http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/business/worldbusiness/18AUTO.html?pagewanted=1 Apparently even stricter than our standards. It's pretty pathetic that the Chinese Government, normally no friend to the environment, with a developing economy to consider, is outpacing the US on this issue. The Chinese are rational enough to see the dangers of relying too heavily on foreign oil; something that our leaders have yet to learn, or more likely, yet to care about as long as the they keep buddying up with the energy industry. Disgusting.
Samuel this is hilarious. What a short memory some of you liberals have. Remember Billie Richardson, former Secretary of Energy, who had to step down?? His trips to the middle east to snuggle up with Opec member and get them to increase production wouldn't be construed as "buddying up with the energy industry", would it? We're talking about the man and administration who was told by congress that they had "no comprehensive energy policy".
Are you accusing Richardson of being against fuel economy standards to benefit middle eastern countries? IF that is what you are doing, then do it...otherwise that is completely irrelevant. Are you also accusing the the democratic party of being the favored party of the energy industry? Sure, and Ken Lay was a die hard supporter of Ann Richards.... That was a really poor attempt to hijack this thread. If you're going to take an "anti-" position, you could at least make an attempt to justify it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01 uhmmmm since 1990 $117+ MILLION donated to Republicans from the Oil & Gas Industry thats 74% of the money donated from the industry the 2000 Election cycle saw 78% 2002 80% 2004 83%
Increased fuel economy standards are a joke. People do not want to buy fuel efficient sh!tbox deathtraps, as sales figures for all of the Metro's, Yugo's, and other fuel-miser cars have shown. Why should the govt. FORCE people to buy cars they don't want? If you want to conserve gasoline, YOU go buy a Prius. Don't make govt. punish me because I don't want to drive one of those little sh!tbox deathtraps. If we could simply go after the gasoline we have in this country, we wouldn't have to worry about foreign oil. But every time we want to go drill in the frozen wasteland of northern Alaska, every single cougar-cuddler goes bananas. My solution is this. Leave it up to the individual. Quit worrying about running out of gasoline, because our free market economy will force a solution, be it nuke-powered cars or the "tubes" Tenacious D spoke about.
Increased fuel economy standards are a joke. People do not want to buy fuel efficient sh!tbox deathtraps, as sales figures for all of the Metro's, Yugo's, and other fuel-miser cars have shown. Fuel efficiency has little to nothing to do with car sizes. Its very possible to design SUVs that get 30+ mpg. Why should the govt. FORCE people to buy cars they don't want? Because if they don't, the gov't then has to coddle Saudi Arabia and other similar countries, and that affects ALL of us. Therefore, we all have a stake in reducing fuel consumption nationwide. If you want to conserve gasoline, YOU go buy a Prius. See above - that doesn't solve the problem. If we could simply go after the gasoline we have in this country, we wouldn't have to worry about foreign oil. But every time we want to go drill in the frozen wasteland of northern Alaska, every single cougar-cuddler goes bananas. Simply not true. Alaska's reserves are minute compared to the needs of the country. Drilling Alaska won't put a dent in foreign oil consumption. My solution is this. Leave it up to the individual. Quit worrying about running out of gasoline, because our free market economy will force a solution, The free market doesn't work when dealing with public goods, including (1) environmental protection and (2) diplomacy based on oil nedes.
Actually, engineering has made huge advances in fuel-train efficiency over the last 25 years. It's just that most of the advances have gone to HP instead of MPG. It's perfectly possible to make a fuel-efficient SUV.
What a predictable response, please look up something called "externalities". But anyway, if fuel efficiency standards are such a joke, why is CHina, still a relatively poor nation, choosing them despite the efficiency losses? Seems to me that they are a market outcome among industrialized nations. In any event, your blind faith in markets still leaves us at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers. (which will only grow as global populatin and consumption rises in the long term). Were you proclaiming the glory of free markets in the 70's when OPEC cut production? Why or why not? Similarly, if we were able to extract all of the estimated oil in ANWAR, its estimated that we would have enough for the entire US of A...for 9 whole months. The output from ANWAR would barely make a FRACTION of a dent on our dependence on foreign oil. As for leaving things to the individual, it goes back to my first point. You exhibit a fundamental flaw in your logic in that you assume that individuals can efficiently allocate common pool resources w/external benefits & burdens. It's a cold hard fact that they can't. Libertarianism is fine, as long as it is not blind and stupid.
If fuel economy must be market driven...then factor in all the costs, including --effect on the environment (and related clean up costs), foreign policy ($87billion for iraq ring a bell?) medical costs due to pollution (perhaps productivity losses too?) and many others... Suddenly, gas is $20/gallon. That ol' Prius might not seem so bad afterall.
In 2004, Ford introduces the Ford Escape Hybrid. It's a little more expensive, but if you think about it, you save money on gas in the long haul. It's win win. "Hi, I'm a little sh*t box deathtrap. Don't buy me or you'll be considered a commie...you red b*stard." Hopefully other car makers start making more hybrids and work to advance the technology. I think hybrids are a good middle ground until a feasible replacement for fossil fuels is introduced.
They won't, the new focus is the "Freedom car" (the hydrogen powered car).The Auto industries like to work on this kind of stuff so that they can distract us from having better fuel efficiency standards now. "Don't worry about it, eventually we'll phase out gas guzzlers....look at this cool new stuff we're developing" It's quite simple, really. During the 80's and 90's, it was electric cars, now it's hydrogen fuel cells. It's a joke.
