Comments about ‘EPA rule hobbles economy, hurts consumer choice’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 2 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

"And it should keep in mind that for any carbon reduction program to succeed, other countries must participate."

True, but if the United States does not lead, the chance that other countries will participate is nil.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

“It was done without full public discussion and debate”

I was under the impression that the debate has been vigorous and protracted, with the Administration finally deciding to go with the science (that carbon emissions are damaging to the health of the planet and the creatures living on it).

And why do Republicans continuously under-estimate the benefits of a competitive automobile market and the ingenuity of our engineers and business people to keep the associated prices (of raising fuel standards) down.

Industry has always responded accordingly… where is your faith?

Springville, UT

Someone needs to tell Perry that the Detroit automakers are not only embracing the mileage standards, they are proceeding ahead of the established deadlines. This is a case where partisanship is actually quite mindless. This right wing think-tank piece is not about the needs of business. It's about fomenting discord on deceitful grounds. And the writer then rationalizes not having better mileage standards by saying the U.S. isn't the worst offender. Are you kidding me? The automakers are embracing innovation (Ford, for example, is researching solar panels on vehicles - pretty cool), but the right wing is fighting innovation. It actually is a good example of how the right and the GOP are actually against innovation and moving forward with technology and economic growth.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

"...it forces automakers to make huge capital investments that cost billions of dollars and requires the retooling of factories."

So let me get this straight. The federal government is forcing companies to innovate and become more efficient. If the law doesn't exist, then the companies don't innovate and then are exposed the whims of the marketplace and escalating gas prices.

Didn't we just experience in the mid-2000s when gasoline hit $3 and $4 a gallon and Americans weren't buying American cars because Detroit resisted CAFE standards and couldn't compete with European and Japanese fuel efficient cars? Didn't we see the rise of the Toyota Prius as "the car of choice" for institutions and governments to reduce fuel costs, but people squawked because they weren't American cars -- and it had to be pointed out that American car companies weren't producing fuel efficient needed by fleets? So many American cities and institutions bought Toyotas over Detroit's cars... didn't we have to bail out GM and Chrysler because they weren't producing fuel-efficient cars that Americans wanted?

Charleston, WV

The time is coming ... indeed, the time may have already passed ... that "prosperity" and "consumer choice" are no longer environmentally sustainable.

American Fork, UT

Cheap, oversized, void of innovation, flashy and impractical. Republicans, or the cars they want to see built?

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

‘EPA rule hobbles economy, hurts consumer choice’

Yep, in the short term - it just might.
But I doubt it.

Just like making all gasoline and paint Lead-free did 30 years ago,

I don't hear ANYONE crying about that now...

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Somehow I just don't believe that the air quality in Utah is in any way the product of the lack of proper government in foreign nations. This article reminds me of the childhood plea for permission based on the argument that Jack's mother lets him do it.

Durham, NC

THis piece just proves anyone.... and I mean anyone.... common sense or not... can be a professor. Unlike the authors conjecture, change drives economic growth, not the rigid maintenance of the status quo. Every phase of change in our history has driven economic expanse. If the dear professor doesn't get that.... I am not sure what he knows.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Today we drive the efficient cars that a few decades ago many thought impossible or at least impractical to build. They howled that the cars would be unsafe and unreliable.

Far East USA, SC

We are using less oil today than we did 20 years ago. Who would have thought that possible.

Why is our demand dropping? In large part because of EPA mileage standards.

Just think of all the money that is NOT leaving the US because of this increase in fuel efficiency.

It is shortsighted to not keep pushing the Auto industry to make improvements.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

From the article --
"How much more expensive? Some estimates say between $1,800 and $3,000 per vehicle to comply with the EPA rules"


If a car travels 150,000 miles, and gets 25 mpg, that would burn 6,000 gallons of gas, at $3.50 per gallon = $21,000

If a car travels 150,000 miles, and gets 50 mpg, that would consume only 3,000 gallons, at $3.5 per gallon = $10,500

The SAVINGS would be $10,500 - the additional cost of vehicle of $3000 = net difference of $7,500 saved.

NOT - taking into account gasoline prices dropping due to the decrease in demand -- higher supply, lesser demand on the global market.

Professor Perry of Business and Economics either gets an F- in economics,
or comes out of the closet as paid for Big Oil lobbyist.

Class dismissed.

Hayden, ID

Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect. Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much lighter than CO2. So much for the EPA's political motivated effort to save the world from "evil" C02! And by the way, we learned in the 4th grade that all plants need C02 for photosynthesis which produces food for all life forms!

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Mountanman – “Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect.”

Wow, really?!!

I had no idea… this changes everything! I need to rethink everything I thought I knew starting from 7th grade on.

But first things first – we need to inform the 97%+ climate scientists of this fact. Obviously they are working under a mass delusion (probably all attended the same substandard middle school).

I expect once this new piece of information gets out there, the climate change debate will be entirely different.

You have done a tremendous service today… thank you!

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

Hayden, ID
Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect.

And by the way, we learned in the 4th grade that all plants need C02 for photosynthesis which produces food for all life forms!

11:00 a.m. March 3, 2014


I guess you forgot [or never learned] that Venus [our sister planet] has a surface temperature of 400+ degrees, and it's atmospwhere is comprised of CO2, and there is no photosynthesis because there is NO life!

Hayden, ID

Tyler. No need to thank me in spite of your sarcasm. Just using science to show that man made climate change really is a hoax no matter how many politicians use junk science to make their case for carbon taxes. If you can prove otherwise, let us all know, please! Looked out side lately? Record cold temps in much of the Northern Hemisphere!

Hayden, ID

LDS Tree-hugger. I learned in the 2nd grade that in our solar system closest to the sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Earth. That's probably why it is hotter on Venus! Not because of C02!

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


Fine dust is much heavier than air (CO2 is only slightly heavier) yet dust moves around the world in the air.

Air currents and gases mixing.

If the air was always stagnant then it would all fall out eventually I suppose.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

What’s more likely?

That a global conspiracy among virtually all the world’s climate scientists has been going on for decades in an effort to… what… pass a carbon tax? Keep in mind scientists by nature are extremely analytical and spend good portions of their careers attacking the theories of fellow scientists – this is important as it suggests any scientist worldwide could win a Nobel Prize by debunking climate change (which according to what you learned in 7th grade, should be easy).


The petro-chemical industry has essential bought themselves a media outlet (check out some of the largest stock holders of Fox sometime) and through a combination of greedy media pundits, lots of rhetoric about freedom, fear of government, anti-elitist sentiments, and the most bizarre mix of religion & politics we may ever see in our lifetime; has convinced a large segment of our population that climate change is all a hoax?

And it’s interesting that the industry once acknowledged man-made climate change (many still do… quietly) and focused their efforts on addressing it in market friendly ways, until the above strategy began to show results.

Far East USA, SC

"climate change really is a hoax no matter how many politicians use junk science to make their case for carbon taxes."

Ah Yes, the ole Carbon Tax. Another Republican idea being blamed on the Democrats.

Google Emissions Trading. Which is the precursor to Carbon Tax. It was brought forth by the Republicans as a way to let market forces help to curb harmful emissions.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments