|
|
Post by bluemingidiot on Aug 16, 2016 21:42:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Aug 16, 2016 23:33:58 GMT
remember obama's campaign promise to deindustrialize the usa ?
people cheered him when he said it, not sure the people cheering knew what it meant
turns out it is one of the few promises he kept
|
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Aug 17, 2016 3:22:28 GMT
If they were serious about controlling emissions, they would limit private vehicles to sparsely populated rural areas where public transit is not economical. Long distance would be rail only and buses/trolleys/rail to get around cities. Trains are by far the most efficient way to move both people and freight across country unless you have a river or canal handy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemingidiot on Aug 17, 2016 11:31:55 GMT
If they were serious about emissions they wouldn't keep developing 'downtowns' that more and more people have to drive to from further and further away and require more and more of the most expensive infrastructure and more and more expensive public transportation which translates into more and more taxes. And they would offer tax incentives for developing more telecommute jobs.
Emissions standards are just liberal ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperkid3 on Aug 17, 2016 13:21:55 GMT
Blissfully ignorant would be the correct terminology.
They really don't care if the people are taxed into extinction....
at least they died with 'clean' air.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoozy on Aug 17, 2016 15:25:34 GMT
You're going to die anyway -- at least your descendents will be able to breathe. I am glad for emissions regulations. Anytime a pre-emissions standards vehicle drives past me as I'm walking or anytime I'm driving in the smelly wake of one, I realize what a difference there is. And I am thankful for a Congress that actually did something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by indypartridge on Aug 17, 2016 16:56:22 GMT
I worked about 20 years in the heavy-duty transportation area (embedded electronic controls). The gov't can set standards, but after 100 years, the internal combustion engine has been optimized about as much as can be done. The MPG standards are generally met by using lighter components - less steel, more plastic, and emission standards are met by expensive after treatments (e.g., catalytic converters). Often, these two goals (higher MPG, lower emissions) are in conflict when it comes to engine/transmission/vehicle design (the recent Volkswagen scandal where they essentially 'turned off' the emissions control in order to improve performance is a good example).
The claim that these mandates will end up saving consumers money is laughable. Remember when Obamacare was going to save the average family $2500 per year?
|
|
|
|
Post by copperkid3 on Aug 17, 2016 17:32:34 GMT
You're going to die anyway -- at least your descendents will be able to breathe. I am glad for emissions regulations. Anytime a pre-emissions standards vehicle drives past me as I'm walking or anytime I'm driving in the smelly wake of one, I realize what a difference there is. And I am thankful for a Congress that actually did something about it. Dying breathing 'free' air and dying to breath free are two vastly different destinations. Anytime that congress gets around to doing something, you can be sure that they only have their own interests at heart ~ not the peoples'. They create bureacratic monsters that are beholding to no one; after they've served their function, they continue to expound on its' perimeters to insure that they become firmly entrenched ~ parasites as it were on the host and no amount of pesticides will drive them off. Eventually they will kill who they 'serve'..... but what the hey.....we'll all be breathing clean air and drinking clean water....if we are the chosen and can afford them as well. But make no mistake about it; neither we, nor our posterity will be doing it freely. Those who are supposed to work and serve the 'people' have instead switched the roles around. We are the slaves ~ 'they' are the masters! |
|
|
|
Post by copperkid3 on Aug 17, 2016 17:37:26 GMT
Remember when Obamacare was going to save the average family $2500 per year? I remember ..... especially that part about, "You like your doctor? You can keep your doctor!!!"
Or how about this whopper?
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
— Barack Obama, October 30, 2008.
Obama said that he planned to “Fundamentally Transform America.” At least he has remained true to that promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by oggie on Aug 17, 2016 17:49:00 GMT
There is a tremendous waste of fuel in the United States, today.
It's almost impossible to imagine the gallons of diesel fuel burned up moving millions of tons of cat food and kitty litter into thousands of stores nationwide. Then, people waste gasoline driving their cars to the stores to buy it and then back home again. On top of that, garbage trucks have to roam the streets, picking up all of that discarded (and highly toxic) cat litter.
And that doesn't even include the millions of toys bought online and shipped to homes to distract household cats from implementing their evil plans of world domination.
|
|
|
|
Post by comfortablynumb on Aug 17, 2016 18:02:26 GMT
I agree poo poo on emissions standards.
I wanna choke on thick yellow air like the Chinese do. I want our fine cities shrouded in smog like the good old days.
