New mileage standards would double fuel efficiency

Aug 28, 2012 by Matthew Daly
In this Friday, July 29, 2011, photo, President Barack Obama walks down a ramp after delivering a speech at a gathering where he announced new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks at the Washington Convention Center in Washington.The average gas mileage of new cars and trucks will have to nearly double by 2025 under regulations that were finalized Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2012, by the Obama administration. The new rules would require the fleet of new cars and trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

The Obama administration has finalized regulations that will force automakers to nearly double the average gas mileage of all new cars and trucks they sell in America by 2025.

The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon (23.17 kilometers per liter) in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg (12.16 kpl) at the end of last year. The requirements will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could be fined if they don't comply.

The regulations, announced Tuesday, will change the cars and trucks sold in U.S. showrooms, with the goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption. Automakers will need to improve gasoline-powered engines, and sell more alternative fuel vehicles. Critics say the rules will make cars unaffordable by adding thousands of dollars to the sticker price.

The "Corporate Average Fuel Economy," or CAFE standards, will vary by automaker depending on the mix of models they sell. The requirements will be lower for companies such as General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which offer more pickup trucks. The standards can be lowered by the government if people suddenly start buying less-efficient vehicles in the future, although few expect that to happen.

The administration says the latest changes will save families up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle. The standards also are the biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said. Tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks will be halved by 2025.

President Barack Obama said the new fuel standards "represent the single most important step" his administration has taken to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.

Already, automakers have committed to an average of 35.5 mpg (15.09 kpl) by model year 2016 under a deal reached with the Obama administration three years ago.

In the arcane world of government regulations, the rules don't mean that each new car or truck will get 54.5 mpg (23.17 kpl). The average vehicle will get closer to 40 mpg (17 kpl) in real-world driving. Automakers will be able to sell pickup trucks and less-efficient vehicles as long as that's offset somewhat by smaller vehicles that already can get upward of 40 mpg (17 kpl).

Automakers can reduce the mileage they're required to get with credits for selling natural gas and electric vehicles, changing air conditioning fluid to one that pollutes less, and adding stop-start circuits that temporarily shut off the engine at stop lights.

At showrooms, dealers are likely to offer more efficient gas-electric hybrids, natural gas vehicles and electric cars. There also will be smaller motors, lighter bodies and more devices to save fuel.

Automakers have already been adding technology to boost the efficiency of gasoline-powered engines, mainly because people want to spend less at the pump. Fuel economy is the top factor people consider when buying a car in the U.S., according to the research firm J.D. Power and Associates.

Fuel efficiency has been rising for the past five years because government regulations and high gas prices have encouraged smaller vehicles and engines.

Market demand for more efficient vehicles already has pushed the auto industry to boost mileage with an array of technology, said Roland Hwang, transportation director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We're pleasantly surprised to see how fast the industry is moving," he said.

The administration estimates that the new rules, combined with those that began in 2011, will raise the cost of a new car about $2,800 by 2025. The estimates are based on 2010 dollars. But the government says the net savings from the requirements still will be $3,500 to $5,000 because people will spend less on gas.

The administration also predicts that the new regulations will cost the auto industry about $135 billion from 2017 to 2025.

The new rules were adopted after an agreement between the administration and 13 automakers last year. That's a change from the past, when automakers fought the regulations, saying they cost too much.

Industry leaders repeatedly told the Obama administration that they wanted one nationwide fuel standard, fearing separate mileage standards from California and other states.

"They wanted certainty so that as they invest in the future they will know what rules they are playing by," the EPA's Jackson said.

Fuel economy standards were first imposed on U.S. automakers in the 1970s. The aim was to make cars more efficient and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil at time when the Arab oil embargo was creating gasoline shortages. The administration says this is the first update in decades.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will enforce the standards, calculating the average mileage of cars sold by each automaker. Automakers can be fined if they don't comply.

The requirements, which can be imposed without congressional approval, will be reviewed in 2018 and could be reduced if the technology isn't available to meet the standards.

The rules are tough, but General Motors, the largest U.S. car company, will roll out features to comply, spokesman Greg Martin said.

"Consumers want higher fuel efficiency in their cars and trucks, and GM is going to give it to them," he said.

Explore further: Future solar panels

4.4 /5 (7 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama unveils new car efficiency standards

Jul 29, 2011

US President Barack Obama on Friday unveiled a new deal with automakers on fuel economy standards that he said would be a crucial step towards reducing US dependence on foreign oil.

Vehicles of 2017 could get 54.5 mpg

Nov 21, 2011

One of the most powerful points in Thomas Friedman's book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," was that when President Ronald Reagan rolled back fuel efficiency standards for American vehicles, it wasted an amount of petroleum equivalent ...

Obama to announce new car efficiency standards

Jul 27, 2011

US President Barack Obama will later this week unveil new fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light trucks for the 2017-2025 period, the White House said Wednesday.

US finalizes new auto fuel economy standards

Apr 01, 2010

The US government Thursday finalized new automobile fuel economy standards starting with 2012 models, a move officials said would save billions of barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse emissions.

Recommended for you

Future solar panels

4 hours ago

Conventional photovoltaic technology uses large, heavy, opaque, dark silicon panels, but this could soon change. The IK4-Ikerlan research centre is working with the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country ...

Storing solar energy

Sep 01, 2014

A research project conducted by Leclanché S.A., the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Romande Energie and with the financial support of the Canton of Vaud could bring a real added value in ...

Scientists get set for simulated nuclear inspection

Sep 01, 2014

Some 40 scientists and technicians from around the world will descend on Jordan in November to take part in a simulated on-site inspection of a suspected nuclear test site on the banks of the Dead Sea.

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

88HUX88
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
Does Mitt really oppose this because he thinks people can't afford it, or is he doing this to get votes?
alfie_null
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012
The standards can be lowered by the government if people suddenly start buying less-efficient vehicles in the future, although few expect that to happen.

Then explain to me why we now have so many SUVs.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2012
Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.

And I'm sure Mitt Romney is convinced that car and truck prices will not rise anyhow.

Vehicle prices are not based on the value of the vehicle (or even profit per vehicle) - but how TOTAL profit can be achieved over all vehicles sold.
If new technologies make cars more expensive to manufacture but automakers simply pass on the cost to the consumer then no one will be able to afford the vehicle - that much is true.
BUT this also means: no sale - no profit whatsoever. This is not in the interest of auto makers.

So they will have to slash profits per vehicle to sell larger numbers (and thereby increase TOTAL profit)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
"The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon "
Why not force auto makers to manufacture > 100 mpg vehicles? Or 200 or 1000 mpg or infinity?
Who cares how. Govt doesn't care how, just do it or they will force you out of business.
CreepyD
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2012
So I guess makers or performance cars are just going to have to suck it and pay the fines? It does say 'all' new cars after all.
I wonder how much the fine will be.
Since some manufacturers are going to have to pay it for some cars, it's can't be a huge amount, meaning that maybe it will be absorbed into the cost of making the vehicles and things will just stay the same?
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2012
Why not force auto makers to manufacture > 100 mpg vehicles? Or 200 or 1000 mpg or infinity?

Averag. The operative word is 'average'. And it is very easy to up the average by manufactringthe same crap they do now plus some zero emission vehicles.

54.5 miles per gallons is far from impossible. My car is 10 years old and it still gets 45 MPG.
phlipper
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
The EPA needs to be abolished. A stupider bunch, I can't imagine. Under these regulations, cars and trucks will end up looking more like motorcycles. Democrats are trying their best to destroy America. They will pass all the absurd laws they can get away with but, much to their frustration, they can't pass new laws of physics. The U.S. needs a new leader with brains. Currently, Mitt Romney is our only hope.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
This is just another small step in the progressive quest to control every aspect of a citizen's life. It is funny how they need to remove all freedoms in order to create their utopia.
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
Govt doesn't care how, just do it or they will force you out of business.

When you promise that the free market will deliver enough technological progress to solve all environmental problems, you don't care how, either. You make promises even when there is no hint of any technology that could deliver what you promise.

Shouldn't you congratulate government on having the good sense to let business decide how to meet a goal, instead of regulating how? Businesses would have to make exactly the same decisions if consumers suddenly decided they wanted those standards, and I don't see you objecting then. And if car owners had to pay the full cost of all the externalities they cause, they would have been demanding more efficient cars for years. This is just fixing a market failure with minimal intervention. And did you miss the bit about car makers asking for federal standards?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2012
Why not force auto makers to manufacture > 100 mpg vehicles? Or 200 or 1000 mpg or infinity?

Averag. The operative word is 'average'. And it is very easy to up the average by manufactringthe same crap they do now plus some zero emission vehicles.

54.5 miles per gallons is far from impossible. My car is 10 years old and it still gets 45 MPG.

So govt force doesn't concern you?
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2012
So govt force doesn't concern you?

As with ecverything else I see things differentiated and not in black and white. Government force can be employed where market forces don't work. Government force can also be employed when it concerns issues that the market doesn't capture at all.

Business affect the environment - but they don't care about the environment. Citizens DO care about the environment they live in (clean air, clean water, etc. ). So obviously when someone not representative of the nation (read: businesses) destroy a commodity that is of value to the nation (read: the people) someone has to step in and regulate in the interest of the people.

It would be nice if this didn't have to be the case (i.e. if businesses were conscious of their impact on the world and would feel responsible to minimize it) - but that's not the world we live in.

Summary: Short-sighted greedy buggers -much like small children- need (artificial) limits.
CapitalismPrevails
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
Sigh...does anybody have the nerve to tell me we live in anything that resembles a free market if presidents can just dictate domestic orders like this?
Government FORCE can also be employed when it concerns issues that the market doesn't capture at all.
Such as requiring aluminium body frames so cars less inertia against trucks or a semi in a crash? Also so the price of the car goes up erroneously in the name of more fuel efficiency but with no overall economic regard just like the Prius? Gas would have to be $8 a gallon for an owner to save money using it.

hen someone not representative of the nation (read: businesses) destroy a commodity that is of value to the nation (read: the people) someone has to step in and regulate in the interest of the people.

Great so we can sacrifice our freedoms for short term supposed security.
Short-sighted greedy buggers -much like small children- need (artificial) limits.

Oh but your never greedy for more power by law?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
Oh but your never greedy for more power by law?

I don't really care how it gets done. Currently the approach is: let the market sort it out - and if that doesn't work then legislate it. That approach is fine by me.
The market had enough time to do its job and it didn't work, so now other methods have to be employed.
Time IS a factor when it comes to the environment. So it's not like we can wait forever for them to get their butts into gear.

Also so the price of the car goes up erroneously in the name of more fuel efficiency but with no overall economic regard just like the Prius?

As always you are extremely short-sighted. The universe (and the Earth) is larger than the economy of a 2 meter high biofilm on some of its landmasses. Larger problems cannot be ignored, just because some inconsequential detail (like 'the economy') doesn't like it. Survival first. Economy second.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (9) Aug 29, 2012
The market had enough time to do its job and it didn't work,

What market?
Oh, you mean the govt regulated 'market'?
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 29, 2012
Why is it that Obama and Progressive hate single mothers and poor people. Since this mandate will force an increase in car prices, poor people will no longer be able to drive anywhere. This will keep the poor, poor as they won't be able to drive to a job, single mothers won't be able to take their kids to doctors.

Why do Progressives hate the poor? The single mothers? People need to stop this Progressive war against the poor.
tadchem
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
Legislation may motivate technological development, but it cannot force technological limits to change. One cannot redefine pi.
Legislation also cannot force commercial success: witness the Chevy Volt.
As Mohandas K. Ghandi might have said, "Civil Disobedience is always an option."
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2012
What market?
Oh, you mean the govt regulated 'market'?

If you just look tjhrough the past 100 years it's chock full of pollution getting worse and worse. Food getting worse and worse. products getting worse and worse UNTIL someone steps in and legislates against it.

It's not surprising. Businesses want to make profit. Period. They're not altrusists.
If you take stuff that is free (clean air, clean water) and dump all your byproducts into it for free (or if you can skimp ob safety or quality) then you'll outcompete the others.
So they are forced to either do the same or go bankrupt.

Where exactrly do you see the mechanism that leads business to make anything better for people by doing things that don't impact shareholder value positively? Especially with an 'trickled upon' (read: impoverished) consumer base that is forced to go for cheapest product possible.

Explain how that is supposed to work WITHOUT any regulation.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
f you just look tjhrough the past 100 years it's chock full of pollution getting worse and worse.

For the past 100+ years, the 'progressives' have been in charge regulating everything.
Why are you not blaming the failure of the regulatory state?
The creation of the US FDA was advocated by the top 5 meat packers to limit their competitors who were quite responsive to their customer demands for quality products.
Ever notice the yellow ribbon on Oscar Mayer products? Oscar used that ribbon to distinguish his quality meat products from competitors.
Businesses that cannot compete bribe the govt to regulate the market to suppress competition.
"Duke Energy likes traditional regulation because it gives them a monopoly, and they don't have to worry about pesky competitors."
http://legalplane...on-game/
"Energy deregulation got a (justifiably) bad rap"
It's bad rap was it was NOT deregulation.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
They're not altrusists.

And the govt is?
How can coercive force be altruistic?
Free market businesses must make a profit to stay in business but they must do so by PERSUADING customers to buy their products. Unless they bribe politicians, they can't FORCE anyone to buy their stuff.
So these business must create products and services people WANT to trade their wealth for.
Of course it's not altruistic. Altruism can not exist for long because it ultimately leads to death. No one can survive long donating their time and talent when millions of others will take it without compensation. Parasites ultimately kill their hosts.
The only long term, win-win solution is self-interest described by Adam Smith.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2012
"A big error has haunted humanity for centuries: it's the equivocation between generosity and altruism.

The former is a virtue any decent human being will practice: it asks of one to reach out to deserving others in times of dire need. The latter is a policy of devoting oneself to benefiting others above all. The former is admirable, the latter is suicidal."
http://www.bastia...erosity/
"Rand's stance against altruism was not an assault on compassion so much as a critique of doctrines that subordinate the individual to a collective—state, church, community, or family."
http://www.bastia...yn-rand/
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2012
"Now, it is no more possible to found transactions of this nature on the principle of altruism than it would be reasonable to base the ties of family and friendship upon self-interest. I shall never cease telling the socialists: You wish to combine two things that cannot be combined. "
"The blacksmith, the carpenter, the farmer, who exhaust their strength in rough toil, may be excellent fathers, admirable sons; they may have a high moral sense and affectionate hearts. Nevertheless, you will never persuade them to labor from dawn to dusk, to strain and sweat, to impose upon themselves hard privations, in the name of disinterested devotion to their fellow men. "
http://www.econli...r12.html
Unfortunately Bastiat does not lend himself to short clips. Read the entire piece to obtain the full flavor of why socialism fails.
And this was over 150 years ago.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
And the govt is?
How can coercive force be altruistic?

For the people, by the people...at least in theory: yes.

In practice it has long gone to the highest bidder in most nations (capitalist and socialist alike). No, I don't like government intervention any more than you do. But there doesn't seem to be anyone else around capable of doing it. Businesses left to themselves certainly have a bad (read no) track record of ever coming up with solutions to environmental problems.

they must do so by PERSUADING customers to buy their products.

Correct. That is why I said that stuff that is not related to the product (i.e. not of interest to the consumer of the product - like having good environmental policies) can never be a boon to businesses. So they don't instigate any measures for it - ever.
Arguing that you provide good working conditions or spend money on cleaning shit up on the side does not persuade consumers to buy a product.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2012
"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."
http://www.econli...ss1.html

What are the unforeseen impacts of these regulations?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2012
I don't like government intervention any more than you do.

I don't believe you.

Arguing that you provide good working conditions or spend money on cleaning shit up on the side does not persuade consumers to buy a product.

Why does Subaru waste money on commercials promoting their 'green' factory?
Why did organic producers hire the private National Sanitation Foundation to create a certification? http://www.nsf.or...fication
Why did McDonald's stop using foam boxes for their burgers decades ago? Customer demands.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012
The markets didn't produce fuel efficient cars because gasoline is still so cheap. There's nothing wrong with the markets - the government just doesn't have the balls to tax where it counts.

Look at Europe - high gas taxes double the gas prices - high efficiency cars use half the fuel to their US counterparts. The net effect on the consumer is zero.

23.17 kilometers per liter


The metric unit for gasoline -consumption- is still liters per hundred kilometers. If you can't do the proper conversion, why bother doing it at all?

That's 4.3 l/100km. About as much as a 2012 VW Polo does.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2012
The net effect on the consumer is zero.

What BS!
Ever hear of the Broken Window Fallacy?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2012
"Taxes make up about half of the pump price of petrol and diesel in France, which reached on average 1.58 euros a litre and 1.41 euros a litre respectively at the end of last week."
http://www.reuter...20120822
How are the economies of the EU doing these days with high fuel taxes?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2012
I don't like government intervention any more than you do.


I don't believe you.

It's very simple: I don't think anyone should have the right to tell anyone else what to do PROVIDED that everyone is a responsible enough human being to understand what this means (this is actually one of the very few thinks I agree on with Marx). As long as people act inrresponsibly (like children or businesses), however, we do need to have someone to step in and set them straight (parents or government).

This is markedly different from your stance (which skips the second part).

A world where people just grab as much for themselves and damn the consequences doesn't work. The world (and especially the environment) is not an endless buffer system that allows us to create waste forever.
(Not to mention the increasing inequalities created by an unchecked capitalist system cannot go on indefinitely.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
The net effect on the consumer is zero.

Having a slightly better conscience is better than zero.

Why does Subaru waste money on commercials promoting their 'green' factory?

It's ads. A PR stunt. A green IMAGE sells these days. but it's no more than that: an image.

Why did organic producers hire the private National Sanitation Foundation to create a certification?

Because others were abusing the label 'organic' (though I still don't know what 'organic' is supposed to mean. It's so nebulous that it covers most any production method. Factory made food isn't 'inorganic'. Many of these seals are just PR stunts).

Why did McDonald's stop using foam boxes for their burgers decades ago?

Because paper is cheaper (especially after CFCs turned out to be hazardous). And they have not stopped using that stuff in all countries. Of course will they come out and say "Oh, the customer demanded it" (which is more PR bull)
hcnap
5 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
A step in the right direction with dwindling oil reserves and saving the environment at the same time. Additional bonus if there is money to be saved.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
A world where people just grab as much for themselves and damn the consequences doesn't work.

That is the socialist world. At least for the unelected, unaccountable leaders of the socialist world.
In the free market world, kleptocracy is not long tolerated. The irresponsible fail instead of being propped up by the state gang.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
Who are the responsible ones here?

"ne of the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and other disasters is that the people who plan best for them are not found in the police station and office of the mayor or governor, but in the boardrooms and headquarters of private-sector firms."
"During its Katrina response Walmart shipped almost 2,500 truckloads of merchandise to the Gulf Coast. Home Depot provided more than 800 trucks' worth of supplies and moved employees from around the country to stores in the Katrina-ravaged areas."
"The private sector was also very effective at getting their own stores up and running." {That damn profit motive!}
http://www.thefre...sasters/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2012
Rygg: A perfect example.
Business only react AFTER the catastrophe has struck (i.e. after the environment has gone to hell, after the lead based paint has killed children,a fter someone (gov't funded) has shown them that their product is cancerous, etc.)
Show us where business are trying to make the environment a better place before they are forced to and not just the odd one with a green conscience but on the whole - because that's where it counts.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
Rygg: A perfect example.
Business only react AFTER the catastrophe has struck (i.e. after the environment has gone to hell, after the lead based paint has killed children,a fter someone (gov't funded) has shown them that their product is cancerous, etc.)
Show us where business are trying to make the environment a better place before they are forced to and not just the odd one with a green conscience but on the whole - because that's where it counts.


You do know the govt designed and controlled the levies in New Orleans?

Hooker Chemical knew its waste was toxic and made every attempt to keep it from leaking into the environment by sealing it Love Canal. It was the local city that forced the sale of Love Canal which then proceeded to build houses and a school over a toxic wast dump. The govt KNEW the chemicals were there and wanted the property tax revenue of houses built on the site.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2012
It makes no business sense to pollute if it is not economical to do so.
Govt regulations enable business to pollute without consequence to local citizens.
If those downwind from Big Stone power in SD could sue to stop the plant from raining nuclear material on their property, Big Stone would have to make some sort of remediation acceptable to those filing the suit.
But if they can get a govt agency to certify their pollution, the downwind victims have no recourse.
Its cheaper and easier for these companies to pay off and lobby one govt agency than to deal with thousands or millions of lawsuits.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
"Attempts to centrally plan economies, or even to intervene in major ways into market economies, are very much like humans' attempts to fly by dressing like birds and flapping fake wings: utterly futile, and potentially calamitous, because the most that can be observed of any successful economy are a handful of large details (assembly lines, retail outlets, money). Consciously calling into existence steel factories, wheat farms, supermarkets, currency, and other apparently obvious keys to economic success, and then trying to get these things all to work together to achieve economic takeoff, is akin to a man strapping sheets of fake feathers to his arms and legs and trying to fly. The effort simply won't work, even if it appears to the untrained eye as if it should.

This reality isn't altered by modern science."
http://www.thefre...plexity/
"This reality isn't altered by modern science", or... govt edicts.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2012
You do know the govt designed and controlled the levies in New Orleans?

And you do know that without the government there would not have been any levies at all? That New Orleans wouldn't even exist now?

Can you, with a straight face, say: "Oh, businesses would have gotten together and pitched ni and built some if the government hadn't". C'mon. Thatmental picture is just so implausible that it's hysterically funny just to imagine it.

It makes no business sense to pollute if it is not economical to do so.

That's the point: when is it not economical to do so? Only AFTER people start dying. Only AFTER the damage has been done and sudenly public opinion swings the other way. That's not good enough.

With the climate change we face making changes AFTER we all die out is not cool.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2012
That New Orleans wouldn't even exist now?

So?
But I doubt it very much since it is a very important port.

Why should govt subsidize anyone to live below sea level in a flood plain? Those who want to live at risk can pay their own insurance.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2012
""This is a story of how special groups worked to get government assistance to make their own lives better," O'Neill said. "Both valleys – Sacramento and Mississippi –argued that the nation owed the two regions special flood control aid because the areas were vital to the nation's economy and survival." In addition, the regions threatened cessation if their demands were not met, she said."
" the practice destroys the surrounding wetlands and causes a build-up of pollutants."
"silt shoots into the Gulf instead of depositing in Louisiana," she said. "This creates a dead zone in the water"
http://news.rutge...79194007
So the the levees are subsidized by the state for economic reason and result in significant pollution. That's govt for you.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012


Hooker Chemical knew its waste was toxic and made every attempt to keep it from leaking into the environment by sealing it Love Canal. It was the local city that forced the sale of Love Canal which then proceeded to build houses and a school over a toxic wast dump. The govt KNEW the chemicals were there and wanted the property tax revenue of houses built on the site.


Everyone including the schoolboard knew the chemicals were there, the private home builders who bought the land from the schoolboard knew, all the people on the infrastucture constuction crews knew . The school board decided to build schools on it despite the full disclosure of Hooker's use of the land as a toxic waste dump. Essentially, in the name of a buck, a bunch of people with low morality from all walks of life helped to make Love canal the disaster it was. Not the government. It's scary how many incidents of chemical exposure were reported and covered up prior to the area's occupation.

rubberman
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
Kudos to Obama, perhaps if he loses to Romney he can come up here and replace Harper, who appears to be moving in the opposite direction as far as the environment is concerned.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
Not the government.

The school board of Niagara is govt which forced Hooker to sell Love Canal.
flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2012
A world where people just grab as much for themselves and damn the consequences doesn't work.

That is the socialist world. At least for the unelected, unaccountable leaders of the socialist world.
In the free market world, kleptocracy is not long tolerated. The irresponsible fail instead of being propped up by the state gang.

You are hilarious.
Cherry picking the best parts of capitalism, carefully avoiding the rest, and relating unchecked greed and expansion to socialism?

In the much cherished free-market of capitalism and minimum regulation, what stops a company growing as fast as possible, amassing huge resources and liquid funds, using their increasing size to expand their uncompetitive practices (such as locking down the entire world production of key components), cutting costs further by using more wasteful, environmentally destructive, and unrecyclable manufacturing practices, and using their money to muzzle, misdirect and lobby to avoid anyone caring?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2012
what stops a company growing as fast as possible,

Competitors not restricted by the govt.

using their money to muzzle, misdirect and lobby to avoid anyone caring?

Customers, a free press and a limited govt that does not have the power to make any bribes worthwhile.

flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2012
(cont) Because that's Apple at the moment.

The job of businesses is to create profits... and that's fine.

However, once they pass out of the hands of any single individual they generally act as mentioned above as single-minded, poorly behaved children.

I've sat and watched as Boards, or managers have discussed business decisions such as polluting a river at a cost saving to the business of $2million. The only question that gets asked is: "Will anyone find out?" or "What's the potential downside?"

I have no issue with them seeking profit... however the suggestion that competition always solves every is just stupid. I live in New Zealand and pay $23 NZD (~$17.50 USD) a month for a high level of full private health insurance. My provider has to cover everyone that applies irrespective of age and pre-existing conditions.

In comaparison: My US friends quote me astronomical prices for the same level of policy in the USA.

So tell me again how competition solves all your problems?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2012
So tell me again how competition solves all your problems?

What competition? There is NO competition in the US for healthcare.
There are a few examples of health related business that ARE competitive because they are NOT covered by insurance.
One of those is laser eye surgery. The costs have dropped while the quality has increased.
The computer industry moves so fast, due to competition, govt has little time to regulate. Computers continue to get better, faster and cheaper.
And NZ ended ag subsidies and competition has improved the NZ agriculture industry.
If a limited govt protects private property rights, how can industry 'get away' with polluting their neighbors? The only way is if they bribe the local govts with promises of tax revenue and jobs.
"Despite mounting evidence of its toxic effects, the EPA has not set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in tap water nationally and does not require water utilities to test for it. "
Why must people wait on the EPA?
Shabs42
not rated yet Sep 01, 2012
Why is it that Obama and Progressive hate single mothers and poor people. Since this mandate will force an increase in car prices, poor people will no longer be able to drive anywhere. This will keep the poor, poor as they won't be able to drive to a job, single mothers won't be able to take their kids to doctors.


Yes, as opposed to now with all those poor people buying brand new cars every other year. The government is going to outlaw old cars that don't meet the mpg requirements, and the lower class can continue buying used cars, riding bicycles, walking, or using public transportation.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2012
That New Orleans wouldn't even exist now?

So?
But I doubt it very much since it is a very important port.

Why should govt subsidize anyone to live below sea level in a flood plain? Those who want to live at risk can pay their own insurance.


So it's too important of a port to risk losing; but screw the people who live there, they can fend for themselves?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2012
That New Orleans wouldn't even exist now?

So?
But I doubt it very much since it is a very important port.

Why should govt subsidize anyone to live below sea level in a flood plain? Those who want to live at risk can pay their own insurance.


So it's too important of a port to risk losing; but screw the people who live there, they can fend for themselves?

Put the blame of the failure to stop flooding at the feet of the US Govt and inept, corrupt state and local govts.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2012
What BS!
Ever hear of the Broken Window Fallacy?


Yes, and this is not one.

Nobody's breaking anything. The fuel costs more, but the cars use less of it. The cars aren't any more expensive because of it, and the people get better public services and infrastructure as a result of the taxes. Some of the money even goes towards public transportation, so your roads aren't constantly congested. It's a win-win.

You tell me where the window is broken before you accuse of making fallacies.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2012
High tax on gasoline and the resulting reduction in consumption also reduces imports of oil, which keeps money in the economy, so it simply makes sense to tax gasoline.

Because all the money that stays in the economy comes back to you at some point, in some form. All the money that goes across the border, you won't see it again.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
Nobody's breaking anything.

The govt is TAKING money that those who EARNED it could find a better use.

Another fine example are 'sin' taxes. We are told cigarette taxes are ALL used to fund the added costs of health care. How can this happen when all such taxes end up in a general fund?

Let's see what happens when fuel use drops as cars become more efficient or use fuel other than gasoline. The govt WILL find other ways to replace that revenue.
The technology exists for every vehicle to have a gps or cell linked toll device so the vehicle can be taxed by distance.

I support this way of paying for roads IFF fuel taxes are eliminated. Tolls can be based upon time of day and type of roads which may help better manage the road system and minimize rush hour jams.
There would then be no incentive for any govt support or opposition to any type of vehicle fuel and would facilitate the sale of roads and bridges to private parties.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2012
Because all the money that stays in the economy comes back to you at some point, in some form.

Well then why shouldn't the govt TAKE all your money? Won't it come back to you at some point in some form?
After all govt bureaucrats don't add any costs and create jobs, right?
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2012
Well then why shouldn't the govt TAKE all your money? Won't it come back to you at some point in some form?
After all govt bureaucrats don't add any costs and create jobs, right?


Yes, but over such a long period of time, and in such forms that it would be inconvenient and inefficient to hand all my autonomy away.

I trust the government knows a least a little bit better how to invest my money into building roads, and I trust myself to know better what to eat tomorrow, or what kind of cellphone I want to buy.

And as far as the cost of bureaucracy goes, that's a trickle down effect. The bureaucrats won't eat more than they eat, and all the money they spend goes back into the economy, i.e. eventually back to me. The real expense is in the material cost of resources that goes into maintaining the bureaucratic class of people - not in the money it costs.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2012
The govt is TAKING money that those who EARNED it could find a better use.


You think driving cars that use twice the fuel is a better use for that money?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2012
The fuel costs more, but the cars use less of it. The cars aren't any more expensive because of it, and the people get better public services and infrastructure as a result of the taxes. Some of the money even goes towards public transportation, so your roads aren't constantly congested. It's a win-win.

Additionally the environment gets less polluted and the cost savings down the road (starting from hospital costs from people with ailments due to bad air, costs for cleaning up city facades, to climate change costs) are potentially enormous.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2012
The govt is TAKING money that those who EARNED it could find a better use.


