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 ...
Please don't tell my wife.
LOL...and at $90 a barrell...That's funny.
It is mostly true. During the energy crunch of the ‘70’s they reduced the size of brake rotors on most full size cars and trucks from 10-11” down to 8-9” to cut weight. They then rid themselves of the higher impact metal bumpers with a coil mount system that usually could withstand a bump of 15 mph (try that with any of todays cars, you’re looking at a $2500 price tag). I could go on about it if you need more.
Part of that millions of dollars a copy is to pay for the r&d needed to develope the particular systems/materials.
Thats done.
Sorta like teflon...some of the developed technology will or may become ubiquitous.
remember when gun control was a health issue and because it was a health issue it was a moral issue...
same playbook, just GWBush has lame ducked into this idiocy.
Here is a link to a good article full of technical stuff about CFLs.
::::::::::::::::
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
Hey lady, who are you to shove your morality down my throat?
/liberal argument
.
(Yes, yes, I know, different type of fuel).
They want to reduce weight so it will make cars smaller, which will rid us of the evil SUV
Also the American auto makers have only made most major improvements when forced either by government mandates or foreign completion. This is what it takes to make them change. If they were left alone they would still be selling Pintos and Vega telling us we are unpatriotic if we don't buy American.
CFLs have major problems with them. I know we can and will come up with some thing better. LED’s look promising, Maglite has recently added a LED line to it’s product line.
Sen. Harry Reid, Killer of the Lightbulb:
Darkness prevails. His light went out.
And he’s from Searchlight, Nevada for heaven’s sake. Did he ban searchlights too?
” However, I use chandelier light bulbs because the look better in my light fixtures.”
Here is a link that may answer some questions.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=632
Well, that is one way to stop people from listening to that awful hate radio.
It's tar and feather time, I think.
So, we get a much less attractive light in our ceiling fans with about a third of the light we get from the current bulbs?
I will silently protest by staying in our 2000 sq ft house (2 people) with a pool & spa!!!!! and drive my new gas guzzling Jaguar til it falls apart.
These people are imbeciles, and that is putting it nicely.
Yes, we are all doomed.
During a slow speed crash (5-25 mph) you shouldn’t suffer any serious injury that would require a hospital visit. You may pee your pants but that’s about it.
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.