President Bush signed a piece of legislation this week that requires automobile makers to increase the fuel efficiency of the cars they produce by up to 40% by the year 2020, effectively putting himself in the same boat with the people who propose putting restrictions of manufacturers to help decrease the effects of global warming.
He could be doing this because he really believes in the cause, or because he wants to make the republicans look a little more “environmentally aware” in the eyes of the American people. Either way, he has turned his back somewhat on producers, and our rights.
Either way, he has turned his back somewhat on producers, and our rights.
Actually he has given them the finger.
I heard him touting reduced carbon emissions as a benefit of this plan and the news report said it had its critics–for not going far enough! No mention of anyone thinking that perhaps this has gone too far.
All that will happen will be more SUVs on the road as people who don’t want to drive econoboxes find there are no longer any cars they like. Even by their “logic” it’s *dumb*.
All that will happen will be more SUVs on the road as people who don’t want to drive econoboxes find there are no longer any cars they like. Even by their “logic” it’s *dumb*.
Don’t these CAFE standards apply to SUVs? They include “light trucks” and “non passenger automobiles”, so I assume SUV are somewhere in there too. [i think SUVs are “passenger cars” under the following rule: “any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting 10 people or less”]
Example: Based on that CAFE web-site, if an auto company cannot meet the average, it has to pay a fine for each vehicle sold. The current fine is $55 for each MPG under target. So, with the current target of about $22 MPG, a vehicle that gives 19MPG will incur a fine of $165 (55 * 3) unless offset by the sale of other (efficient) vehicles.
Not sure if the fines change, or if only the PMPG standards will change. Anyway, to the extent they are unable to increase fuel-efficiency, manufacturers will probably add an additional premium to the price of higher fuel-consumption vehicles and offer some discount on the smaller efficient vehicles.
At first I thought this was going to be about Bush actually pointing a gun at an automobile .
But think about it this way: the U.S. is very far behind everyone else on car manufacturing to the point where we can’t even sell our cars in other countries. They are illegal because they emit so much pollution.
It’s still force and it’s still wrong, but it might work out better for car companies in the long run.
And global warming could be a real possibility. Seems like more evidence mounts every day. There’s a big difference between doing something with your product that some people don’t like and doing something with it that can effectively destroy the world. If they get enough real, unbiased scientific evidence behind global warming as a major threat then I would back his decision to restrict CO2 emissions in cars.
the U.S. is very far behind everyone else on car manufacturing to the point where we can’t even sell our cars in other countries. They are illegal because they emit so much pollution.
That’s not true.
And global warming could be a real possibility.
Uh… no, I think not. Especially not the catastrophic scenarios that they have to outright lie and cheat with their computer models to make happen. And even then, the system is far more complex than “CO2 BAAAAD;” in fact methane and water vapor have much higher influences and if there existed a problem to solve it would be more practical to solve it by other means - probably by altering natural sources - which emit many, many times more CO2 than man. Furthermore, our self-sacrifice would be pointless unless we were prepared to go to war with other countries to force them to play ball. It would be a futile, impractical, and useless approach.
But as I said, there is no problem… other than a hysterical media and a ideologically compromised scientific orthodoxy which is in bed with governments and regulators everywhere who crave power.
If they get enough real, unbiased scientific evidence behind global warming as a major threat then I would back his decision to restrict CO2 emissions in cars.
(bold added)
I wouldn’t, even if their vicious lie somehow magically came true. The answer isn’t government regulation and the trampling of property rights as a “preemptive” measure.
I wouldn’t, even if their vicious lie somehow magically came true. The answer isn’t government regulation and the trampling of property rights as a “preemptive” measure.
In the medium to long run, the rising price of petrol will price the gas-guzzlers out of the market.
If there were an econo-box that I could afford that got fifty miles (or more) to the gallon (or its cost equivalent) I would buy it in a thrice. As it is, I have driven the smaller cars for the last 30 years. My cars currently give me 32-35 mpg. I also use bicycle for short trips (weather permitting). Every gallon of gasoline produced from middle east sources helps to finance bin Laden and his ilk. I try very hard to minimize my contributions to al Quedah.
