EPA to roll back Obama-era fuel economy standards.
- Thread starter irv
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Trav
Lots of loonies/snowflakes running for their safe spaces, some blowing bubbles, coloring books, puppies and bunny rabbits over this one.
And the next time gas goes up to $4/gal, news reporters will flock to gas stations to interview people who spent 50K for a vehicle that gets 18mpg, saying somebody should do something about it.
Many people wear stupidity and wastefulness as a badge of honor and a right.
Lots of loonies/snowflakes running for their safe spaces, some blowing bubbles, coloring books, puppies and bunny rabbits over this one.
And the next time gas goes up to $4/gal, news reporters will flock to gas stations to interview people who spent 50K for a vehicle that gets 18mpg, saying somebody should do something about it.
Many people wear stupidity and wastefulness as a badge of honor and a right.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Downsides:
1) our fearless leader was complaining we don’t export enough cars. However this makes them less appealing in world market as inefficient
2) this leaves little motivation for innovation of better fuel economy technologies because no push and profitable market is in fuel pigs. Smells like 2000’s and rise in fuel price and our big three simply sunk with non competitive offerings for fuel efficiency
3) gives a great place for China autos who are innovating alternative drive trains to slip into where US big three will lack
Sorry but your reasoning is dependent on Government regulation not demand or ingenuity. Efficiency will improve and the most sought after vehicles in China are Suv's so American companies are looking to make our best sellers more efficent. Government is not the catalyst for improvment.
+2
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Downsides:
1) our fearless leader was complaining we don’t export enough cars. However this makes them less appealing in world market as inefficient
2) this leaves little motivation for innovation of better fuel economy technologies because no push and profitable market is in fuel pigs. Smells like 2000’s and rise in fuel price and our big three simply sunk with non competitive offerings for fuel efficiency
3) gives a great place for China autos who are innovating alternative drive trains to slip into where US big three will lack
Sorry but your reasoning is dependent on Government regulation not demand or ingenuity. Efficiency will improve and the most sought after vehicles in China are Suv's so American companies are looking to make our best sellers more efficent. Government is not the catalyst for improvment.
+2
If the consumer wanted high MPG vehicles, they would buy them. There would be no need for such a regulation if that's what people wanted.
Regulation is sought because "we the people" in our allegedly free nation are not behaving as our representatives (who think they should lead us) think we should.
Such regulation has no place in a self governed, freedom loving nation.
If you want a high MPG car, buy one. But don't force others to buy what YOU think they should buy. Make a compelling case that will convince them, rather than trying to force behavior through regulation.
I don't care if it's left wing authoritarian actions or right wing authoritarian actions. In a free nation, authoritarian actions are antithetical to freedom.
Regulation is sought because "we the people" in our allegedly free nation are not behaving as our representatives (who think they should lead us) think we should.
Such regulation has no place in a self governed, freedom loving nation.
If you want a high MPG car, buy one. But don't force others to buy what YOU think they should buy. Make a compelling case that will convince them, rather than trying to force behavior through regulation.
I don't care if it's left wing authoritarian actions or right wing authoritarian actions. In a free nation, authoritarian actions are antithetical to freedom.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Lots of loonies/snowflakes running for their safe spaces, some blowing bubbles, coloring books, puppies and bunny rabbits over this one.
Lots of loonies/snowflakes running for their safe spaces, some blowing bubbles, coloring books, puppies and bunny rabbits over this one.
I don't like the roll back. Yes it is tough standards but it drives innovation. Lots of people complained when the EPA got it's hammer in the 70's. I don't hear any more complaints about using Catalytic converters. I sure do not miss the days of bellows of black smoke coming from tailpipes (especially from semi's) I have been to third world countries where air quality suck and my sinuses went haywire and could not stop burning through tissue boxes.
I would rather get rid of lobbyist before getting rid of government. The idea of I should be able to do whatever I is just as dangerous as having your life completely controlled.
I would rather get rid of lobbyist before getting rid of government. The idea of I should be able to do whatever I is just as dangerous as having your life completely controlled.
Well whether you like it or not people have the right to "waste" whatever they want to. I am not saying that is the smart thing to do or the right thing to do... It really is not in my opinion either. But I don't want a governing body to dictate to everyone how to live or what to do either. Speaking of... Your buddy flying a private jet all around uses more fuel than I use in one year on just ONE of that Champion's cross country trips. If that phony flew commercial all the time, lived in a true small house, and drove a 1000 lb smart car... I would respect that World Champion. He doesn't. He's a talking piece of number two.
Having said that.... I agree with you about the fuel economy will be a real issue once prices go way up again. I also agree with you that the very high gas prices really did impact a lot of those people who had bought those 50k vehicles yet could not bear the $120 a week to fill them up. That was not very intelligent at all. I also agree that Toyota and Honda played it way, way smarter than the US Auto manufacturers in that Toyota and Honda continued to make their fuel efficient vehicles better with each generation they came out with. All the while US manufacturers continued to make huge whooping vehicles like the school bus like Ford Excursion. Then when the economic down turn happened in 07-08 and gas prices were $4 plus a gallon.... Toyota and Honda had much better technology and much better vehicles to sell to the American people wanting those at that time.
Having said that.... I agree with you about the fuel economy will be a real issue once prices go way up again. I also agree with you that the very high gas prices really did impact a lot of those people who had bought those 50k vehicles yet could not bear the $120 a week to fill them up. That was not very intelligent at all. I also agree that Toyota and Honda played it way, way smarter than the US Auto manufacturers in that Toyota and Honda continued to make their fuel efficient vehicles better with each generation they came out with. All the while US manufacturers continued to make huge whooping vehicles like the school bus like Ford Excursion. Then when the economic down turn happened in 07-08 and gas prices were $4 plus a gallon.... Toyota and Honda had much better technology and much better vehicles to sell to the American people wanting those at that time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Starman2112
Cool. Now get rid of ethanol in gasoline.
Yes, Please.
Cool. Now get rid of ethanol in gasoline.
Yes, Please.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Well whether you like it or not people have the right to "waste" whatever they want to. I am not saying that is the smart thing to do or the right thing to do... It really is not in my opinion either. But I don't want a governing body to dictate to everyone how to live or what to do either. Speaking of... Your buddy flying a private jet all around uses more fuel than I use in one year on just ONE of that Champion's cross country trips. If that phony flew commercial all the time, lived in a true small house, and drove a 1000 lb smart car... I would respect that World Champion. He doesn't. He's a talking piece of number two.
Having said that.... I agree with you about the fuel economy will be a real issue once prices go way up again. I also agree with you that the very high gas prices really did impact a lot of those people who had bought those 50k vehicles yet could not bear the $120 a week to fill them up. That was not very intelligent at all. I also agree that Toyota and Honda played it way, way smarter than the US Auto manufacturers in that Toyota and Honda continued to make their fuel efficient vehicles better with each generation they came out with. All the while US manufacturers continued to make huge whooping vehicles like the school bus like Ford Excursion. Then when the economic down turn happened in 07-08 and gas prices were $4 plus a gallon.... Toyota and Honda had much better technology and much better vehicles to sell to the American people wanting those at that time.
Well said
Well whether you like it or not people have the right to "waste" whatever they want to. I am not saying that is the smart thing to do or the right thing to do... It really is not in my opinion either. But I don't want a governing body to dictate to everyone how to live or what to do either. Speaking of... Your buddy flying a private jet all around uses more fuel than I use in one year on just ONE of that Champion's cross country trips. If that phony flew commercial all the time, lived in a true small house, and drove a 1000 lb smart car... I would respect that World Champion. He doesn't. He's a talking piece of number two.
Having said that.... I agree with you about the fuel economy will be a real issue once prices go way up again. I also agree with you that the very high gas prices really did impact a lot of those people who had bought those 50k vehicles yet could not bear the $120 a week to fill them up. That was not very intelligent at all. I also agree that Toyota and Honda played it way, way smarter than the US Auto manufacturers in that Toyota and Honda continued to make their fuel efficient vehicles better with each generation they came out with. All the while US manufacturers continued to make huge whooping vehicles like the school bus like Ford Excursion. Then when the economic down turn happened in 07-08 and gas prices were $4 plus a gallon.... Toyota and Honda had much better technology and much better vehicles to sell to the American people wanting those at that time.
Well said
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Here in the F350 jungle … a 1000 lbs car is a dumb car.
Not sure which buddy you are talking about. All of mine can only afford coach. Except for Southwest where everyone is in 1st class. The government does have authority to act when it comes to the sustainability of it's people. (And commerce)
Try wasting water in a drought. Truth is what we chose to do personally adds up and affects everyone. I like to drive fast but should there be no limit? Laws should be flexible. To bend and change when things no longer make sense. A teacher taught me the greatest thing about our constitution is the ability to change.
It's also about energy dependence.
I rather drive a more efficient car than let the USA get controlled by oil nation's. .
Try wasting water in a drought. Truth is what we chose to do personally adds up and affects everyone. I like to drive fast but should there be no limit? Laws should be flexible. To bend and change when things no longer make sense. A teacher taught me the greatest thing about our constitution is the ability to change.
It's also about energy dependence.
I rather drive a more efficient car than let the USA get controlled by oil nation's. .
I think a lot of you guys are missing the point. This is CAFE which is about the corporate average fuel economy. One way to affect the average is to sell more small cars with good gas mileage to off set the ones with bad ones. If you roll back the numbers, you don't have to sell as many cars which many manufacturers do at a loss in order to be able to sell more profitable SUVs and trucks. Lowering the number just affects the mix that they have to sell. Some of the CAFE push is already evident in that some car lines have gotten rid of the V6 engines and gone to turbo 4 cylinders in order to improve their gas mileage. The other way to improve gas mileage is to reduce the weight. But reduced weight and smaller cars aren't too popular which is why SUVs and trucks outsell cars.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
No problem, have two cars that offset my SUV and PU …
Originally Posted By: Jooksing
Not sure which buddy you are talking about. All of mine can only afford coach. Except for Southwest where everyone is in 1st class. The government does have authority to act when it comes to the sustainability of it's people. (And commerce)
Try wasting water in a drought. Truth is what we chose to do personally adds up and affects everyone. I like to drive fast but should there be no limit? Laws should be flexible. To bend and change when things no longer make sense. A teacher taught me the greatest thing about our constitution is the ability to change.
It's also about energy dependence.
I rather drive a more efficient car than let the USA get controlled by oil nation's. .
Your teacher telling you the best thing about the Constitution (capitalized) is the ability to change is just feeding propaganda. Inalienable rights are exactly that. They exist no matter what.
This rollback takes the pressure off of auto manufacturers. Setting high limits with short deadlines rushes the automakers to push cars out taking shortcuts. I’m all for energy conservation, not for just breathable air but to keep some money in my wallet. The EPA pendulum swung too far and gave them too much power.
Not sure which buddy you are talking about. All of mine can only afford coach. Except for Southwest where everyone is in 1st class. The government does have authority to act when it comes to the sustainability of it's people. (And commerce)
Try wasting water in a drought. Truth is what we chose to do personally adds up and affects everyone. I like to drive fast but should there be no limit? Laws should be flexible. To bend and change when things no longer make sense. A teacher taught me the greatest thing about our constitution is the ability to change.
It's also about energy dependence.
I rather drive a more efficient car than let the USA get controlled by oil nation's. .
Your teacher telling you the best thing about the Constitution (capitalized) is the ability to change is just feeding propaganda. Inalienable rights are exactly that. They exist no matter what.
This rollback takes the pressure off of auto manufacturers. Setting high limits with short deadlines rushes the automakers to push cars out taking shortcuts. I’m all for energy conservation, not for just breathable air but to keep some money in my wallet. The EPA pendulum swung too far and gave them too much power.
The unfortunate (or good?) thing is the political pendulum will swing back and forth many times as long as this nation exists. Laws and liberties fluctuate all the time.
Sometimes we get lucky and the laws get relaxed for a bit, and we can feel a little more free for a few years.
And then other times the laws come down hard and we're bound.
None of this is novel or as news worthy as the chicken littles like to claim. Ultimately we're screwed in the end and it's a game of "how long can you hold onto the cliff?"
Sometimes we get lucky and the laws get relaxed for a bit, and we can feel a little more free for a few years.
And then other times the laws come down hard and we're bound.
None of this is novel or as news worthy as the chicken littles like to claim. Ultimately we're screwed in the end and it's a game of "how long can you hold onto the cliff?"
You know what that document is supposed to "change" right????
Called the amendment process. Not through judiciary rulings based upon their "idea" of things. But based upon our Constitution and the limitations upon government inherent in it's founding and writing. The first ten admendments aka the Bill of Rights which required 9 or more the colonies to ratify in order to be added. Many of the Bill of Rights are considered "natural" rights which every man is born the natural right to have.These natural rights are endowed by our "creator" which was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The first amendment obviously provided for freedom of speech, freedom of the press which are enumerated individual rights. The second amendment obviously secures the natural right to self defense. The right to bear arms is a natural right to one's own self defense. The fifth amendment continues these natural rights in that any person should not be forced to incriminate one's own self. One thing many do not understand that natural rights and "legal" rights are not one in the same. Legal rights are granted by a government. Candidly the "right" to vote is one of those legal rights. Natural rights a person is borne with and rights that a government cannot or should not take away. And many, many people in this country do not what it truly takes to "change" our Constitution.
Called the amendment process. Not through judiciary rulings based upon their "idea" of things. But based upon our Constitution and the limitations upon government inherent in it's founding and writing. The first ten admendments aka the Bill of Rights which required 9 or more the colonies to ratify in order to be added. Many of the Bill of Rights are considered "natural" rights which every man is born the natural right to have.These natural rights are endowed by our "creator" which was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The first amendment obviously provided for freedom of speech, freedom of the press which are enumerated individual rights. The second amendment obviously secures the natural right to self defense. The right to bear arms is a natural right to one's own self defense. The fifth amendment continues these natural rights in that any person should not be forced to incriminate one's own self. One thing many do not understand that natural rights and "legal" rights are not one in the same. Legal rights are granted by a government. Candidly the "right" to vote is one of those legal rights. Natural rights a person is borne with and rights that a government cannot or should not take away. And many, many people in this country do not what it truly takes to "change" our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: bbhero
You know what that document is supposed to "change" right????
Called the amendment process. Not through judiciary rulings based upon their "idea" of things. But based upon our Constitution and the limitations upon government inherent in it's founding and writing. The first ten admendments aka the Bill of Rights which required 9 or more the colonies to ratify in order to be added. Many of the Bill of Rights are considered "natural" rights which every man is born the natural right to have.These natural rights are endowed by our "creator" which was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The first amendment obviously provided for freedom of speech, freedom of the press which are enumerated individual rights. The second amendment obviously secures the natural right to self defense. The right to bear arms is a natural right to one's own self defense. The fifth amendment continues these natural rights in that any person should not be forced to incriminate one's own self. One thing many do not understand that natural rights and "legal" rights are not one in the same. Legal rights are granted by a government. Candidly the "right" to vote is one of those legal rights. Natural rights a person is borne with and rights that a government cannot or should not take away. And many, many people in this country do not what it truly takes to "change" our Constitution.
Good post my friend. Any change has to be voted on by all the States. It’s a long drawn out process and there was a reason for that, so changes would not be made Willy nilly to reflect current fads.
You know what that document is supposed to "change" right????
Called the amendment process. Not through judiciary rulings based upon their "idea" of things. But based upon our Constitution and the limitations upon government inherent in it's founding and writing. The first ten admendments aka the Bill of Rights which required 9 or more the colonies to ratify in order to be added. Many of the Bill of Rights are considered "natural" rights which every man is born the natural right to have.These natural rights are endowed by our "creator" which was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The first amendment obviously provided for freedom of speech, freedom of the press which are enumerated individual rights. The second amendment obviously secures the natural right to self defense. The right to bear arms is a natural right to one's own self defense. The fifth amendment continues these natural rights in that any person should not be forced to incriminate one's own self. One thing many do not understand that natural rights and "legal" rights are not one in the same. Legal rights are granted by a government. Candidly the "right" to vote is one of those legal rights. Natural rights a person is borne with and rights that a government cannot or should not take away. And many, many people in this country do not what it truly takes to "change" our Constitution.
Good post my friend. Any change has to be voted on by all the States. It’s a long drawn out process and there was a reason for that, so changes would not be made Willy nilly to reflect current fads.
- Status
Similar threads
