digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

It's the end of the car as we know it. And I feel fine.

motortrend.com — The world is running out of oil. Global warming threatens our very existence. The gasoline-fed V-8 engine will soon go the way of the dodo bird. In fact, cars as we know them are doomed. Who knows how bad it could get? Someday there might even be another Rambo sequel.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Jiggles1875, on 04/25/2008, -38/+127"The world is running out of oil. Global warming threatens our very existence."

    lol and lol.
    • Maver1c, on 04/25/2008, -12/+3lollol
    • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -8/+7roflx2
    • devoss, on 04/25/2008, -9/+43I remember when they said this crap in the 70s too. "We only have enough oil for 50 more years, global ice age, blah, blah, blah."

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again.
      • popfrogs, on 04/25/2008, -8/+1Plus one for the Bushism, that's my favorite one.
      • PabloMac, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4I remember the gas lines and "global cooling" hype from the 70s. The only thing artificial about it is the manipulation of the oil market.
    • ripple123, on 04/25/2008, -5/+26The world is running out of lol
      • jorisb, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3The 90's called, they want their lol back
      • PeppermintPig, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1this is serious business!

        On a more sober note.. over the last week, it feels as if there's been a huge spike of irrationality. Some of it could be blamed on Earth Day, and spring time, the price of gas jumping, looming federal reserve action, and the disproportional "food scare".

        This kind of brain-off crazy is the kind of thing which the administration/government can use to their advantage, and the possibilities are all really, really bad.
    • Harabeck, on 04/25/2008, -10/+10"Global warming threatens our very existence." -Maybe, maybe not, no real evidence, no reason to panic. "The world is running out of oil." -Better believe it. Oil production has already peaked and is beginning to drop. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/US/GAO/GAOPeakOilReport ... page 13

      Weve hit all the easy reserves, it only gets harder from here. By 2050, at current increase of rate of demand, we will have used all the Earth's reserves, assuming we could reach it all.
      • ralphthemagi, on 04/25/2008, -4/+6Just because it's "peaked" doesn't mean we are running out. There will be a second peak if the price ever becomes high enough for alternative extraction methods to be cost effective.
      • popfrogs, on 04/25/2008, -2/+11Crazy-ass reports like that being taken seriously by market speculators is what's keeping oil/gas prices so high. We're in no danger of running out of fossil fuel for at least the next 50 years. Brazil just found what they believe to be a massive offshore deposit, potentially holding between 5-8 billion barrels. That puts them in Arab Nation territory and definitely squares them with Venezuela.
        They'll keep looking, they'll keep finding more oil. Not that I'm a big fan of it, but this chicken little speculation just keeps spanking the world economy.
      • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Please people educate yourselves. Oil is ancient forrests that have died. Saying we will always have more oil is like saying we have unlimited ancient forests or unlimited forests today. We've probably already used up most of the oil from most of history. There was no forests before a few hundred million years ago.
      • synarchy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Google it, Harabeck. Why do you think the CIA has been so cozy with Brazil's president for the last few years?

        25 April

        In the last couple of months, several major offshore oil discoveries in Brazil have made headlines. The discovery of two oil fields has given new life to the idea that Brazil could become the world’s largest oil producer in the coming decades.

        The discovery of the Carioca field, estimated to hold 33 billion barrels, could alone increase Brazil’s future oil production capacity by 1-1.5 million barrels per day. This would make it the third largest oil field in the world and turn Brazil into the seventh largest producer of oil. In addition, Brazil’s national oil company Petroleo Brasileiro (Petrobras) [NYSE:PZE] reported in November 2007 that the offshore Tupi field may hold 8 billion barrels of recoverable crude.
    • joe122370, on 04/25/2008, -7/+16we're not even close to using all the oil yet
    • robohoe, on 04/25/2008, -5/+9The biggest oil drill hole is 6km deep. The deepest hole we ever dug up was 12km. The biggest natural hole in the world is Mariana Trench and that is 10km. I'm pretty sure there is more oil after beyond that 10km.
      • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Do you even know what oil is. It is ancient life bio-degraded. So if we go past the age of the first life then there is no more oil.
    • dimitrisokolov, on 04/25/2008, -10/+6What a retard. Global warming is a natural cycle, C02's got nothing to do with it. The planet has been through tropical periods and ice ages long before human beings even *****' existed. Why Al Gore and his dumb ass followers don't understand this is beyond me.
      • oderdigg, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7Maybe they haven't had the pleasure of reading your posts. It sure enlightened me.

        /sarcasm.
        • paker, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Maybe Gore should practice what he preaches.
    • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1I threaten your existence Jiggles and if I ever met you I would sincerely like to beat the living ***** out of you. Q.E.D.
  • Inflammo, on 04/25/2008, -24/+8Who needs gas cars in this day and age anyways? ***** 'em
    • senae, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11Anyone who doesn't live in the heart of a city, maybe?
      • TheZorch, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1Or who owns an electric car, perhaps?
        • jmpeagle, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9good luck trying to fill that up on a road trip unless you are willing to steal someone's electricity
      • Inflammo, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Yes, because there wasn't a hint of sarcasm in what I said.

        =]
    • Harabeck, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Almost everyone lives in a city. All of those people could use an electric(once the tech is developed a bit more). Even if we just get those people on electric, it will help a ton.
      • MattB123, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Or a bike.
        • urothane, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Have you ever tried to commute a family of 4 5 miles to the school and another 5-10 to work? How about making sure that you made it from your job 10 miles or more away before the daycares begin charging you $5 a minute for being late? I am all for public transit. I hate that Milwaukee has a lousy bus system and no subway/trains, but a bike is only practical for the single commuter less than 10 miles away. It is only practical when you can also ride to the grocery store (not sure how you will carry them home though), department store, pharmacy, doctor's office (image having to bike to the doctor's after accidentally stabbing yourself in the leg?) or other regular stops.
          • MattB123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1No I never have. I have one son, so it's easier for me.
            When the weather is cooperative, I ride him (via a Tag-a-Long,which turns a regular bike into a tandem for one adult and one kid) to and from daycare on my way to/from work.
            Groceries can be loaded into the bike basket if it's a quick trip, or I can use my bike trailer if I really have a lot. I also have a car and use it when I need to (deep snow, sub zero temps, big cargo, etc) but try to avoid using it as much as possible. As hard as I try I usually can't go more than about two weeks before I have to break down and fire it up.

