- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Feds now proposing up to 58mpg average by 2032
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:54 pm to TigersnJeeps
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:54 pm to TigersnJeeps
Where are the republicans?
Where are the republicans?
Where are the republicans?
They could have used the debt ceiling as leverage to codify or prevent the EPA from making these crazy regulations.
Yet they did nothing as usual. Just like they did nothing from 2016-18 when they controlled Congress and the presidency.
So think long and hard when you go to vote in the primary. Which candidate will
a) have the best chance of winning a general election
And
b) has a strong record of getting a legislative branch to actually pass meaningful bills
I think we all know the answer
Where are the republicans?
Where are the republicans?
They could have used the debt ceiling as leverage to codify or prevent the EPA from making these crazy regulations.
Yet they did nothing as usual. Just like they did nothing from 2016-18 when they controlled Congress and the presidency.
So think long and hard when you go to vote in the primary. Which candidate will
a) have the best chance of winning a general election
And
b) has a strong record of getting a legislative branch to actually pass meaningful bills
I think we all know the answer
1
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:54 pm to BabyTac
quote:
I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s a bad idea to push initiatives for more efficiency and lower fuel consumption.
The current push has resulted in cars without spare tires, less reliable engines (more turbo 4 cyl),and higher vehicle prices…this is why I oppose it.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:55 pm to TigersnJeeps
This shite was basically tried before with the 55 mph national speed limit. Proposed and signed by Republican presidents no less. At least Nixon had the excuse of the Arab oil embargo. It went into affect from in 1974 and wasn't totally repealed until 1995. It might have been the single most idiotic federal law in my lifetime.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:56 pm to TigersnJeeps
It's amazing to witness a country intentionally killing itself. I just wish it wasn’t my country.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 12:58 pm to BabyTac
I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s a bad idea to push initiatives for more efficiency and lower fuel consumption.
This post was edited on 8/1/23 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:00 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Poor and middle will live in tiny apartments in the city while the rich will live in mansions outside of the city and will helicopter in.
That’s the dream for many. Rewinding urban demographics and living conditions about 90 years back to their utopian fantasy.
They blame suburban sprawl for the decline of inner cities and neighborhoods, in addition to the environmental impacts from cars, freeways, neighborhoods, shopping centers, manicured lawns, etc.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:03 pm to The Mick
quote:
I just looked up consumption and in 2021 the US used 135 billion gallons. If this plan saves a total of 88 billion gallons total by 2050 that's about 3.25 billion gallons per year. (2-2.5 percent)
Oh, Mick. You are not supposed to do any math, ask why they were wrong aboot EVERY doomsday projections, or ask why the people making these decisions go everywhere on private jets.
quote:
Overall, the NHTSA says its proposal would save around 88 billion gallons of gasoline from now until 2050, equating to savings of $52 billion or a reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions of 900 million tons.
Private jets emitted that much carbon just in 2019. A private jet emits more carbon flying, one way from LA. to DC than my Tundra does in a whole year.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:26 pm to TigersnJeeps
I would like to see a republican introduce a bill requiring Star Trek transporters using diluthium crystals by the year 2069.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:28 pm to TigersnJeeps
This is 100% possible but you have to cruise at 120MPH.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:30 pm to TigersnJeeps
quote:
Feds now proposing up to 58mpg average by 2032
Climate goblin says it is not enough!!
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:34 pm to BabyTac
quote:
push initiatives for more efficiency and lower fuel consumption
=/= Fines at $14 per 0.1 over the limit multiplied the number of vehicles sold.
No one is against innovation and creating more efficient vehicles. That's not what this is doing though. This is pushing for manufacturers to cut weight and make less reliable vehicles in an effort to meet the criteria. The result is more expensive and less reliable vehicles. If this were incentives that rewarded manufacturers for pushing their efficiency it would be one thing, but that's not what this is.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:39 pm to TigersnJeeps
I’ll keep driving my 18 mpg pickup till the wheels fall off
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:42 pm to Deactived
quote:
or a reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions of 900 million tons.
Why do they hate trees so much?
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:50 pm to BabyTac
quote:
I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s a bad idea to push initiatives for more efficiency and lower fuel consumption.
Why stop at 58mpg...why not 350mpg????
You can't legislate invention. They day we actually run out of fossil fuels (which won't be while anyone currently alive is alive), then necessity will require us to invent something new. You can't legislate something that the market doesn't demand. But keep being an idiot and believing the "Climate Change is caused by the US" narrative.
Thanks a lot Al Gore for this and the internet. Both are a clear marker of regression in society.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:58 pm to rtiger
Guess it’s time to go dig my old Honda 50 out of my parents garage.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 1:58 pm to TigersnJeeps
Impossible to meet that target without 60+% of vehicles being EV.
More pie in the sky bullshite that will do nothing but increase the costs of car ownership and reduce mobility for Americans. And all of it demanded and codified by people who have no understanding how the working class lives.
More pie in the sky bullshite that will do nothing but increase the costs of car ownership and reduce mobility for Americans. And all of it demanded and codified by people who have no understanding how the working class lives.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 2:00 pm to JackieTreehorn
And when, through great expense and economic hardship, this standard is met.....the feds will up it to 100 mpg by 2040.
This will make ICE vehicles extremely expensive (likely impossible) to produce by that point and force people into very expensive EV's. So the costs of moving around will skyrocket.
This will make ICE vehicles extremely expensive (likely impossible) to produce by that point and force people into very expensive EV's. So the costs of moving around will skyrocket.
This post was edited on 8/1/23 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 8/1/23 at 2:19 pm to TigersnJeeps
Gonna force people into EVs.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 2:21 pm to TigersnJeeps
I sense a complete and utter absence of consent of the governed.
Posted on 8/1/23 at 2:23 pm to BabyTac
quote:
I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s a bad idea to push initiatives for more efficiency and lower fuel consumption.
I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s a good idea for more laws and regulations at the Federal or State level.
quote:
by BabyTac
ohh wait, it’s this fricking idiot again.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News