Slashdot Mirror
California May Reduce Carbon Emissions By Banning Black Cars
Legislation may by 2016 restrict the paint color options for California residents looking for a new car. Black and all dark hues are currently on the banned list. The California Air Resources Board says that the climate control systems of dark-colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings — especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours.
Bruce Schneir would be proud.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Come on, what next Vermont only allowing black cars so the climate systems don't have to work as hard in winter?
There is no way this can pass legislation.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Won't that mean lots of glare? Is the plan to reduce carbon emissions by causing everyone to crash into each other?
Nick
You know, I'm all for protecting the environment, but this is just going overboard. If the paint is toxic, then yeah, the government should get involved, but them dictating the mere color of my car is just giving them FAR too much control over the lives of everyday citizens.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Henry Ford (modified) : Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is not black. (wiki)
That seems to a bigger problem. Also dark asphalt roofs seemed a bit ridiculous next to reddish ceramic tiles.
(Don't laugh, one of the problems of climate change is when the poles shrink/melt, the reflectivity of ice and snow gives way to water which rather absorbs the heat, basically escalating a rising problem with temperature).
After all, they absorb more sunlight than khakis. Heck, let's just ban all clothing and require citizens to wear nothing but a thick slathering of SPF-9000 sunscreen. Won't someone think of the planet.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Is California where all the stupid people go?
Jesus, pretty soon you're going to need a special license just to take a shit in California.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
My old VW's climate control system was my windows. How's that gonna work harder in a black car?
Sorta like the first cell phone law (can't talk on the phone but can text message on the phone). It sounds like a case of "we need to something so we can say we're doing something, even if it's stupid." Then when interviews come up ("what did you do for this-or-that issue?") politicians can talk around it by referencing legislation that they passed to "help climate change," knowing that most people will smile and nod and think they are doing well and not actually look up the legislation to see just what brilliant ideas were in it...
Maybe I'm cynical. :)
Or, maybe I like black cars. Who knows.
"From my cold, dead hands!" --Quiet Riot
THL phish sticks
I don't know about you, but driving a car with a black INTERIOR not EXTERIOR, I make every attempt NOT to leave it parked in the sun for a couple of hours. Also: Crack a window, open a sunroof, tint your windows.
It isn't a ban on black cars. It is a requirement that at least some fraction of all solar radiation be reflected so cars don't heat up that much.
A car with "black" paint, as long as that paint reflects UV and IR, and at least scatters some light (You want a glossy paintjob anyway), combined with UV/IR reflective window treatments, will meet the requirement.
And true, it may cost $50/car to $150/car more, but on the other hand, the cars won't get so miserably hot when sitting in the sun. So it would actually benefit most consumers.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I'm still unclear how black paint will affect the temperature of a car.
Having never lived in CA, maybe their physics is slightly different then everywhere else but I distinctly remember that it is the solar energy through the windows that seem to heat up the passengers in the car not the color of the paint. In fact they can actually use a darker colored paint to help create breezes in the car using similar principle to desert dwellers wearing black robes. But then again, maybe I'm just doing this silly thing of actually using science to fix problem. Sorry, my bad.
I think that banning black cars is a very bad idea. On the other hand, banning black cars from the roadway is a very good idea.
In addition to eating energy, black cars are less visible and therefore more likely to kill bicyclists (people like me).
..but if the California's legislatures spent as much time trying to find a way out of their financial crisis as they do coming up with asinine bills like this, they just *might* come out with a budget surplus some day..
I'm pretty sure that a white hummer is worse for the environment then a small black sedan.
I officially hate California now.
Yes, I've lived here my whole life and there's lot wrong that we all complain about here, but this is too much.
P.S. what if your car doesn't have A/C?
Mythbusters did a bit about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)#Biscuit_Bazooka_Spinoff
Now mind you, it only came out to a 9 degree F difference, windows up etc., so really it's not particularly significant, and the law's still dumb.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
They should make goldenrod the official state color all vehicles to match the governor's Hummer. Oh, wait a minute. He gave up the Hummer to go green.
:P
Maybe they should call California the Green State and make green the official state color. Plus I don't have to change the paint job on my car.
lol. I really doubt this is the case, or dark skin would be kind of a maladaptation despite the UV resistance. People actively seek shade whereas cars have to drive on the open road in direct sunlight, and in that shade darker skin will be more efficient at radiating heat. Black-body radiation ... literally.
Anyone ever get into a car with lots of windows that's been sitting in the sun? Sunlight gets in, and the light is converted to IR as it heats the insides. The glass doesn't let the IR back out so the insides heat up. This is going on whether the car is running or not and happens regardless of the color. Not to mention that glass is heavier than sheet metal, so you save on the energy required to accelerate and decelerate all that glass and the roads have less wear and tear, requiring less asphalt over time. So lets ban windshields and windows as well. Tinting you say? But aren't tints made from petroleum products? Even natural based tints require oil to extract, refine, and produce. You might burn as much oil to make tints as you might save over the life of the car. Not to mention the reduced visibility.
/sarcasm
California is the home of LA, possibly the only city in the US to have a fashion police, so I wouldn't be surprised if they banned yellow, lime green, and other obnoxious car colors, all in the name of global warming (they don't contribute to heat sequestering like the darker paints used to.)
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
If you want to reduce car A/C use thereby reducing car fuel use, wouldn't lighter colored upholstery be a better idea than the paint job for reducing summer car cabin temperatures?
Instead of restricting color choices, how about giving tax credits to people who install tinted windows? That would be a bit less totalitarian and would keep car cabins a bit cooler.
The fact we are politely discussing the merits of this proposal instead of laughing at and/or preparing boiling oil for the idiots responsible shows we have lost the Republic our mighty forebearers gave us in trust.
The idea that a Free People would meekly submit to some pinheads who will tell us what color we can paint our cars is laughable. So obviously this, among hundreds equally insane examples, proves we are no longer such a nation.
Democrat delenda est
I mean blatant discrimination based on color. What next, white only color for cars? Separate lanes for black and white cars? (may be with dividers, so that black and white cars don't "accidentally" bump into each other and produce illegitimate cars by illegal transfer of pigments). Of course, black cars should oppose separate but equal theory of lanes.
This has to be the most offensive thing I will read today. The idea that the government can tell a person what color their car can be should deeply offend every American, even those living in California.
California is cursed with the worse nanny-state politicians in the country. It's destroying the economy too - the state is nearly bankrupt, businesses are leaving, taxes are on the rise. It's a total disaster. If you want an example of what happens to an economy when Democrats have complete power, just look to California for an example.
And for the record, Arnold is NO republican!
It's no wonder that people refer to California as the Land Of Fruits And Nuts.
this is what's known as Kaliforniansozialismus, or Kazi for short.
First let me say this nanny state attitude they have in California ticks me off and I am a Liberal Democrat. It seems you give an inch they need to take a mile.
There is a reasonable solution to this that is well suited for electric cars. Why not use photovoltaic paints. The blacker the better as these convert light into energy. That should offset the climate control cost and power the battery when climate control is not needed.
One thing that does surprise me is that they are missing an obvious issue in Northern California where it is cold most of the year. Remember in SF it can be 60 in the middle of summer. I wonder how often people will need to turn the heat on in lighter cars in these locations. I would bet it offsets much of the gain.
I have a black car with a black interior and a black car with a light gray interior. The gray one is far cooler in the summer.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
What about convertibles? My roof comes off when it's hot, so the car heating up has little to do with the internal temp of the car. Especially since it's a cloth top.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
MANBEARPIG!!!
... if I only drive at night?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Why not take it a step further? Think of the emissions you'd prevent if you banned air conditioning entirely. Come on CA, everybody's got to do their part.
Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't care about black cars!
Don't they know that cool people only drive their black cars at night???
Seriously, isn't ALL California cars supposed to be CFC free?
(Anybody else sick of this Democratic Party cram-down of legislation, day in and day out? I just want to live my life dammit.)
Sadly, this happened long before you or I existed. Freedom in America has been an illusion for quite awhile.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Seriously, get in the car, roll down the windows, drive out of the parking lot or down the street until cold air starts coming out of the AC (or until you start moving fast enough that air through the windows causes too much drag) and then close them for the rest of the drive.
the new thing is to incorporate a small solar photovoltaic panel in the roof of the car to power a fan that removes heat from the car on hot days.
i've seen this on the prius and the mercedes E-class for sure and possibly other manufacturers will follow suit.
i think the minimally fair thing to do would be to allow an exemption for cars with this feature to be painted black.
But would you explain to me how a lo-vis automobile is an increased risk to a bicyclist?
If the problem is the bicyclist hitting an unseen car, isn't that a bicyclist problem? If the problem is the unseen car hitting the bicyclist, isn't that a driver problem? And how do black motorcycles fit in here?
I'm really having a problem understanding the idea of stealthy cars posing any more danger to bicyclists than orange ones festooned with strobes.
Please show me what I'm missing...
...as long as they agree to ban the black helicopters while they're at it.
When a political idea goes from a narrow focus to providing mandatory advice with regards to every single political decision an individual or society makes it becomes an ideology.
I think we are now at that point with Global Warming.
Next up - should you walk on the cracks in the sidewalk? What would a believer in Global Warming advise?
I have two questions:
1. If cars can't be painted black, what color will police cars in California be?
2. How will this effect California's car economy when those that want a dark colored car go to Arizona or Nevada just to buy the color of car they want?
Careful what you say. You don't want to attract the attention of those men in white helicopters.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/al-gore-and-supporters-teach-us-how-to-stop-global-warming-ride-taxis-leave-luxury-cars-and-suvs-idling-with-ac-on/
You don't understand the article, the summary is abjectly false, and your reply shows you were predisposed to believing this.
I wish these people would live in places where this kind of regulation is normal. Can they move to Cuba? How about moving to Sweden or some of those ex-Soviet states that still think in terms of what is best for the state?
The sooner they pedestrianize California and replace the road network with a FUNCTIONAL mass transit system (where "functional" includes useful thinks like not having trains in opposite directions on the same line, 125-175MPH inter-city, 75MPH local - y'know, the stuff Europe's been doing since the 40s), the sooner we can eliminate several major sources of pollution:
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them? Are we all teenagers?
1. Paint your car a color that reflects light.
2. Inflate your tires.
3. Drive slower.
Each of these will improve your fuel economy noticeably. None of them require you to drive less or get a dinky car. What's the case for not doing them -- contrariness?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Why do you need the 'freedom' to do damage to my planet? RTFA, it isn't a ban on black cars, but simply requires that the car reflect a certain amount of heat.
Personally, I don't like black as a color for cars. Just a personal opinion.
But here in California, for some reason, black is a popular color and dealers stock lots of black and silver. I have a red car, myself, and was considering a new car purchase. When I went to the dealer where I have my present car serviced, I asked whether he had any red or yellow cars. Nope. All they had was black and silver. I asked, "Is the boss an Oakland Raiders fan or something?!"
The salesman I talked to said, basically, that those are the two most popular colors. They don't want to get some other color and have it sit on the lot until they either find someone who wants red or yellow or discount it enough that someone will buy it. I have to admit, also, when I bought my current red car, I had a hard time finding a red color.
So they get rid of the black and all we've got left is silver. Ugh.
I hope to fuck this isn't another thing that affects the rest of the states...since the auto companies no longer like making CA only version of their cars.
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems.
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Everything will end up white to reflect the sun rays and reduce global warming
I'm guessing the answer is no, since there was no part in the article where a ban on black cars was actually supported by anything.
This is an excellent example of extremely bad fear-mongering posing as reporting, subsequently distorted by people with an agenda. Furthermore, if you read the pdf that they link to, you'll find no proposed ban there, either.
This is 100% pure FUD.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Racism? LOL! :D Thank you /.
You can't take the sky from me...
Black body radiation ... makes me want to put on a Marvin Gaye record and snuggle with my baby.
Speaking of politics, musicians and babies, it was Cream who sang "Politician" which opens with the line "Hey baby, get into my big black car." I think they were ahead of their time.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Henry Ford: "You can have any color car so long as it is black."
State of California: "You can have any color car so long as it is not black."
We've come a long way, except it's still tyranny.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
> Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way...