            But anyway, I guess my point is do what you can. Every little bit helps.
      • PabloMac, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8"Almost everyone lives in a city."
        Someone watches too many TV shows and movies, where almost everything happens within the city limits of New York City or Los Angeles.
        • 1randomguyO8, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Depends on the country, Actually.
  • kelly, on 04/25/2008, -36/+59"Global warming threatens our very existence"

    But our car's did NOT create it... nor did anything man made. The sooner we can all own up to this, the sooner we can direct our resources where they're REALLY needed.
    • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -27/+17riiiight. let's not take responsibility for ourselves, lets just let fate destroy us.
      • mattbeetee, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Shh - you're being silly.
      • NoCt1, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Fate? Really.. So Fate is the cause for it? Or is it Nature. Or hell even the Climate that is the cause. Maybe..
        • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -10/+5the climate is the cause of itself? no my friend, people are the cause of global warming.
        • kelly, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1No, digg "science" trolls are
        • Wingnut233, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2[Citation Required]
      • lolinyerface, on 04/25/2008, -3/+10How arrogant is man? Thinking we have control over this earths climate?
        This bad girl is going to chew us up and spit us out and keep going.
        It is a cute thought though, thinking we have that much power. What a bunch of arrogant bastards... ha!
        • thehxcfighter, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Lol, mother Earth could care less about humans, we could launch every nuke ever made at the earth and it would shake it off and keep going without us
        • odoyle6, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2And your house would probably still be standing after a nerve gas was released within it, doesn't mean anyone would still want to live there.
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Where's that, then?
      • kelly, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5getting rid of digg "science" trolls
        • meesle110, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1So, your plan is:
          1"Debunk" (lets just accept it as natural) global warming.

          How proactive of you...
        • giveer, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I was going to suggest grammar schools myself.
      • ralphthemagi, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Cocaine... and hookers.
      • BuddyDoQ, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7Space.

        Lets face it, expansion is necessary for the survival of our species. It may take a while yet, but logic tells that we will run out of resources to sustain population growth. Second, the ever present desire to explore the unknown must be fed, it is part of what makes us human. We must expand into space, or die trying. It's one part necessity, one part manifest destiny.
        • Blandyman, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Manifest destiny without all the soul-crushing native herding :(
      • jumico, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0iraq
    • scax330, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4---the sooner we can direct our resources where they're REALLY needed.---
      And that is?
      • kelly, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7getting rid of digg "science" trolls
        • senae, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I was going to say world hunger, but that works too.

          Ahh, world hunger, the one environmentalist agenda I can get behind.
      • Harabeck, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Anywhere but the Middle East?
    • SqueakyWheel, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3We should be allowing huge growth in CO2 emissions, and letting the immigrants flow into America. We should be stockpiling food and stop burning it if climate change is going to happen
    • Acewrap, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4Tax cuts for the rich?
    • xutopia, on 04/25/2008, -4/+6We didn't? Back it up.
    • kelly, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8Before the grammar nazis get me... I realize I made a mistake... its cars, not car's.
      Don't hurt me!
      • FFXIfrohike, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Who gives a ***** whether our cars created it? It's a fact that running a car is getting expensive and we are yes, running out of oil. Hence the need for alternatives. I fail to see your point.
        • kelly, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4cars didn't create it.
          • FFXIfrohike, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Which is an absolutely empty point. Congrats.
          • Aensland, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1...and the hundreds of millions of emission-spewing cars are doing absolutely nothing except wonderful things to the air we breathe in. Right.
  • sockpuppets, on 04/25/2008, -2/+112My car runs on dodo birds so I'm doubly screwed.
    • Ki77erB, on 04/25/2008, -2/+12I upgraded to hamsters a few years ago and never looked back!
      • Jeffler, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11I tried that but they wouldn't stop dancing. :(
        • GothAlice, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12Gerbils solve that. Though you have to be careful in the more 'liberal' towns lest they get stolen… ¬_¬
        • Jeffler, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Excellent point GothAlice. However, have you considered Prairie Dogs? If you buy the dramatic kind you just need to point the camera at them to brake...
    • littlejon, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5you must not get out much then
  • mytibt, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3Dugg for mention of a Corvette!
    • serif69, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4A mention of a Corvette? In Motor Trend? Surely you jest!
      • mytibt, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Hmm is it possible that the writer could have mentioned some other cars instead? Hater...
  • geneticlone, on 04/25/2008, -28/+7STFU you annoying hippy douches.
    • dondara, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1DIAF douchebag
    • Sherman901, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4since when was planning the future for hippy douches only? i suppose hippies just aren't cool enough to not give a ***** about anything.
    • meesle110, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1INTERNET TOUGH GUY
  • centryfox, on 04/25/2008, -14/+20Alarmism, ftw
    • GothAlice, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2FUD is the professional term.
    • knupso, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7I can't wait till things go all Mad Max and stuff. I would hate to think I wasted all this money on bondage gear and feathers.
    • marko718, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6not reading the article FTL
  • BlazeQ, on 04/25/2008, -19/+39'Green' might just be the biggest marketing scam that America has fallen prey to...

    All the people around the world dealing with food shortages thank you.
    • Smiths, on 04/25/2008, -3/+11Sure, lay the bad policy of corn-based ethanol at the foot of the green movement.

      Do your research. It was derided by most major green movements before it was ever passed into law as wasteful and inefficient, which has born itself true.
    • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -0/+18corn-based ethanol is a huge mistake. it takes more energy to produce it than it provides. we need to diversify our energy supplies with wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear (if necessary).
      • popfrogs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Personally I'm a big fan of government funded liposuction, where the fat is reclaimed and processed as biofuel. At market rates it'd probably be cheaper than gasoline anyway.
        • crzdmn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2we americans would provide the world with power for once!
      • Kythas, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I don't understand why people continue to think nuclear power is unsafe. It's among the safest, cheapest, cleanest, and most efficient forms of energy production known today.

        France has 14 nuclear power plants with 1 currently under construction.
        Germany has 11 nuclear power plants.
        The United States has 66 active civilian nuclear power plants with another 8 military nuclear plants, not to count the nuclear reactors on many naval ships and submarines.

        We've let 2 accidents scare us away from nuclear power, one of which - Three Mile Island - had no deaths or injuries associated with the accident. Chernobyl was a disaster, but that's more attributable to the construction methods and administrative procedures of the former Soviet Union than the safety of nuclear power itself.

        The overall history of nuclear power shows it's extremely safe. We should build more of them. And before you ask, yes, I'd live near one.
        • crzdmn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The biggest issue with nuclear power is it's just as limited as oil. We just haven't been tapping it to the max for the past 100 years.
    • meesle110, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0Why do you all think this comes down to money?
      Is it not possible to just do it because it makes the area around us more beautiful?
      Of course I speak more so about air pollution and garbage dumps, but for christ sakes get over your fake little green certificates that run your life and grow up.
  • Lazer32, on 04/25/2008, -12/+11This smells of sensationalism...
    • SpacemanSpiffy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11If you had actually read the article, it's anti-sensationalism.
      • BlueSkyfish, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Somebody on Digg actually reading the article? I thought this was a place to force our views on others in the comments. Silly me.
  • fattymcgee311, on 04/25/2008, -4/+19Funny how I read this yesterday while sitting in Jiffy Lube waiting to pay $249 dollars to get my car serviced, inspected, and renewed. After that was done, I drove over to a gas station and payed $64 dollars to fill it up with gas. On the way home I got a flat tire and spent the next hour replacing it with the spare. How I love my car.
    • blakeage, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Well, I dropped $320 on brakes at the beginning of the month. Then it overheated, and I'm dropping another $450 for (luckily), just a new intake gasket today. Sometimes I wish I was more like my dad and liked "tinkering" with cars....... And my gas bill every month is about $320. Time to find a new place to live, and an f-in bike.
      • AdamFromMyspace, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Try a motorcycle if possible. 60 mpg and easy to maintain yourself. Total cost of ownership is much lower.
        • HarryBauzonia, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I'd love to.
          The only thing stopping me is the danger of sharing the road with idiots yakking on the phone, reading newspapers, and (yes, this is true) eating pancakes.
      • crzdmn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2$320 on breaks?????? What the hell do you drive?

        Brakes and rotors on my 08' Corolla - $125
        • basevillin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Something other than a Corolla or Civic, probably.
    • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0All that wasted time making that money.
  • firebat9er, on 04/25/2008, -8/+29We need to redesign the way our cities and communities work to greatly reduce the need for personal motorized transport.
    • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2personal transport tubes and moving sidewalks for the win.
      • TheZorch, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Stop letting the Oil Cartels stifle hydrogen fuel cell technology and start incorporating it and many of the new solar cell innovations into cars with electric motors. A company that can convert existing vehicles to use electric power will make a killing in the coming years.
        • acknotSW, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Not really practical given the weight of most of the cars on the road and current battery tech. What we really need is some breakthroughs in energy storage. If we could get to the point where we could store the energy found in 5 or 6 batteries in the same space and weight of 1 battery, going all electric would suddenly become very viable.
      • Antimatt, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I'd settle for a lightrail connection between my house and work, but I'm pretty sure that will never happen.
    • centryfox, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4how much is that gonna cost?
      • TheZorch, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Cost in this situation should have no baring when it comes to a necessity of this magnitude. Saying it costs to much is a cop out. Sometimes there are things you simply must do and this is one of them. Sorry to burst your bubble but its time to face the real world. We need to fundamentally change our society in order to survive what is coming. We have no other choice in the matter.
        • partsguy74, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1You go right ahead and wipe your a** with leaves and write manifestos to the world from your cabin in the woods. Meanwhile, me and mine will be enjoying our life.
        • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1At the expensive of your children.
      • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3how much is it gonna cost us in the long run to try to maintain our GIGANTIC national highway system (it costs us billions every year) and take into account all the gasoline we have to buy collectively, not to mention the cost of wars of choice that we have to get ourselves into to preserve our access to oil (see iraq) and you get into the tune of trillions of dollars per year to maintain what we have now. how much more expensive could it really be to re-organize and adjust appropirately? i say its worth it.
        • partsguy74, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Cut the unconstitutional government programs like the NEA endowments, the education department, the IRS, the EPA, and many others.
          • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3you gotta be kidding me. we need arts funding, we need education, we need environmental protection. ok the IRS i can agree with you on - abolish the income tax and put a national sales tax on everything but food i think.
      • thehxcfighter, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0It would cost LOADS of money, and I'm not paying for it!
    • lastoftheidiots, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1While I don't disagree, there is one thing that might put a hold on that...
      http://www.masslive.com/news/topstories/index.ssf? ...
    • Buelldozer, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3We need to get rid of the stinking, crime riddled, non self-sustaining, heavily polluted resource draining cities and move back to a more agrarian society.
      • popfrogs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Nothing is stopping you from joining the Amish, dude. They'll take you if you can do their lifestyle.
    • digitallysick, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I totally agree, since i live in the usa, when speaking to my foreign friends , explain my commute to work they just don't understand. I am asked' why can't you take public transportation, or walk/motorbike" Some big cities that an option, but not most of the usa, we have to drive everywhere. Not many places where you can walk to get everything you need
    • Evildudetx, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You go right ahead and live on top of someone. I like to have my space and I'm willing to pay the price for it.
      Not everyone wants to live in the heart of a city.......
  • Zlorp, on 04/25/2008, -4/+37being a V8 doesnt mean a car is a complete gas guzzler. a Honda s2000 gets equal city fuel mileage to a Corvette and worse highway mileage. it also weighs less and is slower. the Corvette also equals or betters the 350z and RX-8 in fuel mileage as well. A cars weight and aero-dynamics play the largest role in fuel efficiency.
    • conan359, on 04/25/2008, -18/+10Typing a lot of words does not mean that your post has anything to do with the article.
      • eric4ok, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6New to DIGG, huh? Long live the pushrod V-8!
    • S2000, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3True, plus gearing. The manual Vette's must be shifted from 1st -> 4th when driving easily (GM's skip shift system, mainly there just to fudge the EPA numbers) as well as having a 0.5:1 6th gear ratio.....a massively tall gear. Of course that makes 6th useless in terms of performance, where as the S2000's are all packed close together, but means 4000rpm's @ 75mph (but still around 30mpg highway. The F-bodies were like this as well. 6 speed transmissions FTW.

