Senate Would Raise Auto Fuel Standards »
Posted by: MyWayOnNow 1 year, 2 months ago123 Comments Report this Story
Senators reached agreement Thursday on a proposal to increase to 35 miles per gallon, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 123
-
100%
Harbeas1 year, 2 months ago
The American auto industry is the most highly regulated industry around. It won't take much to bring it down. We are blaming the wrong party here. It is us, with our insatiable desire to consume energy at a very unsustainable rate. If we are going to force the auto companies to do this, I hope the consumer is ready to foot the bill. The price will be nasty.
Reply-
0%
GODIMMAD1 year, 2 months ago
I kinda agree except within reason of the more you sell, the more you produce..the more you produce you find new ways of making things cheaper...Which means you can sell more. The $30 union boys have almost shut down the auto industry in America. Strangely that the countries that dont support Unions have had a chance to look in the eviro area. At this point, I should say, Im a Union member of the BCTGM. Is the Unions just getting in the way or do they expect too much. Unions where once needed here! But since the feds agreed that they need to have laws on safety, work practices, ages of work, and of the such, that the union loved. The unions are out of the question. Why do you think union have decided the cheap labor of illegals is worth fighting for. They need the money to survive bc our govt is doing their jobs and they need a new money making scheme! The public gets what they want. Call the Companies in a mass like we have on the illegals...and we will get better results.
Reply-
0%
GODIMMAD1 year, 2 months ago
Note reading a similar printed article from Assoc. Press changed my mind some. I would say go for it since it truely just an Average of the line-up. That would mean my beloved Jeep Wrangler could stay and other hummers too... I say this becuase a true 4 wheel knows you cant make a great 4 wheel drive and have great fuel eco.
Reply -
100%
HomerJS491 year, 2 months ago
Because in case you haven't noticed it's all about bigger and better profits. Did you know that the stock holders can now sue a company if the don't make a profit? Gimme a break, NO ONE ever says to a corporation, "You're making too much."
Why? They can just run roughshod over anyone they want in the name of profit? It's all ok. Forget everyone else GREED IS KING!
In 1984 I owned a Dodge Charger that got 45mpg with a carburetor! Where is that car now? I don't want to hear about $30 union boys when GM execs are raking in the dough. Hell GM has plants in Canada where they don't even have to pay for health care. Here in the good 'ol USA it's health care FOR PROFIT. Anything wrong with this picture?
Reply
-
-
100%
mark-stevens1 year, 2 months ago
WHAT??? We use less gas, the price of gas goes up. The Middle East boys will raise their prices. Nuclear research and terorism is not cheap!
Reply -
-
0%
browntiger1 year, 2 months ago
> The price will be nasty....
Oh p l e a s e,
hybrid cost what 4k, uses 30% less gas. If mass produced prices likely to drop.
Let repukes cry....
>It won't take much to bring it down.
Ha ha ha. Ford, GM Chevy are Loosers with capital L. Not sure what car they make that I would want?
GM had ev1, it had market. Consumers liked it. So GM killed it. Fine GM make more Hummers, see how long you will be in business. What is more amazing GM asia models looks cool.
Why GM, why are you making that old crap that noone wants?
Reply-
0%
wtagg1 year, 2 months ago
I'd love for GM to explain the EV1 fiasco.
Toyota grabbed the hybrid technology after GM discarded it and then GM complained when the Prius suddenly became the car to have. I have no pity for management that has absolutely no vision, especially at the pay scale they are at. If you make your bed, you have to expect to sleep in it.
Gas mileage isn't really any better than it was in 1977. It is obvious that the industry needs some *inspiration* to do something about it. They've got 13 years. They should stop complaining and start doing.
Reply-
0%
MacR1 year, 2 months ago
And yeah get on the highway with that Prius. 0-60 just 12:16 seconds. Don't believe me?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4qakhL54Z3w&mode=rel...
If offensive language is not your cup of tea. Pause the film and let it fully load. At 6:22 mark is where it begins. But do yourself a favor. Forget about the language of Penn Jillete and watch all 3 segments. Learn something.
