-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employee (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter withoutaface
- Start date
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
yer. although if the rest of their company is sinking, and they're funneling the profits into Detroit, then there's not a lot of hope for Holden I guess.boris said:
On the news this morning, they were saying that because of that fact, Holden won't be able to make a green car even with the governments incentives, because the parent companies want all the moneys anyway.
In retrospect, this thread seems needlessly misinformed and sensational.
A significant portion of the stimulus is for green manufacturing, while the rest is to ensure the companies making green cars don't flop before they're finished making the green cars. AND IT EXTENDS OVER 13 FUCKING YEARS.
Now, Toyota is taking advantage of the green fund. Holden and Ford may not be. But they are not the only companies around. That Israeli company I mentioned a few weeks ago is planning to spend billions in Australia on electric cars, remember, and car manufacturers in India and China are also very interested in setting up shop here to utilise this fund.
But most importantly of all: if the companies don't use the fund, then they don't use it, and no taxpayer dollars are spent. Like all stimulus packages, they happen over time.
A significant portion of the stimulus is for green manufacturing, while the rest is to ensure the companies making green cars don't flop before they're finished making the green cars. AND IT EXTENDS OVER 13 FUCKING YEARS.
Now, Toyota is taking advantage of the green fund. Holden and Ford may not be. But they are not the only companies around. That Israeli company I mentioned a few weeks ago is planning to spend billions in Australia on electric cars, remember, and car manufacturers in India and China are also very interested in setting up shop here to utilise this fund.
But most importantly of all: if the companies don't use the fund, then they don't use it, and no taxpayer dollars are spent. Like all stimulus packages, they happen over time.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
i would be unwilling to buy any car made in israel
just putting that out there
there are others like me
just putting that out there
there are others like me
Um, they'd be made in Australia you dickhead. That's the whole point of subsidising manufacturing in Australia, dig?Nebuchanezzar said:
On what grounds do you make that claim? Even the earliest model hybrids offered significant energy efficiency and pollution reduction improvements.Graney said:
You're sounding like one of those "all or nothing" extremists, Graney.
Oh, you were trolling.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/.../mfprius30.xml
http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0624-2w65.html
Read this thread:http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?p=3546750
Hybrids are mainly shit because it makes the owners feel nice and masquerades as a substantial environmental move. There's way too much hype about it being green, marketed to make you feel good about sitting in traffic burning oil. The west will not be saved by hybrids. It's greenwashing.
I don't think I'm an extremist, I'm a realist.
http://dogandlemon.com/media/General...DF/Hybrids.pdfTrefoil said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/.../mfprius30.xml
http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0624-2w65.html
Read this thread:http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?p=3546750
Hybrids are mainly shit because it makes the owners feel nice and masquerades as a substantial environmental move. There's way too much hype about it being green, marketed to make you feel good about sitting in traffic burning oil. The west will not be saved by hybrids. It's greenwashing.
I don't think I'm an extremist, I'm a realist.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
I skimmed over those links and all I'm seeing is bitching about the fact that hybrid cars cost more right now. That says nothing about their energy efficiency or pollution cuts. In fact, that Age article you link to continues on to say that hybrid costs will be far cheaper in future as demand increases and manufacturing expertise improves. No shit - isn't that obvious?
I'm amazed you're having an ideological fap about hybrids. I completely fucking disagree with you: if every person had a hybrid car instead of a normal car, the environment would be significantly better off (it wouldn't fix all our problems but it'd be a gigantic fucking step), and we would be far less reliant on hydrocarbon fuel, too. The initial manufacturing costs of early hybrid models is immaterial.
This isn't about feeling good just because you turn off a leaking tap or replace an energy-inefficient lightbulb, mate.
P.S. I can't believe you were ignorant enough to claim in that other thread that switching from the current internal combustion engine to coal-fired electricity is useless. Do you even have a clue about the efficiency and pollution disparities between the two? Here's a hint: they're pretty fucking large. For one, you can't sequester CO2 from an internal combustion engine, and you also can't run an internal combustion engine on nuclear, wind, geothermal or a mix, like you can an electric engine. But perhaps most importantly, internal combustion engines just have horrible fucking energy conversion efficiency to begin with. It doesn't take much for an electric engine to be better.
