60 mpg by 2025

[Coronita]

[quote=afx114][quote=flu]For example, the gay-marriage ban in CA. Personally, I had no issues with gay-marriage, but the voters did speak that they wanted the ban. Why should a judge be allowed to overturn what the people wanted? Same thing could be said about the immigration bill in Arizona. And this is also why CA will never do anything to take care of immigration issues/etc.[/quote]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but not necessarily with your specific examples. It’s not so cut and dry as “overturning the will of the people” when it comes to civil rights. I would argue, and I’m guessing the judges you mention would argue as well, that civil rights are not subject to popular vote or legislation. At one time the majority of the people wanted interracial marriage banned, but the will of the majority was overturned for the rights of the minority. In many ways, this is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly why the balance of power was designed the way it was.[/quote]

Fine. I don’t want to argue over these two hot topics in this thread. There’s another thread about that.
I think you get my point…What I meant to say is that democracy isn’t necessarily the most efficient form of bring change, but I wouldn’t want to live in a planned/totalitarian government either.

[Coronita]

[quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)

[Coronita]

[quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)

[Coronita]

[quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)

[Coronita]

[quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)

[Coronita]

[quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]

I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.

Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.

Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.

Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]

I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.

Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.

Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.

Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]

I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.

Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.

Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.

Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]

I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.

Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.

Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.

Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]

“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]

I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.

Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.

Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.

Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.

[equalizer]

[quote=flu][quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)[/quote]
It’s not a single choice between no safety and 60mpg and 60mph. Horsepower has gone up significantly in last 10-15 years in typical sedan while mileage has stayed same or even gone up! I’m sure you can pull up the stats. If gas prices go back to $5/gallon, then consumers will demand that future efficiency (over say 170HP for simple sedan) increase be transferred to mileage instead of horsepower. Knew some big guys who carpooled in Geo Metro from early 90’s with 3 cylinder engine with nearly 50mpg. Just don’t let anything hit you.

The greatest threat to auto safety besides the tyrannical DUI drivers is texting, game playing on that phone by teenagers. What we need is a tough new driving test similar to those in European countries. Flu, I bet you could come up with some ideas. What about taking written test on ipad while parallel parking? My only driving experience over there was in Madrid. Wow, that was tough cause I couldn’t figure out to put car in reverse with the manual stick. Had to stop at a gas station with someone who showed me the slider on gear that you had to pull up. He probably shaked his head, “American”. Got lost from Airport to hotel, but luckily on Sunday morning with no traffic, otherwise I would just returned to the Airport following signs!

[equalizer]

[quote=flu][quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)[/quote]
It’s not a single choice between no safety and 60mpg and 60mph. Horsepower has gone up significantly in last 10-15 years in typical sedan while mileage has stayed same or even gone up! I’m sure you can pull up the stats. If gas prices go back to $5/gallon, then consumers will demand that future efficiency (over say 170HP for simple sedan) increase be transferred to mileage instead of horsepower. Knew some big guys who carpooled in Geo Metro from early 90’s with 3 cylinder engine with nearly 50mpg. Just don’t let anything hit you.

The greatest threat to auto safety besides the tyrannical DUI drivers is texting, game playing on that phone by teenagers. What we need is a tough new driving test similar to those in European countries. Flu, I bet you could come up with some ideas. What about taking written test on ipad while parallel parking? My only driving experience over there was in Madrid. Wow, that was tough cause I couldn’t figure out to put car in reverse with the manual stick. Had to stop at a gas station with someone who showed me the slider on gear that you had to pull up. He probably shaked his head, “American”. Got lost from Airport to hotel, but luckily on Sunday morning with no traffic, otherwise I would just returned to the Airport following signs!

[equalizer]

[quote=flu][quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)[/quote]
It’s not a single choice between no safety and 60mpg and 60mph. Horsepower has gone up significantly in last 10-15 years in typical sedan while mileage has stayed same or even gone up! I’m sure you can pull up the stats. If gas prices go back to $5/gallon, then consumers will demand that future efficiency (over say 170HP for simple sedan) increase be transferred to mileage instead of horsepower. Knew some big guys who carpooled in Geo Metro from early 90’s with 3 cylinder engine with nearly 50mpg. Just don’t let anything hit you.

The greatest threat to auto safety besides the tyrannical DUI drivers is texting, game playing on that phone by teenagers. What we need is a tough new driving test similar to those in European countries. Flu, I bet you could come up with some ideas. What about taking written test on ipad while parallel parking? My only driving experience over there was in Madrid. Wow, that was tough cause I couldn’t figure out to put car in reverse with the manual stick. Had to stop at a gas station with someone who showed me the slider on gear that you had to pull up. He probably shaked his head, “American”. Got lost from Airport to hotel, but luckily on Sunday morning with no traffic, otherwise I would just returned to the Airport following signs!

[equalizer]

[quote=flu][quote=Ren]Oil isn’t an issue. In fact, if we do run out of it, it will be at a time when it doesn’t matter. There will be no energy deficit. Hundreds of companies are pouring Billions of dollars into alternative energy and materials for everything from cars to home heating to tupperware. If you can build any substance molecule by molecule, power an engine with pure water, and store large amounts of sun/wind-produced electrical energy for years, where is the need for oil?[/quote]

I think the entire concern about oil is overblown….To bring about change, it needs to be consumer pushed. If if companies create viable altenatives, consumers aren’t going to adopt it unless it

1) at least has identical performance to the existing thing
2) it costs the same or less.

So either

1) companies need to figure out how to make these altenative “green” things as cheap as non-green and perform as well

…or
…
2) the cost of non-green things need to dramatically go up…

Companies have the ability to create 60mpg cars right now if they wanted to. Put a 2 cylinder engine, that cant go faster than 60mph, and remove a bunch of safety equipment. BUT, consumers would not buy it in the majority anyway. So what the company ends up doing is expending a bunch of resources producing “green” stuff that people don’t buy/use.

Now, I bet if all the sudden gas prices are $5-10/gallon, well then consumers will be demanding for alternative fuel products in the majority. So if we run out of gas. Great, at that point it will be prohibitively expensive, so that alternative fuels would be a viable solution at that time.

(Polution is another subject, but that’s not the point of this thread)[/quote]
It’s not a single choice between no safety and 60mpg and 60mph. Horsepower has gone up significantly in last 10-15 years in typical sedan while mileage has stayed same or even gone up! I’m sure you can pull up the stats. If gas prices go back to $5/gallon, then consumers will demand that future efficiency (over say 170HP for simple sedan) increase be transferred to mileage instead of horsepower. Knew some big guys who carpooled in Geo Metro from early 90’s with 3 cylinder engine with nearly 50mpg. Just don’t let anything hit you.

The greatest threat to auto safety besides the tyrannical DUI drivers is texting, game playing on that phone by teenagers. What we need is a tough new driving test similar to those in European countries. Flu, I bet you could come up with some ideas. What about taking written test on ipad while parallel parking? My only driving experience over there was in Madrid. Wow, that was tough cause I couldn’t figure out to put car in reverse with the manual stick. Had to stop at a gas station with someone who showed me the slider on gear that you had to pull up. He probably shaked his head, “American”. Got lost from Airport to hotel, but luckily on Sunday morning with no traffic, otherwise I would just returned to the Airport following signs!

[Author]

Posts