I am looking forward to the day when we get most of our energy from electricity generated by fission and geothermal heat. Forget fusion. It ain’t going to happen in your lifetime.
In the medium to long run, the rising price of petrol will price the gas-guzzlers out of the market.
Another myth. Gasoline is not becoming more scarce, although cowards who surrender to looting thugs do put a lot of the supply out of Western control, thus driving prices higher than they ought to be. That, and the environmental mythmongers put a lot of our supply off limits with their crippling laws and regulations.
Prices may rise, and things may be pushed out, but it will not be the market at work.
Every gallon of gasoline produced from middle east sources helps to finance bin Laden and his ilk. I try very hard to minimize my contributions to al Quedah.
A problem easily solved, by actually fighting the former enemy and not letting the latter one hobble us. No need to resort to - or be forced into - the dreadful “econo-boxes,” as they are so aptly named.
Another myth. Gasoline is not becoming more scarce, although cowards who surrender to looting thugs do put a lot of the supply out of Western control, thus driving prices higher than they ought to be. That, and the environmental mythmongers put a lot of our supply off limits with their crippling laws and regulations.
Prices may rise, and things may be pushed out, but it will not be the market at work.
A problem easily solved, by actually fighting the former enemy and not letting the latter one hobble us. No need to resort to - or be forced into - the dreadful “econo-boxes,” as they are so aptly named.
Me and what army? I do what is within my power.
By the way, I never said the word scarce. I said more expensive. As long as the government taxes petrol it will not be cheap.
Cheaper alternatives to petrol will help, or cars that do not use as much.
The -real- solution to our energy suppy not dependent on foreign sources is to use fission to boil a lot of water or to tap geothermal sources (this is not easy). Underneath Yellowstone Park is a super volcano. If we could tap into the magma there we can forget the middle east ever existed.
Of course I agree that the government shouldn’t be imposing fuel economy standards.
However, “dreadful econo-boxes”??? They don’t have to be dreadful.
Here’s mine; “dreadful” is not a word I would use. This gorgeous and practical car will be 20 years old next year, and it still gets 40 mpg.
I don’t understand why people would deliberately drag around all the excess weight of an SUV and needlessly throw money away on gas. Of course, it’s your money, do what you will. But the only excuse I can see for wanting to throw away money on gas is if you drive a Lamborghini – I see one on the streets here occasionally, and I’m glad someone can afford a $200,000 car that gets 10 mpg, because it provides me with a thrill whenever I see it take off down the street!
In a twist to this new law, the EPA is saying that these higher Federal standards pre-empt standards proposed by states. California has wanted higher CAFE-type standards for a while, and other states want to adopt California’s standards.
The New York Times reports that California wanted “43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles” by 2016. In contrast, the new Federal standard calls for “a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020.”
Of course I agree that the government shouldn’t be imposing fuel economy standards.
However, “dreadful econo-boxes”??? They don’t have to be dreadful.
[…]
I don’t understand why people would deliberately drag around all the excess weight of an SUV and needlessly throw money away on gas. Of course, it’s your money, do what you will. But the only excuse I can see for wanting to throw away money on gas is if you drive a Lamborghini – I see one on the streets here occasionally, and I’m glad someone can afford a $200,000 car that gets 10 mpg, because it provides me with a thrill whenever I see it take off down the street!
It’s a nice car… but…
SUVS are safe, practical, fun and rugged. That’s a lot of value, and people who can reasonably afford nicer automobiles, purchase them for those sorts of reasons. If you need to haul a large package around from time-to-time, the SUV is a great thing. They are also safer in collisions than a smaller car would be, and safety is no small issue. I’ve always loved the fact that there are so many SUVs on the street, despite all of the environmental propaganda about the need to be fuel efficient. It shows me people don’t but into the phony rhetoric. Actions speak louder than words!