You think driving cars that use twice the fuel is a better use for that money?

How much does the car cost?
Fuel is just one cost for a car. If I can buy an old car that gets me around for $500, and gets 12mpg, my total costs are still quite low compared to $5000 and 30 mpg. Only the person who is actually paying, not the state, can make the best choice for him.
Unless your central planners buy cars for everyone? Or only sell cheap Soviet Fiat knockoffs?

I trust the government

Why? What govt is that? Why do they know better than you what YOU want?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2012
As for trusting the govt, in the USA, the privately funded IIHS, http://www.iihs.org/, has more stringent safety tests than the govt. Why? IIHS is funded by the companies that insure cars and they have financial interest in safer cars. Auto companies take IIHS results very seriously and quickly respond to make their cars safer.
That damn profit motive makes cars safer than the 'trusty' govt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2012
"At 18.4 cents a gallon, the trust fund has not increased with the run-up in gasoline prices. And because Americans have been driving less -- the number of miles traveled has dropped more than 50 billion over the past eight months -- funding for the trust has fallen.

Peters warned Congress not to lard up highway legislation with earmarks for specific projects. She said the last transportation bill passed by Congress contained 6,000 earmarks totaling $24 billion. "
http://www.washin...525.html
And this was during the Congressional reign of democrat Nancy Pelosi.
On one hand, Congress uses the gas taxes to fund pork projects which by law require union labor, who kickback campaign contributions.
And cutting fuel consumption reduces the tax revenues needed to maintain and build infrastructure.
If any transportation system is going to be maintained, upgraded or built, the only certain way will be with either public or private tolls.
jdaviqwert
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
30 years ago I used a joke many times. Went like this " I have a solution for the gas shortages, pollution, mid-east terrorism, and it might even save a few thousand american lives a year, in one simple national law. Any car that does not get 50 MPG or better is illegal to drive, simple. People would laugh at me, it will never happen they said. Now I laugh GO OBAMA. Driving is a privilege not a right.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
But the 'shortage' is political.
There is more than enough oil and gas in the US to last decades, if not longer.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
If I can buy an old car that gets me around for $500, and gets 12mpg, my total costs are still quite low compared to $5000 and 30 mpg.

Then you really like wasting money.

After 2 years you're already going cheaper with the second car.

Difference: 4500$ purchase price.

Average milage per year is 15000miles
Current average price for gasoline in the US is: 3.83$

At 12MPG you need 1250 gallons per year which will cost you 4787.5$
At 30MPG you need 500 gallons per year which will cost you 1915$

Difference: 2827$ per year in fuel.

After only two years: You've already saved 1244$
And from then on until you need a replacement you're saving 2827$ per year.

(and that's not even counting that a second hand car will cost you WAY more in repairs than a new one and that you will need to replace your second hand car twice as often as the new one)
Eikka
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012

I trust the government

Why? What govt is that? Why do they know better than you what YOU want?


Because they are selected based on what I want, and what the people around me want. If we want less taxes on gasoline, if we find it so objectionable and unfair, we vote to lower the taxes. If they refuse to listen, refuse to hand power to other people who do, eventually they'll find that gasoline becomes very expensive when it's burning inside your office.

That may be difficult to understand if you're living in a system that is rigged, where voting doesn't matter because the outcome is always either donkeys or elephants, neither of whom bother to speak to the people once they get into the office, and where the people are pacified into idiots despite every second person owning a gun.
Sigh
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012
what stops a company [...] using their money to muzzle, misdirect and lobby to avoid anyone caring?

Customers, a free press

What's to stop that company from either buying up most media outlets (ever heard of Rupert Murdoch?) or from using its advertising budget to influence what makes it into the press?

Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
What's to stop that company from either buying up most media outlets (ever heard of Rupert Murdoch?) or from using its advertising budget to influence what makes it into the press?


The internet. If people know to use it.

The problem is that the people LET themselves be controlled by politicians and the corporate media because they've been led to believe there is no other way to do things.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
Initial cost 1000 10000
miles/year 15000 15000
cost per gal 3.5 3.5
mpg 20 35
fuel cost/yr 2625 1500
ave cost/year1 3625 11500
yr2 3125 6500
y3 2958 4833
y4 2875 4000
y5 2825 3500
y6 2792 3167
y7 2768 2929
y8 2750 2750

Given the high initial cost of a new or newer vehicle (thanks to govt regulations), break even is not for 8 years in this case and fuel improvement and lower fixed cost would have to be quite significant to make a difference.
A $40,000 all electric Volt has a very long break even point.
Which is the main problem with most 'green' energy, high procurement costs and long break even points.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
advertising budget to influence what makes it into the press?

I'm sure you didn't watch the RNC but if you did watch in on MSNBC, you would not have seen speeches by minority republican office holders.
You would have seen it on Murdock owned outlet.

How do you justify CNN covering for Saddam? Money.

