Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Now if we put the investment into a H2 economy we might avoid the issue but burning oil will always generate Co2 all we can do is burn less oil.
A tax on gas might be a way of jump starting that process, it might also encourage folks to by more fuel efficient cars.
If you see the actual complaint, which started when California created a new global warming regulation on cars, the claim is that by forcing automakers to reduce greenhouse emissions, you actually REDUCE gas mileage. Anybody want to argue this when reformulated gas(with an oxygenate) has been shown to reduce mileage? The auto industry is arguing that you are requiring us to meet 2 separate standards that with current technology are mutually exclusive. We can't increase mileage(federal mandate CAFE) and decrese greenhouse gases(California mandate). that's one of the points of debate because apparently Congress has already agreed with that and says that California's regs override the federal mandate. THat is they've said go ahead and reduce emissions even if it reduces mileage.
The reason this went to the Supreme court is quite simple, the EPA only has the right to regulate "any polllutant that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." That's what the Clean Air Act says. So the only way for Global Warming activists to get the EPA to regulate C02 is if you rule it a pollutant, and then get the EPA to rule that it's contributing to global warming. if those 2 happen, the EPA has the right and the obligation to mandate reductions in Co2.
That's what this entire thing is about, the automakers argued that the Clean Air Act didn't give the EPA the right to regulate Co2 emissions, environmentalists are arguing yes they did.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Sure I can't probably find extremist enviromental activists who might say that but it would not be me.
The solution for reducing pollution from cars is much the same [but not identical] to the solution for reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That being fuel efficiency
I am looking for incentives to push us to be a more fuel efficient society and rather than being a drain on our economy [as the fear mongers say] it could be a boon to it if done well
The Honda Civic Hybrid gives out nearly zero emissions already.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of the auto industry position.
Why can't you increase mpg and decrease emissions, in fact it would seem likely that if you burn less fuel you are probably producing less pollution.
I just read about, but can't find again, a discussion from a group that is sponsoring a competition to design a working vehicle that will deliver 100 mpg. Must be able to produce 10,000 units theoretically , within the price range of the average consumer.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of the auto industry position.
Why can't you increase mpg and decrease emissions, in fact it would seem likely that if you burn less fuel you are probably producing less pollution.
Because the way they currently decrease emissions is in the way they burn off chemicals before they're released, and for whatever reasons, that reduces mileage. THat's sort of what a catalytic converter does.
Oxygenated gas reduces mileage because the oxygen sensor adjusts for the extra oxygen and winds up burning more gas. The only cars that burn cleaner on oxygenated gas are old cars that don't have a sensor. The gas was cleaner without adding the oxygenate, that was a bob dole lobby to increase ethanol and help out his constituents.
The other way to easily increase mileage is to make lighter cars, they did that and then safety became a big concern so cars got heavier again.
Hybrids and plugins are the best bet. The california mandate is 30% reduction by 2016, if C02 is that big of a problem why wait 9 years for that
reduction?
....because they are putting off retooling their lines for as long as they can. Small cars by themselves are not a safety issue until one of the Behemothmobiles collides with one. I would suggest banning all SUV sales within 3 years. Mandate a 5 year plan for all existing ownership vehicles. The independent family bus model is due for extermination. We go to war for oil and people die. That is the incentive.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Last edited by wallyburger; April 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 AM.
Lighter cars aren't the safety issue. Hummers etc are.
If you get rear ended by an 18 wheeler it makes no difference unless you are in another 18 wheeler or an Abrams tank.
And if you run into a tree in a lighter car?
The main problem with bigger trucks and SUV's is that there's no uniform law
on height so the bumpers are not the same. So you have a car with a bumper at X height and a truck with a bumper at Y height and they collide and the trucks bumper doesn't hit the car's bumper and does a ton more
damage.
After gas rationing in the 70's cars got smaller and lighter. Then as fallout
from all the industry studies about accidents and safety, people wanted
bigger cars and that begat the SUV which begat the Hummer etc.
Now we all know they're more rollover prone etc but people feel safer and that is why they buy.
Now the next question, if we regulate, do we also give subsidies?
I bought a tahoe because my smaller SUV couldn't adequately stop my boat
in panic break situations. So I bought a heavier vehicle, at that time there were no Hybrid SUV's that would have solved my problem(the Escape? is not heavy enough).
Chevy is supposedly coming out with a hybrid Tahoe, not sure when. So when I go to turn in my Tahoe for a lower emission version, am I getting a subsidy or paying the whole cost of getting rid of a perfectly functional
vehicle that was perfectly legal when I bought it? Remember, there was no clean option that fit my actual needs.
note, if the answer is no, nobody forced you to have a boat, that's fine with me but is it going to be fine with everyone else?
Also, who is accounting for what happens to all these vehicles we pull off the road, can they be retrofit, if not where do they go and what environmental
impact does that have?
__________________
"This space available"
Last edited by Russ Smith; April 3rd, 2007 at 12:09 PM.
I'm not proposing banning larger car, trucks SUV's and as you say the perceived safety is mostly from the marketing. Safer in some ways, less so in others.
Sure there are times when we need a larger car, though in your example maybe a trailer with good brakes might be better than just more mass in the towing vehicle. maybe both.
I appreciate your comment on the boat and no I expect most Americans just want 1 thing, cheap gas. Anybody who threatens that is committing political suicide, sad but true.
In a odd way we are actually getting hurt worse than Europe with the increasing gas prices. As we only tax it in a minimal way, price hikes are large % increases. In Europe with high taxes the % increase is much smaller.
Right now we subsidize road transport heavily. As a society we prefer to hide the real costs as it is politically easier. For example The same politicians who deride using government money to help rail travel, will happily subside road construction and airlines.
This is despite the fact that it is simply not possible to build raods to releive congestion. Traffic expands to fill the roads, particularly for commuting. This doesn't mean we should not build freeways, just don't think it will help your rush hour commute much past the first year or so.
The main problem with bigger trucks and SUV's is that there's no uniform law
on height so the bumpers are not the same. So you have a car with a bumper at X height and a truck with a bumper at Y height and they collide and the trucks bumper doesn't hit the car's bumper and does a ton more
damage.
After gas rationing in the 70's cars got smaller and lighter. Then as fallout
from all the industry studies about accidents and safety, people wanted
bigger cars and that begat the SUV which begat the Hummer etc.
Now we all know they're more rollover prone etc but people feel safer and that is why they buy.
Now the next question, if we regulate, do we also give subsidies?
I bought a tahoe because my smaller SUV couldn't adequately stop my boat
in panic break situations. So I bought a heavier vehicle, at that time there were no Hybrid SUV's that would have solved my problem(the Escape? is not heavy enough).
Chevy is supposedly coming out with a hybrid Tahoe, not sure when. So when I go to turn in my Tahoe for a lower emission version, am I getting a subsidy or paying the whole cost of getting rid of a perfectly functional
vehicle that was perfectly legal when I bought it? Remember, there was no clean option that fit my actual needs.
note, if the answer is no, nobody forced you to have a boat, that's fine with me but is it going to be fine with everyone else?
Also, who is accounting for what happens to all these vehicles we pull off the road, can they be retrofit, if not where do they go and what environmental
impact does that have?
Everything you say has to do with mindset and rationalizing a choice of lifestyle. People get in accidents riding bicycles. You can't blown down the interstate doing 80 MPH in a 5000 pound vehicle and not be compared to an ICBM. We go to war for oil and gas. People die. It is time to change the lifestyle. Anything less is not the answer.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
I'm not proposing banning larger car, trucks SUV's and as you say the perceived safety is mostly from the marketing. Safer in some ways, less so in others.
Sure there are times when we need a larger car, though in your example maybe a trailer with good brakes might be better than just more mass in the towing vehicle. maybe both.
I appreciate your comment on the boat and no I expect most Americans just want 1 thing, cheap gas. Anybody who threatens that is committing political suicide, sad but true.
In a odd way we are actually getting hurt worse than Europe with the increasing gas prices. As we only tax it in a minimal way, price hikes are large % increases. In Europe with high taxes the % increase is much smaller.
Right now we subsidize road transport heavily. As a society we prefer to hide the real costs as it is politically easier. For example The same politicians who deride using government money to help rail travel, will happily subside road construction and airlines.
This is despite the fact that it is simply not possible to build raods to releive congestion. Traffic expands to fill the roads, particularly for commuting. This doesn't mean we should not build freeways, just don't think it will help your rush hour commute much past the first year or so.
I had 2 reasons to buy, I was giving my Jeep to my little brother, and it had become clear after 2 near miss accidents that my Jeep(cherokee sport) was too small for my boat and trailer. You can get a trailer with surge brakes but ask anybody who's had one they're a maintenance nightmare and they don't always solve the problem.
Note, in both cases I was cut off by a smaller car(once a Prius) and had to slam on my brakes suddenly when they hit theirs. I was going 55 but the weight of my boat and trailer(less than 2000 pounds which is the rated towing capacity) pushed me forward so I stopped inches from hitting the little
car. With the Tahoe the weight of the Tahoe stops the boat from pushing me forward at all. So I'm relying on the brakes of the Tahoe to stop me and then just physics, with surge brakes you're relying on the brakes on your truck, AND the brakes on your trailer to both work, if either fails, you are screwed.
I have a light boat, I know people with bigger boats and trailers with surge brakes and they're all coming to the same conclusion, bigger tow vehicle is safer.
I don't speed when I'm towing, I know plenty of people who do but those 2 close calls convinced me better to drive 55 and get there in one piece.
My boat is a clean 4 stroke engine but obviously if I can't safely tow it, I'm going to have to sell it too, so anyone coming out with a cleaner vehicle is still going to have to come up with something like an SUV or truck for such uses.
Point being you're never going to get bigger vehicles off the road without a total ban.
Linear Mode
