Published: Wednesday, Jan. 30 2013 9:55 a.m. MST
Just one more example of how liberal ideas seldom deliver the panoply of
benefits promised, but instead drive up costs, create myriad new problems, and
destroy the proven benefits of freedom and the free market economy.But, anyone who survives a wreck in one of these rolling death traps DOES have
the advantage of Obamacare to look forward to.
Pushing standards of fuel efficiency will probably have some negative effects,
but doing nothing will... do nothing. Obama has continually put a caveat on all
his environmental policies that they are imperfect solutions. I think he takes
the attitude that if he's going in the right direction, somewhere down the
road they can go further in the right direction.
Does it take a PHd to understand that if you get hit in one of 0bama's
sweet little cars, you will die? They are so cute, who couldn't like them?
But put them on the road right now in the snow and you don't have a chance
and especially with a semi and you can hope your death benefits are not all
taken by obama! Anyone with 1/4 brain knew what wld happen. This push,
push by 0 has made his bundlers and friends wealthy and everyone else poorer by
half. Please, if you don't believe me see all the green companies who have
gone into bankruptcy and his friends are put in front of the tax payers.
How is this somehow the presidents' fault? Economy standards are becoming
more stringent and manufacturers are following suit, not just because they have
to but because it's what people want. If you think driving a big old tank
of a car is more green and want to thumb your nose at the president, nobody is
stopping you. In fact, I have a mid 70's grand marquis for sale if you
want. But here's the deal. President Obama won the election. It's over
and done. Do you really still need to be mad about it?
I'll try to respond, point by point.a) Safety is an issue.
Getting hit by a big vehicle is bad. Maybe the problem is too many big cars,
rather than too many little ones? It's a pointless debate, like arguing
about whether we'd be safer if everyone had guns or if no one had guns.
Pointlessb) The Jevons study from 1865? That argument might hold if
the limiting factor for people getting cars was the price of fuel. American
drivers are rather price insensitive. We don't drive much less when the
price of fuel goes up, nor much more when the price of fuel goes down. We
aren't going to see twice as many cars on the road simply because average
fuel efficiency doubles. c) Lithium batteries are expensive, and
dirty to make. Absolutely. They are also a relatively young technology, and
will inevitably get better. It's still easier to control point-source
pollution like a mine or factory than it is to control pollution from a million
cars.d) You can't fit two kids and a dog in a tiny car? Sedans
and vans will still exist. Get real.
"Obama has continually put a caveat on all his environmental policies that
they are imperfect solutions."In math, another term for
"imperfect solution" is "wrong answer." Liberal
politicians seem to think that if you can make manufacturers improve fuel
economy by 10 mpg, there's no reason you can't raise the ante another
10 mpg a decade later. While there's usually always room for some
improvement, when you first address a problem, at some point, you run into
diminishing returns. We picked most of the low-hanging fruit in the efficiency
field years ago, and got some decent mileage out of more efficient engines,
lighter, higher-tech (and more expensive) materials, and so forth. But at this point, we're running up against the basic laws of chemistry
and Newtonian physics.
Maybe we can do better with the right mix of vehicles for the right
situations.Prior to airbags and catalytic converters there were vehicles
that achieved good gas mileage.In 72 I had a Datsun 1200 (less than
75cu.in.) witha 4-speed manual and air conditioning.It seated 4 adults but
not comfortably for more than two hours.I could drive 70mph and get 35mph
if it was just the wife and I with a couple of suitcases.Something like
that would be good today for basic transportation to and from work as well as
My families safety is worth a lot more then a few dollars in gas savings. Build
a full size Hybrid then may I'll think about it. Until that happens bigger
is best. I see these small cars out on highways with semi's and
construction vehicles....no thanks!
It was earlier stated to "get real." What is real is when my wife an I
take a trip we take our little car that gets 33 mpg. Since we take two people
that is like a single passenger vehicle getting 66 mpg. When we take our family
on a trip we take 5 people in a car that gets 22 mpg. That would be similar to
a one passenger car getting 110 mpg. The real problem is that when the
government gets involved, common sense gets thrown out the window on every
issue. Look at how the current debates over health care, guns, the environment,
etc. get tossed around by extreme views. Why can't we have some good
common sense discussions?
Does this really surprise anyone?The environmental wingnuts even
quietly admit the fact that it is environment first and people second.There are a myriad of other instances where the environmental lobby gets what
they want at the peoples expense.Lefties sugarcoat all the realities
behind their radical agenda so they can make it sellable to the generally
uninformed public.Meanwhile we all pay for this radical agenda in
one way or another.
Did any of the negative posters even read this article? This was one
person's conjecture on what might happen, something they are worried about.
They even said it's hard to tell what will happen. One thing is for sure:
No one is going to have to give up their SUV or truck for these small cars.
But, hey, if we can get some whacks in there about Obama, even if they are
frivilous, then let's do it. It's always funny when people have such
knee-jerk reactions to an article written by pure conjecture!
I love how increased mpg is suddenly a liberal agenda. Some people need to come
back to reality from their completely polarized world. Who doesn't want
their cars to get better gas mileage? The new standard for 2025 seems a bit high
and optimistic to me, but I agree with the general idea. Industry will adapt and
thrive just like it has before. Also people aren't suddenly
going to start driving twice as much just because their car get's twice the
fuel efficiency. We all drive pretty much the same amount no matter what the
cost of gasoline is. It varies a bit according to gas prices, but I would be
surprised if it was more than 15%.I also agree with the above
poster, maybe the problem is too many big cars, not too many small ones. That
said the smart car as pictured in the article is a joke. Very unsafe and it
doesn't even get that good of gas mileage for it's size.
I did some research and found that the Ford F-250 Lariat is one of the worst mpg
vehicles on the road. Getting an average of 10mpg. I am going to go buy one and
drive it as a sign that I don't subscribe to those dang liberals and their
left wing environmental agenda. After purchasing I will drive it to Chick-Fil-A
to show my support for traditional marriage.
Why are we so concerned about energy efficiency? It's not like we're
ever going to run out of fossil fuels, and if we do we can just wait a few
million years and the earth will make some more for us. Nothing to worry about,
"Industry will adapt and thrive just like it has before."Well, heck, then, let's raise the CAFE standards to 100 mpg. Industry
will always be able to adapt and thrive, no matter what we throw at them.
We need a "new technology" to end this gas mileage debate which forces
automobile companies to make smaller and smaller dangerous vehicles.A better solution would be for the government to award 10 billion dollars to
the first company that mass produces an electric car that can reach speeds of 75
mph, drives 400 miles and doesn't need to be recharged by the grid. An
inexpensive car whose base model, sells for $25,000 or less. One that uses
something along the lines of a Hydrogen Fuel cell. In exchange for the money,
the resulting technology would be shared with the world.10 billion
dollars would be a pittance in comparison to the rewards that our economy and
the environment would reap.After all, within reasonable limits, who
cares what size your vehicle is if you're not using gas to power it?
HutteriteHow is this somehow the presidents' fault? BO
PUSHED for the pie-in-the-sky CAFE ratings above 50, that's how.
If you drive one of those Mr. Bean cars, watch out for me when I'm on my
mountain bike. If we collide, you may be seriously injured or killed.
Follow the money trail. With the Bush administration, it was big oil. With
Obama, it's green energy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss....
There will always be a demand for vehicles big enough to accomidate 4 or more
adults in relative comfort. Theh auto industry is just responding to consumer
demands. Not everyone wants to drive a cramped subcompact, no matter how fuel
efficient. Andy Jaggy I question your facts. 10 mpg is pretty lame for today.
My ranger 4x4 with the big V/6 gets near 20 on the hwy. I do feel the auto
industry is over regulated. I am for all for safety,who isn't. Over 50
mpg for a light truck or suv, not realistic.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments