PCMech Forums - View Single Post

piasabird · 04-03-2008, 09:25 AM

Well you could attempt to use less energy. If the majority of people are buying the largest SUV on earth they can buy, then they cant really claim to be concerned about the environment. Same thing goes for those people who purchase the largest house they can buy. It takes energy to heat and cool it and light it up.

We can suggest alternate fuels but that will not happen any time soon. We could however, just force the auto industry to make smaller or lighter automobiles, or give people tax breaks for buying vehicles with better gas milage. I prefer inctentives instead of trying to punish corporation for making what they think we want to buy. It may be we also need to increase the the number of miles per gallon of the fleet that auto manufacturers are required to meet. The only problem is it takes a few years to reach such a goal. When people started buying all these large SUV's I thought they were all insane. So I have little pitty for the owner of giant $50,000.00 SUV that gets 15 miles per gallon. I think large SUV owners and anyone with a heavier automobile should have to pay more tax because their vehicle tears up the road at an accelerated rate. Weight does matter, and it damages the roadway more so they should be taxed appropriately to the size of their vehicle and the amount of emissions they make. We could also try to force, coerce, or offer incentives to the owners of older automobiles to get them off the road, instead of giving them a free ride and pollution control exceptions.

That runs into my other rant. I live in an area where the EPA has determined that I am required to get an emissions test. This is a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned. It is a total waste of taxpayers money and it does not make the air any cleaner. This is just harassment to car owners. It was a stupid idea and it is a waste of money. Money would be better spent improving the efficiency of automobiles.

Instead of forcing millions of people to get an auto emissions teste, it would be more economical to move all the factories to the east coast. (Joke) In the USA pollution flows generally from the west coast to the east coast. So any factory that makes more emissions should be placed on the East Coast. That will actually help to improve the Air we breath. This may not be that feasable, but it is something to consider. South korea uses policy similar to this to protect the fish and the Sea Grass that they use for food on their west coast. They appreciate their fishing industry enough to implement these kind of policies. They live on a peninsula so they can afford to do this.

04-03-2008, 09:25 AM	#24
piasabird Member (11 bit) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Confluence of the Mississippi and Misouri Rivers Posts: 1,242	Well you could attempt to use less energy. If the majority of people are buying the largest SUV on earth they can buy, then they cant really claim to be concerned about the environment. Same thing goes for those people who purchase the largest house they can buy. It takes energy to heat and cool it and light it up. We can suggest alternate fuels but that will not happen any time soon. We could however, just force the auto industry to make smaller or lighter automobiles, or give people tax breaks for buying vehicles with better gas milage. I prefer inctentives instead of trying to punish corporation for making what they think we want to buy. It may be we also need to increase the the number of miles per gallon of the fleet that auto manufacturers are required to meet. The only problem is it takes a few years to reach such a goal. When people started buying all these large SUV's I thought they were all insane. So I have little pitty for the owner of giant $50,000.00 SUV that gets 15 miles per gallon. I think large SUV owners and anyone with a heavier automobile should have to pay more tax because their vehicle tears up the road at an accelerated rate. Weight does matter, and it damages the roadway more so they should be taxed appropriately to the size of their vehicle and the amount of emissions they make. We could also try to force, coerce, or offer incentives to the owners of older automobiles to get them off the road, instead of giving them a free ride and pollution control exceptions. That runs into my other rant. I live in an area where the EPA has determined that I am required to get an emissions test. This is a complete waste of time as far as I am concerned. It is a total waste of taxpayers money and it does not make the air any cleaner. This is just harassment to car owners. It was a stupid idea and it is a waste of money. Money would be better spent improving the efficiency of automobiles. Instead of forcing millions of people to get an auto emissions teste, it would be more economical to move all the factories to the east coast. (Joke) In the USA pollution flows generally from the west coast to the east coast. So any factory that makes more emissions should be placed on the East Coast. That will actually help to improve the Air we breath. This may not be that feasable, but it is something to consider. South korea uses policy similar to this to protect the fish and the Sea Grass that they use for food on their west coast. They appreciate their fishing industry enough to implement these kind of policies. They live on a peninsula so they can afford to do this.