FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama unveils mpg rule, gets broad support





crossroads
U.S. to require new cars get 42 mpg - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

Barack is expected to adopt new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C.A.F.E) standards that will require a 30% increase to 42 mpg for cars by 2016.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"This gathering is all the more extraordinary for what these diverse groups — despite disparate interests and previous disagreements — have worked together to achieve," Obama said at a White House ceremony. "For the first time in history, we have set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars."

"The status quo is no longer acceptable," he added. "We have done little to increase fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks for decades."

But the only down side to all of this is that cars cost will be going up to buy

The new requirement is estimated to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle starting in 2016, but drivers will be saving at the pump. Obama estimated that a typical driver would save $2,800 over the lifetime of a car, assuming gasoline costs around $3.50 a gallon by then.

Do you think that this is a good or bad change? Also do you feel that the extra $1,300 will be worth the extra MPG? I feel that it is a great change because I know that I hate having to fill up my car all the time and if I got better MPG then I wouldnt mind paying the extra when I first got the car.
liljp617
1) If the numbers are correct, you're getting an overall positive return on your investment
2) There's nothing bad about fuel efficiency in itself

My opinion relies on number 1 mostly.
deanhills
crossroads wrote:
U.S. to require new cars get 42 mpg - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

Barack is expected to adopt new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C.A.F.E) standards that will require a 30% increase to 42 mpg for cars by 2016.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"This gathering is all the more extraordinary for what these diverse groups — despite disparate interests and previous disagreements — have worked together to achieve," Obama said at a White House ceremony. "For the first time in history, we have set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars."

"The status quo is no longer acceptable," he added. "We have done little to increase fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks for decades."

But the only down side to all of this is that cars cost will be going up to buy

The new requirement is estimated to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle starting in 2016, but drivers will be saving at the pump. Obama estimated that a typical driver would save $2,800 over the lifetime of a car, assuming gasoline costs around $3.50 a gallon by then.

Do you think that this is a good or bad change? Also do you feel that the extra $1,300 will be worth the extra MPG? I feel that it is a great change because I know that I hate having to fill up my car all the time and if I got better MPG then I wouldnt mind paying the extra when I first got the car.
Sounds crazy at a time when the auto industry is in the holdrums. Also thumbs down for interfering in industry. Who needs more regulations, especially of this kind?
ocalhoun
Great response to global warming, but stupid and strictly reactionary to all the attention global warming gets.

Global warming is a small, distant problem, and it is getting massive amounts of attention and effort to correct.

Meanwhile, we have huge, immediate problems that get no attention and far too little corrective effort. What is being done about those? Little. Why? The media focuses on global warming, which focuses the people on global warming, which focuses the government on it.

This has ceased to be a country controlled by its people. It is now a country controlled by its televisions.

(wow, a good statement there... *new thread*)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Great response to global warming, but stupid and strictly reactionary to all the attention global warming gets.

Global warming is a small, distant problem, and it is getting massive amounts of attention and effort to correct.

Meanwhile, we have huge, immediate problems that get no attention and far too little corrective effort. What is being done about those? Little. Why? The media focuses on global warming, which focuses the people on global warming, which focuses the government on it.

This has ceased to be a country controlled by its people. It is now a country controlled by its televisions.

(wow, a good statement there... *new thread*)
OK. I now get the new thread. And yes, totally agreed. I wonder when the people have ever been in control.
Voodoocat
I don't think that now is the right time to add regulations that will increase the cost of a car by $1300. GM and Chrysler are failed companies, and while Ford was smart enough not to take government money, their sales are down. Meanwhile, international competition is at an all time high. It sure seems like Obama is going to hurt car sales, not help.

The that these cars will save $2800 over their life time is misleading. First, you have to subtract the $1300 extra that you paid, leaving you with $1500 savings spread over the lifetime of the car, about 10 years. That is a savings of $12.50 per month.

Want a better solution? How about letting people buy the cars they want and allowing the car industry to supply those cars.

Hmmm, what a strange concept- letting the people control their own lives. Now that's change we need!
liljp617
Voodoocat wrote:
Want a better solution? How about letting people buy the cars they want and allowing the car industry to supply those cars.


And people will buy cars made by foreign companies.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
Want a better solution? How about letting people buy the cars they want and allowing the car industry to supply those cars.


And people will buy cars made by foreign companies.
You're so right on this point ... would be very interesting if the United States will have to import cars from other countries. And that has to be a possibility if Obama continues what he is doing, including his bail-out package that seems to be restricted to banks only. Why bail out one sector instead of another? And has any of that bail-out package made its way to the people in the street?
liljp617
The point was that people will buy foreign cars if they're of higher quality than US made cars.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
The point was that people will buy foreign cars if they're of higher quality than US made cars.
OK, I get it. Embarassed I feel sorry for those who have recently bought the product. Wonder how they will be honouring their warranties?

If people would import foreign cars though, what service would they be able to get in the United States and wouldn't the maintenance be very expensive?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
The point was that people will buy foreign cars if they're of higher quality than US made cars.

And if they really are better in all ways, why must US car companies continue to (mal)function?
LET THEM FAIL!
Then, the people get what they want. Quite possibly, new US car companies will rise from the ashes of the old, unencumbered by unions, decades of corporate bloat, and traditionalism. These new companies, if they emerge, would be able to compete on even ground with the foreign market.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The point was that people will buy foreign cars if they're of higher quality than US made cars.

And if they really are better in all ways, why must US car companies continue to (mal)function?
LET THEM FAIL!
Then, the people get what they want. Quite possibly, new US car companies will rise from the ashes of the old, unencumbered by unions, decades of corporate bloat, and traditionalism. These new companies, if they emerge, would be able to compete on even ground with the foreign market.


I don't disagree.

But there are evidently some people who would rather not risk the "quite possibly-s" and "if they emerge-s."
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The point was that people will buy foreign cars if they're of higher quality than US made cars.

And if they really are better in all ways, why must US car companies continue to (mal)function?
LET THEM FAIL!
Then, the people get what they want. Quite possibly, new US car companies will rise from the ashes of the old, unencumbered by unions, decades of corporate bloat, and traditionalism. These new companies, if they emerge, would be able to compete on even ground with the foreign market.


I don't disagree.

But there are evidently some people who would rather not risk the "quite possibly-s" and "if they emerge-s."
If Big Banks, with decades of corporate bloat and traditionalism can be bailed out, I do not understand why any of the other big industries can't be bailed out either. Either there should be a blanket rule of Government and taxpayers staying out of business and allowing business to fail when it is supposed to fail, or everyone should be bailed out.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
The point was that people will buy foreign cars if they're of higher quality than US made cars.

And if they really are better in all ways, why must US car companies continue to (mal)function?
LET THEM FAIL!
Then, the people get what they want. Quite possibly, new US car companies will rise from the ashes of the old, unencumbered by unions, decades of corporate bloat, and traditionalism. These new companies, if they emerge, would be able to compete on even ground with the foreign market.


I don't disagree.

But there are evidently some people who would rather not risk the "quite possibly-s" and "if they emerge-s."

And their cowardice in the face of risk will cost us our long-term future. A dark time, one that will be looked back on in shame some day.
Related topics
china russia brazil or india ?
PlayStation 3
Looking for a Media Player
why Firefox isn't answer 4 every webpage displayed?
If internet traffic decided candidate popularity
World Economy Status - Why is it so bad?
Football
US Soliders' Reception of the President
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Obama down in polls
Barack Obama got Nobel peace prize..... share your views.
Top 10 British Insults
Gadhafi vs. Obama doctrine
Obama’s Indefinite Detention of US Citizens
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.