Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really, really hope this does quickly get us access in this country to smaller, more fuel efficient calls that are already available in Europe. Such as some of the diesel Volkswagen and even Ford cars that get mileage between 60 and 70 MPG- if we had those combined with advancements in better hybrid technology to hopefully get gas mileage closer to 70 or 80 MPG, we could maybe then keep our fuel costs somewhat affordable until true oil/gas replacements are found and able to be put into use.
stop-start technology has been in use in Europe for well over a decade now, and not just in hybrids. there's no reason we can't have that here. Direct injection is another jump in the MPG progress that is finally entering the U.S. market. the lack of diesel options bothers the heck out of me. I was all about the VW TDI, but being only in the Jetta or one of the Audi models when I shopped just didn't suit me. It's trickling in over here, but in higher priced luxury models. I'm doing ok in the 30mpg range right now, but there's no reason more of us shouldn't be able to get a vehicle that suits our needs and gets between 40-70MPG today.
Anyone owning a full size SUV isn't so likely to not be able to "somehow" afford higher gas prices. It's the folks driving around in smaller cars or beaters who are in another income category altogether who will not be able to afford gas to and from their job, let alone anywhere else. Many cannot afford a new fuel efficient car. The majority probably can't afford alternative heating sources either. You're talking about people who can afford to make choices and "go green(er)."
don't kid yourself into thinking only people of means have bought SUVs. a lot of those SUVs were available at deep discounts over the past 5 years, and they were bought by people across the spectrum. i see plenty of people driving around in older Jeep Cherokees and Chevy Blazers that get horrible gas mileage, and these aren't being driven by people with money all the time. you may be right in respect to the very low income, but there are a lot of middle class folks out there driving vehicles the can't really afford to if gas climbs. those are the people being squeezed pretty hard right now.
limousine liberals dont care about your pain when it comes to higher energy costs. they will get to choose whether or not to add a prius to their collection of cars (including big SUV for those family trips) while many others will have to make much tougher decisions and feel actual pain.
but you must understand, greenhouse gases must be cut and prices must necessarily skyrocket. obama said so.
you're smart enough to realize that a majority of people who desire more fuel efficient vehicles aren't trying to get them to offset their Suburbans. just because some celebrities are buying Tahoe Hybrids doesn't mean that's representative of the larger movement.
Which Ford models get 60 -70 MPG?? What is the price range?
It's the Ford Focus- it's a model that has a small diesel engine in it, listed as getting somewhere around 65 MPG. I don't know what it costs, but I guess it doesn't matter since it's not being made available here in the US.
you're smart enough to realize that a majority of people who desire more fuel efficient vehicles aren't trying to get them to offset their Suburbans. just because some celebrities are buying Tahoe Hybrids doesn't mean that's representative of the larger movement.
thats true, but the decision makers are often people who have the means to not be nearly as hurt by the decisions as many people who will suffer from higher energy costs. obama says costs will necessarily skyrocket. those words probably dont give him the same feeling as someone already struggling to pay the bills to heat their homes and drive to work.
thats true, but the decision makers are often people who have the means to not be nearly as hurt by the decisions as many people who will suffer from higher energy costs. obama says costs will necessarily skyrocket. those words probably dont give him the same feeling as someone already struggling to pay the bills to heat their homes and drive to work.
but the costs currently paid aren't fully accounted for in the price we are paying. we have other costs. so while we may be paying x for our electricity, we're paying x + y for electricity plus the effects of pollution, use of land, etc. of course, lower income folks struggling to pay their bills have a much shorter term outlook than the rest of people, out of necessity. but if there was a way to get their home self sufficient where they wouldn't have to worry about struggling to pay a bill to heat their home, but instead got a check from the utility for the supply their home added to the grid...we'd have a different situation.
as for driving to work...again, i have no sympathy for Americans who haven't adapted to the writing on the wall of higher oil prices. sure, some folks are driving around in econobox vehicles and have done everything they can (maybe), but that's not what most Americans have done. and that has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.
but the costs currently paid aren't fully accounted for in the price we are paying.
you mean like the wars for oil type stuff? because those low income dont pay much of that because 40% dont pay federal income tax. anyway, if the war is a cost then the way to fight it is to stop the wars, not attack oil usage. then let the price go wherever it is supposed to go.
im not sure if you are throwing in some kind of climate change fake cost. the real cost of that is people being fooled into spending more money on alternative sources of energy. then you have the affect it has on food prices and millions starving to death because of it. i think its best for government to stay out of it.
you mean like the wars for oil type stuff? because those low income dont pay much of that because 40% dont pay federal income tax. anyway, if the war is a cost then the way to fight it is to stop the wars, not attack oil usage. then let the price go wherever it is supposed to go.
im not sure if you are throwing in some kind of climate change fake cost. the real cost of that is people being fooled into spending more money on alternative sources of energy. then you have the affect it has on food prices and millions starving to death because of it. i think its best for government to stay out of it.
low income folks pay for health effects through being adversely affected by a lot of the issues that our pollution creates. it has nothing to do with climate change, but thinks like asthma.
we've gone down this road before Captain. not all alternatives have to do with food. and the government should stay out of it...including the money spent on keeping gas and oil cheap.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
