Lets go Green !!!

[SteamWake]

Greenbacks that is !


WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capitol firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.



Article on Al Gore's role both as an advocate and an investor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

[Zachstar]

He made a good investment! Great on him! :up:

I know that many gore haters will scream the usual money whore type comments. However in this nation there is nothing wrong with saying good things about something you have money in. Or better yet putting your money where your mouth is. Markets the way they are some of these huge solar investments have flopped. There is significant risk involved in such investments.

There is boatloads of tech right now ripe for risky investment tho. If I had the funds I would put serious investments into Algae to Oil efforts. As fusion does little good for fuel eating jetliners. Algae oil would stabilize the liquid energy markets. And drive away the power of OPEC. Not to mention it has more uses than Washington carver's peanuts!

[ETR3(SS)]

Al gets a +1 for not being stupid for once. Althought I do love this "internet" he has invented. :haha:

[Zachstar]

Al gets a +1 for not being stupid for once. Althought I do love this "internet" he has invented. :haha:

I would say far more than once he has a history of great investments such as google and apple. And looks like quite a diverse bit of investments in green tech. That Waterless urinal sounds interesting as the design is actually cheaper than a conventional urinal. Basically guaranteeing large adoption.

[SteamWake]

Yea its almost as if he knew where the market would be pushed... er... sorry going.


Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead.


Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Count me among those critics. At best its unethical.

[Zachstar]

Unethical? BS he is a private citizen who pushed for green tech. He has been out of the white house for close to a decade now.

That is like saying Boeing is profiting off military contracts it supports.. um ok?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Unethical? BS he is a private citizen who pushed for green tech. He has been out of the white house for close to a decade now.

That is like saying Boeing is profiting off military contracts it supports.. um ok?

I think you are mostly correct about this ZS. No one can blame Gore for taking advantage of market trends, or for privately pushing his climate change agenda. He should, and does, have the right to do those things.

However, his behaviour, and the behaviour of other leaders of the "green" movement becomes unethical when they begin pushing for legislation to promote their industry, which Gore has on multiple occassions and by multiple methods. He is taking a lawful business investment and trying to fiat its' success by using legislature.

Honestly, I can't even really blame him for doing that. I'm not even surprised. Many business firms have, for more than a century, been doing the exact same thing. For a recent example, look at the corn-ethanol lobby. Beyond that you can look at the steel and aluminum industries, oil industry, transportation industry, etc etc.... The blame falls on us, as taxpayers and citizens, for providing the state with power that can be co-opted by self-interested entities.

I don't even really have a problem with the green industry. If consumers want "green" products then I say more power to the firms that will supply them, no matter how silly I think the green movement is. Where I draw the line, however, is allowing green consumers or politicians to mandate the production methods of products that I purchase or services I use.
The state has already demonstrated a complete lack of ability to legislate green transitions in a sustainable (or even reasonable) manner, as evidenced by the Energy Standards Act of 2005, the Renewable Fuels Mandate of 2007, and the entire State of California, just to mention a few examples.

I know that you are a forward-thinking and very intelligent individual, and I applaud that. I encourage you to pursue the energy and green agendas you have posited before, but please do it the right way. Invest in firms that show a promising ability to market green tech, or give public speeches about the need for green industry, or just continue presenting your views on this forum, but don't support mandates of any kind, or people who encourage such mandates.

If state intervention is somehow required for social benefit, then support the right way to do that, too. Give the Federal government the legal power to regulate energy or industry through constitutional amendment. Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.

[SteamWake]

If it is so above board and beyond reproach, why go to great lengths to deny it?



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/03/gore_denies_he_is_profiting_from_global_warming.ht ml

[AVGWarhawk]

Zachstar can say what he likes, a politician is a politician. Of course there is collusion. Keep an eye on General Electric and the healthcare legislation flying around Washington. :03:

[UnderseaLcpl]

If it is so above board and beyond reproach, why go to great lengths to deny it?



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/03/gore_denies_he_is_profiting_from_global_warming.ht ml

Where does he deny it? He expressly says that he is investing in the industry because he believes in it. I don't see him denying the intention to profit anywhere whatsoever in the clip you provided.

I often agree with you, SW, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree in the "Gore forest" here. The problem isn't so much that Gore is profiting from green industry or supporting it through investment, it is that he is helping to create artificial demand for such things, and he is using the state to create that demand.

Perhaps you misstated yourself, or perhaps I misunderstood the point you were driving at, but I am sure that ultimately, we have the same opinion.

What you mean to say is that you oppose Gore's use of the state and the elctorate to push his own business agenda, yes?

[Zachstar]

There is no "Artificial Demand" for grid improvements. There is massive demand due to new power plants opening and massive amounts of alt energy installations. That is not going to change. Our grid is a joke. Its old and prone to failure and any way to increase its efficiency is not only good for the environment but good for business.

And seriously I am wondering that the surprise is about. Is this not the same as Boeing supporting the military buying its aircraft or oil firms campaigning for opening up tar sands and offshore drilling more?

And yes I fully support mandates because many businesses are scared to look a few years ahead. They assumed too much that market forces would keep oil at just above 100USD and they got their butts handed to them with hyper expensive transportation fuels. Green tech developments are not just important for Al Gore and greenies or polar bears. They are a major part of national security and national economy in a crisis.

For instance the US Armed forces are the ones mainly pushing Algae oil tech. The only alternative to them to get away from fossil oil is Gas to Liquids or Coal to liquids which are known as massively expensive alternatives that belch Co2 like crazy. The Air force depends on years of fuel to keep its buffs flying but a company often just thinks in quarters.

[Sea Demon]

Where does he deny it? He expressly says that he is investing in the industry because he believes in it.

Well that at least gives people a hint why he won't debate anybody on the issue. He actually has a financial stake in it.

To me Gore is a discredited fraud 10 times over. But he is a salesman indeed making a living off of scaring the wits out of people on this issue. Just like many before him has done.

[Zachstar]

Gore seriously started us on a path away from Terrorist oil. That I give him credit for. Despite your slanderous fraud claim. Gore makes good investments and talks them up for profit. Just like just about every business in the states.

And frankly I could care less what he is making off of this. He reinvests it in other green companies that move us further and further away from terrorist oil.

[Sea Demon]

Gore seriously started us on a path away from Terrorist oil. That I give him credit for. Despite your slanderous fraud claim. Gore makes good investments and talks them up for profit. Just like just about every business in the states.

And frankly I could care less what he is making off of this. He reinvests it in other green companies that move us further and further away from terrorist oil.

I don't care what he makes either. Let him do it. I'm just looking at it from the standpoint that he won't debate anyone on it, and he makes money off of people's false fears. Big deal. He's a slick salesman. And yes, a total fraud.

And we still need oil. Like it or not. Too bad we aren't tapping our own reserves in the several regions we have it. The Gulf of Mexico has quite a bit on it's own. I guess it's just easier to let China and Cuba have it. I don't think the oil down there belongs to "terrorists".

[Zachstar]

As long as we are using more oil than our wells that are running TODAY are producing we are one way or another buying terrorist oil.

New production takes 10 years from approval to market. = useless

Tho I have to admit I am intrigued by the idea of using laser cutting to recover more oil in existing sites. It uses alot more power but it is fast and does not contact the surface. They are saying it could cut down drilling on land by a third.

You see despite the shrill calls to give the oil companies whatever the hell they want. They can and are evolving on their own. And boatloads of new tech investments are slowly but surely starting to reduce the need for oil. Of course my favorite is Algae oil. But things such as replacing oil plastics with american grown bioplastics are good investments as well in my opinion.

[Tribesman]

The Gulf of Mexico has quite a bit on it's own. I guess it's just easier to let China and Cuba have it.
Well I suppose America could invade places to take their oil, or perhaps just out bid China to win the contracts.

[Sea Demon]

As long as we are using more oil than our wells that are running TODAY are producing we are one way or another buying terrorist oil.

New production takes 10 years from approval to market. = useless

Tho I have to admit I am intrigued by the idea of using laser cutting to recover more oil in existing sites. It uses alot more power but it is fast and does not contact the surface. They are saying it could cut down drilling on land by a third.

You see despite the shrill calls to give the oil companies whatever the hell they want. They can and are evolving on their own. And boatloads of new tech investments are slowly but surely starting to reduce the need for oil. Of course my favorite is Algae oil. But things such as replacing oil plastics with american grown bioplastics are good investments as well in my opinion.

