The FBI reported Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 terrorists. So, will Dingell be a patriot or a prostitute? How many ways can you say we want ACTION not BS.

Reply

↓↑report

State based regulations over the auto industry are dumb. Being an environmentalist doesn't mean blindly supporting each and every green initiative.

People who actually understand Global Climate Change and the affect of greenhouse gases will agree that the automobiles that are likely to be affected by the state based regulations are not by any means the largest contributor to the problem. (see: decaying vegetation, volcanic activity, tilling, agriculture, power generation, commercial transportation... just to name a few)

The Global Climate Change problem is just that, it's GLOBAL and the minimal affect of a few states decreasing by a fraction of a percent their CO2 emissions will be grossly overshadowed by the negative affect these laws will have on a resurgent American auto industry.

There is a need for more efficient automobiles in the US now, but it has very little to do with the environment and everything to do with the increasing cost of energy. The greenwashing needs to stop.

Reply

↓↑report

EVan,
There are plenty of 50+ mpg cars in Europe. Where's the EV1? How about GM RESTORE the EV files from their backup and Re-Build it NOW.

I'm in support of ANY LAW that breaks the High MPG Car EMBARGO going on in this country.

Reply

↓↑report

Mike,

GM is building the first ever mass produced serial hybrid. It's like the EV-1 but it doesn't suck.

Furthermore, the reason for 50+ MPG cars in Europe is directly tied to their higher cost for fuel. Consumer demand drives change much faster than political whimsy. I would support a gradual gas tax on the federal level. This way we all take on the burden of transitioning to a more energy efficient society rather than simply punishing the rust-belt states and their soon to be laid off autoworkers.

Reply

↓↑report

Alright, who voted for this turkey? You know who you are and you get a 10 minute time out in the corner!

Reply

↓↑report

fyi: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/us-saudis-still.html

Reply

↓↑report

Having each state with its own fuel economy rules would balkanize the market to such a degree that automakers would be unable to sell vehicles at volumes high enough to make any profit. It would affect Honda and Toyota as much as GM and Ford.

And mike? Those 50mpg cars (diesels, all) don't have to contend with California's LEV II emissions regulations, or Tier 2 bin 5 on the federal level. The strictest such regulations in the world keeps those diesels out. Besides, diesel is now over $4 per gallon in most places.

So if you want that "embargo" you think exists lifted, you'll just have to loosen those other emissions regs.

Reply

↓↑report

What's best for America? High polluting, high gulping V8's and a protracted war in the middle east? Or, ultra fuel efficient diesel, hybrids and EV's powered by the wind and the sun? It's incredible to me GM believes building ultra-guzzlers while we're at war with high fuel costs makes sense.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=124937

I guess Business and Patriotism don't mix.

Reply

↓↑report

We should probably do everything we can to avert the effects of global climate change (and its disastrous consequences). Immediately!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/7/135110/9622/554/491684

Although its not easy for the car companies to deal with even the most most minimal increase in regulations (or so it appears), its something that's absolutely essential for the well-being of all of us.

I think you'd be on the losing side of an argument over whether cars are an important part of this equation, eVan. Its irrelevant that there are other contributing problems (especially if its vegetal decay, as you fret!).

Or that since regulations target only particular sources of pollution, in limited areas, they shouldn't exist at all (did I get that right?).

No, there needs to be radically more efficient vehicles in the USA and it _IS_ all about the environment. This isn't greenwashing (you don't seem to understand the term, eVan).

The rust-belt states stand to benefit greatly from the new green economy, far beyond what is possible in our current polluting, foreign oil (and wars), coal, etc. industries. This is something to embrace, not fear.

Reply

↓↑report

I'm all for responsible environmentalism and all that jazz, but I agree with Cervus - having a bunch of different state regulations would drive automakers bonko. Though we could all have a good laugh when some state legislated a particularly strict CO2 limit, and the automakers responded with, "OK, just wait about 3 years for the new cars that can meet your standard."

Reply

↓↑report

I wish Dingell the best. California and their other well meaning (er self aggrandizing) but absolutely common-senseless followers have done more to hurt national fuel economy standards (and emissions obviously) than help. The lack of diesels available in this country is almost directly attributable to CA. How many manufacturers are unable to meet their regulations cost-effectively and unwilling to import non-50-state legal cars? Most US consumers haven't SEEN modern diesels--it's no wonder they think they are still stuck in 1983 with black smoke and 25 second 0-60 times. CA's insistence on forcing electric vehicles into the system before they were ready (i.e., when all we had were massive lead-acid batteries that made them completely impractical) completely turned public opinion against EV's so much that Toyota had to go out of their way to market their hybrids as NOT requiring a plug just to get people to think that they didn't suck. I STILL hear people talking about not wanting a Hybrid because they are worried about range and don't want to have to plug it in on long trips.

Look, the Federal government regulates interstate and international commerce for a reason. It levels the playing field and makes it possible for manufacturers of products targeted for interstate sale to have a single target when it comes to minimum requirements. Hey, I'm all for CA implementing their own version of London's carbon taxes so that people are encouraged to buy more eco-friendly vehicles--ones well exceeding any minimum emmission regulations that CA could possibly implement (without making car buying impossible) do exist and will always exist simply due to the nature of minimum standards. However, additional attempts at regulation can do NOTHING except hurt. Even if they fail (which I think they will), they'll still be breeding and feeding lawyers. Spend that money seeding some green startups out there in the Valley. We've got a LOT of bigger problems facing us...

Reply

↓↑report

It is pretty simple. Vote for light rail/light rail. Yes you will be taxed.

Ride a bicycle. Buy an electric bicycle conversion kit. Ride the bus. Buy an older used car that gets good mpg.

Reply

↓↑report

EVan you're crazy for saying that cars aren't a big part of the problem. They account for about 25% of the CO2 emissions in the US. Decaying vegetation and volcanic activity? Seriously? Dude, do you work for Exxon or something? And your right, power generation creates more CO2 than the transportation sector. So that means that we shouldn't try to increase transportation efficiency? That's some political logic there. Instead of acting about a major problem, point out an even bigger problem and offer no solution to either one. Great distraction tactic! Call John McCain, you're just the man he needs for his VP. To the issue: having a patchwork of state laws would be silly. But we have that to some extent now, that's where the term 50-state legal comes from. And 'patchwork' is misleading, as if the states win the suit, CA, NY and other major states will enforce identical regulations and the auto industry will have to sell cars that meet those regs in all 50 states for logistical cost saving purposes. It would be ideal if the fed's could lead the way, but we hired oil men to run the white house, so I guess that's not possible. Truth is, government is far too dysfunctional to save us, only business can. So everybody, vote with your dollars and we'll move big business' bottom lines in the right direction.

Reply

↓↑report

@mycomya:

I don't think the automakers had any issue with increasing the fuel-economy standards - but I do think they want a well-defined playing field. Cars take several years to design and roll out for production, and they don't want to make myriad running changes every time a different state decides to up the ante.

And everyone here seems to harp on the "more efficient vehicle" as the answer - when "less consumption" is the true answer. If a more efficient vehicle is driven farther and offsets its efficiency - where's the decreased consumption?

And noone anywhere has the political stones to do the one thing that could reduce consumption overall - an increased carbon tax, with the revenue aimed at developing renewable sources of energy. Without an incentive to save on energy, nothing will truly change - regulations to the contrary.

Reply

↓↑report

-EVan

The EV-1 sucks? Show me one lessee's opinion stating that. For a car that "sucks", it amazed me so many protested GM's destruction of that taxpayer subsidized (damn near completely paid for) vehicle. Where was the public outcry over the Pontiac Aztec or Saturn Ion's demise? Oh wait, those products REALLY DID SUCK!

-Cervus

WTF are you talking about. The United States Government granted the State of California a waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions. In allowing other states to utlize more stringent controls, "the fed" mandated you could either adopt "California Emission" or the federal standard. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE could a state implement an emission policy outside of the two allowable standards. "California Emission" was adopted by other states who agree the federal policy is weak without modification. You can't convince me "California Emission" is too expensive considering it's the world's 10th. (or 6th. depending on your source) largest economy, and generates plenty of sales. The costs are passed to the customer anyways. Perhaps the federal government should cede tailpipe emission standards outright to California.

Only the federal government regulates fuel economy. California solely had the waiver to set a separate emission requirement.

Even though it's (virtually) constitutionally impossible, California should threaten to secede from the United States. If New York joined the fray, the entire country would be financially devastated. The U.S. Government would declare "insurrection" so fast, and probably argue their trying to preserve the freedom of Californians everywhere. Lord knows it's always about preserving freedom and not economic/empire control.

Reply

↓↑report

Julius,
Your argument only has weight if everyone were a teenager on summer vacation, then, yes, we could drive our more efficient vehicles All Day Long.

In the real world, unless you make the day contain 26 or 28 hours, instead of 24, almost no one will be driving more just to enjoy our new found efficiency.

But, yes, a carbon tax is long past due.

Reply

↓↑report

Mike - In the real world, when CAFE standards led to increased fuel economy in the 1970s, people drove more miles -- enough to offset a major portion of the mpg gain. It's not because there are more hours in the day; it's because it became cheaper to operate a vehicle. So you could live 30 miles from work if you wanted, or buy that cottage outstate and make the 4-hour drive after work on Friday, or you could drive to four specialty grocery stores every week. If we had a magic pill today that doubled fuel economy for every vehicle, people would again drive more. Whereas an increase in fuel taxes would push people naturally to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. If you did it gradually, with everyone knowing that this tax was being phased in, everyone would have a fair chance to prepare for it.

Reply

↓↑report

Chrysler and GM developed a 2 mode hybrid for FWD & RWD. GM teases us with FWD hybrid opel and turns out hybrid 1500 truck, and SUV & CUV hybrids. Chrysler just has it's SUV hybrid and soon 1500 truck hybrid. Ford has the Escape hybrid.
Why can't they sell car & minivan & small truck hybrids? GM currently has the only V-6 with cylinder deactivation. Why can't they team that up with the 2 mode hybrid for the impaula?

Reply

↓↑report

The number of miles driven and the number of vehicles licensed increases annually. We are living longer and in better shape and we have youngsters reaching driving age so more cars and more miles. A tax is probably the only reasonable solution, as much as I HATE social manipulation by government via the ability to tax. A gradual increase in gasoline/diesel fuel tax on a programmed schedule so everyone knows what is coming and how much would be reasonable. Then the manufacturers have time to meet a demand they know is comming.

But I can see it now. Someone will make a valid point that a working single mom, for example, can't afford a new car so we'll have to give someone a special break. The lobying will be tremendous and the result will be 1000 pages of legislation.

Reply

↓↑report