Forum Thread

U.S. Government blocks sales of fuel-efficient cars

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Independent
    Plymouth, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    When President Obama said our vehicle fuel mileage should double, he knew it could no problem, yet this has been blocked still.

    /www.naturalnews.com/036183_fuel-efficiency_automobiles_government.html
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    unitedmajority Wrote: When President Obama said our vehicle fuel mileage should double, he knew it could no problem, yet this has been blocked still.

    /www.naturalnews.com/036183_fuel-efficiency_automobiles_government.html
    You said " he knew it could no problem" ( I guess you meant; it should be no problem) Sure you know how politics work; you and I wrote plenty about that!! Needs only one word " lobbyists" guess from what industry? Why do you think electric cars do not sell as expected? Let alone solar panels (another factory bankrupt) So we live in this lobby environment, so?
  • Independent
    Plymouth, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    unitedmajority Wrote: When President Obama said our vehicle fuel mileage should double, he knew it could no problem, yet this has been blocked still.

    /www.naturalnews.com/036183_fuel-efficiency_automobiles_government.html
    You said " he knew it could no problem" ( I guess you meant; it should be no problem) Sure you know how politics work; you and I wrote plenty about that!! Needs only one word " lobbyists" guess from what industry? Why do you think electric cars do not sell as expected? Let alone solar panels (another factory bankrupt) So we live in this lobby environment, so?
    So maybe it is time to change it, how much more reason do we need?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    unitedmajority Wrote: When President Obama said our vehicle fuel mileage should double, he knew it could no problem, yet this has been blocked still.

    /www.naturalnews.com/036183_fuel-efficiency_automobiles_government.html
    Thanks for sharing this, united. It just drives me nuts that this technology has been out for many years, but the powers that be are intent on keeping the status quo. The part about the gasoline tax and how that is one of the main reasons that the Government has been dragging its feet just goes to show that things are not going to change easily. While the rest of the world moves forward with green energy and fuel efficient forms of transportation, America is stuck in the 20th Century.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I hate to be the one to debunk this story, but when I saw that it was put out by "Natural News" I immediately became suspicious. One quick look at Snopes tells the story...Probably False.

    Snopes: Volkswagon Passat

    1. The "mpg" rating in the United Kingdom refers to imperial gallons, which are 20 percent larger. The imperial gallon 4.546 liters while the United States gallon is 3.785 liters.

    2. One cannot compare the mileage efficiency ratings in the UK versus the USA because the EPA's standards are more stringent.

    3. The particular UK Passat is diesel powered and not gasoline powered.

    4. VW used to sell in the USA the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe, but it just didn't sell very well. It expensive and small to compete in the mid-size sedan segment. A larger version with a bigger engine and poorer mileage did better. Americans are less concerned with mileage than Europeans.

    5. The US government doesn't stipulate to an automobile company what vehicles they can and cannot sell in the USA. They set the standards for things like safety and emissions and the manufacturers are required to comply.

    My advice...if Natural News (Mike Adams) is talking about healthy eating than they have something worthy to report. But when they grab stuff from the John Birch Society, Glenn Beck or other dubious sources, be very wary.

    In any case the story is dated June 15, 2012. President Obama set new fuel efficiency standards in August 2012.

    USA Today, August 28, 2012: Government sets strict fuel-economy goal of 54.5 by 2025

    "Strict new federal fuel-economy and carbon-emission standards made final Tuesday are the biggest technological challenge to the auto industry since the government began regulating emissions in 1970 and mileage in 1975. The rule sets the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon as the average the auto industry must achieve by 2025, up from 29.7 mpg now and 35.5 mpg in 2016.

    The tough "CAFE" standard (for corporate average fuel economy), which was to be announced earlier this month, was announced Tuesday by the Obama administration on the day that Republicans' national convention got underway in Tampa.

    It is "a monumental day for the American people," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in announcing the final rules.


    Read more about it in the USA Today link.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Unfortunately that source (naturalnews.com) doesn't have a very good reputation for presenting the truth. I would be wary of just about anything they promote - sorta like Fix Not-News

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: I hate to be the one to debunk this story, but when I saw that it was put out by "Natural News" I immediately became suspicious. One quick look at Snopes tells the story...Probably False.

    Snopes: Volkswagon Passat

    1. The "mpg" rating in the United Kingdom refers to imperial gallons, which are 20 percent larger. The imperial gallon 4.546 liters while the United States gallon is 3.785 liters.

    2. One cannot compare the mileage efficiency ratings in the UK versus the USA because the EPA's standards are more stringent.

