Is CARB backing down?

[regfootball]

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6237293/editor...down/index.html

CARB acknowledges that automakers need more time to build fuel cell and plug-in hybrids to meet the current mandate. The goal, one CARB member told National Public Radio, is to have California be the test-bed for national emissions standards. If automakers can't meet the mandate, or more to the point, meet the mandate without pricing new cars out of the range of any Californian who can't afford his or her own beachfront home, it could shut down the state's automobile market.

Next time CARB develops a new mandate for its state, one that could be a model for the rest of the nation, how about this one: a mandate to plow down any house that's more than 3,000 square feet. Hey, there's even an added benefit. It would reduce the real estate glut and maybe start to drive up home prices, again.

Edited March 28, 2008 by regfootball

[Newbiewar]

yea, they want to talk trash about californian home owners... anyone in the world can build homes over 3k sq ft... california is a leading ecconomy in the world, greatter then most countries, so why cant they live like it..?

whomever wrote that lost my intrest with the second quote...

[2QuickZ's]

I think the idea was to point out the hypocracy of many Californian's that want to force automakers to produce hybrids and zero emissions vehicles while refusing to give up their energy sucking 5000 square foot home.

Maybe a state full of plug in hybrids will help them with their summer rolling blackout problems?

While I do think more energy efficient vehicles are needed, it annoys the hell out of me that so many people think it needs to be legistlated. If we put our money where our mouth is and bought fuel efficient vehicles, the market would shift that direction without legislation. The car companies are just building more of what we buy. The almighty consumer dollar is king, everything else is just lip service.

[Hudson]

While I do think more energy efficient vehicles are needed, it annoys the hell out of me that so many people think it needs to be legistlated. If we put our money where our mouth is and bought fuel efficient vehicles, the market would shift that direction without legislation. The car companies are just building more of what we buy. The almighty consumer dollar is king, everything else is just lip service.

I agree, I would love for the market to take care of the needs of the economy/buyers. The problem is that I don't trust business to fill the gaps. Basic economics teaches that if there's a need, the market will fill the void. But this rule has been avoided my modern businesses. I believe that affordable no-emission and alternative-fueled vehicles can be made but since the cost to enter the automotive business is so high, nobody is willing to introduce them. If the major manufacturers weren't afraid to offend someone (unions, service industry, traditional buyers, environmentalists, anyone), we would have the fourth generation GM EV1 on the road today or a larger, more practical Th!nk or GEM.

CAFE did a job when it was needed. In the 1970s, car makers were building vehicles that were almost purposefully inefficient. By the early 1980s, this had been rectified...partially due to CAFE, partially due to the increase in gas prices, and partially due to competition. The concept of CAFE has outlived its useful life. And CARB's continued attempts at mandating EVs is just silly...even sillier than CAFE ever was.

Personally, I'm tired of being tied to fossil fuels. I'm tired of a huge portion of my paycheck going directly to the Middle East. Given the time and energy, I would build my own electric vehicle for my daily commute, since nobody makes an affordable electric (and eBay has amazingly high prices on Standard-Vanguard Citicars).

[loki]

Personally, I'm tired of being tied to fossil fuels. I'm tired of a huge portion of my paycheck going directly to the Middle East. Given the time and energy, I would build my own electric vehicle for my daily commute, since nobody makes an affordable electric (and eBay has amazingly high prices on Standard-Vanguard Citicars).

we do get the most imports from canada... to bad we didn't invade them instead. LOL just kiddin the cunucks on the board.

[Newbiewar]

I think the idea was to point out the hypocracy of many Californian's that want to force automakers to produce hybrids and zero emissions vehicles while refusing to give up their energy sucking 5000 square foot home.

Maybe a state full of plug in hybrids will help them with their summer rolling blackout problems?

While I do think more energy efficient vehicles are needed, it annoys the hell out of me that so many people think it needs to be legistlated. If we put our money where our mouth is and bought fuel efficient vehicles, the market would shift that direction without legislation. The car companies are just building more of what we buy. The almighty consumer dollar is king, everything else is just lip service.

again you can stfu up about home sizes, california has the highest home prices in the united states, its not like that size goes unjustified. and last i can remember rolling black outs was back when enron was messing around selling electricity everywhere...

but yea, you can drop that subject, lets stick to cars on this board

[pow]

I think the idea was to point out the hypocracy of many Californian's that want to force automakers to produce hybrids and zero emissions vehicles while refusing to give up their energy sucking 5000 square foot home.

Maybe a state full of plug in hybrids will help them with their summer rolling blackout problems?

While I do think more energy efficient vehicles are needed, it annoys the hell out of me that so many people think it needs to be legistlated. If we put our money where our mouth is and bought fuel efficient vehicles, the market would shift that direction without legislation. The car companies are just building more of what we buy. The almighty consumer dollar is king, everything else is just lip service.

The California population is very diverse... the people who want lower emissions and energy independence probably aren't the same ones living in a 5000 square foot home.

[Newbiewar]

The California population is very diverse... the people who want lower emissions and energy independence probably aren't the same ones living in a 5000 square foot home.

the california average population doesnt have 5000 sqft homes... but those who do, work very hard for what they have, complain about those who have the 12,000 sqft homes if you want to complain, because that does not include any of my relatives or anr my friends. anyone can build or expand a home...

if we wanted to complain about the american populus's bad habbits, lets talk about those who have hundreds of acres and allow it to become unvegitated.

[2QuickZ's]

again you can stfu up about home sizes, california has the highest home prices in the united states, its not like that size goes unjustified. and last i can remember rolling black outs was back when enron was messing around selling electricity everywhere...

but yea, you can drop that subject, lets stick to cars on this board

I was trying to help you understand the authors view point about home sizes, not mine, so you can be the one to STFU! I live in a 3750 sq. ft. house and like it.

if we wanted to complain about the american populus's bad habbits, lets talk about those who have hundreds of acres and allow it to become unvegitated.

You're joking, right? Allowing land to return to its natural state is bad for the environment? I supposed developed land or farm land is better? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant by your post. If not, I think you are right. You should stick to talking about cars.

Edited March 29, 2008 by 2QuickZ's

[regfootball]

i thin what people would suggest is that CA tries to ram this clean air $h! down the US throats but has far too many folks who live in excessive homes, which is hypocritical. it would make sense to tax those folks first before attemtping to sabotage the auto industry at the expense of everyone else in America's pocketbooks.

[EMan]

I was trying to help you understand the authors view point about home sizes, not mine, so you can be the one to STFU! I live in a 3750 sq. ft. house and like it.

You're joking, right? Allowing land to return to its natural state is bad for the environment? I supposed developed land or farm land is better? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant by your post. If not, I think you are right. You should stick to talking about cars.

Vegetated land refers to natural state not farm land.

[2QuickZ's]

Vegetated land refers to natural state not farm land.

Yep. His post says "unvegetated". Even though I read it several times, I didn't catch the "un" in front of "vegetated." My mistake. I guess I read what I wanted to read instead of reading what he wrote. I'm assuming he means abandoned lots since pretty much anything not totally polluted or covered in concrete would return to a vegetated state.