The only way any press can be controlled is with govt power. If anyone can launch a web-site they can start a news organization. Ask Matt Drudge and Breitbart.
Socialists claim to support majority rule until that majority votes with their money supporting anti-socialist media.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
"But the new CAFE standards carry so many hidden costs that when added to increased vehicle prices, greater repair costs and higher danger risks, are reason for consumers to despair that their government has again caused them to lose disposable income, not to mention the freedom to choose their own mode of transportation."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroi...5Jrz8hNr
jimbo92107
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
My used 2005 Prius just got 50.2 mpg over a 650-mile vacation trip with me and a buddy and our stuff, averaging about 70mph on the highway. We had A/C blowing the whole time, nice stereo, and the interior is roomy and comfortable, about like a Passat.

54.5 mpg is achievable right now, easily. Plug-in hybrids are already beating that, and better ones will be selling within a couple years. There is absolutely no reason to keep buying these crappy, over-sized SUVs, especially for commuting. Park the old metal mastodons and drive a hybrid.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
Park the old metal mastodons and drive a hybrid.

Make me.
If I have a family 2-3 kids, and need two cars if both parents work, there is no way the whole family can fit into a Prius and go to the beach or a the mountains for a weekend.
BTW, there full size hybrid SUVs and diesel SUVs and natural gas SUVs.
Why are you Prius owners so judgmental? Why do you care if someone else drives a Hummer or Escalade? Jealous? Why don't you be quite and laugh all the way to the bank?
But no, its not enough for 'progressives' to live the way they want, they must force everyone else to live their way.

"a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."" CS Lewis.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
"You'll feel no difference in the way a natural gas vehicle (NGV) drives compared to a gasoline-fueled vehicle, except in your wallet, which will feel much heavier as a result of the cost savings of up to 50%. A"
http://www.natura...ign=2012

Why is there no 'progressive' 'green' push for natural gas powered vehicles and conversions? Could it be the USA has ample supplies of natural gas so its use would be economically beneficial to the US?
I would seriously consider buying the Honda CNG Civic if I could use my natural gas supply to refuel in my garage.
http://automobile...155514:s
SatanLover
1 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
hybrids suck. get on a bike or walk.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
Of course one reason the govt would not promote the use of CNG is they lose gasoline and diesel tax revenue to fund the roads and light rail boondoggles.
mrlewish
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
But the 'shortage' is political.
There is more than enough oil and gas in the US to last decades, if not longer.

Of course there is enough oil/coal/natural gas in the U.S. to last the U.S. for decades.. the problem is that the oil pumped in the U.S. is sold to the highest bidder WORLD WIDE and not to just bidders in the U.S. I don't know about you but the last I heard is that Japan, China, and India doesn't pump much of their own oil. Look up Fungibility. You don't seem to know what it means. Also there are moves underway to open our almost enclosed Natural Gas market more open to the world.. Kiss the low prices goodbye.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
Initial cost 1000 10000
miles/year 15000 15000
cost per gal 3.5 3.5
mpg 20 35

Changing the numbers willy nilly to suit yourself?
A 10 to 1 price increase of a 35MPg car over a 20MPG car? Really? That's your idea of a 'realistic' argument? Really? Wow....just...wow.

Just admit that your instincts are way wrong on this one.
My 45MPG car didn't cost more than a car or comparable size with less fuel efficiency (and that was 10 years ago) - and no: it's not a hybrid.

hybrids suck. get on a bike or walk.

Most. Persuasive. Argument. Ever.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2012
the easy thing about making rules that will really only come into effect further on, is that you are just putting the onus on future presidents and congresses.

changing rules for the future is a spineless gutless and pointless exercise in crafting an appearance of progressive governance, when in fact you are participating in a regressive form of let the next leader(s) drown in this foolish mess that this government has crafted for him.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
the easy thing about making rules that will really only come into effect further on, is that you are just putting the onus on future presidents and congresses.

changing rules for the future is a spineless gutless and pointless exercise in crafting an appearance of progressive governance, when in fact you are participating in a regressive form of let the next leader(s) drown in this foolish mess that this government has crafted for him.

One reason why Jerry Brown has the state of California he deserves.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2012
Play with these numbers:
\Initial cost 4500 40000
miles/year 15000 15000
cost per gal 4 4
mpg 20 100
fuel cost/yr 2625 525
ave cost/year1 7125 40525
yr2 4875 20525
y3 4125 13858
y4 3750 10525
y5 3525 8525
y6 3375 7192
y7 3268 6239
y8 3188 5525

Is this typical of a Volt 100mpg (?) and GM V6 car like a Buick.
And this doesn't include any maintenance or new batteries for the Volt.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
Wow...apples and oranges.
You are so nuts my nut-O-meter just exploded.

And this doesn't include any maintenance or new batteries for the Volt.

It also doesn't include that you have to buy two crappy second hand cars instead of one high-end roadster.
Those kinds of comparisons are just insane.

To refresh your memory: the argument that YOU made was that a highly fuel efficient car would be way more expensive than a OTHERWISE COMPARABLE car with low MPG.
NOT that if you buy an electric luxury vehicle vs. a crapmobile you'd come out ahead.

(and BTW. Your numbers are also wrong. 20MPG for a Buick V6 is rather high. They're 15/22 city/highway. Where as the Tesla Roadster is 12.7kWh per 100km. Which comes out to 413$ per 15000 miles at average US electricity prices)