PDA

View Full Version : France to ban all diesel & gasoline vehicles by 2040


mattsmith48
July 6th, 2017, 11:11 AM
France will end sales of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 as part of an ambitious plan to meet its targets under the Paris climate accord, new Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot announced Thursday.

"We are announcing an end to the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040," Hulot said, calling it a "veritable revolution".

Hulot acknowledged that reaching the goal would be "tough", particularly for automakers, but said that French carmakers Peugeot-Citroen and Renault were well equipped to make the switch.

France is the biggest manufacturer of electric cars sold in Europe, with the Renault Zoe far outselling other models in 2016. ...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/france-to-end-sales-of-petrol-diesel-vehicles-113010556.html

They could have set a earlier date, but its still good news to ear.

devotionnel
July 6th, 2017, 11:57 AM
All I can say is better late than never. We're now closer to electric cars than ever before and I hope other countries in Europe soon follow suit.

mattsmith48
July 6th, 2017, 12:06 PM
All I can say is better late than never. We're now closer to electric cars than ever before and I hope other countries in Europe soon follow suit.

Both the Netherlands and Norway are already aiming at a ban for 2025 and according to the same article Germany wants to put one million electric vehicles on the road by 2020.

Snowfox
July 6th, 2017, 02:41 PM
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/france-to-end-sales-of-petrol-diesel-vehicles-113010556.html

They could have set a earlier date, but its still good news to ear.

That is big mistake. NOthing bad in E-cars but I would prefer to have some sort of Otto-engine as back up in said car so I prefer hybrid cars.
Also France can do that cause they have plenty of cheap electric power called Nuclear power.

Also I find it disturbing that no one is giving half penny for idea of bio-fuels.

mattsmith48
July 6th, 2017, 02:52 PM
That is big mistake. NOthing bad in E-cars but I would prefer to have some sort of Otto-engine as back up in said car so I prefer hybrid cars.
Also France can do that cause they have plenty of cheap electric power called Nuclear power.

Also I find it disturbing that no one is giving half penny for idea of bio-fuels.

Hybrid cars are just a part of the transition to electric car they are not the solution. As for bio-fuels its not because they have the word bio in it that its good for the environment

Snowfox
July 6th, 2017, 03:30 PM
Hybrid cars are just a part of the transition to electric car they are not the solution. As for bio-fuels its not because they have the word bio in it that its good for the environment

Bio-fuels are environmentally neural they do not cause any CO2 to atmosphere that is not in circualtion all ready. And raw material is plenty from timber harvesting and biowaste

Flapjack
July 6th, 2017, 03:38 PM
This is amazing and I am so impressed with France being so progressive and leading the world on this issue!! I do think it is reallyyyy ambitious but possible and certainly a step in the right direction :) Hopefully other countries follow France's lead!

Periphery
July 6th, 2017, 04:17 PM
While the idea on paper is good, will this actually work? Think about it, will people be willing to just give up their diesel cars? I think the idea is amazing, but what will they use as a replacement? As of right now electrical cars are too expensive and their range and recharge times are far from optimal. By 2040 this should've been improved by a large portion, but as mattsmith48 said, what Germany wants by 2020 is something I also think is a great idea, but just won't work out like they want it to.

Snowfox
July 6th, 2017, 04:23 PM
While the idea on paper is good, will this actually work? Think about it, will people be willing to just give up their diesel cars? I think the idea is amazing, but what will they use as a replacement? As of right now electrical cars are too expensive and their range and recharge times are far from optimal. By 2040 this should've been improved by a large portion, but as mattsmith48 said, what Germany wants by 2020 is something I also think is a great idea, but just won't work out like they want it to.

The fact if it does work or not is irrelevant. This is ideological decision and if ideology and reality don't match well its too bad for reality.

Dmaxd123
July 6th, 2017, 06:10 PM
the problem will be finding the torque in a non combustion engine to haul heavier loads around.

we hear about electric cars but what about electric trucks? I know trucks aren't as popular in many countries but they are still needed by some trades to do their jobs

mattsmith48
July 6th, 2017, 09:27 PM
Bio-fuels are environmentally neural they do not cause any CO2 to atmosphere that is not in circualtion all ready. And raw material is plenty from timber harvesting and biowaste

Its not only CO2 that biofuels still produce, but there is also the environmental impact of making those fuel.

While the idea on paper is good, will this actually work? Think about it, will people be willing to just give up their diesel cars? I think the idea is amazing, but what will they use as a replacement? As of right now electrical cars are too expensive and their range and recharge times are far from optimal. By 2040 this should've been improved by a large portion, but as mattsmith48 said, what Germany wants by 2020 is something I also think is a great idea, but just won't work out like they want it to.

the problem will be finding the torque in a non combustion engine to haul heavier loads around.

we hear about electric cars but what about electric trucks? I know trucks aren't as popular in many countries but they are still needed by some trades to do their jobs

As far as I know Germany is not banning anything they just want to put more electric cars on the road.

These kind of commitment from European countries should accelerate the development of better and more efficient electric cars as well as the creation of other electric vehicles like Dmaxd123 mention we currently don't have electric long haul trucks, they are already people working on it and I'm sure in a couple years we'll see the first ones come out.

robertd2001
July 6th, 2017, 10:43 PM
What does France matter to anything, exactly?

mattsmith48
July 6th, 2017, 10:52 PM
What does France matter to anything, exactly?

Because climate change is the most important issue of our time and we all have to work together to fix it.

Snowfox
July 7th, 2017, 12:00 AM
Because climate change is the most important issue of our time and we all have to work together to fix it.

No it is not most important. There are other more pressing matters like Islamist terrorism and radical left wing terrorism. Also Skyrocketing unemployment caused by globalization and automatisation and robots.

mattsmith48
July 7th, 2017, 12:18 AM
No it is not most important. There are other more pressing matters like Islamist terrorism and radical left wing terrorism. Also Skyrocketing unemployment caused by globalization and automatisation and robots.

Terrorism is not a more important issues, in fact climate change will and has the effect of helping the creation of terrorist groups in the Middle East. Radical left wing terrorism is not even a problem. Skyrocketing, you could have picked a better word its not that bad, unemployment caused by globalization, automatisation and robots, could be fix easily by implementing a guaranteed minimum income.

DriveAlive
July 7th, 2017, 12:51 AM
If only Marine Le Pen had won...

Snowfox
July 7th, 2017, 03:23 AM
Terrorism is not a more important issues, in fact climate change will and has the effect of helping the creation of terrorist groups in the Middle East. Radical left wing terrorism is not even a problem. Skyrocketing, you could have picked a better word its not that bad, unemployment caused by globalization, automatisation and robots, could be fix easily by implementing a guaranteed minimum income.

1:Terrorist groups have their roots in fundamental Islam. So called true Islam. For any other form of so called moderate Islam there might be fundamentalism is mainstream. We are not talking about IRA or ETA

2:When it comes to Radical left wing terrorism.... Well Antifa riots after trump inauguration not problem? "Only Black lives matter" group and their violence? What is currently going on in Hamburg?

And when it comes to guaranteed minimum income.
Well So you really promote that most of people should live on dole? right?
Living with minimum income and doing nothing cause there is nothing to do than drink beer and watch tv generations after generations.
Panem et circenses in case you have ever heard. Which leads to total decadence.
Giving people no means to help them self and telling them to rely on dole is seriously fucked up idea. There are examples in Europe. And those are not encouraging ones. Living on dole for long periods of time is against human dignity.
This said I have to point out that I am not against welfare but basic idea should be that people should always try to help them self to get something better and more what ever is it that you might fancy.

Flapjack
July 7th, 2017, 05:20 AM
What does France matter to anything, exactly?
Well them reducing their carbon footprint is good for us all but it will also serve as an example to other countries that can be done and when France finds solutions to the problem they face, other countries can use them.

Similar thing happened with gay marriage and weed legalisation.
1:Terrorist groups have their roots in fundamental Islam. So called true Islam. For any other form of so called moderate Islam there might be fundamentalism is mainstream. We are not talking about IRA or ETA

2:When it comes to Radical left wing terrorism.... Well Antifa riots after trump inauguration not problem? "Only Black lives matter" group and their violence? What is currently going on in Hamburg?

And when it comes to guaranteed minimum income.
Well So you really promote that most of people should live on dole? right?
Living with minimum income and doing nothing cause there is nothing to do than drink beer and watch tv generations after generations.
Panem et circenses in case you have ever heard. Which leads to total decadence.
Giving people no means to help them self and telling them to rely on dole is seriously fucked up idea. There are examples in Europe. And those are not encouraging ones. Living on dole for long periods of time is against human dignity.
This said I have to point out that I am not against welfare but basic idea should be that people should always try to help them self to get something better and more what ever is it that you might fancy.
Even if you believe all of that fearmongering, climate change is still a very important and pressing issue soooo I don't see why you are writing all of that?? XD Unless you think we can't multitask?

If only Marine Le Pen had won...
Is the thought of tackling climate change really that scary?? :biggrin2::biggrin2::biggrin2:

Periphery
July 7th, 2017, 06:48 AM
No it is not most important. There are other more pressing matters like Islamist terrorism and radical left wing terrorism. Also Skyrocketing unemployment caused by globalization and automatisation and robots.

I'm only quoting this because there's too much shit here but guys, this is not about terrorism. Can all of you stop it? It's not that hard to not turn every thread into a "are Muslims bad or not" fuckfest because that's where this is going to go if you all keep mentioning terrorism. You can mention it once but they don't continue it and let the entire thread derail.

Also goes for mattsmith48

mattsmith48
July 7th, 2017, 09:23 AM
If only Marine Le Pen had won...

We wouldn't be having this kind of news


I found this, it kinda goes with what I was saying earlier about commitment like this accelerating development of better and more efficient electric cars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-model3-volvo-bmw-electric-car-alternative-fuel-gasoline-1.4192878

ShineintheDark
July 7th, 2017, 09:52 AM
I'm only quoting this because there's too much shit here but guys, this is not about terrorism. Can all of you stop it? It's not that hard to not turn every thread into a "are Muslims bad or not" fuckfest because that's where this is going to go if you all keep mentioning terrorism. You can mention it once but they don't continue it and let the entire thread derail.

Also goes for mattsmith48

It's not an unpopular derailing tactic because the fact is that the data isn't there to support an anti-climate change narrative. The best and most convincing things I've heard are all anecdotal and theoretical but have no basis in any sort of statistical backing. I myself am not the biggest fan of Macron but it's really refreshing that France is giving an enormous finger to Trump by continuing to fight for a cleaner environment even after he pulls out of the Paris Climate Deal and tries to sell the corporatist narrative.

DriveAlive
July 7th, 2017, 10:10 AM
We wouldn't be having this kind of news


I found this, it kinda goes with what I was saying earlier about commitment like this accelerating development of better and more efficient electric cars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-model3-volvo-bmw-electric-car-alternative-fuel-gasoline-1.4192878

Exactly my point! I am an environmentalist but I am also a car guy. I do not want a future where we all ride in self-driving electric car shares through an app. Just me.

Side note: I really like Marine Le Pen. We needed more women leaders, not more men like Trudeau and Macron.

mattsmith48
July 7th, 2017, 11:04 AM
Exactly my point! I am an environmentalist but I am also a car guy. I do not want a future where we all ride in self-driving electric car shares through an app. Just me.

You're gonna have to get use to it that's what the future will look like

Side note: I really like Marine Le Pen. We needed more women leaders, not more men like Trudeau and Macron.

I agree that we need less leaders like Macron and Trudeau, not because they are men, but because they are centrist.

refrigeratorx
July 7th, 2017, 11:07 AM
I'm just sitting here shocked how this is something debatable... Like why do people WANT to run on gas so bad. Who cares as long as the car runs ????

U all like to push back with everything just for the sake of pushing back

Snowfox
July 7th, 2017, 12:21 PM
I'm just sitting here shocked how this is something debatable... Like why do people WANT to run on gas so bad. Who cares as long as the car runs ????

U all like to push back with everything just for the sake of pushing back

Maybe because it pisses me of when some one tells me how to live my life.
I am fine as long as anyone can choose which type of car or motorbike they drive. Let it be Otto engine or diesel or wankel or stirling ro even woodgasifier.
It should be peoples choise what they want and of course what they can afford.
Like when it comes to bikes nothing beats manly sound of Harley Davidson. In cars there just is nothing like Chevrolet Camaro when it comes to being with style.
Outright banning is against freedom of choise

refrigeratorx
July 7th, 2017, 12:58 PM
I'm so sorry you're not going to hear the sweet sound of a Harley for much longer. Try YouTube!! The Internet is forever.


Also for the good of the realm everyone has to make sacrifices. This one isn't a game changer

Snowfox
July 7th, 2017, 01:02 PM
I'm so sorry you're not going to hear the sweet sound of a Harley for much longer. Try YouTube!! The Internet is forever.


Also for the good of the realm everyone has to make sacrifices. This one isn't a game changer

with biofuels we can run harley without burning fossils. But some assholes want to ruin fun from other people based on what they like or not.
My brother has harley

mattsmith48
July 7th, 2017, 01:46 PM
with biofuels we can run harley without burning fossils. But some assholes want to ruin fun from other people based on what they like or not.
My brother has harley

Actually its based only what one person like or don't like, Mother Nature.

Dmaxd123
July 7th, 2017, 02:44 PM
so here is my question on gas/diesel:

why aren't we getting any better fuel mileage than 5-10-20 years ago? yes some cars are but most are stuck in the same mpg of 20-40mpg

MAYBE if we looked at emissions/vehicles/mileage in a different light everyone wouldn't view gas/diesel as taboo.

right now it's X amount of emissions per mile where if we went with slightly higher emissions/mile but reduced the amount of fuel used then the overall impact I feel would actually equal out as we would get more movement out of a gallon of gas


personally I don't think we will see the internal combustion engine go away anytime soon. it's very easy to say "in 20 years my country will do this" but in 20 years technology will change so much that electric car may be an irrelevant discussion as they may be 10 year old outdated technology that just sucks. look at a cell phone's progression in 20 years

Flapjack
July 7th, 2017, 02:54 PM
with biofuels we can run harley without burning fossils. But some assholes want to ruin fun from other people based on what they like or not.
My brother has harley
I am not sure what you mean buddy? Are you saying you can run a harley with biofuels and people are trying to stop that or are you saying biofuels cannot run a harley and that sucks because you want to run a harley?

Just a note: Even if petrol and diesel are banned in cars on the road, I am sure they will be allowed in older cars or private land for collectors :)


right now it's X amount of emissions per mile where if we went with slightly higher emissions/mile but reduced the amount of fuel used then the overall impact I feel would actually equal out as we would get more movement out of a gallon of gas


personally I don't think we will see the internal combustion engine go away anytime soon. it's very easy to say "in 20 years my country will do this" but in 20 years technology will change so much that electric car may be an irrelevant discussion as they may be 10 year old outdated technology that just sucks. look at a cell phone's progression in 20 years
Are you saying that the internal combustion engine will get so efficient that the amount of fuel used will be negligible? Well the bonds in the fuel only contain so much energy so even if 100% of the chemical energy is converted into the cars movement, a lot of fuel will still have to be used, releasing greenhouse gases and using a fuel that is fast running out.

Even if you believe this, surely it is still worth trying?

Maybe the internal combustion engine stays but it runs on ethanol produced from bacteria in vats, similar to how insulin is produced or maybe we switch to electric cars using cheap supercapicitors, maybe we do both! I agree the future is unclear but it is still a very noble and achievable goal.

They aren't banning the internal combustion engine, only trying to phase out diesel and petrol.

Dmaxd123
July 7th, 2017, 03:30 PM
i'm just saying I think we have the technology to harness more energy than what we are from a gallon of fuel.

i'm just thinking we are so focused on emissions that we are probably burning more fuel than if we were cognizant of emissions but tried to get from A to B on less fuel even if it was a bit dirtier by emissions standards. Where if it seems to burn a bit dirtier on less fuel then we are actually emitting less because by burning 1/2 as much fuel there is 1/2 as much fuel being burnt to get/process the fuel so burn a bit more on one end to save more on the other end

DriveAlive
July 7th, 2017, 05:34 PM
Why are we so concerned about conserving gasoline and replacing it with electric right now (not to mention that electricity is made mainly through burning fossil fuels here)? In my opinion, if electric cars are inevitable, we should use up all of our gas now, make a lot of money on it and have cheap fuel for a while so that when we run out, we have the money and the incentive to actually pursue clean energy effectively.

Flapjack
July 7th, 2017, 05:39 PM
Why are we so concerned about conserving gasoline and replacing it with electric right now (not to mention that electricity is made mainly through burning fossil fuels here)? In my opinion, if electric cars are inevitable, we should use up all of our gas now, make a lot of money on it and have cheap fuel for a while so that when we run out, we have the money and the incentive to actually pursue clean energy effectively.
So your plan is to make the problem worse in order to have more of an incentive later?? XD

You are also ignoring the emissions and the effect of the environment and global warming.

Electric cars are not inevitable, fuels like ethanol produced from bacteria in vats could be used.

One of the benefits of electricity is how it can be generated by soo many different ways!! Fossil fuels now but there are soo many other sources that wll improve as technology develops and investments increases.

Snowfox
July 7th, 2017, 05:43 PM
[QUOTE=Flapjack;3542183]I am not sure what you mean buddy? Are you saying you can run a harley with biofuels and people are trying to stop that or are you saying biofuels cannot run a harley and that sucks because you want to run a harley?

Just a note: Even if petrol and diesel are banned in cars on the road, I am sure they will be allowed in older cars or private land for collectors :)


Sorry my English wasn't maybe best possible in that. Anyway its not my first language. I was saying that I can run harley with biofuels and that people are trying to stop it cause of their ideology against internal combustion at general.

Also for you Dmaxd123 yes we can actually get better Thermal efficiency from extrenal combustion engine. One of the ways to do it is Stirling engine which by the way is fuel neutral so anything that burns let it be liquid or gaseous can be used as fuel. Currently it is used on some ships. But there is no reason why it would not be possible to use it in car.

Flapjack
July 7th, 2017, 05:45 PM
Sorry my English wasn't maybe best possible in that. Anyway its not my first language. I was saying that I can run harley with biofuels and that people are trying to stop it cause of their ideology against internal combustion at general.
Oh okay I don't think the French are trying to ban the internal combustion engine, just to phase out the fuels :)

PlasmaHam
July 7th, 2017, 09:41 PM
While the idea on paper is good, will this actually work? Think about it, will people be willing to just give up their diesel cars? I think the idea is amazing, but what will they use as a replacement? As of right now electrical cars are too expensive and their range and recharge times are far from optimal. By 2040 this should've been improved by a large portion, but as mattsmith48 said, what Germany wants by 2020 is something I also think is a great idea, but just won't work out like they want it to. Same sentiment here. Sure electric cars are nice and all (I've heard Tesla cars are awesome) but they are not practical both economically and in terms of performance. And there is no way on Earth all the people in a country will willingly sell their old cars and buy expensive new ones. I certainly wouldn't. While electric cars will become more cost effective and practical over the years, its doubtful that they could become just as cheap, practical, and effective as modern internal combustion engines.

Who cares as long as the car runs ???? I do, and I imagine a decent amount of the population who drives a lot also do.

with biofuels we can run harley without burning fossils. But some assholes want to ruin fun from other people based on what they like or not. Biofuels are their own issue in and of themselves. First of all, they require a large amount of crops to be grown to produce them, which isn't good for the environment, and drives up food prices. Secondly biofuel producers typically get large government subsidies for their work, which from a small government point of view isn't good. The cleanness of bio-fuels is also disputed, some claiming it puts out similar amounts of CO2 to gasoline. And finally, from a mechanical point of view, biofuels are detrimental to an IC engine. They are prone to coagulation, which can result in decreased engine efficiency and even damage. That's why people who can afford it and really want to keep their engine's running efficiently use 100% gasoline, instead of E10.

Also for you yes we can actually get better Thermal efficiency from extrenal combustion engine. One of the ways to do it is Stirling engine which by the way is fuel neutral so anything that burns let it be liquid or gaseous can be used as fuel. Currently it is used on some ships. But there is no reason why it would not be possible to use it in car.
Ah, the Stirling engine, I have a special place in my heart for it. It is true that it is very efficient compared to IC engines, and that it could be used in some ways to help with efficiency sometime in the future, but there is a reason there are no cars with Stirling engines. Simply put, Stirling engines do not respond well to changes of power. They have slow acceleration and deceleration, which is fine when you are on the open sea when you have miles to play with and a fairly constant speed, but entirely impractical for the stop-go type of driving you do in a car. That's why you don't see them in cars.

However, there is some research going into making a electric/Stirling hybrid vehicle. The idea is that the Stirling engine would run on the highway, while the electric motor could kick in for the stop-go driving. Interesting concept, hopefully in the near future that could become a reality.

Dalcourt
July 7th, 2017, 10:23 PM
I always find the discussion..."oh that will not work" kinda useless. Everything will work when it has to, people are just too lazy and close-minded to try something new. When the car was invented people also thought it will never be able to replace horse and carriage since it's too expensive and you could run out of gas in the middle of nowhere etc.

According to the rules of economy once the production of electric cars increases the prices will fall...you can see this already.

I am not sure if electric cars alone are the best solution to save our environment. More important- no matter what we drive and what energy we use for it- we have to reduce driving as a whole, invest in public transport and stop people just driving around cuz they can.
Banning all non electric cars from the cities would be a good Start, though...

So no matter if what those European countries plan can be put in practice like they want it at least they try to work out something.

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 12:22 AM
Same sentiment here. Sure electric cars are nice and all (I've heard Tesla cars are awesome) but they are not practical both economically and in terms of performance. And there is no way on Earth all the people in a country will willingly sell their old cars and buy expensive new ones. I certainly wouldn't. While electric cars will become more cost effective and practical over the years, its doubtful that they could become just as cheap, practical, and effective as modern internal combustion engines.

You can't drive the same car forever, eventually you are going to buy a new car for whatever reason. Cars like everything else have an expiration date where it will either to expensive to keep fixing everything or it will be beyond repair. Depending on how much money you can put into it you will either by a used car or a brand new one from the dealership. By the time a ban like this gets into effects most used car that you would buy if you can't buy a new one, will be electric cars. And don't forget these ban are only on the selling on the car, driving the old gasoline cars will still be allowed until either a ban on fossil fuel or that we run out which ever happens first.


I am not sure if electric cars alone are the best solution to save our environment.

It's a start, but of course we need to change other things, like the way we generate electricity.

DriveAlive
July 8th, 2017, 01:00 AM
You can't drive the same car forever, eventually you are going to buy a new car for whatever reason. Cars like everything else have an expiration date where it will either to expensive to keep fixing everything or it will be beyond repair. Depending on how much money you can put into it you will either by a used car or a brand new one from the dealership. By the time a ban like this gets into effects most used car that you would buy if you can't buy a new one, will be electric cars. And don't forget these ban are only on the selling on the car, driving the old gasoline cars will still be allowed until either a ban on fossil fuel or that we run out which ever happens first.



It's a start, but of course we need to change other things, like the way we generate electricity.

You say this with such glee. Why do you want this? Cars make me happy as they do millions of people. They are so much more than just transportation.

Dalcourt
July 8th, 2017, 06:25 AM
It's a start, but of course we need to change other things, like the way we generate electricity.

Yeah that's what I meant. But at least a lot of countries realise that they have to start somewhere. So let's hope more will follow.

rioo
July 8th, 2017, 07:03 AM
How about tank and other military vehicle?

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 01:08 PM
You say this with such glee. Why do you want this? Cars make me happy as they do millions of people. They are so much more than just transportation.

No, we build cars for the only purpose of transporting people or things from point A to point B.

How about tank and other military vehicle?

They will have to change too.

Snowfox
July 8th, 2017, 02:01 PM
No, we build cars for the only purpose of transporting people or things from point A to point B.



They will have to change too.

Bullshit car are build because people want to buy them and use them and some people are fine with what ever car gets job done and others want cars for other reasons. If not there would be only one basic car one basic truck one basic van and one motorbike. This is obviously not the case.
What you claim may have been true in Soviet Union.

And when it gets to military vehicles... Military will keep using what ever system they find best to get their job done. If French are so stupid that they want to ruin their military with vehicles that run with batteries which in case of main battle tank (65 metric ton) have ot get reload every 50 miles or so they are free to do so but i doubt that others are not as stupid

DriveAlive
July 8th, 2017, 02:18 PM
No, we build cars for the only purpose of transporting people or things from point A to point B.



They will have to change too.

Tell that to Jaguar, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, etc.

Cars can be an expression of the driver and an expression of the artist who created them. You can keep your Peugot or Prius or whatever. I will stick with brands that care about the art of the car.

Flapjack
July 8th, 2017, 05:04 PM
No, we build cars for the only purpose of transporting people or things from point A to point B.
I don't think the cars are the problem... it's the fuel!! Would you be against the cars running on ethanol produced from bacteria in vats?? I do see the emission of the nitrogen oxides a problem but if we could get the cars on ethanol it would be a significant improvement and if the bacteria is fed sugar, it could be made carbon neutral.

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 05:28 PM
Bullshit car are build because people want to buy them and use them and some people are fine with what ever car gets job done and others want cars for other reasons. If not there would be only one basic car one basic truck one basic van and one motorbike. This is obviously not the case.
What you claim may have been true in Soviet Union.

The reason we build them and the main reason we buy a car is to get from point A to point B. When it comes to buying one, they are other reason to why you picked a certain model, but the main reason you are buying a car no matter which one is transportation.

Tell that to Jaguar, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Aston Martin, etc.

Cars can be an expression of the driver and an expression of the artist who created them. You can keep your Peugot or Prius or whatever. I will stick with brands that care about the art of the car.

Those cars are a way for rich guys to overcompensate for their small dick, but are still build for transportation. Its like a gun, a lot of people will buy guns to overcompensate for their small dick, but the reason we build them is to kill people.

I don't think the cars are the problem... it's the fuel!! Would you be against the cars running on ethanol produced from bacteria in vats?? I do see the emission of the nitrogen oxides a problem but if we could get the cars on ethanol it would be a significant improvement and if the bacteria is fed sugar, it could be made carbon neutral.

The problem with ethanol is, its made with corn, which we also need to eat and I believe we also feed corn to livestock. Changing all our cars from fossil fuel to ethanol would increase the demand and we would need to cut down forest to create more agricultural land to answer the increasing demand.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

Flapjack
July 8th, 2017, 06:09 PM
The problem with ethanol is, its made with corn, which we also need to eat and I believe we also feed corn to livestock. Changing all our cars from fossil fuel to ethanol would increase the demand and we would need to cut down forest to create more agricultural land to answer the increasing demand.
If you read this article (https://phys.org/news/2013-03-fuel-bacteria-genetically-modified-cyanobacteria-efficient.html)buddy you will see what I mean about having bacteria make it :) Would you be in favor of this?

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 06:28 PM
If you read this article (https://phys.org/news/2013-03-fuel-bacteria-genetically-modified-cyanobacteria-efficient.html)buddy you will see what I mean about having bacteria make it :) Would you be in favor of this?

Interesting, it sounds like they need to do more work on this, if the same amount of CO2 the bacteria need is the same that the quantity that is release when we burn the fuel it could work. Maybe a temporally alternative to fossil fuel for vehicles that need to travel longer distances.

Periphery
July 8th, 2017, 09:23 PM
Those cars are a way for rich guys to overcompensate for their small dick, but are still build for transportation. Its like a gun, a lot of people will buy guns to overcompensate for their small dick, but the reason we build them is to kill people.



It's funny because you're obviously just jealous of other people and can't even act mature enough to admit it so you just shit on people for wanting a nice car. Girls can't buy nice cars? You know not everyone buys them to show off right? People also love those cars because they look and drive good and are fun. I wonder, how dense can one truly be?

mattsmith48
July 8th, 2017, 09:49 PM
It's funny because you're obviously just jealous of other people and can't even act mature enough to admit it so you just shit on people for wanting a nice car. Girls can't buy nice cars? You know not everyone buys them to show off right? People also love those cars because they look and drive good and are fun. I wonder, how dense can one truly be?

Thank you for find it funny :p

Snowfox
July 9th, 2017, 12:16 AM
mattsmith48 And by the way bio fuels are currently made not from corn or anything edible here. Bio-fuels are made from waste. Like used cooking oils from burger-places or from non edible parts of plants like carrot tops. Also slaughterhouse waste is used to make biofuels. Bio fuels are also side product of wood-pulp process.

Second point women also buy guns and nice cares. Do they compensate total lack of male part between their legs????

DriveAlive
July 9th, 2017, 01:18 AM
The reason we build them and the main reason we buy a car is to get from point A to point B. When it comes to buying one, they are other reason to why you picked a certain model, but the main reason you are buying a car no matter which one is transportation.



Those cars are a way for rich guys to overcompensate for their small dick, but are still build for transportation. Its like a gun, a lot of people will buy guns to overcompensate for their small dick, but the reason we build them is to kill people.



The problem with ethanol is, its made with corn, which we also need to eat and I believe we also feed corn to livestock. Changing all our cars from fossil fuel to ethanol would increase the demand and we would need to cut down forest to create more agricultural land to answer the increasing demand.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose
I honestly find it hard to believe some of the stuff you say. Just wow.

mattsmith48
July 9th, 2017, 03:27 PM
mattsmith48 And by the way bio fuels are currently made not from corn or anything edible here. Bio-fuels are made from waste. Like used cooking oils from burger-places or from non edible parts of plants like carrot tops. Also slaughterhouse waste is used to make biofuels. Bio fuels are also side product of wood-pulp process.

We were talking about ethanol which is made from corn.

Second point women also buy guns and nice cares. Do they compensate total lack of male part between their legs????

Just an example they are a lot people can compensate for by doing things like buying an over expensive car

I honestly find it hard to believe some of the stuff you say. Just wow.

What exactly?

DriveAlive
July 9th, 2017, 03:43 PM
We were talking about ethanol which is made from corn.



Just an example they are a lot people can compensate for by doing things like buying an over expensive car



What exactly?

I, like many people, love cars. According to you, wanting a Ferrari means I MUST have a small penis.

I like guns, so I MUST have a small penis.

We do not agree on many issues, but instead of trying to really understand where I am coming from and communicate in a civilized manner, you insist that anyone who dissents from your point of view MUST have a small penis.

This is not how you debate the issues.

randall
July 9th, 2017, 06:55 PM
doubt it works tbh, but hey if it does, good for them

Stronk Serb
July 9th, 2017, 08:12 PM
I find this funny. Why bother when you have countries like China which are polluting the air more than the rest of the world combined, a side-effect of globalization.

mattsmith48
July 9th, 2017, 08:48 PM
I, like many people, love cars. According to you, wanting a Ferrari means I MUST have a small penis.

I like guns, so I MUST have a small penis.

We do not agree on many issues, but instead of trying to really understand where I am coming from and communicate in a civilized manner, you insist that anyone who dissents from your point of view MUST have a small penis.

This is not how you debate the issues.

Not necessarily, like I said in the post you quoted, it is simply an example and could be a compensation for something else. Its call psychology.

Also this is not a debate, its a discussion on new from France who will be banning the selling of gasoline vehicles by 2040. If we could return to that it would be nice.

doubt it works tbh, but hey if it does, good for them

Why wouldn't it work?

I find this funny. Why bother when you have countries like China which are polluting the air more than the rest of the world combined, a side-effect of globalization.

Because its everyone's problem and we will only fix it by all working together. China is currently leading the world in renewable energy, and are first in the world for energy produce from hydro and solar. And the energy they produce from renewable sources keeps increasing. They also put massive investment in electric vehicles and are set to lead the world in that too.

DriveAlive
July 9th, 2017, 10:47 PM
Not necessarily, like I said in the post you quoted, it is simply an example and could be a compensation for something else. Its call psychology.
That is like saying that people who are not passionate about cars MUST be terrible drivers, and, therefore, MUST have small penises. It is simply an example and could be a compensation for something else. Its CALLED psychology.

maddogmj77
July 10th, 2017, 02:43 AM
This COULD be a good idea. The problem is, electric cars don't actually emit less CO2 than gasoline-fueled cars.

Where do you think the electricity for the electric cars comes from? Coal plants, dirty power sources. You end up polluting the atmosphere at just the same rate as you would have if you had a gas car.

The solution then of course is to get rid of all dirty power sources. Build more solar panels, more wind turbines, more nuclear power plants. And maybe get some DAMN funding for Fission Generators!!! We could solve the entire Earth's energy problems, we could have potentially unlimited energy if we just FUNDED SCIENCE!

Snowfox
July 10th, 2017, 02:45 AM
mattsmith48 So if we think this bit more we find that also having clothes that are different than what neighbour's Joe has is overcompensatin and hairstyle and most importantly what we currently eat.
Wouldnt it be perfect world where everyone wears uniform, has same hairstyle, and eats exactly same food that is of course made in institutional kitchen scattered all around country.
Also What kind of house of flat people live. That must be uniform too. what about 6 square meters flat for one person in highrise/commieblock/howeveryouwannacallit. And of course every one gets paid same wage in case they work?
That must be your ideal society. Why stop only to cars?

mattsmith48
July 10th, 2017, 07:47 AM
This COULD be a good idea. The problem is, electric cars don't actually emit less CO2 than gasoline-fueled cars.

Where do you think the electricity for the electric cars comes from? Coal plants, dirty power sources. You end up polluting the atmosphere at just the same rate as you would have if you had a gas car.

The solution then of course is to get rid of all dirty power sources. Build more solar panels, more wind turbines, more nuclear power plants. And maybe get some DAMN funding for Fission Generators!!! We could solve the entire Earth's energy problems, we could have potentially unlimited energy if we just FUNDED SCIENCE!

Not all the electricity produce is from coal, so yes it is making a difference. Countries who have made this kind of commitment, France, Netherlands, Germany all currently have plans to ban coal. A ban wouldn't enter into effect until decades from now, but there is a plan in place. I remember during the US election Jill Stein said that the US could realistically get to 100% renewable energy by 2025. If we really had motivation to have real change that's what most countries would aim for, but we keep electing centrists and they need to please both side if they want to be re-elected so we are taking things slower than we should and set later dates to have real effective change

DriveAlive Snowfox If you guys really want to talk about that start a new thread or shut up about it.

ShineintheDark
July 10th, 2017, 09:28 AM
mattsmith48 So if we think this bit more we find that also having clothes that are different than what neighbour's Joe has is overcompensatin and hairstyle and most importantly what we currently eat.
Wouldnt it be perfect world where everyone wears uniform, has same hairstyle, and eats exactly same food that is of course made in institutional kitchen scattered all around country.
Also What kind of house of flat people live. That must be uniform too. what about 6 square meters flat for one person in highrise/commieblock/howeveryouwannacallit. And of course every one gets paid same wage in case they work?
That must be your ideal society. Why stop only to cars?

...how's this gone from a quip about flashy car/gun owners to bootleg anti-Commie arguments?

DriveAlive
July 10th, 2017, 10:32 AM
Not all the electricity produce is from coal, so yes it is making a difference. Countries who have made this kind of commitment, France, Netherlands, Germany all currently have plans to ban coal. A ban wouldn't enter into effect until decades from now, but there is a plan in place. I remember during the US election Jill Stein said that the US could realistically get to 100% renewable energy by 2025. If we really had motivation to have real change that's what most countries would aim for, but we keep electing centrists and they need to please both side if they want to be re-elected so we are taking things slower than we should and set later dates to have real effective change

DriveAlive Snowfox If you guys really want to talk about that start a new thread or shut up about it.

Marine Le Pen was France's only hope. She would have promoted clean and healthy agriculture for the people of France. A healthy France. Instead, they got a globalist hack with no sense who hides behind environmentalism to push his globalist agenda because he knows you liberals will buy it just like they all did with Trudeau. Same story.

You cannot dismiss people who think differently than you by hurdling insults or demanding that they shut up. You are better than that.

Snowfox
July 10th, 2017, 10:57 AM
You cannot dismiss people who think differently than you by hurdling insults or demanding that they shut up. You are better than that.

And what makes you think that left sorry communists are better than that?

...how's this gone from a quip about flashy car/gun owners to bootleg anti-Commie arguments?

All things are related. Its about big picture in case u get it

Posts merged. Please use the multiquote button or edit your post next time. ~Amethyst Rose

maddogmj77
July 10th, 2017, 12:04 PM
Not all the electricity produce is from coal, so yes it is making a difference. Countries who have made this kind of commitment, France, Netherlands, Germany all currently have plans to ban coal. A ban wouldn't enter into effect until decades from now, but there is a plan in place. I remember during the US election Jill Stein said that the US could realistically get to 100% renewable energy by 2025. If we really had motivation to have real change that's what most countries would aim for, but we keep electing centrists and they need to please both side if they want to be re-elected so we are taking things slower than we should and set later dates to have real effective change

At the moment, more than enough of it is, as to where it doesn't make too big of an impact whether you drive gas or electric. If there's a plan in place to also eliminate dirty power sources, great.

Yea, we could probably have 100% clean & renewable power TODAY, if we started just 10 years ago. The problem is, nobody wants to actually do anything. They argue that getting rid of coal kills job. Except that renewable energy sources make more jobs than coal plants at a 5:1 ratio. We'd be CREATING jobs, while also helping the environment; win-win, yet everybody's got their heels dug in.

mattsmith48
July 10th, 2017, 12:52 PM
Marine Le Pen was France's only hope. She would have promoted clean and healthy agriculture for the people of France. A healthy France. Instead, they got a globalist hack with no sense who hides behind environmentalism to push his globalist agenda because he knows you liberals will buy it just like they all did with Trudeau. Same story.

You cannot dismiss people who think differently than you by hurdling insults or demanding that they shut up. You are better than that.

What would Marine Le Pen have done about climate change if she had won?

DriveAlive
July 10th, 2017, 07:00 PM
What would Marine Le Pen have done about climate change if she had won?

She is strongly against pollution, harmful agricultural practices, and other effects of globalized economies that damage the planet. You may call her a nationalist, but she cares about France too much to let it be polluted and destroyed by harmful policies.

ShineintheDark
July 11th, 2017, 09:45 AM
She is strongly against pollution, harmful agricultural practices, and other effects of globalized economies that damage the planet. You may call her a nationalist, but she cares about France too much to let it be polluted and destroyed by harmful policies.

She was also under investigation for misusing EU funds for her own benefit (which I actually think she recently got charged with). There was no way the EU would have taken kindly to her election and so her being president would probably not be good for France in terms of EU membership. That alone made her not look trustowrthy to anyone who was looking at the wider picture of her campaign.
Other than that, she was only a softer version of her father, Jean-Marie, and France had already said no to his strain of politics. I have no doubt Marine has a great love for her nation and did indeed desperately want it to succeed but the fact is Martine would probably be no better than Macron at handling the environment since, at least what we can see from her campaign, her policies were greatly about France's foreign relations and traditionalism over environmental improvements.

DriveAlive
July 11th, 2017, 02:50 PM
She was also under investigation for misusing EU funds for her own benefit (which I actually think she recently got charged with). There was no way the EU would have taken kindly to her election and so her being president would probably not be good for France in terms of EU membership. That alone made her not look trustowrthy to anyone who was looking at the wider picture of her campaign.
Other than that, she was only a softer version of her father, Jean-Marie, and France had already said no to his strain of politics. I have no doubt Marine has a great love for her nation and did indeed desperately want it to succeed but the fact is Martine would probably be no better than Macron at handling the environment since, at least what we can see from her campaign, her policies were greatly about France's foreign relations and traditionalism over environmental improvements.

The EU investigation was a witch hunt, just like when they removed her EU immunity for posting a picture of an ISIS attack. They think they can control opposing voices through regulations. Frexit?

Snowfox
July 11th, 2017, 03:09 PM
DriveAlive Eu is today's Soviet Union. There are numerous thought crimes here and no freedom of speech.

Stronk Serb
July 11th, 2017, 03:31 PM
Because its everyone's problem and we will only fix it by all working together. China is currently leading the world in renewable energy, and are first in the world for energy produce from hydro and solar. And the energy they produce from renewable sources keeps increasing. They also put massive investment in electric vehicles and are set to lead the world in that too.

How the hell can China lead in solar energy output? Half of their country is covered in fog-like smog which blocks the sun, I bet theiir only two weather forecasts for large cities are smoggy and smoggy with acid rain. Considering the pollution, their waters can only be good for hydroelectric dams. The country which uses the most clean energy is North Korea, not because they want, but because most of their power generation are Soviet-era hydroelectric dams.

Also the batteries need to be made somehow, and trust me, making batteries is one of the dirtiest processes on earth. Plus batteries have a shorter life span than an internal combustion engine. How many charges can a battery take before breaking down and how many refillings can an internal combustion engine take before breaking down?

mattsmith48
July 12th, 2017, 09:36 AM
How the hell can China lead in solar energy output? Half of their country is covered in fog-like smog which blocks the sun, I bet theiir only two weather forecasts for large cities are smoggy and smoggy with acid rain. Considering the pollution, their waters can only be good for hydroelectric dams. The country which uses the most clean energy is North Korea, not because they want, but because most of their power generation are Soviet-era hydroelectric dams.

Also the batteries need to be made somehow, and trust me, making batteries is one of the dirtiest processes on earth. Plus batteries have a shorter life span than an internal combustion engine. How many charges can a battery take before breaking down and how many refillings can an internal combustion engine take before breaking down?

To answer your first question, it's because China realized solar energy is the future, China is not only major smoggy cities. Now for who leads the world in electricity generated from renewable sources, China leads the world in the amount of electricity generated, and if we go with the percentage of electricity generated by a country from renewable sources, Costa Rica is first in the world at 99%. You know you can google this shit before posting it?

kylie3011
July 12th, 2017, 10:08 AM
you have to watch the movie "Demain". It's an interesting documentary about solutions.

Stronk Serb
July 12th, 2017, 10:57 AM
To answer your first question, it's because China realized solar energy is the future, China is not only major smoggy cities. Now for who leads the world in electricity generated from renewable sources, China leads the world in the amount of electricity generated, and if we go with the percentage of electricity generated by a country from renewable sources, Costa Rica is first in the world at 99%. You know you can google this shit before posting it?

What about the second part about how dirty it is to make batteries?

randall
July 12th, 2017, 12:21 PM
Why wouldn't it work

because people will still be driving gasoline and diesel engines by 2040 and france will look ridiculous trying to force it's own citizens not to use vehicles that the entirety of the world uses, in the name of a greener planet that will never be achieved because wherever regulations stop polluters from polluting, said polluters will go elsewhere.

it's futile is what im saying. france is doing nothing but hurting itself. but hey if they find a way to get it to work more power to them. my prediction is it falls flat on its face before 2040.

mattsmith48
July 12th, 2017, 12:38 PM
because people will still be driving gasoline and diesel engines by 2040 and france will look ridiculous trying to force it's own citizens not to use vehicles that the entirety of the world uses, in the name of a greener planet that will never be achieved because wherever regulations stop polluters from polluting, said polluters will go elsewhere.

it's futile is what im saying. france is doing nothing but hurting itself. but hey if they find a way to get it to work more power to them. my prediction is it falls flat on its face before 2040.

It's only a ban on the selling of gasoline cars, anyone who want to, will still be able to drive their old cars until either they ban the selling of gasoline or that we run out which ever happens first. Also by 2040 they will already be countries who have similar bans, the Netherlands and Norway have a similar law to in 2025 and with Germany trying to put over a million electric cars on the road by 2020 we can expect them to have a similar ban get into effect sometime in the 2020's. 2040 is a long time from now, by that time electric vehicles will have greatly improved from what they are now and most people will already have one.

randall
July 12th, 2017, 12:54 PM
It's only a ban on the selling of gasoline cars,

which is ridiculous because of the reasons the serb states above.

anyone who want to, will still be able to drive their old cars until either they ban the selling of gasoline or that we run out

i assume you mean banning the driving of cars here, because you stated the 2040 ban would be for selling.

banning the driving of gasoline-engine vehicles is not inevitable. we're not gonna run out of gasoline by 2040. that is also ridiculous.

whichever happens first.

neither of the above hypotheticals will happen in our lifetimes.

Also by 2040 they will already be countries who have similar bans, the Netherlands and Norway have a similar law to in 2025 and with Germany trying to put over a million electric cars on the road by 2020

(results pending)

2040 is a long time from now, by that time electric vehicles will have greatly improved from what they are now and most people will already have one.

i doubt they'll be as "greatly improved" as you think. and you also underestimate people's lack of will to change. the vast majority of consumers are comfortable with their vehicles just the way they are.

LRSSS02
July 12th, 2017, 01:00 PM
That would take away hundreds of thousands of peoples' jobs.

mattsmith48
July 12th, 2017, 01:17 PM
which is ridiculous because of the reasons the serb states above.

Which reasons exactly?

i assume you mean banning the driving of cars here, because you stated the 2040 ban would be for selling.

banning the driving of gasoline-engine vehicles is not inevitable. we're not gonna run out of gasoline by 2040. that is also ridiculous.


No I mean banning the selling of gasoline.

neither of the above hypotheticals will happen in our lifetimes.

Well since you live in the US, maybe not in your lifetime, but for the rest of us its possible it could happen.

i doubt they'll be as "greatly improved" as you think. and you also underestimate people's lack of will to change. the vast majority of consumers are comfortable with their vehicles just the way they are.

Like I stated earlier, eventually you're gonna have to buy a new car and if the only thing available are electric vehicles they won't really have the choice to change.

That would take away hundreds of thousands of peoples' jobs.

How?

randall
July 12th, 2017, 01:30 PM
Which reasons exactly?

"Also the batteries need to be made somehow, and trust me, making batteries is one of the dirtiest processes on earth. Plus batteries have a shorter life span than an internal combustion engine. How many charges can a battery take before breaking down and how many refillings can an internal combustion engine take before breaking down?"

he's waiting for your response to this as well.

before you say the technology will be better, id like to know how it will be better, how the battery making process will be "cleaner" than conventional gasoline and diesel, how electric engines will be more efficient (will last longer, will be more reliable) than gasoline and diesel engines, and how you can guarantee that to us all.

I mean banning the selling of gasoline.

makes a lot more sense.

won't happen lol.

Well since you live in the US, maybe not in your lifetime, but for the rest of us its possible it could happen.

wew. thats a lot of speculation. who is the "rest of us?" what leads you to think it might happen? why should we we passing legislation based on things that "possibly" will happen? there is still quite a bit of oil for "us" to tap.

Like I stated earlier, eventually you're gonna have to buy a new car and if the only thing available are electric vehicles they won't really have the choice to change.

so essentially it sounds like the only people truly benefiting from this path are the individuals making and selling the electric cars, in france and other partaking nations, at least.

and it will prevent individuals who do not want to drive an electric vehicle from driving their prefered vehicle, even if it isn't against the law, as parts become more scarce and the selling of gasoline vehicles are outlawed.

why is this necessary? shouldn't the market decide if they want electric vehicles?

mattsmith48
July 12th, 2017, 02:06 PM
"Also the batteries need to be made somehow, and trust me, making batteries is one of the dirtiest processes on earth. Plus batteries have a shorter life span than an internal combustion engine. How many charges can a battery take before breaking down and how many refillings can an internal combustion engine take before breaking down?"

he's waiting for your response to this as well.

before you say the technology will be better, id like to know how it will be better, how the battery making process will be "cleaner" than conventional gasoline and diesel, how electric engines will be more efficient (will last longer, will be more reliable) than gasoline and diesel engines, and how you can guarantee that to us all.

I can't tell you exactly how, if I knew I wouldn't be here talking to you. What I can tell you and I explained it earlier, the goal of car companies is to make money, commitments like this from countries like France, Norway, Germany... will force them to invest in electric vehicles to develop better and more efficient cars and batteries if they wish to stay in business. Even companies who only produce electric vehicles like Tesla will need to create better products if they want to stay competitive.



makes a lot more sense.

won't happen lol.

Why not?

wew. thats a lot of speculation. who is the "rest of us?" what leads you to think it might happen? why should we we passing legislation based on things that "possibly" will happen? there is still quite a bit of oil for "us" to tap.

so essentially it sounds like the only people truly benefiting from this path are the individuals making and selling the electric cars, in france and other partaking nations, at least.

and it will prevent individuals who do not want to drive an electric vehicle from driving their prefered vehicle, even if it isn't against the law, as parts become more scarce and the selling of gasoline vehicles are outlawed.

why is this necessary? shouldn't the market decide if they want electric vehicles?

This is not about banning cars because we might run out of oil in the 2040's. This about doing something about climate change. These kind of ban are necessary if we want this planet to stay habitable past this generation and everyone will benefit from this.

randall
July 12th, 2017, 04:33 PM
I can't tell you exactly how, if I knew I wouldn't be here talking to you. What I can tell you and I explained it earlier, the goal of car companies is to make money, commitments like this from countries like France, Norway, Germany... will force them to invest in electric vehicles to develop better and more efficient cars and batteries if they wish to stay in business. Even companies who only produce electric vehicles like Tesla will need to create better products if they want to stay competitive.

so since you don't quite understand the position you support, to sum your argument up; money and technology will take care of it!

you have almost as much faith in alternative energy and humanity's willingness to change as a faithful christian does in god, my friend.

Why not?

there will still be gasoline in the 2040's.



This is not about banning cars because we might run out of oil in the 2040's.[/quote

so why would you bring it up dude?

[QUOTE=mattsmith48;3544203]this about doing something about climate change.

climate change is just as natural as it is man made.

these kind of ban are necessary if we want this planet to stay habitable past this generation and everyone will benefit from this.

no, they aren't. they're only necessary if you buy into the climate change myth. human activity certainly can pollute the earth, and i am by no means a "fuck the earth type" (i consider myself more of a conservative conservationist) but we don't know how much our activity is affecting "climate change." lol. they're selling a product and you're buying; stringent regulation that will result in industrial stagnation for the nations that adopt regulation, thus economic stagnation in said nations; and as a result, the companies/corporations that are hit hardest will find other countries that don't regulate to go and pollute, stopping no pollution and hurting only the economy of the country in question that adopts said regulations.

tl;Dr companies will go somewhere else leaving the country that regulated them in the dust. heavy environmental regulation will affect a number of industries, thus economic stagnation is inevitable. how will anybody be able to afford those nice, "clean" electric cars with little to no work available?

mattsmith48
July 12th, 2017, 07:10 PM
so since you don't quite understand the position you support, to sum your argument up; money and technology will take care of it!

you have almost as much faith in alternative energy and humanity's willingness to change as a faithful christian does in god, my friend.

Its not faith its how capitalism work, if something becomes or is trending towards becoming obsolete, the companies making that thing will


there will still be gasoline in the 2040's.[QUOTE]

I never said there wouldn't be. And it doesn't answer the question why a ban on the selling of gasoline wouldn't happen?

so why would you bring it up dude?

It could still happen the estimates are we could run out in sometime in the 2060's, with how much some people reject any change it is not unrealistic to think the reason those people will switch to electric cars is because we've run out of oil.

they're only necessary if you buy into the climate change myth.

Don't fucking start with your bullshit here.


they're selling a product and you're buying; stringent regulation that will result in industrial stagnation for the nations that adopt regulation, thus economic stagnation in said nations; and as a result, the companies/corporations that are hit hardest will find other countries that don't regulate to go and pollute, stopping no pollution and hurting only the economy of the country in question that adopts said regulations.

tl;Dr companies will go somewhere else leaving the country that regulated them in the dust. heavy environmental regulation will affect a number of industries, thus economic stagnation is inevitable. how will anybody be able to afford those nice, "clean" electric cars with little to no work available?

The only way regulations could maybe make a company leave a country is if the regulation are on the building of the car. Their goal is to make money, if we have regulations or bans on the product that is sold, like it is the case here they will have to either adapt and change their product or go out of business and let someone else their place and sell those electric cars.

PlasmaHam
July 12th, 2017, 07:37 PM
I've been wanting to respond to this thread, but in all honesty the lack of understanding how markets work show here is striking. Forced bans on essential products nearly always hurt the economy, not improves it. And a forced removal of gasoline would result in societal and economic chaos. Nevermind the economic chaos this would put the used car market, and what to do with millions of working, yet now useless vehicles. To advocate for this is to essentially advocate for throwing thousands of people into poverty on the off chance that this may stop something that we aren't even sure is happening. For all we know there is no stopping global warming, or that global warming is not the world-ending catastrophe some say it is. Is it then worth it to force people to poverty or even death on the very slight chance this ban actually does anything?

Amethyst Rose
July 12th, 2017, 10:21 PM
Please stay on topic and refrain from bashing other members. Posts have been deleted. ~Amethyst Rose

Dalcourt
July 12th, 2017, 10:54 PM
I feel both sides paint a wrong picture here.
We will buy those cars and not because of legislation but manipulation by the big companies.
That's how economy and politics really work if you all are honest.

And the result? Will it be the holy grail? Surely not.
Nobody knows where we will get the electricity from for all the billions of cars then. Nobody knows what will become of the batteries and whatever waste from those cars once they have to be replaced.

So we will stay with our good old gasoline hooray! Well not really. We will run out of gas one day and we harm our environment, climate and ourselves.

People jump to the electric car solution since it has some benefits and is the only idea they have at the moment.
But if we are honest nobody has a long term solution. Whatever we go now is just irrational and pathetic tries.

Nobody wants to see the real solution. Reduce cars and driving in general. But the freedom a car gives the individual is sacred, so sacred that we rather destroy the world for our kids and grandkids that that just leave our car for once and walk instead of just driving around for fun.

Snow interesting thread that gives me a lot of material for our debate society, so maybe mods should move it to ROTW to allow it to be more of a debate here, too? Since it already does as far as I see it.

randall
July 12th, 2017, 11:47 PM
Its not faith its how capitalism work, if something becomes or is trending towards becoming obsolete, the companies making that thing will

this legislation and what you're proposing here is the opposite of capitalism lmfao. it's literally the state deciding which products go to market and which dont because of muh environmental principle!!1!

I never said there wouldn't be. And it doesn't answer the question why a ban on the selling of gasoline wouldn't happen?

there is too much money in it and no sane nation will ever outlaw the sale of gasoline lol

It could still happen the estimates are we could run out in sometime in the 2060's, with how much some people reject any change it is not unrealistic to think the reason those people will switch to electric cars is because we've run out of oil.

call me when the oil runs dry :lol:

Don't fucking start with your bullshit here.

lmao i love it. did i insult your sensibilities by presenting you a different position?

it's bullshit and you bought it, get over it kid. our world has gone through four ice ages. trends actually seem to point towards global cooling rather than warmng.

the only way regulations could maybe make a company leave a country is if the regulation are on the building of the car. Their goal is to make money, if we have regulations or bans on the product that is sold, like it is the case here they will have to either adapt and change their product or go out of business and let someone else their place and sell those electric cars.

the opposite of capitalism

Amethyst Rose
July 13th, 2017, 11:41 AM
The VT Daily Chronicle :arrow2: Ramblings of the Wise

SethfromMI
July 13th, 2017, 11:50 AM
I feel both sides paint a wrong picture here.
We will buy those cars and not because of legislation but manipulation by the big companies.
That's how economy and politics really work if you all are honest.

And the result? Will it be the holy grail? Surely not.
Nobody knows where we will get the electricity from for all the billions of cars then. Nobody knows what will become of the batteries and whatever waste from those cars once they have to be replaced.

So we will stay with our good old gasoline hooray! Well not really. We will run out of gas one day and we harm our environment, climate and ourselves.

People jump to the electric car solution since it has some benefits and is the only idea they have at the moment.
But if we are honest nobody has a long term solution. Whatever we go now is just irrational and pathetic tries.

Nobody wants to see the real solution. Reduce cars and driving in general. But the freedom a car gives the individual is sacred, so sacred that we rather destroy the world for our kids and grandkids that that just leave our car for once and walk instead of just driving around for fun.

Snow interesting thread that gives me a lot of material for our debate society, so maybe mods should move it to ROTW to allow it to be more of a debate here, too? Since it already does as far as I see it.

while I advocate for public transportation, walking and the like, a lot of the structures of cities would have to be changed to make room for more alternative forms of transportation. I come from Michigan. We're the home of Ford, General Motors/Chevrolet/Buick, etc. our cities were certainly not built with public transportation in mind, they were built with vehicles. and it makes sense, get as many people to buy one as possible. very few cities in America, besides some of the largest (New York, Chicago and others) make public transportation and walking a practical option. now maybe the solution is to change the structure. but even then, what if you need to go to further towns/cities/states. are we going back to horses? put in more railroad stations routes?

I am not saying those aren't bad ideas, I am just saying even then, it is not a simple change. the structure was built around having a car (again, some cities are great for not having one, but they're few in between). it will take serious work before the majority of people could get by without having a car.

Dmaxd123
July 13th, 2017, 12:42 PM
what is the carbon footprint to produce the extra electricity and all the extra batteries?

it's like the kayakers that were sitting in their plastic kayaks boycotting oil drilling... you know the product used to help make their kayaks and drive their cars to the protest from who knows where.

I think electric cars have merit but I think the best way to make gas/diesel obsolete isn't to ban them but to make the electric car more economical than the gas/diesel counterparts with similar performance

mattsmith48
July 13th, 2017, 02:42 PM
For the guys complaining about how electric cars don't feel like the same as gasoline cars when driving them, get use to driving electric cars because some companies are already stopping to produce gasoline cars.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/volvo-going-all-electric-first-automaker-ditch-combustion-engine-n779791

DriveAlive
July 13th, 2017, 03:04 PM
For the guys complaining about how electric cars don't feel like the same as gasoline cars when driving them, get use to driving electric cars because some companies are already stopping to produce gasoline cars.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/volvo-going-all-electric-first-automaker-ditch-combustion-engine-n779791

Luckily I do not drive a Mercedes or a Volvo or whatever.

PlasmaHam
July 13th, 2017, 03:27 PM
For the guys complaining about how electric cars don't feel like the same as gasoline cars when driving them, get use to driving electric cars because some companies are already stopping to produce gasoline cars.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/volvo-going-all-electric-first-automaker-ditch-combustion-engine-n779791
Your post is based upon poor economic reasoning. As long as there is a demand for IC cars, there will be manufacturer's who will produce them. The free market is not going to abandon IC any time soon. And when they do, it will be because there isn't a demand for them anymore, which isn't happening until there are superior yet also affordable electric alternatives, which isn't today.

However, I think you are missing the point. No one here is opposed to electric just because they have a gasoline fetish. People are opposed to electric because given both practicality and price they are inferior to IC cars. Thus we are opposed to the government forcing us to accept an inferior subsistute. However, if there ever becomes a point where the market forces us to buy electric, it will because electric cars have become equal to or even superior to IC cars. We as a society will make a choice to accept electric, rather than some buearocrats forcing it upon us.

DriveAlive
July 13th, 2017, 03:34 PM
I do love the smell of gasoline...I love it a lot...

Flapjack
July 13th, 2017, 03:41 PM
I do love the smell of gasoline...I love it a lot...
So do I buddy but I can't imagine that permanent smog smells that nice..

Dalcourt
July 13th, 2017, 10:58 PM
I am not saying those aren't bad ideas, I am just saying even then, it is not a simple change. the structure was built around having a car (again, some cities are great for not having one, but they're few in between). it will take serious work before the majority of people could get by without having a car.


Sure it will take serious work and sure it won't be easy.
But if we wanna have this planet for following generations to live on we have to get our lazy asses from our car seats and do some work.


DriveAlive Flapjack you guys love the smell of gasoline? Seriously? It gives me headaches and nearly makes me puke. I hate have to be at a gas station the smell is killing me.
My friend did something last week that made his whole car smell of gas I nearly died.

Stronk Serb
July 14th, 2017, 03:56 AM
It's too early to be adopting anything other than an internal combustion engine. The technologies are too unexplored. In Denmark the state subsidized the purchase of electric cars during the last years, but as soon as they started rolling back on the subsidies, the purchase of electric cars plummeted.

SethfromMI
July 14th, 2017, 07:49 AM
Sure it will take serious work and sure it won't be easy.
But if we wanna have this planet for following generations to live on we have to get our lazy asses from our car seats and do some work.


DriveAlive Flapjack you guys love the smell of gasoline? Seriously? It gives me headaches and nearly makes me puke. I hate have to be at a gas station the smell is killing me.
My friend did something last week that made his whole car smell of gas I nearly died.

so what are YOU doing specifically to change this problem? I don't mean talking, I mean what are you doing physically to pave the way for a ca rless world?

Dalcourt
July 14th, 2017, 09:17 AM
so what are YOU doing specifically to change this problem? I don't mean talking, I mean what are you doing physically to pave the way for a ca rless world?

I just use a car when it is absolutely necessary. Like when it's to far to walk or bike or there's no public transport.
When shopping we use the nearby store. It might be a lil more pricey but we avoid driving for half an hour.
I usually try to persuade my friends not to just drive around for the heck of it.

Since I'm too young to take political influence it's not much more what I do but my grandma is in an activist group that works to make public transport better, getting more bike lanes etc.
I help in this group, I'm just not able to vote for candidates supporting these things in our local elections.

