What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

pnichols wrote:

So, I guess that you don't agree with my earlier post - repeated below. In what way don't you agree with it?:

pnichols wrote:
IMHO, recreational vehicles of all types will never be much a part of the overall pollution problem ... there's not enough of them on a world scale. I hope they continue to get powered by natural gas or gasoline or diesel for many years to come so that we can continue to refuel everywhere with these high energy storage-per-unit sources.

To my knowledge it's the trucks, planes, ships, daily living personal vehicles, building heating/cooling equipment, eating of beef products, and deforestation that are the main concerns.

It's just another excuse, and typical of the "Not in my backyard" and/or "Do as I say, not as I do" type crowd.


Does not matter how supposedly "little" in your opinion RV's are contributing to the supposed climate change problem as some see it. The fact is they -are- contributing to it (if the problem even exists), just like any other fossil fuel burning vehicle. If someone -truly- believed that man is having a detrimental and negative effect on the earth's climate and environment via pollution, and that we have to change our ways to prevent catastrophe, they would not be contributing to said pollution any more than they possibly needed to.

Driving around in a gas-guzzling RV is not minimizing one's footprint to implement said change, that according to some, must happen. Especially when it is done for nothing more than sight-seeing. RV's are burning 2-3 times more fuel than the personnal vehicles you lamented about.

It is hypocrisy at it's finest. Especially when someone is throwing around the typical and worn-out accusations of "science deniers."

But I understand that the truth can be hard to accept at times, especially when one is looking at one's self in the mirror.