Market outcome? China is not completely a capitalist society and is ruled by a totalitarian regime, so they are likely diverting the oil to other sectors of the economy, like the military. We get most of our oil in this hemisphere, from Venezuala and Canada, so our reliance on the always unstable ME is overstated. But any spike in oil prices can lead to problems. But it is all we have, save govt. price controls which control prices but not the cost and destroy the means (profit) for which entrepeneurs seek to bring new goods and services into the market. Elementary, my dear Sam Fisher. There we go again with the liberal propaganda. It is estimated that there isn't enough oil for us to even bother looking up there. So we shouldn't do it because you guys THINK there isn't enough? What would it hurt to at least look? Efficiently allocate common pool resources? Sounds like socialist mularkey to me. Resources are allocated by the glory of our free market system, which is not fair. Deal with it. I'd much rather have a system with rewards and consequences rather than one where determination and ambition mean nothing because the fruits of your labor are shared with those who contribute nothing and use the political class to engage in a bit of petty theft via repressive income taxes. Equality only means equality of misery and wouldn't you people have learned about the problems with command economies? I guess your excuse would be that "socialism wasn't given enough of a chance to work."
You forgot about the argument that was refuted, which dealt with SUV's being able to get good gas milage, and fuel efficiency not meaning only small death trap cars. The fact is that the auto industry is slow to change, and if it wasn't govt. regulation there wouldn't be seatbelts in cars now.
They have looked, that is what the estimates are based on, the Seismic surveying already conducted in that part of Alaska. It isn't a big unknown. We have a pretty good idea of what is there. 3% of our needs isn't worth it.
For those of you who think that you have to drive a "shipcan" or whatever here is a competition for a new generation of manly trucks. Ford Motor Company and the U.S. Department of Energy were the headline sponsors for the FutureTruck 2003 competition, as they were last year, and will be again in 2004. The previous two years, General Motors joined DOE as a banner sponsor. The competition challenged 15 top North American universities to convert a conventional Ford Explorer SUV into a HEV that produced lower emissions and at least 25 percent higher fuel economy than the stock Explorer. The emissions goals include reducing total greenhouse gas emissions and achieving California's Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV) standards. That sounds like an attainable assignment when you consider that Ford not only supplied the vehicle for modifying, but threw in almost $275,000 for seed and prize money plus, provided engineering consulting for each team, competition facilities and operational support. Also, other sponsors provided hardware, software and training to integrate technologies into the competition vehicles. Since this was the second year with the same vehicle, the student teams had the opportunity to refine successful strategies or reengineer systems that hadn't performed as expected in the 2002 competition. Aaah, but there's a kicker. (Isn't there always one or two?) In this case, the Explorers—in addition to being greener with increased fuel economy—had to maintain the performance, utility, creature comforts and safety attributes consumers want. Oh yes, the total package had to be feasibly produced at a price that buyers wouldn't walk away from. To meet these challenges, students employed cutting-edge automotive technologies, including advanced propulsion systems, lightweight materials and alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel and hydrogen. Each of the 15 schools replaced the Explorer's stock V-6 with hybrid powertrains, mostly smaller engines with supplementary electric power. Then there's that entry from the University of Idaho. In its fourth year of FutureTruck competition, the student team rethought last year's design and came up with a system that combined a Lincoln 3.0-liter V-6 with a low-voltage electric motor assist and hydraulic motor assist, thus the tribrid moniker. So what the heck is a hydraulic motor assist, and how does it work in a hybrid system? Called hydraulic power assist, this is a technology developed in a collaboration between Ford and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It harnesses and stores energy normally lost as heat during braking and uses it to propel a vehicle during acceleration. The system uses a hydraulic motor/pump and hydraulic accumulators to store energy. It has the potential to deliver fuel economy improvements of 30-35 percent in stop-and-go drive cycles while reducing exhaust emissions by at least 20 percent and providing substantial improvement in vehicle acceleration times. Another innovative approach was the "plug-in hybrid" from the University of California, Davis student team. But wait, doesn't an HEV produce its own electricity for the electric motors without having to charge the batteries? Yes, that's true, but the UC Davis Explorer operates as a pure electric vehicle for around 50 miles of commuting then, if you need to travel farther, the traditional hybrid system takes over with its electric motor and Saturn 1.9-liter in-line four to get you there and back. Like the other 13 university teams, the young aspiring engineers from Idaho and California had a year to plan and prepare their vehicles for the face-off competition, which can best be described as, "the finals from hell." FutureTruck 2003 was held at Ford's Michigan Proving grounds in Romeo on June 2-12. This isn't a "shine and show" event, although the exterior and interior appearance are judged. Days begin at 6:30 in the morning and often don't end until midnight or after. The first order of business is a rigorous safety and technical inspection—each vehicle has to be mechanically safe to qualify for any competition event. Teams have three days to pass, or they become spectators. Full story: http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4022139&src=msn
we are america! we dont do wrong! china is commeenist! commee is bad! we do the opposite of them! we win! no matter what, america good, china bad! i cant hear what you are saying lalalalalala!
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Communism, on a state-level scale, has never been implemented.
Man, I don't care why or how they did it, China's move is *fantastic* news for all of us. Less pollution for them is less pollution for all of us. That's very forward-looking of them. But, sadly, I never thought I'd admire a Chinese policy more than America's (shudder).
