Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Hugh Byrne
6443 Followers
Boss This!
10034 Followers
CourageWolf
6887 Followers
"ⓒⓗⓡⓞⓝⓘⓒ!"
5593 Followers
absolutelytrueSep 30, 2010
Didn't we learn anything in elementary school?
novenatorSep 30, 2010
Better to use the all-too familiar Terror Alert system. That way Fox viewers can understand it.
biofriendlyblogSep 30, 2010
The people want what they want.
Closed AccountOct 1, 2010
And people want overly huge gas guzzling eco murder machines.
Americans just don't give a f**k.
armchaircmdrOct 1, 2010
Maybe eco loving tree f**kers should walk around everywhere to compensate for my truck.
rufiohoSep 30, 2010
Hey those are the letter I always saw on my papers and tests!
thoughtsonthisSep 30, 2010
If someone wants a certain car bad enough, they are not going to worry about these labels.
diggorelseOct 1, 2010
FTA: "Our survey demonstrates that Americans want clarity and usefulness in communications from government agencies"
So, naturally, government agencies push the opposite.
davidnivenOct 1, 2010
Maybe average citizens don't care what some government nannies or do-gooders think. It is THEIR money after all, right? RIGHT?!?
crunchdiggOct 1, 2010
yeah, "information BAD. knowledge ELITIST".
reaper527Oct 1, 2010
well, when mandatory labeling programs (and the tests that have to be done to get that information) drive up the final cost of my vehicle, i could do without eco ratings.
give me the tech specs, give me the fuel info.
meninostongueOct 1, 2010
I don't think the issue is misunderstanding, I think it's that people don't care. The guy buying a massive SUV isn't unaware that it is inefficient, he's just willing to accept that fact. Nobody is comparing a Suburban to a Prius and finding themselves shocked at the difference in letter grade.
We may as well start grading food with an F for deep fried Snickers and an A for broccoli... that should take care of obesity, right?
If reducing emissions and improving gas mileage are the goals, then regulation will have to be more direct. Taxes (penalties or incentives), emissions standards, fuel economy standards, etc would have a real effect.
Closed AccountOct 1, 2010
For how decrepit our road system is becoming gas taxes are actually one of the things I could support a massive increase, even upwards to $1 to $2 a gallon in tax if that went 100% to our roads.
The unfortunate problem with Congress is once they have a source of revenue it will never stay assigned to what it's supposed to and will always end up in the general coffers to be pissed away however they feel like it.
addiktionOct 1, 2010
Yeah I love meat but the incentives are very unfair. Hardly any subsidies are going to good foods and they dominate government with a hell of a lot of lobbyists with mean cash.
Closed AccountOct 1, 2010
I seriously don't care what the EPA thinks. I will buy the car I want based on what I want.
I may or may not take gas mileage into consideration as that is part of the total cost of ownership but I sure don't care what the EPA thinks about the car!
digdug135Oct 1, 2010
Maybe it's not the government's job to tell us what car we should drive. Getting the information out there is one thing -- maybe it as simple and as easy to understand as you want -- but the goal should not be getting us to buy the cars you want us to.
crunchdiggOct 1, 2010
sounds like exactly what is being done. putting useful information on a sticker on the car. Pretty equivalent to putting nutrition info on a jar of peanut butter.
zuke004Oct 1, 2010
The difference being they are "grading" the cars. In case of nutrition info, they just give you the facts and let you make up your own mind, they don't put a letter grade on food. The fact that they are trying to force your hand by giving you a failing grade for purchasing a particular vehicle is BS. Just give me the info! Sorry but a guy with a family of 5 can't really use a prius practically. What would be nice is if they gave you the info and then also showed how it ranks in that overall class of vehicles.
duncan202Oct 1, 2010
The first label did just that. The new label is the government pushing its agenda.
digdug135Oct 1, 2010
The purpose of the redesign, according to the article, was because they thought consumers were making bad choices: "The findings also suggest that one of the designs featuring a letter grade that is based on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions may not have the impact the EPA had hoped for, since 38 percent of respondents said they would buy a car graded less than a "C." " This is different than a finding that 38% of respondents didn't understand the information the label was supposed to impart. They're disappointed because they weren't able to force consumers into choices they didn't want to make.
Closed AccountOct 1, 2010
"Maybe it's not the government's job to tell us what car we should drive."
maybe you are oblivious to the fact that the government has been doing just that for decades... its called safety and emissions standards... or would you rather live in a 3rd world country and just use whatever runs and moves?
jjvorsOct 2, 2010
LOL! The EPA blames consumers for being "confused"--it was actually a bad label. I found the new label more like the old fuel efficiency sticker and fairly useful.