21 mpg @ 75 mph.
Posted on 07/25/2002 12:14:22 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:41:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Then why don't you do some studying before you come in here defending this pile of crap ?
There's a jerk if i ever saw one.
Did you ever stop to think that if 100 nuke plants can supply 20% of the us electric power, 400 plants could supply 80% ? And you are full of crap about auto pollution. 98% was removed in the 70's and 80's.
and i'm beginning to think you are an operative for the opportunist-
No, but you sure are ignorant.
Care to point the way to any resources that support the theory of global warming? Don't send me to ANYTHING regurgitated by the media please.
By the way, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.So much for the gummint skool system. LOL.
The best way to describe carbon dioxide may be: PLANT FOOD.
From Biology 101:
Animals breathe in oxygen, and breathe out carbon dioxide.
Plants take in carbon dioxide, and generate oxygen.
Why not pass a law that mandates no BREATHING?
Or one that requires every SUV owner to plant a tree?
These actions would also have the desired effect of "reducing greenhouse gases."
Strictly speaking, carbon dioxide is a "poison" in the same way that water is: in the extreme, too much carbon dioxide (or too much water) can be harmful only because they result in not enough OXYGEN, which we need to survive. What comes out of tailpipes is poison. Much more of it comes out of SUVs than real cars-and nobody needs SUVs.
There ARE many bad things that come out of tailpipes: carbon MONOXIDE, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and all sorts of nasty carcinogens - but none of these REAL pollutants are the subject of this "anti-greenhouse gases" bill.
As for the trade-offs between fuel economy and safety, I can certainly appreciate your concern with a child who suffers from asthma, but what would you say to the father of a young person who dies in a traffic accident because they drove a light-weight (i.e. "fuel-efficient) Yugo/Kia/Hyundai, when they would still be alive if they had been driving an SUV?
This debate is not nearly as simplistic as the Greens would have us believe.
Well, you are no conservative then.
First, you are technically wrong. This bill does nothing about asthma causing irritants, the most significant of which is MTBE, which was mandated to create "clean air." A byproduct of combustion of MTBE is formic acid, a known lung irritant. Davis has had the option of canceling CARFG any time he wants at the stroke of a pen. We only needed oxygenates in two air basins. CARB mandated them statewide at a higher level than was recommended by EPA. The net result has been higher prices and more asthma that they turn around and use to justify more regulations.
In addition, this law is about carbon dioxide emissions having nothing at all to do with the production of lung irritants. On that front this law will accomplish NOTHING. It is simply a tax.
Second, you are ignorant of the economic consequences of this law. People will hang onto their old SUVs and trucks rather than pay the tax and buy a cleaner vehicle. The net result of this law may be MORE undesirable emissions, not less.
Third, you are no political conservative because you don't apparently don't give a hang about what the Constitution says. You presume to use the power of the state to tell people how to use their property. There is no end to that process as we are seeing on every front from bogus uses of the Endangered Species Act to child rearing. There are better ways to manage the environment than rules designed to benefit campaign donors. About that I am certain you are in need of an education.
Here is some real data to feed your hysteria:
"This temperature update presents an annual summary of the NASA satellite measurements of monthly temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed values and the 1979–1998 mean values. Global satellite measurements are made from a series of orbiting platforms that sense the average temperature in various atmospheric layers. Here, we present the lowest level, which matches nearly perfectly with the mean temperatures measured by weather balloons in the layer between 5,000 and 28,000 feet. The satellite measurements are considered accurate to within 0.01 deg C and provide more uniform coverage of the entire globe than surface measurements, which tend to concentrate over land.
"2001: The global average annual temperature of the lower atmosphere was 0.055 deg C above the long-term (1979–1998) mean. The temperature averaged over the Northern Hemisphere was 0.125 deg C above the 20-year average, while the temperature averaged over the Southern Hemisphere was 0.015 deg C below the 1979–1998 average. This marked the third year in a row that temperatures averaged south of the equator were below normal, and the 8th time in the last 10 years. Figure 1 shows the 23-year annual temperature history of each of these regions. Although the Southern hemisphere shows a slight cooling trend, and the Northern Hemisphere shows some warming, none of the trends is statistically significant—meaning that you cannot reliably rule out the possibility that they result from random assemblage alone.
"...Temperatures in the tropical regions were generally below average, while temperatures in the temperate regions were typically warmer than normal. The largest warm anomaly was experienced across most of Canada, with temperatures anomalies there exceeding 1 deg C. Most of the rest of the world witnessed temperatures within a degree or so of average. All in all, 2001 was not a remarkable year (at least in terms of lower atmospheric temperatures)."
Below: Annual satellite-measured temperature departures for the globe (top), the Northern Hemisphere (middle) and Southern Hemisphere (bottom).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.