• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

In Ireland we tax based on CO2 emissions per kilometer
Big success

Don't know about elsewhere tax wise

Europe has smaller roads so people buy smaller cars


Ireland has a big car culture tho (prolly due to the boom and imported US culture)
I see wayyyyy to many people with unneeded SUVs
At least they get taxed heavily
 
Bob Maxey said:
Do you know for a fact this is true? Just asking.
Click to expand...
It depends a lot on what we consider fact. Personal experience? No I don't have that - I have only ever lived in the US. I am able to look up spec sheets that claim these numbers. Also, just generally reading through forums and the like.

They achieve these numbers with smaller engines and lighter cars. The only answer I was ever given was "Americans just want bigger cars and these smaller more efficient cars won't do as well in the US".

EDIT: Take a look at VolksWagen UK's website and select cars and engines. As an example the Fox, with a petrol engine, is rated 58.9mpg highway/ 48.7mpg city. I would say that 99% of our cars here in the US don't even get close 49mpg highway, and this thing does that in the city!
 
shadowninty said:
its nice for my country to be progressive for once :)
Click to expand...

The problem here is people are generally on two opposite poles when it comes to the topic of CO2 emissions.

You have those that truly believe CO2 commissions are ending the world, one molecule at a time.

On the other hand, you have those that say use all you want, it's there for us to make use of, just keep on truckin'

Certainly there are those in the middle, but I think they lie in the minority.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Not sure. Do you know for a fact this is true? Just asking.

Perhaps they have mandates, rules, or laws that make the cost too high. Or perhaps their "car culture" is different than ours and not everyone over there wants (or needs) a car, or perhaps it has to do with the cost of petrol or their train systems are better, or people can't afford to be three or four car households.
Click to expand...

Yes they do and you nailed it on the head. The funny thing is that Japan does as well and even more stringent rules than europe.
 
lordofthereef said:
The problem here is people are generally on two opposite poles when it comes to the topic of CO2 emissions.

You have those that truly believe CO2 commissions are ending the world, one molecule at a time.

On the other hand, you have those that say use all you want, it's there for us to make use of, just keep on truckin'

Certainly there are those in the middle, but I think they lie in the minority.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is bad data and/or interpretation of that data and/or faulty interpretations of otherwise accurate data, or people just making crap up.

If you are so chartreuse that every fart emitted by a dog that eats too many bean, cheese, and onion burritos (trust me, I know this example) that you demand that we spend billions developing fart free Pintos and you want every dog slaughtered, you represent one side; a very vocal side.

Then there are the greedy people that want one more steel mill.

Then there are the scientists and researchers that also say the science is inconclusive but if they disagree with Algore, they are called "Climate Change Deniers" and painted with the same brush used to paint Hitler.

We just do not know how much CO2 damages us and the truth will likely never be discovered until we simply say no more BS, and decide to find out. Then the truth will not be accepted by the general public but what the hell do they know, anyway.
 
lordofthereef said:
It depends a lot on what we consider fact. Personal experience? No I don't have that - I have only ever lived in the US. I am able to look up spec sheets that claim these numbers. Also, just generally reading through forums and the like.

They achieve these numbers with smaller engines and lighter cars. The only answer I was ever given was "Americans just want bigger cars and these smaller more efficient cars won't do as well in the US".

EDIT: Take a look at VolksWagen UK's website and select cars and engines. As an example the Fox, with a petrol engine, is rated 58.9mpg highway/ 48.7mpg city. I would say that 99% of our cars here in the US don't even get close 49mpg highway, and this thing does that in the city!
Click to expand...

As they say, here's the thing: the only issue that should matter is how much one can afford to pay to drive a car. If you want greater mileage, fine. Go VW (I love the Thing, by the way) just do not force toy cars on the rest of us. We are paying the gas bill and if we do not care, we do not care. By you, I mean them, not you.

I'll pay for my indiscretions (1960 Olds Super 88) and it is costly to drive compared to the Indian I am eyeballing.

What I object to is this: the science is not settled and we do not know the damage or lack of damage our vehicles cause or do not cause. I truly object to being told we cannot drive because oil is bad, gas is bad, the planet will die on the basis of guesses and consensus rather than facts. We have plenty of domestic oil, we simply lack the will to drill for it.

I want a big car. Bigger and heavier is great by me. I want cars made of steel not plastic; my bumper takes two people to lift into position and it is heavily plated with chrome. I do not care about the costs of gas at this point.

Too GD many Chicken Littles and sadly, they run the show.

Bob
 
That's a short sighted view bob. very short sighted. Fuel for cars is only part of the problem. The lubricant, chemical, plastics, fertilizers and many other industries depend entirely on the exact same product. Agriculture does as well. All of these industries tend to buy massive amounts of supplies, often years in advance under futures contracts that guarantee certain prices. Today, very real rises in the prices of basic commodities are happening all over the world as a result of rising oil prices. since cars are the biggest consumers of the stuff and since there are alternatives, the easiest way to ease the presure off those commodities that we absolutely must have is to alter the pattern of consumption of gasoline and diesel for cars.

Unless you have a different valid alternative to keep commodity prices relatively stable that is.
 
Not to mention power generation (not so much a US problem)
Such a waste to burn oil for that



And yeah, people forget that we need oil for other things, so its not a case of lets drill till its dry
 
Isthmus said:
That's a short sighted view bob. very short sighted. Fuel for cars is only part of the problem. The lubricant, chemical, plastics, fertilizers and many other industries depend entirely on the exact same product. Agriculture does as well. All of these industries tend to buy massive amounts of supplies, often years in advance under futures contracts that guarantee certain prices. Today, very real rises in the prices of basic commodities are happening all over the world as a result of rising oil prices. since cars are the biggest consumers of the stuff and since there are alternatives, the easiest way to ease the presure off those commodities that we absolutely must have is to alter the pattern of consumption of gasoline and diesel for cars.

Unless you have a different valid alternative to keep commodity prices relatively stable that is.
Click to expand...

If we drill here, it will tend to lessen the impact of foreign oil costs. But until we have an administration that takes the initiative, we will be stuck with high oil costs.

I understand what we get from oil. I keep a list and it numbers in the hundreds of thousands of products that directly come from oil, or are made from things that are created as byproducts of other products that come from oil, as well as chemicals that cannot be replaced with corn or some other alternative.

My point is we need oil and we know we have lots of the stuff in this country. The world still largely floats on oil and technology is giving us the opportunity to seriously consider shale and tar sands.

Here in Utah, we pat a dollar and change per gallon of CNG. And those that use it laugh at the high gas costs.

We are not out of oil.

I object to policies implemented that are largely fueled by scare tactics and quite often, science is ignored because any science that does not fit the environmentalist's world view must be wrong.

Probably Reagan or Bush's fault.
 
Bob Maxey said:
As they say, here's the thing: the only issue that should matter is how much one can afford to pay to drive a car. If you want greater mileage, fine. Go VW (I love the Thing, by the way) just do not force toy cars on the rest of us. We are paying the gas bill and if we do not care, we do not care. By you, I mean them, not you.
Click to expand...

My issue is that I am not even given the option. The hands down best (non ultra-expensive hybrid) car available to me is something along the lines of the Ford Focus or Ford Fiesta at 40mpg highway.

FWIW imposing a tax (within reason) doesn't force cars on anyone IMO, just gives them insentive to buy something else.
 
lordofthereef said:
Let's be nice. We already had another thread locked because people couldn't play nice.
Click to expand...

I'm just fed up of people telling us that the science is faulty, having it disproved or being told that that's been factored in, then moving on to the next "fault"

This will be happening still in 20 years I assure you, its like the bloody faked moon landings conspiracy
 
shadowninty said:
I'm just fed up of people telling us that the science is faulty, having it disproved or being told that that's been factored in, then moving on to the next "fault"

This will be happening still in 20 years I assure you, its like the bloody faked moon landings conspiracy
Click to expand...
Fair enough bud. But we must all be allowed to have our opinions on the topic. Keeping it about the topic is great. Recently politics forum has been one of my favorites to visit. I was sad to see the Democrats thread get out of hand and get closed. I just don't want that to happen here is all. :)

As far as my opinion goes, I think it is arrogant of humans to assume they are not impacting the earth in a negative way. The "let's keep doing what we are doing until it is proven that we are ending the world" mentality is faulty to me as well. I don't doubt that things get blown out of proportion, at all. BUT, I think it's ignorant to think that machines pumping waste into the environment that otherwise would not be the case is not a problem.

There are extremists on both sides. There are those that say we should all live off the land and toss aside all technology, and there are those that say it's not a problem, let's drill the hell out of everything, if there are unwanted environmental consequences, oh well.

In another thread, we discussed just how much oil we had available on earth. At today's consumption levels, the number calculated out to be ~100 years worth. This didn't account for growth in consumption over that theoretical amount of time. So, it is clear that is is a pretty finite resource. For that reason alone, it seems to me that even those that couldn't much care for potential environmental ramifications should realize that consumption needs to be curbed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom