Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am totally opposed to the provision to force use of long life bulbs. I think in time these will be shown to be much more immediately environmentally unfriendly due to the mercury content. We really don't need millions of these things being thrown into our landfills!!
these compact florecent bulbs do affect people with MS, sometimes making symptoms stronger, and harder to recover from.
For those of you who missed it, this week Congress approved a new bill forcing auto manufacturers to achieve a new average fuel economy standard for vehicles sold in the US. Links to a couple relevant articles are below.
I think the bill is weak. I find it very hard to believe that much higher fuel economy isn't easily achievable technologically. I also find it hard to believe that the new standards will really do much to conserve oil nor to help wean the US off of it. Why not set the standards much higher to something like an average of 50-75 mpg? Everyone knows it is plausible.
Sure it's weak compared to a fascist attempt to control the free market. Yet, it's undeniably strong compared to following the tenets of a consumer-driven free market economy where products are bought and sold based upon consumer desires and needs.
I heat and light my home with electrical energy from a nuclear power plant so I consider my self to be 'green" already. I also use incandescent bulbs because I consider them to be heating elements that give off a useful amount of light. I have switched a couple to halogen technology because they give off a brighter light.
As far as efficient autos are concerned, I am more interested in reduced cost than overall efficiency. My Roadmaster Wagon (4500 pounds or GM's finest) only gets about fifteen mpg on the short commute to the bus stop. I would have to drive a $30 k hybrid about a zillion years to make up the cost difference in fuel savings. Now when the Buick rusts out and used high mileage hybrids become available as used cars, I’ll consider buying one and installing a “plug-in kit” and doing my commute on nuclear power. Until then I just wish my salary increased at the same rate as the price of gasoline.
Technologically high mileage cars have been done. Early 90’s Honda civics for example or the 1965 VW Beetle we had for 12 years. High mileage vehicles and overloaded SUV and gussied up pick up trucks are another mater. On way of decreasing the population of these monsters is to make them way more expensive through appropriate taxation. Switching most of the long haul trucking to railroads would help out national fuel consumption far more than eliminating SUV’s. Switching the railroads to electric power would then save even more oil if the electricity were generated in new design nuclear power plants
All this is possible. It just takes political will and lots of money.
Hydrogen is a very, very difficult fuel to generate, store and use. Large industries and the NASA rocket men can afford to use the gas but IMHO if the general public were exposed to large scale Hydrogen use there would be terrible casualties. Hydrogen is dangerous. The most efficient transportable fuel is light oil combusted in a turbo Diesel as part of a hybrid drive system.
The Patent System is a good idea that has been abused for the benefit of the owners and the cost to the users. Surprise.
Sure it's weak compared to a fascist attempt to control the free market. Yet, it's undeniably strong compared to following the tenets of a consumer-driven free market economy where products are bought and sold based upon consumer desires and needs.
Uh huh, and most people I've known that own SUVs that get under 10MPG have TOLD me when I explain the environmental costs and the fact that cars like that degrade our national security as we have to play nice with known terrorist producing nations...
"I Don't give a damn, I want what I want and it's not my problem"
I've heard this attitude several times, even from friends.
The consumer marketplace has driven the credit crunch and the negative savings rate of America.
We don't even live in a free market country as it is, so let's not all get our little tiny flags out and wave them around while we fill up with $3.50 + gal. gas for AMERICA.
Uh huh, and most people I've known that own SUVs that get under 10MPG have TOLD me when I explain the environmental costs and the fact that cars like that degrade our national security as we have to play nice with known terrorist producing nations...
"I Don't give a damn, I want what I want and it's not my problem"
I've heard this attitude several times, even from friends.
The consumer marketplace has driven the credit crunch and the negative savings rate of America.
We don't even live in a free market country as it is, so let's not all get our little tiny flags out and wave them around while we fill up with $3.50 + gal. gas for AMERICA.
First, most SUV's don't get that low of mileage - oh, I know, some do.
Second, in some cases, those people driving the Hummers literally got them for free. That's right - FREE. The government paid them to buy them. Therefore, they can pay for an awful lot of gas and they will not feel it.
Third, they are, IMO, absolutely correct when they say - "they want it", that they should be able to buy it. That is after all, what our country is about.
As previously mentioned, our two SUV's get over 25mpg - and they are fairly large (Volvo's) - they do not hurt the enviornment. They are fun to drive. They suit our lifestyle. They serve our needs. We will not be getting rid of them anytime soon
SUV's have for the most part gotten a bad rap. Sure some of them don't get great gas mileage. But a lot of them do. Many of them do better than cars. My wife's CRV gets better mileage than my 97 Lexus ES300.
Many of the sports cars out there are actually the worst becaue they don't even have utility function. Getting 15 miles per gallon for style vs. getting 15mpg to have a vehicle that will hold the couple, 2 kids, and all their stuff seems more useful to me.
Anywho, better mileage is possible and it is coming fast. I think it will become a necessity for manufacturers to be competitive in that aspect and you can already see all of them touting their newest vehicles that get better MPG than others. That will become as big of a feature on a car as leather seats and cruise control is getting high mpg ratings. So overall, I don't think the new bill will push standards any further than they are right now. Its just more feel good legislation that does very little but gives politicians something to brag about. Meanwhile, good old supply and demand will be a bigger force in bringing some of the changes.
FYI, Chevy has pushed the MPG on its 500+ hp Corvette up to 27MPG highway. Not a hybrid either.
bush signed this bill to protect the auto industry from complying with California's and 16 other states stricter standards. Califonia's rule would force the automakers to reduce pollution commencing with the 2009 models. This is the first time California has been denied permission to impose stricter environmental protection laws. Isn't it great how this administration opposes "states rights" when it suits them.
Last edited by tigerlily; 12-20-2007 at 12:57 PM..
Reason: deleted duplicate sentence
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
E.P.A. Says 17 States Can’t Set Emission Rules
