<p>
</p>
<p>Then what would you propose we do?</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. The public is not really astute at looking long range at anything - they can immediately see and understand the concept of an increase gas tax and react negatively. However, when the headline just reads: “Cars of the future will get better gas mileage”, they don’t do the underlying research to understand the negative implications. Since the negative effects won’t hit them for years, the politicians who voted for this are virtually immune from the repercussions.</p>
<p>
Any economic analysis of a new technology needs to include the maintenance costs. In the case of hybrid technology where you have BOTH an internal combustion engine AND and electric motor AND a battery AND all of the mechanisms to make both motors work together on the same drive train, I expect the long-term maintenance costs of hybrids to dwarf that of conventional autos.</p>
<p>We have 32 years to be 32 years behind the EU. Great.</p>
<p>Baby steps, but not enough. Too little, too late.</p>
<p>All I want from Washington State is that they fix the traffic mess at the east end of the 520.</p>
<p>don’t all the Microsofties telecommute?
:)</p>
<p>“I expect the long-term maintenance costs of hybrids to dwarf that of conventional autos.”</p>
<p>This statement may or may not be true for the most part, however based on research I had done from my employer last year the costs will not be much higher. I am quite sure the use of the word ?dwarf? in this sentence is an overstatement. </p>
<p>It looks like the drive train of a Hybrid will last a very very long time.</p>
<p>It should have been 50mpg CAFE with no mpg credits for flexfuels, or exemptions for light trucks by 2015. And any company that doesn’t meet the standard would pay a $1B fine for every 5 mpgs below the required 50. No exceptions, exemptions, or extensions. Period. Case closed. And every year after that, the requirements go up by 3 mpg every year. The fines would go into alternative fuels research. Every single cent. If they can’t increase fuel economy numbers, they can put bigoil out of business with alternative fuels. Of course, the money would be a federal grant, and it would be the property of the public. Take the (new lower) EPA numbers at face value, average them, and subtract 20%. THAT number should be 50mpg. EPA-20% is REAL fuel economy. It’s possibly even more inflated.</p>
<p>As for cost, engine efficiency has gone up in the past two decades. So what if you have to give up that V-8 that apparently has 6000 horsepower? I can’t tell the difference behind the wheel anyway. Lighter cars, in my opinion, are fun to drive. That’s a small price to pay for, I don’t know, possibly the WELFARE OF THE GOD DAMN PLANET…?</p>
<p>If GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t “operate” profitably, well, what’s the difference? Since when was Ford EVER profitable anyway? They lost $12B last year, yet they paid their CEO $28 million. Maybe pay the C-level execs less and they might actually have some, I don’t know, money left over for R&D.</p>
<p>It’s not far off. Honda’s at the 34-35 CAFE range. Toyota’s around 30. I’m pretty sure Lexus is in the mid- to upper twenties. It’s doable. Car companies just WON’T. Can’t and won’t are two different things. They can. They just won’t. Well if they won’t do it of their own accord, we’ll have to MAKE THEM do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>FF, again this supports the need to reward whomever adopts cleaner technology and assumes a financial risk by doing so. I also supports that whomever simply sits on the side all the while contributing to our path of increased pollution and depletion of our natural resources should PAY for it. </p>
<p>In regard of paying, you’re correct that the economic analysis needs to include mainatenance costs. However, why stop there? Should you not calculate the entire lifecycle, as well as correctly add ALL the external costs and include the impact of ALL subsidies currently supporting our dependence on fossil fuels. </p>
<p>The reality is that we are simply dreaming that a revolutionary technology will magically appear … a technology that will be cheaper, abundant, and easy to adopt. Because of the curent market distortions, that will never happen without some strong medicine and strong lifting in our wallets. We will never have energy sources to cheap to meter (as the nuclear proponents claimed generations ago.) Our sources of fossil fuel (and gasoline) are coming from places that are politically volatile, and we can safely assume that the costs of bringing joy to our gas guzzlers and inefficient homes will not go down any time soon. If we stopped ignoring the additional and uncounted costs of protecting our supplies in the form of foreign aid and military interventions, the economics you supoprt would turn the concern into full fledged alarms. </p>
<p>For what is worth, I am conservative as they come. I also have been an adamant critic of our latest Nobel prize winner who reinvented himself into our savior after spending years playing his hypocritical political game. When it comes to this subject, democrats and republicans are equals. As long as enough money flows to the fossil fuel industry and the fat cats (farmers) such as AMD, all is well under the sun. </p>
<p>We have a choice: making small sacrifices now or paying through the nose later. If history is any guide, we’ll keep delaying the inevitable. Corporations into the next quarter, politicians into the next two years, four years, or whatever election cycles they respond to. </p>
<p>From my naive perspective, I wonder how many cheap hybrid cars we could have put on the road with what we spent in Iraq in the past 30 years. While it is not exactly the same budget, it shows that our country has the capacity to fund what we consider emergencies. </p>
