12th Jan 2013, 10:28
I don't believe anyone said the EPA needs to be abolished. In fact in a much earlier post I pointed out that the EPA has done good. In 1970 it was not uncommon for a car to get 10 MPG; now we have many models that can easily get over 30.
However with that being said, I strongly feel that the EPA is being used as a sounding board for the liberals. I do not feel that it is at all reasonable to require that all car companies average over 50 MPG in 12 years, when less than 3 years ago the figure was about 27 MPG. There are a lot of Americans who want and or need to drive larger cars; this piece of legislation will all but make that impossible for all but the super rich. In a democracy I just don't think that everyone should be forced to drive subcompacts; that sounds a lot more like a Socialist or Communist notion to me!
12th Jan 2013, 14:39
Oh no, I never said that we didn't need the EPA at all. I actually admire much of their work on cleaning up environmental waste and keeping radiation away from people. The EPA is a great organization when they're not taking funds from NGOs like Greenpeace, etc.
However, it's also important for people to know that environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, Global Greens, Federation of the Green Parties of the Americas, etc. are simple lobbyists looking to destroy the middle class and free market capitalism. There's nothing else out there that can replace petroleum, because nothing compares in terms of the amount of energy that it can produce. 23:48 was right when he said that the leadership behind these environmental groups are opposed to the middle class, and most leading environmentalists are just hypocrites.
And the thing is, CO2 from vehicle emissions is actually the least of our worries. The real culprit is methane from the meat industry, coupled with deforestation for more farmland for companies like McDonald's. However, regulating such an industry can't be used as a weapon against most Americans, so attention gets shifted towards making cars smaller and cheaper. Meanwhile, real car companies like Rolls-Royce and Bentley, which still get MPG in the single digits today, walk off relatively free, guess why...
And like 23:48 said, the only real way to truly save the planet would be to commit such a crime. (HINT: Extremely similar to a German ruler originally from Austria's methods for groups he didn't like). Would somebody really want to buy into such a movement?
12th Jan 2013, 17:43
As a middle class person, I want the best my money can buy. I only drive full size, rear wheel drive, V-8 domestics. Only the best, and very affordable as well; costs next to nothing to purchase and insure.
Costs maybe $10 a week more in gasoline than a subcompact car; totally well worth it to be sitting in a land yacht with plush power seats when stuck in a traffic jam or on a long drive. Well worth it.
I will drive full size V-8 land yachts forever; who cares about price of gas. Every car uses gas, no matter what it is.
All the stuff about new cars being good on gas and improvements being made is a load of BS. The Suzuki Swift/Pontiac Firefly made in the mid 90's got better gas mileage than a smart car, AND could carry more than 2 people. They are just trying to sell you new cars you don't need. My friend has a brand new Acura SUV, and it gets the same gas mileage an 80's Town Car would get.
Newer is better is the same old story, trying to sell the middle class new stuff you don't need and can't afford. It does not help the environment to produce more and more newer cars, when there are tons of older cars that end up in the junkyard in great shape, only needing a few $100 of work to last another 3 or 4 years, just because everyone wants a new car to keep up with the neighbors.
13th Jan 2013, 19:42
The auto industry seems to be going backwards in terms of fuel economy (not to mention everything else). In the early 90s, Buick was building large cars that could get close to 30 MPG on the highways. I bought a new Buick sedan in 2011, and it averaged about 5 MPG less than my larger Park Avenue did. Not only was the newer car smaller, in my opinion it was less attractive and less comfortable too. There's progress for you. Some people think change is inherently good, but times have definitely changed, and I think much for the worse.
14th Jan 2013, 06:22
It is a nice idea to drive full size land yachts forever - and I would do so myself - but alas, their numbers are dwindling daily, and within another decade it will, I think, become very difficult to find any.
14th Jan 2013, 07:51
I want the new 2014 C7 Corvette just revealed last night. And mine is less than a year old! My father use to say you can't pull a U haul with a hearse. Enjoy the fruits of your hard work and efforts while you are here. If you can afford it, buy it!
14th Jan 2013, 11:52
I too saw the new Corvette reveal. To say the least - astonishing. It - perhaps makes the point of improved technology and styling crystal clear.
As far as the desire to drive "the best that money can buy", I fail to see how the best money would equal the biggest car you can fit on a road. Not everyone wants that sort of car, so perhaps a restatement would be more like: "The car that I want to drive", which is fine. If people want to drive the biggest cars possible - then fine. As for me, my commute is 45 miles each way, and a car that gets poor fuel economy isn't acceptable.
In regards to the EPA somehow being an instrument to destroy the middle class, that has to be one of the strangest assertions I've read in awhile. I have no clue where that came from. If the argument is that more efficient cars and factories that produce less smog costs the middle class, well how do you explain that anyone today can go out and buy a car like the Chevy Cruze that gets somewhere around 40-45 MPG and has way more standard features than even the nicest luxury cars from 20 years ago, and pay under 20k for it? Why is it that even now, our gas and energy prices are amongst the cheapest in the first world? We are still a country that has exceptionally cheap cars, cheap gas, and cheap energy, mainly because we have a LOT of resources at our fingertips. So no, I don't buy that somehow the "green" movement or whatever is somehow hurting the middle class.
I'm sure some of you have been seeing the news lately. In Beijing China the air pollution is currently so bad that people are being advised to stay indoors. Perhaps one should look at such stories and be thankful that we have the strict emission standards that enables us to do stuff - like walk around outdoors.
11th Jan 2013, 15:31
Technology is improving matters somewhat. My Fox Mustang from the 80's got 8-14 miles per gallon. My latest Mustang has more power, is much faster, and gets 30 MPG on the highway. The 78 Lincoln Town car got about 5-12 miles per gallon, so yes, it contributed far more pollutants to the air. The fewer gallons of fuel burned per mile, the less damage to our planet.