Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hybrids in the News



  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Well in spite of the expressed rancor, are you aware that California is among the top five, of all 50 States, in buying alternative fueled vehicles for their fleet :confuse:

    ISSUED JANUARY 31, 2006:

    "The Department of General Services, State of California, (DGS) is issuing this Vehicle Purchase and Lease Policy as part of the State’s efforts to meet ambient air quality standards, reduce the State fleet’s petroleum use and impact on the environment, and control statewide fleet costs. This policy applies to the purchase and lease of light-duty (under 8,500 pounds gross-vehicle-weight rating) alternative fuel, gasoline, hybrid-electric, sport utility, and four-wheel drive vehicles.

    As required by the Federal Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992, 75 percent
    of the State’s light-duty vehicle purchases must be Alternative Fuel Vehicles
    A listing of all AFVs on the State’s vehicle master contract can be viewed at:
    To the maximum extent practicable, each State office, agency, and department that has bi-fuel natural gas and bi-fuel propane vehicles in its fleet shall use the respective alternative fuel in those vehicles.

    After having met the Federal EPAct mandate, all gasoline-powered light-duty sedans purchased or leased by State offices, agencies, and departments must be at a minimum certified to the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) LEV II Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) standards. Light-duty pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles must be at a minimum certified to the CARB’s LEV l ULEV standards or equivalent. Offices, agencies, and departments shall, when available, maximize the purchase or lease of available vehicles that meet or exceed California’s LEV ll Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) passenger vehicle standards for exhaust emissions and maximize the purchase or lease of hybrid vehicles that are substantially more fuel efficient. To view a listing of vehicles meeting these requirements, please refer to:

    The Vehicle Purchase and Lease Policy does not apply to authorized emergency or law enforcement vehicles that are equipped with emergency lighting per California Vehicle Code, Section 25252.

    The DGS, Office of Fleet Administration (OFA) will review any exception or exemption request to this Policy and assist offices, agencies, and departments with vehicle purchases and leases. All vehicle acquisition requests must be submitted on an OFA 160, Vehicle Acquisition Request Form. For a copy of the OFA 160 Form, please refer to:

    See also THIS LINK for information about the Court validating the South Coast Air Management Agency's very strict fleet rules.

    Seems as though our neighbors in California, being pushed by the Governator, are indeed leading the nation in the purchase and use of AFV's. :)
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    So even the most 3rd environmentally alert fleet can be improved....Great news !!!
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "75 percent
    of the State’s light-duty vehicle purchases must be Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs). A listing of all AFVs on the State’s vehicle master contract can be viewed at: "

    Did you even look at the list of AFVs?

    I did; the list for Alternative Fueled/Flex Fueled Vehicles and Trucks consists of: E85 compatible Chevy Impala, Chevy Tahoe, and Chevy Silverado. That's it. Now, ask gagrice how many E85 stations are in California?
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,680
    E85 in CA. Still just the one retail outlet in San Diego. E85 going for $3.30. There are 3 private E85 locations on Federal property. I wonder if they let the state of CA have free E85 for being so environmentally astute. With all the noise about flex fuel vehicles and ethanol, you would think that some station in CA would take the handout from Uncle Sam.

    What's in Your State? I see there are none in Phoenix where they need to clean up the air.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Yes, and I actually read the list of what they have bought.

    It would have shown you those vehicles are specialty items, used by the Department of Water Resources which maintains back-woods dam's and other distribution properties, as well as Fish & Game, lol. We all need to get out of the "gotcha" mind-set. The vast majority of them are normal, LEV's. ;)

    Everyone, just try to be happy and positive about what steps they are taking. What they are doing is 100% more than the majority of States and Countries throughout the world. :)

    I do believe the Dept of General Services also has an E-85 station in Sacramento now, as well.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    I must be confused (go figure).

    Wasn't your initial post mostly to the effect that the State of California was mandating that 75% of their light-duty vehicle purchases MUST be AFV's? I mean, that is the part you bolded and underlined.

    All I did was look at the link provided to see the list of the AFVs on the State's vehicle master contract. When I did so, the only vehicles I see are the Chevy E85 compatible vehicles I mentioned earlier.

    Here's the pertinent page:

    Which I interpret to mean that 75% of the State's light-duty vehicle purchases must be Chevy E85 compatible Impalas, Tahoes, and Silverados.

    Am I missing something?

    "Everyone, just try to be happy and positive about what steps they are taking."

    Well, I'm sure they ARE doing something. But your post was regarding AFVs, which in reality are nothing but (from what I can tell) E85-compatible vehicles. And it's difficult to take seriously that this means they are 'doing something' when there are but a mere handful of E85 stations in California.

    Why not simply mandate that the California fleet mileage must be 'x' mpg? In essence, enact their OWN CAFE standards which, as purchaser, the State would have to meet?
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    They did mandate lots of things, including fuel economy.

    I will have to search through the history from home for all the links, or you could just rummage around like I did. :)
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    The state of California is going to sue all the major auto manufacturers for the damage their CO2 emitting vehicles have caused. I've read several stories on this and there is no mention of suing the people actually buying and driving these vehicles. For the sake of argument let's assume that the CO2 being generated by automobiles is a big contributer to global warming. Why wouldn't you go after the people burning the gas? Its comparable to going after a gun manufacturer but assigning no blame to the shooter. Or stating that its not your fault for being fat, it's the fault of McDonalds and Burger King. IMO, a fairly transparent political stunt.
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    Simple -

    Sue the ones with the money. Afterall, as individuals, the consumer simply CAN'T be held accountable....we've all been brainwashed, remember? Even those California state legislators driving Expeditions, Suburbans, and Navigators aren't responsible for their own actions.

    I'm waiting for the State to sue all the oil companies next for making that heathen gasoline available at too cheap of a price.....
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Well, think about it....

    Suing automobile manufacturers seems a stunt, but who could have honestly predicted 30 years ago that cigarette manufacturers would successfully be sued for making a health hazard, since we all knew they were bad for us! :P
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    That's not a valid analogy. For many years the cigarette manufacturers denied that their product was addictive or caused health problems even though they had evidence to the contrary. The auto manufacturers aren't claiming that their SUV's are fuel efficient. And the auto manufacturers actually do offer efficient vehicles if the consumers wants to make that choice. There is no safe cigarette for the smoker to choose.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    My God!

    Even when I post agreeing with you, tpe, you still come back with an argument to a tongue-in-cheek post! :surprise:
  • john500john500 Posts: 409
    It is a pretty reasonable analogy. No one mandated people to consume more gasoline. They just did. Why? They were duped by seducive advertising. Most people will try to state that it was their "free will" and logic (safety) that made them buy a 6,000 pound, poor handling vehicle (on credit, of course). Like a cigarette, there is no safe automobile or SUV either. A 6,000 pound SUV going head on with a tractor trailer or dump truck will lose every time. Deaths caused by cigarettes are an example of severe extrapolations. People will die from lung cancer regardless of their exposure to cigarettes. However, all people who have smoked even once are generally lumped into the "smoking-induced death" category. People will not die in a car accident if they never came into contact wtih a car.

    I agree with Rorr. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for all of their own actions, no matter how seducive the advertising. Cigarettes were just a convenient target for taxation.
  • terry92270terry92270 Posts: 1,247
    Well all the more appropriate, really, in light of the fact the US Government distributed "free" cigarettes to the Armed Forces up until after the Vietnam War, even to VA hospitals! :P
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    We aren't talking about taxation, we're talking about a lawsuit against the auto manufacturers. Specifically they are being sued for the damage caused by the CO2 their vehicles put in the air. I'm pretty sure that these vehicles don't emit any CO2 until someone drives them. And I know that all vehicles have EPA stickers, which clearly state the vehicles mileage, which directly corellates to CO2 emissions. Yes EPA estimates aren't totally accurate but they are actually closer on low mpg vehicles than high mpg vehicles so when someone buys a Lincoln Navigator they know for a fact that they will be generating a lot of CO2 while they drive. My point is how can you sue the auto manufacturers and not the drivers? My conclusion was that its not politically popular to make individuals responsible and accountable.

    I agree there is no completely "clean" or "green" automobile. That brings up another question. If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage. So based on the prevailing logic in CA it would still make sense to sue in this situation but seek less in damages.

    I read an article yesterday stating that small car sales are going to set a record this year. Imagine that. High gas prices result in changing the public's buying decisions. This should no doubt equate to a rise in CAFE for the year. It's not rocket science. If you want people to buy and drive efficient vehicles the price of gas needs to be high. To put it on the manufacturer is a cop-out and also ineffective at achieving the goal.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,680
    If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage.

    I agree with your whole post. You cannot be a little pregnant. Politicians always go for the easy targets with the most visibility. If they go after the guy driving a 1975 Oldsmobile that is blowing black smoke out the back it would not make big news.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Toyota says NO DIESEL HYBRIDS FOR YOU !!!

    Toyota has ruled out production of a diesel electric hybrid vehicle in response to plans for such cars from French carmaker Peugeot.

    Environmentalists say a car combining clean diesel technology with electric motors could achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions that would make them cleaner than Toyota's iconic petrol hybrid Prius.

    But doing so would push up costs far beyond what consumers would bear, according to Toyota Motor Europe chief executive Tadashi Arashima.

    "Already the diesel [price] premium is quite high, then you'd have to pay a hybrid premium, so we're not seeing that there's a market," Mr Arashima told BBC News.

    This is not good news. My dream car is a 5-passenger diesel/electric car that gets 70+ MPG on the EPA combined and costs less than $35K.

    Looks like Toyota will not be building it. :cry:
  • rorrrorr Posts: 3,630
    "My conclusion was that its not politically popular to make individuals responsible and accountable."

    Bingo. It is NEVER politically popular, regardless of the issue, to make individuals responsible. Remember, to a politician, we are but sheep with no minds of our own, wandering aimlessly until Madison Avenue tells us where to go.

    "If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage."

    Are they?

    We all emit CO2 just breathing - and we do it 24/7. Are we causing environmental damage?

    "Oh c'mon", you'll say. "The amount of CO2 exhaled by a human is insignificant compared to what is emitted by a 40mpg fuel sipper, let alone a 15mpg SUV".

    TRUE. But then the question becomes: Where is that magic line in the sand? At what point to does 'environmental damage' occur? Just how much CO2 is TOO much? Is the lawsuit saying that the 'damage' inflicted by a 40mpg car OK but the 'damage' inflicted by a 15mpg SUV is not? Now trying PROVING that point in a court of law.

    Another point, all these manufacturers make fuel efficient automobiles. As individual consumers, WE chose whether or not to conserve fuel. Are the manufacturers being sued for giving the consumer a CHOICE? Or are the Califorinia politicos saying that the general public is just too stupid to make the 'right' choice therefor, as our esteemed intellectual betters, they must step in and protect us from ourselves?
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,680
    My dream car is a 5-passenger diesel/electric car that gets 70+ MPG on the EPA combined and costs less than $35K.

    DCX built just such a car, the Intrepid ESX-3, in 1999. It was shot down by Chrysler because they did not believe anyone was crazy enough to pay the hybrid premium that Toyota is currently getting for their hybrids.

    Much better looking than any of the Toyota hybrids IMO.
  • tpetpe Posts: 2,342
    I really have no idea what the politicians are trying to accomplish other than make headlines. It would make far more sense to simply ban vehicles that got less than 20 mpg. But then people would claim that they were being denied choices. But when over 50% of the people choose these inefficient vehicles its the auto makers fault. It's lunacy but somehow it makes sense to the masses because I think the overall reception to this proposed lawsuit is positive.

    I'm not sure what we can do about our producing CO2 when we breath. Its possible that people with certain metabolisms produce more CO2 than others. There are probably medical test that can identify these people and then they need to be sued also.
This discussion has been closed.