FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6500|so randum

TimesOnline wrote:

America's love affair with gas-guzzling vehicles could soon be over as the US plans to introduce its first nationwide standards on emissions and tougher fuel efficiency targets.

President Obama is expected today to unveil sweeping new regulations requiring new cars and trucks to emit 30 per cent less greenhouse gas and to average 35.5 miles to the gallon by the year 2016. The announcement will be made at a meeting in the White House Rose Garden attended by all the main car manufacturers.

Officials say that the proposals are the equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road. They are expected to save around 1.8 billion barrels of oil and prevent about 900 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – the equivalent of 194 coal-fired power stations.

The regulations are also expected to cost American drivers an extra $1,300 (£840) per vehicle.
Good stuff. That oil stuff we all love isn't infinite ya' know.

Guardian wrote:

The plan is the product of months of negotiations between the White House, the Big Three struggling auto makers of Detroit – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler – and the state of California.

California and more than a dozen other states fought for years to set more stringent rules on car exhaust, but were blocked by the George Bush administration.
TimesOnline
Guardian

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45797000/gif/_45797088_car_emissions_466x216.gif

BBC
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5994|Truthistan
On the same thought, China is about to bust out its new plug in Electric Hybrid that is made by a company called Build Your Dreams (BYD). Its expected to get 249 miles between charges and be made available in the US as early as next year. If this thing is even remotely reliable Detroit has just bit the biscuit.

The fuel efficiency standards are long over due. 39 mpg sounds pretty good. In the 1980s, the first oil crunch was deflated when the rise in the demand for oil was deflected by 5%. meaning that demand rose 5% less than expected and that was enough to cause an oil glut and the price of oil to crash. Hopefully new mileage standards will have the same effect.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6542|Texas - Bigger than France
Hmmm....

....so I see that the automakers approved of this today.

....as opposed to past presidents proposing this and seeing the Big Three bitch and moan and stamp failure on it.

Interesting
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6719|California

Good thing everyone will switch to Diesel and bypass the whole thing
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6500|so randum

Pug wrote:

Hmmm....

....so I see that the automakers approved of this today.

....as opposed to past presidents proposing this and seeing the Big Three bitch and moan and stamp failure on it.

Interesting
When the gov is the only thing keeping some of these people going, i guess they should listen
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
13rin
Member
+977|6479
This is stupid legislation and taxation
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6183|Ireland

stryyker wrote:

Good thing everyone will switch to Diesel and bypass the whole thing
^^^^ What he said.
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|6759|San Antonio, Texas
Yey! New CAFE standards, now we get less safe cars and higher gas taxes! Whoopie!
13rin
Member
+977|6479

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Yey! New CAFE standards, now we get less safe cars and higher gas taxes! Whoopie!
This is paving the way for a pay by the mile tax... Bet me.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5610|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)
In 1999, USA Today analyzed the link between Corporate Average Fuel Economy(CAFE) standards and traffic deaths: they reported that: "46,000 people have died in crashes they would have survived in bigger, heavier cars...since 1975." That was a decade ago. The Competitive Enterprise Institute examined 1997 traffic fatalities, and they determined that CAFE standards caused between 2,600 and 4,500 additional deaths.

More Americans are killed and maimed each year as a result of CAFE standards than the number of soldiers that have died in Iraq each year.

Are people unimportant???

CAFE standards were designed to reduce US dependence on foreign oil, at the time we imported 20% of our oil,and now we import 60%, so this has not had the desired effect.

Increased fuel efficiency has allowed people to drive more, leading to more Greenhouse Gas emissions.

The weight reduction measure taken to increase fuel economy kill many, while not making a significant impact on the environment, as cars and light trucks are responsible for only 1.5% of human made gas emissions.
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6493|N. Ireland
Sounds necessary and important. Let's do it.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6771|PNW

Eh, while the industry's gasping for air and struggling to move iron off sales lots, they're going to be hit with even more regulations. Looks like Obama's still wanting to get Ford under the wing of the Feds.

stryyker wrote:

Good thing everyone will switch to Diesel and bypass the whole thing
Diesel wins until the price inflates once more.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-19 14:46:13)

stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6719|California

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Good thing everyone will switch to Diesel and bypass the whole thing
Diesel wins until the price inflates once more.
I don't see why it should inflate
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6521|Istanbul-Turkey

nickb64 wrote:

Increased fuel efficiency has allowed people to drive more, leading to more Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Thats bullshit. People drive when they need, they dont drive to consume fuel.

Plus, for example if you can go 100 kilometers with 10 liters of fuel, with fuel efficiency you can go 130 with same amount of fuel. (all numbers are made up). I cant see anything to cause more Gas emission?

nickb64 wrote:

The weight reduction measure taken to increase fuel economy kill many, while not making a significant impact on the environment, as cars and light trucks are responsible for only 1.5% of human made gas emissions.
people dont die because of small and efficient cars, they die because of reckless driving. and you can still buy large cars, they are not completely banned. also I want source for that %1.5 part of gas emissions that is released by cars and trucks.
Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6521|Istanbul-Turkey
You should be concerned with drunk driving more than fuel efficient enviroment friendly cars:

http://www.autoinsurancequotes.com/news … accidents/
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6621|London, England

nickb64 wrote:

Increased fuel efficiency has allowed people to drive more, leading to more Greenhouse Gas emissions.
I'd like you to think about what you have just said

---

Anyway I think it would be a good thing for the world if the United States doesn't lead the way in alternative energy/propulsion, the world needs to rely more on itself and powerhouses in Europe and Asia to lead the way rather than the USA. Personally, anything that keeps the USA stuck in the past with fossil fuels is perhaps a good thing in the long term
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5574|The Wild West
fuck the world, USA #1
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6621|London, England
white power forum
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5610|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Ottomania wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Increased fuel efficiency has allowed people to drive more, leading to more Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Thats bullshit. People drive when they need, they dont drive to consume fuel.

Plus, for example if you can go 100 kilometers with 10 liters of fuel, with fuel efficiency you can go 130 with same amount of fuel. (all numbers are made up). I cant see anything to cause more Gas emission?

nickb64 wrote:

The weight reduction measure taken to increase fuel economy kill many, while not making a significant impact on the environment, as cars and light trucks are responsible for only 1.5% of human made gas emissions.
people dont die because of small and efficient cars, they die because of reckless driving. and you can still buy large cars, they are not completely banned. also I want source for that %1.5 part of gas emissions that is released by cars and trucks.
Source for 1.5% Statistic: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energy … BG1458.cfm ctrl+f: 1.5

People would be safer in a bigger, more heavily constructed car than in a tiny aluminum and plastic box on wheels. Larger cars can take more damage, which would you think would stand up in an accident better, a SmartCar or a 1964 Chevy Impala???
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

stryyker wrote:

Good thing everyone will switch to Diesel and bypass the whole thing
Not likely.  Diesel is considerably more expensive than regular gas.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

nickb64 wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Increased fuel efficiency has allowed people to drive more, leading to more Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Thats bullshit. People drive when they need, they dont drive to consume fuel.

Plus, for example if you can go 100 kilometers with 10 liters of fuel, with fuel efficiency you can go 130 with same amount of fuel. (all numbers are made up). I cant see anything to cause more Gas emission?

nickb64 wrote:

The weight reduction measure taken to increase fuel economy kill many, while not making a significant impact on the environment, as cars and light trucks are responsible for only 1.5% of human made gas emissions.
people dont die because of small and efficient cars, they die because of reckless driving. and you can still buy large cars, they are not completely banned. also I want source for that %1.5 part of gas emissions that is released by cars and trucks.
Source for 1.5% Statistic: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energy … BG1458.cfm ctrl+f: 1.5

People would be safer in a bigger, more heavily constructed car than in a tiny aluminum and plastic box on wheels. Larger cars can take more damage, which would you think would stand up in an accident better, a SmartCar or a 1964 Chevy Impala???
The Heritage Foundation is very biased.  You might as well throw the CATO Institute in there as well.
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6522|...

wow 2016, so soon?
13rin
Member
+977|6479

Man With No Name wrote:

fuck the world, USA #1
No... Seriously, you are 100% right.  Fuck the world, USA #1.  We consume the most oil.  I'm not sorry for it either.  There is a reason for this fact.  We also kick the most ass.  We live high and mighty right?  A privileged lifestyle.   And we also do the most good.  They look to the US.   So jealous.  They are.  Don't feel guilty.  As much as they hate us, they all want to be like the US.  We are consumers.  Consume.  Seriously, why wouldn't you what to be like the US?  We are the bad asses.

Oh, but no... waaaa. I'm sorry Europe for "Carbon", and "kicking so much ass"...  We must weaken our live to suite the rest of the ingrates in the world....

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-05-19 20:06:24)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
13rin
Member
+977|6479

Turquoise wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

Thats bullshit. People drive when they need, they dont drive to consume fuel.

Plus, for example if you can go 100 kilometers with 10 liters of fuel, with fuel efficiency you can go 130 with same amount of fuel. (all numbers are made up). I cant see anything to cause more Gas emission?


people dont die because of small and efficient cars, they die because of reckless driving. and you can still buy large cars, they are not completely banned. also I want source for that %1.5 part of gas emissions that is released by cars and trucks.
Source for 1.5% Statistic: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energy … BG1458.cfm ctrl+f: 1.5

People would be safer in a bigger, more heavily constructed car than in a tiny aluminum and plastic box on wheels. Larger cars can take more damage, which would you think would stand up in an accident better, a SmartCar or a 1964 Chevy Impala???
The Heritage Foundation is very biased.  You might as well throw the CATO Institute in there as well.
The Heritage Foundation is conservative..

And Obama makes me want one of these as a daily driver even more:

https://www.eurotech-services.com/archive/pics/newdinoleftfront.jpg

I'd paint it of course:

concept
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/DBBrinson/ateam.jpg

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-05-19 20:13:07)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard