digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Auto Companies Create Fake Grassroots Campaigns Against Fuel Standards

autobloggreen.com — GM, Chrysler and The Auto Alliance create websites to sway consumers to contact Congress. The sites all suggest that there are better ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions than focusing on better fuel economy for our automobiles.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Aeaus, on 10/11/2007, -10/+68Little surprise here, big business is once again trying to protect it's bottom line regardless of the current and future negative effects the inaction would have.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -33/+20I know it's popular to make blind appeals to emotion with the "BIG business" or "BIG pharma" or BIG anything routine.

      It does nothing to answer the question - Are CAFE standards a good choice?

      It might help to question how much good the first round of CAFE standards did. You do realize that those gas guzzling SUVs were a direct result of those standards, don't you? This is an example of the law of unintended consequences. It is also a good example of the power of the consumer. They didn't want those efficient "things". Auto makers heard them and responded. One strike against CAFE standards.

      Are there better alternatives? A better question is how to determine if there are better alternatives. For that I suggest Jame Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds". Non-political, definitely not oil related, and enjoyable reading. It discusses the pros and cons of distributed versus centralized decision making. CAFE standards are clearly centralized. In my opinion that's strike two.

      Then there's the open question of what will be the side effects? Unfortunately, we won't know all of them until afterwards, but there is one clear side effect. Bigger government (my turn to play the BIG card). In my opinion, that's strike three.

      I'm willing to listen to any counter arguments. But PLEASE, make the rational. I'm tired of "the boogy man did it"



    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -8/+49@jeffek, the simplest counter argument takes into account "externalities" in business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

      In a perfect free-market system with no exernalities, the cost of fuel would rise because of the cost of pollution, climate change, and our foreign policy. Then the market forces _might_ balance themselves out, and people would be naturally encouraged to buy more fuel efficient cars.

      However, because the government already subsidizes oil, because the supply of oil is manipulated anyway, and because businesses and consumers can so easily (but temporarily) ignore the impact of their decisions, true market forces never come into play.

      And so the only two ways to fix that are to close the loop and require gas and gas-guzzling cars to reflect their true cost. Or, we can simplify the matter and require better fuel standards. This is the mistake economic libertarians typically make -- believing in the free market, when the market needs to be both free and complete (no externalities) for these principles to even be tested. Fixing the "free" part without the "close-the-loop" part is a recipe for corporate Feudalism, with humans as serfs.

      Yes, government meddling sucks. But such a complex system, good luck trying to get the free market to right itself without major structural changes.

      One of those changes, btw, is one I've been pushing for a long time -- car and gas companies shouldn't even be able to enter the political discussion about climate change or lobby for wars for oil. They shouldn't have the right to free speech that individuals (i.e., citizens, human beings) have. Because companies are not people in reality (but are in the law). Until you fix that, forget about getting government out of the business of manipulating the prices that underly this market. So the best we can do is some more meddling to counter that.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -9/+18Ahhh. Intelligent life. Refreshing.

      "However, because the government already subsidizes oil"

      This is an excellent point. The subsidies should stop. Immediately. However, I have to disagree that they are grounds for further intervention. I can't see the sense in "we're being bad (subsidies), so we have to be bad (intervention) in order to be good (lower usage/pollution)". It's a line of reasoning that has no exit.

      "Yes, government meddling sucks. But such a complex system," Actually, that's my point. The more complex a system, the less effective central decision making becomes. The last decade or so has seen a lot of progress in realizing the benefits of distributed processing. That's in hard sciences, engineering, artificial intelligence, etc. Not your everyday reading material, which is why I recommended the book.

      "lobby for wars for oil." Definitely with you on that one. I hate the term "externalities", but I'm happy to use it against war.

      "Because companies are not people in reality (but are in the law). Until you fix that" Fix what? A company is nothing more than a group of people cooperating voluntarily for a specific purpose. Why shouldn't they have an opinion? How is this different from the Salvation Army (or any charity)? Their views deserve scrutiny, but that's true of any self-serving opinion.

      I'm not ignoring your point of view on externalities. I just disagree. Short version - who decides the cost/benefit tradeoff?
    • math20, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9How about just getting rid of these government interventions that you say are causing problems instead of putting forth more regulations to try and fix them?
    • Psalms, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3I'm fairly certain that Ryan Seacrest is behind this conspiracy.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10I agree that "externalities" is a poor word. I wish I had a better one to connote that the balance sheet is not truly balanced.

