Human Health Dependent on Breaking our Addiction to Fossil Fuels

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stay home. Don't answer the door. Stay off the internet.

This is all you have to say about CAFE standards causing more deaths?

Have you always been an asshole, or is this a recent thing for you?

 

[Crick]

This is all you have to say about CAFE standards causing more deaths?

Have you always been an asshole, or is this a recent thing for you?

I blame the CAFE standards for no more deaths than I blame the width of a standard road lane, speed limits or recommended following distances. All could be changed to make travel safer, but they serve a simple purpose in a complex world.

I can't tell you how tiresome it is to attempt polite and open conversation on these topics with people with whom I have complete and total disagreement as to the necessity of acting against AGW. I see it as a threat to the well being of my family, my children, my grandchildren and all their descendants and I see all of you as willfully ignorant enablers of that threat. It is difficult to remain civil and you know I fail at that all too often. You, apparently, see it as a completely overblown waste of money. Yet you are smart enough to know precisely how wrong you actually are. Very disappointing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I blame the CAFE standards for no more deaths than I blame the width of a standard road lane, speed limits or recommended following distances. All could be changed to make travel safer, but they serve a simple purpose in a complex world.

I can't tell you how tiresome it is to attempt polite and open conversation on these topics with people with whom I have complete and total disagreement as to the necessity of acting against AGW. I see it as a threat to the well being of my family, my children, my grandchildren and all their descendants and I see all of you as willfully ignorant enablers of that threat. It is difficult to remain civil and you know I fail at that all too often. You, apparently, see it as a completely overblown waste of money. Yet you are smart enough to know precisely how wrong you actually are. Very disappointing.

I blame the CAFE standards for no more deaths than I blame the width of a standard road lane,

Like most liberals, you see only one-dimension of an issue.
Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent book, Thinking Beyond Stage One, describes your problem perfectly.

I see it as a threat to the well being of my family, my children, my grandchildren and all their descendants

Right. And you ignore, or are ignorant of, the current damage caused by some of the fixes.

You, apparently, see it as a completely overblown waste of money.

Only because, as currently pushed by the greens, it's huge waste of money and mostly ineffective.
But that's liberals for you. Fighting the things that would work and pushing for things that don't.

No clue when it comes to cost-benefit analysis, but want to waste trillions.

 

[Crick]

I blame the CAFE standards for no more deaths than I blame the width of a standard road lane,

Like most liberals, you see only one-dimension of an issue.
Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent book, Thinking Beyond Stage One, describes your problem perfectly.

Well, I'm unlikely to read it. What can you tell me? And would you mind trying to stop generalizing?

I see it as a threat to the well being of my family, my children, my grandchildren and all their descendants

Right. And you ignore, or are ignorant of, the current damage caused by some of the fixes.

By large margins, none of the fixes put my children in as great a risk as does AGW.

You, apparently, see it as a completely overblown waste of money.

Only because, as currently pushed by the greens, it's huge waste of money and mostly ineffective.

Only? Then tell me how it could be pushed in a manner you would accept.

But that's liberals for you.

That's generalizing for you.

Fighting the things that would work and pushing for things that don't.

You begin to make me think you have too much prejudice for us to ever openly communicate.

No clue when it comes to cost-benefit analysis, but want to waste trillions.

Was that me personally or all liberals?

Do you believe that AGW should be addressed solely by economists and accountants? Were you aware that there are several reports in the full Assessment that deal with costs and benefits? And have you ever looked at the IPCC's Working Group II reports: "Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities" or the Working Group III reports: "Mitigation of Climate Change"? People around here are all talking radiative forcing factors when you seem far more interested in a cost/benefit analysis. These might be of interest to you. Perhaps you agree to look at one or both and I will get a copy of "Thinking Beyond Stage One"

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The solution, of course, is to get rid of all the big cars.

How is that a solution?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I blame the CAFE standards for no more deaths than I blame the width of a standard road lane, speed limits or recommended following distances. All could be changed to make travel safer, but they serve a simple purpose in a complex world.

