backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 259 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Oct 12 at 8:57 PM

2007 Highlander Hybrid, 2007 Camry Hybrid, 2007 Prius  (Source: Toyota)

The Tundra's sales are rising which could affect Toyota's fuel economy average  (Source: Toyota)

2008 Toyota Land Cruiser  (Source: Toyota)

2008 Lexus LX 570  (Source: Toyota)
Toyota's free ride on the Green Train may be over

Toyota has been riding high on a green cloud of eco-friendliness with the American public since 2000. It was that year that Toyota introduced the first generation Prius. The tiny Echo-based compact sedan brought gasoline-electric hybrids to the mainstream.

Over the past few years, Toyota has expanded its hybrid portfolio and has seen its "green" image explode. Following the release of the first generation Prius, Toyota introduced a larger, mid-sized Prius hatchback in late 2003. Later, Toyota released a Highlander Hybrid SUV and a Camry Hybrid.

While the Toyota brand has focused on using hybrids to improve fuel economy, the Japanese auto giant's Lexus luxury division has been using the Hybrid Synergy Drive to boost performance. Increased fuel economy is still a benefit of Lexus hybrids, but the RX 400h, GS 450h and LS 600h L market the performance aspects of the additional electric motors.

Now, however, it appears that Toyota's honeymoon with environmentalists may be coming to an end. In a move that has angered the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Toyota decided to side with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in opposing a proposed Senate bill that would require a corporate average of 35 MPG by 2020.

"Why is Toyota, a company that can make a car that gets 55 miles per gallon today, fighting a 35 mpg standard? If Toyota's "Moving Forward" motto is more than just empty words, the company must support a sensible increase in fuel economy to 35 mpg by 2020," said the NRDC in a statement on its website.

Instead, Toyota is putting its support behind a bill proposed by the House that would mandate targets of 32 MPG to 35 MPG by the year 2022.

“They have a green halo, justifiably, and yet unbeknownst to their customers they’ve joined forces with the Detroit Three to argue against greener standards,” said NRDC vehicles campaign director Deron Lovaas.

Toyota contends that the Senate bill is too harsh on auto manufacturers and will be tough to implement. “For the first time, the industry has actually come together for a fuel economy increase, and everyone is pulling together in the same direction,” said Toyota spokeswoman Martha Voss. “Toyota is working very hard behind the scenes to achieve the best standards possible, not only for the whole industry, but to meet the energy and environmental goals that we all share.”

Considering that Toyota's lineup of cars already average more than 32 MPG by federal regulations, many may wonder why Toyota would be opposed to a measly 3 MPG increase by 2020. Toyota's concern comes from the fact that the Senate bill would require a 35 MPG average from Toyota's entire vehicle lineup -- that includes gas-guzzling pickups and SUVs.

Toyota's apprehension becomes even clearer when the new Tundra full-size pickup truck comes into the picture. Toyota's Tundra has always played second fiddle to the biggest and baddest from Detroit, but Toyota's third attempt at the full-size market is starting to gain some traction.

The new Tundra packs a 381 HP V8 engine on its options sheet and records fuel economy numbers of 14 MPG/18 MPG city/highway in 4x4 guise. The problem is compounded by the fact that the previous generation moved a meager 124,508 units – Toyota is on track to break the 200,000 units sold mark for 2007 with the redesigned Tundra.

Toyota also announced cheaper trim levels for the 2008 Tundra which will further drive sales and lower the company’s fuel economy average. In addition, Toyota is looking to drive its truck sales even further with a redesigned Land Cruiser, Lexus LX 570 and Sequoia – all of which use the potent  5.7 liter V8 engine paired with a six-speed automatic transmission.

“They market every night the Prius and the Toyota Camry — we’re the green car, huh,” remarked Representative Edward Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) who also happens to own a Camry Hybrid.  “Then watch the football games, and they’re marketing the Toyota Tundra — like the biggest vehicle ever made.”

“We’re actually going to name the vehicle the Tundra, after the thing that’s being destroyed in Alaska. How ironic,” Markey continued.

There is still room for improvement on Toyota’s end, however. The company is hard at work on a diesel engine for the supersized Tundra and the company plans to implement hybrid technology into all of its vehicles by 2020.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I would love a 35MPG truck
By rdeegvainl on 10/5/2007 2:11:03 AM , Rating: 3
I think the main reason would be that then the Toyota wouldn't have as large of an advantage if everyone was required to have 35 average. Sure they SHOULD be able to keep ahead, but if it's not required, they don't have to put down the money.




RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Gul Westfale on 10/5/2007 2:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
wouldn't it be better to charge a fuel surtax to the consumer? the higher the consumptoin, the higher the extra tax.

this would lead to consumers buying more efficient vehicles, and would force manufacturers to compete with one another for the efficiency crown (and thus higher sales).

if the government simply mandates that manufacturers have to get a 35mpg average, then manufacturers will find ways to cheat and manipulate the EPA results. they will do simply what is "enough", but they won't actually get off their asses and make real improvements.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 5:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
Nice to read that there *are* people that care about efficiency.

Well, how about you increase the taxes on fuel until it reaches the price level we have in Europe? I guarantee you, you will feel different if you've just poured 150-200$ worth into the fuel tank of your car. That is helping a lot with thinking about fuel efficient cars, believe me. I don't like it really, but I have to admit it is the right thing.

Bad thing is, there is a moronic "subculture" evolving that takes pride in driving cars that are guzzling as much fuel as possible. That way they can show off how wealthy they are. They've "made it to the top". Nice.

