Slashdot Mirror
US To Require That New Cars Get 42 MPG By 2016
Hugh Pickens writes "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming. While the 30 percent increase would be an average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be much greater, rising from the current 27.5 mpg standard to 42 mpg. Environmentalists praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it 'one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions.' Obama's plan also would effectively end litigation between states and automakers that had opposed state-specific rules, arguing that having to meet several state standards would be much more expensive for them than just one federal rule. The Detroit News reported that automakers were on board with the new rule and had worked with the administration on creating a timeline for the transition." There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
So could someone please explain to me why states' rights are defended so vigorously in so many cases where it doesn't make sense? (For example: gay marriage, abortion rights, fuel MPG). I don't see the sense of arguing that MPG should be regulated on a state-by-state basis (and neither does Obama, I suppose).
I have little in common with someone on the opposite side of my state. No more than someone on the opposite side of the country.
Possibly inept analogy: one of the prime directives of programming is to centralize and avoid re-using code. This helps usability, maintenance, and generally keeps things clean efficient. Now why, oh why, does the legal system strive to do the exact opposite? (And in some cases, proponents of state rights too--that means rewriting the same piece of legislation with possible variations at least 50 times!).
Also, slavery.
"Eventually the marxist will get their way. Everyone will drive a crappy car"
Uh, no. The Marxists want centralization of the means of transport in the hands of the state... if they get what they want, then the 'important people' will have Zil Limos while the rest of us will be stuck on the bus, where they can control us more easily.
Before you say "well drive a car", well if I could find a car for someone my size I would easily drive a car. I cannot find a car that fits someone of my height and girth, thus I HAVE to drive an SUV. I have test driven every major car on the road and cannot fit in anything. Not even a Cadillac. They all have that stupid center console which cuts off any leg room for someone over 6 feet tall.
I'm 6'3", carrying a few more pounds around the middle than I should, and I fit fine into my Toyota Corolla. That's right, not a Camry, a Corolla.
Unless you're 6'10" tall and weigh 400 lbs., you have no excuse. My guess is that you're a fatass who calls himself a "big guy" and drives an SUV to compensate for having a disproportionately small penis. Lose some weight, find a woman who will love you despite your unfortunate deformity, and stop advertising your inadequacy to the rest of the world with your pumped-up deathtank.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Obviously you haven't tried to use a smartcar to haul kids around.
A 30% increase from 27.5 mpg is 35.75 mpg, NOT 42 mpg. Must have been computed by a innumerate Republican. What can you expect?
Keep Doing Good.
As a replacement for a micropenis*, obviously. ^^
* Thank you for letting me know, that something like that really exists, with big detailed imagery, trolls. I hate you! ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
"If there is a negative externality that they are not taking into account - figure out it's cost, and add it to the product (for the record, I think the negative externality argument is overused and doesn't apply here - but I'd rather have a tax on some of my options than to have those options removed)"
I would agree with these arguments if you see that through all the reasons we have a huge presence in the Middle East, oil is a big part if not the heart of them all. So fine, lets put a cost on all our military there, and put that price directly in a gas tax. If you want, we can even say the cost of our soldiers lost lives is $0, just to be conservative. I think the numbers come out to $3/g, which would be radical. A gas tax of adding $0.10 every year is more realistic, but still political suicide, so these fuel stds are the best they can do right now. It would take just a few Republicans to tell their Reps that a gas tax would be good to change that though.
And if you dont want to realize how much oil has to do with our military in the Middle East, ask our Defense Department whether Global Warming is a security risk. Thats where we get into serious money.
the problem with that is that we are cutting down more and more trees in the global scale....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Of course, none of this does anything to address why such a large segment of SUV-drivers are women, who are rarely over 6 feet in any country.
(My own theory is just more of the same: compensation for lack of penis.)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Right there is a big part of our problem. A boat belongs on the water, not in a driveway. No one needs a truck to haul a boat - the boat hauling is just one of those status things used to compensate for the micro-penis. Besides which - if you can't sail a boat, you have no business on a boat. The Phoenicians could teach your freind a few things. And, don't blubber at me about a bunch of macho bullshit. That fuel wasting boat contributes to the national problems, economically, and environmentally.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"For a family with four kids, the only options are minivans or SUVs, because of the legal requirements dictating how everyone has to be strapped in."
As long as you're not hauling cargo at the same time, the Mazda 5 or Kia Rondo should both work.