A NAPELEMEK vita szerintem megoldodott!
Azaz a napenergia jo, hasznos, kornyezetbarat ( kiveve az aksikat),
,,vegtelen", de most meg draga jatek.
Majd ha feltalanak valami jo kis akukat, akkor lehet rola igazan szo!
Vagy ha a tobbi hirtelen elfogy, es az ara felmegy a francba!
Akkor majd IGEN!

A KUKAVAL kapcsolatban pedig csak annyit,
hogy tudjatok ti hany kg szeme't kerul ki egy haztartasbol ugy durvan?
Es meg tudna nekem valaki mondani, hogy a MEH(vagy a megfelelo utod)
hogy fizet mondjuk az uveg,aluminium, papir, muanyag  tonnajaert?

Nem kell MEGIJEDNI!
Csak azert kerem TONNABA, mivel ha az emberkek szetvalogatnak,
evente ugy 100kg korul lenne fajtankent(KB).

Es kivancsi vagyok mennyit lehet igy, evente visszaforditani a haztartasba?
Orulnek minden MEH-ecskenek aki arat tud nekem mondani!!
Vagy van valakinek hasonlo tapasztalata?

A kis KUKAZO 
Robert Gida

>Felado :  [Hungary]
>Temakor: Bicigli Bp-n ( 25 sor )
>
>Csussz irta:
>
>Mi szol a tomegkozlekedes mellett?
>- nem kell a forgalomban vezetni

 ...es nem is visz haztol-hazig.
 ...es dugokban a busz ugyanugy all mint a kocsi, sot meg jobban.
 ...nem tudom mi jobb dugoban ulni a volan mogott es zenet hallgatni
vagy fuldokolva allni egy zsufolt buszon.

>- nem kell a jarmu fenntartasaval foglalkozni
>
>Ellene szol:
>- a menetrendtol valo fugges idoben es helyben egyarant

 ...azaz kisgyerekeseknek, mozgasserultekenk, betegeknek nem muxik.
Illetve kesz pokol. Es a BKV mondja meg hogy mikor hova mesz.

>- csak kezipoggyasznyi csomagot lehet vinni

Amikor tobbet kellene akkor viszont nagy a baj.

>- influenzas idoben gyakorlatilag holtbiztos a fertozes

Szinten, kisgyerekeseknek, gyenge egeszsegueknek nem javasolt.
>
>Ezen hatranyok kozul az elso es utolso nem all fenn kerekpar
>hasznalata eseten, tehat bringara ifjusag es idosebbseg!!

Budapesten a kerekparutaktol es a mellekutcaktol eltekintve
ELETVESZELYES kerekparozni.
Nem tudom melyik fehergalleros munkahelyen dijazzak ha
leizzadva ersz be.
>
>Ehhez kell meg hozzatenni, hogy a bringak hasznalataval csokken a
>legszennyezettseg. Nem csak azert, mert a bringak nem pofekelnek
>(maximum
>egy jo kis emelkedon a bringazo), de a bringazo tudeje egyben igen
>hatekony
>legszuro is. Mindebfelet kiszur a levegobol. Gondoljatok el: a tudo
>levegozo
>felulete akkora mint egy focipalya! Sok bringas tudeje sok focipalyanyi
>legszurot jelent! Ha mar csokkennek a zold terultekek, akkor legalabb a
>bringasok szama novekedjek! Igy all helyre az egyensuly Bp-en.

Most mar tudom hova lesz az a sok korom amit a kocsim kipofekel.
A bringasok tudejebe megy! :-(

Szep dolog ez a tomeges bringazas, csak itt es most nem mukodik.

Elvileg jo otlet. Munkaba mindenki mehetne bringaval aki 20 km-en
belul lakik. _HA_ mindenki azzal menne... Addig sorry, nem.

udv: VAti
>

Ha mar oly sokat van bringarol szo, akkor egy-ket pelda mashonnan. 

