New Vehicle Standards

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,536
Location: Houston, Texas

23 May 2009, 11:35 am

Earlier this week, President Obama unveiled new vehicle standards, with the goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, and changing the fuel efficiency standards to where all vehicles must meet a 35 mpg threshold.

So what are your thoughts on this?

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

23 May 2009, 11:44 am

Bye-Bye supercars...

ja
Snowy Owl

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

23 May 2009, 12:12 pm

'man-made' global warming is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the voting consumer

KnightGhost
Blue Jay

Joined: 17 May 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: Idaho

23 May 2009, 12:57 pm

Man made global climate change was proven 15 years ago. I agree with the intent of the fuel standards, but the execution (CAFE) is expensive and ineffective. Its a waste. CAFE should be phased out, and in place a 2-3 cent per year increase in gasoline tax. That would let capitalism and innovation work. Also slowly phase in taxes on coal and to a lesser extent natural gas based on environmental impact (and mining, etc). Put real calculations in the public's view instead of PR lies. You don't want to cripple any industry, but they need to pay for the effects.

MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

23 May 2009, 1:01 pm

This should have been done 20 years ago.

Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

23 May 2009, 1:20 pm

KnightGhost wrote:

Sadly, people in the US hate the word 'tax' and would also provide fuel for the right wing when it comes to reelection time. OTOH, I think it's a much more logical idea. --It would also make the US auto industry have to actually compete with Japan on more or less equal footing, due to the fact that anybody in their right mind would be looking for a vehicle that would allow them to pay less taxes when they were in the market for a new car.

_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!

syzygyish
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Feb 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,086
Location: swimming in the air

23 May 2009, 6:31 pm

People that live directly next to a highway or heavily used road
face an 8% increase in lung problems, including asthma and lung cancer.

I voted yes.

_________________
Be kinder than necessary for everyone is fighting some kind of battle
-Jaleb

Oggleleus
Deinonychus

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 349

26 May 2009, 11:34 am

Bad idea. But we are getting used to Bad Ideas every week. Every day there is a press conference on TV with Obama unveiling bad idea after another. So, let me get this straight, Obama and much of you utopian socialistic intellectuals want women to have a choice when it comes to terminating a child but no choice for the car enthusiast that does not want to drive a car running on bubble gum and Dr. Pepper which is a deathtrap in any US auto accident. Please explain how choice is good on one hand and not on another. I don't understand.

MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

26 May 2009, 12:11 pm

Because in the 1st case you're talking about getting rid of a blob of cells and in the second about something that can have a negative effect on billions of people.

Oggleleus
Deinonychus

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 349

26 May 2009, 1:38 pm

Notice, no negative connotations to having an abortion. The lump of cells is not making the choice. You, sorrily missed the point.

I believe in the more choices we people have, the better off we are. And, before, well, maybe too late here on WP, I am labeled an "Extremist" or "Right Wing", I am Pro Choice. But, what is interestingly amusing to me is how Choice is on one hand a wedge issue with strong emotional ties and on the other hand, limiting the types of cars the US makes in an effort to support CAFE standards that have been shown to be pointless in the first place unless the overall goal is to wreck the US auto industry in the first place.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 May 2009, 8:58 pm

Oggleleus wrote;

Quote:

I believe in the more choices we people have, the better off we are. And, before, well, maybe too late here on WP, I am labeled an "Extremist" or "Right Wing", I am Pro Choice. But, what is interestingly amusing to me is how Choice is on one hand a wedge issue with strong emotional ties and on the other hand, limiting the types of cars the US makes in an effort to support CAFE standards that have been shown to be pointless in the first place unless the overall goal is to wreck the US auto industry in the first place.

There are many individuals on these forums that believe the only choices we should have as individuals are for committing acts of perversion or anything generally meaningless that passes for “freedom” in their minds.
Anything meaningful has to be decided by the government or by a committee of those more socially enlightened.
They redefine traditional values as “hate” and “intolerance” while re-introducing what was once unacceptable as expressions of freedom and rights.
I can only say that I’m glad my mind is free of the disorder, call it an inversion disorder, that plagues them.

