[Optimus Prime]

Cold Iron;312633 said:

And the civil rights argument doesn't stand up, because human rights > civil rights.

Exactly. Don't the needs of the many overrule the wants of the few?

We're not talking about stupid, trivial issues here. We're talking about the health of ourselves, our children, and our FUCKING PLANET.

It's time to not worry about someone's personal wants of having a fucking hummer or wanting 10 cars.

[Sparkimus]

It's all good in theory you two, but it's when you start telling people that they CAN'T drive their cars, and they AREN'T ALLOWED to buy a second car that things start going very, very wrong.

The individual will no longer be an individual, it'll be a large group of people teling an even larger group of people that they no longer have the right to do as they choose...I'm sure you can imagine where that'll go after that starts happening.

By all means things need to change, but by force isn't an option.

[Cold Iron]

Sparkimus;312646 said:

It's all good in theory you two, but it's when you start telling people that they CAN'T drive their cars, and they AREN'T ALLOWED to buy a second car that things start going very, very wrong.

The individual will no longer be an individual, it'll be a large group of people teling an even larger group of people that they no longer have the right to do as they choose...I'm sure you can imagine where that'll go after that starts happening.

By all means things need to change, but by force isn't an option.

What? Come on, what do you think the legal system is for? I'm not suggesting that we limit number of cars or something, just tax the emissions. Make it so people don't want to do things that are bad for the environment, and make them understand that it's the right thing to do.

We already have a huge amount of environmental laws and restrictions.

[Optimus Prime]

Is it "forcing" to get people to stop driving cars with...oh I don't know....less than 30mpg capabilities? I mean...honesly it needs to be a lot higher...like 50mpg or so...but I'm reasonable.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312638 said:

but you're supporting those who do = same thing

no its not. view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Soci...llage_of_Skokie

supporting the rights guaranteed under the us constitution is supporting any americans right to live free of oppression.

civil rights and human rights are two faces of the same thing. owning a hummer has no bearing on the matter.

the US is not a socialist country. the needs of many do not override anything unless they are authorized by voters(either through direct vote or through the representatives they have elected). like i said, if you have a problem with people choosing not to give a shit about YOUR cause, bring up a constitutional amendment or a law that conforms to the constitution. americans abide by the social contract constructed in the constitution.

personal rights are the foundation of the US, and if you take them away your voice will just be squelched by someone more powerful. as it stands now, you can propose a change. in china, they'll throw you in prison for proposing something other than the government line. sorry, but personal rights trump your desires and causes.

[Sparkimus]

Xander;312648 said:

Is it "forcing" to get people to stop driving cars with...oh I don't know....less than 30mpg capabilities? I mean...honesly it needs to be a lot higher...like 50mpg or so...but I'm reasonable.

Absolutely.

When you have a single mother of two who works two jobs and all she could afford is a gas guzzeling junker and you go and tell her she can't drive it any more because it's bad for the environment. She now has no means of getting herself to her job due to poor public transportation, and can't get her kids to school.

Who's going to be the person to give her a shiny new $30,000 80 mpg hybrid? It damn sure won't be the government.

[paladin]

Xander;312648 said:

Is it "forcing" to get people to stop driving cars with...oh I don't know....less than 30mpg capabilities? I mean...honesly it needs to be a lot higher...like 50mpg or so...but I'm reasonable.

you realize that most current model cars from honda and toyota(much rejoiced for their mpg) do not meet 30mpg average capabilities? increasing emission controls strangle efficiency, which is why similar class vehicles in other countries may have almost double the mpg as they do not have the emission requirements we have in the US(or california, which has the most stringent and most cars are 50 state legal).

[Cold Iron]

Sparkimus;312651 said:

Absolutely.

When you have a single mother of two who works two jobs and all she could afford is a gas guzzeling junker and you go and tell her she can't drive it any more because it's bad for the environment. She now has no means of getting herself to her job due to poor public transportation, and can't get her kids to school.

Who's going to be the person to give her a shiny new $30,000 80 mpg hybrid? It damn sure won't be the government.

And she'll be voting for the first guy who suggests abolishing the regulation.

democracy only works in times of abundance, when people are pinched, you need socialism. I keep coming back here...

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312647 said:

What? Come on, what do you think the legal system is for? I'm not suggesting that we limit number of cars or something, just tax the emissions. Make it so people don't want to do things that are bad for the environment, and make them understand that it's the right thing to do.