SethfromMI
July 14th, 2017, 10:27 AM
I just use a car when it is absolutely necessary. Like when it's to far to walk or bike or there's no public transport.
When shopping we use the nearby store. It might be a lil more pricey but we avoid driving for half an hour.
I usually try to persuade my friends not to just drive around for the heck of it.

Since I'm too young to take political influence it's not much more what I do but my grandma is in an activist group that works to make public transport better, getting more bike lanes etc.
I help in this group, I'm just not able to vote for candidates supporting these things in our local elections.

but you said a key word there, you use a car when you need it. what are you going to do with a small town of 1,000 max at that? where there is literally no public transportation for miles and miles and miles and miles. are you going to build a railroad station for every town? or at least make railroad access? or some type of bus terminal?

I am not trying to say it is not a good goal to try to make the environment better, but to simply say no cars will never be realistic for most places at least not for the foreseeable future. it would take billions, if not trillions to connect most small towns which are isolated/don't have any public transportation. then you have towns which may have it, but let's be honest, it sucks so bad it takes hours to get to your destination using it when you can be there in minutes using a vehicle. the entire world system, the entire way of life would have to change for most people. it is not simply a matter of getting rid of cars. public transportation I am a supporter of. I don't mind using it, my city has somewhat good public transportation. for the majority of my state it is non existent. I am not saying don't work towards that goal. I am glad to see you're doing what you can :) I am, at least you're trying to actually do something about it and I applaud you for it. but I think we need to be realistic. our current America structure was built around the Automobile. I mentioned it before but my state is home to Ford and GM (among others). my state was the Auto Capitol of the world (you could argue we still are, but so many of our jobs left). all I am saying is it is more then a simple matter of more public transportation.

Dalcourt
July 14th, 2017, 10:41 AM
but you said a key word there, you use a car when you need it. what are you going to do with a small town of 1,000 max at that? where there is literally no public transportation for miles and miles and miles and miles. are you going to build a railroad station for every town? or at least make railroad access? or some type of bus terminal?

I am not trying to say it is not a good goal to try to make the environment better, but to simply say no cars will never be realistic for most places at least not for the foreseeable future. it would take billions, if not trillions to connect most small towns which are isolated/don't have any public transportation. then you have towns which may have it, but let's be honest, it sucks so bad it takes hours to get to your destination using it when you can be there in minutes using a vehicle. the entire world system, the entire way of life would have to change for most people. it is not simply a matter of getting rid of cars. public transportation I am a supporter of. I don't mind using it, my city has somewhat good public transportation. for the majority of my state it is non existent. I am not saying don't work towards that goal. I am glad to see you're doing what you can :) I am, at least you're trying to actually do something about it and I applaud you for it. but I think we need to be realistic. our current America structure was built around the Automobile. I mentioned it before but my state is home to Ford and GM (among others). my state was the Auto Capitol of the world (you could argue we still are, but so many of our jobs left). all I am saying is it is more then a simple matter of more public transportation.

I never sad that we will be able to get rid off cars completely in the near future but we can offer course start in the bigger cities. I know it is more difficult in rural areas but it does mean we should work on let's say a bus system there. Public transport works far better in Europe than it does here even in rural areas. So I guess we could learn from them.
But as I said before the main problem would not be working something out and financing it but the main problem is in the people's heads. A car is sad red to them and gives them freedom in our land of the free. To wait for a bus to ride from A to B in a group of strangers rich and poor; black and white? Borderline communism.
I use a car maybe once or twice in two weeks ifeveryone in the cities would do so it would at least bel start.

If we continue wasting resources like we do now one day there won't be any left and our great grandchildren will have to go back to horse and carriage if we are not careful anyway. ;)

SethfromMI
July 14th, 2017, 10:55 AM
I never sad that we will be able to get rid off cars completely in the near future but we can offer course start in the bigger cities. I know it is more difficult in rural areas but it does mean we should work on let's say a bus system there. Public transport works far better in Europe than it does here even in rural areas. So I guess we could learn from them.
But as I said before the main problem would not be working something out and financing it but the main problem is in the people's heads. A car is sad red to them and gives them freedom in our land of the free. To wait for a bus to ride from A to B in a group of strangers rich and poor; black and white? Borderline communism.
I use a car maybe once or twice in two weeks ifeveryone in the cities would do so it would at least bel start.

If we continue wasting resources like we do now one day there won't be any left and our great grandchildren will have to go back to horse and carriage if we are not careful anyway. ;)

i I may though, the rich and the poor often take public transportation in New York. but the public transportation system there actually works. I do agree, many see it as communistic. I completely agree, part of the problem is changing people's perceptions. but it is going to cost a lot of money. take a city like Detroit. maybe around a million people (probably not anymore with as many people moving out, but it gives us a number to work with). Detroit's public transportation system for such a large city/area stinks. it would cost money to put in more routes. it would cost more money to buy more buses. to hire more drivers. to run the buses 24/7. how many cities have 24/7 public transportation? in America, very few. I know New York, Los Angeles, and what else? even in the larger cities it would take hundreds of millions (at least) to add more routes, drivers and everything else. and that is just in the major cities with not the best public transportation. there are thousands of cities in America. the cost would be astronomical

Dalcourt
July 14th, 2017, 12:38 PM
i I may though, the rich and the poor often take public transportation in New York. but the public transportation system there actually works. I do agree, many see it as communistic. I completely agree, part of the problem is changing people's perceptions. but it is going to cost a lot of money. take a city like Detroit. maybe around a million people (probably not anymore with as many people moving out, but it gives us a number to work with). Detroit's public transportation system for such a large city/area stinks. it would cost money to put in more routes. it would cost more money to buy more buses. to hire more drivers. to run the buses 24/7. how many cities have 24/7 public transportation? in America, very few. I know New York, Los Angeles, and what else? even in the larger cities it would take hundreds of millions (at least) to add more routes, drivers and everything else. and that is just in the major cities with not the best public transportation. there are thousands of cities in America. the cost would be astronomical

Okay so we just all stick to our cars and do nothing get at all?

We have the money to drop the MOAB in Afghanistan for absolutely no reason at all but we don't have money for a working group bus system ya gotta be kidding me.

randall
July 14th, 2017, 02:45 PM
We have the money to drop the MOAB in Afghanistan for absolutely no reason at all but we don't have money for a working group bus system ya gotta be kidding me.

>"for no reason at all"

http://i.imgur.com/ODt5gCD.jpg

Dalcourt
July 14th, 2017, 08:52 PM
>"for no reason at all"

image (http://i.imgur.com/ODt5gCD.jpg)

I don't wanna go off topic here but there's a huge amount of tax money spent there on military stuff and other useless things instead of using it for example to rebuild public transport.

How many did the US kill in Afghanistan with that bomb about 90 or so and we don't even know who those really where. Did it do anything to change the situation there? Not really...so what's the use of it? So it's a useless military operation that costs money that could be used otherwise.

If you wanna discuss how useful spending of tax money on the military is please make another thread.

So to go back on the no money for making changes issue.
Apart from cutting other areas where huge amounts of money are spent.
A lot could be done with taxes on gas or the vehicles in general. Sure there will be the that's not fair cries...but we have to make a change and changes usually mean to hurt certain groups.

randall
July 14th, 2017, 09:00 PM
I don't wanna go off topic here but there's a huge amount of tax money spent there on military stuff and other useless things instead of using it for example to rebuild public transport.

How many did the US kill in Afghanistan with that bomb about 90 or so and we don't even know who those really where. Did it do anything to change the situation there? Not really...so what's the use of it? So it's a useless military operation that costs money that could be used otherwise.

the moabs were commissioned in the early 2000s if im not mistaken. their shelf life is almost up. they're gonna be used fam and there's no amount of bitching you can do to stop it lol. we already paid to have them built, we're gonna put them to use, and it did send quite the message.

but i like this conversation i may take you up on the make a new thread bit

SethfromMI
July 15th, 2017, 07:40 AM
Okay so we just all stick to our cars and do nothing get at all?

We have the money to drop the MOAB in Afghanistan for absolutely no reason at all but we don't have money for a working group bus system ya gotta be kidding me.

then YOU need to give up EVERY PENNY YOU ever earn to fund this project. every single penny. live in a box, eat garbage literally out of the can, and fund this project. it still won't be enough money, but YOU need to make sure we have every penny possible to help fund this project. sell all your possessions, including your computer/laptop, and give it to the cause.

Dalcourt
July 15th, 2017, 10:47 PM
then YOU need to give up EVERY PENNY YOU ever earn to fund this project. every single penny. live in a box, eat garbage literally out of the can, and fund this project. it still won't be enough money, but YOU need to make sure we have every penny possible to help fund this project. sell all your possessions, including your computer/laptop, and give it to the cause.

So I really seriously do not understand why not a single person on this forum is able to do a normal pros and con discussion like I can do with everyone elswhere.

I wanna hear then your opinion on how we should go on.
Just as we do now? You deny that there are every year more and more cars on the roads and that our natural resources will end one day?
So what's your solution? Just having fun with your car and all and fuck the rest? Leave the mess for the next generation to figure out?

I am well aware that nobody can work wonders and to be honest I don't know if we are still be able to safe our planet but I don't feel just sitting here doing nothing.
I genuinely feel like you don't understand what I'm talking about.


And going off topic answering you here: I own neither a computer nor a laptop. If you had seen the houses in my are they are hardly more than cardboard boxes. And don't get me started on the eating garbage thing. Our society throws away so much food that just from what a family throws away in one year and lot of people could be fed.

Snowfox
July 16th, 2017, 02:00 AM
i I may though, the rich and the poor often take public transportation in New York. but the public transportation system there actually works. I do agree, many see it as communistic. I completely agree, part of the problem is changing people's perceptions. but it is going to cost a lot of money. take a city like Detroit. maybe around a million people (probably not anymore with as many people moving out, but it gives us a number to work with). Detroit's public transportation system for such a large city/area stinks. it would cost money to put in more routes. it would cost more money to buy more buses. to hire more drivers. to run the buses 24/7. how many cities have 24/7 public transportation? in America, very few. I know New York, Los Angeles, and what else? even in the larger cities it would take hundreds of millions (at least) to add more routes, drivers and everything else. and that is just in the major cities with not the best public transportation. there are thousands of cities in America. the cost would be astronomical

It may cost some money to establish working overground or underground system or bus system but people who use those pay fees for using it and it pays itself back not to mention that those systems also employ people as drivers, cashiers, security personel etc.
Also I have good mid term solution. It may not help lots but it certainly does some good. So peanut and SethfromMI replacis crossroads by roundabouts. In Roundabout you dont have to stop all the time and that saves gas also those are more safe.

Agent X
July 16th, 2017, 02:02 AM
This is a ridiculous proposal, at least given the situation in the US. Right now, with the technology we have, it would be impossible for many rural families to make their daily commute without having to charge their car during the trip. That being said, there may be longer lasting cars by 2040, but in today's situation, this would never work.

mattsmith48
July 16th, 2017, 09:13 AM
Unbelievable how fast people are to say this won't work.

Abyssal Echo
July 16th, 2017, 09:37 AM
The first thing I think about is all the people that will be outta work and wont be able support their families.... its not just the auto industry that will be affected its the supporting industries as well...... lets not forget about the people that like to buy stuff online... no more UPS or FEDEX trucks delivering your order.... just something else to think about. lol on the other hand people were walking, riding horses and asses long before the automobile was invented.... just a matter of which life style you wish/choose to embrace.

mattsmith48
July 16th, 2017, 09:45 AM
The first thing I think about is all the people that will be outta work and wont be able support their families.... its not just the auto industry that will be affected its the supporting industries as well...... lets not forget about the people that like to buy stuff online... no more UPS or FEDEX trucks delivering your order.... just something else to think about. lol on the other hand people were walking, riding horses and asses long before the automobile was invented.... just a matter of which life style you wish/choose to embrace.

What does UPS no longer having truck delivering as to do with this?

Abyssal Echo
July 16th, 2017, 09:53 AM
Everything ! France wants to ban gas and diesel powered vehicles so no gas or diesel engine for their trucks. then again there is electric motors and the nasty business of the battery industry or horse and wagon to deliver your overnight online order lol

mattsmith48
July 16th, 2017, 10:00 AM
Everything ! France wants to ban gas and diesel powered vehicles so no gas or diesel engine for their trucks. then again there is electric motors and the nasty business of the battery industry or horse and wagon to deliver your overnight online order lol

Drones are a bigger threat to truck deliveries than a ban on diesel and gasoline.

