california Mandating 1.4 million electric cars by 2025 VOL. we tell you what to drive

[Truth]

My next car will be an electric car anyways so np

 

[finnns2003]

There's a line between and practical and luxury, and I just don't see anything above 175HP as practical. I just have something with 160HP and a turbocharger, and I'm very content.


I wish we had a rolling eyes emoticon so I could post 100 of them. Oh brother, YOU don't see anything above 175hp as practical so YOU are content.

If that wasn't the case, I couldn't enjoy my EVO or own a car like a GT-R or IS-F. Performance enthusiasts would be out of luck because of ridiculous hippies like yourself that have no clue or idea about anything but "saving the world".

 

[rashi]

Really? I hear about it all the time. My filter bubble is probably different than yours, of course. 
http://scienceprogressaction.org/in...hevron-exxonmobil-and-the-defense-department/

Global Warming is alive and well. The continual rise in anthroprogenic contribution of CO2 emissions and the rest of the other green house gases are apparent in the warming of our planet. a warming increase that has never been seen in the history of the Earth in such a short amount of time



....

[h1][/h1]

[h1]Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)[/h1]

• 
  Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

By David Rose

Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.


According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ight-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1l8PS4MCq

?

 

[sillyputty]

Rashi... I can't BELIEVE we're going to talk about whether or not global warming is real...

Are you serious right now?

If you burn more hydrocarbons than have EVER been burned at a rate as fast as we have, there is NO WAY you can not expect the environment to change.

Thats the ONLY thing you have to learn in school to understand global warming.

Thats it.

Don't tell me the environment does NOT change from the billions of cars on the streets of the world emitting unfiltered toxins into the sky.

If that argument goes over anyone's head then I think this conversation should be over.

This is like trying to debate evolution in a biology class right now.

Any "scientist" that says there is no impact of humanity on the ecology of the world is a liar and should be ridiculed by others in their field. Tarred, feathered, and paraded like the fool he/she is.







The ecology of the world rests on the interaction of literally millions of factors that contribute to and give rise to the diversity of life that we observe in the world. Changes that are minute and add up over time.

No one is saying that you will wake up next spring and the world will be set ablaze in anoxic fumes and we all will be wearing radioactive protection suits to work.

Changes occur gradually over time and some environments notice the impact more than others.

The very nature that urban areas tend to be on average 3-7 degrees warmer than surrounding areas BECAUSE OF THE SHEER AMOUNT OF CONCRETE used in cities is no mistake. We impact the ecology in a profound way. Thats not even including our chemical waste and output as a result of urban areas.

We have violently swung the resting equilibrium of the planet in ways that are not completely known yet. This is true...however to assert that humans are not responsible for the disruption of many of the restorative "characteristics" of natural ecosystems and their ability to return to equilibrium is asinine.

People just think gases just "go away"...without any understanding of how the production of things in excess of their "normal" amounts shifts the balance of chemical concentrations in different environments.

It is a gradual change as a result of many observed properties and it is REAL.

 

[ninjahood]

"Plus, you know very well you aren't out here designing your own cars so you'll TAKE what the marketGIVES you":LOLAre you aware of unintended consequences silly putty? Are you also awareThat as Automotive enthusiast I know for a FACT that da aftermarketSupply industry is at least 3x da size of da entire car industry combined?With rules that MANDATE regulations to inferior technology, you think people areGonna pick those expensive short range vehicles, or traditional internal combustion engines whichAre at least 1/2 da price...you act like da internet hasn't BLOWN up da supply chain as far as keepingOlder cars on da road longer...studies have shown that people would rather pay MORE to keep da carsThey wanna drive...you completely ignoring how much CHEAPER da chevy Cruze is VS da chevy volt isWith more practicality underlines how snobbishly arrogant da left-wing thinks they can make decisions for people. You said we'd pick what da market gives us..you're gonna see how fast da market shows you da failure of pickingWinners & losers via legislation...Canada has da 2nd BIGGEST oil reserve after da Da Saudis...if you think that pipeline WONT eventually get builtAnd supply Da US with CHEAP gas from a NON OPEC country, den you must thinkDrake "is gonna actually catch a body like that"

 

[bandit country]

0cks wrote:

Also don't you think the world would be a better place if we could leave the Middle East be and not HAVE to be all up in their business? Oil is the only thing making them hot and the sooner we get off this dependency the less we have to spend on defense/homeland security and put tax money towards better things like schools and the environment...


Living in NYC, I'm frequently approached by the Green Peace beggars in the street. This is what I try to hammer home to them. The average person doesn't really care about the environment. Emphasize the fact that oil comes from murderous regimes that hate America. I don't want to support that. Tom Friedman wrote about this recently. His solution was to tax gas at an even higher rate (which is a childish solution). But the fact remains that the United States needs to move off oil.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

"Plus, you know very well you aren't out here designing your own cars so you'll TAKE what the marketGIVES you":LOLAre you aware of unintended consequences silly putty? Are you also awareThat as Automotive enthusiast I know for a FACT that da aftermarketSupply industry is at least 3x da size of da entire car industry combined?With rules that MANDATE regulations to inferior technology, you think people areGonna pick those expensive short range vehicles, or traditional internal combustion engines whichAre at least 1/2 da price...you act like da internet hasn't BLOWN up da supply chain as far as keepingOlder cars on da road longer...studies have shown that people would rather pay MORE to keep da carsThey wanna drive...you completely ignoring how much CHEAPER da chevy Cruze is VS da chevy volt isWith more practicality underlines how snobbishly arrogant da left-wing thinks they can make decisions for people. You said we'd pick what da market gives us..you're gonna see how fast da market shows you da failure of pickingWinners & losers via legislation...Canada has da 2nd BIGGEST oil reserve after da Da Saudis...if you think that pipeline WONT eventually get builtAnd supply Da US with CHEAP gas from a NON OPEC country, den you must thinkDrake "is gonna actually catch a body like that"

1. Your grasp of typing in the the Queen's english never ceases to be appalling.

2. If price is your only argument, then ONLY reason that electric cars cost more is a result of the fact that there is no investment in the technology relative to what exists for combustion engines.

3. You wouldn't have only combustion engines on the market if it was not for the grip that the oil industry has on this country. Your argument only suggests finding oil elsewhere, not removing oil dependency. Don't be ridiculous. Not answering the problem, doesn't get rid of the problem. 

 

[ninjahood]

Silly putty resorted to insults in my writing style instead of

Admitting to da fact that as long as oil is cheap and abundant

That NO ONE is gonna give 2 craps about electric cars with their

Pathetic ranges compared to good oil internal cumbustion engines.

silly putty, no matter how HARD you mandate Car companies to create

This cars, if da public doesn't want them, what are you gonna plan on doin?

Tell da government to Confiscate Lamborghinis & Corvettes? Lol you got chevy

Volts being declined by dealerships nationwide because they can't sell em..you know

Who da biggest buyers of these tax payer funded experiment? Da government...way to prop

Up a completely incompetent car segment

And don't even get me started on da faux environmental good

These cars are with da amounts of rare earth metals needed to mine

To produce these toxic batteries...

 

[bandit country]

Originally Posted by ninjahood



 Da government...way to prop

Up a completely incompetent cat segment

They've been doing this since the late 70s.
And I think the point you're missing it that it's better to be proactive than reactive. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Silly putty resorted to insults in my writing style instead of

I didn't insult you.
I said that I am appalled that you refuse to use proper grammar.

I didn't say anything about YOU. 

Admitting to da fact that as long as oil is cheap and abundant

Oh really?
Oil is cheap? 

Oil is "abundant" Its still a NON-renewable resource with an unmeasured time-table. 

When it runs out Dubai will turn back into the desert hell-hole that it really is. 

That NO ONE is gonna give 2 craps about electric cara with their

You don't because you want your V8 hemi that vibrates at the stop light because it tickles your goods and makes a pretty little purr.
How cute.

With increased market competition and technology, electric cars, like anything else, will get better. 

We have to start somewhere. 

Pathetic ranges compared to good oil internal cumbustion engines.

