[Gerben42]

President Obama wants to have all US-produced cars to drive 35 miles / gallon or use less than 6.6 litres / 100 km by 2020.

My opinion on this: Although certainly a step in the right direction, unfortunately it's not a very demanding time schedule, it would have served him well to require it by 2016, i.e. the end of his 2nd term. Especially considering that such cars already exist in most classes.

Only if you would like a car with 8 seats you still would have to exceed this, for example the Peugeot 807 still uses 7.1 litres / 100 km. No doubt a next generation of this car, 5 years from now, will meet Obama's requirements.

[Phil]

Why should such a requirement be connected to a politician's term in office? By the way, it's a little early to start celebrating his re-election in '12 lol.

Over the last 20 years we've upped our MPG on the CAFE from 18 to 35.5. Not bad I say.

[helene_t]

I just don't like that kind of micro-management. There are many ways a driver can reduce his CO2 emission. Politicians should give people incentives to reduce emissions in a general way, for example by taxing $x per ton CO2. If people want to reduce their CO2 tax they can do it in whatever way is more convenient for them, say by driving less, planting trees, making less use of aircos, investing in emission-free energy production etc.

[jonottawa]

What Helene said, carbon tax is the way to go. Another great idea that the wingnuts have derailed.

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on May 20 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

My opinion on this: Although certainly a step in the right direction, unfortunately it's not a very demanding time schedule, it would have served him well to require it by 2016, i.e. the end of his 2nd term. Especially considering that such cars already exist in most classes.

I think you have your facts wrong, that's exactly what he did.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...fuel-standards/

[Gerben42]

jdonn, on May 20 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

Gerben42, on May 20 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

My opinion on this: Although certainly a step in the right direction, unfortunately it's not a very demanding time schedule, it would have served him well to require it by 2016, i.e. the end of his 2nd term. Especially considering that such cars already exist in most classes.

I think you have your facts wrong, that's exactly what he did.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...fuel-standards/

Even better then, this is a great step in the right direction. The world can be glad that the US now has a president who cares about things like this.

Quote

Why should such a requirement be connected to a politician's term in office?

That's quite obvious. You should have long-term goals, but as a politician who will be in office at most until 2016, you must break these goals down to the part that can be finished until then. It is then to others to continue on that path.

I'm not celebrating '12 reelection, but I think the president should assume that he is going to be reelected while planning. Not expecting reelection sounds like he's not sure of his case.

Carbon tax is also very important, lots of sensible people have been proposing that. I'm also a great proponent of carbon tax.
Apparently there is still a lot resistance to it, I guess because it would mean that people must change their lifestyle.

If we change to emission-free energy production, as is now the case in countries like France and Sweden, that would be a major relief for the environment AND a great boost to the economy. It would also create the boundary conditions for electric cars. There's no point driving electric cars if the electricity comes mostly out of coal plants!

I am hoping for a more green policy in Germany also, and strangely enough that means that you should NOT vote for the green party.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on May 20 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

President Obama wants to have all US-produced cars to drive 35 miles / gallon or use less than 6.6 litres / 100 km by 2020.

My opinion on this: Although certainly a step in the right direction, unfortunately it's not a very demanding time schedule, it would have served him well to require it by 2016, i.e. the end of his 2nd term. Especially considering that such cars already exist in most classes.

Only if you would like a car with 8 seats you still would have to exceed this, for example the Peugeot 807 still uses 7.1 litres / 100 km. No doubt a next generation of this car, 5 years from now, will meet Obama's requirements.

sorry expected someone to tell you but no no no..this in not true we can drive cars less than:

keep in mind many of us drive trucks.. suv ...so...........not cars

[cherdanno]

helene_t, on May 20 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I just don't like that kind of micro-management.

The US government is doing a lot more micro-management of the US car industry than this right now...

[Gerben42]

Quote

sorry expected someone to tell you but no no no..this in not true we can drive cars less than:

keep in mind many of us drive trucks.. suv ...so...........not cars

SUVs count as trucks? I read Josh's link and it says for SUVs 30 MPG, so they will need to improve too.

Any reason WHY people who do not need special features of the SUVs drive them anyway? They use lots of fuel and it's harder to find a parking space...

[mike777]

Gerben42, on May 22 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Quote

sorry expected someone to tell you but no no no..this in not true we can drive cars less than:

keep in mind many of us drive trucks.. suv ...so...........not cars

SUVs count as trucks? I read Josh's link and it says for SUVs 30 MPG, so they will need to improve too.

Any reason WHY people who do not need special features of the SUVs drive them anyway? They use lots of fuel and it's harder to find a parking space...

many suv are trucks....


if need be more suv are trucks...not cars....

[mike777]

mike777, on May 22 2009, 02:59 AM, said:

Gerben42, on May 22 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Quote

sorry expected someone to tell you but no no no..this in not true we can drive cars less than:

keep in mind many of us drive trucks.. suv ...so...........not cars

SUVs count as trucks? I read Josh's link and it says for SUVs 30 MPG, so they will need to improve too.

Any reason WHY people who do not need special features of the SUVs drive them anyway? They use lots of fuel and it's harder to find a parking space...

many suv are trucks....


if need be more suv are trucks...not cars....

if need be:
1) cars
2) not cars
3) central gov tells you must you must drive(?) not drive(?).......repeat

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on May 22 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

Any reason WHY people who do not need special features of the SUVs drive them anyway?

If you bump into someone else it's survival of the biggest.

[mike777]

helene_t, on May 22 2009, 03:02 AM, said:

Gerben42, on May 22 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

Any reason WHY people who do not need special features of the SUVs drive them anyway?

If you bump into someone else it's survival of the biggest.

ok what rule do you prefer....

[whereagles]

We should get rid of ICE engines for commuter purposes. It's too wasteful.

It's possible to make eletric vehilcles good for a 100-150 km (66-100 miles) and there's some research going on to extend this range in the mid term to 500 km (~300 miles). EVs have energy efficiencies of 85-90%, as compared to gasoline ICE's of 15-20%.

ICE will still have a saying for a while in trucking, heavy-duty machinery and flying. The (now becoming scarcer) oil is better spent there.

[Al_U_Card]

How about:

"Anyone that spends more than 66% of their work day on a computer MUST telecommute."

Subsidize the installation of IT infrastructure and save $trillions$ in auto wear, gas use, lost time and road degradation.....and just think of the increase in pyjama sales....;-)

[Gerben42]

Electric cars are nice, but first you have to solve this problem:

USA energy mix

As long as you produce 70% of your electricity from fossil fuels, using electricity for your cars is not going to reduce the carbon footprint. It will be a slight improvement as for example the best power plants have an efficiency of about 35% and electric cars have an efficiency of 80%, so 80% of 35% is still better than your standard car with 20% efficiency, but still...

In the future I hope all countries take the example of some countries like France and Sweden, who hardly burn any fossil fuels to generate electricity.

[Phil]

I listened to a interesting commentary on NPR last night on the way back from the desert.

An economist was discussing the ramifications of higher-mileage cars. People tend to drive further because they get better mileage (about 15-20% he said). Traffic is increased, as are accident rates. The solution? Increase fuel taxes as a disincentive to pleasure driving! I thought he made a strong argument against increasing the MPG requirements.

The conservative in me thinks that the carbon based idea is a way for the government to recoup the fule taxes that they are foregoing through less gas used.

[Mbodell]

Gerben42, on May 21 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

Quote

sorry expected someone to tell you but no no no..this in not true we can drive cars less than:

keep in mind many of us drive trucks.. suv ...so...........not cars

SUVs count as trucks? I read Josh's link and it says for SUVs 30 MPG, so they will need to improve too.

Any reason WHY people who do not need special features of the SUVs drive them anyway? They use lots of fuel and it's harder to find a parking space...

Lots of reasons:

1. They are safer once you are in a head on car accident (simply more mass == safer - now they may be more likely to get in an accident than a sportier smaller car but that is different).

2. They have people sit higher on the road and take up more space than others which some people like psychologically.

3. There are some tax credits that people get but only for trucks/suv and not for cars.

4. Gas and driving is massively cheap in the US and as a result fuel efficiency hardly matters.

5. It isn't that much harder to find parking since, IME, most SUV drivers park in compact spots whenever they feel like it.

[pirate22]

SUV are for women who cannot drive,but it involves children,"School runs" i was apalled when my son in law changed, my daughters car for the biggest SUV he could find------------Tax the fuel,and give U.S.A 2 years to think about it. first year 25% and then another 25% on top of first increase the second year
and let the oil exporting countries,wallow in it,good for the skin:)))

[jdonn]

I just examined my own link more closely. Is it really true that currently SUVs have to get better fuel mileage, on average, than passenger cars?