Californian busybody telling Canada about cars
They are pushing for higher pollution control standards
and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the most part, this is obviously difficult. What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler taxes on v8 equipped cars. So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in Canada's business, GET LOST! |
Trying to start a big long thread full of fighting? :)
-Mike -- A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT Cold air intake FRPP 3.73 gears Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter Full Boar turbo mufflers Hi-speed fan switch 255/60R-15 rear tires Subframe connectors "RichA" > wrote in message ... > They are pushing for higher pollution control standards > and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger > engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the > most part, this is obviously difficult. > What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada > to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler > taxes on v8 equipped cars. > So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in > Canada's business, GET LOST! > |
> "RichA" > wrote in message > ... > wrote in message . com... > > They are pushing for higher pollution control standards > > and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger > > engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the > > most part, this is obviously difficult. > > What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada > > to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler > > taxes on v8 equipped cars. > > So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in > > Canada's business, GET LOST! > > > Trying to start a big long thread full of fighting? :) > Yeah, gotta love those Kali legislators. :) -- John C. '03 Cobra Convt. |
"RichA" > wrote in message ... | They are pushing for higher pollution control standards | and fuel efficiency big time. Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute. What's wrong with your statement? Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this planet or it's inhabitants? Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause???? With the move toward bigger | engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the | most part, this is obviously difficult. No doubt it is, but they seem to be accomplishing this one step at a time. | What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada | to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler | taxes on v8 equipped cars. I can understand that, I wouldn't want it either. | So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in | Canada's business, GET LOST! There are lotsa cars for the states being built up there. This means jobs and economical benefits. If Canada reaps the benefits then she may have to take some of the pain too. Sorry that's what happens. You sleep with the dogs, you get fleas. The California Liberals do have some serious problems when it comes to sticking their noses in everyone's business BUT sometimes their reasoning is because they can see what is happening in their state without the controls. The sky is grey, period. The price of fuel is an abverage of 50 cents a gallon higher than anywhere else in the states and the highways are overcrowded by soccer moms in SUVs and commuters thinking they are road warriors (only a few years ago it was minivans - same mentality, different cars) Now, DO KEEP IN MIND that the auto manufacturers build specific vehicles for California. More or less the "California Emissions System" So I would make a guess, with no more information than you have provided in your post, that you are pretty safe for now. If they DO make the cars run cheaper and with less pollution then I say, more power to em! (of course without a loss of power) Then we will have cleaner air, and less dependency on foreign oil. Our children and grandchildren will have an Earth to inherit that's habitable and all that. You get my point, right? Kate |
RichA opined in :
> They are pushing for higher pollution control standards > and fuel efficiency big time. With the move toward bigger > engines wanted by consumers, and larger vehicles for the > most part, this is obviously difficult. > What I do not want is legislation forcing people in Canada > to drive tiny, fuel efficient death-traps OR huge gas guzzler > taxes on v8 equipped cars. > So, for the Californian legislator involving themselves in > Canada's business, GET LOST! > Welll Gee!!!! Just a couple weeks ago.... Or are you in a red province? ;) |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:39:11 GMT, "SVTKate"
> wrote: > > > > >"RichA" > wrote in message .. . >| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards >| and fuel efficiency big time. > >Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute. >What's wrong with your statement? >Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this >planet or it's inhabitants? >Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause???? I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty. And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it, your state and local governments (run by some real wackos) are hell-bent to abide by it. The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc. Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm "bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV. As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of the car makers to pollution controls). The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900 to replace a catalytic converter. Really! Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population levels and we don't have bad geography. This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good little toady country, signed) which mandates ever stricter pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars, it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs. The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have? NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes. Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage. All to fight a problem "global warming" that, -Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science. -If if IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon. -Is politically-driven. -If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and year-round growing seasons are bad. -It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and that is not what it mandates. It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago) have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing of cars and engines. My advice to the governments in charge (and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps. If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you believe) and prices continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol costs would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over the past few years. |
RichA > wrote in message >. ..
