1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Obama admin trades blood for oil, imposing new mileage standards

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Sep 16, 2009.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The Obama administration has announced new, higher gas mileage standards for cars in the U.S. These will have the effect of forcing car companies to produce even smaller cars, among other things.

    Repeated studies have shown that smaller cars have higher injury and fatality rates in collisions, than larger cars. The Obama administration, and the Democrat congress that passed the basic rules over Republican objections, seems to feel these additional deaths are an acceptable price to pay, to get better gas mileage and save oil.

    They are also mandating levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. This despite the fact that, even after 30+ years of research and probes, no one has ever found any actual evidence that man's activities have had any effect on global warming/cooling at all.

    SSDD for the leftist extremists in the Obama administration.

    --------------------------------------

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-15-new-fuel-economy_N.htm

    Fuel-economy rules set 35.5 mpg standard for 2016 models

    by James R. Healey, USA TODAY

    The government announced tough new fuel-economy standards Tuesday in a proposed rule that also would place the first nationwide limits on vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for global warming. The Obama administration outlined its targets in May, but final details were uncertain until the joint announcement by the federal Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency.

    The rules would phase in with 2012 models, when the current rules end, and escalate so that by the 2016 model year, the industry would have to average the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon.

    The administration estimates the rules would add an average of $1,100 to the price of a car but could save $3,000 on fuel over the vehicle's life.

    New rules were required by Congress in the Energy Act of 2007. The proposal will be open to public comment for 60 days before it can become final.

    The current rules call for 2009-model cars to average 27.5 mpg and trucks, 23.1 mpg. But the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported in March that today's new cars actually average 32.6 mpg and trucks, 24.2.

    To hit the 2016 targets, automakers plan to field more small cars and smaller engines with advanced technology. Ford Motor plans to bring an array of its small, European-market cars. Fiat-controlled Chrysler will sell versions of the Italian maker's small cars. General Motors plans to boost its offerings rated 30 mpg or more on the highway by 65%.

    The proposed rules are partly a compromise to head off a patchwork of state rules. California, since joined by 13 other states and the District of Columbia, tried to impose its own greenhouse gas (ghg) limits, which are directly tied to fuel economy. "The administration proposal is identical to California's," says Mary Nichols, head of the state's Air Resources Board. She applauds that for the first time both better mileage and ghg limits are required. Says Jim Kliesch, senior engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "You have to go back to the days of disco to see a fuel-economy improvement like this."

    Details, quirks and loopholes in the proposal:

    •If an automaker exceeds its target, it can bank the extra mileage as credit against future shortfalls.

    •The industry goal is 35.5 mpg, but targets will vary by company, based on its mix of vehicles. A small-car specialist would have a higher target than a company with a wider range of vehicles.

    •Because the rules include emissions, the overall standard isn't strictly 35.5 mpg and could be as low as 34.1 mpg. Automakers would get credits for cutting ghg emissions in other ways besides burning less fuel, such as preventing air conditioning leaks. The coolant is 300 times worse on the ghg scale than carbon dioxide, the engine ghg.
     
  2. dahermit

    dahermit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    15
    Faulty logic. If a 20 MPH maximum speed limit were mandated for all roads, most of all accidents would be survivable despite the size of the vehicle. This would never happen because our society has in a sense, accepted the rate of death for vehicles traveling at current highway speeds. It follows then, that our society will come to accept the increased rate of deaths that can be attributed to smaller cars. And, if it does not, society can demand a lower speed limit (which would lower fuel consumption further).
     
  3. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Since you feel that way, may I take it that you would have no objection to holding open discussion with the public (say, at Town Hall meetings) where a politician asks straight out, "This law will cause 500 more deaths and 3,000 more injuries (or whatever the estimates are) every year, and will save 1,000 (or 10,000 or 100,000 etc.) gallons of fuel for each of those deaths. Both will be the result of mileage standards that force automakers to build smaller cars and stop making some of their larger cars. Do you approve or disapprove?" ?

    Are you telling me that, if the politicans put it to the people straightforwardly like that, the people will ask them to impose the power speed limit on them?

    That has already been tried by society (when it was imposed on them by then-President Nixon's executive order), and finally repealed twenty years later. No one was sad to see it go.

