60 mpg by 2025

User Forum Topic
Submitted by BigGovernmentIsGood on September 20, 2010 - 8:28pm

This is a great idea, but I doubt that Obama has the guts to push it:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspa...

We have the technology to mandate that all autos average 60 mpg by 2025. It would be great for the planet, great for people, great for the environment, and great for endangered species. Since it is such a fantastic idea, it will probably never happen.

Submitted by Coronita on September 20, 2010 - 8:47pm.

Imho....dumbest idea I ever heard.....And no, all the european automakers and sports car enthusiasts would be fighting that nail and tooth...

On the other hand, I think nevada's got the right idea.
In controlled areas, allowing people to pay for the privilege of driving fast (with a special driver's license that subject people to the stringent tests like they do in Europre...Class CC or X type driver's license, requiring hours of behind the wheel training)..

.All the other folks that insist on driving like pansies can still do so in the free slow lanes or pay a hefty fine for getting into a fast lane where they don't belong. Separates the two classes of drivers. Got kids in a SUV/minivan, fine. Go in the free slow lanes. By yourself in a sports car, pay the $25 or so and go in the fast lane. It's that simple.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/prepay-...


(Pre)Pay-To-Speed: Nevada Candidate’s Proposal To Fill State Coffers
By Paul Niedermeyer on September 5, 2010

Would you pre-pay $25 in order to drive at ninety for twenty-four hours on Nevada’s highway’s? Nonpartisan Nevada gubernatorial candidate Eugene “Gino” DiSimone thinks so. According to his projections, his so called “free (fee?) limit plan” would generate $1.3 billion per year, helping solve Nevada’s budget crisis. The math seems a little sketchy, but here it is:

The cornerstone of his Nevada Three Step Recovery Plan (#2 is to deport all illegal aliens) is to get enrolled in the program, have a vehicle safety check, purchase a transponder, and pay for the privilege of speeding via your cell phone. And just how did Gino cpme up with that number? (from his website):

IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE…The FREE LIMIT PLAN… Now for the math….

By questioning numerous NV Highway Patrol Officers, I asked this question:

Question:

If there was a law that allowed people to purchase the privilege to drive fast, say up to 90 mph for $25 a day, on any given day, what percentage of drivers would do it?

Answer:

About 30 – 40%

That is about 3 or 4 out of 10 drivers! WOW! However, let us be much more conservative and lower the estimate to 10% of the drivers. (Conversely that says 90% will not be interested.) Based on my lower estimate (1 out of 10), here is the math:

10% of 1.7 Million drivers = 170,000 drivers

On any given day, at 25$ this comes to: $25 times 170,000 = $4.25 Million per day

Assume only 6 days per week we get: $25.5 Million per week

Each year this comes to: $1.3 Billion per year!!!

Call me a skeptic, but I wonder…Nevada’s current limit is 75. If Nevada enforcement is like in the rest of the West, ten miles over the limit is the grace window, or 85. That’s five miles under ninety. Will there be a grace for that too? And how many cops are there on the mostly remote stretches of Nevada’s highways?

According to a Fox News story: “The Nevada Highway Patrol isn’t keen on the idea, saying it would lead to increased injuries and traffic deaths.”

Anyway, how about a graduated plan? $50 for one hundred mph? $75 for one-ten? How about a fee to just turn the clock back to 1973, when Nevada didn’t have a posted speed limit. How much would you pay for that?

Makes something like the Ariel Atom V8 even more of an interesting option :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GVfFCH-7...

Submitted by GH on September 20, 2010 - 10:13pm.

My sisters Volvo gets 45 mpg in UK. (2.0 Liter Station Wagon)

Ok an English gallon is a bit bigger than ours, so perhaps 38 Mpg

Anyway, bottom line the Europeans have had this technology for some time.

Psst... Diesel

Submitted by BigGovernmentIsGood on September 20, 2010 - 10:54pm.

flu wrote:
Imho....dumbest idea I ever heard.....And no, all the european automakers and sports car enthusiasts would be fighting that nail and tooth...

