Debate discussion

50 views
The Government > Electric Cars: Will the work? Would you buy one?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 65 (65 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments What would it take for you to switch over or buy an electric car instead of a petroleum based car? Do you think they can work? What are the pros and cons? Do you think Governments should mandate/legislate regarding this?


message 2: by Lela (new)

Lela | 167 comments I would totally get a hybrid! They're good for the environment and you don't have to worry about gas prices going up again!


message 3: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments If i had money.....


message 4: by Lela (new)

Lela | 167 comments ...AND a driver's license. lol.


message 5: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments Well drivers license is second to money really....its not like any cope here actually give a crap. lol my mom learned to drive when she was 12, like me.


message 6: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Well, I really don't know. It is better for the environment, but I forget to charge my cell phone, let alone a car.


message 7: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments lol


message 8: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) HYBRIDS ROCK YOUR SOCKS OFF!!!!

or at least they rock mine off, i dont know about anyone else.


message 9: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments yeah they're cool. But expensive.


message 10: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) yeah that part sucks.


message 11: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments It does! why does good stuff cost so much money??
Lol i know why.


message 12: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Yeah, I never get it. Why does organic food cost more than pesticidic(not a word.)? It costs money for the pesticides, right? And why does skim milk cost more than whole? These questions fill my head whenever I go to the grocery store. :D


message 13: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) i think skim costs less than whole (which is what we buy) because

A: skim milk tastes like sugar water so it has to be cheap so people will buy it lol
B: and i think they use the fat that the skim off for butter which they sell for more moolah so its cheap like that to

and organic is more expensive than conventional cuz pesticides and GMOs and all the other crap farmers put on produce is a lot cheaper than dealing with insects and crop failure and so organic farmers have big competition so they have to make it expensive so that the few people that purchase organic spend enough money to sustain the farmers on the receiving end.


message 14: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments YEAHYEAHYEAH


message 15: by Lily (new)

Lily (sobe) | 1 comments i would switch to an electric car if the battery technology can support it. currently electric cars use several batteries which are terrible for the environment. I certainly don't think the gov should be directly mandating them though. they may give incentives to those buying them since people who initially buy them are testing out the new technology for everyone else. CA tired to mandate zero emission a few years ago but the technology wasn't there. i may be wrong about that but i think incentives work better than mandates


message 16: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments I second that!

Plus i have no money!

Or a license!


message 17: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments Riley wrote: "Yeah, I never get it. Why does organic food cost more than pesticidic(not a word.)? It costs money for the pesticides, right? And why does skim milk cost more than whole? These questions fill my he..."

Yup, I'm afraid your wrong on this one. Skim milk does cost less than whole milk. But the whole pesticide thing is related to the fact that they lose less. So even though the farmers have to pay for the pesticides they get more crops and therefore more money.


message 18: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments Lily wrote: "i would switch to an electric car if the battery technology can support it. currently electric cars use several batteries which are terrible for the environment. I certainly don't think the gov sho..."
ARRRGGGHHHH Batteries are not bad for the environment if they aren't thrown away. Nearly all battery technologies are 99% recyclable. Current Lead/Acid batteries in cars are the most recyclable and recycled thing on the planet. They literally recycle everything. The plastic, the lead, the acid all get recycled. Plus with electrics (not hybrids, which still burn gasoline to charge the batteries) we can produce the electricity locally and cleanly in ways that make sense for that area. One powerplant with one smokestack is easier to clean than 10,000 tailpipes. Plus it would be cool to be able to sneak up behind Kenny in my silent electric car!



message 19: by jeeves... (new)

jeeves... | 644 comments who would wanna sneak up on kenny? i'd be more afraid of him sneaking up on me, if i were you...


message 20: by Alex (new)

Alex (Bigalreno) | 86 comments Who wants an electric lambo, not me.


message 21: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) actually its a true fact that hybrids arent any better for the earth than fuel cars because it takes so much energy and oil to manufacture them and the energy that is saved from using a hybrid is never completely replenished in the amount of time that they are driven so its the same.


message 22: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (Milkduds920) | 6408 comments what she said.


message 23: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Mitchell wrote: "Riley wrote: "Yeah, I never get it. Why does organic food cost more than pesticidic(not a word.)? It costs money for the pesticides, right? And why does skim milk cost more than whole? These questi..."

Now I get it! Okay, thanks Mitchell. Sorry, I just saw a brand that had the skim milk costing more than another brand's whole milk so I automatically assumed...but anyway...thank you!


message 24: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments Emma the Dork wrote: "actually its a true fact that hybrids arent any better for the earth than fuel cars because it takes so much energy and oil to manufacture them and the energy that is saved from using a hybrid is n..."

Completely agree with that when it comes to hybrids, but all electrics.....I have seen electric motors last more that 20 years. They don't have anywhere near the maintenance or upkeep and they are more recyclable. If a motor burns out it can be taken apart, recycled and rebuilt. I am not a huge fan of hybrids as a solution, I think all electrics are the way to go.


message 25: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) yeah but most people wont keep there car for more than ten years.......


message 26: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments They might if they lasted that long. And if you look around there are lots and lots of cars on the road that are 15 years old. From a moving parts/maintenance standpoint electric cars are simpler and therefore less appealing to the car companies who make a lot of money on repairs and maintenance


message 27: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) even if it does last that long, people think that anything they have had for more than like 2 years is ancient and therefore will get something new even if they CAN repair it and even if there is nothing wrong with it. people are weird that way


message 28: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) nice!


message 29: by Mitchell (last edited Jan 24, 2009 03:27PM) (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments Emma the Dork wrote: "even if it does last that long, people think that anything they have had for more than like 2 years is ancient and therefore will get something new even if they CAN repair it and even if there is n..."

You have a really good point, and a lot of our current automobiles are recyclable and there is a huge market for used cars, but if we could as a society move away from huge gas guzzling behemoths and switch to smaller more efficient cars then we could possibly upgrade every couple of years like we do with our iPods. Personally, I would love to see a small two-person car that had interchangeable panels and more and more recyclable parts. I guess I just think it is a little obscene to see people making a 20 mile commute in a car that consumes more energy than a small village and cost enough to provide housing for 5 families. I would love to see our society, our culture and our world value efficient transportation over pretentious automobiles that show off their wealth. Smaller less expensive more efficient transportation options would allow people to upgrade their vehicle or trade off every couple of years without the strain on our resources that big cars are

check out http://www.toyota.com/concept-vehicle... to see the car I would like to drive (other than I would want two tandem seats not just a single)


message 30: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments I am so angry. I just watch Who Killed the Electric car and it just aggravates me. Why did they have to kill it. I was getting really excited about some of the new plug-in hybrids until I read up on what a great car the GM EV1 was. It was amazing. It had 150 mile range, 0 to 60 in 8 seconds, and a top speed limited at 90 mph. That was built more than 10 years ago and it was just abandoned. Not to mention the Toyota Rav4 EV, and the Ford Ranger EV. Why are we going backwards?


message 31: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Because of humankind.


message 32: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments Well personally, I think it has to do with greed and power. Electricity can be produced cleanly and sensibly locally. grrrr... I know the movie pointed to lots of reasons for the failure of the electric car, but realistically whenever there is an entrenched system it is the most resistant to adapting a new way of doing things.

The car companies and oil companies are the best placed to develop a new transportation paradigm, but they are the most resistant to it because they are making lots of money doing things the way they are and change is hard.

Anyway, Fuuture commentors: Should Government mandate/legislate a change away from petroleum based transportation?


message 33: by Melissa (new)

Melissa Landers (MNLanders) I love the fact that they would be environmentally-friendly, but I'm a bit skeptical that they would be as great as everyone is letting them on to be. There must be some issues with it. The issues with cars now - gas expenses, oil, crappy service at the dealerships, etc.. I could go on, but I'll spare you. So, my point - no way is there NOT going to be at least some sort of problem(s) with these "Electric Cars". I'm all for the environmentally-friendly deal, but if it benefits the environment, what are the disadvantages and are we going to regret wanting these new cars as opposed to our old gas guzzlers?


message 34: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments With the electricity, we need to burn fossil fuels. Just wanted to throw that in there.


message 35: by Keith (new)

Keith (keifer) | 137 comments there was an electric car it was called the ev1

have you ever seen the movie Who Killed the Electric car?

they like destroyed all but one of them for no reason.

heres a website to look @

http://ev1-club.power.net/


message 36: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments I really want one, that or a fuel cell.


message 37: by Mitchell (new)

Mitchell (mbjorgensen) | 45 comments Riley wrote: "With the electricity, we need to burn fossil fuels. Just wanted to throw that in there."

Absolutely true, right now we burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. However, even now, it is easier to burn fuels cleanly in a power plant than 10,000 cars. Additionally, if we make a switch to electric vehicles it would be possible to generate electricity locally in clean renewable ways. For example solar in Arizona and tidal in Maine.



message 38: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Hmmm...all good points. :D


message 39: by Samantha (new)

Samantha | 120 comments I don't think electric cars would work because the oil companies have alot of emploies and this car would make them loose (not all their money) but a substantual amount of $.


message 40: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments But then all life on the planet would perish, so what is the use of money of the person with it is dead?


message 41: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) nice


message 42: by Samantha (new)

Samantha | 120 comments the whole world and everyone on it would eventualy die, did you think we could just go on forever? so you mtell me , What does it matter WHEN the world population dies?


message 43: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Well it matters a whole friggin lot to me. If we can extend the life of people on the planet then why not do it? Because some people are too lazy to save themselves and others? God doesn't like people who commit suicide.


message 44: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) lol i never thought i would see the day you referenced god, masha!


message 45: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Well, despite my atheism, what's a better way to argue with a Christian than to bring up God?


message 46: by Samantha (last edited Mar 21, 2009 11:33AM) (new)

Samantha | 120 comments God does not dislike people who commit suicide.he loves every one.


message 47: by Aryll (new)

Aryll (things_change) he only dislikes the sin that they committed


message 48: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Well he sure as hell doesn't approve of it.


message 49: by Emma the Dork (new)

Emma the Dork (cheesehead) again, so someone rapes a woman to death but he goes to church and was confirmed so he goes to heaven but a gay man discovers the cure to cancer and achieves world peace and becomes the first gay president but he is buddhist so he goes to hell. WTF???


message 50: by Aryll (last edited Mar 22, 2009 10:58AM) (new)

Aryll (things_change) the rapist would only go to heaven if he repented and was truely sorry for what he did. and if he was free from sin when he died.

okay, when the cure for cancer is found it will almost definitelly be a group of people, not just one person. because if it was easy enough for one person to come up with a cure, why hasnt it happened yet?
acheiving world peace is an impossible mission
being the first gay prez doesnt mean he's a saint by any means
did he chose to be a buddhist or was he raised that way with no teachings about other religions?
he could possibly go to heaven


« previous 1
back to top