Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Voting poll discussion > Topics	Add to favorite topics Post New Topic

Author	Topic: [Poll: 2009.40]: The US Government has mandated a new corporate average fuel e...	Topic is locked Back to Topics

JT Moderator	Message Posted: Sep 26, 2009 11:01:00 PM Ignore JT Report Abuse The US Government has mandated a new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 35.5 mpg for all auto manufacturers by the year 2016. Its stated purpose is to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Do you approve? Yes- it will reduce oil consumption and emissions Yes- but it should be higher than 35.5 mpg No- higher gas taxes would work better No- law will be full of loopholes and won't help No- smaller cars will make roads less safe No- mandate will Post your thoughts about this poll below.

Moderator

Message Posted: Sep 26, 2009 11:01:00 PM

Ignore JT Report Abuse

The US Government has mandated a new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 35.5 mpg for all auto manufacturers by the year 2016. Its stated purpose is to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Do you approve?
Yes- it will reduce oil consumption and emissions
Yes- but it should be higher than 35.5 mpg
No- higher gas taxes would work better
No- law will be full of loopholes and won't help
No- smaller cars will make roads less safe
No- mandate will
Post your thoughts about this poll below.

REPLIES (newest first)

First

Next Last

BobD2009 Champion Author Long Island Posts:1,917 Points:265,635 Joined:Apr 2009	Message Posted: Jan 26, 2010 9:30:12 AM Ignore BobD2009 Report Abuse No I do not approve, they will increase costs and are not practical.
LonghornBubba Champion Author Houston Posts:8,472 Points:1,676,830 Joined:Jul 2005	Message Posted: Jan 16, 2010 10:15:17 AM Ignore LonghornBubba Report Abuse No- smaller cars will make roads less safe
LXH18 Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:10,765 Points:2,235,500 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Jan 16, 2010 3:01:29 AM Ignore LXH18 Report Abuse Yes- it will reduce oil consumption and emissions.
april4 Champion Author Virginia Beach Posts:7,232 Points:1,436,375 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Jan 15, 2010 6:38:20 AM Ignore april4 Report Abuse Yes- but it should be higher than 35.5 mpg
BobD2009 Champion Author Long Island Posts:1,917 Points:265,635 Joined:Apr 2009	Message Posted: Jan 9, 2010 2:27:36 AM Ignore BobD2009 Report Abuse It may help a little, but for the most part the standards are impracticable. They probably are rushing technology and not taking in consideration usage for different types of vehicle. I also suspect that there will be a loophole or two.
HFAJR0034 Champion Author New Mexico Posts:1,120 Points:274,715 Joined:Jul 2009	Message Posted: Jan 8, 2010 7:24:39 PM Ignore HFAJR0034 Report Abuse no
BobD2009 Champion Author Long Island Posts:1,917 Points:265,635 Joined:Apr 2009	Message Posted: Jan 7, 2010 7:27:32 AM Ignore BobD2009 Report Abuse I think it is a typical knee jerk reaction. I'm sure there is also a lot of politics involved.
crusader1975 All-Star Author Louisiana Posts:801 Points:186,545 Joined:Apr 2008	Message Posted: Dec 17, 2009 10:30:01 PM Ignore crusader1975 Report Abuse This is just another form of socialization for the US. Leave the comsumer alone and let them make a free choice.
Nickyterentino Rookie Author Nashville Posts:1 Points:10,080 Joined:Feb 2008	Message Posted: Dec 10, 2009 3:09:18 PM Ignore Nickyterentino Report Abuse Yes- it will reduce oil consumption and emissions
rbgamble Veteran Author New Jersey Posts:268 Points:568,170 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Dec 7, 2009 9:06:08 AM Ignore rbgamble Report Abuse Now that the US Government owns several of the car companies, the US Government should give every (Legal) US Citizen 18 years or above a Fuel efficient car! That would be a great way to spend the stimulus funds.
sube01 Rookie Author Minnesota Posts:43 Points:5,025 Joined:Oct 2009	Message Posted: Nov 30, 2009 5:22:37 PM Ignore sube01 Report Abuse I'm all for going farther on a tank of gas
Lorenzo1 Rookie Author Utah Posts:3 Points:260 Joined:Nov 2009	Message Posted: Nov 19, 2009 4:10:34 PM Ignore Lorenzo1 Report Abuse Yes - but it should be higher unless you are burning Natural Gas.
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 31, 2009 8:34:14 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse the laws of thermodynamics are in control, and always have been....
roadrunner2739 Rookie Author Ontario Posts:1 Points:220 Joined:Oct 2009	Message Posted: Oct 31, 2009 7:30:32 AM Ignore roadrunner2739 Report Abuse The thing is folks the car companys could make vehicles rgardless of size give 50 miles per gallon today if they were allowed to.A friend of mine worked at plant in Oshawa 40 years ago brought home a carburator that gave him 30 miles to the gallon.So who is in control?
aaronmandie Rookie Author Alabama Posts:2 Points:820 Joined:Oct 2009	Message Posted: Oct 24, 2009 12:03:33 PM Ignore aaronmandie Report Abuse I don't think that mandating that everyone have a new CAFE car is even feasible. I mean look at how many people are without jobs and are trying desperately to feed their children, let alone buy a new car... All I am saying, is, is it right to tell poor people that in order to drive to work they have to give up on groceries and electricity?
charmer1212 Rookie Author Memphis Posts:58 Points:12,305 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Oct 10, 2009 11:27:32 AM Ignore charmer1212 Report Abuse yes
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 9, 2009 9:05:14 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse "BTW, I'm in the 2% who voted for higher gas taxes - the group that seems to be most vocal (the noisy minority)." But the noise is falling upon deaf ears. Too many of us don't seem to realize that "how much" is more important than "how". Thanks for the post (however I don't agree with the sentiment behind your name...)
LetItSnow All-Star Author Hartford Posts:646 Points:369,380 Joined:May 2004	Message Posted: Oct 9, 2009 6:44:59 AM Ignore LetItSnow Report Abuse I don't know exactly what Buylessgas and Sluggopyle are discussing but.. Yes, the same homeowner would use less energy in a smaller home (all things being equal) - less loss through the walls. Homeowner A is the energy hog. He is also using energy in his other location and not using it efficiently when he is "home". BTW, I'm in the 2% who voted for higher gas taxes - the group that seems to be most vocal (the noisy minority). (I posted because I just wanted another 20 points.) [Edited by: LetItSnow at 10/9/2009 7:45:49 AM EST]
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 8, 2009 3:23:42 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse So you're saying that the same homeowner would use less energy in a smaller house. So you must be all for having the government limit house size to save energy; correct?
sluggopyle Champion Author North Carolina Posts:15,538 Points:954,595 Joined:Dec 2005	Message Posted: Oct 8, 2009 2:05:49 AM Ignore sluggopyle Report Abuse => Does energy use depend on the consumer? <= Of course. That's a constant. Therefore, put your Vehicles A and B on the same driver driving the same number of miles on each one, and voilà, you have a valid comparison. And the result is predictable and unsurprising. What you tried to do was to bend mathematical rules in order to imply more convenient results. None of us can do that. Mathematical rules are not negotiable.
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 7, 2009 8:13:48 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse Exactly. If reducing gasoline consumption is a worthwhile goal, the best way to reach it with the least government intervention is a higher tax on gasoline. CAFE standards are a giant government intrusion that is sure to turn out badly.
gcrebel60 Sophomore Author Mississippi Posts:193 Points:19,290 Joined:Mar 2008	Message Posted: Oct 6, 2009 11:36:58 PM Ignore gcrebel60 Report Abuse Another thing the government will screw up.
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 6, 2009 3:21:39 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse Great points rx7. CAFE standards are a dumb, lazy, selfish, way to try to reduce consumption. It's a popular concept because it seemingly places the burden on somebody else.
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 6, 2009 3:17:50 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse "That's not valid for what you're trying to do. You've biased the example to prove an artificial point." The sad thing about this whole topic is that "energy consumed per year" is the ONLY relevant point. Why does it matter how a driver consumes gasoline when you know how much gasoline a driver consumes? What was the argument you used against the government mandating average house size? I'll remind you; energy use depends on the consumer. Does energy use depend on the consumer?
sluggopyle Champion Author North Carolina Posts:15,538 Points:954,595 Joined:Dec 2005	Message Posted: Oct 6, 2009 12:05:50 AM Ignore sluggopyle Report Abuse => I am using the same "rate" in both comparisons: energy used per year. <= That's not valid for what you're trying to do. You've biased the example to prove an artificial point. This is why we have benchmarks like miles per gallon, which really IS a rate. It doesn't matter how many miles your example vehicles drive. That's a function of the driver's needs --not the car. To turn it around, which house is the energy hog: Homeowner A who runs all his lights and A/C in every room, but spends half the year out of town, or Homeowner B who runs no A/C, one light at a time and never leaves town? Notice I didn't say how much total energy each house uses per year. That's because it's not relevant to the question.
rx7racerca All-Star Author Calgary Posts:673 Points:254,630 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Oct 5, 2009 8:47:00 PM Ignore rx7racerca Report Abuse Just adding to my earlier post in favour of higher taxes rather than higher CAFE standards. Regardless of how higher fuel taxes are spent by governments, the reason behind my saying higher fuel taxes are more effective comes down to the fact that it most directly encourages reduced fuel consumption. This because it will motivate consumers to demand higher mileage vehicles (as in Europe and Japan), rather than mandate manufacturers produce vehicles the public has little reason to want in the absence of high fuel costs, as well as encourage reduced car travel, and more car pooling, transit use, and so on. Regardless of whether one believes in global warming and the environmental impact of high mileage, large-vehicle North American driving habits, the clearest argument for America in particular to drastically reduce its consumption of fossil fuels is that the US is dependent on oft unstable foreign countries for its energy needs - a strategic problem, and a huge balance of trade issue in exporting vast numbers of dollars out of the US economy to other nations. A problem which will only become worse as energy prices will inevitably get back to last year's heights and higher, driven by the billions in developing countries like China and India that are moving towards western lifestyles. High fuel taxes are proven in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere to reduce fuel consumption, over a period of decades, even when the cost of oil wasn't the prime factor, but the dependence on foreign sources and balance of trade were. It just had the bonus effect of promoting smaller, more efficient vehicles, as well as effective public transit and rail networks. Increased CAFE standards in America, on the other hand, have had little impact on consumer choices - when fuel costs were relatively high, as in mid-to-late 70's and early 80's, people chose smaller, more efficient vehicles and cut down on driving, but when fuel prices were low from the mid-80's up to 2006 roughly, we collectively chose larger and thirstier vehicles than ever, and the manufacturers sought, and got exemptions to CAFE standards, since the domestics in particular were going to be penalized for consumers' wish for large vehicles, which they specialized in. [Edited by: rx7racerca at 10/5/2009 9:47:44 PM EST]
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 5, 2009 1:29:35 PM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse High taxes on tobacco do the same.
KrazyDawg Champion Author California Posts:2,322 Points:388,825 Joined:Aug 2007	Message Posted: Oct 5, 2009 10:08:54 AM Ignore KrazyDawg Report Abuse Smoking apparently restricts "free market" choice at the cost of public health. There are now medical journals with studies that back up the effects of banning smoking in restaurants, bars, bus shelters, and other public areas. The risk of heart disease has dropped.
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 5, 2009 9:56:36 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse sure it's "attainable", but they can't make a profit when attaining it. Of course that's not a problem now; they don't need to make profits anymore.
nedthenanite Champion Author Mississippi Posts:4,060 Points:784,310 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Oct 5, 2009 12:20:17 AM Ignore nedthenanite Report Abuse Regardless of what CAFE is set at, expect gnashing of teeth and wailing for the American automakers that the new standard is ‘unattainable’, then they'll quietly achieve it anyway.
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 4, 2009 5:20:10 AM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse "just as if you have a large house next to a small one, they're paying the energy company at the same rate. You don't get one house charged $X per kw/hr while its neighbour is charged $2.5X." Huh? I am using the same "rate" in both comparisons: energy used per year. You are confused. I am using the same comparison for cars that YOU used to compare the energy consumed and emissions created by two different sized dwellings: total energy used in a given amount of time. I am comparing the total fuel consumed by two different sized cars in a given amount of time Explain why you think "total energy consumed in a given amount of time" is appropriate when comparing the energy used by a house, but is inappropriate when comparing energy used by cars.
tobasco Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:5,609 Points:1,355,225 Joined:Mar 2004	Message Posted: Oct 4, 2009 1:09:26 AM Ignore tobasco Report Abuse The high European fuel taxes are primarily used to subsidize public transportation.
sluggopyle Champion Author North Carolina Posts:15,538 Points:954,595 Joined:Dec 2005	Message Posted: Oct 4, 2009 12:17:02 AM Ignore sluggopyle Report Abuse Buyless-- We're not comparing apples to apples there. One of your examples (and only one) is talking about a RATE: miles PER gallon. You'd have to make the mileage constant for both cars ...just as if you have a large house next to a small one, they're paying the energy company at the same rate. You don't get one house charged $X per kw/hr while its neighbour is charged $2.5X. Either that, or you make the total miles the same for both cars. But as it is you've got two variables on the same side there. That makes any valid comparison utterly impossible. So the question, "which is the gas guzzler" can only be answered at all by ignoring one of the variables, which is what I did last night. You can't play with two independent variables and then pretend to have a comparison. And the idea in the post below yours that drivers with more economical cars will compensate by driving more to cancel out the savings is absurd. That would fly in the face of the reasons people buy those cars in the first place.
ferd41 Rookie Author Buffalo Posts:10 Points:86,875 Joined:Mar 2008	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 10:46:51 PM Ignore ferd41 Report Abuse The GasBuddy Web Site What rx7racerca never mentions about high European fuel taxes, is they are used for their health care. Which is free. Something our slanted media doesn't let out of the bag to often.
Basiclife Champion Author Nashville Posts:1,585 Points:513,045 Joined:May 2002	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 8:55:00 PM Ignore Basiclife Report Abuse I think I have a better idea. What if rather than forcing car manufacturers to get 35 MPG why not make them sell at least 5% of their cars get 80+ MPG and maybe even 0 emissions. What that would do is let them make trucks and vans that got 15 to 20 MPG. People will always drive what they want to drive. Now, in order for 5% to be sold requirements, they may have to keep the price of those 80+ cars so low that a lot would buy them for the price alone. It would force them to market them a little more agresive too. If there was enough demand they might make money off the cars and still sell 5%. If not they would simply make up the difference on the other cars. Stores do that all the time. This may in fact benefit those that have a hard time paying for fuel to begin with. Most people that can't afford high gas prices usually cant afford some of these overpriced hybrids and drive 15 MPG cars. We do not need laws that drive up the price of everything we do.
prcoqui Veteran Author Maryland Posts:363 Points:942,990 Joined:Dec 2006	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 8:35:14 PM Ignore prcoqui Report Abuse Completely agree with H0rx7racerca.
rx7racerca All-Star Author Calgary Posts:673 Points:254,630 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 8:24:48 PM Ignore rx7racerca Report Abuse I see raising fuel taxes (and it would have to be by a lot - such as in Europe, where fuel is roughly double US unit prices) a seriously unpopular option - yet it would probably be the most effective in raising average fuel economy and cutting overall fuel consumption. Raising fuel taxes pushes consumers to choose smaller and more efficient vehicles, as well as cut down on the amount they drive. Conversely, raising CAFE standards attempts to force the suppliers (auto manufacturers) to produce more efficient vehicles (and, I'd suggest, assumes the manufacturers really have been holding out on more efficient models and technology, rather than simply responding to consumer demand which has emphasized size and power, with little regard to fuel consumption). Meanwhile, (relatively) low fuel costs will still tend to encourage car buyers to choose larger vehicles than they may really need, and to continue wasteful driving habits and unnecessary travel. It will drive up the cost of the vehicles, through a hidden tax. This might discourage the purchase of thirsty vehicles, or might not - it certainly didn't work in the 80's, as decreasing fuel prices led North American consumers to turn their tastes to larger, thirstier vehicles - and the domestics to campaign for relaxed CAFE standards. High fuel taxes, on the other hand, have been shown to lead to lower fuel consumption, through vehicle and lifestyle choices of consumers in Europe and Japan. One thing that does seem pretty certain - US manufacturers will be hit hard by raised CAFE standards. Japanese and European car manufacturers already have fleets of fuel sippers and long have - high fuel taxes have compelled consumers in their homelands to demand them. They just need to import more of those sorts of cars here to comply if CAFE standards rise dramatically. Domestic manufacturers, on the other hand, have long focused on large and thirsty models, while none of them have small cars that are as efficient, or as well made and designed as the imports. So higher CAFE standards are will magnify the domestic's competitive shortcomings. Increased fuel taxes would still mean the domestics have to get better at doing smaller, more efficient cars (that don't seem as cheap, as in chintzy, as most of their current smaller models), but there won't be an overnight sea change in people's buying habits, so they might have more time with higher fuel taxes, rather than a rapid ratcheting up of CAFE standards. Higher fuel taxes, on the other hand, besides encouraging decreased fuel use on an ongoing basis, also, I think, makes the choice more market-based - consumers will still be able to choose larger, thirstier vehicles, if their needs and pocketbooks allow - but like Europe and Japan, on balance most will over time choose smaller, more efficient vehicles unless they have a compelling reason to do otherwise. [Edited by: rx7racerca at 10/3/2009 9:27:47 PM EST]
