Posted on 05/22/2009 7:28:29 AM PDT by GOP_Lady
And other unintended consequences of strict fuel-economy standards.
If something seems too good to be true, it usually is. Such is the case with President Barack Obama's proposed national fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and a new tailpipe standard for C02 emissions. The national press has uncritically reported that the new standards will make cars "cleaner." In fact, the rules could impose substantial costs in terms of urban air pollution and human life.
The standards are designed to reduce C02 emissions from cars, with the twin goals of addressing climate change and reducing dependence on imported energy. Carbon dioxide is, of course, ubiquitous and relatively harmless on an everyday basis. It is only its long-term buildup that scientists posit will cause temperature warming. What are not so harmless in the near term are the "criteria air pollutants" currently regulated under the Clean Air Act -- ground-level ozone (or smog), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and lead -- all of which have been shown by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own scientists to have an adverse effect on human health.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I’m not driving his soup can cars. He can kiss my a**.
In a toss up between me and some p.o.s. hybrid of enviro-weenie car I'd wager that I'd have more chances to survive!!
I was just using common sense.
ML/NJ
>>It seems like as our cars get safer, our drivers become more dangerous.
Agreed, increased performance in cars does not correspond to increased road intelligence in most drivers.
My fave is a minivan mom with kids strapped in driving like an immortal feeling teenager!
I’ve spent almost my entire life driving smallish cars (my current one is a ‘91 Miata, and it’s not even the smallest car I’ve owned!), and am forever fielding questions like:
- “Why don’t you have a rollbar in that thing?” (not until I can afford to track it; rollovers on the street are rare and I don’t want to risk a concussion from a simple rear-end collision)
- “Aren’t you scared driving that on the street?” (usually asked by people who drive SUV’s. And no, I don’t, I just have to pay attention and drive like they don’t see me, which they usually don’t)
- “You’d get killed if a bigger vehicle hit you.” (yeah, and you’d get killed in your Suburban if you were hit by a dump truck, so what’s your point?)
For the record, the smallest car I’ve owned was a Chevy Sprint. It was BETTER on fuel than a Smart (close to 50mpg on the highway, about 38mpg around town without really trying), came in at about the same curb weight, and would seat four.
>>people who drive SUV’s. And no, I don’t, I just have to pay attention and drive like they don’t see me, which they usually don’t)
My biggest grip against SUV drivers, they do not understand the limitation to their field of vision and their different perspective......
bttt
Bingo!
|
CALIFORNIA  DREAMING   Arnold drives a Hummer and jets home every night! Obama drove a Chrysler 300 and claimed he was getting a hybrid! Obama's new environmental ride:  animation by POTLATCH |
Good post devolve.
.
Thhanks potlatch
I missed this last night
Lol, no you didn’t. You were posting it at 3:23:18 AM in the morning and I replied sometime today!
.
??
You had posted your little red car .gif
I’m confused!
Yeah - I woke a posted a few
Yes, it did get confusing. I had posted ‘your’ little red car gif and then you posted your large car post to that during the early morning hours.
Then I wrote you it was a good post and you said ‘thanks that you had missed it last night. I thought you meant my ‘good post’ comment.
Got it all straight now?? LOL, now I’m confused too.
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.