      The RX8's engine is just horrible for fuel economy. Impressive horsepower for its displacement, pathetic mileage for its displacement.
      • Zlorp, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1you're not considering the fact that the s2000's gears are so short is because of its gutless super-high reving motor, and HAVE to be that short for it to perform well (and it still is pretty weak off the line) the vette is able to gear that way because it makes good low end power. Both cares are geared the way they are because of the powerbands of their motors. . also the s2000 gets more like 26 mpg on the highway.
        • AdamFromMyspace, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Calling a 245 horse S2000 motor "gutless", then getting into your '89 Cavalier and driving to work at McDonalds.. ignorance is fun!
          • Zlorp, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1it has the torque of a 4 banger honda accord, it has to compensate by revving to 9k rpm. it doesnt even turn into a performance car until about 6k. THIS is what i mean by "gutless" and i bet an 89 cavalier would have no problems keeping pace with it off the line until the s2k hit 6k rpm. also, compared to the 430 hp that the vette is cranking out, 245 isnt really that big of a deal (even though the car really makes 237), any v6 car made nowdays will have more than that. let me guess, you're the type of guy that thinks hp/l is an actual stat worth considering too right?
          • stevenwalters, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1speaking of ignorance...

            the motor in the s2000 has to compensate for its weak torque curve by revving extremely high. it IS gutless, it just compensates by revving sky high. below 5-6k rpm its like driving a regular 4 banger around.
        • S2000, on 04/30/2008, -0/+126mpg highway? I do 25 around town, and that's with putting my foot in it regularly. I've done long drives, 1.5hrs highway out then again coming back, plus a good couple hours of spirited driving on some twisty back country roads. So, about half highway, half beating on it and got 27mpg. 30+ is easy doing 100% highway. I think I'll be the authority on my car's milage.
      • popfrogs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah the rotary always looks good on paper but is nearly impossible to maintain efficiency. Triangular combustion chambers with pinched corners on 2 sides don't burn off fuel very well at all. No amount of atomization from the injectors will ever solve this.
    • paulmer2003, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Indeed. My 4500 pound BMW 740iL with a 4.0L V8 gets 15.2, and that's almost all city driving. V8's don't necessarily need to be bad on fuel, really depends on application.
      • Amazetbm, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1You must be driving in a lot of stop and go traffic. I get 17.5 city. But I'm driving 740i so I'll pull a little less metal than you. If I keep it under 75mph on the freeway, I can squeeze about 28 mpg out of it.
    • unitedatheism, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Why don't you try to compare the same care (almost same weight, almost same aerodynamics) instead?
      I bet that V6 or V8 engines will outperform that four-in-line pollutants...
      • stevenwalters, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1uhm... what?
      • Zlorp, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1right because burning more air and fuel somehow magically makes it pollute less just because its a 4-banger? care to explain that one for us?
  • Obsession88, on 04/25/2008, -6/+22My V8 isn't going any where!!
    • dondara, on 04/25/2008, -2/+28Can't afford gas, huh?
    • republicker, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7What would I pull my trailer full of guns and dead babies with?
      • joe122370, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5dead babies come from liberal abortions, and they wouldn't have a trailer full of guns unless they were taking them away from law abiding citizens
    • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5soon enough, when we run out of oil you're exactly right your v8 won't go anywhere at all.
    • paulmer2003, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Mine neither. V8 for life. For most people, that is, non-automobile enthusiasts, who cares how many cylinders you have. However. As an automobile enthusiast, driving is an experience...it's a pleasure. It's not a chore. It's not to get from point A to point B and nothing else. If you aren't one, sure, that's fine, don't waste your money buying gas for an engine with more than 4 cylinders.
      • whxre, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Any real automobile enthusiast would know that the amount of cylinders has little to do with driving pleasure. Smoothness of acceleration, maybe. But there are many 4 cylinder vehicles that i would consider driving an experience: Honda S2K, any DSM (eclipse, talon. laser), lancer EVO.. and the list goes on.
        • paulmer2003, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1I didn't say that. I just said I enjoy my V8. thx4 putting words in my mouth, failboat.
      • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2You have an ugly mind and your big car is ugly to me.
    • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1I urge you to think.
  • ileftfark, on 04/25/2008, -4/+21Look at the leaps in technology from the 1980's to today... and then ask "Why are we still using the internal combustion engine that was invented in the early 1800's?"

    Is it a technological lapse we've been experiencing, or is there a lot more to the story? An honest question, but one that should be examined critically.
    • Zlorp, on 04/25/2008, -8/+4if america suddenly stopped using oil it would ***** our economy up. that plus oil douchebags run the country
    • QsheiK, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and find out.
    • eric4ok, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9Same reason we're still using soap, nothing's come along better to replace it.
    • yaosio, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10Look at the leaps in technology from the 1980's to today... and then ask "Why are we still using the transistor that was invented in 1947?"

      Is it a technological lapse we've been experiencing, or is there a lot more to the story? An honest question, but one that should be examined critically.

      Watch "who killed the quantum computer?" and find out.
      • BlueSkyfish, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I've moved on to the microchip years ago. Now my computer can fit on a shelf instead of taking up a large room.
        • EarendilStar, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Which makes use of the fundamental idea of transistors. They are the same thing, just smaller.
    • mrhuggy, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2I believe Ron Paul spoke to that exact point. The government makes mandates and supports specific technologies and trumping others. In a truly free market this probably would have went down differently.

