whats your take on Obama mandating a 36MPG minimum on cars? VOL. RIP V8, corvette, camaro, chargers

Originally Posted by ro0ts

Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

as ive stated before ... who says it will benefit us? the people who believe in "global warming" ... ?
Click to expand...
So let's ignore the evidence that shows greenhouse gases have led to global climate change. If we continue to use/produce gas guzzlers (that are considered lucky to get 20-25 mpg) we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot once the world's oil production reaches its peak in 2016. We might as well make the conversion to high fuel economy vehicles before sooner than later.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm not even going to discuss the absurdity of not believing in "global warming." We don't have an unlimited supplyof oil. We gotta start using less or we are going to get to a point where we have to something really drastic.
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

How else would it get done?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
tax breaks/incentives for each unit produced that comply with the new standards
Doesn't the govt. already offer tax breaks and incentives for fuel efficient vehicles?

I don't think the govt. can afford to offer any incentives for automakers that the oil companies couldn't match. The main reason this hasn't beendone sooner is because it's going to cost the oil companies so much $. And the oil companies have had so much pull with previous administrations that itwasn't even feasible. I don't think tax breaks and incentives are going to have any kind of the major effect that we need. It's just not enough.

I'm sure for whatever incentives the govt. could offer automaking executives the oil companies would probably match and exceed them. If i'm on ExxonsBOD, I know it's better for my wallet if I dish out some $ to oil companies in exchange for them not producing these fuel efficient cars which will have amuch greater negative impact on my wallet in the long run. So for whatever incentives the govt. offers....exxon, bp, etc. are going to try and counteract thatwith even more $ to these automakers that will make the incentives seem meager. So the incentives just aren't going to cut it.

Greed rules everything. Using incentives to fight against it is a losing battle.

invested money into R&D, we'd already have an engine like that. Take Hyundai for example, they tested and scraped
They exist and can be made. Automakers definitely have put money in to R&D. But it's more financially beneficial to them to continue toproduce these fuel-inefficient, polluting gas-guzzlers than it is to produce some cars that are far less harmful to the environment and far less instrumentalto our dependency on foreign oil.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by cguy610

The new Camaro V6 with 300 hp does at least 28MPG if not 30MPG

36MPG by 2016 shouldn't be as big a problem as people are making it out to be. Is this 36MPG for the entire fleet of sales or a 36MPG requirement for every single car sold.
Click to expand...


I'm saying. People are $%+ backwards and overreacting..."he's killing all the V8's!!!"

No, he's holding our car companies to higher standards. It's not impossible to make a 36 mpg V8 engine.

Maybe if American car companies stopped cutting our throats for the bottom line and actually

invested money into R&D, we'd already have an engine like that. Take Hyundai for example, they tested and scraped

over 400 diesel engines to make the most efficient and powerful engine. Imagine if GM or Ford did that.
 
You guys assume that no one in human history has ever made a rational decision unless he was directed by the boot of an omnipresent and omnipotent state.

If having the government tell us exactly how we can drive is so great why not have government run everything? Why not have them mandate food rationing to saveus from ourselves and to save the Earth's resources? Why not do the same with housing, who needs a room of their own? Why not just have us all be housed ingovernment run dormitories? Why do we have professional sports leagues? they use up so much energy and those who watch games on their energy consuming TV'sare selfish and short sighted. Why are we allowed any fun or luxuries or choices when government is supposed to be able to know what is best fr us and the goodof the Country?


Luckily, I know that most of your would cringe at those ideas, which is a hopeful sign. It shows that many of your are under the temporary spells of Obamaniaand the puerile desire to see the whole world as a giant turned based strategy game, where the will of leaders is more important than the subtle forces ofmarkets. The sooner a majority of people tire of tireless calls to sacrifice, the sooner this country can stop Obama and company from imposing state createdthreats to our liberty and happiness.
 
this is wonderful. this kind of forward proactive thinking is what i was expecting from him, which is why i voted for him.
 
Good, the technology we use for cars is so old and inefficient, it is insane that we still use the internal combustion engine.
 
Originally Posted by Late80s

this is wonderful. this kind of forward proactive thinking is what i was expecting from him, which is why i voted for him.
Click to expand...
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by November33rd

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

...fund enough R & D...and I BET automakers could make this happen WITH good horsepower.

my problem is with mandating it.
Click to expand...
How else would it get done? These companies have shown us they don't have the integrity to do it themselves.

I see no problem. It doesn't take effect until what? 2016? Who's to say the next President won't rescind this?

The technology exists now so I don't think it's unreasonable to make these American car companies have 7 years to get this done.

Americans are acting like spoiled-cry babies over this. It's for our own benefit yet people are acting like they're being persecuted. Fuel-efficient cars = less money out of your own pocket and less dependence on gas/foreign oil. Which is good for the whole damn economy if we're not shelling out all these billions to other countries for their oil. This is like a parent forcing a young child to eat his veggies. Yeah it may not be pleasant at first but in the long run it's what's best for you and sometimes people have to be force fed what they need when their too stupid to eat it themselves.

Y'all need to stop crying and see the bigger picture. Chevy could make a fuel efficient Corvette if they wanted too. Then tax these other foreign car companies who don't comply with our emissions standards..which will make them less appealing, and thus people will buy more American cars. Which in turn....is going to make our own economy more productive and strong. I really don't see how that is such a bad thing.
Click to expand...


QFT
couldnt have said it better myself.
 
He cannot do this. It would be political suicide.

Okay, not suicide. But it would be political wrist-slitting.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A GASOLINE TAX, DAMNIT. Artificially deflated prices for oil are part of the reasons we think we can get away with buying less efficientcars.

I'd rather pay a gas tax than be told that I can't have a Challenger SRT-8 or GMC Sierra.
 
I have a question that I hope someone can answer for me.

Are the companies that produce cars domestically the only one's that have to follow this guidelines?

What about companies that import their cars to the USA?
 
people act like we all are gonna be sitting in lil compact cars put put along on the highway.
we HAVE the technology to do this, and not compramise power and style of cars.
how is it not a good thing to have every vehicle set to a standard of 36mpg....... if EVERY car gets that we all pump less,
people were buying small hybrid cars during that $5 per gallon gas era, and put their gas gusslers in the garage, if they can get the good mileage in theircars and trucks its a win for them

i dont see the problem..... i mean maybe he didnt have to mandate it, but i guess it assures that it will get done, cuz we cant trust the auto companies to dothe right thing.... as we have all seen
 
Originally Posted by nbirn2103

I have a question that I hope someone can answer for me.

Are the companies that produce cars domestically the only one's that have to follow this guidelines?

What about companies that import their cars to the USA?
Click to expand...
Every car driven and sold in America must follow these guidelines.


Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.


That truck or car you want to buy now cost $1,300 more and you people are OK with that? Obama again forcing his IDEOLOGY down American's throat whether welike it or not.

How about I as an American have the power to choose what type of vehicle I want? If I want a Diesel engine vehicle, I can go and buy one. If I want a hybrid,then let me have this right.

What's next? I have to buy a HYBRID lawn mower? @#@! is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
Its not like FAST cars cant make 40 MPG, hybrids are going to be used increasingly, and they should be

I want a Grand Marquis which hits about 22, but I still support this because its the right thing to do
 
I thought this was actually a good read regarding the topic:

[h1]Light Cars Are Dangerous Cars[/h1] [h2]And other unintended consequences of strict fuel-economy standards.[/h2]
[h3]By ROBERT E. GRADY[/h3]
If something seems too good to be true, it usually is. Such is the case with President Barack Obama's proposed national fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and a new tailpipe standard for C02 emissions. The national press has uncritically reported that the new standards will make cars "cleaner." In fact, the rules could impose substantial costs in terms of urban air pollution and human life.

The standards are designed to reduce C02 emissions from cars, with the twin goals of addressing climate change and reducing dependence on imported energy. Carbon dioxide is, of course, ubiquitous and relatively harmless on an everyday basis. It is only its long-term buildup that scientists posit will cause temperature warming. What are not so harmless in the near term are the "criteria air pollutants" currently regulated under the Clean Air Act -- ground-level ozone (or smog), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and lead -- all of which have been shown by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) own scientists to have an adverse effect on human health.

The great irony of Mr. Obama's fuel efficiency proposals is that they may worsen emissions of these harmful gases. By the White House's own calculation (which many observers believe to be quite conservative), the new rules, when combined with earlier proposed increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, will increase the average price of a new car by $1,300. Herein lies the problem.

In today's automobile fleet, the majority of the pollution comes from the oldest, dirtiest cars. In fact, the dirtiest 10% of the cars account for more than 50% of smog and carbon monoxide. The dirtiest one-third of the fleet accounts for more than 80% of the pollution. That is because the U.S. government has, for 39 years now under successive versions of the Clean Air Act, required automakers to meet ever-tightening standards for tailpipe emissions from new cars. When it comes to smog, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates that new SUV is a lot cleaner than an old, poorly-tuned compact.

The Clean Air Act's requirements have sent emissions in the right direction. According to the EPA, since 1980 annual emissions of carbon monoxide are down 52%, emissions of ozone are down 41%, and emissions of nitrogen dioxide are down 37%. (Emissions of lead are down 97% thanks to taking the lead out of gasoline in the early 1980s).

The Obama plan could slow this progress. An economic phenomenon called "price elasticity of demand" is well established when it comes to automobile purchases. In other words, if you raise the price of new cars, people will buy fewer of them or, at a minimum, put off the purchase for a year or so while they drive the old clunker for a few thousand more miles. And fewer new cars means more pollution, which can cause significant health problems. Yet environmentalists and the press have ignored this issue, so as not to inject a note of complexity or doubt into the chorus of glee that greeted the president's attack on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Last fall, however, both the press and the green community paid significant attention to a study conducted by researchers from California State University at Fullerton and Sonoma Technology Inc. The study showed that, from 2005-07, California's South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins experienced more than 100 days in which ozone levels exceeded the National Ambient Quality Standard. In each of those areas, more than 60% of the population was exposed to unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter.

The study concluded that if these areas had simply met the federal standard, these regions could have experienced 1,950 fewer new cases of adult-onset chronic bronchitis; 3,680 fewer premature deaths among those 30 and older; 141,370 fewer asthma attacks; almost 500,000 fewer lost days of work; and, importantly, avoided approximately $28 billion in total costs to the Southern California economy.

Clearly the health risks from fine particulates especially and also from smog are substantial. It is also true that many scientists and economists predict significant long-term costs associated with climate change. But the costs associated with excessive emissions of criteria air pollutants are immediate and observable.

The Obama fuel efficiency plan may also contribute to a significant increase in highway deaths as vehicles are required to quickly meet the new CAFE standard and will likely become lighter in weight as a result. According to a study completed in 2001 by the National Research Council (NRC), the last major increase in CAFE standards, mandated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, required about a 50% increase in fuel economy (to 27.5 mpg by model year 1985 from an average of 18 mpg in 1978). The NRC study concluded that the subsequent downsizing and down-weighting of vehicles, "while resulting in significant fuel savings, also resulted in a safety penalty." Specifically, the NRC estimated that in 1993 there were between 1,300 and 2,600 motor vehicle crash deaths that would not have occurred if cars were as heavy as they were in 1976.

The president now proposes a fuel economy increase of similar magnitude in an even quicker time frame -- to 39 mpg by model year 2016 from 27.5 mpg now. Given the time it takes for new technologies to be developed, tested and incorporated into new car models, it is likely that down-weighting of cars will be an important means of meeting the new standard. And one result again could be highway deaths that might otherwise not have occurred.

Well, one might argue, this would not be the case if everyone drove smaller cars. The NRC study considered this countervailing fact and included it in its estimates. But nearly half of all car crashes (more than 48% in the years studied) are one-vehicle crashes. Put another way: If your car hits a tree or a post or a bridge abutment, you are most certainly better off in a larger car.

None of this is intended to argue that Mr. Obama should not be attacking the problem of climate change. Indeed, some in Congress are proposing to cap carbon emissions and allow tons of carbon credits to be traded, which at least provides the flexibility for those who must comply to reduce emissions in whatever way they choose. Others are proposing an increase in gasoline or carbon taxes. Both of these approaches have their merits, although economic conservatives like me would point out that, in order not to damage the ailing economy, any increases in gasoline or carbon taxes should be matched by a cut of at least equal size in payroll taxes.

My point is simply this: Mr. Obama's proposed fuel efficiency and CO2 tailpipe regulations should be subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis, as all federal regulations should be. Those at EPA charged by statute with regulating air emissions, and those at the Office of Management and Budget charged with reviewing the implementing regulations, should carefully assess whether the benefits of the president's fuel efficiency and carbon proposals outweigh their very real costs.

Mr. Grady is managing director of the Carlyle Group in San Francisco and a former trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund. He was involved as a senior White House aide in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and helped craft Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Environmental Action Plan during his 2003 campaign.
Click to expand...
 
sadly, people will never get it ... i saw a t-shirt the other day that said "63,000,000+ idiots in america" ... im sure many of those were informed,but more and more im starting to realize that people just dont understand anything ... obama is just taking advantage of the misinformed ... smh
 
we need to do this.. It takes sacrifice to make our earth better for the future, as corny as it sounds.
 
Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

You guys assume that no one in human history has ever made a rational decision unless he was directed by the boot of an omnipresent and omnipotent state.

If having the government tell us exactly how we can drive is so great why not have government run everything? Why not have them mandate food rationing to save us from ourselves and to save the Earth's resources? Why not do the same with housing, who needs a room of their own? Why not just have us all be housed in government run dormitories? Why do we have professional sports leagues? they use up so much energy and those who watch games on their energy consuming TV's are selfish and short sighted. Why are we allowed any fun or luxuries or choices when government is supposed to be able to know what is best fr us and the good of the Country?


Luckily, I know that most of your would cringe at those ideas, which is a hopeful sign. It shows that many of your are under the temporary spells of Obamania and the puerile desire to see the whole world as a giant turned based strategy game, where the will of leaders is more important than the subtle forces of markets. The sooner a majority of people tire of tireless calls to sacrifice, the sooner this country can stop Obama and company from imposing state created threats to our liberty and happiness.
Click to expand...
I usually agree with you but...
indifferent.gif

You cannot be serious. That has to be one of the most idiotic posts I've ever read from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom