Obama: Cars Must Ave 54.5 MPG

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It's a fair debate if it's a good thing or not.

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...fuel-standard-to-average-545-mpg-by-2025?lite

 

[julius]

yeah, why would we want our cars to get better mileage.

 

[PapaG]

Why not 100 mpg? Or 1,000,000 mpg?

Let's mandate everything based on a whim.

 

[barfo]

Why not 100 mpg? Or 1,000,000 mpg?

Let's mandate everything based on a whim.

The new standard is the result of over a year of negotiations among the administration, automakers and environmental groups.

Obama initially proposed the standard in July 2011 with the support of automakers, including Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, BMW and Honda, as well as the United Auto Workers union.

barfo

 

[MickZagger]

I love it when Neo-Con's bitch about Obama raising the gas prices when they drive gas guzzling SUV's.

 

[PapaG]

I love it when Neo-Con's bitch about Obama raising the gas prices when they drive gas guzzling SUV's.

I bet it feels amazing.

 

[julius]

Why not 100 mpg? Or 1,000,000 mpg?

Let's mandate everything based on a whim.

well, because those aren't realistic expectations, and 50 MPG is.

 

[PapaG]

barfo

"Negotiations"

Note that this isn't passed legislation, either, but rather yet another crippling EO on US businesses that doesn't impact import vehicles.

If I were trying to destroy the US economy, I don't think I could do a better job of it than our silly President, and his silly ideas for how to stimulate growth.

 

[MickZagger]

I bet it feels amazing.

Euphoric.

 

[PapaG]

well, because those aren't realistic expectations, and 50 MPG is.

How is 54 mpg realistic in the next 5 years?

 

[e_blazer]

How is 54 mpg realistic in the next 5 years?

The new standards would go into effect in 2025, 12+ years from now.

I'm all for improved gas mileage and apparently this plan has been vetted by the car industry. I do think that the usual governmental policy of mandating somewhat arbitrary standards is often suspect. Pretty cheap way of making political points by writing checks that someone else has to cash.

 

[julius]

How is 54 mpg realistic in the next 5 years?

they already have cars that get great mileage. We also live in a country that STILL thinks bigger is better.

It is possible, and I don't think it's mandated to be in the next 5 years.

What i don't get is why people would complain about it, other than to complain about it because who said it. As much as people think "big government bad", its the government who made cars improve safety, and exhaust/pollution. Cars wouldn't do that on their own.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I love the thought, but the idea is just flawed, IMO.

I am all about saving money for fuel, making all cars run on waste like in back to the future would be awesome. However, car manufacturers would raise the price of the cars

If manufacturers simply raised each cars price 10k for the technology, it would take 2857 gallons of gas at $3.50 to equal that. That would be 71,000 miles on a car getting 25 mpg right now before you made your money back. The National average used to be that a person bought a new car every 5 years. So if you put on 15k miles per year you would break even.

The other fear I would have is gas and oil companies jacking up fuel costs to make up for the lack of sales. Anyone unable to purchase a 30k + car would be forced to pay higher amounts at the pump.

 

[PapaG]

The new standards would go into effect in 2025, 12+ years from now.

I'm all for improved gas mileage and apparently this plan has been vetted by the car industry. I do think that the usual governmental policy of mandating somewhat arbitrary standards is often suspect. Pretty cheap way of making political points by writing checks that someone else has to cash.

How is 54.5 mpg realistic by 2025? The most-efficient American vehicles now either use up a ton of electricity for very little mileage, and are extremely unpopular (Chevy Volt), or they are tiny cars that are unrealistic for most Americans to drive with their families. Right now the most fuel-efficient American car is the Ford Fusion hybrid at 34mpg/avg. The most fuel-efficient combustion engine car is the tiny Ford Fiesta at 33mpg/avg.

What is hilarious is that GM, which is basically still Government Motors, doesn't have a combustion-engine car in the top 50 of the world.

