EPA Changing Fuel Rules

An interesting article.

Reply to
NoOption5L
Loading thread data ...

Isn't that the whole point; sell more of the fuel efficient cars, and fewer gas hogs?

They have several choices:

  1. lower the price on the most fuel efficient cars and raise the price on the less fuel efficient.
  2. Invest more in newer technology to boost mileage.
  3. Sit back and whine while they slowly go broke.

JC Hall

69 Mustang 01 Civic

Reply to
JERRY HALL

The point was the government trying to control our choice in vehicles.

If the point was to encourage fuel efficient vehicles, a huge tax on fuel offset by a reduction in tax on income would be the way to go.

But instead of that, the government buracrats who think they know what's best for us decided on CAFE to eliminate the large passenger car. After all, if automakers don't make them, we can't buy them. Well it worked. The large passenger car models were reduced to a scant few by

1986. Trouble is, people still wanted the room so they started buying enclosed trucks.

Nothing encourages more fuel effecient vehicles than high fuel prices. If we as a nation consider consumption to be bad, we should stop taxing income and start taxing consumption.

Reply to
Brent P

But who gets hurt? No matter what you do, add one tax and eliminate another, you're hitting the ones who can least afford it. People on low or fixed incomes, who may pay nothing in income tax for the low wages they make which still keeps them below poverty level, will now have to pay a tax in order to earn that low income. So, survival for them is taking a step backward and deeper into poverty. Meanwhile, those who are bringing down a good income, will now drop one tax and pick up a different one, so little changes for them.

Perhaps it would be simpler to just euthanize the low and fixed income people? That would reduce their consumption in all aspects of energy consumption. Yes, it's sarcasm. I just find that too many people have a simple solution to societies woes, and do not stop to consider all the ramifications of those solutions. Society is intricate, so the solutions are like to be as well.

Reply to
Spike

Well, if you want to reduce consumption, that's what you do. Not come up with half-assed schemes to restrict market choices. If you don't like the implications of it, then maybe government should butt out entirely.

Do you really want the government telling you what you can drive? Because one of the first cars the government will eliminate is the Ford Mustang.

Hell, it's practically dumb luck the Mustang survived CAFE. Remember the probe? The mazda platform car that was supposed to be the mustang for

1989?

Ya, know, that is uncalled for.

Reply to
Brent P

no problemo... it was intended idiocy..

but hopefully you see the point. It might seem that there is a simple answer to the problem, but such is rarely the case. Life is so interwoven that when you change one thing, it begins a domino affect that usually has impacts which were not even considered.

Like California's special non-emission fuels. Good idea. Clean the air. So the price goes up "a little" on top of the federal tax. Then they discover that the fuel actually ruins engines, especially 18 wheeler engines. That leads to higher repair costs for fleet maintenance, and those are passed on to the consumer. So, indirectly, that "a little" is increased. And they find that it not only does not help clean the air, it actually causes more environmental problems. So, California gets smart and says ditch that junk. Ah, but in steps the EPA who tells California, it has BIG problems with the feds if they quit the special fuel. So the fuel is continued... causing more damage. Add to that, that truckers who work within California are required to use the fuel which messes everything up, but truckers from out of state fill up before entering the state, and again when they leave. So, add in lost revenues for truck stops.

As I recall, the last ruling said California had to use up all the stocks, but did not have to mandate the production of more. It's still being used up today.

And that's just for vehicles... in only one state. There is still the home heating situation across the northern tier states.

No, I don't like government deep in my daily existence. Unfortunately, a lot of people with good intentions end up causing the government to intrude. Such cases include the gun ownership issue, recruiters on campus, religious symbols on public property, etc. If the founding fathers could see what has become of the nation they'd rise up out of their graves and lynch us all. Saw a woman in Seattle who was fighting military recruitment who said she sees much to die for but nothing worth killing for....

Reply to
Spike

Obviously you are not seeing mine. I am not making a case of a simple solution. I am saying what achieves the goal. CAFE has resulted in LOWER fuel economy on a fleet wide average because instead of big passenger cars, we have passenger trucks. CAFE has not achieved reduced consumption.

What's the goal? To control people's choices or reduce consumption?

Government needs to stop trying to control people, stop trying to limit people.

And that will lead us to tyranny.

This country has way too many control freaks who think that everything will be well if they can force everyone else to make the same choices they do.

Reply to
Brent P

And if you don't have some of that you have anarchy....

Thank heaven we have the 9th Circuit Court to help screw things up....

Reply to
Spike

Not at all. There is no need to control people's personal decisions.

So long as you want the USA to continue towards tryanny.

Keep pushing for solutions like CAFE, and soon there will be no more mustangs. After all, there are people who don't like cars like this and they may act to prevent you from owning such a vehicle.

Reply to
Brent P

No need to control people's personal decisions? It's my decision to shoot your dog because it barked all night. That's OK? It's my decision not to put my garbage out at the curb, but let it accumulate in my house where rats and roaches breed and spread to my neighbors homes. That's OK?

In society, people's personal decisions are restricted in many ways for the good of the society. That is what government is for. The degree of intrusion is viewed differently depending on which side of the fence you view it from.

For example, a non-smoke might view restrictions on smoking as not going far enough if it's allowed at all, while a smoker would feel it has gone too far when there is even a limited amount of restriction.

This is not to say that all such restrictions are a good thing, but, there are many restrictions of personal choice which are necessary to keep society from chaos.

While you might be vehemently opposed to things like CAFE, I am sure there must be those on the other side who support it. So. Who becomes the final arbiter? You? Me? The wino living under the overpass? Or a governmental body representing the best interests of all of the people and not just a select group. Granted, there is a lot where it doesn't work the way it should, but, what is the option?

We might not have a perfect system, but it is about the best system available.

Reply to
Spike

Obviously you don't understand what a personal decision is.

An arguement for tryanny. There is no reason to restrict or control a personal decision. What's next you are going to tell people they can't eat hotdogs? Tell people they must take certain drugs? A personal decision is no business of the government. When you use the 'good for society' arguement we no longer have any freedom, any liberty, we no longer even own ourselves. We become property of the government. After all, for the good of soceity, nobody should eat hotdogs and for the good of society you should be forced to take a vaccine with significant risk of horrible side effects for a rare disease that you may never encounter.

Aren't the health consquences of eating hotdogs and the risk to benefit ratio of vaccine your business? It's your life right? But in the 'good of society' arguement, it's not your life. You are nothing but a cog in the machine of society and government will tell you to do what's best.

BTW, So it's ok by you if Ralph Nader and Joan Claybrook tell you what car you must drive? Because those are the kind of folks that get the power in government to make those decisions for you.

You clearly don't get it. Maybe when decisions you make that have no effect on anyone else are determined for you by buracrats through some twisted logic that shows your decision effects society you'll underatand. Any decision you make can be made to show an impact on society and can be controlled under your arguement.

You obviously seem to feel that government can run our lives better than we can.

Knee-jerk types who don't fully understand its function and just react 'it's good for the environment' and those who have decided it's morally wrong to drive certain vehicles and wants to use CAFE as a hammer to eliminate them from production.

*sigh* It's obvious you don't understand the founding principles of the US of A. The government body doesn't have the power to choose. They were never intended to have that sort of power.

It would be much better if ran as intended.

Reply to
Brent P

But it doesn't. And as intended by who? The original founders? I wonder how much you really know about the original governmental system which they established.

As for personal decisions, everything in life is a personal decision.

It's a BIG step from telling you you have no choice but to buy brand X, and telling you you must buy a brand which has certain attributes from among the dozen which meet the parameters set. Even hot dogs provide a variety of brands and compositions to choose from. Some far healthier than others.

And there are far more restrictive societies you could be faced with.

Hopefully, you still had your choice of turkey to buy, and which stuffing to make. I know i did. It could have been Swanson's but I elected to go with Marie Cal lenders.....

Happy Thanksgiving.

Reply to
Spike

And thusly by your logic everything should be controlled by government.

That's tryanny.

You justify tryanny by saying it could be worse.

Unless of course someone got into government and decided that turkey would no longer be one of the food choices.

Reply to
Brent P

Never said everything... You seem to like to twist what others say in order to make it an argument.

NOT...I justify nothing of the sort. I simply accept that as bad as things may seem, they could be far worse, and are. Go live in Malaysia where it's illegal to chew gum in public. Live under theocratic government in the middle east. THAT is tyranny. You have not even come close to experiencing tyranny here compared to such places.

Just wait 'til the aliens get here.... the you'll know tyranny. Those dang Romulans are mean.

Reply to
Spike

Read your own posts back to yourself. Your 'common good' logic where by you can relate anything anyone does to some sort of group effect that allows it's regulation and control by government.

That's the point of such a statement.

So don't rock the boat, be good little sheeple and enjoy what you have left.

Here you go again, justification of what is happening here because it's worse elsewhere. What's wrong is wrong.

Reply to
Brent P

Brent, I think you need to go back on your meds... you're living in a distorted reality. Putting words in my mouth or putting your own interpretation on what I said is really out there.

Reply to
Spike

"Life is so interwoven that when you change one thing, it begins a domino affect that usually has impacts which were not even considered."

"No, I don't like government deep in my daily existence. Unfortunately, a lot of people with good intentions end up causing the government to intrude. Such cases include the gun ownership issue, recruiters on campus, religious symbols on public property, etc. If the founding fathers could see what has become of the nation they'd rise up out of their graves and lynch us all. Saw a woman in Seattle who was fighting military recruitment who said she sees much to die for but nothing worth killing for...."

"And if you don't have some of that (control freaks) you have anarchy...."

"In society, people's personal decisions are restricted in many ways for the good of the society. That is what government is for. The degree of intrusion is viewed differently depending on which side of the fence you view it from."

"As for personal decisions, everything in life is a personal decision."

Now tell me how you are not telling me that every decision has an effect on society as a whole and thusly subject to government control. Because that's the arguement you are making with the sum of your words. If that's not what you mean, that's not my doing.

And if your mentioning of other places in the world where the control is more overt, where things are worse isn't a means to justify what is occuring here by comparison, why even mention it? It serves no other purpose in the discussion.

As for putting words in another person's mouth, see the first quote above.

Reply to
Brent P

Good quotes, but just quit putting your personal interpretation on them.

As for your comments, when you make blanket statements you leave no room for anything else. For example; your comments about personal decisions and the government seems to indicate that there is no room for government to be involved in anything which might limit anyone's personal choices in anything at all. Personally, I can not see how you can have a functioning society without limits. Even the most primitive societies have had limits imposed by government (chief and or shaman) on a wide range of personal choices.

Reply to
Spike

So your words have no sum of meaning. You're just babbling for the sake of it.

bye.

Reply to
Brent P

Missed your meds again I see....

Reply to
Spike

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.