Emissions standards never did anyone any good. Harumph.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Aug 17, 2016 18:49:55 GMT
I worked about 20 years in the heavy-duty transportation area (embedded electronic controls). The gov't can set standards, but after 100 years, the internal combustion engine has been optimized about as much as can be done. The MPG standards are generally met by using lighter components - less steel, more plastic, and emission standards are met by expensive after treatments (e.g., catalytic converters). Often, these two goals (higher MPG, lower emissions) are in conflict when it comes to engine/transmission/vehicle design (the recent Volkswagen scandal where they essentially 'turned off' the emissions control in order to improve performance is a good example). The claim that these mandates will end up saving consumers money is laughable. Remember when Obamacare was going to save the average family $2500 per year? Funny thing, those low fat diets just never work. They maybe using more plastic but vehicles have gotten heavier. My old '89 Ford Festiva is 1500 pound. Smallest sub compact now is around 2500 pound. Last fall I bought a '94 Ford Ranger. It is 4200 pound!!!!!! I remember when full size pickup was 3800 pound!!!!!! My '84 Ranger was less than 3000 pound. The real need is to engineer cities so people drive less, not make super complex cars that cost a fortune to buy and repair, yet everybody if forced to own in order to get to work. In other words put the residential areas close to the jobs. Then give incentive to use public transportation. |
|
|
|
Post by copperkid3 on Aug 17, 2016 18:51:42 GMT
I agree poo poo on emissions standards. I wanna choke on thick yellow air like the Chinese do. I want our fine cities shrouded in smog like the good old days. Emissions standards never did anyone any good. Harumph. How can anyone (oggie?) take you seriously, numb? Even your icon has a kitten prominently displayed within it! |
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Aug 17, 2016 18:54:47 GMT
Remember when Obamacare was going to save the average family $2500 per year? I remember ..... especially that part about, "You like your doctor? You can keep your doctor!!!"
Nah, didnt like him all that much. Those 10 minute rendezvous were never all that satisfying.... and kinda expensive when my pre-Obamacare insurance refused to cover anything. |
|
|
|
Post by hermitjohn on Aug 17, 2016 19:10:42 GMT
You're going to die anyway -- at least your descendents will be able to breathe. I am glad for emissions regulations. Anytime a pre-emissions standards vehicle drives past me as I'm walking or anytime I'm driving in the smelly wake of one, I realize what a difference there is. And I am thankful for a Congress that actually did something about it. Pre-pollution era vehicles if properly tuned dont pollute more than modern cars when warmed up and going down road. Most of extra pollution is during the cold start/run phase. Computers can control fuel mixture on vehicle running cold much better than choke on a carburetor. And unfortunately few people properly tuned the older engines. The big lie that started back in the 70s was the rules that tried to regulate percentages of certain pollutants expelled. This ended up reducing fuel mileage significantly. While total amount of pollutants expelled per mile would be more logical. Vehicles getting best fuel mileage are vehicles that pollute the least. Less fuel burned per mile, less total pollutants produced. All that extra fuel used has to go somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Awnry Abe on Aug 18, 2016 2:32:26 GMT
I'll just buy a Volkswagon. They'll meet any standard you can imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by willowgirl on Aug 18, 2016 3:23:03 GMT
I wonder what this will do to the resale value of older trucks?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemingidiot on Aug 18, 2016 11:27:06 GMT
Generally, older vehicles, with more emissions, tend to be more powerful and simple. Power and simplicity will always have devotees.
|
|
|
|
Post by willowgirl on Aug 18, 2016 11:53:24 GMT
And the higher price of new trucks may drive more people into the 'used' market as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperkid3 on Sept 5, 2016 0:29:11 GMT
And the higher price of new trucks may drive more people into the 'used' market as well. After Obama's failed "Cash-4-Clunkers", that isn't very likely; hard to find those good, used cars anymore. The least one can expect from a bailout program is that it helps the firms it is supposed to bail out.
Cash for Clunkers was so clumsily designed that it did not even accomplish that. Instead, it harmed
the industry that it was meant help. It is hard to say whether one can extrapolate from this program
to all of the administration’s stimulus spending, but this program was specifically touted as having, again,
“succeeded well beyond our expectations.” Perhaps then the president’s critics are on to something when
they claim that his policies harmed the economy just when the country could least afford it.
The federal government spent $3 billion on Cash for Clunkers, and by doing so it reduced spending on new cars by,
you guessed it, $3 billion. The program, which was somehow found to be consistent with the Obama doctrine of
“don’t do stupid stuff,” cost both taxpayers and carmakers $3 billion. Staggering.
www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/14/obamas-cash-for-clunkers-stimulus-bailout-failed-car-companies |
|
|
|
Post by wally on Sept 6, 2016 10:15:32 GMT
I have to laugh when folks complain about truck exhaust. It's the same ones that are on the road that trucks built while living in a house that hauled the lumber to
|
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Sept 7, 2016 2:57:33 GMT
Not many apparently remember what smog is really like. One time I took the AT&SF El Capitan from Chicago to Los Angeles. Stopped at Pasadena and we could get off an walk around. Wasn't long before back on the train with watery eyes and nose running. That was 1956 when stationed at Camp Pendleton for 3 years. LA was definitely not a favorable liberty city. They later cleaned up their smog problem and I see no reason why the rest of the country can't accept the fact that it's easier and cheaper to prevent it than cure it.
Martin
|
|