I can't tell you how tiresome it is to attempt polite and open conversation on these topics with people with whom I have complete and total disagreement as to the necessity of acting against AGW. I see it as a threat to the well being of my family, my children, my grandchildren and all their descendants and I see all of you as willfully ignorant enablers of that threat. It is difficult to remain civil and you know I fail at that all too often. You, apparently, see it as a completely overblown waste of money. Yet you are smart enough to know precisely how wrong you actually are. Very disappointing.

If all you believe were to be true, why are you not convincing China, India and the rest of the industrialized world to take action?

Simple answer? They don't care, so you are pissing into the wind!

 

[Crick]

How is that a solution?

Large car vs small car accidents have high fatality rates. The rates in small car vs small car are less. As Todd points out, the rates in large truck vs small car are worse than large truck vs large car, but I suspect not that much worse. Semi-trailers are many times the size and mass of even the largest SUV and, of course, smaller cars have superior maneuverability and braking and their drivers tend to be more attentive to their surroundings.

Here is an interesting article concerning driver fatality rates vs car size. This only considers the car with the fatality and does not take the size of the other car (if there was one) into account. What I found interesting is that in a list of the seven safest vehicles in that study that had, statistically, ZERO fatalities per million vehicle-years, there were a few relatively small cars: the VW Golf, the Mercedes C-class sedan and the Lexus NX-200t. The Lexus is an SUV but one of the smaller 'crossover' models that elsewhere in the article were said to have fatality rates similar to sedans. The point is that it is possible to build safe small cars even in today's SUV-infatuated world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, I'm unlikely to read it. What can you tell me? And would you mind trying to stop generalizing?

By large margins, none of the fixes put my children in as great a risk as does AGW.

Only? Then tell me how it could be pushed in a manner you would accept.

That's generalizing for you.

You begin to make me think you have too much prejudice for us to ever openly communicate.

Was that me personally or all liberals?

Do you believe that AGW should be addressed solely by economists and accountants? Were you aware that there are several reports in the full Assessment that deal with costs and benefits? And have you ever looked at the IPCC's Working Group II reports: "Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities" or the Working Group III reports: "Mitigation of Climate Change"? People around here are all talking radiative forcing factors when you seem far more interested in a cost/benefit analysis. These might be of interest to you. Perhaps you agree to look at one or both and I will get a copy of "Thinking Beyond Stage One"

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

By large margins, none of the fixes put my children in as great a risk as does AGW.

Making cars less safe is much more dangerous for your children than an extra 0.2 degrees in 2060.

Only? Then tell me how it could be pushed in a manner you would accept.

If CO2 is an existential threat, we need more fracking and more nuclear.

That's generalizing for you.

And also true.

You begin to make me think you have too much prejudice for us to ever openly communicate.

Post your definition of prejudice.

Was that me personally or all liberals?

It's a very rare liberal who takes that into account. I can't recall you doing it.

Do you believe that AGW should be addressed solely by economists and accountants?

As opposed to completely ignoring accounting and economics?

Were you aware that there are several reports in the full Assessment that deal with costs and benefits?

Current real world ones, or imaginary ones 100 years out?

People around here are all talking radiative forcing factors when you seem far more interested in a cost/benefit analysis.

More likely cost/no benefit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Large car vs small car accidents have high fatality rates. The rates in small car vs small car are less. As Todd points out, the rates in large truck vs small car are worse than large truck vs large car, but I suspect not that much worse. Semi-trailers are many times the size and mass of even the largest SUV and, of course, smaller cars have superior maneuverability and braking and their drivers tend to be more attentive to their surroundings.

Here is an interesting article concerning driver fatality rates vs car size. This only considers the car with the fatality and does not take the size of the other car (if there was one) into account. What I found interesting is that in a list of the seven safest vehicles in that study that had, statistically, ZERO fatalities per million vehicle-years, there were a few relatively small cars: the VW Golf, the Mercedes C-class sedan and the Lexus NX-200t. The Lexus is an SUV but one of the smaller 'crossover' models that elsewhere in the article were said to have fatality rates similar to sedans. The point is that it is possible to build safe small cars even in today's SUV-infatuated world.

