L
Luminoso
Guest
via bbc news
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In their weekly radio address, Democrats on
Saturday called for a new direction in energy policy, away from
gas-guzzling automobiles and reliance on foreign oil.
"America deserves more fuel efficient cars," Sen. Maria Cantwell of
Washington said. But she added "the only way consumers are going to
get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help
deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress."
It's widely expected the Senate will approve some sort of increase in
auto fuel economy as part of an energy bill it hopes to finish in the
coming weeks.
The Senate bill would require automakers to increase the fuel economy
of new cars, sport utility vehicles and pickups beginning in 2020 to a
fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. It currently is 27.5 mpg for
cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks.
But a group of senators close to the auto industry -- both Democrats
and Republicans -- argue that carmakers can't meet that steep of an
increase, especially for SUVs and small trucks. They will try to get
approval this week for a more modest boost in the federal requirement
to 36 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for SUVs and pickups by 2025.
Bush has said he opposes Congress setting any new arbitrary numerical
fuel economy standard.
Maria Cantwell must be an expert of automotive engine
design, right ? Come on Maria, get your hands greasy
and BUILD us this hyper-efficient motor we "deserve"
no matter -what- the laws of thermodynamics may say
Actually though, a fleetwide mileage figure isn't the
worst approach to this issue. It forces manufacturers to
move to smaller vehicles and/or smaller engines in order
to stay within bounds. If, later on, they can boost engine
efficiency then they can put higher-powered engines into
more of their cars. Short term however, the quickest way
to cut our overall gasoline consumption is to quit putting
giant engines into everything.
Of course a fleetwide mpg standard cannot be a stupid
standard. Each manufacturer sells a somewhat different
spectrum of vehicles. One may sell more "cars" while
another sells more heavy trucks to industry. There is
and remains a true need for "big" trucks - F450 and
above class.
It is therefore necessary to seperate "passenger/consumer"
vehicles from "industrial" vehicles when setting standards.
Those big "industrial" vehicles might get one mile per gallon,
but we -have- to have them.
But how do we make sure manufacturers don't "cheat" by
selling "industrial" vehicles to Priscilla Q. Public ?
Easy. Start requiring a contractors licence or its equivalent
to buy an "industrial"-sized vehicle. Unless you can PROVE
you NEED one, you can't own one. We already have something
like this, the dividing line between where a regular drivers
licence works and where you have to get a commercial licence,
based on gross vehicle weight. Just do the same, but at sales
time. No contractors licence (or equivalent), no title issued.
Carl the concrete guy and Frank the farmer can get their F-750
no problem, Joe Average cannot.
The largest vehicle any "regular Joe" EVER needs to own is
an F-350/C-3500 class truck. With dual rear tires I've seen
these things tow -huge- motorboats and such several times
the weight of the truck. A stretched 350-class chassis also
makes for a nice small "schoolbus" type vehicle, 20 passengers
or so, or a very decent cargo van.
Not that many Joes -ever- bought F450+ class vehicles, they ARE
pretty huge, but I can just SEE Ford and GM ads suckering-in
wannabe macho men. TV ads are cheaper than changing production
lines.
Therefore, I propose that anything in todays F-350 class or
below be designated a "consumer" vehicle and be subject to
the proposed fleetwide mileage target. This will discourage
manufactures from making large numbers of the largest vehicles
yet not lock-out consumers who really need them. The big
"industrial" vehicles should be exempt from the mileage
requirement, but also should not be sold to the general
public.
The pure "market capitalist" would say that we should not
set any regulations, but simply let market forces determine
what kinds of vehicles are sold. Sounds great, assuming
that everybody is as logical as Mr. Spock. Too bad it just
doesn't work that way. Manufactures spend vast amounts of
money convincing Joe that he simply -must- own a "manly"
hemi-powered V-10 pickup truck. They do it because they
can get a higher markup on such vehicles (they don't cost
much more to make than small cars but they can charge a
lot more for that "rugged" image).
In short, people are too often gullible and stupid and, when
it comes to passenger vehicles, it's now a "national security"
issue. Gasoline addiction helps drive us into things like the
Iraq war and meddling in middle-eastern governments. It makes
us especially vulnerable to economic terrorism and manipulation
by oil-producing nations. Our "leaders" are supposed to help
take care of the country as a whole, and sometimes that means
telling Joe he just can't -have- that V-10-powered monster
truck because it's too helpful to bin-Laden.
Admittedly, I see lots of relatively new monster trucks and
vans in the classifieds, selling for pretty damned cheap.
People were suckered into buying them, taking out big bank
loans, and suddenly discovered that gasoline isn't going to
get any cheaper. This time next year it could average over
four bucks a gallon, much more if we and Iran remain on a
collision course or terrorists finally manage to blast
the Saudi oil-handing facilities. That "Sweet !" hemi is
now a bitter black hole into which Joe pours his entire
paycheck.
But has this kept Ford/GM/etc from trying to sell giant trucks
and vans ? Hell no - and there's a sucker born every minute.
For now, the ONLY solution seems to be severe restrictions
on fleet mileage. The Dems have other agendas buried in this
proposal, but deal with the undesireable socialistic aspects
as they arise. We -know- they want everybody on bicycles or
Goremobiles or a bus (restricts mobility - makes it easier
for Big Bro to micromanage everybody). Don't let them get
-that- far. Still, a small dose of poison can be medicinal.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In their weekly radio address, Democrats on
Saturday called for a new direction in energy policy, away from
gas-guzzling automobiles and reliance on foreign oil.
