Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDalton
i really think you should start to worry about the carbon footprint of cars like the F150 - huge piece of metal with horrible mpg and not more space inside than a regular Jetta or Passat
still the most sold car in the US (for whatever reason)
seriously - before you start worrying about cars that in the foreseeable future will remain a small percentage of total cars sold, rather start convincing people to drive smaller (in total size/weight) cars with 3 or 4 cylinder gas or diesel engines that do 40 mpg or more
but since that doesnt fit your agenda, i dont have much hope
|
I drive a F150. It gets ok gas mileage for a 4x4 with a V8. I don't drive it much anymore. When I go on trips I use my Harley that gets just a hair over 40 mpg.
My agenda is common sense.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal policies to prop up and promote electric cars will cost taxpayers $7.5 billion through 2019.
It's not about the size of sales that I'm concerned about, it's the money that the government is spending on each car when the battery technology is flawed. They need to address that before pushing forward.
Last month, the ?father of the Prius,? Takeshi Uchiyamada declared that electric cars were simply ?not viable.? "Because of its shortcomings--driving range, cost and recharging time--the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars," said Uchiyamada. "We need something entirely new."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...as-Powered-Car
__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that