Dodge introduced a new version of its Ram 1500 pick-up truck at the Detroit Auto Show called the Ram Rebel. The are claiming that it’s not a competitor to the Ford Raptor: “It’s not, Ram told us, a competitor for the Ford Raptor; it’s more in line with the Toyota TRD pickups. If you want a Raptor fighter, call Mopar, they can set that up for you.” -Jake Lingeman Autoweek. But the Rebel’s standard features state by the CEO of Ram are, “RAM’S ‘NOT A RAPTOR COMPETITOR’ GETS MUD TIRES, LIFT KIT, TOW HOOKS STANDARD” -Bob Hegbloom CEO of Ram. These are some of the features that have made the Ford Raptor successful in its niche market, but Hegbloom is playing it off as if they were going to happen regardless of the influences from the Raptor.
Back in September of 2013, Jamal Hameedi, Ford’s global performance vehicle chief engineer said to motor trend reporter, Erick Avapana, “I’m actually quite shocked that competitors haven’t come out because we’re having a field day in the market with the only game in town”. Regardless of what Hegbloom says, they are clearly competing with what the market that the Ford Raptor has cleared in the Off-road racing world.
In chapter two, “Hetch Hetchy Valley” by John Muir, he explains the beauty in both the Yosemite and the Hetch Hetchy Valley. John Muir’s accounts of the area played a major role in the establishment of the Yosemite National Park in 1890. John Muir focuses on the beauty in the parks including the wildlife and the waterfalls. The feelings that nature evokes in ones person is like no other feeling. Being one with the Earth requires seeing nature in its natural habitat and in its unmodified state. The goal of preserving national and state parks is to allow future generations to experience the same feeling as John Muir originally did.
In chapter 3, “Principles of Conservation,” by Gifford Pinchot explains the misconceptions and his beliefs on conservation. Conservation in Pinchot’s words means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time. I feel that this must always be a balance for if this is followed strictly to the book, then there won’t be any use of the resources. If there is too much fear of destroying the resource then it won’t be utilized for it value. Conservation can be applied to just about every part of life and anything on Earth.
After reading chapter 30, “Storm of the Century”, the author brings up the point about the government becoming engaged in the relocation of citizens away from the rising shoreline. As Mark FIschetti points out that “buyouts epitomize the ultimate solution to storm protection: retreat from the shore”. The current option is to use federal subsidize programs to motivate people to move to higher locations. Both of these options are monetary motivation to move enforced by the governments. THe problem with these solutions is that they only work in places with enough money to subsidize such things and have a government to actually enforce them.
Alternate solutions can include leaving it up to the people themselves to make the decisions on where they want to live. If the facts are placed in front of future homeowners they can make individual decisions and leave the government out of it. Maybe the family isn’t planning on living there very long so having a home on the beach front makes sense. Higher insurance will obviously be a part of the decision making processes, but I do not think that the government should be subsidizing and funding relocation policies.
After reading chapter one, “Man and Nature”, I began to wonder what is truly meant by “usufruct” and if it is even possible. The definition of usufruct given by the book is to use the fruit of the Earth, not for consumption or waste. Resources should remain for future generations. Given the fact that the Earth is a balanced ecosystem and as the human population increases, the balance of the Earth becomes more and more off balance. In order to fully become a usufruct society, humans would have to replace ever plant, animal, and living organism on the planet back to its original state after it was altered by the humans.
The quantity of matter on the planet is constant. The matter is merely changing shape. When humans cut down trees and burn the wood, the particles of matter and different elements are all still there just in different combinations. The question then becomes, what is using the resource if the matter on Earth will not change. Is cutting down and burning the tree changing the way it would have eventually happened in nature? For example, if the tree were to be struck by lighting and a forest fire burns the forest to the ground. Although humans play an important role in the destruction of nature resources, not all of the effects of man are unavoidable.
My mother has started using microfiber tablecloths for the kitchen table in their home. These tablecloth’s work great for spills because the liquids don’t get absorbed into the cloth. This triggered further research into this mysterious fabric.
Microfiber is flammable when manufactured with polyester or cellulose; both of which release toxic gases when burned, and more chemical when treated with flame resistant chemicals. If the fabric is made with polypropylene, it is considered recyclable. While the other options of the material is polyester and nylon, which are considered nonrenewable, but these are grow able crops such as cotton.
Another important aspect of this material is the amount of pollution that is being created by washing of the materials. The microfiber particles are not stopped by washing machine filters and are thus sent to the ocean and lakes. “The Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant program took samples from southern Lake Michigan in 2013, about 12 percent of the debris consisted of microfibers”. -John Flesher