Croc

You bring up some good points. For me, though, I still think this is a good thing. Why? Because I know that with the political pressures the way they are, it will either lead to your proposal, or CAFE being raised to meet CARB. I have no problem with either situation. And if in the meantime manufacturers have to price things differently by state/region...well they already control allocation, so I don't see what the real burden is. GM most definitely allocates vehicles to star dealerships in higher volume states preferentially, so I don't see this scenario really changing much about the status quo, except adding in another layer of allocation filtering. Either way, the environment wins, air quality wins, and fuel efficiency wins. That's where my personal viewpoint is coming from, because I don't have a problem sacrificing a V8 to get a 6, or turbo 4 if it betters the environment and gives me greater fuel efficiency.

Well for all I know you COULD be plotting against American values in Iowa. You COULD have a subversive group working in a bunker. You COULD be plotting to overthrow the government. That's the problem with "COULD"--all I'm saying is that if these really are suspected terrorists with real, credible intelligence behind the allegations, then file charges against them and put them through a trial. But relying on interrogation methods and torture is not the way to do it. Ever hear about false confessions to crimes that the person never committed because the police used intense interrogation techniques on the suspects? There's a lot of literature out there on that.

WHAT?

Well, according to the internationally-recognized and -adopted Geneva Conventions--to which the US has signed been signed on for years, and originated during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, that's exactly what you're supposed to do! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to principles of human decency? I do not know if you are a Christian, but even Jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." The whole "love thy enemy" thing kinda comes into play, too. You just don't get it--by terrorizing suspected terrorists--not charged, tried, and found guilty terrorists--all you accomplish is using terrorism to fight terrorism. The US stoops to their level of torture and becomes terrorists themselves. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON! And this country certainly doesn't need to engage in torture to "keep safe"--quite the opposite in fact! Nothing is more dangerous to its citizens than the US authorizing torture methods for un-charged, un-tried, alleged criminals. And in comparison to much of the world, this country is damn safe! We had a devastating terrorist attack almost 8 years ago, and an attempt in the early 90s. Meanwhile, Isreal has been receiving rocket fire DAILY for years from Syria, rebels in Northern Ireland have been bombing London periodically, and refugees in Thailand are beaten, loaded on a boat, cast out to sea and cut loose in the middle of the ocean to drown and/or starve. Yup, this country sure needs to engage in severe forms of human rights abuse to keep everyone "safe." You want "safe"? Go move to a suburb in the middle of America. There, you will have your safe little single-family home, on your safe little cul-de-sac (but since that's French, maybe it should be called a "freedom circle"?), in your safe little enclave governed by neighborhood covenants that prohibit you from painting your house certain colors, hanging up basketball hoops, or parking your cars in the driveway--and why? to keep the neighborhood "safe" and free from anyone who might threaten that "safe" monotony.

GM is the great scapegoat for the failure of the Pacific-Electric. This myth just won't die. P-E couldn't compete with the auto, and it was subject to the same urban congestion as autos, hence it cost people to ride it, while driving was "free," driving allowed freedom of movement--much moreso than the fixed streetcar rails could allow, and P-E was mismanaged.

Except Pontiac dealerships still have Buick and GMC.

Except waterboarding is torture according to John McCain: http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/10...sed-by-pol-pot/ And the Geneva Conventions also classify it as torture because waterboarding fails the test of Common Article 3.

That there isn't necessarily a 1:1 correlation between CO2 burned and "mpg" as determined by the EPA.

CARB is regulated on emissions, so a vehicle with the Volt's technology and exact same engine, but say longer-lasting batteries, may end up with greater "mpg" but with the same overall emissions per tank of gas. There is not a direct 1:1 correlation. Roberts court may have ruled on CO2, but the 35+ year old CARB loophole isn't going away anytime soon. Housing market is the first buyer's market in well over a decade, yet prices haven't fallen to such an extent that people are losing much equity. The hardest hit are the financed-to-the-hilt, living-above-their-means people waaaaaaay out in the far-flung exurbs. Those are the only properties that are quickly becoming worthless. As for the budget, well that's what happens when you cross an egomaniac governor with an ornery legislature. But I'd still rather live here than anywhere else.

How does regulating CO2 directly regulate fuel economy for, say, a car like the Volt? CARB loophole cannot be yanked, as the Supreme Court has ruled that CA has a special circumstance requiring more stringent standards.

Yup, and also NPD people tend to view themselves as the perpetual victim of framing or scapegoating, even when all evidence clearly points at them as the source of misdeads.

Boo! I wanted one in May '10. Might end up with a Volt afterall then...

For anyone else with a fetish for Chicagoans with NPD, check out The Real Housewives of Orange County for Vicky Gunvalson. She's..."colorful" too.

But CO2 emissions do affect "air quality." I guess I should amend my previous statement to read "smog OR air quality." And while regulating CO2 does have the backdoor effect of regulating fuel economy with current technology, that is not necessarily the case when alternative fuels are pursued.

He's a case study in Narcissistic Personality Disorder, to be sure.

How does CA hold "so much power" and "rule for the entire country"? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts here. Fact: CA has been able to regulate tougher emissions for 30+ years. Fact: CARB (California Air Resource Board) has developed their own, tougher standard. Fact: 14 other states want to adopt this standard. Fact: the Obama administration has granted a waiver for these 15 states while scientists revisit these standards for possible inclusion in a revision of the federal regulations that Bush denied. Fact: nothing is changing if you do not live in the states that are regulating emissions more stringently for now. Fact: waivers are not permanent, and do not represent binding legislation. Where's the disconnect here?

Nonsense. Your example is technically an assault under the law. Outside, if it offends you, you can ask someone to step away, or move away yourself. Inside, you cannot escape it.

See, I think stuff like that is rude. Maybe it was a different time, but I never smoke around people if they have an issue with it, and I never force anyone to breathe it if they don't want to. Plus smoking inside is just gross. You rarely confine all the ash to the ashtray, and I wouldn't want my furniture or apartment to smell of it. It's easy enough to just step outside for 5 minutes.

Sorry...how does that prove that carbon emissions do not affect smog and air quality?

It's about automotive-related policy, and has shifted toward various tangential ideological debates. The hell is your problem today? Grumpypants, much? I really hope you're not trying to stoke an argument to close this thread so YOUR thread on the same topic stays open...that would just be ridiculous.

Here you go, ocnblu: Great job posting the news first! Keep up the GrEaT wOrK!!

Well...he either admits he is wrong, or he tries to spin something that is completely nonsensical and incoherent. He's been backed into a corner, and what do you think he will do? Dodge and weave, dodge and weave...

Guess what? This thread took off more than yours did. Get over it.

Sorry, carbon emissions affect smog and air quality--can't argue that. Try again. And count me in for increasing fuel efficiency requirements, if that were the actualy discussion taking place.

Sorry, where is CA trying to "dictate" in all this? They just wanted a stricter standard for their own state. It isn't CA's fault that other states copied CARB standards and tried to make them codified in those states. It really seems like the CA-bashers either failed or slept through their US government course...