I used to be in the environmental club when I was in high school. I used to try to save the rain forest and crap like that. When I started to do unbiased research I found out that most of what I believed in and most of environmentalist issues are just propaganda BS. It just makes people feel good to think they are doing their part to save a planet that doesn't need saving. I don't buy into the huge global warming problem and crap like that. I highly doubt my choice to drive a Hummer or a hybrid is going to make one bit of difference in terms of our environment, the planet, the made up gas crisis, or my children's future.

 

I would have to agree with Howdy here!
As i do have several cars pumping non emmissioned fumes into the air, I feel large factories and the like are creating much more of a problems with environmental distruction!!
I only drive my gas suckin pigs a few times a year anyways so??

 

I don't believe that the government should regulate what kind of cars we should buy, and they don't. There telling the car companies that they have certain regulations to meet for gas mileage. Thats no different than telling a manufacturing plant they can't dump their waste in the local water supply. Chevy is deciding to not produce cars that people want to buy, not the government. Besides, if thats what you want (gas guzzler) they make it now its called a Suburban or H2, take your pick there's tons to choose from. (American) Car companies need to realize that they need to stop relying on the profits from large SUV's and trucks and strengthen there car offerings. Chevy can figure out the gas mileage problem, they just never have had to before.

All of that aside, your reckless lack of regard for the people around you sickens me, I can only hope that one day you change your beliefs and try and contribute to the well being of those around you. Otherwise, it will be a lonely funeral.

BTW there is no such thing as unbiased research, and you blinding yourself if you think people have no affect on the world. Thats just ignorant. Its the extent of damage we are doing that should be debated, not whether we are or are not.

 

I meant unbiased as in I didn't let my feelings get in the way of the truth. Like I said I used to buy into global warming, deforestation, and all the other environmental issues. I believed I did my part and went out of my way to raise money to save the rain forest and crap like that. But the more I researched on the issues without letting my feeling or beliefs get in the way I realized that most of what I believed was environmentalist propaganda BS and didn't hold any truth. I wasn't doing anything but glorifying my own ego by thinking I was saving the planet and that I was better than everyone else by doing so.

 

wow CH is that avatar your hs picture?? Nice mullet brother!!LOL

 

Nah, it's not mine but it's cool. Someday when I'm having a photogenic day I'll post a real pic.

 

I honestly think the real issue is that the bean counters crunched the digits and figured out that nobody is going to buy those cars. If no one buys them and you've spent a billion dollars figuring out how to get them to 30 mpg, you're toast.

Basically, Lutz wanted a Charger/300C fighter, and it ain't gonna happen beyond the imported G8, which is going to die a painful death and probably take Pontiac down with it. DCX sells a lot of V8 Chargers and 300Cs, but with gasoline approaching $3.00 nationwide average, nobody is going to buy those cars in a few years when it hits $3.50 average.

What GM needs to do is hire back the American engineers and designers it chased off to Toyota and Nissan when they set up their US design bureaus, listen to them for once, and build the cars they should have been building ten years ago. Then they can concentrate on some really great halo cars when they have the money to do it right again.

 

Sounds good, when you gonna be GM's CEO. They need someone to point them in the right direction.

 

well if the epa tries to tell me i cant drive my chevelle or my vette they will be screamin it into my rear window through a cloud of molten smolderin rubber!!! LOL
It might work for new cars but they will never kill off all the old iron runnin around i could probably run my chevelle on everclear if i had to or just switch it over to alchol period so suck my Arse bush and the rest of those tree huggin epa bastards!!LOL

 

Hold Your Breath
Supreme Court CO2 ruling puts future of performance cars up in the air
By SCOTT KUDIRKA

AutoWeek | Published 04/17/07, 2:05 pm et

Car enthusiasts are among those scratching their heads and wondering what the April 2 U.S. Supreme Court ruling defining carbon dioxide as a pollutant means for the future of cars and trucks as we know them.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the state of Massachusetts against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its refusal to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act. The ruling opens a can of worms, and in the end, no one can state how and when the regulation will be enforced. But rest assured, there will be regulation of CO2 emissions from the tailpipe.

The biggest irony is that three decades ago, when the Clean Air Act took effect, CO2 was deemed harmless. After all, it is what we exhale. Autos were permitted to emit CO2 as the natural byproduct of burning fossil fuels and from catalytic converters used to clean up harmful carbon monoxide from engine exhaust gases.

Since the implementation of the Clean Air Act, automakers have done a great job of producing efficient, powerful vehicles that emit far lower quantities of smog-forming pollutants. Yet now this very achievement is judged a failure, because regardless of how efficient a gasoline-burning engine is, it must always produce CO2. With CO2 as a pollutant, the only way to curtail its production is by reducing the amount of gasoline consumed.

Is this glorious news for environmentalists who desire the elimination of fossil fuels? Are enthusiasts damned to mere memories of performance? Enthusiasm does not equal a lack of responsibility. Automotive scribes, including those at AutoWeek, were writing about the need for smog-control laws and alternative sources of power as far back as 1974—in the darkest days of the energy crisis. They were right then, and they’re right now.

Today the most proletarian of vehicles benefit from previously unimaginable technologies that are now commonplace. The solution to future mobility lies in technology, whether in hydrogen-boosted gasoline engines, biofuels or other alternative methods of propulsion.

For now, all we can do is balance the environmental impact of a vehicle against its relative performance. And maybe try not to breathe so much.
Green or Mean?

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy lists these vehicles for 2007 as best and worst for annual production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
GREENEST
Toyota Prius—5 tons
Honda Civic Hybrid—6 tons
Honda Civic GX—7 tons
Honda Fit—8 tons
Honda Civic—8 tons
Hyundai Accent—8 tons
Kia Rio/Rio 5—8 tons
Toyota Yaris—8 tons
Toyota Corolla—8 tons
Toyota Camry Hybrid—8 tons
Hyundai Elantra—9 tons
Nissan Altima Hybrid—9 tons
MEANEST
Lamborghini Murciélago—23 tons
Bentley Arnage RL—21 tons
Bentley Azure—21 tons
Maybach 57S/62S—20 tons
Dodge Ram 2500 Mega Cab—19 tons
Lincoln Navigator—19 tons
Ford F-250—18 tons
Volkswagen Touareg—15 tons
Jeep Grand Cherokee—13 tons
Mercedes-Benz GL320 CDI—13 tons
Mercedes-Benz ML320 CDI—12 tons
Mercedes-Benz R320 CDI—12 tons