60 mpg by 2025

[an]

[quote=afx114][quote=AN]What if nanotechnology become a reality in 20 years and people will never die. What happen then?[/quote]

Terra-forming of Mars.[/quote]
Who knows, maybe in 100-200 years, we’ll find ways to recreate Mar’s atmosphere and make Mars livable. Maybe by then, everything we consume will be man made and synthetic. Like pop a pill and you’re full. No need for real food. Teleportation will make cars/plane/train obsolete. If you look at where we were as a society 200 years, and take that same advancement 200 years in the future. What we worry today probably wouldn’t make a blip on the radar people 200 years from now.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=justme]I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
[/quote]

You’ve certainly done an excellent job of presenting your viewpoint. It’s tough to argue against idealogues who fail to understand the difference between prohibition of an activity and a tax on an activity that is considered to be disfavored by society.

The CAFE mpg standards do not prohibit low mpg cars. Instead, manufacturers who don’t meet the mpg standards are merely assessed a fine. In the past, Chrysler, Volkswagen, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati have failed to meet the standard. They were merely assessed a fine which they presumably passed onto consumers.

So there can be no loss of an ‘inalienable right’ here. The most that could be argued is that wasting oil and polluting the environment should not be taxed. Not to mention that CAFE has been in place since 1975, so it’s a little late and quite disingenuous for an idealogue to be getting upset over loss of an ‘inalienable right’ when they never even realized said ‘right’ had been missing since the ’70s. However, some people hear the word ‘government’ and lose all sense of reason.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=justme]I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
[/quote]

You’ve certainly done an excellent job of presenting your viewpoint. It’s tough to argue against idealogues who fail to understand the difference between prohibition of an activity and a tax on an activity that is considered to be disfavored by society.

The CAFE mpg standards do not prohibit low mpg cars. Instead, manufacturers who don’t meet the mpg standards are merely assessed a fine. In the past, Chrysler, Volkswagen, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati have failed to meet the standard. They were merely assessed a fine which they presumably passed onto consumers.

So there can be no loss of an ‘inalienable right’ here. The most that could be argued is that wasting oil and polluting the environment should not be taxed. Not to mention that CAFE has been in place since 1975, so it’s a little late and quite disingenuous for an idealogue to be getting upset over loss of an ‘inalienable right’ when they never even realized said ‘right’ had been missing since the ’70s. However, some people hear the word ‘government’ and lose all sense of reason.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=justme]I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
[/quote]

You’ve certainly done an excellent job of presenting your viewpoint. It’s tough to argue against idealogues who fail to understand the difference between prohibition of an activity and a tax on an activity that is considered to be disfavored by society.

The CAFE mpg standards do not prohibit low mpg cars. Instead, manufacturers who don’t meet the mpg standards are merely assessed a fine. In the past, Chrysler, Volkswagen, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati have failed to meet the standard. They were merely assessed a fine which they presumably passed onto consumers.

So there can be no loss of an ‘inalienable right’ here. The most that could be argued is that wasting oil and polluting the environment should not be taxed. Not to mention that CAFE has been in place since 1975, so it’s a little late and quite disingenuous for an idealogue to be getting upset over loss of an ‘inalienable right’ when they never even realized said ‘right’ had been missing since the ’70s. However, some people hear the word ‘government’ and lose all sense of reason.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=justme]I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
[/quote]

You’ve certainly done an excellent job of presenting your viewpoint. It’s tough to argue against idealogues who fail to understand the difference between prohibition of an activity and a tax on an activity that is considered to be disfavored by society.

The CAFE mpg standards do not prohibit low mpg cars. Instead, manufacturers who don’t meet the mpg standards are merely assessed a fine. In the past, Chrysler, Volkswagen, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati have failed to meet the standard. They were merely assessed a fine which they presumably passed onto consumers.

So there can be no loss of an ‘inalienable right’ here. The most that could be argued is that wasting oil and polluting the environment should not be taxed. Not to mention that CAFE has been in place since 1975, so it’s a little late and quite disingenuous for an idealogue to be getting upset over loss of an ‘inalienable right’ when they never even realized said ‘right’ had been missing since the ’70s. However, some people hear the word ‘government’ and lose all sense of reason.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=justme]I don’t expect to be able to convince you, but there may be others that gain some insight from this discussion.
[/quote]

You’ve certainly done an excellent job of presenting your viewpoint. It’s tough to argue against idealogues who fail to understand the difference between prohibition of an activity and a tax on an activity that is considered to be disfavored by society.

The CAFE mpg standards do not prohibit low mpg cars. Instead, manufacturers who don’t meet the mpg standards are merely assessed a fine. In the past, Chrysler, Volkswagen, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati have failed to meet the standard. They were merely assessed a fine which they presumably passed onto consumers.

So there can be no loss of an ‘inalienable right’ here. The most that could be argued is that wasting oil and polluting the environment should not be taxed. Not to mention that CAFE has been in place since 1975, so it’s a little late and quite disingenuous for an idealogue to be getting upset over loss of an ‘inalienable right’ when they never even realized said ‘right’ had been missing since the ’70s. However, some people hear the word ‘government’ and lose all sense of reason.

[Ren]

[quote=justme][quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.[/quote]

“That’s what I call progress” was a poor attempt at car enthusiast humor, but I do consider it good progress. I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

To clarify, I was referring to dangerous emissions, which are lower in modern cars. Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

[Ren]

[quote=justme][quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.[/quote]

“That’s what I call progress” was a poor attempt at car enthusiast humor, but I do consider it good progress. I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

To clarify, I was referring to dangerous emissions, which are lower in modern cars. Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

[Ren]

[quote=justme][quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.[/quote]

“That’s what I call progress” was a poor attempt at car enthusiast humor, but I do consider it good progress. I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

To clarify, I was referring to dangerous emissions, which are lower in modern cars. Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

[Ren]

[quote=justme][quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.[/quote]

“That’s what I call progress” was a poor attempt at car enthusiast humor, but I do consider it good progress. I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

To clarify, I was referring to dangerous emissions, which are lower in modern cars. Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

[Ren]

[quote=justme][quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.[/quote]

“That’s what I call progress” was a poor attempt at car enthusiast humor, but I do consider it good progress. I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

To clarify, I was referring to dangerous emissions, which are lower in modern cars. Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

[justme]

>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.

It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles

http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml

>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:

1. climate change

2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.

There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?

[justme]

>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.

It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles

http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml

>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:

1. climate change

2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.

There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?

[justme]

>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.

It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles

http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml

>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:

1. climate change

2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.

There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?

[justme]

>>==Ren
>> I’m aware that a 500hp car driven at the limit will consume more than a 60hp Civic.

Not only that, but it will consume 5x the oil when driven the way
a typical civic is driven, and MUCH MORE if driven if driven by a speed and acceleration enthusiast.

It might interest people to know that Nascar and Formula 1 cars get about 4-6 mpg (FOUR TO SIX ) and 3mpg in a race. And they are not even doing any useful work, they are just going round in circles

http://www.youthyack.com/content/stories/editorial/1049140418.shtml

>>Carbon dioxide and water (also an exhaust emission) aren’t dangerous to people or the environment.

CO2 is dangerous without being toxic. It is dangerous for two reasons:

1. climate change

2. CO2 emissions is directly proportional to oil consumption. High oil consumption causes future energy deficits.

There are people who deny both 1 and 2. Category 1 are know as climate-change deniers. I guess we’ll have to come up with a name for category 2. Perhaps 1st-law-of-thermodynamics deniers? Or Immaculate oil conceptionists?

[Author]

Posts