Az mar eddig is mindig total lenyugozott, hogy Hollandiaban es 
Daniaban az egyik fo kozlekedesi forma a bicaj.  Ami, ha az 
idojarasukat figyelembe vesszuk (Hollandiaban es Daniaban is tobb 
nap esik, zuhog az eso, mint nem), meg kulonosen lehengerlobb.  
Nagyon jopofa, amikor a reggeli "csucsforgalomban" (Amszterdamban igy 
egesz jol kikuszoboltek a belvarosban a csucsforgalmat) a pirosnal 
all 3 kocsi es 20 bicikli.  Esik vagy fuj, mindegy.

De ami most meg jobban lenyugozott, az Svedorszag volt.  Uppsalaban 
ugy minusz 10 fok korul volt eppen; hovihar volt (bar mikor en igy 
titulaltam az altalam szornyen zordnak itelt idojarast, akkor 
vendeglatoim kicsit mosolyogtak, es megjegyeztek, hogy ez inkabb csak 
olyan hoszallingozas egy kis szellovel tarkitva) -- es az emberek 
nagy resze, mint ha mi sem tortent volna, jott es ment munkaba, 
vasarolni, oviba aprosagokkal, stb -- bicajon.......  Pedig Uppsala 
nem eppen teljesen lapos, mint Hollandia es Dania...... 

De meg ebben is a legmegdobbentobb az volt, hogy a kerekparon 
egyaltalan NEM csupa diak es szegenynek tuno bevandorlo szenvedett.  
Tobb 60 - 70 kozti figura is tekerte a pedalt (jojojo, hegynek 
felfele egy-egy rovid szakaszon toltak); es sokan igen elegans, jo 
oltozekben igyekeztek celjuk fele.  

Meginterjuvoltam nehany resztvevot a munkabizottsagban, akikkel 
voltunk - -es bizony, kiderult, hogy egyetemi professzorok, 
tanszekvezetok, a Sved Akademia jeles tagjai (az egyik benne van a 
Nobel-dijakat kiutalo bizottsagban) -- igen soknak a bicaj a 
mindennapi kozlekedesi eszkoze.

Najo, azt ok is bevallottak, hogy azert minusz 20 fok alatt mar ok is 
valtanak............

Azt is probaltam kipuhatolni, mik a fo motivaciok.  Mert hogy nemcsak 
a kornyezet szeretete, az tutti.  Az is eleg valoszinu, hogy nem 
takarekossag -- bar ezt is megemlitettek tobben (csak fura, hogy egy 
jobb modu svednek ez meggyozobb szempont, mint nekunk, magyaroknak).  
Sokan emlitettek, hogy egyszeruen jobban erzik magukat a borukben, 
mire munkaba vagy haza ernek, stb.  

Akarmit is mondtak, nem ertem.  Meg mindig 
furdall a kivancsisag, mitol olyan mas Amszterdam, Koppenhaga, az 
osszes Holland es Dan kisvaros, Uppsala, stb, mint pl. Magyarorszag 
sok varosa, hogy ott annyival "erdemesebb" kerekezni, mint autoba 
vagni az embernek magat, vagy az amugy eleg jo tomegkozlekedest 
hasznalni.........

(jojojo, Budapestre tudom a valaszt: legalabbis itt en sem szivesen 
kozlekednek brinyoval, amig kicsit ki nem tisztul a levego, es amig 
nem lesznek meg a biztonsagosabb feltetelek a kerekparos 
kozlekedesre, ami mar megteremtheti a bicajos kulturat.........)

Diana

Y2K AND THE GREAT HAWAIIAN TOILET PAPER PANIC

	I keep running into scary Y2K discussions.  I suppose that's because
they're happening more frequently and will continue to do so right up to
December 31, 1999, when the year 2000 (Y2K) computer bug will kick in and End
The World As We Know It.

	That's what some people say it will do.  Others say, "come off it, this
is all hype, it's a weird modern version of end-of-the-millennium hysteria, you
can't scare me."

