California is suing carmakers for global warming

[zyggy 9]

those are still ####### goals... they should be setting them at about 80+ MPG's. We have the technology for it.

Generally speaking, the more powerful the engine, the worse its fuel economy. What if

I don't want to buy a piss poor 1L Prius that does 60mpg?

Dont have to. If a guy (back in late 80's) can tool around in his garage and get is alfa romeo spider to get 80+.. why cant car manufacturers make their cars get same?

If you want to spend 20 to 30k more on a car, with more quality problems due to excessive parts, you go right ahead...

I see all of you harping on getting a more fuel efficient car.. I assume that all of you are currently driving a hybrid, electric vehicle, diesel, or using only public transportation...

There is a balance between cost and demand. If people want to make their cars more enviromentally friendly, then they should be willing the pay the big bucks to buy a more fuel effieicnt car.

It's nothing but plain cowardice on the part of the politicians to try to use the courts to do an end around on what they want to do..

If the policy makers wants to lower emmissions and fuel consumption, then they should have the guts to make the policy choices to put that in action.... But they don't have the guts and the reason is plain and simple.... the people don't want it...

We have come to the point where we have bleeded almost all of the efficiencies out of the mechanical system. To get better perfromance out of the system, it is going to cost a higher amount of dollars to get a smaller amount of gain.

If our goal is to wean ourselves from foreign oil, then we should take immediate steps with our existing technology. That is raise gas taxes, force the oil industry to implement better refining technologies, and give incentives to would allow consumers to choose a more fuel efficient engine (i.e. diesel or hybrid).

I find it ironic that the politicos are more than willing to beat up on the auto industry who has relatively been bendng over backwards to better their technology. I see no one stepping up to beat up on the oil industry who right now has the technology to make larger gains in lower emissions via refining that the auto indistry does at this point in time...

Edited September 22, 2006 by zyggy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

You keep making it more complicated than necessary. California could refuse to register vehicles that do not meet whatever fuel efficiency standard the state sees fit. It does that in terms of emissions standards that are tighter than those of the rest of the nation but refuses to do that along the lines of fuel efficiency. The state is also free to bases taxes on fuel efficiency, raise taxes on gas, etc. There's a lot of things the state can do other than wasting taxpayer funds taking a cheap shot at car manufacturers at election time.

What is that assertion based on?

As to protraying the lawsuit as being a "suing auto makers for making cars that pollute"...

The lawsuit alleges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in adopting the fuel economy standards, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Both federal laws require the government to determine the impacts of new regulations on fuel conservation and the environment.

The lawsuit's allegations mirror comments the plaintiffs submitted to NHTSA during the public review period on the rules. In a November, 2005 letter, the plaintiffs stated NHTSA "failed to consider alternative approaches that would have promoted energy conservation, made meaningful contributions to increased fuel economy and encouraged technological innovation."

In addition, the letter said, NHTSA failed to consider the environmental consequences of its proposed overhaul of light truck standards, failed to consider the changes in the environment since the 1980s, when NHTSA last assessed the environmental effects of the standards, and failed to evaluate the impact of carbon dioxide ("CO2") emissions "despite identifying the threat of CO2 and global climate change as new information concerning the environment."

The letter also stated that the standards, which shift the miles-per-gallon requirements from a fleet-wide basis to a new structure based on weight categories, "create incentives to build larger, less fuel-efficient models, which will jeopardize air quality and the climate."

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/ca_cafe.html

This was back in May of this year...hardly election time rhetoric.

[Mirorgate 0]

those are still ####### goals... they should be setting them at about 80+ MPG's. We have the technology for it.

Generally speaking, the more powerful the engine, the worse its fuel economy. What if

I don't want to buy a piss poor 1L Prius that does 60mpg?

Dont have to. If a guy (back in late 80's) can tool around in his garage and get is alfa romeo spider to get 80+.. why cant car manufacturers make their cars get same?

If you want to spend 20 to 30k more on a car, with more quality problems due to excessive parts, you go right ahead...

the guy didnt put 20-30k more of parts into the car. the tech is there.. if we've gone from 1 X 1 1/2 mem chips to micro mem chips and processors... we sure as hell can jack the efficiency of car to burn around 80 MPG's. it isn't rocket science.. its car mechanics, and they dont because the auto industry is in bed with the oil industry.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

You keep making it more complicated than necessary. California could refuse to register vehicles that do not meet whatever fuel efficiency standard the state sees fit. It does that in terms of emissions standards that are tighter than those of the rest of the nation but refuses to do that along the lines of fuel efficiency. The state is also free to bases taxes on fuel efficiency, raise taxes on gas, etc. There's a lot of things the state can do other than wasting taxpayer funds taking a cheap shot at car manufacturers at election time.

What is that assertion based on?

They offer registrations to Hummer's and Envoy's, don't they?

[mawilson 2,133]

If our goal is to wean ourselves from foreign oil, then we should [... ] give incentives to would allow consumers to choose a more fuel efficient engine (i.e. diesel or hybrid).

Or ethanol (E85), domestically produced from the starch in agricultural products (primarily corn.)

E85 information

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're oversimplfying the issue. The lawsuit isn't simply over the fact that cars create pollution, but rather that auto makers have deliberately circumvented such efforts to reduce pollution, such as the Clean Air Act in order to avoid making their fleets more fuel efficient.

You keep making it more complicated than necessary. California could refuse to register vehicles that do not meet whatever fuel efficiency standard the state sees fit. It does that in terms of emissions standards that are tighter than those of the rest of the nation but refuses to do that along the lines of fuel efficiency. The state is also free to bases taxes on fuel efficiency, raise taxes on gas, etc. There's a lot of things the state can do other than wasting taxpayer funds taking a cheap shot at car manufacturers at election time.

