Subscription Center
May 19, 2009 04:00 PM | 39
.jpg)
The Obama administration unveiled a plan to boost fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016—four years ahead of current schedule and up from an average of just 25 miles per gallon today.
The new standards (pdf) will also impose—for the first time ever—a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles at 250 grams per mile in 2016 under the new proposed rule. (That’s about 5.5 ounces per kilometer, for those of you who like your units mixed differently.)
There are very few vehicles capable of meeting the new standards today, which would mean more hybrids and possibly even electric or other alternative vehicles would have to hit the road within seven years for automakers to comply.
"As a result of this agreement, we will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years," President Obama said in a Rose Garden speech. In a nod to the concerns of beleaguered carmakers, Obama said, “this rule provides the clear certainty that will allow these companies to plan for a future in which they are building the cars of the 21st century."
The new standards would avoid tailpipe emissions of 890 million metric tons of greenhouse gases by bringing vehicle emissions down from roughly 400 grams per mile today—the equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road (more than two-thirds of the entire American auto fleet) or shutting down 194 coal-fired power plants.
In addition, all classes of vehicles—from compact cars to SUVs—will be required to make fuel efficiency improvements: cars will need to go from roughly 27 miles per gallon today to 39 mpg in 2016 whereas trucks jump from roughly 23 mpg to 30 mpg. The program is expected to add roughly $1,300 to the cost of a vehicle, according to administration officials.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also considering creating credits to help meet the standard for the development of additional greenhouse gas control technologies, such as multiplier credits for electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids or additional credits for "solar panels on hybrids, adaptive cruise control, and active aerodynamics," the proposed rule (pdf) says.
The EPA and the Department of Transportation will team up to craft the details. The rule, if approved, won't take effect until 2012. The new rule would be a compromise between the administration, the state of California and the auto industry. Carmakers have been waging a legal battle over that state's tough greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles standards. Under the compromise, California would adopt the federal standards.
"Overall, this bartered resolution confirms the pragmatic approach of the Obama administration to resolving climate change issues," says lawyer Deborah Schmall of the Paul Hastings law firm, while noting that lawsuits may drag on as the details of the agreement are worked out.
Oh, the fuel savings may be overstated, too, says management professor Richard Larrick of Duke University. He argues that gallons-per-mile is a more relevant measure as it directly corresponds to greenhouse gas emissions.
After all, boosting mileage from 10 to 11 mpg or 33 to 50 mpg saves the same amount of fuel (and therefore CO2 emissions): one gallon of gasoline every 100 miles. "As a nation, they're asking car drivers to reduce gas consumption by 1.14 gallons per 100 miles and they're asking truck drivers to reduce gas consumption by 1.02 gallons per 100 miles," Larrick says. Still, he says, "it's still a great plan because it is accelerating efficiency gains and because Detroit supports it."
Credit: © iStockphoto.com / Matteo Natale
Tags:
alternative fuels,
cars,
CAFE,
vehicle standards,
climate change,
plug-in hybrids,
obama,
greenhouse gases,
trucks,
electric cars,
fuel efficiency,
global warming
More News Blog:
Next: Mockingbirds quickly recognize repeat human intruders
Previous: Palm's Pre smartphone lands June 6--Will anyone be waiting at the gate?
See what we're tweeting about
ChristiansenJen Learned lots wrkng on this cicada vid w/@jmtsn & @EricROlson. Did u know that a brood can be comprised of >1 species? http://t.co/j24mjqn2Uv
mkonnikova How great is this? Adam Patch's wife gets drunk, tells him corny joke, he records & animates it in this sweet video: http://t.co/GXRHvS5Ao0
BoraZ Moving FAST: Hip-hop gives stroke education a boost in New York City public schools http://t.co/rSGFOcRZ6w by @ackurzius
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
39 Comments
Add CommentYeah - great plan. Make vehicles nobody really wants. Hey - why stop at 35 mpg? Why not 50 or 100 mpg? Just wave the magic O wand and it will happen! Who cares how much it costs! Just sit back and enjoy the Obasm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way this will help the auto makers is that people may buy up the useful vehicles before they are phased out. Personally I plan to purchase a GMC Yukon XL (or 2) the year they quit making them and maintain it forever. I refuse to participate in this experiment of feel good ideas and unintended consequences.
Soccerdad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/06/09/how-toyota-could-become-the-us-sales-champ.html
The US car industry is (mostly) full of Old Fogeys making (mostly) old fashioned cars for (mostly) Old Fogeys. The companies and their core customers seem to be dying out. I used to work for it. Made me feel old.
Yeah...I think we should all continue driving around in our gas-sucking behemoths, burning up irreplaceable resources, and sending all our cash and armies to the Middle East. Great plan soccerdad. Oh wait, I forgot, guys like you never have a plan, you just oppose anybody who does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow SoccerDad, you've got me sold.... you're eloquent, factual, and rational analysis along with your brilliant alternative plans are too compelling to ignore. Thanks for your contribution to the future of humanity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisU.S.A.! U.S.A.! I love theees country!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncidentally, mandating a higher performance from all vehicles is a great way of adding value to a battered market. Its also a great way of getting technologically conservative native manufacturing up to world class and globally competitive. The US must step up to the plate of global selling of US manufactured goods. The good penetration of initial offerings in Europe of US made vehicles have stalled over this issue of poor performance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerDad, No thought for how America — the most oil addicted nation on earth — has to survive going "cold turkey" when peak oil finally hits? America's imports could be threatened when the "Export Land Model" kicks in and exporting nations become importing nations... or at least, decide to use their own depleting oil at home instead of selling it abroad. No thought given to these scientifically verifiable matters?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead, I'd recommend America get into the "electron economy", BIG TIME! Electric rail doesn't care which "flavour" the electrons are, whether green from wind turbines or brown from coal. So while America builds Rail, Rezones cities to be more walking distance, and builds Renewable energy everywhere, you could get on board with "Better Place" and install Electric Cars with Battery Swap stations everywhere. At least this way America would some how muddle through the inevitable "Greater Depression" over the next 10 to 15 years.
Or America could go with your plan, and pour 700 billion into overseas coffers every year. (Where's your Patriotism?!) Your plan is like dealing with your heroin addiction by buying a few kg more.... it bankrupts you, makes you vulnerable and ruins your health, only this time we are talking about the world's only superpower being broke, insecure, and having all many of oil induced pathology. It's time to invent a better way. Now.
Sorry, kids were talking to me as I entered that last paragraph. It should have read,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Your plan is like dealing with your heroin addiction by buying a few kg more.... it bankrupts you, makes you vulnerable and ruins your health. Only this time we are talking about the world's only superpower being broke, insecure, and having many of the oil induced pathologies (such as sprawling suburbia which results in obese Americans because they no longer walk down to the local shops... everything is a drive.) It's time to invent a better way. RIGHT Now.
Technology should be market driven. You can't mandate invention, or force innovation by law. I'm all for saving our resources. Let the market determine when, and how that is done. The whole thing about CO2 being a pollutant is utter nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Jonhaq,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally I'd agree with you, but right now I think we face special circumstances. EG: Would your idea still apply if we were in a major war?
From my last 5 years of reading on the subject, I'm convinced that peak oil and climate change should be tackled at *least* as vigorously as a major war!
We *know* that storing Co2 in the atmosphere is a bad idea.
World oil production will begin to permanently decline by 4% to 8% a year within about 5 years. So with fossil fuel supply being both polluting and precarious, international energy security and peace are at stake.
How much money would you spend to avoid a real war, one that makes Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic?
One last point to consider: the average European uses *half* the oil of the average American. This is largely due to better city planning. American suburban sprawl absolutely requires heaps of car use, whereas places like Manhattan pretty much allow you to get around without a car.
Isn't city design and town planning a function of the government anyway? "The marketplace" might build the houses and businesses, but governments zone what goes where. It's time for government to not only back public transport to get off oil (big time) but to rezone cities so you don't need to drive as much in the first place.
