New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars

On Apr 2, 2:33*am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost
> for cars.
> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than
> a publication on carbon creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>
> So it's petty clear that *you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less
> appropriate place).
>
> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual
> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle
> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their
> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>
> Rob

You believe that? A 20mph crash in a 1980 mid-sized car would do
about $1000 damage. A crash at that speed now causes almost $6000
damage. Why? Not inflation. Mandated safety features, like airbags
which are all, "use once and replace." The people trying to push
these things on others always downplay the real cost, otherwise people
would simply refuse en masse to adopt them.

On Apr 2, 2:33*am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost
> for cars.
> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than
> a publication on carbon creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>
> So it's petty clear that *you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less
> appropriate place).
>
> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual
> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle
> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their
> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>
> Rob

You believe that? A 20mph crash in a 1980 mid-sized car would do
about $1000 damage. A crash at that speed now causes almost $6000
damage. Why? Not inflation. Mandated safety features, like airbags
which are all, "use once and replace." The people trying to push
these things on others always downplay the real cost, otherwise people
would simply refuse en masse to adopt them.

Ron Wood Jr. wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:33 am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
>> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost
>> for cars.
>> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than
>> a publication on carbon creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>>
>> So it's petty clear that you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less
>> appropriate place).
>>
>> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual
>> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle
>> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their
>> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>>
>> Rob
>
> There is a viable idea to do with powering internal combustion engines
> lately with amazing fuel economy.
>
> Here is one, but I want it to be tested at Lemans. I attend Lemans on
> a frequent basis.
>
> http://www.mechadyne-int.com/
>

Variable valve timing is, indeed, viable. But, it sure is not new;
it is available on current production cars.
--
Cheers, Bob

Bob Willard wrote

> Variable valve timing is, indeed, viable. But, it sure is not new;
> it is available on current production cars.
> --

Not as it's devised these days. And there are other technologies in the
pipe.

Only a ****ing moron, right wing fear monger claims that the new emission
pact is going to add as much to the cost of a car as the premium paid for a
hybrid.

But rightists don't know about technology, they only know about parroting
fear mongering. Most of them can't find the gas cap because they're so
****ing drunk, and don't get me started about how funny it is to watch them
drive.

The stupid ****ing hillbillies are worse than the Asians, put a windshield in
front of them and it makes them blind as a bat.

I'm not sure that I do see your point... I see my point and, if it coincides
with yours.. good...

As a child, I recall daily smog reports on the TV and radio.... Now, just to
be fair, the smog reports were for places I didn't live. They were for area
much more heavily populated. Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo... Images of
people falling in the streets... people wearing breathing aids... these were
common on the news...

Obviously, the early efforts helped and, as technology improved, air quality
is improving... even as we are growing more dependant on our cars and
trucks.

This clean air isn't going to come free... and there is no guarranty that it
is going to come "cheap".

Most people confuse "fuel economy" and "low emissions" - using the current
level of technology, these are mutually exclusive (though improving compared
to the early years) .

I see your link to variable valve timing... curious since there are few
engines in Fords line-up that don't have VCT apparatus. (FWIW, about 8 years
ago, I opted to abandon "all make" auto repair because of the specialized
nature of the modern automobile).

At some point in the near future, we are going to have to release our
dependancy on petroleum products and forge ahead into new areas of energy
sources.


"Ron Wood Jr." > wrote in message
...
On Apr 2, 3:23 am, "Jim Warman" > wrote:
> Rich, you need to get out more... clean air (like home garbage pick up)
> comes with a price... we pay it and breath.
>
> You could save hundreds... **** - thousands of dollars a year if, instead
> of
> having a couple of guys drive past your house each week, you kept your
> empty
> pizza boxes and frozen food wrappers in your bedroom - if you don't mind
> the
> smell. We could save a bundle if we didn't have emissions controls on our
> cars... if we don't mind the smell.
>
> Rich is young so I really can't blame him (disadvantaged kids need all the
> support we can offer). He is too young to remember the air quality issues
> that lead up to the early 70s and the introduction of sweeping changes in
> engine design.
>
> I've been involved in auto repair for something like 40 years... ALL of my
> daily drivers are bone stock, have all emissions control devices connected
> and working and offer gas mileage close to what I remember from the high
> compression, tetra-ethyl lead days. With the added bonus that, here in the
> frigid north at least, these engines last longer than they ever used to.
>
> $27 TRILLION? Are you sure Canada HAS that much money?
>
> You sir, are a cross posting little wiener... move out of your mommas
> basement and get a real life.

Hello Jim, a mechanic.

It appears that you see my point. And $27 Trillion wouldn't know a
bloody Briggs & Stratton from what powers some of the cars in the
American Lemans series.

