Quote:
Originally Posted by radz282003
Where, exactly, is under the Earth? Is that like Mars or Jupiter?
Has there even been an actual-factual connection between cars emissions and global warming?
|
So far, evidence suggests that emissions of any kind, like the ones from gas-powered cars, could be bad for the environment. That is why we have CAFE. The evidence is strong enough to be believable and to pass in a court of law. Individuals on this site may not believe it, but all the scientists that aren't quacks seem to agree.
Now, I'd like to make a note about fuel efficiency. Like with all modes of production, there is a certain point where additional input does not generate more output or that more efficient use of the same input does not generate more output. In other words, using the standard of simply increasing fuel efficiency standards at the regulatory level sounds great in theory, but it ignores the possibility that fuel efficiency plateaus before the federally mandated amount. In other words, it may not ever be possible to produce vehicles that our society needs—busses, trucks, semis—at the mandated level of efficiency because there is the strong possibility that fuel efficiency may top out before it gets to 36 mpg for a V8 with torque. By raising CAFE standards, the United States is dooming the truck market, making it impossible to purchase a truck by 2020.
CAFE regulations that Michael Moore and a lot of other idiots support are based on the idea of making gas engines more efficient, but I pointed out that there will come a point where they simply can't get more efficient. We might not be there yet, but we can expect that gas engines as we know them today will not get much more efficient while maintaining their torque, horsepower, or other characteristics. Instead of mandating that gas engines get better, why don't we just mandate that there be more alternative fuel sources in the mainstream? It is clear that Congress wants to legislate on this, so we can't ask them not to do that. What we can ask is that they continue to support domestic flex fuel, electric, hydrogen, solar, and other technologies.
In summary, gas engines will hit a wall that they can't break one day. It will be a barrier between pretty efficient and what the government expects. Congress will bitch and moan that it isn't good enough because they like gas because Shell is putting money into their campaign budgets. It's very sad that they feel so committed to making gas better when they should be committed to governing their country well—as opposed to simply governing their country, which they barely do anyway—or investing in alternatives to gas. Yes—getting away from gas as a mainstream fuel source will be a very difficult process in the coming years. It will require millions of dollars per state to make gas the lesser fuel source.
I apologize for my rant, but it bothers me so much that they focus on the inefficiency of gas when they should be focusing on alternatives. Stop crying over gas and look at all the great other options there are. They're like babies crying that one Lego block broke when they have a 5-gallon drum full of other pieces.
I know that many of you disagree with global warming or even alternative fuels, but we have to accept that a lot of others do believe in these resources. The least we can do is look into the positives of some other sources of energy for our daily commutes. We'll still have our muscle cars for a long time.