Regardless of whether or not the EPA tested the cars, the tests were done using the EPA test protocol ! Every single new car put onto the road today can go into an EPA lab, perform the test, old or new test, and get the MPG on the sticker.
And yes, in a perfect world, every driver should match or exceed the EPA "mileage E S T I M A T E but we all know that other factors come into play like tire inflation, driver behavior, weather, how much time is spent idling, how much A/C is used, how long your commute is, etc etc ad infinitum !!
And it's not FRAUD because it IS DONE and the cars ACTUALLY ACHIEVE those numbers in the lab !!
Now, from that statement, you see the problem. Just because a car can get xx MPG in the LAB does not mean EVERY SINGLE DRIVER ON THE PLANET can get that same MPG on their daily commute.
That's why the test was re-done to better match 2007 real-time conditions and drivers. Now they use higher speeds, they use the air conditioner, and the lab is set to normal temperatures and not always Hawaii weather.
Just like bragging, achieving the EPA tested MPG is not fraud if you can DO IT.
I have no desire to see the economy collapse or for the gap between rich and poor to widen....America as a Banana Republic would be downright dangerous.
However, if rising gas prices would compel Americans to live just a bit more within their actual means (instead of spending, as the average American does right now---$20 for every $19 he makes), that would be okay for us. Ratcheting back on credit use and having less hard dollars flow overseas would not be a bad thing by any means.
But scaling back only to a point--not radically high gas prices forcing drastic changes. Just enough to cut back use and stabilize prices again.
Otherwise we'll have this scenario of more and more drivers chasing less and less gasoline....not good for us.
Unfortunately, most people don't often do what's best for themselves until,in this case,gas prices hit them squarely between the eyes. $3 appears to be the impact point for behavior change. So,here's to $3 gas.
I always find it amusing that there are always hand-wringing people that are unhappy because they think they have it too good
Yes that is an amusing group. How would you describe the group of people that have it good but are unhappy because it isn't better? I don't find these people all that amusing.
Just don't force your choices onto everyone else.
What if market conditions force us to make different choices? If gas goes above $4/gallon should the government take any action? I personally say no but I guarantee a lot of Americans will feel differently. In a way this group is no different when it comes to forcing their point of view on others, they just happen to have a different point of view. It is their position that gas should be cheap so we can continue to buy and drive our large inefficient vehicles. The other group feels that gas should be expensive so that we are encouraged to develop sustainable alternatives. It has very little to do with "hand wringing" over having it too good. In fact it is my opinion that when/if we shift from this petroleum dependent society the US will be stronger economically for it.
America as a Banana Republic would be downright dangerous.
Shoot, it is dangerous enough as it is! Come to Kill-adelphia sometime. It wasn't always this bad. People are forgetting that high fuel costs eventually push up the price of everything. Groceries don't magically materialize in the store. They're transported via trucks and trains that use fuel. Rising prices and stagnating or even disappearing wages = BIG TROUBLE!
chasing less and less gas may not be good for us but it's a work in motion in the U.S. and has been for a long time. More 16 y/o's starting to drive every year than 80-90 y/o's finally giving up driving, when it continues year after year can't really be a good thing for us. Eh?
I just looove strawmen. Exactly who are these handwringers who have it too good but don't contribute to charities?
Burning fossil fuel has very high costs that are not reflected at the gas pump. Examples include the huge health costs this nation faces due to asthma and other lung diseases that smog causes. Nothing in our gas fees goes to help little kids or old ladies who get chronic bronchitis or asthma due to the extra emissions caused by piggy SUVs. Instead, the taxpayers foot the bill through income tax. So, even though I drive around 5000 miles a year in a relatively fuel efficient car, I still pay for peoples Hummer pollution because I have an upper middle class income and pay my income taxes.
The idea of higher gas fees (and they are fees not taxes) is simply that each person pay the external costs of their actions. As I am sure that you and the other liberal pinko-bashing posters here have all pulled yourselves up by your bootstraps and never got a cent from Dad, I am also sure that you can appreciate being responsible for your actions.
The moment that a truly tax-neutral system that can directly benefit people's health efficiently is proposed, I'm all ears. The US already spends more per-capita on health care than just about any other country, with little to show for it, so adding a tax/fee by itself won't necessarily help. There is no in-place system to effectively make use of such a tax/fee.
A national newspaper reporter would like to speak to consumers whose buying habits are being impacted by the rising cost of gas. Please respond to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than May 22, 2007 with your daytime contact information
What about people who are not changing habits due to the price of gas? Oh yes, I forgot. People getting on with their lives and not whining constantly is not news. My bad.
My post was in response to people who love the idea of high gas prices because it will somehow stick it to "the man" and punish Americans for being American. You know the "the people over there have it rough so you should have it rough too" crowd. They see someone driving a Hummer and instantly loathe them for no other reason. They think that high gas prices will somehow effect a person willing to drop $60k on a car. Not likely.
Look. I am for higher gas mileage as much (probably more) than the next guy. I put off buying a new car for over a year in hopes that ANYBODY would come out with a hybrid minivan. Did not happen. So, I do what I have to do to cart my family around safely.
I just think there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. High gas prices does not do squat to curb people from buying $60k gas guzzlers because they spend such a smaller fraction to their income on fuel. Think about it. When gas goes from $2 to $4 a gallon who to you think it effects more? The soccer mom driving a Hummer or joe-six-pack who makes $20k a year at the Kwicki-Mart? That's right. Joe can't go out and buy a hybrid when gas spikes because he can't afford it. He drives the 87 pickup because it is paid off and the insurance is dirt cheap.
OK you so-called liberals out there, is that fair? Is it?
The right way to go about it is to impose the CAFE standards that have teeth. How about something like: If you want to sell a vehicle that has a sales volume of more than 10k units, it has a mileage floor of 20 mpg, combined city and highway. Your total fleet sales have to average 30 mpg, combined. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $1k per vehicle sold, fleet wide. Standard is in effect by 2012.
Do you think that would change things? I think it would. And I think it is the "right" way to do it. You impose the standards on people who buy new cars (people with $) and the people with less $ get a break for a while. It is a heck of a lot more "fair" than just slapping a tax on gas.
I do believe that the government is there to step in where the people were unable or unwilling to police themselves.
I have been talking with Ford F-150 owners who have tried numerous things to get more MPG out of their vehicles. After researching this issue it seems as though the computer is too smart and won't allow for lean mixture compensation in the fuel and adjusts the fuel input which negates any increase in mileage. What can be done to "outsmart" the computer so that certain devices and/or additives will work to increase the mileage?
The soccer mom driving a Hummer or joe-six-pack who makes $20k a year at the Kwicki-Mart?
At $7.35 an hour, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, Joe makes just over $14,000 a year.
Here is how math works: 7.35 (dollars) * 40 (hours) * 50 (weeks worked).
Funny you need to slam "liberals" in a public setting when you not only can't estimate math in your head . . . you even failed to consider using the pop-up calculator featured in your computer.
We "liberals" support a system that makes it possible for Joe to get what he needs: what has your Oil President done for Joe lately?
The right way to go about it is to impose the CAFE standards that have teeth. How about something like: If you want to sell a vehicle that has a sales volume of more than 10k units, it has a mileage floor of 20 mpg, combined city and highway. Your total fleet sales have to average 30 mpg, combined. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $1k per vehicle sold, fleet wide. Standard is in effect by 2012.
Do you think that would change things? I think it would
It might change things a little, but not much. We are talking about fuel consumption, right? That is a function a vehicle's efficiency times miles driven. How does CAFE address the miles driven side of this equation? In fact a more efficient vehicle effectively lowers your fuel cost, which tends to increase miles driven. Also, does higher CAFE encourage people to drive more conservatively or keep their cars maintained? I don't think so. With higher CAFE do these more efficient vehicles suddenly become more affordable for Joe Sixpack, so he can finally replace his 87 pickup. The answer is no but higher gas prices might make it a cost effective move. So finally, how many years would it take for these more efficient vehicles to replace the existing fleet? The answer is a long time, can we afford to sit back and do nothing until then? Again, I don't think so.
Most of the respected economists that are proposing significantly higher fuel taxes are well aware of the disproportionate impact this will have on the poor. It's for this reason that they include provisions in their plans to address this. For instance, a reduction in payroll taxes. Even Joe Sixpack pays $1000 here, make it zero and that will offset a $2/gallon gas tax if he burns only 500 gallons per year. He will be just as well off financially but will still have the incentive to not buy and burn $5/gallon gasoline. Other economists propose expanding and improving mass transit. Who would benefit the most here? I'm guessing the poor people.
A large gas tax is not some magic wand solution like CAFE. It will actually require sacrifice at the individual level, which is where gasoline is consumed. It is a plan that can be enacted almost immediately and within a very short time there will be clear evidence of whether or not its working and what the adverse consequences are. If its not working then it can just as quickly disappear. It's worth a shot.
One more thing that most economists believe. If a significant gas tax could reduce consumption by even 3% that would drive down the commodities market price of oil and gas. It's quite possible that a $2 gas tax might only cost the consumer $1.50 at the pump. Where would this missing 50 cents come from? Out of oil company revenue. With all the oil industry bashing over record profits it seems like this should be a popular idea.
A reduction in the payroll tax of the working poor would have little to no effect on their taxes because they don't pay income taxes anyway. I know this because several years ago, I was working poor and I did not pay a cent in income taxes.
I apologize for my inability to do math in a hypothetical situation that was completely fabricated. My bad. I suppose my example is now completely irrelevant to any discussion.
BTW: I don't think I slammed liberals. I just asked a simple question. What proposal is more fair? The left-wing knee-jerk reaction to slap a tax on things usually has unintended consequences. If your goal is to stop people from buying and using gas guzzling vehicles I suggest you really take a hard look at what you would really accomplish with a higher gas tax. It certainly would not deter a Hummer buyer because they have the disposable income to offset the higher price at the pump until it becomes so high that nobody can afford to drive.
Now, if you want to screw over joe six-pack, a gas tax is a capital way to do it. Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really are a liberal concerned about the poor.
"If your goal is to stop people from buying and using gas guzzling vehicles I suggest you really take a hard look at what you would really accomplish with a higher gas tax."
That is not the goal. The goal is to reduce gas consumption. As we've been told endless times CAFE has its critics and the higher gas fee is an alternative. Neither is perfect and we're likely to have to learn the hard way that the experimentation we sometimes do in life to find the correct way to do something is also used by government. By their large, slow moving nature both large governments and large corporations tend to move slowly.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
This is a general post but mostly in responce to the CAFE standards posts.
I'm a Democrat and consider myself fairly liberal and I agree that high gas prices hurt the lower and middle class families. I live in West Virginia were most areas, even around our "Metro" (there really aren't any) require driving 30+ miles daily just to work or run short errands. Most people in rural areas feel the pinch much earlier than metro areas. We also tend to drive bigger vehicles because they serve more than just soccer mom functions. Blue collar work vehicle, tow truck, farm truck, and family mover.
We adapt when we have to. When gas prices started to climb 2 years ago, I sold my 98 Dodge Ram that got about 14 mpg on good day. I used it to haul hay, firewood, go hunting, and generally do all the work that comes with living in the country. I now drive a 97 Ford Escort that gets 33 mpg on it's worst day and 36-37 on it's best. It has just as much room as a hybrid civic and has been very dependable. I paid $1500 for it.
We also have a 2000 Ford Windstar that has about 141,000 miles on it and really needs replaced. It get's about 20 mpg in combined driving. I won't replace it with a new car even though I've been waiting for a hybrid or diesel minivan. I'll probably end up buying a larger used diesel that get's 20+ mpg because then I can use biodiesel.
The point is, "Joe-six-pack" isn't in the market for a new hybrid or even a new minivan. If he's driving an 87 Ford truck he'll be in the market for a 95 Ford Ranger that he can pay cash. 20 years ago, the US had fuel efficient alternatives. 30 years ago, we had small diesel trucks that got 30 mpg and small diesel cars that got 45-50 mpg. We didn't want them or anything less than 200+ HP and 8 seconds to 60 mph.
If you want to stick it to the man, stop buying what he's selling. Park your golliath Tahoe or Expedition that your driving you 1 or 2 kids to soccer with and buy an cheap 35+ MPG gas mileage car. It doesn't cut quite so deep when you fill it up and you'll find it's not as small as you think.
The soccer mom driving a Hummer or joe-six-pack who makes $20k a year at the Kwicki-Mart?
At $7.35 an hour, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, Joe makes just over $14,000 a year.
Here is how math works: 7.35 (dollars) * 40 (hours) * 50 (weeks worked).
So, maybe Joe's been working some overtime at te Kwicki-Mart? Or he's a good worker, has been there awhile, and gotten a few raises and is now up to $9.61 or so. :P
A reduction in the payroll tax of the working poor would have little to no effect on their taxes because they don't pay income taxes anyway.
By payroll taxes I was referring to the approximately 9% that everyone pays for FICA and Medicaid, I wasn't talking about income taxes. The government could simply use the revenue generated from a gas tax to offset this first $1000.
The people driving $60k gas guzzling SUVs might not be impacted all that much and as a result not alter their driving habits. In this regard they would end up paying a bigger portion of this gas tax. Wouldn't that make it somewhat "progressive"?
