Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
We don't have to accept either. I don't see any alternative proposals posted, so the ball's in your court to publish something that the White House can review. I'll gladly sign a repeal CAFE petition.  |
My opinion of those who support CO2 as a pollutant is not something that I would be allowed to express on this forum. People think they are killing the planet by emitting CO2. These people exhale copious amounts of CO2 produced by cellular respiration every day. How can they stop killing the planet? I think arguing with them is a fruitless endeavor. Each time, you will be expected to compromise. Each time you argue, you lose a little bit more.
In fact, I did mention an alternate proposal in my post above. If we think CO2 is something that we need to target, what can we do to increase the fuel economy of the 7 mpg truck that delivers all of the crap we buy to the store? We need to figure out what we can do to this very targeted market which clearly emits far more CO2 than most passenger cars. We need to do so by focusing our investments on research in this area in order to improve the fuel economy of the big semi truck. At the same time, we need to be sensitive to economic concerns as well as CO2 emissions.
In addition, we could seriously reevaluate the way in which we deliver things to the stores and our homes. There are gross inefficiencies in use of automotive fuel resources when we can ship any item at any time with any turnaround time.
I would much rather speak to my US Senator or US House member about what I think should be done for fuel economy standards. Primarily, this is because those people are in the legislative branch. They can actually make the laws. The executive branch is not given this authority from the US Constitution.