5 Automakers Stand Behind 54.5 MPG Fuel Standard

I seem to recall reading that the line would move from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR under the new rules, but can't seem to find anything to back that up now.

 

really bothers me that you think people are so stupid. Just because they don't see it your way doesn't mean their stupid.

on another note, if i were an auto maker, i would oppose cafe standards too. GM and Chrysler are owned by the government so it's understandable that they would jump on board. Ford is more of a mystery to me.

CAFE standards are nothing more than an unfunded mandate. We are the ones that have to fund it when we buy the cars.

should we use less oil? of course. should the government dictate it? absolutely not.

 

Since tax money is used to maintain and defend our oil empire, as well as pay for the envirnomental costs of our oil addiction, I disagree with you on this.

The US is 4% of the world's population, we have 3% of the world's known oil reserves, but we use 26% of the world's oil.

The US spends more on defense than the next 25 countries combined.

The US has over 700 military bases on foreign soil.

WHAT PART OF THE ABOVE NUMBERS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

"really bothers me that you think people are so stupid. Just because they don't see it your way doesn't mean their stupid."

To paraphrase a very smart fellow: you are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Americans are amazingly ignorant. That is a fact.

 

that's not a fact; that's your opinion

 

can no one here propose an idea that is environmentally friendly without screwing people over? The guy that wants us to pay $8 a gal for gas apparently hates us all that have to drive to work. i think far too many people are looking to "punish" us instead of working to solve the issue. taxing everyone into the poor house isn't the right answer.

i have personally taught 3 former students of mine in the past month the coolness of driving a hybrid. they all got in the prius having no knowledge or experience with one, (one actually hated toyota altogether because they aren't the big 3) and be the end of the drive all of them had changed their opinion of the car. the one that hates Toyota doesn't hate them anymore, and the other two would like to have one. I didn't have to beat them into submission nor extort money from them.

 

The Treasury sold their remaining Chrysler shares to Fiat in July making Fiat the majority shareholder with 53% ownership.

Automakers have the technology to meet the new standards. Remember that all of the major automakers are global companies that sell cars all over the world. The vehicles they sell in other markets are far more fuel efficient than those that are sold in the US. The reason the automakers don't like CAFE is because it does nothing to encourage buyers to purchase fuel efficient vehicle. The reason small cars sell in other markets is because fuel cost 3X more than it does here.

 

No, critter.

What fraction of the US populace
Can solve a simple calculus problem ?
Are at least the same math level as a 'C' student in the 7th grade from Shanghai ?
Can solve high school AP level physics problems ?
Understands the tenets of AGW ?
Can solve a compound interest problem without google ?
*still* thinks that WMD were found in Iraq ?
Can distinguish need from want, and does so in daily speech ?
Has the faintest clue what the derivatives market in the US is ?
Can explain the arguments the US supreme court used to uphold slavery in the 19th century, and the relevance today ? (this is a real stretch -- I doubt 1% of Americans are even aware of the US SC's involvement.)

Pick any topic, and the base competency will be whatever Faux News tells them. I said ignorant to be PC; pathetically stupid is closer to the mark.

 

I believe that the above quote is accurate. What is not mentioned is the fact that the Treasury sold the remaining shares to Fiat at a tremendous loss .... The American taxpayer "took it in the shorts."

 

the only way it would be possible to agree with statements above, if the costs of gas were not subsidized via tax breaks to oil companies, tax loopholes, etc and included the true costs of maintaining infrastructure including highway up-keeping, policing, ambulance, etc.. and of cause the costs of oil wars.

BTW the costs were estimated 2-4$ a gal 6 years ago, not sure were it stands now, anyone?

As is gas guzzlers are unfunded mandate, which we are the ones that have to fund it when we pay our taxes.

Since passing the true costs at gas pump is impossible at this point w/o wrecking a havoc on economy, government has very much every right to impose CAFE standards.

 

how do you figure that? gas guzzlers not only pay more in fuel tax, but they also have to pay another tax. i don't feel like i'm subsidizing them.

 

add another $4 per gallon which comes out from your tax pocket and see the light ound:

 

sorry for sarcasm :humble:

The true costs of gas were estimated at $15/gal back when gas was $1.02, way before the decade of oil wars. Even if you question the study (which many will) still $14/gal is hard to bridge.

I started new thread on this, pls comment there, thnx.
True costs of gasoline

 

lowering taxes for any reason isn't a cost. that would imply that the government was entitled to the money to begin with. taxes are just a necessary thing we have to have to function. they ought to be thankful for any taxes they collect and use them wisely. instead they frivolously waste our money.

 

[/QUOTE]You have to look at the bigger picture and realize that most buyers are fairly ignorant when it comes to the effects of their buying decision. Some say they have a right to own whatever kind of car they please and I say I have a right to clean air that is not being polluted by your ignorant/selfish choice.[/QUOTE]

What we need is balance, not Draconian mandates, as Obama has proposed. I'm all for reasonable, stepped fuel economy increases over some years to raise mileage standards steadily without sharp cost increases that penalize families in tough economic times. I'm for increasing fuel economy across the board in vehicles that serve folks' needs but I'm not for legislating many popular vehicles entirely out of existence and such rapid ramp up in MPG would do that. Downsizing and other FE enhancements are fine but abruptly depriving folks of their preferred vehicles is wrong. Ever cleaner emissions standards have vastly improved the smog factor cars used to generate so let's not be extremist in imposing views on all others. We can choose Prius because it suits our needs but that's not true for everyone.

 

Don't you think the fact that all major car mfg are for this regulation kinda says they find it reasonable? Do you think they would have been on board with it if it was impossible?

Also why associated with CAFE vehicle costs increase is wrong but other costs (safety, emission, marketing, IIHS testing, etc) isn't. If you come to think of it the increased MPG is the only cost which you actually guarantee to recover over the life of vehicle? You get it back every time you pump the gas. :welcome:

 

What a load.

Nothing is legislated out of existence. No particular technology is mandated. It is a stepped increase. No vehicles are being taken away. CAFE standards are not an emissions control program. No views are imposed on anyone.