Democrats working on a bill to require new fuel economy standards

So in the name of fairness, we shouldn't demand the same goods you do so the price stays low? Hey, I want a Nintendo Wii, and I deserve it more! Everybody stop buying it so I don't have to pay as much!

Liberace wrote:

We care because demand influences price. If a bunch of idiots want to commute to work at 12mpg in gigantic SUVs, it hurts all of us. You use more and more fuel, which drives demand higher, which drives price higher. I end up paying the same $3.15 a gallon you do, even though I drive a 35 mpg Honda.

new guy up wrote:

why don't people trust the market in this situation? if prices get too high, people will buy cars with higher gas mileage.

here's a pretty interesting article on the subject:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR061907.html

The problem with relying on the market is that we don't know where the "tipping factor" price is. It's a great idea, but for the past seven years (price has gone from about $1.20 to $3.00) and there hasn't been a dramatic change in what people drive. Sure, hybrids have come out, energy efficiency has begun to be discussed, but there isn't that big of a change. It turns out that we can actually afford to spend more money on gas.

Just because we can afford to buy more expensive gas doesn't mean it's a good idea though. And that "tipping point?" Well, we haven't seen it just yet.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the average gas mileage for new vehicles sold in the United States has 23.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 24.7 in 2004. This represents a paltry increase of slightly less than 7% over the 25 year period.

The point? Gas goes up and WE STILL keep buying it in ever increasing amount because commuting is much more convenient. Of course, we could wait til' gas is $6.00 a gallon but by that point we will have already wasted a large amount of a resources that we won't be able to get back.

I want Americans to continue to gas guzzle and buy our oil. Keep rationalizing the need for huge land boats and enormous trucks. It's nice having a tame yet obese pet on a chain to yank on anytime we need more cash to supply out terrorists militias.

Liberati wrote:

Why do you care if someone else wastes their gas money? If you want great gas mileage, buy a car with great gas mileage. If the market for those vehicles gets stronger, the companies will make more of them.

Why use government mandates to regulate the buying preferences of other people? I think most video games are revolting, mind-rotting, time wasting extravaganzas, but I'm not pushing for Uncle Sam to force every game to be Brain Age.

Gasoline does not exist in limitless supplies. So if you hog up an excessive amount then the law of supply and demand drives up the price that I have to pay.

Le Foolio wrote:

The reality is that CAFE will result in added costs to automakers. These costs will be passed onto consumers (possibly in a regressive fashion, in that small cheap cars will cost more on a percentage basis). CAFE will also further force automakers to look for ways to cut cost elsewhere, by further off-shoring manufacturing, reducing choices to the consumer, or cutting corners in design. Some of the worst cars EVER designed resulted from the original CAFE implementation, and I predict that many great cars available today will be cut to help manufacturers meet CAFE standards. Ready for a FWD 120 HP WRX or a 170 HP 'vette?

By that rationale we should have never legislated limits on asbestos, lead paint, or other harmful substances. This is the same boneheaded argument Republicans make when they're trying to protect their corporate donors. It's total bullshit.

It's called innovation, you mook. Sure the automakers would have to get to work to meet new standards, and some of them would be better than others. The ones that pass the cost on to the consumer would lose market share, so they would think twice. In the end the consumer would still come out on top.

Toyota passed the cost of the Prius hybrid engine on to the consumer. Even after tax credits a Prius is still several thousand dollars more than another vehicle of comparable size and performance. AND it's ugly as fu\ck. But it's selling like hotcakes.

So the argument doesn't fly. The reasons for no fuel economy mandate in the US are that (a) it's the US automakers who are likely to lose the innovation battle because they suck, and (b) the oil companies would lose out.

Toyota is leading the charge against the increased standards, saying its not feasable. Its not just the US manufacturers saying that, not sure that makes them right-but just dont make the us makers the only bad guys here- Toyota is coming out with a HUGE Sequioa and rumored 3/4 ton heavy duty pickup, plus fighting the proposals.

Here is what Europe is proposing:

A reduction of grams of CO2/kilometer from 162g CO2/km (2005) to 130g CO2/km by 2012. This means that cars will have to average 43 mpg for gas and 48mpg for diesel. (quoted from Car & Driver, Dec 2007)

Kind of makes our proposed 35 mpg look a little weak eh?

