General Cycling Discussion - An increase of 1.5 mpg by 2008 - is that really an improvement?

Considering this is the only increase since 1996 - it's really a 1.5 mpg increase over a 12 year period.

So, what do you think? Is this progress? Is this a genuine attempt @ lessening our dependence on oil, and helping the environment?

You make the call.

The Plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46280-2002Dec12.html)

well, anything is better than nothing.

but i agree with the Sierra Club comment at the end: that it's obviously far below what is technically possible or what is really needed to make a difference in pollution. should the standrd not at least keep up with technology? as we can now produce engines with higher horsepower or better mileage, why so small an amount going to efficiency? ... answer = the auto and oil lobby with the old "no on will buy a fuel efficient vehicle. they want heavy high performance vehicles. we'll go out of business!" which is junk. as if people would not buy cars just because they got a little better mileage or had a little less horsepower!

It's a pacifier, the auto companies are kicking and screaming bloody murder in public and then laughing their butts off behind closed doors.

Remember the USA is currently run by 'Big Oil' even to the level of managing to 'fix' the presidential election to some extent.

Any other G7/1st World type of country, including those to the north and south of the USA would have slapped a bigger tax on fuel to get it closer to world prices and taxed larger cars at larger rates. But then most other G7/1st World type of countries are run by the people for the people to a marginally greater degree then the USA is currently.

Sooner of later the American's will vote out Big Oil and the Bush puppet, and elect someone that currently would be regarded as extreme left wing xurrently in the USA, or just pain normal to the rest of the world.

Then the Americans will start to benefit from things like a real pollution tax at proper rate and eveyone (exept Big Oil of course) will also benefit.

1.5MPG extra - It's a joke. How about a real start by taxing out of existance all cars that can not do 50 MPG, and encouraging the use of bio-diesel in place of dino-diesel

What burned my ass was the comment made by auto manufacturers that they wouldn't make as much profit without the big vehicles. Well BOO-FREAKIN'-HOO!!!
How about all of the crap said vehicles are pumping into the air we breathe?
Besides that point doesn't anybody besides me find it rather ironic we're gung ho to invade a country like Iraq which just happens to have a large amount of oil? I mean the irony is not only is Bush an oil man but so are Cheny and Rice.

Call me a cynic, but I like most of the world, and certainly the occupants of every country in the Middle East have been working on the assumption that the only reason why America wanted Iraq was for the oil, what other reason could there be ? - OK so Saddam is a loony, but then agin so are a number of world leaders, the current leaders in N.Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Israel are quite frankly a lot more dangerous to their neighbours and to the big industrilised countries than Iraq is at present - but they don't have oil, so don't need "liberating".

It's funny, Veneuzuela does have oil .... I wonder just who is stirring up the **** down there at the moment, it would not start with 'C' and end in 'IA' by any chance ? - No doubt we will get half the story in 20 years time when an ex-operative publishes a book and Hollywood makes it into a film

Oh boy, here we go. I tried very hard not to reply, but it's winter and I'm bored.

We as the vehicle market decide what kinds of vehicles are built. Understand supply and demand? If people were buying the teenie little tin-can cars, that's what we would see more of. The reason most vehicles are gas hogs is because that's what we want. Maybe not the gas hog part, but the kind of vehicle most of us want just happens to use more gas than, say, a Yugo. Give me a break, this country is way too big for something like oil companies to call the shots.

As for me, I don't really like the fact that my Jeep gets 14 MPG, but it's the cost of my lifestyle. We also drive a HUGE 4X4 GMC 4 door pickup that likes gas. I feel safe in it, I feel like my family is safe in it. It's my cash, it's legal, it's nobody else's business what I drive, especially not the wacko Sierra Cub. This is America, or have we forgotten what that means? I have some of my Grandpa's medals from WWII that I could show you and explain what being an American means...

And even though I did not vote for GB, please people, GET OVER IT! I bet George is a cool guy, if he does bike I bet he does downhill. I fully support him now. There, now this is finally bicycle related...

That's the thing; "What we want because we're capitalists and it's legal."
This reminds me of guy I know here in Florida. You see we have a water shortage and the water table has fallen. Lawn watering is restricted to certain days of the week. Well this guy lives in an exclusive golf course community. Somebody mentions to him it seems absurd that the golf course can water 7 days a week. He replies" We have the money and can afford it". Guess that makes it right if that's what you want and can afford it, right?

Originally posted by Paige
Well this guy lives in an exclusive golf course community. Somebody mentions to him it seems absurd that the golf course can water 7 days a week.

How does that relate to oil in any way? There is plenty of oil. If we had an oil shortage I could understand your analogy. The only person who pays for me to have a big gas guzzling four wheel drive vehicle is me, it affects no other person but me. I drive a gas-guzzler and I like it. If they made the same vehicle that got 50 MPG I would be the first in line for the deluxe model, but until then I will pay for the privilege of driving what I want at the gas pump. BTW- it's $1.15 a gallon here, what do you pay?

I agree, supply and demand is the determining factor. But, that doesn't mean that things won't happen without political courage.

Hence, I present a counter-example: Germans pay about $3.50 for a gallon of gas, about 70% of that price is taxes put there specifically to discourage demand. Moreover, they pay taxes on the car that is calculated on the basis of the size of the motor (which roughly corresponds to the fuel efficiency).

Now, which of the following countries is among the leaders in developing more fuel efficient engines: a) USA b) Germany c) none of the above d) uhh, what was the question? The reason is, of course, supply and demand. They simply wouldn't make money by trying to sell zillions of gas guzzling SUVs. (Not to mention the fact that such behemoths are fully unsafe at Autobahn speeds.)

On the streets here you can find the VW Lupo (two sizes smaller than the Golf). The bugger gets 83 miles to the gallon. It's a small car, granted, but the technological improvements are getting pushed through the entire VW line. VW is even now pushing toward regular production of natural gas cars (which burn cleaner, of course).

The U.S. manner of trying to increase fuel efficiency is just silly. I am totally in favor of a massive increase in gas taxes, but only if the money is directly returned into mass transit and bike paths and such. Otherwise, the poor--you know the guys who buy a $2 of gas at a time for their $500 1980s guzzler--are going to be unable to get to work.

Like Nathan, I have been without a car since I have lived here (Fall, 2000). I figure that I have already saved thousands of Euros on the costs of car ownership. THere have been very few occasions on which I have really needed a car here, in which case I rented one for the day.

Germany isn't paradise. They have their problems. The Autobahns are crowded--thus they have speed limits in the form of traffic jams that stretch for kilometers. But, the current government raised gas taxes by 3.5 cents per liter (13 cents a gallon) the last two years in a row and they still won the most recent elections (due to strength of the Greens, who are the one's who pushed the taxes through).

Where there's a will there's a way.

Cheers,
Jamie

Originally posted by Paige
That's the thing; "What we want because we're capitalists and it's legal."

It's not only legal, it's moral.


Originally posted by jmlee
about 70% of that price is taxes put there specifically to discourage demand.

I have a bridge I want to sell...


Originally posted by jmlee
On the streets here you can find the VW Lupo (two sizes smaller than the Golf).

LOL


Originally posted by jmlee
I am totally in favor of a massive increase in gas taxes.

I am not. I would like to be able to spend my money the way I like, thank you. (Wouldn't mind having one of your autobahns, very good idea).

I applaud you who have chosen to go car-less. But that is YOUR choice. You do have the right to your choice, just respect mine as well. I might be able to ride my bike to work soon, but it will be mainly to save cash from all this gas I have to buy, not because I believe all this Sierra Club babble.

Mike,
Markets have never existed in isolation; which is the mistaken assumption behind your argument. There are several issues here. One of them is war. We are warming up to our 2nd oil war. How many do you want? The next issue is gas crisis,which is always a case of demand outstripping supply. I have lost count, I have seen 5 or 6. The frequency with which they hit is increasing. The third issue is....tadaaa.....supply and demand. If you take a reasonable estimate of the world's oil supply and then double it by magic....it gets you about 7 extra years of supply. The reason is that world consumption of petroleum is rising rapidly. Fourth, the real cost of petroleum is expected to rise. There is much disagreement about when and how much,but.....the bottom line is that oil will jump to a much higher price (about 3 times what crude is now) and stay there. Because we are the most oil dependent country on earth; this will have a significant negative impact on our economic competitiveness. It's not massive, but we have a number of problems
that will make it much more difficult to compete
in the global market. The end result of all this (and there's more, this is a very brief overview)
is that we have a window of opportunity where we can prepare for the shift to non-petroleum sources. It's in the 20-40 year range, if we blow it, the other economires will blow by us like we're standing still. That's because we will be standing still. Much of this information came from the conservative British publication called the Economist. They do an in depth analysis of energy issues annually.

Originally posted by late
Mike,
.....the bottom line is that oil will jump to a much higher price (about 3 times what crude is now) and stay there. Because we are the most oil dependent country on earth; this will have a significant negative impact on our economic competitiveness.

Finally an intelligent post (and someone who uses their spell checker). This may be true, and if it is I have a feeling that our knowledgeable leaders are watching this. I have no doubt that the USA can overcome this. But for now I'll keep driving 2 hours or more every weekend to a good mountain bike trail, not because I deserve it or that I am entitled to it, but because I can. Lots of people have given the ultimate sacrifice so we can do things like this. And the Sierra Club will ever change my mind about that...

Originally posted by bac
Considering this is the only increase since 1996 - it's really a 1.5 mpg increase over a 12 year period.
On the one hand, if you figure my average increase in gas mileage (based on how much gas I use and how many miles I cover,) cycling has boosted my average by at least double.

On the other hand, multiply 1.5 mpg times 12 years times the number of "average" vehicles on the road (vitually all of them,) and you get, well, a lot of saved gallons.

But, if you multiply the number of "average" vehicles on the road times 12 years times 200% (my approximate savings, not including mass transit,) you get a whopping huge figure, something like 47 quantifibillion gallons.

:beer:

Mike,
we fought for liberty under rule of law within a representative government. When I read Washington,Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton somehow they never mentioned SUVs. Btw, if I have a spell checker, I don't know
where it is or how to use it. I see from your knowledgeable leaders comment you haven't talked with politicians much.
There are some big changes coming. We will get through them. The question is whether we will experience massive trouble doing so.

my spell checker doesn't work...

I remember in the late 70's,early 80's my father was very serously looking into building and going into production of a gr ain alcohol for fuel. The only thing you have to change on an engine is the size of the fuel ports(to let in more alcohol) and some of the rubber parts that whern't alcohol compatible. At that time it was cheeper to produce the alcohol than buy the gas and lots of farmers where looking into doing this. Then all of the sudden there was no more oil embargo and gas prices went down thus making the need for alternate fuels a mute point. No more talk of alcohol based fuels, solar energy reserch fizzled and the USA was back to being almost totaly oil dependent.
Now here we are 20 years down the road and people bit** and moan about gas costing $1.40 a gallon. In 1981 I was driving a car that got 13-15 mpg and was paying $1.30-1.36 a gallon and minimum wage was $2.45 an hour. How much is minimum wage today? How much would a gallon of gas have to cost to equil the 1980 price in todays dollars? You see gas prices are as low per capata now as any time in US history! There just isn't an incentive for people to buy more effecent autos.

That being said I think everyone has the right to buy and opperate what they can afford, with in the law. I do think it would be rather wastefull if I drive a 1980 school bus to work every day and I am the only one on board even if I can afford it. In the 80's americans where buying more fuel effecent cars because it hurt to run such a high % of the family income out the tail pipe of a car.
Drive what you want. The larger cars, SUV, semi-truck will offer you better crash protection. You need it when you may be meeting another SUV plowing through a stop sign!

I did so love my VW Jetta diesel, and the VW diesel Rabbit before it. I wish more American and Japanise auto makers would look into the diesel technology that is out there. I know that we can use many forms of alternate fuel systems if the price of oil goes up enough to make it worth the effort.

About taxing the crap out of your fuel. Your goverment has every vested intrest to see to it that petro fuels remain in demand! Look at the taxes that would be lost if all the sudden everyone started riding bikes! They would have no more control through taxes! The talk about Bush being in for the oil $ is full of hooy. Euro governments have just as much stake in the flow of oil as any American!

Originally posted by uciflylow
Euro governments have just as much stake in the flow of oil as any American!