What is that assertion based on?

They offer registrations to Hummer's and Envoy's, don't they?

I would rather we set fuel efficiency standards based on vehicle types than for an entire fleet. With regard to the large SUV's - it's the Feds who've made vehicles over a certain weight exempt from both fuel efficiency and emission standards. Now they are going to be included in CAFE standards but get this...

The bigger the vehicles in the class, the lower the target. For example, smaller SUVs like the Jeep Wrangler will have to hit 26.4 mpg in the 2008 model year, gradually rising to 28.3 mpg in 2011, while bigger vehicles such the Chevy Silverado will have to reach 20.1 mpg in 2008 and 21.8 in 2011. The new rules will also, starting in 2011, apply to SUVs and vans that weigh between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds, such as the Hummer H2 and Chevy Suburban, which have until now been entirely exempt from fuel-economy standards.

...the standards give automakers incentive to make their trucks and SUVs larger, so they'll get bumped into categories with looser mpg requirements.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/03/30/fuel-economy/

Edited September 23, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

With regard to the large SUV's - it's the Feds who've made vehicles over a certain weight exempt from both fuel efficiency and emission standards.

The feds don't issue vehicle registrations, do they?

[mawilson 2,133]

The bigger the vehicles in the class, the lower the target. For example, smaller SUVs like the Jeep Wrangler will have to hit 26.4 mpg in the 2008 model year, gradually rising to 28.3 mpg in 2011, while bigger vehicles such the Chevy Silverado will have to reach 20.1 mpg in 2008 and 21.8 in 2011. The new rules will also, starting in 2011, apply to SUVs and vans that weigh between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds, such as the Hummer H2 and Chevy Suburban, which have until now been entirely exempt from fuel-economy standards.

...the standards give automakers incentive to make their trucks and SUVs larger, so they'll get bumped into categories with looser mpg requirements.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[cmartyn 0]

The CA Gov's atty was on the news the other day. One of the issues seemed to be related to the car companies creating /promoting a car culture through advertising. Not sure what to think of that one except Id appreciate it if loud roaring stinky cars squealing tires wasn't "cool" any more.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The CA Gov's atty was on the news the other day. One of the issues seemed to be related to the car companies creating /promoting a car culture through advertising. Not sure what to think of that one except Id appreciate it if loud roaring stinky cars squealing tires wasn't "cool" any more.

Yep. It's foolishly naive to think that we as consumers completely dictate purchasing trends. If that were the case then car manufacturers wouldn't be pouring millions of dollars into advertising.

[PsychoKat 0]

The CA Gov's atty was on the news the other day. One of the issues seemed to be related to the car companies creating /promoting a car culture through advertising. Not sure what to think of that one except Id appreciate it if loud roaring stinky cars squealing tires wasn't "cool" any more.

Yep. It's foolishly naive to think that we as consumers completely dictate purchasing trends. If that were the case then car manufacturers wouldn't be pouring millions of dollars into advertising.

Ahh but they aim at the vanity factor in consumers and keep upping the ante...that whole keeping up with the Jones's thing.

Now for a moment of personal opinion here:

I grew up in a farm town and remember when 4wd suv's came out and the farmers used them to get out into the muddy fields (and us teens use them at night to go 4 wheeling through those muddy fields)

That's what SUV's are all about SPORT UTILITY

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The CA Gov's atty was on the news the other day. One of the issues seemed to be related to the car companies creating /promoting a car culture through advertising. Not sure what to think of that one except Id appreciate it if loud roaring stinky cars squealing tires wasn't "cool" any more.

Yep. It's foolishly naive to think that we as consumers completely dictate purchasing trends. If that were the case then car manufacturers wouldn't be pouring millions of dollars into advertising.

Ahh but they aim at the vanity factor in consumers and keep upping the ante...that whole keeping up with the Jones's thing.

Now for a moment of personal opinion here:

I grew up in a farm town and remember when 4wd suv's came out and the farmers used them to get out into the muddy fields (and us teens use them at night to go 4 wheeling through those muddy fields)

That's what SUV's are all about SPORT UTILITY

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

Yep. SUV's are marketed in such a way to give a false sense of security - watch the ads.

[mawilson 2,133]

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

Well....a big and expensive car is a symbol of status more than anything else.

People will always buy expensive things that they don't really need just because

they can. You don't have to like it, but one stupid lawsuit is not going to change it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

Well....a big and expensive car is a symbol of status more than anything else.

People will always buy expensive things that they don't really need just because

they can. You don't have to like it, but one stupid lawsuit is not going to change it.

Gas prices will change it. Not a foolish and frivolous lawsuit. Look at the decrease in SUV sales since gas hit $3.00 a gallon. That's how you attack the guzzlers if you're really serious about it - via the fuel price.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now when I see people driving around in BMW, Lexus, Lincoln, Cadillac SUV"s, I can't help but think of how foolish it looks, gotta have that show of big bucks, but try to appear that they're "with it"...w00 h00 go take that Beemer out hauling things through the mud and unload it in your business suit or spike heels.

Well....a big and expensive car is a symbol of status more than anything else.

People will always buy expensive things that they don't really need just because

they can. You don't have to like it, but one stupid lawsuit is not going to change it.

Gas prices will change it. Not a foolish and frivolous lawsuit. Look at the decrease in SUV sales since gas hit $3.00 a gallon. That's how you attack the guzzlers if you're really serious about it - via the fuel price.

Taxing cigarettes didn't discourage people from smoking. You can't simply manipulate the price to discourage consumer trends as indicative what mawilson said about the more expensive SUV's like BMW.