Barry's our man!!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Here is an example of one of Detroits most profitable products being legislated away from them. You can quibble about whether this person is correct or not...but if they are..then barry has opted to take away a profitable product line from domestic car-makers.

the full size gm truck gets 22 mpg now, and that will rise.

the lowest mpg full size truck made? toyota.

the car cos adapt. nobody is taking "profitable products" away from them.

if anything in regard to trucks the new rules play to detroit's strengths.

[dude1394]

Well screw me.....that National Academy of Scientists are just a bunch of hicks or something.

The National Academy of Sciences membership consists of approximately 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates, each of whom is affiliated with one of 31 disciplinary Sections.

They just don't agree with Mavdog..
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=24

Also why would speeds be reduced, unless that's the next Barry shoe to drop in our ever-increasing quest for zero-risk. I would absolutely crack-up if Barry proposed a speed-limit, but he's way too good of a politician for that.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the full size gm truck gets 22 mpg now, and that will rise.

the lowest mpg full size truck made? toyota.

the car cos adapt. nobody is taking "profitable products" away from them.

if anything in regard to trucks the new rules play to detroit's strengths.

Disagree completely...You force US autoworkers to change the product that brings in 50% ( I think that was the number) of profits is going to harm them. They will have to spend dollars doing something they wouldn't have to do otherwise.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

One very small example of the problems.....

there's been quite a push over the last decade to build wind farms in W. Texas -- take a drive through Scurry or Upton or Pecos or Sterling County and you'll see what I mean.

...wind generated electricity is great with one small problem --the wind is stubbornly insistent on blowing most when electricity demand is the smallest and hardly blowing at all when electricity demand is the highest. Wind blows much stronger in the late fall and the early spring than it does in the heat of summer. If folks could be pursuaded to run their AC's in the late fall and the early spring and then shut off their AC's in August then wind would be a much better resource.

well, there is always somewhere that the wind is blowing...

second, if you've lived out in the high plains you know the wind never stops blowing (or, as the natives say, it never stops sucking...)

here's the amarillo monthly avg wind speed:
12.8 13.8 15.2 15.2 14.5 14.2 12.7 12.0 12.8 12.8 13.0 12.7 13.5

here's lubbock:
12.0 13.2 14.6 14.7 14.2 13.6 11.4 10.1 10.5 11.2 11.7 11.8 12.4

plenty of wind to keep those turbines turning 12 months/yr.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well screw me.....that National Academy of Scientists are just a bunch of hicks or something.

so the whole NAS wrote and endorsed the report? nope, so why don't you explain what point you're makking above?

They just don't agree with Mavdog..
Also why would speeds be reduced, unless that's the next Barry shoe to drop in our ever-increasing quest for zero-risk. I would absolutely crack-up if Barry proposed a speed-limit, but he's way too good of a politician for that.

actrually, the report DOES agree with mavdog....

to quote from the report:
"when a heavy vehicle strikes an object, it is more likely to move or deform that object than a light vehicle..."
iow when heavy vehicles hit light vehicles the light vehicle suffers. but if a light vehicle hits a light vehicle this is not the case, there is no additional mass hitting the light vehicle.

second, the report mentions the lack of "restraint systems" in the light vehicle, which as I pointed out has been addressed by the car manufactuers. the light vehicles now are at the top of the crash safety tests and ratings. the study's data is now over a decade old!

and to quote from the report itself:
In short, the historical trend in motor vehicle injury and fatality rates is too broad a measure, affected by too many variables, to indicate if vehicle downsizing and downweighting have increased or decreased motor vehicle travel safety

so no, it isn't a clear trade off of safety for fuel economy, and the report that you posted in an attempt to make that very point does not support your position. in fact it pulls the rug out from underneath it.

[dude1394]

Sure it does...reading the very page I posted talks about how autos cannot increase mileage without reducing size or weight, both of which directly effect their safety.

[dude1394]

More on the upcoming cap-n-trade tax.

May 21st, 2009 by Bruce McQuain The Heritage Foundation breaks ‘cap and trade’ down to 10 points you may want to consider:

1. Cap and Trade Is a Massive Energy Tax
2. It Will Not Make a Substantive Impact on the Environment
3. It Will Kill Jobs
4. It Will Cause Electricity Bills and Gas Prices to Sharply Increase
5. It Will Outsource Manufacturing Jobs and Hurt Free Trade
6. It Will Make You Choose Between Energy, Groceries, Clothing, and Haircuts
7. It Will Be Highly Susceptible to Fraud and Corruption
8. It Will Hurt Senior Citizens, the Poor, and the Unemployed the Worst
9. It Will Cost American Families Over $3,000 a Year
10. President Obama Admitted “Electricity Rates Would Necessarily Skyrocket” Under a Cap-and-Trade Program (January 2008)

So, what can you expect when they realize that number 8 makes it a very regressive tax?
That’s right, a subsidy will somehow become part of the arrangement. And who pays subsidies? What those who they arbitrarily determine can “afford” them.
Therefore, in addition to this:

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by dude1394

More on the upcoming cap-n-trade tax.

Just to ensure I understand this...this Cap-N-Trade tax only applies to those who have an income of over $250,000 per year...this has no effect on the other 95% of our society?

Isn't that what Obama promised, that 95% will pay the same or have lower taxes.

Good thing that 95% of Americans don't have to worry about Cap-N-Trade???

[mary]

Wait..is that saying the average household only spends $ 1783 on electricity and natural gas?

What the hell am I doing wrong?

$ 1764 on meat, dairy and produce?

How do you only spend $ 1800 when buying furniture, appliances and carpet?

That's a survey from 2007?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, those averages just seem low.

Edit: Upon further investigation, a "household" is actually a "consumer unit" which is 2.5 people. Interesting.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mary

Wait..is that saying the average household only spends $ 1783 on electricity and natural gas?

What the hell am I doing wrong?

$ 1764 on meat, dairy and produce?

How do you only spend $ 1800 when buying furniture, appliances and carpet?

That's a survey from 2007?

I'm not trying to be crass, those averages just seem low.

You don't buy furniture, appliances or carpet every month or year.. I have to assume that is the average spent. For example the last carpet we purchased (about 10 years ago) cost us 10K. Easily averages that if you also include the new washer/dryer also purchased.

Link to the MIT study:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...TZNFsOnZGWoG2A

[mary]

I probably buy something like that every other year. I definitely buy electricity, food and clothes every year.

[Mavdog]

the mit study states that world temperatures will rise 3.5 to 4.5 degrees by 2050 if the amount of carbons currently being emitted do not decrease.

most of us know that the cost of such a rise in average tempertures will be huge. my guess is it will be much, much more than the cost of reducing our emissions.

doing nothing will most likely cost more than doing something. acting like an ostrich is not the smart thing to do.

my vote is to do the right thing, that is doing something.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the mit study states that world temperatures will rise 3.5 to 4.5 degrees by 2050 if the amount of carbons currently being emitted do not decrease.

most of us know that the cost of such a rise in average tempertures will be huge. my guess is it will be much, much more than the cost of reducing our emissions.

doing nothing will most likely cost more than doing something. acting like an ostrich is not the smart thing to do.

my vote is to do the right thing, that is doing something.

I prefer to wait on a massive volcanic eruption. I think Pinatubo lowered global avg temperature by about 3 degrees, if I remember right from a long time ago, reading about it.

Sounds like what we really need is trucks that emit ash. There's an offset right there.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by mary

Wait..is that saying the average household only spends $ 1783 on electricity and natural gas?

What the hell am I doing wrong?

$ 1764 on meat, dairy and produce?

How do you only spend $ 1800 when buying furniture, appliances and carpet?

That's a survey from 2007?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, those averages just seem low.

Edit: Upon further investigation, a "household" is actually a "consumer unit" which is 2.5 people. Interesting.

Those are annual totals, right? $150/month seems about right for electricity. Seems low for 2.5 people on the food bill. Seems about right on the property taxes. The clothes and home furnishings are going to vary widely according to individual tastes.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the mit study states that world temperatures will rise 3.5 to 4.5 degrees by 2050 if the amount of carbons currently being emitted do not decrease.

most of us know that the cost of such a rise in average tempertures will be huge. my guess is it will be much, much more than the cost of reducing our emissions.

doing nothing will most likely cost more than doing something. acting like an ostrich is not the smart thing to do.

my vote is to do the right thing, that is doing something.

3 1/2 to 4 1/2 degree higher than they are today...sounds like I need to get my Back Deck built and my pool expanded some time in the next 40 years to take advantage of the great weather coming down!!! Now that's change that I can believe in...then again, there is a better chance that I will have moved, or that I'll be 6 feet under in the next 40 years, oh, and I doubt that my kids will take over my house as I anticipate that they will have moved onto their lives in their own household.

[mary]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Those are annual totals, right? $150/month seems about right for electricity. Seems low for 2.5 people on the food bill. Seems about right on the property taxes. The clothes and home furnishings are going to vary widely according to individual tastes.

I have electric and gas, and my collective bill easily averages over 200 a month for an average sized 3/2. During the summer I might as well be making another car payment.

Then again, the house I live in is older than dirt, and probably doesn't have the best insulation.

[mcsluggo]

man... i am getting screwed on my property taxes!

[12 Tone Melodies]

This may be the funniest review of a hybrid auto ever written
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle6294116.ece
Jeremy Clarkson is one of the hosts of the British TV series Top Gear
If you check his other reviews, you will likely find an equally humorous review of the vehicle you are driving

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by 12 Tone Melodies

This may be the funniest review of a hybrid auto ever written
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle6294116.ece
Jeremy Clarkson is one of the hosts of the British TV series Top Gear
If you check his other reviews, you will likely find an equally humorous review of the vehicle you are driving

Greatness....loved this part...

Of course, I am well aware that there are a great many people in the world who believe that the burning of fossil fuels will one day kill all the Dutch and that something must be done.
They will see the poor ride, the woeful performance, the awful noise and the spine-bending seats as a price worth paying. But what about the eco-cost of building the car in the first place?


Honda has produced a graph that seems to suggest that making the Insight is only marginally more energy-hungry than making a normal car. And that the slight difference is more than negated by the resultant fuel savings.

[12 Tone Melodies]

From the Great Pacific Northwest
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portl...ase-in-history

Dianna Cotter
Portland Civil Rights Examiner
Cap and trade bill includes unemployment benefits - Largest tax increase in history.
Hold onto your hats folks, here it comes…

In a revealing editorial today, the Washington Examiner (not related to Examiner.com) revealed a huge unemployment package buried in the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy bill.

At first glance this just seems like more of the usual Washington shuck-n-jive. However, when one considers the implications of this, it becomes apparent that the writers of the cap and trade bill are very clearly aware that this bill will cost thousands of jobs. So much so that unemployment benefits for those losing their jobs because of it will go for THREE YEARS, 156 weeks. Obviously they are not expecting these hapless folks to find new work easily! The Washington examiner reports that these victims of Washington DC legislation and Congress will get 80% of their insurance premiums paid, a 1500$ relocation allowance, and job search expenses of up to 1500$.

If this is an energy bill… which by the way, is being sold as legislation that will create higher paying “Green” jobs, in higher numbers than those lost, then what are unemployment benefits for up to three years doing in it?

Note to all of those who are supporting this bill, both Nationally and locally here in Oregon, be prepared for your energy costs to go up by a minimum of 50%, and by some estimates up to 90%. Let’s put some numbers with that. Say your average electric bill for a year is 100$ a month. That’s 1200$ a year. Your bill will go up to 150$ a month, for a total of 1800$ a year with just a 50% increase. With a 90% increase that number will be 2280$, or 190$ a month. But that’s not all; the cost of your Natural gas will go up similarly. So will the grocery store’s electric bill, 50% higher refrigeration costs = 50% higher cost passed on to you the consumer. Your Hairdresser’s electricity cost will go up, and so will the cost of your shampoo blow-dry, and Color. Every single industry that uses power of any sort will go up, and your cost of living will rise exponentially.

All this for less that 2 tenths of a degree cooling over the next century, which will absolutely crack up the Chinese and Indians who are praying (if the communist government of China would admit to praying) that this legislation passes! Why?

Because it will absolutely kill the productive engine that is the lifeblood of the United States of America, the economic engine of the world! Of course they want it to pass, it will make them the world’s only superpower. Throw in the fact they own a huge swath of our national debt, and you should now be seeing a very dark black cloud rising over our future.

It should be stressed here, that even a COMMUNIST Government will not institute legislation that will destroy its economy to the extent that this bill will.

