Oh great

[Doug]

http://www.komotv.com/stories/36432.htm

[lip277]

It's really a back door attempt to regulate fuel economy.

California is in court right now on their version of this. We'll see how that works out I suppose to know if this sticks or not.

[Roadstergal]

It's really a back door attempt to regulate fuel economy.

Looks like a front door attempt to regulate emissions. :dunno: From where we sit now, any move upwards on that score is good.

[rumatt]

Oh no, not another one of these debates.

Let's cut to the chase: If you drive a car with high gas consumption, or high emissions, you're an idiot. Yes you are. No you're not. Yes you are.

You don't need a high powered engine to have a fun car. Yes you do. no you don't. Yes you do.

Next.

[FC]

Just make SUV's "passenger cars" and not trucks. That would do wonders right there. :rolleyes:

[Roadstergal]

Just make SUV's "passenger cars" and not trucks. That would do wonders right there. :rolleyes:

:thumbup:

[Roadstergal]

Let's cut to the chase:

No. :eeps:

[Plaz]

Oh no, not another one of these debates.

Let's cut to the chase: If you drive a car with high gas consumption, or high emissions, you're an idiot. Yes you are. No you're not. Yes you are.

You don't need a high powered engine to have a fun car. Yes you do. no you don't. Yes you do.

Next.

:lol:

[clyde]

Oh no, not another one of these debates.

No it's not.

[JST]

http://www.komotv.com/stories/36432.htm

That article is entirely incoherent. From reading that article, I have no idea what the California standards would be, why some Washington legislators believe that it violates the Washington constitution, why other legislators think that it violates federal law, or even what the regulations would actually DO. Would they really "require automakers to use better air conditioners, more efficient transmissions and smaller engines," or do they simply impose fuel efficiency standards that would, as a practical effect, force companies to do that? Those are two very different things. What I *think* they do is something even one more step removed--impose limits on CO2 emissions, which tacitly imposes fuel economy requirements.

Bad reporting is lame.

Here's a quote you probably will never actually read, though it's likely close to the truth:

"We don't have the political balls to impose higher fuel costs on consumers, thereby forcing them to internalize the costs of burning more gas, so we are going to impose a hidden tax on consumers by requiring car companies to build cars that people don't want to buy."

Bad legislating is also lame.

[Roadstergal]

Oh no, not another one of these debates.

No it's not.

"But that isn't just saying 'no, it isn't'!"

"Yes, it is!"

[Alan]

Sheesh, can you handle the world making changes. In the end higher emissions controls means better life for all of us. You cannot be hurt by this in any possible way other than cleaner air

Tell me what could possibly be wrong with that. Hmmm let me think about this, car compainis have the money to comply with these things, yet me, the car enthusiast is against it :rolleyes:

That makes no sense.

[BahnBaum]

Hmmm let me think about this, car compainis have the money to comply with these things, yet me, the car enthusiast is against it :rolleyes:

That makes no sense.

Just so I understand the economic theories you subscribe to, are you saying that the car companies will absorb the costs of these sorts of regulations and not the consumer? Since the companies have the money to comply, of course.

Alex

[rumatt]

Just so I understand the economic theories you subscribe to, are you saying that the car companies will absorb the costs of these sorts of regulations and not the consumer? Since the companies have the money to comply, of course.

Well, duh. Isn't it obvious?

[BahnBaum]

Well, duh. Isn't it obvious?

Thanks for the reminder Matt.

Sometimes the voice of reason speaks a foreign language.

Alex

[Roadstergal]

are you saying that the car companies will absorb the costs of these sorts of regulations and not the consumer?

We all pay the cost of emissions down the line - even those who aren't car consumers.

[rumatt]

We all pay the cost of emissions down the line - even those who aren't car consumers.

Clearly, we should do whatever we can to help. This would include boycotting autocrosses, track schools, and watching racing on TV. These are all "unnecessary" contributors to the emissions problem.

[Roadstergal]

Clearly, we should do whatever we can to help. This would include boycotting autocrosses, track schools, and watching racing on TV. These are all "unnecessary" contributors to the emissions problem.

Straw man - that's another debate entirely.

[rumatt]

Straw man - that's another debate entirely.

Bah. Every little bit helps...

Unless it's the little bit that you care about (not literally you).

[Alan]

Hmmm let me think about this, car compainis have the money to comply with these things, yet me, the car enthusiast is against it :rolleyes:

That makes no sense.

Just so I understand the economic theories you subscribe to, are you saying that the car companies will absorb the costs of these sorts of regulations and not the consumer? Since the companies have the money to comply, of course.

Alex

The consumer will be the one to pay the price for this but wouldn't that be fine with the consumer if down the road from now it helps the future of our children and grandchildren.

[BahnBaum]

Hmmm let me think about this, car compainis have the money to comply with these things, yet me, the car enthusiast is against it :rolleyes:

That makes no sense.

Just so I understand the economic theories you subscribe to, are you saying that the car companies will absorb the costs of these sorts of regulations and not the consumer? Since the companies have the money to comply, of course.

Alex

The consumer will be the one to pay the price for this but wouldn't that be fine with the consumer if down the road from now it helps the future of our children and grandchildren.

Ban cars altogether then. Mandate bicycles and mass transportation only. That should be fine with the consumer if down the road from now it helps the future of our children and grandchildren.

Alex

[Alan]

Hmmm let me think about this, car compainis have the money to comply with these things, yet me, the car enthusiast is against it :rolleyes:

That makes no sense.

Just so I understand the economic theories you subscribe to, are you saying that the car companies will absorb the costs of these sorts of regulations and not the consumer? Since the companies have the money to comply, of course.

Alex

The consumer will be the one to pay the price for this but wouldn't that be fine with the consumer if down the road from now it helps the future of our children and grandchildren.

Your not being open minded or logical at this point. Consider the fact that the technology to meet and exceed required emissions and if the cost to this is a few $$ per new car owner I think it is well worth it. Why fight cleaning things up ... just look at how much cleaner cars are since the 70's or 80's for that matter.

Ban cars altogether then. Mandate bicycles and mass transportation only. That should be fine with the consumer if down the road from now it helps the future of our children and grandchildren.

Alex

Your not being open minded or logical at this point. Consider the fact that the technology to meet and exceed required emissions and if the cost to this is a few $$ per new car owner I think it is well worth it. Why fight cleaning things up ... just look at how much cleaner cars are since the 70's or 80's for that matter.