backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by lawrance.. on Jul 1 at 2:12 PM

Court rules Obama administration can limit greenhouse gas emissions and set fuel efficiency standards

Automakers are torn when it comes to supporting new fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions rules proposed by the Obama administration and the EPA. Several states and industries sued to stop the new standards from going into effect. The legal challenges were brought against the proposed standards by the state of Texas and major industries including those in the chemical, energy, utility, agriculture, and mining realms. The National Association of Manufacturers was also involved in opposing EPA proposed standards.
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals has now dismissed the suit brought against the EPA marking a significant win for the Obama administration. The Obama administration intends to finalize fuel efficiency standards for 2017 through 2025 along with greenhouse gas limits by this August. These new CAFE standards would require automakers to have fleet wide fuel economy average of 54.5 mpg by 2025.
 
Many automakers and industry associations oppose the standards because of claims of cost associated with the technology. The National Automobile Dealers Association maintains that the 54.5 mpg proposed fuel standards would add another $5,000 to the sticker price of a new 2025 model vehicle. The proposed standards for 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles were released late last year and were in line with what some major automakers in Washington had already agreed to.

The Chevrolet Volt has no trouble meeting the new fuel economy standards proposed by the Obama Administration. [Source: TECHVEHI]
 
The reason industrial associations are tying up with automakers in battling the EPA's proposal is that industry leaders are concerned the EPA might further limit carbon emissions without Congressional action. The fear is that the EPA could eventually place greenhouse gas limitations on 6 million stationary sources including 200,000 manufacturing facilities and 37,000 farms along with millions of other sources such as universities, schools, and hospitals.
 
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- a trade group that represents the big three in Detroit along with Toyota, Volkswagen, and several older automakers -- supported the EPA and the Obama Administration’s fuel economy proposal. Alliance spokeswoman Gloria Berquest said, "We supported upholding 2012-16, since we are already building more fuel-efficient autos to meet these standards."
 
Industrial associations weren't alone in opposing the proposed EPA standards. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee opposed the ruling stating, "[The ruling] delivers a devastating blow to the U.S. economy and American consumers. After enduring 40 consecutive months of higher than 8 percent unemployment, we cannot afford the EPA's continued expansion of red tape that is slowing economic growth and threatening to entangle millions of small businesses. EPA's rules will impose billions of dollars in compliance and delay costs and represent an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority."

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How?
By Shadowself on 6/27/2012 10:39:28 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
After enduring 40 consecutive months of higher than 8 percent unemployment, we cannot afford the EPA's continued expansion of red tape that is slowing economic growth and threatening to entangle millions of small businesses.

How does the implementation of these standards "entangle millions of small businesses"? How does the implementation of these standards hinder job growth?

Don't get me wrong. I hate even the fundamental concept of CAFE standards. I believe they are the absolute ass backward way to fix the situation. However, it seems that some people try to relate everything to hurting small businesses and killing job growth.

AND I do not believe for one second that just implementing these requirements alone will raise the price of the average car by $5,000. Technology advances. We're talking 13 years from now. Does anyone think they can't, if they really try, come up with more energy efficient (no matter what the energy: gas, diesel, hydrogen, electric, etc.) methodologies and technologies to do this more inexpensively than today by 2025?




RE: How?
By 96suzuki on 6/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: How?
By Sivar on 6/27/2012 11:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
What does Ethanol have to do with increasing fuel efficiency? (I'm asking, not criticizing). Ethanol has lower energy density per gallon, so I'd think its use would be avoided as much as possible by car manufacturers, and diesel emphasized, purely because of their miles/gallon capabilities.


RE: How?
By 96suzuki on 6/27/2012 11:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
Because the EPA is still saying that ethanol decreases emissions from the tail pipe and the EPA has just approved E20 for sale at the pump. Since ethanol is so corrosive the entire fuel system including internal engine components will have to be changed with stronger and more expensive materials.


RE: How?
By 96suzuki on 6/27/2012 11:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
The U.S. Court of Appeals has now dismissed the suit brought against the EPA marking a significant win for the Obama administration. The Obama administration intends to finalize fuel efficiency standards for 2017 through 2025 along with greenhouse gas limits by this August. These new CAFE standards would require automakers to have fleet wide fuel economy average of 54.5 mpg by 2025.


RE: How?
By maugrimtr on 6/28/2012 8:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol is corrosive. You know what else is corrosive? Gas/Petrol. Yep, it corrodes stuff. Good thing we have corrosion resistant engine parts to deal with it. Oops, but that would mean they are Ethanol resistant too and we can't have that truth escaping. Next, the myth about Ethanol being conductive will make an appearance...

Main issue with Ethanol is its water retention, the fact that most of it converted from corn (a disgusting misuse of food crops given finite food resources in the world), and the concept that it's better than just converting to Diesel. I still have no idea why diesel engines are looked down on in the US all the time.


RE: How?
By Fallen Kell on 6/28/2012 10:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
Because they produce a visible, black exhaust, it is seen from the populous as a bigger polluter than normal gas engines.


RE: How?
By sigmatau on 6/28/2012 11:26:18 AM , Rating: 1
Um what? If your car produces black exhaust then you are polluting way more than anyone. A modern diesel should not produce any smoke never mind much of a smell.

That black smoke is particulates that are way worse than anything gasoline produces.


RE: How?
By sigmatau on 6/28/2012 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
You can what? Converting an engine to use a higher than the 10-15% ethanol mix in some gas today would cost about $150 per vehicle if not less.

I really am against ethanol crap but am also against people that just make up things or post uneducated nonsense.


RE: How?
By 96suzuki on 6/29/2012 8:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really am against ethanol crap but am also against people that just make up things or post uneducated nonsense.

May be your uneducated... Here is a clip right from the horses mouth....

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/41853.pdf
In general, E85 can cause corrosion of some soft metals and reduce the tensile strength of some nonmetallic materials. It may also cause swelling and loss of function on certain nonmetallic materials.

Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride, nylon 6/6, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermoplastic
and thermoset polymers


RE: How?
By 96suzuki on 6/29/2012 8:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Converting an engine to use a higher than the 10-15% ethanol mix in some gas today would cost about $150 per vehicle if not less.


What!!!! Are you kidding me?????
Everything from the fuel system to the engine internals and gaskets and seals would have to be replaced. $150??? What the hell are you smoking????

In general, ethanol can cause corrosion of some soft metals and reduce the tensile strength of some nonmetallic materials. It may also cause swelling and loss of function on certain nonmetallic materials. ethanol acts like a “cleaning agent” and will initially mobilize sludge in storage tanks. Only ethanol-compatible materials should be used in the storage and dispensing systems. Zinc, brass, lead, and aluminum have shown sensitivity to degradation. Terne-plated steel (lead/tin/alloy coating), which has been commonly used for vehicle fuel tanks, and lead-based solder are also incompatible with ethanol. Use of these metals should be avoided due to the possibility of fuel contamination and potential impacts on vehicle operation. Unplated steel, stainless steel, black iron, and bronze have shown acceptable resistance to ethanol corrosion. Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride, nylon 6/6, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermoplastic and thermoset polymers. Nonmetallic materials successfully used for transferring and storing ethanol include thermoset reinforced fiberglass, thermoplastic piping, and thermoset-reinforced fiberglass tanks (as listed for this application by UL). Contact with E85 causes some elastomers to swell.


RE: How?
By 96suzuki on 6/29/2012 8:48:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Converting an engine to use a higher than the 10-15% ethanol mix in some gas today would cost about $150 per vehicle if not less.

People like you really need to educate yourselves a little more on this shit!!!!

$150... HAHAHAHA I like you, your a funny guy!!!!


RE: How?
By Pandamonium on 6/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: How?
By othercents on 6/27/2012 12:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aerodynamics can be optimized- but then every car would start to look the same. I don't think the average consumer is going to be happy buying cars with few distinguishing features.


This was the same argument used before against the Prius when it came out. No one would buy because it was a dull looking vehicle. However when faced with increased gas prices people had to make a choice based on fuel efficiency. This might even come down to having a commuter vehicle that is dull and a weekend vehicle that is fun and sporty.

However I don't see how I'm going to tow my boat and jet skis over to the lake behind my Nissan Leaf. Wonder when they will come out with those electric Jet Skis.


RE: How?
By bah12 on 6/27/2012 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
However when faced with increased gas prices people had to make a choice based on fuel efficiency.
And hidden in this sentence is the best the way to drive the demand for higher MPG. Raise fuel taxes. Exclude fleets and such if desired. But at least then you still give the consumer a choice, while increasing desperately needed revenue as well.

Now before Fit/Reclaimer blast me. I don't think the federal government has any constitutional right to do either. However given the choice of 2 evils, I'd rather see a higher fuel tax before mandated MPG's.


RE: How?
By Schrag4 on 6/27/2012 1:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However given the choice of 2 evils , I'd rather see a higher fuel tax before mandated MPG's.


Why do we need to raise fuel prices OR mandate MPG? There are plenty of other options. Personally I'm a fan of true demand for higher fuel efficiency driving innovation, from the MPG side of the equation. Also, I believe a shortage of oil in 100 or 500 years will be gradual and seen far-enough-away that fuel prices will increase gradually naturally as well. Why does the govt need to get involved?


RE: How?
By gamerk2 on 6/27/2012 3:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
You are dreaming my friend. Peak oil will occur within the next 20 years, simply because production has flatlined and demand is rising exponentially. Harder to reach oil sources necessitate higher "base" prices for the oilco's to make a profit on them as well; thats one reason why we don't see prices down in the $2.50 range anymore.

And lets face it: Demand for higher MPG only occurs when the cost of gas goes up. By then, its too late to do anything about it, costing hundreds in billions in lost economic growth in the process.

Finally, fixing the speculation problem would cut gas prices in half. When you have major oil investors who have tankers in port, waiting for prices to rise, then you have a fundamental problem with the markets. I guess thats "true supply side" at its finest though, right?


RE: How?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2012 6:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are dreaming my friend. Peak oil will occur within the next 20 years


People were saying that 30 years ago. You realize that right?


RE: How?
By ritualm on 6/27/2012 6:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
So we should keep using gasoline like there is no tomorrow?

You're a retard.


RE: How?
By Schrag4 on 6/27/2012 6:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are dreaming my friend. Peak oil will occur within the next 20 years, simply because production has flatlined and demand is rising exponentially.


You are sorely misinformed.

quote:
Harder to reach oil sources necessitate higher "base" prices for the oilco's to make a profit on them as well; thats one reason why we don't see prices down in the $2.50 range anymore.


Why mention anything about the oilco's making a profit? That's a given. They've always made a "normal" profit margin on refined gasoline, as any reasonable person would expect them to do. I suppose they should refine gas and transport it to within a few miles of your house for free?

quote:
And lets face it: Demand for higher MPG only occurs when the cost of gas goes up. By then, its too late to do anything about it, costing hundreds in billions in lost economic growth in the process.


The cost of gas HAS gone up, and the demand for higher MPG has occurred naturally. And it's not even 'too late to do anything about it' yet.

quote:
Finally, fixing the speculation problem would cut gas prices in half.


Wait, what? I thought we needed to raise prices, not lower them. Also, I thought peak oil is right around the corner, shouldn't prices go up now (in speculation of a future shortage) so that people will have incentive to buy more fuel efficient vehicles today instead of when the real shortage hits. Isn't that the market actually working?

You seem to be all over the page here...


RE: How?
By Rukkian on 6/27/2012 2:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
I used to think that was the answer, and it would push new purchases, however it would also very much punish the people that cannot afford new cars much harder than the rich that do not worry about it much.

As it stands gas can be tough to keep up with, and if you raise the price enough to make a difference (2-3$/gal) it would be pretty bad for some.


RE: How?
By TSS on 6/27/2012 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
That's only when you assume taxpayers actually still have revenue to give.

Yknow, there's the solution to all of this. The US government should start accepting taxes in the form of credit, rather then money. Boom instant revenue.

You're not going to pay back the credit or the money anyway so who cares at this stage....


RE: How?
By TSS on 6/27/2012 4:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
So is this spam system new or anything? Seems they've sharpened the rules.

The first sentance of my post used to be "That's only when you assume US taxpayers actually still have revenue to give to the government". Then it wouldn't submit, saying it was "appearantly spam".

So now, if you mention they-who-shall-not-be-named twice, you're spamming? Really, this is the way you guys want to reduce political debate?

Haven't you guys learnt anything from the comments at all? Censorship is futile. Not only that, but as i type this there's a headline about 2 republican senators asking questions about fisker. How is THAT not political? Exactly what are you guys trying to achieve?

And as you can see i figured out how to avoid it in 10 freakin seconds. Or else i'll just start saying "gubment". Or some other word that closely resembles what i mean but isn't blocked because dailytech is too STUPID to even properly consider the consequences of their actions.

Filter me more. Please. I dare you.


RE: How?
By EricMartello on 6/27/2012 10:27:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This was the same argument used before against the Prius when it came out. No one would buy because it was a dull looking vehicle. However when faced with increased gas prices people had to make a choice based on fuel efficiency. This might even come down to having a commuter vehicle that is dull and a weekend vehicle that is fun and sporty.


Hybrids do not offer a significant fuel economy or emissions benefit over standard gas vehicles designed for fuel economy. The VW/Audi TDI diesel engines consistently outperform hybrids and are available in vehicles that won't have you looking like major douchebucket.

People who don't know sh1t about cars think hybrids are somehow better than standard vehicles for the environment. False. They're the same or worse...worse because the the chemicals in their battery packs is far more toxic than the minimal reduction in emissions and they STILL use fuel.

Also, have fun with your hybrid in the winter...nobody seems to mention that their efficiency plummets in cold weather, meanwhile something like the Chevy Cruze will maintain its relatively high fuel efficiency.

Hybrids are for idiots with money to burn...aka same people buying apple products.


RE: How?
By EVdriver on 6/28/2012 8:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hybrids do not offer a significant fuel economy or emissions benefit over standard gas vehicles designed for fuel economy.


Really? On the contrary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySR0flj6QnQ

quote:
worse because the the chemicals in their battery packs is far more toxic than the minimal reduction in emissions and they STILL use fuel


Flat out wrong. For example NiMh batteries are not considered toxic, and the Prius uses FAR LESS fuel than other cars in the same category.

quote:
Also, have fun with your hybrid in the winter...nobody seems to mention that their efficiency plummets in cold weather, meanwhile something like the Chevy Cruze will maintain its relatively high fuel efficiency.


Absolutely BS! Latest HSD hybrids are much more cold resistant than non-hybrids counterparts thanks to EGR which greatly improves efficinency in cold climate.

Plain and simple, you don't know sh1t about cars and you are a clueless moron regarding this topic.


RE: How?
By EricMartello on 6/28/2012 10:33:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Really? On the contrary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySR0flj6QnQ


Your link supports my original statement - the complicated and ugly hybrids are not outperforming the TDI VW by a significant margin...and they're not testing in the winter, which would show that the hybrids lose the edge even in the city where they typically have an advantage since they do not invoke the gas engine.

quote:
Flat out wrong. For example NiMh batteries are not considered toxic, and the Prius uses FAR LESS fuel than other cars in the same category.


Nice rebuttal. Disagree without explaining your claim. NiMH batteries may be considered "less toxic" among modern battery options, but they're far from being non-toxic.

Landfills full of spent NiMH batteries from hybrid and EV cars has not yet arrived so let's not make any presumptions. Remember, if you're driving an Hybrid or EV you're already a few notches below on the mental aptitude scale.

quote:
Absolutely BS! Latest HSD hybrids are much more cold resistant than non-hybrids counterparts thanks to EGR which greatly improves efficinency in cold climate.


LOL...EGR has been around for decades and has nothing to do with cold performance. In a gasoline engine, EGR recirculates crankcase gasses into the intake manifold to reduce emissions.

Hybrids and EVs fail substantially in cold weather and the fact that you disregard this fact is proof that you are...

quote:
Plain and simple, you don't know sh1t about cars and you are a clueless moron regarding this topic.


