Post by: Ben on August 29, 2007, 05:07:12 AM
Quote
Edwards was asked during his appearance how he explained the contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he's living in a 28,000-square-foot (2,600-square-meter) mansion.
He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.
"I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life," he said to loud cheers.
He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.
"I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life," he said to loud cheers.
How many of us here came from nothing and worked hard all our lives? If that's all it takes to get an "Edwards Credit" I'm trading my Trooper in on a Hummer H1.
I will not even comment on his hypocrisy on the gun statement.
---------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294974,00.html
John Edwards: Americans Should 'Sacrifice' SUVs for Environment
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
AP
ADVERTISEMENT
LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.
"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday during a forum held by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles."
The former North Carolina senator was asked specifically if he would tell them to give up their SUVs, he said, "Yes."
" Get the latest campaign news in FOXNews.com's You Decide 2008 Center, learn about the candidates in the Eye on the Issues Center and read the daily Update '08 newsletter.
Longshot candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio also spoke to the group and said he had a Machinists union flag hanging outside his congressional office and that he is a strong supporter of workers.
Edwards was clearly popular with the group, several times drawing standing ovations, including once when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He said now tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.
" PHOTO ESSAYS: 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates and 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates
"If your tax dollars are being used to produce the products that keep America safe, that provide defense for the American people, those jobs should remain in the United States of America," Edwards said.
He also said as president he would ask residents to conserve energy and said the U.S. needs to focus on being a leader in creating alternative energy. He said he wants a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year.
"We are the worst polluter on the planet. We are 4 percent of the world's population, we're putting out 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas," Edwards said. "America's going to have to change."
Edwards was asked during his appearance how he explained the contradiction of asking Americans to sacrifice while he's living in a 28,000-square-foot (2,600-square-meter) mansion.
He said he came from nothing, worked hard all his life, has always supported workers and fought big corporations as a lawyer.
"I have no apologies whatsoever for what I've done with my life," he said to loud cheers. "My entire life has been about the same cause, which is making sure wherever you come from, whatever your family is, whatever the color of your skin, you get a real chance to do something great in this country."
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 29, 2007, 05:12:56 AM
Post by: El Tejon on August 29, 2007, 05:14:51 AM
The only thing I'm giving up is voting for John Edwards.
Post by: Jamisjockey on August 29, 2007, 05:17:36 AM
You serfs sacrifice. I'll be on my yacht, then off to my mansion in my BMW Private Jet.
The only thing I'm giving up is voting for John Edwards.
The only thing I'm giving up is voting for John Edwards.
Fixed it for you.
Hell, his palace is twice that of Al Gore's, who was lambasted in the media for his high electric bill.....
I'll start believing that they believe this crap when the SS fleet is converted to hybrids....
Post by: Paddy on August 29, 2007, 05:20:36 AM
Quote
"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice,"
Oh, yeah, that'll get you elected.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 05:21:13 AM
Post by: Tallpine on August 29, 2007, 05:32:09 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on August 29, 2007, 05:56:48 AM
Quote
John Edwards Says Give Up Your SUV
And Avenger 29 says: "John Edwards, go f&*# yourself."
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on August 29, 2007, 06:05:00 AM
Quote from: John Edwards
Give Up Your SUV
No.
~BakerMike
Post by: Thor on August 29, 2007, 06:06:16 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 29, 2007, 06:33:10 AM
Quote
Edwards was clearly popular with the group, several times drawing standing ovations, including once when he said weapons and equipment used by America's military needs to be made in the United States. He said now tanks and ammunition for M16 rifles are being made in other countries.
I would like to see an example of this. There is no other country producing the M1 Abrams tank due to all the "classified" technology in and on it. As for ammo. If so it is only because U.S. companies can't or won't produce enough to support us.
Post by: xavier fremboe on August 29, 2007, 06:54:05 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on August 29, 2007, 07:01:20 AM
I don't own an SUV, I own a very economical and green 2007 Hyundai Accent. You make me want to buy back my beloved gas hog truck. Tell you what, you move into a modest-sized condo, and then I'll believe you're really sincere about this whole business. Deal?
Post by: Harold Tuttle on August 29, 2007, 08:13:11 AM
Post by: m1911owner on August 29, 2007, 09:48:33 AM
Quote
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards told a labor group that he would ask Americans to make a big sacrifice: their sport utility vehicles.
"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday...
"I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice," Edwards said Tuesday...
Wow. This level of hypocrisy is stunning, even for John Edwards. Like, to the extent that it gives new meaning to the word "hypocrisy."
The sad part is that the Daily Kos types will probably eat this up, and think he's the greatest thing since the coming of the Messiah.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 10:33:41 AM
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
Post by: m1911owner on August 29, 2007, 11:04:23 AM
I'm guessing he meant to repeal the glaring tax credit to people who purchase SUV's, but I'm not certain.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
While I would agree to substantially reducing taxes in tandem with with eliminating most/all the various tax breaks, that is clearly not what Mr. Edwards was talking about. He said that would ask Americans to sacrifice their sport utility vehicles. There was no mention of tax breaks.
(I note that it is unclear what the word "ask" means in this context. Rarely do politicians simply "ask"--they normally order, and if their orders are ignored, eventually men with guns come to enforce what they "asked.")
Post by: Manedwolf on August 29, 2007, 11:17:32 AM
I'm guessing he meant to repeal the glaring tax credit to people who purchase SUV's, but I'm not certain.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
You're supporting what you wish he said instead of what he actually said.
Thus are Democrats elected...
Post by: French G. on August 29, 2007, 12:31:15 PM
Quote
If John Edwards wants to buy me a more fuel efficient vehicle, then I'd GLADLY not drive my Supercrew F150 4WD !! (Except in cases where I actually need a truck to do some hauling, get around in snow, etc) Until I see a new vehicle in my driveway courtesy of John Edwards, I guess I'll keep driving my truck.
No, I'd probably burn the Prius, shoot the guy that delivered it and then go hunting for John Edwards. I'd do that on the consideration that to deliver me a new vehicle he took lots of money away from someone who earned it.
Edwards is right though, there are two Americas. People who work honestly and produce, and looters.
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 29, 2007, 12:37:45 PM
Post by: Thor on August 29, 2007, 12:43:49 PM
Quote
If John Edwards wants to buy me a more fuel efficient vehicle, then I'd GLADLY not drive my Supercrew F150 4WD !! (Except in cases where I actually need a truck to do some hauling, get around in snow, etc) Until I see a new vehicle in my driveway courtesy of John Edwards, I guess I'll keep driving my truck.
No, I'd probably burn the Prius, shoot the guy that delivered it and then go hunting for John Edwards. I'd do that on the consideration that to deliver me a new vehicle he took lots of money away from someone who earned it.
Edwards is right though, there are two Americas. People who work honestly and produce, and looters.
French, I should have added the caveat, "at HIS own expense". I would be the LAST one to take away any more from the taxpayers. Already the taxpayers pay my retirement and medical.
Post by: m1911owner on August 29, 2007, 12:57:49 PM
Quote
"Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy."
Yessir ladies and gents, if you elect Mr. Edwards, he will revoke the laws of physics for you!
Well, I guess that's no greater miracle than what he promised it 2004, that if he was elected, Christopher Reeve would walk again.
Why isn't this guy laughed off the stage?
Post by: charby on August 29, 2007, 01:04:38 PM
Only if he does first... he better start stumping from a Ford Focus or a Chevy Aveo
Post by: Ben on August 29, 2007, 02:58:31 PM
Quote
I'm guessing he meant to repeal the glaring tax credit to people who purchase SUV's
I thought that was already repealed. If not, anybody got a link? I just bought a big ass 7500 lb truck a couple of months ago, and if I can get some tax credits for it, I'm waaaay down with that man.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 03:54:44 PM
I'm guessing he meant to repeal the glaring tax credit to people who purchase SUV's, but I'm not certain.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
You're supporting what you wish he said instead of what he actually said.
Thus are Democrats elected...
I honestly don't know what he said.
Assuming he DID say to give up your SUV, I'd agree that's a rotten move.
A better plan would be a tax credit based on environmental impact. For example, get a tax break based on MPG of your car. If your vehicle gets 25mpg or better, you break even. If it gets 30mpg, you get a 50% break on your vehicle reg. fee on your federal taxes. 45mpg or better, 100%.
Any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg pays a percentage of their reg fee to help pay for research into getting our country off of fossil fuels, for instance.
Even better, say that we give up ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020, and our dependence of fossil fuels totally by 2030.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 04:09:36 PM
Quote
I'm guessing he meant to repeal the glaring tax credit to people who purchase SUV's
I thought that was already repealed. If not, anybody got a link? I just bought a big ass 7500 lb truck a couple of months ago, and if I can get some tax credits for it, I'm waaaay down with that man.
As far as I know Section 179 tax credits were still valid in 2006. See IRS Publication 946 and see if you can decipher it. I know the SUV deduction is still there, but upon reading it; it might have been reduced.
Post by: Angel Eyes on August 29, 2007, 04:12:59 PM
Why isn't this guy laughed off the stage?
Careful. If you laugh at him, his wife will come over and beat you up.
-Jack
Post by: auschip on August 29, 2007, 05:59:24 PM
I'm guessing he meant to repeal the glaring tax credit to people who purchase SUV's, but I'm not certain.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
I'd support that; There's no reason to give tax credits to people who buy wasteful vehicles.
You're supporting what you wish he said instead of what he actually said.
Thus are Democrats elected...
I honestly don't know what he said.
Assuming he DID say to give up your SUV, I'd agree that's a rotten move.
A better plan would be a tax credit based on environmental impact. For example, get a tax break based on MPG of your car. If your vehicle gets 25mpg or better, you break even. If it gets 30mpg, you get a 50% break on your vehicle reg. fee on your federal taxes. 45mpg or better, 100%.
Any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg pays a percentage of their reg fee to help pay for research into getting our country off of fossil fuels, for instance.
Even better, say that we give up ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020, and our dependence of fossil fuels totally by 2030.
I already pay more in taxes for driving a less fuel efficient vehicle. Gasoline taxes bite close to 40 cents out of every gallon I burn. On my truck that's a little over $12 every time I fill the tank.
Post by: m1911owner on August 29, 2007, 06:14:28 PM
A better plan would be a tax credit based on environmental impact. For example, get a tax break based on MPG of your car. If your vehicle gets 25mpg or better, you break even. If it gets 30mpg, you get a 50% break on your vehicle reg. fee on your federal taxes. 45mpg or better, 100%.
Any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg pays a percentage of their reg fee to help pay for research into getting our country off of fossil fuels, for instance.
Even better, say that we give up ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020, and our dependence of fossil fuels totally by 2030.
Any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg pays a percentage of their reg fee to help pay for research into getting our country off of fossil fuels, for instance.
Even better, say that we give up ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020, and our dependence of fossil fuels totally by 2030.
I have an even better idea: How about the government just leaves us alone to buy whatever vehicle we want?
Post by: Boomhauer on August 29, 2007, 06:36:19 PM
Quote
ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020
There is no substitute for fossil-fueled internal combustion engines for applications such as aircraft.
Do you know what it does to a car when you try to push for higher and higher gas mileage? Here's a simple list.
1) Sheet metal and structure have to be lightened. This means less durability. In cars made in the last decade, hitting a deer at a relatively low speed causes significant damage. Older cars are far more resistant to damage.
2) Electronics and emissions systems get more and more complex. This means that an average car owner is less and less likely to be able to work on their own vehicle. Granted, that's not a problem for most people, as they take their car to a mechanic anyway, but it is a problem for me, considering the significant money I save by doing everything but tire mounting and balancing at home.
We recently acquired a 2004 GMC Safari. We also have 2 Chevy Astros, one a '90, the other a '92, and an S-10 Blazer (91). The older vehicles each has a single O2 sensor, while the '04 has 3 O2 sensors in an effort to meet emissions and MPG standards. All the added electronics of the newer van does not improve the mileage over the older van. The newer van has problems with its electronics and emissions equipment, too, which drop the gas mileage when the sensors are out, the catalytic converter is having issues, or there are vacuum leaks.
3) Cars get smaller. Less steel= less survivability. I like a big, heavy, steel cage surrounding me in addition to my seat belt and airbags.
But, sayeth the treehuggers, get a hybrid!. Well, hybrids have problems. The battery is going to need replacement after a couple of years (and it ain't cheap!), and there are problems if you have a fire or have a wreck. My father tells me that if you need extracting via jaws-of-life, or some other advice, that the emergency crews will not cut before they are aware of where the high-voltage lines are running.
I don't want to have anything to do with "mileage increasing" or hybrids or (insert your miracle tech here) if the costs comes at having more and more electronics to the point at which I won't be able to even find the engine under all the *expletive deleted*it...
And I'm sure as hell not going to kowtow to a group that thinks that I should give up SUVs and trucks but they can have SUVs and private jets and redwood decks because they know how to have and use them without harming the environment.
Post by: Ben on August 29, 2007, 06:40:05 PM
Quote
As far as I know Section 179 tax credits were still valid in 2006.
Quote
That changed on Oct. 22, 2004, when the American Jobs Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or more are eligible for the larger deduction amount.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edit/tips/Stories/sec179_deduction.aspI thought it went away. This is the one that by weight included big SUVs like Hummer H1s and some Suburbans ,Expeditions, etc., as well as small aircraft like Cessna 172s. It actually never applied to the "run of the mill" SUVs, like Explorers.
Post by: Scout26 on August 29, 2007, 06:50:58 PM
Quote
I already pay more in taxes for driving a less fuel efficient vehicle. Gasoline taxes bite close to 40 cents out of every gallon I burn. On my truck that's a little over $12 every time I fill the tank.
But if everybody drove a hybrid then there be less tax money to build and fix bridges........unless we raised the tax.......
Very sneaky.......
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 07:18:47 PM
A better plan would be a tax credit based on environmental impact. For example, get a tax break based on MPG of your car. If your vehicle gets 25mpg or better, you break even. If it gets 30mpg, you get a 50% break on your vehicle reg. fee on your federal taxes. 45mpg or better, 100%.
Any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg pays a percentage of their reg fee to help pay for research into getting our country off of fossil fuels, for instance.
Even better, say that we give up ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020, and our dependence of fossil fuels totally by 2030.
Any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg pays a percentage of their reg fee to help pay for research into getting our country off of fossil fuels, for instance.
Even better, say that we give up ALL fossil-fuel powered vehicles by 2020, and our dependence of fossil fuels totally by 2030.
I have an even better idea: How about the government just leaves us alone to buy whatever vehicle we want?
Go tell that to the people arguing against gay marriage in the other thread
Seriously though, while I usually agree with this, I do believe the government needs to step in when someone's actions can be damaging to the country (or world) as a whole.
Fuel inefficient vehicles increase our dependence on middle eastern terrorist nations for our continued existence.
That's bad, and I think the people of this country should do whatever it takes to unhook ourselves from the teat of oil.
26 Percent of the gas you buy started as oil from the middle east, including the country that hit us on 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, not Afganastan or Iraq) I'd think that Americans would gladly do whatever we could to reduce our dependance on that despicable part of the country, but I guess I'm wrong, because our comfort is more important.
Granted, we're getting oil from other countries, like Venezuela and Russia, whose political situations are almost as bad.
Post by: Boomhauer on August 29, 2007, 07:52:01 PM
Quote
Seriously though, while I usually agree with this, I do believe the government needs to step in when someone's actions can be damaging to the country (or world) as a whole.
Fuel inefficient vehicles increase our dependence on middle eastern terrorist nations for our continued existence.
That's bad, and I think the people of this country should do whatever it takes to unhook ourselves from the teat of oil.
26 Percent of the gas you buy started as oil from the middle east, including the country that hit us on 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq) I'd think that Americans would gladly do whatever we could to reduce our dependence on that despicable part of the country, but I guess I'm wrong, because our comfort is more important.
Granted, we're getting oil from other countries, like Venezuela and Russia, whose political situations are almost as bad.
Fuel inefficient vehicles increase our dependence on middle eastern terrorist nations for our continued existence.
That's bad, and I think the people of this country should do whatever it takes to unhook ourselves from the teat of oil.
26 Percent of the gas you buy started as oil from the middle east, including the country that hit us on 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq) I'd think that Americans would gladly do whatever we could to reduce our dependence on that despicable part of the country, but I guess I'm wrong, because our comfort is more important.
Granted, we're getting oil from other countries, like Venezuela and Russia, whose political situations are almost as bad.
Gov't
The only gov't stepping in I want to see is
a) getting rid of the ridiculous environmental restrictions on building new refineries, oil drilling, and power plants (especially nuclear)
and
b) knocking off oil rich countries for cheap oil
Post by: charby on August 29, 2007, 07:58:58 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 29, 2007, 08:27:47 PM
Quote
There is no substitute for fossil-fueled internal combustion engines for applications such as aircraft.
Who told you that?
The Germans ran the Luftwaffe on synthetic fuel towards the end of WWII.
Turbine engines, be they turbojets, turbofans, or turboprops, run just fine on a variety of fuels, including natural gas, vegetable oils and biodiesel. Hell, they've even run nicely on powdered coal.
Talk to the folks at Edwards AFB, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, or Rolls-Royce. They did the footwork already.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 29, 2007, 08:32:07 PM
Quote
Seriously though, while I usually agree with this, I do believe the government needs to step in when someone's actions can be damaging to the country (or world) as a whole.
Fuel inefficient vehicles increase our dependence on middle eastern terrorist nations for our continued existence.
That's bad, and I think the people of this country should do whatever it takes to unhook ourselves from the teat of oil.
26 Percent of the gas you buy started as oil from the middle east, including the country that hit us on 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq) I'd think that Americans would gladly do whatever we could to reduce our dependence on that despicable part of the country, but I guess I'm wrong, because our comfort is more important.
Granted, we're getting oil from other countries, like Venezuela and Russia, whose political situations are almost as bad.
Fuel inefficient vehicles increase our dependence on middle eastern terrorist nations for our continued existence.
That's bad, and I think the people of this country should do whatever it takes to unhook ourselves from the teat of oil.
26 Percent of the gas you buy started as oil from the middle east, including the country that hit us on 9/11 (Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq) I'd think that Americans would gladly do whatever we could to reduce our dependence on that despicable part of the country, but I guess I'm wrong, because our comfort is more important.
Granted, we're getting oil from other countries, like Venezuela and Russia, whose political situations are almost as bad.
Gov't
The only gov't stepping in I want to see is
a) getting rid of the ridiculous environmental restrictions on building new refineries, oil drilling, and power plants (especially nuclear)
and
b) knocking off oil rich countries for cheap oil
So it's ok by you for a company like Mattel to sell products that can kill your children? The government shouldn't step in to keep that from happening?
Do you also think it's OK for ExonMobil to build that refinery right next to your home? Should the government prevent that?
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2007, 06:27:55 AM
Quote
26 Percent of the gas you buy started as oil from the middle east
I don't think so
All of mine comes from Montana, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and is processed within 50 miles of where I sit. There's a crude oil pipeline running up the valley just off the east edge of my property.
