Is being green only for the rich?

Looks interesting.....I'll have to check it out.

 

You need not spend a lot of money to get a car which polutes less, quite a few here have replaced their old Prius with a new one so there are lots of used Prius out there. I bought mine used and saved 30% of the new price. Had I bought a used Holden (Australian GM) 6 cylinder Commodore I could have got a car with similar age and miles for 40% below new price but who would, given the falling value and extra $1200+ per year on fuel.

Hey, if you have life insurance to look after your family you care about them and their future. Why not drop the life insurance and spend more money on a car that looks after the health of the environment and therefore your families future?
Do you send your kids to school? Why if you don't care about their future?
Do you try to feed them right? Why if you don't care about their future?
Do you give no regard to the environment when shopping for a car? Why not if you care about the future of your family?

 

Uh, no. You have to realize that wealth is what drives all economies, whether it belongs to you or someone else. Your job, house/apartment, your car, the market where you get food and supplies, all of these things are the result of wealth. Without it our society and all other societies will collapse. Even the poorest, most underdeveloped nations have a driving force of wealth at the top.

Another thing to remember is that these reviled "yank-tanks" all have to pass emissions certification. They burn as cleanly as any other car in their size class, and as cleanly as many small cars. The forthcoming Dodge Challenger already has a waiting list, as does the new Camaro. The Ford Mustang was almost impossible to get for the first two years after it was introduced. This tells me one thing: people want these cars. If they didn't, they would languish on the lot until the line was discontinued as unprofitable. Think about it.

Are you a socialist or a communist? People with that mindset think as you do. Be careful.

 

That has got to be the most irresponsible thing I have read here yet. God help your kids if something happens to you.

 

Wha?!? I think you missed the irony in what patsparks was saying. And why are you warning "Be careful" about communist or socialist ideas? Are you going to report patsparks to the authorities?

Also, re: your comments about emissions, no not all vehicles have the same emissions. The Prius for example is rated AT-PZEV which is much better than most, and also much better than what's REQUIRED during inspection. Also, even if the Prius emitted the same pollution as another car based on the amount of fuel burned, we'd still be ahead, given the better fuel economy. I also drive a Camry (non-hybrid) and get less than half the MPG on avg, with not as clean emissions... that car wasn't cheaper than the Prius.

I do agree with you that wealth and the separation between classes is not avoidable. I don't see it as entirely beneficial, but that doesn't mean we can do away with it. Poorer countries are a poor example for highlighting the benefit of wealth though, as those countries typically magnify the difference between classes in the extreme, and the suffering of the poor is typically greater than in wealthy countries.

 

Why bother wasting your time on this guy. He has 2-3 usernames because he doesn't want to seem alone in his backwards views. He'll simply create another one to try and push his agenda and you'll end up saying the same crap over again.

 

If he was being ironic, yeah I missed it. My apologies. And no, I'm not going to "report" him. Geez.

I work in the auto industry, I am well aware of the different emmisions standards. My point was not that these cars are as clean as a hybrid or other ULEV, but that they are as clean as the next car in their respective class.

I wasn't using them to highlight the benefit of wealth, more to show how it's ubiquitous. Clearly the wealth existing in poor countries is not going to helping the citizens, rather to further the interests of the people in power. But nevertheless, it's there.

 

Cute.

Actually, F8L, I have one username. Just one. All alone, with my "backward" views. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If a mod would like to check, they will find just one little username.

 

Here's something to think about:
When the GM EV1 was made "available" to the public in 1996, I went in to lease one (was not allowed to buy). There wasn't one for me to lease. I was asked to come back. I went back. I went back again. I left my name on three waiting lists. I'm still on that waiting list. I could never get one of those cars through the official GMAC program. This car was discontinued, all leases recalled, and all but a few cars crushed. These cars never languished on any lot. There were always more willing "buyers" than there were cars. And the program was cancelled with the official reason, "Not enough demand."

Surprisingly, things aren't always what they seem.

Oh... and just because people "want" stupid cars, doesn't mean it's a great idea for people to be driving them. Sometimes I want to kick my dog.

 

Stupid? You're in the minority on that one, my friend. And leave your poor dog alone.

 

I gotta agree with you on that. Biggest BS job I've seen in a while.

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "class." For example, the Prius is in the same "class" as any "4-door mid-size sedan." In terms of emissions, not many vehicles in that "class" even come close.

Who ever said that the majority of people were smart?

 

It is also a hybrid ULEV. That puts it in a class by itself. I was actually referring to non-hybrid gasoline vehicles. Most of those are pretty close in emmisions.

The majority are reasonably intelligent. Some are pretty smart. We are all smart enough to decide whether or not we "should have had a V8."

 

I was serious when I said wealth causes environmental damage and if we end wealth we will help the planet. It is a rare Ethiopian that travels to their holiday destination in a jet, drives a car of any sort, consumes more than their share, runs a big screen TV for 16 hours a day or throws hundreds of dollars worth of packaging into landfill each year but this is the norm for many in the west. I wasn't talking about the health of the economy I was refering to the health of the planet.