"America deserves more fuel efficient cars," Sen. Maria Cantwell of
Washington said. But she added "the only way consumers are going to
get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help
deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress."
It's widely expected the Senate will approve some sort of increase in
auto fuel economy as part of an energy bill it hopes to finish in the
coming weeks.
The Senate bill would require automakers to increase the fuel economy
of new cars, sport utility vehicles and pickups beginning in 2020 to a
fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. It currently is 27.5 mpg for
cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks.
But a group of senators close to the auto industry -- both Democrats
and Republicans -- argue that carmakers can't meet that steep of an
increase, especially for SUVs and small trucks. They will try to get
approval this week for a more modest boost in the federal requirement
to 36 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for SUVs and pickups by 2025.
Bush has said he opposes Congress setting any new arbitrary numerical
fuel economy standard.
Maria Cantwell must be an expert of automotive engine
design, right ? Come on Maria, get your hands greasy
and BUILD us this hyper-efficient motor we "deserve"
no matter -what- the laws of thermodynamics may say
Actually though, a fleetwide mileage figure isn't the
worst approach to this issue. It forces manufacturers to
move to smaller vehicles and/or smaller engines in order
to stay within bounds. If, later on, they can boost engine
efficiency then they can put higher-powered engines into
more of their cars. Short term however, the quickest way
to cut our overall gasoline consumption is to quit putting
giant engines into everything.
Of course a fleetwide mpg standard cannot be a stupid
standard. Each manufacturer sells a somewhat different
spectrum of vehicles. One may sell more "cars" while
another sells more heavy trucks to industry. There is
and remains a true need for "big" trucks - F450 and
above class.
It is therefore necessary to seperate "passenger/consumer"
vehicles from "industrial" vehicles when setting standards.
Those big "industrial" vehicles might get one mile per gallon,
but we -have- to have them.
But how do we make sure manufacturers don't "cheat" by
selling "industrial" vehicles to Priscilla Q. Public ?
Easy. Start requiring a contractors licence or its equivalent
to buy an "industrial"-sized vehicle. Unless you can PROVE
you NEED one, you can't own one. We already have something
like this, the dividing line between where a regular drivers
licence works and where you have to get a commercial licence,
based on gross vehicle weight. Just do the same, but at sales
time. No contractors licence (or equivalent), no title issued.
Carl the concrete guy and Frank the farmer can get their F-750
no problem, Joe Average cannot.
The largest vehicle any "regular Joe" EVER needs to own is
an F-350/C-3500 class truck. With dual rear tires I've seen
these things tow -huge- motorboats and such several times
the weight of the truck. A stretched 350-class chassis also
makes for a nice small "schoolbus" type vehicle, 20 passengers
or so, or a very decent cargo van.
Not that many Joes -ever- bought F450+ class vehicles, they ARE
pretty huge, but I can just SEE Ford and GM ads suckering-in
wannabe macho men. TV ads are cheaper than changing production
lines.
Therefore, I propose that anything in todays F-350 class or
below be designated a "consumer" vehicle and be subject to
the proposed fleetwide mileage target. This will discourage
manufactures from making large numbers of the largest vehicles
yet not lock-out consumers who really need them. The big
"industrial" vehicles should be exempt from the mileage
requirement, but also should not be sold to the general
public.
The pure "market capitalist" would say that we should not
set any regulations, but simply let market forces determine
what kinds of vehicles are sold. Sounds great, assuming
that everybody is as logical as Mr. Spock. Too bad it just
doesn't work that way. Manufactures spend vast amounts of
money convincing Joe that he simply -must- own a "manly"
hemi-powered V-10 pickup truck. They do it because they
can get a higher markup on such vehicles (they don't cost
much more to make than small cars but they can charge a
lot more for that "rugged" image).
In short, people are too often gullible and stupid and, when
it comes to passenger vehicles, it's now a "national security"
issue. Gasoline addiction helps drive us into things like the
Iraq war and meddling in middle-eastern governments. It makes
us especially vulnerable to economic terrorism and manipulation
by oil-producing nations. Our "leaders" are supposed to help
take care of the country as a whole, and sometimes that means
telling Joe he just can't -have- that V-10-powered monster
truck because it's too helpful to bin-Laden.
Admittedly, I see lots of relatively new monster trucks and
vans in the classifieds, selling for pretty damned cheap.
People were suckered into buying them, taking out big bank
loans, and suddenly discovered that gasoline isn't going to
get any cheaper. This time next year it could average over
four bucks a gallon, much more if we and Iran remain on a
collision course or terrorists finally manage to blast
the Saudi oil-handing facilities. That "Sweet !" hemi is
now a bitter black hole into which Joe pours his entire
paycheck.
But has this kept Ford/GM/etc from trying to sell giant trucks
and vans ? Hell no - and there's a sucker born every minute.
For now, the ONLY solution seems to be severe restrictions
on fleet mileage. The Dems have other agendas buried in this
proposal, but deal with the undesireable socialistic aspects
as they arise. We -know- they want everybody on bicycles or
Goremobiles or a bus (restricts mobility - makes it easier
for Big Bro to micromanage everybody). Don't let them get
-that- far. Still, a small dose of poison can be medicinal.
