If you don't want to drive 65 or 70 or 75 mph (or whatever the speed limit is), but instead want to drive 55 mph...
... you do realize that you can do so, regardless of the posted speed limit. For a speed limit is the fastest you are permitted to go. It is NOT the required speed that you MUST go.
Why are you so intent on forcing others to do your will? If I drive 55 mph, can I then demand that you buy a Corvette?
I checked out the EPA site for my car and was surprised to find that the old MPG rating was actually accurate regarding my driving.
But the new MPG rating was lower than anything I've gotten.
And that's with a 2006 VW GTI (the new model version).
(I'd average 28.5 MPG in normal driving. But on road trips, with pure highway cruising, I'd average around 32-33 mpg. And that's driving at an average of 70-75 mph.)
I don't particulary "want" to go 55. I just understand that our country could postpone the depletion of oil by going slower. 55 may be too slow, maybe 60 or 65 would be better. I understand traffic flow and I am not going to go 55 if everyone is going 70 because it's not safe. Went fishing today and the speed limit was 60 and I went 60. I don't want to "force" anyone to do anything. I'm just voicing my opinion that we could save a lot of oil by slowing a little.
As every breathe you exhale releases CO2 into the air.
As I understand it, the argument is that we are filling the air with CO2 - more than the plants (and oceans?) can take up. So it just builds up and up. Thus contributing to the greenhouse effect. This whole area is getting kicked around over in Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?.
(Sails, I don't know where the missing posts went. Maybe someone kept hitting refresh after posting and then deleted them all within the 30 minute edit window.)
I wonder how much CO2, on average, a person exhales over the course of a day? Just for comparison, according to the emissions test results at least, my 2000 Intrepid put out around 30 grams of CO2 per mile. My '85 Silverado put out something like 48 the last time it had to go through the test, and I remember my Grandma's dear, departed '85 LeSabre put out a similar amount.
CO2 is kind of a catch-22 when it comes to the other pollutants (CO, HC, NOX) that they test for in the emissions test. To make the cars run cleaner and put out less of that other stuff, they tune them so they suck in more air. But when you suck in more air, you put out more CO2.
my 2000 Intrepid put out around 30 grams of CO2 per mile.
It's got to be a lot more than that since every gallon of gas burned produces around 9 kilograms of CO2. Does the Intrepid get 300 mpg? If so, can I buy it from you?
CO2 is purely a function of a vehicle's fuel economy. If you're getting better mileage your producing less CO2.
As far as people go they are really CO2 neutral. Since all the CO2 they exhale was absorbed by a plant at some point.
"I just understand that our country could postpone the depletion of oil by going slower."
Yes - GENERALLY speaking, if we slowed down, we'd consume less fuel.
"Went fishing today and....."
Also, if we curtailed recreational uses (ie. boating/fishing/RVing) we'd also consume less fuel. If you are in favor of LEGISLATING lower speed limits to save fuel, would you ALSO be in favor of LEGISLATING the recreational use of fuel?
Well, that's what the emissions test result said that it put out. Now to be fair, I don't know how realistic the emissions test result is. They put the car with its drive wheels on a set of rollers, and an employee puts it in drive and tries to maintain whatever speed the computer tells him to.
Actually, nowadays, the Intrepid just gets plugged in and they do the OBD-II test and scan the computer for errors. If no errors come up, they pass it. The pickup still gets put on the treadmill though, and as of the last test (around New Year's) I think it still registered around 48 grams per mile.
That correlation does line up with the fuel economy of the vehicles, though. The Intrepid registered 30 gpm while the pickup registered 48, a ratio of about 5:8 (62.5%). In a situation where the Intrepid would average 20 mpg, the pickup would probably only do about 12, which is a ratio of about 3:5 (60%).
I predict $1.988 per gallon (Bob's discount gas) in my area. Heck, it dropped $0.25 per gallon in the past 2 days here. While I do not anticipate this rate to continue, I think it wil continue to steadily drop all summer.
If the gulf coast gets hit by another category 5 hurricane, all bets are off.
Yes. If you'd just stop having fun it would be a lot easier on the rest of us......
So now you can tow your paddle wheel boat with your bicycle. A side benefit is that you will get thinner so that when you are actually given the special permit to drive to the store you'll be that much lighter and saving untold amounts of fuel.
We thank you for your contribution.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
No, CO is a really miniscule number. IIRC, the one time the Intrepid went on the treadmill test (after that it was always the OBD-II scan), CO was something ridiculously low, like .02 grams per mile.
I did just find the old emissions results for Grandma's '85 LeSabre, and here's the results. This was from around January, 2001....
HC: Actual Reading: 0.1622 GPM (state standard at the time: 2.00 GPM) CO: Actual: 1.7541 GPM (state standard 30.00 GPM) NOX: Actual: 0.2485 GPM (state standard 3.00 GPM) CO2: Actual: 46.4807 GPM (no state standard at the time, as CO2 was not considered a pollutant)
OK, then yes, it can't be 47 g/mile, gas weighs about 3,000 g/gallon, add oxygen, you're at about 9,000 g/gallon, divide by 20 miles/gallon, say, and you're at 450 g/mile, so I don't know what the 47 means.
I predict $1.988 per gallon (Bob's discount gas) in my area.
I don't think so, at least not by Labor Day. For gas prices to get that low oil would have to go down to around $45/barrel. I don't see OPEC letting that happen now that they've gotten used to the revenue generated by $60+ oil. Gas prices have fallen recently because the refineries have started operating at a higher capacity and we've imported more gasoline. So the wholesale price of gas has dropped about 20 cents in the last couple weeks. Ultimately the price for oil will keep it from dropping much further. I doubt we will see prices below $2.80 this summer, and that's without an unexpected disruption.
I'll take the chance of hurricanes any day over annual emissions testing.
One thing that's annoying about Maryland is that emissions-testing isn't state-wide. My Mom and stepdad live down in St. Mary's county, where there is no test. A couple years back, they wanted to start emissions testing but it got voted down. I just did a quick population check, and now I see why. St. Mary's county only has a population of around 99,000 people (2006 estimate). My county, Prince Georges, has about 841,000. I guess they just figured that there wasn't a high enough population to really warrant putting in an emissions test facility. And by the time they had to pay to build it, staff it, maintain it, etc, it would probably never be profitable. Although I'm not sure if emissions stations turn a profit, anyway. Considering they're funded with taxpayer money though, it's a safe bet they never turn a loss! :mad:
I vaguely remember an article on the subject that said that a study was done, indicating that opening a test facility would actually do more to the environment than good! When you factor in all the pollutants created by clearing a site, constructing the facility, running it, etc, plus all the cars idling in the parking lot queuing up for the test, and so forth, it would actually outweigh the benefit of catching the occasional gross polluter.
Now I dunno if that's true or not, and there's probably no easy way to verify, but it's an interesting idea, that the "solution" causes more damage than the "problem"!
I think you will find many of the environmental policies pollute or unnecessarily disturb nature more than had they been left alone. It’s all about the “Money”.
Do not cast me as some zealot or extremist. I am not. I'm just making more sense than say, you, re conservation. How would you limit recreational use? Much easier to just slow down on the highway isn't it?? Think real hard.
I think Maryland's population is about 5.6 million, but then Maryland is a much smaller state. Something like 9,800 square miles? I think Mississippi is more like 35-40,000 square miles? I'd imagine that if you combined Montgomery, Anne Arundel, Prince George's, and Baltimore Counties, and maybe threw in the city of Baltimore (separate from the county), that would probably be at least half of Maryland's population, concentrated right there!
Another thing I've noticed, about Maryland at least, is that as you get away from the populated areas, old cars seem to come out of the woodwork. In the areas of Maryland that do emissions testing, if it's 1976 and older, it's automatically exempt from emssions testing. And there are ways to get around testing for anything that's more than 25 years old but newer than 1977. While you might think that cars of this era would make up a very small percentage of the entire vehicle fleet, I'd imagine that in a lot of these more rural, spread-out areas, it might be a pretty high number. So with relatively fewer newer cars out there available to be tested, that might make emissions testing in some areas even less feasible.
I remember seeing a list of Mississippi's top ten stolen vehicles a few years back. This was maybe around 2002 or so. The #1 stolen vehicle? The 1985 Delta 88! I think that's a pretty good indication that there's still a lot of older cars on the road in some areas.
So which is easier slowing down 5-10 mph on the highway or imposing your "paddle wheel legislation." I thought you previously commented that you,personally, were fat? So don't project your fat solutions onto the rest of us. Thanks.
Oh, I missed out on the miracle pill that's going to give us .25 a gallon gas? Bummer. :shades:
I grew up in Mississippi. Slept through one killer tornado. Have family that lost housing in hurricanes (Camille was bad - some had damage from Katrina).
Idaho is much more benign (smaller population too and I'd say it's more rural than MS) -- but that hasn't helped the gas prices any. We always seem to be in the top ten more expensive gas price lists.
I just wanted to update you that the state of NH kept its value of freedom, by voting down mandatory seatbelts 16-8. They're actually going to study the issue though for another year, to appease the "nannies" - I think they moved in from Mass.
Someone mentioned that Vt. should be cleaning up on fines when people cross the border. To exemplify how silly some of these states are, who knew - that in Vt it's illegal to drive without wearing a seatbelt, but not illegal to drive without wearing clothes? Yes that is true! If you get pulled over, you're allowed to go to the trunk for your pants and wallet.
:P Fine, let everyone in NH sign a waiver that they will refuse any city state or federal medical or social aid for themselves or their families that is required as a result of their injuries, and that they will render all other parties legally harmless. Fair enough.
RE: Incentives
Anybody got any good ideas for incentives for using less gas? Rewards? Perks? Anything really workable?
Any DIS-incentives, such as ways to discourage over-use?
"I'm just making more sense than say, you, re conservation."
Thanks for your assessment. However, I happen to disagree. Where does that leave us?
"How would you limit recreational use?"
I think you're missing my point.
You believe in conservation. Terrific, so do I. You believe the way to achieve conservation is by coercion (ie. legislation to lower the speed limits).
All I'm trying to point out is that IF you take the attitude that it is OK to use coercion to achieve conservation, then (by your logic) it should be OK to use coercion to mandate ALL fuel uses.
I wasn't trying to get into a discussion of HOW one would legislate limits on recreational fuel usage. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your attempt to legislate 'wasteful' behavior that YOU felt was objectionable (higher speeds) while seeing nothing wrong with your OWN behavior (recreational boating).
"Much easier to just slow down on the highway isn't it??"
Wouldn't it be much easier to simply leave the boat at home? One would save on the gas used to run the boat as well as the additional gas used to haul the boat. But you WANT to go fishing so you see no reason to legislate YOUR wants in the name of conservation, yet see nothing wrong with legislating someone ELSE'S wants in the name of conservation.
Speed limits should be set based on safety issues alone. Once you start setting speed limits based on an attempt to coerce conservation, you open yourSELF up to other legislative meddling.
What's it like in Cecil County? My sister has this huge Ford F-150 Lariat Crew Cab pickup. Got to try it out this past Memorial Day weekend.
The other website I used to look up population crashed, but according to Wikipedia, Cecil county had a population of about 97,000 people, as of 2005. Population density works out to about 280 people per square mile.
In contrast, my county (Prince George's) works out to about 1744 people per square mile. I need to move. :sick:
I don't think I've ever been in Cecil County, except to go up I-95 to points north. So how'd you like that F-150? U ready to trade your Caddy in one one? :P
You believe in conservation. Terrific, so do I. You believe the way to achieve conservation is by coercion...
Why try to argue that "coercion" is a something not to be considered? If the only alternative is voluntary action (and, from most responses here, we should not expect many folks to voluntarily take steps to increase fuel efficiency) and that ain't gonna happen, what choice is there? Throw up your hands and just 'deal with the result'?
If logic and reason yield the conclusion that it is in our best interest (as a society) to use oil more efficiently (thru better engines, thru conservation, whatever), the the question is how to achieve it. If it won't happen volutarily then it's quite reasonable for society as a whole to take measures.
I would always prefer voluntary good citizenship over coercion (any reasonable person would), but, you know, there are thousands of examples where society has decided that the latter is required. To think otherwise is not being realistic.
All I'm trying to point out is that IF you take the attitude that it is OK to use coercion to achieve conservation, then (by your logic) it should be OK to use coercion to mandate ALL fuel uses.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just because society judges it has the right to limit your speed to 55 or smoking age to 18 doesn't mean it makes sense to limit the speed to 2 mph or the smoking age to 50.