Some car makers are oing to be in trouble as a Porsche Cayman (the lowest CO2 producer in their lineup) puts out 22g CO2/km.

As for cars under 3000lbs. very small group. Mini Cooper, Miata?, Yaris?, Lotus, ??.

We've had 33 years to deal with this, since the old Arab Oil Boycott. So what happens?

EXXON stock goes through the roof.

American car manufacturers make SUV's, Hummers and huge (I have a small d*ck so drive a big truck even though I work at McDonald's to compensate) Pickup trucks instead of 100-200+MPG vehicles.

Oil is now over $85/barrel.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Here are a few points to ponder:

Would you raise the fuel economy standard even if it made cars less safe?

For all you people bragging about driving a 35 mpg Honda, put your smug back where it belongs. You are probably a one person commuter most of the time, and it's agood bet you're not hauling around kids. Before you outlaw the minivan maybe you should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you're using all that extra gas just for yourself. After all, you could be riding a motorcycle or nt commuting by car at all. NO CARS ARE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. YOU ARE NOT HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT BY DRIVING YOUR CAR. The real energy user is probably your house/ whatever abode. You consume far more energy than most people in the world, so stop preaching Honda man.

The reason cars get better fuel economy in Europe is also due to the fact that many are diesels and Europe has less stringent particulate pollution laws than the U.S. Look for more diesel cars and trucks in the next few years as clean diesel is introduced in 2008.

Your Prius batteries are terrible for the environment and need to be replaced before the car reaches its max mileage.

The guy who claims all those mileage increases, I have to tell you that most cars are tuned to run on regular unleaded. As far as I know there are no mileage increases from using premium. You can get better mileage by keeping your tires inflated, removing your luggage rack (or Thule rack that you keep on all the time to let everyone know how Xtreme you are), or by removing extra weight. I actually took the back seat out and the tow hitch off my SUV.

Fuel economy should get better, but not at the expense of safety. All you smugutarians need to get a grip.

a rant wrote:

Fuel economy should get better, but not at the expense of safety. All you smugutarians need to get a grip.

Maybe if the roads weren't full of assholes in giant pickup trucks and suvs, all of us in our crummy little civics would be safer. Perhaps I'll buy a dump truck, using your logic, I would be safer.

Or perhaps you are wrong, and smaller cars are more nimble and less likely to be in accidents.

I drive my family around in my 35-40 mpg Hyundai Accent. If all cars are smaller they'll be on even footing in terms of safety. But even if you want bigger cars you still don't need to have a huge engine in the car. I've also got an old Altima that gets above 30 on the highway and close to it in town. Even a Suburban could get along just fine with a six cylinder engine.

No, cars are not good for the environment. Neither are heated houses, factories, mines, herds of cattle, appliances that run on electricity, agriculture, or much of anything else that doesn't involve living in a cave and huddling around the campfire. So the triack is to make those things, like cars, that minimize the damage.

I love peeps wrote:

its very simple to get more MPG out of your car.

First, I use premium and get another 10%- so sometimes the price is actually worth it. With some cars this works, with others not as much, but it will boost your MPG.

you sure about that? i've never heard anybody claim to have observed this before.

Typical Redneck wrote:

[quote]a rant wrote:

Maybe if the roads weren't full of assholes in giant pickup trucks and suvs, all of us in our crummy little civics would be safer.

Then why don't you drive a motorcycle you selfish smugalufagus?

I don't disagreee with this either. What I do take issue with are the people who take a high and mighty attitude towards others when their own lifestyle uses tons of energy. The current favorite whipping boy is the SUV. I hear people who live in huge houses and drive cars by themselves complaining about this. Guess what, some people have kids or plywood or whatever to haul around. Per person maybe they are getting much better mileage than your Honda.

Buildings are the number one energy consumer in the U.S., so all the noise about cars seems to be a lot of finger pointing. I'm not saying not to improve fuel economy -- energy independence alone dictates this as a worthy goal. What I am saying is that if you heat your house with heating oil and love your quaint old single pane windows then you need to shut up. Also, your house size is most likely a big luxury. Even in this country people used to live in much smaller places until recently. I'm not saying that you shouldn't live in a decent sized house, just that people complain moslty about the stuff that they think they're already "in the right" about and ignore the bigger picture.

You must not be familiar with i love peeps. That tool never posts anything substantiated by fact or reason. Ignore him. 10% better economy on premium is the most ridiculous claim, well SECOND most ridiculous, on this thread so far. The one about MPG being a function of taxes takes the cake.

