By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
But it was a $15 a tank increase for me.
Exactly.
My L300 takes about 14 gallons per tank to fill; the wife's VUE, about 12 or 13. So, for every $1 per gallon increase, that's another $25+ to fill them up. The L is filled up every 10-14 days, while the VUE gets a tank per week.
So, on a monthly basis:
12 * 4 = $48
14 * 3 = $42
That's a bit over $1000 a year. Not chump change to most Americans. I shudder to think what the extra costs would be for those who drive large SUV's or pickup trucks with their 25 gallon tanks.
EDIT: Gas is currently around $2.75 a gallon here in Colorado. Diesel is nudging $3, IIRC.
And, yes, it goes highest in California. But the rest of the country is paying well under $3/gal. right now. Not that we expect to enjoy these prices for long.
We know that when the left coast hits $4, we'll see those prices soon enough.
.
80 mph - asking to go to jail with $3500 fine and $1100 penalty for the following 10 yrs - not attempted."
Try 80 mph in west Texas. A state trooper will come up behind you ..... and wave as he passes by! The speed limit is 80 mph.
A few years ago, a state trooper stopped me in Midland for going 82 mph in a 65 zone. He gave me a warning.
Folks out here understand the need for speed.
.
Apparently they didn't get the memo that everyone else has dropped pump prices. :sick:
As you can imagine I fill up out of town. I don't know why MD taxes gas so much, we all end up getting gas in DC or VA.
So they can end up nailing people like me, who rarely leave the state. :mad: Sometimes when I go up to PA for the car shows, gas will be a bit cheaper, so I'll fill up there. But lately, it doesn't seem like there has been that much of a difference.
Oh, that might explain it. Doesn't Montgomery County screw you extra-hard for fuel prices? Is DC actually cheaper? Whenever I go into DC, it seems like gas is always more expensive than in Maryland. But then I'm mainly in Prince George's County.
I was up in Laurel tonite (the Anne Arundel County part of it) helping a friend get a Christmas tree. There was a Citgo selling gas for something like $2.85/2.99/3.09 per gallon, so I filled up my truck while I was up there. Down my way, it's still running around $3.03/3.15/3.25 per gallon.
$ 2.85 for RUG to fill up our Odyssey
or
$ 3.29 for ULSD diesel to fill up my Jetta TDI
Fortunately, it looks like we have some of the lower prices in the Birmingham, AL area. Our taxes must be lower; plus, Mobile being a port city must help too.
Except for that Virginia farm featured in Omnivore's Dilemma, are there really any mom & pop farms left?
These were mostly the first Google hits so don't be surprised if there are dissenting opinions within the groups:
Sierra Club to Sue South Bend Ethanol Plant
Ethanol is Not the Answer (Greenpeace)
Drunk on Ethanol (Audubon Society)
"We cannot allow production of biofuels - particularly corn ethanol - to continue unchecked without increasing environmental safeguards and aggressively steering production away from fuel sources like corn into more environmentally sound fuel sources." Friends of the Earth
Ethanol: Energy Well Spent (NRDC)
It's been in the low 20's here and I'm curious to see how my switchgrass plant survives the winter.
Ethanol production from Corn is such a boondoggle. It was during the Carter administration and it is now. Even worse now as the growers are dumping more fossil chemicals into the streams and rivers. ADM and Verasun have deep pockets. Filled with tax dollars. Why not build more corn stills, we are guaranteeing they will make money.
I'm sensing more and more aversion to food products made with HFCS, so when consumers start switching brands, that'll leave more corn to make ethanol from.
I also made a mental note of my mileage. Intrepid went about 216 miles on this tank, and was last filled up on December 10. And the only reason it had that many miles on it was because I went to see a friend about 25 miles away last Saturday, probably put about 40 miles on it today running errands, and stopped off to see my Granddad, who's about 8-10 miles away, last week. As for my '85 Silverado, which I topped off last nite, I think it only went about 125 miles since its last fillup, which was around the 12th or 13th. And the only reason it saw that many miles was because I put about 50 on it last nite going to see a friend and taking him to get a Christmas tree. Yeah, that's a bit of a drive for a tree, but we've dealt with this same lot for years, and they've always had good trees at reasonable prices.
