the U.S. federal government races to combat the shadowy
and indeterminate "global warming" threat, it is
deploying stricter restrictions which may have a serious impact on
both consumers and the business sector. Unsatisfied with
consumer vehicles obey fuel efficiency standards, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has now announced a
proposal to regulate, for the first time, the greenhouse
gas and fuel efficiency of heavy vehicles.Heavy vehicles
are defined as a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight at or above
8,500 pounds. This includes some heavy-duty trucks, large vans,
commercial trucks, and tankers. The majority of consumer
vehicles -- even beefy ones like the Hummer -- are well under 8,500
pounds.The new restrictions, according to the current plan,
would be broken down into vans/trucks whose emissions and fuel
efficiency would be measured in gram per mile and gallon per
100-miles; and vocational vehicles/combination tractors (e.g.
commercial trucks, tankers, tractors) whose emissions and fuel
efficiency would be measured in gram per ton-mile and gallon per
1,000 ton-miles.Combination tractors (commercial trucks)
compared to their 2010 base emissions and fuel efficiency would be
expected to "achieve up to a 20 percent reduction in carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel consumption by 2018 model year."
Vocational vehicles (e.g. buses, small commercial trucks, etc) would
be expected to post a 10 percent emissions cut and 10 percent fuel
efficiency gain by 2018.Meanwhile, vans and heavy trucks
would be largely brought in line with the currently regulated
standards for lighter consumer vehicles, with a mandated 10 percent
GHG/fuel usage reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 percent
reduction for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent,
respectively, when accounting for air conditioning leakage).Don
Anair, a senior analyst at The Union of Concerned Scientists Clean
Vehicles Program says its about time these gas guzzlers be brought in
line. He states,
"These trucks represent only 4 percent of vehicles on the road,
but they consume 20 percent of the fuel."Some advocates
argue the new regulations aren't strict enough.However,
others point out that that there's numerous problems with this
decision to heap
more layers of regulation on the free market. One
problem is that the fines or other financial penalties needed to
enforce these regulations could hurt the commercial trucking industry
and other vital commercial vehicle contributors to the U.S economy.
Further, the new regulations fail to account for the efficiency of
combination tractors' trailer, which can have a key impact on the
truck's total fuel efficiency.EPA regulators claim that the
new standards are overall a good measure of the vehicles efficiency,
though. And they claim that by regulating the market they will
actually save truckers and other heavy vehicle users money.
According to the EPA these users and the businesses who support them
apparently by and large too incompetent to realize what's good for
them on their own, so they need the government to provide them a
quote: But by raising taxes on some goods can enforce desirable behavior, and you can lower taxes on other tings .
quote: by michael67 on October 27, 2010 at 8:43 AM But just like whit cars, you have engines that work efficient and some that really dont. In the long run forcing trucking company's to go over to efficient trucks will save money in the long run. Do I would do it by raising the fuel tax year by year, as that would just be the simplest. Worked in Europe, most people drive small cars but even the big ones are more ore less fuel efficient. And yeah i hear everyone all ready saying "yeah more taxes thats what we need" But by raising taxes on some goods can enforce desirable behavior, and you can lower taxes on other tings.
quote: Plus, money spent on social projects goes right back into the US economy
quote: Back in the old days the way defense used to work, they were building things that had spill over into the commercial economy (think kc 135 tanker and 707), this old model is not longer the case and hasnt been for certainly 30 and argueably for as long as 60 years.
quote: This principle of economics is NOT AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL. Economonists on the left, right and center agree with it. So the man is 100% correct in his assertion. You can disagree with the policy. The statement is correct.
quote: There is this thing called "the multiplier effect". When demand is low (geez, does that remind you of anything we could be experiencing now?) it pays almost 2-1 in terms of gdp growth to put money in the hands of people that would spend it. And who are the people that would spend it? Well, of course it is not people making $1M per year, they typically have what they need and will save/invest extra $. People on fixed incomes or very poor will spend what they get.
quote: Its another way to warm the economy and do social balacing.
quote: Invest in the poor people, what an absurd /irony.