	Every discussion I hear starts with those two positions.  As the talk
proceeds, the alarmists recite stories about chemical plants blowing up, trains
screeching to a halt, even missiles launching themselves.  They scare the
bejeebers out of the scoffers.  That doesn't mean the alarmists are right, it
just means that images of impending disaster have far more psychological punch
than sunny statements of faith in computers, corporations and governments.

	So I watch perfectly practical people get converted within half an hour
from "surely this is all overblown" to "hmmm, maybe I should stock up on canned
goods and get my money out of the bank and buy an electric generator."  At the
latest of these meetings, involving charitable foundations, I heard, "gee,
maybe we should pull out of the stock market completely, so our portfolio
doesn't take a dive."

	The Y2K problem worries me a little; these conversations worry me a
lot.  If all foundations (and pension plans and university endowments) pull out
of the stock market, they will cause the very dive they're trying to shield
themselves from.  If we all empty the supermarket shelves, demand cash at the
banks, drain down the tanks at the gas stations, if even a few of us hole up in
the hills with rifles (don't laugh, there's plenty of that talk going around),
it won't matter whether the computers go down on millennium midnight or not. 
We'll create our own catastrophe.

	Reminds me of Honolulu during the oil embargo.

	Hawaiians, 6000 miles from their sources of almost everything, are
jumpy about shipping interruptions in any case.  In 1974 their gas lines were
longer than anyone's and occasionally involved shooting, usually across ethnic
lines.  That was awful, but I avoided it because I got around by bicycle.  What
bothered me was the toilet paper panic.

	Store shelves were bare not only of toilet paper, but of tissues, paper
towels, any reasonable substitute.  Whenever an incoming shipment was
announced, lines snaked through the store.  Even at one roll to a customer,
toilet paper sold out within the hour.  This went on for weeks.

	Finally the increasingly frantic orders of the store managers started
to flow in.  Toilet paper began to stay on the shelves.  Once people saw it
there, they stopped buying because, it turned out, each household had
stockpiled something like a five month supply.  The stores sat on paper
mountains for months, until household stocks were worked down and everything
returned to normal.

	This self-induced crisis was slightly annoying and mainly funny, but it
makes a useful point about Y2K.  Our possible responses to that or any other
threat fall into three categories.  We can do things to protect ourselves
individually, which, if everyone does them, will guarantee real problems.  We
can do nothing, which is inadvisable, because there could be real problems.  Or
we can do things to protect ourselves collectively, which will calm us down,
bring us together, and prepare us for other disasters, even if this one turns
out to fizzle.

	Like what?  What can we do in that third category?

	I suggested to the charitable foundations that they announce jointly
that they will not make any unusual investment swings during 1999.  If they get
the university and pension and mutual fund managers to join them, that would
defuse most if not all investor panic.

	Some neighborhoods are already getting together and making sure that
all households have reasonable stocks of candles and food and fuel and water. 
Given last year's ice storm, we should have some such back-up in any case, and
there is real security in knowing that not only you but your neighbors are
secure.

	What I'd most like to see is a community-wide effort, spearheaded by
local newspapers and/or TV stations, to check out systematically the supply
streams that keep my community running -- water, food, electricity, gas, cash. 
Starting in January 1999 I'd like to see one report a month in which all the
supermarkets, say, or the banks or utilities, are investigated with
journalistic thoroughness, not only for their Y2K readiness, but their general
readiness for supply interruptions, computer crashes, and other emergencies.

	If we all knew from a reliable source (not the government) that the
stores won't run out of food, the banks won't wipe out the records of our
accounts, the lights will stay on, the Social Security checks will arrive, the
hospitals will function and the sewage plants won't freeze up, we could enjoy a
historic New Year's Eve without creating all sorts of unnecessary problems for
ourselves.

	(Donella H. Meadows is director of the Sustainability Institute and an
adjunct professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College.)