Are you too stupid to realize that not all accidents are car vs. car?

I drive an SUV. Last summer, while moving, I was exhausted and fell asleep at the wheel. I woke up just as I hit a guard rail at 70 mph. If I had been driving a small car, I probably would have died. My big behemoth bounced off that guard rail, leaving two scratches in the paint behind each wheel on the passenger side. A truck driver behind me pulled over to see if I was OK. His statement was that I was lucky because my SUV just bounced off instead of flipping over the guard rail.

In college, I was hit by a tractor-trailer truck from behind. My car was a few hundred dollars damage because it was a huge Ford LTD. Had I been in a VW Beetle, I hate to think what my flattened body would have look like.

 

[Crick]

Are you too stupid to realize that not all accidents are car vs. car?

No, I am not.

I drive an SUV.

I drive a 2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid minivan

Last summer, while moving, I was exhausted and fell asleep at the wheel. I woke up just as I hit a guard rail at 70 mph. If I had been driving a small car, I probably would have died. My big behemoth bounced off that guard rail, leaving two scratches in the paint behind each wheel on the passenger side.

If, as it sounds, it was the side of your car that struck the rail, there is no reason to think that thing would have been worse in a smaller car

A truck driver behind me pulled over to see if I was OK. His statement was that I was lucky because my SUV just bounced off instead of flipping over the guard rail.

Who has a higher center of balance: your SUV or, say, a VW Golf or a Honda Fit?

In college, I was hit by a tractor-trailer truck from behind. My car was a few hundred dollars damage because it was a huge Ford LTD. Had I been in a VW Beetle, I hate to think what my flattened body would have look like.

In that sort of collision a smaller car would fare much worse. In a head-on, the smaller car would have even worse odds.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, I am not.

I drive a 2021 Toyota Sienna Hybrid minivan

If, as it sounds, it was the side of your car that struck the rail, there is no reason to think that thing would have been worse in a smaller car

Who has a higher center of balance: your SUV or, say, a VW Golf or a Honda Fit?

In that sort of collision a smaller car would fare much worse. In a head-on, the smaller car would have even worse odds.

You simply do not understand physics. I'm done trying to educate the those unable to learn.

 

[Crick]

By large margins, none of the fixes put my children in as great a risk as does AGW.

Making cars less safe is much more dangerous for your children than an extra 0.2 degrees in 2060.

Modern cars are much safer than older cars and I have no reason to doubt that trend will continue.

Only? Then tell me how it could be pushed in a manner you would accept.

If CO2 is an existential threat, we need more fracking and more nuclear.

More nuclear yes. But fracking should be tapered off to zero.

That's generalizing for you.

And also true.

Every generalized statement about groups, like yours, is guaranteed to be demonstrably false.

You begin to make me think you have too much prejudice for us to ever openly communicate.
Post your definition of prejudice.

A point of view often characterized by derogatory generalizations

Was that me personally or all liberals?
It's a very rare liberal who takes that into account. I can't recall you doing it.

So it was another derogatory generalization.

Do you believe that AGW should be addressed solely by economists and accountants?
As opposed to completely ignoring accounting and economics?

It hasn't been. From all your brethren that like to bring up Ottmar Edenhofer, you'd think the whole thing was being run by economists.

Were you aware that there are several reports in the full Assessment that deal with costs and benefits?
Current real world ones, or imaginary ones 100 years out?

Current, real world costs and benefits. So, you didn't know. I hope to hear you've at least looked at them.

People around here are all talking radiative forcing factors when you seem far more interested in a cost/benefit analysis.
More likely cost/no benefit.

Try to keep an open mind.

PS: I just bought a Kindle version of "Thinking Beyond Stage One" for $5.99. I hope it's got pictures...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

More nuclear yes. But fracking should be tapered off to zero.

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Modern cars are much safer than older cars and I have no reason to doubt that trend will continue.

More nuclear yes. But fracking should be tapered off to zero.

Every generalized statement about groups, like yours, is guaranteed to be demonstrably false.

A point of view often characterized by derogatory generalizations

So it was another derogatory generalization.

It hasn't been. From all your brethren that like to bring up Ottmar Edenhofer, you'd think the whole thing was being run by economists.

Current, real world costs and benefits. So, you didn't know. I hope to hear you've at least looked at them.

Try to keep an open mind.

PS: I just bought a Kindle version of "Thinking Beyond Stage One" for $5.99. I hope it's got pictures...

View attachment 716788

Modern cars are much safer than older cars and I have no reason to doubt that trend will continue.

Not as safe as they would be without idiotic CAFE standards.
You can only replace so much metal with plastic before you kill people.

I can't think of anything dumber than Obama's 54 MPG number.

A point of view often characterized by derogatory generalizations

This is your definition of prejudice? LOL! That's funny.

So it was another derogatory generalization.

Based in reality.

Current, real world costs and benefits. So, you didn't know. I hope to hear you've at least looked at them.

Extra deaths due to CAFE standards. So you didn't know.

PS: I just bought a Kindle version of "Thinking Beyond Stage One"

Nice. I hope you enjoy it.

 

[Crick]

Modern cars are much safer than older cars and I have no reason to doubt that trend will continue.
Not as safe as they would be without idiotic CAFE standards.
You can only replace so much metal with plastic before you kill people.

The VW Golf would have no difficulty reaching 54 mpg as a hybrid and could probably reach it as a full-up ICE car. And it has attained 0 fatalities per million vehicle-years. That article said "statistical zero" which I presume means an actual value of less than 0.5. That is much better than a whole HOST of much larger, heavier autos.

I can't think of anything dumber than Obama's 54 MPG number.

That's easy. Trump's no-CAFE number.

A point of view often characterized by derogatory generalizations
This is your definition of prejudice? LOL! That's funny.

It's not funny. It's sad.

So it was another derogatory generalization.
Based in reality.

That's bullshit and you know it.

Current, real world costs and benefits. So, you didn't know. I hope to hear you've at least looked at them.
Extra deaths due to CAFE standards. So you didn't know.

I'd heard it. I discounted it. If you'd like to see the American public all driving around in Abrams battle tanks restricted to 5 mph, we can probably get those auto fatality numbers down where you'd like them without invoking the horribly dangerous strategy of less-resource-intensive, non-polluting, non-emitting vehicles but you're going to need more gasoline tax money to maintain the roads.

PS: I just bought a Kindle version of "Thinking Beyond Stage One"
Nice. I hope you enjoy it.

Good. Waiting to see what you think of WG II and III's reports.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The VW Golf would have no difficulty reaching 54 mpg as a hybrid and could probably reach it as a full-up ICE car. And it has attained 0 fatalities per million vehicle-years. That article said "statistical zero" which I presume means an actual value of less than 0.5. That is much better than a whole HOST of much larger, heavier autos.

That's easy. Trump's no-CAFE number.

It's not funny. It's sad.

That's bullshit and you know it.

I'd heard it. I discounted it. If you'd like to see the American public all driving around in Abrams battle tanks restricted to 5 mph, we can probably get those auto fatality numbers down where you'd like them without invoking the horribly dangerous strategy of less-resource-intensive, non-polluting, non-emitting vehicles but you're going to need more gasoline tax money to maintain the roads.

Good. Waiting to see what you think of WG II and III's reports.

The VW Golf would have no difficulty reaching 54 mpg as a hybrid and could probably reach it as a full-up ICE car.

Not everybody wants a VW Golf. Not everyone's needs can be satidfied by a VW Golf.

That's easy. Trump's no-CAFE number.

