Poor little pupil doesn’t like hearing the truth. First site I found says that from 1991 to 2017, average MPG increased from 19.6 to 22.3 (other sites are in rough agreement, but many just show a percentage change chart, not hard numbers). This is asinine. We have the technology to make cars that get 40 or 50 MPG. Hell, I had a Chevy Cruze back in 2012 or so, that got 42 MPG (it was only 126 HP). Almost 10 years later, a 2022 Honda Civic gets that on the highway, but much less in city driving.
Yes, this means you’ll have to give up some HP. Yes, your 0 to 60 time will suffer. Too. Damn. Bad.
That’s not crack pot. It’s not self entitled. Nor is it virtue signaling or anything else you labeled it because you’re too f*cking stoopid to actually use facts or logic to make an argument so you resort to name calling.
Here is what you said;
Here’s my proposal - for every mile per gallon your car gets under 50 MPG, there should be a tax of $1,000,000 plus the greater of $0 and 1% of your net worth (per year). Sorry soccer mom, you don’t need an X5 getting 20 MPG to pick up your kid from practice. Here’s a four cylinder sedan with a turbo putting out 120 HP.
As i said; crack pot virtue signalling, self entitled, loony lefty.
the rest of what you said was probably monkeys typing.
what are you going to mandate next? how many bedrooms someone has in their house? what size dog they have? where they go on holidays?
No. There wouldn’t be. Billions of people would die if cars were required to get 50+ MPG? How does that work? How many people die each year from pollution and climate change? WHO estimates 4.2 million per year.
40 miles to the store? Get a Tesla and some solar panels. Never fill up again and stop wasting money on electricity.
Here’s my proposal - for every mile per gallon your car gets under 50 MPG, there should be a tax of $1,000,000 plus the greater of $0 and 1% of your net worth (per year). Sorry soccer mom, you don’t need an X5 getting 20 MPG to pick up your kid from practice. Here’s a four cylinder sedan with a turbo putting out 120 HP.
Food isn't produced or shipped all over the globe in a Prius.
If you really cared about the environment you wouldn't like 2,000 miles away from where the food is produced and 6,000 miles away from where your clothes are produced.
If you don't have a herd of sheep in your apartment and you aren't making your own clothes you're a MONSTER.
No offense but literally no one on earth cares what you think they do or don't need.
No. There wouldn’t be. Billions of people would die if cars were required to get 50+ MPG? How does that work? How many people die each year from pollution and climate change? WHO estimates 4.2 million per year.
40 miles to the store? Get a Tesla and some solar panels. Never fill up again and stop wasting money on electricity.
Here’s my proposal - for every mile per gallon your car gets under 50 MPG, there should be a tax of $1,000,000 plus the greater of $0 and 1% of your net worth (per year). Sorry soccer mom, you don’t need an X5 getting 20 MPG to pick up your kid from practice. Here’s a four cylinder sedan with a turbo putting out 120 HP.
Food isn't produced or shipped all over the globe in a Prius.
If you really cared about the environment you wouldn't like 2,000 miles away from where the food is produced and 6,000 miles away from where your clothes are produced.
If you don't have a herd of sheep in your apartment and you aren't making your own clothes you're a MONSTER.
No offense but literally no one on earth cares what you think they do or don't need.
Nor are they shipped in a GMC Yukon or a Ford Excursion or whatever your SUV of choice is. For personal vehicles - not f*cking cargo ships - there is no need for any person to have a vehicle that gets less than 40 MPG. Hell, my dad worked construction for 40 years and drove a pickup truck - but usually a Ford Ranger size, not a giant Ford F-150. There is no reason Ford couldn’t offer a pickup truck that got 40 MPG. It wouldn’t be 400 HP. But, most people don’t need 400 HP and 32 inch tires to drive their pick-up truck to work on the highway.
Poor little pupil doesn’t like hearing the truth. First site I found says that from 1991 to 2017, average MPG increased from 19.6 to 22.3 (other sites are in rough agreement, but many just show a percentage change chart, not hard numbers). This is asinine. We have the technology to make cars that get 40 or 50 MPG. Hell, I had a Chevy Cruze back in 2012 or so, that got 42 MPG (it was only 126 HP). Almost 10 years later, a 2022 Honda Civic gets that on the highway, but much less in city driving.
Yes, this means you’ll have to give up some HP. Yes, your 0 to 60 time will suffer. Too. Damn. Bad.
That’s not crack pot. It’s not self entitled. Nor is it virtue signaling or anything else you labeled it because you’re too f*cking stoopid to actually use facts or logic to make an argument so you resort to name calling.
Here is what you said;
Here’s my proposal - for every mile per gallon your car gets under 50 MPG, there should be a tax of $1,000,000 plus the greater of $0 and 1% of your net worth (per year). Sorry soccer mom, you don’t need an X5 getting 20 MPG to pick up your kid from practice. Here’s a four cylinder sedan with a turbo putting out 120 HP.
As i said; crack pot virtue signalling, self entitled, loony lefty.
the rest of what you said was probably monkeys typing.
what are you going to mandate next? how many bedrooms someone has in their house? what size dog they have? where they go on holidays?
you can virtue signal about all of those too.
And, as I said: Your inability to pose a coherent counter argument - and preferring to throw out personal attacks - speaks volumes about the soundness of my proposal, your poor character, and your lack of intelligence.
I never doubted for a moment that anything you say is based on anything but 15 seconds of googling...
I wonder how they doubled their profits from 2020 to 2021... Are you unaware that the world shut down in 2020? Put your little thinking cap on now and try to keep up. When everyone stops driving in year 1 and then starts driving again in year 2... Do you think you'd sell more gas in year 1 or year 2? Do you think profits would go up or down?
Do you have any idea how much money Exxon spent to make that $5.48 billion?
Of course you don't. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Are you arguing just to argue?
Profits have doubled since a wconomic shutdown. What else has changed since then? Possibly prices at the pump have doubled? Also, those poor energy companies also made $30 Billion (just one company) in profits during that shutdown that crippled them so. Oh, and our government still gave them $80 billion in subsidies.
Are you aware of what profits are? That is how much money is gained above and beyond expenses by the way.
The point of exposing profits was to clarify that the president of one country, sans Putin and a war, has nothing to do with gas prices. When profits double at the same time prices at the pump double, it is pretty easy to see a cause and effect.
But far too many people want it to be the libs or the conservatives in every matter and the media push that narrative as well, accurate or not.
The profits of pretty much EVERYTHING have doubled since the world re-opened.
Inflation is the highest it's been since the early 80s and RISING.
I know exactly what profits are. Do you have any idea what cost of revenue is? Do you have any idea what scale is?
You're not "exposing profits" you're exposing that you don't understand how business works.
Oil is traded globally in US dollars. When the US prints $14 trillion extra dollars out of thin air and injects them into circulation it causes the value of the dollar to decrease which causes price inflation. Oil is a commodity. When the president of the United States declares that oil is the enemy of the state and sets an openly anti-oil agenda it impacts the market.
When you say the president has no control over oil prices you're just repeating what some other person who has absolutely no understanding of economics said.
The price of gas was way up long before Putin invaded.
The dollar amount of the profit is meaningless. If what you were claiming was true the profit MARGIN would have doubled. It has not. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You're like a cheeseburger fanatic who can't figure out why the price of cheeseburgers is higher after you voted for a president who declared he'd make raising cows for beef so painful we'd all have to switch to veganism.
Biden admits openly that this price increase is part of his plan.
Food isn't produced or shipped all over the globe in a Prius.
If you really cared about the environment you wouldn't like 2,000 miles away from where the food is produced and 6,000 miles away from where your clothes are produced.
If you don't have a herd of sheep in your apartment and you aren't making your own clothes you're a MONSTER.
No offense but literally no one on earth cares what you think they do or don't need.
Nor are they shipped in a GMC Yukon or a Ford Excursion or whatever your SUV of choice is. For personal vehicles - not f*cking cargo ships - there is no need for any person to have a vehicle that gets less than 40 MPG. Hell, my dad worked construction for 40 years and drove a pickup truck - but usually a Ford Ranger size, not a giant Ford F-150. There is no reason Ford couldn’t offer a pickup truck that got 40 MPG. It wouldn’t be 400 HP. But, most people don’t need 400 HP and 32 inch tires to drive their pick-up truck to work on the highway.
There's "no need" for you drink coffee or tea or a million other habits you have that require something to be shipped across the globe.
You're so wrapped up in the virtue signaling that you can't understand how silly your argument is. John Kerry ALONE has a bigger carbon footprint than all the pick up trucks in America.
Virtue signaling about the environment while contributing just as much carbon or more than the people you're attacking does not make you a good person. It makes you a hypocrite.
I guess economic specialists are beating down your door for your expertise. You have proclaimed to be the expert on about 4 things on one public forum thread.
To me, this exposes you as someone who starts with a thought and works backward to justify that thought rather than looking at other points of view and possibly tweaking your thinking.
You must be a treat to converse with face-to-face.
I guess economic specialists are beating down your door for your expertise. You have proclaimed to be the expert on about 4 things on one public forum thread.
To me, this exposes you as someone who starts with a thought and works backward to justify that thought rather than looking at other points of view and possibly tweaking your thinking.
You must be a treat to converse with face-to-face.
I don't claim to be an expert I simply know enough to be able to tell you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't need to be in the Hall of Fame to tell someone talking about a football bat doesn't know anything about football.
When you talk about profits and you're clearly completely ignorant to profit margins you're the guy talking about football bats.
It's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about economics that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Can anyone provide a cogent argument as to why the average American driver requires a vehicle pumping out more than 250-300 horsepower? Not the farmer, the construction worker, the fifth-wheel RV owner. The average driver that commutes back and forth to work, or drops the kids at school and sports, or likes taking a Sunday drive.
You don't need 500+ horsepower to cruise the interstate at 80+ MPH or to have a fun vehicle to throw around curves on a twisty mountain road. But Americans keep falling for marketing to chase status and then complain about the price of gas.
There is no argument. It's a double edged sword. You're a "p*ssy liberal" for having a fuel-efficient vehicle or by riding a bike / taking public transit. The result is a culture war of gas guzzling pickups which in turn drive the demand for gas up.
I want gas to be as cheap as possible, with less cars on the road, and with those cars being as fuel-efficient as possible. How this is controversial is beyond me.
Not everyone’s shorter trips are biking distance. And don’t call me lazy; I’m on a forum dedicated to distance running. For most people in America, your solution isn’t practical.
Yes, but longer term it's a good thing and something people should be thinking about or considering. Currently, most cities are very bike un-friendly, but hopefully more expensive gas will force necessary changes, or make them happen much quicker. Same thing with public transportation. Currently it's painful, but we're paying the price for such poor city planning and building a society nearly completely dependent on cars.
On one hand, it's painful, or at least a shock to the system, to have to pay so much more than we're used to at the pump. And it's not just gas. I can't get out of the grocery store without paying about $100 for half a cart of groceries for the week when I used to pay $60-$70 for the equivalent. But, on the other hand, I like it because it's forcing people to reconsider transportation - buy hybrids, electric, or more fuel efficient cars. Start biking places whenever possible (and electric/battery powered or assisted bikes can certainly help). Consider public transportation. Get involved in local politics and make your voice be heard for better bike infrastructure and better public transportation.
And forcing ourselves to be less dependent on foreign oil is a good thing as well.
This is insanely stupid. People are trying to make up for two years of lost life, investments have tanked, wages are stagnant and inflation is sky high. Nobody gives a rats ass about your political endeavors right now
Secondly, bike/walk friendly cities aren't built because the majority of people want privacy which increases sprawl and car usage, this is pretty obvious. But you're gonna tell people to live on top of each other and like it?check your ego dude
"It's painful to see kids die, but I like it because it's forcing people to reconsider gun laws" - that's basically what your whole post sounds like
$6.00? That's a whole different ball game. That would completely ruin my summer plans 🙁
I know the right wingers on here will have the vein in their forehead pop when they hear this, but ever think of biking for your shorter, more inconsequential trips? I'm saving a lot of money doing this. Instead of taking a gas guzzler everywhere and then going home devastated when gas prices inevitably violently rise from time to time, maybe compromise and get a bike. I promise it's not something the libs will snicker at you for doing.
A chud on a bicycle! What will they think of next?
I guess economic specialists are beating down your door for your expertise. You have proclaimed to be the expert on about 4 things on one public forum thread.
To me, this exposes you as someone who starts with a thought and works backward to justify that thought rather than looking at other points of view and possibly tweaking your thinking.
You must be a treat to converse with face-to-face.
So you have no argument, then, just ad hominems. Why even bother posting?
Nor are they shipped in a GMC Yukon or a Ford Excursion or whatever your SUV of choice is. For personal vehicles - not f*cking cargo ships - there is no need for any person to have a vehicle that gets less than 40 MPG. Hell, my dad worked construction for 40 years and drove a pickup truck - but usually a Ford Ranger size, not a giant Ford F-150. There is no reason Ford couldn’t offer a pickup truck that got 40 MPG. It wouldn’t be 400 HP. But, most people don’t need 400 HP and 32 inch tires to drive their pick-up truck to work on the highway.
There's "no need" for you drink coffee or tea or a million other habits you have that require something to be shipped across the globe.
You're so wrapped up in the virtue signaling that you can't understand how silly your argument is. John Kerry ALONE has a bigger carbon footprint than all the pick up trucks in America.
Virtue signaling about the environment while contributing just as much carbon or more than the people you're attacking does not make you a good person. It makes you a hypocrite.
I bike or run to work and have an EV for when I need to drive somewhere. What does that have to do with some guy with a little penis needing to drive a lifted Ford Excursion getting 6 MPG to take his daughter to daycare? Are you really arguing that increasing fuel economy standards would be bad for the environment? Even if requiring 95% of vehicles sold to get 50+ MPG was neutral for the environment because of John Kerry(?), people would still be paying less to fill the tanks of their efficient cars with gas at $6 a gallon than they were a year ago with gas at $2 a gallon while driving a giant SUV getting 10 MPG. Logic isn’t virtue signaling or whatever other lame title you want to give it. There is no practical reason that cars aren’t 120 HP and getting 50 or 60 MPG, other than people like you are resistant to change.
I bike or run to work and have an EV for when I need to drive somewhere. What does that have to do with some guy with a little penis needing to drive a lifted Ford Excursion getting 6 MPG to take his daughter to daycare? Are you really arguing that increasing fuel economy standards would be bad for the environment? Even if requiring 95% of vehicles sold to get 50+ MPG was neutral for the environment because of John Kerry(?), people would still be paying less to fill the tanks of their efficient cars with gas at $6 a gallon than they were a year ago with gas at $2 a gallon while driving a giant SUV getting 10 MPG. Logic isn’t virtue signaling or whatever other lame title you want to give it. There is no practical reason that cars aren’t 120 HP and getting 50 or 60 MPG, other than people like you are resistant to change.
First, only like 10% of human CO2 comes from private vehicles. Even if 100% of cars and suvs became EV's overnight it would only make a tiny difference assuming the CO2 hysteria is actually even warranted in the first place. Would it be "bad" for the environment? No. But it would be basically pointless.
Second, not everyone is a barista or a fry cook like you. It isn't feasible for most people to bike or run to work.
Third, you're an incel who lives alone or with his parents. While tiny cars with no storage work for you they do not work for people with familes.
Lastly, giant SUV's and trucks are safer. When you're distracted by your phone and crash into an SUV in your little Prius you die and the family in the SUV is perfectly fine. That's a huge net positive for society.
Let's look at your stupidity on a point-by-point basis:
First, only like 10% of human CO2 comes from private vehicles. Even if 100% of cars and suvs became EV's overnight it would only make a tiny difference assuming the CO2 hysteria is actually even warranted in the first place. Would it be "bad" for the environment? No. But it would be basically pointless.
So, reducing something that contributes 10% of the CO2 by half would a 5% reduction and would cost basically nothing (and would save most people money). That sounds like a great first step. And, then this price in gas prices wouldn't be such a crisis. But, gas was cheap for a few years so everybody bought gas guzzlers. I have zero sympathy for somebody that paid $60k for an Audi Q5 three years ago, and now b*tches about the cost of gas. They should have bought a Honda Civic and put solar panels on their house.
Second, not everyone is a barista or a fry cook like you. It isn't feasible for most people to bike or run to work.
I'm neither of those things (I'm a physicist with a PhD from one of the top universities in the country, not that it matters). Are you saying lawyers are too stupid to ride a bike? What about teachers? Do either of them need to drive an SUV? Nope. They could get to work just fine in a four door sedan with a little four cylinder engine and a turbo that gets 40+ MPG. I drove one for 4 years when I lived outside Chicago. Did it go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds? Nope. Did it get me back and forth to work every day? Yup.
Third, you're an incel who lives alone or with his parents. While tiny cars with no storage work for you they do not work for people with familes.
Nice ad hominem (look it up if you don't know what it means). I don't live alone, nor do I live with my parents. My parents drove a four door sedan my entire childhood. It fit my parents, my brother and I just fine for countless roadtrips. So, clearly they work just fine for the majority of families for many years. Maybe you're just too stupid to figure out how to make it work?
Lastly, giant SUV's and trucks are safer. When you're distracted by your phone and crash into an SUV in your little Prius you die and the family in the SUV is perfectly fine. That's a huge net positive for society.
So, what you're saying is that everyone should drive an M1 Abrams battle tank because then we could just get into accidents and be fine? If everybody drove small sedans, then there wouldn't be giant SUVs to crash into. And, when the giant SUV driver is distracted by their phone and drives into a ditch, they're more likely to roll over due a high center of gravity.
Do you have any coherent arguments, or just tired talking points that have been refuted, debunked, and beat to death over the last 20 years?
40% of car trips 2 miles or less. A bike, walk or escooter distance.
Nope, TheAdultInTheRoom has decided that only baristas and fry cooks that live alone or with their parents are able to walk or ride their bike places. Everyone else needs to drive a HUMVEE so they can be safe from lunatics driving Priuses.
Here’s my proposal - for every mile per gallon your car gets under 50 MPG, there should be a tax of $1,000,000 plus the greater of $0 and 1% of your net worth (per year). Sorry soccer mom, you don’t need an X5 getting 20 MPG to pick up your kid from practice. Here’s a four cylinder sedan with a turbo putting out 120 HP.
As i said; crack pot virtue signalling, self entitled, loony lefty.
the rest of what you said was probably monkeys typing.
what are you going to mandate next? how many bedrooms someone has in their house? what size dog they have? where they go on holidays?
you can virtue signal about all of those too.
Agree with this.
0-60 is actually a safety feature in that you need a car that isn't too slow to merge into modern freeway traffic. In the '80s it wasn't a big deal but now with most cars basically becoming computers on wheels and 250-300 hp being the norm, the subcompacts have to have enough HP to at least stay in traffic and not be screaming at 3k rpm at 70 mph.
A lot of cars are geared toward highway mileage but their city mileage sucks. You want a good blend of both.
Tall gearing: 2.56 or so, more HP and power on the freeway but it takes forever to get up to speed, but you're turning a lazy 1500 rpm at 70 mph.
Short gearing: 4.11 or so, more HP and power in the city at lower speeds but nothing on the highway and you run out of gear plus you're turning 3000 rpm at 70 mph.
So, reducing something that contributes 10% of the CO2 by half would a 5% reduction and would cost basically nothing (and would save most people money). That sounds like a great first step. And, then this price in gas prices wouldn't be such a crisis. But, gas was cheap for a few years so everybody bought gas guzzlers. I have zero sympathy for somebody that paid $60k for an Audi Q5 three years ago, and now b*tches about the cost of gas. They should have bought a Honda Civic and put solar panels on their house.
Getting rid of your gas car to buy an EV which will be much more expensive than it's gas powered equivalent does not have a cost of "basically nothing". Meanwhile the impact a 5% reduction in the emissions from cars would have on the climate would literally "basically nothing".
I'm neither of those things (I'm a physicist with a PhD from one of the top universities in the country, not that it matters). Are you saying lawyers are too stupid to ride a bike? What about teachers? Do either of them need to drive an SUV? Nope. They could get to work just fine in a four door sedan with a little four cylinder engine and a turbo that gets 40+ MPG. I drove one for 4 years when I lived outside Chicago. Did it go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds? Nope. Did it get me back and forth to work every day? Yup.
Lawyers who live 20 miles from their office don't want to ride a bike or run to work and spend half their day on a bike or running and the other half changing and showering.... They also don't want to ride their bike or run from their office to court.
Why didn't you ride your bike or run when you lived outside Chicago you selfish POS? Don't you care about the environment???
Nice ad hominem (look it up if you don't know what it means). I don't live alone, nor do I live with my parents. My parents drove a four door sedan my entire childhood. It fit my parents, my brother and I just fine for countless roadtrips. So, clearly they work just fine for the majority of families for many years. Maybe you're just too stupid to figure out how to make it work?
You declare that anyone who doesn't drive the car you've decided they should drive has a little penis and now here you are whining about insults. You have a PHD supposedly and you think like a toddler. Some people have more than 4 people in their family. Why are you so GD stupid that you can't comprehend that other people have different circumstances than you?
So, what you're saying is that everyone should drive an M1 Abrams battle tank because then we could just get into accidents and be fine? If everybody drove small sedans, then there wouldn't be giant SUVs to crash into. And, when the giant SUV driver is distracted by their phone and drives into a ditch, they're more likely to roll over due a high center of gravity.
If everyone wore bubble wrap and crawled to work no one would ever be killed commuting! YAY!!!
Do you have any coherent arguments, or just tired talking points that have been refuted, debunked, and beat to death over the last 20 years?
You haven't debunked or refuted anything you just re-demonstrated your ignorance and narcissism. lol...
40% of car trips 2 miles or less. A bike, walk or escooter distance.
Nope, TheAdultInTheRoom has decided that only baristas and fry cooks that live alone or with their parents are able to walk or ride their bike places. Everyone else needs to drive a HUMVEE so they can be safe from lunatics driving Priuses.
Not being stupid has it's benefits. Pity you'll never have them.
A new report released by the U.S. Census Bureau shows the average one-way commute in the United States increased to a new high of 27.6 minutes in 2019.
