Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for improved fuel economy but this latest proposal is ridiculous. The timetable and fuel economy numbers are completely unrealistic. Any moron can see this!

What the CAFE requirements do is throw a new variable into a free market mix, where ideally, the car consumers of America should decide how fuel efficient the cars they buy will be. But, many car consumers either put eco concerns on the back burner, or they don’t believe that passenger cars don’t contribute to the problem. Personally, I think every little bit helps, even in regulating passenger car mpg, but I don’t subscribe to the gloom-and-doom you predict. But you’re entitled to your opinion….

I suppose I don’t have a problem with the gov’t stepping in and changing the dynamics of the market some, but Cali’s proposal is simply a matter of degree. Too high a requirement, and the costs to all may be too great (much higher prices for cars, some desirable cars removed from the market, and maybe even smaller niche companies abandoning the U.S. market).

I don’t mind having my choices restricted some because of enviro concerns (and really, security concerns, as the true benefit of higher CAFE, say the lawmakers, is more freedom from foreign oil), but I still like my choices. Technology will eventually keep pace with political pressures to save the environment and/or to keep Arab oil where it is. I just think 35 mpg is a more reasonable start than 44 mpg.

The phrase, “it gets worse” is a horrible statement and absolutely wrong. This is a very good thing to achieve. It is about time that we are responsible for the environment that we are killing.

Don’t people get that if we kiss off the fish and plants that we will have nothing to eat? Don’t you get that there have been lots of extinctions of plants and animals due to human destruction and poisons that were are putting in the air, land, and water?

We CAN have very fast cars using electricity or other sources of energy that do not poison the world. Only people with their head in the sand won’t look around and realize this.

This is NOT an attempt to destroy everyone’s fun. This is aimed at trying to save our environment and at the same time save our lives so that we can continue to have fun but in a more responsible, non poisoning, way.

Then allow Mexico to annex it…they have the votes to do it anyway.

Cali, I’m sure, is an important market for any car maker, they’d much rather sell vehicles there than not. The costs of engineering a 62% more fuel-efficient fleet for a small market would almost certainly be spread across all sales. The cost of everyone’s car to meet a 35 mpg standard will go up–it’ll go up even more if a certain percentage of those cars need to hit a 44 mpg average, even if the car you buy doesn’t.

I’m sure it’ll be argued that what Cali is proposing would have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, so the feds will likely have the power to stop it. We can only hope.

I think 30mpg city is reasonable. Think of how many cars out there get 11mpg in the city. Actually, they should teach people how to coast properly; I see many retards out there who floor it up to 100 ft b4 a red light and then they slam on the brakes. I’m sure a jackass like that gets about 7 miles to the gallon.

So California, you’re not alone. Take heart in knowing Hollywood North is your environmental bitch.

Imagine what would happen if every state set their own fuel economy standards. All automakers would have to make their cars different for nearly every state. That is like configuring cars for 50 different countries which would push R&D costs out of this world.

The only positive I can see is that if they did that, China and India would never be able to afford to dump their shitty cars on our shores because they won’t have the money to meet regulations.

But really, the beauty of it is you CAN buy whatever car you want. Would you believe that American cars are more clean than European ones? Coming to the conclusion that just because we use more fuel doesn’t mean our vehicles individually make more emissions.

I’ll leave Global Warming for others to offer as an argument, none of that for me. If you continue to approve of people to capitalize off of this, and approve of them taking millions of acres from land loving people, HERE in America, upcoming taxes and trade regulations, and choking your rights, then that’s your problem. And don’t jump to the conclusion I don’t understand Global Warming either.

heart64- Then that would be communism.

Jimbus- Very much agreed on the mass transportation statement.
Not so much a Metro like D.C., but something more long range than that…

bcjohnso99- Where does it say there isn’t enough free land to plant trees for every few gallons of gas sold? That sounds like an alright solution to me, not very expensive unless it includes ownership of the land, and may turn into a good short term investment and good for advertisement.
A billion gallons for one million? 10 million trees?

So for me, for now, 35mpg by 2020 is the better choice.Trying to force the issue is just wrong right now. Though if we wait too long such painful steps could become necessary.

I don’t see any problem with this proposed legislation. Toyota has Prius (and more to come) and GM will have Volt (and platform-mates) and others will follow suit. People that want something desireable can go to their closest neighbouring state and buy whatever else they want. Maybe they’ll be forced to buy used but this will not stop people from having the vehicle they want.

Nobody, not even the Japanese or Europeans will be able to make these standards without passing huge cost to the consumer. Alternative fuels are no where near being ready. Diesels are filthy and expensive and to clean them up, they will jump from a $2500 premium to $6500. Where are they going to get electricity to charge battery powered vehicles, when Cali’s grid is already overtaxed? Ethanol is nearly doubling the price of feed corn and will be driving up the price of pork and other meats that depend on it. Hybrids may be reasonable, but they again, carry an oppressive premium in initial cost that will probably never be made up in the 3-5 years people pay on cars.

Not to mention, we’ve been through this all before. The same thing happened with emissions in the seventies and eighties and it pretty much choked the joy out of owning a car. The complexities took twenty years for the enginerds to get sorted out and start making reasonably powered and decently maintainable vehicles.

Instead of forcing others to should the burdens of Califorina’s over population, California needs to invest in their meto areas like most others did decades ago. They need to set up mass/rail transit systems and make it palatable for people to use.

So gas companies would have to plant trees or whatever for every liter of fuel they sell, powerplants, factories, etc. the same.

That would result in a) an Internalization of the external costs, meaning that people would directly pay for what they are doing instead of reaping the rewards in form of hurricanes and floods in 30 years.
b) Efficiency would only be used as far as it is cheaper than to just plant trees instead.
Why build a hybrid that is 10 grand more expensive and only has a 20% fuel efficiency increase if you can just get rid of the CO2 another way?
Rather drive a regular car and pay more fuel (because the CO2-ridding is included in that)

In the end, the most efficient solutions would prevail and it wouldn’t matter if you drive a Smart or a GMC TopKick, because al the CO2 gets taken out of the atmosphere again..

Probably trucks would get more efficient though, because it would save the consumer money.. Basically it is engaging the market to help us fight CO2, which is the only way it is gonna work well.

Anyone get what I’m saying?

This places an impossible burden on the auto industry as well as taking away the individual right of car ownership and choice.

You know these mothers that say they have a large family does’nt cut it. You can’t drive your kids one place everywhere.

People Driving Ford Expeditions, Hummers, and other large vehicles MUST carry other people to and from work. Its that simple and/or REALLY have a valid excuse meaning they have a load they carry everyday to own one.

If not they can not buy one and their would be Heavy fines for any violation in this regard.