<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chrysler: Taking Taxpayer Money and Running Away From Cleaner Cars</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/chrysler-taking-taxpayer-money-and-running-away-from-cleaner-cars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/chrysler-taking-taxpayer-money-and-running-away-from-cleaner-cars/</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: walker o</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/chrysler-taking-taxpayer-money-and-running-away-from-cleaner-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-48201</link>
		<dc:creator>walker o</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=20221#comment-48201</guid>
		<description>Any fuel savings here in the usa is absorbed by compensatory use in asia. Carbon footprints of individual is not the key. The key is figuring out how much a policy will affect the pumping of oil out of the middle east oil reserves. Can anyone image that they won&#039;t pump those reserves dry? Thus peak oil will have a bigger impact on mpg in the end anyways and we will have produced the same amount of co2 emissions. The only only thing that will change that is 1 . cold fusion or 2. massive reductions in fertility rates in industrialized nations (or nations that export their offspring to industrialized nations). Cold fusion is a dream and policies to reduce fertility are taboo. We are screwed unless we get lucky or people decide to take on population growth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any fuel savings here in the usa is absorbed by compensatory use in asia. Carbon footprints of individual is not the key. The key is figuring out how much a policy will affect the pumping of oil out of the middle east oil reserves. Can anyone image that they won&#8217;t pump those reserves dry? Thus peak oil will have a bigger impact on mpg in the end anyways and we will have produced the same amount of co2 emissions. The only only thing that will change that is 1 . cold fusion or 2. massive reductions in fertility rates in industrialized nations (or nations that export their offspring to industrialized nations). Cold fusion is a dream and policies to reduce fertility are taboo. We are screwed unless we get lucky or people decide to take on population growth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJB</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/11/11/chrysler-taking-taxpayer-money-and-running-away-from-cleaner-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-48101</link>
		<dc:creator>DJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=20221#comment-48101</guid>
		<description>Chrysler is one of the most ridiculous car companies in operation. Their MOST efficient vehicle, the Sebring mid-sized car, gets 21 city MPG and 30 highway MPG (fueleconomy.gov). This is obviously pathetic, and says nothing about the full life cycle environmental impacts of material mining, car manufacture, land use impacts (e.g. parking), and disposal, AND nothing about the safety impacts to cleaner transportation of more cars on the road. 

Talk is cheap. Car companies should be judged based on what they put out, not the concept cars they make in Photoshop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chrysler is one of the most ridiculous car companies in operation. Their MOST efficient vehicle, the Sebring mid-sized car, gets 21 city MPG and 30 highway MPG (fueleconomy.gov). This is obviously pathetic, and says nothing about the full life cycle environmental impacts of material mining, car manufacture, land use impacts (e.g. parking), and disposal, AND nothing about the safety impacts to cleaner transportation of more cars on the road. </p>
<p>Talk is cheap. Car companies should be judged based on what they put out, not the concept cars they make in Photoshop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