chui Champion Author Dallas Posts:1,967 Points:1,620,255 Joined:Sep 2004	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 8:08:41 PM Ignore chui Report Abuse yes.
THEDodgeman Champion Author Denver Posts:3,073 Points:973,040 Joined:Apr 2005	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 7:13:07 PM Ignore THEDodgeman Report Abuse to little to late.
OKRifle Champion Author Oklahoma City Posts:4,875 Points:849,070 Joined:Oct 2007	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 7:10:34 PM Ignore OKRifle Report Abuse No- law will be full of loopholes and won't help. Any involvement by the "0", is corrupt from the start! It is referred to as "Chicago thug politics"! Proven yesterday when the International Olympic Committee rejected the Rookie, Empty Suit
ToriB All-Star Author Washington Posts:841 Points:117,455 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 6:25:24 PM Ignore ToriB Report Abuse Great! Now the auto manufacturers will start giving us what we want instead of what the oil companies want!
Bonanza Champion Author Boston Posts:6,247 Points:1,577,615 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 5:09:42 PM Ignore Bonanza Report Abuse Yes- it will reduce oil consumption and emissions
buylessgas Champion Author Maryland Posts:1,592 Points:1,577,905 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 4:57:11 PM Ignore buylessgas Report Abuse Its the maker of the autos. The average of all the cars the maker sells must be at the CAFE standard. So car makers must sell low mpg cars that the market otherwise doesn't want to buy.
roadkillGA Champion Author Georgia Posts:3,382 Points:485,950 Joined:Jun 2008	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 4:47:28 PM Ignore roadkillGA Report Abuse If I read this correctly, it would apply to "corporate averages". Does that apply to individuals or corporations and those that have incorpotated themselves? Does it aply to the maker of autos or the consumer? LOOPHOLES!
SEBROCK Rookie Author Detroit Posts:11 Points:407,020 Joined:Apr 2005	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 4:21:57 PM Ignore SEBROCK Report Abuse Always raising taxes and sticking to the hardworking, or laid-off Americans while congress and senate pad their pockets. There is one thing that they can do and don't need to raise taxes. TRAFFIC LIGHT SYnCHRONIZATION How many of you out there have to sit idling at a Red light too long, when no traffic is coming in either direction. There are several traffic lights on M-59 that haven't been changed in 30 years. There timing is not right, you actually have to go over the speedlimit to make the next light. Or you spend up to 2 minutes sitting at the traffic light. Fixing the timing will save millions of gallons of fuel wasted. AMBER LIGHT TIMES. You want to stop accidents, synchronize the amber light timing with the speed limit. For instance if the speed limit is 55 mph. It should be 6.5 seconds long. At 55 ft per second, plus another second for reaction time will allow the driver to stop safely or proceed through the intersection. There are some on M-59 that are only 2 seconds, which you find your self either jamming on your brakes and blowing through the light. [Edited by: SEBROCK at 10/3/2009 5:25:33 PM EST]
FranklinGasGuy Champion Author Nashville Posts:3,584 Points:705,260 Joined:Aug 2008	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 3:16:00 PM Ignore FranklinGasGuy Report Abuse Just more government stupidity. Vote them all out, we need more freedom and whole lot less government.
melekali Rookie Author New Mexico Posts:22 Points:143,190 Joined:Dec 2006	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 2:15:30 PM Ignore melekali Report Abuse Well, considering my Camry was getting over 30mpg in 1997, I think this is backwards thinking. For 2016 (in 7 years) the number should be set at 50mpg. That's 19 years after I bought the 30+mpg Camry.
PurduePete86 All-Star Author Indiana Posts:910 Points:639,540 Joined:Apr 2007	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 1:59:29 PM Ignore PurduePete86 Report Abuse Auto manufactures need to increase mileage and also consider clean diesel engines. Europe has used diesel for years.
CPGas1815 Champion Author Michigan Posts:1,686 Points:247,920 Joined:Apr 2008	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 12:27:34 PM Ignore CPGas1815 Report Abuse Surely, the cars of the future will be more fuel efficient. But, the cost of these new vehicles will be prohibitive. Conservation has been recently cited for declining demand and has contributed to the decline in pump prices. We all need to do our part to reduce our consumption. I've decisedly reduced my consumption. The longest round trip journey I've made for months has been less than 20 miles.
BBopp Champion Author Dayton Posts:2,692 Points:1,128,385 Joined:Dec 2006	Message Posted: Oct 3, 2009 11:57:31 AM Ignore BBopp Report Abuse I think a combo of Yes, it will reduce oil consumption & emissions along with it should be higher than 35.5 mpg is really the way to go. It will take time to get 99% of folks on board. NO on higher taxes, unless it is for universal healthcare coverage for all!