Pew Poll Finds Strong Public Support for 56 MPG Fuel Economy Standard

I think the word want should be changed to need. Younger drivers need better mpg. They're probably broke and can't find a job after college. I can tell you from my work with kids that most of them desire muscle cars, trucks, and other more fun vehicles. Smaller cars and hybrids are definitely the practical choice in today's market, but just because someone buys one doesn't meant they wanted it. If I could have afforded it, I would have kept my Mustang. Even though I like my Prius, it just isn't the same.

 

We've all been "forced" it onto us since 1975. See C A F E Overview and http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s10002.pdf (linked to from Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2010 | OTAQ | US EPA).

Unfortunately, "light trucks" are on a lower standard than cars and there are plenty of loopholes (e.g. GVWR >8500 lbs. prior to 2011 meant exemption from fuel economy testing and thus CAFE; gas guzzler tax doesn't apply to "light trucks") and incentives/scams (e.g. E85). You've also got some car-like vehicles being classified as "light trucks" such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser. This in turn helped boost Chrysler's "light truck" CAFE numbers. Hummer H1 & H2, Ford Excursion, some Lincoln Navigators were some examples of vehicles exempted by the GVWR >8500 lb. loophole.

When CAFE started in response to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, average mileage was a dismal 13.1 mpg (already adjusted, not the "liar" inflated CAFE figures). So, you can how well things worked in the absence of being "forced". Unfortunately, back in the two oil crises of the 70s, the US imported less oil as a % of total consumption than we do now.

 

So we're doing this for national security? makes sense.
Too bad, most people could care less until death faces them in the eyes.

Archaeological evidence from the stone age shows one of the main reasons humans emerged to the lives we live today: FORWARD THINKING. (hunter-gatherers collected extra wild crops for the season ahead. During the Neolithic, humans began planting crops during the wet, warm months and saved crops for dry and cold months. Humans also made tools before they were needed) FORWARD THINKING.

 

Don't mean to turn this into a political discussion but I can't find a short video showing the seven past presidents talking about the need for energy independence (IIRC, one briefly aired on ABC) but here's What the presidents said about energy - USATODAY.com and a longer video at An Energy-Independent Future - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/16/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central.

As I posted at http://priuschat.com/forums/other-c...-standards-50-mpg-poll-finds.html#post1125402

 

I find this poll hard to swallow and suspect demographics are skewed. I think if most Americans knew what getting to these standards would cost them, a lot fewer would support this MPG standard. In my experience. most folks buy what fits their needs best with mileage a secondary consideration. I'm considering a Prius to insulate myself against high energy costs but don't agree with the policies that have helped elevate them. I believe in energy efficiency but not Draconian mandates imposed in place of more U.S. energy production. I'm Green to a point but not in favor of kicking folks out of cars that best suit their needs, not a political agenda. Sorry to introduce myself this way.

 

Be careful not to confuse needs with wants. I don't see anyone being forced out of a vehicle they truly need. If the cost off. A vehicle rises then maybe the purchaser won't splurge on the leather or flip down dvd. Face it, the majority of the people you are championing for blow money on upgrades so therefore they are not hurting for cash. The poor and farmers already buy base model truck or small fuel efficient cars. Those that don't are just not very savy in the way of economics and that's their problem.

I care more for my environment, my community and my national security than I do for someone who feels their rights are being stepped on.

 

The Pew poll must be polling all the voters who voted in 2008 but stayed home in 2010.
Maybe they've learned their lesson.

 

And to those people who think fuel standards shouldn't be mandated,
do you really think the car companies would increase mpg, lower carbon emissions
and improve safety standards if the government didn't mandate it?

Can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge?

 

yes i think they would. certainly you have seen the transition from the SUV/truck craze of the 90s to the small car/hybrid craze of today? This is because gas freaked out. we don't buy a prius because the government tells us to. we buy it for our own reasons. i don't think it's fair to include safety items with fuel standards and greenery.

 

this is a tricky statement. i'm sure you mean well, but it doesn't come across all that great in my opinion. i care about the environment and national security too, but i believe in individual rights as well and i don't think we should step on them as much as we do.

 

I just feel the right to breath clean air and the future of our children is more important than some piece of paper that was written ages ago without the vision to understand todays problems. We need to be flexible and adapt to new situations.

Allowing people to drive whatever they want is a joke when you consider the cumulative harm it does. It's no different than allowing teachers to smoke in classrooms.

 

sorry, that is a fail.

given the millions of pages of code and law on the books, I don't think we are not flexible and adaptive to new situations. The constitution (which you refer to as an old piece of paper) is a benchmark that outlines our philosophy. It is the standard against which we measure our laws. There are times when things are taken way too far.

