The elites are well aware of the potential for mass starvation and death.
4 Likes
Rich Elites:
2 Likes
They don’t plan to be among those of course.
4 Likes
You mean aside from stupid green energy policies getting people killed? Those kinds of negative impacts? Europeans risk death by cold for green folly — and we could be next | The Hill
“Slavish commitment to green politics, coupled with foolish idealism, will cost lives this winter. Britain alone suffers more than 28,000 excess winter deaths a year. About 200,000 such deaths occur in all of Europe each year, with mortality increasing by 1.5 percent for every 1-degree Celsius decrease. A bitterly cold winter and a sharp decline of constant heating could potentially trigger a six-figure increase in excess deaths continent-wide. In particular, areas with a high urban population (less able to provide wood as a backup heating source) or especially high dependence on Russian heating oil — such as France, Britain, or Germany — will be at much higher risk.?”
Cost of going Green:
My new truck…. In order to “meet epa standards” has to be equipped with a device that’s only function is to burn large soot particles into smaller soot particles.
This device gets plugged and triggers a burn about every 500-600 miles. This burn takes about 45 minutes of continuous highway driving. If the burn doesn’t complete the process repeats.
During this burn the trucks mpg drops by about 35% from ~16mpg to ~10. If the process is neglected for too long, the system plugs, the truck goes into limp mode, and the exhaust system has to be disassembled and cleaned by the actual dealership.
Soooo. In order to “meet epa standards” and not have my truck electronically disabled, roughly once per tank of fuel I have to get on the interstate and drive for roughly an hour for no reason because it’s the only way for me to drive long enough at speed for the system to do it’s burn.
Or thankfully I live in a non “inspection” state and I can just pay $1300 to by a kit to delete the whole dumb system from the truck.
3 Likes
No, they’ll be eating wagyu while encouraging us peons to eat insects to combat climate change. 
4 Likes
The reality is that to truly save the planet would require a substantial reduction in the number of human beings!
2 Likes
GM introduced a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine into their 1500 truck line to help increase CAFE ratings. The problem is that it isn’t selling. I attended a meeting where the minds in the room were all stumped. I told them, I’m driving one and it’s in the parking lot. I wanted to experience it so that I could understand the positive and negative aspects. The power is excellent and so is the fuel mileage. It actually has more torque than the V8 with a slightly larger towing capacity. The problem is the sound. When a man climbs into his truck, his voice drops and his privates grow an extra inch when he hears the sound of that V8, dual exhaust engine. The sound of the four cylinder makes him sing in soprano. Fix the sound and you’ll sell this powertrain. 
2 Likes
Absolutely. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. 
They just need to put some better exhaust on it.
It’s kind of like the Ecoboost 3.5l. They don’t sound good stock. But when you put some good Borla exhaust on them they sound like old Nissan 300zx turbos from the 90s.
I did hear one of the 4cyl Silvys with an exhaust kit once. It sounded like an old Acura Integra with turbo whine. Which I thought was cool but I know not everyone likes that raspy lawn mower noise.
Delete that Regen system immediately.
It’ll screw up the exhaust valves.
That’s not true, but that is the priority of the political elite - to reduce the number of what they see as their dependents, who threaten their continuing access to the present high standard of living.they have become accustomed to and believe themselves entitled to.
The kit to get rid of it arrives tomorrow. 
3 Likes
There’s a lot of truth to that.
But assuming all this is true, it tells me the V8s are leaving a lot of performance in the trash. 2 engines of vastly different displacements shouldn’t put out near the same power unless one is severely choked off.
What really gets me, but would be hard to figure out, is:
Does it actually save any emissions? If the the exhaust is 2x cleaner but your burning 2x as much gas to accomplish it, it’s not a net positive.
Or in the case of this system…. Which is better environmentally? A truck that has finer spots particles, but has to be driven on a highway solidly for 15-20% of each fuel fill up, all while getting worse gas mileage?
Or an unmolested truck……
Or one that’s gone the other way. Had all its emissions deleted, and had performance tunes loaded, and now gets better mileage than stock.
The planet doesn’t need “saving” and even if it did the things libs believe in don’t make a smidge of difference.
God is firmly in charge even though it galls/angers libs to hear such a thing.
3 Likes
How’s this for a way?
2 Likes
I haven’t driven my truck 45 continuous highway minutes in the 12 years I’ve owned it. 
Very true. When Ford came out with the v6 eco boost with twin turbos. I didn’t like the sound on outside. But it was engineered to sound good inside and the feel in your feet on the floor board felt like a V8. I thought it was genius. Loved mine.
Thd one thing I really miss with the Tesla is the sound.
2 Likes
What I find most irritating about the logic that resulted in that nonsense, is that the smaller soot particles produced by that system are considerably more harmful because they go deeper into the lungs where they remain for much longer thus have greater potential to cause major health issues. Big black soot particles are ugly and stinky, but they are far less dangerous to our health.