I know a reason why in the US taxes on fuel are rather low in comparison to many other countries: fuel consumption of the US vehicles is by far the highest worldwide. In total there are more than 230 million vehicles on US roads. Fuel consumption reaches a staggering 2.000.000.000.000 (2 trillion?) liters per year. That is around half of the world's consumption. Fuel tax is less than 20 cents per liter (compared to Europe where it's above 1 dollar per liter) What I want to say is, if you raised the price of fuel to that level, it simply would not work and destroy the economy (which only works that way because of the comparatively cheap fuel) Funny thing is, economies in Europe work, too. Even with higher fuel prices. And people are forced to have a look at their energy consumption that way. This goes for electricity, gas for cooking, heating and water as well. It's simply the best reason to get people's attention...and the only thing that really works.

interesting statistical data about worldwide fuel prices and consumption:

www.international-fuel-prices.com

I still don't get it anyway: in the US there are over 90 million commercial diesel vehicles. AFAIK you have special regulations that exempt light trucks from the passenger car (safety, emission and other) requirements. Is there a real reason why diesel engines are not in wide use?


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2007 7:13:07 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The automakers are developing cars that get better gas mileage every year.


Auto industry

1987: 22.0 MPG
2007: 20.2 MPG


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2007 7:27:42 AM , Rating: 5
For every Prius and Civic Hybrid you point out, there is another Expedition XL, Hummer H2, Ram 1500, Jeep Commander and Ford F-250 there to drag the numbers down.

It's easy to pick out a few select cars to say that the fuel economy has improved, but WHAT DOES IT MATTER if improvements aren't made across the entire industry?

That's why the fuel economy numbers have stagnated. We traded sedans, wagons and minivans for pickups, SUVs and crossovers which get worse fuel economy.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 9:52:21 AM , Rating: 1
> "For every Prius and Civic Hybrid you point out, there is another Expedition XL, Hummer H2, Ram 1500, Jeep Commander and Ford F-250 there to drag the numbers down"

So why blame the automakers? Sounds like solid proof the issue is with the consumers, who refuse to buy those tiny cars, even when they're made available.

What you're seeing in fleet averages is just the reflection of a simple principle. Most people spend their entire income. If you make a more efficient auto, they'll used the money saved to:

a) buy a larger vehicle
b) drive further, burning more gas
c) buy some other goods or services, which themselves consume energy in their manufacture.

Or some combination of all three. Its extremely difficult to reduce a person's overall energy consumption without reducing their income.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By sxr7171 on 10/5/2007 10:20:47 AM , Rating: 3
No you can make gas more expensive genius.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Spuke on 10/5/2007 11:37:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No you can make gas more expensive genius.
Nope genius. Gas has been getting more expensive every year and it does NOT deter us from buying less fuel efficient cars. I know for sure that, even though my wife and I complain about gas prices, we could still afford gas at our present consumption rate even at $6 a gallon and more (gas is already $3 for regular and I pay $3.27 for high octane - sports car). And there are tons more people that could afford gas at virtually any price.

The poor and the lower middle class would hurt the most as raising gas prices affects other industries as well (anything that ships by truck like food, furniture, contact lens, etc.). And those industries WILL (they're doing it now) pass the "savings" onto the customer meaning YOU and I will pay more for goods and services.

If it gets even too high for us, we'll just park my wife's truck and get her a more fuel efficient car to commute with. Currently, gas is not nearly expensive enough to justify buying a third vehicle, new or used. BTW, we have horses and the truck is used for towing and other house projects. Otherwise, she would have a car.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By ZmaxDP on 10/5/2007 3:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, who needs a third car? You can ride your horse to work!
(Just having a little fun...)


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By dever on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 2:40:48 PM , Rating: 1
Very well stated. Reading some of these comments here makes me wonder: exactly what are they teaching in our schools these days? It sure isn't the same civics I learned in high school.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 10:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
True in principle, but according to your statement the richest countries would be the biggest energy consumers. That is generally true, but the USA stick out. While being on a similar GDP level with Switzerland for example, the average US uses roughly twice as much energy (that includes electricity and fuel). Statistically the number of cars and household appliances are similar, as is the average mileage per car.

Possible explanation attempts: Cheap energy and fuel prizes?
Insufficient awareness and willingness to save energy?
Inefficient use of energy(cars, computers, A/C, heating)?

While I don't want anybody switch off all devices and stay at home in the dark, there are many ways to use energy more efficient, especially when there are the financial resources to spend on expensive but energy-saving things. People could afford a more expensive car that gets 70 MPG. They just don't want to. Instead many go for a more powerful and bigger and awe-inspiring car. It's all a matter of priorities, responsibility and foresight.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By euclidean on 10/5/2007 11:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
The other issue that none of you people have really shown anyone here is that all these statistics are for the USA...the whole thing. What's interesting is that a lot of our states here are as large or bigger than most all of the countries in Europe...

Just wanted to point that out to everyone comparing us here in the USA to all these other countries.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 12:38:57 PM , Rating: 1
Per capita use is higher in Canada than the US but if you remove heating and AC costs (to control for climate) than US is higher than most industrialized countries. Much of this is attributable to relatively new and low density living communities that require long commutes and larger houses. It seems that increased efficiency in the US (in glass, engine efficiency) is generally being offset by increased use (large windows, larger displacement engines).

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 12:54:00 PM , Rating: 1
> "Per capita use is higher in Canada than the US but if you remove heating and AC costs (to control for climate) ..."

I'm betting your average resident of Tampa has a higher A/C bill than someone in Toronto.

The heating bills are likely considerably lower..but "adjusting for climate" is not nearly as simple as you make it out.

Canada's carbon emissions are also increasing much faster than the US, despite its decision to sign Kyoto, as is true for several other nations which chose to sign. Those who wish to label the US the "Great Satan" here should consider that.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 1:05:02 PM , Rating: 4
I never said it was easy to adjust for climate and I stated up front that air conditioning costs are often included in these corrections. If you'd like to get in a discussion about energy usage modeling, that's fine. I was trying to stay within the scope of the discussion.

Greenhouse emissions in Canada are indeed increasing dramatically. Almost all of this increase is the result of development related to the oil sands in Alberta.

I know I certainly do not think of the US as the Great Satan. These issues are very complicated and I learn a great deal from the discussions here.

I wish, however, there was a little more communication on this forum rather than the political polarization that seems to happen. I'm sure you feel the same way. I have a lot to learn from those who disagree with me but it would be easier to listen if people didn't repeatedly evoke universal principles and common sense as if anyone who disagrees must be foolish.

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 1:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
Good explanation.

On the other hand it does not negate the fact that Americans and Canadians have the highest per capita use, and that the western world lifestyle in general means increasing energy use. There is no industrialized country that decreased its energy consumption, or is there? I only know that Germany hasn't, and during the last 10 years we were further away from fulfilling Kyoto protocol than ever. Even with thousands of windmills popping up all over the place. Bummer.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 1:29:46 PM , Rating: 4
According to the PEMBINA Institute and WWF, Ontario (if you don't know, a province in Canada) has reduced per capita energy use over the last few years, albeit minimally.

I think these gains are the result of more stringent efficiency requirements in building codes and industrial use.

An architect who spoke at a recent energy conference I attended said something kinda disappointing. He said that the cost to build a new home meeting a very high standard of conservation (R2000) would cost no more than $8000 over a regular house and recoup this cost in energy savings over 8-10 years. He said that very few people chose this option because people are only concerned with purchase price, not longterm costs. He also added that the average structure is in use for 100-years, pointed to vast swaths of poor efficiency homes built before we knew any better, and wondered how long the homes we're building now will be around.

Sigh. I certainly don't think that government should legislate all aspects of our lives but as life is often too busy and complicated to make rational good decisions. I don't forfeit that to government to do for me but I wonder if there are ways to be thoughtful, get a consensus, and apply rules so that it's easier for people to better good choices. I wonder if someday we'll agree that reducing pollution is as reasonable an aim as having a police force or public libraries.

Mike

Just to head off any debate - I don't think government should legislate our lives but if we as citizens agree that it's important to do so


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Oregonian2 on 10/8/2007 2:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An architect who spoke at a recent energy conference I attended said something kinda disappointing. He said that the cost to build a new home meeting a very high standard of conservation (R2000) would cost no more than $8000 over a regular house and recoup this cost in energy savings over 8-10 years.


But note that the vast majority of houses are not brand new and that even if 100% of new houses were R2000 that it would take a good bit of time until it would make significant difference in national stats.

Not saying it's not a good thing, just that it's not like we've a cure and just not using it just because it costs money (bigger problem is that the payback break-even period is probably longer than the average amount of time the new owner would stay in the house).


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 1:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
According to the PEMBINA Institute and WWF, Ontario (if you don't know, a province in Canada) has reduced per capita energy use over the last few years, albeit minimally.

I think these gains are the result of more stringent efficiency requirements in building codes and industrial use.

An architect who spoke at a recent energy conference I attended said something kinda disappointing. He said that the cost to build a new home meeting a very high standard of conservation (R2000) would cost no more than $8000 over a regular house and recoup this cost in energy savings over 8-10 years. He said that very few people chose this option because people are only concerned with purchase price, not longterm costs. He also added that the average structure is in use for 100-years, pointed to vast swaths of poor efficiency homes built before we knew any better, and wondered how long the homes we're building now will be around.

Sigh. I certainly don't think that government should legislate all aspects of our lives but as life is often too busy and complicated to make rational good decisions. I don't forfeit that to government to do for me but I wonder if there are ways to be thoughtful, get a consensus, and apply rules so that it's easier for people to better good choices. I wonder if someday we'll agree that reducing pollution is as reasonable an aim as having a police force or public libraries.

Mike

Just to head off any debate - I don't think government should legislate our lives but if we as citizens agree that it's important to do so


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 1:52:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He said that the cost to build a new home meeting a very high standard of conservation (R2000) would cost no more than $8000 over a regular house and recoup this cost in energy savings over 8-10 years. He said that very few people chose this option because people are only concerned with purchase price, not longterm costs.


Perhaps new home construction in new developments in Canada isn't quite as... fascist in nature as it is here, but in many new cookie-cutter communities in America the developer gives you a list of available lots and a very strict, short list of options of what to build on it. Everything is pre-designed and the last time my parents at least had a home made they had to fight to even get the light switches moved. Completely revised designs in the interest of energy efficiency would almost certainly be out of the question.

Of course a whole different situation if you're building on a lot you own with no deed restrictions or the like, but that's not often in the cards for the upper-middle class most likely to shell out $8k for efficiency in a long term investment.

I for one plan to remodel a current second home in Indiana when I move there full time next year to the high standards you cite, it's a great investment since the home needs it anyway. Maybe I'm actually in the minority in being willing to add 3% to the cost of a home for a lifetime of efficiency gains, but I wish the system would open up a bit.

Perhaps faced with devastation this year they'll reform themselves as the rigidity towards the buyer shelling out hundreds of thousands seemed like hubris to me.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 2:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it was just the one builder that tried to do something different but by and large our cookie cutter developments seem the same as yours. The housing boom is still going on here so they don't have much incentive to be responsive to their non-wealthy customers.

Best of luck on your planned home renovations! I hope Indiana offers rebates for your investment.

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 2:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The housing boom is still going on here


May it continue, then. Some things boggle my mind. When it was so cheap to get in a mortgage that most land lords I know were finding it almost impossible to keep tenets years ago it was clear as day that it was building a bubble. Yet we drove on despite knowing it; now nobody is really surprised. We reap what we sow, I suppose. My understanding is that Canada managed to avoid the sub-prime frenzy so perhaps ya'll are on safer ground.

quote:
Best of luck on your planned home renovations! I hope Indiana offers rebates for your investment.


I wish they did! :P

It's a good investment either way, especially if one buys in to the theory of a long period of rising energy costs in the future. Oil will get back to $35 a barrel ultimately, but I'll have lost the rest of my hair by then probably.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 3:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't think we had the same real estate frenzy here but our economy is so tied to yours that it's hard to imagine how the downturn that's happening in the US won't hit Canada. We've already lost a lot of jobs in auto manufacturing and there's a lot of fear that the hemorrhaging hasn't stopped.

I'm afraid things will get worse. Many large US companies promised pension and healthcare benefits but haven't adequately saved for them and lots of the boomers will be retiring soon. It seems the companies had unrealistic expectations re how well their shares would do. Now it's a tight downward spiral with labour problems hurting share prices and poorer performing share prices hurting the companies ability to fulfill its promises to labour. I believe the short UAW/GM strike was over this issue - the union decided it'd rather take a smaller amount of money now and handle its own health costs. I really hope things work out for everyone. I'd hate to depend on a pension or health benefits that didn't materialize.

If you pass on your house to your kids, I'm sure they'll appreciate the investment you make in it. I'm not sure oil will ever be that cheap again but perhaps there will be adequate substitutes. It seems like a close race between disaster and innovation!

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 1
Excellent point. And America gets bashed for not signing on to that anti-capitalist, economy-destroying bugaboo known as Kyoto. Make China and India sign first - they are decades behind the West in environmental engineering of all factions.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 1:57:10 PM , Rating: 1
> "it does not negate the fact that Americans and Canadians have the highest per capita use"

Untrue. Check the list posted elsewhere in this thread.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 2:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "it does not negate the fact that Americans and Canadians have the highest per capita use"

Untrue. Check the list posted elsewhere in this thread.


I am not yielding. Canada and the USA have the highest per capita energy use. I absolutely do not know what you are referring to.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 3:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2 put the list in a response to another post, far far down now.

Logically though, the countries with the highest energy costs/usage per capita are going to be small industriallized nations.

US/Canadians probably DO use a significantly greater amount of energy if we draw a box around a specific person and see what that specific person uses directly. However, there are singificant energy costs that are not purchased directly such as energy cost to deliver goods to stores, national defense energy costs, costs to fly around politicians, costs reprint manuals in several languages, costs to maintain airports, ports, etc. As a nation, the sheer size of the US and Canada allow them to use less energy as a nation/population that say... Luxemberg.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 11:59:05 AM , Rating: 3
> "according to your statement the richest countries would be the biggest energy consumers. That is generally true"

You're right. That makes it a good general principle.

> " While being on a similar GDP level with Switzerland for example, the average US uses roughly twice as much energ"

The US per capita GDP is $41K (2004 data), whereas Switzerland's is $32K -- roughly 25% lower.

Also, when you scale the *costs* of energy in each nation (Swiss prices per kgoe are roughly 40% higher), you see that, per capita, your average Swiss spends about the same percentage of total income on energy as does your average US citizen.

Q.E.D.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nice retort, masher. I am not proficient enough to attack it in a scientific manner....yet.

So for now let's take it as given fact that Europeans and Americans spend the same percentage of their income on energy. (Which is, by the way, somewhat different to what you said in your first comment. So what you QED'ed was something new. I was not writing about the cost but the total amount of energy in comparison between 2 roughly comparable countries.)
If so, then all you have to do is raise the price for energy to a level similar to Europe. Or even higher? If your theory is valid, usage should immediately go down significantly and the ratio would be equivalent to that of other states in the world.

Which is exactly what I am suggesting. The only thing to make people be more aware of their energy usage is to increase the cost. Only what is expensive has value, and only then will there be a motivation to change something.
Since nobody likes sitting in the dark or staying at home, (and according to your theory they would not want to spend more money on energy) the only other alternative would be the mass production of more efficient devices and cars. This way nobody would have to miss out on something except giant cars and inefficient household appliances, central heatings or A/Cs. Nice. Mission accomplished.

I'd like to add that this ratio between income and the money spent on energy/fuel is not a constant. I am sure there are variations among "rich" countries, and even more so between rich and poor countries. In third world countries people spend a huge part of their income on energy, just to cook meal. For us, it is a convenience article that is not highly regarded or precious in any way. That has to change, because we industrialized countries use almost all the energy and create the lion's share of pollution.

BTW, do you think your theory holds tight for the past as well? That would really be an interesting thing to compare.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 1:14:30 PM , Rating: 1
I'll let masher respond to the questions you raise specifically, if he desires to, but I'll respond with an observation and a question.

Increasing energy costs arbitrarily will probably squeeze demand.. or more accurately, lower the quantity supplied. However, it wouln't be a linear relationship, and for any decrease of any significance to the environmentalist crowd would require substantial increases in costs due to the inelastic nature of energy demand. Therefore, consumption would continue just as it has with doubling and tripling of gasoline prices. The rest of the economy would absorb almost the entire brunt of the damage and while people of all socioeconomic backgrounds could find themselves on shaky employment grounds I'll point out that the job loss burden will fall disproprtionately on the least productive -- the poor.

And hence my question. Are environmentalists really so arrogant or concerned about their own agendas that they're willing to play economic Russian Roulette with the global macroeconomy, something they really don't even understand (how many went to business school?), even if it means human suffering?

