| Author | Message | ||
     Buellshyter |
From Bloomberg.com July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin. Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality. Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard. Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.'' The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.'' His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones. Focused on Cars The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing the earth's temperature to rise. But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive. ``Automobiles always seem to be the focus, even though they only consume 15 percent or 20 percent of energy,'' said Csaba Csere, editor of Car & Driver magazine. If politicians really cared about the atmosphere they might concentrate first on power plants or factories, he said. The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use. Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards. Planet in Peril? Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal. Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth? The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return. But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading climatologist, says that even if nothing is done to limit CO2, the world will heat up by 1 degree Celsius, or a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, in the next 50 to 100 years. Move Inland We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be more practical than trying to change the weather? The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said. A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries. One Little Bite The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen. Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners. Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, water purification and transportation. What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards? I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth. (Doron Levin is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.) To contact the writer of this column: Doron Levin in Southfield, Michigan, at dlevin5@bloomberg.net | ||
| Interex2050 |
That is RUBBISH! I can see how this may make sense if EVERYONE was driving a Ferrari, etc...; but the truth is such that that is not what is going on. Sure they are "boys toys" but so what, they are typically not everyday cars and are used on a limited basis. Thus I cannot imagine that they are contributing much to the pollution issue. As to the weight issue, "stupid-fast" cars are (I would imagine) in the same weight range as normal cars if not lighter; due to their use of exotic materials and being well engineered. "such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality. " If someone worked hard to achieve their wealth they should be able to enjoy it! Just because these they are too poor to have fancy cars or big houses, it sure as hell does not mean they should forbid everyone else from enjoying such luxuries. | ||
| Zenfrogmaster |
"prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour" Didn't Al Gore III just get busted for (among other things) driving a Prius over 100mph? Damn, a guy can't even save the planet anymore! Seriously, though, wouldn't new / better EU mileage or emissions standards make more sense than banning potential maximum speed? Methnks Mr. Davies is just posturing... | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Sounds like Al Gore and alot of other self righteous enviro nazis over here. They want you to sacrifice but Al Gorelioni lives in a very lavish high energy consuming mansion. Id imagine he does alot of traveling by way of private jet too. | ||
| Slaughter |
OK - they have me converted to their way of thinking. I say BAN ALL PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION! Move ALL people to high density urban centers to further reduce energy required for transporting them place-to-place. Now you have only APPROVED transportation AND as an ADDED BENEFIT - approved living areas and living spaces. Who's joining me here??? | ||
| Buellshyter |
I do believe that's already been discussed as future government policy is some locales. | ||
| Dbird29 |
Slaughter Isn't that called "Smart Growth"? | ||
| Iamike |
If you think it is bad now, wait until the UN starts making the rules for everyone! | ||
| Phatkidwit1eye |
Sounds to me like a bunch of rich kids who never had to work a day in their lives got into power. They have no clue what it is to work your ass off and enjoy the spoils of your labor. I think a lot of them feel guilty for being rich. I also think those who believe in the redistribution of wealth are those who never had to work for that wealth. | ||
| Bad_karma |
Sounds like the AMA in this country. Moving advanced skills riding to the track. Joe | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
It'll never happen. Why? because these are European manufacturers we're talking about, with lot's of economic clout, they're not bothered about the stupid rantings of 1 tosser who's already afloat on the Euro gravy-train, Ferrari pay more in taxes on a couple of cars than this guy earns! Also if all this stuff is banned what's left to aspire to? an electric bike? I think not! | ||
| Ragnagwar |
"If you think it is bad now, wait until the UN starts making the rules for everyone! That is probably my worst Nightmare!!!!!! | ||
| Mikej |
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm Lotus Elise/Exige 4 cyl, 1.8 L, Man(6), Regular 21city 27hwy  Designed to go stupid fast, light weight, decent fuel economy, way out of my budget range. Legislators, like many sportscar buyers, are driven more by emotion than by facts. And there are many who dread UN enforcements and mandates within the U.S.A., but not wanting to get all political I won't go into the pathway that's already been layed (or laid). | ||
| Ducxl |
Reminds me of the crowd that screamed we didn't,and couldn't use a motorcycle with more than our air cooled Buells'. Now the 1125r may be banned as well  | ||
| Ryker77 |
Turn onto politics our they will turn on you! Become a voter. Voting people are what keep your freedoms free. Silent sheep will get eaten by the wolf. etc etc etc Ron Paul for President! | ||
| Ryker77 |
The little 2dr Honda Insight Hybrid which is North Americas highest MPG car that can get over 90mpg -- can reach speeds over 100mph. I've done it! Now it doesn't get 90mpg at those speeds, lol. One of the worlds greatest MPG cars the VW Lupo diesel is supposed to be able to exceed 100mph. My 47mpg VW Golf TDI can reach over 137mph.. It aint stock  If it was all stock parts over 50mpg. But now I need new fender wells. They got pushed back into my tires! | ||
| Blake |
Steve, Would Kilgore, Texas 75662 be considered one of the "high density urban centers"? When you back to the Lone Star state for a visit? | ||
| Thunderheart |
Where can I sign up to get schmucks like this put off any position of "authority"? I'm just a guy in North Carolina, but I have enough common sense that there are ENTIRELY too many people in high positions in the world that seriously don't need to be there. The only option they have at the start of their day is to grovel and moan about the fun and beauty of our technology and the fun we can do with it. "fast cars" aren't the ban-able answer to the well being of our planet. | ||
| Slaughter |
Blake, Looks like I have to hit DFW within a month. Last year, was there about half-time but really busy all the time with long days. Stay tuned, not sure exact schedule yet. | ||
| Blake |
I'll look forward to meeting up if our schedules happen to collide.  | ||
| Sshbsn |
So if we end up limited to 101 mph, I guess the new performance yardstick would be how quickly your car can get there. F1/sports car loving Euros would turn into a continent of drag racers! | ||
| Ryker77 |
Why would a government limit speeds to 101. When even 101mph is WELL over any posted legal speed limit.. Does the law in EU countries use speed limits to generate revenue? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Does the law in EU countries use speed limits to generate revenue? Does the pope wear a funny hat? |
