upvote for audi allroad with quattro!

Heh, Audi should use that in their commercials. "See that Mercedes truck stuck in the snow? *bruum bruuum* ♫Canyineeroooo♪"

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Jeremy Clarkson is right, in Britain at least, the cocks have moved from BMW's and are now plaguing the roads in Audis

Exactly what I was thinking. I would've just decked this mother fucker.


I'd love an Audi, though, but i fear if i did, I'd turn into this guy. Like the Wolfman transformation

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Jeremy Clarkson is right, in Britain at least, the cocks have moved from BMW's and are now plaguing the roads in Audis


Exactly what I was thinking. I would've just decked this mother fucker.

Jeremy Clarkson is right, in Britain at least, the cocks have moved from BMW's and are now plaguing the roads in Audis

That Audi driver was a complete dick driver, he had that coming.

take a look on index mundi

% of people below poverty line in hungary is 13.9%
for the US, its 15.1%

it's also considered to be one of the most income EQUAL nations in the world
AUDI and MERCEDES both have facilities there
and if you look at how their currency fluctuates... it's actually extremely stable

I'll tell you what the LEFT see's that this guy, the Republicans, and the poster above me don't:

THE FACTS

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Thank you so much!! I love having my hair red. It goes to my butt and is quite impressive in the wind, I must say.
In reply to this comment by pumkinandstorm:
Hi Beautiful!!! : I like your new avatar!


You're going to look so hot while we're cruising in our Audi TT convertible that CirSam gave us with your long red hair whipping in the wind!

100% agree. I just bought (4000 miles so far) an Infiniti G37 and it stood head-and-shoulders apart from the American counter-parts.

I tested a number of German cars (BMW, Benz, Audi, VW) as well, but the poor reliability and cost-to-repair scared me away.

Aww, warm fuzzies. Thanks for the hypothetical ride, @CirSam. That really made me smile!

And @pumkinandstorm, you always make me grin!

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^pumkinandstorm:
So... @UsesProzac who gets to drive it?

I don't mind if I don't drive, as long as I have FULL control of radio and AC!

You got it baby! At least I know you have good taste in music!

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^pumkinandstorm:
So... @UsesProzac who gets to drive it?

I don't mind if I don't drive, as long as I have FULL control of radio and AC!


You got it baby! At least I know you have good taste in music!

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

So... @UsesProzac who gets to drive it?


I don't mind if I don't drive, as long as I have FULL control of radio and AC!

>> ^PancakeMaster:

> But just how much can you realistically reduce your emissions by through changed behaviour?
More than you can by buying a new car and continuing your status quo.


You'd be surprised. People have to eat and work. Most of their emissions are from food, and getting to work and back. You can't take a city like New York and just get them to start buying their produce locally, unless you want them to starve, it's gonna take more than the surrounding 100 miles to grow the food they need.

Buying a new electric car and having your produce delivered by electric truck or train would do more. Producing that electricity from nuclear would be radically more.

Large urban centers just aren't able to cut emissions in any of the ways you previously mentioned, it just doesn't work without transporting food a long ways, and the only way to get that off oil is electricity right now.

>> ^PancakeMaster:

So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.
I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.
Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.
>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.
You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.
Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.
edit
BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars
>> ^bcglorf:
Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?
>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.




But just how much can you realistically reduce your emissions by through changed behaviour? I doubt even 50% is realistic. Now, how about getting our entire society to do the same, are people gonna voluntarily give up everything they need to drop 50%? Not a chance.

If electric cars can be improved enough to be desirable over gas, then a switch over to nuclear for electricity production can drop emissions nearly 50%. More importantly, it happens by consumers buying something new because they simply want to, and government/corporations making money off selling nuclear energy to run everyone's new cars.

Short of putting guns to peoples heads and telling them what they can and can not eat, how far they are allowed to travel in a year, and enforcing that across the globe, emissions ARE NOT going to be lowered. Electric cars and nuclear power are the only viable options out there and they are either ready now(nuclear) or will be very, very soon(electric cars).

So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.

I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.

Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.

>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.

You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.

Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.

*edit*

BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars

>> ^bcglorf:

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?

>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.