Reply
-
-
100%
santa01 year, 2 months ago
cars that no one wants?
they still sell more cars than anyone else in america. by A LOT!
their cars arent the problem with their profits, its the deals they made with auto unions. and their attempt to honor their word in keeping factories in america.
they lose billions in american wages, and poorly contracted severence packages.
GM stupidly agreed to pay the employees of closed factories full salary to stay in their home towns and perform community service. thats true. doesnt really sound like a smart business move does it? think that might have something to do with thier profit margin?
and the ev1 wasnt a hybrid. and it wasnt profitable. and it only works if there is a battery plug in every where youre going. and those only exist in california basically. and like 2 per garage.
and the oil industry would pay billions more than the car would ever profit just for GM NOT to offer the technology.
Reply-
100%
Lurch1 year, 2 months ago
How come the jpns can come in, buy the same factory, hire the same union, and the factory is profitable while quality also goes up?
Only thing different was the US managers.
For a brief starter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI
The ol` bash the union tactic no longer holds water.
Reply -
100%
GODIMMAD1 year, 2 months ago
Santa...did they really have a choice on the stupid agreement? I dont think they did becuase the money was coming from most of the plants that were shut down...and that could have trickled down to even more plants.
FOR EVERYONE... How do you know that the Hummer drivers dont pay for Carbon Offsets??? Since Edwards and Clinton can by them for their rich lives...cant others do the same??
Reply
-
-
0%
KSUmarksman1 year, 2 months ago
none of my business of course, but my guess is you wouldn't know comfort if it came up behind you and kicked you in the kiester.
I drive an older ('99) Bonneville and the 'rents recently got my brother a new G6 (which I got to break in)
Both of these "cars no one wants" are more comfortable, especially on long highway trips, than any jap-trap I had the misfortune of riding in. They are also faster and have better handling : )
Reply
-
-
-
0%
santa01 year, 2 months ago
the model t wasnt designed to handle a 100,000 mile warranty lugging around air bags, a california emissions standard, crumple front end technology, shatter proof glass, reverse tourque wheel bolts, anti-lock disc breaks, a fuel injection, a flame proof gas tank, steel re-inforced side impact rails, seat belts, posi-traction, ... ... ...
oh...
and the model T went 0-60 in about... never.
Reply
-
-
0%
Gangrene1 year, 2 months ago
Another group of senators, including Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, have pressed for a less stringent proposal supported by automakers that would allow SUVs and small trucks to achieve 30 mpg and postpone the mandate to 2025.
2025?!? now there's some hopeful thinking, between now and then Gas prices could be 10 times what they are now. But what can you expect from Michigan senators. They're already in the automotive industries pocket.
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
The Automakers and oil companies love Ronnie Raygun and will likely look for another champion to find a way around any constriction. No wonder they want to put him on the twenty dollar bill.
Isn't Ronnie responsible for reversing the conservation measures Carter (the farmer they love to denig?) tried to implement after the first oil crisis in the 70's?
Reply-
0%
Lurch1 year, 2 months ago
Yes, the oil companies couldn`t stand the idea of actual competition cutting into their oligopolistic profits. So they bought themselves a president and congress to shut down Carter`s energy policy.
Carter knew that alternative energies were a matter of national defense, something today`s Republicans still have not grasped, even after all these years, wars, and terror deaths.
Reply -
100%
xxxr776671 year, 2 months ago
Alternative fuels started during the Regan administration. In fact thats when much of it started you just don't hear much about it since there wasn't anything to go on it took along time to get results you could tell the news about. Also the EPA was started under Nixons administration not Carters. My father in the first group of people assigned to alternative fuels research. Nixon signed off on handing out scholorships to the best minds in the country, they were in colledge when Carter was President and graduateed in time for Regan. They used charts for livestock breedingto help them get started, as they were the closest thing to making more effecent hybred fuels. Also the Arabs like many others were waist deep in genocide long before anyone knew oil was valuable and would still be killing even if oil was worthless. There is tons of oil in Canada and in many parts of Africa and South America. The only Violence if any in these places is aimed at the oil companies, not the consumers.
Reply
-
-
0%
SS4541 year, 2 months ago
Wa Wa Wa that is what we all have goten from the big 3 for the past 20 years.Its always we cant.......well its time you do it!Car companys are just like the Goverment never ever do it always trying to find a way around the problem.GM is the biggest Problem of them all.Keep making Truks so big that they can pull a house wil a wopping 20 MPG.The go on tv and tell the world we make great Cars and they get great MPG...Ja Right
and my name is JESUS...(Ops dont tell the Christian Right that im Back)The long and the short of it...GETER DONE!
Reply-
100%
spikecwc1 year, 2 months ago
Large trucks do have what is considered "utility value".
Construction companies needs them. Many small businesses need them. They are necessary to pull a private 5th wheel trailer or a large recreational boat.
There will always be a need for a truck in between the minitruck and a full sized semi tractor trailer rig.
Reply
-
-
100%
Lurch1 year, 2 months ago
Check this guy out. Typical Republican, 100% bought and paid for or he doesn`t have a clue how the free market works.
"When you put a tax on a business it gets passed on to consumers," argued Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill is going to add to the cost of gasoline."
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose Finance Committee crafted the tax package, said the incentives for renewable and alternative fuels would "help wean ourselves away from OPEC ... from these very high gas prices."
The tax changes would have channeled $11 billion over 10 years into development of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel and power from wind turbines. [end]
Uh, can someone please explain how competition works to the Republican Senator from Arizona?
Reply-
0%
nostalgia1 year, 2 months ago
You need to look at the entire debate on the energy bill.
Several amendments were offered (these were offered while I was watching):
More refineries and drilling to bring down gas prices in the short term - NO
Allow the state of VA to determine if they would allow drilling off of their coast - NO
Set aside the ethanol production targets in years when there was a poor corn crop from droughts, floods etc in order to avoid food and livestock feed shortages - NO
End result - you will get relief from high gas and oil prices in 10 years
In years when there is a problem and the corn crop affected - higher food prices
End subsidies for the oil industry - higher costs in the short term
Now if you can just hang on for 10 years, you'll be OK
The energy problem needs to be addressed in the short AND long term
As usual Congrsss is missing half of the equation
Reply -
0%
spikecwc1 year, 2 months ago
Kyl is in favor of the Senate's Scamnesty bill as well. Seems he can't do anything right
Reply
-
-
100%
xxxr776671 year, 2 months ago
Remember that while Hummer, Excurtions and Navigators are usless people still need trucks. You can't tow 10,000lbs with a camry. 35mpg good luck getting your prius pulled out of a ditch, because with the nessasary weight of the winches and other tools, there is no way your can get a tow truck to get 35 mpg. Some people need large veichles, but others don't. People who need big trucks for work should be put in a differant catagory from the toyota seqoia owners. Also some places in the winter you need a truck or other large 4x4. Not in the cities, but way out in the country. There are some days that you can't get to work in any car. If you try it unprepared you could get stranded and freeze to death.
Reply -
0%
xxxr776671 year, 2 months ago
It's not an uncommon sight in Minnesota to see a family who drive compact cars to also have a suberban or bronco, because we need them in flooded areas, deep with mud or in deep snow. Many of us need to plow our own drive ways some times over a half mile long. You can't attach a several hundered pound plow to a civic an plow through four feet of slush. Also Semi's ?????????? What are we going to chain prius's together to deliver goods, because with as many as yout would need you'd end up using even more gas than before. I think that alternative fuels is amuch more realalistic idea. It's 2:30 am I know my spelling is bad.
Reply -
-
0%
KSUmarksman1 year, 2 months ago
I'd like to see some support for that 100mpg statement buddy.
The most efficient car I've found is the VW Lupo:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/ma...
It makes 70mpg (or 3L/100kilometer if you speak European)
here are some excerpts about what a "wonderful" auto it is:
"One way to cut fuel consumption is to eliminate the weight and power drain of accessories. So the 3L Lupo had no air conditioning, no power steering, no anything. You can add such options, but there'd go your three-liter claim."
"Not only did the seats turn torturous after about 90 minutes, a cup holder came apart in the first 10 miles. The economy-enhancing, easy-rolling tires and lightweight suspension transmitted not just noise but a roar to the passenger compartment on cobblestones, bricks and rough asphalt."
Would you drive a car like that? Now be honest
Reply
-
100%
spikecwc1 year, 2 months ago
Everybody should realize that this is all the fault of US foreign policy. Since there have not been any World Wars since the middle of the 20th century, the World's population has soared. More people means more natural resources are consumed. If the US pulls out of its bases around the world like Ron Paul wants, maybe a nice little world wide conflagration will occur, killing hundreds of millions.
Then we won't be using so much oil.
Reply -
100%
LARK1 year, 2 months ago
I have been a strong believer in tree trade and free competition, maybe brainwashed by those American business reviews. Now, seeing all the grumbling bla bla bla, I've second thoughts about it. Maybe we should all consider having all people and products within national boundaries, and no wars or bullets between them. How would the world be like? May not be a bad idea. What about making some simulations? --- Every nation, keep your people and products within your boundaries except for tourists, visits, communication and the like. You may cooperate and learn from each other, so you won't be overtaken by monkeys. But, keep your people and products within. Mind your own business, stay out of the business of other nations. The baseline is, there should be peace, no killing. Think about it. Does this make sense? I really don't know. Neither do I know about all those complaints.
Reply -
-
100%
tclaw991 year, 2 months ago
The only thing they are going to raise is the amount of money in their own pockets!! ITS THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE! There is no more trusting this government!
Reply -
100%
Harbeas1 year, 2 months ago
Browntiger where have you been? What hybrid costs 4k? all the hybrids are considerably more costly than conventional. The buying public doesn't want hybrids. They want the ridiculous tanks. While GM(Ford and Chrysler too) made junk back in the 50's, 60's and 70's that is not the case today. Check out the latest quality and efficiency surveys on the American made vehicles today. You don't see any GM cars that interest you, I don't see any foreign that interest me. If we lose the American auto industry we lose 50% of our manufacturing base. The AMerican auto industry is trying to right it's ship, but it needs a little help from our government. Most foreign companies give many breaks to their industries so they can compete and the results are quite impressive.
Reply -
-
100%
saintetienne1 year, 2 months ago
sailr,
Don't like it? Make your point by getting out of your car and commuting, walking, riding a bike or carpooling. That will deliver a good, swift, instantaneous kick to the balls of "big business, big oil, big auto, etc."
You talk a good game, but I bet you fully support "big business, big oil, big auto, etc." by driving an SUV to work every day.
Am I right?
Reply
-
-
0%
toph19731 year, 2 months ago
This won't kill the auto industry. Somehow, European cars have had at least this gas mileage for years. I sure didn't hear about VW, Renault, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Opel, or any of the other automakers in Europe going broke. I do pray this is the death of the SUV though.
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 2 months ago
OK everyone - I KNOW how to solve both the fuel consumption AND traffic congestion problems. Seriously. What we NEED to do is: a joint effort (yeah, I know, good luck!) between the highway departments and the automakers. The truth is a high percentage of commuters are alone in their cars. What we need is SINGLE OCCUPANCY vehicles (like a smart car or similar) that would get VERY good mileage, and separate lanes on the highway upon which to operate them. This would prevent "unfair" collisions between 1000 pound vehicles and 5000 pounders. It would probably only require re-striping the existing roadways. Probably get about 3 single occupancy vehicle lanes for 2 regular lanes. (Maybe even 2 for 1) A 50% increase in traffic space, not counting the extra space left by having smaller vehicles. Trucks and larger vehicles could be restricted to other lanes. It's simple, it's (relatively) cheap, and it would work. Of course, no one is interested.
Reply-
100%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
I think it would be great as long as you allow motorcycles on these special lanes.
Reply
-
-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 2 months ago
Just so. A nice boost for the auto industry as well. My idea is -- maybe not so much a SINGLE occupancy as a DOUBLE occupancy. That way young couples and empty-nesters could use the thing for more than commuting. Seats in TANDEM - like a jet fighter or something - instead of side by side. That would still work in a narrow traffic lane.
Reply -
100%
saintetienne1 year, 2 months ago
geodesic,
well? are YOU doing anything about it? You talk a good game, tell us what we SHOULD do. Do YOU?
I take the subway to work every day, and use buses to get me across town. And no, I don't live in NYC, where public transportation is easy. I live in Los Angeles, a city built for the automobile. And yet I've found public transportation that will take me almost everywhere.
I'm doing my part. How about YOU?
<
