Well the Fed or should I say Obammy is at it again. A lot of cars are getting this or close to it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_autos
You gotta get something for your tax dollars. We get notices of indefinite plant closures and layoffs, no confirmation on the Canadian Auto-workers pension borrowings by Mopar and GM, and the poor schmucks (almost 80,000) are losing their homes, cars, savings plans. We're in for a lot more pain, SS. This 'economic' crisis seems more like a Western G8 game to get wages and salaries down to Asian levels. It stinks and nobody is pointing to the obvious! IMHO. The more our governments impose emission levels on vehicles, without enforcing them on other industries, the more these same companies and some foreign ones will expect a welfare check.:banghead3:
I agree Norman but it also seems to me that the government is in the business of wiping out jobs instead of bringing them back. I hate to say this but some idea's that certain dictators had that worked could be used to bring the economy back around. But I won't mention names.
You're right. No dispute from me. If we screw up in investing, we eat it. If the banks and investment houses do it, they've got the Feds by the short ones. A faster recovery would have been to pump the same amount of money into the hands of the folks paying these hi-octane mortgages and nailing the banking and investment regulators and changing the rules so they don't repeat on any smoke and mirrors investment packages. I smell a more rotten one coming. Worse than Mortgage-backed paper. You understand Carbon Tax, right? One of our provinces does that. You buy gas or diesel and you pay a 12 cent carbon tax. It stays in your province/state. Cap and Trade is a ponzi scheme. They set a maximum allowable emissions target by industry or business type, and if the company can't meet it, it buys emssions coupons, which it owns. That money is used to buy points from countries that have very little in emissions. Most of them are small islands with palm trees and beaches. None of the G7, G8 or G20 or the Asian APEC or OAS countries qualify to sell emission credits. So the investors decide to bundle up a bunch of these cap and trade deals, and the oil companies offset their losses by buying them up, especially if their oil rigs are close to those little island countries. You and I find out about their oil slicks and refineris emissions 40 years later. No guts in government to step on the big emitters. Cars, trucks and boats are an easy target. Steel mills, coal refineries, nickel and aluminum, pharmaceutical and cosmetic chemical refineries are untouchable. Farming makes as much in emissions as do all the vehicles including aircraft. Who's gonna go after the Pesticide, Herbicide, Fertilizer conglomerates, many of them subsidiaries of the Oil industry? Make more corn ethanol instead of using city trash to make cleaner diesel. Common sense is scarce. A lot like the air they breathe at the top.
I'm split on this issue. Cars and trucks get picked on as they are most visible but produce 25% of the pollution. I don't think the auto industry would have done anything about pollution or safety without government intervention. Can cars get even cleaner? I think they can even with the ICE. So, what pollutes less? A car that gets 20 mpg or one that gets 30 mpg. I think the answer is obvious. But, the government is it's own worst enemy on this issue. Each safety requirement added weight thus reducing mpg. I'm convinced that if I installed a 4.6 liter engine, transmission and associated fuel system and computers from a new Mustang in my old Cougar that my gas milage would increase drastically over the 3.3 inline carburated six. There would be no actual weight gain. But a 4 X increase in horsepower and the pollution would be cut by 95%. I'm driving my son's 2004 F150 this week. The inside of the tailpipe is clean. Wiped with a finger nets no dirt or carbon at all. The same is true for all Fords now. The tailpipes just don't get dirty. So, yes I think the industry can improve more.
Yes, from our grassroots persepective. From a political one, we are so divided on the issue that they know we'll never organize an ear-piercing lobby to focus on the other 75% as publicly and with more emphasis on catching up to vehicle successes. They've got the Green lobbyists that they can control with respect to the other culprits, and appease them with gestures like this. Maybe the measure should be X-tons of emissions per pound of loaded vehicle at City and at Highway speeds. Then X-pounds of home trash used to make light crude per person. etc. etc. The CAFE reg changes seem like the mini-skirt rage. How high this time?!? There are some well known factors in calculating energy ouput per energy input. The CAFE can't be unrealistically high, beyond natural capacity. But the cleanliness of our Air is the goal, and choosing between using city trash or using up good land for oil grains would ensure that we have a good, stable food supply and less trash emitting methane gasses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
I just got an email back from our Premier, and your Chief of staff at the Whitehouse thanking me for my comments and that they would review my sources and pass it on to the EPA (US), and the committee responsible for deploying our version of California's emission-control. We already do produce ethanol from our regional landfill for the gas refineries. The only Province that does. But we have millions of head of pigs (9 million) and some 8 million chickens and turkeys and related waste that they just throw away and bury. That's a lot of fuel for Thermal Depolymerization plants. That link to the article that SS posted, mentions getting rid of 177 million cars by 2016. How much of an acceleration is that or is it just normal attrition (accidents, rust, etc.) or will they restrict re-licensing the older ones, without allowing hobbyists to show them how it can be done. Your example is excellent. Transplanting the 2004 4.6 to acheive cleaner, more efficient fuel usage. Our cars are barely 1.5 tons. but a lot of the new models are over 2 tons and barely big enough to put your suitcases in. No payload room. A covered wagon had one front seat, and room for cabin logs in the back!
Just remember, when one of those politicians flys somewhere on a privatejet, they burn more fuel than most of us will do in a year! And if the government had left CAFE alone years ago, we wouldn't have so many freaking SUVs to contend with. Shiny Side Up! Bill
hey, ill take gov funding to put an 6.0 LS2 in my buick! bet i can hit 30mpg hwy at least. putting these restrictions on cars will kill anything fun. say bye bye to the 1. charger 2. challenger 3. mustang 4. lincoln town car 5. v8 anything really. this is BS. they wont keep us from registering our older cars. thought they may make it very expensive to operate them. we as americans (and canadians) love our cars .... take away our passion and we will uprise and take the life from the gov. we do need to help the planet ...but start at the real source... like the ship breaking yard in india. the dirty coal plants in china (yes clean coal does exist) the vast pollution in 3rd world countries. clean these first then clean the clean countries. and dont kill the US auto industry bring it back before you throw rocks at it!
