>
> At 01:47 PM 7/17/01 +0100 Andrew Crystall wrote:
> >True. What WE suggest is that legislation forces car
> >manufacturers, from, say 6 months time to use Fuel Cells, NOT
> >conventional engines in all their cars.
>
> Sure, and the price of cars increases by 50%, with less size, power, and
> speed.
If I could wave a magic wand maybe I'd turn all cars into fuel cell, but
that ain't gonna happen. Have to take it slow.
Price: you have a chicken and egg problem with getting the cosst down,
because there's no mass market to leverage in order to get things cheaper
to make. Which means nobody buys one (they can't afford it) so there is no
market. ANd so on. That's true of not only fuel cells but EVs too
(although I think EVs have more inherent problems.)
>
> Millions of poor people are left stranded, as they no longer have access to
> the nation's transportation networks. The spending income income of tens
> of millions of lower middle class families is greatly reduced as they are
> forced to pay a much larger fraction of their income on cars. Living
> standards decline.
>
Anybody have a good historical record of past "sky is falling" arguments
of how some "evil" proposal would supposedly destroy the economy - but it
didn't?
As for living standards, frankly I think at some point the world is going
to have to bite the bullet and accept that we can't keep consuming ever
more forever and ever without destroying the entire planet. America, of
course, has a harder time with this idea than anybody else, being spoiled
rotten - and setting a bad example for everone else, since greed feeds on
greed. Maybe conservation ain't good for the economy now but future
generations will thank you.
> Yeah, the cars will cost more - and that money WILL come from some people.
> Namely, that money will come in the name of making us all poorer. And as
> we all get poorer, we spend less, and companies lay people off. And when
> people get laid off, we can just take a little bet about how much all those
> people will care about environmental damage when they don't have a job.
>
DOn't cars ALREADY cost more? What with modern safety technologies and
such? Maybe you hate air bags. Well, I wouldn't go so far to say I owe my
life to one but I think I would have been more seriously injured if my car
had not had one that night I ran off the road. And maybe the airbag was to
blame for breaking my finger (certainly for bruising my lip) but better
finger than neck. OK< so maybe it was the seat belts. There was a time
when the auto industry opposed even that.
Cars last longer though, so those unable to afford a new car can get a
used one. And they ar more fuel efficient - thanks (or no thanks) to
government regulation (whether CAFE or high gas taxes in Europe government
provides the impetus.) If the free market were 100 percent free here there
might be nothing but SUVs on the road because those WW2 Jeep descended
antique monstrositeies are so much more profitable to make for less and
sell for 2x as much as my little Saturn. I appreciate being able to choose
a small car if I want one, without having to move to another country.
Business (especially American business) wastes far too much of its
resources fighting the government when what they should be doing is hiring
engineers, not lawyers, to create smarter, greener and better
technologies. However, the payoff is often in the long term and all
business is inerested in is the quarterly bottom line.
Why MUST cars be always BIGGER, FASTER, etc? You HAVE to have the biggest
car on the block? This is a sick mentality. Go to, oh, Finland or
some place lacking this peculiar cultural mandate, and see how well they
get along putting their families in Ford Focuses and commuting in little
"roller skate" cars and driving PASSENGER cars with all wheel drive to get
through the icy winter. Believe it or not, humanity could actually manage
to get along without Ford Excursions. Ford wouldn't like that much, but I
say, tough.
Kristin