Typically economists consider it immoral to even consider random economic experiments just for the bloody hell of running them and limit themselves to studying the impact of similar policies implemented on their own accord around the world. For example, we don't have to or want to implement a flat tax or FairTax in America just for experimental purposes; we can see in places like Estonia that it works. Likewise, we know energy costs rising will crimp the economy. Hence the other part of the moral qualm; experimenting on the basis of a vague environmental agenda with policies known to hurt the economy.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 4:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well I am neither an environmentalist nor an economist, so I find it hard to decode your question. I am not a native speaker, and it's late (local time 11PM)

In fact, I cannot answer your question.

All I know is that I surely can write my opinion here as well as other people. I am aware that I will not change anything. I felt I had to try nonetheless...

My propositions are not too different from what you already have in the USA and what many other countries have. A fuel tax. My idea is that if the fuel price goes up that might (finally) raise awareness and some thoughts about energy consumption. I think this is one of the most urgent tasks humanity has to tackle and to solve. It is killing me that there are so many people out there that plainly deny the need to even waste a thought about that.

What else is irking me is the mix up of arguments and personal preferences. My favorite example: fuel efficiency. It is measured in MPG. If it is higher, the car is more fuel efficient. And that was that. All those factors like HP or weight, or towing capability, top speed, looks, convenience, safety, cleanliness, maintenance etc. do not belong here.

quote from wikipedia:

"In the context of transportation, "fuel efficiency" more commonly refers to the energy efficiency of a particular vehicle model, where its total output (range, or "mileage" [U.S.]) is given as a ratio of range units per a unit amount of input fuel (gasoline, diesel, etc.). This ratio is given in common measures such as "litres per 100 kilometre" (L/100 km) or "miles per gallon" (mpg)."

As for meddling with the economy...I think there are so many factors involved, and many of them are not beneficial for the normal customer. Economy is about making money, creating and fulfilling a demand with as high a profit as possible. It's not about people. Governmental intervention is happening all the time whether we notice it or not. Companies and banks flex their muscles constantly to effect everything that is going on, so nothing I am suggesting here is out of the ordinary or a threat to freedom, democracy or various ways of life. I think our lives are controlled by so many different forces, it can only be a good thing if we take control over the circumstances and say load and clear what we want and what not. There. Not an answer to your question, but maybe I could help you interpret my postings.
Cheers.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 5:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What else is irking me is the mix up of arguments and personal preferences. My favorite example: fuel efficiency. It is measured in MPG. If it is higher, the car is more fuel efficient. And that was that. All those factors like HP or weight, or towing capability, top speed, looks, convenience, safety, cleanliness, maintenance etc. do not belong here.


Great.

Efficieny does not take place in a vacuum. Efficieny is related to the car as a whole. Cars have been steady required to be safer, less-polluting, larger, and more capable by government standards and consumer demands. You want pure efficieny, lets talk Engine Efficieny is terms of Work Out/Energy In. All this nonsense about miles driven has no place in an efficieny discussion.

quote:
Economy is about making money, creating and fulfilling a demand with as high a profit as possible. It's not about people. Governmental intervention is happening all the time whether we notice it or not.


The economy is all about people. Its about people being as happy as possible with the least amount of work. Governmental intervention does happen all the time. Successful governmental intervention (defined as allowing more people to be happier with less work than before the intervention) not so much so.

quote:
It is killing me that there are so many people out there that plainly deny the need to even waste a thought about that.


I think you will find there are a significant number of people who think about it, everyone. Every single person would like to spend less and get the same. However, not so many are willing to make significant cuts into thier happiness for a few dollars (going from 20 MPG to 30 MPG entails a savings offer a saving in one year of 170 gallons*Price of Gasoline) or spend significantly more (using flex-car programs/mass transit/second cars) to save relatively little energy (again only around 170 gallons a year). I know I chose a car with lower MPG (28 as opposed to 32) because the 4 times (1 time to help a stranded friend) I needed to drive through a snow storm last year were worth 135 dollars to me (would have been worth significantly more).


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 8:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not about people.


Ah, but it is. Economic agents are people, people drive the economy and people feel the effects of all taxes, whether levied on the firm or on the individual directly. That's essentially what economics exists to serve; it could be described as the study of applying scarce resources efficiently in the service of maximizing the utility of society and serving societies agreed upon goals.

Therefore I just raised the moral question of it is morally justified to pressure the economy, whose ill effects will disproportionately fall upon the poor and middle class, just in service of conserving fuel? Is fuel conservation worth the cost to people?

It wasn't part of the discussion, but it becomes a much more massive issue when carbon taxes get involved; such a thing is a sure-fire way to slow the global economy, and that means keeping the billion or so severely impoverished people in the world in their present state by delaying the developed worlds firms ability to expand production there.

While I support energy independence as a general goal for nationalist reasons, and therefore have a certain sympathy for such efforts, I just hope people are fully aware that raising taxes on a component of the economy that underpins virtually all economic activity will certainly have a societal cost. It's impossible to unravel the world of finance from the world where we live.

If I knew you weren't a native speaker I wouldn't have beat around the bush so much, my apologies on that.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 1
> "So for now let's take it as given fact that Europeans and Americans spend the same percentage of their income on energy."

Very roughly, but yes.

> "Which is, by the way, somewhat different to what you said in your first comment"

My end point is the same, however. If you make more efficient cars, you don't cut energy usage. You simple give people more money to spend in driving further, driving larger vehicles, or in using energy in some other manner.

> "then all you have to do is raise the price for energy...If your theory is valid, usage should immediately go down significantly ..."

Not immediately; there's a certain degree of latency. But yes, energy usage would go down significantly.

But you have to consider the flip side of that coin. The cost of energy is the single most important factor towards determining economic growth and standard of living. Lack of access to cheap energy is why Africans are dying in droves.

Our goal should be to lower the cost of energy, not raise it. Change the energy mix all you want if you want to reduce fossil fuel usage...but reducing overall energy usage is a very, very poor goal.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2007 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why are we comparing energy usage in Switzerland to the US. The population is no where near that of the US.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By ZmaxDP on 10/5/2007 3:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Per Capita man, Per Capita! (per person)


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2007 5:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know what per capita means, I just missed it up there. I was skimming through the posts because their are so many.

At any rate, these are two different countries. We have a TON of large trucks (18 wheelers), construction, the country is much more spread out. We should be expected to have a higher per capita energy usage.

What do you think yes or no?


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By euclidean on 10/5/2007 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
I wish they'd just create/implement cold fusion already....who cares if a handful of bazillionaires loose their job....that's less than .0001% of of our population right? eh.

Of course i'm joking, but seriously. We have the technology, we have the brain power, and we have the resources. But it seems that all the things that would help us the most are either patented and thrown in a lock box or owned by our Gov'ts military and not released to the public. The only reason we are being held back from "Cleaner" energy or more efficient devices is Greed. It is the number 1 cause for the raise in energy costs.

My opinion is this, until we get our younger generations in to positions of power, and the older more conservative(sp? I suck at spelling :\)(and religious extremists) powers are gone, we won't see much change except for higher prices.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only reason we are being held back from "Cleaner" energy or more efficient devices is Greed. It is the number 1 cause for the raise in energy costs.


Ummm... a factor, but not the only reason.

Cars exist on the US market that are stylish, safe, fuel-efficient, spacious, and cheap. People don't buy them enough... is that because of greed? Does the greed of the CEO make someone buy a 25,000 dollar SUV to do 5% more than a 15,000 dollar sedan?

Point me to a "cleaner" energy choice that has costs below 10 cents a Kilowatt hour that is not current expanding as much as possible. Point me to a supply of gasoline that sits on the market unused or US refineries that don't completely sell thier product.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 2:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, since the overwhelming majority of energy is created by burning fossil fuel now and probably for the next decades as well, and we don't have alternatives ready to step in, I'd say there is a good point in saving energy. And since cheap energy leads to more use, this can't be the way to go until we have other clean and pollution-free methods of generating infinite amounts of energy. Even if the most advanced countries have such an energy source some day, it is doubtful that poor countries can afford or maintain it by then. In the end, they might have to pay the price for our ignorance, because they are still depending on fossil fuel.

So now we're back at the start: why invest in better cars if they are not the clean solution but only a step into the right direction? Even if we had it ready to go, nobody would even want it, because it's probably cheesy looking, or it does not have a V8, or no exhaust sound or towing capabilities.

If you think like that, nothing will change. No clean car, no clean energy. There has to be a public demand AND a powerful law to get that. People need to realize something has to change, that's were it all starts.

What good is a flourishing economy and high living standard if it is maintained at all costs no matter what, even if the world goes to hell in the meantime? Do you really think constant growth will go on eternally? How will that be in 100 years? 60 ft long cars, weighing 30k lbs, 3000 HP? Houses that are 4 times as big as they are now? Everybody having a 100 ft yacht? Oh, and not only in the rich countries but worldwide? I don't think so.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 2:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. As I stated earlier, they hide their true intentions under the guise of doing "good for the whole" knowing full well what they want to accomplish. That dude didn't rant for an entire paragraph over yachts and homes and horsepower for nothing.

I know the type well: sink people's boats to the same water level where others are floating in their dingies. That way, everyone will be eye to eye "equal," nobody will be offended, nobody's feelings will get hurt, and most importantly, nobody's self esteem will be harmed. Bah. Sorry, not on my nautical watch, jack!


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 2:56:31 PM , Rating: 3
Oh yeah, speaking of large homes, someone needs to ask John Edwards to lead the left by example and live a modest lifestyle like the "working class" he pretends to care about. Oh yeah, like that will happen. Nothing like Learjet libs telling everyone else how they should live. It's almost comical. Almost.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 3:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
The left week political group is a prime example of "do as i say, not as i do"


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By ZmaxDP on 10/5/2007 3:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
Just to play the Devil's advocate, the right wing politicians aren't any different, nor are the centrists, nor are the independents. There are very very few "average joes" in political circles. Point being, if you want to be taken seriously and not as some biased hack, pass the blame around evenly, not just one one side's plate...


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2007 3:36:35 PM , Rating: 1
As far as im concerned, i'm a centered moderate - everyone else is crazy.

haha - as least we can joke around.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 4:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just to play the Devil's advocate, the right wing politicians aren't any different, nor are the centrists, nor are the independents.


Well, if you are talking about all the hysteria over the fallacy of man-made global warming and that we need to all ditch our SUVs and recreational vehicles to save the planet, it's not the right wing, centrists, or independents that are driving around in SUV caravans, flying around the globe in private jets burning Jet-A, and living in 10,000sf mansions telling the rest of us to stick a windmill in our back yard, live in a 900sf show box, and drive a Prius.

No, but seriously, for the most part this has been a good thread where most everyone could debate one another without resorting to childish name calling! Except the redneck commenter of course. Oh well, there's always a party pooper at every party.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 6:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
well, "they" just told me I should tell you that "they" are tired of your comments. "They" also told me I need to switch off my computer now and go to bed.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 4:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you think like that, nothing will change. No clean car, no clean energy. There has to be a public demand AND a powerful law to get that.


Thats where I think most people here in the United States (which is where the Law of the article is being debated) would disagree. If the public truely demanded higher effiency cars, they would be produced and supplied. No law would be needed.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Ringold on 10/5/2007 6:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think constant growth will go on eternally?


Actually, unless in a huge shocker Mathlus ends up correct, there's no reason except for war and self-imposed limitations that the expansion of man-kind and prosperity shouldn't run on for all of eternity.

The ultimate end-game, of course, is some funky world where everything is done for us, life is sustained indefinitely and reality becomes blurred -- or perhaps, if such wild technology is rejected on moral grounds (a self limitation), then perhaps a steady accumulation of wealth at a lifestyle similar to that seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation, where peoples every need and most every want is fulfilled through automatic means and nobody seems to work out of need but only out of want.

Many respected economists have growth forecasts showing global GDP at fantastic numbers clear out to 2200. Sorry if I trust the whole weight of economic theory over the doomsday BS of environmentalist propaganda.

Of course, if you want to try to use economic arguments for a reason why technological and economic advances must stop (keeping in mind the rapidly decreasing cost of space travel), instead of left-wing generalizations about scarcity of resources, Marxist ideas or how the world will implode if penguins go extinct, then you're welcome to try..

Last minute addendum: I do suppose that when dark energy causes even atoms and quarks to fly apart, economic prosperity may enter a slight depression...


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Lord 666 on 10/6/2007 7:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
The worst thing for the US economy would be for consumers to rapidly increase their saving's accounts.

That being said, if the automobile manufacturers release vehicles that consume less fuel (but at the same MSRP as now), there would be more spendable income to strengthen the economy on other goods and services... regardless of fuel prices.

Fuel efficient cars do not have to be tiny; the MB E320 Bluetec is far from small. Even the Jetta TDI or Prius are not small cars. When the Accord diesel comes out, it will average around 52mpg and be far from small.

My personal definition of "small car" is a Chevy Aveo.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 9:15:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
1987: 22.0 MPG, 2007: 20.2


Are you factoring in the fact that in 2006 over half of all vehicles sold in the US were trucks and SUVs compared to only about 30% in 1987?

Instead of raw averages, which, as everyone knows, can be manipulated into anything without factoring in variables, let's look at just three comparable car mpg ratings from 1987 to 2007 (city, hwy) with Chevrolet as an example:

1987 Corvette: 15, 23 (auto)
2007 Corvette: 18, 28 (manual)

1987 Chevrolet Impala: 17, 23 (6 cyl)
2007 Chevrolet Impala: 21, 31 (6 cyl)

1987 Chevrolet Suburban: 11, 16 (5.7 liter)
2007 Chevrolet Suburban: 15, 21 (5.3 liter)

And no, these are not the new "adjusted" EPA numbers for 2007. IMO that's a load of crap, factoring in things like using the a/c, traffic, and temperature variations, as if those problems were non-existent 20 years ago. My dad still gets 28 mpg on the highway on road trips in his 2006 Corvette, and my sister still gets 21mpg on the highway in her 2005 Tahoe (both were downgraded to 24 mpg, and 17 mpg respectively with the new 2007 EPA calculation).

Let's also not forget that 20 years later, the engines are more powerful per cubic inch, produce fewer emissions, last longer, and have lower maintenance requirements.

But back to the topic. Not everyone wants to drive a sardine can. Some people have large families that just all won't fit into a cute little Prius. Other people rely on trucks and SUVs for the very food on their table and roof over their head: plumbers, electricians, and other general contractors.

I applaud Toyota, America's #1 selling car now, BTW, for making strides in the green, but I also applaud them for not caving in to the enviro-nazis who are hell bent determined to leave Americans, the single nation with the most road miles in the world, with no choice but to make a cross country road trip in a shoe box.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By rogard on 10/5/2007 9:44:01 AM , Rating: 3
While your facts may be correct, all that matters is that the average car in the US is consuming more fuel than it did 20 years ago. Mainly because 50% are trucks/SUVs. That's what I am complaining about. And even if you take the latter out of the equation, the improvement in fuel efficiency is meagre, isn't it? Again, it doesn't matter that a car is stronger, heavier, faster, more comfortable etc etc than 20 years ago. It still does not consume significantly less and often more than before.

To make things worse, people drive more miles in their cars (I think) than 20 years ago. And there are much more cars on the road now. So all you really need to look at is the total fuel consumption now and 20 years ago. The results are devastating.

(sorry, I am too impatient to look for that link with the graph...)

In short, it's pointless to have a few really efficient cars on the market if the majority is driving inefficient cars.

Still, I applaud every car that is more efficient than it's predecessor. I would be stunned if it were lighter, less powerful and even more efficient.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Nfarce on 10/5/2007 10:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And even if you take the latter out of the equation, the improvement in fuel efficiency is meagre, isn't it?


Looking at the Impala, for example, I don't think a 34% increase in fuel economy over 20 years is hardly something to sneeze at.

quote:
To make things worse, people drive more miles in their cars (I think) than 20 years ago.


Oh absolutely. That's why America has suburbs. You also have to figure that Americans own more cars per household today than they did 20 years ago.

quote:
In short, it's pointless to have a few really efficient cars on the market if the majority is driving inefficient cars.


Again, and I understand where you are coming from, Americans love their SUVs and trucks. Further, as I stated, a lot of those pickups you see on the roads are work-related vehicles, not recreational boat towers or soccer mom grocery getters. Finally, as I stated, not all families in America can load up in a four door sedan that seats five and expect to take a trip to Disney World with luggage for a week.

Yes, there are more vehicles on the road than 20 years ago, and yes, there is a net increase in fuel usage, but that fuel burning is cleaner than 20 years ago thanks to fuel additive technologies and engine technologies. However, considering the amount of growth this nation has seen over the past 20 years, the net effect is not as damning as you would lead us all to believe.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 12:02:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Again, it doesn't matter that a car is stronger, heavier, faster, more comfortable etc etc than 20 years ago"

Only if you're totally divorced from reality. People *like cars that are stronger (i.e. safer), more confortable, and faster.

