It sounds great.  Got a pic of this economical vehicle? It's got to be pretty high quality, costing around $2,500 as it will.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 30^th, 2007 at 9:53pm:


Seriously?!?

Yeh, apparently these are not all that uncommon figures for mpg.

It looks like the consumer does have appropriate options, so it would seem the consumer culture probably has alot to answer for.

Maybe SUVs should be outlawed and vehicle weights brought down. This may/will effect safety so I suppose speed limits will have to come down aswell.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2007 at 8:15am:


Well, potentially.

I agree, petrol should go up or even be outlawed.

dt - does he really ride a horse ??
naaahhh, that's just his reputation   

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:06pm:



Because you advocate banning fossil fuel.  It is reasonable to assume that if you feel strongly about the use of it you do not use any yourself.

Do you own a vehicle?

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 7:53pm:


No, that is not reasonable.

You advocate that I starve and die in this world where transport is essential.

Yes, I own a vehicle.

Aussie wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:23pm:


My point is that you should read the thread for the first time old friend.  It would be unnecessary to ask the question you just asked.

deepthought wrote on Jan 1^st, 2008 at 9:30pm:


I don't have much of a choice while the law is the way it is.

The law is hypocritical.

deepthought wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 9:23pm:


How do you propose I do my bit?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 2:01pm:


How would you get around if fuel was outlawed?

Do that now.

deepthought wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:07pm:


No, I am forced to compete for food and shelter in a world that requires in a lot of, if not most, cases independant transport to get to work.

I am a plasterer and need a vehicle to carry my gear and allow me to switch from job to job as the need arises.

Don't tell me to suffer whilst the rest can sit back and pretend nothing is wrong.

Something either is or isn't wrong and decisive action must be taken if it is needed.

Global warming is an example of an economic failure where the people who are adversely affected cannot enter into the transactions which harm them in any meaningful way. Failing that, expecting people to put up with other people's emissions while making none of their own is simply naive. Not only from an economic perspective (you need a solution that harnesses the power of self interest in the same way the free market does) but also from a more practical perspective because much of the solution will involve infrastructural changes that are outside the sphere of influence of one person.

Also, remember that it is electricity not transport that is responsible for most of our emissions and where it is cheapest to reduce our emissions.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 1:59pm:



Fair enough electricity generation is where most of the emissions come from but in calling for electric cars we also call for a greener grid at the same time.

It kills two birds with one stone, sort of.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 12:07pm:


I'm not suggesting you suffer - I'm just asking why you advocate everyone do without fuel while you are not willing to do it.  Why is that?

deepthought wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:22pm:


I am, but what does it solve if only one person does it?

Nothing, so get real.

deepthought wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:


You understand nil!

You don't understand what has already been said, do you?

deepthought wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 6:07pm:


Oh yeh, that was a great synopsis of the conversation!

Get a brain!

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 1:58am:


Do you even know what IQ means!?!

 

 

 

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 7:21am:



Come on DT- getting a bit petty arent we? Reaching ever decreasing/increasing low/high  points  in  cerebral capacity here.

Death posts well.

deepthought wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 10:16am:



Fossil fuesl ? No never touch the stuff!