Same here in Australia.... but our politicians are deaf to the risks of peak oil, and only playing political games with climate change.
johnaq, markets only work correctly in the absence of externality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities). Currently, in the U.S. at least, oil is priced a lot cheaper than its "real" cost. Personally, I favor some sort of tax that raises the price of gas to, say, a nice constant $4 a gallon, with the proceeds used to fund energy research or to reduce carbon output in other industries. Pricing gas at its real worth would quickly change people's habits through market forces! But this solution seems to be political kryptonite -- so we may have to be satisfied with MPG standards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso a great point Tim!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisindeed, with energy subsidies across the Western World (especially here in Australia) I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a "free market" in energy. Our governments have made the choice for us! Consider, what good would oil be without the Federal Highways on which to drive? What use would oil be if we had excellent cheap public transport? What really happened to most of California's trams? Oil has to be one of the most government subsidised products in HISTORY!
Same for coal. Would Australia really be looking at new coal fired power plants if we had to pay the true world market for coal?
EG: "GOVERNMENT subsidies to some of Australia's electricity generation companies are so big they exceed the profits made by those companies, a report on energy and transport subsidies says.
Government support for the coal industry and coal-fired electricity is so generous that in some cases it has led to the construction of coal-fired power plants when other types of electricity generation would have been cheaper, the report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney has found.
Subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution, says the report, written by the institute's research principal, Chris Riedy, and commissioned by Greenpeace.
The report identified energy and transport subsidies in Australia during 2005-06 of between $9.3 billion and $10.1 billion. More than 96 per cent of that money flowed to fossil fuel production and consumption, with the remainder going to renewable energy and energy efficiency. "
(University Technology Sydney).
To put that into perspective it's about a quarter of Australia's entire government spending on the Department of Education! Gee, should we subsidise global warming or raise our Education funding by 25%? That's a biggie! ;-)
The car companies have been on notice since the '73 disaster! It's about time that some U.S. government had the balls to do this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDetroit would *never* had come to this point on their own. They simply don't have the vision.
Come on people, we'll reduce gas use by 25% (made up statistic) and gas prices will rise 25% to compensate. How do the oil companies lose when this prolongs the depletion of oil the Earth has available? This just means they'll be no loss for oil companies now, and ensures the oil companies will be able to make money for a long time to come. What benefit is this on emissions if we'll just burn the oil a little later?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr we can all just blindly take another step in the wrong direction.
Electric is 0 emissions and lack of electric is the only thing keeping prices high. Another problem is the lack of an economy electric vehivle now. I wish Dodge EV wasn't so sports driven.
@Johnaq,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Technology should be market driven. "
The irony of saying this on the Internet is pretty funny.
"I'm all for saving our resources. Let the market determine when, and how that is done."
The market does not always take into account such factors as environmental, health and national security concerns. I am sorry but the market is not magic.
" The whole thing about CO2 being a pollutant is utter nonsense."
Your ignorance is stunning.
mandating CAFE is like telling drug dealers they should sell less drugs. Instead, we should put in a taxation system that taxes every passenger vehicle in a reverse sliding scale. A tax of 50 dollars per every mile per gallon below 30 mpg for 2010, increasing to 31 mpg in 2011, and so forth. So people driving gas guzzlers will quickly ditch them for more fuel efficient ones, and the demand will drive the production. The revenue will be used to build the power grid infrastructure needed to support the alternative energy projects
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose posting comments here seem to think that government can allocate resources more efficiently than the market can. Here's a fact for all you advocates of central planning out there: Central planning doesn't work! Let markets work. As gasoline increases in price, other sources of energy will become economical. Personally I favor coal. We have plenty of it, and it's very economical. I would buy a plug in hybrid SUV and my personal oil consumption would drop to near zero. However, Emperor O will not allow for increased use of this fuel, instead pushing uneconomical wind and solar. This will cause significant price increases and supply limitations on electrical energy just as the plug-ins are coming into commercial use. So, people will not buy the plug-ins that the auto makers have spent billions developing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuel economy standards are the primary cause of the domestic automaker's crisis. They made money in trucks & SUV's but lost more than $1,000 for every car they made. So why did they make the cars at all? To comply with CAFE standards. So, they made them as cheap as possible earning a very poor quality reputation in the process.
Here are a couple of predictions which I can make with near certainty, given the direction of our emporers: 1) The next major crisis will be a shortage of electricity and associated price increases. 2) The auto industry will need another bailout, primarily due to the new fuel efficiency requirements.
"Those posting comments here seem to think that government can allocate resources more efficiently than the market can."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be under the impression that short term profit is the end goal of society. The society you reside in has decided that other considerations should have weight. You know health, environment and national security.
"Central planning doesn't work! Let markets work. "
Markets do not take into account environmental degradation, increased health risks, and national security.
"As gasoline increases in price, other sources of energy will become economical."
Yes, and what you fail to recognize is that technologies, infrastructures, and manufacturing can not react in any sort of timely manner to a skyrocketing commodity prices. The market is not magic.
"Personally I favor coal"
So mercury pollution, acid rain, local degradations as the result of open pit mining and the effects of that pollution have no effect in your calculations?
"However, Emperor O ..."
Did you miss the November elections?
"O will not allow for increased use of this fuel, instead pushing uneconomical wind and solar"
How economical is coal if the fossil fuel industry had to pay mitigation for the problems I have already listed and do with out subsidies?
"Fuel economy standards are the primary cause of the domestic automaker's crisis. They made money in trucks & SUV's but lost more than $1,000 for every car they made. So why did they make the cars at all? To comply with CAFE standards. So, they made them as cheap as possible earning a very poor quality reputation in the process. "
Evidence? How do you reconcile the above statement with fleet averages found in Europe and Japan?
"Here are a couple of predictions which I can make with near certainty, given the direction of our emporers: 1) The next major crisis will be a shortage of electricity and associated price increases. 2) The auto industry will need another bailout, primarily due to the new fuel efficiency requirements. "
I want to think Exxon-Mobile for its input.
Soccerdad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fundamental flaw in your whole post, is that you seem to completely neglect the core reason why we are searching out alternative energy sources. Yes, energy independence is great, but the real reason this is occurring is to reduce this countries CO2 emissions. Whether you believe the science or not, that's the reality. All your talk about coal being economical, is pointless when its the biggest source of CO2 emissions in this country.
A plug in hybrid powered by electricity from a coal power plant is no better than running your regular gasoline powered car now.
Lets be honest, the standards for small car emissions are not an issue for automakers. If they were able to make a 40mpg honda civic in the 80's they should have no difficulty doing the same with and additional 20+ years of R&D. The problem with American automakers is they continued to make large gas guzzling cars despite rising gas prices. When last summer's $4+ per gallon gas hit, SUV sales hit rock bottom. Other companies such as Honda and Toyota already had many fuel efficient models being sold. The shortsightedness of US automakers is to blame here, not the standards they are now going to be held to.
And not all Americans want to pollute the environment and do so without a care such as you do. Some of us care about our impact on this world and will gladly change our daily habits to lessen our own impact. I would think driving around 1000+ lbs of less car on your daily commute would not be all entirely bad. Cause lets be honest, do you really need the extra 6 seats in your SUV on a daily basis? Maybe when carting the family to a soccer game, but not on your commute to work.
Trent 1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You seem to be under the impression that short term profit is the end goal of society. "
This profit you deride is the entire basis for our society. Without it there are no jobs, no healthcare, no environmental protection.
"Markets do not take into account environmental degradation, increased health risks, and national security. "
What health risk does a vehicle which gets less than 35mpg cause? Answer: none. And what would make us more secure than using our own coal more extensively?
"So mercury pollution, acid rain, local degradations as the result of open pit mining and the effects of that pollution have no effect in your calculations?"
Modern coal fired power plants cause none of the problems you cite. Open pit mining, while an eyesore, are not detrimental to our well being any more than windmills or solar arrays.
"Evidence? How do you reconcile the above statement with fleet averages found in Europe and Japan?"
The situation there is different. This is the market working - well kind of. The politicians there took a more honest approach to reducing oil consumption and raised the price of gasoline. The move to more efficient cars is the market response. I'm not advocating that approach, just explaining how things really transpired there.
As for your distaste for Exxon Mobil, a company that helps power our country while creating the a product everyone, including you, need while creating good paying jobs Mr. O seems to desire, I'll chalk it up to the same ill conceived notions you espoused in your response to my post.