There was a time when we thought if people drove cars past 60 MPH they would go deaf.
The prius wasn't even out 15 years ago. It came out in 1997. We've been driving cars since when? Come on man. 

Don't start bragging about "fuel efficient" cars as if they've been around for a long time.

Those are NEW technologies. 

 silly putty, no matter how HARD you mandate Car companies to create

This cars, if da public doesn't want them, what are you gonna plan on doin? 

The public couldn't afford cars before the Model-T came along. Whats your point? 
It took ingenuity and refinement of technology to get to that point.

Tell da government to Confiscate Lamborghinis & Corvettes? Lol you got chevy

Volts being declined by dealerships nationwide because they can't sell em..you know

Because of price, not impact.
People want big and flashy without repercussion for how it impacts others.

They're not being declined because they're bad technology though. You're missing the point.

Who da biggest buyers of these tax payer funded experiment? Da government...way to prop

Up a completely incompetent cat segment 

Like how the government saved the auto industry?...I like how you forgot that part.
The government isn't always anti-business. Them saving the auto industry was in order to sustain economies of scale that also depended on those entities. 

We're trying to evolve here, not start over from nothing. 

And don't even get me started on da faux environmental good

Because burning boatloads of oil DAILY is a good idea? 

These cars are with da amounts of rare earth metals needed to mine
A better option is never the best option.
Don't fault us for trying to IMPROVE.

Its like saying "well you can't cure 100% of cancer so chemo is pointless"... 

To produce these toxic batteries... 

Are you opposed to seeking new technology or are you just happy living according to the status quo? 

You lack the foresight to make things better for those that come after you.

You're the type of person that would have prevented mandated oil filters, or catalytic converters, or reduction of CFCs or regulations by the EPA.

Where is your respect for others? 

Where is your planning for tomorrow instead of the here and now?

Its like saying, well stem cell research can't grow me a new arm right now so lets scrap the whole idea.

 

The attitude of resistance you have holds all of us back from trying to do better. You're no different than the Catholic church telling people not to use condoms to prevent the spread of STIs...or trying to prevent evolution being taught in schools.




There are better options out there and the details are being worked out.




You can stand in the way of progress or be left on the wrong side of history. 




EDIT: and another thing...you will drive what you are GIVEN. You never had a damn choice in this country and don't think for a second that you did. You pay massive fees to drive imported vehicles from different regions of the world, and you also are only limited to whats on the market. You don't have ability to build NinjaHoodMotors. You drive whatever car manufacturers make for you. You can make your own clothes. You can't even begin to make your own cars. So yes, you WILL drive what they give you and will take it as you've continued to do in the past. You have even FEWER options than you ever realized...because right now there is someone out there who is not impressed with ANY vehicle on the market...what do you tell that person? 

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Rashi... I can't BELIEVE we're going to talk about whether or not global warming is real...

Are you serious right now?

If you burn more hydrocarbons than have EVER been burned at a rate as fast as we have, there is NO WAY you can not expect the environment to change.

Thats the ONLY thing you have to learn in school to understand global warming.

Thats it.

Don't tell me the environment does NOT change from the billions of cars on the streets of the world emitting unfiltered toxins into the sky.

If that argument goes over anyone's head then I think this conversation should be over.

This is like trying to debate evolution in a biology class right now.

Any "scientist" that says there is no impact of humanity on the ecology of the world is a liar and should be ridiculed by others in their field. Tarred, feathered, and paraded like the fool he/she is.







The ecology of the world rests on the interaction of literally millions of factors that contribute to and give rise to the diversity of life that we observe in the world. Changes that are minute and add up over time.

No one is saying that you will wake up next spring and the world will be set ablaze in anoxic fumes and we all will be wearing radioactive protection suits to work.

Changes occur gradually over time and some environments notice the impact more than others.

The very nature that urban areas tend to be on average 3-7 degrees warmer than surrounding areas BECAUSE OF THE SHEER AMOUNT OF CONCRETE used in cities is no mistake. We impact the ecology in a profound way. Thats not even including our chemical waste and output as a result of urban areas.

We have violently swung the resting equilibrium of the planet in ways that are not completely known yet. This is true...however to assert that humans are not responsible for the disruption of many of the restorative "characteristics" of natural ecosystems and their ability to return to equilibrium is asinine.

People just think gases just "go away"...without any understanding of how the production of things in excess of their "normal" amounts shifts the balance of chemical concentrations in different environments.

It is a gradual change as a result of many observed properties and it is REAL.

Whatever, dude. There are tens of thousands of scientists that are against "man made Global Warming" and have come out publicly against it but not reported due to it "not fitting the script".

The biggest environmental hazard in history is Genetically Modified Foods that nobody ever seems to talk about or even care. How it destroys the soil and agriculture, how it destroys peoples DNA, ect. Until this is addressed on a wider scale, the debate over Global Warming is trivial in my opinion.

 

[ninjahood]

Silly putty SWEARS that da public can be CATTLED into coppin basura by da government.


That's where your WRONG sillyputty, HELLO THERE IS A ENTIRE INDUSTRY


DEVOTED TO KEEPING USED CARS RUNNING its called da aftermarket ..its 3x as


Big as da auto industry & employees MANY more..all this mandate is gonna do is make consumers


KEEP cars they already have or buy older models that appeal to them.. Canada has DA SECOND BIGGEST


OIL SUPPLY AFTER DA SAUDIS, and technology has made da extraction of these oil sands profitable.


Fossil fuels will continue to play a significant role in human civilization for centuries to come...this mandatory

Crap is WILD Un American...last time I checked I can drive w/e da !%$% I want cuz its my right, I can care 2 @%!%%

How "Selfish" you think that is....what's next, government tellin you what websites you can browse? Oh wait....

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Silly putty SWEARS that da public can be CATTLED into coppin basura by da government.

You already are.
Don't forget the crap US autos were putting out in the beginning of the 2000s that caused them to fail because they were being out done by asian manufacturers in reliability and quality.

That's where your WRONG sillyputty, HELLO THERE IS A ENTIRE INDUSTRY DEVOTED TO KEEPING USED CARS RUNNING its called da aftermarket ..its 3x as Big as da auto industry & employees MANY more.

Another ridiculous statement.

THERE IS NO AFTERMARKET FOR ELECTRIC CARS...BECAUSE THERE AREN'T THAT MANY ELECTRIC CARS! 

Thats like asking where the 3rd party controllers are for the XBox 720 or where are the new cases for the iPhone 5...the damn thing hasn't even come out yet!

.all this mandate is gonna do is make consumers KEEP cars they already have or buy older models that appeal to them.. 

How is this any different from people who restore cars before the 1970s? 

This argument fails.

Canada has DA SECOND BIGGEST OIL SUPPLY AFTER DA SAUDIS, and technology has made da extraction of these oil sands profitable.

Profit doesn't equate to sustainability.

Oil being burned is STILL not a good thing.

Get that through your head.

Oil = Bad.

We can learn to use other forms of energy.

Stop thinking with your wallet and think about tomorrow.

That oil money won't matter when there is no more oil, will it? 

Fossil fuels will continue to play a significant role in human civilization for centuries to come

No. They won't.

There are some countries that are more dependent on geothermal heating for energy or solar than we are. 

Those things didn't exist 150+  years ago.

Times change and energy sources will change. Sooner or later.

Don't be on the wrong side of progress.

...this mandatory Crap is WILD Un American...last time I checked I can drive w/e da !%$% I want cuz its my right, I can care 2 @%!%%

Well go take your catalytic converter off and drive without getting your emissions test.
WAIT YOU CANT DO THAT. 

You've already been living under government regulations.

You have a false sense of "freedom"

 

How "Selfish" you think that is....what's next, government tellin you what websites you can browse? Oh wait.... 

 

The content produced on the internet is done by anyone...

but not everyone can create their own ACCESS to the internet.

You can drive whatever car you want...as long as that car exists. 

If that car doesn't exist, then what will you drive?

This is my point...you are limited to choices that YOU HAVE...you can't make your own cars, so you are subject to drive whatever is on the market.

Imagine if we used water to run cars...would you dare complain that we aren't using oil in cars? You can't even suggest the alternative because the alternative isn't even accepted that much. You have no basis to make a comparable argument...this is why nothing you're saying makes any sense. 

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by 0cks

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by 0cks

I'm sayin tho, gas guzzling cars will be relegated to weekend/hobby vehicles for the rich... you won't be forced out of your HEMICharger, you'll just be priced out... Which I don't think is all bad, in those LA streets what good does it do if your car can do 0-60 in 3.2 but you're stuck in gridlock traffic all day

Also don't you think the world would be a better place if we could leave the Middle East be and not HAVE to be all up in their business? Oil is the only thing making them hot and the sooner we get off this dependency the less we have to spend on defense/homeland security and put tax money towards better things like schools and the environment...

-this is NOT a absolute though....exploration and da expansive progress in Canada's oil sand continuing...do you know they have da 2nd MOST oil behind Saudi Arabia? http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

and they're our neighbors AKA BBFs, we ALREADY get most of our oil from Canada, so if they ramp up production with da Keystone XL (which Obama is cockblockin) we can ween ourselves OFF OPEC oil and

secure our energy independence from conflict oil.

Extracting oil from that Canadian slurry is very expensive and you are making the assumption they will be willing to tear up their picturesque scenery for our oil consumption...

Umm you havent heard? Canada is HELL BENT on developing their oil Rich sands land & become a energy superpower..to think da USISN'T gonna benefit immensely is to be humpin one too many trees..

 

[Gex the Damaja]

Originally Posted by ThorrocksJs

China needs electric cars we don't .If china had stricter laws on driving and better testing they wouldnt even have half the people driving.

So instead of looking at ourselves and asking what we can do to limit our environmental impact, we should tell a growing china what they should allow there citizens to do? How can the pot call the kettle back and expect no backlash. On another note, I agree oil is not ideal for gas but neither is electric. Other alternatives need to be discovered and soon..

 

[Gex the Damaja]

..........DOUBLE.

 

[yeah]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Silly putty SWEARS that da public can be CATTLED into coppin basura by da government.
That's where your WRONG sillyputty, HELLO THERE IS A ENTIRE INDUSTRY
DEVOTED TO KEEPING USED CARS RUNNING its called da aftermarket ..its 3x as
Big as da auto industry & employees MANY more..all this mandate is gonna do is make consumers
KEEP cars they already have or buy older models that appeal to them.. Canada has DA SECOND BIGGEST
OIL SUPPLY AFTER DA SAUDIS, and technology has made da extraction of these oil sands profitable.
Fossil fuels will continue to play a significant role in human civilization for centuries to come...this mandatory
Crap is WILD Un American...last time I checked I can drive w/e da !%$% I want cuz its my right, I can care 2 @%!%%
How "Selfish" you think that is....what's next, government tellin you what websites you can browse? Oh wait....

Just some of my input:

I would challenge your first statement by saying that the public can most certainly be cattled into buying what the Government is selling. I know you're pretty big on conspiracy stuff, and would occasionally drop dimes about the economic collapse a while back. The fact of the matter is, through media and policy, the government can lead the masses to believe just about anything (see: the Middle East situation, the economic situation, etc.) I don't think the auto industry is any different in that regard. Additionally, Canada is third in line on the list of supply/reserves (Venezuela is first, followed by Saudi Arabia, and then Canada.)

To say that fossil fuels will continue to play a significant role for centuries to come is simply an outlandish statement. We don't know what the future holds, what breakthroughs will be made in technology development, etc. If we were to fully implement the works of Nikolai Tesla today, we wouldn't be at all dependent on fossil fuels, and he did a majority of his research 100 years ago. All it might take is for an covalent bond in a lab to decompose in a different way during an experiment for our understanding of the world to change completely. While it's likely that we will continue out oil dependency for years to come (thanks to the If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It philosophy that most hold dear & true,) we cannot come to that conclusion without at least entertaining the idea of alternate/new sources being produced or discovered.

P.S. You can drive whatever you want... according to the standards set in place by your resident state. It doesn't depend how patriotic you are, if you were to ship a Nissan Silvia from Japan to America you would not be able to legally drive it due to the emission standards set in place. You can't drive whatever you want to drive, you can only drive whatever the government tells you that you can drive. The only thing this new mandate would change are the standards by which the government sets in place and further restricting your choices.

 

[ninjahood]

Silly pitty still doesn't understand that he's in agreement

With me even though its gonna make him cry.

1. You said people are limited to cars that's already on

Da road...yea do you know that every time a new year

Goes by da model year of da vehicle is grandfathered into that

Years rules? So if I wanted to tear up my neighborhood in a 1969

Charger with no catalytic convertors I'm still good because it wasn't

Legislated?

2. I brought up da aftermarket industry NOT for electric toasters you call cars


Im talkin bout da MILLIONS of cars already on da road, that when da government

Keeps TRYIN to force things people's throat its gonna have unintentional Consequences

Like bolstering da used car market...you're gonna have to pry those cars people love

Off their dead hands.

3. Oil & coal = bad? Lol yea, I guess da majority of electric energy da US runs

On is powered by hamster wheels & unicorn sweat...

 

[4318michaeljohnson4318]

California had mad wind farms this is a good look for society

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Silly putty resorted to insults in my writing style instead of

I didn't insult you.
I said that I am appalled that you refuse to use proper grammar.

I didn't say anything about YOU. 

Admitting to da fact that as long as oil is cheap and abundant

Oil is cheap? 

Oil is "abundant" Its still a NON-renewable resource with an unmeasured time-table. 

When it runs out Dubai will turn back into the desert hell-hole that it really is. 

That NO ONE is gonna give 2 craps about electric cara with their

You don't because you want your V8 hemi that vibrates at the stop light because it tickles your goods and makes a pretty little purr.
How cute.

With increased market competition and technology, electric cars, like anything else, will get better. 

We have to start somewhere. 

Pathetic ranges compared to good oil internal cumbustion engines.

There was a time when we thought if people drove cars past 60 MPH they would go deaf.
The prius wasn't even out 10 years ago. 

Don't start bragging about "fuel efficient" cars as if they've been around for a long time.

Those are NEW technologies. 

 silly putty, no matter how HARD you mandate Car companies to create

This cars, if da public doesn't want them, what are you gonna plan on doin? 

The public couldn't afford cars before the Model-T came along. Whats your point? 
It took ingenuity and refinement of technology to get to that point.

Tell da government to Confiscate Lamborghinis & Corvettes? Lol you got chevy

Volts being declined by dealerships nationwide because they can't sell em..you know

Because of price, not impact.
People want big and flashy without repercussion for how it impacts others.

They're not being declined because they're bad technology though. You're missing the point.

Who da biggest buyers of these tax payer funded experiment? Da government...way to prop

Up a completely incompetent cat segment 

Like how the government saved the auto industry?...I like how you forgot that part.
The government isn't always anti-business. Them saving the auto industry was in order to sustain economies of scale that also depended on those entities. 

We're trying to evolve here, not start over from nothing. 

And don't even get me started on da faux environmental good

Because burning boatloads of oil DAILY is a good idea? 

These cars are with da amounts of rare earth metals needed to mine
A better option is never the best option.
Don't fault us for trying to IMPROVE.

Its like saying "well you can't cure 100% of cancer so chemo is pointless"... 

To produce these toxic batteries... 

Are you opposed to seeking new technology or are you just happy living according to the status quo? 

You lack the foresight to make things better for those that come after you.

You're the type of person that would have prevented mandated oil filters, or catalytic converters, or reduction of CFCs or regulations by the EPA.

Where is your respect for others? 

Where is your planning for tomorrow instead of the here and now?

Its like saying, well stem cell research can't grow me a new arm right now so lets scrap the whole idea.

 

The attitude of resistance you have holds all of us back from trying to do better. You're no different than the Catholic church telling people not to use condoms to prevent the spread of STIs...or trying to prevent evolution being taught in schools.




There are better options out there and the details are being worked out.




You can stand in the way of progress or be left on the wrong side of history. 