    3. The particular UK Passat is diesel powered and not gasoline powered.

    4. VW used to sell in the USA the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe, but it just didn't sell very well. It expensive and small to compete in the mid-size sedan segment. A larger version with a bigger engine and poorer mileage did better. Americans are less concerned with mileage than Europeans.

    5. The US government doesn't stipulate to an automobile company what vehicles they can and cannot sell in the USA. They set the standards for things like safety and emissions and the manufacturers are required to comply.

    My advice...if Natural News (Mike Adams) is talking about healthy eating than they have something worthy to report. But when they grab stuff from the John Birch Society, Glenn Beck or other dubious sources, be very wary.

    In any case the story is dated June 15, 2012. President Obama set new fuel efficiency standards in August 2012.

    USA Today, August 28, 2012: Government sets strict fuel-economy goal of 54.5 by 2025

    "Strict new federal fuel-economy and carbon-emission standards made final Tuesday are the biggest technological challenge to the auto industry since the government began regulating emissions in 1970 and mileage in 1975. The rule sets the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon as the average the auto industry must achieve by 2025, up from 29.7 mpg now and 35.5 mpg in 2016.

    The tough "CAFE" standard (for corporate average fuel economy), which was to be announced earlier this month, was announced Tuesday by the Obama administration on the day that Republicans' national convention got underway in Tampa.

    It is "a monumental day for the American people," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in announcing the final rules.


    Read more about it in the USA Today link.
    Thanks for doing some digging here, Schmidt. While the article in question may have been misleading, I am still frustrated at what I see as the car companies and government working together to slow down progress with regards to modes of transportation and how to make them as efficient as possible. What the article in question did bring up, however, is that the way our country funds our roads and bridges does not entice the Government to truly invest in new transportation projects that will dramatically reduce their bottom line. We have the technology RIGHT NOW to build electric cars on a mass scale, but the last thing that the oil companies want is a game changer like that and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo. I hope to see a day in my lifetime where there are zero cars that run on fossil fuels on the road, but I fully understand that is most likely just going to be wishful thinking. Thanks again for the clarification with the above article.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    And while comparing mileage between gasoline and diesel powered vehicles...in my area diesel costs much more than gasoline. Usually between 50 cents and a dollar more per gallon. Fuel cost has to be considered to see which vehicle is more cost effective.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared --

    I too would like to see us move away from gasoline and diesel powered cars at a faster pace. But the path to get there would require changes in American attitudes about driving. As Bloomberg News reported in October:

    Bloomberg Businessweek, October 16, 2012: Obama’s $5 Billion Slow to Charge Electric Car Purchases

    "President Barack Obama has put $5 billion in taxpayer money behind his goal of having 1 million electric cars on U.S. roads by 2015. The Republican presidential ticket says it’s money wasted on “losers.”

    "Whether the technology itself is a loser or consumers are merely slow to adapt to new things, car buyers so far haven’t embraced electric vehicles in numbers close to Obama’s goal. Electric-vehicle sales since 2011 totaled fewer than 50,000 through September, just 5 percent of the president’s target."


    So where does the blame lie? As long as gasoline prices remain relatively cheap, consumers are not going to abandon their gas guzzling SUVs. The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, unchanged since Clinton raised it in 1993. State and local taxes are on top of that, but the highest taxed state is California at only 69 cents per gallon and their pump prices are in the order of $5.00 per gallon. I pay about $3.60 a gallon in Colorado. Compare that to Europe where taxes push gasoline prices to between $8 and $10 per gallon.

    The low 18.4 cents per gallon excise tax on gasoline has also starved the Highway Trust Fund of needed funds to repair federal highways and bridges. Our Congress cannot increase it because of the political implications on being elected. Remember that John McCain wanted a gasoline tax holiday...so did Hillary during the campaign. Obama opposed it.

    The bottom line is that people are not going to give up their driving habits very easily...and they'll hollar like crazy if any elected official suggests raising gasoline taxes.

    Furthermore, in the USA Today article above, even somewhat higher fuel prices are not likely to get Americans to shift to more fuel-efficient ways.

    "A poll taken mid-March 2011 — when regular-grade gasoline averaged $3.97 across the U.S., near that year's peak of $3.99 and higher than the current average of about $3.76 — found just 32% of Americans saying that they'd switch to a more fuel-efficient car if gas hit $5. (The record national average to date is $4.11, set in July 2008.) Another 13% said they wouldn't make the move unless fuel was $6 to $7.99. And a surprising 38% said they wouldn't trade for gas-sippers no matter how high fuel prices rose."

    I think we need to impose much higher federal gasoline taxes, at least $2.00 per gallon, but that would seal the fate of any Representative, Senator or President proposing it. It is American attitudes that have us stuck in this rut.