SHELL wants EU to stop selling under 35 MPG ars

[Q45tech]

The EU should ban the sale of cars that do under 35 miles to the gallon, the ex-chairman of oil giant Shell says.

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart told BBC News the motor industry would adapt to cope with stricter environmental rules.

The UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders opposes the idea, saying drivers of the most polluting cars pay extra through road tax and petrol duty.

But Sir Mark said this simply let rich people avoid taking responsibility for tackling climate change.

Expanding on the views he expressed in a BBC News website Green Room opinion column, Sir Mark said: "Nobody needs a car that does 10-15mpg.

"We need very tough regulation saying that you can't drive or build something less than a certain standard. You would be allowed to drive an Aston Martin - but only if it did 50-60mpg."

Sir Mark's rule would apply only to new cars. Eventually, old polluting cars would die quietly of their own accord.

While car-makers could improve the efficiency of many sports cars to meet such a target, they would struggle to get some heavy, luxury cars to qualify.

[Q451990]

The whole damn world's gone crazy... the moon is jumping over the cow

-Jimmy Buffett

[tkd_q45]

I would love to have a G50 that got Prius MPG!

[ScottJackson]

50mpg shouldn't be difficult to get from a car like the Q, maybe with further development of DEI (direct exhaust injection). After all, if cars were as energy efficient as black holes they'd get well over a million miles per gallon.

[Skibane]

Ah, yes - Yet another example of that fabled European nanny-state mindset: Ordinary people aren't capable of making the "correct" choice for themselves, so a more enlightened government must choose for them instead...

[RAP]

Ah, yes - Yet another example of that fabled European nanny-state mindset: Ordinary people aren't capable of making the "correct" choice for themselves, so a more enlightened government must choose for them instead...

What is the "correct choice"? Here or there. I have lived there and never did I see anyone die in the streets for lack of "socialized" health care. In fact "there" has longer lifespans then "here".

There is more to it than the "nanny state" syndrome.

Actually "here" has more "nanny state benefits" then is realized. Would you think that anyone would give up "social security" for starters ? ? ?

Actually folks do "vote" there, and the "nanny state" came about with their compliance, just as it will come, slowly but surely, election by election, here, and there is a very very good possibility that in November we will see one more step in that direction.

Stay tuned but do go vote meanwhile. It's very important.

Jack

[Skibane]

What is the "correct choice"? Here or there. I have lived there and never did I see anyone die in the streets for lack of "socialized" health care.

True enough - Anyone who is in serious danger of dying hops a jet to America for quick medical treatment instead!

IIRC, the Canadian government recently recommended that its citizens buy private "supplemental" health insurance to cover the cost of going to America to treat illnesses that the wonderful Canadian health care system couldn't handle in a reasonable amount of time (i.e., 10 month waiting lists for the maternity ward). You think a few sick Canadians are now regretting their "correct" choice, eh?

Quote »Actually "here" has more "nanny state benefits" then is realized. Would you think that anyone would give up "social security" for starters ? ? ?[/quote]Again, I agree - Once you get folks accustomed to nursing on the nanny-state teat, it becomes almost impossible to wean them - and Social Security is the perfect example. Making your citizens dependent on the government is a self-reinforcing policy: After they're hooked, they only vote for more dependency.

Getting back on topic, I think that most Americans view themselves as adults - capable of making rational choices for themselves - and don't want their government to treat them like children by arbitrarily making their decisions for them. On the whole, Europeans are less independent, and more accustomed to having their policies dictated to them by their rulers. It's a heritage thing.

[Jesda]

Let me know when a Jetta can haul 2000lbs of warehouse inventory.

F*** THE EU.

[RAP]

True enough - Anyone who is in serious danger of dying hops a jet to America for quick medical treatment instead!

IIRC, the Canadian government recently recommended that its citizens buy private "supplemental" health insurance to cover the cost of going to America to treat illnesses that the wonderful Canadian health care system couldn't handle in a reasonable amount of time (i.e., 10 month waiting lists for the maternity ward). You think a few sick Canadians are now regretting their "correct" choice, eh?

Again, I agree - Once you get folks accustomed to nursing on the nanny-state teat, it becomes almost impossible to wean them - and Social Security is the perfect example. Making your citizens dependent on the government is a self-reinforcing policy: After they're hooked, they only vote for more dependency.

Getting back on topic, I think that most Americans view themselves as adults - capable of making rational choices for themselves - and don't want their government to treat them like children by arbitrarily making their decisions for them. On the whole, Europeans are less independent, and more accustomed to having their policies dictated to them by their rulers. It's a heritage thing.

Actually the topic was about the Shell guy wanting everybody to buy small cars but I love these debates.

So here is one. Face to face with a poor single women stating that her kid/s are sick is she not entitled to having them treated?

Jack

[Skibane]

Face to face with a poor single women stating that her kid/s are sick is she not entitled to having them treated?

"Entitled" - A word that only a liberal could love!

If your poor woman is unwilling to provide for the health of her own children (cable TV is expensive, after all!), she can do the same thing that millions of other Americans already do: Go to the emergency room, get her children treated (by law, they can't be refused), and let the rest of us insured Americans pick up the bill. (See, we already have socialized health care in this country!)

[Desmoquattro]

Umm, actually the government recommends we get supplemental insurance NOT because we go to the US for treatment, but because if we get injured while visiting the US the bills will bankrupt us in short order. I wouldn't listen to your media reports on the evils of Canadian medicine, its mostly BS. Just ask a Canadian.

As for this article, it's just a hypocritical ploy from an oil company to make them seem environmentally conscious when they actually have no intention of doing anything.

[Skibane]

Umm, actually the government recommends we get supplemental insurance NOT because we go to the US for treatment, but because if we get injured while visiting the US the bills will bankrupt us in short order.

The fact that Canadians have to buy supplemental health insurance - in a nation that supposedly has "free" health care - and the fact that so many of them are doing it that the government had to address the matter - shows that Canada's health care system hasn't lived up to its hype.

Quote »I wouldn't listen to your media reports on the evils of Canadian medicine, its mostly BS. Just ask a Canadian.[/quote]My sister is a nurse. One of her co-workers - a best friend - is Canadian, and recently moved back to Canada to continue her own nursing career. Whenever my sister talks to her on the phone, she never fails to mention how badly the Canadian health care system "sucks" - to quote her exactly. That assessment comes from a Canadian who sees the realities of the Canadian health care system every day.

[RAP]

"Entitled" - A word that only a liberal could love!

If your poor woman is unwilling to provide for the health of her own children (cable TV is expensive, after all!), she can do the same thing that millions of other Americans already do: Go to the emergency room, get her children treated (by law, they can't be refused), and let the rest of us insured Americans pick up the bill. (See, we already have socialized health care in this country!)

Geez George Bush said those very words yesterday. Meanwhile George has the very best of tax paid medical care, as do I. Thank you taxpayers Since this is

A Q45 FORUM, I WILL SAY THAT I DO DRIVE MY Q TO VISIT MY FREE DOCTOR THOUGH, so I will also be covered topicwise ? ? ?

I voted for George, twice. Actually I couldn't stomach his opponents so...

And yes we have been entertained, repeatedly, over the years, by that old argument of the Canadians dieing in the streets for lack of medical care, blah blah blah, except, that for most of the Canadians, it seems to work well.

Even Mexico has universal health care. Imagine that? To be fair the Mexicans do say that there is additional, better? ? ? care available if there is money available.

I will vote for John McCain, probably, although I am very interested in seeing how far O Bama will go, and, IF he somehow usurps the Hillbillies I could change my mind.

I will not vote for the HILLBILLIES though.



Jack

[Rex]

This thread went "political" and that's not what we're here to discuss .

Locked.