DOT and EPA Announce New Gas Mileage Regulations

Ducman69 said:
Its not emotion, its differences in priorities among individuals capable of independent and of course DIFFERENT thought.

If I live in New York City and virtually never drive my car because I use public transportation but have a high income, fuel economy is almost irrelevant. And cars can serve other purposes, such as status symbols, so someone like that may buy a little turbocharged Porsche and take it out on dates and the like, and it has no real impact on him or anyone else for that matter if it gets 15 or 30mpg.

Or you may have multiple vehicles like my father (and myself actually), and you get vehicles for different niches. His Ram 1500 extended cab is really useful at the airport or when boating, but he commutes and usually drives his little four-banger Dodge. I currently have two cars AND two motorcycles for that matter. If one of your hobbies is to go mudding and rock climbing on occasion, you might get a little jeep with no doors and piss poor fuel economy geared really short with a top speed of 70mph and knobby tires. It doesn't need to be efficient, it needs to be able to climb rocks at 5mph.

Fuel economy is one of many factors, and for people shopping for a commuter that know their office is far away from their home or they like/need to travel a lot will make that their first and foremost priority on their own.

The idea that "government knows best" and idea that everyone is the same is, well, ed.
Click to expand...

The problem is will we still have them choices if it comes to the point of the only way to meet regulations is to eliminate the stuff that just can't get 55 mpg? How far will regulations go to get rid of anything that doesn't meet that number?
 
Ducman69 said:
Its not emotion, its differences in priorities among individuals capable of independent and of course DIFFERENT thought.

If I live in New York City and virtually never drive my car because I use public transportation but have a high income, fuel economy is almost irrelevant. And cars can serve other purposes, such as status symbols, so someone like that may buy a little turbocharged Porsche and take it out on dates and the like, and it has no real impact on him or anyone else for that matter if it gets 15 or 30mpg.

Or you may have multiple vehicles like my father (and myself actually), and you get vehicles for different niches. His Ram 1500 extended cab is really useful at the airport or when boating, but he commutes and usually drives his little four-banger Dodge. I currently have two cars AND two motorcycles for that matter. If one of your hobbies is to go mudding and rock climbing on occasion, you might get a little jeep with no doors and piss poor fuel economy geared really short with a top speed of 70mph and knobby tires. It doesn't need to be efficient, it needs to be able to climb rocks at 5mph.

Fuel economy is one of many factors, and for people shopping for a commuter that know their office is far away from their home or they like/need to travel a lot will make that their first and foremost priority on their own.

The idea that "government knows best" and idea that everyone is the same is, well, ed.
Click to expand...


The problem with many of your examples is that they meet "wants" not "needs".

We should disregard wants, and instead focus entirely needs in order to be a better society.
 
MajorDomo said:
Well, ain’t this a kick in the gas? :D The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday a new regulation mandating passenger cars and light trucks will achieve 54.5 mpg by 2025. The fuel savings from the new gas mileage rule will save 12 million barrels of oil and make significant reduction in carbon emissions.
Click to expand...


Well prices will be probably 25-35% more expensive by then, so having a car will be a luxury for most people...Unless they found another fuel source besides batteries, and hybrids.
 
Does this mean they will stop requiring ethanol blends that reduce gas mileage?
 
Zarathustra[H];1039093860 said:
The problem with many of your examples is that they meet "wants" not "needs".

We should disregard wants, and instead focus entirely needs in order to be a better society.
Click to expand...

To rephrase that:

If these fuel standards are going to prevent someone from getting something they need (like getting to work, getting their kids to daycare, their ability to go shopping for food, etc. etc.) then I greatly sympathize, and think we ought to revisit these standards.

If these standards impact someones leisure (boats, dirt bikes, mudding truck), comfort (zomg I needz a land boat), or their ability to compensate for their genital size, then quite frankly, I don't give a rats ass. We - as a society - overindulge enough as it is. We'll get by without boats, land barges and penis enlargers.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039092384 said:
*Snip*
Click to expand...


Wow you seriously just made me pile through so many memories. Excellent exposition though on how even a little over a decade time can be so drastically different.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039093860 said:
The problem with many of your examples is that they meet "wants" not "needs".
Click to expand...
Hah! If you think that is a problem, you are most certainly a liberal.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039092789 said:
I did for 16 years, and trust me, I've considered it again :p
Click to expand...

Looking back I realize my phrasing might have sounded a bit snarky, which was not my intent, but I thank you for your genuine answer. Not everyone prefers to live the same way, and I understand this. I don't agree with a lot of European politics, but I have nothing against Europeans in general. I have a few good friends over there. If you do decide to move to Europe again, I wish you the best.
 
Ockie said:
Exactly, sort of like people trying to sell Prius's as green cars and how efficient they are when a 1999 (using the posters 99 reference) car (chevy metro) got better fuel efficiency without the use of batteries (not to mention costs 3 times less).
Click to expand...

I had an 89 Geo Metro. Loved that little car. Well, I loved the gas mileage. Otherwise, it was a death trap. Metal was so thin, I thought it was a recycled Pepsi can. Quality was a bit low (a lot low), but the general MPG was excellent. No where near luxury or even mid-class. It was the cheap but efficient model.

Now that I've grown up, I want a big boy car. Has to be solid, safe and efficient. Sure, I'd love a new Camaro. Fuck yea. But, it wouldn't be for gas mileage. Kind of like Ferrari's aren't daily drivers. That's where a nice fuel efficient car would come in. Daily use - go to town, work, etc.. 95% of the time. The other 5% is for fun. And yes, you pay more for fun (gas and cost of vehicle).

Geo's aren't big boy cars. They are disposable cars. The Prius feels solid, but it's not efficient as a Geo was (maybe because I've owned one, I was spoiled). Hard to pay a huge premium for a new car for the MPG when it doesn't even meet your old ass car you had when you were much younger. If they were able to bump it up to ~60-70MPG, I'd buy one right now for the same cost. It'd be my work car.
 
none of the hybrids are really hybrids
the only real hybrids is the Volt

as most hybrids the primary is the gas engine were the Volt its electric motors
and the Volt is still 40k

a CNG hybrid is the way to go think the Volt but the IC engine is CNG powered and only runs a gen set
diesel powered would work for large trucks
we already have to tech for this too look at any "diesel" locomotive they are just running a gen set to power electric motors

that is a real hybrid have some battery power isnt bad but not needed
if you removed the batteries and just ran the motors off of a small IC engine you could get 50+mpg and at prices under 20k
i dont get why they dont make cars like that
 
Daggah said:
Environmental impact, ignorance of consumers, etc., etc. Will there be higher costs from forcing progress? Sure. But the market isn't going to make that progress on its own as long as the status quo is still profitable. Again, we saw it in the '70s during the gas crisis then. Short supply, gas lines, costs skyrocketed...everyone was scrambling for more fuel efficiency....until the crisis ended and they went right back to their wasteful habits. ...
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "ignorance of consumers"? How is that a negative externality? It seems to me that it would be a cause of a market movement, not a consequence (which is what externalities are). "As long as the status quo is still profitable"--you see, that's exactly why the free market works. Eventually the status quo will be come unprofitable, and the market will adjust on its own. No government regulation required.

Daggah said:
When it becomes obvious that consumer demand will run all of us right over the cliff like lemmings, then it's time to step in and say, "ok, having it your way is not working any more." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And what cliff are you talking about? What I'm hearing here is "people are too stupid to make their own choice about what car to buy."

Zarathustra[H];1039093674 said:
The problem is that markets are unfortunately not rational, as many would have you believe. People demand things like cars, not rationally, but emotionally. Everyone from the woman who feels safe in the tall SUV with many cupholders, to the young male who in a testosterone spewing menace of image consciousness and a need to be tough, desires a 600hp muscle car...
...
To think we can just continue our ways with huge cars and ridiculously powerful cars is wishful thinking. We never should have had these in the first place.
Click to expand...
If I may paraphrase, "people are too stupid to know what kind of car they really need, and we need the government to artificially restrict the market so that people only buy the kind of car the government thinks they need."

Shall we walk a bit further down that road? Nobody *really* needs a <ahem> Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD, or a Geforce GTX680, or an overclocked i7<ahem>. After all, think of the extra pollution that's caused by that extra electricity!

Daggah said:
Well said Zarathustra. This all boils down from certain schools of thought being unwilling or unable to see thatthe free market can, indeed, fail to produce the best result. There is no best or worst in a free market, only most profitable and least profitable.
Click to expand...
And who gets to decide what is "best" or "worst"? The beauty of a free market is that for every consumer and business, "best" and "most profitable" are synonymous. It would appear that in your opinion (and Zarathustra's), we need to appoint people who will take that choice away from us. For our own good. Of course.

Zarathustra[H];1039093860 said:
The problem with many of your examples is that they meet "wants" not "needs".

We should disregard wants, and instead focus entirely needs in order to be a better society.
Click to expand...
Alright, then, what defines a "better society"? Who gets to decide what is a "need" and what is a "want"? Everyone has different definitions for those. What you define as a better society is probably going to be a lot different from what I envision. And since you cannot make your case through logic and reasoning, you (and others like you) work to enforce your value system on those who disagree via regulatory fiat.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039093860 said:
The problem with many of your examples is that they meet "wants" not "needs".

We should disregard wants, and instead focus entirely needs in order to be a better society.
Click to expand...

No, they are wants based on your opinion of priorities.


To me, having kids is a "want", so you having all your extra cars and extra capacity is now a "want" in my eyes... you see how this wants/needs works? Humans pollute and destruct more than my sports car that I keep under a cover in the garage.
 
When the epa demands this crap then the cost per gallon has to go up.

Oil company sells 10 gallons of gas, makes .08 cents net.

Now the epa says we want 50mpg cars. People use less gas, the oil company sells less gas, profit margin down.

Who is going to make up the difference? You are consumer, To maintain the profit margin we are going to raise the price per gallon, we will remain status quo.

Eat it and weep. Yeah, I get 50 mpg but I am paying 8 bucks a gallon.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Looking back I realize my phrasing might have sounded a bit snarky, which was not my intent, but I thank you for your genuine answer. Not everyone prefers to live the same way, and I understand this. I don't agree with a lot of European politics, but I have nothing against Europeans in general. I have a few good friends over there. If you do decide to move to Europe again, I wish you the best.
Click to expand...

Funny thing.

When I lived in Sweden, (age 3- age19) I was fairly right wing. I came to see all the flaws in the big European safety net, and was a verdant laissez-faire:ist.

After having moved back to the U.S. now for 13 years I have slowly moved in the opposite direction. I have now experienced all the flaws in unfettered capitalism, and while it took me almost 10 years for me to lose enough right wing pride to see things straight, I feel like our system is a lot worse.

It's better to sacrifice some growth (let's say grow at 6% per annum, rather than 8.5%) and in exchange be less prone to bubbles in the economy (unless they are outside your borders and out of your control, like this last one) and in exchange make sure noone dies for want of healthcare or lack of food or shelter.

Economic growth is important, but it is not everything. I'm not suggesting going full on planned economy, communist style, as that is most certainly worse. This is not a matter of black or white, but shades of grey. Let capitalism flourish, but harness it so that it works for the betterment of people, rather than runs free and tramples some to death, while helping others.
 
whiz187 said:
When the epa demands this crap then the cost per gallon has to go up.

Oil company sells 10 gallons of gas, makes .08 cents net.

Now the epa says we want 50mpg cars. People use less gas, the oil company sells less gas, profit margin down.

Who is going to make up the difference? You are consumer, To maintain the profit margin we are going to raise the price per gallon, we will remain status quo.

Eat it and weep. Yeah, I get 50 mpg but I am paying 8 bucks a gallon.
Click to expand...

which is why we need to get off oil for most things
CNG/LNG H2 for cars and trucks
nuclear power to replace coal and oil go google LFTR its safe and it works and has almost no waste it was what was first developed for power plants but you cant make weapons from it so it was ditched for water cooled plants
but no one wants to do that
 
Zarathustra[H];1039094697 said:
It's better to sacrifice some growth (let's say grow at 6% per annum, rather than 8.5%) and in exchange be less prone to bubbles in the economy (unless they are outside your borders and out of your control, like this last one) and in exchange make sure noone dies for want of healthcare or lack of food or shelter.