    People who want to save gas, don't have to wait for it to be imposed on them from above. They can slow down now. Today. On the drive home from work, and every drive after that. And they will certainly save substantial amounts of fuel by doing it.

    I don't see too many people doing that. Looks to me that your estimate of what society will demand, lies in the opposite direction of your guess: They'd rather drive faster, even knowing what they know.

    These government-uber-alles politicians who want to control such things, continue to legislate against the will of the people. They think they have good enough reasons for doing it... but the fact remains they are not doing what their constituents want.
     
  4. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    For no other reason than the wife liked it I bought her a Ford Mondeo which is a pretty reasonable sized famliy car, she potters around in it shuffling kids and groceries and stuff here and there. Its a 2.0 liter diesel and averages around 37mpg around the houses - I took it for a fling up the motorway the other weekend and was crusing at around 90 and hit 41 mpg....as for safety apparently its got one of the highest safety ratings ever!

    A lot of people in europe drive small cars simply because they're easier to park (we don't have these huge parking lots! as you in the US have) and also easier to move around town - mostly smaller cars are driven by women out of comfort.

    Its interesting that all the european cars built by the US companies are far more economic, reliable, safer and much better built than the cars built for the US domestic markets......
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    lets also ban pick up trucks then the kill more people then small cars do to roll overs so lets ban them!

    also lets compleatly ignore the huge jump in safty of all cars useing better tech, and better steels...

    your the same type of person that I am sure cried against Seat belt laws saying all cars should have them..or should be used...and air bags saying it would kill the auto industry and all that crap. You want to make drivers safe? pull the Giant Hummers Yukans and large trucks that have huge weight and power, but bumpers to high that do more damage to ANY passanger car.

    Dont cry about safey, its a lie. you just like living in the stone age of cars, and dont want to adapt like a old man who life is passing by
     
  6. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ah, yes....more o' those "magical" repeated-studies that "disappear", when they're referred-to!!

    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gee.....a Town Hall meeting where the ill-educated are lead-around with a bogus-premise.

    Imagine THAT!!!!!!

    :rolleyes:

    (Which RNC Poll was this "question" included?)

    BTW......you forgot your BLOOD.​
     
  8. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Yeah, but you've got those evil Standards/Regulations, over there.

    Our God says we're not allowed-to....at least, that's what our local-"conservatives" (who speak to Him, on a regular-basis) say.​
     
  9. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Hey, C'MON!!!!!

    We're talkin' SERIOUS MALE-ENHANCEMENT, HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [​IMG]

    :eek:
     
  10. Greco

    Greco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    "Repeated studies have shown that smaller cars have higher injury and fatality rates in collisions, than larger cars. The Obama administration, and the Democrat congress that passed the basic rules over Republican objections, seems to feel these additional deaths are an acceptable price to pay, to get better gas mileage and save oil."

    Some people never tire of playing the role of the fool. See above.

    The studies were taken with the consideration that the traffic flow is the same as now, a mix of big cars, large SUV's and smaller cars. As vehicles on the road become smaller, it's more of an even mix, making the study you cited meaningless. Then there the simpleton conclusion that you arrived at, that a more fuel efficient car is less safe. You just made that up and it's riduclous.

    Finally, you made a pathetic attempt to make some connection to a willingness to allow Americans do die. Very, very stupid on that one. Actually it's the Republicans that are willing to allow Americans to die. Remember all the Republican support for the Bush's bogus war with Iraq, the war that was born from 100% false claims? Well that Republican support has killed over 4,000 Americans so far.
     
  11. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    New England
    It was sold here for a while (as the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique)...it was small, cramped, coarse, and bombed spectacularly. The rear seats were uninhabitable for adults, the front crowded for tall (or even average-height) people, the trunk miniscule, and the gas mileage unexceptional. It handled well (at the cost of a busy, jittery ride), but did nothing else particularly well.

    No roller skate cars for me.
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Yeah, like the incredible right-wing Fox news report:
    [​IMG]

    Oh wait! Why that's.... the New York Times! *gasp!*
     
  13. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Speaking of ridiculous, what does the war in Iraq have to do with smaller cars being death traps? Nothing.

    Smaller cars yield a higher chance of causing a fatality to the driver. This is a repeated fact. If you can't deal with facts, please stop posting. You are wasting everyone's time.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice