Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should average automaker fleet mpg be raised to 50+ mpg by 2025, even if it causes car prices to sky
Yes 45 46.39%
No 52 53.61%
Voters: 97. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2018, 09:50 PM
 
20,757 posts, read 8,583,738 times
Reputation: 14393

Advertisements

I can't be bothered to read this whole thread so in case it's already been mentioned, tough!

Nothing has been decided
one way or the other yet, so you can all let go of your pearls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2018, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Denver
9,963 posts, read 18,501,624 times
Reputation: 6181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Right because we will all be left sitting at home with unusable cars in the driveway
Forgetting immorality of it all for a moment, when the govt puts our money behind a technology, it crowds out all others, some of which may even be better.
As oil becomes scarce the price of gasoline will naturally rise and if left alone innovators will be at work with replacements at the ready.
Mandates are never the way to go and I dont want politicians making choices for me
I don't mind a standard like this because it forces the tech investment for future generations, when the free market isn't evolving fast enough.

Besides, do you really object to cars having better MPG?

Or do you just object to the government mandating it? In other words if all the car manufactures started building higher MPG cars... you would be ok?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 09:59 PM
 
45,229 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50 View Post
I don't mind a standard like this because it forces the tech investment for future generations, when the free market isn't evolving fast enough.

Besides, do you really object to cars having better MPG?

Or do you just object to the government mandating it?
who determines what is fast enough? The guv with its layers of politicians, bureaucrats, administrators, approvals etc is never going to be quicker than a focused tech firm.
What do you mean by "having better mpg"? I think if car buyers want cars that can achieve a certain mpg, automakers will strive to provide them. And why wouldnt they, are they not in the business of selling cars?
Yes Im against all mandates. Why do you want politicians making choices for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 10:03 PM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,603,511 times
Reputation: 15341
The real question should be why the Govt enacted 'the Invention Secrecy Act in 1951 and then went on to suppress all kinds of new technology (engine and vehicle related tech too). Makes me wonder what they were so scared of, they felt the need to create something like this in the first place?!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Denver
9,963 posts, read 18,501,624 times
Reputation: 6181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
who determines what is fast enough? The guv with its layers of politicians, bureaucrats, administrators, approvals etc is never going to be quicker than a focused tech firm.
What do you mean by "having better mpg"? I think if car buyers want cars that can achieve a certain mpg, automakers will strive to provide them. And why wouldnt they, are they not in the business of selling cars?
Yes Im against all mandates. Why do you want politicians making choices for you?
Because it's the right thing to do in this case, and it is hard to object to better use of a limited resource.

Anyways man, everyone likes less regs until they are impacted by it, it's a very myopic view on life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 10:04 PM
 
45,229 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50 View Post
Because it's the right thing to do in this case, and it is hard to object to better uses of a limited resource.

Anyways man, everyone likes less regs until they are impacted by it, it's a very myopic view on life IMO.
You dont get to decide what the right thing to do is, nor do you have any idea of what the right thing is. Arrogance defined. Man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Denver
9,963 posts, read 18,501,624 times
Reputation: 6181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
You dont get to decide what the right thing to do is, nor do you have any idea of what the right thing is. Arrogance defined. Man.
It's math that gives you the decision. Our rate of use far exceeds the rate at which we can replenish it.

Anyway burn away and hope for something better I guess! The market knows best!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,253 posts, read 23,742,275 times
Reputation: 38639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
I live in Seattle. This has nothing to do with public transportation.

This is specifically about Trump using federal laws to stop California from setting their own emissions standards which are followed by almost 20 other states, including Washington.

And once again, Trump supporters love state's rights until they are in power, then they use every federal law they can to control all the states.
Or you could understand that when I said "nightmare" that I recently got through, finally, of course there's a part of me that wants to "get back" at the state of CA for their ridiculous BS that they put me through to get these stupid tags. Eventually, I will let it go and move on, and yes I am for states rights....I figured the "emotional" part was understood when I wrote "nightmare" more than once. In the long run, of course I wouldn't condone it. Right now? It's just me feeling vengeful. I seriously question why schools do not teach comprehension anymore.

And I also lived in WA and NEVER had this much trouble with emissions in that state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2018, 01:12 AM
 
25,849 posts, read 16,532,741 times
Reputation: 16027
I think Obama should have set the requirement at 1000 miles to the gallon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2018, 01:26 AM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,206,841 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Government should't be telling auto manufacturers what to do. Rolling back these onerous requirements is nice, but the government should remove itself entirely from meddling in the design and manufacture of cars.
Right. Let’s start making Corvairs again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:09 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top