| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 tornadot |
Obama wants new fuel standards |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 4398 (05/19/2009 9:29 AM) Free as the Wind |
Obama wants new
fuel standards
That's all good and all (If it reduces the amount of Hummers and F-350's I see, I'm happy) but what about those gas prices? Thoughts? |
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5869 (05/19/2009 12:25 PM) |
Ha! I could've sworn I saw something yesterday saying he was proposing MPG to be 42, or something. Anywho...this is cool. I mean...it's quite an
undertaken, but if worked out efficiently...definitely a good idea. As for gas prices...where are you located Torn. For 1 gallon of regular gasoline it's
like $2.19[or somewhere near that] for me.
 I'm in Northwest Alabama...so unless you live in...geez I don't know the middle of the ocean[or some
other completely irrelevant place] you are more than likely paying more than me.  Who says living in a small town sucks! :P
|
||
 D B Vulpix |
|||
|
Posts: 1722 (05/19/2009 9:31 PM) |
I want mah clown car. Can't wait to see how many of my friends I'll be able to stuff into one. Quick question . Isn't using ethanol more damaging
than regular gasoline?
|
||
|
tornadot |
|||
|
Posts: 4400 (05/20/2009 1:22 AM) Free as the Wind |
More damaging? I've heard they're both kind of a wash as far as the environment is concerned but if you're trying to imply that ethanol has its own
issues, yes it does.
|
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5882 (05/20/2009 6:30 AM) |
Hmmm...not sure. Ethanol definitely has its own effects to the environment for sure though. I say vegetables and chocolate is what we need! :P
|
||
|
Rapidfire the Hedgehog |
|||
|
Posts: 787 (05/20/2009 2:36 PM) |
I'd rather wait until hybrids go mainstream, and then a big petrol tax will phase out the old, inefficient cars.
|
||
|
matthayter700 |
|||
|
Posts: 999 (05/20/2009 4:50 PM) |
If the idea is to counteract climate change, why couldn't they just have a fuel tax proportional to the amount of CO2 emitted per amount of fuel burned?
To me that would sound a bit more permissive than just banning inefficient vehicles, (since it would leave open the option, as long as they paid for it;
obviously some of that money taxed should go to policies to address the effects of climate change) plus a bit fairer as it would tax other uses of CO2-emitting
fuels as well.
|
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5885 (05/20/2009 5:14 PM) |
matthayter700 wrote: I believe it goes to all manufactured in the US. Import would be difficult to pull of probably. *shrugs* As for that tax...you know...I don't think anyone would trust paying more money for something...looks at Bernard Madoff. :P
|
||
|
tornadot |
|||
|
Posts: 4402 (05/20/2009 8:02 PM) Free as the Wind |
I see it as a requirement for cars manufactured in the US (Ya know, the ones who stuck to the producing big gas guzzlers even when it made no sense).
|
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5887 (05/20/2009 8:07 PM) |
America, F*** Yeah! :P
|
||
|
D B Vulpix |
|||
|
Posts: 1727 (05/20/2009 8:28 PM) |
Ethanol from what I've read is less efficient. We'd be wasting time and land growing all that corn. Possibly even counter productive?
The fuel economy standards will hurt the auto industry even more than they have already. Even if they did reduce the price of gas, the government would realize it's taking in less money in gas tax revenue, and raise the taxes on it, increasing the price again. It would be a shift of money payments going from your pocket to foreign countries, instead going to your government so it can squander them on pointless programs. 
Last Edited By: D B Vulpix
05/20/2009 8:38 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5888 (05/20/2009 8:54 PM) |
Yea the auto industry is like....damn! Effed up, right now. I don't even want to think about the next decade or so. =/
|
||
|
Rapidfire the Hedgehog |
|||
|
Posts: 788 (05/20/2009 9:32 PM) |
B Vulpix wrote:I think the gas tax hike would be part of the plan when electric cars, hybrids, et. al. are coming into their own as legitimate rivals to cars running on gas. Gas-fuelled cars will be less expensive than alternative energy cars at the time; to incentivise buying alternative energy cars, a significant spike in the gas tax is one of the government's likeliest options. |
||
|
D B Vulpix |
|||
|
Posts: 1728 (05/20/2009 9:41 PM) |
Hrrm...so government would probably raise taxes anyway to help hybrid or electric cars compete.
Thaaaat's basically a very roundabout subsidy of cars that can't compete on their own. Which is what we tried with ethanol and it failed. Ethanol couldn't compete on its own, it had to have government help .But even then it failed. |
||
|
tornadot |
|||
|
Posts: 4405 (05/21/2009 1:29 PM) Free as the Wind |
It'd be nice if hybrids weren't so expensive as is. Oh and some of them look ugly and you know people don't go for that.
|
||
|
matthayter700 |
|||
|
Posts: 1001 (05/21/2009 9:38 PM) |
B Vulpix wrote: What about hemp, though? Also, I'd prefer an approach based on looking at which particular government programs are pointless and why, rather than just dismissing them generally as being pointless. And with the US being deep in debt, it could really use that revenue right now. As for hybrid cars, I'm not that inclined to think of them as good for the environment when they involve the use of toxic metals. They may reduce CO2 emissions, but they could worsen toxic metal disposal problems in the long run. Frankly, I'd rather see more focus on hydrogen cars. Sure, water electrolysis takes more energy than you'd get out of using the hydrogen, but at least it would be in the form of electrical energy, so that the energy for cars could come from the electric grid. (Which in turn gets some energy from fossil fuels, but at least has other sources as well.) Ideally, with efficient enough electrolysis, the difference wouldn't be too severe. And HS2K3, what do you mean by "trust paying more money for something"? I googled the person you named, and it seems to be a case of corruption, but I think corruption should be confronted more so directly than being used as a reason to minimize money given to the government. (Let alone to prefer banning inefficient vehicles to just taxing the fuels they use) |
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5891 (05/21/2009 9:46 PM) |
Hybrids use different metals than nonhybrids? This I did not know. Thanks for that tidbit. As for electrolysis...we use that at NASA. Moon bases. Woo hoo!
Shhh...you didn't hear it from me.
As for that "trust paying more money for something"...yea Madoff's is a different situation I know...but it involved trusting someone else with their money. I was saying that people might be mad if they pay higher taxes and don't see an outcome. Like the government pocketing the money straight up, you know? lol Surely they wouldn't do that though...right? :P
|
||
|
matthayter700 |
|||
|
Posts: 1005 (05/23/2009 1:34 PM) |
HyperSonic2003 wrote:Actually, I'm not even sure if it's the case. I've just heard of it, and mentioned it as a reason I'm hesitant to think of hybrid cars as good for the environment. And just out of curiosity, what kind of electrolysis were you saying NASA used?
Last Edited By: matthayter700
05/23/2009 1:39 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5908 (05/23/2009 3:45 PM) |
matthayter700 wrote: I've got the paper work somewhere around here...but yea...their looking into using it on the moon. To extract breathable oxygen and water from the lunar regolith. Moon bases here we come!
|
||
|
matthayter700 |
|||
|
Posts: 1006 (05/23/2009 5:05 PM) |
HyperSonic2003 wrote:Ah, as in water electrolysis? I take it you mean to extract breathable oxygen from the water, right? |
||
|
HyperSonic2003 |
|||
|
Posts: 5909 (05/23/2009 5:11 PM) |
matthayter700 wrote: That is it exactly my good man. My wording was a bit off, huh? lol
|
||