Soccerdad wrote, "Modern coal fired power plants cause none of the problems you cite. Open pit mining, while an eyesore, are not detrimental to our well being any more than windmills or solar arrays."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you've heard of the coal ash spill in Tennessee last december. Care to weigh in on the environmental and health risks it has? Why not take a read for yourself:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tennessee-coal-ash-spill
Its statements like yours that should make anyone question what you write. This is as far from the truth as possible. Do some research on the subject before spouting blatant lies.
Soocerdad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said, "The markets is a wonderful slave but a horrible master?" The market does not have very good foresight as anyone in the now defunct Financial Services division of AIG can attest. In fact, the GURU of free market ideology, Alan Greenspan, just testified before Congress in October.
"I think we have to ask ourselves, 'Why is that?'" Mr. Greenspan said. "And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance."
The market, for example, could not foresee the peak of global oil production, which has probably passed, in time to prevent what will probably be a catastrophe in the next decade. It also could not foresee climate change. Make no mistake, the fact that you claim it isn't happening or that we aren't causing it doesn't change the fact that it is happening and we are causing it.
@SoccerDad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent: You seem to be under the impression that short term profit is the end goal of society.
Soccer Dad:This profit you deride is the entire basis for our society. Without it there are no jobs, no healthcare, no environmental protection.
Oh, really? You became a father because it was a profitable venture? Selling you kids to parentless Chinese couples are you? I got news for you. Money is a human invention invented to ease social transactions. There is no money god to whom you offer incense too. OK, maybe for you there is....
Trent: Markets do not take into account environmental degradation, increased health risks, and national security.
Soccer Dad: What health risk does a vehicle which gets less than 35mpg cause? Answer: none.
Wrong. Less fuel efficient cars put out more crap into the air. Ever heard of smog? It is not the money god visiting punishment on the heathen city dwellers. Another pollutant is the CO2 emitted by the billions to the detriment of the whole planet.
Soccer Dad: And what would make us more secure than using our own coal more extensively?
Cleaner energy sources that do not pollute water, air and food. Coal pollutes all of those. Being a citizen for my nation, means, to me, looking out for the welfare of my fellow citizens. Destroying their streams, poisoning their water, and risking the future of their children is not worth the price of cheaper electricity.
Soccer Dad: Modern coal fired power plants cause none of the problems.
you cite.
You are in denial. A brief perusal of Google Scholar puts that lie to rest.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=coal%20pollution&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws
Go ahead see what the peer reviewed literature has to say on the health effects of burning coal.
Trent: Evidence?
Soccer Dad:The situation there is different.
Special pleading. Dollars to donuts I would bet that if someone seriously offered to raise gas prices by four dollars a gallon that you lot would scream bloody murder. Please no more disingenuous arguments. The fact remains that in Europe people buy cars that are far more fuel efficient.
Soccer Dad: As for your distaste for Exxon Mobil, a company that helps power our country while creating the a product everyone,
Exxon-Mobile: Has waged a campaign of disinformation and out right lies for over a decade to forestall ANY action that could mitigate our dependence on oil and climate change. What is more important: the health and welfare of your fellow citizens or $?
The Wikipedia article on Externalities that I referred to before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) is really quite relevant to this discussion. Also see "Market Failure" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure). It seems to me that the proper role of government should be to internalize the externalities so that the markets function correctly to accomplish the desired goal. In other words, government writes the rules, markets play the game. In this particular case, it would appear the CAFE standards are not the best way to accomplish the goal -- it would be much better to impose a proper "cost" on the CO2 produced by cars (through gas tax, CO2 tax, cap-n-trade, whatever). OTOH, CAFE standards do give the automakers stable targets to shoot for, well known in advance, so they do have that advantage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Tim Wilson,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the link to the article. I am beginning to think that a unit on Externality should be one of those must have lessons before graduating from High School.
Yeah, I thought that article was really interesting and well-written. I ended up following a lot of the links off that one, like the market failure one I mentioned, and some others, it was all really interesting stuff. I wish I knew more about this subject...my training in economics pretty much began and end with "guns and butter".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Electric is 0 emissions...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the most naive statement I've ever read. Do you not know where that electricity is coming from? Power companies are one of the largest single sources of harmful emissions anywhere in the world. Because they're burning fossil fuels. Also, unless the power conversion ratio is much better than that of straight gasoline (something I doubt), you might actually be doing more harm going electric than staying with fuel.
Jeez, just because the emissions aren't coming directly from your car doesn't mean you've suddenly become greener. Look around a little before leaping to these conclusions.
The efficiency standards are not high enough based on current technology:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php
"How can you know, with certainty, how efficient one car is versus another? We conducted a well-to-wheel accounting for all fuel efficiency and emissions of several types of high-efficiency cars, including an estimate for the Tesla Roadster, based upon performance prototypes."
http://move.rmi.org/markets-in-motion/case-studies/automotive/hypercar.html
'After a century of engineering, cars are embarrassingly inefficient.
As RMI cofounder and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins has pointed out: Of the energy in the fuel [an automobile] consumes, at least 80 percent is lost, mainly in the engines heat and exhaust, so that at most only 20 percent is actually used to turn the wheels. Of the resulting force, 95 percent moves the car, while only 5 percent moves the driver, in proportion to their respective weights. Five percent of 20 percent is one percent -- not a gratifying result from American cars that burn their own weight in gasoline every year.
The efficiency standards are not high enough based on current technology:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php
"How can you know, with certainty, how efficient one car is versus another? We conducted a “well-to-wheel” accounting for all fuel efficiency and emissions of several types of high-efficiency cars, including an estimate for the Tesla Roadster, based upon performance prototypes."
http://move.rmi.org/markets-in-motion/case-studies/automotive/hypercar.html
'After a century of engineering, cars are embarrassingly inefficient.
As RMI cofounder and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins has pointed out: “Of the energy in the fuel [an automobile] consumes, at least 80 percent is lost, mainly in the engine’s heat and exhaust, so that at most only 20 percent is actually used to turn the wheels. Of the resulting force, 95 percent moves the car, while only 5 percent moves the driver, in proportion to their respective weights. Five percent of 20 percent is one percent -- not a gratifying result from American cars that burn their own weight in gasoline every year.”
You folks that don't like coal are going to remind me of Obama in a few years. He didn't like wiretapping without a warrant or military tribunals when campaigning. Now that he actually has some responsibility for our safety, he's reversed course. It's called an introduction to reality. In a few years when we are experiencing high electricity prices and rolling blackouts because our politicians have interfered with the building of new coal plants, you all will be clamoring for them. Or maybe you'll be content only using electricity when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the suggestion that I will whine if gas prices are raised to $4 / gallon or higher - untrue. I was fine with it - it was the market at work, and it did work to reduce demand. This is something that 20 years of government meddling with CAFE standards never has done. Most whining was coming from the Democrats, who supposedly are in favor of reducing demand for oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Shoreliner 11
I'd have to say I'm underwhelmed with your assertion based on the evidence presented in the article you cited. The only authoritative source quoted in the article said that the contaminants released into the river would be filtered out as part of the normal municipal water treatment system. OK, so there's a bit of extra lead in the river for a while. It's not going to injure human health. It's a rare problem with some temporary effects on the river.
@ SoccerDad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You folks that don't like coal are going to remind me of Obama in a few years. He didn't like wiretapping without a warrant or military tribunals when campaigning. Now that he actually has some responsibility for our safety, he's reversed course. It's called an introduction to reality."
Thanks for the classic example of a diversion in the conversation. Your just not going to address the peer reviewed literature on the dangers of coal are you?
"In a few years when we are experiencing high electricity prices and rolling blackouts because our politicians have interfered with the building of new coal plants, you all will be clamoring for them. Or maybe you'll be content only using electricity when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining."
Right, those are the only alternatives, no wave, tidal power or geothermal energy sources. Nor in your world of limited options are energy storage options,conservations efforts and a more efficient grid a consideration either. For you the motto is: No can do.
"As to the suggestion that I will whine if gas prices are raised to $4 / gallon or higher - untrue"
Sure, sure keep telling us that. I remember when they hiked gasoline tax by five cents in the 90's the howls of protest.
"I was fine with it - it was the market at work, ..."
Raising taxes on gasoline by four dollars a gallon is not the market at work. When gasoline did reach that height last summer what was one of the suggestions to alleviate the price? Do away with the gasoline tax. Where was your protest at that idiotic idea?
Let us face it you think the disinformation campaign waged by Exxon-Mobile is a-OK.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-geothermal-power-compete-with-coal-on-price
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe table shown is for the "levelized cost of energy" , the cost of a specific quantity of energy bundling the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure to provide it.
Clearly wind, geothermal and negawatts wins in the view of this fine Capitalist Institution BTW.
So why then do coal and oil invariably win in the US?
The Coal Lobby. The Oil Lobby. Fine examples of a free market.
Who says no one wants them? I would love to drive a vehicle that gets 100 miles per gallon, and doesn't damage our atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho say no one wants these vehicles? I would love to own a vehicle that gets 100 miles per gallon. Better yet, I would love to have reliable public transportation. What kind of world are you planning to leave your children, Soccer Dad?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would prefer to leave them a country which is still free, which at this point looks like a long shot. Companies would be free to make vehicles people want to buy. People would be free to buy the vehicles they prefer. As to energy, environment and climate - we'll be fine. We have plenty of coal and nuclear energy. The environment has improved dramatically as our standard of living has improved. Climate change is constant - and I'd much rather have a climate which is warming than cooling. That's assuming there is anything to this global warming theory. Call me a skeptic - Einstein and Galileo were skeptics about the scientific consensus as well. You know, you could go back to the 1970's and read books about how by now we would be out of oil and unable to live in our poisoned environment, while heading for the next ice age. These things too passed for science at the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would prefer to leave them a country which is still free, which at this point looks like a long shot. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me see torture, a needless war, a view of law as something to get around rather than to be obeyed and you think a dictatorship is imminent because of increased vehicle efficiency. This combination of hysteria and blithely ignoring real crimes committed is breath taking.
"People would be free to buy the vehicles they prefer."
Do you think that if you ignore the negative externalities that have been repeatedly pointed out to you that they will go away? How childish.
"We have plenty of coal...."
You have never ever addressed the peer reviewed literature on the trouble with coal. Why is that? I know you think if you shout long enough those problems will magically go away.
"...and nuclear energy."
You never looked at that link that Rimmer provided in regards to cost did you?
" As to energy, environment and climate - we'll be fine."
Sure in we will be fine IF we where residents of Middle Earth. I am sorry, but the physics is real and Malthus still rules.
"Climate change is constant - and I'd much rather have a climate which is warming than cooling."
Genetic Fallacy of reasoning. Just because something has happened in the the past does not preclude it having it having a different cause now.
Your preferences for a warmer climate will be little comfort for people who reside near sea level, farmers driven out of business because of altered rainfall or the tens of millions who depend on mountain run off to live.
" That's assuming there is anything to this global warming theory. Call me a skeptic."
No. I will call you an ideologue who will not allow reality to intrude on his pet ideas. Skeptic is a honorable term reserved for people for whom logic and empiricism have primacy.
"Einstein and Galileo were skeptics about the scientific consensus as well."
Your no Einstein.
" You know, you could go back to the 1970's and read books about how by now we would be out of oil and unable to live in our poisoned environment, while heading for the next ice age. These things too passed for science at the time."
Do you always swallow EVERYTHING that the fossil fuel companies pump out?
Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually you should have written "Your no Einstein" as "You're no Einstein". You're is a contraction which is shorthand for "you are". It is pronounced pretty much the same however. I'll give you that.
And no, I don't swallow EVERYTHING the fossil fuel companies pump out. My big honkin SUV does as I'm tailgating your (proper use of the word your) Prius.
I think they should put a $1.50 per gallon gas tax on and just let people decide what cars to buy then. That's how to reduce oil consumption. And switch a lot of trucks to natural gas. The gas tax is the way to go, not this indirect tax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf all a company can make that's profitable is SUVs and trucks, let them make that. I don't see any obligation for them to make small cars.
This is a policy relic from when there was a Big 3.
Actually, sales of the trucks and minivans may increase in the near term because you won't be able to buy them in the future and people want them. That's the result of this policy.
Earth to Obama: There is no Big 3. And CO2 isn't a pollutant!!!
Real big surprise Detroit is willing to support this. Who owns two of them now anyway?