Disregarding CO2 emissions, which I do not believe is detrimental, there is a push for more fuel efficient cars to be on the road. A study done in California in the early 1990's revealed that an older, well maintained car can have fewer NOx emissions than a newer, poorly maintained car. Nevertheless, the idea of getting older cars off the road to make room for newer, more efficient cars has infiltrated the mindset of the general, willfully ignorant, American public who have succumbed to the false doctrines preached by the liberal leeches of society.
The cash for clunkers program which ran a few years ago was aimed specifically to target older cars in an effort to "jump start" the economy. This too was a control scheme imposed by the liberal agenda. Older cars that were traded in for newer, and uglier body styles, were not shipped to 3rd world countries where they would have helped more people get around. Neither were they used to increase the selection of used vehicles for people in this country who needed a car but couldn't afford a new one. Instead, pulverized glass or metal shavings were put into the engines to ruin the cars and they were left to rust in junk and scrap yards across the country. This in no way helped people who couldn't afford an expensive car as it resulted in fewer used cars for sale. This drove the used car prices up making them unaffordable for people who needed a car to get around. The end result is that the liberals, who claim to be on the poor's side, have left them to fend for themselves.
While many newer cars that have replaced these "clunkers" tend to be more fuel efficient hybrids, they are not the answer to higher gas prices. A couple reasons are that they are generally underpowered and have an outrageously expensive battery taking up valuable real estate in the trunk of the car. Another reason to not get a hybrid is that they have both a gas powered engine and an electric motor. When more technology goes into a car it creates additional systems. So in addition to a gas drive system, a hybrid has an electric drive system, and another system to toggle between the two. This means that hybrids have many more additions, or things to break down in the future. Is it worth getting slightly more miles per gallon then the most fuel efficient non hybrid gasoline vehicles which are also highly underpowered? No. What little savings one gets at the pump are amplified severely with potentially more costly repairs in the future as well as having to replace a $6,000 battery every 8 years or so. Moreover, the additional energy required to produce the additional systems required in a hybrid means that more pollutants are being pumped into the atmosphere during the manufacturing process. So in an effort to reduce the pollutants by trying to make more fuel efficient vehicles, more emissions are being released.
While the idea of a more fuel efficient car is easier on the wallet at the pump, the main reason the government raises fuel efficiency standards is because the EPA has gone off the deep end with relation to CO2 emissions. The most significant greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are water vapor, ozone, and methane. CO2 makes up less then a percentage of the atmosphere. Studies have also suggested that any CO2 induced warming that may occur eventually plateaus and does not further increase warming. This is quite reasonable based on the earth's energy budget with regard to the levels of insolation at different latitudes due to the curvature of the earth, along with the fact that the equatorial regions are not the hottest places on earth but rather, roughly 30˚ North/South latitude. All CO2 has done was to make Gore richer than Romney.
Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere while decaying things release CO2 back into the atmosphere. Consequently, there is less CO2 during the warmer months as vegetation grows then during the cold winters, when the fallen foliage begins to decay. Because of this concept, there is a push to produce ethanol as a gasoline substitute. Since ethanol is produced from grains, the CO2 generated from the combustion isn't adding anything to the atmosphere that wasn't there a season earlier, whereas fossil fuels which are mined from the ground. Also, ethanol tends to reduce the life of an engine so it will cause people to replace their vehicles more often, resulting in more resources being consumed to manufacture more cars than what would have been necessary.
Fossil fuels shouldn't be an issue in the first place. After all, the current climate of today which we would consider the norm, likely wasn't the norm in the past. Burning fossil fuels is just releasing carbon back into the environment it was in in the past. It requires 10% or more of the atmosphere to be composed of CO2 for it to be toxic and I would argue that 3% would be optimal as it was thought that the atmosphere had 3% CO2 at one time.
Even though the concept of CO2 emissions being harmful is a fabricated issue, diesel is still a better alternative fuel to gasoline. Unlike gasoline engines which rely on horsepower, diesel engines rely on torque, giving them greater power as they go up hills, that their net fuel economy is equal to and usually greater than hybrids, without being underpowered and having more systems to drive the car.
Unlike gasoline that can be substituted for ethanol, which in doing so would also drive up the cost of grains, thus making people in starving nations starve even more to where they loose enough weight to the point that they disappear, diesel can be easily and safely manufactured in one's own home. It is true that newer cars are designed for clean diesel, and biodiesel will ruin the emissions controls of a car. Of course the emissions controls are the least of one's worries when anarchy breaks loose next month after the dollar collapses and no longer becomes the world reserve currency thanks to Bernanke's printing spree. Emissions controls also reduce fuel economy slightly so whatever reduced emissions a car may output is made up for by greater fuel consumption. Try telling that to the EPA. They don't care.
Diesel can easily be manufactured from vegetable oil in a process that is easier and safer than running a meth lab. Also, a few years ago, a guy in Pennsylvania came up with a process where it can also be manufactured from any biomass, including trash by simply mixing the trash with water in a pressure cooker and then siphoning portions of the slurry and converting it into biodiesel. Goodbye lawn clippings. Hello diesel.
While gasoline is not a renewable resource and ethanol competes against feeding the hungry, diesel is a renewable resource. Moreover, due to the greater torque which results in lower rpm's a diesel engine can last much longer than a gasoline engine. It also means that a diesel engine can go 10,000 miles between oil changes. It's great spending less time at the mechanic for regular maintenance.
Of course, a diesel engine can also produce fuel economy that is superior to a hybrid's. The secret is to accelerate slowly, and to coast. Of course I would not recommend being an annoying driver that doesn't accommodate their speed when other drivers are on the road. Simply time your commute away from rush hour and take roads with less traffic. Of course when one cannot do these simple steps, one will have to resort to a fuel economy in the mid-40mpg range. This is still better than most hybrids.
Of course, a diesel engine can also produce fuel economy that is superior to a hybrid's. The secret is to accelerate slowly, and to coast. Of course I would not recommend being an annoying driver that doesn't accommodate their speed when other drivers are on the road. Simply time your commute away from rush hour and take roads with less traffic. Of course when one cannot do these simple steps, one will have to resort to a fuel economy in the mid-40mpg range. This is still better than most hybrids.
