I think he's going about it the wrong way, or at least, isn't doing enough. We need to force auto companies to produce fuel-efficient automobiles as well, and the standards should rise year after year. If I had it my way, the car companies must produce each, one model that gets at least 35 miles to the gallon. The next year, they must each produce a model that will go 37.5 miles for each gallon put into it, and so on and so forth. This will keep their pockets fat as consumers buy new cars to achieve the greater fuel efficiency of the brand-new models, and will also produce a broadly positive result environmentally.
And Gaius?
It makes my inner bleeding heart tree huger happy.
Full disclosure, when I was 12 I pledged 24 hours of work for earth day. I am secretly very concerned about the environment.
The real environmental presidents, including our man TR, and Richard Nixon who created the EPA, were Republicans.
Personally my biggest concern is that safety concerns will be dropped. I'd like them to include safety standards with the fuel efficacy standards so car companies don't just cut weight, and keep the gas guzzling engines, sacrificing safety for fuel efficiency.
That aside its better than nothing.
Also, I don't think any sane person is against environmentalism. But then most so called "environmentalists" are insane. I once knew someone who suggested going back to driving on dirt roads because of the effects of tar on the environment... never mind the fact that tar is a naturally occurring material, the very concept of replacing paved roads with dirt roads as progress, is completely star craving mad!
I mean we have had paved roads as a symbol of civilization since the bronze age 4,000 years ago. These people literally want us to go back to the neolithic.
Anyway as far as sane environmentalism goes, every little bit helps. A good environment, is good for the economy.
Home
Search
Calendar
Gallery
Members
Login
Register