...a clueless moron who drives ugly cars. Thanks for proving my point once again. Seem to be on a streak here. I post something and within hours it is validated by someone like you. Did you trade in your Pontiac Asstek for that Nissan Leaf? LOL


RE: How?
By jthistle on 6/27/2012 1:15:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Decreasing vehicle weight isn't possible without moving to exotic/expensive materials (aluminum frames, carbon fiber panels)

Vehicle size reduction accomplishes this without exotic materials.


RE: How?
By othercents on 6/27/2012 11:53:59 AM , Rating: 2
These standards will continue to require automotive companies to innovate and that requires people and jobs. I think these standards would produce more jobs and new companies to provide the technology for these vehicles than if we kept going based on the old standards.

However I do think the average price of a car will cost more. If you take today's cars that are being made that meet the standards and all cars that we are on the drawing board we are mostly talking electric or hybrid vehicles. Where there was once a gas tank you have a bank of batteries to power the vehicle. These cost more than what a gas tank costs to build. Overall the rest of the car is similar in price just spread differently. The electric engine costs less, however the regenerative braking cost more and the extra electronics to run the system costs more. I don't see a way to make these systems equivalent in cost to a gas powered engine especially when you are talking hybrid.


RE: How?
By Dr of crap on 6/27/2012 12:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Really,
I think they'll raise the price just to raise the price.

Do you think they'll only raise the price up to the level of the inovation they put into the car and NOT add on more just because they can and SAY that it cost them that much to add it all in!??


RE: How?
By knutjb on 6/27/2012 12:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't been paying close attention to this. The government keeps upping the ethanol content which reduces MPG. That is being enacted separately from CAFE standards. Add this to the mandatory safety standards which add a significant amount of weight. Cutting weight cost more money. To get better MPG more weight will have to be cut, hence MORE MONEY.

When these targets are moving it brings instability to, in this case the auto makers, they don't want to risk capital so they work on fewer R&D projects and wait for the silly season to settle down. This means they don't hire. They CANNOT follow a business model when government keeps changing the rules. They are in business to pay shareholders. They can't pay shareholders if they throw large sums of money at at a project and it becomes obsolete because of new government rules. These development cycles are planned out decades in advance. Rules change they can't plan.

These rules have significant impact on other businesses. How does a farmer or rancher work the farm from a Prius like vehicle. These rules go much farther than you might think.
And to your final foolishness:
quote:
Does anyone think they can't, if they really try, come up with more energy efficient (no matter what the energy: gas, diesel, hydrogen, electric, etc.) methodologies and technologies to do this more inexpensively than today by 2025?
You cannot dictate technology advancement. It will happen, but will it be fast enough? You probably don't remember the crappy cars from the 70s, yes even the Japanese built some losers. This happened because they were forced to a standard when the technology to do it cost too much to put in a car.


RE: How?
By Schrag4 on 6/27/2012 2:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does the implementation of these standards "entangle millions of small businesses"? How does the implementation of these standards hinder job growth?


Perhaps since there are relatively few players in the auto industry, these specific regulations may not 'entagle millions of small businesses.' However, you can see how similar legislation in other industries might.

quote:
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- a trade group that represents the big three in Detroit along with Toyota, Volkswagen, and several older automakers -- supported the EPA and the Obama Administration’s fuel economy proposal. Alliance spokeswoman Gloria Berquest said, "We supported upholding 2012-16, since we are already building more fuel-efficient autos to meet these standards."


In other words, she's saying 'we like these standards because our competitors who haven't met them yet will be hurt'. (They'll have to spend a lot of money very quickly just to meet standards and stay in business.) It's the principle of the thing. Big players in a market that already do something lobby to have regulations put in place that they already meet so smaller players have to spend more to meet those regs or get forced out of the market. It's wrong, IMO.


RE: How?
By NellyFromMA on 6/27/2012 4:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
All I have to say is I love the blond in the white swims uit. Everything else is irrelevant.


RE: How?
By kattanna on 6/27/2012 4:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
im partial to the brunette myself.. but hey.. I would be willing to take them BOTH for a test drive


RE: How?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2012 6:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah good point. Because it's not like the only cars to meet these standards aren't MASSIVELY subsidized. The Volt is basically a nearly-$50k Cruze Eco, but you're right, this doesn't add costs to vehicles at all!!

You realize how out of tune with reality your post is? Government mandates ALWAYS cost us more money. But in this case we have a very easily quantifiable way to prove it. Do you see any $20-30k vehicles that meet these standards? No, not even close.

quote:
AND I do not believe for one second that just implementing these requirements alone will raise the price of the average car by $5,000. Technology advances. We're talking 13 years from now. Does anyone think they can't, if they really try, come up with more energy efficient (no matter what the energy: gas, diesel, hydrogen, electric, etc.) methodologies and technologies to do this more inexpensively than today by 2025?


This is fleet wide! So no, by 2025 there will not be magical ways to get trucks and SUV's and work vehicles and sports cars to just magically have super high gas mileage AND somehow be affordable. These vehicles either won't exist anymore, or will be prohibitively expensive. Either way, they are right and you're wrong.


RE: How?
By EricMartello on 6/27/2012 10:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You realize how out of tune with reality your post is? Government mandates ALWAYS cost us more money. But in this case we have a very easily quantifiable way to prove it. Do you see any $20-30k vehicles that meet these standards? No, not even close.


Being out of tune with reality is a requirement for anyone who supports obama or any of his asinine "kool aid" policies. Most of the crap he is passing is your typical tax hike hidden in a bucket of fried chicken to make it seem good.

The thing that most people ignore when talking about these standards is what happens when manufacturers (likely) fail to meet these guidelines set by one of the most incompetent administrations the US has ever had....give up? The manufacturers have the option pay fines (taxes) and continue designing and offering cars that people want.

Much like obamacare this is just another way of obfuscating additional taxes on American businesses and citizens, while pandering to the moronic "save the earth" crowd.


Not surprising
By Dorkyman on 6/27/2012 10:20:41 AM , Rating: 3
So it's on to the Supreme Court.




Its a shame
By Ammohunt on 6/27/2012 12:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
the EPA's good work has been far overshadowed by its huge negative impact the country in areas is has no business regulation. The EPA has become the Government arm of the anti-capitalist eco-facists.




Vote the bum OUT
By Beenthere on 6/27/2012 3:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
You can tolerate the abuse from the braindead charlatan or vote his worthless arse out of office.




stop this law
By jackpro on 6/27/2012 7:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
This law change is the biggest threat to asian car manufactoring & innovation, it will drive new research in the US that will be a major threat to all manufacturers of economical passenger vehicles. The US are current leaders in mobile & pc efficiency via Apple. Compliance to this new law could spell the end of a lot of car firms hell an Apple car beautiful, powerful & efficient would be a nightmare Minority Report all over again!




Never gonna happen.
By lawrance on 7/1/2012 2:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sometime between 2012 and 2025, Republicans will take over the White House and kills this bill. I guarantee it. Which is sad.

For the record, I support the bill. I think we need to improve our mileage and emissions and if it takes government interaction to dictate this need to manufactures, so be it. I believe the goal is too lofty to be accomplished via traditional gas engines and will only be accomplished with a combination of natural gas, hybrid, diesel and electric technology added to every fleet.

Oil is a finite resource and some experts feel oil may be depleted as early as 2057. We can't continue on the same path. Yes it will cost money to figure out this problem, but it will also create new jobs outside of the oil industry. It should surprise nobody that the state of Texas is up in arms about this.




Don't know about you
By 96suzuki on 6/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Don't know about you
By 96suzuki on 6/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Don't know about you
By NellyFromMA on 6/27/2012 4:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
gross, stop swearing like that


RE: Don't know about you
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2012 6:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
That won't happen because Republicans have too much integrity. Eliminating the EPA would require an executive order to simply "make happen", without congressional consent or deliberation. No WAY an act to disband the EPA would make it through Congress. Conservative Republicans generally don't make policy by fiat that way.

Now while it's all fine and good for Obama to do this dozens of times, most recently making sweeping and illegal Unconstitutional immigration policy with a swoosh of his pen, Republican's don't have an entire state run media machine to cover for them.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki