Forum Discussion
daved9664 wrote:
Tesla found out how to create electricity out of thin air decades ago....
Tesla, the scientist may have done that, but his namesake auto company and Elon Musk have yet to achieve a profit making electric cars that outside the hype and PT Barnum shill, are appealing to a very narrow(READ: able to afford the price) market. Saw a Tesla Model X in a shopping center parking lot, asked the driver the cost, said he's leasing it. What's the lease payment on a 135K plus vehicle these days?
ICE may be 'old technology' but it's still quite viable, affordable (well maybe for a while longer) to all, and is hardly the source of emissions is was even 40 years ago. And what is to become of all the toxic metals from exotic batteries as they hit the end of their useful lives? I see that as a way bigger threat to the environment than an ICE vehicle's emissions.- The EPA has done more to increase poverty and kill jobs in the United States than even the War on Poverty has done. Both are utter failures when you look at the cost/benefit ratio.
How this economy could grow, put people back to work, and get people out of poverty and off the government dole if we simply killed the EPA and terminated the War on Poverty. - I wonder why it wouldn't be a good idea to just freeze the EPA vehicle pollution regs at their present levels. My 2013 doesn't ever smoke, even at startup. There is NO diesel smell coming out of the tailpipe. It has a DPF and uses DEF. Haven't we reached the 90 percent solution ?? It's impossible to get to '0' and still build an affordable (kind of) fossil fuel burning vehicle.
Seems like if every country adopted current US pollution standards the world would be just fine. - Emission regulations have been a good thing, there are twice as many registered vehicles on North American roads than in 1975 but air quality in US and Canadian cities is much better. I park my 2011 CTD in the garage and I can close the door right away. I park my 66 Chrysler 300 in the garage and the fumes are so bad I have to leave the door open for a good 15 minutes to air the place out. The question now is how much better do they really need to get.
CAFE standards have to be an honest, realistic collaboration between government and industry taking into account what is possible with existing technology. Vehicles that are more fuel efficient are a good thing. - I remember driving thru Los Angeles back in 1979. My eyes were burning. Just went there a few years ago and the air was much more clear. I don't live there but somethings changed.
goducks10 wrote:
I'll take our clean air over this any day.
http://www.scmp.com/topics/beijing-air-pollution
Problem is China is a pretty aggressive dictatorship, that refuse to listen to anyonewilber1 wrote:
CAFE standards have to be an honest, realistic collaboration between government and industry taking into account what is possible with existing technology. Vehicles that are more fuel efficient are a good thing.
Very well said. Um, you wouldn't be available to run for President of the United States, would you? :B We're a quart low on reasonable and common sense down here............daved9664 wrote:
As a 20 something year old Im happy to see emission regulations. Sure there are some hiccups afterword, but it puts the pressure on manufacturers to create technology that does not destroy our air quality, environment, mine and your children's and grand children's futures. Fossil fuels are an age old technology. Tesla found out how to create electricity out of thin air decades ago.... I think we can find a happy medium where these rich folks can make a few dollars while not destroying the environment. It's way over due for changes like these and Im not sorry if some older folk get upset about "scary changes" if it's for the better.
Just keep in mind that some of those "older folk" have enough experience under their belts to realize several things...
> Not everything the government tells you is true or accurate (lookup "downwinders" who were told there was no danger to them from above-ground nuclear testing). When I was a kid, there were assemblies in school with groups telling us the Earth was going to enter another ice age if we didn't stop polluting. Now, oops, it's warming. Or is it? 11 year solar cycle, natural patterns...
> Follow the money. It will show you who has what agenda.
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and funded by unintended consequences. Environmentalists used to love the hydroelectric power plants on the Columbia River. Now they hate them because "they warm the river". They used to love CFB's, and got laws in place to mandate them. Now they hate them. The list goes on.
When you allow government to regulate something, all of these factors come into play - often with the last one being what ends up hurting everyone.
Some of the older folks have been around long enough to know this. It might be wise to listen to them, and try to balance your views.
I've heard from some "enviro-people" that feel no one should have anything bigger than a Prius. When asked about towing a trailer, or living in an RV (which can reduce your carbon footprint), it was actually suggested that "you should have to pay someone with a super clean truck that pays big taxes to offset their emissions to tow it for you, or just leave it where it is".
There is a value to freedom. Some are eager to give up their freedom with the promise that "they" will take care of you. Be careful what you ask for.ramgunner wrote:
daved9664 wrote:
As a 20 something year old Im happy to see emission regulations. Sure there are some hiccups afterword, but it puts the pressure on manufacturers to create technology that does not destroy our air quality, environment, mine and your children's and grand children's futures. Fossil fuels are an age old technology. Tesla found out how to create electricity out of thin air decades ago.... I think we can find a happy medium where these rich folks can make a few dollars while not destroying the environment. It's way over due for changes like these and Im not sorry if some older folk get upset about "scary changes" if it's for the better.
Just keep in mind that some of those "older folk" have enough experience under their belts to realize several things...
> Not everything the government tells you is true or accurate (lookup "downwinders" who were told there was no danger to them from above-ground nuclear testing). When I was a kid, there were assemblies in school with groups telling us the Earth was going to enter another ice age if we didn't stop polluting. Now, oops, it's warming. Or is it? 11 year solar cycle, natural patterns...
> Follow the money. It will show you who has what agenda.
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and funded by unintended consequences. Environmentalists used to love the hydroelectric power plants on the Columbia River. Now they hate them because "they warm the river". They used to love CFB's, and got laws in place to mandate them. Now they hate them. The list goes on.
When you allow government to regulate something, all of these factors come into play - often with the last one being what ends up hurting everyone.
Some of the older folks have been around long enough to know this. It might be wise to listen to them, and try to balance your views.
I've heard from some "enviro-people" that feel no one should have anything bigger than a Prius. When asked about towing a trailer, or living in an RV (which can reduce your carbon footprint), it was actually suggested that "you should have to pay someone with a super clean truck that pays big taxes to offset their emissions to tow it for you, or just leave it where it is".
There is a value to freedom. Some are eager to give up their freedom with the promise that "they" will take care of you. Be careful what you ask for.
^^^^^ good post right there. :)- Frankly I don't believe that manufacturers would have willingly done a single solitary thing to reduce emissions without the EPA, ever. Developing that technology costs money, and why would you spend money when you can just continue to make what you've always made, the way you've always made it, and rake in the money?
You claim the buying public would have demanded cleaner burning vehicles. I sincerely doubt it. Most people have to directly experience something or they don't believe it exists. A lot of people here don't believe vehicular pollution is a problem because they've never been to a big city before emissions laws. They haven't experienced how awful the air was; it's fine out in the country or the small town where they live, so this whole pollution thing is just a load of hooey.
That said, the EPA is a good idea that has gone too far. There's a point of "good enough" but certain folks in power don't seem to think so. They're just going to keep pushing with the goal of cars running on happy thoughts and farting daisies out the exhaust pipe.
In some respects we've gone too far in the other direction already. Certain types of pollution washed out of the air by rain becomes potash in the soil. Potash is something necessary for proper soil balance, and growing healthy, bountiful crops. Healthy bountiful crops are essential to keeping everyone fed. Now farmers are finding the soil to be deficient of potash due to the excessively clean air, and are having to spread manufactured potash on to maintain soil balance.
What really amazes me is that there isn't enough money in the automotive and energy industries to quash this once and for all. There are lots of industries with vested interests in keeping things as they are or pushing for things to go the other way, yet there doesn't seem to be enough money to get it done?
