Posted on 12/21/2007 5:36:22 AM PST by libstripper
“No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
That comment by New York State Surrogate Court Judge Gideon Tucker in 1866 aptly summarizes the so-called “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” signed into law this week by President Bush.
First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year?
The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.””
Nancy’s speaking in tongues again. She needs to lay off the bong.
I think that this congress wants us to use bulbs that are as dim as they are.
“Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight “
That is simply not true. Most if not all are mileage increases are coming from better engineering of the transmissions and things like shutting off cylinders when they are not needed.
Not to say we cannot reduce the weight and enhance performance. Think fighter planes....
So Democrats will be killing more innocent American men, women and children EVERY year than has died in the War in Iraq?????
I just love it!
Congress tells people what bulb they can use and people get upset.
Meanwhile, Congress has been doing this to business for over a century!
Some people are a little late to the party.
Please don't tell my wife.
Exactly, think fighter planes at millions of dollars a copy. That should give you a feel for what new cars are going to cost to comply with this crap. But don't confuse fighter planes with the performance you can expect.
and Mr. Bush signed this lousy bill?? My opinion of him has gone down a little. If he really believes government should do this then he is no conservative. If he agreed to these measures to somehow find favor with centrists and environmentalists that was a miscalculation too because he will always be tarred as a big oilman/polluter.
Who knew the federal government could outlaw light bulbs! Oh the absurdity. Sadly even if the next president is a Republican we can count on more of this intrusion into our lives if that president is named Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, or even McCain.
Oh, that's good...
Are you saying that cars are going to cost millions and millions and millions...?
Amazing that the fate of our nation is in the hands of people who, for the most part, have been abject failures at every thing they have tried in life. Except kissing butts and making promises with other people’s money for votes.
Its absolutely appalling. Is this the deal that Bush is cutting in order to get defense spending? Its a crying shame.
And which party screams over and over again that you can't legislate morality? God, these people should drown in their own hypocrisy.
As far as killing more men, women, and children every year than died in the entire Iraq war, don't worry. As soon as the insurance companies figure out that these wonderful, fuel efficient cars are more easily damaged and killing more people, driving up their costs, they'll buy off the politicians and we'll suddenly have a national 40 mph speed limit. It will be justified as an energy crisis, and we'll be doing it for the children.
And most of those engineering efforts have been done already. When it comes down to it, you simply need to burn X amount of fuel to move Y amount of mass; so the most direct way to reduce X is to reduce Y. And yes, it can be done, as it is done in fighter planes... but fighter planes, strong as they are for moving through the air, are remarkably fragile when they encounter solid objects.
Not to say we cannot reduce the weight and enhance performance. Think fighter planes...
Are you saying that cars are going to cost millions and millions and millions...?
No, I think he is saying that they will cost millions and completely shatter upon impact.
MERCURY is in the new bulbs and you must take them to a HAZARD DUMP!
What happens when two fighter planes hit?
We should start some type of thread listing all the applications the loss of the lightbulb will have.
This will impact things people won’t even think about offhand.
aquariums
brooders
incubators/hatchers
gardening lights
reptilian lamps
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.