Almost as much - Which is why the British Government (if not the people) are right behing the Americans - we need the Iraqi oil as well.

Having said which, if all Europeans resorted to bikes and public transport tomorrow it would not be nearly so disastrous for Europe as it would be to the USA - remember our countries have been running for a couple of thousand years without cars, we have only had them in mass public ownership for the last 30-40 years

I think the main issue here is that oil is a finite resource, the Americans are using up a disproportiate amount of it, and every child that you know today will see the oil run out in their lifetime if the population of the planet (and the Americans) keep using it at the same rate.

Mike, you are "entitled" to drive whatever you want. But, we're not talking about what the individual is entitled to. The issue is what constitutes good public policy. The fact is that all governments use taxes and other economic mechanisms to manipulate supply and demand toward goals that they deem politically important.

If you believe that the U.S. is a land of free-trade, well, I would suggest you brush up on your political economy. Everytime you get a "tax-break" for some kind of investment or purchase, that is manipulation of the market. The allowance of the forest, mining, and ranching industries to use public land is a manipulation of the market. Your tax dollars going for better defense is collected with the idea of keeping the oil flowing--that, too, is manipulation of the market. Governments over the entire globe don't ask whether they should manipulate markets, the just ask which ways are better than others.

"Free-trade" is a myth. Even Adam Smith advocated government intervention in a long list of public works. He also advocated "frugality" and "prudence" to a very high degree, using those words hundreds of times in his work. He used the words "invisible hand" just twice. And, I'd be more than happy to send you citations in his work where he expresses his deep distrust of "the interests of the manufacturers."

Yes, European governments indeed have interests in the continued flow of oil. But, they are doing much, much more to discourage use of it and have thus manipulated consumers and manufacturers toward finding ways away from oil dependency. And they do much more for mass-transit than the U.S. does. When the oil crunch comes, the U.S. will suffer a severe shock. The Europeans will be in a position to weather with considerably less pain.

The U.S. does a disservice to its citizens by not demanding that the auto industry improve its technology. The Europeans and the Japanese are way ahead technologically both with cars and with alternative energy sources. This is a massive market in which the U.S. could lead the world. But, we won't with our current myopic energy policy.

By the way, the U.S. has Autobahns. They are called "Interstates," which were designed on the German model. It is just that the U.S. has speed limits on all of them. What was the original purpose behind lowering the speed limits back in the early 1970s? To limit fuel consumption (saving lives was just an accidental benefit that was discovered after the fact). Another example of market manipulation.

Cheers,
Jamie

Originally posted by Brains

the Americans are using up a disproportiate amount of it, and every child that you know today will see the oil run out in their lifetime if the population of the planet

Now exactly what do you base that on? The Sierra Club?

bac- you da man! get me all riled up then sit back and watch and laugh! ;)

This is all giving me a headache, I'm going riding. You are all welcome to go with me, I have room. I'll just have to make a quick stop at the filling station first... :cry:

Hi,
with the help of sattelites the estimates have gotten very good. As I said earlier, we have time to make the adjustment; but we will need a lot of that time. But the amount of oil is not infinite; and it's just common sense to make some plans for the day when it starts becoming very expensive.

It seems to me that (as somebody already said) something is better than nothing. That having being said, this is far too little. Fleet wide mileage has to be increased to at least 25mpg for SUVs and to 30mpg for fleets as a whole over a certain period of time. The only way to get companies to make less polluting vehicues is to legally force them.

It's kind of like passing a law that requires gravity to pull down. Whoopie *****.

There are several very viable hybrid cars on the market that get upwards of 40 miles to the gallon. It's not a solution without problems, but it's an area with huge potential to alleviate a lot of problems, and support industries and research that "fuel" the US economic machine without sacrificing Alaskan wilderness or middle eastern countries/citizens.

I'm NOT giving up, surely I am not alone!


Originally posted by Spire
The only way to get companies to make less polluting vehicues is to legally force them.

Arrrrghhh!


Originally posted by roadbuzz
...and support industries and research that "fuel" the US economic machine without sacrificing Alaskan wilderness or middle eastern countries/citizens.