This is no doom and gloom prediction, clearly the writers of the bill know it too, or there would not be three years worth of unemployment benefits in it. The section we are speaking of it on page 781 of the 946 page bill. “Title IV, Subtitle B, Part2, Section 426 of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” Ah such innocuous and lovely sounding poison they come up with now a days!

Would you like that with a side of Arsenic? Hemlock perhaps?

Exactly where is all of the money going to come from to pay for all those unemployment benefits? The Rich? They will leave the country and take their money with them, just as they did in Cuba so long ago. Big Business? Oh no, they will leave too if they can, or they will fold and be Nationalized as well as GM and 2/3rds of the Auto industry. The Small business owner? They will go out of business. The only ones left will be the little guys, and that means all the rest of us. Can you smell the tax hike coming? There is no fiscal way this can be done without raising taxes to pay for the huge numbers of unemployed that are expected to need this craftily buried unemployment package. Assuming you aren’t on it that is. But don’t expect that to protect you, you still have to pay taxes on your unemployment benefits. A delicious irony no?

Forget Electric cars the only truly green alternative, they will be too darned expensive to charge. The irony of this is just too precious not to comment on…. The only possible alternative to liquid fueled cars will be legislated right out of existence before they can even get produced! Paradox of all green paradoxes! I think the space time continuum just wrinkled a bit… the only truly green car… the contradiction is just too perfect.

Has Washington lost its collective mind? Who is running this place and why are they trying to kill us and our livelihoods? Why are they deliberately trying to take food out of the mouths of our kids? That’s what they are doing. For 2 tenths of a degree? Certainly as China and India make up for our non-productivity, and with the knowlage that they indeed will not institute legislation as stupid and financially unsound as this, it is pointless. They have publically stated they will not do such damage to their economies. Knowing this... that 2 tenths of 1 degree seems likely to get swallowed up by an increase in Chinese and Indian productivity. Can you think of anything more pointless than this? Spitting into the wind perhaps?

Folks the insanity being considered in Washington DC may well make it impossible to live in the United States and live a successful prosperous life. Mexicans won’t be coming here anymore; it will be Americans going to Mexico looking for jobs.

That’s no joke.

The Washington Examiner quotes Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation: “The fact that generous unemployment benefits are buried in the bill means that “green jobs are bunk,”” The Foundation found that “Waxman-Markey is the largest, most intrusive energy tax increase in American history. It would reduce the nation’s GDP by 7.4 Trillion, raise electricity rates 90 percent and gasoline prices 74%.”

So, how do you like that “Hope and Change” now? This what you were expecting and voted for? We were warned by Obama himself, he said he was going to do it in the campaign, kill coal… this is your government at work.
Unless you stop it by contacting your congressperson now.

Otherwise get ready for the worst; you might want to buy a lot of extra blankets while the prices are still low.

For more info: Washington Examiner

[Mavdog]

first, waxman-markey isn't a viable piece of legislation.

second, obama doesn't support waxman-markey.

third, what obama has supported is nowhere close to what is contained in waxman-markey.

with these facts, and the lack of credibility by this author, it's a good question why anyone would post this article.

[dude1394]

Same reason the Detroit News did...It's the bill that's being passed by the Democrat Congress. If Barry signs it, it's his...Anyway I thought cap-n-trade was supposed to create jobs, not kill 'em. Looks like all it will really do is create tax-revenue, which is probably the real reason for passing it anyway.

Economy killer

Latest version of cap-and-trade, despite goodies for auto industry, carries high price tag

The Detroit News

Congress is moving forward on legislation to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it could seriously damage the economy by increasing the costs of energy.



The legislation, called the Waxman-Markey bill after its two chief sponsors in the U.S. House, Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., would impose a cap primarily on carbon emissions. Permits for emitting carbon would be auctioned by the government. Businesses could then buy and sell them among themselves, which is why the legislation is called cap-and-trade.



The goal of the bill is to bring U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and ultimately 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It does nothing less than call for a major restructuring of the U.S. economy. It is worth noting that the emissions slated for reduction in this legislation grew by nearly one fifth between 1990 and 2007.