...you open yourSELF up to other legislative meddling.
We're already open to tons of "meddling" (AKA sensible lawmaking).
I'm not a fan of legislating 55mph...after all, the point's already been made that it's not "waste" since you get "time" for the extra use...and I hate the notion of confusing use with waste. And I think there are tons of ways to increase efficiency that I would prefer to have happen first, like more efficient vehicles, more efficient power plants, alternative fuels, etc. But I'd like to see the discourse be on more reasonable grounds.
Both my Caddies probably get much better fuel economy. Heck, the fuel economy of her F-150 is probably comparable to that of my old 1975 Sedan DeVille. My sister is a veterinarian who specializes in large farm animals, so the truck is a necessity.
I am going to look at a 2006 Cadillac DTS Performance after work today. Not bringing my checkbook or title though.
"Oh, I missed out on the miracle pill that's going to give us .25 a gallon gas? Bummer."
Yep. You snooze you lose. I've just bought a case of those magic beans. I'll let you know....
Just got back from watching my kindergarteners show. Much fun.
Then took the Mrs. to a nice Mexican place in town. I should probably save that one for the global warming topic. At any rate chalk one up for a diet slip.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"Why try to argue that "coercion" is a something not to be considered? If the only alternative is voluntary action...and that ain't gonna happen, what choice is there?"
On one hand, you've got "fuel conservation", with it's own set of pros and cons (energy savings, less reliance on foreign oil, environmental issues vs. the general American desire to play and have a good time). On the other hand, you've got "government coercion", with IT'S own set of pros and cons (achieving conservation vs. turning a large portion of the population into lawbreakers and reducing our general respect for the law).
You (apparently) believe that the good points of "fuel conservation" outweigh the possible bad points of "government coercion". I disagree. If this makes me 'unreasonable', so be it.
"If logic and reason yield the conclusion that it is in our best interest...to use oil more efficiently...the the question is how to achieve it."
That's PART of the question. The other part of the question is the COST to achieve it (ie. what is given up).
"If it won't happen volutarily then it's quite reasonable for society as a whole to take measures."
It is? What about the COST to society (in terms of lost freedoms) to achieve these lofty societal goals?
Logic and reason would yield the conclusion that Americans, taken as a whole, are in terrible physical shape. And this has a real cost to society in terms of lost productivity, wasted medical resources, higher medical costs, etc. etc. Yet, taken as a whole, we haven't VOLUNTARILY taken the necessary steps in terms of diet and exercise to take better care of ourselves. How much government 'coercion' should we have in order to get in better shape 'for our own good'? At SOME point, you must recognize that the government coercion necessary to achieve your lofty societal goals isn't worth the lost freedoms. Or maybe not...
"We're already open to tons of "meddling" (AKA sensible lawmaking)."
Well, one man's 'meddling' is another man's 'sensible lawmaking'. It's been MY experience that where you fall on this question is determined by whether or not the laws in question affect YOU or 'the other guy'.
"But I'd like to see the discourse be on more reasonable grounds."
I am actually kind of carefully weighing the difference in where li is and you are.
I am not totally against government intervention per se but would want to see it as a last resort or essentially when the remaining choice is for a lot of people to simply give up gasoline. We aren't there yet.
I've yet to see people in great numbers actively trying to reduce consumption of fossil fuels whether it be in commuting or recreational use.
I'm thinking....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Comments
Problem solved!
DrFill
... you do realize that you can do so, regardless of the posted speed limit. For a speed limit is the fastest you are permitted to go. It is NOT the required speed that you MUST go.
Why are you so intent on forcing others to do your will? If I drive 55 mph, can I then demand that you buy a Corvette?
:confuse:
:P
...did that mean that everyone who exhaled was considered an unlicensed polluter?
As every breathe you exhale releases CO2 into the air.
(And I don't want to even think about the pollution released from every cow fart in the world.)
Wouldn't that be methane and not CO2?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But the new MPG rating was lower than anything I've gotten.
And that's with a 2006 VW GTI (the new model version).
(I'd average 28.5 MPG in normal driving. But on road trips, with pure highway cruising, I'd average around 32-33 mpg. And that's driving at an average of 70-75 mph.)
:P
As I understand it, the argument is that we are filling the air with CO2 - more than the plants (and oceans?) can take up. So it just builds up and up. Thus contributing to the greenhouse effect. This whole area is getting kicked around over in Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?.
(Sails, I don't know where the missing posts went. Maybe someone kept hitting refresh after posting and then deleted them all within the 30 minute edit window.)
Swell, I wak up in the morning and we are talking about cow farts...
CO2 is kind of a catch-22 when it comes to the other pollutants (CO, HC, NOX) that they test for in the emissions test. To make the cars run cleaner and put out less of that other stuff, they tune them so they suck in more air. But when you suck in more air, you put out more CO2.
It's got to be a lot more than that since every gallon of gas burned produces around 9 kilograms of CO2. Does the Intrepid get 300 mpg? If so, can I buy it from you?
CO2 is purely a function of a vehicle's fuel economy. If you're getting better mileage your producing less CO2.
As far as people go they are really CO2 neutral. Since all the CO2 they exhale was absorbed by a plant at some point.
Yes - GENERALLY speaking, if we slowed down, we'd consume less fuel.
"Went fishing today and....."
Also, if we curtailed recreational uses (ie. boating/fishing/RVing) we'd also consume less fuel. If you are in favor of LEGISLATING lower speed limits to save fuel, would you ALSO be in favor of LEGISLATING the recreational use of fuel?
Actually, nowadays, the Intrepid just gets plugged in and they do the OBD-II test and scan the computer for errors. If no errors come up, they pass it. The pickup still gets put on the treadmill though, and as of the last test (around New Year's) I think it still registered around 48 grams per mile.
That correlation does line up with the fuel economy of the vehicles, though. The Intrepid registered 30 gpm while the pickup registered 48, a ratio of about 5:8 (62.5%). In a situation where the Intrepid would average 20 mpg, the pickup would probably only do about 12, which is a ratio of about 3:5 (60%).
Heck, it dropped $0.25 per gallon in the past 2 days here. While I do not anticipate this rate to continue, I think it wil continue to steadily drop all summer.
If the gulf coast gets hit by another category 5 hurricane, all bets are off.
So now you can tow your paddle wheel boat with your bicycle. A side benefit is that you will get thinner so that when you are actually given the special permit to drive to the store you'll be that much lighter and saving untold amounts of fuel.
We thank you for your contribution.
No, CO is a really miniscule number. IIRC, the one time the Intrepid went on the treadmill test (after that it was always the OBD-II scan), CO was something ridiculously low, like .02 grams per mile.
I did just find the old emissions results for Grandma's '85 LeSabre, and here's the results. This was from around January, 2001....
HC: Actual Reading: 0.1622 GPM (state standard at the time: 2.00 GPM)
CO: Actual: 1.7541 GPM (state standard 30.00 GPM)
NOX: Actual: 0.2485 GPM (state standard 3.00 GPM)
CO2: Actual: 46.4807 GPM (no state standard at the time, as CO2 was not considered a pollutant)
I don't think so, at least not by Labor Day. For gas prices to get that low oil would have to go down to around $45/barrel. I don't see OPEC letting that happen now that they've gotten used to the revenue generated by $60+ oil. Gas prices have fallen recently because the refineries have started operating at a higher capacity and we've imported more gasoline. So the wholesale price of gas has dropped about 20 cents in the last couple weeks. Ultimately the price for oil will keep it from dropping much further. I doubt we will see prices below $2.80 this summer, and that's without an unexpected disruption.
One thing that's annoying about Maryland is that emissions-testing isn't state-wide. My Mom and stepdad live down in St. Mary's county, where there is no test. A couple years back, they wanted to start emissions testing but it got voted down. I just did a quick population check, and now I see why. St. Mary's county only has a population of around 99,000 people (2006 estimate). My county, Prince Georges, has about 841,000. I guess they just figured that there wasn't a high enough population to really warrant putting in an emissions test facility. And by the time they had to pay to build it, staff it, maintain it, etc, it would probably never be profitable. Although I'm not sure if emissions stations turn a profit, anyway. Considering they're funded with taxpayer money though, it's a safe bet they never turn a loss! :mad:
I vaguely remember an article on the subject that said that a study was done, indicating that opening a test facility would actually do more to the environment than good! When you factor in all the pollutants created by clearing a site, constructing the facility, running it, etc, plus all the cars idling in the parking lot queuing up for the test, and so forth, it would actually outweigh the benefit of catching the occasional gross polluter.
Now I dunno if that's true or not, and there's probably no easy way to verify, but it's an interesting idea, that the "solution" causes more damage than the "problem"!
As for the solution causing more damage than the problem - isn't that just the government's MO?
Another thing I've noticed, about Maryland at least, is that as you get away from the populated areas, old cars seem to come out of the woodwork. In the areas of Maryland that do emissions testing, if it's 1976 and older, it's automatically exempt from emssions testing. And there are ways to get around testing for anything that's more than 25 years old but newer than 1977. While you might think that cars of this era would make up a very small percentage of the entire vehicle fleet, I'd imagine that in a lot of these more rural, spread-out areas, it might be a pretty high number. So with relatively fewer newer cars out there available to be tested, that might make emissions testing in some areas even less feasible.
I remember seeing a list of Mississippi's top ten stolen vehicles a few years back. This was maybe around 2002 or so. The #1 stolen vehicle? The 1985 Delta 88! I think that's a pretty good indication that there's still a lot of older cars on the road in some areas.
I'm only putting those solutions out to rorr. He appreciates them....
I grew up in Mississippi. Slept through one killer tornado. Have family that lost housing in hurricanes (Camille was bad - some had damage from Katrina).
Idaho is much more benign (smaller population too and I'd say it's more rural than MS) -- but that hasn't helped the gas prices any. We always seem to be in the top ten more expensive gas price lists.
If anyone knows if I’m spelling “lypo” incorrectly, let me know.
"lipo"
That's what you get Steve for living next to Washington State. Gas prices set by association. :P
Some of the highest gas prices in Washington are in the counties where the refineries are located. Go figure.
Someone mentioned that Vt. should be cleaning up on fines when people cross the border. To exemplify how silly some of these states are, who knew - that in Vt it's illegal to drive without wearing a seatbelt, but not illegal to drive without wearing clothes? Yes that is true! If you get pulled over, you're allowed to go to the trunk for your pants and wallet.
RE: Incentives
Anybody got any good ideas for incentives for using less gas? Rewards? Perks? Anything really workable?
Any DIS-incentives, such as ways to discourage over-use?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
I'm only putting those solutions out to rorr. He appreciates them....
Yeah, and I'm at the perfect weight....... for someone 4 inches taller. ;-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6710845.stm
Cheers, -MS.
Thanks for your assessment. However, I happen to disagree. Where does that leave us?
"How would you limit recreational use?"
I think you're missing my point.
You believe in conservation. Terrific, so do I. You believe the way to achieve conservation is by coercion (ie. legislation to lower the speed limits).
All I'm trying to point out is that IF you take the attitude that it is OK to use coercion to achieve conservation, then (by your logic) it should be OK to use coercion to mandate ALL fuel uses.
I wasn't trying to get into a discussion of HOW one would legislate limits on recreational fuel usage. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in your attempt to legislate 'wasteful' behavior that YOU felt was objectionable (higher speeds) while seeing nothing wrong with your OWN behavior (recreational boating).
"Much easier to just slow down on the highway isn't it??"
Wouldn't it be much easier to simply leave the boat at home? One would save on the gas used to run the boat as well as the additional gas used to haul the boat. But you WANT to go fishing so you see no reason to legislate YOUR wants in the name of conservation, yet see nothing wrong with legislating someone ELSE'S wants in the name of conservation.
Speed limits should be set based on safety issues alone. Once you start setting speed limits based on an attempt to coerce conservation, you open yourSELF up to other legislative meddling.
Yeah; I'm twisted in that regards....
Sure....really high gas prices.
Oh, wait.....did you mean a painless workable solution that might actually be effective? Nope.
The other website I used to look up population crashed, but according to Wikipedia, Cecil county had a population of about 97,000 people, as of 2005. Population density works out to about 280 people per square mile.
In contrast, my county (Prince George's) works out to about 1744 people per square mile. I need to move. :sick:
I don't think I've ever been in Cecil County, except to go up I-95 to points north. So how'd you like that F-150? U ready to trade your Caddy in one one? :P
Why try to argue that "coercion" is a something not to be considered? If the only alternative is voluntary action (and, from most responses here, we should not expect many folks to voluntarily take steps to increase fuel efficiency) and that ain't gonna happen, what choice is there? Throw up your hands and just 'deal with the result'?
If logic and reason yield the conclusion that it is in our best interest (as a society) to use oil more efficiently (thru better engines, thru conservation, whatever), the the question is how to achieve it. If it won't happen volutarily then it's quite reasonable for society as a whole to take measures.
I would always prefer voluntary good citizenship over coercion (any reasonable person would), but, you know, there are thousands of examples where society has decided that the latter is required. To think otherwise is not being realistic.
All I'm trying to point out is that IF you take the attitude that it is OK to use coercion to achieve conservation, then (by your logic) it should be OK to use coercion to mandate ALL fuel uses.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just because society judges it has the right to limit your speed to 55 or smoking age to 18 doesn't mean it makes sense to limit the speed to 2 mph or the smoking age to 50.
...you open yourSELF up to other legislative meddling.
We're already open to tons of "meddling" (AKA sensible lawmaking).
I'm not a fan of legislating 55mph...after all, the point's already been made that it's not "waste" since you get "time" for the extra use...and I hate the notion of confusing use with waste. And I think there are tons of ways to increase efficiency that I would prefer to have happen first, like more efficient vehicles, more efficient power plants, alternative fuels, etc. But I'd like to see the discourse be on more reasonable grounds.
I am going to look at a 2006 Cadillac DTS Performance after work today. Not bringing my checkbook or title though.
Yep. You snooze you lose. I've just bought a case of those magic beans. I'll let you know....
Just got back from watching my kindergarteners show. Much fun.
Then took the Mrs. to a nice Mexican place in town. I should probably save that one for the global warming topic. At any rate chalk one up for a diet slip.
"Why try to argue that "coercion" is a something not to be considered? If the only alternative is voluntary action...and that ain't gonna happen, what choice is there?"
On one hand, you've got "fuel conservation", with it's own set of pros and cons (energy savings, less reliance on foreign oil, environmental issues vs. the general American desire to play and have a good time). On the other hand, you've got "government coercion", with IT'S own set of pros and cons (achieving conservation vs. turning a large portion of the population into lawbreakers and reducing our general respect for the law).
You (apparently) believe that the good points of "fuel conservation" outweigh the possible bad points of "government coercion". I disagree. If this makes me 'unreasonable', so be it.
"If logic and reason yield the conclusion that it is in our best interest...to use oil more efficiently...the the question is how to achieve it."
That's PART of the question. The other part of the question is the COST to achieve it (ie. what is given up).
"If it won't happen volutarily then it's quite reasonable for society as a whole to take measures."
It is? What about the COST to society (in terms of lost freedoms) to achieve these lofty societal goals?
Logic and reason would yield the conclusion that Americans, taken as a whole, are in terrible physical shape. And this has a real cost to society in terms of lost productivity, wasted medical resources, higher medical costs, etc. etc. Yet, taken as a whole, we haven't VOLUNTARILY taken the necessary steps in terms of diet and exercise to take better care of ourselves. How much government 'coercion' should we have in order to get in better shape 'for our own good'? At SOME point, you must recognize that the government coercion necessary to achieve your lofty societal goals isn't worth the lost freedoms. Or maybe not...
"We're already open to tons of "meddling" (AKA sensible lawmaking)."
Well, one man's 'meddling' is another man's 'sensible lawmaking'. It's been MY experience that where you fall on this question is determined by whether or not the laws in question affect YOU or 'the other guy'.
"But I'd like to see the discourse be on more reasonable grounds."
Believe it or not, I AM trying.....
I am actually kind of carefully weighing the difference in where li is and you are.
I am not totally against government intervention per se but would want to see it as a last resort or essentially when the remaining choice is for a lot of people to simply give up gasoline. We aren't there yet.
I've yet to see people in great numbers actively trying to reduce consumption of fossil fuels whether it be in commuting or recreational use.
I'm thinking....