I completely agree. Surely there are things we don't know, but I do hope that we aren't going to war only because of the oil. That would be a shame. Our main reasons for war should be to help the innocent and helpless, or to protect our own security. I still have faith in our leaders and as I said before, I think there is more happening in the world that we as common citizens know, and I think it is important to support our leaders until we know they are doing otherwise.

Now would somebody please PLEASE admit that I am at least partly right so I can stop posting to this thread? BTW- I had a mondo ride today! Beautiful day here in the south central...

OKMikeOK,

I agree with you that until proven otherwise, the recent actions of the leaders of the USA with regard to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are indeed justified and it isn't about oil.

Problem is outside of the US nobody is going to believe this. I saw the results of a recent poll in which 38,000 people in 44 nations were surveyed. The overwhelming attitude of those polled was that the USA is a lone wolf that flaunts it's successes and will issue false propaganda about it's adversaries to try justifying it's aggressive attempts to gain control of them.

Sorry guys,
this is the result of our becoming more involved in the Middleast. We got more involved for one reason, and you know what it is.

Originally posted by Arsbars
my spell checker doesn't work...
eye doent nead won :roflmao:

Originally posted by MikeOK
[b]I'm NOT giving up, surely I am not alone!
Arrrrghhh!


My sentiments exactly, but that is the US for you!

Originally posted by MikeOK
I'm NOT giving up, surely I am not alone!


Originally posted by Spire
The only way to get companies to make less polluting vehicues is to legally force them.

Arrrrghhh!


You are @ least partly right ... =D ... however, on this point I think that you are dead wrong. Do you really think that BIG OIL (or any overtly powerful big business) has the conscience to police itself and do what's right for the people? The primary concern (most would say the sole concern) for business is to increase stockholder wealth - all else is a distant second. Moreover, when what's beneficial for the people is in direct opposition to increasing stockholder wealth - well we all know what happens then.

The bottom line is that business does need policing and regulation. If the current CAFE standards (as weak as the are) weren't in place, do you think that the average automaker's fleet would be more fuel efficient or less? Again, we all know the obvious answer. ;)

Originally posted by bac


You are @ least partly right

Thanks ;)

/rant

If the price of fuel goes up enough the autos will become more effecent!! However if the price is inflated in the USA due to taxation, political presure will make sure that the tax is reduced.
There are alternate fuel sources!!!! I just read about how much electric energy can be produced from burning garbage and old tires for heavens sake. One day it may be big alcohol that controls what you drive!:D
It is hard to beleave that the primary mode of transportation at the time my grandfather was born was the horse. Now we can go 100 mph any day of the week that we feel like tempting fate. Horses are mostly used for pleasure rides etc. now days.

Sorry, Mike, you are going to have to keep posting because you have neither answered any of my arguments about the use of taxation for manipulation of supply and demand nor have you given any reasonable evidence to support your assertions about oil playing a role in the U.S.'s motivations for going to war. But, I'll let you off the hook, because the only evidence that exists is the rhetoric of the Bush administration.

And I would rather that you get out for a ride then sit in front of a computer all day. ;)

Cheers,
Jamie

P.S. I just couldn't resist the opening. So, no I don't really seriously care whether we continue this thread. It is an old horse which has already been beat black and blue on this forum several times.

Supply and demand? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17288&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)

The key issue I have with this is MPG not the 1.5.

This does not cover electric or hydrogen standards. It's sort of a "yes we'll all still be driving gasoline cars by then" statement.

No more calls please

WE HAVE A WINNER!



This says it all.:D

Mike, you are not exposing a contradiction in my argument by referring me back to my own words.

I have always held the supply and demand mechanism to be an effective public policy tool. Put in a tax on gasoline consumption--hits all users in equal proportion to their gas consumption--and allow the supply and demand mechanism to do its work.

From a libertarian perspective one could argue that the 1.5 mpg raise is the more authoritarian means, since it more or less forces the car manufacturers to obey it. With a higher gas tax, no one is forcing you to drive a different car or ration your gas. It's just a matter of your budget.

We have decided as a nation that greater fuel efficiency is a worthwhile goal. The matter is just how we are going to achieve it. The 1.5 mpg requirement is not nearly as effective at achieving that goal as direct taxation on those who use fuel. But, it has to be coupled with vast improvements in mass transit, otherwise it will hit the poor very hard and the middle class hard enough.

By the way, it may come as news to some that there are a lot of Americans who do not think that it is wise to go to war in Irak at the moment. Among my friends and family, a group that ranges from some pretty conservative, Republican voters to some pinkos like me, not a single one thinks that it is wise. I am reading the same sentiment more and more in a range of American magazines and newspapers, and several in this forum have expressed similar views. My acquintances attribute Bush's motives to either 1) war for oil 2) distraction from the lousy economy 3) an election ploy (now moot) 4) U.S. world hegemony 5) personal revenge on Hussein. You take your choice depending on your degree of cynicism.

Most Americans don't realize how much the Bush administration's "with us, or against us" hegemonic attitude has damaged America's credibility in the world. The recent international poll results have already been cited. When people in Germany hear that I disagree with Bush's policies, they always express their relief at the fact that not all Americans see world like Bush does.

Americans are so typically skepitical of government. So why are not more people skeptical of Bush's motivations?

Cheers,
Jamie

My acquintances attribute Bush's motives to either 1) war for oil 2) distraction from the lousy economy 3) an election ploy (now moot) 4) U.S. world hegemony 5) personal revenge on Hussein. You take your choice depending on your degree of cynicism

Perhaps you miss another more obvious reason, the one that puts TEETH into the UN resolutions, and it's working. I am also one of those Americans who doesn't look forward to a war with anyone but some times it is nessary.

Back to the 1.5 mpg, every little bit helps. As I have pointed out before, there are alternate energy sources and at the time that it cost more for fuel from oil they will come on line. The same type of people will also, for the most part, control those sources when the time comes to use them.

Great, so now a Chevy Suburban will be getting 15 mpg vs 13? Yeah the world is saved. :rolleyes:

I personally thinking the idea of increased fuel taxation is a good one as I don't like the idea of dictating what people can and can't drive. Just make them think of buying a more fuel efficient vehicle rather than forcing them to do so.

Personally, I'd love to see SUVs, vans and pickemups forced to adhere to the same regulations as passenger cars. While the "light" truck fleet manages to "only" burn 1.4 times the fuel per mile compared to cars they produced 2.7 times the smog forming pollution. These things are used as personal transportation, they SHOULD have to abide by the same regulations.

PS - I am not a car hater, in fact I am a car lover, car over-use hater! :)

Uciflylow, the argument about putting teeth in UN resolutions is not generally found coming from the lips of my friends and family. The reason stems from Bush's inability to claim credit for it.

Remember all the talk about "regime change"? Bush and company made it abundantly clear that removal of Hussein from power was his priority--not getting the inspectors back into Irak. And he made it clear that the U.S. would go after Hussein with or without the U.N. Only after massive diplomatic outcry by France, Russia, China, and others did they perform a little rhetorical wizardry on the idea of "regime change" and agree to work through U.N. resolutions.

So, my reading of the last 6-8 months of history on this issue is that the Bush admin. didn't give a fig about U.N. resolutions until forced to do so. Moreover, Bush and co. worked pretty hard to undermine the credibility of the weapons inspections idea. Therefore, Bush cannot claim the "teeth" argument in good faith. It is a product of pressure from other nations.

It is rather like the removal of the Taliban, although at least here Bush was more honest. Even well after the Taliban fell from power, Bush Admin officials admitted that removing Taliban was never a high priority, but an accidental benefit. By the way, most of our goals in Afghanistan have thus far met with abject failure. Neither have we caught Bin Laden, nor have we stopped Al Qaeda. I suspect the Quixotic manner in which the so-called War on Terrorism is being pursued, coupled with its manifest failure so far, has likewise played a role in Bush needing to find someone he can beat.

Cheers,
Jamie

By the way, most of our goals in Afghanistan have thus far met with abject failure. Neither have we caught Bin Laden, nor have we stopped Al Qaeda. I suspect the Quixotic manner in which the so-called War on Terrorism is being pursued, coupled with its manifest failure so far, has likewise played a role in Bush needing to find someone he can beat

Jamie, i agree completely. i would add this to the list of possible reaons although it's pretty close to #2 distraction from the economy.

although the general attitude seems to hold that the Afganistan War on Terror was successful, as you said, most of the primary goals have NOT been met.

as i have stated before, i think putting all this money into actually fighting terrorism and concentrating on the Taliban and arresting the growth of terrorism would be much better than a "feel-good with oil benefit" war against Iraq. so we're ignoring the real threat (global terrorism not affiliated with tradional countries and governments) so we can fight a war based on the old rules which is something the US can surely win b/c we have superior money and military power. but that won't win us the war on terror b/c the old rules are gone -- i.e. the cold war was based on the mutual destruction principle that the other "rational" country wouldn't want to attack b/c it meant self-innialation, but with the new terrorists without a land and with nothing to loose, the rules don't apply (see Sept. 11th)

back on topic: i have for over 5 years believed in raising the US gas tax mainly so that the drivers AT LEAST pay their share that current government subsidies are paying (i.e. i object to other tax payers footing the bill for them to drive). and as has been here stated, it has the advantage to not LEGISLATING what people can or can't drive, but just making them pay more for certain choices. as i have also said before, i think sadly, the US will limit it's auto usage through excessive traffic and "congestion pricing" before it does so because of pollution or by significantly higher gas taxes (because Americans DESERVE cheap gas - it's a right!). and fuel efficiency is virtually irrelevant in traffic and congestion - well, smaller cars are better but not much. we'll have huge inefficient cars, just many people won't be able to really use them b/c of too much traffic.

Originally posted by uciflylow
No more calls please

WE HAVE A WINNER!



This says it all.:D

Okay, now I'll go back over to the mountain bike section and RM where I belong. Maybe if you're lucky I'll be back next spring when I dust off the old road bike. It was fun, later...

This is too funny.........


I'm rollin'

Hey Mike,

From one SUV, pick-up driving, mountain biker, to another, you're right.(forgot gun-toting, & conservative)(& oh yeah, Bush Supporter)

My perspective (how I feel, but with much sarcasm included):

If the population of the USA wanted fuel efficient compact cars, GM, & Ford would not make their Surburbans and Expedition in the quantity they do.

For example, Ford is no longer making the Expedition. Why? No one was buying one. Their sales for this vehicle significantly dropped. But, their Explorer is still very popular. Personally, I think it has more to do with Quality of Ford vs GM, but that's another debate entirely. They've actually extended the Explorer line and are producing more than ever (statement from a friend who is a Ford employee)

GM, is still producing their Tahoe, Yukon, Yukon XL and Suburbans. Why? Duh! People want these vehicles. I know I do. When I go camping or mtn biking. I load up my family, my gear my bikes all into my Tahoe, and wish I had a Suburban b/c I need more room for all my things. Guess what? If I win the lottery, I'm buying an H2, or a 2500HD CrewCab 4x4. I know when I leaned up against my sister's 3 cylinder Chevy Sprint and dented the quarterpanel, I'd never want to own one!

I agree with a lot of people that until gas prices reach $4/gal there will not be a push for more fuel efficient cars. And, that's o.k. with me. When that day comes, I'll either buy a smaller truck or more fuel efficient vehicle, or budget more of my $$$ for gas. Heck, I may even start commuting on a regular basis. Do I see that happening anytime soon? Not really. If it does, I also strongly believe that companies will increase their production of more fuel efficient cars to meet the demand. Do I think there is a shortage of oil? No. I think we have an untapped resource of oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. We just can't get to it b/c of too many damn environmentalist. Do we have a dependency on foreigh oil? Yes! Why? Too many damn environmentalists! If we tapped these resources in Alaska and the GOM, also as mentioned Venezuala (sp?-sorry Mike, no spell checker!) we could eliminate the need for oil from the Middle East. Guess what. If that happened, maybe we wouldn't need to go to war over oil! And when we go to war (which I think is inevitable) the oil excuse by the solcialist hippie commie freaks will be eliminated.

Side Note: I don't think the majority of American's realize that many Middle Eastern countries teach their children to HATE America and Americans and that the USA is the Enemy! I agree our foreign policy sucks, but that's another debate entirely!

So really, it's all the environmentalist fault if we go to war!

L8R

Feeling fiesty today! Really stirring the poop with that last one!

l8R