Periphery
July 16th, 2017, 10:04 AM
Drones are a bigger threat to truck deliveries than a ban on diesel and gasoline.

The electrical engines as of right now aren't actually effecient enough for trucks. Too many stops to recharge and the recharge time is much longer, I'd actually say if they also enforce this ban on trucks the threat is much larger. Drones can't transport livestock, nor radar dishes, or windmill turbines. I don't think amazon deliveries would be transported to your house by truck to begin with, so honestly they're not threatening.

Porpoise101
July 18th, 2017, 11:31 PM
Detroit's public transportation system for such a large city/area stinks. it would cost money to put in more routes. it would cost more money to buy more buses. to hire more drivers. to run the buses 24/7. how many cities have 24/7 public transportation? in America, very few. I know New York, Los Angeles, and what else?Barely any cities in the world have 24/7 transit. I would not have that be your standard. Many cities throughout the world have great transportation and yes, European cities are good. But if you want to see the best examples of societies working with public transit I'd say look at Asia. Indian public transit is extensive, if unsafe. Chinese transportation literally moves hundreds of millions of people to the inland provinces at a time (for Chinese New Year). Japanese Shinkansen trains are famous for the speed and dependability. I feel that we can learn a lot from these places because they have masses of people not using cars going from urban to rural areas.

Now, as someone from SE Michigan I have to say that you are being a little dishonest here by using Detroit. Detroit and the surrounding area's infrastructure was literally planned out in accordance with what auto industry lobbyists wanted. They reviled public transit and shaped SE Michigan to fit their vision of a heavily car-dependent society. After all, it wouldn't be the "Motor City" if people can't drive. Another issue with the Detroit example is that it is a heavily depopulated city. Metro Detroit is less of an area with a real economic core and more of a golden ring of prosperity surrounding an economic desert. This means that if you want to see good public transit systems for this region, then you would need to make it a regional system and not a municipal one. And so far, the county governments around the Detroit area have been antagonistic towards greater regional integration transportation-wise.

lliam
July 19th, 2017, 04:24 AM
Who today doesn't invest in alternative drive systems, whose future looks like this:

http://amishamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/amish-boat.jpg

http://www.annarbor.com/calendar/uploaded/photos/amish-walmart.jpg

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/42436/amish_bus.jpg

SethfromMI
July 19th, 2017, 10:02 AM
Barely any cities in the world have 24/7 transit. I would not have that be your standard. Many cities throughout the world have great transportation and yes, European cities are good. But if you want to see the best examples of societies working with public transit I'd say look at Asia. Indian public transit is extensive, if unsafe. Chinese transportation literally moves hundreds of millions of people to the inland provinces at a time (for Chinese New Year). Japanese Shinkansen trains are famous for the speed and dependability. I feel that we can learn a lot from these places because they have masses of people not using cars going from urban to rural areas.

Now, as someone from SE Michigan I have to say that you are being a little dishonest here by using Detroit. Detroit and the surrounding area's infrastructure was literally planned out in accordance with what auto industry lobbyists wanted. They reviled public transit and shaped SE Michigan to fit their vision of a heavily car-dependent society. After all, it wouldn't be the "Motor City" if people can't drive. Another issue with the Detroit example is that it is a heavily depopulated city. Metro Detroit is less of an area with a real economic core and more of a golden ring of prosperity surrounding an economic desert. This means that if you want to see good public transit systems for this region, then you would need to make it a regional system and not a municipal one. And so far, the county governments around the Detroit area have been antagonistic towards greater regional integration transportation-wise.

actually I talk on a number of my posts here about Michigan, particularly the Detroit and Flint areas, being the auto-capitol of the world. I mentioned it for the very reasons you mentioned it. being the auto capitol of the world, of course we are going to promote vehicle usage as the preferred mode of transportation. look at our country as a whole. think about how much of our country it is almost impossible to get to/travel around if you don't have a car. the whole infrastructure for traveling in our country basically centers around owning a vehicle, unless you are in one of those few cities which you can actually get by without one. sure, there is flying, but even the amount of cities you can fly to is limited. to get to smaller cities you need some way of getting there. some small towns and cities have trains but again, in terms of the majority of the country, the amount of places you can take a train too is very limited.

my point was not to try anything, but to simply say do it do it do it, when it is going to cost billions, if not trillions to do and expect to just pull money from our rear ends is ludicrous. it will not just be about getting rid of cars, it would be about changing entire ways of life. it is not just a snap of the fingers to do and for people to think it is going to be so easy to change and so cheaply to do so are being unrealistic. to simply say we need to scream we need to do something without having a solution is not helpful. I mean what should we do? go back to horses? we would need a major increase in horses. there was a time in America where many never left the country they were born in. some people these days have to do so just in order to go shopping, doctors, etc.

a big problem is the money politicians, both republicans and democrats, make from the industries. and let's be real, the corruption from both parties, the corruption in our government is the root of many of our problems. it has been going on for many many many many many many (takes a breathe) many years. change has to occur within the government itself.

I am not saying don't look for a solution. but be realistic. it would take years, years to put a system into place which could actually connect the country together, especially small towns which may only have a couple of thousand people. it is going to cost an enormous amount of money to do so. it literally is going to cost billions, if not, trillions to connect the whole country (unless there is some new sci-fi invention which cost $1 to make and allows you to go literally anywhere you want to go). It is a certainly a noble effort and cause, but I just think people need to be a little more realistic. Europe in many ways is already set up better for this. even some of there smaller cities have decent public transportation, many places are connected by an efficient railroad line,for them and some places in Asia, to do this is just a much more realistic goal. like I said though, this would call for an entire change of life of people, going beyond how they get around. it is not a simple change like going from one type of milk to the next. it is a change to an entire way of life. things which I don't think most of us would even think of right away.

so I am not saying don't do anything. fight for the cause, esp if you strongly believe in it. all I want is a little realism and say this change is harder than flipping on a light switch.

Snowfox
July 21st, 2017, 08:22 AM
SethfromMI there is one good way for public transportation without need to build rails.

This has been done allready some parts of world.

It works like bus but doesnt burn anything
It doesnt need batteries.
It doesnt need rails
It uses roads just like cars.
It does not jam rest of traffic

Its trolley bus.

SethfromMI
July 21st, 2017, 09:26 AM
SethfromMI there is one good way for public transportation without need to build rails.

This has been done allready some parts of world.

It works like bus but doesnt burn anything
It doesnt need batteries.
It doesnt need rails
It uses roads just like cars.
It does not jam rest of traffic

Its trolley bus.

and true, that would make it so you don't have to build a subway, but you're still looking at a project that is going to cost billions. at least. it is not only making the trolleys for the larger cities in America but the tiny towns which currently have zero public transportation to speak of. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad idea at all. and if it could connect not just the large cities but for the tiny towns and what not, that would be amazing. that is the one of the biggest issues though right now facing a system like this in America. many, many, many, many towns are not accessible in any other way other than by vehicle, or walking (biking, horse, etc). that would be the real challenge, connecting the small towns and making it so the small towns could actually get by without needing vehicles of their own.

Snowfox
July 21st, 2017, 02:38 PM
SethfromMI I know but thats good start. Why not to do something that helps to solve part of problem. I wonder if waiting for and finding parking place in big cities is so much fun.

And you have to take into account I think its called Opportunity cost. In current system you have to invest to cars constantly and to gas and to insurance and to parking places and to roads etc. Investing to public transport saves money when you dont have to invest that much on those.
Public transport is not going to eliminate private cars. But its giving cheaper alternative for certain groups. And while its cheaper its more practical in bigger cities. While people still have cars they just dont need to use to every day. Car that stands idle is not going to harm environment.

SethfromMI
July 22nd, 2017, 08:08 AM
SethfromMI I know but thats good start. Why not to do something that helps to solve part of problem. I wonder if waiting for and finding parking place in big cities is so much fun.

And you have to take into account I think its called Opportunity cost. In current system you have to invest to cars constantly and to gas and to insurance and to parking places and to roads etc. Investing to public transport saves money when you dont have to invest that much on those.
Public transport is not going to eliminate private cars. But its giving cheaper alternative for certain groups. And while its cheaper its more practical in bigger cities. While people still have cars they just dont need to use to every day. Car that stands idle is not going to harm environment.

I love a point you made. it is not totally going to eliminate private cars. in bigger cities, or even semi-decent size cities it does make natural sense to increase public transportation as much as possible. maybe one day we will have a system where we would not need cars even in more rural areas, but right now, some just would. but I can't get some people to admit the difficulty of linking up some of those very small, out of the towns where it would be very hard to do (and considering there are thousands of towns like that in the US). in the cities though, it makes a ton more sense. I would never own one if I lived in a city like New York, Chicago, or some others like that. in the cities is absolutely the best place to start to increase more public transportation.

Snowfox
July 22nd, 2017, 10:28 AM
I love a point you made. it is not totally going to eliminate private cars. in bigger cities, or even semi-decent size cities it does make natural sense to increase public transportation as much as possible. maybe one day we will have a system where we would not need cars even in more rural areas, but right now, some just would. but I can't get some people to admit the difficulty of linking up some of those very small, out of the towns where it would be very hard to do (and considering there are thousands of towns like that in the US). in the cities though, it makes a ton more sense. I would never own one if I lived in a city like New York, Chicago, or some others like that. in the cities is absolutely the best place to start to increase more public transportation.

Some people need cars even in Big cities. Depends lots of what person does for living. Lets take example of London or Berlin.
-Big cities? yes
-Good public transport that does work properly and is not too costly? yes
-Are there any cars on road inside said cities other than police cars/ ambulances/taxis/pizza delivery/What Ever Fancy Food You Wanted To Order delivery cars/ vans&trucks that resupply stores? Yes
-Why? Some people start working so early or so late that public transport is not available on those times.
Why tube doesnt work 24/7? It needs few hours maintenance pause every day to check condition of rails
What about rest of Public transport like bus or Trolleys etc??? Those vehicles do also need daily maintenance and cleaning etc.

Also it is possible to make public transport available 24/7 but mostly it is not cost effective to do so for handfull of people who need to travel with using cars.

All in all forcing people to use public transport is wrong. Gently pushing them to use said means of transportation works way better.
Same goes for alternative means to make that car moving. Let it be electric fuell cells or fairies or Santa Claus that make it move.
If it is really affordable without unfair government subsidze (which by they way means that every other tax payer pays your e-car hobby) and it works as well as traditional car.... then yes people will in some time switch to said method of transportation for most parts. There will always be people who like motorbikes and traditional cars they anyway pay their hobby by paying for gasoline. Most of price of gasoline or diesel is taxes anyway.

It pisses me of greatly that if person buys e-car currently other taxpayers are milked to pay his hobby. Only car owner should be responsible for paying his car. If some day e-car is competitive against traditional car in fair market sitiation then go ahead and make my day. But dont try to make others pay for it. France is communist socialist country and EU is run by bunch of commies.
PS. sorry small rant

Stronk Serb
July 22nd, 2017, 10:31 AM
Here is something about electric cars:

v=17xh_VRrnMU

SethfromMI
July 22nd, 2017, 11:27 AM
Some people need cars even in Big cities. Depends lots of what person does for living. Lets take example of London or Berlin.
-Big cities? yes
-Good public transport that does work properly and is not too costly? yes
-Are there any cars on road inside said cities other than police cars/ ambulances/taxis/pizza delivery/What Ever Fancy Food You Wanted To Order delivery cars/ vans&trucks that resupply stores? Yes
-Why? Some people start working so early or so late that public transport is not available on those times.
Why tube doesnt work 24/7? It needs few hours maintenance pause every day to check condition of rails
What about rest of Public transport like bus or Trolleys etc??? Those vehicles do also need daily maintenance and cleaning etc.

Also it is possible to make public transport available 24/7 but mostly it is not cost effective to do so for handfull of people who need to travel with using cars.

All in all forcing people to use public transport is wrong. Gently pushing them to use said means of transportation works way better.
Same goes for alternative means to make that car moving. Let it be electric fuell cells or fairies or Santa Claus that make it move.
If it is really affordable without unfair government subsidze (which by they way means that every other tax payer pays your e-car hobby) and it works as well as traditional car.... then yes people will in some time switch to said method of transportation for most parts. There will always be people who like motorbikes and traditional cars they anyway pay their hobby by paying for gasoline. Most of price of gasoline or diesel is taxes anyway.

