October 17, 2011
For 1896, that is:
Meet the Roberts electric car. Built in 1896, it gets a solid 40 miles to the charge — exactly the mileage Chevrolet advertises for the Volt, the highly touted $31,645 electric car General Motors CEO Dan Akerson called “not a step forward, but a leap forward.”
The executives at Chevrolet can rest easy for now. Since the Roberts was constructed in an age before Henry Ford’s mass production, the 115-year-old electric car is one of a kind.
As the New York Times reported September 5, “For General Motors and the Obama administration, the new Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid represents the automotive future, the culmination of decades of high-tech research financed partly with federal dollars.”
So, in return for trampling the rights of bondholders and investing $50 billion taxpayer dollars (1) in order to protect the UAW, President Obama (2) has shown us the “automotive future” — a car that would have impressed… President Grover Cleveland.
Oh, why the heck not? His economic policies are right out of the 1930s; why not go back another 40 years?
Forward… into the past!
via JustOneMinute and QandO
(1) Of which you can assume a significant portion was borrowed from China.
(2) Oh, and you’ll be happy to know the administration ordered the purchase of 110 of the marvels of Green tech.
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)
March 29, 2011
In order to fight a problem that does not exist,
the monster under the bed anthropogenic global warming, the European Union is pushing to ban automobiles by 2050:
The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050.
The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.
Top of the EU’s list to cut climate change emissions is a target of “zero” for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU’s future cities.
Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.
“That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”
Not surprisingly, the Association of British Drivers has had a fit at the idea, calling it “economically disastrous” and “crazy.” While they’re right, that’s never stopped Green Statists in the past. I mean, what could be more desirable to their ethanol-fueled hearts than striking a blow against climate change (ignoring that it’s a natural process they cannot control) and at the same time constraining the individual liberty –in this case, the freedom of movement– of the citizen even more? I’m sure EUrocrats all over the Continent thrilled at the very idea.
And so did the buggy whip industry.
And thus we learn the Green Movement’s motto: Forward, into the past!!
via Pirate’s Cove
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)
June 21, 2010
Consider this as another example of why California is going down the drain, fast. Staking his claim to supplant Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-Dope) as author of the stupidest idea in state legislative history, Senator Curren Price wants California to spend money to research turning your car’s license plate into little billboards:
Another one for the “you just can’t make this stuff up” files… Democrat legislator Curran Price has introduced legislation that would explore requiring California automobiles replace their existing unobtrusive license plates with electronic signs — mini billboards. The state would then sell advertising on them. In the proposal, the ads would only pop up if the car was stationary at least four seconds.
Are you kidding?
Sadly, he isn’t.
First off, my car is my property. If anyone sells space on it for advertising, I should get the revenue. (Yeah, I know the state issues the plates, but they’re carried on my wheels.) Second, as Fleischman points out at Flash Report, what if I don’t like the product or cause being pimped? I don’t buy clothes carrying designer labels, why should my car be turned into someone else’s commercial? Will business vehicles wind up flashing commercials for their rivals?
Really, with state’s economy a wreck, it’s a crime that we’re wasting Senator Price’s salary and staff money on this nonsense. Hey, it’s great he’s trying to come up with new revenue, but how about something more sensible, like allowing oil drilling off the California coast? Or maybe cutting spending to meet revenue? Or easing up on the regulations that are driving businesses (and the taxes they pay) out of the state? Or… Oh, never mind. I forgot.
He’s a California Democrat.