Congress will require American automakers to achieve fleet-wide fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The deal struck late last night by Congressional negotiators and hailed as “an historic advancement,” would put America on the slow track towards meeting the same efficiency standards that Europe, China, and most of the developed world already enjoy.
Automakers are currently required to achieve fuel efficiency of 27.5 mpg for cars, and 22.2 mpg for light trucks, minivans, and SUVs. The Senate voted to raise fuel efficiency standards in June, but opposition from Detroit’s favorite spokesman, Michigan Congressman John Dingell, delayed House assent until now.
The package nearly fell apart this week when Mr. Dingell insisted on leaving sole authority to regulate automobile mileage standards with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department. That would have weakened the power of the Environmental Protection Agency and the states, led by California, to regulate auto emissions of carbon dioxide, which are in large measure a function of the amount of fuel burned.Federal court rulings this year have decided this so-called pre-emption issue in favor of the E.P.A. and the states, decisions that Mr. Dingell hoped to undo by Congressional action. The traffic safety administration has had authority over fuel-efficiency standards since 1975 but has not imposed any significant increase since 1985. The E.P.A. is currently writing rules to comply with a Supreme Court ruling this year that gave it the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and is weighing an application by California and 14 other states to set their own emissions standard.
The authority of the E.P.A. to regulate tailpipe emissions and the right of California and other states to set their own, higher standards were considered deal-breakers by Ms. Pelosi and her fellow California Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, weighed in late in the week to tell negotiators that he would oppose the bill if the Mr. Dingell’s preemption language stayed in.
Mrs. Pelosi and Democratic leaders in the Senate rejected Mr. Dingell’s preemption effort, but softened the blow by agreeing to allow the car companies to retain a credit for vehicles capable of running on a blend of gasoline and ethanol. That credit was set to expire in 2008 but now will begin to decline in 2014 and be eliminated entirely by 2020.
The fuel efficiency increase is part of a larger energy bill that the House and Senate leadership hope to pass by the end of the year.
Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency [NYT]
(Photo: *USB*)
More From Consumerist
-
Here’s Why Everyone Is Talking About The U.S. Government Minting A Trillion-Dollar Coin
-
20,000 AT&T Workers Go On Strike
-
‘Six Strikes’ Anti-Piracy Program Delayed To 2013, This Time Because Of Hurricane Sandy
-
Longshoremen’s Port Strike Averted: The Flatscreen TVs Must Flow
-
Target Expands Holiday Online Price-Matching Policy To A Year-Round Thing
@goller321:
The earth is several billions of years old and I still dont freakin buy into the “OH MY GOD ITS GLOBAL WAMRING, THE WORLD IS ENDING” BS that so many of you people have bought into.
Anybody with brains will realize the biggest scam going is ethanol (brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland). I bet for every gallon of ehtanol produced there are 5 gallons of pure water wasted not to mention the added costs of either having to transport it by truck or train since you cant put it in a pipeline. If they want to save fuel the best method is not to produce electricity with fuel oil, but rather use coal, Nuclear, wind ect… Making electricity with fuel oil is a waste. The price of gasoline over the next few years will steer the market towards more economical cars over time anyway.
Isn’t it the increased fuel taxes in Europe that led the consumer to prefer more fuel-efficient vehicles in the first place?
As much as I hate to say it, the “push” approach of forcing US manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars isn’t apt to work, because the consumer has no motivation to buy. If on the other hand there were additional taxes that increased our gas prices to $6+ per gallon, THEN the consumers would be “pulled” to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But if you’re a politician, who do you want the public mad at; the government, or the “evil” car manufacturers? If the government were truly concerned about the environment, they wouldn’t be focusing on the manufacturers. And consider this, when our gas consumption drops because cars are averaging 35 MPG, we’ll be buying less fuel (in theory), which means fewer tax dollars to fund new road projects (let alone repairs of the existing system). As the fuel economy average increases, you can bet taxes on fuel will as well…but we won’t complain about it as much because we’ll just be thinking “thank goodness I’m not still driving that old car and spending twice as much on fuel as I am now”.
Europe has more fuel-efficient vehicles because:
1. Diesel emissions regulations are more lax in Europe.
2. Most safety equipment isn’t mandatory, which leads to lighter vehicles.
I’m with the minority that hasn’t bought into the Al Gore hyped global warming – oh wait – climate change – just like scraejtp, Logan, and AD8BC.
I do not think it is the government’s place or right to dictate every aspect of our lives for us.
1) Changes in regime, technology, and the uncertainty of energy prices between now and 2020 make this sort of decree completely worthless.
And yeah, for both practical and philosophical reasons I think that the government shouldn’t be involved in most of the things it’s involved in, but that’s another debate.
2) Free markets would work if people would stop fuc**ing with them — when you fuc* with them, they’re not free markets anymore!!!
But seeing as how market adjustment takes a little time, and we as a society have come to expect instant solutions and instant gratification, it’s not surprising that we don’t let them take their course. All you Keynesians can spout off about the short run and the long run and being dead and blah blah blah, but I think that intervention will almost always do more harm than good because you can’t take the politics out of the policy-making process.
It’s kind of like picking at a scab. We know the scratch will heal faster if we just leave it alone, but we can’t resist.
3) The finger in the opening shot looks like it belongs on ET.
The free market doesn’t work here because the free market does not care about 1) the environment and 2) long term thinking.
Global warming is not the only reason why this is important. Certainly you don’t want pollution contaminating your own living space, do you?
Although our government is notoriously bad at regulation, there is no other alternative to address the problem than to force the hand of automobile manufacturers and individuals who buy SUVs when they should be driving compacts.
Your freedom to do whatever you want ends when it affects everyone else. Plain and simple!
@Logan26:
those macho cars meant to compensate for inadequacies. Mostly for show and image.
@DallasDMD: How can you say that the free market doesn’t work when we haven’t truly given it a shot?
The “free market” is nothing more than the amalgamation of consumers making decisions which reflect their best consumption decisions given their wants, needs, and perceived financial parameters — “it” is you and me and everyone else on and off this board. If more people care about the environment than not, that will be reflected in OUR buying choices, i.e., there will be increased demand for environmentally-friendly products, and industry will respond or risk losing market opportunities. But, again, this sort of shift doesn’t always take place overnight, and we won’t give supply and demand the temporal and ideological room it needs to work.
As for “long-term thinking”, do you really believe that the politicians who are out there making laws are genuinely concerned with the long-term effects of their decrees!? Really? The only thing they care about is being re-elected, and what better way is there to do that then make a headline-friendly declaration that they won’t actually have to answer to because, come 2020, no one will remember. They’re slimy, but they’re not necessarily dumb.
@DallasDMD:
In a truly free market you would have standing to sue someone for polluting the air you breathe and force them to pay a fraction of your medical bills that were the result of their pollution. Same as if someone threw their trash all over your property. No one really sees it that way; they treat the atmosphere as if it’s a big communal landfill. After the junk comes out of their tailpipe it becomes an NMP (not my problem).
Since it’s impossible to track every last pollutant, we socialize the problem and spread the costs of polluting and cleaning the air via taxes. I really don’t mind if people want to buy their 8mpg Hummers so long as they pay to clean up their share of polluted air.
Well, contrary to what many have posted here, the US is by far the biggest polluter in the world! We’re a country of consumption. Consumption = waste. Where do you think all the waste go? Google Kyoto Portocal and ask yourselves why the US is the only industrialized country that refuses to ratify the treaty.
I guess none of that matters as long as we can drive around in our Prius, drinking our lattes, and proclaim ourselves “green.”
@Beelzebubba: My god, where do people like you come from???? Free Market doesn’t work, because we don’t live in a theoretical world- we live in the real world. And in the real world, the people in positions of power seek to remain as such, by any means necessary. In the case of poor performing vehicles, oil companies and car makers profit from us consuming vast quantities of gas. They therefore lobby governments for things like Dick’s Energy Policy, which was written by those same execs, bribe politicians just like Veco did in Alaska and suppress technologies that may come along.
@BK88: The difference is, is that when I am wrong, I’m not wrecking the planet in the process. If I (and the vast majority of the planet’s population) are wrong, then the worst that happened was some guy with a tiny wiener wasn’t allowed to drive a Hummer or a sports car, or a soccer mom had to switch to a smaller vehicle instead of the Expeditin she has no need of.
@goller321: You clearly feel passionate about what you believe, and I can respect your passion. However, when your arguement digresses into intelligence assessments of those who don’t share the same view you do, you alienate your reader. It’s entirely possible for an intelligent, educated, articulate person to come to a logical, albeit completely different, conclusion on a topic than you have. That’s what makes the exchange of differing ideas beautiful. Lay off the “stupid/moron/pinhead/lack of intelligence or common sense” remarks; your opinion and argument should stand on its on without such inflammatory rhetoric. Besides, you’ll never get people to jump onto your bandwagon by insulting them.
@IamZardoz: So eventually we’ll no longer rue Big Oil, but Big Ag instead?
@TurboBrick: It’s been said Americans buy cars based on horsepower numbers, but drive them based on torque. With that in mind, I don’t think many would be disappointed with the acceleration of a decent turbo-diesel. The new sulfer standards should go a long way to bring more attractive diesel alternatives to our market.
As for the topic itself and other comments. An efficiency increase of 25% within 13 years is pretty lame, and I agree that holding light passenger “trucks” to a different standard than passenger cars is a cop-out. I’m against a gas-tax as discussed above — it forces and contrives the market as much as a congressional mandate does, except it pressures the consumer instead of the manufacturer… and I could do without that pressure on my wallet, thank you very much.
So yay for progress, and boo for dragging our feet and pretending the legislation is something it isn’t.
@BK88: Your link was full of corporate paid scientists and non-scientists that are right-winged hacks. Any time something isn’t good for business, it must be dismissed as lies. People not willing to at least consider the possibility of global warming are simply too selfish and self-centered to do so.
@00solsticeI wish it possible to simply exchange ideas, but I have learned long ago that the people I am insulting won’t change their mind no matter what anyone says. They aren’t worried about anyone but themselves and their pleasure. And I can only assume they are complete idiots since they fall for the crap the right-wing is spewing. These are the same types that fight to get Creationism into Biology classes (thinly veiled as ID), believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that while it was good that Clinton’s affair turned into an impeachment, outing a CIA operative is no big deal. Let’s call a spade, a spade… or an idiot an idiot.
@goller321: Where do I come from? Obviously, somewhere you have never been.
I have no problem with people who don’t agree with my views, so long as they can make a decent attempt at articulating why they feel the way they do. Intelligent debate is at the heart of an informed (and therefore effective) democracy.
BTW, I own XOM, and it’s done well for me. Once you own a certain number of shares, they give you the coordinates to the warehouse where the “magic 500 mpg carburetor” has been hidden away. Shhhhh…don’t tell. It’s a secret…
I will offer this idea, as mentioned (again) by my dad at Thanksgiving dinner. He feels the quickest way to get people to consume less gas and spur people to reconsider their vehicle choice and driving habits is to yank out all the credit card readers from gas stations. Make people pay cold, hard cash for the gas they purchase, so they understand completely — at the time of purchase — how their driving habits affect their budget. I recognize implementation of that idea is impossible, but it does highlight a valid point: excessive consumption of any commodity and easy credit are not entirely unrelated.
@Beelzebubba:
The market hasn’t been free since Teddy Roosevelt started busting trusts back around the turn of the century. Our government has its hand in pretty much every aspect of the market since then and they will for ever and ever. I understand, politically, where “free market” advocates like you are coming from, but I don’t think that kind of thing really works anymore.
Like others, I think this so called “free market” (that isn’t really free) is what got us into this mess in the first place. Also, like others, I understand that a market with few regulations doesn’t care about the environment. The arguement that consumers will buy efficient cars when they think that they really need them falls apart when you consider people like Logan26 and AD8BC that don’t believe there is a problem and buy inefficient cars because they are misinformed (or stubborn), and people like me who buy inefficient cars because they are completely indifferent to the environment (seriously, fuck trees). When there are too many people like us out there, the government must step in to keep us from being stupid, because the free market idea has a huge shortcoming in this case: by the time your average consumer realizes he needs to save the environment because there are no trees or oil left and the air around him is 110 degrees and smog gray in September, it will be far too late. Sure, there are probably (definitely) political motivations, for the legislation, but that isn’t the point here.
Also, you can theoretically sue people with inefficient cars based on precedents set by frivolous and stupid second-hand smoking cases.
@goller321:
Oh, like the same paid for hacks who say the sky is falling? Puhlease.
@goller321:
Not all people who buys vettes, stangs, challengers, chargers or other muscle cars do so to make up for something, its because the like the feel of pure power at their control. You can’t get that driving a moped.
@BK88: Wow. That stuff was hyperbole of the sort I’d expect from the intelligent design people. An example: one article claims Al Gore wants “a $50,000 tax on SUVs … The ensuing destruction of the car business would hurt blue-collar workers, not the rich. ”
Try this: find me some peer-reviewed scientific articles written by independent researchers (that is, not funded by the oil companies or right-wing lobbyists acting on their behalf) that disputes the fundamental premise of the global warming “hoax.” Just like with intelligent design, the argument crumbles the minute we ask for some solid science to back up your claims.
and @Logan26: Why, exactly, do you need to own a machine to feel like you’re controlling something powerful? I think that’s what’s meant by the whole compensation hypothesis. But I’m just being facetious.
And lastly, the argument that independent consumers can make their own decisions outside of govt. influence neglects the power of advertising and cultural habituation. If you ever visit Europe, you’ll find that people generally here don’t get turned on by large horsepower the way Americans do. It comes across as being distasteful to consume so conspicuously. We’ve been conditioned to value consumption in a way that most other industrialized nations haven’t.
well, i hate this because most cars will lose performance once they apply that law or whatever this is, okay its bad for the environment but what would a 250hp v6 Corvette be like?
@blazer: Try flooring a Tesla. Those things go, man. Of course, they also cost 100 large, but I met a guy from GM who told me off the record that he could lay rubber and get 0-60 in something ridiculous out of his electric MINIVAN.
The earth is getting warmer, but it has done it before and is a natural cycle. Has man helped it along this time? Yep, but not to the degrees the tree huggers believe. Hippies if you want to help mother earth, stop smoking pot. Do you know how much that pollutes the air?
Should we strive to decrease pollution? Of course, pollution means inefficiency and as momma always says, “cleaner is better.”
The Federal govt. should not mandate fuel mileage especially if it is going to shoot for such a low number. Hell you can almost meet the goals by proper tire inflation and minor weight reduction.
This country needs to reduce oil consumption for security reasons. We do not need to be held hostage by a bunch of countries whose people think beating a rape victim is justice or want to kill a teacher because she allowed a teddy bear to be named Mohammad.
Personally I hope gas prices jump through the roof. Americans are a resilient and innovative people. One a need is there, a solution will follow.
Me, I am waiting on the Chevy Volt [www.chevrolet.com]
@scraejtp:
Here’s what happens, best case, if things go your way:
People keep driving whatever they want (or rather, people keep driving whatever they want from among the choices given to them by the automakers…THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO MAKE) until all the easy-to-get oil is used up and fuel becomes so expensive that automakers are forced to sell either ultra-efficient vehicles, or eventually (almost certainly eventually) vehicles which use alternative fuel sources exclusively.
Sounds good so far, right?
But no. This is bad for petrochemicals, and possibly jet and diesel fuel too (assuming those aren’t all on agricultural alternatives by then). No demand for gasoline, and demand for oil in general decreases. So the price should decrease, right? Wrong. There is no more oil available at the lower prices. All that’s left is the expensive world-running on gasoline oil. And that price has to be supported solely by those industries still running on oil. Any petrochemicals that can’t (cheaply) be made from natural gas or coal are going to get pricey, relatively quickly.
Wean cars off oil sooner, and you can soften that blow.
The Honda Civic got 50 MPG (NOT a typo) in the late 1970s. There’s no excuse for vehicles to get less than 30 MPG now. The car industry know how to build more efficient engines, it’s just that they and their customers don’t want to change.
When the OPEC oil crisis hit and oil jumped to the unimagineable price of – wait for it – US$18 per barrel, Americans stopped buying gas guzzlers and started to buy Hondas, Toyotas, and Datsuns (now named Nissan). That was when the “big 3″ (more like “pig 3″) stopped being the largest car makers in the world.
But that’s not happening this time. People are oblivious to reality and keep buying tanks that get 10 MPG. And I doubt people are going to listen until it’s too late. The reali inflation rate (which the US Fed has been hiding for 30 years) is starting to reveal itself. I would not be surprised to see oil top out at $130 per barrel and US$5.50 per gallon for gasoline. And people will still pay for it.
@Sam:
Not true, still have to manufacture and dispose of the batteries. Lithium is highly volatile, and expensive to recycle and store.
I’m pretty sure that my frickin’ 98 Corolla already gets 35 mpg, at least on the highway.
Spare me the Ayn Rand bullsh*t, please. People will probably be able to adapt to global climate change, but it’s not going to be a pain-free process. God help the billions who do NOT live in advanced, industrialized economies.
@Sam: Randroids don’t believe in externalities.
What kills me about CAFE and the 35mpg standard that its purely backed by people like @goller321: here. People who think that they figured out the best way to live, and be damned if you dont follow them.
They are going to tell you what to drive, not the market, your income or your taste.
They don’t like SUVs, so you cant have one. And they arent content just telling you what a planet killer you are, they are going to legislate you to death about it.
They arent interested in doing anything about their percieved problems, theyre going to make you change your ways. They arent interested in looking in their own back yard, or sacrificing anything themselves. Theyll make you do it.
There are some basic fundamentals that make this country great (and free). One of those fundamentals (used to be) that you could buy a fancy car if you could afford it, and dammit you could enjoy it and drive it.
Driving cars is good for our nation, our economy, our sanity, and not quite as bad for the environment as everyone seems to think.
@KJones:
GM didn’t stop being the largest automaker in the world until…what, was it this year, or last?
But yeah, that’s when the writing first appeared on the wall.
@goller321: So you are saying that the Earth is at the perfect temperature right now? Who decided that? Since when did the trend of of cyclical temperatures the EArth has had for millions of years decide to stop? Why was it global cooling in the 70′s and we had to warm up the earth? And it was more global warming in the 20′s and 30′s?
Just beware, that the Al Gore and the likes want more control over your lives to take more of your hard earned money to give it to others.
Do I believe the Earth is warming, yeah it probably is. Is it caused by man to the extent “peer-reviewed” scientists who wrote one page for the UNCC who had to change it to make it flow with the pre-drawn up conclusions of the summary say it is?
By the way, the polar ice caps are metling on Mars, where are the SUVs there? GASP, it could be the giant fireball in the sky called the Sun.
we can’t know anything for sure. We should ignore both economical and environmental science and follow our hearts. Then, if we’re doomed, at least we’ll be happy.
@trollkiller: Yours is one of the most insightful, sensible posts I’ve read here so far. Until that last sentence. Did you ever wonder what that “On board range-extending power source” is, exactly? My guess is “gasoline engine”.
@ExecutorElassus:
Research funding does not equal research bias.
It doesn’t matter WHERE the research comes from, as long as it is solid, peer-reviewed, and duplicated.
@trollkiller:
“We do not need to be held hostage by a bunch of countries whose people think beating a rape victim is justice or want to kill a teacher because she allowed a teddy bear to be named Mohammad.”
But it *IS* OK to be in a country where people think dragging a homosexual from your truck is OK, or where the religious leaders say things like (and keep in mind that these aren’t just random idiots spouting random statements, these are ‘respected men’ who members of our government frequently refer(-red) to for guidance in official matters of government policy):
“The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society.”
“Individual Christians are the only ones really — and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.” (re: only allowing christians and jews to hold appointed government offices) -Pat Robertson
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’” (re: 9/11)
“AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah’s chariotters.” – Jerry Falwell
@danio3834: What kind of car did George Washington drive? How about Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and John Hancock?
@BK88:
Ever seen a cat try and jump up onto a counter or shelf and it doesn’t quite jump high enough, and there’s nothing that it can sink its claws into to pull itself up, so it falls back down on its ass?
@RvLeshrac:
(I know, not relevant to the discussion at hand, but it has to be said)
@ExecutorElassus:
Take a look at the post right below yours, and you’ll see a big part of the problem. People in America aren’t willing to give up cars that are capable of driving four times faster than the posted speed limit.
Another part of the problem is that energy-efficient vehicles are ridiculously expensive, and out of the reach of most people. I drive a ’91 Bonneville because it was cheap. There’s absolutely no way I could afford to drive a hybrid or an electric.
In the long term, the Bonneville will cost me more, but I’m less worried about the $60/mo on gas than I am about the $400+/mo in car payments I’d be making on a hybrid/electric, in addition to energy costs.
Speaking of energy, *many* Americans live in apartment complexes. Running a power cord from your outlet to the charger is fine when you have a garage, but how am I going to run a power cord the 200′ from my apartment?
For E85, where am I going to buy fuel? The only place I know that sells it locally is many, many miles away. The fuel savings are offset by the fact that I would have to use it all just to go refuel.
@ranwhenparked: The market determines whether or not a problem even exists in the first place.
That’s absurd. The market may reflect what the general public thinks about a problem, but a problem can exist without the public’s knowledge or without their interest. What determines the problem in this case is atmospheric chemistry.
The fact that you bring the Japanese shift into this discussion shows that you fundamentally misunderstand the problem here. It’s not that I want the government to mandate higher fuel efficiency because that’s what I think consumers want. If that were the only thing I cared about, I’d have no problem letting the market take care of it at its own pace. That’s not the case though; I want higher fuel efficiency standards because if we don’t drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a few decades, bad things are going to happen. We don’t have time to wait for the car-buying public to vote with their wallets, which may never happen as the current popular obsession with climate change wanes.
@BK88:
You missed that whole science chapter on ‘atmospheres,’ eh? Try this experiment at home: heat up your toaster oven to 450, placing a pan near the heating element. Wait about 20 minutes.
Put on an oven mitt and then place your hand on the pan inside the oven.
Now take the oven mitt off, and put your hand on the pan.
Your hand is a planet. The oven mitt is an atmosphere. The third-degree burns on your hand are to teach you that you need to listen to people who can, at the least, still remember middle-school planetary science.
@Mike the Dog:
Stallions and Broncos, all.
@Sam:
I think he’s right. Remember how no one bought those lead-tainted toys, and the beads with GHB? People just *know*.
@ad8bc:
Okay, you can either sit with your head in the ground, blindly bashing everything that climate scientists have determined to be true over 20 years of study, or you can actually read a little bit.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers 2007. A panel made up of hundreds of scientists in fields relating to climate change and its effects, especially climate scientists. Messages: global warming is definitely happening, we’re causing it, and bad things are going to start happening if we let it continue.
Stern Review, Executive Summary. An analysis by the former Chief Economist of the World Bank, who determined that the costs of letting global warming hit the world full force would be much greater than the costs of mitigation, never mind the ethical issues involved with letting people die.
@TechnoDestructo: Very good point. We have to remember that global warming isn’t the only problem tied up in our oil addiction.
@warf0x0r: Wrong. If Europe can achieve these kinds of fuel economies, then we can too. And don’t worry about SUVs. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences found that fuel economy for large SUVs could be improved 42% using tech that would pay for itself in fuel savings; this didn’t even include the gains that could come from increased use of diesels and hybrids. (From Hell and High Water by Joseph Romm.)
@Namilia: I do not think it is the government’s place or right to dictate every aspect of our lives for us.
Your entire life centers around fuel economy?
@Mike the Dog: Yes, it is a traditional engine. However, while I don’t know about the Chevy Volt specifically, the idea is that plug-in hybrids will have traditional engines that get great fuel economy and be capable of running on biofuels, so as to minimize greenhouse gas emissions during the instances (surprisingly rare) when that engine has to be engaged. And even when it is engaged, the car would still be operating as a traditional hybrid.
Just one example of when it’s embarrassing to be an American
The real and only reason that Americans (and the rest of the world) will “willingly” pay $5.50/gallon for gasoline is because of the lack of a viable alternative. And for as long as there is money to be made (big oil company profits are at an all time high), those making the money have a vested interest in preventing any viable alternative, mass-use fuel source from achieving any appreciable market penetration.
Yes … those who are in power (the big oil companies) seek to remain in power. What better way to remain in power other than to insure that any competing fuel source never sees the light of day in the marketplace!
Wake up people! Before it’s too late!!!
I am NOT a bleeding heart liberal. But I am educated and can see the handwriting on the wall. I CAN see the barrel of a loaded gun pressed to the head of life and civilization as we know it. The ambitions and aspirations of the few (the rich and greedy oil companies) do not serve the ambitions and aspirations of the masses.
Think about it. If a viable alternative were allowed to market, then think about how many fortunes would be ruined. Think about how many jobs would be LOST. Think about how much control these “select” few will lose over the rest of us. Think of how a whole industry would be either lost, or be forced to make major adaptations (with a lower profile) in order to even survive.
Control the source of energy and you rule the world. Look at how things are shaping up now.
Who are the biggest supporters of hydrogen fuel? The oil companies. Even President Bush, with his riches founded in the oil companies, has jumped on board. This is because the oil companies are already trying to re-invent themselves and adapt. And they select hydrogen as an alternative fuel, because the process to make the hydrogen to be used as a fuel source is perceived as complicated and out of the reach of all but the wealthiest (the oil companies).
Wow. In listening to the Free Market Uber Alles folks yammering on, I begin to understand how Copernicus felt when trying to convince fogy dress-wearing, heretic-burning Catholic* priests that the Earth revolved around the sun.
* and kid-f*cking. Can’t forget the kid-f*cking.
PS: Parnote, another wrinkle to the 100 reasons the Oil Companies are using fuel cell to shift the debate away from them doing the responsible thing: their efforts are on converting oil to hydrogen. Versus, say, water. Keeping everything bad, in other words.