt.[/SIZE]

[Samsquamch]

Hydrogen-cell cars aren't a viable option yet, because upon the slightest crash the cells are at risk of exploading. Normal cars don't expload like in the movies, but Hydrogen-cell cars would be twice as exlposive as the ones in movies. I think that keeping gas will send the planet into a second great depression. First, the gas prices would mean that people spend 50% of their income gasoline. Secondly, people wouldn't be afford to go anyware. The econamy would simply collapse.

[Umbra II]

I don't know if any of you have seen the anime Ajuna, but its a 13 episode series that is mainly about pollution, our treatment of the earth, ect. (Although its vital to the argument, the following IS a spoiler for those who wish to watch it, just to warn you) [spoiler] At the end, the main charactor realizes this revalation; we are all one with the earth, which means that if we poison the earth, we poison ourselves.[/spoiler] I am inclined to agree with this idea. And I agree with x kakashi x, pointing the blame around will solve nothing. America does moe than its fair share of polluting. However, hardly anyone is going to take the advice Godelsensei posted, because no one wants to give up the life that we've grown acustomed to. Think about it. Isn't it the hight of hypocrosy to be complaning about polluters when we ourselves are [I]at this moment[I] using a technology (the Intrenet) which is most likely using fossil fuels? This Idea only just struck me, and I think its cruel irony as well as hypocrosy.
By the way, DeathBug, you bring up some valid points, and it is true that we are living in a prosperous time (in America, at least) At the rate we're burning things, if we don't stop now it might be to late (analogy:a car going extremely fast, aka 100+, needs to brake a good deal before he can read the stop sign.) As well, have you ever seen a parabola? Its one of those weird mathematical equations that, when graghed, goes up up, reaches its peak, and goes down. Sorry to get mathematicall on you, but here goes: Let us say that the X variable represents The rate of industrailism, and the Y variable represents the state of the Earth, including atmosphere and the available food. Ata ceatian point in the parabola, the state of the earth will be pretty high, because of al the food, but past that point, as industrialism groes, the state of the earth declines, untill it hits zero agian. (The first zero being when there is no industrialism at all.) I suppose that a guestimation equation could be Y=Xsquared + 100X-X to the third power. I apologize if it confused any of you, but it makes sense to me. Kind of.

[SunfallE]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei]A big part of the pollution problem is the fact that so many people are unwilling to accept that 1) there is a problem and 2) there are things that can be done about it, many of them quite simple.
[/QUOTE]

Sadly this is all too true. Before I read the article in the Smithsonian I had mentioned to some of the people I know that it seemed to me that visibility had decreased over the past 10 years. But they told me I was imagining things! So it really caught my attention to read about decreasing visibility in the Smithsonian as it proved that I wasn't just imagining that pollution was a problem.

[QUOTE=SadBlue][COLOR=DarkRed]The saddest part about that is that people [I]won't.[/I] It really doesn't make any sense, but people have the "Oh it's alright, I'll be dead by the time the world gets like that anyway" mentallity. One of the reasons that I live out in the country, away from the city is because the only places it will become dangerous to breath is in the citites.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I know. It drives me up the wall that members of my family won't even try to recycle or conserve. Take my Dad for instance. He needs an air intake for the upper level of his home. Instead of paying to have one installed he just shuts the vents to the lower part and basically runs the central air all day long in a vain attempt to cool the upstairs. It's just sheer stupidity. He just can't grasp the concept that if he put the air intake in, the air would circulate properly and the money he would save in electric bills since he wouldn't have to run the central air all day, would eventually pay for the cost of putting in an air intake. In fact in the long run he would end up saving money and use less power!

[QUOTE=Godelsensei]Hey, tell ya what: [b]never enter the dollar store again.[/b] Do not buy useless crap you will never use just because it's "so cute". These things are unnecessary, yet mass-produced, creating tons and tons of pollution.

Don't shop at stores like Walmart and Costco, because they screw up our development patterns. They encourage the growth of suburbs, as oppose to smaller towns and cities. Relying on them for everything gives them control over how things are produced.

Don't drive cars that use ridiculous amounts of fuel. Don't drive when you could walk/bike, period.[/QUOTE]


I am going to say one tiny thing in Wal-Mart's defense. I'm a truck driver and some of the driving I've done has included delivering frozen and fresh goods to Wal-Mart stores. When you haul those type of goods for Wal-Mart you have to use a refrigerated trailer that meets their standards. This results in a trailer that is several thousand pounds heavier than other refrigerated trailers. If you think about how many truck loads go to each store, that is alot of money spent in exta trips to deliver goods. Their reasoning is that with better refrigerated trailers, you have less problems with the food being spoiled when it arrives at the store. Which in the summer months can be a big problem with other refrigerated trailers. So not only do you have to throw the food away but you have to waste fuel on another trip to bring the goods to the store. So in the long run the better trailers result in less waste. Plus they also have thee different temperature zones, not all of them have this feature, so you don't have to waste trips brining frozen and fresh stuff seperately. I'm sure Wal-Mart could use other major improvements, but I found it amazing they were smart enough to figure out that in the long run, better built trailers resulted in less waste, less trips and even saved money at the same time.

[Raiyuu]

[quote name='SadBlue'] Hydrogen-cell cars aren't a viable option yet, because upon the slightest crash the cells are at risk of exploading.[/quote]
[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]True, but Toyota now sell a 'hybrid' car. It's partially electric and switches between that and a regular petrol engine. So part of the power of the petrol engine goes into recharging the electric battery, and whenever you're driving at a rate that it can handle, the electric motor takes over, switching back if you need more power, to go up a hill or whatnot. It's good to see some multinational companies trying to help the environment.[/font][/color]

[Samsquamch]

Somthing I've always wondered... Did you know that the Electric car pre-dates the petrol one? 1835-39 was when the first car built to run on Electricity was built. Now this is where things get wierd. Why in the **** would a car like that be completely frgotten by the rest of the world? Just imagine if the Electric car had been the focus instead of the combustion enhine. Just imagine. We wouldn't be in this crisis, we wouldn't be suffocating to death on our own waste, we wouldn't be fighting wars over oil.

Oh, and Wal-Mart is rather smart to do that... Although I still don't advocate the large one-stop-shop places, because they screw the little guy and force people to drive even further away from where they were because now the generalstore/independent grocer is out of business. Furthermore, it hurts the local econamy.