Post by: griz on August 30, 2007, 09:16:12 AM
Post by: Tallpine on August 30, 2007, 10:14:51 AM
Quote
he had to cut down every tree within a hundred meters of the house
That's not a totally bad idea, considering danger from forest fires.
I have a mimimum 50' clearance around my house, and that's on the uphill side - it's a lot more on the other three sides. Plus a large perimeter of the surrounding forest that I've removed most of the smaller trees and brush, and cut off all the lower limbs up to about 12'.
Post by: Firethorn on August 30, 2007, 02:00:49 PM
But if everybody drove a hybrid then there be less tax money to build and fix bridges........unless we raised the tax.......
Very sneaky.......
Very sneaky.......
Not very sneaky to me; I've called it 'the inefficiency tax' before.
IE it's a very simple environmental tax: If your vehicle has better than average efficiency are subsidized a bit by those with worse efficiency.
If enough people switch to fuel efficient vehicles, raise the gas taxes a bit to compensate; this will encourage replacement of fuel inefficient vehicles.
No further action necessary.
Post by: Thor on August 30, 2007, 05:36:08 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 31, 2007, 05:25:42 AM
What about those that can't necessarily afford to replace their inefficient vehicle?? I'd love nothing better than to have a fuel efficient car to run around in, but between insurance, the cost of a new vehicle and places to garage a vehicle, I'm all tapped out.
As Edwards said, there's two Americas. He's in the one where he can get a $400 haircut.
His answer to someone who has a fuel-inefficient car that's wasting their money would be "well, why don't you buy a new one?" Same as the sorts who, if told that people have no money, would ask why they don't just go to an ATM?
Post by: Tallpine on August 31, 2007, 05:52:24 AM
Quote
What about those that can't necessarily afford to replace their inefficient vehicle?? I'd love nothing better than to have a fuel efficient car to run around in, but between insurance, the cost of a new vehicle and places to garage a vehicle, I'm all tapped out.
That's where we are at. For one thing, we need the vehicles that we have now, so it would mean adding another vehicle and associated insurance, license, maintenance, etc not to mention the original cost and/or payments.
We don't drive enough miles in a year to justify a $20K investment - that money will still buy a lot of gas even at $3/gal.
If we had a more "efficient" car then we would probably just start driving more so we would be consuming just as much resources
Post by: charby on August 31, 2007, 06:43:28 AM
What about those that can't necessarily afford to replace their inefficient vehicle?? I'd love nothing better than to have a fuel efficient car to run around in, but between insurance, the cost of a new vehicle and places to garage a vehicle, I'm all tapped out.
I play cards once a month with a bunch of retired guys from where I work and our political views are all different, one guy is very left but he does present a well thought out argument for his beliefs, so he isn't the stereotypical bather mouth liberal.
I asked him if he was going to give up his SUV and he chuckled and said that he didn't have one. He asked about mine, I told him my SUV is a hand me down from my wife when we bought her a car in February. I said I would love to drive a vehicle that got more than 20 mpg and when we bought my wife's car fuel consumption was on the top of the list but for me to go out a buy a more fuel efficient vehicle to replace my SUV would not be economically sound to offset the savings in fuel costs. I said in two years when I am in the market to purchase a vehicle for myself, I will have fuel consumption near the top of the list in what I am looking for.
He commented that Edwards probably should have said, when you are looking for a replacement vehicle try to think about something more fuel efficient than a SUV.
-C
Post by: HankB on August 31, 2007, 07:59:48 AM
A better plan would be a tax credit based on environmental impact.
Be careful what you wish for . . . http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Some "green" blogs are condemning CNW's research, but AFAIK have yet to publish a credible study rebutting the assertions.
Up in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle?) they're talking about hitting electric & hybrid vehicles with additional taxes . . . because, since they get better fuel economy, they're not paying their fair share of transportation taxes in the form of federal, state, and local levys on gasoline!
Anyway, whenever I see a politician proposing taxes (or carbon credits!!) to fight "global waming" or "CO2 emissions" . . . I'm skeptical of their true motives.
Post by: Nitrogen on August 31, 2007, 02:31:17 PM
That's just an example of people not thinking through their actions.
I know the endpoint I want to get at: More people getting the fuel efficient vehicles they want; Better use of existing fossil fuels. Then, Eventual elimination of reliance of non-domestically produced energy.
I can understand that the cost of going about this wrongly can erase and even push us backwards economically. Look at China right now; their lack of environmental regulation will eventually erase their huge GDP gains. If we're not careful about how we go about this, we can be in the same boat.
But I think it's important to figure out how to do it.
John Edwards has a great point about "giving up the SUV" but he's got to realise it's not as simple as that. (As most of you guys here realize) I think we can all agree that erasing our dependance on oil sourced from unfriendly governments (Venezuela, the middle east, etc) is a good thing to shoot for. If we can do it with cars and trucks that get better mileage, good. If we have to find another way to do it, let's figure that out.
Ethanol is one way, but it's got its problems currently. Maybe we need to try making fuel out of coal. (I'd love to learn more about that)
We're America, for crying out loud. There's no reason we CAN'T do it.
Post by: Turkey Creek on August 31, 2007, 02:54:18 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 31, 2007, 04:03:13 PM
Quote
We're America, for crying out loud. There's no reason we CAN'T do it.
There is no money in it for the "right" people.
Post by: Paddy on August 31, 2007, 04:34:01 PM
Eat my voltage.
Post by: Gewehr98 on August 31, 2007, 08:13:19 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 31, 2007, 08:31:11 PM
Quote
We almost flattened a Pious tonight with the Suburban on the way home from work.
Suburbans rollover often enough to make an occasional sacrifice worthwhile.
Post by: Fly320s on September 01, 2007, 04:20:31 AM
Last night he had Richard Branson on for an interview. At one point, the discussion turned to global warming/climate change and the need to replace fossil fuels with something less polluting. Branson said that by the end of next year, 2008, he and his partners (Boeing, GE turbine engines, others) will fly a jet aircraft that produces zero carbon dioxide emissions.
He didn't mention the type of fuel that will be used, but he alluded to a sugar/corn ethanol type fuel.
Post by: Thor on September 01, 2007, 06:15:26 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 01, 2007, 06:29:08 AM
Quote
The Prius is not the answer, yet. It may help use less gasoline from the pump, but the rest is a pipe dream.
Anything that burns fossil fuel is not the answer. I don't drive the Prius, it belongs to SWMBO. She wanted it, she bought it, and she loves it. It's loaded with everything you can possibly get, even a GPS that talks to you. It has a Bluetooth setup through the speakers, and you can control the inside temp with voice commands.
Post by: Firethorn on September 01, 2007, 07:30:36 AM
He didn't mention the type of fuel that will be used, but he alluded to a sugar/corn ethanol type fuel.
Then it emits CO2 as part of it's operation.
It's just that it's 'neutral' in the sense that the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in the creation of the fuel.
It might not even be particularly green; there are plenty of extremely ungreen ethanol plants that have shady emissions controls and some even use coal fired boilers for their distilling systems.
Post by: wacki on September 01, 2007, 08:51:37 AM
He didn't mention the type of fuel that will be used, but he alluded to a sugar/corn ethanol type fuel.
Then it emits CO2 as part of it's operation.
It's just that it's 'neutral' in the sense that the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in the creation of the fuel.
It might not even be particularly green; there are plenty of extremely ungreen ethanol plants that have shady emissions controls and some even use coal fired boilers for their distilling systems.
There are more than a few highly respected Professors that claim corn based ethanol plants are worse than oil for the environment and won't make a dent in our oil supply anyway. Sugar cane is good though.... other than it requires mowing down the rain forest to scale up.