This is precisely why the Democrats are going to have trouble in the future. With the cost of generating electricity being expensive and rising, this is pie in the sky stuff. Not worthless by any means. But we need oil resources today to drive and grow our economy. This is not an overnight process. The cost, current strain, current supply, and demand for oil is another reason why the economy is struggling. The highly touted "green jobs" vision just ain't happening in the now. Nor is it coming in the near term.

And BTW, 15 years ago, the "it takes 10 years to bring it online" argument was used. We shouldn't have listened to liberals. Had we not, we would have another stream of oil resources, and the supply wouldn't be as strained as it is. In reality, Oil, nuclear, coal, and natural gas aren't going anywhere for awhile. Believe what you want. It won't help the Democrats in anyway to continue to keep the American people from resources it has, needs, and can develop and use on it's own to get the economy growing. Developing alternatives is nice, but that alone is going to hurt the Democrats as energy gets ever more expensive to produce in the future if they continue down this road of alternatives as the primacy to the detriment of needed resources now.

[Zachstar]

People didn't want to drill for more oil then and they don't want to now. Otherwise Obama would never have won. People just want to continue driving their SUVs like nothing is happening.

Again the oil companies are adapting to not getting stuff handed to them on a silver platter. Exxon reports using 3D technology to improve dilling rates and better forecasts the idea of laser drilling is progressing so on and so forth.

On top of that the US Navy is developing fusion. Pb11 style without the massive neutron production. Power positive results could come in 2 years which would scare OPEC into opening up everything they have to sell what they can before demand washes away.

OPEC is already acting very weird. They are noting how the oil prices of last year caused massive demand destruction and instead of talking like they need to raise em they are talking about how they need to increase production. They know their failure to ward off extreme prices last year cost them a great deal of support and helped trigger more movement towards efficiency.

[SteamWake]

People didn't want to drill for more oil then and they don't want to now. Otherwise Obama would never have won. .

What the? :doh:

[Sea Demon]

What the? :doh:

Zach lives in his own dream world. He actually thinks we're not going to need "terrorist" oil in 5 years because Obama promised "green jobs". And every American will just simply go out and purchase brand new solar/wind powered hybrids en masse, probably with government rebates...and we'll all live happily ever after. :roll:

[antikristuseke]

I love the smell of strawmen in the morning.

[AVGWarhawk]

Zach lives in his own dream world. He actually thinks we're not going to need "terrorist" oil in 5 years because Obama promised "green jobs". And every American will just simply go out and purchase brand new solar/wind powered hybrids en masse, probably with government rebates...and we'll all live happily ever after. :roll:

You mean this was a lie? :hmmm:

[CaptainHaplo]

Back to the original subject.

Good for Al Gore for making a wise investment.

Good for Al Gore for supporting a firm that does things while looking to conserve precious resources.

Bad for Al Gore to lecture everyone on global warming and carbon while flying on a private jet dang near everywhere that pollutes so much.

Bad for Al Gore to create a "Carbon trading company" that does nothing but offer to sell you "carbon credits" so you feel better about driving your SUV.

There is no doubt he has some business acumen, as well as salesmanship, which he uses his political threads to assist with.

The problem is when he says one thing, does the other, consistently "stretches" the facts to support his erroneous thinking, applies a double standard to himself and other elites compared to the rest of society, and unethically creates the "environmentalists" version of scientology - aka - "carbon credits".

[AVGWarhawk]

Back to the original subject.

Good for Al Gore for making a wise investment.

Good for Al Gore for supporting a firm that does things while looking to conserve precious resources.

Bad for Al Gore to lecture everyone on global warming and carbon while flying on a private jet dang near everywhere that pollutes so much.

Bad for Al Gore to create a "Carbon trading company" that does nothing but offer to sell you "carbon credits" so you feel better about driving your SUV.

There is no doubt he has some business acumen, as well as salesmanship, which he uses his political threads to assist with.

The problem is when he says one thing, does the other, consistently "stretches" the facts to support his erroneous thinking, applies a double standard to himself and other elites compared to the rest of society, and unethically creates the "environmentalists" version of scientology - aka - "carbon credits".

