If you want to know the latest on electric cars, read Katharine Mieszkowski's "The Electric Cars are Coming!" at Salon.com. Yes, good things are on the way, but the article is framed around a long loud lament voiced by a woman who previously drove an EV1: "An American car company had a fantastic lead and threw it away."
"Have you driven a Ford, lately?" As a charity stunt, Ford had specially trained drivers drive an unmodified stock 2010 Ford Fusion (mid-size sedan) to beat 1,000 miles in a single tank of gas. They reached 1,445.7 miles in 69 hours of driving around the D.C. area on surface streets and highways. "Your mileage may vary." Ford readily admits that this was a stunt, and the details of how it was done are available in many places, like here. Oh, and details about why are here. The car is normally expected to get about 40 miles per gallon under everyday conditions.
The May 2009 issue of Consumer Reports evaluates more than 80 models of lawn mowers. Incredibly, the printed magazine version of the article completely omits any mention of human-powered reel lawn mowers. It doesn’t test any of them and it doesn’t even mention them, despite the fact that non-motorized push mowers are perfect for most people with small to medium sized lots. We’ve used a push mower for 15 years to cut a lot that is almost ¼ acre. Millions of people have lots that are this size or smaller.
The question in my mind is why. Why would a “consumer” magazine refuse to tell (refuse, because this is not an oversight) consumers that there are $100 lawn mowers that would be perfectly good for millions of people. Is Consumer Reports feeling market pressure to evaluate the $200 – 800 lawn mowers that its readers are used to (tractors cost up to $3,600)? Shame on them for encouraging needless sales of these noisy exhaust-spewing status symbols.
Or is Consumer Reports disoriented by the paradox of choice, striving to find the perfect mower instead of satisficing (recognizing good-but-not-perfect choices)? After all, the non-motorized push mowers I’m recommending are only good for people who consider themselves stewards of the planet, people who prefer to use no gasoline, create no noise and create no danger of spewing rocks and sticks that can cause serious injuries. Why mention that there are $100 mowers that can be sharpened repeatedly with a $15 kit and otherwise require almost no maintenance.
[caption id="attachment_6454" align="alignright" width="150" caption="image by Erich Vieth"]
[/caption]
They are capable of slicing through thick zoysia grass? Is it because those suburban readers might work up a little sweat? Not much, I assure you—even my 8-year old daughter uses ours. These person-powered lawn mowers are MUCH lighter than the mowers your grandparents used. Here are numerous additional reasons to give up on gasoline and electric lawn mowers.
In this month’s lawn mower evaluation article, Consumer Reports completely dropped the ball.
This failure by CR is one of numerous instances where we Americans need to wake up and start doing things differently. Our world is changing in hundreds of ways and we need to change with it or get left behind.
[A kitchen table conversation between a parent and a child]
Daddy, if my computer burned up in a fire, would it still compute? No, Mary. Programs don't simply run by themselves. They depend upon extremely complicated hardware and software. If your computer burns up in a fire, there would be no hardware and no software with which to run your favorite programs. But I've used my computer for a long time. I've grown emotionally attached to it. It makes me sad that it won't actually compute if it were to be destroyed. Doesn't my computer have a soul that continues running my programs somewhere else after my computer burns up on Earth? I'm sorry, Mary. There is no computer heaven and there is no computer soul. There is no evidence of either of these. But we can't prove that it won't keep computing after it burns up in a fire, right? No. Sorry, Mary. Without hardware and software, no computing will happen. The ashes of your burned up computer would lack any systematic structure. They certainly lack the complex organization required to run programs. It is impossible for any computation to occur without the hardware and the software intact. Your claim that a computer would keep computing even though it is completely destroyed is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary proof. We have no such proof whatever. But Lisa Jenkins says that burned up computers do keep computing. She says that you only need to have faith and that no one can disprove that burned up computers live on in a parallel world. She says destroyed computers keep working, but not in a physical way. She goes to a special building on Sunday where thousands of people all believe that computers keep computing even after they are completely destroyed. No, Mary. The same thing happens to computers as happens to your own body. As you know, when your body dies, your entire body rots, including your brain. As you know, when your brain is rotted, you don't have any more thoughts because there is no intact functional neural structure anymore, and therefore no basis for any continuing thoughts. Oh, daddy! It's not the same! Yes, I know that when my body dies, it will be impossible for me to think anymore. My computer is different, though. I just can't believe that my amazing computer would stop computing just because it gets completely destroyed! Don't try to compare my beautiful computer to a human brain! It's not a matter of what you want to believe, my child. It's a matter of what actually happens in the real world. You can continue using your computer for now and loving the way it works, but it would be unhealthy to believe that it would keep computing even if it was destroyed. As a parent, it's my job to level with you regarding difficult topics like this. I'm so sorry.The hypocritical and short-sighted Kennedy family will just need to get used to the view, for the common good. As reported by Discover Magazine.
The U.S. Interior Department announced new rules today that will allow the first offshore wind turbines to go up along the Atlantic Coast, including the site near Cape Cod that the Kennedy family famously opposed. This was a chance for the Kennedys to step up and do the right thing, but they blew it for years and years. Now the federal government is forcing it on them and I'm glad. Consider what a tiny burden this was on them to look at those admittedly huge turbines in the distance. It's no worse a burden than for any of us to have to look at the gaudy Kennedy compound from a distance. The turbines will be about 8 miles from Kennedy's trophy house in Hyannis Port. In clear conditions, the wind turbines will appear one half-inch above the horizon. They will look like this from the Kennedy compound. We're going to all have to make some sacrifices for the common good if we want to maintain some semblance of our lifestyle. It has continually amazed me that the wealthy Kennedys couldn't have made a good example of themselves by advocating, not stifling, this worthy wind project. How much energy will it produce? Cape Wind's website provides the answer:
Cape Wind will be rated to produce up to 468 megawatts of wind power as each wind turbine will produce up to 3.6 megawatts. Maximum expected production will be 454 megawatts. Average expected production will be 170 megawatts which is almost 75% of the 230 megawatt average electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.
Where do the Kennedys think they will get their energy if they don't get it from clean wind? In my mind this is a classic case of compartmentalized thinking all bound up in status-seeking power.