Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Doofy · Jul 16, 2007, 11:09 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Gw8&refer=home

If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.

Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.

Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard.

Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as 'boys' toys.''

The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''

His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones.

Wake up, people.

Mastrap · Jul 16, 2007, 12:01 PM

Just build an emission free super car and all of these arguments will go away.

Doofy · Jul 16, 2007, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Just build an emission free super car and all of these arguments will go away.

I'm betting they wouldn't. Davies is one of those people who's using global warming as a cosh to bash affluent people over the head with.

The other option is to make them twice as expensive. This would halve the numbers on the roads and make them even more attractive to rich folks since they'd be even more of a status symbol. I'm betting that that suggestion would make Davies red with rage.

Mastrap · Jul 16, 2007, 12:15 PM

Maybe somebody should build a really fast car that acts as a carbon sink at speeds over 100 mph.

Doofy · Jul 16, 2007, 12:23 PM

badidea · Jul 16, 2007, 05:06 PM

Since this would mean to ban every Porsche from the streets it will never happen in Germany and therefore not in the EU either!
It's a stupid idea anyway!

Ban cows!!!!

OldManMac · Jul 16, 2007, 08:32 PM

That could be one reason why Porsche is starting to move towards a controlling interest in VW.

badidea · Jul 17, 2007, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

That could be one reason why Porsche is starting to move towards a controlling interest in VW.

I don't see why this would make any economical difference for the company and on the other side just about every new VW is also faster than 162km/h!
They're crazy those islanders!

Troll · 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Just build an emission free super car and all of these arguments will go away.

Done. The Venturi Fetish. There are others as well, but this is the best one so far.

Venturi Fétish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

250 horsepower (180kw)
250km range
0-100km/h in 4.5 seconds.

And they sell a garage with solar panels on the roof that makes the car completely carbon neutral if you do less than 250km's a week.

Doofy · Jul 17, 2007, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by badidea

They're crazy those islanders!

Especially members of the Lib Dems, like this bloke. Really. I've never met one who shouldn't be in an asylum for the terminally stupid.

olePigeon · Jul 17, 2007, 12:28 PM

I don't support banning sports cars, but there's no reason they shouldn't be held to the same emission restrictions as other cars. The rate at which fuel is burned at the high speeds of sports cars should be taken into consideration when factoring fuel efficiency.

peeb · Jul 17, 2007, 12:50 PM

It's not sports cars that are being banned, it's a source of pollution. If I want to burn trash in my city garden, guess what? I'm not allowed to do it because it's obnoxious, in the true sense of the word.

Eug · Jul 18, 2007, 10:55 PM

I want one of these:

0-60 in 4 sec, and 32 mpg on the highway.

peeb · Jul 18, 2007, 11:26 PM

But what about the car?

Buckaroo · Jul 19, 2007, 01:08 AM

Plus the smelting process for aluminum causes green house gasses.

"Today's carbon anodes react with oxygen to release greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons -- directly into the atmosphere. For each pound of aluminum, the process produces almost 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide."

Buckaroo · Jul 19, 2007, 01:09 AM

Next they'll want to take away our cans of soda.

Eug · Jul 19, 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

But what about the car?

From that picture, given the choice, I'd choose the car.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Next they'll want to take away our cans of soda.

I hate that stuff anyway. However, I would be very annoyed if they took away our cans of beer. OTOH, bottles of beer would suffice.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 11:15 AM

Doofy,

The idea that everything is about left vs. right is a pure myth, I hope you understand that.

Politics is simply the ongoing process of deciding who controls what and how. Each party will try to expand the range of their control by reaching out to constituents in whatever means is necessary. If the Republicans felt that banning sports cars would earn them a significant number of votes, they would certainly jump aboard this bandwagon if left untapped by their opposition.

When you remove party from the equation, there are always nuanced reasons why people want something one way and not the other that have nothing to do with political affiliation.

Even if you do want to think about everything on partisan terms, the leanings of the individuals in any party are often separate from the stance of the party as a whole.

peeb · Jul 19, 2007, 11:19 AM

Yep. Right wing certainly doesn't mean what it meant a decade ago before the religious extremists and big-government NeoCons took over the Republican party.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

The idea that everything is about left vs. right is a pure myth, I hope you understand that.

Actually, it is. Just not *your* idea of left and right.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Even if you do want to think about everything on partisan terms

See? You think I'm talking in terms of parties. I'm not. I support no political parties. Period. Go see Groucho Marx for an explanation of why.

left <-------------------------------------> right
control <------------------------------------> freedom
collectivism <--------------------------------> individualism

That's how it is, regardless of whatever you thought you previously knew.

Banning things is pretty much always the realm of the left, because stuff is pretty much always banned "for the good of society" or something like that. That's collectivism, right there.

Real simple. Go read Rand's Anthem. The left is at the front of the paper, the right at the end.

macintologist · Jul 19, 2007, 12:03 PM

Because right wingers like Billy Grahm don't want to ban marijuana?

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Actually, it is. Just not *your* idea of left and right.

See? You think I'm talking in terms of parties. I'm not. I support no political parties. Period. Go see Groucho Marx for an explanation of why.

left <-------------------------------------> right
control <------------------------------------> freedom
collectivism <--------------------------------> individualism

That's how it is, regardless of whatever you thought you previously knew.

Banning things is pretty much always the realm of the left, because stuff is pretty much always banned "for the good of society" or something like that. That's collectivism, right there.

Real simple. Go read Rand's Anthem. The left is at the front of the paper, the right at the end.

Banning stuff like abortion? Gay marriage? The right to die? Embryonic stem cell research? These are all issues people associate with the Right in the USA, and I'm sure one could come up with many more.

You are creating labels for groups of politicians. Whether you call them the left or right, they will always try to appeal to whatever constituents they can leverage to expand their range of power, period.

What you should be ranting about is politicians from any party that try to take away freedom and individualism. Calling them the "left" is a poor and inaccurate shortcut. From the Wikipedia article on the left/right dichotomy:

Left-Right politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Left vs. Right is an imprecise, broad, dialectical interpretation of a set of factors or determinants. "The Left" and "The Right" are usually understood to represent polar opposites for each determinant, though a particular individual or party may take a "left" stance on one matter and a "right" stance on another.

Dakarʒ · Jul 19, 2007, 12:05 PM

Projected Doofy response: The Right aren't all that right.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:15 PM

And here's the correct right-wing response:

Originally Posted by besson3c

Banning stuff like abortion?

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. And you don't force it upon me.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Gay marriage?

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. Or watch the honeymoon tape. And you don't force it upon me.

Originally Posted by besson3c

The right to die?

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. And you don't force it upon me.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Embryonic stem cell research?

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. And you don't force it upon me.

Getting the idea yet?

Originally Posted by besson3c

These are all issues people associate with the Right in the USA

See Dakar's projected response. It's correct.

Let's look at smoking bans in bars. Generally a Democrat backed thing.
Control.

Or the ban on interstate gambling. Generally a Republican backed thing.
Control.

No real difference in purpose. Both aim to make society better. Well, I don't need society making better - I can choose myself whether to go into a smoking bar or whether to engage in interstate gambling.

They're all the same and they *all* need to bugger off.

Dakarʒ · Jul 19, 2007, 12:17 PM

Doofy, in all seriousness, what countries actually have a right wing that lives up to your standards? The larger the country, the better.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

And here's the correct right-wing response:

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. And you don't force it upon me.

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. Or watch the honeymoon tape. And you don't force it upon me.

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. And you don't force it upon me.

Don't give a toss, as long as I haven't got to pay for it. And you don't force it upon me.

Getting the idea yet?

See Dakar's projected response. It's correct.

Let's look at smoking bans in bars. Generally a Democrat backed thing.
Control.

Or the ban on interstate gambling. Generally a Republican backed thing.
Control.

No real difference in purpose. Both aim to make society better. Well, I don't need society making better - I can choose myself whether to go into a smoking bar or whether to engage in interstate gambling.

They're all the same and they *all* need to bugger off.

That is far more of a Libertarian response than a right-wing one, which makes sense since I think you've identified yourself accordingly in the past.

So then, why do you direct your rants against the left specifically, when this is such a poor and distracting way to focus your rants?

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

Doofy, in all seriousness, what countries actually have a right wing that lives up to your standards? The larger the country, the better.

None of them. Not the large ones anyways - there's a few small ones knocking around.

But the fact that they don't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create them, no?

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

That is far more of a Libertarian response than a right-wing one, which makes sense since I think you've identified yourself accordingly in the past.

There is no right. There's only left and libertarian.

Originally Posted by besson3c

So then, why do you direct your rants against the left specifically, when this is such a poor and distracting way to focus your rants?

To me the only true right is a libertarian one. And the natural enemy of this is the left.

Dakarʒ · Jul 19, 2007, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

None of them. Not the large ones anyways - there's a few small ones knocking around.

But the fact that they don't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create them, no?

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's just it amusing that you constantly bash lefties when it appears that no one is capable of meeting your standards.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

There is no right. There's only left and libertarian.

To me the only true right is a libertarian one. And the natural enemy of this is the left.

On many issues in the US, the left is a friend of the Libertarian party.

Hey, I just want you to be understood is all... If you want to continue to be inaccurate, go right ahead, I'll know what you mean now.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's just it amusing that you constantly bash lefties when it appears that no one is capable of meeting your standards.

Bruce Willis would meet the required standards. Vote him in!

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 12:36 PM

And Bruce Willis is a buddy of Jon Stewart's, one of the big lefty ringleaders!

Dakarʒ · Jul 19, 2007, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Bruce Willis would meet the required standards. Vote him in!

Somehow I imagine him riding a nuke into Korea Slim Pickens style, all the while yelling his Die Hard catchphrase.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

On many issues in the US, the left is a friend of the Libertarian party.

Incorrect.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that a bunch of people who fully support the NRA would be friends with a bunch of people who hate it.

Let me guess... ...certain individual issues...

Let's take abortion.
The left wants to legalise it.
The libertarians want to legalise it.