If market conditions drive gas prices up to $4/gallon that will have the same impact on the poor as doing it through gas taxes. At least with gas taxes the government would have funds to mitigate these effects.
The high prices we are now paying and will probably continue to pay are to a large extent the result of having no viable energy policy. You seem to think that higher CAFE represents a fair and effective path for the government to take. How does higher CAFE help the poor?
As I stated previously a revenue neutral gas tax will only negatively impact those people that burn more than the average amount of gas. Time for Joe Sixpack to trade in his 87 pickup for a 97 Camry. If he's been able to afford the maintenance on that pickup he can probably swing this financially.
If we sit around waiting for the perfect solution before taking action then no action will be taken. CAFE is far from perfect but people are more willing to support it because it alleviates them from any responsibility. If you're the one burning the gas you shouldn't be shielded from the consequences.
We adapt when we have to. When gas prices started to climb 2 years ago, I sold my 98 Dodge Ram that got about 14 mpg on good day. I used it to haul hay, firewood, go hunting, and generally do all the work that comes with living in the country. I now drive a 97 Ford Escort that gets 33 mpg on it's worst day and 36-37 on it's best. It has just as much room as a hybrid civic and has been very dependable. I paid $1500 for it.
But then, what did you replace the Ram with? Or did you just give up hauling hay, firewood, going hunting, etc? I can't imagine you're using your Escort or Windstar for those heavy-duty country-living chores!
I think folks are used to the yearly spike in gas prices and it is back to buying what they want. The biggest SUVs from Ford and GM are all up in sales over last year. The Suburban is up 25% over last year. The Ford Expedition is up 16%. The mid sized Explorer and Tahoe are off in sales. The mini SUVs are selling the best lead by CRV & RAV4.
Something that is not mentioned here is the influx of legal and illegal immigrants to the USA. These folks all believe in big families. Big families need big vehicles. It used to be if you had 6 kids you stuffed them in the car. Cannot do that legally now. If you have 6 children you need a Large SUV. No mini van will carry 8 people. It takes a Suburban, Expedition EL, Armada or Sequoia.
To match the capacity of the Suburban with an inexpensive car you would need two Corollas. The 2007 Corolla using the new EPA mileage ratings will get you 29 MPG combined. You will need 2 of them to match the Suburban which will give you a 14.5 MPG combined for both Corollas. The new rating for the 2007 Chevy Suburban is 17 MPG combined. Insurance for the Suburban is less than one Corolla. So you save a bunch right there. So you ask yourself. Should I jam my children into two little cars. Or one very comfortable SUV?
Maybe so. And big families place a disproportionate burden on all of society's resources and they should have to pay the price. Even the poorest, least educated individual should be capable of controlling his family size. If you disagree then basically you are equating poor people to rabbits. I would never advocate low gas prices for the purpose of accomodating the influx of large families that have come here illegally and will probably pay very little in taxes.
I agree with tpe that the goal is to reduce consumption. But I surely agree with you that any tax (or non-tax) increase will hurt the poorer people more. Yes many middle income people will certainly be affected - people rich enough who don't care are a small percentage. But yes anyone making say less than $15/hr, or with a family will really notice. There are already a group of people in this country who can't afford autos and the gas to put in them. I think we saw quite a few on the roofs of their homes during Katrina! I think that population is going to grow in the following years.
It is a fact of life that you can only divide a pie so many ways. And our system of fairness says that the pie goes to those willing to pay the most for it. Life has always been about "competition" for resources, land, and power. It's no different now. If you want the nice house, the gasoline, ... you better start thinking of how to better your lot in life, rather than expecting to hit the lottery or the government to magically create new energy sources. If you're working 40 weeks at Qwiki-Mart, you have 128 hr/week left over to get educated, start a business, develop skills ...
That is you're bigger issue! Your issue really isn't gas cost alone; it's food cost, health care, rent ... The real issue is how do you make more money. And if you feel guilty about making more money, and thus you get the nice things in life, while others don't, there are many people who will be happy to take what you otherwise don't compete for.
Hold it, that's not right. I know there is an 8-passenger Sienna, and Grand Caravan too, right? Minivans are still the most efficient way to carry 8 people or less.
And while the 'Burb and its supersize brethren are up by a large percentage, the actual number becomes more relevant because the numbers are so small: less than 5000 sales increase right? In a country of 35 million, and an annual auto market of 17 million, 3000-5000 is minuscule. Each of the big 3 minivans alone (Ody, Sienna, Grand Caravan) DWARF sales of the Suburban or the Expedition, heck, both combined.
I see folks saying "what can I drive my family of four or five around in? I need a big truck or minivan"...well some families are using their Honda Accords to drive their 4- or 5-person families around. This is a gas-saving measure everyone could try. I glanced to my left on the freeway yesterday, and was most gratified to see a family of four, including two teenagers, going somewhere in their Ford Focus. They were probably pulling close to 35 mpg on their trip, where they would have been at around 25 in a minivan, 18-20 in a Suburban.
People in this country don't realize how much they have oversized in the last decade, I think. All I am saying is you could probably find a lot of down-sizing in your life if you look, and save a lot on energy costs, including gas costs for your vehicle, without a lot of effort.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think it is important to incentivise people in the right direction. Not more gas tax, but tax credits for fuel economy. We need to make it “cool” to conserve by either making it economically wise, a prudent investment in our environment, a necessary choice to stop sending our dollars to terrorist nations, or a matter of national security. I would absolutely by an electric car for no other reason than to rid my conscience of the Middle East. It’ll happen when the economic dominoes fall far enough, although oil/gas prices could plummet as well due to oil producing nations trying to kill off economic investment in alternative energy. But I think there is a political will in the USA that will press on toward less dependence on foreign oil regardless of future oil/gas prices.
I am not advocating low gas prices. If you think that controlling the size of our families is Smart. You should talk to some folks from Holland, France or the UK, that had that same idea. When they did not have children to do the work they allowed immigrants to come and do it. The immigrants have religious beliefs that say multiply. They are supplying the next generation of workers that we decided were not needed. Our 1.37 children per family, are not doing the work that the families we are allowing in, both legal and illegal.
They have an added advantage over us. These families are not above living in cramped quarters. If we don't have a separate bedroom for each child we are depriving them. And each teenager has to have his own car, cell phone and gas card. No wonder we are using so much fuel.
And big families place a disproportionate burden on all of society's resources
You are so dead wrong there I cannot express it in words.
If you consider yourself a good parent a good citizen and a good worker, you should consider it your duty to raise up children to take your place in society. We are not going to go backward as some would hope. Someone will take up the slot you vacate and usually add a couple in the process. Hopefully your slot is filled by a good, hardworking citizen. Unfortunately the hard working citizens are too busy to have children and our system encourages the non working to have as many as they want.
This discussion reminds me of a scene in a movie I saw a few years ago- :shades: Exterior, 1960s farm- Minister with a lot of kids loads them up into a beat-up station wagon, neighbor comes up, looks at the full car and quips: "Hunh, Reverend, looks like you almost screwed yourself out of a seat."
Hold it, that's not right. I know there is an 8-passenger Sienna, and Grand Caravan too, right? Minivans are still the most efficient way to carry 8 people or less.
Edmund's shows them all as 7 passenger. I see the Ody and Sienna are losing ground. I guess the cost of gas has impacted the sale of overpriced mini vans. Domestics are in the top 3 places so far this year. I see the Express van from Ford is ahead of Ody and Sienna. I guess there is a market for 15 passenger vans. With a small diesel that would be a good choice.
...is the distance from peoples' homes to work. Developers just keep building housing further and further away which increases commuting miles and fuel consumption. I think something should be done about the relentless building of cardboard McMansions and malls on top of valuable farm land. If developers want to do anything, they should be replacing the worn-out housing stock in urban areas or inner ring suburbs.
Hold it, that's not right. I know there is an 8-passenger Sienna, and Grand Caravan too, right? Minivans are still the most efficient way to carry 8 people or less.
I think the last time I rode in a minivan, it was a Ford Windstall that some friends of mine had (it's since been replaced by a Kia Sorrento). The way it was configured, I'd say it would seat 6 good-sized people fairly comfortably. It had buckets up front, captains chairs in the middle, and a third row, for theoretical 2+2+3 seating. You wouldn't have been able to carry 3 people in that back row for very long, though!
But on the same note, I don't think you're going to be able to get 8 good-sized adults into a Suburban very comfortably, either. Those 3rd row seats they have in SUVs, even the big ones, simply aren't meant to be used by an adult for a very long length of time. At least minivans finally gave some dignity to the 3rd row.
...is changing the entire NYC Taxi fleet to hybrids by 2012:
NYC's Taxi Fleet Going Green by 2012 Tuesday May 22, 9:51 am ET By Sara Kugler, Associated Press Writer NYC's Yellow Cab Fleet Will Be Entirely Hybrid Within 5 Years, Mayor Says
NEW YORK (AP) -- The city's yellow taxi fleet will go entirely hybrid within five years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday.
"There's an awful lot of taxicabs on the streets of New York City," Bloomberg said. "These cars just sit there in traffic sometimes, belching fumes.
"This does a lot less. It's a lot better for all of us," he said of the hybrid plan.
Nearly 400 fuel-efficient hybrids have been tested in the city's taxi fleet over the past 18 months, with models including the Toyota Prius, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, the Lexus RX 400h and the Ford Escape.
Under Bloomberg's plan, that number will increase to 1,000 by October 2008, then will grow by about 20 percent each year until 2012, when every yellow cab -- currently numbering 13,000 -- will be a hybrid.
Hybrid vehicles run on a combination of gasoline and electricity, emitting less exhaust and achieving higher gas mileage per gallon.
The standard yellow cab vehicle, the Ford Crown Victoria, gets 14 miles per gallon. In contrast, the Ford Escape taxis get 36 miles per gallon.
In addition to making the yellow cab brigade entirely green within five years, the city will require all new vehicles entering the fleet after October 2008 to achieve a minimum of 25 miles per gallon. A year later, all new vehicles must get 30 miles per gallon and be hybrid. Bloomberg made the announcement on NBC's "Today" show.
Hybrid vehicles are typically more expensive, but the city said the increase in fuel efficiency will save taxi operators more than $10,000 per year. Yahoo Inc. said it would donate 10 hybrid Ford Escapes for the city's effort.
Shifting the taxi fleet to hybrids is part of Bloomberg's wider sustainability plan for the city, which includes a goal of a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
I read a little while ago that the big family theory is an urban legend - immigrants fall right into the "American norm" and it's not a second or third generation thing either.
I'd go dig out the link but you never provide any either, so I'm just gonna go dig out some more coffee. :shades: :shades:
I'm going to buy a new or nearly new car, and was going over this gas mileage factor. Should I buy what I LIKE and forgo a few miles per gallon, or get another one of those gas-thrifty little things that are....okay...and deliver 35 mpg.
But then it occurred to me....what if I just buy USED right now, even if I lose 5 mpg and WAIT....until some really new tech is introduced.
Rather than keep buying these gas cars and hybrids that get 35 mpg...and then next year 36 mpg...and then next year 36.5 mpg.....why don't I hold out for when I can get a "real" electric" car or hydrogen car and just by-pass this fretting over whether I should spend an extra $50 a month in gas or buy a $30,000 hybrid this or $25,000 "gas saver" that.
Just wait for Something Completely Different...in fact, DEMAND it with my purchasing power.
Maybe we are at a time like it was 110 years ago, when instead of thinking about getting a smaller horse who eats less, I should be looking to the Next New Thing.
And big families place a disproportionate burden on all of society's resources
You are so dead wrong there I cannot express it in words.
There is such a thing as a carrying capacity. This planet is rapidly approaching it. Maybe its already been exceeded. I'm not sure where you got your figure regarding family size. My understanding is that the population in this country is growing very rapidly, fueled primarily by immigrants and their large families. Take away this segment and the population is almost static but still growing slowly, not declining. What's wrong with that? We passed 300 million people in this country last year and we are projected to hit 400 million prior to 2040. Yet I am dead wrong in seeing this as a problem. Worldwide there is a strong corellation between maintaining a standard of living and controlling your population growth.
Well the topics are somewhat related. If we increase our population by one third in the next 30 years we better come up with some very good ideas on how we plan on being able to move these people around affordably. I'm confident that it won't be done with gasoline, not even $4/gallon gasoline. Since the solution will be long range in achieving and the clock is ticking we need to get down to business.
Buying used also has the overall advantage that it didn't require a new car to be made (has to be a lot of energy consumed there). And you can bet (in spite of what the oil/car manufacturer conspiracy theorists have to say) that as soon as a practical electic/fuel cell/turbo-diesel-hybrid-solar vehicle is available, somebody will sell it. The harder decision is this: What's your driving enjoyment worth? Good mileage comes cheap, performance doesn't.
you: ...is the distance from peoples' homes to work.
me: you are right there. I just moved last year, and I could have picked anywhere to live, but I chose a place <4 miles to work. I used to drive 30 miles each way. A lot of people who work in a high-priced area justify their long commute, to live somewhere cheaper. But as gas prices go higher, people will realize they are not saving anything by living far away. Then either the people move closer to work, or the employer can't find employees and the work moves.
In the early 1900's most people lived close to their work. And in most of the rest of the world, people live close to work. So it's easy to do, but Americans don't WANT to do that yet, in many cases.
Intuitively, your concept is exactly what is needed to either increase efficiency, or long-range, force a technology change (provided that the physics show an actual decrease in net CO2 or whatever of the new technology boasts).
On the other hand, it reminds me of the classic "Simpsons" episode that I think had been referenced by another person on Edmund's earlier. Homer goes into Apu's convenience store and orders a hotdog. It is four days old. Homer gets sick. Homer goes into the convenience store some time later and tells Apu that he got sick from the hotdog the last time because it was old. Apu cuts the price in half. Homer buys the four day old hotdog again. The question is: How many Homers are there in the USA? If the Homer ratio is low, then people will not get swayed by half-priced Land Cruiser/Hummer sales at the end of every year and the strategy might actually work. On the other hand, look around, not much has changed since the first oil embargo in 1973.
You may be waiting a Loooooong time. In ~1973 an article in the IEEE Spectrum (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) predicted that by 2000 ALL cars might be EV. Now in 2007 there is not yet one EV on the market that is equivalent to a gasoline vehicle!
However, I think that 2007 is right on the cusp of delivering the market forces that were not there earlier to create the "revolution" in car technology.
Or to put it another way, we need a COMBINATION of very high fuel prices, easy credit, and fully optioned,high-performance fuel-efficient vehicles.
I don't want a Prius because they are deadly to drive-- no fun cars at all really, and the fuel-efficiency isn't THAT great.....but you know, a Prius that was as spritied as a MINI Cooper S and could bring 60 mpg...that would be tempting if gas hits $4-$5 a gallon. What's not to like?
Or an EV will really good 0-60 performance and a range I can live with?
Suddenly, "it all makes sense".....
Right now, my choices seem to be to trade "fun" for "fuel mileage". It's a tough spot.
Fer instance, for me to trade in my gas-sipper for say 3-4 year old used EVO or Porsche will cost me not only more $$$ up front to buy and insure, but a whopping $1,500 a year more in fuel at TODAY's prices. And if it punches up past 4 bucks, that's closer to $1,700 a year increase just for gas + insurance costs + higher car payments.
No wonder people traded in their Ford Falcons for a $2,500 1965 Mustang V-8!!!
However, I think that 2007 is right on the cusp of delivering the market forces that were not there earlier to create the "revolution" in car technology.
I agree. In addition to the high fuel prices, which you mentioned, there is also a greater environmental concern. Then there's the post 9/11 attitude that we are exporting wealth to countries with strong anti-Western sentiments so you have a lot of powerful factors driving this revolution.
You posted a link a while back regarding Honda's progress in fuel cells. I'm not a huge fan of FCVs but this is afterall an EV and it will be on the market in a few years. The Chevy Volt will be a form of EV with a tentative production date of 2010. There are a lot of hybrids on the road today. While they derive all their power from gasoline it clearly represents an evolutionary direction. Most of us know about Tesla Motors, Phoenix Motorcar, ZENN Motors, Zap, etc... And there are still some Toyota RAV4 EVs on the road. While the 1973 prediction didn't come true things have definitely changed since then.
Comments
Regardless of whether or not the EPA tested the cars, the tests were done using the EPA test protocol ! Every single new car put onto the road today can go into an EPA lab, perform the test, old or new test, and get the MPG on the sticker.
And yes, in a perfect world, every driver should match or exceed the EPA "mileage E S T I M A T E but we all know that other factors come into play like tire inflation, driver behavior, weather, how much time is spent idling, how much A/C is used, how long your commute is, etc etc ad infinitum !!
And it's not FRAUD because it IS DONE and the cars ACTUALLY ACHIEVE those numbers in the lab !!
Now, from that statement, you see the problem. Just because a car can get xx MPG in the LAB does not mean EVERY SINGLE DRIVER ON THE PLANET can get that same MPG on their daily commute.
That's why the test was re-done to better match 2007 real-time conditions and drivers. Now they use higher speeds, they use the air conditioner, and the lab is set to normal temperatures and not always Hawaii weather.
Just like bragging, achieving the EPA tested MPG is not fraud if you can DO IT.
However, if rising gas prices would compel Americans to live just a bit more within their actual means (instead of spending, as the average American does right now---$20 for every $19 he makes), that would be okay for us. Ratcheting back on credit use and having less hard dollars flow overseas would not be a bad thing by any means.
But scaling back only to a point--not radically high gas prices forcing drastic changes. Just enough to cut back use and stabilize prices again.
Otherwise we'll have this scenario of more and more drivers chasing less and less gasoline....not good for us.
Yes that is an amusing group. How would you describe the group of people that have it good but are unhappy because it isn't better? I don't find these people all that amusing.
Just don't force your choices onto everyone else.
What if market conditions force us to make different choices? If gas goes above $4/gallon should the government take any action? I personally say no but I guarantee a lot of Americans will feel differently. In a way this group is no different when it comes to forcing their point of view on others, they just happen to have a different point of view. It is their position that gas should be cheap so we can continue to buy and drive our large inefficient vehicles. The other group feels that gas should be expensive so that we are encouraged to develop sustainable alternatives. It has very little to do with "hand wringing" over having it too good. In fact it is my opinion that when/if we shift from this petroleum dependent society the US will be stronger economically for it.
That's what drives us, a little pain, a little pleasure.
I'll bet the roads are still jammed this coming weekend despite the "PAIN"!
Regards,
OW
Shoot, it is dangerous enough as it is! Come to Kill-adelphia sometime. It wasn't always this bad. People are forgetting that high fuel costs eventually push up the price of everything. Groceries don't magically materialize in the store. They're transported via trucks and trains that use fuel. Rising prices and stagnating or even disappearing wages = BIG TROUBLE!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Burning fossil fuel has very high costs that are not reflected at the gas pump. Examples include the huge health costs this nation faces due to asthma and other lung diseases that smog causes. Nothing in our gas fees goes to help little kids or old ladies who get chronic bronchitis or asthma due to the extra emissions caused by piggy SUVs. Instead, the taxpayers foot the bill through income tax. So, even though I drive around 5000 miles a year in a relatively fuel efficient car, I still pay for peoples Hummer pollution because I have an upper middle class income and pay my income taxes.
The idea of higher gas fees (and they are fees not taxes) is simply that each person pay the external costs of their actions. As I am sure that you and the other liberal pinko-bashing posters here have all pulled yourselves up by your bootstraps and never got a cent from Dad, I am also sure that you can appreciate being responsible for your actions.
Look. I am for higher gas mileage as much (probably more) than the next guy. I put off buying a new car for over a year in hopes that ANYBODY would come out with a hybrid minivan. Did not happen. So, I do what I have to do to cart my family around safely.
