<p>
</p>
<p>It is not a perfect bill, but it is better than what we have now regarding the CAFE standards.</p>
<p>[Congress</a> Requires Better Car, SUV Mileage](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TK1E2G4&show_article=1]Congress”>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TK1E2G4&show_article=1)</p>
<p>I am still not happy with the part about ethanol subsidies. The long-term increase in ethanol use is not feasible and will raise food prices astronomically. I am happy about the mileage standards though.</p>
<p>Ethanol subsidies continue to be stupid political pork thrown at farm-state senators, and the way they calculate the CAFE, the 35MPG standard will be unachievable without EVERY single vehicle dropping to under 3,000 pounds and including THOUSANDS of dollars in additional technology. Forget pick-up trucks, mini-vans, large sedans, performance cars and even Camry-size vehicles that are not $35,000+ in today’s dollars.</p>
<p>There’s a great essay floating around that does the math on what it would take to achieve a CAFE of 35 MPG. It’s not pretty.</p>
<p>This is a great example of the spinelessness of the Congress, actually. Simply raising the federal fuel tax by $2 to 4 per gallon would have the same result without feeding another useless federal bureaucracy. The tax system already exists and the power of microeconomic forces is well-established (see “Europe”). The CAFE is just a bizarre way of magically changing technology without legislators having to admit to the public that these policy decisions are going to cost taxpayers real money. Whether it is in the form of more expensive vehicles or higher taxes, make no mistake that this will cost people plenty.</p>
<p>EDITED: This is a non-partisan rant. The Republicans wussed out on this, too.</p>
<p>Wow, Washdad, your’e sounding positively leftist in your support for higher fuel taxes! 
</p>
<p>I’d like them, (after all, I drive one of those “economically unfeasible” hybrids!) but I’m still glad to see the averages raised. Haven’t seen the bill–unless they stop pretending that SUV’s are “trucks” which “work” and make them follow the same averages, it’s not going to have the impact it could.</p>
<p>Ethanol is a disaster, and yup, exists for the farm state pols. It uses more oil to raise the corn than to make the gas, plus raising food prices. Yikes.</p>
<p>The Tweedle-dee dems never dissapoint.</p>
<p>This country badly needs at least 1-2 more strong parties! Both R&D sold out to big businesses.</p>
<p>It is past time to develop alternate energies. Conservation will only make a very minor impact for a short time. Long term the world will consume much more energy as part of the quest for a better life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the additional cost per car is $1,000 and the annual fuel savings are $700 to $1000 that means you get your extra costs back in about a year or so.</p>
<p>[Congress</a> Passes Epic CAFE Bill - The Car Connection](<a href=“http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/Congress_Passes_Epic_CAFE_Bill.S173.A13762.html]Congress”>Auto News: Breaking Car News and First Drive Reports - The Car Connection)</p>
<p>Gee, Washington State never gets any stupid political pork??? The state was half built with pork.</p>
<p>Um, Barrons, I think that must have been directed at me, but I don’t understand how it connects. All I want from Washington State is that they fix the traffic mess at the east end of the 520.</p>
<p>Be careful what you ask for - the cost to the consumer for vehicles is liable to go up considerably…</p>
<p>
[Lutz:</a> Fuel plan could hike prices](<a href=“Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com”>Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com)</p>
<p>THE final nail in the coffin of the domestic auto industry. </p>
<p>Dingell and Levin and Stabenow should be proud…and the sheep that they represent passively head to the slaughter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, as long as the leftists could not grab the money for all kind of unrelated programs, I doubt you’ll find much support for higher taxes on gasoline among the democrats and liberals. This is not different from fighting taxes on cigarettes and liquor … which are supposed to only hurt the poor citizens. Since the only solution of offering incentives to the commercial sector (producers and consumers) is none too attractive to the leftists, we’ll just do more sitting and praying. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, sooner or later, we will end up paying prices similar to what Europeans pay, but we won’t have the same infrastructure to cope with high prices. In addition, the day the socialists “leaders” among us realize that people will pretty pay anything to keep driving their gas guzzlers, we’ll probably start paying much higher fuel taxes to pay for education and health care. </p>
