AZhitman wrote:Agreed - I suppose I just prefer that the "positive strides" come from the market, not mandates. I think policymakers severely underestimate the impact of "leading by example" and the power of word-of-mouth and social media in encouraging people to make the right choices, rather than simply codifying them into hard and fast rules.
Problem is we make poor leaders (The US) in the push towards fuel economy. We are one of the highest per capita energy consumers. And of the highest polluters, we have the largest population. In fact, you can add up the total energy usage of all the nations using more energy per capita than we do and we'd still more than double that. We might even triple it.
As for making hard fast rules, we have many. People still pollute. So why legislate at all? Because it does work. Its not 100%, nor is there a realistic expectation that it will be. Remove such laws and you'll probably find a lot of people will go right back to where we were. Using Social media and the like is certainly a good thing too. But it lacks teeth against those who simply don't give a rat's a**.
AZhitman wrote:For example, we recycle - a lot. I'm no environmentalist, I don't care about MMGW, there's no financial incentive for me to do so, and I think technology will advance and keep ahead of problems (such as landfill issues). By the same token, for example, I think people who buy bottled water are stupid (it seems ignorant and selfish to buy a 12oz bottle which I can slam in one swig, yet that bottle remains around for thousands of years). If my trash (cardboard, paper, aluminum, glass) can be capitalized upon by some company (which employs workers) and converted back into something good, then I feel good about separating our trash.
You don't think a lot of landfills started doing more environmentally friendly things on their own? There are plenty of regulations regarding landfills. The regulations primarily cover the issues that tend to be a burden on these companies. Now that methane recovery and recycling has become a significant method of revenue/loss mitigation, those aspects do not need as much regulation. At least not the kind that stimulates it. But maintaining these systems is still highly regulated. You can ask my neighbor who works at a landfill.
As for having no financial incentive to care about MMGW, of course you don't. You get to just pass it on to your kids and their kids. I'd bet if your kids were responsible for any debt you left behind when you pass, you'ld try and minimize or help avoid it being passed on altogether. One purpose of environmental regulations is so that we take responsibility for our waste. Unfortunately, we are already charged with taking on some of the burden from past generations already.
AZhitman wrote:As I've said before, it's far more environmentally-unfriendly to dispose of an older car and purchase a new one. As such, I wonder... If all of the resources of CAFE were re-appropriated into educational campaigns to teach people the TRUTH about the environmental impact of bringing a new car to market, assisting recyclers with getting used car parts BACK into the market, and perhaps even providing incentives for working-class people to KEEP their old car on the road (such as subsidized repairs and maintenance), might we not be better off? We've been led to believe that swapping that B210 for a new Prius is "good for the environment". That is a bald-faced lie that's perpetuated and accepted by people who don't know any better.
All products have some level of useful life. Old cars that have served their purpose are less likely to be more environmentally friendly to operate. New cars are going to continue to enter the market. Its inevitable. And most people who buy new cars sell or trade-in their old ones. Which means people aren't simply dropping their cars off at the local junkyard every time they buy a new car. That said, the amount of non-CO2 emissions spewed by older cars can be 100's of times higher than a new car. Some newer cars emit virtually none of the harmful gases. Others still emit absolutely no emissions. Is there energy involved in producing said product? Of course. But modern power generation minimizes these emissions as well.
As for incentives to keep cars on the road, there comes a point at which it just starts costing more money than its worth to keep a car running. From a purely practical standpoint, it makes zero sense to restore classic cars. But its made possible because they have value that exists for no other reason than the fact that we have an affinity for them. Problem is not everyone drives a classic car. Not to mention as cars get older, their numbers diminish. Finding parts can be a chore. Hell, I had trouble finding a manifold for a 01 Sentra. The part is discontinued (Tsunami in Japan destroyed the tooling) and they were rather difficult to locate in a junkyard. Took me three to find one and I just received it today.
AZhitman wrote:Certainly, automakers would oppose it, but it might even have an impact on the debt crisis many Americans have found themselves in. Cars are the #1 (NUMBER ONE) depreciating asset, and most are bought on credit, creating undue hardships that yet ANOTHER government agency is created to address... whoops.
Americans are spenders. Our economy is built on it. Its unlikely we're going to see much change in debt even if people end up keeping their cars on the road longer. I suspect it would actually put more pressure on younger kids to buy new as used car availability would lessen.
AZhitman wrote:So, to piggyback onto your earlier comment, "That its developed by a government agency does not mean anything. A great idea is a great idea and a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of who came up with it". Seems to me if you "follow the money", there's some deep pocketed "idea-makers" pushing CAFE. The independent free-thinker (which I somehow perceived you to be) might want to reconsider hitching their wagon onto that policymaker and simply CONSIDER that there might be alternatives to this supposedly "good idea".
I stated that to try and direct you to argue the merits of the CAFE regulations. The irony here is you supplemented the earlier irrelevant argument with another one. Put it this way Greg. Does it really matter who came up with the idea if you are trying to determine if the idea is good or bad? Nope. If I wanted to hear some cheerleading, I'd go read some of Howie's posts in Politics.
As for alternatives, of course there are. One alternative would be to require manufacturers to build a car to specific specs as Matt jokingly suggested. Its a terrible idea, but it IS an alternative. In other words, the alternatives still have to be good ideas. Perhaps better than the plan we are effecting now. But that would indeed require dialogue and discussion of the actual merits of alternative ideas. Unless you are going to support it based solely on who thought of it...