If you want to suggest better ways to do things go right ahead. It is when you fascists[1] decide that the stupid people aren't listening to you and decide to just impose your higher wisdom on them that I start the oil boiling and looking for a pitchfork. And since you probably can't understand the difference ignore this, it's for any semi-sane people reading.
Really, if the government can regulate the COLOR of your car in the name of carbon emissions is there any regulation on anything that some pinhead can't find some tortured logic to justify on environmental grounds? So aren't you really arguing for a totalitarian government because you are a bedwetting pansy who let Al Gore terrify you that the world is going to end if we don't abandon Western industrial civilization, eliminate 90% of the human population and return to a pre industrial feudal lifestyle?
Ok, that was slightly over the top but isn't that really what this is all about? We have turned into a nation of pussies unfit for self government because freedom scares us.
[1] Yes the word fascist is used correctly, not in the modern 'anybody progressives/socialists/liberals' don't like sense.
Democrat delenda est
This is retarded. I've owned a silver car, and I currently have a black car and two dark blue cars. I notice ZERO difference in the inside temperature of the car when the car sits in the sun. My dark blue car has a black interior, and my wife's dark blue car has a light grey interior... Again, ZERO difference is noticed when the car sits in the sun....
HOWEVER, when I had my cars tinted with metallic tints, I noticed a HUGE difference in the inside temperature when the car sits in the sun....
With that being said, I think it would be more beneficial to mandate tinted windows that it would to ban dark colored cars, if your only concern is how hard your A/C has to work....
When a political idea goes from a narrow focus to providing mandatory advice with regards to every single political decision an individual or society makes it becomes an ideology.
I think we are now at that point with Global Warming.
Next up - should you walk on the cracks in the sidewalk? What would a believer in Global Warming advise?
Reducing car emissions in California has been an older and more pressing issue than climate change for a long time.
"Global Warming" is now obsolete terminology, btw.
You can't take the sky from me...
Next on their list of wacky ideas would be banning dirty cars. Clean cars don't have as much drag as dirty cars and therefore use less fuel.
:)
I hope I'm not kin to Nostradamus.
Yeah, fuck California and their GDP that dwarfs most nations'. That's a smart idea, like cutting off your left arm!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
The key here is the solar heat gain through the glass windows of the car. Old cars had less window area, that would be a good thing to reduce the heat gain from our mobile "greenhouses". Existing vehicles could be retrofitted with reflective white or silver tape/coating material applied on the outside of the glass to reduce effective glass area. Have you seen school buses lately? They are yellow on the sides and white on top. Why might that be? Development/implementation of glass with better heat rejection performance would be helpful. A small solar powered vent could remove heated air from the passenger compartment while the vehicle was parked and the inside temperature rose above a certain setpoint.
This has to be the most offensive thing I did not read today.
Because the article did not actually offer up anything to support their claim of a "ban on black vehicles" or any other such nonsense. If you read the pdf that they link to - which is the only source they give - you won't find anything in it that resembles legislative suggestions or suggests a ban on anything at all.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And yet..they still can't pay their own bills.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Cool! Interesting problem... how to design a black car that absorbs about as little light as a white car... can it be done?
Ok, say we make the body of the car out of three layers:
- Inside layer: Reflective, mirrored surface
- Middle layer: thin sheet of glass for the light to bounce back and forth between the inner and outer layer.
- Outer layer: one way mirror. The light enters from the outside world, gets trapped in between the inner and outer layers, bounces around till it finds the opening at the bottom of the car or some such and exits.
Could it work?
Could it also take on extra impact in case of a crash?
Any other ideas?
Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution.[9] In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.[10][11][12][13] Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[14] Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals through elected representatives rather than as a collective nation or race (individualism, liberalism, representative democracy); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (communism, laissez-faire capitalism, non-nationalist and class conflict oriented labour movements); that protects and empowers people deemed weak and degenerate (egalitarianism) and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation (pacifism). They also oppose traditionalists and conservatives who may seek to preserve any of the privileges, institutions and cultural values that fascism seeks to overthrow.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
Actually dirty cars have a lower drag coefficient. It seems odd but wind tunnel test have shown that a polished & waxed race car has a higher drag coefficient than an primed only car. The small rough particles keep the airstream up off the surface of the car thus only offering resistance on a small percentage of the body. The next particle of dirt sits under the airstream in the same way a second car behind "drafts" to reduce drag. And since we already aren't supposed to wash our cars in the driveway and must pay to use someone else's hose It's probably only a matter of time before we must drive dirty cars.
Thank God we live in a country where morons like you do not have power. Perhaps these regulations will prevent the emission of a lot of carbon, thus helping our environment. Perhaps you can have black cars with this technology given some special treatment that makes the car even shiner. Did you discuss the merits like a rational person? No. You just rant without considering the details at all.
Loudmouthed ignorants are not the best people to have power.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Somewhere, Al Sharpton and the NAACP are preparing to RAGE.
> You don't understand the article,
Typical progressive. Anybody who objects just doesn't understand or is acting from a 'false consciousness.' Sorry pal, I can read and did actually RTFA.
> the summary is abjectly false,
The linked article has the following headline and lead graf has:
"California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?!"
"Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings - especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours."
How does that make Slashdot's summary or headline 'abjectly false.'
> and your reply shows you were predisposed to believing this.
Guilty as charged. I now expect this sort of bizarro world stuff, especially from CA. But I do RTFA and yup I was right to expect this sort of crap because it is real.
Sooner or later the Tree of Liberty is going to need watering. Because it is clear that there are only a few probable outcomes left. You guys manage to get my side into death camps or just bred out of the gene pool or eventually we fight another revolution. Or Atlas Shrugs. My team does have one advantage in a revolution though... you guys in the Blue State hives don't have guns. :) Don't count on the Army, though they are normally agents of the State this isn't Russia; most of the US military will be on my side. Those guys take their Oath a lot more seriously than the average elected official who violates the Constitution daily.
Democrat delenda est
Notice how much easier it is to cool off in a corner that isn't painted black and sitting out in the sun.
FYI, the air of the planet is the air of the planet... CA emissions spread to your state.... Your state's emissions spread to CA and the rest of the planet as well...
That said, and I am a Cali resident, I agree with your main point. We seem to have a pretty stupid approach to dealing with real problems by focusing on things that do *relatively* nothing at all.
An example of what I'm saying is the C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) which leads all the CA emissions policies, etc. Had CARB, instead of making stupid emissions rules that don't really mean shit, pushed to completely ban combustion engines in cars in the 80s --- the induced market would have us all rolling in clean electric vehicles sourcing power from renewable resources.... But instead they got focused on stupid distractions, just like this stupid 'ban black paint' idea.
Just like the government. Always trying to keep the black van down...
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
THANK YOU. It's nice to read a sensible response among all the "That goldarned Government is controlling us again! Stop the Communists!" kneejerk reactions. Hating on the government has become a full-time religion in this country.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Unconstitutional, isn't it?
... this way finally all the future cars will be metallic-silver, metallic-gray and pristine white.
Future might actually look something like the future we were promised so many times.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
K: My database indicates we cannot enter California border, I suggest we turn back.
As opposed to say... known tax cheats running our tax system?
Why don't you just send a bigger chunk of your money off the Sacramento then? Convince all your friends to do the same!
You don't need laws to do the Right Thing do you?
While you are at it, invite some homeless to stay in your extra rooms and offer them some cash. Since you're wealthy, you can afford it.
Once again confirming that most California legislators are uanble to pass the Turing Test.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
> Perhaps you can have black cars with this technology given some special treatment that makes the car even shiner.
Perhaps we can. And if we can whoever invents the new paint can perhaps get rich. If you are right people would gladly pay a little extra for a black car that stays cool in the summer. In which case exactly why do we need the government to threaten the life and liberty of any citizens who disagree with you? Ah but that is the problem, you could care less whether the problem gets solved; you are so terrified of the global warming bogeyman you just want to pass any laws with even a possibility of combating it. If the market can come along behind you and clean up the messes yo left great, if not people should just adapt to grey cars. Because YOU are the superior being and WE are too stupid to make our own decisions.
> Did you discuss the merits like a rational person?
Because reasoning with the unreasoning is not reasonable. You guys begin from such a totally different mental view of the world that there really isn't a point. Your side sees me and mine as useless reactionary elements to be liquidated at the first opportunity and we are finally seeing you as an implaccable foe to be defeated, not appeased.
Any worldview that sees this sort of regulation as a topic for discussion isn't compatible with the Republic our forebearers gave us. So no; the only outcome I want is "We win, you lose."
Democrat delenda est
The Left's love affairs always end in dictatorship.
After all they claim to be smarter than you and know how you should live.
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
If doing X is the smart thing to do, I invite you to attempt to persuade me by the overwhelming force of your reasonable arguments.
On the other hand, if you tell me I must do X at the point of a spear, I will quickly conclude that (1) you have little respect for my basic humanity and (2) your argument must not be that good in the first place.
As it happens, I enjoy driving fast ( I do own a small car, mostly for performance reason). It gives me pleasure to do so and I get to my destination sooner. I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment. Why people insist on forbidding me from taking part in a simple pleasure on my own dime is entirely beyond me.
I don't think that aspect of it is much in question. That's not his point. There are a million laws that will produce some sort of good or another. Not allowing people to drive at all would reduce it much more. Making everyone have an permanent identification implant would reduce crime. Permitting only a vegetarian diet would reduce obesity. Obviously there is some line between individual freedom and the greater good. He is simply arguing that this law crosses that line. Your reply does not address his argument.
Sometime, environmentalists push it a little bit too far, and become Environmental Talibans.
This is the most retarded thing I've EVER heard out of politics... In what ways is this protecting people's freedom or rights (FYI, that's what government is for)? This is the worst thing since the RIAA. I'ld never drive a black car just because of this, but what about people who don't care about the heat? Sure, it's 8 F warmer than a white or silver car, but this is just plain stupid. Find a better way to capture CO2 from the air and stop taking stuff away from folks. Next thing you know, they will try to make you reshingle your roof because it's a dark color. I mean... #### you and the high horse you rode in on.
The idea that a Free People would meekly submit ...
Then go Galt. Show the rest of us what FAIL really looks like.
You really think the Founders would have been outraged over paint colors?
It's not that you can't do any of those things, it's that you're being forced to.
Most of you are too young (or too forgetful) to know what life was like before Obama. But back in my youth people would have laughed at the idea that governments would ban fat. "Don't be fucking ridiculous," they said, "just because we want to ban smoking in restaurants doesn't mean fat is next." It's not so funny anymore, because it is actually happening.
It's not about hating on the government, it's about the fact that a government powerful enough to tell you what color you can paint your car is a government powerful enough to do any damned thing it wants to.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The cost of inhalers just skyrocketed (10X or so) due to the banning of CFC's in medical devices -- and many patients and physicians feel they are less effective. So when someone keels over because their inhaler didn't work correctly or they couldn't afford their HFA inhaler on a fixed/no income, I hope some idiot like you is willing to pay for the funeral.
If *you* *choose* to follow these standards, more power to you.
On the other hand, I feel that enforcing freedom of the people and encouraging them to be responsible of their own accord is more important than compulsory legislation to force them to follow your green advice.
do things the smart way instead of the wasteful way, we start screaming at them?
Because to some people (and I could find direct quotes from some other net discussions I've participated in) believe that the ultimate measure of well-being in a society is complete economic freedom.
And complete economic freedom has to mean being able to use your resources frugally or to waste them, and it has to mean you can justify an arbitrary choice with the defense of personal "utility."
And even though its proponents are smart enough to recognize that at least on a philosophical level, they can't defend use/abuse of property that involves incurring costs to others, on a practical level it's nearly inevitable that such costs will creep into the system, unless you have a very vigilant, organized, and broadly empowered interests acting against it.
This isn't to say that economic freedom should be arbitrary constrained, certainly not any more than it should be arbitrarily indulged (and probably less). The problem is that (a) some people prefer their conceptions of social organization quite black and white, which doesn't allow for subtle resolutions of tension between the two poles, and (b) "arbitrary" tends to be a somewhat subjective judgment.
Tweet, tweet.
Because this makes legislating the value of Pi to 3 seem like sweet reason.
It has not been demonstrated that the color of vehicles, singly or collectively, damage the planet.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
As bald men reflect more light back away from the Earth they help fight GLOBAL WARMING and should be compensated with TAX CREDITS for doing their part to aid THE ENVIRONMENT...
