I agree with all that. We have a terrible system. In fact, electricity is the answer because it creates no pollution in the vehicle. Limit the pollution to a smaller number of sites so there is some possibility of getting it under control. Limiting pollution in a car running on a polluting fuel is absurd. It is like writing an accounts receivable system for General Motors in C or herding cats.
How the electricity is created is the question/problem. Focus on the problem. What we have now is a crippled system caused (my opinion) by cheap oil. That is changing now and we will see alternatives that are better. Just saying it is expensive or this and that will not get us to a solution. The first step is to stop individual people from polluting. The government cannot force you to buy a diesel Volkswagen instead of a Chevrolet pickup. But the government can say that all vehicles must meet a certain specification. Then we can work on the power plants. Right now, in California we have 30+ million polluters. In my opinion it is like income tax. Which would you rather do, collect money from 300 million people with constitutional rights or 10 million businesses with no constitutional rights? The IRS spends 30 cents of every dollar it collects enforcing the collection. It is a no-brainer. Collecting from 300 million people in a free society is a stupid idea, absurd and unrealistic to say the least. It would impossible to collect 100% from 10 million businesses, but at least it is a possibility. It is not laughable. A business has no personal rights. The government can come in at any time and look at the books. I know this from personal experience. It is more realistic to control corporations. The government can regulate how electricity is made by corporations. The focus needs to be on a possible and realistic solution. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Felton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ProFox Email List" <profox@leafe.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 4:01 PM Subject: RE: [OT] California sues automakers While Electric/Hybrid cars do have reduced or "no" emissions the power they consume creates as much or more emissions as the cars would have created. Where does the electric you put into the Electric car come from? A coal burning electric power plant or a nuclear electric power plant? Oh wait a minute, the answer is hydrogen, well maybe not, and it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than it takes to power the car with gasoline. I know I don't have the answer and I agree we need to find a better answer, don't assume that the "Clean - Electric/Hybrid Cars" are the answer. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Crooks Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:14 PM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] California sues automakers On Wednesday, September 20, 2006 5:52 PM ken.com wrote: >They can do it with electric vehicles. California can lead the way into the future. More than 10% of >all cars are sold in California - don't underestimate what that can do. California is the worlds 5th >largest economy. I remember when California required the impossible exhaust emissions. Funny how all >the manufactures were able to do what they had to do. The Auto manufactures just don't want to be the >'bad guy'. Now they can say the government is the cause of the high prices. Then competition will >force the prices down just like it always does. <snipped> It is 2006! Aren't we supposed to have flying cars by now? 8-) David L. Crooks [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