It pisses me of greatly that if person buys e-car currently other taxpayers are milked to pay his hobby. Only car owner should be responsible for paying his car. If some day e-car is competitive against traditional car in fair market sitiation then go ahead and make my day. But dont try to make others pay for it. France is communist socialist country and EU is run by bunch of commies.
PS. sorry small rant
and those are all very wonderful points as well. it even helps support my original posts/points about how this problem is not like turning a light switch on or off. there are so many elements to consider about this.

ShineintheDark
July 22nd, 2017, 11:33 AM
France is communist socialist country and EU is run by bunch of commies.


Lol wut? I think that's an argument for another thread. Let''s just stick to electeric cars for right now, we can handle your views on the EU later.

Porpoise101
July 22nd, 2017, 12:29 PM
I am not saying don't look for a solution. but be realistic. it would take years, years to put a system into place which could actually connect the country together, especially small towns which may only have a couple of thousand people. it is going to cost an enormous amount of money to do so. it literally is going to cost billions, if not, trillions to connect the whole country (unless there is some new sci-fi invention which cost $1 to make and allows you to go literally anywhere you want to go).Look I think the struggle to make a more integrated transportation is in many ways analogous to what happened during the development of railways in this country. Our nation didn't just build a single railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Instead, we connected densely populated areas together in hubs and then built connectors between the hubs. That is how public transit was, and is, developed.

Take Elon Musk for example. The guy is getting high-speed rail built in California. He also said recently that he's got a plan to connect DC and NYC in less than 40 minutes. We'll see if it actually gets built, but it's certainly technologically feasible. And because it's a private company, it's less burdensome on taxpayers too. If such a line is built, then the natural extension is to build smaller subway systems in the major cities it passes through that connect to the larger system. This is not just a pipe dream; it's exactly what we do currently with Amtrak. Just compare the two maps below:https://i.stack.imgur.com/gV4Sw.pnghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/92/71/60927157c9d124b9d603e5cde626e2d3.jpg
As you can see, the Amtrak lines work by connecting regional population hubs together. If we were to put in high-speed rail in the US, you'd obviously start with connecting southern and northern California, then the line of cities from DC to NYC, and perhaps later you would add in the Midwestern cities or the Texan ones. After doing this, then next step is to connect them together.

To get to each of these stations, I would say that the best option is for cities and counties to develop local transit systems that have destinations at these places. Of course, in rural areas cars would still be prevalent. Perhaps for the metropolitan area as a whole, there could be a bus system. This could, for example, connect Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties in Michigan.

Now one criticism could be that this sort of development favors cities, and it does. But that is the best way to do it because you serve more people at a time and it would be more profitable for private businesses who want to build transit systems. And favoring cities is no longer catering to a minority of the country either; 62.5% (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html) live in a "densely developed area", places that, in theory, could be better served with public transit.

This would ultimately make cities better off economically. There is less money being devoted to cars, insurance, and health complications from pollution as well as auto accidents. There would be less need for parking, which means more land for new businesses or housing for residents. That is pretty much a goldmine, because it brings more prosperity to the city as a whole. And if a system like high-speed rail were to be put in place, it would reduce congestion on interstates as well as provide a sort of competition against airliners. All of these developments could happen, given the hefty coordination within and outside the government succeeds. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

mattsmith48
July 26th, 2017, 02:43 PM
1st France now the UK

Britain will ban the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered cars starting in 2040 as part of a plan to get them off the roads altogether 10 years later, Environment Minister Michael Gove said on Wednesday.

"The Conservatives had a manifesto promise to ensure that by 2050 there would be no diesel or petrol vehicles on our roads," Gove said in a BBC interview.

"Today we are confirming that that means there should be no new diesel or petrol vehicles by 2040."

France set a goal July 6 to have no more gasoline or diesel cars sold in the country by 2040. A day earlier, Sweden's Volvo became the first major automaker to pledge to stop making cars and SUVs powered solely by the internal combustion engine.

Gove also said the government would make 200 million pounds ($326 million Cdn) available to local authorities soon for schemes to restrict diesel vehicles' access to polluted roads.

Gove said he favoured road-by-road restrictions for diesel vehicles rather than outright bans from town centres or costly vehicle scrappage schemes, but did not rule them out entirely if they were local authorities' preferred options.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uk-cars-ban-2040-1.4221944

DriveAlive
July 26th, 2017, 10:35 PM
Progress for the sake of progress...

Porpoise101
July 29th, 2017, 06:53 PM
Progress for the sake of progress...I would say that such progress is beneficial and feasible for those countries in question. Never mind the fact that gasoline and diesel are going to be more scarce and expensive by then (we will still need it for plastics). Burning off oil is a waste to me because you can use it for re-usable commodities.

This is not to mention that for Western countries, cutting the oil addiction will yield numerous geopolitical and environmental benefits.

DriveAlive
July 29th, 2017, 11:05 PM
I would say that such progress is beneficial and feasible for those countries in question. Never mind the fact that gasoline and diesel are going to be more scarce and expensive by then (we will still need it for plastics). Burning off oil is a waste to me because you can use it for re-usable commodities.

This is not to mention that for Western countries, cutting the oil addiction will yield numerous geopolitical and environmental benefits.

We should use it while we have it and then move on when we do not. That is progress.

Snowfox
July 30th, 2017, 09:17 AM
Electric car is coal powered car. It could be also nuclear powered car but leftist/Islamist/Greens generally do oppose anything that actually works we are seeing more and more coal power.
Solar and wind currently make 2% of worlds energy.
Sunlight and wind are free and plentifull yes. But process of turning those to usable energy in large scale is far from being cheap.
Sun light and wind are dilute when it comes to energy. They do contain energy but not much per square meter or cubic meter. So it takes lots of resources to concentrate them and to make them available on demand.
But we all know all of this. In the end its just ideological decision. Promoting wind and solar gives person Morality points.

Porpoise101
July 30th, 2017, 10:56 AM
Solar and wind currently make 2% of worlds energy.
Sunlight and wind are free and plentifull yes. But process of turning those to usable energy in large scale is far from being cheap. 1) Subsidies. 2)R&D funding

This will make it cheaper. Also I don't agree with you on solar. It will be great for regions closer to the equator. There, one sees copious amounts of energy beamed to the earth. Large scale production of solar power also yields not only lower costs per panel to produce, but also increased yields per panel due to mass collection methods. In other words, if solar is to be used in any way, it needs to be used en masse.

Nuclear energy isn't bad either. But I want it in a plant far away instead of inside every engine.

Snowfox
July 30th, 2017, 11:01 AM
Subsidies are like taking money from your left pocket instead of right.
Someone pays subsidies and guess what it wont be rich and famous it will be you and me and average Joe and average Annie. It doesnt matter much if you have to pay higher prices for electricity or higher taxes and higher prices for everyday goods. It means that in both situations you pay more and get less because of green ideology.

Flapjack
July 30th, 2017, 11:26 AM
Subsidies are like taking money from your left pocket instead of right.
Someone pays subsidies and guess what it wont be rich and famous it will be you and me and average Joe and average Annie. It doesnt matter much if you have to pay higher prices for electricity or higher taxes and higher prices for everyday goods. It means that in both situations you pay more and get less because of green ideology.
Well for the poor it may mean they can afford an electric car when they couldn't otherwise so it is like taking money from a rich guys pocket (or the oil industry for countries like Norway) and putting it in your own.

Electric car is coal powered car. It could be also nuclear powered car but leftist/Islamist/Greens generally do oppose anything that actually works we are seeing more and more coal power.
Ignoring the random Islamist inclusion that is unrelated... do you really think the leftists and the greens wake up in the morning and think omg I must ban everything that works? I am pro nuclear btw... just think you should realise why certain groups oppose things so you can counter them rather than just insulting them because that puts their backs up and makes them less likely to change....
we are seeing more and more coal power.

Only in asia.. the rest of the world is decreasing its coal consumption (http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/images/energy-economics/svg/coal-consumption-by-region-bp.svg)and even is Asia recently there has been a drop in the amount of coal consumed, the UK gets 0% of its energy from coal. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/13/uk-energy-from-coal-hits-zero-for-first-time-in-over-100-years)
EPromoting wind and solar gives person Morality points.
Yeahhhh less toxic chemicals in the air, less acid rain, less diseases related to toxic chemicals in the air and pumping less green house gases into the air does seem to give a few morality points.

Want me to blow your mind... Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty Energy (https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/)

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

DriveAlive
July 30th, 2017, 11:30 AM
Well for the poor it may mean they can afford an electric car when they couldn't otherwise so it is like taking money from a rich guys pocket (or the oil industry for countries like Norway) and putting it in your own.

So...theft?

Flapjack
July 30th, 2017, 11:33 AM
So...theft?
Just as much theft as any other tax... xD

DriveAlive
July 30th, 2017, 11:43 AM
Just as much theft as any other tax... xD

Lower taxes you say? We agree!

ShineintheDark
July 30th, 2017, 11:44 AM
Just as much theft as any other tax... xD
http://www.learnliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/theft-meme.jpg

Lemme just leave this here.

But in all seriousness, none of these decisions were made without consultation of leading scientists and realistic research intio the markets of each of these countries. We are no experts on this matter and so are in no real position to scream about 'Islamist' and 'Leftist' demons who are crushing meh nuclears and the like.

mattsmith48
July 30th, 2017, 11:55 AM
Instead of complaining about electric cars saying it's still bad for the environment because the electricity used to power them is generated from fossil fuel, about we try to change that and have more energy from renewable until we hit 100%. Elon Musk knows fossil fuel is mostly what powers the electric cars he build and what is he doing? He's trying to convert the entire US to solar power.

Everyone single members here on VT and everyone else of our generation, will be the ones who will be the most affected by the devastating effects of climate change. But we are also the last ones who can do something about this to stop or at lease limit the damage, but we have to start now. Complaining about and trying to fight progress will get us no where. Instead of going on, on how dirty electric cars are, fight to have cleaning energy source to power them. Or just don't get a car.
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/themosteffec.jpg
A couple weeks ago I posted this so we can all see what we can all do personally to actually make a difference and reduce our carbon footprint as much as we can. But not eating meat, not having a car and using condoms will not be enough. We still have to fight for cleaner energy, better environmental policies, and fines and sanctions against polluters (businesses and countries) so incredibly extreme, North Korea is gonna say ''Wow! that's excessive''. And the most important thing of all vote. Get those asshole conservative and corrupted centrist who only cares about them self out of power and elect people who actually give a shit about us and our future.

Flapjack
July 30th, 2017, 12:00 PM
Instead of complaining about electric cars saying it's still bad for the environment because the electricity used to power them is generated from fossil fuel, about we try to change that and have more energy from renewable until we hit 100%. Elon Musk knows fossil fuel is mostly what powers the electric cars he build and what is he doing? He's trying to convert the entire US to solar power.

Everyone single members here on VT and everyone else of our generation, will be the ones who will be the most affected by the devastating effects of climate change. But we are also the last ones who can do something about this to stop or at lease limit the damage, but we have to start now. Complaining about and trying to fight progress will get us no where. Instead of going on, on how dirty electric cars are, fight to have cleaning energy source to power them. Or just don't get a car.
image (https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2017/themosteffec.jpg)
A couple weeks ago I posted this so we can all see what we can all do personally to actually make a difference and reduce our carbon footprint as much as we can. But not eating meat, not having a car and using condoms will not be enough. We still have to fight for cleaner energy, better environmental policies, and fines and sanctions against polluters (businesses and countries) so incredibly extreme, North Korea is gonna say ''Wow! that's excessive''. And the most important thing of all vote. Get those asshole conservative and corrupted centrist who only cares about them self out of power and elect people who actually give a shit about us and our future.
The problem is buddy that you can do all that at only have a negligible impact but with a massive inconvenience in your life! That is why I think the government needs to encourage and eventually force adoptions of cleaner alternatives.

mattsmith48
July 30th, 2017, 12:07 PM
The problem is buddy that you can do all that at only have a negligible impact but with a massive inconvenience in your life! That is why I think the government needs to encourage and eventually force adoptions of cleaner alternatives.

And that goes with the last thing I said, we have to fight for it and elect people who will do it.

Flapjack
July 30th, 2017, 12:08 PM
And that goes with the last thing I said, we have to fight for it and elect people who will do it.
Oh I am sooo sorry for some reason I skipped over that xD You are 100% right xD