Yeah, I'm taking this sort of seriously because I expect a lot more common sense from you, Graney.
Um, that's a load of bull.Graney said:
I skimmed over those links and all I'm seeing is bitching about the fact that hybrid cars cost more right now. That says nothing about their energy efficiency or pollution cuts. In fact, that Age article you link to continues on to say that hybrid costs will be far cheaper in future as demand increases and manufacturing expertise improves. No shit - isn't that obvious?
I'm amazed you're having an ideological fap about hybrids. I completely fucking disagree with you: if every person had a hybrid car instead of a normal car, the environment would be significantly better off (it wouldn't fix all our problems but it'd be a gigantic fucking step), and we would be far less reliant on hydrocarbon fuel, too. The initial manufacturing costs of early hybrid models is immaterial.
This isn't about feeling good just because you turn off a leaking tap or replace an energy-inefficient lightbulb, mate.
P.S. I can't believe you were ignorant enough to claim in that other thread that switching from the current internal combustion engine to coal-fired electricity is useless. Do you even have a clue about the efficiency and pollution disparities between the two? Here's a hint: they're pretty fucking large. For one, you can't sequester CO2 from an internal combustion engine, and you also can't run an internal combustion engine on nuclear, wind, geothermal or a mix, like you can an electric engine. But perhaps most importantly, internal combustion engines just have horrible fucking energy conversion efficiency to begin with. It doesn't take much for an electric engine to be better.
Yeah, I'm taking this sort of seriously because I expect a lot more common sense from you, Graney.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
It's a bandaid over a gaping wound, a transitory move, that doesn't serve to get people thinking about the real changes they could, must make for sustainability.
Billions of hybrid cars isn't sustainable.
Mabye, but the point is, do we want to aim for a world with billions of people running around in private transport for eternity? Whether it's powered by coal or oil, it's still not really a green move. Look at stuff like the ford escape hybrid, whatever energy source you're running it on, it's a terribly destructive vehicle, but they get away with marketing it as green technology. If hybrids perpetuate the wests reliance on private transport, they are not a good thing.Trefoil said:
It's a bandaid over a gaping wound, a transitory move, that doesn't serve to get people thinking about the real changes they could, must make for sustainability.
Billions of hybrid cars isn't sustainable.
I doubt you can sequester CO2 on a practical, efficient, large scale, ever.Trefoil said:
You expected too much lol.Trefoil said:
Last edited:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
ok okTrefoil said:
need to make it clearer for sped
i'd be unwilling to buy a car manufactured by a company owned by an individual/corporation in Israel, nor would I be willing to buy a car made by a company that a corporation/individual from Israel has outsourced production to.
HAPPY?
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
The fact of the matter is, the early Hybrids mightn't have been all the much more efficient, no, but the cool thing about technology is that it gets better, and often exponentially.
Anyway, even supposing Hybrids had the same energy efficiency, that would still be superior since it draws from less environmentally damaging sources: grid electricity, sunlight, and things like regenerative breaking, as well as hydrocarbons. The other benefit here is that when hydrocarbons run out, we'll have a viable replacement: well-polished and efficient electric cars.
Or are you not planning for hydrocarbons to run out? And no line about biofuels. Those are generally just as bad as fossil fuels considering their impact on phosphate and food production.
No, their claims that Hybrids 'suck' are as vague as the claims that Hybrids will cure AIDS.Graney said:
The fact of the matter is, the early Hybrids mightn't have been all the much more efficient, no, but the cool thing about technology is that it gets better, and often exponentially.
Anyway, even supposing Hybrids had the same energy efficiency, that would still be superior since it draws from less environmentally damaging sources: grid electricity, sunlight, and things like regenerative breaking, as well as hydrocarbons. The other benefit here is that when hydrocarbons run out, we'll have a viable replacement: well-polished and efficient electric cars.
