further elections not needed

I'm glad the election will proceed. As I said, I don't know US law, I was just wondering if it were possible. I'm still fearful for Americans though, because I every day become more convinced that there is nothing beyond the current devil in charge.

The biggest problem currently, Wilso, is that the Democrats have to field a candidate in whom the electorate will have confidence. I've heard on NPR, and read in the op-ed pages of several newspapers that if people polled are given a choice between Bush and an unspecified Democrat, they choose the Democrat; but when specific names are used--Dean, Kerry, Clark--they choose Bush, i guess basically on the "devil you know" basis. Unless a Democrat can project an image of effective leadership, the odds are good that the Shrub will be re-elected. This is quite apart from whatever plans Rove and company have to stack the deck.

That is so scary.

You say that from a vantage of thousands of miles away--just imagine how it feels for one who lives here . . .

I don't think I can!!!

Where are the people with backbone? They appear to all have abondoned A2K.

OK, wolf, name me ONE non-GHG producing human transport vehicle other than a bicycle or a glider, currently available. Please.

Actually, it was me who asked you a question. You're symbolized by a product which kills tens of thousands of people per year and contributes to the destuction of the very necessity for human life: a stable climate.

But I don't want to be rude. You can

-if you live in the UK: drive a decent electric vehicle

-tell me you changed to a less polluting model than the petrol model (drive a hybrid like your pal McGentrix)

-work for the City of Los Angeles, which uses some zero emission Honda FCXs

-use public transport.

In other words,

In other words, you just ate your words. Electric vehicles simply shift the burning of fossil fuels to other areas. Even in progressive California the renewable electrical energy produced by hydro or geothermal sources only accounts for a small fraction of the electricity produced.

You really should do your homework.

In fact, I like the hybrids and as soon as they are capable of producing power like a V8 or a large diesel, or even a modern V6 for that matter, then you're going to see a lot more of them on the road. Who wouldn't want to get 50 MPG and be able to haul and tow a few tons of stuff behind?

Wish I had backbone----

I had my backbone removed, it was dragging down my shadow.

Whack 'em and stack 'em, edgar.

An electric bus company just went out of business in my city due to lack of demand. They are used in the city for tourist transportation and some normal bus routes.

Good advice, in a cane field, cjhsa. Not sure where else to apply it though.

My point was that you seem to like cars, and I hoped you'd understand their dark twist. The current absence of clean vehicles on the market doesn't hide the tons of traffic jams, the pulmonary cancers, and the climate change petrol cars are producing. I just can't see anything positive in them, because there isn't.

Wolf, you're resolutely ignoring the point that "clean cars" are clean because they no longer produce the pollution, it's simply produced elsewhere. If you don't see anything positive in them, you lack historical perspective. Prior to the proliferation of the automobile, cities were full of horses and stables. Horses leave manure in the streets, which attracts flies. Flies have been the most common vector of disease in human history. The elimination of horse **** in the streets dramatically reduced the incidence and prevelance of childhood mortality. Horses are also a vector for tuberculosis. Automobiles have saved more lives than they taken, by orders of magnitude. Your youthful fanaticism leads you to frequently issued nasty condemnations of others because you get a hold on an idea, usually a shallow one, and haven't done your homework. You are really clueless on this issue, that's for sure.

Even a Ferrari 575 with a V12 produces zero emissions.

Setanta, I don't want to go back to manure on the streets, no. But I would like to trigger a progressive reflex -- I know it hurts.

Petrol-dependent cars are no good, there is no question about that.

PDF file

Life expectancy for men has increased 4.7 years and 3.5 for women the last two decades of the 20th century. So who are these auto's killing besides the ones in fatal accidents? We're only going to live but so long then something is going to kill us, SARS, cancer, lightning, scorned woman, , who knows.

Wolf, we do care, or at least I do, but if you could live 200 more years you might see the end of a fossil fuel driven world, and you might see another fractional change in climates, and for sure a few anomalies like the heatwave in France. All in all nature can take care of itself, we are part of it and we must be the best stewards that we can, but you're going to shorten your life more by worrying about it than the actual effects of your environment.

200 years, you say? That's precisely what worries me. I'd like my children growing up in a healthy environment starting now. There's no reason not to, except for that horrendous cynicism so many obey to.