<p>I suppose the energy emergency has not hurt us enough to make it a “real” emergency. Not yet, at least!</p>
<p>Gas guzzlers equal Republicans equals leftist plot to stick it to the Republicans for drivng larger/faster cars to haul their big boats and big families.</p>
<p>Whatever. I’m not having kids. I don’t need a big car. I might not even need a car.</p>
<p>Between the national security issues involved with oil production and oil politics, global warming, and high gas prices – if not now, when?</p>
<p>Momfromme, I completely support energy independence as much for political reasons as environmental. My only argument in this thread is that the CAFE standards are and always have been gutless political logrolling that allow Congress and the Executive branch to avoid the tough choice to raise fuel taxes. Why do we have to create a bizarre artificial construct to reach the goals attained in the rest of the industrialized world through the simple expedient of higher fuel taxes? Taxes work, they are simple, and the money raised can be used to develop third-generation fuel sources that don’t pollute the atmosphere.</p>
<p>I firmly believe that the new CAFE law will do no more real good than the last one. People buy fuel efficient vehicles when gas is expensive, and buy big cars when it is cheap. This is not a complex relationship. Anyone who has taken a freshman microeconomics class (or has tried to buy a Wii) should understand it. High prices drive down demand, low prices encourage consumption.</p>
<p>I hear you WashDad, but a lot of American politics (maybe even back to the revolution!) has been driven by a distaste of having the government take one’s wealth via taxation.</p>
<p>Good policy has to take into account politics, because otherwise the policies won’t get passed or they will get repealed by later groups of elected officials. CAFE standards can have an impact by themselves and who knows, maybe the folks in power in January 2009 will want to put forth a more robust package of energy policies.</p>
<p>“I firmly believe that the new CAFE law will do no more real good than the last one. People buy fuel efficient vehicles when gas is expensive, and buy big cars when it is cheap. This is not a complex relationship. Anyone who has taken a freshman microeconomics class (or has tried to buy a Wii) should understand it. High prices drive down demand, low prices encourage consumption.”</p>
<p>I think that’s exactly correct, but why make it so indirect? If the problem is that certain cars are gas guzzlers, tax the heck out of them to make 'em more expensive. Then let the price of oil float. And if where still using too much oil, raise the tax even higher.</p>
<p>The bill is not going to make any short term difference or even in the medium term because we have the sames cars on the road before the bill is signed and after the bill is signed, and it will take a long long time to replace those cars.</p>
<p>If the congress or administration really has courage, we should reduce the speed limit to 55mph like we did in the last major energy crisis. And we should rigorously enforce the law. I know this is going to be unpopular, but we will see immediate reduction in gasoline usage.</p>
<p>Actually it would help even if we just enforce the current speed limit.</p>
<p>Yeah. Seriously. In California, 65=85.</p>
<p>Let’s see, the people on this thread want higher and repressive fuel taxes, want to set CAFE limits that will likely put the American (and other) auto industry out of business, want to burden auto buyers with the huge additional purchase costs as a result of the high CAFE standards, want low speed limits, and want to make it so someone buying a larger vehicle to haul their family of 7 will be penalized in the pocketbook more than some single person driving the sports car because the sports car happens to get slightly better mileage than the van/SUV unless one computes it on a per person basis, etc. On top of that, someone actually said “Most cars are overpowered today.” when in fact, there is no such thing!! (said from an auto enthusiast)</p>
<p>And exactly how is all of this really going to help us? I sense a state of panic.</p>
<p>That would lead to another revolt. Too many people remember the last fiasco and wasting the time of millions of people has a real cost too. The government and scientists need to come up with a replacement fuel and stop with the other nonsense. This is not some little country like those in Europe.</p>
<p>
Except that it’s not the vehicles per se that consume the gas. It is the miles that one drives the car. Someone (like me) who has a very small carbon footprint because he doesn’t drive very many miles would be penalized because he needs a larger vehicle for the few mles that he drives while someone who opts to live an hour away from where he works or who opts to transport junior all over creation so that he can play soccer gets a cheaper per mile rate. It would be far fairer to have a pay-as-you-go method: the more gas you consume, the more you pay.</p>
<p>“likely put the American (and other) auto industry out of business”</p>
<p>The American auto industry has been crying crocodile tears over every new regulation proposed in the last 50 years. You know what else was going to put them out of business, if you believed their hysterical lobbyists?</p>
<p>Seat belts
Unleaded gas
The 30-year-old fuel economy standards
Air bags
State emissions standards</p>
<p>So I’ve come to believe that cries of “We’re going out of business!” from Detroit can be translated as “We’re actually going to have to start making better products! Waaah!” Of course, the only thing that actually came close to putting them out of business was the Japanese making better cars. That and our crazy health care “system.” But safety and environmental rules? Nah.</p>
<p>It’s more like, “we (C-level execs) can’t take home $50 million bonuses when the company’s bleeding red ink!!! waaaahhhh!”</p>