So yes, your 40 mpg motorcycle (horrible mileage by the way, a crotch-rocket by any chance? Geo Metros do better than that)
Kawasaki Versys 650, actually. Can do upwards of 50+ MPG in the right conditions, but people fail to realize that the real world takes a heavy toll on actual stats compared to paper. My commute is 50/50 freeway and street, and there is a ~1000ft mountain pass in between my house and work. Plus, I don't ride it like I'm driving a Prius. Some people are too hung up on fuel economy that they miss out on the fun things in life.
PS: Some 'crotch rockets' can get 60+ MPG. Check out the Ninja 250/300 line
So the only real way to reduce CO2 emissions per mile is get more miles per gallon of fuel.
No. My ~40mpg motorcycle pollutes far more than my ~27mpg car. It's all about how well the engine burns the fuel and handles the emissions before they leave the pipe, not necessarily just the volume of it.
Mazda abuses copyright to stop 3rd parties from publishing manuals. Can't get a Haynes or Chilton manual for any Mazda newer than about 1995.
http://www.haynes.com/products... 2 seconds on Google.. come on, man.
Are they also going to ban all those bloody scooters in paris. Those things are cheap to drive and the exhaust is filthy.
Those things are serious polluters, both chemical and noise. There's nothing that ruins a nice stroll down the Seine like the grating buzz of a 2-stroke with CVT. And the way they just pile them on the sidewalks everywhere.. ugh.
If that is true, why did California lose representation in Congress with the last decennial census?
http://www.nytimes.com/interac... California's population up 10%, no seats gained or lost.
California and New York have lost probably near 1.5 million people over the last 15 years.
Uh, no. California's population has grown at a fairly steady rate for the past 100+ years. 1.5 million may have moved out of state, but far more have moved in to replace them.
You're advocating the idea that those less affluent can only have genetically disease free kids if they themselves are free of genetic disease.
No, I'm advocating that everyone take a step back and ask "does the world really need another mouth to feed?", regardless of genetic suitability. Deciding not to have a child because it may be afflicted by a genetically inherited condition, in my opinion, is a noble choice. Spending $$$ on a method to circumvent this natural limitation just so you can have a brand new little copy of yourself seems a bit selfish. The more diseases we cure, the more babies we have, the longer we extend natural lifespans, the closer we get to resource scarcity. Take a look at places in the third world with rampant disease and famine. It's not because god hates them or they're unlucky, it's in part because they're producing more mouths than the land can feed. We will some day reach that point as well, but we shouldn't just go running full speed towards it because we all feel some biological need to reproduce. That's what sets us apart from the animals, right? The ability to reason and think about the consequences of our actions, and plan accordingly?
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?" -- A. Brilliant