http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/03/29/...ion=cnn_latest

 

All I can say is- too little, too late. I'm not in any way saying don't do it- clearly, they should do it. But I question the timing and the scale of these proposed changes. Why did they wait so long to do this? (if I were a little less disgruntled, I guess I'd just sigh and say 'About Time!') And why is the increase so much smaller than many experts say is already possible with existing technology? We are starting to have an idea of what the long term-costs of our consumption will be: we should take bigger steps now and try to head off some of the damage we'd otherwise do.

I also read yesterday that China is increasing its vehicle fuel efficiency standards:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/...on/edchina.php

"China's relentless economic growth has created severe environmental problems and depleted its natural resources. Its energy demands have contributed to rising oil prices and the gases associated with global warming. So it is heartening when China, the world's most populous nation, takes steps to curb its appetites. We hope other countries (like the United States) may be similarly inspired."

Well, it does seem as if they have been, doesn't it? Still, it's sad that we're not taking the lead on this here.

 

24.1? Boy that's low.

 

Saving 10.7 billion gallons of fuel for only $6.7 billion? Sounds like a bargain to me... They should bump it by 10% a year and make Exxon-Mobil pay for it.

 

Any President halfway into their 2nd term is thinking legacy. A great way for this one to improve it is to do a "Nixon Goes to China" and treat our oil addiction even half as seriously as the War on Terrorism with action.

If this administration wanted to, they could find a way to put discentives on the "urban cowboys" while avoid socking it to the bona fide commercial drivers.

 

This is a good thing. A gentle nudge for the American Automakers toward helping the nation assert full independance again. Personally, I don't think it's realistic to expect amoral, profit seeking multinational corporate cultures to adopt policies of producing socially responsible products on their own. So it's important for us to reassert those sensibilities back on the marketplace. Whereas once there were rationcards for gas during wartime, now there can be improved fuel and mileage standards that ease all drivers in the proper direction, with longterm benefit for the environment. This action simply calls them toward real accountability in our current marketplace, barring adoption of "real pricing" of gasoline to include the tens of billions of dollars in now necessary military expenditures to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East to American consumers. Hopefully the arrival of the new Hybrid Camry at an affordable level on the heels of this decision will serve to up the ante for the "other" automakers and help accellerate the whole market in a more socially responsible direction.

 

I'm of two minds: (1) 'I told you so' and (2) prodical son returns. Highlighting the "cost" of fuel efficiency tips me towards 'I told you so' and pointing out the standard was written in red . . . ink and blood.

But I welcome that the lone Democratic hold over has returned common sense so long absent from this government. Without the help of the Republican right wing who still bemoans their $6.7B 'cost', while ignoring the $300B+ Iraq war cost and indirect cost of filling graves, Secretary Mineta did the right thing. If he doesn't get fired . . .

Bob Wilson

 

This story made the front page this morning, below the fold (can't remember if it was the Chicago Tribune or the Daily Herald- I get two papers). Clearly we aren't the only people around who think this is huge news. Energy efficiency SHOULD be big news; it has ramifications in foreign policy, defense, transportation, health care, science research, environmentalism, deficits, the health of the economy, job growth... the list goes on and on. When the federal government at last (AT LAST!) decides to take the one, small step that has been the obvious thing to do practically since the acronym SUV was coined, people should be shouting it from the rooftops. A POSITIVE step on energy by this administration...wow. It's mindboggling news.

 

Continued from the other thread

I have data to check this, here's what I found.

Challenger 2001 miles in the last 3 years = 667 miles/year @ 11.7mpg
Element(Wife's car) = 5626 last year @ 22.7mpg
Tacoma last 6 months 5048 = 10098 year @ 27.2mpg

Weighted Average (667*11.7+5626*22.7+10098*27.2)/(667+5626+10098) = 25.0mpg.

The wife isn't into FE, she drives at least 1 sometimes 2 gears lower than I would be in the Element, I'm sure i could squeeze 25+. The Element sucks above 65mph. It's spinning 4000rpm & 80mph, seriously needs a 6th gear getting a lousy 19-20 at that speed. The E won't be used on long Interstate travel if we don't have to.