60 mpg by 2025

[briansd1]

[quote=afx114]If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?[/quote]

Great point.

We talk green energy… but we have too many vested interest that will stop it.

China is one upping us; and I expect future electric car makers to be Chinese. While we dilly dally, China will mandate electric cars in certain cities, creating instant markets for their manufacturers.

Look at what is happening in CA.

Now a well-financed coalition of right-wing ideologues, out-of-state oil and gas companies and climate-change skeptics is seeking to effectively kill that law with an initiative on the November state ballot. The money men include Charles and David Koch, the Kansas oil and gas billionaires who have played a prominent role in financing the Tea Party movement.

The 2006 law, known as AB 32, is aimed at reducing California’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent at midcentury. To reach these targets, state agencies are drawing up regulations that would affect businesses and consumers across the board — requiring even cleaner cars, more energy-efficient buildings and appliances, and power plants that use alternative energy sources like wind instead of older fossil fuels.

And now look at what is happening in China.

China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don’t know of any.
[/quote]

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn’t say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can’t answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don’t know of any.
[/quote]

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn’t say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can’t answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don’t know of any.
[/quote]

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn’t say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can’t answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don’t know of any.
[/quote]

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn’t say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can’t answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don’t know of any.
[/quote]

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn’t say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can’t answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?[/quote]

This is a great example of “regulating to a result” instead of “regulating the transaction” These are my latest catch-phrases I use in my attempts to teach people that “appropriate regulation” is better than “no regulation” and that “appropriate regulation” involves regulating fraud, theft, breach of contract, and violent crimes, but NOT trying to manipulate a market away from a result that you think shouldn’t happen.

Forcing people to act how you want them isn’t nice, regardless of your intentions.

In other words – who cares if the market would have “taken care of that” because by “taken care of that” you mean “resulted in a market situation that I like.”

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore – how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars and we would have burned through all the oil by now and would have, as a result, created solar alternatives and be living in Nirvana. Maybe 60 mph cars would be so expensive, nobody could afford them and our economic productivity would plummet and we would be plunged into the dark ages. A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Maybe we should restrict all art projects to 1 gallon of paint. That is about as smart.

The original poster’s user name should be “BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo” and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain’t Burger King – you can’t always have it your way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?[/quote]

This is a great example of “regulating to a result” instead of “regulating the transaction” These are my latest catch-phrases I use in my attempts to teach people that “appropriate regulation” is better than “no regulation” and that “appropriate regulation” involves regulating fraud, theft, breach of contract, and violent crimes, but NOT trying to manipulate a market away from a result that you think shouldn’t happen.

Forcing people to act how you want them isn’t nice, regardless of your intentions.

In other words – who cares if the market would have “taken care of that” because by “taken care of that” you mean “resulted in a market situation that I like.”

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore – how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars and we would have burned through all the oil by now and would have, as a result, created solar alternatives and be living in Nirvana. Maybe 60 mph cars would be so expensive, nobody could afford them and our economic productivity would plummet and we would be plunged into the dark ages. A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Maybe we should restrict all art projects to 1 gallon of paint. That is about as smart.

The original poster’s user name should be “BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo” and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain’t Burger King – you can’t always have it your way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?[/quote]

This is a great example of “regulating to a result” instead of “regulating the transaction” These are my latest catch-phrases I use in my attempts to teach people that “appropriate regulation” is better than “no regulation” and that “appropriate regulation” involves regulating fraud, theft, breach of contract, and violent crimes, but NOT trying to manipulate a market away from a result that you think shouldn’t happen.

Forcing people to act how you want them isn’t nice, regardless of your intentions.

In other words – who cares if the market would have “taken care of that” because by “taken care of that” you mean “resulted in a market situation that I like.”

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore – how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars and we would have burned through all the oil by now and would have, as a result, created solar alternatives and be living in Nirvana. Maybe 60 mph cars would be so expensive, nobody could afford them and our economic productivity would plummet and we would be plunged into the dark ages. A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Maybe we should restrict all art projects to 1 gallon of paint. That is about as smart.

The original poster’s user name should be “BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo” and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain’t Burger King – you can’t always have it your way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?[/quote]

This is a great example of “regulating to a result” instead of “regulating the transaction” These are my latest catch-phrases I use in my attempts to teach people that “appropriate regulation” is better than “no regulation” and that “appropriate regulation” involves regulating fraud, theft, breach of contract, and violent crimes, but NOT trying to manipulate a market away from a result that you think shouldn’t happen.

Forcing people to act how you want them isn’t nice, regardless of your intentions.

In other words – who cares if the market would have “taken care of that” because by “taken care of that” you mean “resulted in a market situation that I like.”

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore – how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars and we would have burned through all the oil by now and would have, as a result, created solar alternatives and be living in Nirvana. Maybe 60 mph cars would be so expensive, nobody could afford them and our economic productivity would plummet and we would be plunged into the dark ages. A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Maybe we should restrict all art projects to 1 gallon of paint. That is about as smart.

The original poster’s user name should be “BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo” and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain’t Burger King – you can’t always have it your way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=afx114]If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?[/quote]

This is a great example of “regulating to a result” instead of “regulating the transaction” These are my latest catch-phrases I use in my attempts to teach people that “appropriate regulation” is better than “no regulation” and that “appropriate regulation” involves regulating fraud, theft, breach of contract, and violent crimes, but NOT trying to manipulate a market away from a result that you think shouldn’t happen.

Forcing people to act how you want them isn’t nice, regardless of your intentions.

In other words – who cares if the market would have “taken care of that” because by “taken care of that” you mean “resulted in a market situation that I like.”

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore – how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars and we would have burned through all the oil by now and would have, as a result, created solar alternatives and be living in Nirvana. Maybe 60 mph cars would be so expensive, nobody could afford them and our economic productivity would plummet and we would be plunged into the dark ages. A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Maybe we should restrict all art projects to 1 gallon of paint. That is about as smart.

The original poster’s user name should be “BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo” and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain’t Burger King – you can’t always have it your way.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?[/quote]

Not to mention the religious fundamentalists who want to legislate social behavior, but who themselves do wicked things.

I want unregulated porn and prostitution. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?[/quote]

Not to mention the religious fundamentalists who want to legislate social behavior, but who themselves do wicked things.

I want unregulated porn and prostitution. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?[/quote]

Not to mention the religious fundamentalists who want to legislate social behavior, but who themselves do wicked things.

I want unregulated porn and prostitution. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdduuuude]
To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is “Control Freaks Gone Wild.” Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?[/quote]

Not to mention the religious fundamentalists who want to legislate social behavior, but who themselves do wicked things.

I want unregulated porn and prostitution. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it.

[Author]

Posts