      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/853/a-free-mar ...
      • MidnightRealism, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Kill yourself
        • mrhuggy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Forgive me for using logic and agreeing with those who do.
      • LeePeyton, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0how bout you anhero your self? eh? just kidding it would be stupid of me to request some one to terminate their life when this is all intelligent debate.
        Asking you to off your self wouldn't be very cleaver would it? But Boo for Ron Paul preaching. It sucks the guy didn't get the right support and make it. I thought he was a good candidate for president but he fell short of getting there so it's about time to get over it.
    • pinchduck, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3because the energy capacity in a gallon of gas has been historically unrivaled. It was the best, most efficient use of our resources for a long time. Now that oil is becoming more expensive to find and refine, the balance may shift to biofuels in various forms and/or nuclear power generation.
    • fiskehaps, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0because it cost a lot to make new things (and it isn't many people that want to pay more taxes to get them)
      • Troy64, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1If the new thing is worth while entrepreneurs will build them and make money without the governments help. It happens everyday.
  • twitchr, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9Buried for the Rambo 4 dis.
    That movie ruled!
    • Lambtron, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1yes, a very fun movie for the whole family!!!!
  • mcse2k3, on 04/25/2008, -8/+8Global warming.... psshhh
  • metallic07039, on 04/25/2008, -3/+17Umm... I think I read somewhere that Russia and Canada have not even tapped into 1/3 of their natural reserve. Increased political tensions maybe, but no oil, not even close. You fellow Diggers just love crises, you're like my ex.
    • shibatoman, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12theres a reason shes now your ex
    • Harabeck, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3Oil really is running out. We have to switch to something else in the next decade or two.
      • partsguy74, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4ANWAR, the Oil sands of Canada, The newly found "third largest field in the world" in Brazil.. Anyone can say we're running out, if you stop looking..
        • awinn233, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1If the supply was so ample, you would expect the price to go down would you not?
          • metallic07039, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Why would oil companies want it to go down? They want to keep the demand and prices up. It is all well thought out.
          • fiskehaps, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0The price wont go down because of the weak dollar, and two countries called China and India (both have growing economy and need more and more oil)
          • djepik, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1OPEC my friend OPEC. they pick whatever price they want.
        • Kythas, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3If the environmentalists would allow us to drill in ANWAR or offshore, and allowed the construction of new refineries (of which we haven't built a new one in over 25 years) it probably would.
          • metallic07039, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Like it said, it isn't because of the lack of natural oil... it is all political
    • Atomic05, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It isn't just that we're depleting oil reserves, it's that the ones that remain are incredibly difficult to get to and cost far more to extract. Gas will not be getting any cheaper any time soon, and will probably just get more expensive. If that's not incentive enough to find an alternative, then I don't know what is.
    • fiskehaps, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Yes we do. If they didn't exist would we be bored to dead.
  • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -10/+7i dont drive and haven't for years. i spend $0 a month on transportation. i walk or bike everywhere. well ok, sometimes i do bus (which i enjoy). stop driving your cars, stop supporting repressive regimes in the middle east.
    • eric4ok, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2We get most of our oil from Canada.
      • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6no we dont. canada is our largest supplier true but that doesn't mean they give us most of our oil. they supply maybe 20% of our oil. im from alaska and we provide an additional 8-10% (actually we're the largest local supplier). various middle east countries provide various amounts, venezuela gives us some, nigeria gives us some, russia gives us some. naturally we diversify our portfolio so as not to be too dependent. but if you think we'd be fine if the middle east cut off supply you're in for a rude awakening.
        • partsguy74, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The solution to that would be to establish a secondary cartel that would compete with the current crop of oil rich dictator states. Establish two competing markets and invite free and democratic nations with oil reserves to join. Then compete for business on the open market. Wanna see prices drop like a rock...
    • ucg1, on 04/25/2008, -0/+17I wish I was in a city where that was feasible. Where I live, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose a limb or die if you bike, people are just not used to it, and bike lanes are pretty rare.

      Oh, and the bus system? If you want a 20 minute commute to turn into a 3 hour commute, go for it.
      • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Exactly why we need more trains. We waste so much energy moving a ton of steel whith every 150 pounds of human. We need infrastructure, but it takes an evolution in social conscious to get there.
        • ucg1, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Most definitely. It's just unlikely to happen in many cities in the U.S, which is really sad.
    • senae, on 04/25/2008, -1/+17Way to live in the middle of a city. it must be nice to judge the rest of the world by your urbanite standards.
      • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2true i live downtown but believe me its not easy getting around. there are no bike paths in my city.
    • skidooer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8I feel there is a fatal flaw in your plan. It takes about three hours to walk to the nearest community and there is no bus.
  • Charlatan22, on 04/25/2008, -1/+18Optimism... refreshing
  • CC440, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5As long as there are people with the cash, there will be high performance cars. Sure it costs 3 times as much to fill your tank as it did 5 years ago but its still not impossible to afford. We will see more small cars replacing compact and midsize cars here as lower middleclass people ar ehit harder by the rise in cost, but just like in Europe we will still see people driving in their 500hp Mercedes and 350hp Land Rovers. Its just a fact that consumers prize performance and coolness over mileage in their automotive purchases.
    • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0I prize versatility and I think that is why people drive land rovers. They don't really need all that horse power. Speed is last centuries mark of wealth. Now we like comfort and 4 wheel drive.
  • units, on 04/25/2008, -2/+27Apparently no on thus far read the article. That first paragraph is satirical.
    • richizzle, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2THIS
    • go5go, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I got the same feeling that no one had read the actual article.. maybe chalk it up to standard copy and paste first paragraph of article as description of digg story..
    • bradleyland, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4I was thinking the same thing: "Has anyone even read the article?" This article isn't about cars, global warming, or peak oil; it's about the nature of man. We love to worry. Of course, that may just be the reason we are here today. The species that frets over nothing is bound to ignore the things that will bring about its end. You have to take the bad with the good.
    • mrhuggy, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1dugg down for you not reading what you're saying. Even with the 2 helps you had its still mostly unintelligible.
  • ChiefIcaroc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Ha ha! Sweet article. Dugg for optimism.
  • slapshot24, on 04/25/2008, -3/+20Honestly, we've been through this before and we'll go through it again. Heck, this isn't even the first time we had an oil crisis. See the mid 1970s, and gas lines that stretched down the street. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis )

    In the 1800s there was a huge concern over the fact that they were running out of whale oil to power lamps. They thought the world was going to go dark once they ran out of whale oil. But, instead, somebody invented the electric light and the world changed.

    We'll come through this one OK too if we put our minds to solving the problem instead of screaming about it. Last time there was an oil crunch (mid 1970s), small import cars suddenly became very popular and the big Detroit iron musclecars disappeared. This time we're already seeing MPGs improving and hybrids becoming popular.

    All-electric cars are on the horizon (Tesla motors, FTW). Gasoline engines are getting more efficient. Solar power is getting cheaper. None of these alone is enough, but if smart people (like Digg readers) put their minds to making a solution then we're going to be fine. The world isn't going to end, the sky isn't going to fall. We just need to work hard at actually solving these problems rather than panicking.
    • Altotus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1"Gasoline engines are getting more efficient"... The only problem I have with that comment is that, for years, the technology has existed to make dramatically more efficient gasoline engines -- several-fold more so than we have today -- yet none of it is commercially available. You can build an engine today that will generate 100 hp at 120-150 mpg and cost just as much to manufacture and maintain. So, why isn't it done? And why is it so common for people to use a car with 2-3x the horsepower they need for how they use it (do you need 2 ton truck with an extra 1/5 ton towing capacity to haul 2 kids and a cart of groceries?).
      There are sociological and political issues that are, and have been, holding back the technology. And it's not changing very quickly.
      The truth of the matter is that we've got an idea about how we'd deal with a catastrophic drop in oil availability. And, yes, it will be painful and wreak some havoc on the economy for a while, but there are solutions presenting themselves. How painful the transition will be will depend on how we approach it. I'm guessing that deliberate and willful will not be it, more like reluctantly and as required. That's why it will suck.
    • skunks, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Electric cars get their electricity from - wait for it - oil and coal fired generating plants. You're just shifting the emissions from cars to more electricity production.

      Also, the shortage in the 70's was the result not of lack of oil, but rather OPEC withholding oil. Also, the muscle cars did come back when oil became cheap again. See: the Hummer.
      • Atomic05, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Those power plants will produce power far more efficiently than individual cars ever would, and they're easier to regulate as far as pollution is concerned. In addition, older fossil-fuel plants can be replaced with renewable sources and, hopefully, nuclear.
    • Kythas, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2"smart people (like Digg readers)"

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
    • worldnick, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0This comment stands on every side of the issue. What a waste of time.
  • staplez, on 04/25/2008, -0/+29I'm so tired of people putting the words Corvette and fuel guzzling in the same article. The Corvette has never had the fuel guzzler tax put on it, even in it's fastest versions. It's possible that the ZR1 will have the tax put on it, but until it does, no Corvette is considered a fuel guzzler. My S2000 sucks up more fuel than the corvette. Please people, GM made a fantastic car with the Corvette that is fast and economical. Let's stop trying to bad mouth a fantastic piece of machinery.
    • digitallysick, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1Yes lets leave all the 50 year men having a mid life crisis alone, (the only vette drivers really)
  • deaftly, on 04/25/2008, -10/+4Buried for the stupid REM reference.
    • xutopia, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8Buried for not liking old-school REM.
  • Erythroxylum, on 04/25/2008, -5/+20Global warming - or the lack thereof - only threatens your existence if you're in the business of profiting from peddling consensus-driven, computer-model extrapolated climate change scaremongering like al-Gore and the rest of the First Church of Environmentology cult members
    • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5and the 95% of climatologists who agree global warming is real and manmade. oh those scientists and their devious machinations. i especially love the one's about gravity and inertia. haha what jokers those scientists are.
      • wmelnick, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1If you get rid of all of the climatologists that have research grant or other government money, then on the other side get rid of the ones paid by the oil companies, all that is left is ones without a monetary reason to take a stance. Almost all of them agree that global warming is not man-made. So give up your bs statistic already!
        • junestag, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2yes research grants to find out what if anything is going on. not research grants to make a huge problem for humanity. why would the government, which actively resists fighting global warming, commission research that ensures a negative outcome. your proposition doesn't make sense.
        • bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2it makes perfect sense. profit via alarmism.

          remember the Iraq War? Legislating the "combatting of climate change" right now ("climate change" is NOT a "crisis") makes about as much sense as "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here."

          Both ideas are purely speculative, alarmist garbage, based on biased reports by those who stand to make a profit from seeing them get pushed through.
    • dondara, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Ok, what is the downside to cutting emissions? I mean if you are right and there is no global warming, what would be the downside of cutting emissions, limiting our fossil fuel consumption etc.? What would it screw up? I'm saying it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Polluting the only place humans have to live seems very foolish. It isn't about saving the Earth, it's about saving our own asses.
      • Kythas, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1There's no downside to cutting emissions or limiting our fossil fuel consumption. There's also no downside to reducing pollution so we can have cleaner air and water. However, don't use global warming to advance those goals - they should be goals enough in themselves.

        Global warming is about allowing government to regulate and control business, thus ushering in a more socialist form of government, and to let people assuage their guilt by buying "carbon credits" to make themselves carbon neutral, which is *****. It's about certain people and businesses realizing the profit potential in it and using scare tactics to make themselves rich.
        • dondara, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"It's about certain people and businesses realizing the profit potential in it and using scare tactics to make themselves rich."

          And how is that any different that what's been going on for the past 40 years? I think the right can see that left is starting to use the fear marketing model and they hate it. Look, it's one gang vs. another. The best we can hope for is that the new masters aren't worse than the old ones. We are just grease for their gears so in the big picture, it doesn't matter at all. But I like to be kissed when I get ***** and the current gang running things don't bother with that anymore. Time for a new gang to run things.
      • djepik, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1dollars
  • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1http://digg.com/users/coffee200am/gallery/6296972
  • Kumaku, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8 I think the only solution now is tubes like in Futurama
    • jcastillo81, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1We already have them, its called the internet remember?
  • SqueakyWheel, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2computers get faster der... why aint cars getting new engines der.......
  • cfdude, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Sensational or not, I welcome it. I would much rather have more people aware that we need changes in our daily lives from recycling to the cars we buy and demand those changes of our government and companies we do business with. Look at all the attention China gets for their pollution - google pics if you want to see it. I don't want my kids to grow up in that.
  • wejmahtin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7Plus the Vogons are destroying the place to make way for an intergalactic freeway. Grab your towels.
  • whytlessphysh, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0The abundance of petroleum has lessened over the last century but prognosticating a dearth of the substance is somewhat premature. The era of inexpensive oil is certainly within our horizons - current pricing aside as situation has little to do with availability. Such ideology surfaces upon the cusp of every source change. Pay it no mind unless you are engaged in commodities trading and possess the patience of a gnat.
  • eric4ok, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The V-8 will still be around if you're driving in the middle east.
  • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0In 1900, Americans devoted 50 percent of their incomes to putting food on the table. In the late 1990s, that figure had dropped to 10 percent.

    Of course rent has taken up 75% of our pay, once you add in utilities, all that is left is 10%.
    • yaosio, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I never knew people did not pay rent in 1900. Thanks for the info my main man.
      • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0OK and where perchance did you see me write that they did not pay rent?

        My statement was only to allude at the changes in out going payments compared to what it was at that time.
        Due to advancements in infrastructure and the ease at transporting products, as well as competition from overseas markets, food stuffs have greatly reduced in cost. Meanwhile the cost in energy, housing, and utilities have tripled in just the past 3 years. At least where i live. It may very where you are.
    • ninjasaurus, on 04/25/2008, -0/+553.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.
    • partsguy74, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1False.. My former class vice president, who received the "most likely to be a douche" award, told me it was 48.6%.
  • azzythedemon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Nice article.
  • codyman, on 04/25/2008, -2/+10electric cars require energy too, they are not a mr. garrison transporter... and that energy usually comes from a power plant that is run off coal, oil, etc.

    it's like environMENTALists want everything to run off zero energy....
    • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Or vegetables.
      • norman619, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Same thing. Hwo do you think tose veggies are transported? How about all the resources that go into raising them? One of them resources happens to be oil.
    • TheZorch, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3More money needs to be put into developing working commercial nuclear fusion power plants. Imagine virtually limitless energy which is practically free.
    • beoir, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The advantage to electric cars is that they rarely run off oil energy from Venezuela or the Middle East. I'd much rather pay for electricity from Coal or Nuclear then fund Hugo Chavez's regime. Plus electricity made in plants is drastically more efficient then the power made in a cars engine, just compare your electric bill to your gas bill.
  • norman619, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3I love how these people ignore the loss of nearly 100 years worth of warming in just one year in spite of the fact that CO2 and other human waste gases have gone up not down.
  • Tigers4ever, on 04/25/2008, -9/+7How does utter nonsense like this get dugg by anyone -are you all lemmings? Global warming is fantasy and the end of oil isn't on the horizon except in the minds of those who want prices higher... I'm a geologist so I should know... 100+ years of oil supply. The price of gas in the US is finally going up - well tough - now you are paying what the rest of us do - and a barrel of gasoline is still 420 times cheaper than a barrel of Starbucks Coffee - so decide how you want to spend your cash and quit moaning.
    • smoger, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3the global economy doesn't hinge on the price of Starbucks coffee
      • Tigers4ever, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1doesn't hinge on the price of oil either.. unfortunately it hinges on the US economy which is the tank cos Americans want everything today and will only pay for it tomorrow... its called a credit crunch.... Commodity markets determine the price of oil now. See my book Energy & Environmental Hedge Funds - The new paradigm....
    • damndirtyaliens, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Well put, thank you. Logic and reason, ftw.
    • SQUIDwarrior, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Fair enough, but had you said "whale biologist", I would have given you +1 to charisma.
    • Magic0, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2yeah well starbucks tastes alot better.
    • autoboy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Read the article Tiger...
  • TechMike, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4 The qualifier is "if nothing changes, we will run out of oil in xx years." We were running out of oil in the 1970s, but then mileage standards doubled and suddenly we had more oil. They found oil this week in Brazil, and now there's plenty to go around. Another scare tactic bites the dust of reality.
  • Birukun, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4GAS CRISIS + FOOD SHORTAGE = MAD MAX WORLD
  • potisreallygood, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7Why can't we have electric cars that are charged by wind turbines. Surely you could get a massive amount of power from a 60mph wind.
    • Buelldozer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Surely you don't understand the tremendous engineering challenges involved in what you suggest.
    • lotsa1s, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Perpetual motion strikes again!

      Go go gadget, thermodynamics!
    • SQUIDwarrior, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The problem with wind is it's not steady. And if more power is needed you can't just crank up the wind. Wind is a good supplement, but the best options are concentrated solar + nuclear + wind + tidal/wave energy.

      Eventually, all our power could come from orbital solar power satellites that beam energy to earth in the form of microwaves.
      • Atomic05, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I agree with you on a lot of that, but orbital satellites are something of a pipe-dream. The power produced and energy lost in transfer wouldn't be worth the astronomical cost it would take to build it.
  • motionb, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2AAAAA.. Freakin MEN Brother!!!!
  • Nubli, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I like driving my car thank you very much.
  • nexus37, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Wow! I could've had a V8!
  • smoger, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6V8's "died" in the 80's too..
    • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Stares out the window at his cruiser with the police package v8.. that has sat in the drive way for the past 3 years, and the 3 year old vstar motorcycle with 42k miles on it.
    • JitMaster, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1My Dad's saving his V8 until it becomes a classic.
  • jab9990, on 04/25/2008, -5/+6This guy must have aced "Straw-Man Arguments 101" in college. He uses the year 1900 as a benchmark to argue how great things are. We should all just stop complaining, because it's waaaaay better 'nowadays than it was in 1900! Way to shoot for the stars buddy.
    • breckinshire, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Yes, hooray, I didn't have to ***** in a bucket today!
    • topace3000, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2That's not even a straw-man argument. Oops, you lose!
  • amaso, on 04/25/2008, -9/+0Pathetic, the world is running out of oil because americans are greedy. while everyone else struggles and pays the high price of petrol we continue to make huge gas guzzling, look at me pieces of crap cars including corvettes. . . they're a waste and should be thrown on the fire.melted down and the heat generated should be tapped and spread around households during winter. wake up
    • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0I still wonder how we go from a car that can get 38mpg in 1930, with all of the advancement in polymers, materials, and general science, to vehicles that still do not get much better then that.I believe it is an example of how a capitalistic society at times can be evil.
      • SQUIDwarrior, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The main problem is that cars have gotten heavier since those early days. Think about how many electrical and computerized system you have on your car. Sure an electric motor does not weight much, but all the little things add up. AC, anti-lock brake system, stability control systems, GPS and high-powered music systems, electric motors, airbags, computers to run it all, etc. Then add onto all the all the wiring required to run it, plus the larger alternators needed to generate the power, and your looking at several hundred pounds. It adds up.
  • jwoulf, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8I'm tired of hearing everyone talk about hybrids being the solution to high fuel prices and pollution, yet they never mention motorcycles.

    My BMW F650GS gets 70mpg and can still outrun nearly every car on the road.

    Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad.
    • robbiedo, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Thump Thump Thump Thump....I would really like to get the Dakar model, but I think I will wait for the GS800 this fall.
    • lukemann, on 04/25/2008, -3/+370mpg isn't going to help you when you get run over by a soccer mom in a H2. My dad used tell me if you ride a motorcycle it's not a matter of if you have an accident... it's when. When you do have that accident and there is no steel around you it's going to suck very badly. No matter how good you think you are it's going to happen eventually.
      • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Which is why it really irks me when i see kids on crotch rockets zooming down the highway at 90-120 wearing tanks and shorts.. all i can think is, "there goes another one in a hurry to die"
      • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0running very sluggish, and somehow posted twice.
    • burnedtubes, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I like the Ninja 500R myself.... ah parallel twin...... ah 50+ MPG .......
    • dfeifer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Nice bike, can i borrow $7000? I wish I had gotten the 650 version of the vstar now as well. Mine WILL get 50mpg on a good day tho. What hurts me tho, is that 3 years ago it cost me 5$ to fill my tank, not it cost me 14.50. which, in 3 months around here will be 20+. No biggie tho, I look forward to, and actually pray, for the prices to keep going up. Unfortunately that is what it is going to take for advancements to happen. me, If I don't want to pay, I just ride my bicycle. 25 miles a day commute isn't really that bad.
    • jimmynavio, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4I hear ya man. I picked up a little Honda Rebel for $1400.
      It costs about $8.00 to fill up the 2 gallon tank, and that gets me 120 - 140 miles.

      I'm surprised the US hasn't caught on to this. Go to another country - Brasil for example - and you will see parking lots lined with motorcycles. They even have MOTO-TAXI services, which are nice because they get you there faster and cheaper then any conventional taxi ever could.

      The only argument against motorcycles is safety. But if you wear proper protection, learn to navigate defensively, and always respect your surroundings you'll be alright.
    • gurudrew, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Can you carry a family of four and a week's worth of groceries on that bike?
      • Corrosionx, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6They can in India...
      • jimmynavio, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Obviously not. That is not the point. Many people who own motorcycles also own a car for when they HAVE to pick something up or take a long family trip. But for everyday commuting to work, school, etc a motorcycle is perfectly suitable. That way you put far less miles on your car/truck/SUV and save a ton of money in the process
      • FlippinKris, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0I've seen that also in Mexico, very impressed.
      • 883XL, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Most ppl who drive cars don't carpool anyways. They might as well get on a motorcycle.
    • popfrogs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Motorcycles are impractical, unsafe, and can't carry ***** compared to your average coupe or family sedan. Unless you're in Nevada or some place it never rains and the temperature is the same every day...and there aren't soccer moms on cellphones ignoring surrounding traffic, they simply don't make sense for the majority of Americans.
      Personally I'd rather have something closer to a motorcycle/car hybrid like in Akira, or this thing: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/venture_ve ...
    • FlippinKris, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Don't forget about the Yamaha FZ6. It is my daily commuter all over LA. LA has traffic...what traffic? Ohh car traffic...he he he he. Seriously it is a greater risk to ride a bike but if you take the proper precautions, don't act like an idiot, and wear ALL the proper gear, there is much less of a chance. If all else fails, make sure you have a good life insurance for your family, so either way my family will be taken care of.
    • dkrich, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1"Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad."

      Let's see if you feel that way when I give you a little bump with my four-wheel car.
    • 883XL, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1"Cars lie to us and tell us we're safe, powerful, and in control. The air-conditioning fans murmur empty assurances and whisper, "Sleep, sleep." Motorcycles tell us a more useful truth: we are small and exposed, and probably moving too fast for our own good, but that's no reason not to enjoy every minute of the ride." -Dave Karlotski
    • caponumen, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Fun yes, but once you find out you really aren't indestructible, MOTORS just don't have the same appeal.
      I have had 4 friends killed and two gimped so far. The last dude was crushed by some blind old bat at a stop light........
  • krustie, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3All we have to do is change from oil to a more suitable source, like vegetable waste. I'm sure it can be done.
  • carrtoonist, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3The author is right, things are getting better. However that doesn't mean that its better for us. Perhaps the reason why doomsday predictions are so popular is because we all kinda of want a little bit more challenge in our lives. Too much of a good things has left us kinda of bored.
    • JointVenture, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3No, people who like Doomsday predictions are usually people who dont have what they want out of life and they want to find an outside source responsible for their misery.

      Yes there are rich people who shout about the end of the world but if you took a survey of the middle you would find that the doomsday lovers are generally from the lower end of the society economically and socially.

      • bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"No, people who like Doomsday predictions are usually people who dont have what they want out of life and they want to find an outside source responsible for their misery."

        And the doomsday leaders are usually wealthy people who take entirely too much for granted (Al Gore is a good example), not satisfied with having all that a regular human being can have they complicate their lives (and the lives of as many others as possible) with ***** issues about nothing. They are wealthy, powerful (though hollow) individuals who are able to manipulate the masses into following their beliefs, nothing more.

        On the other hand, poor people who weren't born into wealth tend to be much more appreciative of what's given to them, as they have learned to appreciate just being alive over time, something the doomsdayers have completely forgotten was a possibility.
    • bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"Perhaps the reason why doomsday predictions are so popular is because we all kinda of want a little bit more challenge in our lives. "

      HAHAHA... If by "we" you mean "everybody who feels guilty about having it entirely too good and takes their lives for granted", then OK, "we."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.