Re: Chrysler sells all 6400 Dodge Challenger muscle cars

On May 11, 10:03 am, "Frank ess" <fr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ah wrote:
> > "columbotrek" <columbot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:_RjVj.115616$Ft5.11149@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto 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."
>
> >> They already tax fuel.  The more you use, the more revenue they
> >> get. Ought to be enough for them.
>
> >> Koyto has nothing to do about climate change. It has everything to
> >> do with global wealth redistribution.  It is a communist wet dream
> >> come true. If all Koyto protocols were to be adopted buy all
> >> countries, including China and India, (who are exempt)the total
> >> impact would be 1/4 of 1 percent of the carbon in the atmosphere.
> >> Pissing on a forest fire comes to mind. The tax is simply a method
> >> of making you pay homage to their pagan gods.  And a carbon credit
> >> is simply the way to transfer wealth from those who are productive
> >> to those who are not.  Vote wisely people. A government which
> >> promises you everything you need (according to them) will cost you
> >> all that you have.
> > Finally someone with an intelligent response!  Right on
> > columbotrek.  :)
>
> Of course a little piss in the right place at the right time can make
> a world of difference. Ask Carroll Shelby.
>
> --
> Frank ess

A quote from an interview posted with The Skeptical Environmentalist,
Bjorn Lomborg, posted May 14 on National Review Online:

Lomborg: Kyoto burned a lot of political capital to create a response
to climate change that costs a fortune but achieves very little.

The climate models show that the Kyoto protocol would have postponed
the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century.
Even if the U.S. and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to
Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global
warming by only five years =97 at a cost of $180 billion each year.

Lopez: What could the planet do instead of Kyoto?

Lomborg: We need to make carbon-emissions cuts much easier. The
typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is about $20 right now =97 but we
know that the damage from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about
$2. We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 to
somewhere nearer $2.

We can achieve this by spending dramatically more researching and
developing low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to
spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic production exploring non-
carbon-emitting energy technologies =97 be they wind, wave, or solar
power =97 or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending
could add up to about $25 billion a year, but it would still be seven
times cheaper than the Kyoto protocol, yet increase global research
and development tenfold. All nations would be involved, but the richer
ones would pay the larger share.

Today, solar panels are ten times more inefficient than the cheapest
fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many =93green=94
approaches, right now, do little more than make rich people feel like
they are helping the planet.

We can=92t solve climate change by just forcing more inefficient solar
panels onto people=92s rooftops. The solution is to dramatically
increase R&D so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels
sooner. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by
2050 =97 we would have solved global warming then, because switching to
the environmentally friendly option wouldn=92t be the preserve of rich
Westerners.

************************************'

180 Out