> >| They are pushing for higher pollution control standards > >| and fuel efficiency big time. > >Ok, now just stop and think about this for a minute. > >What's wrong with your statement? > >Do you think that less pollution from vehicles would do any harm to this > >planet or it's inhabitants? > >Better fuel economy is a bad thing Beeeecause???? I'm with you Kate; however, I think there needs to be more focus on the/unmaintained/aged/violated vehicles. - Vehicles that you can tell their owners would rather drive them into the ground and then replace it with a newer vehicle than change the oil, keep the tires properly inflated, or tune up the engine. - Vehicles that are near death and are spewing tons of black or blue smoke. Note: One of these vehicles emits more crap than probably 50-100 new vehicles. There needs to be some sort of incentive to clean both of these vehicles up and get them back in compliance. - Vehicles that their owners removed all the pollution control devices from. > I think what bothers me most is that this whole push to > tighter pollution controls is based on a fraud, the Kyoto treaty. > And even though your Federal government hasn't agreed to it, > your state and local governments (run by some real wackos) > are hell-bent to abide by it. This is a global initiative. More and more scientists are seeing the handwriting on the wall. We need to either change our ways or face a global catastrophy. > The mandate is for a 20% decrease in fuel consumption by car fleet > over the next 8 years. That means radical changes to automobile > fleets, the deletion of the truck exemptions, etc. > Cars with better fuel economy are fine. I'm sure given the cost > of gas, many want them. I don't. I want the option to pay the higher > gas costs but I do NOT want to have to pay even more because I'm > "bad" for liking a powerful car or SUV. The best way to fix this is to further jack up gas prices. Then the market would shift toward more fuel effcient vehicles. > As consumers, we are ripped off constantly by government and > manufacturers. They work together (despite the supposed animosity of > the car makers to pollution controls). > The automakers cry each time they make a consumer spend $900 > to replace a catalytic converter. Really! You need to live in a large city in a third world country for a while. I'll guarantee that when you return you'll slide under your car and kiss your catalytic convertors. > Lastly, Toronto Canada is not LA. We do not have smog problems on > that level and never will, because we won't reach LAs population > levels and we don't have bad geography. Think of the world as a big fish aquarium. Pollution in one corner will, sooner or later, affect the whole tank. > This all stems from the evil Kyoto treaty, (which Canada, like a good > little toady country, signed) And our short-sighted boneheads in Washington didn't. > which mandates ever stricter > pollution controls on the WEST while sparing the rapidly > industrializing nations in Asia, who are now the largest polluters on > the planet. The cost of all this is going to be trillions of dollars, > it will (and has) shifted wealth from the West to the East in the form > of jobs and the proceeds from those jobs. Reducing emissions takes technology, and technology creates better, higher-paying jobs. > The number of cars in China is expected to increase by 20 million over > the next 3-4 years. Guess what kind of pollution controls they have? > NONE. Does India still have pollution-belching 2-stroke mini cars > that pollute as much as 200 regular cars? Yes. > Have you ever seen the pollution levels in cities in industrial China > or India? You should, they make L.A. look as clean as Anchorage. You're right. So what we need to do is <switching on heavy sarcasm mode> is say **** it, do nothing to try to improve the environment, not try to be a world leader, and let the whole planet go to ****. > All to fight a problem "global warming" that, > -Has not been proven satisfactorily and is an example of poor science. Tell that to the increasing number of scientists who are finally agreeing that our enviroment is starting to see some majors changes, and drastic changes will likely been seen within the next 100 years. > -If it IS true has not been proven to be a man-made phonomenon. Look around. What other creature on this planet could be doing it? And how couldn't billions and billions (trillions?) of cars, and billions of humans and their consumption not negatively affect the planet? > -Is politically-driven. > -If it is happening, studies have shown NO DOWNSIDE to the Northern > Hemisphere. Unless millions of extra acres of habitable land and > year-round growing seasons are bad. What about all the methane gas that will be released as the polar ice caps melt? And what'll happen to all those folks whose coastal city will go under water? > -It is a political FRAUD unless ALL countries abide by it and > that is not what it mandates. > It is absolutely true that pollution controls on cars and the much > more fuel efficient engines today (as opposed to 30 years ago) > have helped the pollution situation. But those controls and > improvements were made without resorting to radical downsizing > of cars and engines. Were you alive in the 70s? > My advice to the governments in charge > (and the U.S. government in particular) is to develop alternate > fuels like alcohol that will accomplish the task without the > need to turn cars into overpriced, pathetic little death traps. > If agricultural production geared to alcohol production were > radically increased, a substitute for gasoline could be made > nearly as economical. Since oil supplies are finite (though > nowhere NEAR exhausted as some environuts would have you > believe) and prices continue to climb, at some point gasoline and alcohol > costs would reach a match. But, I would shy away from things like > hydrogen, only because of the inherent danger of the product > and the fact you have to close down a city block when a hydrogen > leak is found in a vehicle, as they've discovered in Europe over > the past few years. The "fix" is the world's human population needs to decline, and quickly. Patrck '93 Cobra '83 LTD |
|
"Spike" > wrote in message ... > As I recall,according to a study, all it takes is the eruption of > three major volcanos, which is far from uncommon, to produce more > ozone depleting gases and pollutants, than the human race presently > produces. I believe that is more than man has EVER produced since his beginnings on this planet. > > But the experts can't even agree. It wasn't that long ago that cars > were blamed for global "cooling" which was going to bring about an ice > age. Now it's global warming melting the polar caps. Is it possible > that both are just natural events in climate. I believe that were I live was under about a mile of ice only 10/15,000 years ago. Hell, in the mere blink of an eye (last 2,000,000 years) there have be more than 20 glacial advances and retreats in North America. http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ . -- Richard '94 GT 'vert Under Drive Pulleys Transgo HD2 Reprogramming Kit High Stall Torque Converter 4:10 Gears Gripp Sub Frame Connectors (welded) FRPP Aluminum Drive shaft FRPP M5400-A Suspension Laser Red |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AutoBanter.com