Comments on: Senate Passes Landmark Fuel Economy Bill

40% Boost In Efficiency Would Be First Such Federal Law In 32 Years; House Is Next To Act

[notblue]

The new poll numbers came out today for the new Democratically lead congress. There approval rating is now the lowest of any congress in U.S. history! CBS has been tireless in presenting poll numbers regarding Bush, I wonder why they are ignoring this benchmark? TOOO funny, does CBS have an agenda?

[tuckerndfw]

Energy independence would be assured if congress enacted legislation imposing a "gas guzzler tax" on all non-commercial vehicles that was $500,000 dollars or 50 percent of a person's net worth, whichever was greater.

"Gas guzzler" could be defined however they wanted, but I suggest a baseline of 50 mpg. And, restrict "commercial vehicle" to vehicles used routinely to carry commercial cargo in excess of 10,000 lbs.

We would see how quickly auto makers could produce vehicles that achieved much higher fuel economy. And, how much Americans really do want fuel efficient vehicles.

So long as Congress wastes their time passing laws that do not take effect until after the next elections, there will be no "energy independence" in the US.

[simpsonman19]

Apparently 35 mpg isn't "realistic" for Bush. Hmm...aren't there already tons of cars that get that very same, if not more fuel economy? Oh yes, they're made by the Japanese, the automakers that are kicking our butts right now all while the US makers are lossing money. Seems to me that the US makers should have realized this a long time ago and not be forced to do it.

[space_poet]

"The 1908 Model T got 28 mpg. That was 100 years ago. What lies and excuses do they want to make for this?"

Oh man, that is such bullshyyyt. 28 mpg gasoline, and 20 mpg oil. WIT BLUE SMOKE COMING OUT DE ******** TAILPIPE!" posted by donnie

Look donnie, first off, you need to chill out. Do you see anyone swearing like a sailor or screaming like a lunatic? You do know you are blatantly disregarding the posting rules here, right?

Now to the topic, I tried to confirm what you said, but I can not, maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But the comparison still has value and is relevant. We should be 10 times the fuel mileage than we are at, but we don't care cause oil is so readily available.

This legislation is a joke. We are the grossest polluters on this planet, so I really don't expect any one of you Americans to understand. It seems it is our right and our duty to take as much as we can, destroy it, and scoff at anyone who really is trying to make a difference.

[Syndicate]

I wonder if anyone in congress asked an engineer if this is even possible? I have my doubts.

[tuckerndfw]

It's deja vu all over again.

Some of us are old enough to remember the "oil crisis" of the mid 1970's. And, to also remember how congress passed "landmark legislation" to ensure energy independence at some future date.

But, then Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and "energy independence" was replaced with "feel good and be happy."

Sure hope Americans aren't throwing away their bicycles. Some people will need them in a few more years when gasoline is $15 a gallon.

[jimibear]

Kiddbilly, are you saying that we have a right to drive a vehicle which guzzles gas? I'd tend to disagree ...

If you mean that the gov't does not listen to the people, then you are right. The war of 1812 had nothing to do with that, though ... Washington DC's only meaningful role in that war was being burned by the British.

[jimibear]

"Consumers, says Lindland, "don't want to change their lifestyle, they want to protect their families. Do you sacrifice the safety of your family and get a small, light vehicle in order to save a tree?"


Good points, AaaBee.

Furthermore, what exactly does reduction of fossil fuel consumption have to do with saving trees?

And in fact, over time, if increase fuel economy requirements leads to reduction in the average size of vehicles on the road, that will be a good thing.

While I agree with Donnie that the only really effective way to make a change is to make a better product, it clearly has not been possible to depend upon the auto industry or the consumer to drive the demand for the better product. In fact, the trend has been toward larger vehicles with worse fuel consumption, which is mind-boggling in its stupidity, arrogance and self-importance, and unfortunately typical of US society as a whole.

Perhaps forcing a change is the only way, assuming it works. Personally, I would be in favor of imposing size/weight maximums on cars, personal trucks and SUVs which would effectively make the most appalling of the mega-vehicles illegal.

[kiddbilly]

has any one in the senate or congress actually read american history???? boston tea party?? taxation without representaion ??? 1776,1812??? the american revolution ??? well if they haven't they might be getting ready to experience it!!! let rethink our rights!!!

[aaabee-2009]

Consumers, says Lindland, "don't want to change their lifestyle, they want to protect their families. Do you sacrifice the safety of your family and get a small, light vehicle in order to save a tree?"

Pardon, are economy cars excempt from the same safety standards as luxury models?

Very imaginative excuse though. Because we have the vehicular equivalent of locomotives on US highways these days, and aggressive people who choose to drive them as if they were, negates the manufacture, purchase, or driving of smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

What this excuse fails to explain is why smaller cars cannot be built just as safe as larger vehicles, but it also fails to explain that the auto industry is in bed with the oil industry and both have a choke-hold on American innovation.