Originally Posted by TripleJeep_99

Photosynthesis from my high school days as you state is still the process of converting CO2 to O2 still to this day has not changed. Also,.......if you would read my statement correctly.

I stated mature & over mature forests (+100 years old) release more CO2 than O2 vs. a younger forest stand due to age, health issues, etc.. Forestry Studies suggest that the immature (younger forest stands) versus the mature/old growth forest absorbed more carbon (CO2) than they release. So to put it in High School Terms.....the younger stands produce more O2 through the process of photosynthesis and oldgrowth still produces O2 but contributes more CO2. There are many factors that will affect photosynthesis: Crown closure, soils, water availablity, shape, type, color and arrangement of leaves, elevation, temperature, tree age....etc.
Some of those sites you seen logged and never replanted are they privately or publicly owned lands? All public land was and is still by law must be reforested and free-growing by set standards in the Forest Act and Regulations. Some clear cut sites companies did not have to replant. These clear cut sites were mechanically prepared or burnt to help create good eco-sites for natural regeneration to occur. In many cases natural regeneration made the standards and saved the forest company money. To say forest company's never reforested is CRAP....Why would a forest company not plant/reforest the stands removed if they had rights to harvest the landbase or even own the private land? They would decrease there annual allowable cut & landbasefor future harvests.

Some private lands and landowners, can be a different story....are you really seeing the entire picture??? Yes you may see clear-cut forestry and never planted. However, does that land owner want a forest stand there again? Does that landowner want it for grazing or development?

Originally Posted by Seryoga

ROFLMAO at bunny huggers. hahaha. You've just made my day.

Anyway, my Jeep is 98% stock right now, but only because i got no money to spend on it. I personally don't see how a stock JK is better for environment then moded.

PS: Dustoff'68, please don't tell me you are one of those people that replies with "tread lightly" to every off road video/pic/post.

Originally Posted by jkdrone

Whoa there - the scientific theory does not allow for "opinions" it is a matter of hypothesis, experimentation, and repetition. The correlation between temperature and CO2 levels (amongst other things) is based on observation and repeatable experiments. A person can state their _opinion_ all they like, but that is not science. (Although, Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. would have you believe it is =)

You show me primary journal articles and replicated experimentation to show that humans are the driving force of climate change on the earth. I'm stating that most of the crap that is getting cited is "opinion" often from people with a vested interest in lucrative grant funding.

Plus there is a major diffence in "correlation" and "regression analysis." It is possible to show a significant correlation to pheasant hunters in Texas with the price of tea in China, but with regression is a hole different thing. With correlation events don't have to be linked but with regression they do. With correlation, the assumption is made that they are.

Al Dumbass Gore used an erroneous data set from NASA and failed to go back and correct his comments when NASA corrected their set. It turns out that there are equal numbers of "hot days" before and after WWII. In fact the hottest on record was in 1932. Of Course Gore is not a scientist.



So? We're talking a global phenomenon. The U.S. was only recently unseated as the largest producer of CO2 emissions. Mostly because we outsourced much of that to China. Yes, many of the chemicals we put into the air and the environment are Very Bad for the Earth and Us. So, I guess we should just sit back and do nothing?




And the often conveniently overlooked truth about those events is that there was usually a cataclysmic trigger.



The point was: trapped carbon from the atmosphere. And you'll note I called ethanol/e85 a complete sham and more harmful to the environment than not earlier.



Yeah, and yet some have lower impact than others. (Coal, hmm. Let's see. Besides all of the noxious emissions, there's strip-mining and mountain-topping in West Virginia, amongst other places. Ever seen them top a mountain?) We can sit around and do nothing, continue on as we have for the past fifty years, raping the planet, and expect it to fix its self. You know it will, I know it will - but that "fixing" will probably involve removing "us". If I treated my home as poorly as we (as a whole, often including myself) treat the planet - I wouldn't have a very good home.


I never advocated coal, and yes I used to live on a MTN in TN/CA that was raped by fukkers that owned the mineral rights from the 1850s. Mining is a proplem whether it is for tin, iron, AL etc. That's why I think we need our recycling programs in the country 50 times farther along than they are. I plan on driving this jeep until it is either destroyed or I'm no longer around. That makes it a green vehicle in my opinon.

The point is: we can do little things to help improve the situation, or we can sit here and do nothing. Guess which one'll leave a great planet for our grandkids? I, personally, want them to be able to go out and catch monster redfish like I do, go hiking through the wonderful marshes we have here, explore Yosemite, etc. I'd hate to say I spent all of my energy blaming someone else fort the problem, or claiming there isn't a problem. We have to consider the whole of each solution (E85 is good from a lower emissions stand-point, bad from a total lifecycle stand-point, for example.).

You could ask what I might suggest? Little things: recycling all of the plastic we use (It's about more than oil consumption. That s**t barely degrades, and there's a big mess of it about the size of Texas floating out in the Pacific.), more sustainable farming techniques than pumping the ground full of fertilizer, and a cleaner, more efficient (holistically) source of primary electricity for our homes. (I'd rather have a one in a thousand nuclear accident damaging a few hundred square miles and than the thousands of miles raped by coal production.)

!c

Originally Posted by Laughingstok

I refuse to vote in this poll because there's an agenda behind it.

Originally Posted by jkdrone

So? We're talking a global phenomenon. The U.S. was only recently unseated as the largest producer of CO2 emissions. Mostly because we outsourced much of that to China. Yes, many of the chemicals we put into the air and the environment are Very Bad for the Earth and Us. So, I guess we should just sit back and do nothing?


!c

Originally Posted by Dustoff '68

If you had to make a choice, would you forego all modifications to your JK, leave her stock, and off road her as she comes from the factory, all in the interest of gas mileage improvements and reducing fuel costs, as well as saving what Green is left in America?

Originally Posted by Blue

I don't think putting Eaton E-Lockers in my jeep and a custom bumper under 75 pounds or wind shield mounted off road lights is going to reduce my mileage at all since I am not going to run over 31-32 inch tires on my Wrangler which is my daily driver.

Thats why I didn't vote in this poll.

Originally Posted by Ge99ne

Adding weight to your vehicle does affect your mileage. The lights are definately going to have an effect. All of the stuff listed above won't likely cost you a whole mpg. But to say these things don't affect mileage because your tires are 31-32, is fuzzy logic. Who knows, the big bumper you are adding may someday protect the sheetmetal from damage, thereby avoiding a trip to a body shop, and all the energy required to make new panels, install & paint. Or maybe you will dodge something that would have gone unnoticed if you didn't have aux. lighting. So maybe in the end you did the green thing, and making yuor rig more capable at the same time.

Originally Posted by doojer

Honestly, you'd do more good by changing out the lightbulbs in your home.

Originally Posted by putnam dan

I've found that towing a 1500lb trailer has increased my MPG - this Jeep is like all before it a brick and funny aerodynamic things when you change the profile, so all in all i'm now doing bette than $0.38 per mile - these numbers were for the TJ so th eJK should be even better.

You might be interested by these numbers of total cost/mile factoring in production/ disposal over the life of the vehicle

Look to number 1) and number 74), it seems that though efficient the Prius is a costly beast, in energy tems to produce and destroy.

Make and model cost per mile
1 JEEP ® Wrangler £0.38
74 TO YOTA Prius £2.03

38c!!! does that mean I'm a tree hugger