I know I am in the minority on this board on this, but my thought is the less the government gets involved, the better things are for its funders/taxpayers.

 

[PapaG]

they already have cars that get great mileage. We also live in a country that STILL thinks bigger is better.

It is possible, and I don't think it's mandated to be in the next 5 years.

What i don't get is why people would complain about it, other than to complain about it because who said it. As much as people think "big government bad", its the government who made cars improve safety, and exhaust/pollution. Cars wouldn't do that on their own.

There are two vehicles currently that exceed these new standards, and their use of electricity is not computed in their "efficiency" rating.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars/index.htm

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

well, because those aren't realistic expectations, and 50 MPG is.

But is it really?

Does it force a particular technology down our throats when a better one may be out there? Does it force the feds to invest into a narrower type of technology now rather than something much better for a bit later?

Don't misunderstand me, before I blindly jump on board I'd like to look at the issues from both sides first.

 

[PapaG]

But is it really?

Does it force a particular technology down our throats when a better one may be out there? Does it force the feds to invest into a narrower type of technology now rather than something much better for a bit later?

Don't misunderstand me, before I blindly jump on board I'd like to look at the issues from both sides first.

The combustion engine is still the most economical engine for our economy. Unless somebody invents something better that the public likes, there will be resistance to anything that seems like an economic hurdle.

For example, what kind of burden would an all-electric fleet of vehicles put on our current power grids? There are already rolling blackouts and unplanned blackouts at times in high-density areas; has anybody done the work to see what would happen to energy rates and the environment if more coal was needed to be burned, or if we needed more dams?

 

[MickZagger]

The combustion engine is still the most economical engine for our economy. Unless somebody invents something better that the public likes, there will be resistance to anything that seems like an economic hurdle.

For example, what kind of burden would an all-electric fleet of vehicles put on our current power grids? There are already rolling blackouts and unplanned blackouts at times in high-density areas; has anybody done the work to see what would happen to energy rates and the environment if more coal was needed to be burned, or if we needed more dams?

Why don't you email these ideas to Mitt. He could use some good ideas right about now.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The combustion engine is still the most economical engine for our economy. Unless somebody invents something better that the public likes, there will be resistance to anything that seems like an economic hurdle.

For example, what kind of burden would an all-electric fleet of vehicles put on our current power grids? There are already rolling blackouts and unplanned blackouts at times in high-density areas; has anybody done the work to see what would happen to energy rates and the environment if more coal was needed to be burned, or if we needed more dams?

On the surface I have no problem with Obama's edict. But I also know that we're working on various technologies that may not use gasoline/diesel and that if allowed to be fully developed could end the gas combustion engine forever. But this would seem to lock in electric and hybrid technology (with it's deadly batteries) to comply with the edict. That concerns me.

 

[mobes23]

I know I am in the minority on this board on this, but my thought is the less the government gets involved, the better things are for its funders/taxpayers.

Exactly. That's why the bursting of the housing bubble had a minimal impact on the economy and loss of jobs.

 

[Masbee]

"These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," President Barack Obama said in a statement.

This is fucking absurd.

The single most important step the U.S. could take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would be to extract the oil that exists on U.S. soil.

Secondly, 54mpg is absurd.

I don't think people realize how impossible that number is.

I would bet good money that the number is not reached. Not even close.

Finally, there is a HUUUUUGE collateral damage (some say "unintended consequence") from a policy like this:

DEATH.

The laws of physics dictates that crashes between heavier and lighter vehicles favors that heavier vehicle. No amount of airbags and crush zones can completely overcome this.

As long as trucks and buses are allowed on the same roads as 54mpg vehicles, those small and light vehicles will be far more dangerous to the passengers than larger, heavier vehicles.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I know I am in the minority on this board on this, but my thought is the less the government gets involved, the better things are for its funders/taxpayers.

In general, I agree. However, unions and big business act in their best interests far more than they do the public and therefore sometimes government has to step in and force them to change direction every so often.

 

[barfo]

On the surface I have no problem with Obama's edict. But I also know that we're working on various technologies that may not use gasoline/diesel and that if allowed to be fully developed could end the gas combustion engine forever. But this would seem to lock in electric and hybrid technology (with it's deadly batteries) to comply with the edict. That concerns me.

Why would it do that? CAFE doesn't mandate a particular technology, so far as I know. I'm sure if you invent a car that runs on hummingbird dung and no gasoline, the gummint will approve your car as meeting the standards.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Exactly. That's why the bursting of the housing bubble had a minimal impact on the economy and loss of jobs.

Fannie and Freddie were government mandates on lenders via the Reno Justice Department.

As far back as 2000, Paul Ryan was sounding alarm bells about worthless loans due to the elimination of "red-lining".

Try again.

 

[PapaG]

In general, I agree. However, unions and big business act in their best interests far more than they do the public and therefore sometimes government has to step in and force them to change direction every so often.

In whose interest does government act? Last time I checked, pretty much everybody who enters government gets awesome benefits and sees their wealth increase.

Meanwhile, for those funding it, can the same be said?

 

[Masbee]

And you know the ruling elite will be transported in limos, and those big govt SUVs they love so much - sure they will be hybrids, but they will be able to afford those $90,000 hybrid SUVs that weigh 6,000lbs.

What a policy like this effectively says is the rich and powerful can afford to be protected with very expensive large and heavy vehicles, but the middle class will NO LONGER be able to afford to have those same protections.

 

[barfo]

This is fucking absurd.

The single most important step the U.S. could take to reduce its dependence on foreign oil would be to extract the oil that exists on U.S. soil.

Debatable, but in any case that's not what he said. He said 'we've ever taken' not 'that we could take'.

Secondly, 54mpg is absurd.

I don't think people realize how impossible that number is.

I would bet good money that the number is not reached. Not even close.

If it isn't reached, it will be because the standards were repealed, not because it is technically impossible.

Finally, there is a HUUUUUGE collateral damage (some say "unintended consequence") from a policy like this:

DEATH.

The laws of physics dictates that crashes between heavier and lighter vehicles favors that heavier vehicle. No amount of airbags and crush zones can completely overcome this.

As long as trucks and buses are allowed on the same roads as 54mpg vehicles, those small and light vehicles will be far more dangerous to the passengers than larger, heavier vehicles.

Sure. That's why we outlawed bicycles and pedestrians.

Americans are obviously willing to put up with a huge amount of traffic fatalities. I don't see why more would necessarily cause anyone to reconsider.

Besides, there are a LOT more SUVs on the road now than trucks, and SUV drivers are arguably less capable than truck drivers. Get those SUV's off the road, and you might actually reduce deaths, despite lighter weight cars.

barfo

 

[MickZagger]

Finally, there is a HUUUUUGE collateral damage (some say "unintended consequence") from a policy like this:

DEATH.

The laws of physics dictates that crashes between heavier and lighter vehicles favors that heavier vehicle. No amount of airbags and crush zones can completely overcome this.

As long as trucks and buses are allowed on the same roads as 54mpg vehicles, those small and light vehicles will be far more dangerous to the passengers than larger, heavier vehicles.

Are the auto death rates higher in the rest of world where they drive more fuel efficient cars?

I'd like to know what the death rate by auto accidents are like in Europe where they drive smaller cars and have faster highways.

 

[mobes23]

Fannie and Freddie were government mandates on lenders via the Reno Justice Department.

As far back as 2000, Paul Ryan was sounding alarm bells about worthless loans due to the elimination of "red-lining".

Try again.

Remind me again who was President during the entire life of that bubble?

Someone has a big mancrash on Paul Ryan doesn't he? Pull out the Air Supply albums and just soak it all in....

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Why would it do that? barfo

Because a lot of funding for technology comes from the feds. If we get locked into one or two types, the funding may dry up for the better ones that aren't quite ready.