I just think there is a right way and a wrong way to go about things. High gas prices does not do squat to curb people from buying $60k gas guzzlers because they spend such a smaller fraction to their income on fuel. Think about it. When gas goes from $2 to $4 a gallon who to you think it effects more? The soccer mom driving a Hummer or joe-six-pack who makes $20k a year at the Kwicki-Mart? That's right. Joe can't go out and buy a hybrid when gas spikes because he can't afford it. He drives the 87 pickup because it is paid off and the insurance is dirt cheap.
OK you so-called liberals out there, is that fair? Is it?
The right way to go about it is to impose the CAFE standards that have teeth. How about something like: If you want to sell a vehicle that has a sales volume of more than 10k units, it has a mileage floor of 20 mpg, combined city and highway. Your total fleet sales have to average 30 mpg, combined. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $1k per vehicle sold, fleet wide. Standard is in effect by 2012.
Do you think that would change things? I think it would. And I think it is the "right" way to do it. You impose the standards on people who buy new cars (people with $) and the people with less $ get a break for a while. It is a heck of a lot more "fair" than just slapping a tax on gas.
I do believe that the government is there to step in where the people were unable or unwilling to police themselves.
End of rant. :P
The soccer mom driving a Hummer or joe-six-pack who makes $20k a year at the Kwicki-Mart?
At $7.35 an hour, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, Joe makes just over $14,000 a year.
Here is how math works: 7.35 (dollars) * 40 (hours) * 50 (weeks worked).
Funny you need to slam "liberals" in a public setting when you not only can't estimate math in your head . . . you even failed to consider using the pop-up calculator featured in your computer.
We "liberals" support a system that makes it possible for Joe to get what he needs: what has your Oil President done for Joe lately?
Cheap oil from Iraq?
Feh.
:mad:
Do you think that would change things? I think it would
It might change things a little, but not much. We are talking about fuel consumption, right? That is a function a vehicle's efficiency times miles driven. How does CAFE address the miles driven side of this equation? In fact a more efficient vehicle effectively lowers your fuel cost, which tends to increase miles driven. Also, does higher CAFE encourage people to drive more conservatively or keep their cars maintained? I don't think so. With higher CAFE do these more efficient vehicles suddenly become more affordable for Joe Sixpack, so he can finally replace his 87 pickup. The answer is no but higher gas prices might make it a cost effective move. So finally, how many years would it take for these more efficient vehicles to replace the existing fleet? The answer is a long time, can we afford to sit back and do nothing until then? Again, I don't think so.
Most of the respected economists that are proposing significantly higher fuel taxes are well aware of the disproportionate impact this will have on the poor. It's for this reason that they include provisions in their plans to address this. For instance, a reduction in payroll taxes. Even Joe Sixpack pays $1000 here, make it zero and that will offset a $2/gallon gas tax if he burns only 500 gallons per year. He will be just as well off financially but will still have the incentive to not buy and burn $5/gallon gasoline. Other economists propose expanding and improving mass transit. Who would benefit the most here? I'm guessing the poor people.
A large gas tax is not some magic wand solution like CAFE. It will actually require sacrifice at the individual level, which is where gasoline is consumed. It is a plan that can be enacted almost immediately and within a very short time there will be clear evidence of whether or not its working and what the adverse consequences are. If its not working then it can just as quickly disappear. It's worth a shot.
One more thing that most economists believe. If a significant gas tax could reduce consumption by even 3% that would drive down the commodities market price of oil and gas. It's quite possible that a $2 gas tax might only cost the consumer $1.50 at the pump. Where would this missing 50 cents come from? Out of oil company revenue. With all the oil industry bashing over record profits it seems like this should be a popular idea.
I apologize for my inability to do math in a hypothetical situation that was completely fabricated. My bad. I suppose my example is now completely irrelevant to any discussion.
BTW: I don't think I slammed liberals. I just asked a simple question. What proposal is more fair? The left-wing knee-jerk reaction to slap a tax on things usually has unintended consequences. If your goal is to stop people from buying and using gas guzzling vehicles I suggest you really take a hard look at what you would really accomplish with a higher gas tax. It certainly would not deter a Hummer buyer because they have the disposable income to offset the higher price at the pump until it becomes so high that nobody can afford to drive.
Now, if you want to screw over joe six-pack, a gas tax is a capital way to do it. Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really are a liberal concerned about the poor.
That is not the goal. The goal is to reduce gas consumption. As we've been told endless times CAFE has its critics and the higher gas fee is an alternative. Neither is perfect and we're likely to have to learn the hard way that the experimentation we sometimes do in life to find the correct way to do something is also used by government. By their large, slow moving nature both large governments and large corporations tend to move slowly.
I'm a Democrat and consider myself fairly liberal and I agree that high gas prices hurt the lower and middle class families. I live in West Virginia were most areas, even around our "Metro" (there really aren't any) require driving 30+ miles daily just to work or run short errands. Most people in rural areas feel the pinch much earlier than metro areas. We also tend to drive bigger vehicles because they serve more than just soccer mom functions. Blue collar work vehicle, tow truck, farm truck, and family mover.
We adapt when we have to. When gas prices started to climb 2 years ago, I sold my 98 Dodge Ram that got about 14 mpg on good day. I used it to haul hay, firewood, go hunting, and generally do all the work that comes with living in the country. I now drive a 97 Ford Escort that gets 33 mpg on it's worst day and 36-37 on it's best. It has just as much room as a hybrid civic and has been very dependable. I paid $1500 for it.
We also have a 2000 Ford Windstar that has about 141,000 miles on it and really needs replaced. It get's about 20 mpg in combined driving. I won't replace it with a new car even though I've been waiting for a hybrid or diesel minivan. I'll probably end up buying a larger used diesel that get's 20+ mpg because then I can use biodiesel.
The point is, "Joe-six-pack" isn't in the market for a new hybrid or even a new minivan. If he's driving an 87 Ford truck he'll be in the market for a 95 Ford Ranger that he can pay cash. 20 years ago, the US had fuel efficient alternatives. 30 years ago, we had small diesel trucks that got 30 mpg and small diesel cars that got 45-50 mpg. We didn't want them or anything less than 200+ HP and 8 seconds to 60 mph.
If you want to stick it to the man, stop buying what he's selling. Park your golliath Tahoe or Expedition that your driving you 1 or 2 kids to soccer with and buy an cheap 35+ MPG gas mileage car. It doesn't cut quite so deep when you fill it up and you'll find it's not as small as you think.
At $7.35 an hour, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, Joe makes just over $14,000 a year.
Here is how math works: 7.35 (dollars) * 40 (hours) * 50 (weeks worked).
