Split court rules against Bush on greenhouse gases

Alexander Rogge wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/sc....ap/index.html
>
>"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on
>Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from
>cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.
>
>In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the
>Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions
>of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars."
>
>
>If we had more mass-transit and fewer traffic jams, we wouldn't need to
>worry so much about emissions from cars. Modern car engines are already
>much cleaner than they were years ago, and more legislation from
>environmental lobbyists probably won't improve them. We need a better,
>high-speed and clean-fuel transit network that would make cars for
>everyday transportation no longer a necessity.

Reduction of traffic jams would require re-education of the driving
populace, and that requires that said re-educaton actually worked.
Considering the stupidity of the majority of the motoring population,
you've got a snowball's chance in hell of resolving this issue.

As for mass transit, a very major portion of the USA does not have the
infrastructure or the population distribution to make it viable.


--

Ask me about drunk driving for fun and profit!

A nice .CMD for the group's spammers, for the broadband based regulars (requires wget):

:loop
@wget -m http://fat-pussy.aileenkeith.com/
@rd /s /q fat-pussy.aileenkeith.com
goto loop

In article >,
Alexander Rogge > wrote:
>> If you want to get rid of traffic jams, stop "traffic calming", road
>> narrowing, and other measures designed to make traffic worse.
>
>What's road narrowing? Isn't the usual problem the spending of money on
>wider roads, only to have them jammed up by Sloths?

Nope, it's when you take a wide road and literally narrow it.
Sometimes actually removing lanes, sometimes instead removing medians and
right/left turn lanes.

If the induced traffic crowd was right, this would make traffic
better. It doesn't.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Apr 2, 3:44 pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2007 15:15:48 -0700, "Larry Bud" > wrote:
>
> >On Apr 2, 1:58 pm, Alexander Rogge > wrote:
> >>http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/sc....ap/index.html
>
>
> >> In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the
> >> Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions
> >> of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars."
>
> >Mark this day: The beginning of the end of the US Auto Industry.
>
> You got it!
>
> There's only 1 way to attack this, and that's to make rollerskate cars.
>
> But Americans don't want rollerskate cars and won't buy 'em.

Exactly. This is the reason that Honda and Toyota have vanishingly
small market share in the U.S. - because people won't buy their small
cars.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> Exactly. This is the reason that Honda and Toyota have vanishingly
> small market share in the U.S. - because people won't buy their small
> cars.

Even the current civic is pretty porky compared to what it used to be. It
seems to me that both realize that the truely small car has a limited
market in the USA.

On Apr 9, 9:54 am, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > Exactly. This is the reason that Honda and Toyota have vanishingly
> > small market share in the U.S. - because people won't buy their small
> > cars.
>
> Even the current civic is pretty porky compared to what it used to be. It
> seems to me that both realize that the truely small car has a limited
> market in the USA.

What, like Scions?

"Truly small cars" is sort of a fuzzy definition.

Honda and Toyota built market share in the U.S. by offering small
cars. And even in their current size and weight, they still are more
fuel-efficient than the others in their classes. (Carbon-related
content.)

This B.S. about Americans not wanting small cars is shown to be what
it is by where Honda and Toyota sit in the U.S. market, and what
sells, and how much.

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 9, 9:54 am, (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > Exactly. This is the reason that Honda and Toyota have vanishingly
>> > small market share in the U.S. - because people won't buy their small
>> > cars.

>> Even the current civic is pretty porky compared to what it used to be. It
>> seems to me that both realize that the truely small car has a limited
>> market in the USA.

> What, like Scions?

A couple of them are the limited few remaining.

> "Truly small cars" is sort of a fuzzy definition.

Define your "small car" then. I defined my term as something like the
1972 honda civic.

> Honda and Toyota built market share in the U.S. by offering small
> cars.

Smaller than SUVs. But they also make SUVs of their own. The 'big three'
also make cars smaller than SUVs.

> And even in their current size and weight, they still are more
> fuel-efficient than the others in their classes. (Carbon-related
> content.)

Which may be why the japanese makes cars sell more than others of the
same size and weight, but is not relevant to the question of americans
not wanting small cars. If americans wanted small cars, the civic would
be the same size and weight it was in 1972.

> This B.S. about Americans not wanting small cars is shown to be what
> it is by where Honda and Toyota sit in the U.S. market, and what
> sells, and how much.

Ok, where are these small cars? I can name quite a few that haven't been
built since the 1980s. But like the large cars they've pretty much
died out even if their nameplate didn't.

The current civic coupe has a 104.3in wheelbase. My '73 2dr maverick has a
103!! (a '73 civic has a 86.6in wheelbase) The civic has practically grown
up a full size class. A mazda protoege (323) is about the same size as
mid 80s 626. There are market reasons why these cars grew, and it's not a
preference for small cars.

On Apr 9, 11:43 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 9:54 am, (Brent P) wrote:
> >> In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > Exactly. This is the reason that Honda and Toyota have vanishingly
> >> > small market share in the U.S. - because people won't buy their small
> >> > cars.
> >> Even the current civic is pretty porky compared to what it used to be. It
> >> seems to me that both realize that the truely small car has a limited
> >> market in the USA.
> > What, like Scions?
>
> A couple of them are the limited few remaining.

And Hyundai, and Kia, which both offer small cars - and each is a
growing segment of the U.S. market. VW is thinking about introducing
their small Polo here.

> > "Truly small cars" is sort of a fuzzy definition.
>
> Define your "small car" then. I defined my term as something like the
> 1972 honda civic.

Smaller than truck-based stuff and full-sized stuff from American
manufacturers.

> > Honda and Toyota built market share in the U.S. by offering small
> > cars.
>
> Smaller than SUVs. But they also make SUVs of their own.

Which, if you look at the sales, are a very small share of their
overall sales.

> The 'big three'
> also make cars smaller than SUVs.

Which, if you look at sales, trail the Japanese by a large margin in
everything except fleet sales.

The demand for small cars is there. Whether they be your "truly
small" '73 Civic, or merely "smaller than most other cars currently
available new" '07 Corolla, the demand is there.

Which sort of kills Dave's generalization, and your attempt at being
pedantic.

E.P.

In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> And Hyundai, and Kia, which both offer small cars - and each is a
> growing segment of the U.S. market.

They aren't Toyota and Honda. Also note the growth of the excel since the
80s and how hyundai is moving towards larger vehicles.

> VW is thinking about introducing their small Polo here.

Lots of thinking that doesn't come to anything goes on.

>> > "Truly small cars" is sort of a fuzzy definition.

>> Define your "small car" then. I defined my term as something like the
>> 1972 honda civic.

> Smaller than truck-based stuff and full-sized stuff from American
> manufacturers.

That's just about every passenger car on the market.

>> The 'big three' also make cars smaller than SUVs.

> Which, if you look at sales, trail the Japanese by a large margin in
> everything except fleet sales.

As you cut out, there may be reasons other than size there.

> The demand for small cars is there. Whether they be your "truly
> small" '73 Civic, or merely "smaller than most other cars currently
> available new" '07 Corolla, the demand is there.

smaller, not small, except by your 1950s concept of small.

> Which sort of kills Dave's generalization, and your attempt at being
> pedantic.

My concept of small cars dates from the 70s and 80s, not the 1950s where
the Ford Falcon was considered rather small.

The growth of the cars indicates that 1970s-80s small cars, the ones which
dave was probably thinking of don't sell all that well these days in the US.

On Apr 9, 1:12 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > And Hyundai, and Kia, which both offer small cars - and each is a
> > growing segment of the U.S. market.
>
> They aren't Toyota and Honda.

So? They are small cars. Americans buy them. And buy more of them
every year.

The market for small cars exists, contrary to Dave's assertion.

> > VW is thinking about introducing their small Polo here.
>
> Lots of thinking that doesn't come to anything goes on.

If the demand wasn't there, VW wouldn't even consider it. The costs
of Federalizing a car are very high.

> >> > "Truly small cars" is sort of a fuzzy definition.
> >> Define your "small car" then. I defined my term as something like the
> >> 1972 honda civic.
> > Smaller than truck-based stuff and full-sized stuff from American
> > manufacturers.
>
> That's just about every passenger car on the market.

Dave did mention something about SUVs, if you recall...

> > The demand for small cars is there. Whether they be your "truly
> > small" '73 Civic, or merely "smaller than most other cars currently
> > available new" '07 Corolla, the demand is there.
>
> smaller, not small, except by your 1950s concept of small.

My definition? I don't recall bringing "'73 Civic" into the
conversation...

> > Which sort of kills Dave's generalization, and your attempt at being
> > pedantic.
>
> My concept of small cars dates from the 70s and 80s, not the 1950s where
> the Ford Falcon was considered rather small.

"Your concept" of small cars means what? Small cars, in whatever
relative era, have grown as a segment of the market share of sold
automobiles.

Whether or not the absolute size has grown as well is irrelevant.
Folks buy small cars. The 'a 50s Nash is smaller than a modern Civic'
argument isn't really relevant to the refutation of Dave's assertion.

> The growth of the cars indicates that 1970s-80s small cars, the ones which
> dave was probably thinking of don't sell all that well these days in the US.

How do you know that's what Dave was "probably thinking of"?

E.P.

In article .com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:12 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > And Hyundai, and Kia, which both offer small cars - and each is a
>> > growing segment of the U.S. market.
>>
>> They aren't Toyota and Honda.
>
> So? They are small cars. Americans buy them. And buy more of them
> every year.

> The market for small cars exists, contrary to Dave's assertion.

I replied to *YOUR* comment regarding toyota and honda.

>> > VW is thinking about introducing their small Polo here.

>> Lots of thinking that doesn't come to anything goes on.

> If the demand wasn't there, VW wouldn't even consider it. The costs
> of Federalizing a car are very high.

Or it could be that in places like chicago's northside having a VW is the
trendy thing.... How do you know it has to do with size instead of say
price or style?

>> >> > "Truly small cars" is sort of a fuzzy definition.
>> >> Define your "small car" then. I defined my term as something like the
>> >> 1972 honda civic.

>> > Smaller than truck-based stuff and full-sized stuff from American
>> > manufacturers.

>> That's just about every passenger car on the market.

> Dave did mention something about SUVs, if you recall...

I wasn't addressing dave's comment. I was pointing out that toyota's and
honda's have been growing in size. If small was in such demand, why would
they be growing larger?

>> > The demand for small cars is there. Whether they be your "truly
>> > small" '73 Civic, or merely "smaller than most other cars currently
>> > available new" '07 Corolla, the demand is there.

>> smaller, not small, except by your 1950s concept of small.

> My definition? I don't recall bringing "'73 Civic" into the
> conversation...

Obviously you miss the point on purpose. You've defined small car to be
anything smaller than ford crown victoria in a effort to shore up
something you didn't think out.

>> > Which sort of kills Dave's generalization, and your attempt at being
>> > pedantic.

>> My concept of small cars dates from the 70s and 80s, not the 1950s where
>> the Ford Falcon was considered rather small.

> "Your concept" of small cars means what? Small cars, in whatever
> relative era, have grown as a segment of the market share of sold
> automobiles.

When you define 'small' as anything smaller than a crown victoria
well.... And your statement of market growth is vague as well. From what
to what? The market share of cars smaller than crown victoria hasn't even
recovered from the SUV craze yet in terms of market share.

> Whether or not the absolute size has grown as well is irrelevant.

So why are you bringing it up?

> Folks buy small cars.

Pretty easy when you define 'small' as anything smaller than ford crown
victoria.

> The 'a 50s Nash is smaller than a modern Civic'
> argument isn't really relevant to the refutation of Dave's assertion.

Where did nash come from?

>> The growth of the cars indicates that 1970s-80s small cars, the ones which
>> dave was probably thinking of don't sell all that well these days in the US.

> How do you know that's what Dave was "probably thinking of"?

The same way you think he meant anything smaller than a crown victoria.