Comments on: What you need to know about the new fuel efficiency standard

By: William R Alford

William R Alford — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:53:06 +0000

If emissions were the concern, there are already standards for that. The real object is to make it so only the few can afford to drive cars. The rest of us will be pushed into mass transit and forced to move into slums in the urban areas.

By: dory

dory — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 07:08:36 +0000

i think we need to create news idea about transportation !!!

By: Doug Pearson

Doug Pearson — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:53:05 +0000

I applaud the new rules, especially because they do not mandate a specific technology, but the government already gets too little tax income out of cars, most of which is gasoline tax. They will have to add an annual tax per car (weight, number of seats, number of axles, market value, whatever). It’ll have to be pretty big, and it’ll have to grow faster than the take from gasoline shrinks because the overall tax income from cars needs to grow at least as fast as inflation.

By: Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:48:15 +0000

Changing fuel efficiency rules is a time-consuming process, so any administration would have to be willing to committed a lot of resources to get that going. There is always a chance that the standard will be rolled back. But I also would argue that changes in mpg and vehicle designs aren’t just governed by federal rules. Given the high oil prices, consumer want more fuel efficient cars. I don’t know anyone who is proud and happy to pay more for gas than anyone else he knows.

By: Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:42:05 +0000

Safety and longevity aren’t supposed to be compromised to achieve greater fuel efficiency. For example, the new rule includes a provision that discourages car makers from reducing the footprint of their vehicles to achieve higher mpg. There is a debate over whether a reduction in car mass will lead to greater fatalities, and a lot of studies have been used for the government’s analysis of the issue. On balance, the government said its new rule shouldn’t compromise safety: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/2017-2025-ghg-cafe-standards-frm.pdf.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:48:24 +0000

one more question: what are the chances of this surviving future administrations? Especially GOP ones?

By: Robert Allen

Robert Allen — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:06:39 +0000

How will safety and longevity be compromised to achieve this goal?