… I am also less of a fan of the federal government. The good thing about having shitheads in sacramento is that I can easily leave the state (which I did) but changing countries is a bit more complicated. The general rule of the Constitution is that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government under the Constitution are reserved for the states. The fed has already WAAAAAAY overstepped these boundries, but that being the case, in practice the policy has been that the states are not allowed to reduce the rules and guidances of the federal government. This means that if the feds say cars must get 30mpg, the states are not allowed to grant deviances below 30mpg, but can require higher. Likewise states can not allow more pollution that the fed permits, but can mandate less.

What we have here byt he EPA is an absolute federal power grab by an agency over all states’ rights. If it holds up, the precedent will be set and will be used by other agencies with trickle down effects going to the local level. That means unelected bureacrats in D.C. will in effect be controlling every single governmental decision in the entire country, because mind you most federal “laws” are not made by Congress specifically, but rather result as regulation stemming from the growth of agencies that “make the rules.”

If you people don’t like this crap, vote Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate who will oppose it. All the others see themselves as “benevolent dictators” whose divine omniscience you must obey for your own good. In other words, screw individual choice, because once the states and municipalities are gone the feds are going right at you people.

The EPA will only enforce the screw, they don’t need the states.

Also, mandating engineering requirements for specific manufacturers may hurt R&D costs, instead of help them, and otherwise hurt the company in the long run. If a car company, say GM, has to meet 35 mpg CAFE, then GM will look at its portfolio of vehicles and the volumes sold, and match vehicles and powertrains together to make the corporate average. Invest and implement in hybrid, flex fuels, diesel, fuel cells, etc. as need be.

But if GM had to make sure that 10% of its models had flex fuels (or alternative fuels), they may lose the *flexibility* to meet market demands. Maybe GM could just make a flex fuel engine or two and stick it in 10% of its models, but that may not be possible without heightening costs.

If you’re gonna impose flex fuel requirements on vehicles, you’re right to suggest that Big Oil must have a similar quota in making sure the flex fuel is available. But with E85 especially, what happens in markets that are not close to ethanol processing plants (i.e., away from Iowa, Illinois, and the like)? Ethanol can’t be piped, so the infrastructure costs will jack up the E85 price in California, lessening demand and defeating the purpose.

Like ‘em or leave ‘em, but raising CAFE is one way to promote better fuel economy across the board, thereby decreasing gas consumption. Having a fuel economy corporate standard allows the greater flexibility among all the companies trying to sell cars in the U.S.

Of course, CAFE’s not perfect. If you want to be rid of foreign, one path is certainly raising CAFE, but you also need to make sure R&D dollars are raised and fund *viable* alternative fuels. One way to do that is by taxing Big Oil and, yes, taxing the motorist. Gas prices are never going down–they’re only going up. Let’s pay now so that when we hit $150 a barrel or $200 a barrel, we can say “no-thanks.”

Personally, as I have said before, I think that instead of mandating how many MPG cars should get, we should mandate how many of the cars an automaker sells should be available with an alternative fuels options. For example, if GM sells 80 different models, 10% (8 models) should run on some kind of flex fuel in addition to the reg. gas version. Also, we should mandate Big Oil to offer alternative fuels in a certain percent of its total stations. If Chevron has 7500 stations in the US, 10% (750 stations) should have an alternative fuel available in addition to gasoline. Getting alternative fuels available to as many people as possible is the most affective way to get people to use them

The reason carmakers want Feds to do it is because they only have to lobby few senators. Once they get 2 guys on Energy Board they are guaranteed that all unfavorable laws will stop. Example, right now Dingell, the biggest auto supporter is the chairman of that board. The guy who was there before him was a republican, but when republicans lost Congress in 06 a Democrat had to become a chairman….and by pure act of god one of the biggest denyers of polution was displaced by….THE biggest denyer of polution (Dingell)

Bottom line is, the senat works in a way that if a few people oppose an issue they can make sure that the issue never makes it to the floor. I am not talking about fillebustering…i am just saying the issue can not even be voted on. All automakers have to do is buy(lobby) a few Senators and the issue is dead.

One more time, last time CAFE was increased was 30 years ago. Stated HAD to act.

This is the reason why I always bash eco-freaks and states like California. It is easy for them to set goals that they think will help their cause, but they never think about the implications that their proposals have. Letting California set its own standards would be like California being a separate country. The Astra took $100 million to be updated in accordance with US laws. Imagine if automakers had to spend millions to get their cars to meet the standards of 50 separate states! California is trying to dictate what the whole country’s laws should be.

And I think some of the R&D concern is the possibility of California saying that it wants a 45 mpg minimum on certain cars, despite CAFE. When the industry mans up and tries to meet the 35 CAFE standard, it shouldn’t have to worry about doubling its investment to sell cars in some of the best markets.

With current car, I will eliminate the pre turbo cat and one one of the post turbo cat. I’m keeping one for noise, smell, sound and pollution.

Progress…

Also, if you still think that Bush is good for America …fine. Great.

But i do agree with you, this is a car blog, so on that note no more of this.

celeron: good call on bush and his beholden-to-the-oil-companies status. Li’l Jorge will down in history as the biggest champion of corporate welfare.

“the white house has shown time and time again that they will side with business over any environmental issue.”
Or any other issue, especially anything that benefits the working man without benefiting corporations more.

Autonut: http://www.cronus.com/redstates/

How can the will of states that hold about 50% of the nation be completely dismissed.

Look again i understand that if this was a normal administration and states were going bezerk. Bush Bush proved time and time again that he does not care about environment. Also do not forget that Arnold is a REPUBLICAN, so was George Pataki of NY (firmer Gov) Also Conneticut is one of 15 states..they just elected an Independent Candidate (Lieberman)–what i am trying to say is that this is not a left right thing. This is a Bush thing, he has an agenda, we all know what it is, we all know where he stand, he is simply trying to delay any changes untill he is out of office.

Signed
Core Duo

Now if the next presiden will be willing to WORK with states, then states would not ask EPA for a waiver.

By the way i believe this EPA is the first one in history not to give a waiver to California. And that is yet another example of white house not protecting environment.

Example: MTBE, Bush administration says that it is not a pollutant and therefore should be allowed to be added to gasoline. There are studies that say it pollutes ground waters, many states have BANNED IT, but now thanks to this ruling Oil companies can lobby white house to pressure EPA to call MTBE a non pollutant (some states to allow its use in gasoline) and it will force every other state to use MTBE—-which once again has been proven to contaminate ground waters.