Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Nick1911 on January 26, 2009, 11:40:51 AM
-
...by regulating car makers out of existence.
Seriously; what if the technology can't support what the legislature wants to do?
A particular except of Atlas Shrugged comes to mind; where James Taggart expects Rearden to operate at a loss. When asked how he is to accomplish that, Taggart replies "You'll figure it out! You always do!"
Oil independence - not by drilling here, but by pursuing alternatives that aren't economically viable, propped up by taxpayers money.
Oil independence - not by drilling now, but by forcing standards that may not be realistic on the auto industry, then pumping money into it when these automakers fail.
Making my F250 get 35mpg while still retaining it's usefulness would make it cost so much, that I wouldn't be able to afford it. But, I guess if I can't afford to drive, the environmentalists would be happy, right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7851038.stm
Obama aims for oil independence
A customer at a petrol pump
Mr Obama wants fuel efficiency to improve
US President Barack Obama has called for US energy independence, saying reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats to the country.
Outlining his energy priorities, he said the country would not be held "hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet".
He called for greater fuel efficiency and an "energy economy" aimed at creating millions of jobs.
He also ordered a review of whether states can set car emission standards.
This challenges a Bush administration decision which favoured a national standard for vehicle pollution.
The days of Washington dragging its heels are over
President Barack Obama
At his first White House news conference since becoming president, Mr Obama said he would reverse America's dependence on foreign oil while creating jobs, but warned there was no "quick fix".
"We will commit ourselves to steady, focused, pragmatic pursuit of an America that is freed from our energy dependence, and empowered by a new energy economy that puts millions of our citizens to work."
He added: "Now is the time to meet the challenge of this crossroads of history, by choosing a future safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable."
Mr Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its refusal of a waiver which had previously allowed California to set its own - stricter - vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards.
He said California had taken bold moves in implementing the standards.
Mr Obama said: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over.
"My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them."
Energy efficiency drive
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked Mr Obama to reverse the Bush administration's insistence on a single, national standard.
California wants a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, achieved by improving fuel efficiency standards.
President Obama also ordered the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency.
A 2007 law required that new cars and trucks produced by 2020 obtain 35 miles per gallon of fuel (about 15km/litre).
Deadline change
However, then-President George W Bush did not put in place the regulations to enable the law to be carried out.
The new rules Mr Obama wants to put in place would mean the new standard is reached by 2011, the New York Times said.
The president also announced plans to make all federal government buildings more energy efficient.
The moves fulfil a campaign pledge of Mr Obama's to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and to invest more in renewable energy sources.
In the European Union, a recently agreed climate package set out average emission targets for the whole car industry of 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 for new cars, compared with current levels of 160g/km.
The EU target for 2020 is 95g/km. But CO2 emissions vary from car to car, and manufacturers have been given until 2015 to meet their specific targets for each model.
-
On saturday night, some work buddies and I were discussing over alcohol thoughts on our new President. Someone meantioned Obama's proposed war on coal. Naturally I chimed in with the need for more nuke plants. My boss's wife, bit of an ex Cali hippy, retorted with nuclear power being evil. ... How? It just is. But it's the safest, cleanest and most efficient source of power we have until fusion becomes economic. No it's not, solar and wind!
I swear to the Gods, it was an article of religious faith among certain folks. They honestly believe it to their core that certain things are bad (nuke, gasoline, etc) and certain things are good (solar, wind, etc) without a single shred of logic or reason. Ask them if they'd wish to live their reality and they do their best to ignore it. "Really? You want ONLY solar and wind? Then obviously you be ok with a power bill that's roughly 20 times what it is currently, and with rolling brownouts?" They want it both ways. Ideologically correct technology combined with cheap and convenient. When you tell them it's not possible, you get the James Taggart and Rearden speech that Nick pointed out.
-
Obama will wean us from dependence on foreign oil by cutting domestic demand drastically.
Welcome to the Green Middle Ages.
-
RevDisk,
They rely on repetition to create facts, i.e., say something loud enough or long enough and it becomes "true."
From the original article:
"My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them."
Looks like it is time to get the fact book out and write my representatives and remind them of the facts and the quote by Obama. Should he decide to be honest and guide his administration by the facts, he'll have to reverse course on most of his "to do list" items.
The facts are not on their side. We may have to extrapolate data from other societies with failed Socialist or Marxist regimes, but there are so many facts that make his ideas absurd that it is worth the exercise in representative democracy to shoot off a few letters and e-mails.
-
On saturday night, some work buddies and I were discussing over alcohol thoughts on our new President. Someone meantioned Obama's proposed war on coal. Naturally I chimed in with the need for more nuke plants. My boss's wife, bit of an ex Cali hippy, retorted with nuclear power being evil. ... How? It just is. But it's the safest, cleanest and most efficient source of power we have until fusion becomes economic. No it's not, solar and wind!
I swear to the Gods, it was an article of religious faith among certain folks. They honestly believe it to their core that certain things are bad (nuke, gasoline, etc) and certain things are good (solar, wind, etc) without a single shred of logic or reason. Ask them if they'd wish to live their reality and they do their best to ignore it. "Really? You want ONLY solar and wind? Then obviously you be ok with a power bill that's roughly 20 times what it is currently, and with rolling brownouts?" They want it both ways. Ideologically correct technology combined with cheap and convenient. When you tell them it's not possible, you get the James Taggart and Rearden speech that Nick pointed out.
I had this revelation today as well.
In my case it was California's desire to regulate emissions.
The governor (I tried spelling his name... I give up) was very pleased that they have an ally in the whitehouse in their "fight for clean air."
Ok, here's an idea. You want clean air?
Stop making it impossible to build houses close to where people live. If people don't have to go 100 miles from their work to find affordable housing, they might drive less.
But they want big houses without poor people near them, lots of power without emissions (no nuclear), their many cars without emissions, and also all kinds of socialist policies without having to pay for them.
NO ONE KNOWS ECONOMICS. Everything has some cost, even if actual money doesn't change hands.
Why is it so many people (I'd say at least 52.5%) in this country can't understand that?
-
Why is it so many people (I'd say at least 52.5%) in this country can't understand that?
Might have some correlation with American Idol being the number one TV show. Just a guess though.
-
Well, it looks like the Dems are focusing on priorities, alright.
Economy? War...No, "green" agenda.
-
I always ask the envo nuts "what are you going to do when the wind don't blow or the sun don't shine?". They get the strangest look on their faces and try to tell me it will never happen, yeah, right. Outside, right now it is foggy and no wind. It is expected to be that way for two more days........chris3
-
I always ask the envo nuts "what are you going to do when the wind don't blow or the sun don't shine?". They get the strangest look on their faces and try to tell me it will never happen, yeah, right. Outside, right now it is foggy and no wind. It is expected to be that way for two more days........chris3
Most of the solutions they come up with are perfect for southern California, where they are. And that's it.
I want to see a tiny electric car (with minimal heat, at that) trying to get through slush in winter here.
-
Most of the solutions they come up with are perfect for southern California, where they are. And that's it.
I want to see a tiny electric car (with minimal heat, at that) trying to get through slush in winter here.
You aren't one of the beautiful people. Therefore they don't give a *expletive deleted*it about you. After all, anyone who isn't in either NYC, California or Chicago is nothing more than an inbred, mouth breathing yokel, living in fly-over country, right? You probably cling to your guns and your religion as well. Shame on you for that.
-
You aren't one of the beautiful people. Therefore they don't give a *expletive deleted*it about you. After all, anyone who isn't in either NYC, California or Chicago is nothing more than an inbred, mouth breathing yokel, living in fly-over country, right? You probably cling to your guns and your religion as well. Shame on you for that.
You sure you don't live here? :D
-
US President Barack Obama has called for US energy independence, saying reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats to the country.
Old Jimmy Carter said the same thing.
-
Maybe he needs to practice what he preaches.
Use the trains/busses instead of Air Force One for Domestic trips.
Ditch the presidential caddy for a prious.
No A/C for the White House.
Winter thermostat to be set on 65 degrees.
Only eat organic foods that are grown with in 100 miles of DC.
-
You sure you don't live here? :D
He's an American; just born in the wrong country.
-
Let's see. The new administration wants vehicles that get better gas mileage and also have fewer emissions, and they want this all by 2011 and 2016, and they don't even need engineers to do it! All they have to do is make rules and it happens!
I can't believe that we've all been missing the bigger picture. If we can just have government mandate vehicles that get X more miles to the gallon and reduce emissions by Y, why stop there? Why not mandate that the medical community find a cure for death by, oh, say 2025?
-
You sure you don't live here? :D
Sorry. Born in the wrong country.
-
*ahem*
Even the Chinese have higher fuel and emissions standards NOW than what California is proposing. This exact debacle played out in the 70's with catalytic converters. The automotive industry said that it couldn't be done and that the costs would be disastrous. The actual result was innovation, and cleaner air today in a city such as Denver than in the 70's, even with several times as many cars on the road.
*** help us if we can't keep up with China.
http://www.autoproject.org.cn/english/new_advance_en/Pew.pdf
-
No A/C for the White House.
Heyyyyyyy...there's an idea. He wants people to think he is Lincoln. There was no A/C in the White House then!
Go back to that! Demand it! :)
-
Heyyyyyyy...there's an idea. He wants people to think he is Lincoln. There was no A/C in the White House then!
Go back to that! Demand it! :)
That's change I can believe in. :laugh:
-
This exact debacle played out in the 70's with catalytic converters. The automotive industry said that it couldn't be done and that the costs would be disastrous. The actual result was innovation
No. The "auto industry" (by which I mean the big three) lobbied for the catalytic converter. Japanese motors were so efficient compared to American cars that they produced fewer emissions with no cat than an equipped American car. The cat simply raised the cost of producing a Honda because General Motors held the patent. It's simple protectionism.
"Clean coal" is a similar mess.
-
I think it will all end when it begins to hurt.
Americans don't like to hurt and/or sacrafice.
People who vote 'green' usually do it because it makes them feel good. Problem is, they are the instant gratification crowd. When they actually have to start suffering for it they will change their tune. You don't know how many people I see running around in giant SUVs with COEXIST and SAVE OUR MOTHER (with a picture of earth).
They do the easy things -- save shopping bags, unplug phone chargers, and make compost piles.
I've been to developing countries. Let's see if they are willing to go green for a power grid that fails for days. We'll see if they want to install generators; but those will probably also be banned because it won't be green enough to have a large number of people using them during power failures.
-
*ahem*
Even the Chinese have higher fuel and emissions standards NOW than what California is proposing. This exact debacle played out in the 70's with catalytic converters. The automotive industry said that it couldn't be done and that the costs would be disastrous. The actual result was innovation, and cleaner air today in a city such as Denver than in the 70's, even with several times as many cars on the road.
*** help us if we can't keep up with China.
http://www.autoproject.org.cn/english/new_advance_en/Pew.pdf
Have you ever worked on a car from the mid 1970's to the early 80's? The emissions controls made those automobiles dogs (compared to the cars of the 1960s). The only innovation I see as the consequence was that they made cars lighter (unibody construction and thinner gauge materials became the norm) and hence more disposable.
But this is the usual cost I suppose. You could either have a heavy emissions spewing car with a full frame and doesn't just rust away over night or you could have the American dream of disposable everything.
-
Having lived in Denver and Sacramento, I'm very much in favor of clean air. Waking up to see a brown haze blocking the sunrise isn't a fun thing at all. I rode my Harley every day through the brown soup that is Sacramento air, and it's amazing that I didn't end up with respiratory problems.
I'm also known around these parts for attempting to go off-grid in my personal living style, with varying degrees of success.
I'm not foisting it upon others by using APS as a sounding board for my green style of living, but I do see some very vitriolic responses to what may be a good thing, if properly implemented.
I'm seeing a definite benefit in my utility bills, as has my father on his farm with his solar and wind project. YMMV, as it always does, but let's not vilify folks doing such on their own volition, ok? Once upon a time, folks derided horseless carriages, too.
If President Obama can lessen our oil dependence from Ickystan and other countries that don't particularly like us, more power to him.
-
If President Obama can lessen our oil dependence from Ickystan and other countries that don't particularly like us, more power to him.
I don't think anyone is objecting to doing that. I do think he's going about it the wrong way, tho.
-
more power to him
That's the problem.
There's nothing wrong with "going green" all on your own. I'd personally love to spend a few grand to throw a few solar panels on my roof, tax the tax incentive, and cut my energy bills way down.
There is even nothing really wrong with telling auto makers that "Hey, your cars can't spew black smoke OK?"
And everyone I know of would be more then happy to not get our energy from here at home.
It's when government imposes unrealistic expectations, such as this, that we run into problems. It's 2009, cars slated for 2011? These aren't on the drawing board any more, most are in the stage of fine tuning, and most wont get 35 MPG. Your Corrollas, Cobalts, Civics, maybe even up into the range of a Camery, will probably be there there without a hitch. How about all the other cars? And defiantly how about all the trucks and SUV's? It isn't possible to take something in the stages of being tweaked in the 20's or lower and boost it's gas mileage that much a year and a half or so from being rolled out. Hell, even having a fleet average of 35 MPG in two years is a stretch.
35 MPG on everything by 2020 is probably a stretch to.
-
Gewehr98:
I have a great deal of respect for people who take it upon themselves to work towards energy independence. That said, I feel that funding it with taxpayer dollars is wrong. I believe that if green alternatives are currently economically viable, private industry would be jumping at the opportunity to take advantage of them. With the current level of technology and innovation, these alternative are not economically viable on a large scale. Only by propping up these alternatives with taxpayer dollars can this industry exist. For that reason, I view it as going against the fundamental grain of capitalism. I do not see how it is fundamentally different from bailing out US automakers - they are another group that isn't economically viable, but will be saved at the publics expense.
Having lived in Denver and Sacramento, I'm very much in favor of clean air. Waking up to see a brown haze blocking the sunrise isn't a fun thing at all. I rode my Harley every day through the brown soup that is Sacramento air, and it's amazing that I didn't end up with respiratory problems.
Air is a communal thing. The question is, what are we willing to regulate away for the public good. Truthfully, it could be argued that banning everything from automobiles, cigarette's, alcohol (didn't we try this one?), McDonald's, to Remington Arms and beyond is beneficial to the public.
-
*ahem*
Even the Chinese have higher fuel and emissions standards NOW than what California is proposing. This exact debacle played out in the 70's with catalytic converters. The automotive industry said that it couldn't be done and that the costs would be disastrous. The actual result was innovation, and cleaner air today in a city such as Denver than in the 70's, even with several times as many cars on the road.
*** help us if we can't keep up with China.
http://www.autoproject.org.cn/english/new_advance_en/Pew.pdf
Have you ever BEEN to China? I have, and during the winter you need a mask to walk around in most cities. The majority heat with coal. Dirty coal. It's like walking around in a sulphur fog. Not pleasant. Not clean, either.
-
Have you ever worked on a car from the mid 1970's to the early 80's? The emissions controls made those automobiles dogs (compared to the cars of the 1960s). The only innovation I see as the consequence was that they made cars lighter (unibody construction and thinner gauge materials became the norm) and hence more disposable.
But this is the usual cost I suppose. You could either have a heavy emissions spewing car with a full frame and doesn't just rust away over night or you could have the American dream of disposable everything.
But they eventually got it right, to the benefit of everyone. And while I won't comment on vehicles from the 70's and 80's, cars today seem LESS disposable. How many vehicles from the 60's went 200k+ miles?
-
Have you ever BEEN to China? I have, and during the winter you need a mask to walk around in most cities. The majority heat with coal. Dirty coal. It's like walking around in a sulphur fog. Not pleasant. Not clean, either.
Right, which is why they're now increasing environmental regulations. China has paid a terrible cost for industrialization. I just hope they don't beat us to the green revolution.
-
But they eventually got it right, to the benefit of everyone. And while I won't comment on vehicles from the 70's and 80's, cars today seem LESS disposable. How many vehicles from the 60's went 200k+ miles?
I'm not an automotive engineer, but my best friend is.
As such, I'm strongly of the opinion that the 200k mile car has everything to do with motor oil and metallurgy and nothing to do with federal emission requirements.
I also believe that an accident that would mess up the bumper a little on a 60's Ford would total a 2009 Prius. YMMV.
-
I'm also known around these parts for attempting to go off-grid in my personal living style, with varying degrees of success.
I'm not foisting it upon others by using APS as a sounding board for my green style of living, but I do see some very vitriolic responses to what may be a good thing, if properly implemented.
THIS is how we're going to go "green" in this country. Forward thinking citizens will invest in the technologies that are actually viable. You're picking stuff that works for you. The companies providing those products will have more money for R&D to scale them up to larger installations if their ideas pan out on a small scale.
I've got a coworker that just paid $21k to have a geothermal heating/cooling system put into his house. He's out in the boonies and used a combination of propane, wood, and corn to heat his house before this was put in. I swear cost effective heating solutions are this guy's hobby. He's putting money into solutions that work.
I've seen other guys online that have converted Geo Metros to electric motors for as little as $650 dollars. Sure it only goes 40mph and has a range of 30 miles, but that's what it got with the gas engine, right? :)
On Slashdot.org I've seen guys that rig up their central AC unit to solar panels and battery packs. They disconnect the AC unit from the house's power grid to keep it simple. If it's hot the sun's out, right? Makes sense to me, and they always have the options of plugging the unit back in if needed.
As for myself I keep trying to come up with a way to keep my driveway free of ice and snow without paying for the energy. I really don't give a rat's behind about the environment. I'm a cheap bastard that wants to save money on a plow service every year and never ever have an icy driveway.
I work in IT. I hang out with tech nerds and "green" energy is sorta the talk of the town lately. It's exciting and offers up opportunities for the home hackers. Out of this experimentation and cottage industry we WILL see some useful products.
Well, provided that the government doesn't get in the way of them coming to market.