The difference? The left wants me to pay for it. If some chick can't keep her panties on and needs an abortion, then fair enough. But should she be expecting me to pay for the consequences of her night of fun?

Lefties support stuff for the betterment of society. Libertarians support stuff for the betterment of liberty.

It's real easy. Just look at the little diagram I did up there.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:42 PM

Moreover... ...I'm quite certain that a lot of people who think that they're left wing actually aren't - and should join the libertarian camp. That's those of you who support freedom but realise that proper freedom includes the ability to go buy an M16.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Incorrect.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that a bunch of people who fully support the NRA would be friends with a bunch of people who hate it.

Let me guess... ...certain individual issues...

Let's take abortion.
The left wants to legalise it.
The libertarians want to legalise it.

The difference? The left wants me to pay for it. If some chick can't keep her panties on and needs an abortion, then fair enough. But should she be expecting me to pay for the consequences of her night of fun?

Lefties support stuff for the betterment of society. Libertarians support stuff for the betterment of liberty.

It's real easy. Just look at the little diagram I did up there.

Interesting take, but how do their motives really matter? At the end of the day, you either have legislation for abortion or against abortion.

Motives are often just talking points, often empty and insincere. How can you rail against a political party and their motives while at the same applauding the motives of your party which you really cannot prove one way or the other?

There is a difference between typical leftist ideology and the Left as a political party/organization. It wasn't clear to me what you were referring to.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 12:52 PM

My problem with the Libertarian party is that their belief in a free market/capitalism simply goes too far. Also, the leash they are happy to issue to the general public does not take into account the stupidity of people and how they can negatively affect others. People are absolutely sheep, in a way an anarchy is unimaginable.

Please don't be reactionary and assume that I'm advocating for socialism or whatever, all I'm suggesting is that there is a reasonable balance.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Interesting take, but how do their motives really matter? At the end of the day, you either have legislation for abortion or against abortion.

Yes, the motive matters. One way the chick is getting it done on tax dollar, the other way she's getting it done on her own buck. Done on tax dollar doesn't encourage her to take responsibility for her own actions, which eventually leads to a nanny state.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Motives are often just talking points, often empty and insincere. How can you rail against a political party and their motives while at the same applauding the motives of your party which you really cannot prove one way or the other?

I don't know what you just said there. I don't have a political party.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

My problem with the Libertarian party is that their belief in a free market/capitalism simply goes too far.

This is why I'm a minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Also, the leash they are happy to issue to the general public does not take into account the stupidity of people and how they can negatively affect others. People are absolutely sheep, in a way an anarchy is unimaginable.

Other people's stupidity is no business of mine. If they want to be stupid, they can be stupid.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 01:02 PM

BTW Bess, you *do* realise that the "lefties" in the title of this thread refers to Chris Davies and his colleagues - a bunch of lefties in the Liberal Democrats.

(In case you didn't know, the Lib Dems are like the maddest leftie Californians you could ever meet. Proper granola)

Mastrap · Jul 19, 2007, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Other people's stupidity is no business of mine.

That's probably only because you haven't experienced yet how other people's stupidity can make your life an utter misery.

Dakarʒ · Jul 19, 2007, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

That's probably only because you haven't experienced yet how other people's stupidity can make your life an utter misery.

Projected Doofy response: You forget I've been living under UK rule for years

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 01:10 PM

I'm going to have to start giving out candy prizes to some people.

Dakarʒ · Jul 19, 2007, 01:12 PM

I think this is a sign I need to take another PL break. There's a reason i don't come here; there's very little new to be heard.

typoon · Jul 19, 2007, 10:29 PM

Why should some politician or anyone tell me what kind of car I can or can't drive? If I want to drive a sports car that does 0-60 in 4 seconds and guzzles gas faster than I can drink my bottle of water so be it. I should be able to. If I want to drive a Hybrid vehicle so be it why should I be told that I can't drive what I want?

That's like someone tell you that you can't use a Mac because Apple is at or near the bottom of the list of "Green companies."

peeb · Jul 19, 2007, 10:36 PM

Why? If you're driving it ****s up the planet for everyone else.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2007, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

Why should some politician or anyone tell me what kind of car I can or can't drive? If I want to drive a sports car that does 0-60 in 4 seconds and guzzles gas faster than I can drink my bottle of water so be it. I should be able to. If I want to drive a Hybrid vehicle so be it why should I be told that I can't drive what I want?

That's like someone tell you that you can't use a Mac because Apple is at or near the bottom of the list of "Green companies."

Well, we may have to restrict the sales of these vehicles in the future as a counter to global warming, but the way I'd support doing this is by restricting the manufacturing of vehicles that don't achieve certain fuel economy standards.

And, in addition to all of this, we need several other measures in several other areas, cause obviously simply doing this will probably not be enough, and it is unfair to expect consumers to carry these sorts of burdens without getting companies involved.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2007, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Why? If you're driving it ****s up the planet for everyone else.

Everyone else (and I mean *everyone* - all 6 billion of you) stops eating meat (and thus ****ing up the planet in their own way) and I'll stop driving large-engined cars.

Deal?