Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet

Tue May 19, 2009 5:48 PM EDT
us-news, business, us, autos, future, of-the, fleet
Tom Krisher, AP Auto Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 6 photos
<p>Map shows emissions of on road vehicles, per county</p>

Map shows emissions of on road vehicles, per county

Advertise | AdChoices

DETROIT — Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

Eric Fedewa, vice president of global powertrain forecasting for the auto consulting firm CSM Worldwide in Northville, Mich., said the changes will make pickup trucks so much more expensive that they will be used almost exclusively for work.

And instead of a minivan or SUV, more parents will haul their families in much smaller vehicles with three rows of seats — something more like the Mazda 5 small van, he said. The Mazda 5 gets about 28 mpg on the highway.

"I think what you'll see is a lot more creativity in interior packaging," Fedewa said. "You'll get more rows of seats where you traditionally had cargo space."

Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."

The changes will start with smaller cars and trucks, and improvements to the internal combustion engine, Fedewa said. Automakers also already working on new technology, including direct fuel injection and high compression of the air-fuel mixture, that will make cars and trucks more efficient.

Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel.

And they're developing computer-controlled transmissions with six or more gears, adding efficiency, and rolling out more gas-electric hybrids — among the few cars sold today that meet the 2016 standards.

Of course, developing the technology will cost money — billions of dollars — and automakers will pass that on to their customers.

The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.

Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.

American consumers have already shown their car-buying habits can change rapidly depending on gas prices. When fuel cost $4 a gallon last summer, people flocked to smaller cars. Gas is much cheaper now, and sales of hybrids have plummeted.

"The U.S. consumer has consistently chosen performance over fuel economy given the relatively low cost of fuel," David Leiker, senior automotive analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co. in Milwaukee, wrote in a note to investors.

The Volt is designed to run 40 miles on battery power when it is fully charged. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity and keep the car going. Other automakers are working on similar systems.

But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.

Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards and offset sales of larger, less-efficient models.

Under Obama's plan, the sale of of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids could also generate "super credits" that would count as more than one vehicle when an automaker determines its average fuel economy and emissions figures.

The new rules cause manufacturers "to accelerate their technology plans, probably a little more aggressively than they originally thought," said Tony Posawatz, who heads development of the Volt's technology. "For us, we feel comfortable that we've got choices."

Just a few years ago, GM and other auto executives were doubtful they could meet even less stringent standards, but Posawatz said the technology has changed since then, especially with new lithium-ion batteries.

GM also is looking at electric trucks, which may bring them even closer to the goals, he said.

Earlier this year, Toyota said it planned to launch as many as 10 new hybrid models worldwide by early 2010, and it plans to bring a new version of the Prius to the U.S. in the coming weeks. Honda's new Insight hybrid is already on sale in the U.S. Mazda, meanwhile, has said it plans to focus less on hybrid vehicles and more on improvements to its basic internal combustion engine.

___

AP Auto Writers Kimberly S. Johnson and Dan Strumpf in New York, AP Energy Writer John Porretto in Houston, and Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas in Washington contributed to this report.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Tom Krisher's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Detroit
  • Public Discussion (184)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
nhra1028Restored

What a joke. Obama is making this country worse with everything he does.

  • 11 votes
#1 - Tue May 19, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
tigerblade

You do realize he's not just one guy making this stuff up off the top of his head and saying "make it so," right? He does have people around him who he's relying on to come up with this stuff and make sure it works out in the long run.

I still find it amusing, though, that the Obama administration's attempts to improve our gas mileage and lower our emissions is labeled as "making this country worse" when we just got out of an administration that brought us 8 years of war, record deficits, torture, and all-around disregard for the public.

But getting farther on a tank of gas? Destroying America.

  • 23 votes
#1.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 6:58 PM EDT
The Observer

There are pros and cons TB, but higher transportation costs will be a drag on the economy and will regressively hurt the poor.

Gasoline is a small expense in car ownership, much less than the cost, maintenance and depreciation of the automobile itself. Did I mention the cost of the automobile, its maintenence and and cost of depreciation is going up?

  • 7 votes
#1.2 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:13 PM EDT
Ferrari5k

It makes it worse because Americans won't pay extra for less product. This means slow sales, more layoffs. The Market decides what sells, not people in DC. This nation is PHYSICALLY LARGER than Japan or Europe. We travel 30 miles each way to work in slow traffic. We like comfort. If there were no 10-20% increase in cost for a small benefit, it might work. Small cars should cost less, not more.

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:15 PM EDT
Ferrari5k

Agreed. We knew he would and this is onlt the beginning. Unless you're on the Government Dole or Welfare, you lose. It can't last forever.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:17 PM EDT
Jimster

Great News!!

It may cost a little more at time of purchase, but the savings in gas plus the savings from not fightiing more wars for oil are going to help to it's part for our environment and our future security as well.

It's the right thing to do, without question.

  • 18 votes
#1.5 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:25 PM EDT
2TailPuppy

It's the right thing to do, without question.

A much simpler solution would be to tax gasoline about $10/gallon to pay for all the crap you mention.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:30 PM EDT
Ed Wood

This will weaken the county, with out a doubt. Barring a disaster, we may pull out of it in a decade or two. But, make no bones about it, it is going to hurt our economy. People are going to loose jobs. Our standard of living will be reduced. This will reverberate around the globe. People who think this is a good idea are naive fools.

This is another example of the concentration of government power, liberals decried in the last administration. Look at what is happening. The Obama administration is giving up none of the powers that Bush took, they are just adding to it. You may hate Bush for what he did, but the actions being taken now should give you pause.

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:24 PM EDT
Jimster

This will weaken the county

WTF? How?

This will make American car companies competitive once again (assuming the quality is there).

The rest of the world is beating the crap out of us in the auto sector with well-built, efficient, good looking fun (and responsible) cars and you want to keep making these stupid boring pieces of crap coming out of Detroit?

In addition, factor in the money saved from not having to drill in more and more environmentally sensitive areas, not going to war to secure oil from our enemies, and just plain ol' not having stop at the pump as often and you've got a win all the way around. for everybody.

Including you.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:11 PM EDT
STatWar

This will make American car companies competitive once again (assuming the quality is there)

No... this is going to hasten the death of American car companies. Foreign cars are still going to sell more, especially given the now even more expensive American made cars.

  • 2 votes
#1.9 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:22 PM EDT
BJK-798627

Except for Ford, American auto companies are in their death throes already.

If they had adopted the Japanese model of making fuel efficient, long lasting cars back in 1980, the big three would be going strong today.

The big three have never accepted that the market has shifed away from the gas guzzlers of the 1970's. And now they're paying the price.

  • 12 votes
#1.10 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:56 PM EDT
nhra1028Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

Ok tigerblade: improve emissions? If you believe car emissions are harming the earth, then you are an idiot. How is a battery powered car gonna be good in the long run? That expensive battery isn't going to last forever. If you want better emissions and fuel mileage then move to Europe or China. Then you can drive your little crackerbox hyrbid over there and save the world.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:02 PM EDT
Jimster

nhra1028-

If you believe car emissions are harming the earth, then you are an idiot.

Classy response.

You might want to inform yourself before commenting and calling people names. did you just make that up?

You're wrong of course. Are you against clean air? Wow. I guess you can hold your breath longer than I can.

  • 8 votes
#1.12 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:17 PM EDT
Jimster

No... this is going to hasten the death of American car companies. Foreign cars are still going to sell more, especially given the now even more expensive American made cars.

You do realize that this applies to all cars sold in this country, right? Most Japanese cars purchased in this country are built in this country.

If Detriot is behind in areas of fuel efficiency, quality control and technology that's their own damn fault. We are now proping up these losing companies only because we want to rest of the enconomy to survive. The auto companies have done this to themselves.

Now that they're operating on our dime they gotta do what we think is best.

TS Detroit.

  • 11 votes
#1.13 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:23 PM EDT
tangojonesRestored

Obama is officially the stupidest president ever elected, by the stupidest electorate in history. WTF is he trying to accomplish, beside self-aggrandizement? Ass.

  • 4 votes
#1.14 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:44 PM EDT
akfortytexan

You do realize he's not just one guy making this stuff up off the top of his head and saying "make it so," right? He does have people around him who he's relying on to come up with this stuff and make sure it works out in the long run.

I still find it amusing, though, that the Obama administration's attempts to improve our gas mileage and lower our emissions is labeled as "making this country worse" when we just got out of an administration that brought us 8 years of war, record deficits, torture, and all-around disregard for the public.

But getting farther on a tank of gas? Destroying America.

I hear what you are saying, but the problem is the government intervention. To me anyway. The government shouldnt dictate the market. It should be a free market. The consumer should be able to pick what kind of car they want. And let the market respond accordingly. Thats what has been the key to the wealth and prosperity in this country.

  • 3 votes
#1.15 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:25 PM EDT
Petty3

I own a farm!  Tell me how I'm going to afford higher gas prices when My trucks are paid off.  If we out of work and have no credit left how are you going to buy that expensive smaller truck that won't haul enough hay for the animals. 

The idea of pushing the Gas prices up so that we will be forced to buy them.  Oh that's as smart as trying to take a pig out of the mud and think he won't return to it the first chance he gets.  Be real!  People are losing their homes and the Auto industries is asking Obama to push Gas prices up! 

If he goes to for that one, I have some property in the swamp I'd like to sell him for new houses to be built there.  It only Floods when it rains and that's not much! HA HA

Pray for sanity!!!!!

  • 6 votes
#1.16 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:42 PM EDT
Julian in Dallas

I agree with Jimster. This is a win for all. This will force the US to move towards energy independence once and for all, as well as help the environment with reduced emissions. Sure the costs will be heavy up front, but as the technology improves and becomes more commonplace, the costs will come down.

If American car companies had spent the money to ramp up their technology years ago, like the Japanese companies did, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now, having to play catch-up and hitting consumers with big costs.

This will take time, but it's definitely for the better. It's about time we made a move like, this. I for one am happy to see the end of the pretentious, American SUV culture.

  • 8 votes
#1.17 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:59 PM EDT
akfortytexan

This will force the US to move towards energy independence once and for all, as well as help the environment with reduced emissions.

If this administration was interested in energy independence then it would encourage the building of nuclear power plants and drill for our own oil.

  • 6 votes
#1.18 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:16 AM EDT
Dave - Twin Cities

Jimster ... I'd recommend finding a good book on macro economics. Many have commented on it already, but here are the high points ...

  • Adding additional regulation on top of the already failing car industry will put the final nail in the coffin.
  • Foreign companies don't have the labor costs that American companies do. Yes, some are union shops, but most aren't.
  • The collateral damage of this is staggering ... The current CAFE standards have been proved to cause more injuries in accidents (smaller cars) The big trucks aren't going to go away. There will just be more smaller cars on the road to squash. Higher health care costs to add to another nationalized program coming down the turnpike. Anyone see where that's going ... Higher taxes anyone?
  • Speaking of taxes ... Watch out for the government subsities to pay for all the "green" technology to manufacture that new energy efficient cars. The car won't cost more, but the tax bill will be higher.

It's all connected and coming down the road like an overloaded 18-wheeler who has lost its brakes. Just another Obamanation of a policy.

  • 5 votes
#1.19 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:45 AM EDT
Chasing

If this administration was interested in energy independence then it would encourage the building of nuclear power plants and drill for our own oil.

Nuclear I agree with, but our oil isn't as plentiful as we'd like, and anyway it's very much finite. Alternate sources are going to have to be relied upon.

  • 4 votes
#1.20 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:55 AM EDT
jdl-28

He making it worst because he is trying to change everything at once and being that job are going away and small business are not getting a lot of service people do not have the money to change over. He need to allow us to get back on our feet first, and when we start getting jobs and people are making money than make some changes.

If we started producing our own oil right now our cost would be around 70 cent per gallon that would help and give the people time to save up money again to buy new cars and many other products. But making truck more to buy will be pass on to the citizens for service companies will not eat that cost we will.

I feel Obama is jumping and going way over broad and will cost us way to much down the road.

  • 1 vote
#1.21 - Wed May 20, 2009 8:32 AM EDT
VerbalHarpoon

Who says we must buy a new hybrid car? It's still cheaper to replace the engine/transmission than buy a new car. I'm sticking with my mid-sized 200hp sedan with 28mpg hwy. The only reason the auto makers are on board with this fiasco is because they want their money,cars will be cheap,sluggish,cramped tin cans. Three years to pay for the extra cost? Once again people will step over dollars to pick up nickles. The White House can't even get along from within,they really think mandating auto standards is as simple as the wave of the Obama wand? If so,I have a steel structure in Paris for sale,cheap.

  • 2 votes
#1.22 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:52 AM EDT
nhra1028

Jimster: No I am not wrong of course. So you have a problem breathing when you go outside? Maybe you should go to a doctor and he can tell you its the dirty unhealthy air you are breathing. I dont seem to have any preoblems. You are wrong of course.

    #1.23 - Wed May 20, 2009 10:52 AM EDT
    Jimster

    nhra1028-

    Oh I see, there's no such thing as air pollution. Got it. No need for any kind of pollution control. Check. Noted.

    Adding additional regulation on top of the already failing car industry will put the final nail in the coffin.

    Not so. The auto makers would already be in the ground if notfor the U.S. monies. So are you worried now about the auto makers vis a vis regulation? Are you worried about the workers? Obama's plans will set the auto makers in the right path to be competitive for the next century.

    The big trucks aren't going to go away

    Oh yes they are. You watch. If they can get them to meet CAFE then they'll be fine. I have doubts.

    The car won't cost more, but the tax bill will be higher.

    Ok fine. Taxes are nothing more than our collective investments in things that we need to accomplish. Start-up costs are real for sure. But it'll pay off in the long run.

    Think farther down the road than the next Quarter.

    • 1 vote
    #1.24 - Wed May 20, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
    Mike_P

    Think farther down the road than the next Quarter.

    It will take at least a generation for the potential benefits of this legislation. In the meantime, the macro policy is counterintuitive. Our government is bailing out and industry that will be ill-prepared to meet the conflicting demand of the population versus the government standards.

    The legislation calls for average MPG to meet the 35.5 standards. This does not assure that all cars will meet the standard. To me, it's mere window dressing and politics as usual - invoke a short-sighted policy to address a long-term problem merely to maintain political influence.

    • 1 vote
    #1.25 - Wed May 20, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
    Dave - Twin Cities

    The big trucks aren't going to go away

    Oh yes they are. You watch. If they can get them to meet CAFE then they'll be fine. I have doubts.

    Jimster ... I was referring to the 18-wheelers and other "transport/freight" type trucks. Those aren't going to go away. Nor are they subject to the CAFE.

    It will be very difficult to get the contractors and farmers out of their smaller trucks. They are required equipment for their business. And least we leave out the filthy rich Republicans and limousine liberals who won't stoop to driving such small things.

    • 2 votes
    #1.26 - Wed May 20, 2009 11:55 AM EDT
    smpcompdude

    BJK,

    The big three have never accepted that the market has shifed away from the gas guzzlers of the 1970's. And now they're paying the price.

    Had the market shifted away from "gas guzzlers" they would be making them. The GM's, Chryslers and Fords make what sells like most business who want to make a profit.

    As for me living in SE New Mexico around the agriculture and the oil field it would be hard to get by without a decent vehicle. Sorry I'm not going to drive a Volt around here. What would work well in the dense population centers does not bode well for us in the wide open areas of the country.

    • 2 votes
    #1.27 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:10 PM EDT
    Proud White American

    This is never going to work in a country as large as ours. He is saying by the year 2016 the price of the car is only going to go up $1,300? He has to be smoking crack... You cannot say how much cars will cost in 5 years. That's like saying the Dow will be at 8,572 points.

    Then there is the issue with the batteries. When it is going to cost you another $7,000 dollars (based on the figures for the toyota prius hybrid) in only 5 years. How is that going to save anyone any money?

    When they develope Hydrogen power for vehicles then I will change, but until then obama and anyone that thinks this is a good idea, can ride around in your little cracker boxes, but watch out for those of us still driving around our Dodge Ram 3500's. I don't think anyone in the cracker box is gonna fair very well in a collision, but at least I will only have a couple of scratches on my bumper.

    • 1 vote
    #1.28 - Wed May 20, 2009 2:49 PM EDT
    Mario-348646

    Except for Ford, American auto companies are in their death throes already.

    If they had adopted the Japanese model of making fuel efficient, long lasting cars back in 1980, the big three would be going strong today.

    The big three have never accepted that the market has shifed away from the gas guzzlers of the 1970's. And now they're paying the price

    That's funny. I thought the Ford F-Series and Chevy Silverado's were the number 1 and number 2 selling vehicles in the US....oh that's right, THEY ARE!

    • 2 votes
    #1.29 - Wed May 20, 2009 2:52 PM EDT
    Aleuicius

    The overall costs will - same as all taxes/fees - be borne by the citizenry: not business, "the rich", or anyone else.

    Any savings - are ethereal at best, misleading lies at worst. $1300 saved over the life of a vehicle could mean $10 a month. Extra driving (without the high fuel use to discourage them) will eat up that - and then some.

    OK - so it will cost business more to own and use the necessary vehicle (pickup, van, etc); but the cost will be passed down to the consumer (aka "citizenry"), same as ALL the costs incurred to comply with government/activist demands. If you have your own reasons, you will incur ALL these extra costs directly (boats, RVs, horse trailers, etc.) along with the other burden so smoothly spread around.

    Therein lies the logic behind the social engineering legislation: spead the costs thinly enough - at first - so the citizenry doesn't notice. After that, they can start calling these costs different things - fees, fines, surcharges - then they can focus the collection on some sort of "bogey-man" (businesses, smokers, drinkers, soda consumers, gasoline, etc) and keep the citizenry diverted.

    Eventually - as costs and usage and dependencies increase - the expenditures (and the taxing that covers them) will reach the point that Margaret Thatcher said would happen to socialism: "they eventually run out of other people's (the citizenry) money"

    Oh - I forgot! We're not socialist.

    Yet

    • 1 vote
    #1.30 - Wed May 20, 2009 3:02 PM EDT
    nhra1028

    Jimster, sorry that vehicles make it hard for you to live in polluted air. Big trucks going away? That will never happen.

    • 1 vote
    #1.31 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:40 PM EDT
    Reply
    UNA_Lion

    Buy a motorcycle. My Honda Goldwing is very powerful and comfortable, and it gets 35 MPG. I use my four-wheeler only when I have to haul more stuff than my bike can carry.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#2 - Tue May 19, 2009 6:55 PM EDT
    Mike_P

    I have enough trouble controlling four wheels, let alone two. I would NEVER drive a motorcycle with one of my kids riding along.

    • 2 votes
    #2.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 1:34 PM EDT
    Proud White American

    I fortunately don't have any kids, and when gas hits $4.00 a gallon, I usually park my truck, and jump on my 250GS, and get between 70-90 miles to the gallon...

    • 1 vote
    #2.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
    Mario-348646

    I have enough trouble controlling four wheels, let alone two. I would NEVER drive a motorcycle with one of my kids riding along.

    I would never drive a motorcycle either, I only RIDE them.

    • 1 vote
    #2.3 - Wed May 20, 2009 2:55 PM EDT
    Aleuicius

    I own a Ford F350 crew-cab dually diesel. I need a truck to support my lifestyle - including hobbies and it needed to handle a family of four, including a dog. I did YEARS of number-crunching and comparisons and concluded two smaller vehicles - barely adequate - would cost me more overall than a single, larger one.

    I can save over $1000/year - compared to gas - because I got a diesel (though price manipulations have screwed with that, recently), but other comparisons are uselessly comparing apples and oranges (like this whole effort in the article). I recently considered either a motorcycle, or small (<2.0L) car, but I would have to be able to get - and keep - it for less than $100/month, just to keep my overall costs even. There just isn't enough difference, these days, to cover the added expense of another vehicle: acquisition, insurance, taxes, registration, inspection, maintenance (not to mention fuel).

    It's cheaper to maintain my one 17mpg behemoth. Now - if you have an alternative that has the power, acceleration, and capacity - at the same cost to purchase - with higher mileage ratings, I'll likely buy it.

    • 1 vote
    #2.4 - Wed May 20, 2009 3:17 PM EDT
    Reply
    CCdesign

    Just an updated mandate from the Ford administration that restricted what people want. As usual...nothing has changed.

      Reply#3 - Tue May 19, 2009 6:57 PM EDT
      Ferrari5k

      Everyone knows this was already the Federal Law to be implemented in 2020. If the cost per vehicle exceeds about $1500, we'll just have to change it back. We've done it before.

      Americans won't pay for European style cars unless they live in areas where they make sense, this is why we sell more pick-ups and Suvs than cars in America. Trying to change America into Europe won't work because most people don't live in little countries. America has been supporting Europe for 60 years and they've been supporting their industries with our funds. This won't work here. There isn't anyone to support us.

      We've now stopped giving Europe 60-100 billion per year (Almost) and Europe is now collapsing. Obama's plans seem to sound good until you realize you have to pay an extrodinary amount of money for little or no benefit.

      We all want better milage, but Americans won't pay much more for it and families dislike small cars. This is a fact. Just look at the SUVs on the road. Government can't mandate what you like. I'll keep driving my old Camaro and my Acura. Most Americans will probably just continue to by great used cars instead of new expensive small cars. This is a great excuse to buy a '68 Mustang Fastback (Bullit!) 302.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#4 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:07 PM EDT
      ohiogal-479871

      um.

      Do you know who is supporting US right now?

      Do you know why we are not giving Europe money? Because they are giving US money.

      Kinda hard to complain about europe when they, along with china and japan, are keeping us AFLOAT.

      • 7 votes
      #4.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:45 PM EDT
      CCdesign

      maybe we should stop spending. Gee there's a novel idea.

      • 4 votes
      #4.2 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:14 PM EDT
      STatWar

      Kinda hard to complain about europe when they, along with china and japan, are keeping us AFLOAT.

      How so? By holding our debt? They're only doing that to make money from interest, not to "keep us afloat."

      Oh yeah, you are also forgetting that the majority of US debt is held by US citizens in the form of t-bonds.

      • 2 votes
      #4.3 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:25 PM EDT
      BJK-798627

      Just look at the SUVs on the road.

      Just wait until gas hits $4 a gallon again.

      If they slapped a $5000 luxury tax on every SUV sold, most people wouldn't buy them.

      :-)

      • 4 votes
      #4.4 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:02 PM EDT
      Paul-705255

      This will weaken the county

      WTF? How?

      This will make American car companies competitive once again (assuming the quality is there).

      The rest of the world is beating the crap out of us in the auto sector with well-built, efficient, good looking fun (and responsible) cars and you want to keep making these stupid boring pieces of crap coming out of Detroit?

      In addition, factor in the money saved from not having to drill in more and more environmentally sensitive areas, not going to war to secure oil from our enemies, and just plain ol' not having stop at the pump as often and you've got a win all the way around. for everybody.

      A tually the technology for all this crap you're cheering on is going to cost billions to achieve. I take it you don't read much?

      Including you.

      Jimster you don't seem to really understand what it is you're talking about, it'spainfully obvious. Japan is an island, not the size of our country, therefore gthey MUST have smaller cars, they don't have the room we do. Secondly, they're car industries aren't at the mercy of the Unions like our car companies. Those are the only reasons their car companies flourish.

      I agree with Jimster. This is a win for all. This will force the US to move towards energy independence once and for all, as well as help the environment with reduced emissions. Sure the costs will be heavy up front, but as the technology improves and becomes more commonplace, the costs will come down.

      Congratulations, you're an idiot, too! The left isn't interested in energy independence. If they were they would have already fixed the problem. First off, how are we going to be able to plug in all these cars with the current old infrastructure in place? I ask this because every single year during the summer you have PP&L putting out warnings for everyone in the Philadelphia to make sure they conserve their air conditioner use because the grid can't support all the high electricty use that comes with them. The entire electric infrastructure needs to be revamped to deal with all of the electric they use now and wish everyone to use in the furture, gets who will be paying for that?

      So now we're going to have everyone plugging in their cars on top of that useage? Really thinking aren't we? The problem is this, liberals piss and moan about energy independence, but they don't mean it.

      When they want to put up a new nuclear reactor you hear, not in my back yard. If they want to put up a bunch of those dumb windmills (reverting back to the technology of the 1800's) you'll hear the same arguement, not in my back yard. Oil companies have the technology to drill for oil and do less damage to the surroundings, yet you hear, not in my backyard and we're ruining the enviornment. It's all a joke, you liberals do not want energy independence, if you did, we'd have already had it!

      I'm tired of having the lefts ideals shoved down my throat. Obama has no right, or the legal power, to be dictating to the auto industry what cars they have to make. It's that simple. They sucked them into loaning them the money, because the tree hugging left wanted the SUV's gone, it's that simple.

      What the public wants is what sets the market, they're the consumers, it's not the government that dictates it. We're all going to be getting the short end of the stick on this and yet we have some of the pom pom waving Obamanites cheering him on, the stupidity is at an all time high here folks!

      • 3 votes
      #4.5 - Wed May 20, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
      lisa lu

      The left isn't interested in energy independence. If they were they would have already fixed the problem. First off, how are we going to be able to plug in all these cars with the current old infrastructure in place? I ask this because every single year during the summer you have PP&L putting out warnings for everyone in the Philadelphia to make sure they conserve their air conditioner use because the grid can't support all the high electricty use that comes with them. The entire electric infrastructure needs to be revamped to deal with all of the electric they use now and wish everyone to use in the furture, gets who will be paying for that?

      The left do not want to fix this. This is not about the enviroment, this is a ruse to fool the public into going along. Everything that will be needed for all this so called Clean Engergy will have it's side effects. These side effects will hurt the enviorment just as badly in other ways. There going after the coal industry next, there will be less electricity available and the price is going to be high. No, this is not about fixing, It is about control.

      • 3 votes
      #4.6 - Wed May 20, 2009 10:34 PM EDT
      Reply
      Jeffro

      i want to know what's going to happen when everybody is driving these "savior hybrids" and the so called global warming doesn't stop.

      then who are all the enviornmentalists going to blame then?

      i love that they're also going to stick it to the people who can't afford these hybrids to pay for them.

      they want high gas prices to pay for these vehicles...what an f'n joke!!!

      i also ride a bike...i get 40 miles a gallon and it doesn't cause traffic jams. i don't talk on the phone while i ride, and i don't put on make up or eat while riding.

      what an exciting time to be alive....there is so much change happening faster than any other time in recorded history.

      hehehehee....we are so screwed

      • 7 votes
      Reply#5 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:12 PM EDT
      2TailPuppy

      what an exciting time to be alive....there is so much change happening faster than any other time in recorded history.

      hehehehee....we are so screwed

      :-)

      I propose we give our whole government a year off with paid vacation starting with Obama on down. And then reevaluate and the end of the year to see if we are better off.

      • 3 votes
      #5.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:25 PM EDT
      Julian in Dallas

      I want to know what's going to happen when these "savior hybrids" lead to research and development of even better fuel efficiency methods and technology, and help reverse the global warming trend completely? Who will the bitter, sarcastic, Obama-haters and naysayers have to blame for their being dead wrong then?

      The people who won't be able to afford the hybrids when they go to market en masse, are the same people who cannot afford the gasoline-burning vehicles on the road today. When you also consider the fact that the price of a new car can increase by thousands pending on installed options and trim level, there won't be much noticeable difference from a consumer perspective. People will not simply stop buying cars because of a $1500 price increase.

      This is truly the change we need!

      • 6 votes
      #5.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:26 AM EDT
      Proud White American

      Jeffro,

      what an exciting time to be alive....there is so much change happening faster than any other time in recorded history.

      hehehehee....we are so screwed

      That is freakin hillarious! Get ready at this rate it isn't gonna be long...

      • 1 vote
      #5.3 - Wed May 20, 2009 2:56 PM EDT
      Paul-705255

      I want to know what's going to happen when these "savior hybrids" lead to research and development of even better fuel efficiency methods and technology, and help reverse the global warming trend completely? Who will the bitter, sarcastic, Obama-haters and naysayers have to blame for their being dead wrong then?

      You know what dictates this research and development? The consumers, not our government! And stop with the global warming crap, I'm tired of hearing it. I just had frost on my car yesterday morning, it was 34 degrees ... In May!!! This global warming issue is just another pawn in the lefts pocket to guide us towards socialism and to line their pockets with money as they demand we make all these changes for the better good of the planet. It's all a crock. Read this article from NASA and tell me how these changes Obama wants too shove down our throats is going to help anything.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/

      So please spare me the damn global warming crap.

      The people who won't be able to afford the hybrids when they go to market en masse, are the same people who cannot afford the gasoline-burning vehicles on the road today. When you also consider the fact that the price of a new car can increase by thousands pending on installed options and trim level, there won't be much noticeable difference from a consumer perspective. People will not simply stop buying cars because of a $1500 price increase.

      People are not going to buy these cars en masse, you're right, Obama is putting the final nail in the coffin for the American Auto I ndustry, because they're going to lose lose lose. I can tell you right now I will not be driving any of those death traps.

      This is truly the change we need!

      No the change this country needs will begin in 2010, and end in 2012.

      • 2 votes
      #5.4 - Wed May 20, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
      Reply
      2TailPuppy

      I think more government will solve this problem.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#6 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:14 PM EDT
      Proud White American

      2 Tail,

      I don't see why not... Look how much they have helped us so far... ;P

      • 1 vote
      #6.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:12 PM EDT
      Reply
      Edward1968

      You know, I really don't understand why people would have the problem with changing the type of vehicles they would drive. I mean the question about taking away horsepower in favor of greater economy is BS; where in this country can you go 140-200 miles per hour legally? NOWHERE!! It is time to let the muscle cars die a quick and merciful death in favor of our childrens future and a more healthy planet. I will concede that electric vehices are only the beginning and more efficient transportation is required in order to secure our future, but at least it is a beginning. I have no doubt that thes new vehicles will cost more, but I also believe that the increased cost by the automakers will be exagerated and blamed on research for technology that they already have today.

      • 10 votes
      #7 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:29 PM EDT
      redsfan

      Edward - I agree. I don't understand why the concept of changing from the traditional gas guzzlers to more energy efficient vehicles is so scary and upsetting to people. I think it is a good thing...for our planet, yes, but also for us.

      I have had a Civic hybrid for almost three years...and I love it. I get 35-40 miles per gallon around town and around 50 miles per gallon on the highway. It cost me $20,000 which was about $2000 more than a regular hybrid, but I got a tax credit of $2000 so the price was a wash.

      Most people were shocked to drive it and ride in it and find that it had just as much power as a reglar Civic (I pass people going up steep hills) and it is very sporty and comfortable too. Maybe it is just that people don't know enough about it..and need to learn.

      As for as the poor car companies....phooey...just watch the documentary "Who killed the Electric Car" to find out what is really going on there.

      • 10 votes
      #7.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:52 PM EDT
      mavrick03

      wow edward

      you had me laughing really hard. lets save the environment because global warming you know. wink wink nudge nudge.

      Dear edward1968 Global warming is a farce its based off the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind. The green house effect you see ed may i call you ed?

      Its impossible for the earth to act like a green house, Anyone thats ever been to a green house will tell you. The green house is whats keeps the plants warm to much heat they open the windows in the green house. You see Ed you cant open windows on the planet.

      Let me give you a simple experiment you can do at home. Go to your stove turn one of the burners on. Put your hand 2 feet above the burner see how you can feel some of the heat? Now bring your hand close see how it gets hotter? If the earth was like a green house when you held your hand 2 feet above the burner the back of your hand versus the top would be just as hot as the bottom. You see this little phenomenon is called radant heat.

      The notion that our atmosphere acts like a greenhouse – that is, so-called atmospheric “greenhouse gases,” like water vapor and CO2, “trap” incoming solar radiation to warm the atmosphere – is wrong. Not only doesn't the atmosphere work that way, greenhouses don't either.

      Greenhouses work by physically blocking heat transfer (by convection) from inside to outside – the same effect that heats the inside of your car when it's parked in the sun on a hot day. Opening the doors and windows allows air currents to flow and the heat to dissipate.

      But neither the atmosphere nor “greenhouse gases” block convection, so there is no literal atmospheric “greenhouse effect.”

      Since “greenhouse effect” terminology has long been used to refer to the natural warming of our atmosphere to a habitable level, we'll stick with that incorrect, but commonly used, terminology for ease of discussion. So how does the “greenhouse effect” actually work?

      Atmospheric flows of energy are complex, but a simplified explanation is as follows.

      Incoming solar radiation is partly absorbed by the Earth's surface, partly absorbed by various atmospheric gases (particularly oxygen and ozone) and partly reflected back to space. Solar radiation isn't significantly absorbed by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere and so doesn't directly cause the greenhouse effect.

      For our purposes, the greenhouse effect is largely caused by energy emitted by the Earth's surface, most of which is subsequently absorbed by greenhouse gases and clouds. Very simply expressed, the greenhouse gases and clouds transform that absorbed energy into heat that warms the lower atmosphere into energy that is radiated back to space and also back to the Earth's surface.

      These radiative processes, if they acted alone, would warm the Earth's atmosphere to about 77 degrees centigrade – much warmer than the 15 degrees centigrade the Earth actually is. Fortunately, other atmospheric processes – including updrafts and circulation carrying heat upward and toward the poles – facilitate energy escape into space so that our atmosphere cools to around 15 degrees centigrade.

      But our focus here is carbon dioxide's role in greenhouse warming – that's what Al Gore wants us to fret.

      Putting aside the cooling convection and circulation processes mentioned above, the limiting factor with respect to greenhouse warming isn't the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; it's the energy emitted by the Earth's surface.

      Different greenhouse gases absorb different wavelengths of energy emitted by the Earth. The fact that only a limited amount of the Earth's emitted energy is available for absorption by CO2, and that CO2 has to compete with water vapor and clouds for that energy, results in a crucial (but little publicized) relationship between CO2 and atmospheric warming.

      The relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic in nature – that is, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it absorbs less and less additional energy to produce correspondingly less and less additional warming. At some point, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't significantly change atmospheric temperature.

      So what is the point at which more CO2 doesn't cause more warming? Are we near it? The commonly used range of estimates of CO2's impact on global temperature should help put any worry into perspective.

      A doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days (280 parts per million to 560 ppm) might increase global temperature from between 0.5 degrees centigrade to 1.5 degrees centigrade – that is, not much.

      The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature record-keeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees centigrade.

      Since at least half of this temperature increase predated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a 1 degree centigrade increase – and we're not close to such a doubling.

      Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

      Now back to the story at hand. So now we all will have to buy much smaller cars. Less safer cars all to continue to perpetrate the lie.

      I cant wait for 6 dollar a gallon gas but i am sure it will be bushes fault.

      Mav

      • 6 votes
      #7.2 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:14 PM EDT
      BJK-798627

      At some point, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't significantly change atmospheric temperature.

      What a load of crap.

      That's like saying, if we continuously dump raw sewage into a lake, at a certain point the lake won't get any dirtier.

      For the record, CO2 is not the worst of the greenhouse gases. That distinction goes to methane.

      And yes, these gases do act the same way as glass panes in a greenhouse: light can move in and out of the atmosphere but heat gets trapped - hence the analogy of the greenhouse.

      • 5 votes
      #7.3 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:10 PM EDT
      akfortytexan

      Edward,

      To me the problem is that the government shouldnt be dictating the market. As a free man, if I want to spend my hard earned money on a muscle car that get 6 miles to the gallon, then I should have that right. I dont need the federal government telling me what I can and cant own or buy. Where does it stop? Next they will be telling you how big your house has to be and where you have to buy it. The government involment is scary and unamerican.

      • 6 votes
      #7.4 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:33 PM EDT
      tangojones

      Well they already tell us what size toilet bowl we can use and they're outlawing the incandescent lightbulb. Obummer and his minions want to direct every aspect of our daily lives. He's a socialist dictator intent on dismantling the mighty engine of US prosperity and our free market economy.

      • 4 votes
      #7.5 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:28 AM EDT
      akfortytexan

      Its scary. Think about what they have their hands in, or are trying to get their hands into. Insurance companies, banks, auto companies, energy, education, health care, and im sure im missing some. Its scary. What happened to "A nation with a government, not the other way around"?

      • 3 votes
      #7.6 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:38 AM EDT
      tangojones

      We let the libs insinuate themselves into every institution while we slept. That's what happened. Now they're choking us.

      • 3 votes
      #7.7 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:46 AM EDT
      mavrick03

      bjk prove it prove your asinine statement everyone else is screaming co2 your saying methane stop farting then, put a cork in you crack.

      Your sweage analogy is not even closley related if i stick your hand in a fire surely you will get burnt.

      intresting care to explin how gas becomes reflective? where is all of this methane gas?

      every landfill is required by law to recollect this gas show me a factory in the us belching methane. So cows are the reason behind global warming? Was it the dinasours too.

      Mav

      • 4 votes
      #7.8 - Wed May 20, 2009 10:38 AM EDT
      jdl-28

      Edward, I agree with you and we are losing our freedom and where it will stop no one knows, Obama is scary for he want control over everything and he is UN-American. Our government should not be in or try to control any private business period, but when you have someone who think he is a God in office this happen.

      The sad thing is the citizens of this country will sit back and do nothing as they lose more and more freedom being control by the people they elect to office, no how stupid is that.

      • 2 votes
      #7.9 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:16 PM EDT
      just_my_opinion-1021472

      If everyone is so darn concerned about global warming and the use of oil here are a couple things you can do to help.

      1. Plant more trees and plants.

      2. Quit buying disposable plastic items, it takes petroleum as an ingredient, which is oil, to make plastic. Not to mention the energy of the machines running to produce this landfill filling junk. Tell you local stores you don't want to bring purchases home in plastic bags, request recycled paper bags or bring your own cloth bags. The making of those plastic bags that stay forever in the landfill require using petroleum also.

      This would also cut down on the air pollution that comes from making these products.

      3. Request, that manufacturers produce items that are repairable at a decent price instead of making it cheaper to go buy new to replace it. Then, we would be creating jobs in the service industry that couldn't be outsourced overseas.

      4. Request manufacturers charge less for the refill items, for example printer ink. It is pretty sad when you can go buy a whole new printer with the ink cheaper than you can by just the ink.

      Now these are just a couple of ideas but I am sure if we all think about it we could come up with more. If our government was so worried about this don't you think they would outlaw all the disposable crap since it dumps alot of pollution in the air when it is being made?

      • 1 vote
      #7.10 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:25 PM EDT
      just_my_opinion-1021472

      Heck, it appears that methane gas is an unlimited source of energy. Why doesn't the government push for development in energy using methane?

      I read an article about a cattle farmer who runs his farm on methane. I also believe one the household cleaner companies say on their commercial they use the methane gas from a landfill to run their factory. Why can't that be our alternative source of fuel?

      • 1 vote
      #7.11 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:57 PM EDT
      BJK-798627

      I know it won't convince Mavricko3, but intelligent people agree that there is a connection between increased levels of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere and a higher average global temperature today vs. a century ago.

