Discussions

« Back 1 [2] 3 4 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Obama Orders Fuel Efficiency.

• 
  bj
  

  Posts:
  38

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 06:31 AM

  Foreign Makers already meeting standards in many cases

  Detroit made bad decisions, and our Govt., lobbied by Big Oil, enabled those decisions, in one case with tax incentives that encouraged businesses to buy those gargantuan SUVs, which, during the $4/gallon gas crunch, graced the front yards locally wearing prominent For Sale signs.
  
  Meanwhile the Japanese and European makers are eating Detroit's Lunch. Now the whining has started, first to get the bailout dough, and now using the recession as an excuse for still not giving the American Public the vehicles they want, and the clean air we need.
  
  Maybe Detroit would be better served using that bailout money to buy the engineering talent to get the job done. And maybe We The People should seriously consider that Detroit is a bottomless pit for our tax dollars.
  
  This is only the first step, but boy is it a necessary one!

  Rate this comment:
• 
  millikenresearch
  

  Posts:
  9

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 09:18 AM

  cleared obstacles?

  No obstacles have been cleared. Regulations have been added. Government regulatory control of the auto industry has never helped and never will. It simply forces the industry to be inefficient.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    dd36
    

    Posts:
    7

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2009 10:34 AM

    Re: cleared obstacles?

    "Government regulatory control of the auto industry has never helped and never will. It simply forces the industry to be inefficient."
    
    There is so much wrong with what you said that I don't know where to start.  Government regulations to increase safety or reduce our crude oil demand for the most part have been positives.  You want to smooth out the demand curve so that we don't have massive roller coaster rides every ten years that severely impact the economy and bankrupt the short-sighted American automakers (that is, unless we actually let them go bankrupt, which is political suicide and as such will never happen even though it should). 
    
    It is important to remember that the current downturn was not the result of high commodity prices but the downturn in the housing market.  If the housing bubble hadn't occurred, it is highly likely that crude oil prices would still be above $100/barrel.  There is a natural limit to production estimated at between 85 million and 100 million barrels per day (the upper limit of which is determined by price levels).  Recognizing that this high price situation will occur again in the absence of any proactive program to reduce demand or a massive technological breakthrough (basic economics), government intervention (regulations that increase efficiency standards and create incentives for the more rapid development and commercialization of alternative technologies) is exactly the most efficient and least costly solution.
    
    I can't get into a lengthy economic discussion right now but the basic argument is that reducing our demand for crude oil has direct and indirect benefits that have far larger payoffs than continuing to ride the roller coaster and pray for the best. 

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      DE
      

      Posts:
      7

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/12/2009 12:27 AM

      Re: cleared obstacles?

      Well, I bet dd36 would say the exact same about government hampering stem cell research too, then.
         Milliki-whatsit hits on something interesting, thought I'm not sure if its what he meant. By forcing them to spend money on one form of EP, we may well strip them of the ability for R and D to come up with environmentaly friendly alternatives. Contrary to popular belief, they don't have endless cash with which to do whatever we command them. If we make them cut their budget to regulate how much steam they produce, what economical and environmentally responsible new developement are we sacrificing?

      Rate this comment:
  • 
    Kevin Bullis
    

    Posts:
    94

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/27/2009 11:56 AM

    Re: cleared obstacles?

    What are some specific inefficiencies you expect from higher fuel economy standards? Spell out your argument for those who don't agree from the start that all regulations are bad.
    
    One argument for such regulations is that the true cost of using oil isn't reflected at the pump. It doesn't include environmental costs, military costs to keep oil flowing. Raising fuel economy standards will make cars more expensive, but the reduction in oil consumption might be worth it.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    delayen
    

    Posts:
    6

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/28/2009 08:36 PM

    Re: cleared obstacles?

    If the government chooses to raise the fuel efficiency standards, so be it. It just means the costs will be transferred to the public, just as it has for air bags and any other standards the government has mandated.  But you are missing the biggest issue Obama of what wants to do, and that's let the individual states regulate the emissions of the vehicles. Is he that ignorant? It's painfully obvious what that will do for the automakers if they have to try and meet 12 different emission standards.  It's no different that what the petroleum industry has to deal with when they have to create so many different blends of gasoline for the different states. We incur the costs for the inefficiencies, and if you live in the midwest, you get to deal with the political issue of more ethanol in your blends.  I've seen the large spikes in gas prices just because a certain blend wasn't available and the public wasn't happy!  Well, blame it on your government regulations.  There is a reason why Europe created the EU, there is a reason the EU create harmonized standards, and it was to eliminate the inefficiencies and difficulties of dealing with the complex regulations of each individual country. Yet this is the path that Obama wants to take with the auto industry.  Of course, I would find it extremely humorous if the auto industry got together and decided that they would only sell little 750cc 50mpg cars to California in order to meet their emission standards!

    Rate this comment:
• 
  walksoftly
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 11:42 AM

  horse power

  Fuel economy could be greatly reduced by mandatorily reducing HP Most people in North America never use the all the HP that the auto mfg.'s tell them they need. Most people drive in or near cities and have no need for it if they are always stuck in traffic. Unless you need HP for commercial activities then you should pay through the nose for it. 

  Rate this comment:
• 
  blunney
  

  Posts:
  17

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 01:48 PM

  Specious "Rebound Effect"

  "In other words, if automakers make cars that use less gas or emit less carbon dioxide per mile, drivers will see their gas bills go down and then start driving more, so total gasoline consumption may stay the same. By contrast, a gasoline tax would more directly reduce gasoline consumption by increasing gas bills and encouraging people to drive less."
  
  While seemingly true on a superficial economic level, this notion is patently false, as evidenced by the recent gas price run-up to over $4 per gallon.  People only have so much time in a day to drive.  They drive to work, to school, to shop, then they stop, get out of their cars, and do other activities.  Conversely, people still have to drive a fixed amount to function in this modern world (especially in America, with no viable mass transit in most locales).  This amount is inflexible (still have to get to work!), which makes the demand for fuel inflexible as well.  The only variable is the efficiency with which the fuel is turned into transport from A to B.
  
  Inflicting increased taxes on the populous will only serve the government's coffers, not the governed, nor will it bring about increased efficiencies in transportation.  It will, however, very effectively slow the economy as it reduces transportation of people and goods.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  mkss
  

  Posts:
  4

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 02:17 PM

  this is a joke right?

  low rolling resistence tire = LESS TRACTION i.e. longer stopping distances, less traction on dry/wet/ice covered roads all LESS SAFE
  lighter structures for cars = more money and less safety
  
  the old cafe standard created the SUV to fill demad of the people, what will be created this time?

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Pjazzz
  

  Posts:
  14

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 03:10 PM

  Who are we kidding?

  Folks;
  
  just a couple of observations....
  The safest and most rugged aircraft in use by the armed services is the Warthog....it's big,loaded for bear, heavy, armour plated to the hilt, and that's what jocks want to fly. Same for autos, unfortunately. Detroit isn't totally oblivious to american consumer desires...let's be real...they try to make what they think will sell to the US buyers. If the Dems wish to shove global warning down our throats, and the new administration wants to suck up to California standards, and force all automakers to produce a separate vehilcle for Cali, good luck to you.
  In the interim, I will enjoy driving my 19mpg H3 for as long as I can afford to. As for asian and eurpoean manufacturers being close to making those standards, we can tell it's been a while since you looked at a new car sticker.....they are not close, and this "order" of new fuel efficiency standards has little to do with the environment, and more to do with forcing the big three into bankrupcy for reasons not entirely clear as yet. Perhaps the government wishes to be in the automobile business as well as in the mortgage, financial, and airline sectors?
  They're awful enough at politics, no less industry.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    aaabez
    

    Posts:
    5

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/28/2009 03:49 PM

    Re: Who are we kidding?

    The Warthog or A10 is a heavily armoured aircraft built to fly low and take small and medium arm fire from the ground.  It is comparable to an armoured military vehicle and not to a heavy Ute. There is nothing armoured about a US Ute or any of the heavy US saloons on the road.  Weight can fair well against a significantly lighter vehicle but there is no escape from the kinetic energy carried along in a heavy vehicle, preventing evasionary manouvers, or stopping in time.  Compare a Lotus Elise and a Corvette

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      DE
      

      Posts:
      7

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/12/2009 12:35 AM

      Re: Who are we kidding?

      I'm certainly not driving a Corvette through Colorado's high country off road, and I am certainly not going to take an F150 up to speed on the autoban. BTW, the Warthog has to deal with four tons of stacked recoil from its nose gun- it has to weigh a lot and use a lot of fuel for that. Everything to a purpose- some applications are always going to require more fuel.

      Rate this comment:

« Back 1 [2] 3 4 Next »