EU to ban sports cars?

I think we should start judging cars by the amount of CO2 they produce per horsepower. This measure renders all small cars useless and the Sportscars would come out best. :thumbsup:
This would even give Vette enthousiasts new arguments. :lol:
 
lol seriously damage the German car industry.... come on people, the big German companies don't rely on the sport cars or hi-po vehicles, except for Porsche. Some of you people are exaggerating. Yes it would suck if it were to happen but come on...
There probably something more but, yeah...

There's more of a reason why it shouldn't happen. The other 90% of politicians who aren't eco-nutters quite like the V8s and V12s in their S-classes. :D
 
I think we should start judging cars by the amount of CO2 they produce per horsepower. This measure renders all small cars useless and the Sportscars would come out best. :thumbsup:
This would even give Vette enthousiasts new arguments. :lol:

Oh, I like this idea!
 
Its not THE EU its ONE (british) member of the European Parliament, which itself has about as much to decide in the EU as Paris Hilton.
 
Forget it un-dee. The people have decided and the facts stand.

Thing's I've learned from this thread:

1. You can't leave the EU.

2. Any politician from Europe = The EU.

3. The EU is responsible for national taxes. (Which they of course raised)

4. The German economy largely relies on the production of sportscars. (Thus the law would be our demise)
 
Boring old planet I'm forced to live on=Fail

Having fun with cars=Win!

Facist Hippies=FU!
 
Forget it un-dee. The people have decided and the facts stand.

Thing's I've learned from this thread:

1. You can't leave the EU.

2. Any politician from Europe = The EU.

3. The EU is responsible for national taxes. (Which they of course raised)

4. The German economy largely relies on the production of sportscars. (Thus the law would be our demise)
I'd vote for 1. given half a chance, which I won't be.

And you are wrong about 3. in a way - the EU is funded by taking a proportion of National VAT. When one of our Governments were strapped for cash - you know who you are John Major (yew Edwina Curry) they put VAT on fuel, Blair came in and took it off again, except he couldn't as we still had to pay the EU the amount due to them.

I agree with you assessment of 2 and 4 though.
 
I am not wrong about 3. The EU is financed via the money it recieves from it's member states (Payments are determined by GNP).

How the member states scrape it together is of no concern to the EU (That's the tax part of it you mentioned).
 
Last edited:
Banning sports cars means goodbye to Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Pagani, Bugatti, Bentley, Lotus, Aston Martin, Ascari and pretty much any other sports car maker.

Thanks Captain Obvious. :p
 
The thing is, that most Super cars are more efficient than base model cars. They burn the fuel more efficeintly and have less emissions than say... a civic,

(don't quote me on the civic thing... I was just pulling a random fuel efficent car out of my head)
 
The thing is, that most Super cars are more efficient than base model cars. They burn the fuel more efficeintly and have less emissions than say... a civic,

(don't quote me on the civic thing... I was just pulling a random fuel efficent car out of my head)

They have more emissions since they burn more fuel. Per litre of fuel they MIGHT burn it more effieciently than a Civic. However, there is still more coming out of the exhaust.

There's more of a reason why it shouldn't happen. The other 90% of politicians who aren't eco-nutters quite like the V8s and V12s in their S-classes. :D

Agreed.
 
I am not wrong about 3. The EU is financed via the money it recieves from it's member states (Payments are determined by GNP).

How the member states scrape it together is of no concern to the EU (That's the tax part of it you mentioned).

I think it's 1% of GDP, not GNP ;) There is a small difference between the two, but countries such as Ireland would care.
Apart from that you are right. The money which the EU collects then goes back to the member states as subsidies, so certain countries get back a lot more (Spain, Greece, etc...) and certain countries a lot less (UK, Germany, Netherlands).
 
Yep.....and I wonder what people who DO live a stone-age style existence would choose if they where given a choice?
True, or if said hippies got sick and all the alternative medicines have failed? Would they rather die, or resort to Western medicine?

Bloody lentil-eating lesbians :p
 
I thought the beginning of Doron Levin's article was pretty good, then I thought he forgot about reason and gave into his own distaste for the environment.

In both cases of his talking about how Global Warming and the spraying of DDT, and how they don't cause an impact, is unfounded.
Yes, they both are not instant problems. However, continuing to neglect these problems is only giving in to a fallacy of ignorance to what will be the result. He did not state this, but the DDT is terrible to inhale for humans, and even worse when ingested from the water.
And what kind of solution is moving inland? And is that even possible? Look at New Orleans. Why didn't they move inland? because all the people live there and there is too much history and tradition in a city to simply move on. Wouldn't you want to keep the city intact by spending money now to fix the problem of climate change instead of gross amounts of dollars and debt when the city must be relocated. If we don't address this problem now, down the road it would be analogous to winging it, which usually has some bad side effects.

And yes, I love sports cars, love the environment, and think one step would be to replace some of our oil burning power plants with wind turbines.
 
I thought the beginning of Doron Levin's article was pretty good, then I thought he forgot about reason and gave into his own distaste for the environment.

In both cases of his talking about how Global Warming and the spraying of DDT, and how they don't cause an impact, is unfounded.
Yes, they both are not instant problems. However, continuing to neglect these problems is only giving in to a fallacy of ignorance to what will be the result. He did not state this, but the DDT is terrible to inhale for humans, and even worse when ingested from the water.
And what kind of solution is moving inland? And is that even possible? Look at New Orleans. Why didn't they move inland? because all the people live there and there is too much history and tradition in a city to simply move on. Wouldn't you want to keep the city intact by spending money now to fix the problem of climate change instead of gross amounts of dollars and debt when the city must be relocated. If we don't address this problem now, down the road it would be analogous to winging it, which usually has some bad side effects.

And yes, I love sports cars, love the environment, and think one step would be to replace some of our oil burning power plants with wind turbines.


o <-thread....................................................................................................................................................................................you-> o

What's with this sudden influx of 'green drivers' we got?

First off, you comment about New Orleans is moot because a good number of the people who lived there decided not to move back when they got displaced. Secondly, there are cheaper ways to keep New Orleans afloat that people don't want to do, because they don't care, or they don't want their taxes raised. Why they'll allow taxes to be raise because of global bullshit is beyond me...

Screw wind turbines. Go nuclear. Or coal, these new coal plants are freaking clean as hell. I think we have something like 3 times the coal plants we had from the 1970's, producing a combined 30% less pollution. Yeah, think about that for a moment...
 
I don't understand how you can screw wind completely. You realize that they produce zero emissions. Coal pollutes more than natural gas, oil, even with current technologies.
Not to mention that it would cost much more initially to create a new coal power plant with good technology. Also taking into account that more restrictions will be placed on polluting power plants such as coal, improvements will have to be made in the next 10 or 20 years to hinder the emissions. Luckily for wind power, they emit no emissions so there is no problem.
Then in places where wind is not very prevalent, other forms of renewable energy are possible. For example in California where there is vast amounts of sunlight, Photo Voltaic or mirrors heating water could be used. There are endless possibilities with renewables to power our houses. And it would be emitting zero emissions.
 
joemoefro: Wow, there's so much wrong with that, it's not even funny.

PSSST - DDT is NOT toxic to people.

Also, ever consider the other aspects of wind energy? Turns out they chop up birds. And it costs a lot of materials and pollution to make a wind turbine. Making a photovoltaic panel? Yeah, that creates some horribly toxic pollution that has to be stored. Plus, photovoltaics only last a few years, then you have to replace them. That's OK, because you Kaleephorneeyahns blocked the construction of several solar farms because "the environmental impact on the desert is just too much".

Also, if you talk to the wind farm people, wind power isn't actually all that great. It's not consistent.

In addition, global warming is caused by the sun. ALL the planets in the Solar System are warming by almost the exact same percentage, adjusted for distance and orbital position. Since we have no humans on other planets, anthropocentric global warming therefore must be a myth. The sun is going through a normal period of increased activity which should end soon. How do you propose to deal with the Sun, hm?

New Orleans? Um, you do know that the reason that most people didn't leave was because they couldn't, right? You obviously swallowed the mass media line, instead of looking it up yourself. The New Orleans welfare state was a hideous trap, filled with catch-22s, designed to create "captive" voters for politicians. I'm not going to elaborate more, because that's not the topic of this thread.

joemoefro, congratulations. You've swallowed the leftist line, one hundred percent.
 
Last edited:
Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside).

That could be seen as an advantage...

Also I'm seeing those guys on the 21st. 8)

Saw then in Jones Beach on July 2, excellent as usual.

I don't understand how you can screw wind completely. You realize that they produce zero emissions..

They also kill migrating birds who get mutilated in the blades. Come up with a non-lethal blade design.

I saw a map once, to power Manhattan you would have to cover 3/4 of New York state with wall-to-wall windmills.

Also, Ted Kennedy doesn't like looking at them from his compound on Mothra's Vinyahd.

The sun is going through a normal period of increased activity which should end soon. How do you propose to deal with the Sun, hm?.

I know, let's get all our robots to point their exhaust ports skyward and vent like there's no tomorrow, thus moving the Earth's orbit farther away from the sun, reducing temperatures. It worked on Futurama.

ffs don't tripple post janstett :bangin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, ever consider the other aspects of wind energy? Turns out they chop up birds. And it costs a lot of materials and pollution to make a wind turbine. Making a photovoltaic panel? Yeah, that creates some horribly toxic pollution that has to be stored. Plus, photovoltaics only last a few years, then you have to replace them. That's OK, because you Kaleephorneeyahns blocked the construction of several solar farms because "the environmental impact on the desert is just too much".
No, birds do not frequently get chopped up by wind turbines.

Birds and Wind Turbines
Birds often collide with high voltage overhead lines, masts, poles, and windows of buildings. They are also killed by cars in the traffic.
Birds are seldom bothered by wind turbines, however. Radar studies from Tjaereborg in the western part of Denmark, where a 2 megawatt wind turbine with 60 metre rotor diameter is installed, show that birds - by day or night - tend to change their flight route some 100-200 metres before the turbine and pass above the turbine at a safe distance.
In Denmark there are several examples of birds (falcons) nesting in cages mounted on wind turbine towers.
The only known site with bird collision problems is located in the Altamont Pass in California. Even there, collisions are not common, but they are of extra concern because the species involved are protected by law.
A study from the Danish Ministry of the Environment says that power lines, including power lines leading to wind farms, are a much greater danger to birds than the wind turbines themselves.
Some birds get accustomed to wind turbines very quickly, others take a somewhat longer time. The possibilities of erecting wind farms next to bird sanctuaries therefore depend on the species in question. Migratory routes of birds will usually be taken into account when siting wind farms, although bird studies from Yukon, Canada, show that migratory birds do not collide with wind turbines (Canadian Wind Energy Association Conference, 1997).
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/birds.htm

Also have you heard of reflective mirrors heating water to create energy? they are more efficient than PVs and are less damaging to the environment chemical wise.
PSSST - DDT is NOT toxic to people.
It is possible that they cause cancer. Wiki it.
In addition, global warming is caused by the sun. ALL the planets in the Solar System are warming by almost the exact same percentage, adjusted for distance and orbital position. Since we have no humans on other planets, anthropocentric global warming therefore must be a myth. The sun is going through a normal period of increased activity which should end soon. How do you propose to deal with the Sun, hm?
An interesting hypothesis, and you should be aware that all causes of global warming are hypothesis, because we can not directly test our atomsphere. However, you came too hastily to a conclusion there to say that humans are not a cause of global warming. Simply by looking at the c02 output of humans over the last 100 years and coincident with the warming of our atmosphere should be some indication that humans are to blame. And have you noticed that there have been many incidents of weather records being broken? Super heat, super rain, super cold. Human activity and these results are no coincidence.
 
Top