Re: Chrysler sells all 6400 Dodge Challenger muscle cars

Enough Already wrote:
> On May 9, 7:38 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
> <rander3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> A much-needed $260 million shot in the arm for Chrysler Canada.
>> 6.1 litres, 425hp, mileage like a Durango SUV.  But do you know why
>> this is no threat to the environment?  Because none of the buyers of
>> these cars are going to use it as a daily driver. They will see
>> weekend use in the summer, like most muscle cars.
>> Which begs the question, why do they charge a $1200 gas-guzzler tax on
>> it in Canada?  If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
>> 200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a guy
>> with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work.
>> Environmental laws need "adjusting."
> 
> How do you really know when and how far such cars will be driven? SUVs
> with ****y mileage are widely used for commuting, even with $4/gallon
> gas. You still hear non-conscientious people saying "I can afford the
> gas" - as if it's only about money.\

Look at how many drivers are trying to dump their SUVs and look at the 
sales figures for low mileage cars and trucks for your answer.  All that 
matters is how far the daily commute is and if the batteries can get 
them to work and back with an errand or two thrown in for good measure. 
  Then they charge the car overnight for a $1.50 and do all over again 
the next day.  If they have to take a trip then use gas and get 45+ mpg.

> That obsession with taxes shows the disconnect between physical
> resources and dollar wealth. Money is not a true resource, just a
> measure of what people _think_ something ought to be worth; to other
> people, not the planet, which ought to be the benchmark for wealth.

You want to save the planet?  Then make it economical to do so.  If 
people can get 300 miles for a $3.00 charge then electric cars will 
happen and fast.  People aren't going to live like paupers to satisfy a 
bunch of limousine liberals that burn more fuel in a month than most 
people will in their lifetime.

> Money has taken too long to reflect physical resource depletion. Few
> cared to listen when these things were predicted long ago. They
> assumed all they had to do was get a paycheck and resources would
> materialize from Heaven.

What has been depleted?  There is basically just as much iron, copper, 
aluminum, carbon, water etc. on the planet as there was ten million 
years ago.  All we do is move it around from one place to the other.  In 
100 million years God knows where it will be.

> http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm
> 
> Nature can't hear your excu$e$.

Nature doesn't give a **** about mankind.  We are nothing more than a 
slight itch on her backside.  Life on Earth has taken hits far worse 
than anything mankind can dish out (comet hits, massive volcanic 
eruptions, total global ice coverage etc.) and has rebounded every time 
with even more diversity of life than before.  Mankind is one arrogant 
life form to think he is the best the Earth can produce.  Mankind is 
just the latest organism to affect the planet.  Where do you think all 
this oxygen we breath came from which makes life as we know it possible? 
  It came from another organism that run a muck for about a billion 
years.  Our impact on the planet is infinitesimal compared to it.

These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a billion 
years and the Earth should never change during that time.  When it comes 
to the planet Earth, the more things change the more they stay the same. 
  If we are going to survive we had better get good at adapting and 
overcoming changes instead of thinking we can change the entire planet 
to our liking.  What's next on our list of improvements for the planet? 
  Stopping plate tectonics?