(Insert tongue in cheek. Bite down hard.)
~ Nonsanity
Okay. Does that mean that California would then ban all washing of cars? The celebrities, pimps, and gang members would revolt!
Um, I don't think so, unless they helped push nuclear power plants to pick up the slack in power. Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I am sure others have ideas about when California jumped the shark before, but they seem adept at repeating the event.
It won't stop. Soon it will be interiors, materials used to make cars, etc.
Why not bitch about blacktop next?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes, let's wave our flags at black cars. Next abortions? Maybe gays? Anything to keep us focused on anything but the real problems plaguing this nation. Seriously, with all of the injustices over the last 6 months, 8 years, 30 years the final straw that causes us to pick up arms is a black car tax?! We all agree it's stupid but unlike, say, torture this is actually an idea that may cause some very slight good and very little bad.
Actually the Republicans are the one thing keeping this state from going completely bankrupt. Thank goodness for the required 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, or else the Democrats would probably be taxing us all at 50% to fund their bloated, useless, and dysfunctional programs. Not that that stopped them in the end, they just decided to call their new taxes "fees" to get around the constitution. Damned lawyers.
While I vehemently oppose nearly all of CA Republicans' stances on social issues, at least they are true fiscal conservatives unlike the Republicans in the US congress. Hey CA Democrats, how about tightening your belt in a recession and cutting all those pet projects that are going nowhere? That's what the rest of us have to do.
Come to my neck of the woods (South Bronx) and discuss with the locals about Blue Staters not having guns. Hope you have assault rifles in your arsenal or more than your politics will be red...
The data that spawned this push came from a model that is only accurate 4 months out of a year in California. If they want to sell this, they need a better model.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Raising their gas tax significantly is the most straightforward way to tax inefficiency in cars, without micromanaging where exactly the inefficiency comes from. Use more gas, pay more tax.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I make great pancakes (that's crepe for the American slashdotters).
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
For example, maybe you prefer black paint, but are willing to offset the effect by driving a smaller, and more fuel-efficient car. Why shouldn't driving a black 90-hp econobox be an option, when that's actually considerably more environmentally friendly than a white Hummer? Why is California banning the first but not the second?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When did blue jeans start requiring a petrol-powered cooling system?
People who talk about "watering the Tree of Liberty" always sound like they're planning on killing others, not sacrificing themselves...
Can somebody find a real reference to this outside a study? I know it is so much fun to rag on "The government" as well as point and say "ohhh! California is nuts!!!" but seriously all I can find is one pdf looking at data and a bunch of blogs going nutty over it.
Can somebody POINT to the law in question?
Going to art museums is wasteful and provides no measureable benefit. Ban them.
Books and newspapers cause the destruction of trees; ban them all and if someone wants to read, force them to use the internet.
Expensive home computers serve no good purpose. Everyone must use a 4 MHz Z80 and browse using text-only on dial-up modems.
It's for your own good! We're perfectly justified to force these things AT GUNPOINT.
Anything else you want, Josef?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It won't be popular, and the real problem with the climate is pollution, not just the tiny amount produced by air conditioning.
Fix the cars, not the paint.
edit: Almost forgot, racist joke goes here.
> Come to my neck of the woods (South Bronx) and discuss with the locals about Blue Staters not having guns.
Somehow I don't think those guys are going to line up, and singing _The International_, march forth at the vanguard of the Revolution to put down the reactionaries. But I could be wrong.
Point being that while the punks on the typical college campus can usually make a few Molotov Cocktails without killing themselves I would put three rednecks up against fifty of the Junior Marxist and call it a fair fight. Just playing the odds, at least one of the rednecks will have served a hitch and know how to handle himself in a firefight while none of the rock throwing radicals will have any skills.
Democrat delenda est
Are they going to charge me more to register my vehicle if it's already a dark color? This is utter stupidity. The state legislature needs to spends LESS time worrying about things like this and MORE time actually keeping the state government from becoming moribund, like it's spent too much time doing lately. NOT letting any of these yahoos stay in office, that's for sure!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
My team does have one advantage in a revolution though... you guys in the Blue State hives don't have guns. :) Don't count on the Army, though they are normally agents of the State this isn't Russia; most of the US military will be on my side. Those guys take their Oath a lot more seriously than the average elected official who violates the Constitution daily.
... What?!
Perhaps I missed the point where "blue" states started to round up guns and take them from people. Never mind the fact that no, the military does not take their "oath" seriously. If they did, you'd probably still have your free republic.
The whole "Typical progressive" shows a lot of your bias and probably even outright misplaced hate. I guess this is where I state "Typical conservative". See, I can make crazy leaps in logic, and major assumptions about other people on the internet, too!
They're trying to get people to rush out and buy black cars to stimulate the economy and get some tax revenue. Black cars are better than no cars, which is what's being sold in California right now.
I'm not sure if I'm kidding or not here.
> People who talk about "watering the Tree of Liberty" always sound like
> they're planning on killing others, not sacrificing themselves...
Well that IS the idea. Letting the poor Marxist bastards die for what they believe. :) Of course when undertaking a revolution, 2nd Civil War, whatever one always should approach it with the knowledge that the risk is great, the historical odds of success low and death a high probability. The Founding Fathers certainly paid a pretty high price for the Republic we have squandered. Go look up how many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence paid for their act of rebellion against the most powerful nation on the planet at the time they decided to tell em to bugger off.
Democrat delenda est
Spend time thinking about stuff that actually matters...Like, I don't know...The amount of gasoline a car uses? How about a requirement for car pooling? I guess this crap makes the legislators look like they are doing something.
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems yet.
Fixed that one for ya. What again is the problem with more efficient vehicles? Do you need a five litre engine to feel better about yourself?
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? I hope I'm not your neighbor. And if you're one of those obnoxious little shits who thinks causing 120db of racket is "cool," you're a fucking twit. Your blast pack is a douchebag cowbell.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
New York and California subsidize the rest of the country, and have for decades. That's because they put in more federal money than they receive every single year. So, you're paying them back, and I doubt it's what you owe them.
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
While you're there, try reading a bit. It's useful to actually know things instead of talking out of your ass.
Why do I never have mod points when I need them? Should have a +1 Damn Right option.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
One way to judge is the cost.
If I carry gasoline in the car and burn it for energy, at say 20mpg, I would burn 2 gallons of gas getting to and from work. Cost $4.00
If I charge up a battery pack and drive to and from work, the cost is more like .2kWh per mile or 4kWh. Since the energy is most likely produced by coal or oil (in my area) it would give a pretty good indication on efficiencies.
BTW, KWH is about 15 cents right now with all taxes added.
So something like $.60 (60 cents for those that don't see the decimal point).
Of course the battery powered car probably will not do the satisfying burn out.
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
In Norway, one of the big oil-producing countries in the world, a recent proposal was to ban gasoline cars by 2015. I'd like to see that happen in the US. You really need to get your act together and start thinking of the environment over there.
1. Paint your car a color that reflects light.
I've never understood why really dark colors even show up on lots in the southern US, especially in the western states. We owned a black car once. Never again.
2. Inflate your tires.
Agreed. keeping tires properly inflated helps gas mileage, safety and performance.
3. Drive slower.
BZZZZT. Time is a completely non-renewable resource. All I got is all I got, and wasting it to get somewhere slower while commuting doesn't cut it. Make the roads big enough for reasonable capacity and coordinate the lights to keep traffic flowing, and you'll do far more to save the environment, reduce fuel consumption, and not waste peoples' time.
I fucked Jessica Alba last weekend.
Why not just straight restrict air conditioning in cars and allow them in government vehicles only?
I am really-really a tree hugger. Vegan, drive a small cc car and take my motorbike whenever I can/travel alone. But when a state is banning dirt bikes and allow 6liter SUVs (even the governor drives one) something stinks bad, and it is not the 10 liter 2-stroke mix most environmentally concious/correct tad filling in his atv/dirt bike .... it is the non-existent rail system and the SUVs ....
You think I live at a different place? In Costa Rica the train system was systematically abandoned in favour of government officials who owned truck companies.
But hey, at least I can still ride a dirt-bike without too much hassle..... and before you have some comments: I am vegan, my family is vegetarian and even if I drove tank to work every day that would make me more environment friendly than than any of the meat-eaters ...
CA Republicans are more interested in redistricting and open primaries to further their minority political power than being fiscal conservatives. I would have loved to see the Republicans win, because it would have resulted in massive layoffs by all state government agencies, sending the unemployment rate skyrocketing and pissing off a hell of a lot of people, which the Republicans would be fully to blame for.
The private sector is laying off people en masse, whether they are hurting financial or not. Even if taxes were lowered, the private sector is not going to start hiring people back because we are still in a state of economic decline. When we hit bottom, that'll be the time to cut spending and lower taxes, because by then the private sector will be comfortable with hiring more people and taking on more risk.
Lots and lots of metal flake.
It will be the '70s all over again. They will try to make it cool.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Have you ever looked at car color names? I am sure there are "black" cars, but how many are "midnight gray" or some such poetic name. Very few car colors have normal names.
Laws need to be specific, and if my car color is "Asshole Legislature", then I guess it isn't "Black".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That's a bunch of bullpelosi. What kind of moron did it take to come up with that legislation? I guess white cars will be next on the list, no sense in having all of the sunlight reflected back into the atmosphere. I'm sure that Al Gore, the man who invented the internet, will find that somehow white cars destroy the ozone layer, thus causing more of something that doesn't exist. If I wish to won a black vehicle, that's my business. If someone wants to ride a bike for the rest of their life, that's their business. If someone in here would like to think of me as a "teenager", so be it, the mindless usually let other people run their lives anyway. This rates right up there with that pinwheel from West Virginia wanting to ban Barbies.
Yes.
Freedom means I get to disagree with you. Even if you're "right".
I won't address any of the ways that actualy you're wrong, because that's not the issue.
The issue is that neither you, nor the government, are supposed to own my every thought and my every action.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Assuming the problem with emissions is that it is a consumption of a public good (clean air), why not just tax gasoline instead? You can consume as much clean air as you like, as long as you pay society for what you consume.
(disclaimer, I'm a Californian with a black car, and I like black cars)
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
fantasy quotes: "... air conditioner in building have to work harder to cool air when people with black shirt, tuxedo, heavy socks and high boots enter the building, thus all these stuff will be forbidden!".
... and as Neo said to Trinity in the first matrix: We'll need sunglasses.. lots of sunglasses.
May seems funny (or just weird) but that's what japanese did, first in the world, a bunch of years ago introducing 'less formal' wears in the office to lower air conditioner power consumption.
mmmh what else.. super-tax for heavy cpu.consuming games and applications...
I'm looking for a business mate to market black stuff from california to alaska, marketing back white stuff from alaska to california!
("guns", in the movie)
nop, nop, nop #VBLANK
You really think the Founders would have been outraged over paint colors?
Given their reaction to taxes on tea ... it's quite possible.
ban daytime driving
ban CA.
Did you just blame the problems of the most liberal* state in the union on Republicans?
I'm neither republican or democrat, but living and voting here, you see every year, Democrat politicians continually pushing for more programs that may or may not be good ideas (banning black cars? - democrat nurtured.), but that we definitely can't afford...
And how exactly does the delay of the state budget cause the state to go broke... are you suggesting that the state not having a budget will cause it to spend more or earn less? I guarantee that with the way the legislature attempts to spend money, holding up the budget can only have the opposite effect of what you propose.
Further, why do you suppose the Republicans held up the budget? Perhaps because the state was literally, out of money, and democratic lawmakers were relentlessly pushing additional spending measures on the budget.
And yes, then there was also the issue of taxes. If you're a wealthy, high paid worker that's willing to put your money where you're politics are, that's fantastic, and commendable. But if you're an employer, such as myself, you're taxes are going to have a very real effect on the lives of current and potential employees--And that's exactly what we need right now, fewer jobs being created, right? So that we can pay out even more in unemployment benefits, right?
Sim-city got it right- case-and-point, the current Corporate mass-exodus from California. Which I'm sure is also because "the budget was held up by republicans". Christ.
California's budget problems are as obvious as your blue-collar neighbor in the McMansion with an Escalade in the driveway (or maybe that's just a California thing). It's all quite poetic: the most materialistic and consumerism-stricken populace in the nation is represented by politicians who continuously want expensive, shiny, new, fashionable things (policies, programs, etc) for their 'constituents'.
Look, I hate the legislation of morality and religion (prop 8) as much as.... well, a lot. But I would trust my brother's wife with a checkbook register sooner than I would California democrats.... and that's really fucking bad.
*"Most Liberal" Stats: Voters: 44.4% Dem. / 31.3% Rep. Assembly: 63.7% Dem. / 36.3% Rep. Senate: 24 Dem. / 15 Rep. Icing: Nancy Pelosi
!#&*
A really overweight person. They also reduce the mileage of the car. They should tax them or ban them from the highway. I say this with tongue in cheek. This story is nuts.
"You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
.
. When the feds wanted different (actually stricter) standards, they used CARB to protect their smog-testing industry. When other states wanted different manufacturing efficiencies, CARB made rules that force manufacturers to go CA (defeating other states' agendas). Now CA is trying to use CARB to keep manufacturing jobs in CA and force Detroit to make cars that fit their standard so they justify taxing their residents (for green initiatives). CARB is all about protectionism, not environmentalism.
And in most cases, the hidden sin learned from the [car] modifications industry, is if you have the money, you can pay your way out of CARB rules.
why don't we just make cars so that the hott air can excape (sic). In my community we do this by ... cracking the window a fraction of an inch and putting those kewl dashboard reflector things behind the windshield.
California is already among the highest taxed in the nation. You know where the top tax bracket is? 42k/yr.
We don't need more taxes, we need to stop spending on stupid shit and set simple policies that will guide us to a cleaner future.
The fact we are politely discussing the merits of this proposal instead of laughing at and/or preparing boiling oil for the idiots responsible shows we have lost the Republic our mighty forebearers gave us in trust.
Not at all. In case you haven't noted, this is a State law, not Federal. As such, it is entirely consistent with the original principles on giving most powers to the States on which the U.S. was founded.
Contrary to what some people think, the core U.S. founding idea is federation with weak Federal government, which does not necessarily imply libertarianism on all levels of the government.
So you think this is the "smart way"? Where and when did you get your PhD? Personally, I'll run my own life. So far the government seems to be doing an excellent job of screwing up everything else, and I'm not a lemming.
That's because they're statists. Nothing new here.
Life is not for the lazy.
I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
"Black and all dark hues are currently on the banned list." Looks like a ban on black cars to me.
If you don't like it in CA, you can always move to another state, you know. New Hampshire, maybe. This law infringes none of your Constitutional rights because it is not a Federal law. If you are a true adherent to the original principles of the U.S. Constitution, then accept the fact that States (but not the Feds!) do have rights to enact such kinds of legislation on their territory. If you don't like it, and if a lot of other people don't like it, well - you can always all move to one state and rehash the local legislature the way you see fit. In fact, there is already great diversity between the existing States, so you might just find what you want in one of them...
Also, if you truly think that "blue staters" (Democrats?) = Marxists, then you're really deluded.
It has been demonstrated that our carbon output is quickly destabilizing our climate. Black cars use more gas with air conditioning or to make up for the drag of having windows open. I don't think this is the greatest measure to solve the global climate crisis, but it's not exactly out of bounds
Open/vent sunroof, open up dash vents, or crack the window, you'll cool the car off (down to near-ambient temperature, anyway) in plenty of time.
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
And you have the Democrats doing their damnedest to spend it all. Maybe you should find a way to get rid of the leeches of society out there, like Octomom?
I'm willing to bet CA has been paying more than it's fair share of fderal taxes over the last few decades.
Federal taxes are generally welfare for the middle states, with the coastal states paying in more than they get, and the central ones getting more than they pay.
But I guess that is probably California's fault too.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Probably the better approach is to teach people how to cool their car better.
Whether it's a white car or a black car, if you get in and wind up the windows and turn on the aircon, it's inefficient.
You get in, wind the windows down and drive a couple minutes until the temperature equalises with outside, THEN you wind up the windows.
This has nothing to do with the colour of the car; it's all about the silly misconception people have that you need to wind up the windows when you want to use aircon.
You don't, you wind them up if, and only if the temperature inside the car is equal or lower than the temperature outside the car.
Not only does it save you some power, but it also gets the car cool faster.
I'm a liberal (no party affiliation) and I agree on this one. One too many pieces of legislation claiming "no new costs, we can pay for it without raising taxes!" That's a load of bull. CA has some great ideas, programs and services, but the Dems are waaaaaaaay too lazy when it comes to figuring out where the money is going to come from. The result: a lot of great ideas using up more money than they should, because the legislation was rushed out the door amidst the excitement.
It is already illegal in many California counties to wash your car with your garden hose. They have to have the means of capturing the waste water so that the oils can be separated. Yea hippies!
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Only during the droughts. ;^)
How does painting my car a color that reflects light improve my fuel economy? Also, please note that ALL colors reflect light.
Try to drive a car that has a mirrored paint job and see what happens to you.
While we are outlawing things, outlaw all ICEs but Wankel engines.
Here's a question for you. Is it SMART to have an uneducated or willfully ignorant person's vote count the same as one who is educated and is well versed in all the topics at hand?
Now, if we could get rid of the black helicopters...
KeS
"Yeah, fuck California and their GDP that dwarfs most nations'. "
And yet..they still can't pay their own bills.
Ah yes, a wise man once said with great power comes great responsibility.
Apparently, in CA great GDP brings forth even greater debt.
Oh, and if that's par for the course for the US, then CA is doing a hell of an impression of Tiger Woods.
CIA, FBI, NSA, etc... I am sure they have some CA branches and they have to have black cars don't they?
First post! (just in case I am...)
Driving slower doesn't always mean better fuel economy. Turbos, for example... my car seems to get the same MPG at 50 as it does at 75...
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Well, it's more complex than simply relocating the smog of course.
Efficiency issues aside (eg. efficiency gains in generation, losses in transmission, etc), even if it's a coal burner, the power plant also acts as a single point for potential improvement to reduction of smog causing emissions (filtering out smog etc), and of course emissions improvements there won't add weight (and thus inefficiency) to the car like adding filters to a gas using car would.
Basically, even if there aren't improvements in renewable/nuclear power sources, there's still potential for gain from going electric by consolidating emissions control measures.
The question of the costs for those control measures simply remains the same as it is right now for the existing power from those sources. Will people actually want to meet the costs for their combustion-supplied electricity to be cleaner?
Because we have the Republicans holding the budget of the state hostage every year. I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one) and redo Prop 13 to only include non-income primary residences.
Ah, perhaps you would have better luck handling the tax revenue if a good portion of your (how shall I put this gently) "legally-challenged residents" actually paid taxes...
Mod parent up. You're forgetting that forbidding anything can now be justified on the basis of made up numbers thrown into a junk science computer model. Every legislator must stampede to outdo each other in getting on the green bullshit bandwagon so that they don't lose votes to somebody who says they're even MORE hardcore crazy about doing everything as ridiculously 'green' as possible.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
True, very true. There are fewer signs of actual logic and reason in Sacramento than there are in Washington. Common sense has ceased to exist in either location in detectable quantities.
Sig NaTure, would you like to take the floor on this one? Seems rather fitting.
All my favourite colors are dark... right now I roll in a sable black Cadillac Seville. Black is the best color (lack of color?) for lots of cars... how much of the coolness of the Buick Grand National and GNX was based on the "everything is black" aspect? This is plain retarded.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
That fucking Racist dawg.
I've lived in your neck of the woods, cream puff. And I've traveled extensively in the "red states." There is no question about (A) which citizenry is better armed, and (B) which citizenry actually knows how to shoot straight and re-load what they are armed with. There is a long-standing, time-honored, and deep gun culture in the "red states." Where you come from, it's just 'bling,' yo.
I am unequivocally convinced that if the drafters of the Constitution had any inkling of the form of government we would end up with, the document would have been radically different. Anybody who has actually read what Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams et al. wrote about government and the citizenry at large would agree.
I think this Republic was lost at the point when people became too lazy to muster for militias as proscribed by the Militia Act of 1792.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
is building cars out of concrete.
I always rebut with "economies of scale" it's much more efficient to increase performance (less emissions) on 1 big tailpipe than 2 million tailpipes.
Now, of course, that big tailpipe is next to my rural hose to feed the large number of cars in a city - that is another story.
"Each of these will improve your fuel economy noticeably. "
Got dyno results to back up Number 1?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I would have loved to see the Republicans win, because it would have resulted in massive layoffs by all state government agencies, sending the unemployment rate skyrocketing and pissing off a hell of a lot of people ...
Skyrocketing unemployment, a hell of a lot of pissed off people, those are truly noble things to wish for. What party did you say you supported again?
Aye, gang bangers don't target shoot. Simply possessing a gun doesn't mean you can magically hit something with it, especially if you're holding it sideways with one hand. While no armed man is a joke, I would be magnitudes less worried about a gang banger actually killing me at any distance over 20' than somebody with a decent amount of range time.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
The most important thing nowadays is efficiency. Human choice or just living your own damn life and enjoying it *awful* because it might indirectly impact someone by some small degree. In the distant future I can see them regulating our diets, too-- probably by requiring us to fulfill our dietary obligations set out during our mandatory checkups (preventative medicine...)
Humans beings have always been pathetic creatures.
Ban black people for being harder to cool.
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Too subtle Denzacar, far too suble. But I guess it goes to prove the truth of your sig.
At this rate may as well just ban brakes since they are such a well-known source of inefficiency.
My webcomic
I find it hard to believe this article wasn't orginally from the Onion. That, or the state of CA is trolling the rest of the nation for laughs.
"Hey guys, we seem to be in a Prisoner's Dilemma situation up in here. How about we compel ourselves and each other to do the optimal thing instead of the selfish thing?"
"Ok. You first."
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Um, I don't think so, unless they helped push nuclear power plants to pick up the slack in power. Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
I felt that the change in the production of energy was implicit, but since you pointed it out, I appreciate the extra effort at making the point clearer.
In another post on this same topic I had mentioned a federally orchestrated shove of current archaic energy industries into renewable resource use. As I had said, Exxon Mobil could just as easily profit from selling us electricity as they could from pumping and refining fuels, but they are resistant to make the change on their own: the point being that if, as a nation, we forced them to change, they would have no choice but to do so, and would still be in a highly profitable business. That, of course, regards our current system of capitalist energy production.
Now if you ask me personally, I think it is safe to assume that energy is just as essential to our way of life in 2009 as food, health, water, and shelter. From that I believe energy should not be in the market of profit/market/forced-scarcity whatsoever, and that municipalities produced and mediated by local governments should provide our energy. As a people we rely on that energy, as a people we require a clean future -- as a people we would (if our representatives are not corrupted by old money) produce energy from clean renewable resources with the methods that have already been extensively researched and successful. The only barrier to a move to 100% clean renewable energy is the ignorance of the sheeple to the current state of technology and their high susceptibility to believe money-driven propaganda.
Why do you need the 'freedom' to do damage to my planet?
Because without the freedom to damage the planet in some way, you don't have much freedom at all.
Besides, it's not just your planet. You should get a voice in the discussion, but you don't get to dictate terms.
Your premise is flawed as well. You are asserting that purchasing a legal good and using it legally is equivalent to "urinating in a pool".
FYI, my turbocharged KA-T 240sx, with absolutely no emissions gear other than the catalyst --- was less than 50% of all thresholds of levels for emissions testing. (My friend had a sniffer and we were testing for some other issue, but he pointed that out).
But, despite the fact that my car satisfied all the INTENDED purposes of CARB/smog laws, the fact that I didn't have all that silly smog technology on the car would still have had me fail a 'smog check'. Not because my car emits beyond limits, but simply because my car did not have all the song and dance that CARB wanted it to have.
Booshit.
maybe they should just ban a/c altogether.
Thank God we live in a country where morons like you do not have power.
There are 49 other states, and several other countries on Earth.
Did you discuss the merits like a rational person? No. You just rant without considering the details at all.
The GP gave a statement about his philosophy, you replied with a string of hypotheticals. That makes me think that you missed his point.
Loudmouthed ignorants are not the best people to have power.
That's why I didn't vote for you.
This just pisses me off.
Cars and most consumer things are chock full of regulations that cost $100 more. Hey, guess what! Not everyone's going to Berkley and $100 means something. Why is it that all of these so called regulations fall on the backs of the middle class and the poor. There's taxes on smoking, taxes on drinking, taxes on all consumer things and even now the liberal leadership of this country goes around arguing that people have too much, casually declaring that it will be that people have these things... but the thing, is, you keep raising up prices, and they can't afford them any more.
The truth is, in this country, liberals are the enemies of the poor and middle class. But that's not to say that conservatives love them either. A conservative will rattle on all day about Jesus and then tell a homeless vet to get a job, all the while talking about how much they love the USA while cheering for GM to go bankrupt. Assholes. The best either of these mothers ever do is to throw out some welfare every now and some preaching now and then. But those are just tokens for the enormous cost all of the additional regulations of government and business impose on the common man. It will never change the fact that the government really does tax the poor and middle class with all of these fees and regulations rather heavily.
We need deregulation in this country but not Republican deregulation for just the rich. We need to deregulate - everybody -. No more stupid car regulations. No more seatbelt laws. No more taxes on smokes. Reform the drug laws. Get rid of car inspections. Get rid of taxes. Get rid of recycling laws. If the rich people of this country want you to have sorted trash, let THEM pay for it. Copying digital works is natural. Get rid of driver's licenses - for f--- sake -- driving is a right and who the hell is some elected politician jackass to tell me that driving is a privilege. Driving is a fundamental right and goes on in my house is my business, not some panty assed bitch with a phd and a head full of acid mumbling on about the whales or some church lady with her uterus cramped up into a bowtie whining about me not wearing a tie on Sunday for the Lawd. While we're at it, get rid of business license, get rid of marriage license...just get rid of all of these assholes and their NAZI fucking rules about the environment and religion and line them up against the wall shoot these busy bodies that call themselves leaders but drove this country into the ground.
Hunter S Thompson was wrong. Freak power isn't some marginal thing. Freak power won and took over. Church freaks, enviro freaks. These goddamned freaks have ruined this country. We've had fourty years of this shit and what we have? We're more sinful and wasteful than ever, because these freaks have ruined religion and environmental causes so much thaty you almost have to go hunting baby seals and burning up a cross just to rebel against these dick funguses.
Is it time for the poor and the middle class rise up and have not a Republican revolution or a Democrat revolution, but a French revolution in America? If we consider that 80,000 Frenchmen were executed out of a population of 20 million, that would equate to about 1.2 million people getting whacked. I figure if you spread that out evenly among Democrats and Republicans to include just about every politician, senior business leaders, university heads, just, the whole leadership of this country. You cannot sanely argue that any institution is competently lead in the United States today. Businesses and Government are both failing and crooked and incompetent, because our ruling class is either stupid or indifferent or both. Who cares! They suck! Let's get rid of them! Obviously, though, through some peaceful means... like, maybe they can build a city underwater or
This is my sig.
Hating on the government has become a full-time religion in this country.
Wonderful! Now if we can turn that hatred into skepticism, we'll really have gotten somewhere.
Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
Consider electric power to be a sort of "common language" of electricity. If your car runs on gasoline, then gasoline is the only source that it'll run on. But if your car runs on electricity, then it runs on gasoline, or coal, or nuclear, or hydro, or whatever you care to power your community with.
But when the gas runs out, you aren't stuck with a bunch of machines that you can't afford to run. When better, cheaper, cleaner power sources are discovered, the cost of adoption is dramatically reduced, because every type of power can be converted into electrical. This would untether your economy from any one source, for ever!
"Exporting our smog to the power plant that handles our section of the grid" should be a national priority.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Do you really think that most wealthy people are going to stick around for that? The legilation for that idea would probably be called the "Evacuate California Act".
Full disclosure: I'm a former Californian who left when things started to go downhill in that state.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
How exactly is this theatre?
Maybe you skipped third-grade science class, but simple physics state that darker colours absorb more sunlight, which gets converted to heat. Therefore, they require more power (and hence produce more CO2) to cool to reasonable temperatures.
"Theatre" is something that looks good, but doesn't actually have any effect. This has an effect, therefore it's not theatre.
Or, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, ".. that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must ... we start screaming at them?
Because we're human, because we want to make choices on our own, because we don't like other people running our lives, ... take your pick.
What's the case for not doing them -- contrariness?
It's a free country, people shouldn't even have to make a case.
...buy your black car in another state. Even if this ridiculous law passes, there is *always* a huge pile of loopholes and clauses for grandfathered vehicles, transferring registration for out-of-state cars, etc.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
> I would love if we could get a higher income tax on the wealthy (of which I am one)
No one is stopping you from giving the government more than you already are. Feel free to make a donation. Go ahead. You first.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
It isn't flawed, you just don't understand it. The carbon tax isn't there to pay to have carbon sucked out of the atmosphere, it's to compensate for the use of a scarce public resource (the atmosphere's ability to absorb carbon) and encourage it to be used wisely.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
This isn't vaguely similar. He just wants the right to drink a soda at the pool, even though he'll have to pee more often and wear out the urinal faster.
You are asserting that purchasing a legal good and using it legally is equivalent to "urinating in a pool".
I'm not asserting that. For one thing, the legality is what is under question here ("should I be legally able to do unconstrained emissions so long as I pay for them?"), so it cannot be used as the underlying reason. My example was merely to demonstrate that "it's alright, I'm gonna pay for that" is not a valid excuse for a large variety of activities out there, both legal and illegal - and those of them that are illegal are that for a reason!
That said, the law being discussed in TFA is silly regardless of how you look at it.
So what should the people in the north or snowy parts of California do? Having a nice absorbant car in the dead of winter is a very good thing.
????
Ok...I give, if they really do that out there...how DOES one go about washing their own car?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
4. Drive so as to minimize the use of your brakes.
5. Use the highest gear that does not lug.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
You shouldn't have to bet.... California's disproportionate federal tax burden and return on tax dollar are a hard, well-documented facts.
In 2002, Moody reports, the per capita federal tax burden in California was $7,313-or 116% of the national average. On the other hand, per capita federal spending in the state was only $5,592-or 88% of the national average. For every dollar California sent in taxes to Washington, D.C., it received only 76 cents in return.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200308/ai_n9240268
But once again, the GP is a smug, self-righteous ass who feels that he's been somehow wronged and that he is being forced to support CA. Of course, he probably doesn't realize that CA has been supporting many of the smaller states in hard-working "real" America for a very long time. Nor does he realize that much of the mess that we're currently in was created by the policies he likely supports.
Back on topic: I like black cars. This CARB policy is stupid, and I don't think the general populace will allow it.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
If that many people depend on the govt for jobs....then I think you might have insight as to one of the big problems of the state!?!
The govt should not be the primary employer of the people in a state. Laying off govt workers should only be a blip in unemployment numbers, even if you cut like 30% off them at one fell swoop.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
assuming there only ever summer and it NEVER gets cold , then that might be just one of the factors they could consider .. alternatively they could start subsidising the carbon fibre industry and have cheap replacements for all body parts that are viable to replace from sheet metal to carbon fibre. Internal Seats could also be made of lighter components which would then allow these cars to have smaller lighter engines, not to mention integrated roof rack solar panels that would utilise solar power to run some of the electrics during bright daylight, further reducing the load on the engine.
Black (non metallic paint) cars would be much better than anything else in even a slightly cooler climate where it would readily absorb all available heat possible and reduce the load on the internal heating system ...
these politicians need to pick up science books way before the age of 100 if they are going to start making up laws that affect technology ..
The carbon tax isn't there to pay to have carbon sucked out of the atmosphere, it's to compensate for the use of a scarce public resource (the atmosphere's ability to absorb carbon) and encourage it to be used wisely.
That is correct, but you cannot truly encourage proper use of such resources by monetary measures. There's no proper price that can be set on a resource which exists in finite quantity and cannot be recreated (well, there is - +INF). If you use up some of that, then you basically steal from everyone else, because no amount of money, today (and in foreseeable future), can recreate the part that you've used.
The only solution to use of scarce resources is rationing (which does not have to be equal - it just has to be rational, which is not the same as "whoever pays the biggest buck").
I like performance sports cars. Right now, I'm into smaller engine ones (my 911 turbo died in Katrina). But, I would like to get another Vette again, maybe a Z06 in the near future. I'd LOVE to have an engine larger than 5L. I can afford the gas.
"So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? "
Yes.
"And if you're one of those obnoxious little shits who thinks causing 120db of racket is "cool," you're a fucking twit. "
No...not one of those wanna be's with the coffee can muffler. I mean a real exhaust note. Something that sound meaty, and heavy duty. I prefer the 'note' to be a low one...not so much loud, but, I do enjoy going through a parking garage, and setting off people's alarms that have them set too sensitive.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
BATMAN vs TERMINATOR Summer 2012
As a foreigner, I find your equation of the Democrats and "liberal" cute. :-)
At this rate may as well just ban brakes since they are such a well-known source of inefficiency.
You jest, but most of the efficiency gained by (current) hybrid cars comes from braking using the motors, and saving the energy in the batteries, rather than heating up the brake pads.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I know I'm in my forties and perhaps far above the median slashdotters age (not enough data) but when I was growing up, and even now, we call it "common sense."
Apparently we don't have teachers who are allowed to teach it anymore.
(Chorus: No Shit.)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You might make a good start by shooting all those bastards and finding people who have a basic science education :)
And quit exporting them to where I live. We really don't want any more of your moderately rich bastards to come here and frak up our cost of living.
Especially their ideas about real estate.
Just sayin' ;)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Doesn't matter what partisan stripe they are, and you know that.
There are too many people living high on the hog in your state, and that's the fundamental problem.
Deal with it. Please. Those of us on the close side of the eastern rockies are sick and tired of taking your rich refugees in. We don't have room for them and it's frakking up our lives.
There's not very many places left in the US where one can live a life somewhat unecumbered by the bullshit that money brings, whether or not it's from the east or west coast. I hate to say it this way, but I'd be all for independent sovereign status for the west coast. At least it would give some of us the ability to restrict immigration. Perhaps. :)
I live in a small town on the SD/WY border. Nice place, good people. But we're being invaded by people who have the attitudes that you and I hate so much and as has happened so many times all over the US in the last few decades, it is destroying what we value so much about our life here.
Shoot them at the border, please :)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Prescribed. Good God, c'mon.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
Granted, though at least I'm not one of the army of tards that swap you're and your, their and there, effect and affect, principle and principal, capitol and capital...
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I'm left handed, so does that make california even more important to me? (note: I'm from New Zealand and don't give a shit about USA/California)
Just like dimples on golf balls. This is also why I laugh at "hardcore" sports people who shave to reduce air resistance...
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
You don't have the right to urinate into a public swimming pool either, even if you offer to "pick up the tab" for it.
Well, maybe we should have that right. I don't know about you, but I enjoy a good pee while standing in the wading pool. Why should I be denied that simple pleasure?
Actually, no, it doesn't. Regen braking only improves range by ~10% in the best case, the majority of the savings come from having a smaller, higher efficiency engine which is better managed (idle stop etc). The electric drive helps by allowing a smaller fuel engine, and by taking over in driving circumstances that are worst for fuel efficiency (slow moving stop start traffic).
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
What state DOESN't have air quality problems? Wyoming, one of the most empty states you can imagine, has some of the worst air quality, partly from its massive amounts of coal powered power plants, and partly because air from California and Nevada wonders on over to Wyoming and gets trapped there against the Tetons.
Oh, and most states are broke these days. In fact 3/4 of the states are running a deficit. California's is huge, but uh, California is huge. Over 1/9th of the country lives there. If your state had almost 40 million people living in it, it would have problems too.
Nope... now they're required to teach "self-esteem", by which very act they negate any potential for common sense in their students.
-- from another well-aged slashdotter, and get off my lawn! ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Basically I think the idea has merit. All flaming about no contribution: The problem with CO2 is that there is always something else that makes a bigger contribution. I could reason: Whatever I do it has no impact because there are 6 billion people that pollute also. It is a fact that the car gets hotter, it is a fact that the airco has to work harder/longer. It is a fact that more energy is used just because of colour.
Instead of a ban, there could be a tax incentive. Make darker cars $100 more expensive, make lighter cars cheaper. The market can do its work.
In the Netherlands cars are taxed with an additional tax. For gas guzzlers you pay more, and the fuel-efficient cars you pay less.
Bert
Who lives in a relatively rainy country but already considered the colour of his next car in view of fuel consumption
The most disturbing thing about this is not that there are wankers in the California state government who believe it to be their right to dictate to others how they should live, but that the voters in California are so pathetic that these sorts of wankers have accumulated in large enough numbers that this kind of nonsense stands a chance of becoming law.
In a democracy the people get the government they DESERVE.
The citizens of the state of California need to remember that the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. The political apparatchiks who administer the machinery of the state are NOT your rulers, they are your servants. Treat them accordingly and fire any who forget their place.
What the hell is going on that my formatting and paragraphs are getting LOST???
Is this a "feature?"
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I'm ready for Raymond Cocteau, SanAngeles, and the end of the Franchise Wars now!
Hot dogs! Armor hot dogs! The dogs...kids...love...to...biiiiite!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> at least they [CA republicans] are true fiscal conservatives unlike the Republicans in the US congress.
Don't make the mistake of assuming they are fiscally conservative. Every minority party makes this claim, saying "we wouldn't blow our wad on all this spending!" when there's no action needed and no political risk for talking the talk. If they took majority, maybe they'd reign in spending, or maybe they'd do what every party has done in the past- shift spending from all those wasteful projects they complained about to a whole new set of wasteful projects.
Look at the rhetoric from the US congresscritters before+after the last congressional party switch...
I am not a sig.
Since this is the USA, where freedom still partially exists, doing a legal activitiy and paying for any resources you consume is a perfectly valid excuse. We as individuals do not yet have to answer to the collective for our choices, so long as they are legal.
I don't like many things people choose to do, but I respect their right to do them. You can't make pollution illegal since absolutely everything pollutes. You yourself pollute just by existing. So, objectively speaking, how much pollution is ok? And why do you get to decide where that line is?
so what?
burning fossil fuels is burning fossil fuels, but power plants can be significantly more efficient than the engine in your car is supposed to be, let alone what it probably is after five years of low maintenance- this is for a variety of reasons, including scale. Transmission losses aren't that bad.
Last summer I spent 3 weeks watching the CA state Senate sessions. Not ONCE did I see ANY Democrat vote against ANY program that cost money, no matter how trivial or ridiculous. This while fighting about the budget and the $8B that the feds are about to force CA to spend on building more prison hospital facilities.
Conversely, most (not all) Republicans voted against needless spending, most (not all) of the time.
Only Tom McClintock (R) voted against *anything* that needlessly spent money, 100% of the time. Blessings upon you, Mr.McClintock!
http://blog.tommcclintock.com/2009/03/25/when-is-enough-enough/
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
But you do have the right to swim as much as you want.
Then you can pretty much drop trot in the middle of the street.
You can't legally do it yourself unless you have a proper storm-drain system with a NPDES permit. So you have to take it to a car-wash. Yeah, I live in a nanny-state. The weather's nice. . .
Ahh, but its ok for the swim guards to come along and 'allow' you to take a regulated quantity of pee into the pool?
What do you expect when they have to send so much money to the federal government every year to subsidise red states?
There's no proper price that can be set on a resource which exists in finite quantity and cannot be recreated (well, there is - +INF).
My time is a finite, non-recreatable resource, so should minimum wage be $+INF?
If you use up some of that, then you basically steal from everyone else ...
And if it never gets used, it's still essentially stolen from everyone else, and it's also stolen from me.
The only solution ... is rationing
So it's OK to "steal from everyone else", as long as it's done in fixed quantities?
More importantly, this is starting to sound ideological. Are you actually saying that taxing can't lower the use of a resource? Or did you really mean that you think it's fairer to do it that way (or something like that)?
Why not? If private companies aren't willing to hire people, then it makes sense for government to do so.
I can't see any benefit to firing people and cutting spending in a recession, it'll only make things worse. Maybe California would see some advantage to getting rid of 30% of teachers, policemen, doctors, roadworkers and so on, but I can't see it.
#3, not necessarily true. Some cars depending on the engine, gearing and aerodynamics get maximum fuel consumption at higher speeds. Those variables are not nice, linear formulas that provides predictable real world results.
All engines produces maximum fuel efficiency at it's peak torque. That is the maximum amount of work extracted for a given amount of fuel.
The vehicle's gearing can help position the engine where it's able to work most efficiently, or not. Automakers tend not to always make good gearing selections, frequently emphasizing 0-60 performance, etc rather than choosing it based on powerband compared to speed.
And lastly, aerodynamics. Face it, that aerodynamic brick of a SUV isn't gonna net better mileage at higher speeds compared to, say a 2006 Accord (28-30 MPG at 75 MPH with a V6 and A/C even, and before you ask, I get 25ish at 55).
I have to ask why you have not self imposed the carbon tax ?
Especially since you are so sentient and don't need the government to tell you what to do, and clearly agree with paying for your emissions.
It is relatively easy to buy genuine carbon offsets (not tree planting).
As it happens, I enjoy driving fast ( I do own a small car, mostly for performance reason). It gives me pleasure to do so and I get to my destination sooner. I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment. Why people insist on forbidding me from taking part in a simple pleasure on my own dime is entirely beyond me.
Because the extra pollution you make affects everybody else. I know the extra carbon _you_ are responsible for is an insignificant amount on a global scale, but if many people think like you, it becomes a problem. It's similar to the issue of smoking in public places, but on a global scale.
Are you talking about those mighty forebearers who kept slaves? I don't think they really cared about a Free People much.
Unfortunately what's 'smart' for you isn't necessarily smart for everyone else. You may enjoy driving a 4mpg SUV at 5mph through a polluted city in rush hour, but that's not so smart for the kids with asthma breathing in your fumes.
What makes you think that people are reasonable? People will do something damaging that they enjoy, even if it indirectly fucks over society as a whole. This is why laws are necessary.
One day, libertarians will understand 'externalities' and the tragedy of the commons, then their entire philosophy will collapse.
A swimming pool is analogous to the air, and pissing is analogous to harmful emissions. It's a very simple analogy.
The Founders decided who would be free citizens and who would be slaves based on the colour of their skin, so why wouldn't they be picky over car colours?
Why not simply ban refrigerant systems in autos. Back in my day we just rolled down the windows and sweated a bit.
Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid.
And reducing it in the process. A big coal powerplant is much more efficient than lots of little oil-burning engines, even once you allow for losses in distribution and storage of electricity. (I can't remember the numbers offhand, but it's something like 25% for an internal combustion engine, versus 55% for the powerplant, down to about 40% after losses.) Then there are the benefits of regenerative braking...
Plus, it makes it easier to reduce emissions further, when we (hopefully) convert to nuclear.
But does that compensate for the extra weight caused by the dirt??? :o)
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
So, CARB, your solution to help fight global warming and protect the environment is to outlaw black cars? Cause I was thinking you could maybe mandate Zero Emissions Vehilces, STICK TO IT, and not cave in to industry pressure and corruption. But obviously, outlawing black cars is a way better solution. Way better than maybe actually boosting the required minimum gas mileage for new vehicles. Cars have been able to get 35 MPG for years. Maybe a 50+ MPG would really show those federal government a--holes everyone hates so much. But clearly, no more black cars is the most effective solution to a cleaner California and a smog-free Bay Area.
Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
But there are several advantages to doing that. First, it's generally preferable to produce smog somewhere far away from where people are. It won't help global CO2 emissions but it should improve local air quality. Second, applying technology to clean up pollution is easier if it's concentrated: for example, carbon scrubbers in smokestacks. Third, some forms of power production only make sense at a certain scale: you can't produce power through burning refuse or hydroelectric or even burning the longer hydrocarbons directly in a car.
Also, you dismiss it, but there's no reason why we couldn't produce the energy through nuclear power.
Re: Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them.
Yeah? Name one.
"His name was James Damore."
Welp, you might want to make that "FUCK OBAMA" as well, as the shit California pulls is exactly the same type of shit Obama is going to pull, Pelosi is out of San Fran Sicko, and Boxer and Swinestein are little Obama acolytes. So YES WE CAN have The People's Republic of Kalifornia bullshit crap infect the rest of the USA, we have Brack Obama!
And now for THE SCREED!
Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)
Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency
What are the reserve currencies?
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people'
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers
A False Choice
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands
Socialising and Privatising
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply
Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund
- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read.
- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organization known as IRGUN who is obsessed with gun control and compulsory service to the country in a capacity which he has yet to define. (Think brown-shirts.) Barack is intimately c
Fuck that, all the god damn illegal spics wouldnt have as much work! All those fucking wetback pieces of criminal raping drug dealing shit that the fucking idiot state of California likes to welcome in so we can get Countrywide to write the spics loans and we can get the fucking demoncat democrats to get more votes from illegally registered criminal stealing raping fucking spics.
> Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
-Kay
I am not a sig.
I will gladly pick up the tab for the extra gas, which ought to include a carbon-tax that properly gauges the true cost to the environment.
Not all costs to the environment can be fixed by throwing more money at them. The basic premise here is flawed.
Only if you assume that the carbon tax won't motivate others to reduce their consumption. It's not necessary that everyone be low-impact, only that the collective impact be sufficiently low. Assuming we had a viable definition of "sufficiently low", then the solution is to ratchet the tax up until collective emissions fall below that level. Those who choose to emit more than average but are willing to pay for the privilege are automatically factored in.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is too close to April fools day to take it seriously.
They're gonna have first ammendment problems with this.
because now the Californian mafia is fucked for transport. That state probably has a law about taking dead bodies in carpet rolls on trains and buses too.
You are coming from a premise that the color of one's car is somehow a basic human right. In the last 75 years or so American's have evolved into a species that considers their car an aspect of their personality rather than a mechanism for transport. The car has become glorified through idiotic car commercials, car magazines, a 'sport' (NASCAR) etc... etc... Now that we are starting to see the devastating effects on the environment from the overuse and misuse of cars, Americans are faced with a choice: a) give up or modify their status symbols and toys, or b) give up their right to breathe clean air. This is not a liberal idea, although it may be a 'progressive' one. It seems to me a sign of maturity to give up the infantile idea that your car expresses some aspect of your personality, unless you are someone with no personality... FYI- the car I drive is a white Nissan X-Terra, which I bought because I need to transport equipment as part of my job. Most of the year when the weather is nice however- I ride a bicycle to work... I do not derive any personal sense of identity from my vehicle- I bought it because my dad works for Nissan and it represented the best deal I could get and it scored high in reliability and gas milage.
I guess the new legislation requires all cars to be primly washed every day? Any speck of dust are going to ruin the paints reflective properties...
Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
I visited Israel last summer, and noted that just about every car on the commuter highway near Tel Aviv was either white or silver. They know about heat and fuel over there!
Why is this a "5"? The government tries to get paint manufacturers to produce paint that makes cars cooler. That sounds like an engineering challenge and one that should be achievable. Help me out here slashdotters but isn't most of the heat from the sun not in the visible spectrum? http://www.dnr.sc.gov/ael/personals/pjpb/lecture/spectrum.gif
Maybe they'll change the percentage from 20% to something that includes some black and dark paints but at least we'll end up with a better car.
"Fuck CA" "stupid air pollution controls"...? Huh? Me like brown air, me neighbors no see me!
RTFA buddy, then sit in the corner and think before you post.
Everything does not pollute. Bio-organisms like humans consume and expel organic substances. Pretty much all organic substances can be easily metabolized by the environment eventually. Even the most toxic of substances will be assimilated back into the ecosystem *eventually.* The problem with industrialization is that we are expelling certain substances faster than the environment most favorable to us can deal with them, and that is detrimental to a lot of life including our own. And the government is not making all pollution illegal, it is regulating some pollution that it can regulate without people screaming bloody murder about it. If the population and corporations would be a little more rational and sensitive to the problem of pollution, the government would have regulated pollution a lot more than they have. But a very minor regulatory step like eliminating one choice of car color in one state gets such an irrational public backlash that it's impossible to deal with the very biggest aspects of pollution. There is no 'line' that says how much pollution is OK. It's simply a goal you work towards by continually modifying polluting behavior. Some of the modifications may seem minor and silly and may seem to infringe on the personal choices and rights of people. But so does asthma and lung cancer and drought and flooding, all of which many Americans have had problems with. I'd gladly change the color of my car if I knew it would reduce the chances that my home would be under water in the next 50 years...
Wow...I've never heard of such a thing?!?!?
Sad....one of the things I'd always thought was fun about owning a nice car...was washing and waxing it on a nice weekend day....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I can't see any benefit to firing people and cutting spending in a recession, it'll only make things worse. Maybe California would see some advantage to getting rid of 30% of teachers, policemen, doctors, roadworkers and so on, but I can't see it. "
Well, the thought goes...if your govt is that/too big...it is having to suck up too many resources that private businesses might could use. If it is that big...it poses a tax burden that is detrimental for businsses to succeed and hence hire people.
No, I'm not talking about govt workers that indeed ARE necessary like teachers and police, those should be some of the FEW govt jobs though. I'm talking about shedding the bureaucracy. Shed the layer upon layer upon layer of govt jobs that exist and grow with state budgets.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Must have been well over a year ago I informed my wife that her white Prius was the most Priusy of Priuses. Can't remember the original source I saw that brought up the issue.
You must be from one of those NASCAR states. Tell me, does your tricked out ricer represent your entire self-worth or is it just your penis extension?
Try to understand, it's just a machine. It does not represent your freedom. It does not represent your manhood. It does not represent your security. It gets you from point A to point B. Anything else you attribute to it is a perversion.
Sure, it may be silly law, but the of self-righteous knee-jerk reactions from motor-dicks proclaiming "you can have my black, finned, ground-effected WRX when you pry it from my cold dead hands!" just illustrates the dysfunctional relationship America has with its cars.
Maybe it's because CA is in the middle of a years-long DROUGHT? Hmm?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure power stations are a lot more efficient at producing energy than your car.
One solution for California is not a global solution. In northern climates, we have winters, and when a black car sits in the sun, it can get quite comfortable to be in, prior to starting it up. Same benefit with some untinted glass.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Do you want to be the one to tell Arnold he has to drive a white hummer now? I didn't think so.
... and I'm so, SO glad I did! Now I pay no state income tax, no state sales tax, my kid has WAY more choices for schools, ... what's not to love?
http://freestateblogs.net/history_and_purpose
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Torque rises with rpm to a point and then starts falling well before the peak HP. At redline torque is relatively low.
At higher revs, the compressor would move too fast and could be damaged. This is especially noticable in something like the K20 in the Civic Si etc where your driving around at high revs routinely and the AC will shut itself off
A/C car system are not progressive in their uses: they work or they don't. This is because they are driven by the engine, like the alternator. In a dark car, it just takes longer to have any effect.
This just goes to show the sheer level of incompetence some public offices can reach.
Black Cars look better in the shade.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Since car color is relatively trivial when it comes to operations, such a ban could be implemented without having much of an impact on other states. They would just avoid shipping dark colored cars not meeting the reflectivity requirements into California.
It is the mechanical systems that are much more expensive to vary by vehicle.
Considering the increase in the number of cars in California, the fact that the smog isn't as bad as it was in the 1960's is a tribute to the smog control practices.
Those jokers in California are morons. They will pass this and they will say, "Oh, we have done it. We are safe from global warming now. Right?"
California is very weird, they have laws in place that allow you to buy used motorcycles and cars from out of state, but you can't get them registered unless you find a way around the impossible or nearly impossible hoops of flames they have in in place.
"So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? "
Yes.
I consider that a declaration of war.
The environment is a common resource, and you damaging it for a net quality of life gain means a net loss for me. So either we can have the government step in and force us to play nice, or we can tell the government to get out of our lives and then I'll take it into my own hands by slashing your tires.
Your life is yours to do with as you please only in as far as what you do doesn't affect others. Therefore, this does not apply to common resources, i.e. the air we breathe. Screw with my air and I'll ask the government to stop you, seeing as the government won't let me stop you myself.
As the government has taken away an individual's right to use force against those who may harm him, preventing mutual harm has become the government's job. Seen in this way, environmental controls are perfectly reasonable.
And what makes you think business will employ them to do anything more useful?
So you think this is the "smart way"? Where and when did you get your PhD? Personally, I'll run my own life. So far the government seems to be doing an excellent job of screwing up everything else, and I'm not a lemming.
Except when you running your life infringes on the life of others then you are wrong. People are notorious for doing what they want irrespective of the consequences to others. They only scream foul once shit affects them negatively.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Anecdotal evidence at best.
Did you do an accurate test? This means same weather/road conditions, same acceleration/deceleration. This stuff can really only be done properly on a dynomometer.
Actual reliable and verifiable studies show that people driving at 65MPH get better fuel economy then those at 75MPH. Besides going an extra 10 miles per hour won't save you that much time - only a few minutes if you are doing a traditional work commute (about 30 miles each way).
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
"The California Air Resources Board says that the climate control systems of dark-colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings â" especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours."
Except in the wintertime, idiots.
This may be almost, nearly well and good for California (it's still a stupid fucking idea, but let's roll with it) but I am going to be supremely pissed if this legislation gets copycatted by all the states in the Northeast who always copycat CARB laws. You know, states where it's cold most of the year. My state is at the geometric opposite end of the country as California yet has similar "sniff test" laws, identical gas can laws (yes, I'm not allowed to use a normal fuel can because it might spill a drop or two of gasoline creating "VOC's" nevermind the fact that the gas that doesn't get spilled is going to be fucking burned in a lawnmower engine), identical you're-not-allowed-to-sell-this-engine laws...
This is idiocy. The impact of this type of scheme will be so small as to be immeasurable, I'm sure, but the effect it'll have on pissing off the citizenry will be massive.
Because, businesses, especially SMALL businesses in the US, are the backbone of the economy, and employ the most people in the US. Historically, that has been the case. But, when you tax and over burden them to death with paperwork and regulations, and mandated expenses, it kills them, but causes govt. to grow and thrive.
Government historically, has not been the entity that has grown our economy and hired workers in this country. Independent businesses have....
Frankly, the main thing that is killing the economy right now....isn't that businesses don't want to hire people, but, the banking credit crisis. If the govt. (Feds in this case) would quit fscking around with all this other crap, and concentrate on breaking the credit problems, and allow credit and loans to happen again, businesses would take off, and people would be hired, and the economy would start up again.
Unfortunately, so far, state and fed. govt. administrators have done most everything except breaking up the credit logjam, and have also been doing a number of things to hurt business....especially small businesses.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Because I am a fully functioning sentient human being both capable and deserving of the right to determine for myself what course of action is "smart".
Sometimes when smart individuals make smart choices for individuals, it winds up that the entire group is less well off. When this is the case, we tend to legislate.
Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid.
Yes, because the smog emissions of an industrial grade power plant, complete with its massive amounts of emissions controls, is just as inefficient as a horrendously inefficient, under-emissions-equipped gasoline motor.
Hey, maybe we should just save ourselves the development costs of *serious* power generation plants and just run cities on car motors! Sorry if it sounds harsh, but this line of thinking is ignorant at best. There's a good reason why power plants are made the way they are and it's not just because it has more power requirements.
"Just a fox, a whisper."
Use a small stirling engine to run a small heat pump to keep the inside and outside close to the same tempature. Using such a system could even charge up an electric car to help extend range.
I live in CA and can tell you this isn't really true. You can wash you car as long as you are not "hosing it down" and using a lot of water. I use bio-degradable soap (since the storm drains can end up in rivers) and 2 buckets of water (one soapy one clean) and can wash my car. It takes more patience, and a bit or care (and everyone in a while a second bucket of clean water) but it is NOT illegal unless we are in a drought and under water rationing/restrictions which is a different story.
Personally, I'm all for more nuke plants, but every time you say 'nuclear', the lawyers come out screaming "There's gonna be another Chernobyl! Remember Three Mile Island!" and other FUD. Hell, modern reactors are reasonably safe, especially the pebble bed reactors. And keep in mind that part of what goes up the stack in a coal-fired plant, depending on where they get the coal, is radioactive. Howbout we contain that so it doesn't get out into the wild?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
As an American, I don't give a fuck about what you find cute.
Since he is talking about domestic politics this is irrelevant.
They just write these laws in California. They don't actually obey them. Nobody stops for pedestrians in a crosswalk, not even the cops. Every other driver is talking on a cel. People let their dogs off the leish in the park all the time, and medical pot? Pullleeeze. (whiny voice)I've got a miiigraine... I need my medicine(/whiny voice).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
California received $0.78 for each $1.00 of taxes its citizens paid to the Federal Governement.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
If you're ready to give up on California, we'll can take our Federal Tax dollars and screw the rest of you (or at least the majority red states feeding at the Federal trough at the expense of New York, California, Illinois and NJ).
Only if you assume that the carbon tax won't motivate others to reduce their consumption. It's not necessary that everyone be low-impact, only that the collective impact be sufficiently low. Assuming we had a viable definition of "sufficiently low", then the solution is to ratchet the tax up until collective emissions fall below that level. Those who choose to emit more than average but are willing to pay for the privilege are automatically factored in.
Of course the carbon tax will motivate people to reduce consumption (and therefore pollution) on average. But you miss my point. Why should the rich get the privilege to pollute, just because the money can buy it? In fact, why should anyone have such a privilege at all?
In other words, you can set some cutoff point as "sufficiently low", and successfully reach it, but with carbon credits, you still get a few rich people/companies using a disproportionally high part of that. Assuming that we would like to use that (now restricted) resource reasonably, it's not rational to just give it to whoever's able and willing to pay. It is better to use it in such a way that benefits the society as a whole, and not for someone's private fleet of jets and racing cars.
My time is a finite, non-recreatable resource, so should minimum wage be $+INF?
Your employer doesn't pay you for your time. He pays for people-hours, which are quite certainly recreatable through the "people" part.
And if it never gets used, it's still essentially stolen from everyone else, and it's also stolen from me.
Agreed. I'm not saying we shouldn't use it - that would be stupid, and only an extreme eco-conservationist would argue for that.
So it's OK to "steal from everyone else", as long as it's done in fixed quantities?
No, it's not that. It's okay if the society decides how the limited resource is to be used for the benefit of the whole (and not just the guys with most money).
Or did you really mean that you think it's fairer to do it that way (or something like that)?
Pretty much yes, though I'd rather use the term "rational". Say, with oil, you could ration it between power plants (for the transition period to nuclear) and plastics production. Or you could sell it to the highest bidder, who may well end up being, say, Al Gore (and the likes of him) who needs it for his personal jet - and in your scheme, you're not the one to tell him how he may or may not use it, so long as he pays for it... Which one would you prefer?
I know I'm in my forties and perhaps far above the median slashdotters age (not enough data) but when I was growing up, and even now, we call it "common sense."
Apparently we don't have teachers who are allowed to teach it anymore.
I'm in my 20s, so I must have not been taught it - which is probably why I can't quite understand what you mean here in the context of my original post. Can you elaborate?
Why should the rich have the privilege to possess Porsches, or eat lobster and caviar? Those who accumulate material wealth enjoy advantages, and that's a good thing.
There are behaviors which society doesn't allow even the wealthy, but I can't see any reason why this issue rises to that level, and I can see a lot of value in addressing it economically, with the efficiencies markets bring. If you restrict everyone to a single standard, you're going to have to set that standard higher than if you establish an aggregate standard and then use economic means to efficiently allocate it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Why should the rich have the privilege to possess Porsches, or eat lobster and caviar?
Because those are, or are made of, resources that aren't currently in short supply, obviously. Also, because they are luxury items (I understand that the line is blurry, and one can live without oil just as one can live without caviar - but surely you understand what I mean here).
Those who accumulate material wealth enjoy advantages, and that's a good thing.
As a general principle, I can agree to that.
There are behaviors which society doesn't allow even the wealthy, but I can't see any reason why this issue rises to that level
This is a reasonable question, and I do not have a good answer to that. Obviously, it requires looking rather deep into the issue to determine whether it rises to that level or not. The point of my initial post wasn't even to definitely claim that it does - only to say that it is something that can and should be discussed, and that the "I have a God-given right to do it so long as I pay for it" approach is not universally applicable.