I will give you credit for an original insult. I've never been called a mook before.First, you are correct in insinuating that I am a wealthy corporate donor simply trying to protect my business of selling poisons and toxins. No argument there. However, I will momentarily pause from eating caviar to respond to your other points.In your belligerent way, you're making my point. You admit that the development costs money, but you argue that those costs won't be passed onto the consumer. So instead they'll just further weaken the domestic manufacturers and others who are just barely getting by (e.g. Mitsubishi), as they have to further erode their gross margins.Ahh, but then you say that Toyota passed on the cost to us in the case of the Prius. Do some research...Toyota makes little to no profit on each Prius they sell. Nor are economies of scale having an impact, as they sell relatively few compared to, say, the Camry. They are using this car as an investment to position themselves in the marketplace and get granted immunity from criticism since they are the "green" manufacturer. By the way, even sold near cost, it still takes over 4 years for the Prius owner to recover the cost premium over a comparable vehicle.In the last paragraph, you give away the core of the argument...who cares about the domestics, since they just suck? I love how everyone has a knee-jerk reaction and blames domestic auto manufacturers without bothering to consider for a moment if three independently governed companies may be struggling due to common larger economic forces impacting them. Also, the argument somehow assumes that three companies with revenues collectively approaching $750 Billion somehow have only fools working for them. Finally, this is an argument usually advanced by people who regard the Midwest as "fly by" states -- they never have to see them, so who cares what happens to those inconsequential domestic automakers?

classic rationalizing. "all cars are bad so i might as well drive whatever i want". nice try. doing better is ... doing better. doing nothing because there is no solution is a coward's way of making no sacrifice at all. you took the back seat out? if you didn't need it, why did you buy such an enormous vehicle?

as for your prius batteries argument, this is an old one, and as usual, i'll ask for documentation. i've seen this one many times from your type and never with support.

wow! wrote:

classic rationalizing. "all cars are bad so i might as well drive whatever i want". nice try. doing better is ... doing better. doing nothing because there is no solution is a coward's way of making no sacrifice at all. you took the back seat out? if you didn't need it, why did you buy such an enormous vehicle?

as for your prius batteries argument, this is an old one, and as usual, i'll ask for documentation. i've seen this one many times from your type and never with support.

I never said that everyone should drive the biggest most polluting vehicle possible, just that there are rational reasons for people buying larger vehicles and that you are most likely a huge hypocrite who preaches on this because it's an area where you think you have the high ground.

I took the back seat out and reduced additional weight and drag factors os I would get better mileage for economic, geopolitical, and environmental reasons. The last time I drove my SUV (yesterday) I was hauling brush and wood. Some people actually use their vehicle.

If you want to know how the Prius batteries are made, it's well-documented. You can get sources by googling prius battery around world or something like that because they take a round the world trip before they end up in your car.

Enough about me, though, you never addressed my points. Why are you driving your car around with just you in it? Why aren't you driving some sort of a motorcycle? The weight of car/person ratio for you as compared to an SUV filled with kids must be TERRIBLE. How about your house? I bet it's a lot bigger than it has to be. Why don't you replace your furnace with a more efficient model or better yet use ground source geothermal.

I bet that you feel the need to upgrade your electronices regularly. The manufacturing process for that stuff is TERRIBLE. It's full of heavy metals and when you put it into a landfill you're putting a toxic mess into the ground. But I bet you needed to upgrade your computer.

Let's get back to your car. My SUV is 15 years old. I prolong its life by making repairs on it. As a byproduct of this, no new energy has been used to manufacture a vehicle for me in 15 years. You feel the need to buy a newer car because driving an old car would embarass you. People might assime that you are poor! So you just add that extra energy usage on in there sir consumes-a-lot.

Now I forget, where were you? You were telling me how bad me and "my type" (whatever that is) are. You're not a hypocrite at all. You might point out to jerks like me that you don't even RUN your air conditioner this time of year, thus saving energy. So, in summary, save your false eco-warrior act for someone else. Just because you thrwo the bottle from your bottled water into recycling at work doesn't mean you are really sacrificing.

wow!,

In my above post as YUCK! I forgot to reiterate my main point: Better fuel economy is great if it doesn not come at the expense of the safety of human beings.