Seriously thoughtful Contemplating the Onuissance

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I get what you are saying. It make sense. But two things.

1. CFL are on the way out. LED is the new CFL.

2. If more people bought the CFL/LED lights, the prices would come down on them.

BOb

They already are cheaper than incandescent lights in terms of price per hour of lifetime - at least they are in my part of the world.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They already are cheaper than incandescent lights in terms of price per hour of lifetime - at least they are in my part of the world.

Yes, that's true here too. But, I think most people don't seem to "get" stuff like that. For example, when buying a car people don't realize that adding 1 year to the loan term may make the "payments" lower but they make the car cost more. Same with mortages. A 15 year mortgage payment may be 30% higher, but you save 4 or 5 times that in interest over the life of the loan.

So, while I am mostly libertarian in my views and I hate alot of regulation I think with something like this it is needed.

A higher tax on incandescent lights that makes the price at the register closer to, or more than the "green" lights, a progressive tax on gasoline so the more you buy the higher the tax rate gets, triple the price of cigarettes to discourage their use.

Heck, I also agree with legalizing drugs like marijuanna so that we can properly regulate it and realize taxes on it. This would also keep more people out of prision, it would cost us "less" than the war on drugs and we would have revenue to deal with it. It works with alcohol. (yes, I know that is another topic)

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ea

Can anyone enlighten me as to what "onuissance" means? It seems to be a made-up word? And it's not in the dictionary.

From the source:
Onus \n (ca.1640): Obligation; Responsibility.

Onuissance \ onn-uh-sonns\ n (ca.2280): Historic period known as The Age of Responsibility.

A word (yes, made up by the author--me) to suggest a future Renaissance based on ecologic sensibility and responsibility.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The next 20 years were the richest in human history...

They only appear to be richest... because we have purchased everything on debt, and the day the bill comes due, it will be quite obvious how badly we have been fooling ourselves...

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If you want to put on the Hairshirt, be my guest. But if you point a gun my way, I'll point mine back. That, comrade, is freedom....

See? Told you someone would call me a communist.

Originally Posted by LazyScot

So don't tell people what not to do, but challenge them to make the 1000mpg car, the zero energy input house, the 1W PC (including display).....

We tried that 30 years ago. People largely did nothing, and bought SUVs.

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We tried that 30 years ago. People largely did nothing, and bought SUVs.

Let me introduce you to a legend involving a countryman of mine (who admittedly the English didn't like, and wasn't very nice himself) and a spider. He goes by the name of Robert the Bruce.

Just because you failed once, doesn't mean you should give up. And anyway, even if your countrymen won't buy the 1000mpg cars, the 1W PCs, etc, there's a pretty good chance the rest of the world will. That should at least assist your balance of payments deficit.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We tried that 30 years ago. People largely did nothing, and bought SUVs.

Yep, it is amazing what short memories people have. When gas was up to $4 a gallon SUV/Minivan/Pickup Truck sales fell to the floor. Everyone started buying small cars and hybirds.

But, once gas came back down to < $2 a gallon everything went back to normal. Do people really think gas will stay at $2 for much longer. It can't the dwindling supply and growing demand will cause it to continue going up.

Yes, some people need and SUV or Minivan or Pickup trunk. But, I see so many people commuting to work with 1-AIS (ass i seats) in their SUVs and Hummers. That is just not needed. If everyone with 1-AIS was in a smart car or even smaller 3 wheeled enclosed motorcycle type thing the reduction of fuel use and CO2 output would be tremendous. Also, traffic would be much better. Our highways could have an extra lane on the same width road which would increase capacity by 25% or so in urban areas.

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

Just because you failed once, doesn't mean you should give up. And anyway, even if your countrymen won't buy the 1000mpg cars, the 1W PCs, etc, there's a pretty good chance the rest of the world will. That should at least assist your balance of payments deficit.

Yes... if we can convince our own carmakers to actually make sensible cars, and not continue to build SUVs (they actually wonder why the SUVs don't sell when gas prices go up!).

An example: Mitsubishi is selling the all-electric i MiEV in Japan, is about to introduce it to the European market under the Peugeot and Citroen marquees, and it will outrun and outlast a Chevy Volt hands-down for less money... and yet, American automakers don't have the sense to go to Mitsubishi and say, "Sell us a license... we want to start building that car here." They don't have the sense to just buy an i MiEV and reverse-engineer it.

Some old dogs just can't be taught new tricks, and when they start to suffer, sometimes they have to be put down.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes... if we can convince our own carmakers to actually make sensible cars, and not continue to build SUVs (they actually wonder why the SUVs don't sell when gas prices go up!).

Interesting. I am waiting for this http://zeropollutionmotors.us/ . But you are right. Why don't Ford or GM go out there and get this and bring it to market much sooner. Also, with a "big" name (not bankrupt yet) car maker building and selling it the market acceptance would be much higher.

BOb

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

An example: Mitsubishi is selling the all-electric i MiEV in Japan, is about to introduce it to the European market under the Peugeot and Citroen marquees, and it will outrun and outlast a Chevy Volt hands-down for less money...

Why will it "outrun" the volt? What do you mean, longer range on battery?

Also, what is the price? I can't see that anywhere in the articles you pointed to?

BOb

[LazyScot]

I think I'm having a reality problem today. I seem to be arguing with an American. I'm defending the Americans and he's attacking them..... (Checks that he is actually in the Conservatory.)

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes... if we can convince our own carmakers to actually make sensible cars, and not continue to build SUVs (they actually wonder why the SUVs don't sell when gas prices go up!).

Some old dogs just can't be taught new tricks, and when they start to suffer, sometimes they have to be put down.

I think the problem is a few parts of upper management that are so tied to SUVs and have staked their futures to them they are not willing to give up on them. I expect that many (all?) of the design engineers, the plant workforce, the suppliers, etc., have no issue with changing to something if it keeps them in work. So the challenge has to provide the upper management with a way of saving face and career. And we have to accept that I guess it takes many years to do major changes/redesigns -- we're sort of stuck for a year or two at least.

The alternative of sacking the upper management is undoubtedly theraputic, but does set a rather worrying precedence, and really only causes harm to those who can sort the mess out. (I think you have your own version of Fred Goodwin in the states, right?)

And if you can make a 1000mpg SUV, I don't see a problem with that (though, if you don't mind, I'll stick with my smaller car, cos it fits into my garage....).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Why will it "outrun" the volt? What do you mean, longer range on battery?

Also, what is the price? I can't see that anywhere in the articles you pointed to?

BOb

Speed and battery range are reported to be higher than the specs on the Chevy Volt. And yes, I haven't seena price yet, either... but do you think it will be higher than the projected $30,000 Volt?

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

...A higher tax on incandescent lights that makes the price at the register closer to, or more than the "green" lights, a progressive tax on gasoline so the more you buy the higher the tax rate gets, triple the price of cigarettes to discourage their use.
BOb

While I agree with some points and disagree with others, and although I understand where your thoughts are on this and the reasons behind them, I've got to say where would the taxing stop on things we want to discourage or don't like, or are for our own good?

And who gets to decide? If we follow this particular idea of taxing gas more, triple the price of cigarettes . . . well, I think then that we need to quadruple the price of alcohol, fast foods, fatty foods, sugary drinks, perfume (for those that douse themselves in it 'til you can't breathe when you're around them,) all manner of evil things, or just things we believe are not good for the individual, the town, the state, the country, the world. And once again, who decides, and where does it stop? How about charging residential trash pickup by the bag, so you're discouraged from making trash. True, I'm sure there is too much waste in every household and we should recycle more, but would the answer be to possibly charge say $10 for each 13-gallon bag of trash, $25 for 33-gallons, etc? A progressive trash tax sounds good to me. At the very least we'll all get trash compactors to be more space efficient, which is good. But then someone would want to start charging by weight instead.

And how about taxing people for having children instead of giving them tax breaks? More children mean a higher demand on resources of every kind. How do you measure the cost-to-benefit ratio of children.

We ALL contribute to the problem in some way, but we're not ALL villains either. We just can't keep taxing more and more and think it will force behavior changes enough to save the world.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Speed and battery range are reported to be higher than the specs on the Chevy Volt. And yes, I haven't seena price yet, either... but do you think it will be higher than the projected $30,000 Volt?

I have no idea. But, considering that the Volt will have an internal combustion engine and generator I would say no, a pure EV should be cheaper. But, I do like the Volt platform. The ICE could be switched out to a diesel or perhaps fuel cell in a future model fairly rapidly. Personally I would rather see the volt with a diesel so it could use biodiesel from day 1.

Then again if Mitsu isn't planning to bring this to the US it is probably because people in the US as you already said like their gas guzzling CO2 wheezing SUVs and F-150s.

I would buy one. I can certainly use such a car for a daily commute which is about 30 miles a day. Also, cars like this should last very well. Electric motors have much less moving parts and last forever. It is the batteries you would have to change out after 5 years or so (batteries don't do very well here in Florida.) But, in 5 years batters should be cheaper and have more capacity too.

BOb

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Speed and battery range are reported to be higher than the specs on the Chevy Volt. And yes, I haven't seena price yet, either... but do you think it will be higher than the projected $30,000 Volt?

Actually, I just look. The chevy volt is said to have a top speed of 100MPH which is higher than the MiEV while range is 40mi's on electric and the MiEv claims 100 at "optimal conditions". But, the Volt gives you @ 350 mile range if you need the ICE. While I would run probably mostly on electric during day to day use... if I take the 200 mile drive up to UF to pick up my son I would be out of luck with the MiEV but the Volt could do it fine.

BOb

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

I think I'm having a reality problem today. I seem to be arguing with an American. I'm defending the Americans and he's attacking them..... (Checks that he is actually in the Conservatory.)

If you mean me: I'm not trying to attack Americans. I'm trying to figure out a way to get Americans to act responsibly, despite the attacks I receive (from my fellow Americans) for attempting to do so.

Originally Posted by LazyScot

I think the problem is a few parts of upper management that are so tied to SUVs and have staked their futures to them they are not willing to give up on them.

The alternative of sacking the upper management is undoubtedly theraputic, but does set a rather worrying precedence, and really only causes harm to those who can sort the mess out. (I think you have your own version of Fred Goodwin in the states, right?)

Too true. I was convinced decades ago that the real strategy by Detroit upper management was to milk the industry and the public dry with gas-guzzling low-cost-high-profit SUVs, then just before the bottom fell out, take their nice big pensions and jet to their personal islands in the Caribbean for an early retirement. Even now, GM CEO Rick Wagoner is laughing all the way to the bank...

But in this case, sacking the upper management is better than they deserve: As they were all in collusion on the plot, they should all have been fined, and many of them should have been jailed, for openly operating against the best wishes and needs of the American public, the American government, and the Constitution (which they repeatedly bribed--ahem, lobbied--their way into manipulating to their own ends).

Originally Posted by LazyScot

And if you can make a 1000mpg SUV, I don't see a problem with that (though, if you don't mind, I'll stick with my smaller car, cos it fits into my garage....).

How 'bout this: Larger, heavier vehicles create more wear and tear on highways, requiring greater funds (and taxes) to keep repaired; their greater size lowers traffic visibility around them, making roads less safe for other drivers; and they take up more space on the roads, creating more traffic simply by virtue of their sheer bulk. So even a 1000mpg SUV is worse than a 1000mpg car.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

While I agree with some points and disagree with others, and although I understand where your thoughts are on this and the reasons behind them, I've got to say where would the taxing stop on things we want to discourage or don't like, or are for our own good?

Yes, I get what you are saying. But, sin taxes are very well known and common.

But, yes, the cigarette thing was just wishful thinking. But, when it comes to the ecology and environmental things that affect the "greater good" I can understand it. As far as "for your own" good, that is certainly not the intention.

Getting people to buy CLFs for example would be for the greater good and for your own good. You really will spend less on them in the long term.

BOb