A much-needed $260 million shot in the arm for Chrysler Canada.
6.1 litres, 425hp, mileage like a Durango SUV. But do you know why this is no threat to the environment? Because none of the buyers of these cars are going to use it as a daily driver. They will see weekend use in the summer, like most muscle cars. Which begs the question, why do they charge a $1200 gas-guzzler tax on it in Canada? If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a guy with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work. Environmental laws need "adjusting."
How do you really know when and how far such cars will be driven? SUVs with shitty mileage are widely used for commuting, even with $4/gallon gas. You still hear non-conscientious people saying "I can afford the gas" - as if it's only about money.
That obsession with taxes shows the disconnect between physical resources and dollar wealth. Money is not a true resource, just a measure of what people _think_ something ought to be worth; to other people, not the planet, which ought to be the benchmark for wealth.
Money has taken too long to reflect physical resource depletion. Few cared to listen when these things were predicted long ago. They assumed all they had to do was get a paycheck and resources would materialize from Heaven.
Look at how many drivers are trying to dump their SUVs and look at the sales figures for low mileage cars and trucks for your answer. All that matters is how far the daily commute is and if the batteries can get them to work and back with an errand or two thrown in for good measure. Then they charge the car overnight for a $1.50 and do all over again the next day. If they have to take a trip then use gas and get 45+ mpg.
You want to save the planet? Then make it economical to do so. If people can get 300 miles for a $3.00 charge then electric cars will happen and fast. People aren't going to live like paupers to satisfy a bunch of limousine liberals that burn more fuel in a month than most people will in their lifetime.
What has been depleted? There is basically just as much iron, copper, aluminum, carbon, water etc. on the planet as there was ten million years ago. All we do is move it around from one place to the other. In
100 million years God knows where it will be.
Nature doesn't give a shit about mankind. We are nothing more than a slight itch on her backside. Life on Earth has taken hits far worse than anything mankind can dish out (comet hits, massive volcanic eruptions, total global ice coverage etc.) and has rebounded every time with even more diversity of life than before. Mankind is one arrogant life form to think he is the best the Earth can produce. Mankind is just the latest organism to affect the planet. Where do you think all this oxygen we breath came from which makes life as we know it possible? It came from another organism that run a muck for about a billion years. Our impact on the planet is infinitesimal compared to it.
These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a billion years and the Earth should never change during that time. When it comes to the planet Earth, the more things change the more they stay the same. If we are going to survive we had better get good at adapting and overcoming changes instead of thinking we can change the entire planet to our liking. What's next on our list of improvements for the planet? Stopping plate tectonics?
If you really believe that man-made greenhouse gasses are warming the climate there is one thing that should become an international priority, and that is to manage fresh water. We need to make sure that the use of all runoff and underground resources are optimized. That would be worth multiple trillions of dollars, it is somethng we can actually do, and it would yield benefits regardless of climate change.
These endless debates about whether and how to manage man-made greenhouse gas production are completely pointless. The West could park every car, close off every gas pipeline, and shut down every fossil fuel powerplant tomorrow and it would not reduce the current
325 ppm concentration of CO2 for 100 years. It would not even stop the increase. At the same time, such a measure -- or even the 20 to 80% aspirational goals the alarmists bandy about -- would condemn the entire world to economic collapse. Also at the same time, the "consensus" scientists predict that the current 325 ppm concentration of CO2 is already sufficient to guarantee catastrophic climate change.
Therefore a program of adaptaion is the only reasonable response. Where are the alarmists on the issue of adaptation? I'll tell you where: in denial. It's not nearly as much fun to do something constructive in the real world, somethng that doesn't include the huge measure of the self-righteous, quasi-theological posturing and state control that the Greenies invariably favor. That's what Greenism is after all, a religion. It's not about achieving results in the real world. It's about doing "God's work," living a virtuous life, with the only reward a spiritual one. Also, the right to heap scorn on your sinful neighbors.
Even with water there are many areas where supply is more than adequate. I live in Virginia and we have water running out of our ears. If we need more then we build another dam. The real problem when it comes to water is too many people want to live in places where it is scarce. For some reason we think living by the millions in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Southern California etc. is the way nature intended. I hear these people complaining about water shortages and I just scratch my head and want to scream "You live in a f***ing desert, what do you expect?!?!" The same goes for many other parts of the world.
To quote Rev. Wright, the chickens are coming home to roost for the global warming idiots. Average temperatures haven't increased since
1998 and they are declining. All these hi-tech computer models got it wrong when it comes to CO2's effect on climate. Last month was the 29th coolest in the past 115 years. Do you notice now the term global warming is being replaced with climate change? Why do you think that is occurring? It is because global warming is no longer happening and they need a new term to shove down our throats and mislead the public.
All one has to do it look at climate change over the course of human's time here on Earth to see that change IS the natural process. These environmental idiots think they can predict climate 100 years from now with 10-20 years of data. Hell, they can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow. These environmental wackos are lead around by people like Al Gore who only cares about making millions playing the fear card. How many "doomsday" scenarios have these people played on us over the past
50 years? More than I can remember. I think the "cry wolf" syndrome has finally sunk in to most of us regarding these people. I wonder what the next eminent global disaster will be according to the enviro-nazi? We are finding out that it isn't global warming or climate change.
Of all the states that have access to the great lakes, only Indiana wants to sup up as much as they can and not return what they used back into the watershed. That's because only a tiny tip of the state is attached to the lakes while the rest resides on land that has lowered their water table through use of wells to a point where they are predicted to be screwed dry in
20 more years.
The agreement in place about using water from the great lakes is an international treaty between Canada and the USA that mandates two way flow of water. If it's taken in, it's got to be put back in.
That's true, if you rely on newspaper opinion pieces, bloggers and shills from the carbon emitting industries for your science and wear a tinfoil beanie while ranting paranoically about it being a big socialist conspiracy engineered by Al Gore. There hasn't been a single peer reviewed paper published that refutes the fact that global warming is happening. Most of the "scientists" have not worked in the field for over a decade or haven't the qualifications to know anything about it.
Relying on their opinions is tantamount to relying on your dentist's opinion about cancer treatment. Just because he's a doctor doesn't mean he's an expert. You obviously don't know that.
It's not about saving the planet. The planet doesn't give a f*ck. The planet survived the demise of more species than exist today.
And people who support the polluters say that change is natural, even when it's accelerated by the polluters.
Just be sure that we keep getting our energy from the same people who fly jetliners into our skyscrapers and control OPEC and things will be fine.
Don't you worry Jerry Buck. Hell! Even NASCAR's gone environmental and stopped using leaded fuel and Bush, McCain and just about everybody else except for a few fringe nutters say that global warming is for real.
Looks like Bush and McCain are followers of the diabolical Al Gore!
I grew up in Indiana and have all my relatives still living there. They have plenty of water. Besides, there is a great way to collect water. It is called a dam. Indiana uses 303 mgd of ground water or 110,595 mgy (million gallons per year). Indiana is comprised of 36,291 square miles. Do the math and you will find the that the 110,595 mgy used is
3.28% of the State's annual rainfall volume of 3,369,077 mgy. Much of Indiana's ground cover is natural which promotes high saturation of rainfall into the soil. Typical runoff coefficients for natural, flat land areas is about 0.25-0.35 which means the majority of rainfall soaks into the soil. I doubt Indiana's water table levels are in much jeopardy overall. I did a quick Google search regarding falling water tables in Indiana and didn't find any huge issues regarding a dwindling ground water supply in the state.
Do you know why the level of the Great Lakes are dropping? It is because the Earth's crust is rebounding due to the weight of the glaciers being removed from the retreat of the last ice age. Here's a link:
formatting link
Trying to control the level of the Great Lakes is like trying to stop a volcano from exploding.
At least I don't have to water my grass in Virginia except for a few weeks in August. IMO, every area of the country has its own brand of beauty and my comments never said desert areas are ugly. My point is they are not optimal for large scale human habitation. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have a choice to live in desert areas but many of these environmentalists use the Southwest, in general, to try and scare the rest of the country into thinking they too have a water shortage. This just isn't true.
If it weren't for colossal civil engineering projects (BTW, I am a civil engineer) controlling stormwater runoff, very few people would occupy the Southwest. There will come a point, IMO, where the number of people living in this part of the country will be restricted as there is a limited amount of water that they can utilize to support a given population level.
When I was there in March ya`all sure as hell where.
Of course every place will have one problem or another, but picking a place to live that isn't able to naturally support its population isn't all that wise.
Sounds like Communism, that didn't work where tried either. We will always be constrained by societal boundaries, arbitrary or not.
put the tax on gasoline. Burning gas is what causes the damage.
Now that demand is growing faster than supply, the prices are going to skyrocket anyway. The money might as well go to the government as Exxon. At least then there is some home of tax relief elsewhere.
If you need this much micro managing and regiment in your daily life, you're needing to find a country that can offer it..... The USA was never designed to have society ruled from the TOP DOWN.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.