Here's another of those things you believe that just isn't true.
I wish Trump had eliminated CAFE standards. He didn't. Just Obama's moronic 54.5 MPG level.

It's not funny. It's sad.

Your made-up definitions are sad.

That's bullshit and you know it.

I see very few liberals who even understand cost-benefit, let alone use it. For realz.

I'd heard it. I discounted it.

You discounted the findings of the NTSHA?

Waiting to see what you think of WG II and III's reports.

Which section is must read to back your claims?

 

[Crick]

The VW Golf would have no difficulty reaching 54 mpg as a hybrid and could probably reach it as a full-up ICE car.

Not everybody wants a VW Golf. Not everyone's needs can be satidfied by a VW Golf.

Not everyone wants to drive an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Not everyone's needs can be satidfied by an M1A2 Abraham Main Battle Tank.

That's easy. Trump's no-CAFE number.

Here's another of those things you believe that just isn't true.
I wish Trump had eliminated CAFE standards. He didn't. Just Obama's moronic 54.5 MPG level.

Trump administration rolls back Obama-era fuel efficiency standards

The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled back an Obama-era law that pushes automakers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, severely limiting a rule designed to decrease pollution from transpo…

thehill.com

Against all advice, Trump lowered the standards to values less than what auto-industry reps said were achievable at the time.

It's not funny. It's sad.

Your made-up definitions are sad.

We all make up our own definitions and you did ask for mine. That's how English works. If you want official definitions, move to France.

That's bullshit and you know it.
I see very few liberals who even understand cost-benefit, let alone use it. For realz.
I'd heard it. I discounted it.
You discounted the findings of the NTSHA?

By legislative mandate, the NTHSA, who are responsible for CAFE standards, also create and issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Those standards have not been relaxed in any way in response to increasing CAFE standards. They continue to force manufacturers to make cars safer and safer and safer.

Waiting to see what you think of WG II and III's reports.
Which section is must read to back your claims?

I have no idea. Feel free to peruse. Like all the AR reports, they are enormous. I am not even suggesting you read the whole thing. Just try to see whether or not the IPCC is conducting as much cost/benefit analysis as you think needs be done.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not everyone wants to drive an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Not everyone's needs can be satidfied by an M1A2 Abraham Main Battle Tank.

Trump administration rolls back Obama-era fuel efficiency standards

The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled back an Obama-era law that pushes automakers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, severely limiting a rule designed to decrease pollution from transpo…

thehill.com

Against all advice, Trump lowered the standards to values less than what auto-industry reps said were achievable at the time.

We all make up our own definitions and you did ask for mine. That's how English works. If you want official definitions, move to France.

By legislative mandate, the NTHSA, who are responsible for CAFE standards, also create and issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Those standards have not been relaxed in any way in response to increasing CAFE standards. They continue to force manufacturers to make cars safer and safer and safer.

I have no idea. Feel free to peruse. Like all the AR reports, they are enormous. I am not even suggesting you read the whole thing. Just try to see whether or not the IPCC is conducting as much cost/benefit analysis as you think needs be done.

Not everyone wants to drive an M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Not everyone's needs can be satidfied by an M1A2 Abraham Main Battle Tank.

And without government mandates on fuel standards, everyone is free to buy what they need.

Against all advice, Trump lowered the standards to values less than what auto-industry reps said were achievable at the time.

It's true, two seater plastic cars get pretty good mileage.

They continue to force manufacturers to make cars safer and safer and safer.

And yet, CAFE standards have resulted in excess deaths, according to the NTHSA.

I have no idea. Feel free to peruse. Like all the AR reports, they are enormous.

An enormous report created by government hacks who are incentivized to preach doom give even less confidence in economic matters than they do scientific matters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We all make up our own definitions and you did ask for mine. That's how English works. If you want official definitions, move to France.

Your definition was especially imaginative. Reminded me of SSDD or ding.

 

[Crick]

Your definition was especially imaginative. Reminded me of SSDD or ding.

All I gave you was a single, pertinent characteristic