Economic growth is important, but it is not everything. I'm not suggesting going full on planned economy, communist style, as that is most certainly worse. This is not a matter of black or white, but shades of grey. Let capitalism flourish, but harness it so that it works for the betterment of people, rather than runs free and tramples some to death, while helping others.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, in the first half of this decade, the economy in the US was growing at 4-5% per year. 6% would be AWESOME. The past quarter's GDP growth just got revised upward to 1.7% annual growth rate yesterday.

Secondly, there is an unspoken assumption in your post that universal health care (and welfare, to cover the food and shelter) ensure that everyone gets health care, food, and shelter. We can look no further than the UK's much-vaunted NHS for an example of why that kind of system *doesn't* work. Sure, the free market doesn't cover every corner case. But it results in a much larger net benefit to society as a whole.

Economic growth *is* everything. Where do you think governments get the money for social welfare?

Elios said:
which is why we need to get off oil for most things
CNG/LNG H2 for cars and trucks
nuclear power to replace coal and oil go google LFTR its safe and it works and has almost no waste it was what was first developed for power plants but you cant make weapons from it so it was ditched for water cooled plants
but no one wants to do that
Click to expand...
FYI, natural gas (that's the CNG/LPG/LNG you mention) comes from the same place as oil. There are very few wells in the world that give all oil, or all gas. It's almost always a mix of the two, along with all sorts of other stuff (the whole range of hydrocarbons, CO2, hydrogen sulfide, water, salt, etc, etc).
 
U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811
"Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling."
/Thread
 
mynamehere said:
U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811
"Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling."
/Thread
Click to expand...

He'll be dead before he finishes his research.
 
Do we get to sue the gov't too when we or our loved ones are crushed in the new ultralight cars? Traffic deaths are already up...
 
mynamehere said:
U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811
"Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling."
/Thread
Click to expand...

Kinda sad that this will never become relevant for some stupid reason. Why go solar, which is horribly inefficient, when you could go with something like this. Oh wait there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance someone could make a weapon with it, quick throw that idea out! :rolleyes:

Just like everybody going apeshit over Nuclear energy because of what happened in Japan. It's ridiculous how retarded people and governments are these days.
 
Mohonri said:
FYI, natural gas (that's the CNG/LPG/LNG you mention) comes from the same place as oil. There are very few wells in the world that give all oil, or all gas. It's almost always a mix of the two, along with all sorts of other stuff (the whole range of hydrocarbons, CO2, hydrogen sulfide, water, salt, etc, etc).
Click to expand...

really we have a ton of natural gas in the US not much oil soo not sure where you getting that from
the US has more natural gas then the rest of the world other then maybe Russia
 
mynamehere said:
U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811
"Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling."
/Thread
Click to expand...

as much as i love Thorium yea thats kinda pipe dream LFTR based power plants that make power to split water in to H and O2 and then the H used for fuelcells is the best plan imo

thorium based reactors are pretty safe but im not sure id want to drive around with one
and it would still be very heavy
 
Zarathustra[H];1039093744 said:
Yeah, don't get me wrong.

The free market can and has done very well at advancing our nation and humanity overall.

I would argue that it IS the best option MOST of the time. But there are cases where it fails, and this is one area where we are seeing a potential failure down the road leading to disaster, and trying to do a little bit to avoid it.
Click to expand...

Whenever I see someone point to the free market failing, they always fail to notice that it’s really not a free market.
It’s always government interference that causes the failure. The more the government interferes, the worse the problems get, and when the markets are completely messed up they blame it on a failure of the free market.

Zarathustra[H];1039093744 said:
Another area where the free market has utterly failed is in healthcare, but that's a separate matter all together.
Click to expand...

We are so far from a free market in health care, that most people can't even conceive how a free market would work. So don't blame free markets for the health care mess. Also don't expect any cost savings, as the more the government interferes the worse the problems will get.


Zarathustra[H];1039093744 said:
There are simply markets of varying levels of freedom. A completely free market - akin to anarchy - leads to abuses and a society I don't think many of us would like living in.

A completely planned economy on the other hand - like that of early Soviet Russia is also a disaster.
Click to expand...

A completely free market does not equal anarchy. Free markets can only exist where people are free to make the choices they want to make, without infringing on the rights of others. This requires the rule of law (like our constitution).
 
Zarathustra[H];1039093860 said:
The problem with many of your examples is that they meet "wants" not "needs".

We should disregard wants, and instead focus entirely needs in order to be a better society.
Click to expand...

And who determines wants vs. needs?

Is Pro football a need? To a lot of people it’s not.
How about iPods, 70 inch LCD TV’s or even Beer?

The decision should ALWAYS rest with the individual, as long as their decision doesn’t interfere with the rights of anyone else.

If you want to get drunk, go ahead, but if you get into a car and drive then it’s a problem because when you hit someone you are deigning them of their rights to be able to safely drive home.
 
I'm not going to make any flowery remarks or well articulated arguments about why the government needs to do one thing or another. All I have to say is this...

F-U-C-K the government for digging their dirty paws into every area of my life, freedom, and family. Is there any decision I can make of my own free will without their knowledge, consent, or regulating arm? Get the hell out of my life!

Seriously... I'm trying to be nice here. =)
 
Elios said:
that is a real hybrid have some battery power isnt bad but not needed
if you removed the batteries and just ran the motors off of a small IC engine you could get 50+mpg and at prices under 20k
i dont get why they dont make cars like that
Click to expand...


You wouldn't get 50+ mpg, in fact you'd likely get worse mileage than an standard ICE car.
The reason Hybrids get 40-50mpg is because they can turn off the ICE and recapture the brake energy.
You need a battery to do both of these.

You would also need larger (and heavier) electric engines. Even the Volt will start up the ICE engine at high speeds when it need a little extra power due to the limits of the electric engines.

I do think you will gradually see larger batteries and electric engines in hybrids, and smaller gas tanks/gas engines. Take a look at the Ford C-MAX and Focus plugins for an example.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Kinda sad that this will never become relevant for some stupid reason. Why go solar, which is horribly inefficient, when you could go with something like this. Oh wait there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance someone could make a weapon with it, quick throw that idea out! :rolleyes:

Just like everybody going apeshit over Nuclear energy because of what happened in Japan. It's ridiculous how retarded people and governments are these days.
Click to expand...
From what I've read it soesn't produce any weapons grade materials, but yeah, the fear mongers would definitely be throwing around that kind of FUD.

Elios said:
as much as i love Thorium yea thats kinda pipe dream LFTR based power plants that make power to split water in to H and O2 and then the H used for fuelcells is the best plan imo

thorium based reactors are pretty safe but im not sure id want to drive around with one
and it would still be very heavy
Click to expand...
Can't be all that much worse than driving around one of those horribly inefficient hydrogen bombs the gubermint's pushing for.

The article says "A 250 KW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.", so not much different than an average v8. 250 kW = 339.91 hp, so it shouldn't be a total snail. With 8g Thorium being equivalent to 60,000 gal. gasoline, even if it only got the equivalent of 10 mpg it would still go 600,000 miles without refueling, though I'm thinking it should get considerably better than that since the car wouldn't be carrying a tank of gas at just over 6 lbs per gallon.
 
mynamehere said:
From what I've read it soesn't produce any weapons grade materials, but yeah, the fear mongers would definitely be throwing around that kind of FUD.

Can't be all that much worse than driving around one of those horribly inefficient hydrogen bombs the gubermint's pushing for.

The article says "A 250 KW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.", so not much different than an average v8. 250 kW = 339.91 hp, so it shouldn't be a total snail. With 8g Thorium being equivalent to 60,000 gal. gasoline, even if it only got the equivalent of 10 mpg it would still go 600,000 miles without refueling, though I'm thinking it should get considerably better than that since the car wouldn't be carrying a tank of gas at just over 6 lbs per gallon.
Click to expand...

wut Hydrogen doesnt explode like that and im talking about the radiation off the reactor
sure the reactor might only be 500lbs but then you have another 200lbs of shielding + the car + people and crap in the car

a LH2 or even compressed gas H2 tank is far safer then a gas tank in a car now and gas explodes far easier then hydrogen
learn2 vapor pressure
lot harder to put a hole in CF and fiberglass tank then then a steel gas tanks that can spill all over the place
 
Elios said:
wut Hydrogen doesnt explode like that and im talking about the radiation off the reactor
sure the reactor might only be 500lbs but then you have another 200lbs of shielding + the car + people and crap in the car

a LH2 or even compressed gas H2 tank is far safer then a gas tank in a car now and gas explodes far easier then hydrogen
learn2 vapor pressure
lot harder to put a hole in CF and fiberglass tank then then a steel gas tanks that can spill all over the place
Click to expand...
I take it you didn't read the article (it covers a lot of info). 'Natural thorium has little radioactivity, Stevens says. What isotopes there are could be blocked by aluminum foil, so the power unit’s 3-in. (7.6-cm) thick stainless-steel box should do the trick.", "system is “sub-critical,” which means no self-sustaining nuclear reaction within the thorium creating significant amounts of radioactivity. “It’s very safe,” he says."

As far as the weight of the car + people + junk = irrelevant since those apply to every car.

Ok, so hydrogen tanks may have been developed to be safer than a tank of gas, but neither are all that efficient.

Another issue is fueling stations:
Hydrogen = build massive nationwide fueling infrastructure.
Thorium = one time fueling at the factory.
 
weather anyone likes it or not, it's not that they don't want to drive a sport cars (low mpg or not) it's the cost of the oil they've to pay (considering their salaries)

considering few still developing countries already have CNG (which is actually not the best but we've enough of it) and other sources of fuel, US is far behind in the development (majorly due to rules and regulation) beside as far as fuel system goes, there are more than plenty of options out there to keep them safe while driving or refueling. we just have to work on getting the cost down and not mark up just cause it has iPad pre-installed in it.
 
Mohonri said:
What do you mean by "ignorance of consumers"? How is that a negative externality? It seems to me that it would be a cause of a market movement, not a consequence (which is what externalities are). "As long as the status quo is still profitable"--you see, that's exactly why the free market works. Eventually the status quo will be come unprofitable, and the market will adjust on its own. No government regulation required.
Click to expand...

You're right, I worded that badly. Consumer ignorance causes negative externalities, it isn't one.

Bottom line is, yes, the market would adjust on its own. But will it be too late at that point? The free market does not and has never had the answer to that question.

When Adam Smith coined the term "laissez faire" he did not have large-scale global economies in mind. Supply and demand can hold businesses accountable in local economies just fine, but it just does not work on a larger scale. If a factory producing widgets in Pennsylvania is poisoning its local environment, the people in the nearby towns can boycott. If that factory is serving that area, then that'll be just fine. Problem solved, no government needed. If that factory is selling widgets to the rest of the world, it'll never work, because the rest of the world will neither know nor care what the factory is doing to its local surroundings. That's as simple as I can state it.

And what cliff are you talking about? What I'm hearing here is "people are too stupid to make their own choice about what car to buy."
Click to expand...

And you're saying they're not? With the highways infested with soccer moms driving empty SUVs and rednecks driving huge trucks with no cargo load, you're seriously going to defend consumer intelligence here?

And it's not "what cliff," it's "which cliff." Like, are we past the point of no-return for global warming now thanks to the short-sightedness of corporations around the world? Will we have viable alternative energy solutions by the time oil ceases to be an option?

At the end of the day, you just can't reason with anyone who worships at the altar of the free market. Fanatical belief in unregulated capitalism is almost as dogmatic as the idiots who believe in a 6,000 year old earth and the Noah's Ark fairy tale.
 
nutzo said:
Whenever I see someone point to the free market failing, they always fail to notice that it’s really not a free market.
It’s always government interference that causes the failure. The more the government interferes, the worse the problems get, and when the markets are completely messed up they blame it on a failure of the free market.
Click to expand...

And here's a perfect example of the free market cultist mindset. Actually though, I agree. We don't have any real examples of market failures in a true free market - no civilized nation is stupid enough to have a true free market.

A completely free market does not equal anarchy. Free markets can only exist where people are free to make the choices they want to make, without infringing on the rights of others. This requires the rule of law (like our constitution).
Click to expand...

Funny how even the founding fathers - who based their economic ideas and principles on Adam Smith's ideals - funny how even they saw the need to give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, eh? Even with markets at the time being much smaller scale, with much less global commerce, they saw the necessity. Of course, Adam Smith and the founding fathers also based their economic theories on a desire to create a more fair and equitable society for all (well, ignoring our unfortunate and morally bankrupt reliance on slavery.)
 
Daggah said:
Funny how even the founding fathers - who based their economic ideas and principles on Adam Smith's ideals - funny how even they saw the need to give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, eh? Even with markets at the time being much smaller scale, with much less global commerce, they saw the necessity.
Click to expand...

Maybe they just saw a scenario where two states would argue over who got to collect sales tax when the buyer and seller are not from the same state. So they gave the final say to the neutral party (federal). I don't think government mandates of purchases is what they had in mind.
 
Monkey God said:
All you knuckleheads hating on this need to understand its mandates like this that give us modern vehicles that make much more power with better mileage. Compare a modern car with a 1970's vehicle and you have no comparison. If you think car companies are motivated to research into efficiency on their own, you are out of your mind. I for one, like modern computer-controlled fuel injection vehicles, because I remember driving around in gutless pieces of shit getting 10mpg and having to work on it every weekend to keep it running. Also, fuck carburetors and points.
Click to expand...

Problem is you can't change the laws of physics and there is a limit of how much energy you can extract out of a fuel. Yes I agree that this MIGHT force auto makers to research more modern technologies to extract that little bit more of energy or MPG of each drop of fuel, but at what cost? Many modern vehicles have obtained the current MPG standards with lower weight materials that may not be able to save you in a bad crash.

In short, there is a limit on how much mechical work we can extract from dead dinosaurs and plants. The government needs to stop pushing these regulations if we don't have any alternatives to gasoline powered vehicles.
 
If I remember correctly, Hydrogen is a bitch to get purely. Electrolysis is horribly inefficient(As in it takes wayyy too much power in to get Hydrogen). I had a guy from Air Products come to my school and do a presentation on it. They said they had a few stations that used electrolysis and it was like a whole block covered in solar panels but could only fuel 8 cars a day.

Thorium is obviously quite abundant and doesn't seem that dangerous. Although if you crash and break the barrier then it may get a bit dangerous.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Problem is you can't change the laws of physics and there is a limit of how much energy you can extract out of a fuel. Yes I agree that this MIGHT force auto makers to research more modern technologies to extract that little bit more of energy or MPG of each drop of fuel, but at what cost? Many modern vehicles have obtained the current MPG standards with lower weight materials that may not be able to save you in a bad crash.
Click to expand...

[Citation very much needed]

Do you really think the use of heavier materials in car construction makes cars safer? If this is little more than a "they don't make them like they used to" post, then you are completely and utterly wrong. You do realize that older cars are death traps compared to modern cars designed around the concept of a crumple zone, right?
 
Elios said:
really we have a ton of natural gas in the US not much oil soo not sure where you getting that from
the US has more natural gas then the rest of the world other then maybe Russia
Click to expand...
I used to work for Big Oil. Even gas wells bring up some liquid petroleum. You're right that the US is sitting on huge deposits of gas. We also have tons of oil, but we can't tap it, thanks to well-meaning but ill-informed environmentalists.
Daggah said:
Bottom line is, yes, the market would adjust on its own. But will it be too late at that point? The free market does not and has never had the answer to that question.
Click to expand...
Too late for what?
When Adam Smith coined the term "laissez faire" he did not have large-scale global economies in mind. ...
Click to expand...
You actually have a good point here, and "tragedy of the commons" is indeed a situation where government regulation may be needed. Unfortunately, once you place that power in the government, the tendency is to overreach. Like when the EPA tries to instate rules for emissions which originate in Texas and never leave the state. Or when the EPA tells a family they can't build on their land, because despite having no water, it just got classified as a wetlands.
And you're saying they're not? With the highways infested with soccer moms driving empty SUVs and rednecks driving huge trucks with no cargo load, you're seriously going to defend consumer intelligence here?
Click to expand...
In this case, I heartily agree--most people who have SUVs don't (in MY opinion) actually *need* an SUV. But that's my opinion (and yours). For you or me to force that world view on others is just wrong.
And it's not "what cliff," it's "which cliff." Like, are we past the point of no-return for global warming now thanks to the short-sightedness of corporations around the world? Will we have viable alternative energy solutions by the time oil ceases to be an option?
Click to expand...
Yes, we will have a viable alternative to oil. How do I know this? Because the free market works. Oil is not going to disappear overnight. Oil will not disappear in the next ten years, or the next fifty, or the next hundred. It will gradually get less plentiful, and more expensive. As that happens, there will be more profit motive to develop alternatives.

