[sirtayls]

http://www.msnbc.msn...14/wid=18298287

Quote

WASHINGTON - New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday.

IE - 42 miles per gallon. Why 42? only douglas adams knows.

Quote

Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, described it as "a triple play: It will help move America off foreign oil, save families money and spur American businesses to take the lead in developing the job-creating, clean-energy technologies of the future."

or maybe the triple play will be

decrease the need for gas stations, driving smaller petrol companies out of business
cost families more money by forcing them to buy cars that are more expensive
and kill the remaining thread of hope in the US auto industry.

*shrug* maybe I'm just in a cynical mood. Or maybe it seems odd that the auto industry will have to do all of this while asking for billions just to keep afloat as is...

[sarabethv]

Yeah, my first thought was "Oh gee, great, another way to keep poor families down - make them either go without transportation or make them buy a new more expensive car."

[Kishi]

So far as I can tell, it's nothing to do with cars people already own. It's just new cars. No one is going to forced to be buy a new car.

And, personally, I don't necessarily feel like it's a bad thing for someone to tell the auto industry, especially after they had to borrow government money to survive, to build some fucking vehicles worth buying.

[sirtayls]

Kishi, on May 18 2009, 11:16 PM, said:

So far as I can tell, it's nothing to do with cars people already own. It's just new cars. No one is going to forced to be buy a new car.

With the exception that the family that has the car break down will have to buy a new car eventually... even a pre-owned car is going to be pricer now.

[sarabethv]

At some point everyone has to buy a new one (or at least a used one).

[Lynx Cat]

Well yeah. Maybe it's just me, but what I'm reading here is "car companies are developing cars that are better and use less fuel, thereby helping fight all the many economic, environmental and political problems that come from America's petrol addiction - THOSE BASTARDS HOW DARE THEY".

I mean, I wouldn't think for a second that auto companies (or any highly profitable companies, for that matter) are at all charitable or give a fig about the environment or whatever. Nor do I forget the bailout they got. It's just that, well, thinking EVERYTHING that is ever done by auto companies MUST necessarily be harmful to everyone in the world but themselves is kinda simpleminded. Good things have occasionally (and accidentally) come out of greed before.

What I really mean is - if they're working on better cars, why complain about that? It's not like you're forced to buy them, any more than you're forced to buy new cars right now. "Oh, I wish all cars in the market were horrible pieces of shit, that way it wouldn't be actually good for me to buy a new car, and I'd have an easier time convincing myself to save my children's college funds." Come on, find a better reason to complain about Big Bad Auto, it's not like there isn't any.

[TLRIV]

The US automakers have been building plenty of cars worth buying. The reasons behind the government loans are so numerous that it's hard to even know where to start.

I like to start with: Tell it to the UAW.

[Benevolance]

I would have rather seen the Big Three fail and let others in the industry step into the void. But, hey, nobody really likes a free market.

[lgm]

The added cost is estimated to be $1300. I'm not happy about it but I'm not sure it's going to that painful to consumers. The auto industry loves it because their other choice is making cars for 3 separate standards set by a group of 14 states, the EPA and another federal agency. I have a suspicion that $1300 is far better than that alternative. If the automakers could move out of UAW states and wriggle out of a handful of the NAFTA restrictions, they'd be in much better shape as well.

[Benevolance]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for unions, but the Big Three created a lot of these problems themselves. Back in the 80s they were given breathing room by the Japanese manufacturers singing the voluntary restraint agreements. They reaped massive profits. Instead of investing the profits into improving their business model and actually competing, they squandered the funds on 14 levels of management and ridiculous capital investments. I seem to recall reading that the bloated union wages were a result of GM attempting to force Ford and Chrysler out of the market, as well, but I cannot find the article I read.

In short, I love my Honda.

[lgm]

I got the only Accord model year whose transmission wasn't covered under the class action lawsuit <_< The engines are awesome as we put over 100k on a new '02 without turning a wrench on it yet. But I NEED American trucks and parts available to me so I'm glad they don't go under. I do like that Nissan Titan if I can get it without those stupid bed features....

[Ishn]

Cars are getting 42 miles per gallon today. What does this initiative actually accomplish? Absolutely nothing. In 8 years when our cars are doing 42mpg, our competition will be pushing 60mpg.

