Howdy, Stranger!

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





If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive

1679111218

Comments

  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    kd: Tell someone who's now 45 or 55 and driven for their entire lives that they will not be able to drive and you'd get a lot angrier reaction.

    me: If history is any indicator, when people were told in the 70's that they couldn't get gas during rationing, or on certain days, yes there was anger, but certainly not anger like you suggest. During the Depression, people had very little and there was not widespread civil discontent. So I don't think that the typical U.S. citizen is going to take up arms if they have to pay another $100/month in gas costs. I think they'll give up their $70 cable, cut back on clothes, pizzas ... or God forbid - get a 2nd job. I think people will do that before taking up arms. ;)

    kd: So why can't I drive when Mr. Moneybags up there fills his Escalade/Mercedes with $200 worth of fuel every 10 days so that he and his trophy wife and 3 brats can drive to their lakehouse and use another $800 in fuel for his boat?

    me: It again sounds like you have a problem with the system we have, where more successful (or lucky in terms of inheritance or other windfalls) have more money. Am I wrong? If I didn't have making $ as a goal, I wouldn't get up in the morning and put in a very good day's work. I suggest it would be more productive for us to make more money, rather than condone criminal activity by those with a hard-luck story (bad decisions in life - sorry I have no interest in subsidizing them).
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    Fixing that might actually have MORE impact than CAFE standards, come to think of it....about 75% of the employees in my company commute an hour to work. A surprisingly large amount of people do it these days.

    I don't have the time for a long post, but I've lived in the Boston area back in the 80's when real estate was very high and worker shortages were occurring. So your situation is not unique, or unknown. The way I handled was to find a new job and move. basically I was telling my employer you're not paying me enough to live and work here. I moved to another area where I make about the same money, don't put up with the Boston traffic, and the rents and housing is about 2/3 the cost. I alone could not change the dynamics of the pay and cost-of-living, but when thousands of people in an area like myself make those same decisions, then the employers are short of workers, and the demand for housing drops. Now if your job can be outsourced well you might have a problem; but there are many sorts of jobs which can't be outsourced (plumber, electrician, doctor, many engineers, lawyer ...)

    As long as people are willing to work for that money and drive that far, and the local politicians don't increase housing then yes you're company is going to pay what they are. Or just like many companies did years ago they moved out of high cost areas like NYC, rather than pay high wages.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    larsb: In Europe, taxes made diesel cars popular. I see that forcing carmakers to improve MPG will work just fine.

    No.

    The taxes are imposed on the fuel and, in some countries, the vehicle, based on various measures. The buyer of the vehicle pays the taxes.

    The policies of different European countries did not "force carmakers to improve MPG." They attempted to influence the market to create the demand for more efficient vehicles.

    The concept is completely different from that behind CAFE. European countries tried to influence consumer demand. They did not try to tell car makers what to produce, which is the path taken by CAFE.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I'm in IT, so yeah, my job is vulnerable to outsourcing.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,095
    A national newspaper is looking to speak to consumers who have or are considering moving closer to work because of gasoline prices. Please respond no later than Feb. 29 with your daytime contact information to Chintan Talati at [email protected]
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    What CAFE does it establish a floor for the slothfulness of the automakers. If it were up to them, they'd be building and pushing 2-ton, $30,000 barges that got 15 mpg on a good day. They're nowhere near nimble enough to retool on short notice for 1-ton, $15,000 cars that get 45 mpg. CAFE means that those cars actually exist in the market so people can buy them when gas prices start climbing.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Somehow I had a feeling some of you would misunderstand my point.........

    I meant that outside forces CAN have an impact on what cars are driven.

    Cut and dry. Nothing else to be interpreted from the statement. Outside influences other than carmakers and car buyers CAN influence the market. I.E. government incentives, see USA Hybrids. Taxes, see Euro diesels.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    larsb: Somehow I had a feeling some of you would misunderstand my point.........

    I meant that outside forces CAN have an impact on what cars are driven.


    You posted this: "I see that forcing carmakers to improve MPG will work just fine."

    The European policies worked on consumer demand and ensured that there would be a market for more efficient vehicles. This is completely opposite from the approach taken by CAFE. Simply grouping both approaches as "outside forces" is not exactly helpful.

    larsb: Cut and dry. Nothing else to be interpreted from the statement.Outside influences other than carmakers and car buyers CAN influence the market. I.E. government incentives, see USA Hybrids. Taxes, see Euro diesels.

    You equated CAFE with European tax policies on gasoline and various vehicles, which misses the point that they act in entirely different ways and that their chances of success are entirely different. This is why people may not believe that increasing CAFE is the best method to ensure the availability of more efficient vehicles.

    If anything, European policies, particularly high taxes on fuel, undermine the central contention of the pro-CAFE contingent on this thread - that higher gasoline prices will not necessarily lead to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Let me say it again:

    Mandating safety makes cars safer.
    Applying credits to hybrids made them sell faster.
    Applying higher GASOLINE TAXES in Europe gave rise to a diesel push.
    Mandating higher MPG will mean that cars will have higher MPG.

    Cut and dry. I don't need to write an essay to make a point.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Yeah, but don't you know that it's just WRONG to mandate safety and higher MPG? How can we expect our wonderful blue-blooded American car-companies to compete when we keep regulating them all the time and forcing them to produce cars that are safe and efficient?? How dare we?

    Sarcasm intended. :shades:
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    There are many countries where much of the population does not have $ for gasoline, while others drive. So I don't see why U.S. citizens are going to act different if that were to occur. You make no case. Is it modified U.S. genetics? As far as employment goes, these trends will occur gradually over years giving people time to adapt. I work in a department where 2 blue-collar workers don't have cars. How do they get by? they live within 2 miles of work and either bike, walk, or on really bad weather days take a cab.

    The difference say between Kenya or Bangladesh where many people have never had the opportunity to own/drive a vehicle and the US where the majority of population has at least had the chance to own/drive a vehicle.... is expectations.

    Tell a citizen of one of those former countries who's never been able to own a vehicle in the past that the price of fuel will be too high to drive a one in the future and you'd get maybe a shrug. Tell someone who's now 45 or 55 and driven for their entire lives that they will not be able to drive and you'd get a lot angrier reaction.

    "So why can't I drive when Mr. Moneybags up there fills his Escalade/Mercedes with $200 worth of fuel every 10 days so that he and his trophy wife and 3 brats can drive to their lakehose and use another $800 in fuel for his boat? OK, he can spend his money the way he wants but when you tell me that because I'm poor that I can't even afford to drive 20 miles to work or to take my sick child to the clinic now I'm going to do something about that. Mr. Moneybags better not show up around here."

    At a time in the future I can see Fuel Stamps being issued along with Food Stamps if the price of fuel gets too out of hand. It'll help keep the peace.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Mandating higher MPG will mean that cars will have higher MPG.

    Yeah, but what about the loopholes as big as the Grand Canyon that the car companies have now to jump through??

    In post 226, I put forth some hypothetical CAFE standards for different types of vehicles. If CAFE would just go far enough to set strict guidelines as to what constitutes what category and close the loopholes, CAFE may have more teeth.

    As it stands now, Subaru can laugh all the way to the bank with these standards, because half of their wagons (and make no mistake, thats what they are---CAR BASED STATION WAGONS) are classified as---"TRUCKS"
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    I don't really have a problem with FFV's even if in reality they only get 12-14 mpg whereas the gasser version gets16-18 mpg.....IF...the vehicle uses the Flex Fuel 100% of the time.

    If someone is using E85 all the time and spending big bucks to get 12 mpg that's fine because at least they've been removed from the pool that's using petro-fuel ( directly ). If they are overspending that's OK too because most of that revenue stays here.

    I don't think corn-based E85 is the longterm solution but I do think various other options are.
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 399
    just a note, yes honda's hydrogen car is great, as is GM's, BMW's, MAzda's... GM and Honda though are the ones who invested in hydrogen fuel cells the earliest, BMW and Mazda went ith internal combustion hydrogen, the other's (I believe) jumped on the hydrogen bandwagon later. I think Honda gets the most press for their hydrogen efforts though (smart press officers??).
    Scott
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    I see those loopholes as a financial requirement.

    Car companies do not believe, based on past experience, that consumers will readily accept higher car prices for more fuel-efficient technology.

    And that's a valid question.

    They see it as something else that's gonna make their cars MORE EXPENSIVE.

    Example: Car companies could spend $300-$500 per car and give ALL 4-cylinder vehicles a PZEV rating, one of the cleanest cars on the road.

    Do they do so? NO, because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that consumers will NOT pay that extra cost just for a car which has a slightly cleaner exhaust.

    So it will all play out interestingly.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    That's not a "theory." It is the way the new-vehicle market has worked in the past, and will work in the future.

    Sorry we'll have to disagree because IMO the vehicle makers as shown by the domestics and Germans have not shown any real interest in increasing the fuel economy of their respective fleets even though the buying public has been moving away from their guzzlers since 2003. Outside of the Volt which is 2+ years away what huge advances have any of these made. None. Zero. They want to keep the status quo despite the demands of the market. As a result they are losing to Toyota and Honda and even to Hyundai. The theory that they will voluntarily provide the market with wonderful new more fuel efficient vehicles is Pollyanna-ish.

    Without a gun to their collective heads they won't budge. There is simply no data to support any other conclusion.

    In general this applies to Toyota and Honda as well even though they've seen the benefit of offering at least a limited number of highly efficient vehicles. I am positive that the vehicles that they now provide are capable of at least 10% better fuel efficiency in a heartbeat. But I think they have them tuned to be just slightly better than the market in order to keep their lead but not give away any future advancements.

    kdhspyder: Wow. That sounds like the very basis for a gigantic class struggle.

    No, that sounds like common sense. You keep trying to turn it into a class struggle by insisting that people somehow have the right to a certain amount of gasoline, regardless of their ability to pay (primarily because they don't want to pay the market price).

    That is not the way real life works, and not the way the market will function efficiently.

    kdhspyder: Will you feel safe driving and filling up when fuel reaches such a level that large segments of the public are priced out of individual transportation?

    As I said, I don't believe in gun control, so, yes, I will feel very safe...


    As I said in a prior post.. imagine telling someone who's been driving all their lives that they are now 'too poor' to drive. Driving is only for the well-to-do. The poor can walk, take a bus or stay at home....even if home is 20 miles away from work, hospitals, etc. This is a situation that the various Federal, Sate and Local governments don't want want to have to deal with. You're dreaming if you believe that anger will not boil to the surface and affect the well-to-do privileged drivers. 'Mr grbeck, you are too poor to drive, please remove yourself from the highways.'
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    kdhspyder: I'm sorry your last 3 paragraphs are just factually wrong.

    No, they are correct. You need to read a recent editorial by Csaba Csere in Car & Driver on this very issue. He documents how, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when gasoline prices were rising, the cumulative mileage of vehicles sold in the U.S. actually OUTPACED required CAFE increases. When gas prices eased in the mid-1980s, bigger vehicles bounced back in sales.

    I can look up this editorial for you if you wish


    An editorial is nothing but one person's opinion. Just as your opinion is erroneous his has no more weight without facts. Your following statement is unclear. Please clarify what you mean by 'cumulative mileage'. As stated the words mean the total miles driven. Did you mean 'average fleet fuel economy'. CAFE speaks to average fuel economy nothing about total miles driven.

    I'll refer you to the data from the VMT study given to the DOT back in 2001 concerning miles driven.

    kdhspyder: Higher gasoline prices will ensure nothing as regards to improved fuel economy.

    Please...I'll find that editorial from Car & Driver so that you can read it and not make this incorrect statement again.

    What you fail to understand is that, even with higher prices, we only recently passed the inflation adjusted peak in gasoline prices (which occurred in March 1981).

    The price of gasoline in relation to total household income is also at a low figure. Using this measurement, gasoline is still as affordable as it was in 1962.

    Despite these figures, and gasoline still being relatively affordable, small car sales increased, SUV sales are tanking, and the number of miles driven by Americans actually declined. All of which prove that your contention is incorrect.

    Americans have reacted to a recent runup in gasoline prices by adjusting their behaviors, despite gasoline remaining affordable by historic standards. There is no indication that they will not further adjust their demand if prices continue to rise, and that mainstream companies will not provide products in response to this shift in priorities.


    Yes the American public has made an adjustment in their own activities ( purchases ) but the vehicle makers - and they are the subject of this entire discussion - have done little or nothing . Fuel prices have ramped up to historic highs and the options for the driving public are the same as they were in 1999 with only a few exceptions.

    kdhspyder: They did in fact fight having to increase fuel economy standards. You cannot get away from this fact.

    Which has nothing to do with Americans demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles, and nothing to do with how the price of gasoline will depress demand and spur development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

    Just because a company fights fuel economy standards does not mean it is doing nothing to improve fuel economy. Toyota fought the standards...and brought out the Prius even before gasoline economy was a concern.

    They opposed CAFE - so what? They opposed an ineffective, dumb law. Good for them!


    Despite your multitude of words there is not a shred of evidence that most of the vehicle makers were making any efforts to give us the driving public more efficient vehicles to drive. Lutz, the Germans and Chrysler all derided the efforts of Toyota, Honda and Ford to provide hybrids for the public.

    Your last statement just shows that you don't understand the entire concept and the reason for the quick acceptance of CAFE 35. Think about who proposed it and why it was proposed from that source.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    I don't really have a problem with FFV's even if in reality they only get 12-14 mpg whereas the gasser version gets16-18 mpg.

    I think you have missed the whole point. The CAFE powers have given these FFVs a 35 MPG or close to that rating because they are FFVs. My guess is 99% will never use E85. Most of the 1/2 ton GM trucks and SUVs sold in CA are FFVs. There is no place to buy E85 unless you are near the one commercial station here in San Diego. And they charge a lot more for E85 than they do regular unleaded.

    What that means is GM and Ford will not have to EVER build a fuel efficient 1/2 ton PU to meet the CAFE standards. They only way they will do it is if some competitor offers a 1/2 ton diesel that does all the gas PU will do and get much better mileage.

    At this time there is NO PU truck that gets even close to the 35 MPG and without diesel probably NEVER will. The rest of the World has PU trucks that easily surpass our 35 MPG mandate. We have warring factions in our government that will not allow US to save on fossil fuel.

    So I will repeat my statement. CAFE is a joke.
  • It's proven that these cars camn be made to get more MPG. The automakers don't do it because they are in bed with the Oil Giants. By 2020 gas will have creeped up to 10 bucks or more a gallon to offset the MPG standard.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Replying to: gagrice (Feb 27, 2008 7:40 am)
    I don't really have a problem with FFV's even if in reality they only get 12-14 mpg whereas the gasser version gets16-18 mpg.....IF...the vehicle uses the Flex Fuel 100% of the time.

    If someone is using E85 all the time and spending big bucks to get 12 mpg that's fine because at least they've been removed from the pool that's using petro-fuel ( directly ). If they are overspending that's OK too because most of that revenue stays here.


    No I wasn't missing the point at all I know the E85 currently is a loophole that that truck makers got passed to give themselves more time to sell their guzzlers without having to make any improvements. But what I originally said is that I don't have any problem with FFVs if the owner actually uses E85 all the time ( highlighted text ).

    Otherwise yes it is a loophole. However that loophole is being closed progressively by 2020.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Otherwise yes it is a loophole. However that loophole is being closed progressively by 2020.

    That is where I think you are wrong. I don't see E85 expanding much beyond the niche it now fills. The talk of biomass ethanol is still "Pie in the Sky". The coasts ever getting a good supply of E85 20% cheaper than regular is unlikely. Only a crazy person is going to spend as much or more for E85 than regular when they are getting much worse mileage. Not to mention they have to go fill up more often.

    The way I see it is all the automakers will jump on that loophole and we will not get much better mileage out of the bigger vehicles by 2020. Would you spend $millions on R&D when you can spend $35 per vehicle to make it a FFV?

    CAFE is political pandering to the masses. Unless we get some small diesel vehicles in the US or EVs there will not be significant REAL mileage increases by 2020.
  • I have a story to tell about a car i sold almost 2 years ago. It was a Buick Park Avenue Ultra with the 3.8 liter (3800) Supercharged V-6. I got it from a guy that didnt know squat about cars, so he didnt take the best care of the car. After investing some time & money into the car, i got her running mint! Good enough to get i figured 27mpg hwy, with all the power of a V-8. Now the park avenue is not a small car by any means and many parts on it are from another big (GM) luxury car the Caddy. I have read how good the Supercharged 3800 is, and was sad to hear last year was the last of the that car and motor. The way i see it, if GM can build a car that size that gets 27mpg. Then why not 35mpg without a loss in power? I have also read on line about using small amounts of Acitone mixed with gasoline to gain 20 to 30% mileage. But they say it only works with supercharged motors? I might add, that Park Ave 'ultra' that i achieved 27mpg was not even a newer one, it was a 1993. Also there is a product called a (Helix Power Tower) throttle body spacer. Goes in between your intake & throttle body! That i gained a couple mpg hwy on my GMC/Sierra. Works by atomizing fuel & air mixture just before it enters the intake. The cost was $69 bucks.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    I guess I will have to research the bill if I have the time. I think expecting any alternative fuel to be available in large quantities by 2020 is not likely. Biomass ethanol is in the R&D stages with production at least 3-5 years in the future. Biomass may or may not be a workable solution. So far the biomass materials proposed are not in any great supply as would be needed. The infrastructure for ethanol is only a fraction of what would be needed. It is not much closer to reality than hydrogen. Right now the reason E85 is more than regular in CA is every drop has to be hauled by truck cross country. I look at any alternative other than electric as increasingly imported. We could make diesel from coal as we have a lot of it.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    kdhspyder: Sorry we'll have to disagree because IMO the vehicle makers as shown by the domestics and Germans have not shown any real interest in increasing the fuel economy of their respective fleets even though the buying public has been moving away from their guzzlers since 2003.

    Last time I checked, the American automobile market isn't only being served by GM and the Germans.

    And you do realize how long it takes to design and tool a new vehicle, especially one with new technology, which must be tested?

    Am I just imagining all of those new fuel-saving features - for example, displacement on demand in the new GM full-size SUVs, and Bluetec diesels in some German cars - that have debuted recently?

    Have you heard about Ford's move to direct-injection V-6s - called EcoBoost - with supercharging or turbocharging (I forget which) to provide V-8 levels of performance in smaller, more fuel-efficient engines?

    Are you aware that, even as we speak, Ford is tooling up a plant in Mexico to produce the Fiesta (smaller than a Focus) for the American market?

    All of which prove you incorrect.

    Also note that people who want German cars aren't buying them solely for fuel economy. They want performance, status and prestige...so that is what the manufacturers provide. That is the way the free market works. If the buyers of BMWs and Mercedes and Audis can afford to pay $6 for a gallon of unleaded, that is their business, not yours or mine.

    kdhsypder: Outside of the Volt which is 2+ years away what huge advances have any of these made. None. Zero. They want to keep the status quo despite the demands of the market.

    Wrong...see above.

    kdhspyder: As a result they are losing to Toyota and Honda and even to Hyundai. The theory that they will voluntarily provide the market with wonderful new more fuel efficient vehicles is Pollyanna-ish.

    They ARE providing more fuel-efficient vehicles, and working to bring new techologies to market. See above. The problem is that you apparently aren't aware of them.

    Also, if said companies are losing market share to Honda and Toyota because their vehicles are less efficient, one can logically conclude that they will change direction, or go out of business.

    That is how the free market functions, and, by your own admission, it is working as you said with this quote: "As a result they are losing to Toyota and Honda and even to Hyundai."

    If GM is losing market share to these companies because its vehicles are less efficient, the idea that it won't change direction without government regulations is, quite frankly, hard to fathom.

    kdhspyder: Without a gun to their collective heads they won't budge. There is simply no data to support any other conclusion.

    You have provided absolutely NO data to support anything you have said, and you appear to be woefully informed about what companies are doing to improve economy.

    kdhspyder: I am positive that the vehicles that they now provide are capable of at least 10% better fuel efficiency in a heartbeat. But I think they have them tuned to be just slightly better than the market in order to keep their lead but not give away any future advancements.

    And I'm sure they could get 20 percent better mileage if they removed all of the sound insulation and tuned the engines to run from 0-60 in about 20 seconds. Of course, then they wouldn't sell any cars.

    kdhspyder: As I said in a prior post.. imagine telling someone who's been driving all their lives that they are now 'too poor' to drive.

    No, the market is saying that gas now costs X number of dollars per gallon, and people need to figure out how to pay this amount if they want to drive. I hate to break it to you, but 99.9 percent of the people will adjust accordingly.

    You also appear not to understand how this will work. We won't wake up one morning and discover that gas is now $10 a gallon...the price rise will be gradual. People will adjust. They will carpool, consolidate trips, buy smaller vehicles, etc.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    It's proven that these cars camn be made to get more MPG. The automakers don't do it because they are in bed with the Oil Giants.

    No that isn't it at all for most people. 1) the people who buy new cars are probably the people with more $ on average, and 2) people with more money are going to consider gas-prices to be less of a factor in choosing vehicles. So in the past when gas prices were < $3/gal people new car shopping went for more size, luxury or power. Rather than buying a Corolla, many people decided they wanted larger vehicles like Camries, Highlanders, 4Runners, or Lexuses. Toyota then seeing that trend and what other car manufacturers are selling, adjusts what they build. Hence you end up with vehicles like the Tundra and Camry becoming larger and more powerful each year, which does not improve mpg, though they may get more efficient trans. engines, and cD's.

    It is the consumer who drives what gets made, but there is a time-delay. You may not be able to get small fuel efficient cars now, because there wasn't much demand for them 3 years ago. It takes auto manufacturers several years to react to consumer trends and demands.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    I'm shocked at your lack of understanding of the written word since it's your chosen profession.

    I have consistently stated that with few exceptions, little or nothing has been done for most of the last two decades to advance fuel economy. The advancements you note are only now beginning to come to market and many are still several years away.

    Eco-boost is still be put into its first vehicle
    Bluetec is limited to the future Jetta TDI and the future Merc @ $50000+ Hardly a solution, more a gesture.
    Volt E-REV ... future
    2-Modes......... limited to a few units beginning this month
    Accord diesel.. future

    DoD from either Honda or GM is at best a minor advancement or at worst a sham. Most see no benefit at all.

    As to your presumed knowledge of why CAFE 35 was put into place, you still have not given any clear statement that you understand its purpose. That speaks volumes.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Background...
    I did live through the first shortage and I do remember line jumpers being shot dead at the pumps. I also remember police guards at gas stations when the owners had to shut off the pumps at 5 PM or when fuel ran out and there was still a line around the block.

    As VP of a steel company living in NYC for the better part of my life before retiring to the shore let's just say I have a wide and I think realistic view of our society.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Sorry I think you missed the part of CAFE 35 that phases out the FFV loophole by 2020.

    Now if celluosic ethanol or biodiesel can be extended to all parts of the country then reopening the FFV loophole makes a lot of sense...if..HUGE IF... the vehicles using it must use one of the alt-fuels, meaning that they can't use petro-fuel at any time. The new celluosic ethanol and biodiesel both contain more energy than corn ethanol so fuel economy may actually improve vis-a-vis what's being used today or even petro-fuels.

    CAFE 35 is not pandering to the masses. That's not Dubya's style. It's based only on math. The math is simple and it will work easily. [Explanation upon request]
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Sorry I think you missed the part of CAFE 35 that phases out the FFV loophole by 2020.

    I just do not believe it will happen. Must be using alt-fuels, is a mighty big idea with little basis in reality. I am not as optimistic as you are. I watched the last big push for EVs in CA. Not much but bitterness against GM was the result. Being a student of history, this reminds me a lot of the late 1970s. Brazil who has ethanol with a positive production factor, mandated Ethanol only cars about 30 years ago. They ended up with a bunch of ethanol only vehicles and NO ethanol. The price of sugar went so high that it was not profitable to make ethanol and the production ceased.

    So you are telling me these vehicles that are getting the high mileage CAFE moniker because they CAN use E85 if it is practical, will in 2020 will ONLY be able use ethanol or biodiesel? If that is the new law, what is to stop a future Congress from changing it again. I think market driven gains in mileage are far better and more effective than anything our government attempts. I did not blame this mess on Dubya. It is our lame brained Congress. Bush is just tired of fighting the ignorance that goes on.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    I did live through the first shortage and I do remember line jumpers being shot dead at the pumps. I also remember police guards at gas stations when the owners had to shut off the pumps at 5 PM or when fuel ran out and there was still a line around the block.

    Apples and pine-cones ... you are comparing a) a sudden change in supply, where waits can be hours, and where people can cut-lines and get in each other's faces, to b) a gradual increase in cost over years, where fuel is plentiful in an orderly manner of - if you want to buy it you can. These are 2 different scenarios entirely psychologically for people.

    There is not mass social chaos due to gas prices, in any country now with high costs (Europe); or even in (high cost : average income - SE Asia).

    There are many people who are priced out of owning a home, and having health insurance. I work with people who don't make enough for a car and gasoline, and they do get by; they come to accept that and deal with it.

    As VP of a steel company living in NYC for the better part of my life

    Considering the state of the steel industry, you really open yourself up. ;)
This discussion has been closed.