Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J.B.C. who wrote (191455)	10/12/2001 1:59:09 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

SUV's ARE A BAIN on the environment...and on the INSURANCE industry at this point. With their sorry history of performance and their ability to wipe out smaller cars as well as polluting the air of the kids that ride in them with their YUPPIE mothers taking them to school and daycare. They are now CARS....and should be under the SAME requirements as all other AUTOS...back in the early 70's when the regulations were written to help out real pickup trucks used by farmers and ranchers and contruction. Now that they are so prolific, they MUST be officially recognized as AUTOS and subject to the same requirememts for fuel and emmissions. CC

To: J.B.C. who wrote (191455)	10/12/2001 2:24:44 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

As I understand it (admitedly from memory, I could be off on the figures), some 40% of our current auto fleet is SUVs and light trucks - which are held to a much lighter efficiency standard than autos... despite their lack of any relevant functional difference. Their percentage of CURRENT SALES is even higher than that. Furthermore, heavy trucks don't face these standards at all. So, yes, we could easily save this much oil by applying standards more uniformly. (Furthermore, the diesel heavy trucks amount to a much more serious health threat than the cars/light trucks/SUVs because of their particulate emissions. Those particulates are of exactly the proper size to lodge in the lungs smallest air sacs. According to a recent US Academy of Sciences study, and a corresponding one out of Europe, this likely accounts for an average reduction of life in the population of about one year. There is obviously also a COST that can be affixed to this reduction in life span... and associated medical costs.... But, as they say, you lose that year at the end of your life, and those are the 'lousey years' anyway :-) As to "the rest of <my> arguments are full of holes.", since you didn't bother to think of any actual EXAMPLES of what's wrong with my arguments, or list any counter arguments at all... I think I'll stick to my own views for now. Of course, I'm willing to change ANY VIEW I HAVE if someone just comes up with a more persuasive argument, better reasoning, or corrects any facts I may have based my views on, which turn out to be in error. I'm a realist, after all.