It's a fair debate if it's a good thing or not. http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news...fuel-standard-to-average-545-mpg-by-2025?lite
I love it when Neo-Con's bitch about Obama raising the gas prices when they drive gas guzzling SUV's.
"Negotiations" Note that this isn't passed legislation, either, but rather yet another crippling EO on US businesses that doesn't impact import vehicles. If I were trying to destroy the US economy, I don't think I could do a better job of it than our silly President, and his silly ideas for how to stimulate growth.
The new standards would go into effect in 2025, 12+ years from now. I'm all for improved gas mileage and apparently this plan has been vetted by the car industry. I do think that the usual governmental policy of mandating somewhat arbitrary standards is often suspect. Pretty cheap way of making political points by writing checks that someone else has to cash.
they already have cars that get great mileage. We also live in a country that STILL thinks bigger is better. It is possible, and I don't think it's mandated to be in the next 5 years. What i don't get is why people would complain about it, other than to complain about it because who said it. As much as people think "big government bad", its the government who made cars improve safety, and exhaust/pollution. Cars wouldn't do that on their own.
I love the thought, but the idea is just flawed, IMO. I am all about saving money for fuel, making all cars run on waste like in back to the future would be awesome. However, car manufacturers would raise the price of the cars If manufacturers simply raised each cars price 10k for the technology, it would take 2857 gallons of gas at $3.50 to equal that. That would be 71,000 miles on a car getting 25 mpg right now before you made your money back. The National average used to be that a person bought a new car every 5 years. So if you put on 15k miles per year you would break even. The other fear I would have is gas and oil companies jacking up fuel costs to make up for the lack of sales. Anyone unable to purchase a 30k + car would be forced to pay higher amounts at the pump.
How is 54.5 mpg realistic by 2025? The most-efficient American vehicles now either use up a ton of electricity for very little mileage, and are extremely unpopular (Chevy Volt), or they are tiny cars that are unrealistic for most Americans to drive with their families. Right now the most fuel-efficient American car is the Ford Fusion hybrid at 34mpg/avg. The most fuel-efficient combustion engine car is the tiny Ford Fiesta at 33mpg/avg. What is hilarious is that GM, which is basically still Government Motors, doesn't have a combustion-engine car in the top 50 of the world. I know I am in the minority on this board on this, but my thought is the less the government gets involved, the better things are for its funders/taxpayers.
There are two vehicles currently that exceed these new standards, and their use of electricity is not computed in their "efficiency" rating. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars/index.htm
But is it really? Does it force a particular technology down our throats when a better one may be out there? Does it force the feds to invest into a narrower type of technology now rather than something much better for a bit later? Don't misunderstand me, before I blindly jump on board I'd like to look at the issues from both sides first.
The combustion engine is still the most economical engine for our economy. Unless somebody invents something better that the public likes, there will be resistance to anything that seems like an economic hurdle. For example, what kind of burden would an all-electric fleet of vehicles put on our current power grids? There are already rolling blackouts and unplanned blackouts at times in high-density areas; has anybody done the work to see what would happen to energy rates and the environment if more coal was needed to be burned, or if we needed more dams?
On the surface I have no problem with Obama's edict. But I also know that we're working on various technologies that may not use gasoline/diesel and that if allowed to be fully developed could end the gas combustion engine forever. But this would seem to lock in electric and hybrid technology (with it's deadly batteries) to comply with the edict. That concerns me.
Exactly. That's why the bursting of the housing bubble had a minimal impact on the economy and loss of jobs.