Daggah said:
Funny how even the founding fathers - who based their economic ideas and principles on Adam Smith's ideals - funny how even they saw the need to give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, eh? Even with markets at the time being much smaller scale, with much less global commerce, they saw the necessity.
Click to expand...
The intent of that power was to ensure a free market, to prevent states from restricting the free flow of trade, to ensure that states had to compete.
 
Mohonri said:
Too late for what?
Click to expand...

Too late to come up with decent alternatives. The R&D is going to take time. As I said before, the longer we wait, the more painful the transition away from oil will be. But seeing as how America continually refuses to learn its lesson, the pain and cost is well deserved at this point. As I also said before, the '70s should have been a wakeup call. But since oil was still profitable, short-sighted capitalism drove us to hit the snooze button.

You actually have a good point here, and "tragedy of the commons" is indeed a situation where government regulation may be needed. Unfortunately, once you place that power in the government, the tendency is to overreach. Like when the EPA tries to instate rules for emissions which originate in Texas and never leave the state. Or when the EPA tells a family they can't build on their land, because despite having no water, it just got classified as a wetlands.
Click to expand...

Government overreaches. Sure. So do corporations. Thing is, profit-driven corporations do so quite often, whenever they think they can get away with it. And at the end of the day, we (should) have more control over our government.

In this case, I heartily agree--most people who have SUVs don't (in MY opinion) actually *need* an SUV. But that's my opinion (and yours). For you or me to force that world view on others is just wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not a world view, it's a fact. As people continue to be wasteful with vehicles they don't need, the consequences of their actions become increasingly far-reaching. Eventually, enough will be enough. If people can't control their own behavior and be responsible with their actions and the consequences those actions have to the rest of their society and the rest of the planet, then something will need to be done to change direction. And it's not going to be the free market that does THAT.

Yes, we will have a viable alternative to oil. How do I know this? Because the free market works.
Click to expand...

When has unregulated capitalism EVER resulted in the changes that benefit society as a whole rather than te shareholders? Give me ONE example, I dare you.

Oil is not going to disappear overnight. Oil will not disappear in the next ten years, or the next fifty, or the next hundred. It will gradually get less plentiful, and more expensive. As that happens, there will be more profit motive to develop alternatives.
Click to expand...

Burning oil WILL, however, continue to do damage to the environment. It WILL continue to become more costly to produce. Our reliance on it WILL continue to be a national security risk. American capitalism has already repeatedly proven its lack of foresight on this topic. We showed it in the '70s. We showed it during the price hikes of the last decade. Every single fucking time the price goes back to normal, we get right back into our wasteful trucks and SUVs and we go on as if nothing happened. Car companies are more than happy to sell us wasteful vehicles. The oil companies don't care.

Just how many examples do you need of corporations showing time and time again that all they care about is short-term profitability? Earning reports for publicly traded companies are QUARTERLY. That's what the shareholders care about. Corporate executives have proven over and over again that they can and will run a company into the ground if it makes them some more cash. Put down Atlas Shrugged and come join the rest of us in reality, FFS.

The intent of that power was to ensure a free market, to prevent states from restricting the free flow of trade, to ensure that states had to compete.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that the clause as written has become increasingly useful in modern society with much larger scale economies now, does it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top