Discussions

« Back 1 2 [3] 4 Next »

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

• 
  techron
  

  Posts:
  13

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 09:06 PM

  pro-active president

  When we stop fighting amongst ourselves as a nation and work together creating the future we will regain our lead that we gave up to foreign automakers. While biz fought gov tooth and nail Toyota worked on hybrids and others created fuel efficient compacts. You did not see European or Japanese or Korean car companies begging for handouts on capital hill. The big three were there because in the past they would rather drag their fleet (Pun intended)than innovate like the rest of the world.
  
  1)Stop the sugar embargo, replace it with a corn for sugar swap program. Our climate can grow corn ans soy. Brazil's is better at sugarcane. win win for both. Only use ethanol in cities that need to lower pollution. This is the only good reason to use ethanol, period.
  2)New technology is expensive to role out. subsidize fuel efficient technology and light weight manufacturing techniques as the report suggest leveling fees on gas guzzlers and give it back as rebates to the gas sippers based on models not on who manufactures them. This will pit manufacturers against each other to role out the most fuel efficient cars. The most efficient car companies will have the most efficiency rebates increasing their sales and profits.
  start immediately with a symbolic level say 15 or 20% levels of fee's/rebates. Have it increase slowly for say 3 years (or the time for proactive car companies to get technology onto the production floor)then jump the last 50% over two years at 25% to the full 100% fee/rebate level.
  3)Change insurance policies so that people can have an extra vehicle hold onto a big vehicle (if they need it, like families, soccer moms, etc. One SUV taking 3 families kids to practice is more fuel efficient and more GDP positive (other parents can stay at work longer) than each family driving their kids individually even with fuel efficient cars.) Both parents can have super efficient new vehicles (pick your size and flavor) and drive the older big all ready depreciated vehicle only when needed.
  4)Tax incentives for fuel efficiency retrofits for existing vehicles. Must be independently verified by government or government certified testing facilities to get tax credits. Efficeincy snake oil salepeople only hurt the industry reputation and slow legitamate products.
  5) 4) can save more fuel quicker because it takes a long time for new products to be created, produced and replace the old existing fleets.
  Many Americans just don't have the economic means to buy the new cars that will come out and will continue to drive 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand vehicles.
  6) Hey Detroit before you have my legs broken for suggesting this, the sooner Americans get economically solvent the sooner they can buy one of your new fuel efficient cars. Every 3 dollars they save on gas is 3 dollars they can pay down their debt (upside down car loan or not)and is 2 dollars not leaving the country. Also, 3) helps hold up car values helping the debt created from excessive deprecation.
  7) All the above helps our country get back to a healthy economy ASAP, lower CO2 emissions, and dollar depreciation via lower oil imports.
  
  Green-is-now
  

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    DE
    

    Posts:
    7

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/12/2009 12:43 AM

    Re: pro-active president

    The minute we stop bickering among eachother is the minute we stop progressing. Nations were not formed from sympathy.
       Its just cheaper to have a fuel efficiant car, country, whatever. But the chief end of 'less people drive, the more fuel efficiant the nation' may be a touch naive. We shouldn't be encouraging people to drive less because its easier- not everyone will be able to afford that. We need to focus on tech.
       Its NOT, however, a good idea to force another nation into a given market, say, a single export in agriculture. That would be counter-intuitive to a peaceful mindset. It would definately help in the whole 'bickering' department, though.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  riffcon
  

  Posts:
  10

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/27/2009 10:54 PM

  one misguided effort after another

  The Obama program will be ineffective, irritating and expensive to the consumer. People who buy SUV's are not stupid or venal or non-green. They have balanced cost, versatility, and patriotism. A fully loaded SUV costs 35,000 to 55,000 USD. If it is driven for 100,000 miles at 12.5 miles to the gallon it will use about 8000 gallons of gas - $16,000 at $2.00 a gallon and $32,000 at $4.00 per gallon. That includes about $.50 per gallon in taxes or $4000 over the life of the vehicle. Fuel costs and savings are not and probably never will be the main determinant for buying a car and the failure of cafe over the last twenty years is proof. It hasn't reduced fuel usage and it has misdirected billions of R and D funds and given lawyers and accountants millions of man-hours working around useless and destructive rules. And now we are going to get more.
  The Democrats want to do it again - tell everyone how to spend their money. And why? So we won't have foreign oil? Forget it. WE are 60% dependent on foreign oil and that physically can't change for decades and probably never if you are sensible about buying from the cheapest source of transport fuel. Carbon dioxide relief is a fool's errand and everyone who is honest about it knows the only real way to reduce co2 is to switch from coal to nuclear for power generation.
  This is a truly sad waste of government authority and the resources and financial assets of the US population.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    lasertekk
    

    Posts:
    78

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/28/2009 11:08 AM

    Re: one misguided effort after another

    From what page of the Ultra Conservative Me-First Manifesto did you lift your rubber stamp argument from?

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      DE
      

      Posts:
      7

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/12/2009 12:45 AM

      Re: one misguided effort after another

      What a progressive rebuttle. You definately contributed to the discussion here, laser.

      Rate this comment:
• 
  mkogrady
  

  Posts:
  208

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/28/2009 12:29 PM

  one-two punch

  Raise gasoline taxes and force the US population to telecommute where possible.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    delayen
    

    Posts:
    6

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    01/28/2009 08:45 PM

    Re: one-two punch

    RAISE taxes? FORCE the public?  Why not, heck it worked so well for England a couple hundred years ago, it should work the same way for this administration, at least I hope so!

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    DE
    

    Posts:
    7

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/12/2009 12:48 AM

    Re: one-two punch

    Where do you think awesome websites like MIT's Tech Review come from? Social and ecenomic stagnation? How many people will you make homeless to feel better about your economic policy? Force people to telecommute... that smells of old money.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  Thucydides
  

  Posts:
  9

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/28/2009 02:56 PM

  Obama orders fuel economy

  Good luck with that. The Grabbing hand of the State vs the Invisible Hand of the market always has the market winning.
  
  If the State trys to direct outcomes, the market will respond, usually in ways the State does not anticipate or intend; American consumers chose SUV's and light trucks precicely because they were not burdened by regulatory requirements.
  
  When US automakers are forced to conform to new regulatory burdens, they will be offering a product the market does not want, and consumers will go with the product or service which comes closest to fulfilling their wants (hint, not the Chevy Volt).
  
  Of course, there is no need to look to bloggers to see the essential truth of the matter; simply look at the history of the former USSR, or even the inability of the Russian successor state to maintain much less raise their people's standard of living (despite being endowed with a fantastic natural resource base), and the failure of the Obama administration's plans will be evident.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  larryrose11
  

  Posts:
  6

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/02/2009 03:37 PM

  create demand

  mkogrady has it right.
  when the fuel price shot up to $4.00,  and US auto makers were caught with their pants down.   They couldn't respond fast enough for the shift in consumer demand.  We at F couldn't build Focus and HEV Escapes fast enough.  There is pretty much a 1 to 1 relationship of fuel price and the FE of vehicles bought on a month by month basis,  while we in the industry move on 36 month schedule for new product.  How can we plan? 
  
  The fed should regulate the consumer fuel price and make it stable.  $3.00/gal this year,  and $3.xx in X years.  That way,  consumers and business and make intelligent choices and business can get handle on a variable cost that was previously out of their control. 
  With a stable price of $3-4+/gal, it will create a stable demand for efficient cars.  It makes CAFE a regulation of the past.  It also doesn't force anyone to do drive any type of vehicle. Business who need vehicles to tow can still get them,  and the fuel price will be baked into the price of the final good/service.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    DE
    

    Posts:
    7

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/12/2009 12:51 AM

    Re: create demand

    Definately. Lets throw all our energy industry under the buss so we have NO fuel. Imagine how low our carbon foot print will be when we live in the new stone age!! Wooohooo!

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      deannagay
      

      Posts:
      5

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/20/2009 05:06 AM

      Re: create demand

        Here is a simple principle tying market forces to environmental sustainability.  The price of production must include the cost of controlling environmental impacts, whether you are a chicken farmer, a coal plant operator, or an automobile manufacturer.  If you cannot sell your product at a price which includes this cost of doing business, then you must find another business.  If your product is essential enough, then people will pay the higher price for it, and the environment is protected.  If people cannot or will not pay for your product at this higher price, then clearly it is not essential, and the environment will benefit from reduced production of disposable trash.  The idea that the environment is an inexhaustible industrial toilet free for the using is centuries out of date.  If the price that we paid for consumer goods from energy to plastic widgets, to cars, included the cost of environmental protection, paid at every source point of pollution along the way, we might find that it wasn't practical to produce vast amounts of disposable trash: efficiency, conservation and quality production would become a market driven necessity rather than a political luxury.  If fossil fueled energy industries were required to account for the cost of environmental damage, they would lose the economic advantage which currently stifles the development of sustainable energy technologies.  No micromanagement of industry is required, we just need to enforce a simple, common sense law; zero tolerance for pollution of the air, the water or any other public resource.  Pay for cleanup as you go, add the price to the product you are selling, and if it makes the product too expensive, then don't make it.  For every business that fails, another one will come out of the woodwork to replace its function, but operating in a sustainable fashion.  Green technologies will be seen as the competitive, sustainable alternatives that they are, when they are not weighed against falsely inexpensive, polluting industries which are allowed to shift the cost of environmental cleanup to the tax paying public.  Business will thrive, jobs will be created in sustainable industries, the environment will benefit, and the people who consume the most, will pay the most for their impact upon the planet that we all live on.  Those who work to reduce their impact upon the planet by consuming less, will pay less.  Fair for everyone, and we might just find a way out of the hole we have dug ourselves into.

      Rate this comment:

« Back 1 2 [3] 4 Next »