In fact, a lot of the extra weight on vehicles comes from government mandated safety and emissions reduction requirements. The car of today is not only much safer than one from 1970, but it also emits about 1/1000 the toxic pollutants it once did.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
To help you out

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAN...

Deaths and Injuries per population, miles traveled and even absolutely are all falling.

The area of biggest improvement is ordinary passenger cars. In fact, according to the study there is almost no safety difference between driving in a passenger car and driving in a "light truck" on American Highways which is a remarkable acchievement given the physics involved. Of course "Large truck" are significantly safer.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 12:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "Deaths and Injuries per population, miles traveled and even absolutely are all falling."

Right. And the price of those fewer deaths is extra vehicle weight for safety equipment, which translates into a little less MPG. I call that a pretty good tradeoff.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 12:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
In accidents specifically involving small cars and SUVs, however, the number of serious head injury cases is increasing. Who should pay the cost of implementing new safety features on passenger cars (pillar support, side curtain airbags)? The purchaser of the passenger car? How is it fair to economically punish someone for another's actions? Should we all drive around in increasingly large tanks?

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 1:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
While this is troubling, Side Curtain Airbags and Pillar Support would help in numerous condition.

For Passenger Cars only,
18.5% of fatalities collusions (with cars) are on the Side, and 20.4% of injury collusions (with cars). Overall, about 30% of fatalities and injuries are caused by Side Impacts with other cars.

In contrast, a large number of fatalities occur with collusions with fixed objects, non-collusions and collusions with non-fixed objects. My favorite part of side-curtain airbags... if you side into a telephone pole, you don't bash your brains out. Increased pillar support helps in roll-over crashes.

Oh, since your Canadian, the number of fatalities and crashes in Canada is almost identical to the US per miles traveled (US is 1.45 per 100 Million Miles and Canada is roughly 1.5)


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Who should pay the cost of implementing new safety features on passenger cars (pillar support, side curtain airbags)? "

The purchaser of the vehicle obviously, for safety features The person who causes the accident, for those related to injuries.

A person who buys an SUV specifically to "feel safe" typically has small children. Given the majority of accidents are caused by younger drivers in small coupes, I really don't have a problem with them also suffering the majority of the serious injuries. In fact, to me it sounds like...karma.

You're trying to make it sound like large SUVs are making the roads unsafe. In truth, commercial trucks both outnumber and vastly outweight SUVs. Do you suggest we ban those as well?

The real source of the problem is bad drivers. And by and large, those drivers tend to choose small coupes.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
It is a fact that driving an SUV is safer for the occupant but more harmful for the other driver in an accident or pedestrians. It is a fact that SUVs get in a larger number of serious accidents controlling for driver experience due to reduced ability to engage in avoidance maneuvers. I suppose if someone can't pay for a safer sedan they should just accept that the roads have gotten more dangerous because of the increasing mass of other vehicles. Your assertion that most people who buy SUVs have small children does not change the fact that they purchase that safety at the expense of others.

Your comparison with commercial trucks is a specious one because any critique of behaviour involves choice and clearly there are no viable alternative to commercial truck traffic whereas there are safe alternatives to SUVs.

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 4:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "It is a fact that SUVs get in a larger number of serious accidents controlling for driver experience due to reduced ability to engage in avoidance maneuvers."

This is along the lines of "wishful thinking", not fact.

> "they should just accept that the roads have gotten more dangerous... "

But the roads *haven't* gotten more dangerous. They've gotten much safer. As another poster pointed out, total fatalities, accidents/mile driven, etc...all have declined considerably.


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the roads *haven't* gotten more dangerous. They've gotten much safer. As another poster pointed out, total fatalities, accidents/mile driven, etc...all have declined considerably.


Links (since this is getting to be a huge page)

United States
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAN...

Canada (remember Canada has more people, cars, and miles driven every year as well)
http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2005/page...


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By psychmike on 10/5/2007 2:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
It is a fact that driving an SUV is safer for the occupant but more harmful for the other driver in an accident or pedestrians. It is a fact that SUVs get in a larger number of serious accidents controlling for driver experience due to reduced ability to engage in avoidance maneuvers. I suppose if someone can't pay for a safer sedan they should just accept that the roads have gotten more dangerous because of the increasing mass of other vehicles. Your assertion that most people who buy SUVs have small children does not change the fact that they purchase that safety at the expense of others.

Your comparison with commercial trucks is a specious one because any critique of behaviour involves choice and clearly there are no viable alternative to commercial truck traffic whereas there are safe alternatives to SUVs.

Mike


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By Keeir on 10/5/2007 2:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a fact that driving an SUV is safer for the occupant but more harmful for the other driver in an accident or pedestrians.


Mike, #1, all the double posting... painful

Safety and engery efficieny suffer from similar problems. We could all be more safe and use alot less energy if paid attention, drove when appropriate, lived closer to work/planned trips better, drove the speed limit, used cruise control, drove in a relaxed manner, took proper care of cars, invested in better road systems (for less congenstion), created more parking spaces...

These problems add up and are many times as unwarranted as use of SUVs etc. At least sometimes the SUV/Large Auto IS needed (rather than not maintaining your car or racing to a stop sign/red light) than many other factors which are currently a larger influence on safey and energy usage than automobile choice.

quote:
I suppose if someone can't pay for a safer sedan they should just accept that the roads have gotten more dangerous because of the increasing mass of other vehicles.


This is unfortunely a fallacy. The average car has at once become cheaper in relation to income AND safer even with increased mass cars on the road. The entire roads system has become dramatically safer. I suppose maybe you would feel better than if a crazy driver rams you from the side you barely die (when they are using a fast car) as opposed to really die (when they are using a SUV).


RE: I would love a 35MPG truck
By RedAlice on 10/5/2007 4:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should we all drive around in increasingly large tanks?

Bumper Cars. That's the solution!