Can I be an environmentalist and also enjoy vehicle dependant travel?

[Martyn]

As an individual and an owner of a company involved in vehicle dependant travel (Adventure Trailers) I feel very torn by the fact I’m environmentally conscious while at the same time I’m contributing to the pollution caused by my vehicle.

I am part of the problem and I need to become part of the solution.

It shocks me to say that on the road my Grand Cherokee gets 18 mpg and 16 mpg when towing. It’s just a huge use of natural resources and a large contributor to pollution levels. Realizing that the technology for alternative fuel is a few years down the road I have laid out a three step plan for myself;
1) Conserve fuel
2) Look for a clean burning diesel vehicle
3) Keep an eye on emerging technology

Now when I drive I use the on board computer to help me drive more economically to get better gas mileage. It’s a great reminder to take my foot off the pedal when I’m only getting 6 mpg

Talking fuel consumption two years ago at SEMA I saw a Jeep Wrangler with a Turbo Charged IVECO four cylinder engine teamed up to a 6 speed gear box. It got 45 mpg on road and 28 mpg off road. People are also putting 4 cylinder Cummins diesels in Wranglers and getting 28 mpg http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/trucks/0610dp_1993_jeep_wrangler_diesel/ this combo even passed California smog! So here is a way to at least increase my mpg.

But diesel is smelly and causes pollution due to particulate matter!
With the advent of low sulfur fuel diesels are about to become cleaner burning engines. The low sulfur allows for the introduction of particulate matter filters and Urea injection systems.

A short extract from http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/mitsubishi_fuso.html says;
“Using ultra-high pressure fuel injection reduces the particulate matter level substantially, however, there is a concomitant large increase in NOx emissions, due to the higher temperature and more complete combustion attendant to the reduction of PM. The urea SCR catalyst then, in turn, reduces the NOx emissions to the target level.

Urea SCR systems basically consists of a storage tank for the urea solution, a urea injection system, and a catalyst. The system injects urea into the hot exhaust gas where the urea decomposes into ammonia (NH3). NOx reacts with NH3 on the surface of the catalyst to produce nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O).

4NO + 4NH3 + O2 = 4N2 + 6H2O
Nitrous Oxides + Ammonia + oxygen = nitrogen + water"

Looking to the future there is a lot of good technology being developed right now check out http://www.tlcicon.com/ and click on "R&D what’s" next and you can read about a electric powered ICON Toyota Landcruiser.

Science Friday just did a wonderful program on green cars that you can download as an mp3 at http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Apr/hour2_040607.html

I would encourage you all to become early users of this new technology, and to keep on top of new developments. My hope is that Vehicle Dependant Travel can grow in the future rather than become bogged down in fuel that costs $4.00 + per gallon, dependency on overseas oil, and increased pollution.

For me this is just the start of a long conversation that needs to be held by members of the community. I’d be interested in hearing your point of view, and see where we can go from here.

[DesertRose]

This is a wonderful post, Martyn - thank you for taking so much time to put such good information - and food for thought - down on the forum.

The timing of your post is excellent, as others are struggling with the same thing and it comes out in painful ways, such as the argument over Mobil 1 being a sponsor of the recent Arctic Expedition.

Becoming environmentally conscious has been a journey for us (me and Jonathan). It's a journey of education and choices that will never end. We are constantly trying to learn more about the related topics of wildlife and habitat conservation, food growing and consumption, and energy use and development. We only recently have learned more about the connections between these things - for example, choosing to be a vegetarian based on environmental and ethical reasons does not necessarily = an "environmental" footprint on the planet. Replacing non-animal protein with plants means things like soy become more popular, and there are vast amounts of virgin forest being cleared to grow this now very lucrative crop to feed the first-world demand for what used to be a third-world food. Lost habitat - especially important forests - lost species. And transport of said crops from Brazil, for example, burn huge amounts of fossil fuels . . . While our diet of locally grown beef and/or our own hunted meat has little transport costs if any (we can hunt from our house), and if we buy from environmental ranchers, the habitat is in great shape. There are many other examples of the relativity of our consumption choices and their impact on the planet.

So to automobiles . . . There's no denying that we in the First World as individuals have far far more impact on the planet than whole villages in the Third World. So how to minimize our impact?

Your ideas to look to - and support - alternative fuels is excellent.

I was disappointed that the Dust or Glory Baja 500 expedition hasn't updated their page to tell us how the GoldenFuels system worked. I am right in the middle of investigating diesel conversions . . . and ran up against your point, that particulates and byproducts are a real problem. Burning waste oil would be fantastic. (www.goldenfuels.com)

There are also lots of interesting ways to create bio-diesel from plants that are not foodsources (I have a real problem with converting food into fuel, thus driving up prices of things like corn when millions of people in the world depend on it for daily life). Jatropha, a desert plant, is being grown in wastelands in the Third World; harvesting creates jobs and the fuel is a real viable alternative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha)

What I'm doing right now is trying to find the perfect "Eco-Overland" vehicle: economical and ecological. Newer vehicles - nearly all in any SUV or cross-over platform - have fallen prey to the American "Biggie Size Me" phenomenon. Americans are getting fatter, and so are their autos. Even the Honda CRV is pretty darn heavy and gets only 22 or so MPG in average highway/city driving. I'm so disappointed! The RAV4s are no better. [More soon in a thread I'm going to start on my search for the perfect Eco-Overlander.]

Someone posted about (RedDog?) about only driving 12,000 miles per year and commuting by bike - excellent! We don't need to worry about that because we work at home (but when in the city, I used to commute by bike, too).

What else . . . well, as much as I don't like the "trading sin" aspect of it, there is always carbon trading. My organization is investigating finding ways to offer donors in the First World a chance to pay for biodiversity preservation in East Africa - where, in the Rift Valley, there is the greatest hotspot on Earth for vertebrate (critters with backbones) diversity - and get a certified (organizations are doing this) "credit" to offset their annual use of carbon-based fuels, etcetera.

Not a perfect solution for sure - but there are some things we can't change - like turning back the clock to horses and buggies - and so why not try something different, innovative? I don't like the idea of the H2 guy being able to buy a conscience-salve . . . but on the other hand, our Maasai partners are saying "Great! Give us the money! We want to preserve our homeland, our way of life, and we DON'T want to become like you, and so let us use that money for something good!"

All this is just something to chew on.

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.climate-standards.org/

http://www.resource-solutions.org/index.htm

http://www.terrapass.com/index.html

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk
(http://www.carbontrust.co.uk)

[DesertRose]

Another thought, Martyn -

A big "YES" to your question of whether or not you can be an environmentalist and enjoy overlanding.

Why? Because exploring the world in the intimate manner of overlanding (rather than tour buses or cruise ships) brings people together from totally disparate walks of life, ideologies, experiences, and knowledge-bases.

Bringing people together creates exciting synergy to solve problems.

Solving problems is a good thing.

It works!

[Jonathan Hanson]

A brief response to one of Martyn's points regarding fuel economy: There is an issue of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call Morality of Purpose. I see a big difference between someone who explores back roads regularly and needs a suitable vehicle, one that might only get 17 or 18 miles per gallon, and the CPA who commutes across town in his never-seen-dirt H2 getting 12 mpg, just because he thinks it looks cool.

Okay, we could all give up back road exploration in the name of oil conservation, and trade in our Tacomas for Yarises. But that would divorce us from easy contact with the natural world - the very activity that makes us want to preserve open spaces in the first place.

[Martyn]

A few thoughts drawn for the posts so far.

Conservation and pollution are huge topics that interweave into every aspects of our lives. On this forum I only feel confident talking about the vehicle aspects of problem.

I may have a simplistic view of this but my feeling is that pollution and consumption are the responsibility of all who drive vehicles. There is no exemption for “Special” vehicles that allow us to explore more difficult or isolated terrain. We as travelers need to adopt the new technology and adapt it to our vehicles so that we can spearhead the way forward to low emission or no emission vehicles capable of going where we want to go.

If that were the case there would be no debate over the city dweller with the SUV and the explorer with the 4X4. Both would have minimal impact on the environment.

Martyn

[dieselcruiserhead]

Martyn,
thanks for the post as well, this is something I constantly think about as well... I am born and raised environmentalist, researched and did advocacy for GW for two years in college.. I even worked for the guy who is now the head of greenpeace USA at some point.. I fixed hiking trails in the Adirondacks for 4 summers and did a lot of real hands on environmental work.. The amount of impact that even a few hundred hikers can have, erosion wise, is surprising let alone that of vehicles.. I also run the Utah Biodiesel coop/advocacy group here.. One of the biggest reasons I am into biodiesel specifically is because of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions, supposedly a ~80% reduction versus diesel, which is already lower than gas emissions because of the increased efficiency of diesels...

All that said, there are no real easy answers unfortunately.. Of course its a balance.. If we were completely dedicated, of course the option is don't do it... But like anything it is a compromise.. And it is tough but I think we are all realists, and bottom line is it is fun...

Bottom line though is there is no easy solution, also everything has its issues.. Regionally, the emissions of diesel are an issue.. Sulfur is SO2 which is #1 cause of acid rain.. All diesel is ULSD now which is slightly better. Biodiesel is completely sulfur free. Most diesel fuel emissions are city smog issues.. On global warming in general for the most part diesel is better... For me GW is the big issue... I have been following it for some time, can say with pretty much 100% certainty, again, as someone who professionally researched it for 2 years, that GW is the next major environmental issue we are going to save.. The billions it will cause to fix the problem are going to cause trillions in damage..

Anyway, so for me that is the big issue.. So at least for me, that is what I focus on and again for me at least the diesel swaps and use of biodiesel are the best solution I have found so far...

EDIT: also much of my truck as it is being built in its current form is recycled.. I figure the amount of energy I have saved by reusing may be noticable with that as well..

[Ursidae69]

Can I be an environmentalist and also enjoy vehicle dependant travel?

Yes, you can.

Even though the two concepts seem disparate, they don’t have to be.

There are many environmentalists, especially the ones working in science, that are also into vehicle dependent travel, they just don’t admit and or even realize it. There are also many vehicle dependent travelers who are also environmentalists, again, they just don’t admit it or even realize it. I think a majority of the membership on this forum falls into one of these two. It’s up to us to take advantage of this opportunity and make real change happen.

[teotwaki]

In general I agree with the sentiments. I would like to point out that our current vehicles have had a significant amount of energy, plastics and metals invested into their production. Simply sending them to the scrapyard and buying a newer vehicle may be premature. There is probably some way to calculate a crossover point of the vehicle's useful life versus cost of fuel consumption and estimated contributions to pollution.

[DaveInDenver]

In general I agree with the sentiments. I would like to point out that our current vehicles have had a significant amount of energy, plastics and metals invested into their production. Simply sending them to the scrapyard and buying a newer vehicle may be premature. There is probably some way to calculate a crossover point of the vehicle's useful life versus cost of fuel consumption and estimated contributions to pollution.
This has always been my question to the people advocating no cars. First, the original energy and resources can't be undone (although certainly recycling does recover much of the material). The original extraction is done, might as well use the truck until most of the body is returned to the elements. Second, bikes, shoes, buses, trains, all forms of travel. Where you do suppose all that metal, rubber, synthetics and leather came from? They didn't just magically appear, they were mined or otherwise collected from somewhere.

I don't think it's possible to truly be an vehicle supported environmentalist, because in no way is it the lowest impact method. It is the most convenient, but walking or other human powered vehicle uses less resources. But instead of covering hundreds of miles in the weekend, you will covers tens of miles a day and the amount of stuff you can carry is limited. We can fool ourselves by saying we use less than the other guy or that diesel is less harmful, but it's still a pretty inefficient use of the resources. It is a more efficient use of our time and that's the point of doing it, but it's still relatively wasteful and self serving. It's a function of the society we have made, that we are driven to work, work, work, consume, consume, consume. That leaves limited time to travel and so it is what it is. We are victims of our own productivity. We all own computers, which are not absolutely necessary to survive. They make life better (or such is the presumption) and we trade the impact of making them has over the benefits we perceive from having one.

See about electronics and toxic chemicals:
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/toxicchemicals.cfm

[Martyn]

This has always been my question to the people advocating no cars. First, the original energy and resources can't be undone (although certainly recycling does recover much of the material). The original extraction is done, might as well use the truck until most of the body is returned to the elements. Second, bikes, shoes, buses, trains, all forms of travel. Where you do suppose all that metal, rubber, synthetics and leather came from? They didn't just magically appear, they were mined or otherwise collected from somewhere.

I don't think it's possible to truly be an vehicle supported environmentalist, because in no way is it the lowest impact method. It is the most convenient, but walking or other human powered vehicle uses less resources. But instead of covering hundreds of miles in the weekend, you will covers tens of miles a day and the amount of stuff you can carry is limited. We can fool ourselves by saying we use less than the other guy or that diesel is less harmful, but it's still a pretty inefficient use of the resources. It is a more efficient use of our time and that's the point of doing it, but it's still relatively wasteful and self serving. It's a function of the society we have made, that we are driven to work, work, work, consume, consume, consume. That leaves limited time to travel and so it is what it is. We are victims of our own productivity. We all own computers, which are not absolutely necessary to survive. They make life better (or such is the presumption) and we trade the impact of making them has over the benefits we perceive from having one.

See about electronics and toxic chemicals:
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/toxicchemicals.cfm

Interesting points, I don't think we can do this cold turkey, but we also can't stick our heads in the sand like Ostriches (enough animal metaphors).

However we can make plans for our selves that will lower our impact on the environment such as:
Learn to drive with fuel economy in mind
Perform regular services for a clean burning engine
Work out the feasibility of doing a diesel conversion on a vehicle
Planning a second vehicle? make it a fuel efficient, or hybrid type

Making the change of mind set from;
"Well I've spent a lot of money on the vehicle, it's already used up a lot of energy to produce it, so I'm stuck with it for the foreseeable future", which is where I am coming from.

And moving to;
"How can I make less impact on the environment, what options are available right now, and what options look like they will be available soon" is a much healthier approach in my mind.

Having been in the first mindset for some years it left me with a feeling of being trapped and unable to do anything about the situation. Moving to the second mindset has given me hope and options, plus the ability to move forward. I feel now that given the right circumstances I can do something and make a difference.

[pwc]

this might seem like a simple question, but....
What's an environmentalist?

[bigreen505]

Great post Martyn!

Backing up a bit, I think most people who enjoy "vehicle dependent travel," which in my mind is very different from "tearing up the trails," tend to be environmentalists by nature. We want to see beautiful things and we naturally want to protect them as well. If you chose to burn resources and pollute the environment by driving, find other ways to offset that.

While conspicuous consumers, like the H2 driving accountant in Jonathan's post are easy targets, the kid who mows his lawn every week may be spewing more pollutants into the environment. The fact that the H2 uses a ton more raw materials to produce and consumes more gas is beyond my point. What I'm trying to say is when you look at changing the environmental impact of your lifestyle, you really need to look at every aspect. For example, if you chose to be a vegan and buy as much as possible from local farmers markets, how would that change the environmental footprint that you are leaving? Could you offset the amount of fuels you consume and pollutants you produce by making sure that your home and business have the highest levels of insulation possible? I'm not advocating anything, just tossing out questions.

Finally, if we choose a vehicle that gets 40 mpg, but is manufactured with materials that take a lot of energy and highly refined materials to produce, and has a significantly shorter service life than another vehicle that gets 18 mpg and takes less energy and less refined materials to make, are we actually gaining anything? Again, I don't have the answers just asking questions.

Bottom line: if we really want to consider our total impact, we really need to evaluate every step of every process.

I will happily put myself out there. After working at home for the past several years, I now have a job close to 40 miles from my home. My Trooper gets roughly 17-19 mpg depending on how I drive it. Looking only financially and at a five-year break-even point, I could buy a used car for $5,000 that gets 30 mpg. Even if I could afford to buy a new, fuel efficient car for commuting, am I polluting less because it is more efficient, or more because of the environmental costs of manufacture? I do carpool when practical (public transportation would force lifestyle changes I'm not willing to make), so I have to find other areas in my life to offset my increased consumption as much as possible.

[bigreen505]

What I'm doing right now is trying to find the perfect "Eco-Overland" vehicle: economical and ecological.

Just throw a VW 1.9 TDi into Grendel. Efficient and cool all at once. :)

[Martyn]

Great post Martyn!

Backing up a bit, I think most people who enjoy "vehicle dependent travel," which in my mind is very different from "tearing up the trails," tend to be environmentalists by nature. We want to see beautiful things and we naturally want to protect them as well. If you chose to burn resources and pollute the environment by driving, find other ways to offset that.

While conspicuous consumers, like the H2 driving accountant in Jonathan's post are easy targets, the kid who mows his lawn every week may be spewing more pollutants into the environment. The fact that the H2 uses a ton more raw materials to produce and consumes more gas is beyond my point. What I'm trying to say is when you look at changing the environmental impact of your lifestyle, you really need to look at every aspect. For example, if you chose to be a vegan and buy as much as possible from local farmers markets, how would that change the environmental footprint that you are leaving? Could you offset the amount of fuels you consume and pollutants you produce by making sure that your home and business have the highest levels of insulation possible? I'm not advocating anything, just tossing out questions.

Finally, if we choose a vehicle that gets 40 mpg, but is manufactured with materials that take a lot of energy and highly refined materials to produce, and has a significantly shorter service life than another vehicle that gets 18 mpg and takes less energy and less refined materials to make, are we actually gaining anything? Again, I don't have the answers just asking questions.

Bottom line: if we really want to consider our total impact, we really need to evaluate every step of every process.

I will happily put myself out there. After working at home for the past several years, I now have a job close to 40 miles from my home. My Trooper gets roughly 17-19 mpg depending on how I drive it. Looking only financially and at a five-year break-even point, I could buy a used car for $5,000 that gets 30 mpg. Even if I could afford to buy a new, fuel efficient car for commuting, am I polluting less because it is more efficient, or more because of the environmental costs of manufacture? I do carpool when practical (public transportation would force lifestyle changes I'm not willing to make), so I have to find other areas in my life to offset my increased consumption as much as possible.

I’m not pretending to have the answers either, for me, and it seems with you, it’s a lot of questions right now.

I posted earlier that this is a complex issue that spiders into every aspect of our lives and I wanted to confine myself to the vehicle issues on this forum. My reasoning behind this is to try not to make this discussion too overwhelming . I want to hear what people have to say and what they are thinking. To encompass as many people as possible I though a narrow focus was best, it would not come over as being “out there” and “Tree hugging” which may turn a large segment of people off.

This is more about what can I do and what are my options. So I agree some thought has to be put into this to decide what is best for the environment and you.

[Martyn]

this might seem like a simple question, but....
What's an environmentalist?

It’s a simple question with a complicated answer!

As stated in this thread I intend only to discuss the vehicle aspect of the environment as the subject become diluted, convoluted and possibly mis directed when it follow too many paths.

This answer is off the top of my head without any reference for guidance.

I am an environmentalist because:
I have decided to factor in the effect my decisions have on the environment when I choose;
which vehicle I drive
what fuel source the vehicle uses
how the vehicle was constructed
where I drive the vehicle
how I drive the vehicle
the effect the vehicle has on the environment.

I choose to have the least effect on the environment that is possible.
I choose to stay current on new technology and it’s application to reduce my impact on the environment.
I choose to be part of the solution not part of the problem.

[DaveInDenver]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I would see an environmentalist as someone who isn't willing to concede that vehicles are acceptable and puts the environment without (much) compromise first. It's probably pretty clear that I think environmentalism is an unachievable view of perfection in our reality. But I will give the respectful benefit to people who try and pursue that goal reasonably (i.e., I hate eco-terrorists, that is pointless IMO, and irrational people, but that is not limited to one political side). It is a noble goal and beneficial to the existance of humans. We need people who believe in an absolute and are willing to help make the rest of us aware of it.

My point is that a true environmentalist would not even consider driving a combustion powered vehicle as realistic. You do not need to drive to enjoy things, it's a convenience. So my conclusion is he should not even consider it. Whether or not the ideal environmentalist philosophy would allow the use of a bicycle or even shoes I think could be debatable. But I do think given the idea that even a small car takes orders more resources to build and maintain over other almost equally viable modes means that the choice would be not to drive if your higher goal is absolutely minimal impact.

Anyway, I see conservation as the realistic goal. Reduce, minimize and be good stewards, but not at the expense of closing off land and having absolutely zero use. Logging, mining, recreation, fishing are all uses of the land and in the process that can involve driving. So with vehicle use as a given, how you can minimize your impact is the goal. To 'conserve' what's good and beautiful. It's all a matter of semantics in the end, I think the prevailing philosophy here is one of getting after it, seeing and doing things, but with the notion of keeping the impact as low as is possible.

[Martyn]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I would see an environmentalist as someone who isn't willing to concede that vehicles are acceptable and puts the environment without (much) compromise first. It's probably pretty clear that I think environmentalism is an unachievable view of perfection in our reality. But I will give the respectful benefit to people who try and pursue that goal reasonably (i.e., I hate eco-terrorists, that is pointless IMO, and irrational people, but that is not limited to one political side). It is a noble goal and beneficial to the existance of humans. We need people who believe in an absolute and are willing to help make the rest of us aware of it.

My point is that a true environmentalist would not even consider driving a combustion powered vehicle as realistic. You do not need to drive to enjoy things, it's a convenience. So my conclusion is he should not even consider it. Whether or not the ideal environmentalist philosophy would allow the use of a bicycle or even shoes I think could be debatable. But I do think given the idea that even a small car takes orders more resources to build and maintain over other almost equally viable modes means that the choice would be not to drive if your higher goal is absolutely minimal impact.

Anyway, I see conservation as the realistic goal. Reduce, minimize and be good stewards, but not at the expense of closing off land and having absolutely zero use. Logging, mining, recreation, fishing are all uses of the land and in the process that can involve driving. So with vehicle use as a given, how you can minimize your impact is the goal. To 'conserve' what's good and beautiful. It's all a matter of semantics in the end, I think the prevailing philosophy here is one of getting after it, seeing and doing things, but with the notion of keeping the impact as low as is possible.

Dave
You put it extremely well, by your definition I'm a conservationist. But we are not here to debate symantecs, I think we are here to spur people on to think about possibilities that will lower there impact on the environment, and to realize they can become part of the solution without giving up overlanding.

[Ursidae69]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I think you are splitting hairs, but what does it matter I guess. Whatever floats your boat.

Martyn wants vehicle dependent examples. In my case I drive an old beater Honda civic with 260k miles that I paid a thousand bucks for last year that gets 38-40mpg. It has more than paid for itself and allows me to leave the Tacoma parked much of the time. I have hopes to swap in a diesel in my Taco after I roll past 250k or whenever the engine goes.

[DaveInDenver]

I think you are splitting hairs, but what does it matter I guess. Whatever floats your boat.
There are people who put the environment absolutely first over all else and there are people who don't. Since no one here is truly willing to sacrifice his way of life to have the absolute minimum achievable impact on the earth, then none of us are really environmentalists. We are conscious of our impact and that's fine, but we still drive vehicles that require tons of extracted or grown resources to build and use. pwc asked what is an environmentalist and I just posted what I thought one is. These are all just terms, a language to help explain what we think. I want to have an earth that sustains itself, but not at the expense of feeling guilty for being alive and doing stuff. So, no, I just don't think it's possible to be a vehicle supported environmentalist. There is a choice to significantly reduce our impact on the earth by not having an internal combustion vehicle, but yet we still have 'em.

[Ursidae69]

It is more than "splitting hairs" like I first thought, thanks for the reply. Point taken.

[DaveInDenver]

It is more than "splitting hairs" like I first thought, thanks for the reply. Point taken.
Does sound kind of political or religious, doesn't it? You are one of the most well respected members of this group and thought responding to your comments would be useful, since I think our opinions are probably are closer to the same view than not even though I'm probably not articulating them well.

[teotwaki]

Interesting points, I don't think we can do this cold turkey, but we also can't stick our heads in the sand like Ostriches (enough animal metaphors).

However we can make plans for our selves that will lower our impact on the environment such as:
Learn to drive with fuel economy in mind
Perform regular services for a clean burning engine
Work out the feasibility of doing a diesel conversion on a vehicle
Planning a second vehicle? make it a fuel efficient, or hybrid type

Making the change of mind set from;
"Well I've spent a lot of money on the vehicle, it's already used up a lot of energy to produce it, so I'm stuck with it for the foreseeable future", which is where I am coming from.

And moving to;
"How can I make less impact on the environment, what options are available right now, and what options look like they will be available soon" is a much healthier approach in my mind.

Having been in the first mindset for some years it left me with a feeling of being trapped and unable to do anything about the situation. Moving to the second mindset has given me hope and options, plus the ability to move forward. I feel now that given the right circumstances I can do something and make a difference.

So far so good... I went from a full sized 1989 Ford Bronco 5.8L V8 with a best mileage of 13MPG traveling straight and level without a heavy load to a Toyota 4Runner v6 4.0 liter with almost 20 MPG . Quite an improvement in fuel economy and I can carry about as much junk as before.

I respect signage where old roads are declared closed and I don't blaze new ones without good cause (hasn't happened yet).

Both new and old vehicles get excellent maintenance and the Bronco is always extremely low on the emissions measurements when smog tested.

But, that cranky old mindset says: my son needs a vehicle for limited travel for high school and related events. He is driving the Bronco until we need to take another chunk of our Earth's finite resources to produce a brand new car for minimal decrease in fuel expenses for a high school kid.

Like I said, produce a calculated crossover point for fuel economy, resources impact for a new vehicle and retiring the old vehicle and we'll talk. That is how to accurately predict options for the forseeable future and not just talk about vague healthy approach options. Even ripping out a perfectly good gas engine is still subject to the same crossover point. Don't do it to feel good or healthy, do it when it will actually benefit the environment.

To me an "environmentalist" is someone who lectures me about the "right" thing to do that makes them feel good or "healthy" but ignores cold hard economic facts or has no practical plan for implementing their dream world. I do not feel trapped or in a rigid state and have already changed from a "V-8s forever!" mode to "What will get the job done" mindset.

PS: No, the local bus service for my son is not an option, it SUCKS and yes, my son carpools or walks whenever possible. And I am enjoying the discussion no matter how much we might think that we disagree. :D

[DaktariEd]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I would see an environmentalist as someone who isn't willing to concede that vehicles are acceptable and puts the environment without (much) compromise first. It's probably pretty clear that I think environmentalism is an unachievable view of perfection in our reality. But I will give the respectful benefit to people who try and pursue that goal reasonably (i.e., I hate eco-terrorists, that is pointless IMO, and irrational people, but that is not limited to one political side). It is a noble goal and beneficial to the existance of humans. We need people who believe in an absolute and are willing to help make the rest of us aware of it.

My point is that a true environmentalist would not even consider driving a combustion powered vehicle as realistic. You do not need to drive to enjoy things, it's a convenience. So my conclusion is he should not even consider it. Whether or not the ideal environmentalist philosophy would allow the use of a bicycle or even shoes I think could be debatable. But I do think given the idea that even a small car takes orders more resources to build and maintain over other almost equally viable modes means that the choice would be not to drive if your higher goal is absolutely minimal impact.


Actually I disagree. You can be an environmentalist, not just a conservationist. They are different, and neither is mutually exclusive:


"Environmentalism is a concern for the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment, such as the conservation of natural resources, prevention of pollution, and certain land use actions. It often supports the struggles of indigenous peoples against the spread of globalisation to their way of life, which is seen as less harmful to the environment.

The term environmentalism is associated with other modern terms such as greening, environmental management, resource efficiency and waste minimization, and environmental responsibility, ethics and justice (Bhattacharya, 2004)."

And...


"The conservation movement is a political and social movement that seeks to protect natural resources including plant and animal species as well as their habitat for the future.

The early conservation movement included fisheries and wildlife management, water, soil conservation and sustainable forestry. The contemporary conservation movement has broaden from the early movement's emphasis on use of sustainable yield of natual resources and preservation of wilderness areas to include preservation of biodiversity. The conservation movement is part of the broader and more far-reaching environmental movement."

Both of these are from Wikipedia. And though not a definitive source, it is helpful to see the difference.

I see almost everyone I have met through ExPo as being an environmentalist, and I do include myself. An environmentalist is anyone who shows "concern for the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment." It does NOT imply extremism by any means.

Unfortunately, in our society, and perhaps in large part due to the mainstream media, we tend to see environmentalism as an extreme.

I would hope that we could change that bias and not only accept that we can be environmentalists, but perhaps CLAIM the right to called environmentalists!

I certainly shall....

:sombrero:
Ed

[teotwaki]

Ed had interesting points: one is to reclaim the meaning of "environmentalist", making it more inclusive and less the podium for the extreme whackos. I know that I definitely try to make "green" choices wherever I think that it makes sense.

For instance I have one synthetic fleece jacket that I finally had to replace after maybe 15 years. That kind of fleece comes from oil and is hard to recycle although Patagonia has started a program. I have tried the eco-fleeces from Patagonia, made from recycled plastic bottles but was disappointed.

[Ursidae69]

Does sound kind of political or religious, doesn't it? You are one of the most well respected members of this group and thought responding to your comments would be useful, since I think our opinions are probably are closer to the same view than not even though I'm probably not articulating them well.

Thanks Dave, appreciate that. I think it is sort of political now that you mention it due to the way certain words get connotations associated with them in our society. Ed made some really great points too. I really enjoy the way issues are thoughtfully debated here at ExPo.

[DaveInDenver]

Well, I don't disagree with Ed or any of this. I'm just wondering how we'd define 'conservationist' in that frame. I also want to make the point that my definition of environmentalist is mine, not a political one per say. And I'm not against having a very far left philosophy with respect to the environment. I guess that would be a 'greenie' in the current thread, but I think that term is much too politically loaded to even be useful. I don't think it's a bad thing to be an environmentalist, even if I don't strictly consider myself one in my broadly stroked generalizations. By that I mean I think someone who is above all concerned with the environment can't (again this is MY definition) think anything that isn't naturally powered could be acceptable. Just like someone to the presumed philosophical opposite couldn't imagine changing their life to live closer to work or the market so that they could walk to do their errands. So I prefer the term conservationist for myself. I don't have a problem with mining or power plants or the like, if the ends justify the means and it's all done within the context of reduce, reuse, recycle.

[Martyn]

Great responses from everyone, it's really though provoking. When you sit and think of these issues by yourself you don't get this amazing input.

These are complex issues and everyone has there own take on them. My concerns have revolved around my families need for 4X4 vehicles to get around in the snow during the winter, and of course how much can I afford to put my ideas into reality.

We do need to educate ourselves on the technology so we can make wise decisions that will effecting us and our children.

It's this technological knowledge that I'm seeking so I don't make a decision out of ignorance.

Thanks again for your input. When I posted on this issue I had the terrible feeling that people would read it and not reply.

[DesertRose]

Just throw a VW 1.9 TDi into Grendel. Efficient and cool all at once. :)


:sombrero: Actually, we've been discussing that!

[DesertRose]

Frankly folks, threads like these make me so happy Exedition Portal is out there - where else on the net can such thoughtful, intelligent discourse take place: agreement/disagreement and education, without rancor, tantrums, or lockerroom/barroom language? Bless you.

Although I want to get back to Martyn's original desire with this thread - to discuss the solutions to our obviously shared dilemmas - I would like to comment on the semantic debate (conservationist vs. environmentalist).

I think the debate stems from the fact that us First World humans are so far removed from the environment - the place where our resources for living come from, such as food, building and transportation materials, clothing - that we are now confused about our place in it. Hence the desire to explore it and protect it, for some of us - but for many people now, it's just a place to exploit.

Long ago in our human history, all people's survival was directly tied to the environment. Humans evolved from and lived within the "wildernesses" of this Earth. [Aside: don't confuse this with the modern palliative belief that any humans ever lived or live in "harmony" with Nature - didn't happen, 'cept on Disney - because since man stood up, he's been trying to dominate or even destroy the environment before it killed him; difference today is that we now have the technological means to kill it entirely.]

Instead of growing and killing our food, building our own transport conveyances, making our clothes, we now have other people do it for us. Early people had to know, understand, respect, and manage the environment to survive. Before population exploded and resource use became so lopsided, "protecting" the environment wasn't as important as protecting oneself. But modern life and pressures on wild places gave birth to words like Conservationist and Environmentalist.

Where the heck am I going with all this? Ack! Let me get another cup of caffeine . . .

Okay. I really believe we all have a genetic memory of Wilderness, and many of us feel an affinity for wild places and things. Our current lives divorce us from those things.

But it's just not possible or practical or worth even considering turning back any clocks or saying that to be an environmentalist today means shunning modern inventions.

So that brings us FINALLY (sorry) back to Martyn's excellent plea: HOW can we minimize our impact and still be what we are: Modern humans.

- I think, but haven't done the research to actually know, that I'm more resource-neutral if I don't buy a spankin new vehicle but replace my current one with a used one (ie - resources already exploited).

- But what about fuel economy? Aren't modern engines less polluting? My research so far is showing modern cars are less polluting but are back to using more fossil fuels - since when was 20mpg consider good rating!???)

- I want to support alternative fuels, but not things like Ethanol, which are made from food. Maybe I can find out more about supporting companies that are making Biodiesel (and stopping subsidies and trade restrictions that make it impossible for these companies to compete . . . okay, stop laughing now).

Are there any other things I can do? (I don't need to worry about commuting - I work at home, but on the other hand, my work twice or so a year takes me halfway around the world on a jumbo jet - but does sharing the jet with 150 other people let me count that as carpooling?:ylsmoke: )

[Jonathan Hanson]

It's probably easier to define the term "anti-environmentalist" than "environmentalist." And the antis have done a smashing job of PR by instilling in the public mind the vision of an "environmentalist" as either a dreadlocked, smelly anarchist smashing car windows at economic summit meetings, or a rich Harvard-educated liberal telling everyone else how to live their lives.

Personally (again we're talking individual definitions) I don't think you can call yourself a conservationist without being an environmentalist. You can "support" conservation all you like - even with cash donations - but if you don't make personal choices that support the goal, you're not walking the walk. Reference the recent thread about Ed Abbey.

I feel that I'm pretty generous in my definition of an environmentalist: It's anyone who truly thinks about his impact on the earth, and tries consciously to minimize it. That can be done in a thousand ways, and along a scale that has a broad grey area. Personally I would not say that someone with a 5,000-square-foot home and two heat pumps who installs a solar hot water heater can claim to be an environmentalist, but others might disagree. And what if that same person works from home and doesn't even own a car?

Likewise, what about an enthusiastic overlander with a Ford F350 with a V10 gas engine and a cab-over camper who does 10,000 backcountry miles per year? Not an environmentalist? What if that person lives in a 1,000-square-foot house built of recycled materials, totally solar powered, grows his own vegetables and hunts his own meat, and bicycles to work every day? As others have said, it's all about balance. And that's a good thing, as it gives us many choices and options to contribute meaningfully to the goal of preserving open space, wildlife, and clean air and water.

Despite my own definition of environmentalism, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that I'm doing more good for the world by living in a solar-powered cottage than someone with a 10,000-square-foot mansion who writes a $100,000 check annually to grass-roots conservation groups. I'm strictly talking about what one's conscience tells one when you're lying in bed wondering if your life is an honorable life.

The whole issue of "carbon credits" has gone bonkers and silly, but it would be great if somone invented a simple calculator that would add up the joules or kilocalories or something of all the energy an individual uses in his or her daily activities.

One thing not yet discussed, unless I missed it, is global population. Paul Ehrlich wasn't wrong with The Population Bomb, his timing was just off by a few decades. We cannot continue to fill the earth with humans and have any hope of preserving open space; it's a mathematical impossibility. fortunately the growth curve is showing signs of tapering off sooner than many feared.

Incidentally, this is one of those threads that makes Expedition Portal stand head and shoulders above the average 4x4 website.

[DesertRose]

Please see my new post on trying to find an Eco-Overlander . . .

Quest: Eco-Overlander (http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?p=67346#post67346)

It's a tough search!

[Beerman]

I consider myself a conservationist yet I drive a 1998 GMC Yukon. However, in the last year I have only rolled 3,000 on the clock as I ride my bike to work when the weather allows. My vehicle of choice due to the fact that I have 3 children and need the space to hold my kids. I choose to live in a smaller house that is located a mere 1.5 miles from my office. I have a co-worker who was constantly harrassing me about my truck so I challenged her to a comparative study of our fuel usage. She drives a small "Shoebox" and drives 15,000 miles per year. Her car does get 30+ MPG, and I only get around 14. However, since she drives 5X the miles each year than I do, who is the one who is "harming" the environment?

[DesertRose]

I consider myself a conservationist yet I drive a 1998 GMC Yukon. However, in the last year I have only rolled 3,000 on the clock as I ride my bike to work when the weather allows. My vehicle of choice due to the fact that I have 3 children and need the space to hold my kids. I choose to live in a smaller house that is located a mere 1.5 miles from my office. I have a co-worker who was constantly harrassing me about my truck so I challenged her to a comparative study of our fuel usage. She drives a small "Shoebox" and drives 15,000 miles per year. Her car does get 30+ MPG, and I only get around 14. However, since she drives 5X the miles each year than I do, who is the one who is "harming" the environment?

I'm glad you brought up context, too - people tend to focus on one thing (vehicle, or dietary) and forget it's all part of LIFE, which consumes and kills things, period. People who think they're Virtuous because they drive a Prius and drink soymilk are not quite getting it.

[calamaridog]

I'm going to say this. Unless your current engine is unreliable, then I wouldn't even consider a swap right now. Run it until it is no longer reliable and maximize the service life of the equipment.

If the vehicle is still serviceable at the end of the engine life, then by all means, consider a re-power. What better way to recycle a whole vehicle???

Frankly, if you live in CA, I would not ever do a swap. You are one legislative session away from losing your registration at any given time.

And living a lie but writing a fat check to the environmental lobby complex does NOT make you an environmentalist.


I think Scott has stated that you can have your cake and eat it too if you try to limit the mileage and increase the service life of your expedition/recreation vehicle.

Not only that, but look at the big picture. Do you waste in other ways you could reduce???

[DesertRose]

I'm going to say this. Unless your current engine is unreliable, then I wouldn't even consider a swap right now. Run it until it is no longer reliable and maximize the service life of the equipment.

If the vehicle is still serviceable at the end of the engine life, then by all means, consider a re-power. What better way to recycle a whole vehicle???

Great point - But I have a Tacoma, I'll be an old lady before it dies :sombrero:

No, I'm sorry to be flippant. I have considered all that indeed. But would I be neutral-consumption if I sell the 2000 Taco and buy a 1998 RAV4 and then drive it til it's pooped, then put a Toyota diesel in it? The Taco will still be servicable for someone for a long time, as would the RAV4, for me.



And living a lie but writing a fat check to the environmental lobby complex does NOT make you an environmentalist.

I'm struggling with this topic as "carbon credit trading" is gaining steam in the Third World. I hate the fact a polluter can buy a free pass - but then again, if the money is used to support significant assistance to quality of life in a country that has no means - is that bad?



Not only that, but look at the big picture. Do you waste in other ways you could reduce???

I can only speak for myself: I work at home, we live in a solar powered home that is tiny, we are building a bigger house with 60% recycled material (rastra block), we have our own well, we don't buy hardly any packaged food, I buy local meat and produce when possible, and re-use and recycle almost everything I can. In my consumer lifetime (I'm 42) I've bought 2 new cars (both Toyotas) and both are still on the road (current one is my Taco). I consider my personal footprint pretty small.

[GeoRoss]

I'm struggling with this topic as "carbon credit trading" is gaining steam in the Third World. I hate the fact a polluter can buy a free pass - but then again, if the money is used to support significant assistance to quality of life in a country that has no means - is that bad?.


It has worked pretty good with sulfur emissions in power plants to fight acid rain in the NE. I am far from an expert, but it is a market based method to achieve long range reduction in pollutants. The key is how the overall cap is managed and the program for overall reductions of the cap over time.

[Beerman]

I'm struggling with this topic as "carbon credit trading" is gaining steam in the Third World. I hate the fact a polluter can buy a free pass - but then again, if the money is used to support significant assistance to quality of life in a country that has no means - is that bad?

I struggle with credit trading due to the fact that it is a thinly veiled wealth redistribution system. This plan would discourage countries that have yet to develop industrial capabilities to enhance their own local capabilities. Basically it is just a tax placed on successful corporations.

[pwc]

yeah, but if you're being successful by polluting the air my daughter breathes, I don't think that's right either.

Some countries, like Costa Rica, have made big gains in buying back land they couldn't otherwise that had been forested and turned into farms. If you look at deforestation maps it's pretty ugly down there in the last 30 years. They get money from the likes of Germany and other industrialized countries. Without this money, the people, in the name of profit, would deforest the whole country to raise cattle, which is more profitable.

[Martyn]

How much an I actually polluting the environment? I see us all measuring our impact by placing the positives and negatives on a scale and seeing how they weigh out. It’s as if we are all trying to justify our impact by taking all the factors and judging them against an other person, family or corporation that does better or worse than we do.

Is there a formula to work out what my impact is? Is there a web site I can enter in all my data and come out with the amount of energy I consume and the amount I pollute? If I had an absolute number I could see how any change in my behavior would impact the environment in a positive or negative manner.

And yes I have broken my own rule of only relating this to vehicle effects, but it’s OK I gave myself permission!!

[Beerman]

How much an I actually polluting the environment? I see us all measuring our impact by placing the positives and negatives on a scale and seeing how they weigh out. It’s as if we are all trying to justify our impact by taking all the factors and judging them against an other person, family or corporation that does better or worse than we do.

Is there a formula to work out what my impact is? Is there a web site I can enter in all my data and come out with the amount of energy I consume and the amount I pollute? If I had an absolute number I could see how any change in my behavior would impact the environment in a positive or negative manner.

And yes I have broken my own rule of only relating this to vehicle effects, but it’s OK I gave myself permission!!


This is a fun calculator
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=900820 4&contentId=7015209

[pwc]

here's one calculator. it's on the internet though, so it may not be accurate. :)
http://www.zerofootprintoffsets.com/calculator.aspx

[Beerman]

Ok, here is a question. I live in Idaho. Almost all of our power is generated by Hydro electric dams on the Snake River. I should claim that as clean renewable energy on the calculator.

[FortyMileDesert]

That was fun = 20 tonnes per year (slightly above average).

[PhulesAU]

Amusing thread, did you figure in all of the pollution required to produce all of the stuff your " expedition equipment" is made of? You can tread lightly, but you're just fooling yourselfs if you think, driving anything burning any fuel crushing tender vegatation and microbes is eco-friendly. Oh and would some of the Global warming people please get off their butts and turn the sun down a notch???? That all knowing often misquoted source NASA, has determined it's burning hotter than it has in the past. But I'm sure we can solve this by banning the backyard BBQ.

[Martyn]

There must be some recognizable stages in the learning process that people go through to arrive at the conclusion that their actions have repercussions on the environment, and that modifying their actions could have a beneficial or detrimental effect on the environment.

In Sports there are three recognized stages;
Incompetent – Incompetence
Competent – Incompetent
Competent – Competence

I think I have outgrown the incompetent –incompetence stage and I’m in the Incompetent -Competence phase. I realize I have an impact but I’m uncertain as to what to do. I think that we all have to travel through these stages and rather than ridicule those with less competence it is our job to enlighten them.

With this goal in sight Adventure Trailers is starting an Alternative Technologies Division that will start to concentrate on alternative power, diesel, and diesel electric.

[pwc]

Beerman, are you sure of that? I live over in the Puget Sound area and used to hear stats that 80% of our energy was from hydro, like you guys. But then I found this graph (http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/EnergySupply_ElectricityPowerSupplyProfile.aspx)fr om Puget Sound Energy that my power comes from 42% hydro and 36% coal (from Montana). Still not bad and better than 90% coal like some places, but I didn't realize hydro was that low.
http://www.pse.com/images/spot/supplyMix05_450x450.gif

[Kermit]

I have been giving this thread some thought...

and this one too...http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5053

We all have an impact, we all use oil in one way or another.

From what I have read, people try to justify their actions. From my perspective, we should just live our lives the best we can, don't point fingers or stand on soap boxes. Do what makes you happy, and don't care what others think of you. The only person you can count on is yourself. Why try to give yourself a title? I sure don't want one. I am many things, not just one defining title.

The Earth is in constant change and evolution, because of the past is the way we live today, and yes, someday it will be gone, then something will be given birth in our place. It is the nature of life and death. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

Be thankful in what you have, and live a good life your way.

I think my signature sums it up quite well. ;)

[Martyn]

Amusing thread, did you figure in all of the pollution required to produce all of the stuff your " expedition equipment" is made of? You can tread lightly, but you're just fooling yourselfs if you think, driving anything burning any fuel crushing tender vegatation and microbes is eco-friendly. Oh and would some of the Global warming people please get off their butts and turn the sun down a notch???? That all knowing often misquoted source NASA, has determined it's burning hotter than it has in the past. But I'm sure we can solve this by banning the backyard BBQ.

Yes you are correct the sun is getting hotter, and the research seems to back it http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm the point you seem to have missed is:

"Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,''

As we have no control over the output of the sun and therefore cannot "turn it down a notch" our only recourse seems to be to control our own output of greenhouse gasses.

[dieselcruiserhead]

If you guys get a chance check out the current issue of Vanity Fair, the green issue.. Lots of good info about hydro and energy breakdown..

[PhulesAU]

Yes you are correct the sun is getting hotter, and the research seems to back it http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm the point you seem to have missed is:

"Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,''

As we have no control over the output of the sun and therefore cannot "turn it down a notch" our only recourse seems to be to control our own output of greenhouse gasses.
Didn't miss the point. My point was that a group of people saying something, doesn't make it the truth. Half or whole. And selective blame for certain groups, is what causes backlash and rebellion.

[Martyn]

Didn't miss the point. My point was that a group of people saying something, doesn't make it the truth. Half or whole. And selective blame for certain groups, is what causes backlash and rebellion.

My take on this thread is a group of people who generally accept the responsibility for causing pollution and wanting to find ways to reduce it. Truth is always up for debate, but I don't see any finger pointing or casting of blame. Am I missing something here?

[DesertRose]

I agree, Martyn - this thread is fine, it's not a polemic on global warming.

Shall we get back to topic?

[DesertRose]

I struggle with credit trading due to the fact that it is a thinly veiled wealth redistribution system. This plan would discourage countries that have yet to develop industrial capabilities to enhance their own local capabilities. Basically it is just a tax placed on successful corporations.

Can you explain this a bit more, beerman? Since it's a voluntary program in many places (all? I haven't done all my research yet, just for the US and UK) I don't see it as a tax.

I was also talking more about the growing personal-carbon-credit purchasing trend, rather than trading (which is the corporate version). I put some links on the first or second page, postings to some information on that.

I also don't see how it could discourage enterprise and resourcefulness in developing countries - there is still a basic need for cheap energy at the consumer level . . .

[DesertRose]

There must be some recognizable stages in the learning process that people go through to arrive at the conclusion that their actions have repercussions on the environment, and that modifying their actions could have a beneficial or detrimental effect on the environment.

In Sports there are three recognized stages;
Incompetent – Incompetence
Competent – Incompetent
Competent – Competence

I think I have outgrown the incompetent –incompetence stage and I’m in the Incompetent -Competence phase. I realize I have an impact but I’m uncertain as to what to do. I think that we all have to travel through these stages and rather than ridicule those with less competence it is our job to enlighten them.

With this goal in sight Adventure Trailers is starting an Alternative Technologies Division that will start to concentrate on alternative power, diesel, and diesel electric.

Great thoughtlines here - I think it's always a struggle, though - not sure it's possible to get to competent-competent in this topic. Not that they're all that accurate, but according to the BP calculator, if I factor in the flying I do for my work, my carbon footprint is huge (68 tons); cut out the flying, and it's 21 tons, and the main culprit for us is then the 2 SUVs we have and drive 10,000 miles a year or more. Replace one of those with a high-efficiency vehicle, and it drops to 9 tons or 13 with a small diesel.

So that's made me more aware of the fuel economy and emissions of my vehicle. The challenge is that America is in the throes of its worst Biggie-Size-Me cycle ever, and while emissions are going down on vehicles, the size and weight go up (like Americans) and the fuel economy plummets.

I'm always thrilled when a successful company like Adventure Trailers doesn't just sit on their laurels and become blind consumers - you are questioning, questing, and testing. How great you are starting an alternative fuels division - let us know how we can help promote and support you!

[Jonathan Hanson]

Personally I find the entire "carbon credits" trading scheme highly distasteful, and nothing more than an industrialized way to avoid individual responsibility. I believe every corporation on the planet should be maximizing its own efficiency and energy savings, not simply buying off from someone else.

I feel the same way about those who scoff at personal attempts to reduce impact on the earth. The "Nothing I can do will make any difference" line has been used to excuse everything from littering to child pornography. In the end, everything comes down to personal responsibility, whether you're an overlander trying to save gas or a CEO considering more efficient manufacturing processes.

[PhulesAU]

My take on this thread is a group of people who generally accept the responsibility for causing pollution and wanting to find ways to reduce it. Truth is always up for debate, but I don't see any finger pointing or casting of blame. Am I missing something here? I limit my driving as much as practicle. recycle what I can, and support others that do likewise. But I'm tired of hearing " I'm not doing enough". I'd like to have the new engine that's going to be in the class8 trucks in a couple years. NO cooling system ( no more green or pink stuff to kill the family pets!) will burn almost anything from Diesel to bad scotch. Rated at 560 bhp. BUT In an ideal situation they'd make a couple different sizes and make them adaptable to a large number of older vehicle. Why must I do a homebrew transplant or buy a new vehicle loaded with computer junk?? this thing is lower in emmisions than most Hybrids and needs none of the computers and associated problems. It's always cool to see what Ideas people come up with, in the challenge of problem solving. If the guys at A T need gueiney pigs I volunteer.

[bigreen505]

People who think they're Virtuous because they drive a Prius and drink soymilk are not quite getting it.


That is too funny. I've said it before, but my Dad's Suburban is one of the most efficient vehicles I know. It runs just shy of 19 mpg and spends its weekends loaded with four people, bikes and dogs in the summer and skis in the winter. I'm not saying he should get a medal for it, but it would probably take three Prii (would that be the plural or Prius?) to haul what it does on a regular basis and I doubt they would still be happily be chugging along at 200,000 mi.

[Kermit]

I'd like to have the new engine that's going to be in the class8 trucks in a couple years. NO cooling system ( no more green or pink stuff to kill the family pets!) will burn almost anything from Diesel to bad scotch. Rated at 560 bhp.

Do you have any more information on that?

I haven't heard of those type of engines.

[PhulesAU]

Lemme dig for the link, I can't find it right at the moment. ( just because you asked)

[PhulesAU]

I can't swear this is the same article I read, but the same tech. being developed. The part-timers is kicking in again, I guess I'll have to start book-marking everything.
http://www.turbinetruckengines.com/

[Kermit]

Hey thanks for the link!

Very interesting. Undiscribable sound though, you can almost see dogs cowering.

[GeoRoss]

How do you feel about sulfur credits? From what I understand it has been very successful in reducing acid rain in the NE. What the credits can do if managed correctly is ease the burden of technology shifts in the private sector while realizing a common goal, reducing emissions.


Personally I find the entire "carbon credits" trading scheme highly distasteful, and nothing more than an industrialized way to avoid individual responsibility. I believe every corporation on the planet should be maximizing its own efficiency and energy savings, not simply buying off from someone else.

I feel the same way about those who scoff at personal attempts to reduce impact on the earth. The "Nothing I can do will make any difference" line has been used to excuse everything from littering to child pornography. In the end, everything comes down to personal responsibility, whether you're an overlander trying to save gas or a CEO considering more efficient manufacturing processes.

[DesertRose]

How do you feel about sulfur credits? From what I understand it has been very successful in reducing acid rain in the NE. What the credits can do if managed correctly is ease the burden of technology shifts in the private sector while realizing a common goal, reducing emissions.

From a business and practicality point of view, I think pollution and greenhouse-gas (carbon) trading will work - perhaps Jonathan was talking more of a moral point of view - his own.

I agree with you completely on easing the burden on the private sector while realizing a common goal.

There is no easy solution (except pretending pollution isn't happening and we aren't screwing up the planet!) - but trying and tinkering is the next best thing.

[Jonathan Hanson]

I was speaking strictly from a personal (or individual company) moral point of view, not claiming that such practices don't work. Certainly for industries that necessarily pollute, carbon (or sulphur or whatever) credits can help offset the damage, and extract something from the company in return.

But if a major polluter in, say, Georgia buys carbon credits from a clean company in Maine, it doesn't do the residents of Georgia a whole lot of good, unless I'm mistaken about the entire scheme. And it still strikes me as arrogant to palliate your own inaction by tossing money at someone doing a better job of being a world citizen. Witness Al Gore and his 10,000-square-foot home.

I'm being too negative, especially since most of the posts here have been about precisely the kind of personal responsibility I'm talking about. If enough individuals commit themselves to individual action, the philosophy should spread upwards through larger and larger businesses.

A good book on the subject is The Ecology of Commerce, by Paul Hawken. He clearly proves that social responsibility and profit are not mutually exclusive.

[Martyn]

This is data from 2000 but the premise still holds. It looks like the best thing you can do today,now, is to check that your tires are correctly inflated.

• 70 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1950

• 630 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1994

• 1 billion motor vehicles are expected to be on the world's roads by 2025, if the current growth rate continues

• 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted by the average car each year

• 5 percent of a car's fuel can be wasted by underinflated tires

• 2 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved annually if 65 million car owners kept their tires properly inflated

• 85 percent of auto fuel is consumed just to overcome inertia and start the wheels turning

• 2.5 times more emissions are generated by SUVs and light trucks than by standard cars

• 33,000 natural gas vehicles were in use in the U.S. in 1993

• 75,000 natural gas vehicles were in use in the U.S. in 1998

• 50 million new cars roll off the assembly line each year

• 11 million cars are junked annually in the U.S.

Sources:
1-3 -- World Resources Institute
4 -- Environmental Working Group
5,6 -- 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth
7 -- Amicus Journal
8 -- L.A. Times
9,10 -- U.S. Department of Transportation
11 -- Amicus Journal
12 -- Wall Street Journal.

- - - - - - - - - -

Josh Sevin is a graduate student in MIT's planning program. Previously, he was an editor at Greenwire environmental news service and a researcher for U.S. News.

[Kermit]

Martyn,

Those numbers are quite scary when seen in black and white.

I think I have the same struggle you have, I love the outdoors, but, feel guilty the way I use my mode of transportation to veiw nature.

I absolutely love riding dirt bikes, and because of that mode of transportation, I get to see what most people never will. I can get to the places faster and easier than on foot, and have one hell of a good time getting there.

I know I am really hated by the pure "environmentalists". But, what do you do? I try to live a balanced life. Do I give up what I love? Do I make the bike more eco-freindly? Do I go live in a cave and eat nuts and berries, to have the least amount of impact?

I am sure I am like most people out there. My life hasn't been perfect, and now I am trying to live it the best way I know how.

[goodtimes]

I know I am really hated by the pure "environmentalists". But, what do you do? I try to live a balanced life. Do I give up what I love? Do I make the bike more eco-freindly? Do I go live in a cave and eat nuts and berries, to have the least amount of impact?

I am sure I am like most people out there. My life hasn't been perfect, and now I am trying to live it the best way I know how.

The problem is, no matter what you do, how you live your life, or how many carbon credits you buy or sell...someone will fault you for not doing enough. Hell, can anyone please everyone when there are people like this around?

VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/)

Seriously....

[Kermit]

VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/)

Seriously....

*jaw drop*:yikes:

You're right Brain, no matter what you do...

[PhulesAU]

You know with a few less laws, seat belts and the like. they wouldn't need that web site. We'd have old fashioned " cleansing of the gene pool" that would probably balance out. But then I really hate to encourage the Stupids.....:drool:

[Kermit]

The problem is, no matter what you do, how you live your life, or how many carbon credits you buy or sell...someone will fault you for not doing enough.

I was watching Planet Earth last night.

There was a wealthy English man who bought up a huge portion of rain forest. Which I thought was rather impressive. Then an economist comes on that wasn't happy with his actions, stating that he does have good intent, but, didn't see the social impact he had on the local people.

You can't win for loosing...

[Erick Lihme]

Looks like I'm not yet up to speed. In a recent post I was excited about the hybrid HUMV's and looking forward to seeing something like that on the road, and here it is, the about to be Icon. And it would be in a Landcruiser.

About environmental sensible vehicles. After years of planning, we are in escrow , purchasing property with river front. The dream seems to becoming a reality. It lends itself to a microhydro electric plant. It's the best we could do, as it may only produce up to 2Kw. However, that should be enough to charge an electric vehicle, if the house is budgeted wisely, perhaps a an old Toyota 4X converted, or perhaps an old Geo Metro. These things do not have to be high tech. The pickup has a bed for batteries, and it'd be fun to see if the gas motor could stay in place and drive the front axle. It'd be fun to try. At any rate, an old golf cart may be all we can afford. Eventhough it looks good, it's a dream, so we shall see, the permits may not obtainable.

Fuel prices between $5-$10/gal could kill the economy.

[DesertRose]

Looks like I'm not yet up to speed. In a recent post I was excited about the hybrid HUMV's and looking forward to seeing something like that on the road, and here it is, the about to be Icon. And it would be in a Landcruiser.

About environmental sensible vehicles. After years of planning, we are in escrow , purchasing property with river front. The dream seems to becoming a reality. It lends itself to a microhydro electric plant. It's the best we could do, as it may only produce up to 2Kw. However, that should be enough to charge an electric vehicle, if the house is budgeted wisely, perhaps a an old Toyota 4X converted, or perhaps an old Geo Metro. These things do not have to be high tech. The pickup has a bed for batteries, and it'd be fun to see if the gas motor could stay in place and drive the front axle. It'd be fun to try. At any rate, an old golf cart may be all we can afford. Eventhough it looks good, it's a dream, so we shall see, the permits may not obtainable.

Fuel prices between $5-$10/gal could kill the economy.

Interesting plans, keep us posted. There are some folks on this forum who know a bit about electric vehicles - there is a website about a guy who converted an old Wrangler. Maybe WD40 will post that here . . .

[RoundOut]

Fuel prices between $5-$10/gal could kill the economy.

I have thought the same thing about fuel at $3/gal. I used to think that a $.10 rise in gasoline prices was a non-issue, as it would not mean much money to even the longest-commuting drivers, but it meant a whole bunch to the independent oil producer that got a much better price for his/her production. When you add a series of $.10 increases though, it hurts pretty bad. Pre-Katrina gasoline prices were sub $2 in the Gulf Coast, i.e. $1.25 or so IIRC. I figured a bump to $3 on a supply disruption like happened in the Houston area would be short-lived, yet it has only been below $2 for a few weeks at a time for just a couple times since Rita. As much as I thought it would, it has not, except in specific areas perhaps, hurt the overall economy. Big trucks and SUVs still sell pretty well at the dealerships, too. This boggles my mind.

I put between 15K & 25K miles per year on my vehicle and (as a business owner) pay for my own fuel. If it went to $5 or $10, no question I'd have to do something else. Gas guzzler prices would likley tumble, too. It would be like the 1970's oil embargo days all over again. Suddenly, creative people and Detroit would focus more on economy to meet the demand. It would be a good thing for long-term environment, but a huge boon to the Arab states, Russia, and Ven's/Mexicans (oil exporters, in genereal), at least short-term. The worst part of the whole thing would be enriching the terrorist-sponsoring states even worse than we are already.

IMO, somewhere in the $4-$10 range, is enough pain to make the US entrepreneur act fast on getting a solution to market. What will it be? How quickly will it be adopted by the mainstream population? Will it be affordable for the ordinary workers? Will it really make a significant dent in the imports of oil to the US and exports of dollars to the rest of the world? I have no idea.

Separate thought.... I try to stay up on this and similar threads, but I may have missed this. Has anyone done any specific research on the cost/pollution created to re-charge electric vehicles? I would be interested to know if the average U.S. kilowatt that is used to charge an electric car is as clean as the internal combustion engine? I presume that it would be more efficient both economically and environmentallly, since it is generated in bulk.

[grahamfitter]

IMO, somewhere in the $4-$10 range, is enough pain to make the US entrepreneur act fast on getting a solution to market. What will it be? How quickly will it be adopted by the mainstream population? Will it be affordable for the ordinary workers? Will it really make a significant dent in the imports of oil to the US and exports of dollars to the rest of the world? I have no idea.

It depends on what you drive and whether its paid for. At what point is a payment on an economical car and cost of the gas it uses, cheaper than the gas on your current one?

For me it was when gas got to $1.69 a gallon in early 2004. At the time I had a Ford E-350 12 seat full size van that got 10-14 mpg and had 2 years left on the loan. With two of the rows of the seats removed there was lots of dry living space with plenty of room for sleeping and also cooking if needed. But taxiing my kids and all their friends around town during the week was really starting to hurt! I traded it in and bought my first ever brand new car: A Ford Focus station wagon that gets 30 mpg if I take the kayaks off the roof. I restarted a four year loan but my weekly gas cost so much less I calculated I'd break even in two years. The rest is history. I really miss travelling with the van though.

Before I got the Focus, my 15-17 mpg paid-for Jeep Wrangler was my economical car. Now it gets driven less because there's a cheaper option. I haven't done the math so I don't know how much gas will have to rise before a payment on something better is cheaper than running the Jeep.



Separate thought.... I try to stay up on this and similar threads, but I may have missed this. Has anyone done any specific research on the cost/pollution created to re-charge electric vehicles? I would be interested to know if the average U.S. kilowatt that is used to charge an electric car is as clean as the internal combustion engine? I presume that it would be more efficient both economically and environmentallly, since it is generated in bulk.

I'm sure you're right but I don't have the numbers.

I read somewhere that because gasoline chainsaws, lawn mowers, snow blowers etc. have no emissions controls and are usually badly tuned, they spew a disproportionate amount of crap into the air. Electric ones are way better.

Similarly, I suspect that motorcycles don't have the same emissions controls that cars do. Four bikes that get 60 mpg each will use the same amount of fuel as an SUV that gets 15 mpg. I bet total bike pollution will be greater than the SUV pollution.

This is my sour grapes: My mother always forbade me from riding a motorcycle because they're dangerous. She encouraged safer activities like whitewater kayaking, rock climbing, ice climbing etc. I'm still here at 38 so she's probably right. But even though I've never sat on a motorcycle, every once in a while I get the urge to buy a dual sport bike and ride to the Southern tip of South America. Or Africa. Anywhere. Of course my ideas don't last longer than a short conversation with my mum! My long suffering and also motorcyclophobic girlfriend more pragmatically suggests increased life insurance. Fortunately its impractical to carry kayaks on a bike so when we do go, it will be on four wheels, not two. :-)

Cheers,
Graham

[Erick Lihme]

Interesting plans, keep us posted. There are some folks on this forum who know a bit about electric vehicles - there is a website about a guy who converted an old Wrangler. Maybe WD40 will post that here . . .


Nice handle, it is fitting. I should get one.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm actively researching, seeking the latest high efficiency low pact turbines for low head situations. It could be critical for the permits It could be that the classic undershot water wheel will be the winner. Low tech, reliable, and environmental friendly, unfortunately it is less efficient, however, it would be pleasing to the eye. Fortunately the river is large and has the potential to produce up to perhaps 60 kW. I doubt they would allow invasion at that level, nor would we want to. We intend to establish a small RV park, and preserve the natural beauty as is possible, therefore a good old water wheel would fit nicely into the 2000 + feet of river which meanders though out, an idyllic spot.( Discounts could be available to Expedition Portal members! No bears allowed, other critters okay.) We seek to divert 2.25% to 4.5% (9,500 to 19,500 cfm +) with 5 to 10 feet of head, or the minimum necessary to produce 1kw.

I know very little and all the insight I can get would be helpful. I'm all ears! And if WD40 has some tips, I'd like to someday rig up a 80' Toyota pickup, however, a larger vehicle such as his might have greater range as it can carry the battery weight. There is at least one set up in a Toyota pickup which claims a range of 250 miles. It uses an expensive motor from Unique Mobility

[calamaridog]

I struggle with credit trading due to the fact that it is a thinly veiled wealth redistribution system. This plan would discourage countries that have yet to develop industrial capabilities to enhance their own local capabilities. Basically it is just a tax placed on successful corporations.

Uh yea, corrupt government officials in 3rd world countries love carbon credits. Countries where 99% of the wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people.

Not to mention the number of scams involved in selling these cabon credits to date. People selling the same credits over and over:rolleyes: I see the potential for many well meaning people to be taken in yet another scam, which is really too bad:mad:

[calamaridog]

Great point - But I have a Tacoma, I'll be an old lady before it dies :sombrero:

No, I'm sorry to be flippant. I have considered all that indeed. But would I be neutral-consumption if I sell the 2000 Taco and buy a 1998 RAV4 and then drive it til it's pooped, then put a Toyota diesel in it? The Taco will still be servicable for someone for a long time, as would the RAV4, for me.

Specifically, I was refering to Martin, who I believe lives in CA. CA is so wacky, they might pass a law any day making any swap less viable, even if he switched to horse drawn.

I think from the "can it be done" camp, I'd like to see YOU try:D Worth it for research value alone.


I'm struggling with this topic as "carbon credit trading" is gaining steam in the Third World. I hate the fact a polluter can buy a free pass - but then again, if the money is used to support significant assistance to quality of life in a country that has no means - is that bad?

The money is used by the criminals who run those 3rd world governments to oppress their people even further. We are just giving them a new revenue stream I suspect.


I can only speak for myself: I work at home, we live in a solar powered home that is tiny, we are building a bigger house with 60% recycled material (rastra block), we have our own well, we don't buy hardly any packaged food, I buy local meat and produce when possible, and re-use and recycle almost everything I can. In my consumer lifetime (I'm 42) I've bought 2 new cars (both Toyotas) and both are still on the road (current one is my Taco). I consider my personal footprint pretty small.

:REExeSquatsHL1:

Very cool!

You guys do some stuff that may work for other folks too. We can all look at what we consume and try and be more responsible. I think if everyone does this, things will be much better. I'm trying to improve my household in meaningful ways.

[DaktariEd]

I can only speak for myself: I work at home, we live in a solar powered home that is tiny, we are building a bigger house with 60% recycled material (rastra block), we have our own well, we don't buy hardly any packaged food, I buy local meat and produce when possible, and re-use and recycle almost everything I can. In my consumer lifetime (I'm 42) I've bought 2 new cars (both Toyotas) and both are still on the road (current one is my Taco). I consider my personal footprint pretty small.

I help make up for Roseann's small footprint.
I work 18 miles from my home; I live in a 20 year old house I designed and had built. It's all electric. I don't have a well. I buy packaged foods. I recycle somewhat...
In my consumer lifetime (51 years), I've owned 2 used cars and 3 new cars. The '64 VW Bug I had for 9 years and ran it up to 250,000 miles. The new cars: 1985 Jeep Cherokee (9 years, 175,000 miles), 1994 Ford Exploder (8 years and 135,000 miles), and my current '02 Sequoia (5 years and 85,000 miles and plan another 75,000 miles). I consider my footprint average...
:sombrero:

[Scenic WonderRunner]

I don't know if this is the right thread to post this........but I didn't want to start another thread.

Saving Water...........

I believe Very Strongly in Saving Water. I've felt this way ever since I was a young teen living in Hawaii.

I have already turned off my auto sprinklers for the winter season.

The point of this post........

The last time I took the SWR out was to the Anza Borrego TACODOC meet up.

I did not wash the truck. (although I have been accused of dirt not sticking to it......hehe).

Tonight we in SO CAL are about to get creamed by a rain storm.

As I type........I left the SWR out in my driveway (which I never do!) and I'm going to let the PH Balanced Rain......wash the SWR!

No Hard water marks! And I bet I can even just let it dry on it's own and it will be fine (if I still have enough wax on it). Unlike having to dry it immediately when using city hard water to wash it.

My little contribution......and it wasn't even hard work!:costumed-smiley-007

[Kermit]

Saving Water...........



....I did not wash the truck. (although I have been accused of dirt not sticking to it......hehe).



Maybe you should call my neighbor down the street, he washes his Caddy at least....AT LEAST...4 times a week...umm...dude...we live in the desert.

Same nieghbor I didn't even get a thank you from, for cutting down his couple ton palm tree...that the "land scaper" almost dropped on to his house....I could of got a thank you...wasting water.. dude guy...end rant...heck, the dude won't even wave back...people suck...ok now end rant, period!

[Speaker]

Why'd you cut down his tree?

[Redline]

Posting about water put this old thread to the top, helping me see it and then stay up late reading the whole thing. I liked the 'conservationist' label described toward the beginning, but maybe I'm an 'environmentalist' too, though not in the modern sense of the label. I agree with many of the posts and will agree to disagree with the others ☺

I have a couple of very economical vehicles, one 4-wheeled, one 2, that I don't always use for a variety of reasons, including some as selfish as I sometimes just prefer to use the ‘trucks’.

My wife and I live in a house much larger than we 'need', though we built it with ease of use for elderly/handicapped (maybe us someday) and extended family in mind, and with a very efficient insulating concrete forms (ICF) framing material. We moved here from an older, smaller, but MUCH less efficient home.

Though we have a large lot, we don't have any grass, nor do we plan to plant any. We don't have a home owners' association that will make us have a lawn, we see it as a huge waste of water (and time) in this high-desert, and we're glad to have a choice.

You guys are great, long live the Expedition Portal.

James


I don't know if this is the right thread to post this........but I didn't want to start another thread.

Saving Water...........

I believe Very Strongly in Saving Water. I've felt this way ever since I was a young teen living in Hawaii.

I have already turned off my auto sprinklers for the winter season.

The point of this post........

The last time I took the SWR out was to the Anza Borrego TACODOC meet up.

I did not wash the truck. (although I have been accused of dirt not sticking to it......hehe).

Tonight we in SO CAL are about to get creamed by a rain storm.

As I type........I left the SWR out in my driveway (which I never do!) and I'm going to let the PH Balanced Rain......wash the SWR!

No Hard water marks! And I bet I can even just let it dry on it's own and it will be fine (if I still have enough wax on it). Unlike having to dry it immediately when using city hard water to wash it.

My little contribution......and it wasn't even hard work!:costumed-smiley-007

[Kermit]

Why'd you cut down his tree?

His "landscaper" came over and asked me to. It was odd, rang the door bell, and said "looks like you would own a chainsaw"..."umm, yeah I do."

He said he would give me a $100, if I would help him. I saw them struggling with topping the palm earlier in the week. I went over to help. Oh man, he had it cut all wrong, huge flipppin' plam at least 3 or 4 feet thick! I have a 20" bar on my saw still left about 8" in the middle. Weighed a couple ton, was very close to the house, he had no wedge cut it, just a cut all the way around level...(scary!)...plus he was using a tiny electric saw, they had no idea what they were doing. So before anyone died, or the palm would of went into the house, or crush the guy's sheds. It was a bit scary, here I am being mr. nice guy. Trying to drop this huge palm with only about a 2 foot room for error, it already had a bad cut in it, it could of spun and took something out, including me.

Well I got it to land it where I wanted to, cut into peices so they could load it into the truck...(palms are very heavy, full of water)...too bad, it was a nice palm. I even cut the stump level so the owner of the house could make a table out of it.

Yeah, I could of turned down the job, if I did, I really thought someone was going to die, or at least take out a shed, or part of the guy's house. (Sometimes it doesn't pay to be nice, literally!)

The "landscaper"...said he would swing by and pay me....never did,....nor did the owner of the house ever thank me. I talked to him during the whole process, he asked if i did this for a living, I told him no, I am a hair dresser, he kinda gave me a strange look and went inside...Huh? I think he thought I was a h omosexual or something...(I am not) I didn't feel I had to give him my life story, why I know how to run saw. I grew up in the country, we sold wood burning stoves at our business, we heated our house with wood back East, one gets pretty good at dropping trees.

So, anyway, the dude guy...won't even wave back, when I wave...maybe he thinks I am flirting with him...people I tell you! It makes me want to run the saw down the side of his Caddy, that he washes 4 times a week. I wouldn't, but, that would be on the list if I had 6 months to live.

[Speaker]

Weighed a couple ton, was very close to the house, he had no wedge cut it, just a cut all the way around level...(scary!)...plus he was using a tiny electric saw, they had no idea what they were doing.

:yikes:
The words landscaper and chainsaw should never appear together. You did the right thing, bummer neither one paid up.

[Kermit]

:yikes:
The words landscaper and chainsaw should never appear together. You did the right thing, bummer neither one paid up.

It's not even about the money, it's only $100. He totally looks the other way when I wave at him. Instead he could have.."Hey there is that nice neighbor, that saved my house, my sheds, prevented the landscaper from killing himself"..."hey nice neighbor"...*wave*

[Desertdude]

Can we get this thread back on topic, with a bit less name calling please?

Thanks

[Kermit]

Can we get this thread back on topic, with a bit less name calling please?

Thanks


Fixed, sorry I got carried away complaining about my water wasting neighbor.:o

As for being an enrivonmentalist and doing overland travel, I would have to agree with DaveInDenver posts eariler in this thread, can't have your cake and eat it too.

To me when I hear the word "environmentist", it is a person or group that is against the very things I enjoy. The very core of what this website is based off, "Vehicle Dependent Travel"

[Skylinerider]

As for being an enrivonmentalist and doing overland travel, I would have to agree with DaveInDenver posts eariler in this thread, can't have your cake and eat it too.

To me when I hear the word "environmentist", it is a person or group that is against the very things I enjoy. The very core of what this website is based off, "Vehicle Dependent Travel"

IMO the word "enviornmentalist" has been twisted to fit a very specific group of people now. And as such I prefer the term "conservationalist". I conserve our resources so they will last for all men to use and enjoy. Key words use and enjoy. I love overland travel, and I love to use the outdoors, at the same time I love doing these things so much that I want my children to be able todo the same things. That requires a certain level of responsibility and stewardship on my part.

[Kermit]

IMO the word "enviornmentalist" has been twisted to fit a very specific group of people now. And as such I prefer the term "conservationalist". I conserve our resources so they will last for all men to use and enjoy. Key words use and enjoy. I love overland travel, and I love to use the outdoors, at the same time I love doing these things so much that I want my children to be able todo the same things. That requires a certain level of responsibility and stewardship on my part.

I totally agree with you.

Go back and read DaveInDenver's post, he hits the nail on the head.

[Skylinerider]

I totally agree with you.

Go back and read DaveInDenver's post, he hits the nail on the head.

Yeah, I kinda posted without reading the whole thread. (It's starting to be a looong thread. :jumping: )

[DaveInDenver]

As for being an enrivonmentalist and doing overland travel, I would have to agree with DaveInDenver posts eariler in this thread, can't have your cake and eat it too.
Hey, draggin' me back in? ;-) It's been a while since I read this thread, IIRC my point was that sure, you can be mindful of the environment and be an OHV or overland user. But I think the basic idea that we are driving internal combustion engine vehicles is immediately a choice not to do the best thing. There is nothing inherently good about them, it's a time saving convenience over less harmful options. So while I and probably everyone here do what we can to minimize our impact, both on the trail and at home, I don't think we have a logical stance that can be justified as being entirely Earth friendly. I do prefer the term conservationist for the bulk of people, we want to protect what is natural and save our environment from being paved, destroyed and ruined. But the notion of locking it away to appease our collectively perceived guilt is ridiculous. So to that end, since group-wise our DNA seemed to be coded to explore and see what's out there, we make the conscious decision to use an internal combustion car simply because that is the reality of what technology exists. It's a compromise, that's all. We have chosen to accept the damage we might do for the benefit of going places. I honestly believe that were we truly interested in protecting the environment we could choose not to burn fuel and drive heavy trucks through the world, so that's is why I don't think we can call ourselves 'environmentalists' as defined in the current way. But it's all just terms, in the end it's what you do and how you live that defines you, anyway.

[Kermit]

Yeah, I kinda posted without reading the whole thread. (It's starting to be a looong thread. :jumping: )


I do too.

The sad thing is, I have to pick sides, my side is the OHV enthusiast, the environmentalist are against what I love to do for recreation. I wish we can all come to some sort of compromise, I don't see that ever happening.

All of my dirt bike buddies, really enjoy getting out in nature, we love it, we don't want to destroy it, just enjoy life before we meet our makers. We have tried reasoning with the environmental groups to no avail. Sadly, we will have to start taking them to court. I can think of better things to do with the time and money.

I received an email, from our President of our club, who has met with officials from a top environmental group. That want all forms of offroad recreation to end, and they will stop at nothing to do so. They don't care if the vehicle runs on water...this includes mountain bikes, horses, grazing, etc...unless you're a hiker, forget about enjoying the outdoors.

I am all for, conserve, renewable energy, reuse, low/no emissions, small foot print, just don't call me an environmentalist. ;)

[Kermit]

Sorry to drag you in Dave,

I really respect your views and thoughts. You tend to say what I can't.

[Skylinerider]

I do too.

The sad thing is, I have to pick sides, my side is the OHV enthusiast, the environmentalist are against what I love to do for recreation. I wish we can all come to some sort of compromise, I don't see that ever happening...
..........unless you're a hiker, forget about enjoying the outdoors.

I absolutely agree. While I don't own a motorbike, or ATV, I still use the same trails as they use so I feel we are on the same side, and need to support each other. I've heard many stories about offroad groups coming to the table with compromises for "enviornmental" groups only to have them shot down. It does seem like an all or nothing thing with these sort of groups.

[DaveInDenver]

Sorry to drag you in Dave,

I really respect your views and thoughts. You tend to say what I can't.
No, man, I did go back and re-read the first couple of pages. I didn't exactly ignore this thread... But, Kermit, you might be deeply troubled if you respect my thoughts. I would seek immediate professional help, maybe look up Dr. Whiskey:

http://drwhisky.blogspot.com/

[Kermit]

I have been dicussing cleaner burning dirt bikes on the moto forums. Yeah it is all fine and dandy, but, the enviro's really don't care, they want it ALL gone.

It has been brought to my attention, we shouldn't defend our sport, we should promote it. So that is what I am doing...see a new guy on the trail. I hand him a card about our club. We promote Tread Lighly, respect, and motorcycle safety.

The main Arizona forum with all of the clubs, http://www.arizonatrailtalk.com/main.html

I belong to Arizona Trail Riders and Trail Riders of Southern Arizona. I also go up time to time and do trail maintenance for the Flagstaff Club, Coconino Trail Riders. I got to help build some of the Arizona Trail, which I can't even take a dirt bike on...I hike, mountian bike, ride a horse from every now and then.

[Kermit]

But, Kermit, you might be deeply troubled if you respect my thoughts. I would seek immediate professional help, maybe look up Dr. Whiskey:

http://drwhisky.blogspot.com/

I never said I was sane...:p:eatchicke :victory: :REOutShootinghunter

[jayshapiro]

Can we get this thread back on topic, with a bit less name calling please?

Thanks

Just to refer back to the first couple of postings and the initial question...


As an individual and an owner of a company involved in vehicle dependant travel (Adventure Trailers) I feel very torn by the fact I’m environmentally conscious while at the same time I’m contributing to the pollution caused by my vehicle.

I am part of the problem and I need to become part of the solution.

I completely agree. I'm building our vehicle now that we're calling the "eco-roamer" and I've taken a lot of flack for that name over in our thread, here (http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8936).

...BUT, I do believe it is possible to be both a part of the problem AND a part of the solution, by REDUCING your impact.

I am a big advocate of not cutting out expedition travel entirely (a sure-fire way to cut our footprint), but to be more considerate and intelligent in how we go about it, and try to minimize our impact as we go.

In our case we're doing things like:

Starting with a used truck.
Running on Bio-Diesel
Using re-cycled & sustainable materials for construction
off-setting our trip's CO2 emmissions with carbon credits for tree planting, etc.
Substantial solar panels to reduce generator runtime


At the end of the day we're still going to be a part of the problem, but at least we're doing it in a way that I'm confident causes as LITTLE HARM as is possible given the expedition.

Cheers,
Jay.

[rathackman]

Hi all,
I really do not intend this as an attack or confrontation of any kind and it will be my first post on Expedition Portal.
First let me say that I am a total motorhead...I have 7 motorcycles, a truck/camper, and two cars...I also am environmentally conscious. My around town vehicle is a Honda CT110 trail bike which I ride daily, year round. I get 100 mpg. My personal car is a Geo Metro (50mpg). The camper is a 6 cyl B4000 Mazda 4wd...(17mpg). Our personal living footprint and consumption is very small . We live in southern NM where limited energy is needed for habitation.
I spend a large amount of time in the desert camping and leave as little trace as I can.
I do not "four wheel" and tear up the desert, I travel gravel and dirt roads and believe dualsport is the future of offroad motorcycling.
We both have backpacked and hiked for most of our lives and I was raised and influenced by my older brother who started and was publishing editor of Backpacker magazine in the 70's and early 80's.
We also travel and have driven and camped for years in Mexico and as far down south as Belize and Guatamala so far. I have lived in Alaska for 22 years surrounded by wilderness that few people ever experience. My wife and I have worked a large amount of our work lives in public lands...her a fire fighter and me a mechanic. We have traveled a lot in this old world and will spend this Feb. in Thailand.
This all said as a little background without too much batting around of terminology that actually means zip-doodle, and putting aside the idea that any of this can be in the most distant reaches of sensibility..ecological in any sense of the term, brings me to a very different question that I have and would love to read some takes on.
My experience traveling and with some limited overlanding tells me that the bigger and more expensive the vehicle, the further away from the average person in the developing world you become. The extreme of that is of course the many motorhome and rv caravans that drive all over Mexico and as far south as Panama.The next step down is the gigantic Unimog style vehicles, traveling solo, mostly driven by Europeans who are traveling the world. Under that come the many varied rigs and motos, bicycles and etc.
Being a motorcyclist I find that even a larger moto removes you from the average citizens reality in countries where a big bike is 250cc...in fact even travel itself removes you from that as they are mostly caught up in daily survival with little if any time or cash for travel.
I do notice in most travelogues I read by world travel moto riders is that often there is a goal built in... an End to End type of deal....around the world 5 times. Get through these awful places as quick as you can.
I am wondering what kind of experience of the local environment and people a person can have when their rig is worth the yearly gross income of the entire village you are visiting? In fact your yearly income may rival that figure.
How close can you become to them in a fortress with locks on every conceivable opening or removable item?
I have been in villages where my little Mazda truck is almost too wide for the street with carts and cars and trucks and buses and people walking.
I am fortunate enough to belong to a spiritual fellowship that is in nearly every country of the world and is found in even the smallest villages and I have been able to get very close to some folks wherever I go and that to me is the most valuable experience I know. In fact for me alone, that is why I travel...to make friends and to experience as many cultures as I can. My wife is more interested in the natural environment wherever we go...after all her degree is in Geography ;^). So I realize we all have whatever we are interested in.
I am open to education here and actually as a motorhead and ex long haul trucker am enchanted by enormous and well built vehicles and part of me would very much love to have one...then I could go park in East LA and feel safe. ;^)
From looking at readers rides, I do notice that the average member of this forum is mostly a FWD person that mostly travels the states and maybe Baja, so my questions are pointed more to those who actually have some foriegn travel experience.
Cheers,
Brian in NM

[Martyn]

Welcome Brian, thought provoking first post!

When I was younger I used to travel everywhere by bus, or motorcycle, a great way to meet real people. Then travel became a mix of a VW mirco-bus and local and long haul busses. My wife and I hitchhiked through Southern Africa and used buses in Central America when our daughter was very young. So we are familiar with this style of traveling.

Two factors modified this method. First was we wanted to go to remote sections of Southern Africa and see large animals. We didn't want to be part of the budget, 20 people in a truck, vacation package, and we didn't want to be part of the exclusive $500.00 per night package. So that left us with the DIY self propelled expedition.

The second factor was our daughter. When she was 0-6 traveling with her was extremely easy, we could pack light weight, pick her up and carry her when she got tired, and play I-Spy until the cows came home. After that it seems to get more and more complicated for us to travel and having our own vehicle allows us flexibility to set our own itinerary, and deal with family disputes now she is a teenager.

I'm hoping at some point we will be able to return to taking buses and staying in local accommodation. If we need to go somewhere special may be we rent a car for a few days.

[taco2go]

My experience traveling and with some limited overlanding tells me that the bigger and more expensive the vehicle, the further away from the average person in the developing world you become. The extreme of that is of course the many motorhome and rv caravans that drive all over Mexico and as far south as Panama.The next step down is the gigantic Unimog style vehicles, traveling solo, mostly driven by Europeans who are traveling the world. Under that come the many varied rigs and motos, bicycles and etc.
Being a motorcyclist I find that even a larger moto removes you from the average citizens reality in countries where a big bike is 250cc...in fact even travel itself removes you from that as they are mostly caught up in daily survival with little if any time or cash for travel.
I do notice in most travelogues I read by world travel moto riders is that often there is a goal built in... an End to End type of deal....around the world 5 times. Get through these awful places as quick as you can.
I am wondering what kind of experience of the local environment and people a person can have when their rig is worth the yearly gross income of the entire village you are visiting? In fact your yearly income may rival that figure.
How close can you become to them in a fortress with locks on every conceivable opening or removable item?
I have been in villages where my little Mazda truck is almost too wide for the street with carts and cars and trucks and buses and people walking.
I am fortunate enough to belong to a spiritual fellowship that is in nearly every country of the world and is found in even the smallest villages and I have been able to get very close to some folks wherever I go and that to me is the most valuable experience I know. In fact for me alone, that is why I travel...to make friends and to experience as many cultures as I can. My wife is more interested in the natural environment wherever we go...after all her degree is in Geography ;^). So I realize we all have whatever we are interested in.
I am open to education here and actually as a motorhead and ex long haul trucker am enchanted by enormous and well built vehicles and part of me would very much love to have one...then I could go park in East LA and feel safe. ;^)
From looking at readers rides, I do notice that the average member of this forum is mostly a FWD person that mostly travels the states and maybe Baja, so my questions are pointed more to those who actually have some foriegn travel experience.
Cheers,
Brian in NM

Welcome to ExPo- from a fellow lurker. Great forum. Like Martyn, I also encourage local/public forms of transportation when possible. However here are some of my random thoughts-
I think active portrayal of intent has a lot to do with changing people’s perception. While most members on this site are primarily recreational travelers in the US, there are numerous threads here that discuss these aspects of travel in developing countries- and the importance of being friendly, approachable, cautiously generous, and polite. In my experience, locals can very easily pick out the 'tourists', from the 'passers by', from the truly interested travelers. It is amazing how quickly you can attain a high level of intimacy once that intent is recognized. Despite the lumbering Unimog. If you are genuinely iterested in cultures and establishing friendships, the vehicle becomes analagous to a carefully prepared backpack.
You mention “spiritual fellowship”, and there are other “access points” to enjoying similar fellowship (I think that’s a great term BTW). Regardless, they all require an active personal interest. The vehicle almost becomes an afterthought. In my few medical outreach trips in Nepal and North India, when villagers see the satchel’s of TB meds, or signs for free vaccines, the kitted out land rover or shiny new Mahindra becomes virtually inconspicuous.
As a purely recreational traveler, it will require more effort, but relatively simple stuff- buying from the roadside stalls, sharing pictures, learning common phrases - but I believe you can have a goal oriented, “End to End” type of deal- and still be enriched by a cultural, environmental, even spiritually immersive experience. Lastly- and most importantly- be prepared, and expect to be, personally changed by the experience. Anyone who has traveled abroad, especially in developing countries will attest to that. It will also have direct impact on how you present yourself as a respectful ambassador of your own culture.
Lots of good write ups on this forum- there was a link a while back to an incredible motorcycle trip through Angola by a group of S. Africans- I think it may have been on ADV Rider. Perfect example. And they had some expensive bikes. Can't find the link:(

[Ursidae69]

Hi all,
I really do not intend this as an attack or confrontation of any kind and it will be my first post on Expedition Portal.
First let me say that I am a total motorhead...I have 7 motorcycles, a truck/camper, and two cars...I also am environmentally conscious. My around town vehicle is a Honda CT110 trail bike which I ride daily, year round. I get 100 mpg. My personal car is a Geo Metro (50mpg). The camper is a 6 cyl B4000 Mazda 4wd...(17mpg). Our personal living footprint and consumption is very small . We live in southern NM where limited energy is needed for habitation.
I spend a large amount of time in the desert camping and leave as little trace as I can.
I do not "four wheel" and tear up the desert, I travel gravel and dirt roads and believe dualsport is the future of offroad motorcycling.
We both have backpacked and hiked for most of our lives and I was raised and influenced by my older brother who started and was publishing editor of Backpacker magazine in the 70's and early 80's.
We also travel and have driven and camped for years in Mexico and as far down south as Belize and Guatamala so far. I have lived in Alaska for 22 years surrounded by wilderness that few people ever experience. My wife and I have worked a large amount of our work lives in public lands...her a fire fighter and me a mechanic. We have traveled a lot in this old world and will spend this Feb. in Thailand.
This all said as a little background without too much batting around of terminology that actually means zip-doodle, and putting aside the idea that any of this can be in the most distant reaches of sensibility..ecological in any sense of the term, brings me to a very different question that I have and would love to read some takes on.
My experience traveling and with some limited overlanding tells me that the bigger and more expensive the vehicle, the further away from the average person in the developing world you become. The extreme of that is of course the many motorhome and rv caravans that drive all over Mexico and as far south as Panama.The next step down is the gigantic Unimog style vehicles, traveling solo, mostly driven by Europeans who are traveling the world. Under that come the many varied rigs and motos, bicycles and etc.
Being a motorcyclist I find that even a larger moto removes you from the average citizens reality in countries where a big bike is 250cc...in fact even travel itself removes you from that as they are mostly caught up in daily survival with little if any time or cash for travel.
I do notice in most travelogues I read by world travel moto riders is that often there is a goal built in... an End to End type of deal....around the world 5 times. Get through these awful places as quick as you can.
I am wondering what kind of experience of the local environment and people a person can have when their rig is worth the yearly gross income of the entire village you are visiting? In fact your yearly income may rival that figure.
How close can you become to them in a fortress with locks on every conceivable opening or removable item?
I have been in villages where my little Mazda truck is almost too wide for the street with carts and cars and trucks and buses and people walking.
I am fortunate enough to belong to a spiritual fellowship that is in nearly every country of the world and is found in even the smallest villages and I have been able to get very close to some folks wherever I go and that to me is the most valuable experience I know. In fact for me alone, that is why I travel...to make friends and to experience as many cultures as I can. My wife is more interested in the natural environment wherever we go...after all her degree is in Geography ;^). So I realize we all have whatever we are interested in.
I am open to education here and actually as a motorhead and ex long haul trucker am enchanted by enormous and well built vehicles and part of me would very much love to have one...then I could go park in East LA and feel safe. ;^)
From looking at readers rides, I do notice that the average member of this forum is mostly a FWD person that mostly travels the states and maybe Baja, so my questions are pointed more to those who actually have some foriegn travel experience.
Cheers,
Brian in NM

Welcome fellow New Mexican. :) Interesting points. How close you can become is a good question. I think it depends more on who you are then how much your rig is worth. At least in my limited experience in Mexico that is my opinion.

Welcome to Portal, hope to see you post more.

[rathackman]

Martyn, Joash, and Ursidae69,
Thanks for the welcome and good responses. I belong to another forum that has at least one of the members of ExPo on it and through their mentioning this forum I came over and will stay and learn.
I do need to prowl more through other threads and previous posts to see what has been said and probably a lot of this stuff has been hashed and rehashed.
I am quite interested in RTW travel and though, due to some health issues, I may not do it, I still have a great collection of RTW motorcycle books that I reread yearly and it serves to keep my fascination with it fired up.
I will stay on the side and listen.
Cheers,
Brian in NM

[Scenic WonderRunner]

I don't know if this is the right thread to post this........but I didn't want to start another thread.

Saving Water...........

I believe Very Strongly in Saving Water. I've felt this way ever since I was a young teen living in Hawaii.

I have already turned off my auto sprinklers for the winter season.

The point of this post........

The last time I took the SWR out was to the Anza Borrego TACODOC meet up.

I did not wash the truck. (although I have been accused of dirt not sticking to it......hehe).

Tonight we in SO CAL are about to get creamed by a rain storm.

As I type........I left the SWR out in my driveway (which I never do!) and I'm going to let the PH Balanced Rain......wash the SWR!

No Hard water marks! And I bet I can even just let it dry on it's own and it will be fine (if I still have enough wax on it). Unlike having to dry it immediately when using city hard water to wash it.

My little contribution......and it wasn't even hard work!:costumed-smiley-007


.......An update on my Free........ PH Balanced .......Rain Induced car wash.

It Worked!

If you just keep your truck waxed enough, it will work.

Although I did decide to take a dry clean towel and just wipe dry the sunroof and engine hood..........right after the rain and just before I pulled it into my garage ..........just in case.

.......done!