We already have a huge amount of environmental laws and restrictions.

noone is arguing against doing something legal like taxing emissions, as long as they are passed through correctly. sin taxes are legal and are used to discourage plenty of things. they are already being taxed on the supply side for this by paying penalties if they dont meet mpg and emissions goals each model year and each state has its own taxes and registration fees for vehicles. california charges a weight fee for trucks, which increases the registration amount and all vehicles must pass smog every 2 years in order to legally reregister.

[paladin]

Cold Iron;312653 said:

And she'll be voting for the first guy who suggests abolishing the regulation.

democracy only works in times of abundance, when people are pinched, you need socialism. I keep coming back here...

and you're free to live wherever you'd like, at least in some countries. moving towards what you're asking for will never work in the US. you could try, that is your right, or you could move. maybe you can take a boat to cuba.. but dont get stuck in the flotilla of boats coming to miami to get away from it

[Cold Iron]

? I don't have to move to push my country further left, i can vote

[paladin]

then vote in some socialistic ideals!

[Optimus Prime]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/14/news/econo...rtune/index.htm

Interesting article....read it.

[Cold Iron]

paladin;312662 said:

then vote in some socialistic ideals!

I do. And more than that, I discuss my view with others, in the hope that they may agree and join me.

[Cold Iron]

Quote

More auctions would create economic and political problems. "A 100 percent auction is a carbon tax," Rogers said recently at a discussion organized by CERES, a coalition of investors and environmental groups. "It will fall disproportionately on people who are in the 25 states where 50 percent of the electricity comes from the use of coal. Their rates will go up 40, 60 and 80 percent. There will be huge rate shock." The backlash could derail efforts to curb global warming.

This is exactly what we need. People need to be forced to PAY for their emissions. It will force infrastructure upgrade which is what we need. I for one can't wait.

[Optimus Prime]

We've got to do something. Change can only occur wih sacrifice. I'm by no means rich, and while initially it may take money out of my pocket...the next car I buy will be a hybrid. My current car gets 35-40 mpg...which is above average but I've got to do whatever I can.

[Cold Iron]

Quote

Keohane, an economist, says: "If electricity prices don't rise, people don't have the incentive to conserve or to buy energy-efficient appliances." To cushion the impact of rising electricity prices on low or middle-income people, he says, proceeds from auctioning permits could be used to reduce taxes on labor and capital, and in particular the regressive Social Security payroll tax. Some have called this the "double dividend" of climate regulation - one dividend being a reduction in pollution, the other a reduction in taxes.

Exactly what i was talking about in the taxes thread

[Sparkimus]

Things are already too fucking expensive as is, raising prices isn't the answer. You need to implement incentives to make people want to change. Offer tax breaks and rebates on energy efficient appliances/cars/etc. If you was to take the offensive, then do it to the manufacturers, not the public.

[Cold Iron]

they will just pass it on. you think things are too expensive, but only because your basis for comparison is unrealistically high. noone will die if we have to pay more for power

[paladin]

Xander;312667 said:

We've got to do something. Change can only occur wih sacrifice. I'm by no means rich, and while initially it may take money out of my pocket...the next car I buy will be a hybrid. My current car gets 35-40 mpg...which is above average but I've got to do whatever I can.

read this, keep your car: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/m...sies_09usedcars

Quote

Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer, largely due to the environmental cost of the 30 pounds of nickel in the hybrid's battery. Of course, the hybrid quickly erases that carbon deficit on the road, thanks to its vastly superior fuel economy.

Still, the comparison suggests a more sensible question. If a new Prius were placed head-to-head with a used car, would the Prius win? Don't bet on it. Making a Prius consumes 113 million BTUs, according to sustainability engineer Pablo Päster. A single gallon of gas contains about 113,000 Btus, so Toyota's green wonder guzzles the equivalent of 1,000 gallons before it clocks its first mile. A used car, on the other hand, starts with a significant advantage: The first owner has already paid off its carbon debt. Buy a decade-old Toyota Tercel, which gets a respectable 35 mpg, and the Prius will have to drive 100,000 miles to catch up.

basically, you're only hurting the environment buying the hybrid at this point. the batteries on the hybrid will probably need to be replaced at some point anyways, which adds another boatload of nickle to the equation.

you're buying way too much into this being green shit rather than using your head