ecogeek.org— A coalition of auto workers, environmentalists and car dealers have banded together to rebuff the automobile lobby's position that a 35 mpg vehicle fleet is "impossible."
Nov 10, 2007View in Crawl 4
Well, considering they're paying 7 USD per gallon, it's hard to imagine why. Here in Canada, we pay on average 25 cents per liter while you pay 40 cents per gallon (20 federal, 20 state on average), ie. 10 cents per liter. Over in Europe, they pay upwards of 1.40 per liter of gas in a combination of fuel taxes and a Value Added Tax, like they do in Germany and the UK. Obviously this higher price would create a consumer demand for better fuel efficiency, and the fact that so much of the price is taxes, the government has a way to keep the price under control by offering tax relief when real world prices are on the rise. Apparently only 60% of the federal tax money raised by this 20 cents per gallon is used on roads and bridges by the US government, something that would be used by most consumers of gasoline in the States and is actually the stated purpose of the tax. It's all about the price of oil, man. The environmental lobby need not apply.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax</a>
You assume there is a MARKET driving anything when in fact the markets is a farse. its calculated and assembled with the illusion of free market when in fact its well planned out.
The earth shale program is only economically viable because the price of oil is so high. With the easy to get oil being used at 20 million barrels per day by the US alone, the price will obviously be higher by 2020. So you might get supplies for longer, but it's going to be more expensive. There's also a lot of skepticism about how energy-efficient scale production is, and that infact you are getting roughly back what you put in.The US needs to stop clinging on to the age of oil and progress :)
And, let's not forget such great states as Texas, where everyone has to drive the largest truck they can find. I actually knew someone a couple of years ago that was proud that her truck was so big it wouldn't fit in her garage. BTW, she had an office job.
if you could design ANY car that outputs that much power with so little fuel you might be in line for... i dunno... some sort of international physics award or something. Seriously, you'd either have to build the body out of tinfoil and erector set or make the next Mustang a Dune buggy or something. Not saying that it would be a bad idea, just pointing out that the people who are going to buy a Mustang couldn't care less about how green it is. It could get 100 MPG for all they care. it could get 2 MPG... They literally couldn't care less. They'd buy it regardless. I, on the other hand, take fuel economy into account when i buy a vehicle, and I'd rather that people like me got a selection of 60-80 MPG cars than to focus all this energy on getting ALL cars up to a certain MPG. Having just a few cars with extremely high MPG will probably just create a HUGE market for those cars, the manufacturors would sell an assload and a half and make a f**kload of money. it seems like it would be a far better idea both in terms of the environment and the economy to focus on getting a limited number of HIGHLY efficient cars out there that are aimed directly at the middle-class and lower market. The exteme economy vehicle. That's got to be at least 60-70% of the US population right there. None of us would ever be able to afford a new Mustang regardless of it's MPGWhat you're suggesting is that even the smartest students in a class have their grades lowered to match that of the dumbest kid. It's totally f**king ass backwards. You get some extremely high MPG cars out FIRST, and THEN you try to use the technology developed in those experiments to make your green mustangs.
theone3Nov 11, 2007
Huh? 50 MPG is better than 35. Have you got any idea what you're talking about?
chicken2niteNov 12, 2007
Well, considering they're paying 7 USD per gallon, it's hard to imagine why. Here in Canada, we pay on average 25 cents per liter while you pay 40 cents per gallon (20 federal, 20 state on average), ie. 10 cents per liter. Over in Europe, they pay upwards of 1.40 per liter of gas in a combination of fuel taxes and a Value Added Tax, like they do in Germany and the UK. Obviously this higher price would create a consumer demand for better fuel efficiency, and the fact that so much of the price is taxes, the government has a way to keep the price under control by offering tax relief when real world prices are on the rise. Apparently only 60% of the federal tax money raised by this 20 cents per gallon is used on roads and bridges by the US government, something that would be used by most consumers of gasoline in the States and is actually the stated purpose of the tax. It's all about the price of oil, man. The environmental lobby need not apply.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax</a>
nerysNov 12, 2007
You assume there is a MARKET driving anything when in fact the markets is a farse. its calculated and assembled with the illusion of free market when in fact its well planned out.
bigbluecarbonNov 12, 2007
tax subsidies to oil? like those for big corn?
wilsonthecatNov 13, 2007
The earth shale program is only economically viable because the price of oil is so high. With the easy to get oil being used at 20 million barrels per day by the US alone, the price will obviously be higher by 2020. So you might get supplies for longer, but it's going to be more expensive. There's also a lot of skepticism about how energy-efficient scale production is, and that infact you are getting roughly back what you put in.The US needs to stop clinging on to the age of oil and progress :)
jennyd6Nov 13, 2007
And, let's not forget such great states as Texas, where everyone has to drive the largest truck they can find. I actually knew someone a couple of years ago that was proud that her truck was so big it wouldn't fit in her garage. BTW, she had an office job.
squigglypNov 19, 2007
if you could design ANY car that outputs that much power with so little fuel you might be in line for... i dunno... some sort of international physics award or something. Seriously, you'd either have to build the body out of tinfoil and erector set or make the next Mustang a Dune buggy or something. Not saying that it would be a bad idea, just pointing out that the people who are going to buy a Mustang couldn't care less about how green it is. It could get 100 MPG for all they care. it could get 2 MPG... They literally couldn't care less. They'd buy it regardless. I, on the other hand, take fuel economy into account when i buy a vehicle, and I'd rather that people like me got a selection of 60-80 MPG cars than to focus all this energy on getting ALL cars up to a certain MPG. Having just a few cars with extremely high MPG will probably just create a HUGE market for those cars, the manufacturors would sell an assload and a half and make a f**kload of money. it seems like it would be a far better idea both in terms of the environment and the economy to focus on getting a limited number of HIGHLY efficient cars out there that are aimed directly at the middle-class and lower market. The exteme economy vehicle. That's got to be at least 60-70% of the US population right there. None of us would ever be able to afford a new Mustang regardless of it's MPGWhat you're suggesting is that even the smartest students in a class have their grades lowered to match that of the dumbest kid. It's totally f**king ass backwards. You get some extremely high MPG cars out FIRST, and THEN you try to use the technology developed in those experiments to make your green mustangs.