Sunday, December 9, 2007

Follow-Up to My Electric Car Post

I'd also like to note that beyond the horrible actions of General Motors to prevent the electric car from ever having a chance, certain California legislations also allowed it to happen. I've just stumbled upon an outlook on how the federal government should handle the protection of the environment and thus encourage the production of such cars, taken straight from Ron Paul's web page Ron Paul on The Environment:

"In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems."

The California legislation that first led to the development of a pretty good variety of electric cars from several different manufacturers stated that if a manufacturer wished to continue selling cars in California X% of their cars must be zero-emission vehicles. That "X" value was meant to steadily climb over the years and would've been incredibly helpful in changing the way society drives and breaking us of oil if California hadn't caved to the car-makers and taken down the law.

What if it were suddenly in the hands of the people, as it should be? If you could make the case that this manufacturer or that was polluting your land and impeding on your ability to function outside the confines of your own home, you could sue them. Fear of this might just have the power to bring back the electric car. I'm not typically in support of the ridiculous law suits we have today, but to bring an end to people fighting and dying for a waning resource, I'd say it's worth it. If the Federal Government was able to sue California for the zero-emission laws, we too should be given the power and government aid to sue those responsible for smog alert days that keep us trapped indoors.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a total fantasy. Anyone who believes the lies in the crockumentary"Who Killed the Electric Car?" should be punished by being forced to buy and drive one for two years. The inability to understand why the technology failed in 2000 tells me that this joker is either one big fraudulent liar, or dumb beyond belief. I thought everyone was aware by 6 year of age what a car is required to do. Tell me. Does anyone love using batteries for anything?

Anonymous said...

You would think that an adult understood what a car was able to do and why the electric car failed. Those who claim GM is atoning for the EV-1 are just dumb or liars. The Chevy VOLT don't look nothing like the EV-1. If it did, why would it take GM 3 years to develop a car they have already built? The Chevy VOLT can carry more than two people, travel to destinations further than 40 miles away and still get you home,and costs roughly half of what the EV-1 cost. Gee, sounds to me like it's a different car. But what do I know when snot nosed liars like Chris Paine say differently. Of course, he's being paid a small fortune to keep telling the same lies , over and over, and over. I call on Chris Paine to answer the many criticisms lodged against his film, which even claims that the demise of the 19th century trolley cars during the 1950's was because they were electric !!!!!! What a complete boob! Doesn't he know that buses were already carrying
most of the pasengers in the city by the 1950's? What a jerk!

Kevin said...

Electric cars DO fall short in a few categories. Number one being their inability to tow your boats and trailers along. Then again, who among these people owns no other car than their large diesel engine that gets a whopping 15 mpg? I don't know anybody who doesn't have an alternate vehicle, and why shouldn't that vehicle be the exact opposite: something for local use, for people to get around. And, FYI, plenty of those supporting the electric cars WERE driving them around everyday. If they were totally useless, there wouldn't be rallies of people trying to keep them around or bring them back.

Though, I do appreciate the calm, intelligent debate you've tried to initiate. I love a debate void of pointless emotion which is used to do nothing more than manipulate and control people. Facts are so much better, aren't they?

I do hope you catch the irony. Does anyone love using batteries for anything? Well, compared to gas, I certainly do. As for this 40 mile limit, perhaps you missed the fact that it was using lead-acid batteries, then as lithium-ion technology came around they finally considered using the Ni Cad batteries. They were always playing it a step behind. Last on your list, the point isn't whether or not the trollies failed BECAUSE they were electric, just the fact that an electric infrastructure was allowed to collapse. Rather than spend all our time and money improving combustion engine technology, the electric systems should've been improved so that buses were the ones that became obsolete.

kimberly said...

The electric car in a great innovation nowadays, i think is a goop option not only to save money even more now the fuel is very expensive, but it could work to save our planet of the pollution environment. i think costa rica investment opportunities must be approach.