If people quit buying products with HFCS the food and beverage industry would collapse. Not much on the shelves without it.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237853.html?series=19
(please try to ignore the incredibly annoying NFL highlights soundtrack)
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I may go check them out. They are just a few miles up the coast from me.
Well We'll See as my mom used to say
Plus its only available in CA (for now), so that leaves me out.
Just as well as I would have an irresistible urge to put wings on it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
:-P
Guess, you won't really need to do anything "when gas price rises above $4 a gallon"
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agreed with you but it turns out we were both wrong. The EPA has turned down CARB's request for a waiver to implement lower CO2 emissions. Apparently this is the first time CARB has been turned down for a waiver to implement stricter emission standards. The last 40 waiver requests were approved.
Whether or not you agree with the EPA decision I think there are bigger issues involved. Are the feds overstepping their authority? I think so, especially when you consider that CARB predates the EPA and they are requesting stricter standards, not relaxed standards. Also, was this decision influenced by special interest groups that don't necessarily represent the will of the American people? Again I think so.
The argument that states setting their own standards would be disruptive to the market has already been invalidated. For many years now vehicles sold in some states could not be sold in CA so what's the big difference here?
I'm very dissappointed in this ruling and I hope CARB does challenge it in court where judges will make the final ruling not the puppets of the auto industry masquerading as civil servants.
CARB vs EPA
If CARB had a history of solid beneficial policy I might agree with you. The one thing that did more to clean up gasoline auto emissions was getting the lead out of gas. The one thing that has done more to clean up diesel is getting the sulfur out. They are both EPA mandates. CARB is just an extension of the radical environmentalist groups that come to CA for the good weather. If you believe CARB is not causing problems for the automakers, how do you explain the whole ZEV/EV-1 debacle? CARB should concentrate on cleaning up pollution within the state. Then maybe when they get that accomplished work with the other states and the EPA to solve nationwide problems. The current designer gas that accomplishes nothing is a good example of CARB ignorance. MTBE was another.
ZEV/EV-1 wasn't a "debacle". Some very good things came out of it, like all your current hybrids.
Why are you blaming California for MBTE? That was an EPA and oil company decision as to which oxygenate to use. CARB starting eliminating MBTE in 1999. The Bush administration cancelled plans for its clean up in well water.
It got into well water from leaking gas station tanks. It's not that it is particularly toxic but it is very soluable, and makes water taste bad. I suppose if you gave a 55 gallon drum of it to a monkey you could kill him.
You know---all problem-solving is a combination of failures and successes. As long as progress is being made, that's what's important IMO.
That being the case, why don't the state just accept the EPA judgment on this issue? Why are they suing when the end result is just to make the lawyers more wealthy? Cars are not the issue as far as emissions are concerned in 2007. Why are they beating a dead horse? It is all based on the flawed GW hoax.
Why are you blaming California for MBTE?
My understanding is CA came up with the whole oxygenating scheme for our gas. The oil companies came up with MTBE as a solution to satisfy EPA & CARB. I was in Alaska at the time and the state fought against MTBE because it was causing problems in the winter with people breathing the exhaust. Even the EPA now admits that with modern engines oxygenated gas is not needed. CARB still insists, so we have ethanol laced gas that reduces mileage in my vehicles at least.
Arnold a "radical"? I don't THINK so.
I am sure you don't THINK so. For those that voted for him to get a less radical Liberal agenda in Sacramento he has become a BIG disappointment. He is far too easily swayed by the Liberal element in Hollywood for conservative voters.
I'm quite certain that CARB is causing problems for the automakers. I'm sure the EPA and NHTSA also cause them problems. I believe if the automakers were given free reign to operate as they saw fit we would have dramatically worse air quality and highway fatality rates.
In 1975 Southern California had 118 Stage 1 smog alerts. In 2000 there were 0 Stage 1 alerts despite the fact that the population and registered vehicles had increased by over 50% during this time. I believe that CARB has played a big part in this success by imposing standards that are more stringent than the US EPA requires. While I'm not a big fan of government regulation I do like clean air and this is an example of where regulation has worked and the individual would have been incapable of accomplishing this.
My biggest gripe with CARB is their looking the other way on the major polluters in the state. Ships, trains, planes, school buses, trucks, tractors and heavy equipment. Secondly picking on diesel cars when they were a non issue. It was only a smokescreen to cover up their sins.
When they go after the automaker they are not punishing them. It is US that are punished paying the higher prices for something that should have been dealt with before it reached our gas tanks.
Now with the automakers acting like businesses without responsibility for consequences (that is, presuming that they do not have to bear the cost of environemntal damage) and the EPA having been trashed into ineffectual nothingness, really CARB is the only thing California has to defend its environment--that environment I might add being worth a LOT of money.
Be it flawed, be it at times wrong, it's all we got between us and disaster. The EPA and the automakers have been particularly disappointing. One can almost excuse the automakers, who are by nature into maximizing profit, but not really, because there is money in "green" for those smart enough to figure it out. The EPA has, it seems, abandoned its mission.
MBTE: I am not a chemist, I can only go by what research I've done, but it SEEMS that MBTE is not particularly toxic and has not been proven carcinogenic, etc. What makes it nasty is that it is so readily soluble in water. So it's a very capable, though not deadly, contaminant. Again this is from leaking tanks, not airborne.
Here's a history of CARB regulations. They've gone after a lot of other pollution sources including buses, marine engines, lawn mowers, weed eaters, etc..
carb history
I've read enough of your posts to realize you are very much pro-diesel. I'm guessing that is your primary gripe against CARB. What do you think CARB's motivation is for discriminating against diesels?
SOURCE: American Lung Association
"Despite their small numbers compared to the total vehicle fleet in California, diesel engines account for 40 percent of the total nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and two-thirds of the total particulate matter (PM) from mobile sources. Compared to the overall vehicle fleet, diesels have been relatively uncontrolled; they have not been subject to the same levels of stringent emissions controls and in-use testing requirements similar to the state's vehicle inspection and maintenance program, Smog Check.
Because of the mounting evidence of diesel health risks, federal and state agencies have moved to adopt more stringent controls on diesel. The California Air Resources Board has determined that diesel particulates account for 70% of the cancer risk from toxic air contaminants statewide. To reduce statewide toxic risks, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in September 2000 for on-road and off-road engines to reduce PM emissions by at least 85 percent from the existing fleet and 90% from new heavy-duty engines over the next ten years.
That is precisely right. Exactly what I said. Ships, trains, planes, buses and heavy equipment ALL run on diesel. None were using ULSD until last year when the EPA mandate went into affect. So tell me what CARB has done to limit that pollution. They blocked the sale of relatively clean burning VW TDI cars and act like they solved the diesel pollution problem. There are still ships coming into the LA Harbors that run on bunker oil with a sulfur content in the 3000 PPM category.
in September 2000 for on-road and off-road engines to reduce PM emissions by at least 85 percent from the existing fleet and 90% from new heavy-duty engines over the next ten years.
So why didn't they extend that courtesy to diesel cars? They were already cleaner than the cleanest of the PU truck diesels that are not being regulated or tested for emissions. Most of the people I know rip all the exhaust crap off their diesel trucks before they have had them a month. CARB is a joke and most everyone knows it.
Planes? :confuse:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Maybe so but they are less of a joke than the US EPA. If you accept that a government agency needs to oversee environmental matters I'd personally rather have it done on the state level. The feds are incapable of enacting this type of legislation without bundling it with all sorts of earmarks and concessions to special interests. For instance I'm pretty sure the energy bill that Congress just passed included more funds for ethanol and oil from coal programs. Most people outside the states that benefit from this largesse would agree these are boondoggles but that's the way legislation is enacted on the federal level. IMO, that's a bigger joke.
The US Supreme Court gave the US EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions. What has the EPA done with this authority? The answer is nothing. They've basically handed the ball back to the politicians. What else could they do since they are essentiall the lackeys of those that appointed them? Hardly a position for an agency to operate effectively and in the best interest of environmental protection. I find it ironic that the US EPA will, in all likelihood, be going to court to try and block a state's efforts to protect the environment.
By the Supreme Court telling the EPA they have discretion over CO2 emissions they have made it a national issue. I believe that CARB is reacting to Hollywood hysteria with their ignorant lawsuit. Why waste all those tax dollars on attorneys going back to the Supreme Court to get the same results. Fortunately this Court is not fooled by Hollywood smoke and mirrors when it comes to GW.
Just suppose that CARB were to get their way on this emissions business. They could force the automakers into only selling us yugo sized hybrids. Or some other god awful POC. All it would do is start a new cottage industry as we have seen with the diesel cars being brought in used from other states. The only thing it would accomplish is cost us more for the vehicles we want to own and taxes to fight their silly lawsuits. Jerry Brown needs to be put out to pasture.
CARB is just an extension of the Hollywood elitists that have appointed them, just like the EPA.
Regulating CO2 is also getting EPA into an area they have little experieriance in. Most of what the EPA deals with and regulates has direct impact on human health. NOx, dust, SO2, carcinogens, etc... all have measurable effects on human health so you can establish acceptable exposure levels. I think we can all agree that this approach has been very effective at improving nationwide air quality. Water quality has been more of a mixed bag and I expect to see a lot more EPA emphasis in this area in coming years. CO2 is a different animal. As far as I know, there is no acute or long term health hazards from CO2 exposure (except for insanely high concentrations) so that leaves the climate change aspect. That begs the questions of: What level do you control to? 1990? 1950? Will this have an impact on the problem? How much will it cost to do this? Believe it or not the EPA does take costs of control into consideration. Then this leads to a compliance date. When do we start handing out the penalties for non-compliance? Who do we fine? States? Companies? Industry groups?
A lot of these questions are not easy to answer and this is why EPA is not moving real fast.
yeah, more like dry-rotting them off the vehicles, I guess! I sort of "redeemed" myself, I guess, in the next couple days. Took my grandmother and uncle down to see my Mom & stepdad in southern MD on Sunday, did some running around on Christmas Day, and as of this morning, it had a whopping 170 miles on it since I reset the trip odometer on Saturday.
Oh, my Mom & stepdad bought a 2008 Altima. It was still at the dealership as of Sunday, but I think it's a 2.5SL with the CVT. I forget what the new EPA rating is but the 2007 equivalent was something like 26/34. Their old '99 Altima, which they're holding onto, is rated around 22/30. So theoretically that'll save them a bit in fuel...except for the fact that they're still going to use the old car to commute back and forth to work, and just drive the new one on trips and such!
Guess, you won't really need to do anything "when gas price rises above $4 a gallon"
Oh, I'll whine about it, trust me. :P But yeah, not really much I can do about it, considering how little I drive these days.
My understanding is that the EPA's decision to turn down this waiver by no means represented a consensus within the agency. In fact I've read that most of their lawyers and experts advised that this waiver should be granted. So the head of the EPA seems to have gone against the opinions of those that consider all these questions. Why? Does he really believe that he possesses greater insight into this matter? I seriously doubt it. Is it a surprise that President Bush agrees with this decision? Bush said that having 50 standards would have been confusing. We're not talking about 50 standards. We're talking about the CA standard and everyone else. CA is the only state that has been granted permission to set more stringent emission standards. There are already 20 states that have indicated they would adopt this standard and these states combine for 50% of the driving public. There's little doubt that more states would follow. Apparently Congress is already looking into this ruling and you can expect the next President, regardless of party to see things differently.
California takes the boldest possible action because it knows it will get zero cooperation from automakers and a lot of resistance from the current administration.
By taking the most aggressive position possible, there is room to compromise. It's an old game.
California was the first state to even acknowledge that there WAS "smog".
The pioneer in every endeavor always gets beat up now and then, because changing the status quo is the hardest thing to do.
Maybe EPA doesn't care if we all choke to death, but CARB does. My god, even that bastion of conservative thought, Lee Iacocca, who once said (my favorite automaker quote) "How much clean air do we need anyway?", is now ranting against the inability of government to address the needs of the environment.
I'd rather see CARB proven wrong and humiliated than do nothing when they should have.
I don't buy into the rational that we need to wait until we are 100% certain that mankind is contributing to global warming before acting. That's the rational that left New Orleans under water. I mean why spend the money on levies that can withstand a category 5 hurricane when there is no guarantee you'll ever be hit by one? The consequences of acting on global warming and being wrong are far less than the consequences of not acting and being wrong. But then I'll admit that I'm somewhat of an elitist treehugger who likes clean water, clean air, clean beaches, etc.. I'll even pay more for these things.
How much more? I like clean air and water as much as anyone. I moved further away from San Diego to insure cleaner air.
Probably true. LA was getting mighty dirty when we moved out in 1957. Last trip to San Bernardino was interesting. It is still a poor place to be unless you like breathing smog. So how is that a result of diesel cars and cars in general? This whole debate is over making cars cleaner. Just mandate that everyone in the state has to drive a CNG powered car. The Civic GX was tested and found to be the cleanest car the EPA EVER tested. The air going in was not as clean as the air being exhausted. Much cleaner than the Hybrids. Or better yet, mandate we are all to be driving hydrogen cars by 2010. That should get all the polluters off the road.
If not that? What do you suppose that Jerry Brown wants from the EPA & auto makers? I think it is just to make a name for himself and cash in on the GW hysteria, as Gore has done.
It is not going to get better as long as we have different agencies all with their own agenda. What the EPA mandates the NHTSA shoots down or CAFE re-regulates or CARB gets in the middle of. It is a bit like the local police, INS, Customs, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol and DEA not being able to work together. Too many overlapping agencies in this country.
Gore hasn't "cashed in" on anything. He's already rich and he's already famous. I find his motives laudable. He's too fat, though. :P
I don't believe that about Jerry Brown. When he was governor he wouldn't stay in the governor's mansion and I believe he drove a Chrysler K car. Since that time he's spent time in monasteries, been mayor of Oakland and now AG of California. So in terms of the spotlight he's definitely been moving away from it for the past 30 years. I see him as someone that not only talks the talk but walks the walk and is not at all about self promotion. But as far as this issue goes I believe he is a dog with a bone and is not about to let it go.
As far as what he and CA want from the US EPA I think he basically would just like them to stay out of the state's way. I believe that CA has long since abandoned the idea that the federal government places much priority on protecting the environment. And CA is not alone in this sentiment. Wasn't there a meeting this past year with many of the state's governors where they got together and decided to adopt Kyoto-like standard? The message there is that a good number of states are realizing that they need to take this matter into their own hands or it won't get done. Hard to disagree with that sentiment. The policy makers in Washington have long since become way too beholding to a diverse group of special interests. The federal system has become one that is inherently incapable of effective management.
I heard Bush comment that what CA is trying to do is not significantly different than what is accomplished in the current energy bill, just 4 years earlier. So basically he doesn't see the need for a waiver. Is he saying that had this energy bill not been passed then CA would have been granted their waiver. I seriously doubt that. Plus this bill was passed in CA back in 2005, long before this recent energy bill. CA has been fighting outside sources all the way to keep it alive.
The federal government has taken the position that they are the only ones who can regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles and whatever they choose to do or not do in this regard the states just have to live with. I believe this goes way beyond the scope of what the feds should be able to dictate to the states.