Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Howard on September 18, 2019, 10:40:25 AM
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revoke-state-mileage-standards-draws-041210569.html
This is foolish. :(
-
You are wrong.
The most efficient way to reduce emissions would be to obliterate China and India.
But within the context of your article, Trump claims it will reduce emisisons by making cars cheaper and more affordable, thus increasing sales, and getting older, more pollutant models off the road.
Your counter this is "it won't".
Why?
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revoke-state-mileage-standards-draws-041210569.html
This is foolish. :(
In my opinion, the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is
to increase car mileage standards.
A gradual , modest increase in mileage standards is superior to some dopey "all green energy" plan.
We simply need to use fossil fuel more efficeintly. It's that simple.
The modern engineering of the internal combustion engine makes this easy and efficient.
ANYONE with a basic working knowledge of physics understands this.
Refusing to increase mileage won't increase jobs or help with auto production.
All it will do, is help increase pollution.
The basic scientific LOGIC of Trump's refusal to support the mileage increase , makes no sense.
Doesn't make sense to me either. Even folks who don't give a shit about green house gases like saving money on fuel. Good mileage was a consideration in my last auto purchase.
So, who really benefits from a relaxation of mileage requirements? Not John Q Public. The oil industry does. So much for representing the little guy.
-
California should comply with Federal mileage standards.
-
Doesn't make sense to me either. Even folks who don't give a shit about green house gases like saving money on fuel. Good mileage was a consideration in my last auto purchase.
So, who really benefits from a relaxation of mileage requirements? Not John Q Public. The oil industry does. So much for representing the little guy.
What is the avg disparity between mpg on the old / new standards, and what is the avg price differnece between cars manufactured under the old / new standards?
That is the only way to guage whether it benefits the consumer or not - does the saving in the purchase price more than offset the assumed gas savings?
Without that, you're just guessing.
-
California is an over-expensive, over-taxed shit hole run by a piece of shit of a man and his cronies. The federal government should send in the national guard and kick him out.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/revoke-state-mileage-standards-draws-041210569.html
This is foolish. :(
In my opinion, the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is
to increase car mileage standards.
A gradual , modest increase in mileage standards is superior to some dopey "all green energy" plan.
We simply need to use fossil fuel more efficeintly. It's that simple.
The modern engineering of the internal combustion engine makes this easy and efficient.
ANYONE with a basic working knowledge of physics understands this.
Refusing to increase mileage won't increase jobs or help with auto production.
All it will do, is help increase pollution.
The basic scientific LOGIC of Trump's refusal to support the mileage increase , makes no sense.
California is an over-expensive, over-taxed shit hole run by a piece of shit of a man and his cronies. The federal government should send in the national guard and kick him out.
Auto makers can meet or exceed whatever standards there are. If we want higher-mileage cars, our
demand will cause the auto makers to produce them. I see plenty of high-mileage cars for sale.
America produces 15% of the world’s GHG, and we produce less now than when Clinton was president.
China produces more GHG than the U.S. and E.U. combined and pays lip service to proposed reductions.
Remove the U.S. from the world and China, Russia, India, and Brazil would replace our GHG emissions in
a few years.
The story is about mileage standards affecting my state of CA, which also produces less GHG than when
Clinton was in office. We produce 1% of the world’s GHG emissions, and less than 1/3 of that 1% comes
from light trucks and cars. Increasing mileage standards is spitting in the wind, utter virtue signaling.
To reduce GHG we need to go nuclear. France generates 75% of its electricity from nuke plants, and Sweden
gets 40%. Japan is slowly increasing its use of nuclear power after shutting down all or most plants after Fukushima.
I just read about San Luis Obispo, CA requiring developers to fork over $6,000 for each new home that’s
connected to a natural gas line. The powers that be want new homes to be all electric - no gas stoves, heaters,
clothes dryers, or water heaters. $400-$500 monthly electric bills would be the norm for a house. Progressives
in Sacramento repeatedly float bills to ban the internal combustion engine by year whatever. They dream that
renewables will power a state of 40M people while a nuclear solution is staring them in the face.
-
What is the avg disparity between mpg on the old / new standards, and what is the avg price differnece between cars manufactured under the old / new standards?
That is the only way to guage whether it benefits the consumer or not - does the saving in the purchase price more than offset the assumed gas savings?
Without that, you're just guessing.
Sure. there's a cost to improving gas consumption standards and there's accommodating customer demand. Most of the adds I see for new cars talk about low mpg so this must be something people want. Whenever I've checked, hybrids and all electric engine vehicles were more expensive than their gasoline engine counterparts.
"While a gas car is the oldest traditional option, hybrid-based automobiles are acquiring reputation lately. After gaining ground in almost every auto category, from high-end sports cars to family sedans, hybrid vehicles are now the hot-selling ones." https://www.sterlingmccallford.com/hybrid-versus-gas-car.html
I purchased a new Mazda CX3 GT in 2016. It averages about 29 mph and I do a lot of city driving. My 2004 Mazda 6 with a V-6 averaged about 24 mph. It is hard to compare prices because I bought the 2004 used with 20,000 miles on it and the CX3 new with no miles. Also the CX3 has a ton of technology that wasn't available in 2004. I selected a car that has every possible luxury the CX3 offers. All that being said, the CX3 was about $7,000 more than the old Mazda. Considering inflation over 12 years, my guess is that the prices were comparable.
I didn't consider a hybrid or an electric vehicle because I don't drive enough miles to justify the difference in price verses the savings in gas. There are currently 21,000 miles on the Mazda CX3 and I've had it for about 3.5 years. Last year I think I drove it 5,000 miles.
The average price per gallon of gas nationally in 2016 was $2.17 and today it is over $3 a gallon. In June of 2008 gas was $4.11 per gal. and people started buying compact and sub-compacts with lower mileage.
-
States rights. Let them set their own standards and pay more for a specially made CA car.
-
He knows in 10 years the seas will rise and we'll all be driving airboats and swamp buggies. ::)
-
You are wrong.
The most efficient way to reduce emissions would be to obliterate China and India.
But within the context of your article, Trump claims it will reduce emisisons by making cars cheaper and more affordable, thus increasing sales, and getting older, more pollutant models off the road.
Your counter this is "it won't".
Why?
BINGO!!
Another problem with the left is that they tend to blame the right for all things environmental when in fact it's them who are the biggest culprits of what they blame the left for.
-
In conclusion, we don't need to drive small electric cars to be "green" friendly.
We simply need to have cars that get 15-20% better mileage then pre-2000 models.
My own 8 cyl mustang is a great example of the best of BOTH worlds.
This is why I think TRUMP is wrong.
Thanks for asking and reading my reply.
You're still not answering the question.
To keep it in the context of what I've been asking, let's assume the bolded guess you pulled out of thin air above is correct. If the extra cost of making those cars is, on the whole, prohibitive to consumers upgrading and cycling out older models, then Trump is right. If it's not, then he's wrong.
That's the crux of what he is saying - placing mileage restrictions will add to much to the price and consumers won't upgrade. All the other context being thrown out is irrelevant to that point.
-
California should comply with Federal mileage standards.
Wait until you read up on what CARB has in store for the future of the heavy truck industry.
I’m starting to think that Howard and Adam Schiff may not be the two most stupid human beings on the planet
-
Huh?
Your "logic" is like blaming the fans if you don't like the turf on the stadium field. ;)
I guess what I’m saying Howard is, the left do far worse than what they blame the right for. It’s kinda like do as I say but not as I do. Here’s a just another example of the left destroying our environment. I can tell you as a conservative that lives on the beach, I’m much more in tune with what goes on with the environment than what any leftists politician is or portrays.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/19/trump-threatens-epa-action-against-san-francisco-over-homeless-crisis/
-
What he needs to do is revoke DEF systems in new Diesel engines and Tier 4 final equipment motors. It’s a fucking nightmare to repair and the problems far outweigh whatever good they hoped to achieve.
-
Sweet sassy molassy, I posted a complete explanation with fact links.
Ok, let me give you the "cliff notes".
Ford spends over 8 BILLION in R&D for current cars we want to buy.
A few % more mpg won't make much of an impact in that kind of R&D budget.
* In simple terms , if the consumer wants it, the auto makers will produce it for a competitive price.
In fact, they extra mpg is often used as a selling point.
I looked at your link. It shows Ford's R&D spend, by year, over the last six years.
What it doesn't show is, if the cost of producing cars that meet California's standards affect peoples willingness to pay a higher price, or what that higher price is in relation to gas mileage.
-
Ok, fair enough.
The deal is that improved features AND increased mpg would increase car cost aprox 10%.
BUT, that cost would be LESS then the fuel savings for every driver.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2019/08/27/trump-links-car-prices-with-mpg-rules-critics-are-skeptical/2087375001/
In simple terms, the avg driver would get MORE back in fuel savings with required increases in mpg.
The required catalytic converters increased costs and REDUCED mpg.
I remember our family cars that used regular lead added gasoline ( *lead dissolved in the gas acted as lubricant).
Problem was , lead burned and was a horrible toxic pollutant.
You might have heard of the jokes about eating lead paint chips turns kids into retards . :-[
Doesn't seem like much of a joke. Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
-
Ok, fair enough.
The deal is that improved features AND increased mpg would increase car cost aprox 10%.
BUT, that cost would be LESS then the fuel savings for every driver.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2019/08/27/trump-links-car-prices-with-mpg-rules-critics-are-skeptical/2087375001/
In simple terms, the avg driver would get MORE back in fuel savings with required increases in mpg.
This is exactly what I was looking for. Will read and reply after work.
-
I think the US did a similar thing with the southeastern states back in April 1861.
How'd that work out? ;)
...what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.