A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Saturn
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old January 18th 09, 07:42 PM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,429
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

In article >,
Jeff > wrote:
>>
>> Buses put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than cars. =A0And trucks
>> (which are not impacted by public transportation) do most of the
>> damage. =A0So no, you won't get less wear by increasing public
>> transportation use. Buses also cause traffic delays and belch enormous
>> clouds of diesel smoke.

>
>So having 20 cars is better for the roads than one bus?


As far as wear is concerned, likely so. Road wear goes up much
greater than linearly with weight.


--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress
Ads
  #72  
Old January 18th 09, 07:58 PM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 599
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

Jeff wrote:
> Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and
> San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has
> very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot
> more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a
> lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at
> some world-class universities.


Bull. There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of
it in order to MAKE it expensive.

> The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England
> states.


Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to
impossible to build or expand power plants. Thus it's a race to see
which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. Up to last
year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat
in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's
economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first.

> I don't know how much of this has to do with environmental
> regulations. Much of the cost might have to with the free market
> system where utilities bought electricity from companies like Enron.
> California now gets a lot of its electricity from burning natural gas.


California has put off the problem for a few years by building wind
power plants (and forcing utilities to subsidize them), but the sites
where they'll work are pretty much exhausted (unlike New England, where
I hear Ted Kennedy still prevents them being built where they would
spoil the view from his beachfront house).

> However, I don't consider environmentalists nuts. Rather, they are
> people who like the environment that we all share to survive. I don't
> see what is so nutty about that.


Two things are nutty about the environmental movement. One is that it
is based on assertions of emergencies that just don't exist (and the
fact they don't exist is obvious to anyone who knows what he's talking
about). The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only
two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the
free market and new technology.

You need to read the works of Julian Simon, especially "The Ultimate
Resource 2".
  #73  
Old January 19th 09, 01:02 AM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
Jeff[_45_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, John David Galt >
wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and
> > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has
> > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot
> > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a
> > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at
> > some world-class universities.

>
> Bull. *There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
> housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of
> it in order to MAKE it expensive.


No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the
future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest.

> > The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England
> > states.

>
> Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to
> impossible to build or expand power plants. *Thus it's a race to see
> which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. *Up to last
> year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat
> in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's
> economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first.


Certainly, with so many companies making do with the technology they
have, the economic slowdown has greatly affected many companies in the
Silicon Valley area, causing many lay-offs. The state universities
have limited the number of students in attendance and cut budgets,
which affects the communities in which the universities are based. The
economic problems have limited biotech R&D as well as biotech and
technology IPOs as well as start-ups. Clearly, these problems were not
caused by the gubinator.

> > I don't know how much of this has to do with environmental
> > regulations. Much of the cost might have to with the free market
> > system where utilities bought electricity from companies like Enron.
> > California now gets a lot of its electricity from burning natural gas.

>
> California has put off the problem for a few years by building wind
> power plants (and forcing utilities to subsidize them), but the sites
> where they'll work are pretty much exhausted (unlike New England, where
> I hear Ted Kennedy still prevents them being built where they would
> spoil the view from his beachfront house).


Not to mention by using other forms of solar energy (the winds are
created by energy from the sun).

> > However, I don't consider environmentalists nuts. Rather, they are
> > people who like the environment that we all share to survive. I don't
> > see what is so nutty about that.

>
> Two things are nutty about the environmental movement. *One is that it
> is based on assertions of emergencies that just don't exist (and the
> fact they don't exist is obvious to anyone who knows what he's talking
> about).


I have to disagree with you here. There are major environmental
problems, like the lowering of thee water tables and water shortages
in many parts of the world, including US West, global heating,
disappearing forests, decrease ocean pH (as result of CO2, which is an
acid) and a generally degraded environment.

> The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only
> two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the
> free market and new technology.


The free market system doesn't work properly unless the enviornmental
cost is included. I see what you mean. It is not like any
environmentalists are suggesting people use electric cars, hybrid
cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, power from waves,
improved computer efficiency, flourescent lights or anything like
that.

> You need to read the works of Julian Simon, especially "The Ultimate
> Resource 2".


Jeff
  #74  
Old January 19th 09, 03:13 AM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
Brent[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,430
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

On 2009-01-19, Jeff > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, John David Galt >
> wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and
>> > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has
>> > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot
>> > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a
>> > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at
>> > some world-class universities.

>>
>> Bull. *There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
>> housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of
>> it in order to MAKE it expensive.

>
> No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the
> future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest.


If you want to preserve land you buy it add rules to the title and pass
it on in your family or to a group that will preserve it by obeying your
legally binding wishes.

A national forest or other government controlled land is protected so
long politics make it so. Those in government will gladly lease the land
to their friends to exploit the natural resources. Not being owners but
merely renters of 'public land' they will destroy it entirely.

Passing laws to restrict your neighbors from building on their land
after you built on yours is just plain incompatible with liberty.

>> The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only
>> two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the
>> free market and new technology.


> The free market system doesn't work properly unless the enviornmental
> cost is included. I see what you mean. It is not like any
> environmentalists are suggesting people use electric cars, hybrid
> cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, power from waves,
> improved computer efficiency, flourescent lights or anything like
> that.


The free market does include the environmental cost. Except there hasn't
been a free market in the modern age. What was decided is that
certain people were allowed to foul their neighbors' and public lands
and waterways. A true free-market property rights system would have
requred that the pollution remain on the property of those creating it
or otherwise safely disposed of.

The system that is in place is one where the government allows those
with the right connections in the political system can dump a particular
amount of their wastes into the waterways, are allowed to have so much
pollution damage their neighbors' property and so on. Then instead of
actually going to a property rights point of view environmentalists want
to tax end users for the 'environmental cost' of the products. The
tax is placed on products that are made regardless of how
responsible the manufacturer is and favors the politically connected
persons (who are favored by the existing regulations). It's absurd.

True environmental costs will be reflected once we have system
based on property rights instead of political power.



  #75  
Old January 19th 09, 03:52 AM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 530
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, John David Galt >
wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and
> > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has
> > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot
> > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a
> > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at
> > some world-class universities.

>
> Bull. *There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
> housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of
> it in order to MAKE it expensive.
>
> > The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England
> > states.

>
> Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to
> impossible to build or expand power plants. *Thus it's a race to see
> which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. *Up to last
> year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat
> in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's
> economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first.


New England (at least my part) has the means to create plenty of clean
power. The nuke plant in Seabrook was supposed to have a second
reactor, but that was squashed. The amount of additional power that
second reactor would generate is huge.

There is also a plan in the works for underwater turbine in the
Piscataqua river. We'll have to see how that progresses.

There is currently a company in Newburyport, Mark Ritchey Woodworking,
that is putting up a wind turbine to provide their own power. It's in
the middle of an industrial park, not like it overlooks anyone's
yard. Still, opposition was fierce and they were dragged to court
countless times over it until the judge finally had enough and gave
them the go-ahead while pre-emptively squashing any further appeals.

It can be done, and we have the means. The problem is those opposing
every step to get it done, while of course running 5 ACs in the summer
and being part of the cause of the brown-outs. Everyone wants
"something done", but whenever anyone does something those same people
object. It's both frustrating and amusing to watch.
  #76  
Old January 22nd 09, 07:39 AM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
John David Galt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 599
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

>> Bull. There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
>> housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of
>> it in order to MAKE it expensive.


> No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the
> future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest.


If there were ever a shortage of scenic, natural terrain, then the price
of land kept that way would rise enough that it would pay to maintain it
and charge admission to the hikers, campers, and hunters.

The fact that it hasn't happened yet through the free market shows that
there is no such shortage, nor any prospect of one. Way too much land
is unbuilt and going to waste now. Anyone who tells you different is
lying.
  #77  
Old January 22nd 09, 11:45 AM posted to alt.autos.toyota,rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.volvo,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.saturn
P J
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!

"John David Galt" > wrote:
> If there were ever a shortage of scenic, natural terrain, then the
> price
> of land kept that way would rise enough that it would pay to maintain
> it
> and charge admission to the hikers, campers, and hunters.
>
> The fact that it hasn't happened yet through the free market shows
> that
> there is no such shortage, nor any prospect of one. Way too much land
> is unbuilt and going to waste now. Anyone who tells you different is
> lying.


You just need to fly across the country and look out the window to see
how much land is uninhabited.
pj

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! Tim Howard Driving 133 January 22nd 09 03:14 PM
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! Tim Howard Honda 116 January 22nd 09 11:45 AM
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers Tim Howard General 35 January 18th 09 01:25 AM
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! Tim Howard BMW 38 January 12th 09 01:25 PM
Bicyclists - Best way to punish drivers who endanger you Laura Bush murdered her boy friend Driving 271 February 25th 05 07:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.