Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6840 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 16, 2009 7:03 am) But the small diesel PU issue I will not grant you. If the carmakers did not want to put the technology in the car to make it clean enough, it's not the guvmint's fault. The fault in that case lies with the automakers in part and with the fact that there was not enough market demand for such an item.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 9:22 am) I disagree. While I used extreme examples to make my point the principle is the same. Zealots to a cause (in the original example, Global Warming) get into power and proceed to enact laws which are so single minded that they begin to infringe on individual rights. Over time more and more extreme laws are enacted "for the public good" until you are faced with a dictatorship. Do you think Hitler just started killing people the day he came to power? No, it was a gradual thing. Just as were the early environmental laws. Over time the laws have become more and more extreme in their scope with less and less accountability for the harm they do to people. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 16, 2009 7:06 am) You really need to get out of that cubicle more often. If I had held on another 20 years I may have gotten compensation for my loss. Then again the taxes probably would have been more than the gain in value. This kind of erosion of personal freedom is going on at different levels in many states. AZ and TX are not nearly as oppressive as the Coastal states. I don't know if you have ever owned property. It is very discouraging when laws are passed that take that property from you by regulating its value. Unnoticed amid the suspense of the Presidential race, on November 7 the voters of Oregon adopted a landmark law for the protection of the human right of private property ownership. Ballot Measure 7, entitled "landowner compensation", was a rebellion by Oregon voters against decades of expansion of governmental power to control the use of private land. Until the environmental revolution swept over Oregon (and Vermont) in the 1970s, the state and its subdivisions regulated land largely to prevent traditional nuisances. Local governments had used zoning since the practice was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926, but it was usually not oppressive. The enviro-revolution changed all that. Numerous well-funded and aggressive national, state and local environmental organizations advanced the theory of "social property". This theory held that land is a valuable resource belonging to society, not a commodity to be owned, used, and exchanged by individuals. "Owners" merely "hold" land as "stewards" subject to such conditions and restrictions as "society" (that is, the government) sees fit to impose. This "social property" theory gave rise to a tidal wave of new land use regulations. In 1973 Oregon adopted a state land use plan, prohibiting land uses not approved by a state bureaucracy. Over the years that and other regulatory laws were ever more aggressively enforced. Oregon is full of outrageous examples of land regulations confiscating the rights of property owners and the value of their property. This year a group called Oregonians in Action petitioned Measure 7 onto the ballot.. It provides that whenever a governmental restriction "has the effect of reducing the value of a property... the property owner shall be paid just compensation equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the property." The compensation requirement does not apply to regulation that restricts "historically and commonly recognized nuisances". It does not apply to property that was already subject to regulation when acquired by new owners. A government can escape liability for payment by rolling back the offending regulation. The basic argument for Measure 7 is fairness. If society believes that a landowner's private property rights must be restricted in the name of some common good, then all of society ought to share in any resulting economic loss, not just the hapless landowner. The 18th century authors of our constitutions firmly believed this. In fact, Vermont's 1777 constitution is the first one in the world to explicitly declare that when property is taken for public use, the owner has a right to receive "the equivalent in money". The enviros grudgingly accept this "takings" rule when the government actually takes possession of the property, as in highway construction. They vocally oppose it when land use regulation "merely" destroys the value of someone's property, leaving the owner with what may be a huge economic loss. The Oregon enviros and their editorial page allies mounted a full bore attack on Measure 7. Every major editorial page in the state denounced it. The anti-Measure7 groups raised over a million dollars to defeat it, outspending its advocates 8 to 1. But on election day Oregon voters approved Measure 7 by a 55-45 margin. It was approved in 34 of the state's 36 counties, and is now part of the Oregon Constitution. http://www.ethanallen.org/commentary.php?commentary_id=122
|
|
|
It appears to say in your posted editorial that "the good guys won." So what's the problem? Just like I said - if the guvmint was doing something "bad" then the citizens rose up and protested and got it changed. Just like guvmint is supposed to work.
|
|
|
"U.S. EPA Administrator-designate Lisa Jackson promised today to take a new look at Califoria's controversial quest to set its own greenhouse gas emissions regulations for automobiles - a plan that 19 other states want to follow and that automakers vehemently oppose." EPA Nominee Pledges Agency Will Establish Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations (and if anyone thinks we have have fewer freedoms today than in Jeffersonian times, you might want to pay close attention on 1/20).
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 16, 2009 7:27 am) With AL (gangster) Gore the leader of the pack. Global warming.  What will they think of next, to legalize stealing from US citizens? Of course I disagree with you on the diesel PU truck also. I do not believe a 40 MPG small 4 cylinder diesel PU, like those sold world wide, would put out as much TOTAL pollution as my legal 15 MPG Sequoia.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 16, 2009 7:35 am) And how many people had their lives ruined before that happened? To steal a quote from the movie "Die Hard"---"How many people do I have to kill before I get around to some one you DO care about?"
|
|
|
All those parked SUVs made it a cooler year in 2008 Still the 9th warmest year on record though. 2008 was globe's coolest year of the decade Climate reports from two separate government agencies found that 2008 was the Earth's coolest year this decade. At the same time, data from both agencies (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center) identified 2008 as one of the 10 warmest years on record globally. Although cool by recent standards, NASA says 2008 was still the 9th-warmest year on record (records extend back to 1880). The Earth's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, which most scientists pinpoint as a sign of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. NOAA's data found that 2008 tied with 2001 as the 8th-warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December. NOAA and NASA analyses differ slightly in methodology, but both use data from NCDC - the federal government's official source for climate data. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature from January-December was 0.88 degree above the 20th century average of 57 degrees, the 32nd consecutive year the Earth has been warmer than average. Since 1880, the Earth's temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree per decade, which has increased to 0.29 degree per decade over the past 30 years. NASA found that most of the planet was either near average or warmer than average (see NASA map, above, click to enlarge). All of Europe, most of Asia, Africa, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while small parts of central North America, southeastern South America, and much of the Pacific Ocean were slightly cooler than the long-term average. Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 reached its second-lowest melt season extent on record in September, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The minimum of 1.80 million square miles was 0.80 million square miles below the 1979-2000 average minimum extent. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 16, 2009 7:42 am) The above quote is a perfect example of talk about burning less while continuing to burn more. !! Most folks just absolutely gaze over when you say that for like models, diesels burn less on the order of normally 20-40%!!!! They just try to hide the truth. The system is hell bent on burning more AND more importantly , increasing the cost per mile driven. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