We need to get ahead of the curve, not set goals to meet it in the future.

[Kishi]

Don't worry, Tayls- apparently they can make up a lot of the necessary improvements by adjusting the air conditioner and building more large trucks. Hooray for American ingenuity and it's ability to work around any sort of attempted environmental improvement!

This post has been edited by Kishi: 22 May 2009 - 11:33 AM

[lgm]

Well things can't get any better than having the government owning and operating them through any means (firing CEOs, targeted taxes, etc). The IRS couldn't even run a legal whore house they seized for tax evasion. It says alot when the government bankrupts on recession proof products like whores and liquor :(

[Kishi]

Also, this article has some interesting info about the two different systems the government uses for calculating MPG. Short version: this is pretty meaningless.

[sirtayls]

Wait... Obama enacted a plan without thinking about the follow through? wow.

[TLRIV]

lgm, on May 22 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

Well things can't get any better than having the government owning and operating them through any means (firing CEOs, targeted taxes, etc). The IRS couldn't even run a legal whore house they seized for tax evasion. It says alot when the government bankrupts on recession proof products like whores and liquor :(

The only thing better than a government-run car company is a government-and-Union-run car company.

[Vaniver]

Quick comment:

Fuel mileage requirements are the wrong way to approach lower gasoline usage. Not only are they subject to loopholes ("Wait, if I make my car a light truck I have to deal with different standards?" or "Ok, so my fleet average is what matters? What if I make ten different kinds of cars that no one will buy that are 80 mpg?"), and, as pointed out, doesn't impact cars already on the market.

What's a better way? Increase the tax on gasoline. Preferably, offset that with a reduction in the income tax. It will discourage driving on all cars, and discourage driving more on less efficient cars. We don't want to have all cars make 50 mpg with gas prices at $2- traffic will be considerably worse, among other things.

Now, the quick complaint is that this imposes a real cost on people. The thing is, any policy change that actually makes a difference has to do that by putting a cost on people, that makes them seem poorer. (Hopefully, the policy will have indirect benefits that exceed the direct costs. Otherwise, it's a problem. As a side note, most of the policies that you see get passed have a direct benefit, which is lower than the indirect cost. They're fashionable to pass, since they help people, and it's difficult to trace back the negative future effects to the policy- and if you can, it won't matter for that politician.)
And, honestly, I'd rather the cost be direct and simple to understand- driving is more expensive- rather than indirect and difficult to predict. What are the environmental costs to people continuing to keep older cars in circulation, as compared to buying new ones? Will an average person make better or worse decisions when presented with these incentives?

[sirtayls]

Quote

What's a better way? Increase the tax on gasoline. Preferably, offset that with a reduction in the income tax. It will discourage driving on all cars, and discourage driving more on less efficient cars. We don't want to have all cars make 50 mpg with gas prices at $2- traffic will be considerably worse, among other things.

Actually I am much more for this. Making gas more expensive will drive demand down over a long term (in theory anyway).

[lgm]

But that will cost you votes and you know it's best to govern by polling.

[Kishi]

So raising prices to drive down demand isn't going to "decrease the need for gas stations, driving smaller petrol companies out of business" and "cost families more money by forcing them to buy cars gas that is more expensive"? I mean, shit, Tayls, at least people only have to buy a new car every few years. Making people pay more at the pump every week is an improvement over what you've previously complained about?

[Ishn]

Kishi has a point. The majority of gas used on a weekly basis is used commuting to and from work. This is not a use that people are able to cut out of their lives, and before you suggest it, carpooling is not always a viable option.

On the flip side, with the taxes route the government could pour that generated revenue into increasing our mass transit infrastructure.

[Lynx Cat]

Seriously. I can't fathom why you Mericans keep trying to work out solutions for transportation, fuel, traffic etc. without really looking into this whole "mass transportation" thing, other than out of pure stubbornness.

[TLRIV]

Lynx Cat, on May 25 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Seriously. I can't fathom why you Mericans keep trying to work out solutions for transportation, fuel, traffic etc. without really looking into this whole "mass transportation" thing, other than out of pure stubbornness.

It's really not that simple, particularly in the southern and western US where everything is so spread out. A small part of it is stubbornness, sure, but without a monumental investment and redesign of a whole lot of areas, then expecting a lot of people to relocate, I don't think it's even possible to install any sort of decent mass transit infrastructure here.

Simply put, trying to wean the country off of an entire industry like the petroleum industry is going to cost a lot of people jobs unless petroleum gets directly replaced with something else and those companies jump on-board.

If it could be balanced with Federal Income Tax (and I don't trust this administration/Congress to reliably do that, frankly), I would be in favor of increasing gasoline taxes.

I think the government should have taken the stupid amount of money they handed to Chrysler and GM and subsidized a large part of the cost for new low-emissions/high MPG cars and trucks to make them accessible to more people, and encourage more people to buy.

[Benevolance]

The BC government imposed additional consumption tax on gas and got re-elected, just to point out that it is not impossible to do.

[lgm]

Impossible? No.

Impossible in the US? Yes ;)

George Bush Sr. said 'no new taxes' and he got his balls busted on raising the current taxes and was accused of lying. We're a sorry bunch that can't read past the headlines here.

[sarabethv]

Vaniver: welcome back

more tax on gas? I can't see that helping the average individual. For instance, I drive to work and back. I am the only one in my office who lives where I do, so car pooling won't work. Second, public transit out here sucks, but not because our transit system sucks, but it takes 2 hours to get somewhere instead of a 20 minute drive in your own vehicle, and third; part of my job includes driving (home visits, jail visits etc.) This will severely hamper my ability to do my job and maybe wind up loosing it.

So, yeah, lets just tax the hell out of gas and make people who are living from payday to payday go out and buy new cars.

[sirtayls]

Sarah, aren't they expanding the light rail system? I saw a bit of that when I was there last...

[Kishi]

They are. Are they expanding it anywhere useful? No.

[sarabethv]

They have expanded it all the way from downtown to Tempe (sorta). Remember I and a lot of other people live in the West Valley. Hell, they only put bus stops out here couple years ago. That is a slight exageration; however, the bus system doesn't go to places in Avondale, Buckeye and Surprise. Plus, how am I going to drive clients around using the bus/light rail system?

This post has been edited by sarabethv: 26 May 2009 - 09:57 PM

[Vaniver]

sarabethv, on May 25 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

Vaniver: welcome back

Thanks! I don't plan to stay for too long, though. My forum time is generally spend on the xkcd forums.

sarabethv, on May 25 2009, 06:28 PM, said:

more tax on gas? I can't see that helping the average individual. For instance, I drive to work and back. I am the only one in my office who lives where I do, so car pooling won't work. Second, public transit out here sucks, but not because our transit system sucks, but it takes 2 hours to get somewhere instead of a 20 minute drive in your own vehicle, and third; part of my job includes driving (home visits, jail visits etc.) This will severely hamper my ability to do my job and maybe wind up loosing it.

So, yeah, lets just tax the hell out of gas and make people who are living from payday to payday go out and buy new cars.

I specifically pointed out that gas taxes will hurt people. But it's the most efficient (partly because it's the most direct) way to get benefit out of that hurt.

[sarabethv]

Vaniver, on May 26 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

Thanks! I don't plan to stay for too long, though. My forum time is generally spend on the xkcd forums.

I specifically pointed out that gas taxes will hurt people. But it's the most efficient (partly because it's the most direct) way to get benefit out of that hurt.

Bummer, I rather like your discussion :(

Most efficient is not necessarily the best way.

[Benevolance]

The best is if people voluntarily wean themselves off their dependency on cars, without government or market intervention. But since most people just complained about gas prices when they hit $1.50 a litre, instead of genuinely exploring and trying alternatives, I don't think that's likely to happen.

[lgm]

We have operated on consumer demand for so long that I don't see that changing. On the positive side, there is now more consumer demand for alternatives. High gas prices propelled the small demand that was starting to show and with public opinion changing, I can easily imagine the same demand at least staying consistent if not growing.

[Hans]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm only 26, so I'm still a youngun when it comes to these things.

Gas has been a staple in the heart beat of the US, and around the world for a long time. It's grip on the global populace is too strong, and no matter how high the gas prices get, people will pay them. And complain about it.

Ok, so the legislative body taxes the hell out of gas. The consumer pays the gas company that pays the tax. So individual consumers stop driving and find alternative modes of transportation. Carpooling with a gas fund, public transportation, and manual propulsion.

Then as people consolidate travelling expenses, gas gets taxed more, because of lost revenue. This in turn affects public transportation. I know in town, several bus lines have been cancelled due to the gas bill. Then gas gets taxed even more so that the only viable way to get around is manual propulsion, or alternative energy. (I know that every situation is different, and that there is no nice way to solve the issue.)

So the cars are required to get 30 mpg. Is that city or highway? Is that hybrid? See the problem? The new standard is still controlled by what the gas industry. It's a slow ween sure. As cars consume less gas, gas prices will go up. Inverted direct relationship is established here.

So then the question becomes "What really is a viable source for clean, green, method of propulsion?" Hydrogen, super conducted electro magnetism, or completely electrical? And can these alternatives be used to give the human consumer the smae luxuries, if not more?

I've heard of one dude converting his Honda Accord to run on water using PVC pipes, and the standard luxuries were unaffected. And the car ran.

The point I'm making is this: unless the world can completely remove itself from gas, the situation is only going to get worse.

[sarabethv]

Careful sweetie, your smarts is showing again.

Of course we can run alternatives - have been able to for a while; however, the oil companies are not going to allow that to happen yet. They are not done sucking every penny they can from the world's dependence on oil. (It isn't just gas you know).

[lgm]

Use biofuels then tear down more rain forest for biofuel farming, use up more water resources to farm land and also affect food prices.

Use electricity then build more coal/nuclear power plants and still have greater pollution.

Use water and find fresh water reserves in many places get extremely low/disappear.

Use compressed air and find yourself using electricity to operate and large loss of energy in conversion.

[Hans]

How about a car that runs on trash? Like Back to the Future?

[lgm]

It sits in a government warehouse next to the one that runs on rainbows and dreams :D

[Benevolance]

Plus operates a fleet out of Vancouver, running 90% off of the biofuels from food waste collected from the UBC campus. :)

Quote

Use biofuels then tear down more rain forest for biofuel farming, use up more water resources to farm land and also affect food prices.
Use electricity then build more coal/nuclear power plants and still have greater pollution. Use water and find fresh water reserves in many places get extremely low/disappear. Use compressed air and find yourself using electricity to operate and large loss of energy in conversion.

I could add pros/cons to each of those examples, but that's arguing the details and not the problem. Suffice to say, if any of these sources of energy had been given the same attention that internal combustion had, we would have more effective alternatives on the market now. As it is, most have made leaps and bounds in efficiency in the few decades they've been pursued.

The problem is a matter of extremes.

Go back to my first example, the biofuels from UBC campus. It works for the UBC fleet, because they can process their own fuel, from their own waste, and power the vehicles. The vehicles operate within a certain range, never outside of Vancouver city, so the vehicles can refuel when they return to campus. It saved the university money, and cut down on a lot of waste. The problem is that UBC does not produce nearly enough waste to power vehicles for everyone in the city.

And to me, that's the problem. People are attacking the issue as a matter of finding something to replace oil. It's probably a combination of tradition and economies of scale. But if we replace our massive dependancy on oil with a massive dependancy on something else, I don't think we're really fixing any problems. I really think our era of cheap consumption needs to end.

[lgm]

My post was speaking towards a vehicle that can run in multiple ways more than hybrids currently do. If it's not feasible, we're going to be facing expensive hydrogen fleets which is perhaps what we really need to be looking at instead of commercials full of false promises.

[TLRIV]

Sunshine Bear, on May 28 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

How about a car that runs on trash? Like Back to the Future?

Goddammit, the trash in Mr. Fusion fueled the reactor so that Plutonium wasn't necessary to generate the 1.21 jigawatts of electricity needed. The car itself still ran on regular, atmosphere-burnin' unleaded gasoline.

[xenomega]

Hydrogen fuel cells require platinum to work. There isn't enough platinum in the world to replace every gasoline car with a hydrogen fuel cell.

I'm a firm believer that Peak Oil will hit us in the next few decades. Oil is already getting harder and harder to find, and all the new sources we find are harder and harder to get the oil out of it. Its a limited resource that we've been treating as nearly unlimited since we found it and started using it. Without oil, a lot of people are just plain fucked. Ethanol requires petroleum-based fertilizers and last time I checked, the farm equipment that harvested it all ran on diesel. Purely electrical cars could work, but we still need electricity being generated and right now there is an abundance of electricity being produced with oil. Coal can and will be used, but people will bitch that its too dirty. But there's a shit load of coal under the ground. I'd have to check to be certain, but there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor built in the US in something like 20 years. People are all afraid of it going critical, which has happened all of two times in the world, and only one of those actually resulted in an accident. Three Mile Island just nearly blew.

So anyway, people won't change until they have to. We won't stop using oil, we will run out eventually, and we will be fucked. Politicians won't change it, the general populace won't demand the change, so the best way to prepare for the future is to be ready for the all out chaos that will result when prices become prohibitive and economies completely fail. So in the end, Jahx wins cause he's probably the best suited to survive of all of us.

[Benevolance]

I thought the problem with nuclear isn't the reactor going critical, but where to put the waste?

[TLRIV]

Put it on the moon, I say.

[xenomega]

Benevolance, on May 30 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

I thought the problem with nuclear isn't the reactor going critical, but where to put the waste?

If it was where to put the waste, we would have stopped using it a long time ago. But we keep making waste, we just stopped building new plants. It was all the public outrage and fear of the late 70s and early 80s that scared policy makers away from making more plants.

[lgm]

Except people are beginning to change and economies now contain companies exploring and developing other means. There's plenty of fear mongering going on between the economy, energy sources and global warming that society is making a shift. Whether it will be fast enough is unknown. Saying everything will fail is guesswork. The world has been ending since the beginning of time.

[TLRIV]

lgm, on May 30 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

The world has been ending since the beginning of time.

Can't come soon enough!

[xenomega]

I didn't say all would fail, I said we are fucked. The third world will be just fine since they aren't dependent on oil as it is. And the world isn't ending, just the wealthy industrial complexes of the West. With so much of our infrastructure dependent on increasing oil supplies, we are headed for bad times. I'm not going to be collecting gold like Prussia cause gold won't feed me, but I really don't think enough is happening fast enough to make a worthwhile change. When there was a slight reduction of oil in the 70s, the price skyrocketed and gas was rationed. People adapted to using less. Then it went back down and use jumped right back up. But the fact is, oil is not a renewable resource in the short term. It takes a long ass time to make more, so sure, we may be adding slightly to the reserves every day, but not nearly enough to refill the amount we've taken. It will run out eventually, its just a matter of time to when it happens exactly.

[Benevolance]

Heh. Canada is still building nuclear plants and selling them all over the world. We have a lot of raw uranium. We encourage people to go nuclear. Or nucular. Whatever floats your ballistic submarine.

[Hans]

Barter and trade will make a comeback.

Edit:

GM is expected, or announced that they will declare bankruptcy. How does this help?

This post has been edited by Sunshine Bear: 01 June 2009 - 06:35 AM

[Benevolance]

It helps in that now they can go into court protection from their creditors to sort things out, they get a short term cash infusion from the spin-off of the Opel unit to Magna, and they delay just long enough to see if their Hail Mary pass (a.k.a The Volt) saves their asses at the last second.

[Hans]

So either way, it's a win. If the volt doesn't save their asses, they'll go out of business and the market be a little less flooded right?

[xenomega]

I don't think I sounded quite crazy enough in my tirade there. So I'm gonna tell you all that I'm planning on buying some land somewhere in this county that is dry and hopefully has a hill or two (far stretch to see that happening though) and there I will build my completly self-sufficient home where I can be the true recluse I've always wanted to be. So when shit does hit the fan, I'll be fine at least, and hopefully far enough from the road that no one will see my lights are on after the power fails. I'll make sure to surround it with razor wire and have an room just for the purpose of storing ammo and weapons. I'm gonna be a ninja too. That's the plan.

[Jahx]

Quit stealing my ideas.