For now, I think that a reasonable balance would be safest. I.e. trade "pollution credits" and tax oil as an economic way to motivate restriction of use, but also institute some (for now, large enough that they don't really matter for typical use) quotas as an additional safeguard against reckless wasting. As the amount of those resources decrease, decrease the quotas as well as increasing the economic pressure.
I'll agree that EVs are a little impractical at this point - good for the odd guy out, but not for everyone. And they do just shift the pollution to the power company (although it is probably a net decrease).
.
Biodiesel hybrids, on the other hand, are carbon-neutral (OK, almost) and long range. Very practical. We should all have been in those 20 years ago. Even better, switching to an ultralight construction for these would bring the mileage to something like 150-200 mi./gal.
Sorry, way too broad of a statement. Who has demonstrated this, how quick is "quickly", what does "destabilizing" mean, and does the collective use of black cars have a signficantly measurable effect on this?
Once we get that cleared up, then we can move on to appropriate solutions. If driving black cars have a significant negative externality, then we can treat it as any other negative externality. And history demonstrates that government is not very good at solving these kinds of problems.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
A slight variation of Ford's old motto.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Your employer doesn't pay you for your time. He pays for people-hours, which are quite certainly recreatable through the "people" part.
I could use the same rhetorical trick to say that I don't really pay for oil, I just pay for energy, which is available all over the place.
It's okay if the society decides how the limited resource is to be used for the benefit of the whole...
That's what your ideology says. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that your approaching this from one point of view, and with one goal in mind - and that leaves out other legitimate perspectives and goals.
Pretty much yes, though I'd rather use the term "rational".
Isn't that the word everyone uses to describe their own biases?
you could ration it ... or you could sell it to the highest bidder ... Which one would you prefer?
Well, taxation could be implemented at any point in the supply chain (e.g. at refineries), while rationing would have to be done on a person-by-person basis - this would have several effects:
Monitoring a few hundred refineries/ports would require only a small number of people, while monitoring tens of thousands of gas stations would require an army of bureaucrats, costing vast amounts of money, and each one of them under less scrutiny and thus more likely to become corrupt.
The more people that are involved the less responsive the regulators are going to be. When a major refinery gets an overhaul and the company wants to relocate their meter (or whatever), they might have a chance to get it approved. But is a small gas station owner going to have any luck getting a variance to make his life easier?
And what do you do when people violate the rules? If a big corporation fudges its numbers, nobody's going to cry when they get a massive fine. But when people start giving their brother-in-law an extra gallon a month so that he can warm up the car in the morning for the kids, you'll have to enforce some kind of punishment, or your rationing law won't be worth the paper it's written on. But many people will see that as cruel.
More importantly people are going to want to trade their rations, so now Al Gore still gets his private flights, he just has to buy little bits from a bunch of people rather than pay a tax, but the net effect is the same. If you make trading illegal, that just moves things from the open market to the black market, and you get a bunch of mafia-style fun to go with your larger police force. And if you manage to clamp down on trading hard enough to actually stop it, you'd have a police state - and then nobody will be thinking about "saving the planet".
I could use the same rhetorical trick to say that I don't really pay for oil, I just pay for energy, which is available all over the place.
That would be correct. In fact, if oil was only useful for energy, I'd be all for using it up (pollution issues aside) - the sooner we do that, the faster we can move on to nuclear...
Things is, though, oil is also used to produce plastics, and we don't have a good replacement for those.
That's what your ideology says. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that your approaching this from one point of view, and with one goal in mind - and that leaves out other legitimate perspectives and goals.
Yes, of course. It's not really my "ideology" - I do not subscribe to any particular ideological label - so much as understanding of things. But, is there really anything else? It's not like you can get a truly impartial observation from anyone. We all have some beliefs and core values we subscribe to.
Isn't that the word everyone uses to describe their own biases?
Maybe. Of course, it's up to the listener to make his own conclusions.
Regarding the rest of your post - I think you misunderstand what you mean by "rationing". I did not mean to imply that anyone - corporations and individuals - would get some fixed share that they can use as they see fit. That would be "fair" from a socialist perspective, but that's definitely not rational. What I meant was that the state decides that e.g. at this point using N barrels of oil for plastics is needed more than using the same amount for fuel - and allocate those N barrels to the appropriate industry (I'm specifically not deliberating on how it would be further allocated within it; it obviously has to be done, but there are various ways which can be thought of, and in the end what matters is the total output).
Another objection to this silly scheme: What about winter? What about the extra energy needed to heat up a white car? And don't forget about all those nasty volatiles being released into the atmosphere people repaint their black cars.
There's a reason simplistic knee jerking solutions don't work.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
They damn well should be illegal, for safety reasons. I'm less likely to crash into you if I can see the brake lights of the car in front of you. Your eyes adjust to the light level of the windshield; all your other windows should match.
This also helps me to be more fuel efficient, because I can take my foot off the accelerator pedal earlier.
If you want to keep the heat out, you can do that with an invisible coating that only reflects IR and UV. A very thin layer of iridium-tin-oxide does nicely AFAIK, and also prevents you from stupidly yacking on your cell phone while trying to operate a vehicle.
People make heat-related excuses for tinted windows, but the real motivation is more related to aggression. It goes along with tall vehicles. People want to look into other cars, but not allow other people to look into their own. This primative urge is a safety hazard.
Oh, I don't drive on an express way for work, this was to go to my GF's house about 2:30 away... so I'd save quite a bit of time.
Especially with the MA state police riding my (butt) because I wasn't going fast enough.
Besides, the more exhaust a turbo receive, the more oxygen gets pumped in, which leads to more power... isn't that the whole point? Most of my friends get less MPG with cars that have noticeably less HP
Do your accurate, reliable and verifiable studies use naturally aspirated engines, supercharged ones, or turbos? Standard, automatic, or CVT? If you have a link (so we're talking about the same study) I really would like to read it. Good info is good info, right?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Where I live...there is not the problem with 'inversion' and all that keeps smog in L.A., so my exhaust mods aren't gonna hurt anyone.
Life is too short to deny myself pleasure for the remote possibility that some generation after me might, MIGHT have some pollution problems.
I"m here on earth right now...and frankly, I'm out for ME, and no one else.
If I mod my exhaust, or throw away computers in the trash...don't worry buddy...I cannot see in any manner how it is going to directly affect your life in any manner. You've not noticed so far....until you read my post, so don't sweat it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Most people don't use reason and common sense when deciding what to believe, if they did we wouldn't have the religions we do today. There are too many people in this world for your approach of letting people do what they want to do to be viable because the collective environmental damage will be too great (you may be familiar with "the tragedy of the commons", since it's been mentioned many times here on Slashdot, but if you haven't look it up). So to maintain the world in a reasonable state people have to be forced to do things they don't want or stopped from doing damaging things they do want.
You have to consider that just because you would listen and take heed of a reasonable argument, the majority of people wouldn't even bother to listen, and find a justification to keep doing what they want to do regardless.
I don't dismiss nuclear power at all. I'd LOVE to see more nukes running, it'd clean the air even more. But when was the last time a nuke plant was authorised for operation?
Nifty site I found that talks about the Perry plant, which I'm most familiar with (I lived in Cleveland from '77 to '99ish), The Perry was started in like the early to mid 70's, seemed they were in court every goddamned week over something or other, the antinukes kept appealling any win that CEI made. The 6 billion figure includes court and lawyer fees over 30 years to get it built, online, and keep it online.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
If California wants to seriously reduce crime, they should ban black people!
I do not subscribe to the Horay for me, fuck you! mentality.
And McClintock is a loon.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Self esteem and group think ;)
I don't have a lawn, I have a garden... at least if we get enough rain this year after the four feet of snow melts off ;)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
...CALIFORNIA
Ha, our local desert got two whole inches this year. More than in the previous 10 years COMBINED. My yard already looks like Jurassic Weedpark!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I want the Republicans to succeed and America to fail, so obviously I must be a Republican, DUH.
We all have some beliefs and core values we subscribe to.
In my experience, when rational people disagree the primary issue usually turns out to be philosophical - what's better or more moral or more acceptable - rather than factual issues about what's objectively true. The problem is that it starts with discussing the facts, later turns to philosophy, and then things end with agreeing to disagree, but with a better understanding of the other side. Lately I've been trying to do both the facts and the opinions at the same time, which I hope makes things clearer at the beginning and leads to less frustration. On the other hand I'm new at this, so I'm probably fumbling it a bit, and it might be a useless effort that just makes things messier. Who knows?
Anyway, my bias is that I tend to favor society making its collective choices through many freely-made individual choices rather than though the decrees of smaller group of people, even if they are elected. That isn't to say I'm a hard-core free marketer, but just like "innocent until proven guilty" in law, the null hypothesis in science, or informed consent in medicine, I think that the people advocating state intervention should have to make a strong case. And not just a case that government intervention is necessary, but that the particular method that they are advocating is the least intrusive/disruptive method that would achieve their goal. In this case a carbon tax would be hard to use as a politically because it wouldn't favor any one industry, it's as close as we can get to refunding the public for the use of a public resource, and it would allow markets to react to changing conditions (if you think that the gas price spike in 2008 caused problems, wait until rationing accidentally messes it up).
Things is, though, oil is also used to produce plastics, and we don't have a good replacement for those.
We may be running out of cheap oil, but there's lots of more expensive stuff. Then there's recycling, which would suffice for quite some time, if it were economical. And that's also ignoring plastic from corn and other sources that would work fairly well, if it were economically practical. So on the whole, I'm thinking that we have a lack of currently economical sources for plastic, not an actual lack of sources.
What I meant was that the state decides that ... and allocate those N barrels to the appropriate industry ...
But do you really think that the state will make decisions based on what's right, or based on what's politically beneficial? My U.S. Representative would love to restrict/tax gasoline and petroleum-based plastic because that would raise the price of corn (used in ethanol and plastic) and thus help his constituents. Do you really think that the other congress critters are any more likely to be looking at the larger picture?
Actually the interior colors (of plastics, upholstery) is more responsible for the heating of the inside of the car than its outside color.
But do you really think that the state will make decisions based on what's right, or based on what's politically beneficial? My U.S. Representative would love to restrict/tax gasoline and petroleum-based plastic because that would raise the price of corn (used in ethanol and plastic) and thus help his constituents. Do you really think that the other congress critters are any more likely to be looking at the larger picture?
The existing U.S. government - no, I wouldn't trust it on that. But I believe that it's not a problem inherent in the idea of the government - after all, plenty of other countries, with varying degrees of market control, have rather efficient governments.
I think that, for the U.S. in particular, the foremost task is to fix your government so that it can be trusted to do the right thing, and do it well - and only then hand it over the authority. One large step towards fixing this would be remembering your roots and decentralizing, shifting the balance of power back to your States - the larger the government is, the more corrupt and inefficient it will be, and the less democratic it is in practice (because a vote counts for much less, and feedback channels are congested and inefficient).
<flamebait>Thing is, the arguments you supplied are invalid in the context of global warming.
Hell, nobody proved in a reasonable way (no, War-On_Drugs-esque arguments don't count) that it has to do with any gas concentrations in the atmosphere,
let alone pin it on the meager contributions of humanity. So just shut up, you are making yourself look more an idiot than you probably are. </flamebait>
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
You too, huh?
After more than a decade of horrid drought, we're getting slammed bad.
Last spring, more than twice our twenty-year-annual precip packed in about three months. Worst floods since before anyone here can remember.
This winter, about the same snowfall as we experienced in the best years in the 70s, up until a few weeks ago. Over six feet of snow in the last two weeks, when the average annual since about '71 was about that, and another two feet+ coming down as I type this.
It's crazy. The real problem we're having is that the vegetation has died back so far in the hills, and the claypack soil has gotten so baked and hard, that the water is just running off... more floods coming again, this year. The soil isn't retaining water anymore, and where the forest floor hasn't died off, it's been burned off by some of the worst fires ever recorded :(
Famine to feast... as always, with reality, there's are clouds in the silver lining, and linings in the clouds...
Cheers, my friend. Haven't yakked with you in a while. Hang in there. It will get worse ;\
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
I get your drift, but it's fairly short term thinking so I can't agree with it.
Guess it'll come down to who has the better lobbyist.
I like all of your suggestions, but more efficient and responsive politics is still politics, and I'm never going to like the fact that so much of my life depends on the whims of strangers.