Supporters of Waxman-Markey have been busily handing out credits and exemptions to various industries that would be hurt by the legislation. U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, signed on after the auto industry was promised 3 percent of the federal government's revenue from emissions permits for five years, which would be worth billions of dollars. The revenue is linked to investments in new vehicle technology. The industry has also been promised up to $50 billion in new technology loans.


Similar deals have been made with utilities and other energy producers and industries. The Wall Street Journal reports that 85 percent of the permits in the Waxman-Markey bill have been given away for the first 20 years of the proposed regulatory regime to win support.


But American consumers would still wind up paying more for goods and energy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average cost of the 2020 goal would be about $1,600 per household. Even after signing on to the bill, Dingell worried that the 17 percent reduction would be too much for a "fragile economy" and came out for

President Barack Obama's original proposal of a 14 percent reduction.


Backers acknowledge the effect on consumers, which is why it includes a provision for states to route money from the permit revenue to low-income households -- yet another wealth transfer scheme by this administration.


The legislation also includes a mandate that utilities buy 12 percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar power. But the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2030 wind and solar power would supply just 5 percent of the nation's electric power.


Waxman-Markey is a huge, convoluted tax system based on utterly unrealistic expectations about technology developments with unforeseen and possibly disastrous economic consequences. Despite the goodies held out to the auto industry, it could seriously hurt Michigan.

[12 Tone Melodies]

Meanwhile the Ream 'n Gra--er--Cap & Trade gets grimmer

http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/2...d-the-economy/
Dems vote down Waxman-Markey amendments that would protect consumers and the economy
May 21, 2009
Courtesy of CEI’s Myron Ebell:

“Here are some of the key votes on amendments [to the Waxman-Markey climate bill] so far. Most were straight party-line votes, but a few Democrats strayed on several votes.

• Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if China and India don’t adopt similarly stringent emissions reductions. Defeated on a party-line vote with all members of the committee voting, 23-36.
• Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if electricity prices go up in any region more than 10% after inflation. Defeated, 23-32.
• Fred Upton (R-MI) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if unemployment reaches 15%. Defeated, 21-34.
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced an amendment requiring full disclosure to consumers of cost increases due to the Act. Defeated, 19-35.
• Lee Terry (R-NE) introduced an amendment suspending the Act if gasoline prices hit $5. Defeated, 25-31.
• Tim Murphy (R-PA) introduced an amendment suspending Act if 10,000 steel jobs lost. Defeated, 20-35.
• Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced an amendment prohibiting using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases (H. R. 391).Defeated, 23-33. John Barrow of Georgia was the only Democrat who voted yes.
• Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced an amendment requiring 100% auctioning of ration coupons, with proceeds going to the States. Defeated, 4-52. This vote shows how tied the Republicans as well as the Democrats are to big business special interests.”

As for a the Democrats are concerned, damn the economic and social downsides, full speed ahead on the costliest, junk science-fueled special interest boondoggle of all time.

This entry was posted on May 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm and is filed under First Green President.


http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/2...ment-approved/
Carbon-labeling amendment approved
May 22, 2009
Carbon-labeling amendment approved
May 22, 2009
The House Energy and Commerce last night approved an amendment introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to the Waxman-Markey bill that would require the EPA to explore establishing a national program for labeling products with their “carbon content” — that is, labeling products to show much CO2 was emitted in their manufacture and the warming impact of that CO2.

Click here for Rep. Baldwin’s carbon labeling amendment.

The goal of this amendment is to stigmatize the use of energy at a consumer product level and would undoubtedly lead to a host of dubious-to-fraudulent marketing claims about the climate-friendliness of consumer products.

This entry was posted on May 22, 2009 at 10:00 am and is filed under Cost of Green.

[dude1394]

Ah Car and Driver...another right wing group who just doesn't understand that everyone driving a mini-cooper is a good thing. They obviously do not know nearly as much about the auto industry as the new UAW CEO's.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...icles_car_news

That thud you just heard was the “other shoe” dropping in Washington, D.C.: the Obama administration has used the turmoil in the auto industry as an opportunity to nudge—okay, force—the industry into a new, more environmentally sensitive direction, thus making good on its promise to impose stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe emissions standards across the automobile industry.



The proposed mandate raises CAFE standards about five percent annually from today’s level of 23 mpg for trucks and 27.5 mpg for cars to 30 mpg for trucks and 39 mpg for passenger cars by 2016, for an average of 35.5 mpg overall. This is roughly four years earlier than the already aggressive 35-mpg goalpost established by Congress in 2007.



As Goes California, So Goes the Country
These standards more or less embrace the strict fuel-economy/emissions proposals that California and about a dozen other states have been trying to implement for years, but which have been blocked by industry lawsuits. The mandate should therefore put many of the existing state lawsuits to rest.



Interestingly, many of the same players that have been trying to block the implementation of the California proposals have embraced the Obama mandate. Ostensibly, this is because the new rules create a uniform standard for the country, instead of allowing states to dictate their own emissions and fuel-economy standards.



“We’re cool with this,” Chrysler spokesman Scott Brown told us in a phone interview. “Most important is that it’s clear instead of piecemeal—we love that.”



Moments later, GM environment and energy spokesman Shad Balch echoed the sentiment, nearly verbatim: “We love it. Now we know what to build,” he told us. “As it was before, it was 14 states doing 14 different things, and we’d have to build products for each.” The new regulations, he said, allow for a “harmonized national product program, which allows for more efficient product planning. For a company trying to become leaner and more efficient, this is a huge step in the right direction.”



There's another force at play here, however, as both Chrysler and GM, recipients of massive government bailout loans, are in no position to voice dissent. Whether they think these policies are sound or not is moot; they will toe the Obama party line because he's their de facto boss. Ford knows it will have to ask for Obama's help if the economy doesn't improve soon, so it is also going along with the hype. Honda and Toyota have been tooting their green horns for years, so they can't very well be the voices of dissent on this issue. Put bluntly, the government is ramming this down the throats of the car companies.



How Do They Do It In Europe?
Senator after senator cites as evidence for the attainability of these standards the vehicles sold in Europe. But car for car, European vehicles aren't meaningfully more efficient. Take the Ford Focus sedan, a car that's comparably sized here and in Europe (although not the same vehicle). In the U.S., the base Focus sedan costs $15,000, has 140 hp, and is rated at 28 mpg combined by the EPA. The base Focus sedan available in Germany costs $20,000 (plus 19-percent tax!), has only 79 hp, and would be rated by the EPA at approximately 30 mpg combined if they were to test it. (Our estimate is based on standard differentials between U.S. and E.U. test numbers.) Paying an extra $5000, Europeans sacrifice 44 percent of their horsepower and gain less than 10 percent in fuel economy.



So why is Europe's fleet so much more efficient overall? The cars people buy there are much smaller. The Focus is one of the tinier mass-market cars sold in the U.S. today, but it's considered a reasonably sized family vehicle in Europe. The average European consumer buys a car a few sizes smaller than a Focus. (This is mainly due to space constraints in cities and smaller roads. If Europeans drove the long distances we do, they likely would drive Hummers, too.) And about half of Europeans buy diesels, which consume around 30-percent less fuel.
.....
Wouldn't U.S. Consumers Buy Fuel Misers if They Could?
We hear a lot from regulators about the increased choice these new regulations will bring, but these choices seem to be answers to questions no consumer is asking. The few vehicles available today that meet these standards don't sell in large quantities because of their small size, poor performance, and high prices. Sales of the Toyota Prius and other hybrids briefly shot up when gas cost $4.00 a gallon, but as soon as gas prices started dropping, so did hybrid sales. Prius sales fell so sharply (even in relation to a market in overall decline) that Toyota last year halted construction of a Prius factory it was building in Mississippi. Today, the best-selling vehicles in the U.S. so far this year are the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado pickup trucks. Nobody is stopping buyers of these vehicles from purchasing Priuses instead.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, waxman-markey isn't a viable piece of legislation.

second, obama doesn't support waxman-markey.

third, what obama has supported is nowhere close to what is contained in waxman-markey.

with these facts, and the lack of credibility by this author, it's a good question why anyone would post this article.

Hmm....Do you still stand by any of these statements?

Looks like barry supports the hell out of it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24193.html

Shove it through, shove it through, faster, faster.....

[Mavdog]

from what is being said, the current bill is not the same as the original waxman-markey bill.

[dude1394]

so were you FOR or against the 300 page 3:00am amendment that was plopped in the tax bill? I may need to find some cspan archives to see the democrats seething at being forced to actually READ the 300 page amendment. Heh...

[dude1394]

Only a postage stamp a day... riiiighhttt...
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81156/

BOB ZUBRIN IN ROLL CALL: The Costs of the Cap-and-Trade Bill. “Consider: Burning one ton of coal produces about three tons of CO2. So a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a tax of $45/ton on coal. The price of Eastern anthracite coal runs in the neighborhood of $45/ton, so under the proposed system, such coal would be taxed at a rate of about 100 percent.

The price of Western bituminous coal is currently about $12/ton. This coal would therefore be taxed at a rate of almost 400 percent. Coal provides half of America’s electricity, so such extraordinary imposts could easily double the electric bills paid by consumers and businesses across half the nation. . . . But all these bad aspects of the Waxman-Markey bill pale before its potential impact on the world’s food supply.”

[dude1394]

I think I agree with this person.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649332091983175.html

Fuel Standards Are Killing GM

A higher gas tax is a better way to get green cars on the road.

By ALAN REYNOLDS

General Motors can survive bankruptcy far more easily than it can survive President Barack Obama's ambitious fuel economy standards, which mandate that all new new vehicles average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.


The actual Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) results will depend on the mixture of fuel-thrifty and fuel-thirsty vehicles consumers choose to buy from each manufacturer -- not on what producers hope to sell. That means only those companies most successful in selling the smallest cars with the smallest engines will, in the future, be allowed to sell the more profitable larger pickups and SUVs and more powerful luxury and sports cars.


Sales of Toyota's Prius, Yaris, Corolla and Scion, for example, allow and encourage Toyota to market more Lexus 460s, Sequoia SUVs and Tundra pickups in the U.S. without incurring fines. Hyundai's success selling Accent and Elantra compacts allows it to sell 368-horsepower Genesis sedans.

[mcsluggo]

i agree and would prefer a fuel tax to MPG standards

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

i agree and would prefer a fuel tax to MPG standards

We pay about 47 cents / gallon in taxes....is that not enough?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

We pay about 47 cents / gallon in taxes....is that not enough?

Sure it's enough. This particular debate (imo) is about how to enact a reduction in automobile gasoline used. I personally would rather ignore it and tackle emissions/gallon consumed, not mpg. If a hummer can get the same amount of emissions/gallon used as a corolla, I'm happy.

I'm not nearly as interested in the man-made co2 emissions mantra. I'm interested in cheap energy.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This particular debate (imo) is about how to enact a reduction in automobile gasoline used.

The government can give people rations for gasoline and then shoot them if they exceed their rations.

[Mavdog]

the fuel tax does not address the problem of dependence on oil, foreign oil to be specific, it only allows those who have the wealth to continue the bad habit of high consumption while penalizing the poor.

there is a huge falacy in the article about gm....they, just like every other car manufacturer, can make a range of vehicles to meet the standards. if toyota and hyundai are able, so too is gm.

likewise they can develop engines that are more efficient and with alternative power, which is exactly what they and others are doing.

[dude1394]

I don't really have a problem with dependence on foreign oil. If we would develop all forms of energy in this country, off-shore, natural gas, coal as well as nuclear this wouldn't be near the problem.

You and I just disagree about the effect cafe standards have on automobile companies that do not have expertise in smaller cars. You think it's as easy as just decided to make 'em (I guess) but it's not. If so AMD would be kicking Intels rear end also.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't really have a problem with dependence on foreign oil. If we would develop all forms of energy in this country, off-shore, natural gas, coal as well as nuclear this wouldn't be near the problem.

what do you believe is limiting the use of natural gas or coal? if we did drill for oil in the off shore areas, that production would be a very short term supply, and we would be seeking the same level of imports (if not more) than we do today.

not to mention the continued air pollution it makes, and to not change our consumption habits is just acting like an ostrich.

You and I just disagree about the effect cafe standards have on automobile companies that do not have expertise in smaller cars. You think it's as easy as just decided to make 'em (I guess) but it's not. If so AMD would be kicking Intels rear end also.

Intel has patents and market leverage, which the auto companies don't have to deal with.

gm makes a very successful small car in europe, as does ford. it really is pretty easy, it's done all the time (just look at chery in china).