Obama Says He’ll Save Average Family $8,000 in Gas

One question for you Z. How much less poop in our own nest will those standards result in? One tenth of one percent perhaps? That's roughly what annual global CO2 emissions will drop by as a result of the CAFE standard of 55 mpg for cars, light trucks and minivans sold in this union a couple of decades out. We'll actually have a lot more toxic waste from the batteries than we do today, more plastics that will never decompose trying to lighten the cars up than we have today. The cars from the 1960's are actually more recyclable than the ones we are building today are. It could be argued that this hoped for change will actually result in more poop being in your nest rather than less.

Nobody that matters wrote: My Geo gets 45 MPG. It doesn't do it fast, but it does it.

How could they build a car that gets 45MPG highway according to the EPA back in 1996?

They stripped it. It does horrible in crash tests. It has airbags in the steering wheel and the dash - no side curtains, nothing for the rear seat. No ABS, minimal sensors. No electric windows, doorlocks or seats. No special attachment points on the seats for child restraints. No traction aiding devices or sensors and one computer that controls the ignition and fuel.

You can have safe, or you can have better gas mileage. CAFE standards are crap. Like it or not, it does always come down to dollars. It's all well and good to say "we need to protect mother earth", but if it doesn't make financial sense you're going to wind up with a bunch of unsold expensive green new cars and people like me driving 15 year old rattle traps and laughing all the way to the bank.

Interesting. When I was a youngster (a very looooonnnnnggggg time ago), I remember my Dad telling me he read an article in one of his Popular Mechanics issues that talked about some guy who'd invented a carburetor that got over 100 mpg. That was the one and only time anyone, at least anyone I knew, ever saw anything about this invention. There's always been talk of these sorts of inventions (better carburetors, cars that run on water, etc.), but the rumor is that the big oil companies buy up the patents for these inventions, or they engage in some other underhanded activities to force better technology out of existence simply for financial reasons. I don't know if these inventions actually do exist, or if the big oil companies actually suppress newer, better technology or not. It would seem to me, however, that American ingenuity (which has ALWAYS been held in very high regard from what I've seen and read), should be able to come up with vehicles that meet all standards of safety and fuel efficiency. C'mon, isn't that what America is all about - taking the lead and outdistancing the competition?

PrintSmith wrote: One question for you Z. How much less poop in our own nest will those standards result in? One tenth of one percent perhaps? That's roughly what annual global CO2 emissions will drop by as a result of the CAFE standard of 55 mpg for cars, light trucks and minivans sold in this union a couple of decades out. We'll actually have a lot more toxic waste from the batteries than we do today, more plastics that will never decompose trying to lighten the cars up than we have today. The cars from the 1960's are actually more recyclable than the ones we are building today are. It could be argued that this hoped for change will actually result in more poop being in your nest rather than less.

I don't know, PS. Why don't you tell us? Or, perhaps you've already tried. I never said anything like this would be easy. If you throw obstacles in the way right from the start, the only way to overcome those obstacles, from my experience, is to engage in intelligent discussion and try to reach consensus on what might reasonably be done to succeed. You've identified several "side" issues that are inextricably intertwined with the CAFE Standards being discussed. Perhaps the "big picture" approach might apply?

Nobody that matters wrote: Zhawke, Archer, what's the EPA estimated MPG on the cars you drive?

If you don't know (shame shame)

look here http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList

Doesn't matter what we drive or what mileage our vehicles get. If fuel economy standards are improved, I don't know if I could afford to change vehicles immediately, but a vehicle with better fuel economy would certainly appear on my radar screen, that's for sure.

376 MPG in an Opel. http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/wha ... 76_mpg.php

How? No transmission. 0-60 in the time it takes the driver to grow a beard. Narrowed rear end (better not turn, you'll scrape) No passengers, no wipers, no lights, no seat belts.

The 100mpg you talk about was from the Shell MPG competition, and the cars were very similar. The mythical 100mpg carburetor would bring more profits to the owner than any oil company could dream of making. The oil companies would not have squashed the technology - they would have bid for it. To deny the existance of enough greed to overcome any conspiracy among the heads of the oil companys is foolish.

Yes, we can get better mileage. It costs more due to advanced technology and materials. It's severly limited by the weight of the equipment required by the federal government. It's also severly limited by the weight of the creature comforts required by today's soft and squishy consumers.

ZHawke wrote: Doesn't matter what we drive or what mileage our vehicles get. If fuel economy standards are improved, I don't know if I could afford to change vehicles immediately, but a vehicle with better fuel economy would certainly appear on my radar screen, that's for sure.

It matters a great deal. That vehicle with better fuel economy is going to cost more. Why haven't you gone the extra mile yet to buy a prius? Why is there not a Volt in your garage?

Because you don't know if you could afford it. So you continue to drive what you've got. Just like what most everyone else is going to do when the federal government jacks the CAFE standards up and raises the price of ALL new cars.

If you haven't paid more yet for better mileage, I don't see where you can expect us to believe you will in the future.

Not to worry, with the current "hope" for a job more people will be without $ to buy a car or get gas so consumer need will go down and gas will have to come down. Easy fix. just let BO keep on doing what he's doing.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Not to worry, with the current "hope" for a job more people will be without $ to buy a car or get gas so consumer need will go down and gas will have to come down. Easy fix. just let BO keep on doing what he's doing.

True. No job to commute to, gas bill goes WAY down.

archer wrote: My opinion is that the conservatives have a shorter vision for America than the liberals do. .

There you go with your usual blanket statement...AGAIN. I happen to think renewable energy sources are fine, in fact, I think they will be great one day when we can afford to use them.

And when you assume to know what conservatives think, as usual, you seem to forget certain facts. The most important fact is that many conservatives like myself really do understand math and economics. We understand that getting our debt under control is the only way we will survive and get to keep the freedoms so many before us have died for. THAT, is the most important long term goal, because if we become like Greece, there will no extra money for renewable energy research, for new auto technology, or for solar panels on every home. The more money we spend on expensive energy now, the less chance we'll have of getting financially sound and converting this country to green energy.

But you and some liberals can continue to act like we can afford the green conversion while our debt and deficit keep piling up a trillion or more each year.

archer wrote: My opinion is that the conservatives have a shorter vision for America than the liberals do. They want what they want and they want it now........liberals IMHO want what they want for everyone, including future generations. We cannot keep pouring pollutants into the air, water, and ground and not expect a bad result, eventually. I would rather take an economic hit now, in the price of cars and even the price of gasoline, than have this all come crashing down on my grand children, or their grand children. Our country has often been short sighted like this......take care of business today and don't worry about the future. Unfortunately the future gets closer and closer and many still don't want to face the hard truths about fossil fuels and their effect on our environment.....or the fact that they may eventually be depleted.

Your grandchildren won't be living the same life you have had the opportunity to live without access to inexpensive transportation archer - Henry Ford's contributions fundamentally transformed our economy and our union far beyond anything Barack Obama's could ever hope to. Henry Ford's affordable individual transportation, the Model T, and the energy dense and inexpensive fuel which propelled it, was really what kick started us on our way to being a dominant world power.