Are you willing to pay higher taxes for the future wars that will be needed to seize the oil required to satisfy your desire for unlimited fuel consumption? Are you willing to send your kids to fight and die in those wars just so you can drive fast? Do you want to live on a planet that has acidic oceans filled with oil that can't support life and air that isn't safe to breathe?

flu wrote:

All the other folks that insist on driving like pansies can still do so in the free slow lanes

So you need to drive fast in order not to feel like a pansy? How old are you?

Submitted by Coronita on September 20, 2010 - 11:30pm.

BigGovernmentIsGood wrote:

Are you willing to pay higher taxes for the future wars that will be needed to seize the oil required to satisfy your desire for unlimited fuel consumption? Are you willing to send your kids to fight and die in those wars just so you can drive fast? Do you want to live on a planet that has acidic oceans filled with oil that can't support life and air that isn't safe to breathe?

Please....I'm sure people like me have a smaller carbon footprint than people like you who think you have a smaller carbon footprint. It's like folks who tout driving a prius to save the environment, but then take 10+ airplane trips for vacation per year.
..or print out the 500 page manual because you wanted a live copy versus reading it online...

flu wrote:

All the other folks that insist on driving like pansies can still do so in the free slow lanes

Quote:

So you need to drive fast in order not to feel like a pansy? How old are you?

In SoCal, the left lane moves 75-78 without the CHP flagging people down for a reason, People want to be able to travel at the speed and CHP doesn't mind give folks 10 over the posted limit (parts of bay area are 75)...If you're one of the people insisting on doing 60mph in the left lane when everyone else is moving 75 and holding up traffic 5-6 cars behind...not only would I consider it being a pansy, but frankly rude, inconsiderate, and frankly hazardous...CA has laws about not keeping up with the freeway speed too, which unfortunately is never enforced.

Like I said, if you want to do 60, it's your choice. Stay in the right lane behind the semi trucks.

And if you're one of these people who do insist on driving under the speed limit and blocking everyone else behind you, how old are you? Senile?

Thank god big government is on it's way out. People like you who want to regulate how much C02 I fart out of my ass scare the shit out of me...Hey, I got a perfect date for you. Send a PM to a guy who posts here under the name NewToSanDiego. I'm sure the two of you would do just fine.

Submitted by temeculaguy on September 20, 2010 - 11:59pm.

Flu, I think you are mixing up mpg and mph. The article is about 60 miles per GALLON, and it looks like you are against 60 miles per HOUR (you and Sammy Haggar).

There are bunch of inventors playing with fast and efficient, so you will get both. Where it would get tricky is trucks and collectible cars, they would have to just limit it to new production passenger vehicles, and 60 mpg by 2025 is actually a bit of a disspointment. Tesla got 100mpg's equivalent and thats just a company of a few hundred who didn;t know dick about cars. Sure they didn't pull it off exactly as expected, but big money can make it happen, and in just a couple of years. I think our government should intervene, now that it has it's hands in the auto industry it should put all of it's efforts into this, we are the biggest consumer of oil. Our landscape is spread out, we would benefit the most from double or triple the mpg's, is NASA busy right now? Hook up NASA with Apple, get me my damned iCar right now, I want it fast/sexy like a tesla and I want it run my ipod seamlessly. BTW, the Damn germans and japanese manufacturers are only now making iphone friendly cars. My Ford is like 5 years old and it had an aux jack, I'm shopping BMW's and they didn't even offer it till 2007, no usb till 2008 and it was an option. A car is just a thing that drives my iphone around, I want it integrated into the stero. Infiniti, lexus, Mercedes, pretty much the same deal. So that is the deal, first car maker to make a car that gets 60 mpg's, still has room and gets chicks, while seamlessly intergrating my phone, wins.

Submitted by an on September 21, 2010 - 12:27am.

Sorry, tg, but iCar? Sorry but that's the worse idea ever. Want to charge your iCar with a different power plug? Sorry, not a valid accessory. Want to have that fancy new navigation? Sorry, have to pay for a new car to get that. Want to turn on the A/C? Sorry, but Apple don't think you need A/C and it's wasting too much gas and energy doing it, so you can't use it, although it can.

Now, if you say, hookup NASA with Google, that's the partnership I can get behind :-).

For me, first car that get 60MPG, get to 60MPH in < 5 sec., and run the Nürburgring < 8 minutes win. BTW, CTS-V is almost there. I'm sure if they put a super duper tall 7th gear in where it's traveling 65MPH at 1000 RPM, it might get really close to that 60MPG, assuming the road is flat. Else, the government can just reduce the speed limit down to 40MPH and all the MPG will go way up.

Submitted by Coronita on September 21, 2010 - 3:25am.

TG,

60mpg would just about kill most speed laws..Fuel economy has actually gone down considerably from recent times for a couple of reasons. But namely, while most modern engines run more efficiently, most modern day cars have considerably gone up in weight. Part of the reasons are

1) Increased safety measures. Stronger frames, better crash protection, more safety equipment

2) All the electronic crap that is put into a car these days, nav, entertainment systems etc.

This isn't going away anytime soon, since consumers are demanding #2 (case in point..yourself) and #1 is essential. While these nice science experiments do prove that a prototype, lightweight, pod can achieve higher gas mileage, most of it won't be carried over into the real world. I think any such government mandate to have an arbitrary MPG requirement across the board by an arbitrary date would kill just all we know and love about cars and turn them into toaster appliances with no soul/etc.I used 60mph as an example of what the government could do to increase the mpg of cars. Hell, we could slow it down to 55 again, and make things really efficient. Anyway, we're barking up the wrong tree here imho. If the consider is dependency on foreign oil, environment etc, we're better of spending time coming up with alternative fuels....

No regulation is needed for this. The markets will take care of this just fine...See, when gas prices were almost $5/gallon, people started to cut back on travel, and then there was this mad dash to find alternative fuels. Now that gas is back to around $3/gallon, people don't care as much about conservation and alternative fuels....So the best way to reshape our energy dependency is let the markets take care of it. If the cost of alternative fuel becomes competitive to petro, problem solved.

Unrelated to this topic, I can't relate to the iCar idea. I frankly think car manufacturers are putting too much crap into a car. A car is meant to be driven. Why are car companies trying to put the ability to read email into a car, a wifi hotspot in a car,etc etc etc..Then again, I'm the type of person that special orders to have everything taken out. No sunroof (don't like the idea of imploding sunroofs), no technology package (don't like to deal with electrical gremlins), no dvd infotainment system, etc.

Submitted by XBoxBoy on September 21, 2010 - 6:27am.

BigGovernmentIsGood,

Can you tell us what is the advantage of passing a regulation rather than taxing gasoline at higher rates? It would seem to me that regulation always has loop holes, and corporations will do only the very minimum to sneak by the regulation. Whereas taxing gasoline means that consumers would actively choose fuel efficient cars over poor efficiency cars, plus your big government would get lots of tax dollars. (Which it desperately needs) So, why are you and the other environmental groups always so gung ho for regulation but never mention or support increasing taxes on gasoline?

XBoxBoy

Submitted by XBoxBoy on September 21, 2010 - 6:34am.

flu wrote:
Hell, we could slow it down to 55 again, and make things really efficient.

Hell, why stop at 55mph? Why not get out and walk? Think of the clean air! Think of all the nice healthy exercise you lard asses would get! We could solve obesity, air pollution and congested freeways all in one bold stroke!

Oh alright.. I'll go sit in the corner with my big glass of stfu... bah humbug

Submitted by Coronita on September 21, 2010 - 6:48am.

XBoxBoy wrote:
flu wrote:
Hell, we could slow it down to 55 again, and make things really efficient.

Hell, why stop at 55mph? Why not get out and walk? Think of the clean air! Think of all the nice healthy exercise you lard asses would get! We could solve obesity, air pollution and congested freeways all in one bold stroke!

Oh alright.. I'll go sit in the corner with my big glass of stfu... bah humbug

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, have a yabba dabba good ole time!!!! But what if these folks fart in masses? Wouldn't that contribute to greenhouse gases?

I'll join you in the corner with that glass of stfu.

Submitted by Coronita on September 21, 2010 - 7:05am.

As a comparo..Let's compare what a "joke" some of these new "green cars" are....

1. Honda CRZ...

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/crz/2011/re...
http://automobiles.honda.com/cr-z/specif...

Curb weight: 2637-2690
MPG: 35/39...

LOL...

Now let's compare this to Honda CRX when these came out

2. Honda CRX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X
Curb weight 1967-2174
MPG: 41/50

Submitted by BigGovernmentIsGood on September 21, 2010 - 8:05am.

XBoxBoy wrote:
BigGovernmentIsGood,

Can you tell us what is the advantage of passing a regulation rather than taxing gasoline at higher rates? It would seem to me that regulation always has loop holes, and corporations will do only the very minimum to sneak by the regulation. Whereas taxing gasoline means that consumers would actively choose fuel efficient cars over poor efficiency cars, plus your big government would get lots of tax dollars. (Which it desperately needs) So, why are you and the other environmental groups always so gung ho for regulation but never mention or support increasing taxes on gasoline?

XBoxBoy

Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don't know of any.

Maybe an even better idea would be to add a sales surtax to gas guzzlers and a subsidy to high-mpg vehicles. I'm thinking maybe a 50% sales surtax on SUVs and other gas guzzlers that some deficient people need to drive in order not to feel like pansies. On the other end of the spectrum, high-mpg cars that get over 40 mpg would receive a sliding subsidy that tops out at 50% for cars that effectively average 100 mpg.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 21, 2010 - 8:09am.

heck my ancient japanese car still beats some of the newest green car for mileage with a few hundred thousand miles on it. and it almost never breaks down. unfortunately it doesnt have any a/c and i'd probably die instantly in a crash. but still...it's worth it...

Submitted by afx114 on September 21, 2010 - 8:35am.

If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?

Submitted by briansd1 on September 21, 2010 - 10:28am.

afx114 wrote:
If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?

Great point.

We talk green energy... but we have too many vested interest that will stop it.

China is one upping us; and I expect future electric car makers to be Chinese. While we dilly dally, China will mandate electric cars in certain cities, creating instant markets for their manufacturers.

Look at what is happening in CA.

Now a well-financed coalition of right-wing ideologues, out-of-state oil and gas companies and climate-change skeptics is seeking to effectively kill that law with an initiative on the November state ballot. The money men include Charles and David Koch, the Kansas oil and gas billionaires who have played a prominent role in financing the Tea Party movement.

The 2006 law, known as AB 32, is aimed at reducing California’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 percent at midcentury. To reach these targets, state agencies are drawing up regulations that would affect businesses and consumers across the board — requiring even cleaner cars, more energy-efficient buildings and appliances, and power plants that use alternative energy sources like wind instead of older fossil fuels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/opinio...

And now look at what is happening in China.

China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/busine...

Submitted by XBoxBoy on September 21, 2010 - 11:13am.

BigGovernmentIsGood wrote:

Who are these environmentalists that are opposed to high gas taxes? I certainly don't know of any.

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn't say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can't answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

Submitted by sdduuuude on September 21, 2010 - 11:47am.

afx114 wrote:
If we had listened to all of these anti-regulation arguments in the late 70s, would we all still be driving cars getting 16MPG? Or would the market have taken care of that?

This is a great example of "regulating to a result" instead of "regulating the transaction" These are my latest catch-phrases I use in my attempts to teach people that "appropriate regulation" is better than "no regulation" and that "appropriate regulation" involves regulating fraud, theft, breach of contract, and violent crimes, but NOT trying to manipulate a market away from a result that you think shouldn't happen.

Forcing people to act how you want them isn't nice, regardless of your intentions.

In other words - who cares if the market would have "taken care of that" because by "taken care of that" you mean "resulted in a market situation that I like."

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore - how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars and we would have burned through all the oil by now and would have, as a result, created solar alternatives and be living in Nirvana. Maybe 60 mph cars would be so expensive, nobody could afford them and our economic productivity would plummet and we would be plunged into the dark ages. A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is "Control Freaks Gone Wild." Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Maybe we should restrict all art projects to 1 gallon of paint. That is about as smart.

The original poster's user name should be "BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo" and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain't Burger King - you can't always have it your way.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 21, 2010 - 12:00pm.

sdduuuude wrote:

To force people into a certain way of action because you think that is the way it should be is basically a totalitarian approach that never works, and invariably results in unexpected side-affects that screw up your original intentions or create worse problems. This idea is "Control Freaks Gone Wild." Who is to say you are the guy to decide ? Why 60 mph ? Why not 1000? Why not 10?

Not to mention the religious fundamentalists who want to legislate social behavior, but who themselves do wicked things.

I want unregulated porn and prostitution. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

Submitted by sdduuuude on September 21, 2010 - 12:23pm.

briansd1 wrote:
Not to mention the religious fundamentalists who want to legislate social behavior, but who themselves do wicked things.

I want unregulated porn and prostitution. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

Hey - I'm right there with you on all of these points, brian, especially the first one. In fact, my biggest frustration with the conservative mindset is the broken logical construct that people are free to do business but need their personal lives regulated per some idealogical sense of good and evil.

That you so staunchly support regulating so many things for environmental purposes, yet see the oppressive nature of regulating personal habits is just as disturbing.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 21, 2010 - 12:41pm.

sdduuuude wrote:

That you so staunchly support regulating so many things for environmental purposes, yet see the oppressive nature of regulating personal habits is just as disturbing.

Actually, I don't support regulation for environmental purposes per se. The environmental benefits are just bonuses.

I support regulations to support American businesses. When the Chinese, Koreans and other competitors are creating corporate giants and new markets, we can't afford to sit back.

You see, the myth of America as a free market is wrong. We have always been a mercantilist country with a heavy hand of government. Think of the railroads and the exploitation of the west thanks to support from the Cavalry. Without heavy government involvement, we would not have "tamed" the Western Frontier.

Submitted by sd_matt on September 21, 2010 - 1:06pm.

BigGovernmentIsGood....to the extent it is accountable to the people.....ooops.

Submitted by justme on September 21, 2010 - 3:54pm.

GH wrote:
My sisters Volvo gets 45 mpg in UK. (2.0 Liter Station Wagon)

Ok an English gallon is a bit bigger than ours, so perhaps 38 Mpg

Anyway, bottom line the Europeans have had this technology for some time.

Psst... Diesel

EXACTLY. We can get to 50mpg WHOLE FLEET average (not just new car average) in 2020 (not 2025) if everyone just follows these simple rules.

1. buy an efficient hybrid (Prius and maybe Civic are just about the only really good ones so far, do NOT buy a "performance" hybrid like Lexus or an SUV or some other trash where they have perverted energy efficiency into added "performance". Ford Fusion hybrid is decent but too big and heavy.

2. OR buy an efficient clean diesel, for example VW Jetta TDI 2010 or 2011 fits the bill.

3. Drive the car NICELY. No hard acceleration. Coast towards red lights. If you are hitting red lights at 40mph and have to break hard each time you are driving very wrong. The TDI will get you 50mpg if you do drive right, Prius even more.

4. as better technology becomes available in the US, buy it. For example, the equivalent of a VW Golf TDI Twindrive diesel hybrid or a Peugot 3008 Hybrid4 Diesel will get 65-70 mpg and are practical cars. I dunno about Chevy Volt. Maybe. Forget about idiotic waste of money like the Tesla Roadster.

JUST DO IT!

Submitted by an on September 21, 2010 - 5:15pm.

justme wrote:
GH wrote:
My sisters Volvo gets 45 mpg in UK. (2.0 Liter Station Wagon)

Ok an English gallon is a bit bigger than ours, so perhaps 38 Mpg

Anyway, bottom line the Europeans have had this technology for some time.

Psst... Diesel

EXACTLY. We can get to 50mpg WHOLE FLEET average (not just new car average) in 2020 (not 2025) if everyone just follows these simple rules.

1. buy an efficient hybrid (Prius and maybe Civic are just about the only really good ones so far, do NOT buy a "performance" hybrid like Lexus or an SUV or some other trash where they have perverted energy efficiency into added "performance". Ford Fusion hybrid is decent but too big and heavy.

2. OR buy an efficient clean diesel, for example VW Jetta TDI 2010 or 2011 fits the bill.

3. Drive the car NICELY. No hard acceleration. Coast towards red lights. If you are hitting red lights at 40mph and have to break hard each time you are driving very wrong. The TDI will get you 50mpg if you do drive right, Prius even more.

4. as better technology becomes available in the US, buy it. For example, the equivalent of a VW Golf TDI Twindrive diesel hybrid or a Peugot 3008 Hybrid4 Diesel will get 65-70 mpg and are practical cars. I dunno about Chevy Volt. Maybe. Forget about idiotic waste of money like the Tesla Roadster.

JUST DO IT!


In another word, buy an appliance to get you from point A to point B.

Submitted by BigGovernmentIsGood on September 21, 2010 - 5:55pm.

XBoxBoy wrote:

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn't say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can't answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

I'm in favor of both regulation and a gas tax. Personally, I don't use that much gas. Gas prices could quadruple and I would barely notice. I think we need regulation to encourage manufacturers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles and a gas tax to entice consumes to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I couldn't find an official stance from the Sierra Club (one of the environmental groups listed in the article), but this article indicates that the Sierra Club has supported gas taxes in the past:

http://www.carleton.ca/JMC/cnews/2909200...

Submitted by BigGovernmentIsGood on September 21, 2010 - 6:50pm.

sdduuuude wrote:

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it?

What right do you have to pollute the air that all of us breathe and the water that all of us drink? It's perfectly valid for a government to balance one person's desire to pollute against the rest of the populations' right to clean air and water.

sdduuuude wrote:

Furthermore - how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) has been enforced since 1975. This is nothing new. The current standard for passenger cars is 27.5 mpg and increases to 30.2 mpg in 2011. The only thing new here is the proposed 60 mpg standard for 2025.

You can read more about CAFE here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE_standards

Note that the current mpg standards for passenger cars are the same today as they were in 1990.

By the way, your whining about government telling you what kind of car to drive and how much gas to put in it is misplaced. If manufacturers don't meet the mpg standards, they are merely assessed a fine. To me, this seems like a quite sensible way to make those who consume and pollute the most pay for the negative externalities (like war, environmental destruction, pollution, etc) that they force the rest of us to deal with.

sdduuuude wrote:

Maybe we would have been driving 5 mph cars

'mph' is short for 'miles per hour'. Miles per hour is a measurement of speed. What we are talking about in this thread is 'mpg' which is short for 'miles per gallon'. Miles per gallon is a measurement of efficiency. It is possible for highly efficient cars to go fast, so neither myself, the government, nor anyone else in this thread is trying to attempt to make you slow down. Again, your whining in this case is misplaced.

sdduuuude wrote:

A market is a good way for multiple people to bring about a situation, or come to a conclusion together through individual action, and that situation may not always be what you like.

Markets don't account for negative externalities and they don't work well when the resource at issue is a non-renewable, finite resource.

It doesn't cost British Petroleum anything to dump toxic waste in your water supply, but it could cost you your life. Wouldn't you prefer that government attempt to account for this externality that would negatively affect you?

sdduuuude wrote:

The original poster's user name should be "BigGovernmentIsGoodButOnlyIfTheBig
GovernmentForcesPeopleToDoWhatIWantThemTo" and I would like to suggest China as a new home for you.

Just let people buy the car they want and deal with what happens. The market may not go the way you want it to. Tough crap. This ain't Burger King - you can't always have it your way.

You've demonstrated zero knowledge on CAFE, you don't know the difference between the simple concepts of mpg and mph, and you don't understand that markets do not account for externalities. I think I will continue to live in this country and fight against illogical, uninformed, emotional arguments such as yours, thank you very much.

Submitted by Coronita on September 21, 2010 - 8:27pm.

BigGovernmentIsGood wrote:

You've demonstrated zero knowledge on CAFE, you don't know the difference between the simple concepts of mpg and mph, and you don't understand that markets do not account for externalities. I think I will continue to live in this country and fight against illogical, uninformed, emotional arguments such as yours, thank you very much.

Ouch, dude, are you going take that from an non-enginerd???..Well, at least you know what the proper formula for ohm's law... ( V= I/R right? :) heh heh)

http://piggington.com/what_is_this_thing...

Submitted by justme on September 21, 2010 - 8:30pm.

[/quote]
In another word, buy an appliance to get you from point A to point B.[/quote]

Yes, please, and thank you very much!

Submitted by justme on September 21, 2010 - 8:42pm.

sdduuuude wrote:

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore - how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

We already have burned way too much of the world's precious oil reserves. Who gives us the right to encumber future generations with a terrible energy deficit, a burden that will severely risk the future of our children.

I'm sure anyone can see the analogy: Lots of people think that it is terrible to run up financial deficits, and to burden future generations with the results.

Why aren't more people thinking about energy in the same way?

Is your right to individual irresponsibility more important than the basic needs of our grandchildren?

Submitted by XBoxBoy on September 21, 2010 - 9:08pm.

BigGovernmentIsGood wrote:
XBoxBoy wrote:

Well, go back and look at the article you linked to. Clearly the stance of the environmentalists in that article is pro-regulation, silent on gas tax. Why is that? Why did you start this thread by saying this is a fantastic idea, yet you didn't say anything about a gas tax?

And what about my question? What is the advantage of regulation over gas tax? If you can't answer that, then why are you and so many others shouting for regulation, but keeping quiet on a gas tax? Please answer the question.

XBoxBoy

I'm in favor of both regulation and a gas tax. Personally, I don't use that much gas. Gas prices could quadruple and I would barely notice. I think we need regulation to encourage manufacturers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles and a gas tax to entice consumes to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I couldn't find an official stance from the Sierra Club (one of the environmental groups listed in the article), but this article indicates that the Sierra Club has supported gas taxes in the past:

http://www.carleton.ca/JMC/cnews/29092000/n6.htm

So is my question not clear? This is the second time you have not answered it. Please tell us, what are the advantages of regulation over taxation?

It's all good and well that you say you support gas taxes too, but the point of this thread was to promote regulation. But yet it seems that you aren't able to defend why regulation is a better solution than gas taxes. If so, then why are you so busy trying to promote the less optimal solution?

Submitted by sdduuuude on September 21, 2010 - 10:04pm.

justme wrote:
sdduuuude wrote:

Who has the friggin right to tell me what car I can drive and how much gas I can put in it? Furthermore - how much money would we spend enforcing a regulation like this?

Is your right to individual irresponsibility more important than the basic needs of our grandchildren?

Yes - absolutely, it is. It is not only my right. It is everyone's. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is unalienable.

justme wrote:
We already have burned way too much of the world's precious oil reserves.

Again - this is your opinion. What is "too much" ? Who is to say? Certainly not you. You don't have the right to dictate how much is too much. Who are you, the King of America or something ?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.