Now no one else answer this for me, I would like BigFoot to tell me, what is wrong with Socialism? Try not to use phrases you have heard a government leader use. 100 words or less should do it.

Another question for BigFoot, why have life insurance to protect your kids future but continue to destroy the planet, as fast as you can afford to? they, and their kids must live on this planet.
PS, I have plenty of insurance on home and cars but none on my life. I have assessed life insurance and determined that I am better off to invest in my future than to gamble on not having a future. My family will be fine if I die, they have assets and other ongoing income which I will be able to use if I don't die within 15 years.

The emissions of internal combustion engines are assessed as a percentage or PPM. If a 5 litre V8 emits double the volume of exhaust gas of a 2.5 litre four cylinder engine and the 2.5 litre pruduces double the volume of exhaust of a 1.25 litre engine and all 3 meet the emission standards, which produces the highest volume of polution and which of the 3 produces the least?
CO2 emissions are measured by the fuel consumption, if a Corvette achieves 16MPG city cycle and a Prius 46MPG city cycle, which produces the most CO2 per mile?

 

Most Ethiopians don't have 3 meals a day or clean water either. The wealth is not there to provide it for them.

I don't need 100 words. In a democratic society, if you work for the things you want, you get to have them. I like knowing that my paycheck will not only feed me, clothe me, and keep a roof over my head, but that it will allow me to have things that make life more enjoyable, like the big screen TV you seem to loathe so much(mine is only on for 2 to 3 hours a day, thanks). In a socialist economic system, I would be working to provide.....what, exactly? Nothing to make it worth working, that's for damn sure. If we were socialist, I wouldn't have to work because I would know I would be provided for. Is that what you want your labor to go towards?

If you have another system of income in place to provide for them, you don't need life insurance. Good for you. I still say a small life insurance policy is a good idea. I have one, and I don't even have children. It's there to pay off any debt that may remain if I die.

Obviously a larger engine will produce more CO2, which you have so expertly pointed out. As I already stated, not everyone wants a Prius. If you can drive a car that passes all emissions requirements and makes you smile, you should have the choice to do that. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, then you have the choice of a hybrid or other ULEV. Isn't it nice to have choices? If we lived in socialist societies, we probably wouldn't.

I'm sure all of this will fall on deaf ears, but what the hey.

 

You still don't seem to understand what I am saying, someone will come along soon and help you. I hava a friends daughter's 18th birthday to attend, see you soon.
You have nicely described a comunist system, now try socialist. Well really you missed quite a bit but that's OK.

 

LOL! I suppose that yes, if you exclude ULEV (or better, in the case of the Prius) from your "class" of vehicles then the ones that are left are somewhat closer to each other in emissions than they are to a Prius... Most "auto-industry" people classify cars by size and capability, and even your own post a few back specified "size class," so it's a little silly to exclude a car with better emissions ratings from your "class" simply because it makes the other cars in the same class look bad in that regard.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that "we are all smart enough to decide" anything about our spending habits. It doesn't take a lot of looking to find someone making a poor choice with their money, and often a completely emotional, non-rational choice (e.g. "I really need a V8 because I'm a real man and no real man would drive a wussy 4-banger"). If buying a car were a completely rational choice for most people then the auto industry would be crippled.

 

Who's going to come "help" me?

From Mirriam-Webster on socialism:

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Sounds a lot like what I described. You are right though about communism. They are eerily similar, and neither is a system I want any part of. Enjoy your party.

 

The non-hybrid auto will be around for a while yet. As I have stated elsewhere, they are apples and oranges compared to a hybrid. Some want them, some don't.

Have you ever made a rash decision with money? Everyone has. Still, we do not need some agency or force telling us what we can and can't buy. A lot of Prius's(Prii?) are purchased solely for how others will perceive the new owner as well. Have you ever driven a car with a powerful engine? The rush you get from it is the reason a lot of people buy them, not for what others think, although that is a reason as well(never a good reason to do anything, if you ask me). I am currently between fast cars, having sold my last one when I bought my motorcycle. I miss it. It made me smile. It was fun, and I never really gave a damn what someone else thought of me for it. My current daily driver is a Cherokee, complete with peeling paint on the hood and a few dings here and there. It is far from glamorous, yet I never feel embarrassed to be seen in it. Others perception of me hasn't been a driving force in my car purchases since I was in my teens. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

Wow, just wow.

First off define "poor people." True poverty does NOT exist in the Western world to the levels as it does in underdeveloped countries. As such, if we are going to examine true "poor people" we should do so on a global level and examine the enviromental policy of such nations. Using that formula, one would have to argue that that enviromental policy of Cameroon or even the Ukraine is not on par to that of any of the States here. As such, "real poor people" in poor countries are not as "green" as those in developed countries. However, this stems more from the overall policy of the host nation, and it's ability to regulate. I guess we could sum it up by saying true poverty forces those to worry about sheer survival, and not composting or buying organic.

I am sure some of you still believe that you and you alone can make a difference on a global level. You can't, but I hope it helps you sleep better at night.