Hell, I won’t even bother to comment on the topic that this thread is about having to do with King Obama demanding 35 mpg on all vehicles.
:lol:

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,536
Location: Houston, Texas

26 May 2009, 10:05 pm

While I do think we shouldn't use as much oil, I am mainly opposed to the government telling people what they can or can't drive.

Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

27 May 2009, 3:57 pm

Keith wrote:

Bye-Bye supercars...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenigsegg

Quote:

"In 2006 Koenigsegg introduced the CCX, a new model, that was created in order to meet world wide regulations (homologations) for road use. Never before had such a big undertaking been executed by an independent manufacturer. This meant the cars had to go through extensive development in order reach the latest and most stringent safety and emission standards that the world's authorities demanded. Therefore Koenigsegg had to, for example, develop their own engines and other related technologies. Furthermore, Koenigsegg is the only supercar and low volume manufacturer to pass the new European pedestrian impact tests. Just after Koenigsegg passed this test, the test requirement was deemed too complicated for low volume manufacturers to cope with. So it is now not necessary to meet these regulations if the production volume is lower than 10.000 cars annually for a certain model. Therefore, the Koenigsegg CCX may likely be the only supercar with this safety feature.

In 2007 Koenigsegg premiered the world's first "green" supercar in production - the CCXR. The CCXR is a bioflexfuel version of the CCX. The car features a modified engine, fuel system and engine management system, that enables the car to run on regular petrol or ethanol, and in any mixture between these two fuels. Ethanol has a higher octane rating compared to regular petrol and has an internal cooling effect on the combustion chamber. This enables the power of the CCXR to rise to 1018 HP, when run on a mixture of 15% regular petrol and 85% ethanol, known as E85. Furthermore, this makes the CCXR the most powerful homologated production car in the world, eclipsing the Bugatti Veyron by 17 HP and not counting non-homologated cars with higher HP claims that have not complied with the same strict regulations."

...which prooves that the majority of car manufactorers in the world is a bunch of whiners that dont want to spend any money to make their cars meet up with emission standards.

_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)

Elfnote
Raven
Raven

Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

27 May 2009, 5:05 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:

While I do think we shouldn't use as much oil, I am mainly opposed to the government telling people what they can or can't drive.

I couldn't agree more. Global warming is provably a myth, although I wont go into that here, and while this would improve people's health, its doing it at the expense of our freedom. If your going to determine what types of cars are allowed to be marketed, then perhaps we should all vote to force vegitarianism, or to only be legally allowed to use electricity at specified hours.

In other words, the government shouldn't make our choices for us, thats not their job.

Michjo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,020
Location: Oxford, UK

27 May 2009, 5:56 pm

While i think the new standards are a step in the right directon i dont think they far enough. 35mpg is nothing and there are plenty of cars out there doing 60-70mpg

Quote:

Because in the 1st case you're talking about getting rid of a blob of cells

Using this analogy, i would be perfectly within my moral rights to go around a hospital murdering babies due to their lack of self-awareness and mental development.

Quote:

Global warming is provably a myth, although I wont go into that here, and while this would improve people's health, its doing it at the expense of our freedom.

And at which point does health take a presidence over people's freedom? If i want to store yellowcake uranium in my garden shed i should be able to right? freedom and all? who cares if people get cancer from it.

People pay taxes to the government for the government to look out for their best interests and my health, everyone's health, is included in those interests.

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,536
Location: Houston, Texas

27 May 2009, 6:36 pm

Elfnote wrote:

Tim_Tex wrote:

While I do think we shouldn't use as much oil, I am mainly opposed to the government telling people what they can or can't drive.

With all this talk about global warming, I keep hearing that another Ice Age is more likely.

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

New Vehicle Standards Post Reply New Topic

New Vehicle Standards