"Jerry Okamura" > wrote in message
news
> Translation: The people who are going to get hurt the most are the very people that
> democrats say they care most about, those who are poor and those who are on the lower
> end of the wage scale.
>
> "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto" > wrote in message
> ...
> And the Canadian and American governments are pretending that saving
> $200 a year in fuel will make up for it.
>
> Automakers facing carbon tax in 2011 under tough new standards
>
>
> By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceApril 1, 2010 1:02 PM
>
>
> Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue
> intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008.
>
> Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue
> intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008.
> Photograph by: Darren Stone, Victoria Times Colonist
>
> OTTAWA — Automobile manufacturers could face a carbon tax on new
> vehicles in the 2011 model year if they fail to meet new standards to
> reduce tailpipe emissions that were announced on Thursday by
> Environment Minister Jim Prentice.
>
> The declaration confirms that the government still plans to move ahead
> with a draft plan unveiled in December to impose tougher tailpipe
> standards on cars, matching new proposed regulations in the United
> States.
>
> "Since last May, we've been working with the United States to put in
> place tough North American standards for regulating greenhouse gas
> emissions from new vehicles," Prentice said at an Ottawa car
> dealership. "We are pleased to be taking this step to further
> harmonize our climate change action with the Obama administration — a
> step that will protect our environment and ensure a level playing
> field for the automotive industry."
>
> Environment Canada estimated in December that the standards would
> result in a 20 per cent reduction in emissions compared to the 2007
> model year. It now estimates the standards would result in about a 25
> per cent reduction in emissions for the 2016 fleet of new vehicles
> when compared with the 2008 model year.
>
> "The proposed standards would require substantial environmental
> improvements from new vehicles and would put Canadian GHG emission
> standards at par with U.S. national standards and, by 2016, with the
> California standards," Environment Canada said in December.
>
> While companies would be forced to comply with the new standards for
> average emissions of their fleet between 2012 and 2016, they will be
> allowed to purchase credits or pay a carbon tax to the government to
> offset emissions at a rate of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide
> equivalent emissions for the 2011 model year.
>
> The standards are based on vehicle size to encourage manufacturers to
> make existing vehicles more efficient as opposed to changing the
> makeup of their fleet to produce smaller vehicles.
>
> The regulations include a credit system to provide "flexibility" in
> compliance if they exceed targets, or want to trade credits between
> companies. The regulations also propose incentives to give double
> credits for companies that introduce advanced technologies, including
> electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell
> vehicles which run on hydrogen.
>
> Prentice has criticized the Quebec government for introducing its own
> regulations this year to crack down on tailpipe standards, describing
> it as a "folly."
>
> But Quebec Environment Minister Line Beauchamp indicated on Thursday
> that her government intended to stick with its plan if the joint
> Canadian and U.S. standards fall short of meeting the California
> standards. California has also decided to sign an equivalency
> agreement with the U.S. government that delays the pace of its
> originally proposed standards by one year.
>
> Meantime, Quebec has said that its regulations also include fewer
> loopholes and more stringent reporting requirements for industry than
> what the Harper government has proposed.
>
> The Harper government said it will adopt its new regulations by this
> summer, following a two-month public consultation period. Prentice's
> announcement comes one day after the government cancelled an incentive
> program for home renovations to improve energy efficiency and reduce
> emissions.
>
> The program was also previously cancelled by the government in 2006
> but restored under a new name, one year later following public
> criticism.
>
> With files from Kevin Dougherty (Montreal Gazette) and Marianne White
> (Canwest News Service).
>
>

On Apr 1, 7:12*pm, Viejo Vizcacha > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:00*pm, "Jerry Okamura" > wrote:
>
> > Translation: *The people who are going to get hurt the most are the very
> > people that democrats say they care most about, those who are poor and those
> > who are on the lower end of the wage scale.
>
> But, if th Democrats increase taxes to the top 5% income, and also
> reduce the 800 billion dollars military budget by 70%, *they could
> give some money back to those families with an anual income of 50K or
> less.
>
> VV

Here we go again. Progressives wanting to decimate the military so
they can get a free gubmint cheese. What do we do for protection or a
response when we're attacked the next time?? Will Obama stop
aggression by tinpots and lunatic dictators by the sheer power of his
personality??

On Apr 2, 1:33*am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost
> for cars.
> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than
> a publication on carbon creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>
> So it's petty clear that *you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less
> appropriate place).
>
> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual
> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle
> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their
> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>
> Rob

HOWDAFUKK MUCH GAS WOULD YOU HAVE TO SAVE TO COVER THAT $926 PER
VEHICLE FFS ??!! AND HOW LONG WOULD YOU HAVE TO DRIVE A CRACKER BOX
SIZED TINCAN OF A CAR TO SAVE MORE THAN $3,000 ??!! WHY NOT TAKE
OBAMA'S ADVICE AND AIR YOUR TIRES UP ??? Hell I took his advice and
put 300 psi in each tire of my gas guzzling SUV and now I have to stop
every 200 miles and drain gas out of the tank !!

On Apr 2, 1:42*am, Harold Gleason > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:33*am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
>
> > The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost
> > for cars.
> > Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than
> > a publication on carbon creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>
> > So it's petty clear that *you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less
> > appropriate place).
>
> > Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual
> > number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle
> > by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their
> > vehicles through better gas mileage.
>
> > Rob
>
> Seat belts were supposed to cost us thousands of dollars too. * But
> they were cheaper than air bags.
>
> My first car was a bloody '58 Ford. *No padded dashboard. * No lap
> belts.
>
> I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
> cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>
> If buddy want's a cheap car, there are **** pits made in India for
> nothing. * Windshield wipers are optional
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxWq9bKRmc0

How many people are killed each year by gubmint mandated air bags?? In
1958 a steel bumper for your old Ford could be replaced for less than
$100. But,thanks to gubmint mandated 5 mph bumpers it now costs closer
to $1,000 to replace a bumper. How much do you think gubmint mandated
parts add to the cost of every car?? Now that global warming is proven
to be a hoax what's your problem??

On 2010-04-02, The PHANTOM > wrote:

> Here we go again. Progressives wanting to decimate the military so
> they can get a free gubmint cheese. What do we do for protection or a
> response when we're attacked the next time?? Will Obama stop
> aggression by tinpots and lunatic dictators by the sheer power of his
> personality??

You mean Obama who is continuing the bush wars and looking to start
additional ones?

Welfare and Warfare are tied together politically. You want one, you get
the other. The US two wing one party system has one wing that puts
welfare first and gets warfare along for the ride and other wing that
puts warfare first and gets welfare along with it.

PS: almost all the warfare money is not spent to protect us. War is a
Racket. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ar...risaracket.htm