      Or are the Antarctic ice sheets melting because God decided to hug the Earth just a wee bit tighter?

      Sigh.

      • 2 votes
      #7.12 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:44 AM EDT
      tangojones

      The ice sheets advance and retreat all the time. What's the hysteria?

      • 1 vote
      #7.13 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:10 AM EDT
      BrianAgness

      Many scientists are worried that those ice sheets that advance and retreat may retreat for good, raising sea levels by over a foot. That's a major problem.

      • 2 votes
      #7.14 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:15 AM EDT
      BJK-798627

      For Tango - over the course of geologic time, you are correct. The advance and retreat of glaciers occurs over millenia, if not longer.

      At the rate things are going, the Arctic Ocean may be ice free during the summer within our lifetimes. As for the Antarctic ice sheets, a total meltdown would raise sea levels by far more than a foot. Probably more like 100 feet or more. :(

        #7.15 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
        Reply
        Melissa-423083

        Wow! Because we can all afford to buy these cars when we have no jobs because no one can afford the gas to get to work!! You think groceries and other goods are high now...haaaaahaaa! Good idea.

        What a freakin' joke!

         

        • 3 votes
        Reply#8 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:32 PM EDT
        Jimster

        no one can afford the gas to get to work!!

        So how about using less of it by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle?

        What SUV do you drive?

        • 2 votes
        #8.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
        Paul-705255

        Jimster, again, you know what you speak of.

        How are you going to tell a plumber to buy a small car How are you going to tell a person who works construction to b uy a little car? How are you going to tell anyone that hauls heavy loads daily to buy little cars? The problem with your mentality is you don't think before you speak.

        Not everyone lives in cities people have to drive large distances with lots of tools, parts, etc, so the little car theory, while cute, doesn't apply!

        That is why the two best selling vehicles in the United States are pick up trucks.

        You just don't get it do you?

        • 1 vote
        #8.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 4:42 PM EDT
        Jimster

        You're stuck on the idea that all this means "little cars".

        Fortunately there are smart people out there who can built fuel efficient of vehicles needed for all applications. Of course trucks have their place, what's wrong with a fuel efficient one?

        Most (not all) people who drive SUVs don't actually need them, it's want. Nothing wrong with want per se, but when we're going to war to keep driving unnecessary gas guzzeling SUVs a patriot needs to ask "What's my part in this?" "What can I do?"

        The problem is, Americans want ito have all and not have to pay for it. And never, ever sacrifice anything, ever.

        The proposals are sensable and not over reaching. In fact. they're whatt California was proposing and lobbying to enact in their own state. This is not a radical idea, just a very good one.

        This is not just about "little cars".

        • 3 votes
        #8.3 - Thu May 21, 2009 12:21 PM EDT
        Reply
        ohiogal-479871

        Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."

        Of course it will! Just like it slows down every other country with emission standards. Look at Europe and Japan, they are operating at a standstill!

        The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.

        Savings that are recouped before the average car loan is payed of now thats crazy! I mean its not like these prices will ever go down when supply goes up!

        Lol. Seriously though, emission standards and other performance standards is what killed our car industry.

        While the auto industry spent much money and many years fighting the regulation, other countries like germany and Japan ran rings around us globally.

        We couldn't sell our cars internationally, because every other country had standards that we didn't chose to compete with. Now when the entire auto industry is suffering during these economic times, guess who was the first to go down?

        Our industry, because it wasn't competitive in the 21st century. Japan government is going to keep infusing its capital into their auto industry and subsidizing their innovation. With them being so far ahead of us, there isnt any way our companies can keep up with that without us doing the same.

        • 7 votes
        Reply#9 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:37 PM EDT
        2TailPuppy

        So when are these socialists coming out with the new 5 year plan for this good ole USSA?

        • 5 votes
        Reply#10 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:53 PM EDT
        rewd1

        So the increased purchase price will be paid for in three years of gas savings ... just about when people get new cars. Add that to li'barack's love affair with expensive fuel and driving is going to become for the few.

        EDIT: And, BOY, could the writer of this AP article be any more snide or condescending to people who prefer their transportation to be something other than what he likes seeing coming down the pike.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#11 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:09 PM EDT
        po'd in TN

        Its all downhill from here folks.better get ready for it.

        Someone tell me where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the authority to do this.

        • 3 votes
        #11.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:30 PM EDT
        2TailPuppy

        Someone tell me where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the authority to do this.

        I couldn't find it.

        But the Germans didn't much care either in 1933 since Hitler was promising to fix everything. Just trust him and don't worry about some stupid constitution.

        • 2 votes
        #11.2 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:39 PM EDT
        po'd in TN

        Thats what I know since I have the Constitution saved on my computer for reference purposes. And craziest thing I cant find it either.

        • 1 vote
        #11.3 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:46 PM EDT
        Ed Wood

        Actually I believe my copy of the Constitution straight out says that the Federal Government shouldn't be involve in such shenanagins.

        • 1 vote
        #11.4 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:38 PM EDT
        BJK-798627

        Since automobiles didn't exist until the late 1800's, it goes without saying that there's no mention of them in the Constitution.

        No one in the 1700's could have anticipated the environmental problems that people would face 200 years in the future.

        • 6 votes
        #11.5 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:29 PM EDT
        Ed Wood

        They might not have been able to anticipate environmental problems, but they certainly anticipated the propensity for those in power to infringe on the rights and liberties of those they governed.

        • 3 votes
        #11.6 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:17 PM EDT
        Julian in Dallas

        Ed Wood and po'd in TN,

        Please indicate how any of this is unconstitutional? Using the copy of the US Constitution you have on your computer, please explain which specific rights of the American people are being violated. Since there is no provision for an auto industry in the Constitution, and driving is a privilege not a right, this ought to be interesting.

        I see a pattern developing. Any ideas this administration puts forward will meet the usual accusations of "Socialism, Communism, un-Constitutionalism, ect" from the haters as time goes forward.

        • 5 votes
        #11.7 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:47 AM EDT
        Jimster

        Good points Julian-

        In the end, they don't really know why they're so upset about this. They've just been told to be outraged, and so they are. The conservative talking heads have taken the willfully ignorant and stuffed their heads full of propganda and then set them loose on our country to disrupt progress and unwittingly do the bidding for Republican donors who could care less about their little trained robots.

        It's sad to watch.

        • 3 votes
        #11.8 - Wed May 20, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
        Paul-705255

        Amendment X

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        What that means is if it ain't in the Constitution the Federal government has no right to do it, understand? That power belongs to the states or the people. Hope that clears things up for you two Obamanites.

        • 5 votes
        #11.9 - Wed May 20, 2009 4:54 PM EDT
        po'd in TN

        Thank you Paul, I just got home and didnt have time to post this. Problem is that Obama is getting around this by having the EPA and "Car Czar" set these standards. I heard this on radio on way home. Made me think of this thread.

        • 3 votes
        #11.10 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:04 PM EDT
        Reply
        Otto-968188

        Amen to Motorcycles. If you greenies and econuts really want to put your money where your mouth is get a two wheeler. My biggest pig gets 35 miles per gallon already. Screw cramming myself into a sardine can of an excuse for road worthiness and thinking I'm pious an saving the world. Parking space? Right on! cut that by half or more if everyone rides a moped.

        Elecric cars? Thats still gonna take power generation by coal and gas to operate. Batteries? what an eco nightmare that will turn out to be when it comes to recycling the tons and tons of batteries need for socalled Eco friendly transportation.

        Everybody talks a good game but your just running around in big circles.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#12 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:37 PM EDT
        2TailPuppy

        Elecric cars? Thats still gonna take power generation by coal and gas to operate. Batteries? what an eco nightmare that will turn out to be when it comes to recycling the tons and tons of batteries need for socalled Eco friendly transportation.

        You got that right.

        They don't even know what to do with those stupid light bulbs that are about as bright as a birthday cake candle. In Seattle you have to drive half way accross town to dispose of them.

        • 2 votes
        #12.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:41 PM EDT
        po'd in TN

        I do miss my Bike,May have to get another one. But wait the MPG isnt high enough is it? I never got better than 30mpg,just because of my riding style. lol

          #12.2 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:48 PM EDT
          Otto-968188

          And you know whats really perverse? The biggest advocates of this propaganda are still running around in big fat gas guzzling Limo's. Clueless to there own hypocrisy or thinking they are of too high a stature to take the advice they offer their minions. Look at Obamba for instance he dont think nothing at all of hopping in Air Force One and jetting around for a town hall meeting or fund raiser at $35,000 an hour fuel costs.

          Hey dufus you never heard of teleconference? You got that blackberry use it!

          • 3 votes
          #12.3 - Tue May 19, 2009 8:57 PM EDT
          po'd in TN

          Now you know its "Do as I say, Not as I do"

          • 1 vote
          #12.4 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:47 AM EDT
          tangojones

          That's what makes them so funny. They're clueless to their own hypocrisy.

          • 1 vote
          #12.5 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:47 AM EDT
          Proud White American

          Po'd,

          I bought a 250GS last summer when gas hit $4.00 a gallon. It isn't the quickest bike, but I can hit 70, and I also get between 70-90 miles to the gallon...

          • 1 vote
          #12.6 - Wed May 20, 2009 3:14 PM EDT
          po'd in TN

          I got to have a bigger bike than that, I love the quick acceleration of a bigger bike. I am thinking more of a 1200.

            #12.7 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:06 PM EDT
            po'd in TN

            I got to have a bigger bike than that, I love the quick acceleration of a bigger bike. I am thinking more of a 1200.

              #12.8 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:09 PM EDT
              po'd in TN

              sorry for the double post I had an error and got click happy please delete one.

                #12.9 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:29 PM EDT
                Reply
                Rixar13

                Change does come slowly but I disagree with the following inference.

                Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

                When your toilet is broken people will find a way to fix it. A bit less profit perhaps...?

                • 3 votes
                Reply#13 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:00 PM EDT
                tangojones

                Would you like "a bit less" in your paycheck?

                • 2 votes
                #13.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 9:50 AM EDT
                Dave - Twin Cities

                Would you like "a bit less" in your paycheck?

                vs

                A bit less profit perhaps...?

                tangojones ... Now you have to know by now that "profit" is bad. Have you not been listening to Obama mania and all the kool-aid drinkers. There is no connection between profit and that paycheck that Rixar13 brings home. The owner of the company gives the paycheck out of generosity, not for what is produced. He is in business to give away his fortune, not to make money.

                ... Assuming it is a paycheck and not a government entitlement check.

                • 3 votes
                #13.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 10:05 AM EDT
                Reply
                Otto-968188

                "Ride it like you stole it" they say Po'd. Get one before they wanna turn them into some energizer bunny contraption too.

                  Reply#14 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:02 PM EDT
                  po'd in TN

                  Oh I did,I loved that take off to fourth gear torque throwing me back. And to run 70 or so all the way to work. I got to check into one soon.

                  • 1 vote
                  #14.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:49 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  EEEEEman-186995

                  though the vehicle may get thrity five miles to a gallon of gasoline, the gasoline will cost four dollars and fifty cents or more a gallon. The energy crisis will not be met with the same old time of fuel being used, we need to move to hydrogen cells, as well as natures own sun for solar power.

                  • 5 votes
                  Reply#15 - Tue May 19, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
                  rancher5

                  He just keeps adding up the cost of living every time he makes a new law. Sorry the poor won't even be able to afford live with government support.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#16 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:05 PM EDT
                  po'd in TN

                  Exactly, This a push to get people to use the mass-transit systems.They dont care about those of us who drive 30 miles to and from work. As for those of us living in rural areas,they want us moving into the cities. Not happening here.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:52 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  Erzulie la flambeau-451445

                  Law of Motion

                    Reply#17 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:19 PM EDT
                    lisa lu

                    Can't wait to see how one of those little electric toasters will handle going over one of the mountain roads where I live, during a Winter Snow Storm. This ought to be fun.

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#18 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:28 PM EDT
                    Proud White American

                    Yeah, and wait till you find out how much they are gonna tax you on the chains that your gonna have to buy to get that tiny piece of crap over the hill.

                    • 2 votes
                    #18.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:02 PM EDT
                    lisa lu

                    I was thinking it might work better going down hill as a sled. Haven't figured out how to get it back up the hill afterwards. On Dancer, On Prancer, On Blitzen.

                    • 2 votes
                    #18.2 - Thu May 21, 2009 12:02 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    ThaPyngwyn

                    Too much carbon dioxide? Maybe we should plant more trees?

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#19 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
                    tc-653648

                    Sorry I just exhaled. I can't stop polluting the earth!!!! More smoke and mirror crap from Czar Obama.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#20 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:49 PM EDT
                    BrianAgness

                    I don't understand why people are forgeting the $4000 tax credit you recieve when buying a hybid or electric car. Even if the car is initially more expensive, the tax credit makes it viable.

                    As for strength in the engine, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid has 270 horsepower, which should handle most everything the average drivers throw at it.

                    When we spend money on gasoline, it ends up in the hands of repressive Middle East regimes and their patrons. As a result, we fund both sides of the war on terror... and last time I checked, no one is in favor of funding terrorists.

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#21 - Tue May 19, 2009 10:50 PM EDT
                    ThaPyngwyn

                    It wouldn't surprise me if they consider eliminating that tax credit to retain revenue when they start requiring that we all buy hybrids or electrics.

                    • 1 vote
                    #21.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:00 PM EDT
                    lisa lu

                    It's going to end up being little smart electric cars like the Smart cars they are starting to produce in China.

                    • 1 vote
                    #21.2 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:05 PM EDT
                    Otto-968188

                    It wouldn't surprise me if they consider eliminating that tax credit to retain revenue when they start requiring that we all buy hybrids or electrics.

                    True or,

                    It'll vaporize just like the 2009 Tax credits did. Supposedly for keeping Automkers in bussiness by getting existing stock off the lot.

                    Promise the moon to get elected but serve baloney when in office. Then blame it on the other party when they still hungry.

                    • 1 vote
                    #21.3 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:12 PM EDT
                    tangojones

                    "electric toasters" - lol

                    • 2 votes
                    #21.4 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:32 AM EDT
                    po'd in TN

                    When we spend money on gasoline, it ends up in the hands of repressive Middle East regimes and their patrons. As a result, we fund both sides of the war on terror... and last time I checked, no one is in favor of funding terrorists.

                    Maybe if we could drill for and use our own oil this wouldnt happen. But oh no cant drill for it off shore or in Alaska,poor polar bears.

                    • 3 votes
                    #21.5 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:55 AM EDT
                    ozzwald

                    Maybe if we could drill for and use our own oil this wouldnt happen. But oh no cant drill for it off shore or in Alaska,poor polar bears.

                    What an utterly ignorant, idiotic comment!

                    Should we socialize the American oil industry,? I thought Republicans were against Socialism. Otherwise the American oil companies would be drilling domestically, but there is no reason for them to sell that oil domestically. We don't get any discount on domestic oil, and buy foreign oil now because it is cheaper.

                    So sure follow the GOP mantra of "drill baby drill" but don't expect it to lower prices or increase quantity of our oil. Most domestically drilled oil will probably be sold to China, since they can pay more for it than we can.

                    • 2 votes
                    #21.6 - Wed May 20, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
                    Proud White American

                    Ozwald,

                    Should we socialize the American oil industry,? I thought Republicans were against Socialism. Otherwise the American oil companies would be drilling domestically, but there is no reason for them to sell that oil domestically. We don't get any discount on domestic oil, and buy foreign oil now because it is cheaper.

                    The reason that we can't drill our own oil is the crazy a## tree huggers.

                    • They have gotten access to lands that could be drilled restricted
                    • They protest every attempt to gain access
                    • They have no money and no cars, so they dont give a crap

                    Their oil is only cheaper because all the ridiculous regulations placed on our drilling companies, by our own huggin government. It is also mre expensive because they can't get to the places they need to, to drill.

                    • 1 vote
                    #21.7 - Wed May 20, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
                    po'd in TN

                    What an utterly ignorant, idiotic comment!

                    Well gee thats a new response.. NOT! See you make it hard to discuss this with you,cause you got to go and say something like that.

                    But what the heck I can put up with intolerant people, So lets see. No I dont want too socialize the oil industry but would it hurt to make it worth their while to keep it here?

                    And PWA pretty well explained it.

                    Also I know they have leases on some land for future exploration, I would tell them either pump it or lose it.

                    So bygolly "Drill Baby Drill!"

                    I saw a commercial last night that pertains to this. KIA has a new car,And it showed 4 rats driving around. About all that will fit in these Population controllers you want us to drive.

                    • 1 vote
                    #21.8 - Wed May 20, 2009 8:50 PM EDT
                    BrianAgness

                    Population control? What are you even talking about?

                    The point is that we need to diversify our energy sources. That means drilling more oil in the US, yes... but also investing in solar, wind energy, and hybrid automobiles. No one said that a hybrid has to be a tiny little box and no one said you have to buy a KIA (I would never personally because of a lack of quality in the materials used). But regardless the US should invest in alternative energies before the rest of the world gains all the technology and leaves us fighting to catch up later on.

                    • 2 votes
                    #21.9 - Sun May 24, 2009 1:28 AM EDT
                    BrianAgness

                    po'd in TN

                    But oh no cant drill for it off shore or in Alaska,poor polar bears.

                    It should be taken into account how little oil there is in Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Alaska has many oil deposts and they are worth taping into. However, the little amount that we would gain from drilling in ANWR is worth nothing compared to the value of maintaining one of the last large tract of protected land in the world.

                    I don't know too many people who oppose offshore drilling as of now. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that most of the Gulf of Mexico is still available for drilling.

                    • 1 vote
                    #21.10 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:25 AM EDT
                    Stone5150

                    Offshore drilling is way better than tearing up virgin wilderness.

                    • 2 votes
                    #21.11 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:50 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    Peter CombsDeleted
                    Root Boy SlimDeleted
                    Steve Watts

                    I can't believe so many people have such low reading comprehension. People keep saying this it's short-sighted to expect higher cost of ownership for utility companies that need vans or trucks while we're in an economic downturn. Apparently they think these standards are going to be set instantly. Read the article:

                    The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016

                    I'll be surprised if we stay in our economic funk until 2012, much less 2016 when they take full effect. So, that argument is null and void.

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#24 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:17 PM EDT
                    Otto-968188

                    So, When are you gonna make your next vehicle purchase Steve?

                    • 1 vote
                    #24.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:40 PM EDT
                    Steve Watts

                    I would guess around 2011, and again in 2014 or 2015, just due to how old our cars are currently and when I estimate we'll need new ones.

                    • 4 votes
                    #24.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:07 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    reddirthippy

                    heard most of the same arguments since the 70's try to find a car that gets 8 mpg now. Most cars are now faster and last longer. The relative price isn't any higher.

                    The 'big' three complained that Americans didn't want them, well surprise surprise we see were that got them. Honda 600 to the the Civic one of the best selling cars. Toyota nearly over taking GM in market share and probably will by next year. By 2016 the choices will be between cars that get 35mpg and cars the get 50mpg. Quit possibly many that are measured in miles per amp hour.

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#25 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:34 PM EDT
                    Otto-968188

                    The 8mpg vehicle is still around. RV's, large load hauling pickups. Most cars and light trucks really did better than that in the 70's, 12 to 18 MPG. My 56 Chevy pick up got 14 at least.

                    Mostly of what has happened to increase fuel mileage has been vehicle design, lighter, smaller components. Not amazing feats of genius getting Gas to burn with some miraculous efficiency. And that's really what you'll be looking at lighter flimsier transportation that has a smaller GVWR.

                    • 1 vote
                    #25.1 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:55 PM EDT
                    reddirthippy

                    And in my old pontiac you could watch the fuel gage drop at stop light. My 67 ford pickup got about 8 pulling a trailer and about 10 otherwise.

                    And that old 56 whether it had the stovebolt or a 265 by 100,000 you were looking at a rebuild.

                    • 1 vote
                    #25.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:11 AM EDT
                    Otto-968188

                    You know your Chevy engines many woulda said a 283 I got more like 200,000ish out of it. Several valves were burnt to hell but it was still running right up to the engine hoist. Amazing was the crank bearings squish gage showed hardly any wear coulda went another 200K I believe.

                    • 2 votes
                    #25.3 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:25 AM EDT
                    reddirthippy

                    I've got a 54 suburban with original motor 115,000 miles. It runs but could use a rebuild. also have a 50 1.5 ton hay truck with a rebuilt motor.

                    I'm currently working on a 41 ford 2door deluxe with a 50 olds 303 rocket backed up to the 50 Cadillac tranny.

                    crank bearings squish gage showed hardly any wear

                    that is surprising

                    • 1 vote
                    #25.4 - Wed May 20, 2009 7:42 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    cuzican

                    I'd like to know since "pickup trucks will be so much more expensive they will be used almost exclusively for work" how I'm supposed to haul my ATV's, or pull my boat, or go up in the mountains hunting if all I can afford to drive is some crappy little electric car?

                    Glad there are plenty of old beaters around here to be had for next to nothing and that I have the ability to fix them.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#26 - Tue May 19, 2009 11:49 PM EDT
                    Otto-968188

                    Well CUZ after all, none of which you cite is really important to the average cityfied politician or wine and cheese tasting urbanite. Good luck with that Keep the old beaters, they the best ever produced anyway.

                    • 5 votes
                    #26.1 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:01 AM EDT
                    cuzican

                    Freakin city folks and politicians. Whey do they have to crap all over everything?

                    • 1 vote
                    #26.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 6:16 PM EDT
                    lisa lu

                    Freakin city folks and politicians. Whey do they have to crap all over everything?

                    Because they think they know what is best for everyone and everything. Their feelings tell them so.

                    • 2 votes
                    #26.3 - Thu May 21, 2009 12:07 AM EDT
                    cuzican

                    "Because they think they know what is best for everyone and everything. Their feelings tell them so."

                    Oh yeah...I forgot. So when do my feelings entitle me to tell them whats best for their situation?

                      #26.4 - Sat May 23, 2009 1:27 AM EDT
                      Reply
                      Edward-453134

                      Why is President Obama and everyone who has a say in emissions are omitting commercial vehicles? They have very nasty, extremely toxic exhast fumes. You can see black exhust coming out of some commercial vehicles, and not only do diesel vehicles make a racket idling, their exhast fumes are toxic. Something to be done to clean the exhust coming from these vehicles.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#27 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:04 AM EDT
                      Root Boy SlimDeleted
                      Otto-968188

                      That and there has been some work done on diesel emmisions. But if you try to haul loads they haul with a 35 mile a gallon vehicle you wont make it out the shippers front gate. Hell you wont budge the trailer!

                      • 2 votes
                      #27.2 - Wed May 20, 2009 12:29 AM EDT
                      VerbalHarpoon

                      Very true Otto. Although the ports are implementing greener trucks to haul containers to inland areas,the economy still needs the diesel. However,ports are adding the cost of purchasing those trucks onto the agents,which adds to the consumers cost. Nearly everything in any household is hauled via truckers. A 35mpg truck might be good for a fridge or sofa,but it will not match the pulling power a big rig has.

                      • 2 votes
                      #27.3 - Sat May 23, 2009 12:59 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                      Leave a Comment:
                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                      FUN STUFF:
                      • Leaderboard |
                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                      • Top of the Vine |
                      • Newsvine Live |
                      • Newsvine Archives |
                      • The Greenhouse
                      COMPANY STUFF:
                      • Code of Honor |
                      • Company Info |
                      • Contact Us |
                      • Jobs |
                      • User Agreement |
                      • Privacy Policy |
                      • About our ads
                      LEGAL STUFF:
                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com