That’s a plan?
Seems more like a fiat to me (pun intended).
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 19th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I had no idea 95% of Americans didn’t buy cars.
Hey maybe that’s why the big thre are having so much trouble!
May 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Goodbye, Capitalist economy, it was nice knowing you. Welcome, Socialist Overlords! Under Dear Leader (in some parts He’s still known as a Good Man) we will soon be cooking and eating nice hotplates filled with poke salat and fried kudzu. If we are allowed to build a fire under AlGore’s new ‘Mothering Earth’ precepts, that is.
May 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The Democrat media will spin this as great news, but the reality is that we will get to buy lighter, more expensive cars, leading to more death on the highways.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Last I checked, if you wanna buy a heavy car, you still can. Cars weigh less all the time, and yet total deaths per mile driven go down because cars handle better and shield their occupants better. You can’t simply argue by fiat (heh) that weight = safety.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
That said…yeah, this is stupid. Cars and trucks are less than 10% of all carbon emissions. If you wanna reduce emissions, stimulate alternative technologies like nuclear, solar, biofuel, and wind (which is really indirectly solar).
May 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
As in…to use them for power grid purposes, BTW…ie, where most of our energy consumption actually is.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Heh! I just bought a used ’98 Toyota Tacoma. Unless O’Dumbo starts FORCING people to turn in their old cars for the new enviro-crap, this one should last me well beyond the new changes and price hikes, until some of the latest-and-greatest come on the used market. And somwhere in there I wanted to add something about a shakedown of new technology until it became tried-and-true.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
If you really were really-serious about seriously reducing emissions you’d put a cap on volcanoes and force them to stop operating.
Why can’t the SEIU clean up volcanos? It’s the job of a lifetime.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Ah yes, the old volcanoes canard. I think the still living Elvis and the aliens at Area 51 are working on it.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Seb-PGP:
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “stupid.” For starters, it does help reduce our oil dependency, which there are good reasons to do that have nothing to do with CO2. And for another, the CO2 problem is pervasive, and not one for which there’s any “magic bullet” solution. So while an increase in vehicle efficiency isn’t going to magically solve the problem (or even get us most of the way there), the impact won’t be insignificant, either.
Otherwise, with the exception of nuclear (a long debate, so I won’t digress), I agree with much of what you say about grid power. I’d also add retrofitting existing coal plants that are more than 5 or 10 years old to modern efficiency standards. You could produce more power while using less carbon if you did just that.
May 19th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
The reason I find it kinda silly is that it’s kinda like focusing on women who beat their husbands when discussing domestic violence–you’re not addressing 90% of the issue (and while I think the people who perpetuate the idea that we greenie weenies are universally against nuclear power are fucking stupid…so are people who pretend that nukes don’t open a whole nuther can o’worms…it ain’t like we can bring nuke plants on line overnight…but from what I’ve read the nuclear waste problem is pretty overstated…the reality is we’re going to HAVE to harness the power of the atom much like we’re going to HAVE to curb carbon emissions).