I think our children's air will be fine, and I think their future needs to include the freedom we have today to pick the car we want and need.

 

Our children's air is not fine now and you think it's going to be fine in the future with our exponential population growth? What cave are you living in?

I often wonder if there were people like you in earlier crashed civilizations that held so dearly to dogma of some sort that eventually led to their demise. Fail indeed.

 

I must agree with F8L. While our air is great compared to what I had to breath in China, and in many places is greatly improved compared to thirty or forty years ago, much of it is not 'fine' now except of those who have never experienced better. And our air improvements were made over the strong objections of many people and businesses who wanted the 'freedom' to pollute it for fun and profit.

 

our air in Indiana is fine. i was all over NorCal this summer, including Sacramento, and the air seemed fine there too. It's my understanding that LA smog is down. Ozone in California is down a bunch since 1980.

Here's info from the US EPA showing the huge decline of CO in the air since 1980.
Carbon Monoxide | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA

Ozone improving:
Ground-level Ozone | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA

Lead is doing well.
Lead | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA

nitrogen dioxide? what nitrogen dioxide?
Nitrogen Dioxide | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA

less particulates in the air:
Particulate Matter | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA

sulfer is way down too:
Sulfur Dioxide | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA

now, this comes right from the EPA, the organization that hurts people in the name of owls and fish and every other critter out there. It would seem to me that if we're to trust the EPA, then our air is on a steady path of improvement. It doesn't seem necessary to deny people their choice of vehicles as long as we show signs of improvement.

 

I truly don't mean to bash our constitutional documents. I realize they are important but I will not stand by and allow someone to pollute my home just because they think they have a right to do so. I deal with this all the time in field of work. Someone owns a piece of property so they assume they have the right to bury used oil in the ground or dump loads of dirt into a stream or river or shoot any form of wildlife that happens to be on their land. They always try to claim it is their right as an American landowner or some such nonsense. The fact is, what they do affects the rest of the community and as such the activity is prohibited regardless of who owns the land. That is why regulations are created. To prohibit activities that are harmful to the entire community. No man or woman has a right to endanger the lives or health of another. Period! These new fuel economy standards are an attempt to help keep our nation healthy, not to take away the "rights" of the people. If some happen to see it that way then all I can say is too god damn bad. Grow up and get an education.

"Unless we practice conservation, those who come after us will have to pay the price of misery, degradation, and failure for the progress and prosperity of our day." ~ Gifford Pinchot

 

And you think this trend will continue as the population expands exponentially? You do know what exponential means right?

As for the air being fine, try telling that to the kids and adults that are suffering from cancers and lung lesions due to air quality issues.

You still don't get it. People are NOT being denied a choice in vehicles they wish to purchase. Vehicles will simply become more efficient. If they carry a higher price tag then so be it. If they can no longer afford the vehicle they prefer then too bad. Change your options or get a better job. Someone trying to buy a Ford F-250 for ranch work will simply buy a lower model of the same truck instead of the King Ranch Edition. For the guy buying the same truck to tow his boat and jet skis well.... I really don't care what his options are. lol

 

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. Go tell it to the EPA if you don't like their data or think they need to do more.

You can sugar coat it all you want, but what you want to do is control what people drive. If you price a vehicle so far out of reach that it's not an option, well then you've taken their choice away artificially. That is not right. See, no one here is willing to come out and say that they want to ban vehicles and tell people they can't have them. So they do an end-run around freedom and use a backdoor method of achieving their goal. If you want to ban trucks and SUVs and make everyone by a hybrid, then say it. But don't go this route of taxing, surcharging, and pricing a vehicle out of existence and then claim the consumer has a choice to pay $100,000 for a Tahoe if they want. That's a load of crap.

 

'Fine'? :gag: As I said earlier, 'fine' is in the eyes and noses of those who haven't experienced better. Having grown up with western rural air that was usually much cleaner, except for occasional severe agricultural dust and wood smoke, I don't find your 'fine' as good enough. Numerous of our National Parks, with air that is 'pristine' compared to what most urban folks breath, are seeing continuing degradation as the wider population sprawls and grows exponentially.

... and this improvement, weighted towards areas populated heavily enough to have the monitors, is happening over the continued objections of some folks who insist on the 'freedom' to reverse course for their fun and profit.

 

Wow! Way to go off the deep end. You are obviously highly politically charged and cannot have rational discourse with someone with opposing views so I'll exit this argument and let you continue to live in fantasy land.