      Basically, it comes down to this. Fix externalities, then we can talk about removing government steering on all fronts. What we currently have is a tug of war, with the flag in the middle being pulled in two or more directions at once. If the forces pulling the flag are artificial, they have to be balanced, or the game is over. If you want the forces to be natural, as in pure free-market, then all sides have to stop pulling on the rope, and we can then monitor the flag to see how it drifts over time, or whether it falls in the mud. My opinion is that all sides will find ways to tug on the rope, and it is that tension that keeps anyone of us from getting pulled into the mud or falling on our asses.

      In other words, we all get to decide -- in a mixture of competing voices -- what the policy should be. That's the closest thing to democracy we can manage. And that's what representative government is for. The libertarian position in many ways resembles the anarchist one.

      But on the point of companies having political speech. I don't want to side-track this thread. But just consider that the speech of a company is not that of its employees -- no one typically asks them, nor do they vote -- it simpy serves the interests of the company, as if the company was some sort of AI, being served by its loyal employees, who in fact, check their own rights to free speech at the door.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2@Entropy
      They have a right to free speech. It doesn't matter, anyway, if all they can do is talk.
    • linagee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Screw that. I'll be scooting around on my electric scooter. Take your MPG argument and shove it oil/car/gas/evil companies.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@tech42er, they don't. The Bill of Rights was written to protect PEOPLE. The only reason it applies to corporations is because some lawyers had the bright idea to "solve" early problems in corporate law by declaring a corporation a "person" under the law. But even that was only intended to give corporations the right to own property, enter into contracts, and have some protection from liability (for the investors and officers). It was never meant to be used to give corporations the bill or rights.

      I don't want to derail this thread, so if you want to read more or discuss that angle, you can go here:
      http://www.brownianemotion.org/2007/05/10/corporate-emancipation/
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@Entropyman

      My real hope here is to get people thinking. People (Americans especially, but also the rest of the world) have the bad habit of following the whim of the moment (witness the digg count for the opening comment by Aeaus) without thinking things through. Fads are fine for movies and toys, they're really bad for politics.

      'Til next time
    • spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4'I'm willing to listen to any counter arguments. But PLEASE, make the rational. I'm tired of "the boogy man did it"'

      Burning gas makes the air unhealthy to breathe, among other things. Let's find an alternative renewable fuel that is not detrimental to the environment and doesn't rely in importing from other countries.
    • Spampy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4In regards to fake grassroots campaigns: PSP! PSP! PSP!
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@spyrochaete

      That's true but at the moment no one pays the cost of polluting too much. Anybody can drive and pollute loads and loads, does much get done? I guess sometimes the government passes some laws to have something changed but it fixes some bits while sweeping the real cause of the problem under the carpet. I suggest the real problem is that people are not responsible for their pollution because the roads are public and that the roads are a scarce resource but the real market price is not shown. If there is a heavy polluting road that pollutes the houses around it the people who own the houses can't do anything, even though their property rights are being violated. So, because the road is public there is no real road owner, or at least no one who takes responsibility. At some point there needs to be some pollution, but the person who pollutes needs to be responsible so it does not involuntarily affect others. One possible solution is to charge people more who pollute more, or something along those lines. There are millions of other people who could come up with lots of ideas to fix the problem, I'm just trying to make an argument for making people responsible for their own pollution.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6 If car companies did not own DMV, I'd gladly build my own electric car and drive it. I worked on many projects for competitions. All cars had to be dismantled afterwards, cause there was no system to allow them to be used in public. Without crash testing and extensive licensing it is impossible for individuals to produce their own vehicles. The only ones that are street legal, are ones built using pre-approved kits that have to be embedded into stock cars. Different states have different laws, none of which are in favor of the consumer.

      We can't buy better cars and we can't build better cars, even if we have the tools. Whenever someone comes up with a new promising technology, an industrial giant buys it for outrageous amounts of money to prevent others from implementing it.

      They use every possible loophole.

      Clean air legislation in California stated that 2% of cars manufactured had to be zero emission. 7% with close to zero emission. Said nothing about those cars having to be sold and used. And we've got the EV1 scenario, where cars were shipped from the factory straight to the junk yard.