Fuel economy is a great thing for personal reasons, but it’s one of many factors in deciding what to purchase.
…but it might work out better for car companies in the long run.
Then let the market determine that, not the government.
I don’t understand why people would deliberately drag around all the excess weight of an SUV and needlessly throw money away on gas.
Because I want to and I love my Explorer, number one. Number two, because I like to go camping and take my dog everywhere and I cannot afford two cars, and number three, I frequently fill my car w/ friends and family and we carpool rather than taking two or even three cars everywhere we go.
Because I want to and I love my Explorer, number one. Number two, because I like to go camping and take my dog everywhere and I cannot afford two cars, and number three, I frequently fill my car w/ friends and family and we carpool rather than taking two or even three cars everywhere we go.
I happen to be able to afford two vehicles (by the device of paying the first one off then buying the second one used); my car gets about 30 MPG and the 4WD truck gets 17. I drive the car unless I have to drive the truck (because of weather, the need to haul stuff, or the car is in the shop); alas the car has 347,000 miles on it and I may soon have to spring for a new(er) one. Fortunately I was in the truck when I recently got rearended; my car, due to its lesser mass, would almost certainly have smacked the vehicle in front of it (the truck missed it by 6 inches or so), and been wrecked. As it is the truck seems to have received little to no damage though the car behind me left part of its bumper impaled on my trailer hitch receiver.
*If* you are in a situation where carpooling actually makes sense, it’s a very good thing, as K-Mac, J. Megan Snow and I have experienced going to Colorado Objectivist events (and I still owe you a dinner for saving me multigallons of gas, K-Mac!) If you are having to do backflips and inconvenience yourself greatly, it makes little sense, and in Colorado a desire to use mass transit is generally (some rare exceptions) grounds for being adjudicated insane. (I recall a special circumstance where it made sense for me to ride Denver’s toy trains light rail for a few days.)
I was not aware that the new standards did not have a “trucks” loophole, which is what killed the station wagon (because it was considered a “car” and was too much of a “gas hog”) and made the SUV popular (because it was a “truck”).
I think SUVs are “passenger cars” under the following rule: "any4-wheelvehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting10 people or less"
(emphasis mine)
If I were a manufacturer, I would:
Offer 11-seat SUVs
Put an extra pair of wheels on some models
Offer anyone who buys any 4-wheeled, 10-or-less seat car $1000 off the price if they also buy a quadricycle. The price of the quadricycle would be $250, including free after-sales disposal (and a nice green “100% recycled” sticker!)
Does the legislation that Bush signed only apply to American-made cars? If so, then won’t this just further harm the American car industry and really boost the Japanese and German car industries? Or have those countries, too, imposed the same regulations, or perhaps worse ones? If so, then we are all really screwed.
Does the legislation that Bush signed only apply to American-made cars? If so, then won’t this just further harm the American car industry and really boost the Japanese and German car industries?
The EU already has similar legislation in place. I don’t know about Japan–I hope they don’t and are not going to, or we might be stuck with Chinese cars…
Does the legislation that Bush signed only apply to American-made cars?
I think it would apply to cars sold in the U.S., regardless of where produced. It’s a good chance it does not apply to U.S. made cars that are exported. Of course, both these are guesses…the legislation must say.
I don’t understand why people would deliberately drag around all the excess weight of an SUV and needlessly throw money away on gas.
Well, if you were a kid in the 70s and took many long road trips in the big family sedan or the station wagon (remember them?), you’d clamor for a roomy SUV to take your kids out on vacation. Compare cramming six people (2 teens, 2 children and 2 adults) and their luggage in a 79 Ford LTD and driving for ten to fourteen hours striaght, without air conditioning in the back, and everyone listening to the same radio station or tape, to six people (same mix) and their luggage, each in his own seat, with air conditioning all around, a reasonable plasma screen showing a DVD to keep the children too preocupied to fight, argue or otherwsie get into everyone else’s nerves, with lots of room to spare for a cooler or two, with cup holders for everyone.
.