quote: Social balancing? Yep you're a Socialist. Sorry to burst your bubble, socialism, communism, fascism, et al fail because they ignore human behavior and run out of other people's money.
quote: If socialism fails on its own why did we need cold war ?
quote: Give them jobs and a chance to contribute to economy.
quote: Just out of curiosity, why is it 'fair' for the wealthy to pay more in taxes?...Most of them would be happy with a flat percentage tax, which while it wouldn't be 'fair', it would beat the heck out of the current tiered system.
quote: Then again, the goverment would probably make that a money loosing proposition as well.
quote: Just out of curiosity, why is it 'fair' for the wealthy to pay more in taxes? Most of them consume less in government services. If they own more property they are already paying more.
quote: Take particular note of the only presidents post FDR to oversee increases in the Gross Debt levels of the US government: Regan
quote: GDP grows when consumers spend. As such, any government action that creates a growth in GDP over the course of its existence that offsets the total economic loss of said spending should be activly encouraged, as it shrinks the size of the Gross Debt. Of course, supply-siders so often ignore the positive side of government spending, focusing only on the dollar amount.
quote: Regan's tax reduction caused a dramatic FALL in government revenue. As the economy grew (and it grows no matter what), it came up to the levels it was before his cut in taxes.
quote: Conclusion The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago.
quote: Obviously you have never taken one single class in basic economics.
quote: Really!?Let me clue you in, the government does not "have" money to spend. To spend money, the government must first borrow it or tax it. In other words, Government spending TAKES from the economy.Is there a factory where you idiots are assembled?
quote: Shareholders pockets or CEO's outrageous wages. And stays there.
quote: Plus, money spent on social projects goes right back into the US economy, unlike most defense spending (no matter what General Dynamics would have you believe).
quote: a) to die in the terrorist attack
quote: Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
quote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
quote: A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.
quote: Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.
quote: If you want a free society you have to be willing to die in a terrorist attack and accept that they will happen if you truly value the open, free society. You can't have both.
quote: Again, you said nothing about "fighting" for freedom. You simply said, and I quote, "you have to be willing to die in a terrorist attack." That's quite a different thing than what you are saying now.This isn't the 1800's anymore, ok? Nobody in America has to "die" for their freedoms. Stop being so dramatic.
quote: Obama is spending it on fixing Bush's mistakes
quote: providing decent health care to the poor
quote: and upgrading US infrastructure.
quote: You're all fail
quote: At the end of the day, America still stands as a superpower. So, you can take the "F you all" and go have a good cry. I won't hold it against you.
quote: If the Republicans had their way, I'd be poor, hungry, and begging for food because I was not born into money.
quote: I joined the Air Guard to pay my first degree. The government financed my 2nd degree in Nursing. It is continuing to finance my medical education.
quote: they want to cut education,
quote: Republicans only care WHERE the spending goes, not that there is spending being done. The biggest balloon in government was when Bush took over. And that's a fact, and face it, they care nothing about constraining debt. Pork barreling is a Republican pastime. Watch.
quote: Yay a Blog! Proof enough for me.
quote: tell me a good reason to NOT cut education spending
quote: Some support is required but 44,000,000 on food stamps is wrong.
quote: You will either pay to encourage and educate your people, or you will pay to incarcerate them. Take your pick.
quote: The problem is that many people are fixated on how much money is being spent instead of HOW that money is being put to use.
quote: You didn't look at the link.
quote: Obviously "HOW" the money is being spent must be scrutinized since we have seen no improvement in the outcome.
quote: What you also don't take into account in your little rant is that perhaps it took DOUBLE the amount of spending simply to keep test scores from dropping.
quote: quote: What you also don't take into account in your little rant is that perhaps it took DOUBLE the amount of spending simply to keep test scores from dropping. Fixed, missing word.
quote: Your fallacious implication that we needed to double the spending just to stay on par is simply moronic at best.
quote: We need a party that can stand for something in the middle. Dems wouldn't be half as bad if they weren't infected with enviro-nazis, and Reps if they weren't infected with the Religious Right.
quote: Republicans only care WHERE the spending goes
quote: Real job and real life? This guy served in the military and is going to med school - I don't necessarily agree with his views, but you come off pretty patronizing in your post.
quote: Health care is a loser. It's not suppose to make a profit. Profit motive has done nothing but increase costs so they can get their 15-20%
quote: Actually, I am in medical school, but thanks for playing "guess their life story based on one post." I probably do better financially than you'll ever do.
quote: So... healthcare is not supposed to make a profit, but being a doctor you will automatically earn much more than the OP automatically? Seems rather contradictory.
quote: US postal service, AmTrak, Social Security, to name a few
quote: There is something called self-responsibility that I believe you and your political affiliation forgot about long ago.
quote: Health care is a loser. It's not suppose to make a profit.
quote: Furthermore, health care is a business
quote: Also, show me a country with socialized medicine where the people get anywhere near the level of treatment on demand that we get here in the US.
quote: If I lived somewhere like Canada, Britain, or most of Europe, I would be dead
quote: To let the government decide how much will be spent on care and thus, who gets care.
quote: And yes, I just got done paying for the surgery.
quote: quote: Health care is a loser. It's not suppose to make a profit. Complete and utter BS. So you'd pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor only to be told how much you can make and told what you're going to be doing?
quote: Wrong, in most countries it is a service.
quote: ^^ This is quite honestly the most ignorant and misguided post I have ever read on these forums. Obama's epic failure of a bailout bill, with spending now into the Trillions (That's a 'T' boys and girls) is far more money than the entire budget for ALL years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Defense spending is a small percentage of the overall federal budget less than 10%. Not anywhere near the "half" number that you quote. Sorry, social welfare is not an acceptable way to run a country, and you'll see this fall when the voters help turn the tide against this Obamanation.
quote: The private sector generated 67,000 new jobs in September indicating the economy is recovering at a slow pace.
quote: For September 2010, local governments cut 76,000 jobs, most of them teachers. That is the largest cut by local governments in 28 years. State governments shed 7,000 jobs.
quote: The TARP's total cost (A Bush initiative I point out) is down to $50 Billion, and dropping.
quote: Personally for every dollar we cut from "social welfare" I think should have a corresponding $1.25 on the dollar cut in defense. Why 25% more? It had a 30-40 year head start on the over spending.
quote: I love the picture of "Saint" Obama. I think he should be the patron saint of spending.
quote: mack pinnacle, mp8 engine, on average 7 mpg. after 500,000 miles with 20% cut u can save about 14000 galons x 3 USD = 42000. So?
quote: He already stated the trucking industry would LOVE to save more money in fuel costs. They have been doing this for decades. Why wouldn't they? The point is that it will cost a great deal of money to do it sooner and the trucking industry ain't doing this for free. I hear complaints about costs here all of the time and I think it's funny that the same people that complain about costs are the first one's to volunteer that costs should be raised.
quote: Money talks, remember.
quote: Most trucking companies are looking for what will make them the most money over time. If the engines exist to improve fuel economy the companies are naturally going to migrate to them as they become available. But if the government decides to force an almost immediate upgrade(over 4 years) that will end up costing everyone a lot of money
quote: Keep believing in the vote though it always changes things doesn't it?
quote: Pretty soon they are going to come into your house and tell you what your temperature can be set at either directly or indirectly, meanwhile they are jetsetting all around the world setting up deals to benefit them.
quote: Pretty soon they are going to come into your house and tell you what your temperature can be set
quote: Truckers are suffering enough already. When they're legislated out of business, you will pay dearly at the checkout line, if there are any stores left.
quote: Can you imagine the effect this might have on their budgets?
quote: These trucks represent only 4 percent of vehicles on the road, but they consume 20 percent of the fuel
quote: Here is little run down of the numbers on a presidential basis. The numbers speak for themselves.
quote: In a captalist society, manufacturers constantly try to improve their products in order to gain market share, improve profits. Any manufacturer who can produce more energy efficient long haul trucks will do very well in the competitive marketplace which is why you already see more aerodynamic trucks and improved engine efficiency