Amen Brother! :up:

[SteamWake]

Carbon Credits the pokeman cards of 2012 :O:

[Zachstar]

Zach lives in his own dream world. He actually thinks we're not going to need "terrorist" oil in 5 years because Obama promised "green jobs". And every American will just simply go out and purchase brand new solar/wind powered hybrids en masse, probably with government rebates...and we'll all live happily ever after. :roll:

Carbon Credits the pokeman cards of 2012 :O:

Actually they are a great idea if they can be standardized. But the issue is today one can claim to be carbon neutral by supporting some trees or some crap when it ought to be funding clean energy.

A great investment model is starting out in the desert where investors are paying to install large solar shades in grocery store parking lots... They don't have to purchase federal land and most of the income comes from the grocery store itself which will love to claim its green status. If that could become a viable way to earn carbon credits you would see investments skyrocket.

[CaptainHaplo]

Solar Cells in grocery store parking lots in the middle of the desert...

Would that be a grocery store for the Bedouins? Well I guess the camels will enjoy the shade....

Carbon credits is nothing but a scam to redistribute wealth. Oh, they planted a tree in South America to offset my plane travel. Of course - the reality that trees release carbon as they age gets forgotten.... as long as it makes a person "feel good". The whole issue of "carbon" was why Kyoto was such a bad treaty.

There is nothing wrong with supporting clean energy - or looking to conserve resources. But creating a "feel good" market that does nothing but charges you for it, is unethical regardless.

Want clean energy? Wonderful thing called nuclear reactors for that. Want to solve the economic issues of the country. Set the country up to provide the power required to the rest of North America as well as to South America. But you would end up with a constand demand, which would create sustained jobs at good wages. Sure it would take investment and time.Anything worth doing usually does. Its not the end all/be all answer, but its one more piece of the puzzle.

[Zachstar]

I do not support feel good carbon credits. That crap has been used by soccer moms and the like to "feel good" about driving an SUV that ought to be outlawed just as much due to its risk to smaller cars than to its huge impact on CO2 levels.

A better type of carbon credit is investment carbon credits.

And I mean grocery stores in the US west. You see when a grocery store can gain solar without paying for the equipment they get to keep the "green points" (Saying "We are green! Shop at us!") while buying the energy from the panels instead of paying off the loan to do it themselves. This model works because it solves the issue of gaining land (Which can be quite expensive and you have to run environmental studies for large projects) And gives an incentive for participating.

I would love to have more fission. However I am not dumb enough to think it can pass through the political system. Not to mention that the industry is being investigated over ballooning costs.

[AVGWarhawk]

I do not support feel good carbon credits. That crap has been used by soccer moms and the like to "feel good" about driving an SUV that ought to be outlawed just as much due to its risk to smaller cars than to its huge impact on CO2 levels.



Thats it....send all the soccer moms to the gallows. IT IS ALL THEIR FAULT WITH THERE FILTH BELCHING SUV AND MINI VANS. Got kids Zach?

[Zachstar]

Thats it....send all the soccer moms to the gallows. IT IS ALL THEIR FAULT WITH THERE FILTH BELCHING SUV AND MINI VANS. Got kids Zach?

Nope. And btw kids is no excuse to drive a frakking tank. Especially one that gets under 15MPG my parents did everything needed with a Sedan. No tank needed.

[AVGWarhawk]

Nope. And btw kids is no excuse to drive a frakking tank. Especially one that gets under 15MPG my parents did everything needed with a Sedan. No tank needed.

Find me an SUV that gets under 15MPG. What, maybe the Hummer? How many soccer moms got Hummers? My old mini van got over 25 MPG. Get over yourself. Christ, my wife's Mountaineer gets 18 in the city and 22 on the highway. I'm sure your mom and dad just love jamming the trunk with beach crap for vacation. 10-1 that damn old sedan got worse gas mileage than the SUV today and certainly belched out more CO2 than todays motors. Damn, the friggin Chevy Chevette had worse emissions than todays 8 cylinders.

[Thomen]

In the spirit of global warming and to show my support for more green, I had a new paint job done on my car. :yeah:

http://www.change.org/photos/wordpress_copies/fail-owned-go-green-fail.jpg

[Zachstar]

Find me an SUV that gets under 15MPG. What, maybe the Hummer? How many soccer moms got Hummers? My old mini van got over 25 MPG. Get over yourself. Christ, my wife's Mountaineer gets 18 in the city and 22 on the highway. I'm sure your mom and dad just love jamming the trunk with beach crap for vacation. 10-1 that damn old sedan got worse gas mileage than the SUV today and certainly belched out more CO2 than todays motors. Damn, the friggin Chevy Chevette had worse gas mileage than todays 8 cylinders.

I ask SUV drivers what MPG they get all the time. under 15 is normal. And no the sedan got 20-30 MPG depending on driving. And there is only so much carbon in gas so I highly doubt it put out more.

[AVGWarhawk]

Most efficient and least efficient:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworstEPAtrucks.htm

Note, the big arse Toyota Titan and pick up trucks. Soccer mom does not drive pick up trucks. Lets go after the CONSTRUCTION WORKERS :yeah:

Zack:

Combined 20 MPG SUV's:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

Hit the scroll down list for SUV and 20 miles per gallon combined. It is beating the old family sedan.

[AVGWarhawk]

I ask SUV drivers what MPG they get all the time. under 15 is normal. And no the sedan got 20-30 MPG depending on driving. And there is only so much carbon in gas so I highly doubt it put out more.

BS. The amount of unburned gas/carbon is the problem. The old carborator is so inefficient compared to injection. The optimal mixture is 14:1. That mixture of fuel to O2 will provide the most complete burn. Carborators can not do that very well. Injection does it beautifully. EGR valves were improved as well as convertors as part of the exhaust. Computer controls that were programmed for mass air pressure, mass airflow, O2 sensors in the exhaust all combined to reducing the emissions 100 fold compared to old carboratored 4 cylinders. At any rate, just what sedan was getting 20-30? BTW, check the links I provide above. Dear old mom and the SUV is getting about the same. But you know what, she has plenty of room for bags, kids, groceries and that trip to the hardware store were she needs 10 foot 2x4 for her new construction project. :O:

[NeonSamurai]

One thing I find ironic about these discussions on environmentalism, corporatism, capitalism, socialism, etc. is that a lot of this stuff has already happened historically. We just never seem to learn the lessons.

For example, the industrial revolution of Europe (particularly England) is a text book case of what happens when unregulated capitalism is allowed to run rampant in a country. You think things are bad now, you should read what was going on at the height of that period. It is also the perfect example of why capitalism needs to be controlled and supervised, preferably by a neutral party.

The same can be said of unrestrained socialism, as such systems can go to far, create unbalance and excessive corruption.

In my view both are useful and needed in the right amounts, but highly destructive if either is allowed out of containment. One needs to balance out the needs and wants of the individual, vs the needs and wants of the group, vs the greater good of everything (including nature & environment).


On a slightly different subject. I think we as a species need to drop this concept of unending growth (economic or otherwise). Such a concept is fallacious and dangerous. Resources are finite, space on the planet is finite, the ability for the planet to support us is finite (yes that number can change, but there is a final maximum limit even if we can't calculate it). I think a better goal would be stability, rather then these unending up and down surges. I could write a lot more on this subject but I'll save it for another time.


I also think we really need to strip politics from the environmental debate if we are ever going to have any hope of solving the problems. Its not about politics, or political leanings, or hippies or anything. Its about what is happening to our world, why it is happening, how we are responsible, and what will happen if we don't do anything. There is a veritable mountain of generally scientifically valid evidence, that we are heading for major problems that will eventually have a catastrophic effect on us, and all else that we share the planet with. Pretending it doesn't exist, or challenging it with pseudo-scientific studies, or blaming nature, or praying to a god won't make it go away. There is a great deal of compelling evidence that we are mostly responsible for this mess, you can even see it with your own eyes if you look past your own back yard into what is happening across the globe. What is needed is rational, objective, and unbiased thought about the problem, followed by action.


Sometimes I look around me and I don't know if i should laugh or cry hysterically at what surrounds me.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon - as has been said a few times...

The surest proof of intelligent life in the galaxy - is that it hasn't visited us.

We have the technologies right now to make the earth more sustainable. We have had the resources to feed the world. Yet we do not use them. History shows that either nature will put us back in our place as a species, we will do it to ourselves, OR we will find a way to reach out and explore/exploit other areas of resources and living room. Ultimately, that will mean some form of space travel for the third option.

[Onkel Neal]

Zach, the price of oil will determine what people drive, not politcal correctness. If oil becomes so scarce that it hits $5 a gallon here, you won't need to rely on totalitarian measure like outlawing SUVs, people will desert them in droves.

As for mandating what people should drive, have you mentioned what car you drive, and how many kids you have? Personally, I think all cars should be outlawed unless they have 3+ occupants at all times. No cars on the road with one or two people.

Only motorcycles :shucks:

[AVGWarhawk]

Zach, the price of oil will determine what people drive, not politcal correctness. If oil becomes so scarce that it hits $5 a gallon here, you won't need to rely on totalitarian measure like outlawing SUVs, people will desert them in droves.



Absolutely. The Mercury Mountaineer we purchased was just turned in during the gas price hike of $4.00+ per gallon. The dealer practically gave us the truck. Other dealers were just taking the SUV's to the auction because they were not selling. What made me purchase this Mercury was the V6 and it is only two wheel drive. My wife will never pull a boat or travel trailer. No sense getting the V8. She will never go in the dirt or drive in the snow. No sense getting 4 wheel drive. However, we get about 23 mpg on the highway and seat 7. Sure beats having 3-4 cars going to the same place when all could just take a ride in the truck. :03: Hows that for getting good gas mileage? Hell, the way I see it the truck saves more gas than burns by just pull 1-2 vehicles off the road as these folks are riding with us.

[NeonSamurai]

Personally, I think all cars should be outlawed unless they have 3+ occupants at all times. No cars on the road with one or two people.

Only motorcycles :shucks:

That may work in Texas but not any place with cold weather or snow. Really need an enclosed 4 wheel vehicle for that kind of weather unless you have a death wish/like freezing your butt off.

But in principle I agree with the sentiment.

[CaptainHaplo]

Riding in the snow is fun.

If your worried about laying it down, then use a trike instead.

As for the cold, use a heat suit. You get on, plug in, and get warm. The things will get you downright TOASTY if you get a good one.

It would be great if everyone just rode, but unfortunately there would be WAY too many accidents as most of the people on the road NEED a big metal box around them to give them a chance at survival from their own stupidity given the way they "drive".

If you really wanted to solve the issue of a petroleum driven economy, you won't have success "outlawing" anything. Thats nearly as comical and useless as trying to use a punaitive tax to modify societal behavior. Instead, look at WHY we are a petroleum driven economy, and start working to make those factors less important.

For example - what is the biggest reason cars are on the road? Its people going to and from work. This also is what creates the logjams every morning and evening at 8 and 5..... where people sit and idle for an hour on their way, or 4 hours if your in NY.

While societal taxes don't work, business taxes (and tax breaks) do work. So offer companies tax credits for every worker they have that works from home. It doesn't have to be much - say $250 per worker. Watch how many "office" jobs can be home sourced! It saves the environment, reduces the dependance on petroleum, and also has an added social benefit in that it would allow families more time to spend together.

Sure, some jobs CANT be done via technology, not to mention trucks still have to deliver goods, etc. But there you can look at an older, yet VERY green technology.... RAILROADS - to help remove some of the demand in a very ecological responsible way.

Simple steps that would benefit everyone, in real, tangible ways. But there is no movement to use anything like that. Why? Because the powers that be really don't want to see us off petroleum. Regardless of the letter by the name, each has an interest in maintaining the status quo.

[NeonSamurai]

Well I still wouldn't take a bike out on the highway here in the middle of February with snow and ice with -20c to -35c + wind chill temperatures. It can be hard enough sometimes keeping a vehicle with 4 wheels on the road (even in the city). Like I said not really a practical solution for here, but concepts like the 3 wheel motorcycle 'cars' may work with fully enclosed cockpits.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well I still wouldn't take a bike out on the highway here in the middle of February with snow and ice with -20c to -35c + wind chill temperatures. It can be hard enough sometimes keeping a vehicle with 4 wheels on the road (even in the city). Like I said not really a practical solution for here, but concepts like the 3 wheel motorcycle 'cars' may work with fully enclosed cockpits.


http://www.glenbow.org/images/img-col-otherppl-hig-3.jpg

[NeonSamurai]

http://lakelouise.com/images/Image/Lake%20Louise/Dog_Sledding.jpg