Or are you not planning for hydrocarbons to run out? And no line about biofuels. Those are generally just as bad as fossil fuels considering their impact on phosphate and food production.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
I'm all for more efficient cars, and hybrids, electric cars provide that in a limited sense, but they're overrated, and not really a solution to the deep, idelogical problems with the consumption based mentality of the modern world.
Basically my contention is that hybrids are perpetuating the idea we can happily run around in private transport forever.
I cbf going back into it, but there were some facts and numbers about how they're worse than the best diesels on consumption L/100km. There are better diesel cars.Trefoil said:
The principles on which hybrids work is fairly basic, like improving the internal combustion engine, I think there are limits to how great it can get.Trefoil said:
Hey, I'm not fan of biofuels.Trefoil said:
I'm all for more efficient cars, and hybrids, electric cars provide that in a limited sense, but they're overrated, and not really a solution to the deep, idelogical problems with the consumption based mentality of the modern world.
Basically my contention is that hybrids are perpetuating the idea we can happily run around in private transport forever.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
I'm getting the feeling that you're a fan of radical change, while I'm a fan of gradual reform. Which isn't a bad thing; the green movements needs both types to go anywhere. But I do believe that makes me the realist.
I'd prefer not to. But it's ludicrous to claim that we shouldn't aim for better cars because that might make it harder to convince people to use public transport (I highly doubt that is actually the case anyway - green is social AND political movement, and it's not just extinguished by some lazy drivers).Graney said:
Um, yes it is. It pollutes less and is more efficient. That's a green move. Is coal green? In most cases, no. Is switching to coal from internal combustion a green move? Yes.
Many people won't ever think of those moves. Don't expect them to. But, on the other hand, getting those people to use a cleaner vehicle which is also associated with the green movement is a very good thing because it increases the societal acceptance and awareness of the green movement - which means it becomes mainstream for the youth, our future leaders, and increases penetration for the people who are willing to think about green moves. And if it feeds the white guilt of some middle class slobs in the process, I really don't care.
Why not? Because you don't want it to be? I don't want billions of cars running around the world either but I'm not so foolish as to claim it is unsustainable.
Well, luckily a lot of scientists and governments disagree with you and are thus prepared to continue their research on making fossil fuels burn more efficiently and cleanly.
I'm getting the feeling that you're a fan of radical change, while I'm a fan of gradual reform. Which isn't a bad thing; the green movements needs both types to go anywhere. But I do believe that makes me the realist.
Last edited:
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
It's appealing technology to goverments and receives a lot of funding because they'd like to see business continue as usual.
GreenwashingTrefoil said:
A large proportion of a cars lifetime energy and resource usage is in it's construction. Even if they're electric, if by 'car' you mean anything on the size and scale of modern personal tran, with similar performance and carrying capacity, it will always be a hugely destructive vehicle on a scale of billions. How can the construction of something like this be sustainable?Trefoil said:
Carbon storage seems dubious and unrealistic. There's a lot of doubt around feasability from a number of angles- cost, energy penalty, permanence.Trefoil said:
It's appealing technology to goverments and receives a lot of funding because they'd like to see business continue as usual.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
Norway's consumer ombudsman has targeted automakers who claim that their cars are "green", "clean" or "environmentally friendly" with some of the world's strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others."
Norway's consumer ombudsman has targeted automakers who claim that their cars are "green", "clean" or "environmentally friendly" with some of the world's strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others."
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
The point is it's better for the environment than conventional cars. To me, that matters, even if you won't let me label it 'green'.
Fine, it's not green. Whatever you want.Graney said:
The point is it's better for the environment than conventional cars. To me, that matters, even if you won't let me label it 'green'.
Re: We are paying $238,000 in tax dollars for every single auto manufacturing employe
So I just had a quick look at Physorg today and what are two of the articles on the mainpage? Breakthroughs in CO2 sequestration, and clean coal production:
http://www.physorg.com/news146158855.html
http://www.physorg.com/news146144305.html
Hmm, gee.
So I just had a quick look at Physorg today and what are two of the articles on the mainpage? Breakthroughs in CO2 sequestration, and clean coal production:
http://www.physorg.com/news146158855.html
http://www.physorg.com/news146144305.html
Hmm, gee.