<p>In the meantime, we DO have the opportunity to raise the taxes on gasoline and reinvest **every penny ** of it in the promotion of real alternative energy sources. Ultimately that is our only hope to maintain energy costs in a reasonable range. Of course, such a proposal is utopian since it is impossible for our government to keep its hand out of the money jar. After all, we need to keep on funding dinosaurs such as the NREL and other DOE pet projects.</p>
<p>I think it would be better to tax the new cars according to the mileage they give. Fuel taxes by themselves are regressive, and can’t be avoided by people who have to drive. But new cars can easily be avoided, and since 10-12% of the energy related to a car in its lifetime is in its production, increasing the lifecycle of cars could play a signficant role in reducing energy use. And folks want the new gas-guzzler, let 'em pay through the nose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The $1,000 cost estimate is hysterically wrong. If that’s all it costs, why does the Prius, a small sedan with at best marginal performance, barely meets the EPA requirement, and costs $7,000 more than a Corolla. Even a base Camry – a much larger car than the Prius – costs $2,500 less. </p>
<p>An even better comparison is the Ford Escape and Escape Hybrid. The basic Escape lists for about $19,000. The hybrid, which doesn’t quite make the 35 MPG number, starts at $25,000. How about that – real vehicles you can buy today, and the hybrid costs $6,000 more. Lest you think the Escape is some hulking SUV, it weighs about 3,800 pounds, compared to about 3,300 for a Camry and 2,800 for a Prius. Big SUVs are another 1,000-2,000 pounds.</p>
<p>Take a look at the Prius, or even better the late Honda Insight, if you want to see what it takes to achieve 35+ MPG – very lightweight structure, narrow front end to reduce drag, blob shape, skinny tires, and modest acceleration.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, GM’s CEO says ultra-high mileage cars will run $5,000 to 6,000 extra. That sounds about right to me. Lightweight steel and aluminum are more expensive, hybrid control systems are expensive, batteries are expensive, and electric motors are expensive. Fortunately for the car builders, they all know how to shape a car for efficiency, it’s just that buyers generally hate the shape. Now, consumers won’t have any choice. I’m thinking the “bugs” in 1984 were pretty good examples of what we can expect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you add this to your platform, I’d vote for you.</p>
<p>This is a wonderful day as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>The auto companies fought previous attempts to raise CAFE standards for years, only to lose market share bit by bit. Their decline has been due to high costs because we don’t have national health care and poor design choices. They always complain about regulations, whether it’s the basic safety features we all have (like seat belts) or fuel efficiency.</p>
<p>The Europeans already have higher mileage standards than the goals set in this legislation.</p>
<p>Lower gas use is an important element of an efficiency oriented energy policy, one which could lead to an improved foreign policy. We fund authoritarian regimes in the middle east through our buying habits for oil and gasoline.</p>
<p>Plug-in hybrids are going to make a huge impact on efficiency.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It did not take long to see that hackneyed argument about the cost of added taxes. People do indeed have to drive, but the cost of fuel is hardly the biggest cost of owning a car. Also, people do not have to have a couple of cars per family, which seems to be the rule of thumb, even in the trailer parks. </p>
<p>Oh, and in case, the argument moves to the disaster that higher taxes would mean for the transportation industry, that is also a canard since provisions can be built for diesel and other transportation fuels. </p>
<p>Yes, raising taxes on gasoline is MEANT to make the cost of owning several gas-guzzling cars more prohibitive. Like the luxury of smoking and boozing!</p>
<p>A campaign pledge to raise gas taxes is the campaign pledge of someone who will lose the election. Every candidate knows this. Why should the candidate propose such a policy when there are other ways to improve efficiency, including new technologies that my mechanical engineering friends tell me are quite feasible. And once ramped into production, the cost differential will fall.</p>
<p>Did you all catch the part about the mileage credits for flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on E-85? They automatically get a 50% mileage bonus, even if they never run on alcohol. Also, I’m pretty sure the mileage number they use is the old EPA number, not the new, lower number. In other words, the US will soon be full of vehicles that can, but don’t, run on E-85 and don’t get the mileage printed on the window sticker. Let’s hear it for Congress!</p>