      Car companies aren't stupid. They're not going to be using anything that is going to reduce their profits. Because they have lobbyists though every layer of government, we'll never benefit from new technologies. Every new advancement will be costing us more.

      I hate hybrids. They are an attempt to combine old technology with new in order to make the device more complex, more tamper-proof, more breakable and service-reliant. The reason people aren't complaining yet is cause they don't have that many miles yet on cars that have just hit the market. Wait for another decade and then compare them to the cars we're using now from a decade ago.

      I'm pissed, cause I know how to build cars, but I can't use what I build. I'd love to give a finger to the car and oil industries, but I'm forced to drive the chunk of metal just cause it's the only one I'm allowed to buy and drive.
    • ounit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"I'm forced to drive the chunk of metal just cause it's the only one I'm allowed to buy and drive."

      Uhh.. BESTenemy, have you tried a bicycle or public transit? Emission-free vehicles have been mass produced for 150 years.
    • straxus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Uhh.. BESTenemy, have you tried a bicycle or public transit? Emission-free vehicles have been mass produced for 150 years."

      Spoken like someone who doesn't have to deal with sprawl and lack of public transit. This holier-than-thou attitude of people who are fortunate enough to live in areas that aren't suburban America is stale and unhelpful. Try to imagine that there are cities in the world built entirely unlike your own.
    • rcook18, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You can buy an electric car today. You can ride the bus today. Quit whining and blaming. Take control of your life.
  • grzelakc, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27Wow. Those companies really have the gall to oppose better fuel economy standards! This is just beyond belief! And they wonder why GM, Ford and Chrysler are de-facto bankrupts and the Japanese auto companies are completely overwhelming them.
    • skippy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18"The alliance -- whose members include the BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen..."
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902750.html

      Ironically, those over-glorified Japanese companies are also part of the Auto Alliance. I have been following the new CAFE standard currently under discussion in congress and all auto manufactures oppose this bill and the increase in fuel economy. (I say all, because I have not heard of any who support it.) The Japanese manufactures are far from perfect, although that seems to be the impression given by Toyota/Honda fanboys.

      Europe does not have fuel economy standards. They tax the gas to decrease the fuel consumption. The first round of CAFE standards didn't work, I don't see this working either. People will just drive more, consuming the fuel any increase in fuel economy saves. It won't reduce the demand.
    • tennisOK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1FWIW - BMW Group, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Co., General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen..."

      Porsche is a (the?) major(ity) shareholder in VW and Mazda is owned outright by Ford.
    • skippy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I thought it was Audi and VW. Ford owns about 32% of Mazda; whatever the highest amount the Japanese government will allow foreign investments of Japanese companies.
    • tennisOK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1VW and Audi comprise VAG (Volkswagen Audi Group), of which the largest single owner is Porsche (with just over 30%) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#Porsche

      Seems a bit surprising a niche manufacturer like Porsche owning the largest proportion of the one of the world's largest motor companies!
  • gormenghast, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31from drivecongress.com:
    "[The legislation to improve fuel economy] would significantly increase the cost of new vehicles and limit the number of models available to consumers"

    So evil. Love it. They sure know their audience. Heaven forbid one not have the choice between a zillion different SUVs in America.
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10didn't they already use this argument when fighting against seat belts?
  • FlaG8r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15'The other sites have similar goals, although Chrysler is only targeting their dealerships at this time with their "Grab Democracy by the Horns" site.'

    Apparently they think democracy is a dangerous animal that needs to be controlled.
  • HinDeSky, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4US car companies OWN congress and until the citizens open their eyes nothing will change. Keep buying better mileage cars and prove these idiots in Detroit out of business until they realize that they are part of our problem
    • xdre, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4See the link posted by skippy above. It's not just the US automakers.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3It's simple. Self fulfilling, even. Let them keep building really crappy cars that get terrible mileage. Enough people will stop buying those turds with wheels and the exceeding lame ass companies will eventually, finally, blissfully go under.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Exactly. The beauty of the free market. If people want cars with bad mileage, do you blame the car companies for making them? No, you should blame the consumers. Socialist nanny statists don't seem to understand that.
  • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2***** auto companies... if it wasn't for them we'd still be able to drive electric cars...
  • nhinsch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Yet another example of the phenomenon known as "astroturfing." It was also used by telecom companies against net neutrality.
  • Raian, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12These assholes won when they convinced cities to tear up their street-cars and replace them with buses-- Then came the development of suburbs... America is dependent on automobiles-- People need to stop dreaming of living in cramped sub-divisions with the promise of appreciating value, and owning land. Rent an apartment in an urban area-- the money you'll save from not owning a car/insurance/gas will more than make up for the potential appreciation of your property, and it will be in the form of liquid assets that you can spend today.

    • BobsYourUncle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Renting an apartment in an urban area isn't exactly the solution. Depending on the urban area, you're paying as much (or more) than a mortgage for the privilege of living in an apartment/condo building. Public transit needs to be greatly improved if that's to be a viable alternative. Otherwise, I'd rather sit in my car commuting and at least own my little slice of land. And I'm speaking as a current renter.
  • samsonthesaxman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1SNORG!
  • dattaway, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3This problem will be solved and all the large companies will merge into one big company. The One Big Company will no longer have to compete with itself and will be forced to conserve. That's when we will be riding scooters and tiny cardboard boxes to work for our 60 hour workweek.
  • ichbinladen, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12How ignorant. Better fuel economy is much more appealing in this era of rising gas prices. GM and Chrysler, see ya in the museums.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Why is that exactly?

      Am I imagining the new full-size Tundra? Or the Sequoia? FJ Cruiser?

      Most of Toyotas new announcements are big vehicles with poor mileage.

      You know why? Because that's what people buy. And you don't become the #1 automaker by ignoring what the market demands.

      I'm glad Toyota is making some fuel efficient cars. But they're not the only ones, and their recent growth and profits is fed at least as much by making gas guzzlers as by making Priuses.
  • xixor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I am a little confused. With gas prices rising and a growing concern of the environment there is unquestionably a considerable amount of consumer interest in high-mileage low-emissions vehicles. Why aren't the automakers going out and pursuing this growing market? Doesn't it seem anti-market and anti-capitalist for business to use and encourage government policy to prevent innovation and close growing markets? Something doesn't seem right here.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8It;s because enough idiots still want gas guzzlers. Blame them, not the companies.
    • KUKBAHLAM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, thats how the system has been made to work. You want to fix the problem?
      Transfer all battery patents not currently in wide spread production to the public domain. We would have a flurry of new battery's and even more new research as new patents are filed. Imagine.... a battery in production that wasn't spawned from WWII military applications..
  • slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Its ongoing situation. Till all the companies make one representative company which will speak on their behalf or take decision, the scenario would remain more or less same.
  • MonGuSE1, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10They're missing the point, our economy runs on automobile transportation. We need the oil/gas to get us places for the economy to function. We are reaching peak oil if we haven't already and on top of it we are releasing so much of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that we are affecting weather patterns and global heat indexes. Really in my opinion these increases won't do a whole lot, we need to look into increasing mass transit in our cities and stop paving huge swath's of land that we won't probably be able to use in a hundred years. NYC, London, Montreal, France and etc should be a model that all cities follow. With automobiles less than 1% of the energy created by the combustion of gasoline is used to transport the occupants of the car. The rest is wasted as heat energy, waste gases and on energy to move the 2 tons of steel your sitting in.

    These increases in fleet economy standards are only a finger on the leak that is our energy problem.
    • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2that sounds good but the country is big and spread out. How do you plan to change existing land use patterns? force people to leave the suburbs and rural areas and move to cities? Tearing down suburbs and rebuilding high density housing around transportation corridors will use more stored energy(money = storage energy = emissions) than it would save.
    • KUKBAHLAM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Mass transit only works in northern states with dense populations. In Texas there is a social stigma placed upon buses so cities build toll roads and light rail even after the voters reject such projects.

      Add to this the fact that everything here is spread out. The next big town is at least an hour away and often 3+ hours away. The areas in which a 100k home can be purchased are a 2 hour morning ride to the area of town where a job exists that allows you to buy such a house. You will never get a Texan to ride a bus when the trip to work takes longer than a drive to San Antonio.

      Here, the general opinion is that buses cause more traffic problems then they solve..... and where you run buses on streets laid out 50+ years ago, no surprise. No bus lanes or paved areas to load people out of the 1 lane reserved for neighborhood traffic. So each year we lose a couple dozen people who try to pass a bus in their own neighborhood.... for empty buses. It also costs us an extra 4% in sales tax.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2There's lots of oil left, the figures you see are only of the resources found. As the price goes up people will search for more oil and invent new ways to make better use of the currently drillable reserves. Also, lots of environmentalist groups lobby to stop new drilling and refinery building which artificially raises the price.
  • blademanx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5"[The legislation to improve fuel economy] would significantly increase the cost of new vehicles"
    Errrrrrr....Is that a threat?
    Seriously, this is one of the most disgusting and yet predictable things I've seen in a long time.
  • iohs, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1So, this calls for a boycott... Only one problem-- the only major auto manufacturer who isn't in on this thing is Chevy, and their cars are some of the worst offenders. Uuh... so, now what?

    This reminds me of that BS Sony PSP website... So embarrassing.
    • Thequestion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Chevy is a division of GM so it actually is in.
    • p0rk917, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ iohs

      uh... Chevy is part of GM, which is included in those whole thing.
  • jerkorz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0If you liked those websites, be sure to read this post too...

    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/26/automakers-create-radio-and-print-ads-in-an-attempt-to-stall-fue/

    Radio and print ads were created by the same group with the same intent.
  • orlyfactor, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Like these companies ever made any cars worth buying anyway and now they're trying to put one more nail in our collective coffin driven in by their own greed. I hope these people get sucked into a tar pit.
  • toph2223, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1cool thanks for the links :)
  • kenvsryu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I bet XOM is behind all this.
  • BananaAmbush, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I have a good way of reducing emissions. It's called not purchasing vehicles.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The EPA should run a huge campaign targeted at CEOs to enable their enterprises with telework. Working from home could prevent a lot of pollution from being spewed each day.
  • KUKBAHLAM, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2American car companies have been enjoying high profit and refusing to innovate. If not forced by the market or protected by a crooked government they will soon break down into smaller companies willing to compete. The current attitude is very reminiscent of the recent behavior of the record labels when technology made them obsolete. Stubbornly refuse to change and buy stronger legislation to secure your market position.

    Lets hope there is still enough resentment when they ask for a bailout following bankruptcy.

    This is a great financial opportunity for most politicians. The upcoming elections are very worrisome for the auto industry and our politicians can extort far more in campaign contributions if the fuel standards pass. The auto execs will launder a lot more money through these organizations and other PACs and will end up giving far more when offered the chance of repeal.
  • timlovelee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I don't think they'll have much luck. I can't even get traction to my campaign website against the Canadian Government shutting down microcar importer, Japanoid. We're trying to get people to embrace small cars with tiny engines, and so far, only 40 people have signed up and only 18 diggs. Ouch! http://www.japanoid.com/stop25
  • FatBird19, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0AHAHAHA! AAAHAHAHHAHAHAHH! AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Alright, I'm over it. Let me look at the article one last AHAHHAHAHA!!!
  • dsmx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2If the american car companies think the best way of increasing sales of there cars is to go against what people want in a car then I welcome this move as it will speed up the demise of the american car companies and the rubbish cars they make.
  • spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4FYI, these campaign websites are registered to autoalliance.org according to WHOIS. Here are the companies that make up this organization:

    * BMW Group
    * DaimlerChrysler
    * Ford Motor Company
    * General Motors
    * Mazda
    * Mitsubishi Motors
    * Porsche
    * Toyota
    * Volkswagen of America, Inc.
  • Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1somehow this fails to suprise me.. given the typical american car is 80% of the job done and then they seem to say. "ok that'll do"
  • raid517, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The frightening thing is that these things actually work. I remember a similar campaign for the anti net neutrality mob - and a few days later we had a furious mob argument with tons of people spouting almost line for line everything that this completely fake web site had told them.

    People are dumb. No they really are. You just have to know which buttons to press and you can have them jumping through hoops and crawling around on all fours and barking like dogs if you want to.

    The mistake that a lot of ordinary people make is in believing that their point of view actually matters. They didn't matter before the Internet and they don't matter now. Just because you can come to sites like this and post your point of view and delude yourself that whatever you have to say has any meaning or weight at all doesn't mean that anything has changed - or that your views really do matter. They don't. (After all look at the way even the Democrats sold you all out at the drop of a hat over Iraq when it looked like some of their own interests might be put at threat). You are all just pawns in a game.

    It doesn't have to be like that of course. If enough of you cared you could change everything. But you won't - because you are all too fat and too lazy and too scared of what actually doing anything might mean and what you think you might have to loose.
  • Xevec, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I am against oil companies getting subsidies and using government to their own advantage. But using government to fund "alternatives" will bring the same problems as we experience now with the oil companies. Why is NOBODY ever thinking of their actions in the long term? Everybody wants a "quick fix" and most likely has the idea that "in the long run, we are all dead(John Maynard Keynes)."

    "American car companies have been enjoying high profit and refusing to innovate. If not forced by the market or protected by a crooked government they will soon break down into smaller companies willing to compete. The current attitude is very reminiscent of the recent behavior of the record labels when technology made them obsolete. Stubbornly refuse to change and buy stronger legislation to secure your market position."

    I want to comment on this statement. These high profits are nothing to be really happy about. In the long term, these are "bad" profits. They have no incentive to expand production(because of all the regulations that involve building a new refinery and drilling new areas). But yes, refusing to change will kill you in the marketplace. Also, it is bad using legislation to keep your ways. All it does is simply helps them and hurts consumers.

    Also, alternative sources cost a HELL lot more than oil does right now. I keep hearing statistics about how solar powered cars and other alternative sources run just as well as gas-powered vehicles. But what about the price of these vehicles? I decided to check out one of these vehicles. This particular solar-powered car cost $97,000 dollars(I forgot the source of this information unfortunately. I apologize). If somebody wants to disprove me on this number...by all means, please do this.

    We must look at prices of these "alternative sources" to see if it is a good idea to switch. Prices(all else being equal) indicate scarcity. The higher the price, the higher the scarcity(all else being equal). If the price of these alternative fuels are higher than the price of oil, then oil is not as scarce as one thinks. If oil was TRULY scarce, we would see more PRIVATE(meaning non-government funds) investments in alternative energy sources, and see cost of getting these alternative sources much cheaper than oil. But alas, this is not true.
    • MonGuSE1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I heard that solar powered car cost $6,999 but I forget where I got the information, if you want to disprove my number go ahead.
  • Floodle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There are smarter ways but they should be done in addition to, not instead of, making cars more fuel efficient
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm not sure why the car companies would band together to fight this. Maybe good old MPAA-style fear of the unknown?

    If it applies to all companies equally (UNLIKE CAFE), there's no reason to think the car companies will get hurt by this. People are still going to buy cars.
  • aalcorn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2while i agree that fuel standards would be great for consumers and undoubtably our environment I can't help but think about the other causes of detriment to the environment. Compared to chemical plants, refineries, and power plants (mostly coal burning anyways) produce much more greenhouse gases and are certainly more detrimental to the environment. Changing the way these large plants release greenhouse gases would have a much greater effect on the environment than raising fuel standards by a few mpg.
  • asaone, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2what do you expect from these companies they are in the business of making money for there share holders. They are not in the business of making anything else and will screw the consumer every chance they can. Like George Carlin says "bend over and spread your cheeks so they can give your account some customer service".
  • moodygirl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This tactic is similar to the ones used by tobacco companies in the 90s: Create fake "grassroots" lobby groups that publicly decry legislation that could hurt the corporations - funded at arms length by the manufacturer. Demanding higher MPG from automakers is the thin of the wedge (as they see it) toward tougher legislation against their core business, which is producing automobiles that people buy. Their business would go downhill quickly if people thought hard about the relationship between fuel inefficiency and pollution & global warming -- and they would buy scooters, ride transit, etc. Just like banning smoking in public places, and the lawsuits against tobacco companies were the start of the downfall of smoking as a profitably business. That effort was well organized in the States and "filtered" (so to speak) into Canada.
    http://www.cpha.ca/english/inside/branches/sask/tobacco/fax.htm
  • aserer511, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We have to be realistic wit gas mileage expectations. The best way to raise average MPG is through ofcourse automakers' dedication to technology and improving economy, but also to consumers buying very gas thirsty cars in smaller numbers. most gas-inefficient sports cars are prohibitively expensive, but a tahoe is under 35k and pretty bad on gas. It less Americans buy Tahoes, Land Cruisers and Armadas, more manufacturers will enter the large CUV market. CUVs with 6s vs. big SUVs with V8s may be a bit slower but can hold 8 just as well and do well on gas. The problem is less Mercedes S63 AMG, a 130k car, and as I said Chevy's Tahoe or a Toyota's Land Cruiser, far less than 1/2 the cost of the S63, despite being a little better on gas.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Whether you are for or against emission standards, the issue here is corporate propaganda. It reminds me of the Brooks Brothers riot - the way they are trying to shape public perception by buying people's opinions.
    • PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, the digg description on this article didn't sway me to the idea that better fuel standards would create more efficiency either. It was an uninformed assertion to make: Make Law = Orange juice doesn't taste bad after I brush my teeth.

      If companies don't believe they can find pro-liberty support for an issue and instead decide to create a fake grassroots campaign, then they should suffer the consequences when people find out. That said, I imagine there are people who are against these standards, as I would be.
  • HighLife1990, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0What the auto companies are doing here is totally right here. It's Congress that's being stupid.
    Read this and it will make sense:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11783/again-cafe-races-ahead-to-catch-up-with-you.html

    Congress should be pushing for alternative fuels. Poorly manipulating gas mileage is not the answer.
  • handbiter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Alternative fuels like ethanol are bogus. Corn converts only 1% of sunlight to biomass, and only a fraction of that makes it into fuel, which is then burned in a 15% efficient ICE. If you tried to come up with a more wasteful system you almost couldn't. Even dirt-cheap solar panels/batteries, which have their share of problems, beat the pants off ethanol.

    I just changed the text on one of the "advocacy" emails pages with anti-CAFE form letters, and used the page to send the following message:

    I am writing about the various CAFE bills being introduced in Congress. I urge you to support legislating the most stringent fuel efficiency standards possible.

    After 30 years of CAFE regulation, the nation has actually increased its reliance on gas by 60 percent and oil imports from 35 percent to more than 70 percent. This is largely because the average fuel economy has not increased meaningfully since the '80s! Only by increasing fuel efficiency standards dramatically, and switching to alternatives to carbon fuels, can we curb this grotesque explosion.

    The managers of the auto industry's largest companies want a reason to not stick their necks out. They believe that by touting ethanol and getting the agricultural lobby behind them they can avoid the risks associated with the innovative marketing and design choices necessary to curb our reliance on fossil fuels. Even if we grew corn on every available acre in North America we wouldn't have enough fuel for our cars (or even our airplanes!). The conversion of sunlight to biofuel is only 1-3% efficient (while the solar production of electricity runs from 15-35% for solar thermal generating stations). The government should stop its handouts to the agricultural and automotive industries supporting dead-end technology, introduce the most aggressive fuel efficiency standards politically possible, and set aggressive targets for zero-emissions vehicles.

    Although the CAFE program will take 10-15 years to take full effect, and may not lead to a dramatic decrease in fossil fuel consumption, doing nothing positive while continuing meaningless corporate handouts, as the industry suggests doing, is suicide.

    The industry has been left to regulate itself (with tiny exceptions) for its entire history, leading to our disastrous reliance on fossil fuels and indeed to the collapse of the big 3 automakers. In the interest of preserving the status quo, they will make the spurious argument that their R&D dollars are limited, and that complying with CAFE will sap dollars that would otherwise be spent on more innovative technology. But the plans they tout as "innovative" are unimaginative stalling tactics. Simply put, they are in denial - the same sort of denial that has led to Detroit's current predicament.

    Thus far, they have shot themselves in the feet. If left to their own devices they will shoot themselves in the head. CAFE is a small step that will not only help our environment, but by leveling the playing-field through mandated change will prevent the automakers from destroying themselves, and us, through cowardice.
  • metalgodz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wooo crashin' their automated mailing system party....Use it against 'em. :)

    "I am writing about the various CAFE bills being introduced in Congress, via one of those fancy automated email things at ga3.org, where the automakers have set up a fake "grassroots" type campaign to oppose CAFE restrictions. My letter is a bit different from others that you will be receiving from this industry-funded campaign.

    The auto industry is pushing for lower standards, stating that they won't be able to spend the money on "innovating" new energy technologies. This is a pretty transparent attempt to keep their profit margin high while sucking up the last bit of profit that can be had from the current generation of petroleum burning vehicles.

    Mileage requirements are a great way to reduce our reliance on oil and deal with environmental challenges, but they must be accompanied by development of alternative energy sources. Developemtnt of more energy efficient vehicles along with cleaner, more efficient, renewable energy sources will produce the best effect overall.

    If manufacturers are allowed to spend limited research and development dollars to comply with CAFE standards they will not be able to continue development on these break through technologies. This type of short sighted plan on the part of the automotive industry will end up making them a whole lot of money at the expense of the American people. If the CAFE regulations are passed, there must be some sort of R&D spending requirement to force the automotive industry to pursue these alternative energy sources while squeezing the last bit of efficiency out of existing technologies.

    Innovation, combined with measured, carefully thought out regulation, will successfully overcome the energy and climate challenges the U.S. faces. Don't be fooled by the biased arguments of the automotive industry when the information needed to decide on this issue is readily available from many sources with no monetary interest in whether this legislation passes."
  • webweave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@BESTenemy

    What about the kit car business? Go to any local car show and you'll likely see a number of home built replicas of Cobra, '32 Ford or a Model Ts, albeit with huge V8 engines. What would stop somebody from installing a bank of batteries and an electric motor in the same basic kit car?

    I'm not in the US but I'm currently building a kit car modified to use locally produced bio-diesel. I've been to the drivers and auto license office and found the requirements for home built autos are not too onerous at all, actually all they want is when the vehicle is ready for the road I have it inspected for safety by a licensed mechanic, then I'll be issued a VIN number and that's all. Not even an emissions test. Certainly no crash testing.

    If you have some info to the contrary would you post some links?
  • HighLife1990, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0metalgodz:

    The way CAFE works is just going to make the car companies put out a few more fuel efficient cars, but it's not going to change the gas guzzling cars at all. That's why CAFE makes no sense.

    And your right ethanol is not the answer. Hydrogen is, yet the government does little to promote the development of it.
    CAFE is a waste of time and money.
    • handbiter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The big benefit of hydrogen is that auto companies can easily modify an ICE to run on it. This allows them to trot out inefficient prototypes and fleet vehicles, get tax credits and generate positive PR buzz, while not addressing any of the problems with hydrogen, which are: compared to the energy you get back from it, it's very expensive to make, even more expensive to compress/cool, expensive to store, and pointlessly expensive to transport. If the auto companies can lick these problems, good for them. But based on their behavior it looks like hydrogen's primary purpose is to absorb PR heat and bring in government handouts.

      Quick-charge batteries with a decent energy density (which get a fraction of the R&D dollars compared to H2) have all of hydrogen's environmental benefits without any of its drawbacks. The reason they get no dollars is that you can't modify an existing technology platform and present your bogus product to your idiot congressman to get more dollars.
  • bshock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Duh. Every goddamn multinational monster does that these days.
  • jwoelker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Didn't we just do this?
    http://digg.com/environment/30_mpg_is_Laughable_US_Auto_Makers_are_Joking_right
  • kristopherw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Nice. I used their "contact congress" form on their site and left a message of my support for stricter fuel economy standards. Doubt they'll send it, though. I'll have to write a letter myself.
  • Skeithy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0What about those Japanese hybrid cars that promise up to 70-80mpg by 2009? US automakers are going down the drain fast, they keep making bigger and "better" cars. But with gas prices going up people are eventually going to figure out that those foreign automakers were right all along. When we are all using E90 gas the price of gas won't be problem at all, but thats not going to happen for awhile.
  • wisegrape, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Good watch.

    "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a 2006 documentary film that explores the birth, limited commercialization, and subsequent death of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s. The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

    Showing on Starz in June
  • MartinR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0That's moronic. Hopefully people wont buy into this crap.
  • mojibyrd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If Bush and the whitehouse can spend billions of your tax dollars on fake news then why should it be any different for the automotive companies to try some propoganda of their own...until the public get's their face out of that bowl of ice cream and turn off the stupid-tube (t.v.) then nothing will change....action=reaction....cannot win by doing nothing.
  • fvck, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0OK, someone is missing the boat here.
    The real question here is 'Are the so called greenhouse gases affecting the climate change', and the answer-as we all know- is No.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.