All this news.. but no one brings up Cap and Trade?!?
06-27-2009 | 11:21 AM
#16
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,504
From: Leg Humper
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
NYTimes : http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...cost-families/
In 10 years, the difference to the average family would be about equal - I assume this means average household rather than "family". The problem is that we would pay an extra $175/yr for 10 years...that's almost $20K extra in taxes, that we would never see a return on.
There is something more important here, Nature generates approx 30 times the amount of CO2 per year than ALL of mankind, so spending money on this seems like a crazy waste of resources to me.
If he were really serious about reducing energy usage and improvement of the eco system cost effectively, there are several things he can do:
1. 100% phase out of all coal burning power plants over the next 20 years, no exceptions. Coal transportation and burning are the number one sources of Mercury and hard radiation that comes into contact with people in the environment (The sun produces more total radiation, but for the most part doesn't come into contact with people).
2. Instead of expensive rules about carbon foot prints and more automobile catalytic converters, which reduce another 1-3% of emissions, that's all, that same money can be spent in matching funds from the govt, for building owners who re-insulate. This has a direct effect to how much energy is used and how much coal and oil is burned.
3. Nuclear power - very clean, and we can now produce nuclear plants that physically cannot go into meltdown...we sell our plans to other countries, but we don't have any here. Since Obama did not fund Yucca Flats, it's not likely that we will either. Not a very good idea IMHO. This would also allow the extra electricity to produce Hydrogen cars, talk about boost!
4. Breeder Reactor, this would be a boon for science, technology and getting rid of nuclear waste.
I voted for Obama, for some reason, I thought he would not cave to the "environmentalists" and the businesses that support them. The message from the environmentalists, save the eco system, is not bad, but their ideas are not good. As the earth warms, nature releases more CO2, mostly from the oceans and rocks, not the other way around. If Obama had people first, he would reduce the energy usage, as I outlined above, instead he is funding expensive programs that do not reduce energy usage.
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
In 10 years, the difference to the average family would be about equal - I assume this means average household rather than "family". The problem is that we would pay an extra $175/yr for 10 years...that's almost $20K extra in taxes, that we would never see a return on.
There is something more important here, Nature generates approx 30 times the amount of CO2 per year than ALL of mankind, so spending money on this seems like a crazy waste of resources to me.
If he were really serious about reducing energy usage and improvement of the eco system cost effectively, there are several things he can do:
1. 100% phase out of all coal burning power plants over the next 20 years, no exceptions. Coal transportation and burning are the number one sources of Mercury and hard radiation that comes into contact with people in the environment (The sun produces more total radiation, but for the most part doesn't come into contact with people).
2. Instead of expensive rules about carbon foot prints and more automobile catalytic converters, which reduce another 1-3% of emissions, that's all, that same money can be spent in matching funds from the govt, for building owners who re-insulate. This has a direct effect to how much energy is used and how much coal and oil is burned.
3. Nuclear power - very clean, and we can now produce nuclear plants that physically cannot go into meltdown...we sell our plans to other countries, but we don't have any here. Since Obama did not fund Yucca Flats, it's not likely that we will either. Not a very good idea IMHO. This would also allow the extra electricity to produce Hydrogen cars, talk about boost!
4. Breeder Reactor, this would be a boon for science, technology and getting rid of nuclear waste.
I voted for Obama, for some reason, I thought he would not cave to the "environmentalists" and the businesses that support them. The message from the environmentalists, save the eco system, is not bad, but their ideas are not good. As the earth warms, nature releases more CO2, mostly from the oceans and rocks, not the other way around. If Obama had people first, he would reduce the energy usage, as I outlined above, instead he is funding expensive programs that do not reduce energy usage.
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
Last edited by AntiochCali; 06-27-2009 at 11:23 AM.
06-27-2009 | 11:32 AM
#17
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,826
From: No Way
Car Info: Nadda
NYTimes : http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...cost-families/
In 10 years, the difference to the average family would be about equal - I assume this means average household rather than "family". The problem is that we would pay an extra $175/yr for 10 years...that's almost $20K extra in taxes, that we would never see a return on.
There is something more important here, Nature generates approx 30 times the amount of CO2 per year than ALL of mankind, so spending money on this seems like a crazy waste of resources to me.
If he were really serious about reducing energy usage and improvement of the eco system cost effectively, there are several things he can do:
1. 100% phase out of all coal burning power plants over the next 20 years, no exceptions. Coal transportation and burning are the number one sources of Mercury and hard radiation that comes into contact with people in the environment (The sun produces more total radiation, but for the most part doesn't come into contact with people).
2. Instead of expensive rules about carbon foot prints and more automobile catalytic converters, which reduce another 1-3% of emissions, that's all, that same money can be spent in matching funds from the govt, for building owners who re-insulate. This has a direct effect to how much energy is used and how much coal and oil is burned.
3. Nuclear power - very clean, and we can now produce nuclear plants that physically cannot go into meltdown...we sell our plans to other countries, but we don't have any here. Since Obama did not fund Yucca Flats, it's not likely that we will either. Not a very good idea IMHO. This would also allow the extra electricity to produce Hydrogen cars, talk about boost!
4. Breeder Reactor, this would be a boon for science, technology and getting rid of nuclear waste.
I voted for Obama, for some reason, I thought he would not cave to the "environmentalists" and the businesses that support them. The message from the environmentalists, save the eco system, is not bad, but their ideas are not good. As the earth warms, nature releases more CO2, mostly from the oceans and rocks, not the other way around. If Obama had people first, he would reduce the energy usage, as I outlined above, instead he is funding expensive programs that do not reduce energy usage.
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
In 10 years, the difference to the average family would be about equal - I assume this means average household rather than "family". The problem is that we would pay an extra $175/yr for 10 years...that's almost $20K extra in taxes, that we would never see a return on.
There is something more important here, Nature generates approx 30 times the amount of CO2 per year than ALL of mankind, so spending money on this seems like a crazy waste of resources to me.
If he were really serious about reducing energy usage and improvement of the eco system cost effectively, there are several things he can do:
1. 100% phase out of all coal burning power plants over the next 20 years, no exceptions. Coal transportation and burning are the number one sources of Mercury and hard radiation that comes into contact with people in the environment (The sun produces more total radiation, but for the most part doesn't come into contact with people).
2. Instead of expensive rules about carbon foot prints and more automobile catalytic converters, which reduce another 1-3% of emissions, that's all, that same money can be spent in matching funds from the govt, for building owners who re-insulate. This has a direct effect to how much energy is used and how much coal and oil is burned.
3. Nuclear power - very clean, and we can now produce nuclear plants that physically cannot go into meltdown...we sell our plans to other countries, but we don't have any here. Since Obama did not fund Yucca Flats, it's not likely that we will either. Not a very good idea IMHO. This would also allow the extra electricity to produce Hydrogen cars, talk about boost!
4. Breeder Reactor, this would be a boon for science, technology and getting rid of nuclear waste.
I voted for Obama, for some reason, I thought he would not cave to the "environmentalists" and the businesses that support them. The message from the environmentalists, save the eco system, is not bad, but their ideas are not good. As the earth warms, nature releases more CO2, mostly from the oceans and rocks, not the other way around. If Obama had people first, he would reduce the energy usage, as I outlined above, instead he is funding expensive programs that do not reduce energy usage.
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
06-27-2009 | 12:04 PM
#18
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,504
From: Leg Humper
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
Good book --> http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring08/006627.htm
The above book is by a UC Berkeley physics professor. He takes a very real look at many popular topics such as Global warming and the real dangers of Nuclear power. You don't have to agree with his political views or his conclusions, but read the science inside, it's very accurate and very reader friendly (i.e. no math degree required).
If your views can stand in light of the science then ::thumbs up:: but if your views are contrary to the science, then you should consider what you're saying.
The above book is by a UC Berkeley physics professor. He takes a very real look at many popular topics such as Global warming and the real dangers of Nuclear power. You don't have to agree with his political views or his conclusions, but read the science inside, it's very accurate and very reader friendly (i.e. no math degree required).
If your views can stand in light of the science then ::thumbs up:: but if your views are contrary to the science, then you should consider what you're saying.
06-27-2009 | 02:54 PM
#19
All this talk about health care reform, and MJs death, but no one wants to talk about what Obama is trying to shove under the carpet and get passed without ANYONE speaking about it? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY INSANE?!?
This one has a direct impact on us, the consumers, the people who use natural resources and pay for utility bills. If this passes, OUR manufacturing natural resources jobs end up being outsourced, and our utility bills will at least DOUBLE in the amount they cost now. In addition, we loose all the jobs in America and let the poor countries pick it up. Poor countries will do it, even though it pollutes because they are that desperate. So we want a GREENER earth, but just outsourcing the cause is ridiculous, in the end we still get as much pollution as before. Except now we will have to pay higher energy bills, AND loose all the jobs that these places had.
Obama knows that his popularity is going to drop insanely fast, but before that he's going to try and change everything to his socialistic views and run up the debt as high as he can.
I bet he knows that he is only going to be a 1 term president, and he's trying to bulldoze everything into place. This is insane, wtf.
This one has a direct impact on us, the consumers, the people who use natural resources and pay for utility bills. If this passes, OUR manufacturing natural resources jobs end up being outsourced, and our utility bills will at least DOUBLE in the amount they cost now. In addition, we loose all the jobs in America and let the poor countries pick it up. Poor countries will do it, even though it pollutes because they are that desperate. So we want a GREENER earth, but just outsourcing the cause is ridiculous, in the end we still get as much pollution as before. Except now we will have to pay higher energy bills, AND loose all the jobs that these places had.
Obama knows that his popularity is going to drop insanely fast, but before that he's going to try and change everything to his socialistic views and run up the debt as high as he can.
I bet he knows that he is only going to be a 1 term president, and he's trying to bulldoze everything into place. This is insane, wtf.
I've never really responded to any of your posts yet but... what's your background? You seem to have a lot of political opinion, and I want to know if this is due to your academic background in university, or if you're a casually concerned citizen.
Cause here's the thing, there's a lot of guys who like cars and like to research into them. But the vast majority have no mechanical engineering background and worse, not even a rudimentary calculus-based physics course and as a result SEVERELY misunderstand many of the concepts in automotive science (horsepower vs. torque for example)
Similarly, with politics we see a lot of concerned citizen who like politics and like to research into it and then make claims. But the vast majority have no academic background with which to critically evaluate and compare the various opinions and validate facts, skills which although I'm very anti-elitist I must admit are very hard to properly hone in the absence of university research experience. (because unbiased academic rigor in experiments/research is something nobody is going to just learn on their own)
So, which is it?
And then the other question comes to the kind of organization you work in and one's work experience. I've noticed far more criticism of bureaucratic processes from students and unskilled/skilled laborers than those who have worked in a corporate environment. The difference being, the latter realizes the difficulty in administering and enacting new processes or plainly, "getting stuff done" whereas the former hasn't really had the experience in a large headcount organization to know of the issues, and thus exhibits more of the "I know the right way to do things" mentality when it comes to politics.
Last edited by verc; 06-27-2009 at 03:01 PM.
06-27-2009 | 03:02 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 340
From: Monterey, CA
Car Info: Subaru STI
the cap and trade will affect HEAVY INDUSTRY and MANUFACTURING. and through MARKET FORCES (neo-classical economics...) force companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And all of my VERY conservative economics professors were talking about this over 5 years ago as a reasonable solution to the environmental goals we desire. If you really want to see what happens with no environmental regulation then go to china and run in a marathon. I don't think you will be breathing so easy.
I quote a salesman at Cobb tuning... "we stole the land from the buffalo, and we should respect what we have taken." (I bought their CATTED downpipe almost immediately there after.)
I quote a salesman at Cobb tuning... "we stole the land from the buffalo, and we should respect what we have taken." (I bought their CATTED downpipe almost immediately there after.)
06-27-2009 | 03:06 PM
#21
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 340
From: Monterey, CA
Car Info: Subaru STI
NYTimes :
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
06-27-2009 | 05:12 PM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,892
From: Hangin in Placerville youtube.com/rallydude1515
Car Info: 1999 RS Coupé- 1995 Mazda Miata -KTM 300
Well maybe not light, they are safer because they can perform, out brake etc and have less suspension travel than American cars.
last time i checked all mercedes are 3500+lbs most AMG's are 4000+ the roadster is 4000+ for 2 seats! WTF is all that extra weight?!
I'm jus sayin...you'd probably die rear ending someone in an Elise :/
They may weigh a few hundred pounds less, but 1200-1500!? 1500 is half the weight of your average car!
Our BMWs come off the same assembly line that theirs do dont they? besides CA's extra emissions step.
last time i checked all mercedes are 3500+lbs most AMG's are 4000+ the roadster is 4000+ for 2 seats! WTF is all that extra weight?!
I'm jus sayin...you'd probably die rear ending someone in an Elise :/
If you bring up the idea of the 40MPG cars or whatever that legislation is, that is also not very good. It means more people will die. The physics of cars, does not allow us much wiggle room, essentially it means cars will have to get smaller and lighter in order to meet these fuel economy guidelines. It's a matter of physics. It's also why the same sports cars in Europe weigh 1200-1500 lbs less, they have less steel, because in America, we decided that too many people were dying on the freeway.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
Oh wow, nobody is going to read this, anyway I wrote it.
Our BMWs come off the same assembly line that theirs do dont they? besides CA's extra emissions step.
Last edited by kYLEMtnCRUZr; 06-27-2009 at 05:21 PM.
06-27-2009 | 05:45 PM
#23
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,826
From: No Way
Car Info: Nadda
I've never really responded to any of your posts yet but... what's your background? You seem to have a lot of political opinion, and I want to know if this is due to your academic background in university, or if you're a casually concerned citizen.
Cause here's the thing, there's a lot of guys who like cars and like to research into them. But the vast majority have no mechanical engineering background and worse, not even a rudimentary calculus-based physics course and as a result SEVERELY misunderstand many of the concepts in automotive science (horsepower vs. torque for example)
Similarly, with politics we see a lot of concerned citizen who like politics and like to research into it and then make claims. But the vast majority have no academic background with which to critically evaluate and compare the various opinions and validate facts, skills which although I'm very anti-elitist I must admit are very hard to properly hone in the absence of university research experience. (because unbiased academic rigor in experiments/research is something nobody is going to just learn on their own)
So, which is it?
And then the other question comes to the kind of organization you work in and one's work experience. I've noticed far more criticism of bureaucratic processes from students and unskilled/skilled laborers than those who have worked in a corporate environment. The difference being, the latter realizes the difficulty in administering and enacting new processes or plainly, "getting stuff done" whereas the former hasn't really had the experience in a large headcount organization to know of the issues, and thus exhibits more of the "I know the right way to do things" mentality when it comes to politics.
Cause here's the thing, there's a lot of guys who like cars and like to research into them. But the vast majority have no mechanical engineering background and worse, not even a rudimentary calculus-based physics course and as a result SEVERELY misunderstand many of the concepts in automotive science (horsepower vs. torque for example)
Similarly, with politics we see a lot of concerned citizen who like politics and like to research into it and then make claims. But the vast majority have no academic background with which to critically evaluate and compare the various opinions and validate facts, skills which although I'm very anti-elitist I must admit are very hard to properly hone in the absence of university research experience. (because unbiased academic rigor in experiments/research is something nobody is going to just learn on their own)
So, which is it?
And then the other question comes to the kind of organization you work in and one's work experience. I've noticed far more criticism of bureaucratic processes from students and unskilled/skilled laborers than those who have worked in a corporate environment. The difference being, the latter realizes the difficulty in administering and enacting new processes or plainly, "getting stuff done" whereas the former hasn't really had the experience in a large headcount organization to know of the issues, and thus exhibits more of the "I know the right way to do things" mentality when it comes to politics.
If you would describe me as any politician, I back up Ron Paul 110%. He argues legitimate arguments, based on the constitution, strict constitutionalist. It pretty much sums up what we SHOULD be doing, rather than what we are doing right now. Yes it was created for interpretation, but seriously to me there is a lot of black and white and a lot less gray than everyone makes it seem.
eg. Bear Firearms, means EVERYTHING. Why the hell is there so much being done about tracking ammo, etc. to me that's unconstitutional, and in addition giving too much power to the government. Freedom of speech, **** the FCC, and what is going on with free radio right now? They're trying to tax or push off talk 650, I mean common it's IN THE CONSTITUTION. Why are there even bills that get considered like this? To me that is plain simple treason from what our fathers wanted to do with the constitution (protect the people).
Anywho, getting side tracked. I just disagree with the direction the country is moving, and how all of this crap we deal with is from what others are getting away with, and I think now is the time to start making some noise. That's why I post, besides my occasional questions and enthusiasm about Subaru's.
06-27-2009 | 10:22 PM
#26
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Although, I will mention that the buck stops at the oval office. Welcome to American politics.
06-28-2009 | 07:03 PM
#28
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 380
From: Nor Cal-- For Now
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
Then why does the autobahn in germany have a 27% lower death rate then american highways? When the average speed is well over 90 mph... oh thats right, there cars are built well and they are light. A heavy car is an unsafe car. it cant stop, it cant accelerate away from danger, and it cant turn under emergency situations... Don't you own a sports car???
Because in Germany it takes 6 months of training to get a license and you can't drive before age 18..
Has little to do with the cars.. There aren't as many wrecks in Germany.. (there was hardly ever one when I was there.. but the ones that happened on the Bahn were usually pretty nasty)
06-28-2009 | 07:11 PM
#29
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 380
From: Nor Cal-- For Now
Car Info: 05 PSM WRX
06-28-2009 | 08:49 PM
#30
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,892
From: Hangin in Placerville youtube.com/rallydude1515
Car Info: 1999 RS Coupé- 1995 Mazda Miata -KTM 300
but our "fathers" could've never imagined a place like Oakland or Salinas...therefore tracking ammo helps solve the case i presume.
It's like people that make a fuss of showing your ID at work/ school. its for your safety, but people think they just ask for your ID to inconvenience you.
It's like people that make a fuss of showing your ID at work/ school. its for your safety, but people think they just ask for your ID to inconvenience you.