So, maybe Joe's been working some overtime at te Kwicki-Mart? Or he's a good worker, has been there awhile, and gotten a few raises and is now up to $9.61 or so. :P
By payroll taxes I was referring to the approximately 9% that everyone pays for FICA and Medicaid, I wasn't talking about income taxes. The government could simply use the revenue generated from a gas tax to offset this first $1000.
The people driving $60k gas guzzling SUVs might not be impacted all that much and as a result not alter their driving habits. In this regard they would end up paying a bigger portion of this gas tax. Wouldn't that make it somewhat "progressive"?
If market conditions drive gas prices up to $4/gallon that will have the same impact on the poor as doing it through gas taxes. At least with gas taxes the government would have funds to mitigate these effects.
The high prices we are now paying and will probably continue to pay are to a large extent the result of having no viable energy policy. You seem to think that higher CAFE represents a fair and effective path for the government to take. How does higher CAFE help the poor?
As I stated previously a revenue neutral gas tax will only negatively impact those people that burn more than the average amount of gas. Time for Joe Sixpack to trade in his 87 pickup for a 97 Camry. If he's been able to afford the maintenance on that pickup he can probably swing this financially.
If we sit around waiting for the perfect solution before taking action then no action will be taken. CAFE is far from perfect but people are more willing to support it because it alleviates them from any responsibility. If you're the one burning the gas you shouldn't be shielded from the consequences.
But then, what did you replace the Ram with? Or did you just give up hauling hay, firewood, going hunting, etc? I can't imagine you're using your Escort or Windstar for those heavy-duty country-living chores!
Something that is not mentioned here is the influx of legal and illegal immigrants to the USA. These folks all believe in big families. Big families need big vehicles. It used to be if you had 6 kids you stuffed them in the car. Cannot do that legally now. If you have 6 children you need a Large SUV. No mini van will carry 8 people. It takes a Suburban, Expedition EL, Armada or Sequoia.
To match the capacity of the Suburban with an inexpensive car you would need two Corollas. The 2007 Corolla using the new EPA mileage ratings will get you 29 MPG combined. You will need 2 of them to match the Suburban which will give you a 14.5 MPG combined for both Corollas. The new rating for the 2007 Chevy Suburban is 17 MPG combined. Insurance for the Suburban is less than one Corolla. So you save a bunch right there. So you ask yourself. Should I jam my children into two little cars. Or one very comfortable SUV?
Maybe so. And big families place a disproportionate burden on all of society's resources and they should have to pay the price. Even the poorest, least educated individual should be capable of controlling his family size. If you disagree then basically you are equating poor people to rabbits. I would never advocate low gas prices for the purpose of accomodating the influx of large families that have come here illegally and will probably pay very little in taxes.
Yes many middle income people will certainly be affected - people rich enough who don't care are a small percentage. But yes anyone making say less than $15/hr, or with a family will really notice. There are already a group of people in this country who can't afford autos and the gas to put in them. I think we saw quite a few on the roofs of their homes during Katrina! I think that population is going to grow in the following years.
It is a fact of life that you can only divide a pie so many ways. And our system of fairness says that the pie goes to those willing to pay the most for it. Life has always been about "competition" for resources, land, and power. It's no different now. If you want the nice house, the gasoline, ... you better start thinking of how to better your lot in life, rather than expecting to hit the lottery or the government to magically create new energy sources. If you're working 40 weeks at Qwiki-Mart, you have 128 hr/week left over to get educated, start a business, develop skills ...
That is you're bigger issue! Your issue really isn't gas cost alone; it's food cost, health care, rent ... The real issue is how do you make more money. And if you feel guilty about making more money, and thus you get the nice things in life, while others don't, there are many people who will be happy to take what you otherwise don't compete for.
Hold it, that's not right. I know there is an 8-passenger Sienna, and Grand Caravan too, right? Minivans are still the most efficient way to carry 8 people or less.
And while the 'Burb and its supersize brethren are up by a large percentage, the actual number becomes more relevant because the numbers are so small: less than 5000 sales increase right? In a country of 35 million, and an annual auto market of 17 million, 3000-5000 is minuscule. Each of the big 3 minivans alone (Ody, Sienna, Grand Caravan) DWARF sales of the Suburban or the Expedition, heck, both combined.
I see folks saying "what can I drive my family of four or five around in? I need a big truck or minivan"...well some families are using their Honda Accords to drive their 4- or 5-person families around. This is a gas-saving measure everyone could try. I glanced to my left on the freeway yesterday, and was most gratified to see a family of four, including two teenagers, going somewhere in their Ford Focus. They were probably pulling close to 35 mpg on their trip, where they would have been at around 25 in a minivan, 18-20 in a Suburban.
People in this country don't realize how much they have oversized in the last decade, I think. All I am saying is you could probably find a lot of down-sizing in your life if you look, and save a lot on energy costs, including gas costs for your vehicle, without a lot of effort.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They have an added advantage over us. These families are not above living in cramped quarters. If we don't have a separate bedroom for each child we are depriving them. And each teenager has to have his own car, cell phone and gas card. No wonder we are using so much fuel.
And big families place a disproportionate burden on all of society's resources
You are so dead wrong there I cannot express it in words.
If you consider yourself a good parent a good citizen and a good worker, you should consider it your duty to raise up children to take your place in society. We are not going to go backward as some would hope. Someone will take up the slot you vacate and usually add a couple in the process. Hopefully your slot is filled by a good, hardworking citizen. Unfortunately the hard working citizens are too busy to have children and our system encourages the non working to have as many as they want.
Edmund's shows them all as 7 passenger. I see the Ody and Sienna are losing ground. I guess the cost of gas has impacted the sale of overpriced mini vans. Domestics are in the top 3 places so far this year. I see the Express van from Ford is ahead of Ody and Sienna. I guess there is a market for 15 passenger vans. With a small diesel that would be a good choice.
I think the last time I rode in a minivan, it was a Ford Windstall that some friends of mine had (it's since been replaced by a Kia Sorrento). The way it was configured, I'd say it would seat 6 good-sized people fairly comfortably. It had buckets up front, captains chairs in the middle, and a third row, for theoretical 2+2+3 seating. You wouldn't have been able to carry 3 people in that back row for very long, though!
But on the same note, I don't think you're going to be able to get 8 good-sized adults into a Suburban very comfortably, either. Those 3rd row seats they have in SUVs, even the big ones, simply aren't meant to be used by an adult for a very long length of time. At least minivans finally gave some dignity to the 3rd row.
The grand Caravan has 8 passenger seating too or it least it did. Not sure about the oddsey but I think so.
NYC's Taxi Fleet Going Green by 2012
Tuesday May 22, 9:51 am ET
By Sara Kugler, Associated Press Writer
NYC's Yellow Cab Fleet Will Be Entirely Hybrid Within 5 Years, Mayor Says
NEW YORK (AP) -- The city's yellow taxi fleet will go entirely hybrid within five years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday.
"There's an awful lot of taxicabs on the streets of New York City," Bloomberg said. "These cars just sit there in traffic sometimes, belching fumes.
"This does a lot less. It's a lot better for all of us," he said of the hybrid plan.
Nearly 400 fuel-efficient hybrids have been tested in the city's taxi fleet over the past 18 months, with models including the Toyota Prius, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, the Lexus RX 400h and the Ford Escape.
Under Bloomberg's plan, that number will increase to 1,000 by October 2008, then will grow by about 20 percent each year until 2012, when every yellow cab -- currently numbering 13,000 -- will be a hybrid.
Hybrid vehicles run on a combination of gasoline and electricity, emitting less exhaust and achieving higher gas mileage per gallon.
The standard yellow cab vehicle, the Ford Crown Victoria, gets 14 miles per gallon. In contrast, the Ford Escape taxis get 36 miles per gallon.
In addition to making the yellow cab brigade entirely green within five years, the city will require all new vehicles entering the fleet after October 2008 to achieve a minimum of 25 miles per gallon. A year later, all new vehicles must get 30 miles per gallon and be hybrid. Bloomberg made the announcement on NBC's "Today" show.
Hybrid vehicles are typically more expensive, but the city said the increase in fuel efficiency will save taxi operators more than $10,000 per year. Yahoo Inc. said it would donate 10 hybrid Ford Escapes for the city's effort.
Shifting the taxi fleet to hybrids is part of Bloomberg's wider sustainability plan for the city, which includes a goal of a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
Regards,
OW
They are out there if you need them.
I read a little while ago that the big family theory is an urban legend - immigrants fall right into the "American norm" and it's not a second or third generation thing either.
I'd go dig out the link but you never provide any either, so I'm just gonna go dig out some more coffee. :shades: :shades:
If developers want to do anything, they should be replacing the worn-out housing stock in urban areas or inner ring suburbs.
gentrification
I'm going to buy a new or nearly new car, and was going over this gas mileage factor. Should I buy what I LIKE and forgo a few miles per gallon, or get another one of those gas-thrifty little things that are....okay...and deliver 35 mpg.
But then it occurred to me....what if I just buy USED right now, even if I lose 5 mpg and WAIT....until some really new tech is introduced.
Rather than keep buying these gas cars and hybrids that get 35 mpg...and then next year 36 mpg...and then next year 36.5 mpg.....why don't I hold out for when I can get a "real" electric" car or hydrogen car and just by-pass this fretting over whether I should spend an extra $50 a month in gas or buy a $30,000 hybrid this or $25,000 "gas saver" that.
Just wait for Something Completely Different...in fact, DEMAND it with my purchasing power.
Maybe we are at a time like it was 110 years ago, when instead of thinking about getting a smaller horse who eats less, I should be looking to the Next New Thing.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
You are so dead wrong there I cannot express it in words.
There is such a thing as a carrying capacity. This planet is rapidly approaching it. Maybe its already been exceeded. I'm not sure where you got your figure regarding family size. My understanding is that the population in this country is growing very rapidly, fueled primarily by immigrants and their large families. Take away this segment and the population is almost static but still growing slowly, not declining. What's wrong with that? We passed 300 million people in this country last year and we are projected to hit 400 million prior to 2040. Yet I am dead wrong in seeing this as a problem. Worldwide there is a strong corellation between maintaining a standard of living and controlling your population growth.
me: you are right there. I just moved last year, and I could have picked anywhere to live, but I chose a place <4 miles to work. I used to drive 30 miles each way.
A lot of people who work in a high-priced area justify their long commute, to live somewhere cheaper. But as gas prices go higher, people will realize they are not saving anything by living far away. Then either the people move closer to work, or the employer can't find employees and the work moves.
In the early 1900's most people lived close to their work. And in most of the rest of the world, people live close to work. So it's easy to do, but Americans don't WANT to do that yet, in many cases.
Intuitively, your concept is exactly what is needed to either increase efficiency, or long-range, force a technology change (provided that the physics show an actual decrease in net CO2 or whatever of the new technology boasts).
On the other hand, it reminds me of the classic "Simpsons" episode that I think had been referenced by another person on Edmund's earlier. Homer goes into Apu's convenience store and orders a hotdog. It is four days old. Homer gets sick. Homer goes into the convenience store some time later and tells Apu that he got sick from the hotdog the last time because it was old. Apu cuts the price in half. Homer buys the four day old hotdog again. The question is: How many Homers are there in the USA? If the Homer ratio is low, then people will not get swayed by half-priced Land Cruiser/Hummer sales at the end of every year and the strategy might actually work. On the other hand, look around, not much has changed since the first oil embargo in 1973.
However, I think that 2007 is right on the cusp of delivering the market forces that were not there earlier to create the "revolution" in car technology.
Or to put it another way, we need a COMBINATION of very high fuel prices, easy credit, and fully optioned,high-performance fuel-efficient vehicles.
I don't want a Prius because they are deadly to drive-- no fun cars at all really, and the fuel-efficiency isn't THAT great.....but you know, a Prius that was as spritied as a MINI Cooper S and could bring 60 mpg...that would be tempting if gas hits $4-$5 a gallon. What's not to like?
Or an EV will really good 0-60 performance and a range I can live with?
Suddenly, "it all makes sense".....
Right now, my choices seem to be to trade "fun" for "fuel mileage". It's a tough spot.
Fer instance, for me to trade in my gas-sipper for say 3-4 year old used EVO or Porsche will cost me not only more $$$ up front to buy and insure, but a whopping $1,500 a year more in fuel at TODAY's prices. And if it punches up past 4 bucks, that's closer to $1,700 a year increase just for gas + insurance costs + higher car payments.
No wonder people traded in their Ford Falcons for a $2,500 1965 Mustang V-8!!!
Mrshiftright
Visiting Host
I agree. In addition to the high fuel prices, which you mentioned, there is also a greater environmental concern. Then there's the post 9/11 attitude that we are exporting wealth to countries with strong anti-Western sentiments so you have a lot of powerful factors driving this revolution.
You posted a link a while back regarding Honda's progress in fuel cells. I'm not a huge fan of FCVs but this is afterall an EV and it will be on the market in a few years. The Chevy Volt will be a form of EV with a tentative production date of 2010. There are a lot of hybrids on the road today. While they derive all their power from gasoline it clearly represents an evolutionary direction. Most of us know about Tesla Motors, Phoenix Motorcar, ZENN Motors, Zap, etc... And there are still some Toyota RAV4 EVs on the road. While the 1973 prediction didn't come true things have definitely changed since then.