'Renewable energy good, but we need oil now'

[Iain]

So, because a certain side doesn't like something we have to go along or we are five year olds?

I don't want an electric car either.  Even if they got the range better and charging to not take so long I don't want one.  Why the hell should I be forced to buy something I have zero interest in buying?  That's not being a five year old, thats being a consumer of the product you want.

It was more the manner of delivery, but your rant isn't much better.

[1901 rant mode]I've got a perfectly serviceable horse, it runs on grass, hay and straw. I'll have no truck with that new-fangled infernal combustion engine. They're more expensive to run, they're noisy and you can't give them sugar lumps.[/1901 rant mode]

See how that turned out. Electric cars may not replace the petrol engine, but something will. And you damn well will be 'forced' to buy it - because it'll be better, and hopefully cleaner, and petrol engines will not be put in whatever it is we drive. Probably will be our lifetimes too.

[lupinus]

Actually, if I want, I can still go buy the horse.  And in the earlier parts of the century you picked it was a perfectly viable option.

The difference here is the other side outright refuses to let the market take its course and insists on regulating my preferred vehicle away because they got a bug up their ass.

[Iain]

That's not what you said though. In a less childish manner than Manedwolf you stamped your foot and said:

Even if they got the range better and charging to not take so long I don't want one.  Why the hell should I be forced to buy something I have zero interest in buying?

You have a point about regulation, even if I do think the intentions are good (road to hell and all that)

There will come a day when whatever replaces the internal combustion engine is clearly the superior option, better range, cleaner, probably quicker. It's shortsighted (as in the view from 1901) to refuse to acknowledge that, and to declare that you just don't want one. I want one, and I want mine to fly and do warp speed.

I'm not going to cling to my petrol engine because it makes me look all anti-green.

[taurusowner]

Exactly.  The .gov didn't regulate the horse out of existence.  People bought what worked best: the car.  That's the market.  The lefties are trying to circumvent people's desires and needs and just use federal regulation as a bludgeon against all they don't agree with.

[lupinus]

And thats fine Iain.  My point is simply it should be an option if I want to pay for it.  But regulating it so heavily it artificially makes the other option better is asinine.

[Manedwolf]

I.

do.

not.

WANT.

an electric car.

Do. Not. Want. Sponge. Cake. Want. Chocolate.

And there's millions of people just like me.

And they're all under five.

Unlike your country, we value the ability to choose what we want, here. Freedom. It's fun, once you try it. You've not had it in so long over there you probably don't understand, any more than you can describe a sunrise to someone who has been blind since birth.

I want to eat meat, not tofu. I want a "military-styled" rifle, not a sporting one. I want a gasoline-powered car, MY car that I've spent countless hours messing with and tweaking the performance on, not an electric one. I want to smell gasoline, hot metal and oil, not ozone. And that's my freedom of choice, and I resent leftists trying to force otherwise.

Roll over and enjoy your nanny state, and call people who know freedom "childish" if you want. I could care less. It's all you've ever known, you don't know better.

It's just ironic that someone of a complete and utter nanny state, where cameras on every corner are tolerated and self-defense is not, where the people obey like tiny tots being watched by an all-seeing governess...would call Americans childish for wanting free choice.

Whatever.

[Iain]

No, you couldn't care less. Freedom I can't understand is one thing, but not with the language please.

My point, as explained to lupinus, has nothing to do with regulation (I've made no argument in favour of them) and everything to do with the march of technology. You will want an electric/fuel cell/'whatever' car, because they'll be powering F1, lapping the Nurburgring and hammering around NASCAR tracks. That's the future.

Your freedom to own a gasoline powered car will hopefully still exist, but it will be an anachronism one day. No point declaring you don't want one now because of freedom, that's like declaring the calculator will never replace the slide rule unless we are all made serfs.

[taurusowner]

Well Iain, you're statement about five year olds and cake certainly didn't sound like you wanted people to still have the choice.  By using that analogy, you implied that the consumer is like a child who wants something bad, and government is like parent who knows what's best.
Backtrack and clarify all you want, but that is definitely the impression your 5 year old comment made.

[De Selby]

The problem here is that we're not considering the fact that, should a green alternative become available, continuing to use a gas automobile will do harm to others when such harm can be avoided by simply choosing a viable alternative.

There are all kinds of "freedoms" that might be claimed here that are completely ridiculous if we reject this princple:

1. "I want the freedom to paint my house with lead based paint! Why won't the government let ME worry about my kids' lead poisoning?"

2. "If I want to do my hobby gold mining with mercury, why shouldn't I be able to!? I believe in reliving the spirit of 49, and I'm a re-enactor, so why shouldn't I have the right to run my mines with mercury?"

3.  "But DDT is the best insecticide there is, it's my right to spray my thousands of acres of farm land with it! I won't let the runoff and damage to the water supply get in the way of MY FREEDOM"

I don't see how these are any different than: "So what if my car spews poison gas into the atmosphere? I should still have the freedom to poison the air even though I can no feasibly avoid doing so because it's my FREEDOM!"

[De Selby]

Well Iain, you're statement about five year olds and cake certainly didn't sound like you wanted people to still have the choice.  By using that analogy, you implied that the consumer is like a child who wants something bad, and government is like parent who knows what's best.
Backtrack and clarify all you want, but that is definitely the impression your 5 year old comment made.

I would say it's at least unreasonable-why should people be allowed to go on damaging the health and safety of others just because they want to play with engines from a bygone era?

I can see allowing the damage when there's no reasonable alternative.  But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available, what gives you the right to poison the air I'm breathing? 

Liberty doesn't mean you get to impose harm on other people for fun.

[Ben]

But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available

So there's an electric vehicle out there that's highway approved, 4X4, with a 600 mile range, that can haul a ton in the bed, with a 5 year/ 50K warranty, that doesn't cost any more to maintain than my current vehicle, and that costs under $40K? Please give me directions to the nearest dealer.

[De Selby]

But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available

So there's an electric vehicle out there that's highway approved, 4X4, with a 600 mile range, that can haul a ton in the bed, with a 5 year/ 50K warranty, that doesn't cost any more to maintain than my current vehicle, and that costs under $40K? Please give me directions to the nearest dealer.

Notice the conditional in the sentence you quoted, and you see why this response is....a bit puzzling.

[Ben]

Not at all puzzling. It's what half the posters in this topic have been saying. When a reasonable alternative exists, there's no reason not to consider it. When one doesn't, there's no reason to regulate me into something that doesn't do what I need. If someone can get by with a Prius or whatever, more power to them. The alternatives out there now don't do what I need. My current vehicle does, and I'm not poisoning anyone's air. My vehicle will pollute less in it's lifetime than a Prius will.

[De Selby]

Not at all puzzling. It's what half the posters in this topic have been saying. When a reasonable alternative exists, there's no reason not to consider it. When one doesn't, there's no reason to regulate me into something that doesn't do what I need. If someone can get by with a Prius or whatever, more power to them. The alternatives out there now don't do what I need. My current vehicle does, and I'm not poisoning anyone's air. My vehicle will pollute less in it's lifetime than a Prius will.

Yeah, but that's not what everyone here is saying.  See:

I want a gasoline-powered car, MY car that I've spent countless hours messing with and tweaking the performance on, not an electric one. I want to smell gasoline, hot metal and oil, not ozone. And that's my freedom of choice, and I resent leftists trying to force otherwise.

Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.

That comment was in response to this entirely reasonable one:

There will come a day when whatever replaces the internal combustion engine is clearly the superior option, better range, cleaner, probably quicker. It's shortsighted (as in the view from 1901) to refuse to acknowledge that, and to declare that you just don't want one. I want one, and I want mine to fly and do warp speed.

[MicroBalrog]

Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.

I can pour emission-neutral fuels into my gasoline engine, making your argument moot.

And for the record: I do believe it should be my right to paint my house with lead-based paint. If you don't like it, don't visit.

[Desertdog]

Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.

You want a reasonably pollution free vehicle that can carry big loads, accelerate rapidly and all that BS that the gasoline engine does.

Get yourself a propane (LPG) powered vehicle.  They are legal, by governmet, to operate continuosly in warehouses and in mines.  LPG can power the biggest trucks on the road.  They are as reliable, or more so, than any gas powered engine.

They should be the perfect solution for the greenies.

[De Selby]

Implying that even if there are alternatives that are reasonable, and that don't do harm to others, there's still some inherent right to go on polluting your neighbor's air because you worked so hard on that gasoline engine.

I can pour emission-neutral fuels into my gasoline engine, making your argument moot.

And for the record: I do believe it should be my right to paint my house with lead-based paint. If you don't like it, don't visit.

Actually, lead paint with a caveat-you ensure it's cleaned up before you die and leave the rubble/result to someone else.

But yeah, pouring emission free fuel doesn't negate my argument.  That just says there's a way to meet it with the engine.

I don't think there's any liberty interest in poisoning the air that other folks have to breath when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to accomplish the same ends. 

It's a matter of principle-you don't have the right to force other people to suffer the consequences of your whims. 

So if there were a fuel that had emissions of zero, and it was a reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't see how you could reasonably recognize a right to use fuel that poisons other people.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So if there were a fuel that had emissions of zero, and it was a reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't see how you could reasonably recognize a right to use fuel that poisons other people.

And I suppose you green fascists will be the sole arbiters of what fuels "poison" other people.  Right?

You always have a good excuse for trying to control other people, don't you?

[De Selby]

So if there were a fuel that had emissions of zero, and it was a reasonable alternative to gasoline, I don't see how you could reasonably recognize a right to use fuel that poisons other people.

And I suppose you green fascists will be the sole arbiters of what fuels "poison" other people.  Right?

You always have a good excuse for trying to control other people, don't you?

No, scientific information is a good arbiter of what is "poison".  It's really not terribly difficult to figure out when something is a proven toxin, versus safe, versus unknown.

Pointing out that individuals do not have a right to cause harm to other people without their consent is not fascism.

I think the attitude that there's an inherent right to poison other people's air and water, for no reason other than a personal hobby, is decidedly anti-liberty and much more in accord with fascism. 

Just think for a second about how Orwellian this is:  "Don't like the fact that I'm your neighbor and pumping our shared ground water full of tanning waste? Tough-it's a FREE COUNTRY!"

[Desertdog]

I don't think there's any liberty interest in poisoning the air that other folks have to breath when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to accomplish the same ends.

Bull Sh#t.  Right now, and for the forseeable future, there is absolutly NO reasonable alternatives for the gas/diesel powered vehicles.

Drill Now, Drill Anywhere. 

PS.  When I was a child there was an oilwell on the property connecting to us and it was maybe 100' behind our house.  I played around it many times.

[De Selby]

I don't think there's any liberty interest in poisoning the air that other folks have to breath when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to accomplish the same ends.

Bull Sh#t.  Right now, and for the forseeable future, there is absolutly NO reasonable alternatives for the gas/diesel powered vehicles.

Drill Now, Drill Anywhere. 

PS.  When I was a child there was an oilwell on the property connecting to us and it was maybe 100' behind our house.  I played around it many times.

Okay, how is this a response to what I'm saying here?

I do recall posting this:

I can see allowing the damage when there's no reasonable alternative.  But if there's a clearly reasonable alternative available, what gives you the right to poison the air I'm breathing? 

There is a bizarre and irrational attachment to oil growing up in America, it seems.  If you talk about technology that might replace it, "it'll never be! DRILL DRILL DRILL!", and if you point out that in the future it might even be unreasonable to keep using it, you're a fascist who wants to deprive people of the right to sniff fumes from their good ol' gas engines.

I honestly don't think these attitudes have anything to do with reason, liberty, or much of anything besides a knee-jerk hatred for anything that might possibly associated with environmentalism.

[K Frame]

After reading through this discussion I have such the urge to install a coal boiler in the house fired with high sulphur, high mercury soft coal....

[Manedwolf]

3.  "But DDT is the best insecticide there is, it's my right to spray my thousands of acres of farm land with it! I won't let the runoff and damage to the water supply get in the way of MY FREEDOM"

That's an interesting example you use, considering that the elimination of DDT, which was perfectly safe for humans and way overstated in impact on wildlife, is DIRECTLY responsible for the return of bedbugs to American cities. They were pretty much eliminated by DDT. It's been proven that a light coating on walls, harmless to people, kills them. They do it in third-world countries. But not here. So now everything from apartments to New York City luxury hotels have serious bedbug infestations, which are a pain in the ass to get rid of and involve destroying all the mattresses, furniture, and even carpet. And one bit of clothing with eggs can bring them all back. Losses have been in the hundreds of millions so far.

Oops. See what happens when leftists make emotional decisions and scream BAN! without considering all impacts?

[K Frame]

Then there's the fact that since the wide-scale elimination of DDT Malaria, which had been pushed out of MANY nations around the world, has been making an extremely strong come back.

So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.

[Manedwolf]

Then there's the fact that since the wide-scale elimination of DDT Malaria, which had been pushed out of MANY nations around the world, has been making an extremely strong come back.

So strong, in fact, that DDT is now being used in large quantities again in the third world to combat malaria mosquitos.

And compare this:

DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicological Program[44] and "moderately hazardous" by WHO, based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[14] It is not considered to be acutely toxic, and in fact it has been applied directly to clothes or used in soap.[45] DDT has on rare occasions been administered orally as a treatment for barbiturate poisoning.[46]

vs. what we use in the US now for mosquito control:

Malathion breaks down into Malaoxon, which is 61 times more toxic [10] than Malathion. For this reason, if Malathion is used or somehow enters an indoor environment, as it breaks down into Malaoxon, it can seriously poison the occupants living or working in this environmnent.

Foot, self, shot.