Hardly, just trying to break through the ridiculous impasses we have had with projects such as the windfarm off of Martha's Vineyard or the solar projects in CA in the middle of the desert that people hate because it was a turtle nesting place 100 years ago. As far as personal property rights, as long as you are compensated for your property, what's the issue?
Which other issues on waste? We're talking about gas taxes, aren't we?
Interesting, but I don't have the money to buy a new car that is efficient...
btw, last I checked... new cars aren't earth shatteringly more efficient.
If a 1996 Honda Civic DX gets 40+ mpg while the new Civics maybe get 30-35 on highway... wtf is going on? (2012 one says 28 city, 39 highway... I'm wondering how combined will do) If anything, it's less OR breaking even.
About 15 years to improve and NO IMRPOVEMENTS
And, if you had a SUV your driving would have been more pleasurableAgain, don't preach to me about height in rural areas. I grew up on a dirt road in rural MN and drove non-SUV vehicles the majority of the time.
I'm sure once you lose control of a vehicle in winter it's better to be in a lower vehicle. I prefer to remain in control of my 4X4 pickup.MNDOT studies show that SUVs are really no saver in winter and are, overall, actually worse. That's because they are heavier and slow at a slower pace and flip easier since they are higher.
Who said anything about need? I said prefer. I could just walk, but I prefer to be in my pickup when the snow is heavy.Even then, how much do you really need it? Heavy snow winter is ~5mo in MN, of that, the roads are probably bad about 30 days total. That means that about 90% of the time you get no practical benefit from AWD/4x4. Even then, the practical benefit of the SUV isn't 10%, since most of that time a car will work perfectly. Let's say you get 3 days where the roads are unpassable via car and your SUV saves the day. That means that less than 1% of the time, per year, you'll get some sort of benefit.
Does an SUV cost more than 1% than a sedan? Absolutely, considering 99% of the time you're being charged 50% more in gas costs.
If you read my earlier posts, I'm very much so in favor of gas taxes and the removal of CAFE standards. That way if people want to drive SUVs they can. The way it is now you won't even be able to buy a minivan if they keep raising the CAFE standards or that minivan will cost $100K because it'll be all carbon fiber, aluminum, and titanium powered by fairy dust.Silly, utterly silly. The inability to rationalize one's purchases causes a huge amount of waste. If the US reduced our oil consumption by even 10%, that'd save over $40bn per year. 50% would save the US economy ~200bn, that's just in today's prices, just with direct costs. Naturally, as US oil usage went down, prices would go down (supply/demand), so the overall we could probably save ~250bn. Just by one simple change.
That's why I wouldn't be bothered by a $1/gal tax. In fact, it would gain my emphatic support if it went into a trust to fund alt. energy projects mandated by a non-partisan appointed body of scientists and engineers that had eminent domain to built alt energy plants.
But I'm just a European socialist anyway.
I'm saving up for a forged LS2 shortblock, fuck that hybrid bullshit.
awesome. awesome to the max :thumbsup: what's it going in?
One more reason not to buy a GM vehicle.
He ought to be worrying about how to pay back the money his company took from taxpayers, instead of preaching that crap.
Maybe the 280Z, if not I'll pick up another old Z. The 280 is limited edition (don't know if it's worth more), but I'm debating whether or not to bastardize a car that less than 1500 were made.
I got a long way to go, but definitely going to happen one day.