EDIT: and another thing...you will drive what you are GIVEN. You never had a damn choice in this country and don't think for a second that you did. You pay massive fees to drive imported vehicles from different regions of the world, and you also are only limited to whats on the market. You don't have ability to build NinjaHoodMotors. You drive whatever car manufacturers make for you. You can make your own clothes. You can't even begin to make your own cars. So yes, you WILL drive what they give you and will take it as you've continued to do in the past. You have even FEWER options than you ever realized...because right now there is someone out there who is not impressed with ANY vehicle on the market...what do you tell that person? 

QFT. 
Everyone should read this. 

 

[k2theablam]

I'm all for this.

My next car is already going to be a hybrid so this won't affect me at all.

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Silly pitty still doesn't understand that he's in agreement

With me even though its gonna make him cry.

1. You said people are limited to cars that's already on

Da road...yea do you know that every time a new year

Goes by da model year of da vehicle is grandfathered into that

Years rules? So if I wanted to tear up my neighborhood in a 1969

Charger with no catalytic convertors I'm still good because it wasn't

Legislated?

2. I brought up da aftermarket industry NOT for electric toasters you call cars


Im talkin bout da MILLIONS of cars already on da road, that when da government

Keeps TRYIN to force things people's throat its gonna have unintentional Consequences

Like bolstering da used car market...you're gonna have to pry those cars people love

Off their dead hands.

3. Oil & coal = bad? Lol yea, I guess da majority of electric energy da US runs

On is powered by hamster wheels & unicorn sweat...

1. This point is irrelevant. You can drive your old car without a catalytic converter all you want. It has ZERO influence on the market and the direction we're heading towards as a society. Sooner or later those cars will cease to exist and you'll be forced to "conform" to what is available. 
2. you realize the aftermarket industry would not EXIST without the auto industry. It's DEPENDENT on what is/has been manufactured by auto companies to even operate. If the market makes a shift to Electric Vehicles, then you bet your precious aftermarket industry would follow suit, without question. 
3. and yes, non sustainable sources of energy like oil are bad because, well they're NOT SUSTAINABLE. That means there's a finite quantity available on earth and WHEN we use it all up, we will have to find another source. This legislation is a step towards finding a new source. 

 

[ninjahood]

Lol..can't wait this years election..if I'm mad about all this

Needless regulation, I can imagine what da typical Republican is goin thru..

Why do cars like da Lamborghini Aventador need Zero incentives to sell out

Yet a da chevy volt being HEAVILY subsidized by da government falls short of expectations...da answer

Is called da market folks. NO amount of government interference can create a demand on a product

No one wants. Chevy Cruze vs Chevy volt is a microcosm of my whole point.

There's things you think ppl SHOULD do & there's things people are GONNA do.

Explain to me putty, why isn't da volt selling? It won "car of da year" award in motortrend magazine.

Only ppl who's bought this car in droves is da government.

 

[stopit5]

I agree with everything silly putty is saying. Electric vehicles will only improve.

What companies like Tesa Motors have done have impressed and if a company like that is licensing intellectual property you know you're doing something right.

Also the oil used to produce electricity is a lot more resourceful.

If I had to choose a car right now I'd pick up a Tesla Model S.

 

[k2theablam]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Lol..can't wait this years election..if I'm mad about all this

Needless regulation, I can imagine what da typical Republican is goin thru..

Why do cars like da Lamborghini Aventador need Zero incentives to sell out

Yet a da chevy volt being HEAVILY subsidized by da government falls short of expectations...da answer

Is called da market folks. NO amount of government interference can create a demand on a product

No one wants. Chevy Cruze vs Chevy volt is a microcosm of my whole point.

There's things you think ppl SHOULD do & there's things people are GONNA do.

Explain to me putty, why isn't da volt selling? It won "car of da year" award in motortrend magazine.

Only ppl who's bought this car in droves is da government.

That's ONE car. One. 
How you can make conclusive deductions for an entire category of vehicles based off of sales of ONE model is ridiculous. 
Ridiculous. 

Check this out. 

All I had to do was google it... 

It looks like pretty strong growth to me. your argument fails.