Both my work f350 diesels get 21 to 23 canuckistanian MPG on the highway, pretty good for an 8500lb vehicle with over 1000lbs of material on top. A single cab, short bed, 2wd would be amazing.
And then it wouldn't be a political issue? Taking from one to give to another is always going to be political. Unless it's done while looking down the barrel of a gun in which case the definition becomes more complex.The problem is that conservation somehow got perverted into a political issue.
We should shoot all the politicians, and start over again with new ones.
The problem is that conservation somehow got perverted into a political issue.
We should shoot all the politicians, and start over again with new ones.
Which apparently goes to Hell quickly in normal driving-
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-350_super_duty
It's not like they're good commuter cars, what F250 class pickups tend to be used for in real life.
All of them, or just the ones who dance to the tune of the fossil fuel industry?
Hmmm.... Poll came out today
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/30/us-climatechange-summit-poll-idUSKBN0TJ1L220151130
Thinking about policies to reduce carbon emissions, Americans generally favor regulating business activity more than taxing consumers. The poll found broad support for capping power plant emissions. Half of all Americans said they thought the government should take steps to restrict drilling, logging and mining on public lands, compared with 45 percent who opposed such restrictions. Support for limiting mineral extraction on public lands rose to 58 percent among Democrats.
But just one in five Americans favored increasing taxes on electricity as a way to fight global warming; six in 10 were strongly opposed, including 49 percent of Democrats. And support was not much higher for increasing gasoline taxes, at 36 percent over all.
And while 68 percent of respondents under 30 supported taxing companies carbon emissions, that was just five points higher than the overall number and lower than the nearly three-quarters of Democrats who professed support.
All of them, or just the ones who dance to the tune of the fossil fuel industry?
It would be wonderful if we did more about climate change. I'd love it if there were fewer cars on the road. Get the plebs on the bus where they belong and out of my way.
You would love driving with me. I spend most of my trip screaming at the top of my lungs and calling for God to bring us Bubonic Plague. I'd like to see a 95% reduction in traffic. Fuck getting the plebs of busses, the fumes fucking stink.
Now, rub those two Proggie braincells you have together now, and figure out what a gas engined F350 would be getting, and you'll have your diesel vs gas answer. Diesel makes sense as long as the Gov isn't jacking up diesel prices at the pump, and/or jacking them up via emissions regulations.
In typical fashion, Americans want OTHER people to do something about it. They themselves don't want to pay more for their power usage.
CO2, Methane, and other GHGs don't give a fuck what people think. They will just continue causing Warming and CC regardless.
There's a lot of easy pickins' between where most people are & bills that are actually higher by using more efficient devices from autos to led lighting & everything in between.
OTOH, nothing compares to that big swinging dick feeling of tooling around alone in in some chrome plated monstrosity, right?
You're just jealous because you don't know the feeling of having any dick at all.
So I'm not surprised you quoted me and completely failed to address the point. Americans (the people that invented slacktivism) chant "MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!" and then when someone asks them what they're going to do to help, they all look around at each other hoping someone else is going to take care of it.
"Climate change? Yes, stop it! But ummm, don't make it cost me any money..."
LOL, Americans.
You're just jealous because you don't know the feeling of having any dick at all.
So I'm not surprised you quoted me and completely failed to address the point. Americans (the people that invented slacktivism) chant "MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!" and then when someone asks them what they're going to do to help, they all look around at each other hoping someone else is going to take care of it.
"Climate change? Yes, stop it! But ummm, don't make it cost me any money..."
LOL, Americans.
That article was pretty worthless, no real meat. So I looked at the article it referenced.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/americas/us-climate-change-republicans-democrats.html?_r=1
LOL, Americans are pretty stupid.
In typical fashion, Americans want OTHER people to do something about it. They themselves don't want to pay more for their power usage.
I'm not sure what public land resource usage has to do with climate change, but whatever.
Even half of Democrats don't want their privileged lifestyles to change.
Right, because those taxes won't get passed down in product pricing.
LOL, Americans.
You'd be amazed (or not) at the mind of some of the extreme tree huggers. I talked to several that were against carbon-based fuel sources for power generation. I suggested nuclear for base load requirements and they cringed at that. They actually thought wind and solar were the answer for all power needs.
I know climate change is real and the evidence shows humans are contributing. However, I don't think damaging economic policy is reasonable to combat the change. Does that make me a hypocrite? Not at all. Our civilization has grown so large that we now affect the global climate. Its a milestone IMO and was bound to happen. The faster we all accept it then we can begin to figure out how it affects us and what we need to do moving forward.
You'd be amazed (or not) at the mind of some of the extreme tree huggers. I talked to several that were against carbon-based fuel sources for power generation. I suggested nuclear for base load requirements and they cringed at that. They actually thought wind and solar were the answer for all power needs.
I know climate change is real and the evidence shows humans are contributing. However, I don't think damaging economic policy is reasonable to combat the change. Does that make me a hypocrite? Not at all. Our civilization has grown so large that we now affect the global climate. Its a milestone IMO and was bound to happen. The faster we all accept it then we can begin to figure out how it affects us and what we need to do moving forward.
Lol! Did you even read what you wrote? Ignoring the false claim that investing in alternative energy would be economically damaging, you were basically given the solution and ignored it and then said we need to figure out how to move forward.
If you are religous, the parable of the flood comes to mind.
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2012/01/the-parable-of-the-flood/
Solar. of course. You are a nice person and a good thinker, but you don't know much.
NASA built a building I heard about that is completely energy independent and generates enough to supplement older buildings in the complex whare it was built. The progress in solar is amazing and the solar leaf is the answer, I believe, for cars. Tesla has a solution for running your house at night but I think solar and hydrogen are the key to sustainability long term. Nuclear is a curse we visit on our children. Bad poo poo.
I'm not religious at all and I never specified what I meant by "economically damaging." You are putting words in my mouth.
The problem is that conservation somehow got perverted into a political issue.
We should shoot all the politicians, and start over again with new ones.