By on April 28, 2014

2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid Fuel Economy Display, 49MPG, Picture Courtesy of Alex L. Dykes

Though automakers still have a decade to hit the 2025 CAFE target average of 54.5 mpg, the Environmental Protection Agency proclaimed in a just-released annual report that the automakers were ahead of schedule in meeting said target.

Autoblog Green says the EPA’s Manufacturers Performance Report noted consumers bought more clean vehicles made for the 2012 model year than what was required by the 14-year-long program to reduce greenhouse emissions for the first year.

In addition, the report broke down by automaker CO2 reduction over-compliance. While Tesla led the way in MY 2012, Toyota gathered the most credits among those who still use fossil fuels at over 13.1 million metric tons, providing 6.5 metric tons to ever vehicle sold that year. The rest of the industry garnered a total of 25 million metric tons in CO2 over-compliance credits in 2012, leading to a 10 grams per mile decrease in emissions than what the program required.

As for the CAFE target, the recent EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report found a 1.2-mpg improvement among the automakers over numbers in 2011, the second biggest improvement in 30 years. Further, the agency saw a doubling of SUVs with economy ratings of 25 mpg or higher, while seven times as many cars gained an average of 40 mpg and above.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

141 Comments on “EPA: Automakers Ahead Of 2025 CAFE MPG, CO2 Emissions Targets...”


  • avatar

    #1 CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT
    #2 The “global warming models” have been proven to be failures.
    #3 The globe is actually cooling.
    #4 With less than 100 years of satellite data, and less than 10 million years of ice core data, it’s ludicrous to claim the Earth is being warmed by man-made CO2. Especially considering the Earth is over 4.5 Billion years old.
    #5 This is nothing more than an excuse to tax people more.
    #6 – also an excuse by Malthusian Luddites to further their urban planning agenda.

    • 0 avatar
      LeadHead

      Please back up every single one your statements with peer reviewed scholarly sources, otherwise you’re just talking out of your ass.

      • 0 avatar

        No problem:

        As soon as you show me proof “global warming” is anthropogenic :)

        Otherwise: you’re just parroting what you’ve heard.

        • 0 avatar
          LeadHead

          I’m not saying Global Warming is in fact a thing, but I’ve read dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles posted in scientific journals backed by decades of research that suggest otherwise.

          I can’t show you directly, but you can look the articles up yourself if your local library has something like an EBSCO Database or subscription. Your local university library certainly will, and they often let the public access it.

          Until you’ve actually read that, you’re just spouting nonsense you’ve read on some random internet sites, or heard from Fox News. I’m more inclined to trust the research done by scientists who’ve been cited in hundreds of academic papers, than something that “bigtruckseriesreview @ youtube.com” says….

          • 0 avatar
            brenschluss

            Apparently you aren’t aware, he knows all about geology. That’s like the same thing as climate science, so he’s an expert.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            Over 99.5% of the 11,944 climate papers published between 1991 and 2001 do NOT say that man is the major cause of the mild warming in the latter half of the 20th century. So you can drop the whole “thousands of scientists meme…”

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “Over 99.5%…”

            That’s probably not far from the truth, as most papers on climate science aren’t about assigning weights to the various factors involved in the unusual warming of the late 20th century.

            However, their authors overwhelmingly agree, that ACC is real, rising CO2 levels by themselves will change climate dramatically and then the biological science types come in and say, “there will be great changes in flora and fauna” and then the military types come along, look at that and say, “there will be blood.”

            CO2 is currently the major drive of climate change, like it or lump it, you’ll get to “enjoy” it no matter what you think. Unless you’re already pretty old. In which case, your ignorance is contributing to an unpleasant gift to your descendants.

          • 0 avatar

            > Apparently you aren’t aware, he knows all about geology.

            I really doubt this; like many claims from such folks it’s likely exaggerated. Anyone who’s studied science at a college level should be able to compare numbers correctly or at least know what to compare.

            For example:

            > With less than 100 years of satellite data, and less than 10 million years of ice core data, it’s ludicrous to claim the Earth is being warmed by man-made CO2. Especially considering the Earth is over 4.5 Billion years old.

            It’s unclear how this chewbaccaa defense even begins to make sense.

            “With less than 100 years of geo studies, and less than 10 million years of rock formation here, it’s ludicrous to claim this concrete is man-made. Especially considering the Earth is over 4.5 Billion years old.”

        • 0 avatar
          Scott_314

          Ok:

          ^ Jump up to: a b “Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. * * * Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%;……” IPCC, Synthesis Report, Treatment of Uncertainty, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
          Jump up ^ “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that ‘most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations’.”IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
          Jump up ^ America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. “(p1) … there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

          10 seconds of googling. Your turn.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            There are many blogs dedicated to de-bunking the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) myth.

            It helps to understand the history. For a layman’s primer, watch this:

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “…Many blogs…”

            Oh, well then. Everybody should be satisfied with that. Maybe I’ll rock the astrophysics community with a blog on geocentrism.

            By the way, no link showed up. Which bogus video did you intend to share? Just give the title, I’m sure I’ve laughed at it before.

        • 0 avatar
          tuffjuff

          Why you guys gotta give BTS a hard time?

          • 0 avatar

            Tuff Juff

            I don’t blame them. They were indoctrinated since birth to believe this stuff.

            None of them have ever gone to study ice cores. None of them have truly studied geologic history.

            Geology and Earth Science go completely ignored in College.

          • 0 avatar

            > None of them have ever gone to study ice cores. None of them have truly studied geologic history.

            If you’ve ever looked into AGW papers, ice cores are commonly studied by those with actual Ph.Ds and research experience in the field. They don’t seem to agree with your internet degree.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            “They don’t seem to agree with your internet degree.”

            Internet degree? I always figured BMSR for the more traditional “Close Cover Before Striking” University degree.

            And I’d have to agree with him the “The University of Close Cover Before Striking” doesn’t do a very good job Teaching geology or Earth Science.

          • 0 avatar

            > Internet degree?

            I do sometimes wonder why some bother throwing credentials around.

            The kind of people for whom it matters the stuff that comes with a degree can tell the difference, and those who can’t probably don’t hold edumacation in high regard anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “Geology and Earth Science go completely ignored in College.”

            I loved it, those were my fun classes in college

        • 0 avatar
          JD-Shifty

          wow, the internet really draws out the stupid. instant FOX news parrots appear.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        I wrote an article and some of my peers reviewed it favorably which showed certain simularities between myself and John Holmes.

    • 0 avatar
      doogie

      Is this a joke? Or are you on the Koch’s payroll?

      1. CO2 is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion. That is pollution. There is substantial proof, accepted by a huge majority of the scientific community that the increased CO2 levels are due to the burning of fossil fuels. Essentially the only people who disagree are people in the fossil fuel business and certain republican politicians.

      2. Models are not perfect. This lack of perfection does not change the fact that directionally the models are correct. I assume you are basing this nonsense statement on a DRAFT of the IPCC report. The final report corrected the error from the draft.

      3. No, it is not. Or would you like to disagree with NASA, among others? “With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.” http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.U15fxvldV8E

      4. Again, there are mountains of data showing otherwise. If you would prefer to take your talking points who make money off of climate denial, go for it. You are on the wrong side of science and history.

      5. What about the tax breaks the fossil fuel industry receives? You know that is “government spending” by another name, right? How about the laws the Koch brothers are persuading states to pass that imposes punative taxes on solar power companies? I thought they were anti tax? Are you okay with that? People who pollute more should pay more. They are destroying the environment and shortening the lives of people in local cities, towns and states.

      6. What does this mean? You’re afraid of being rounded up, moved to a city and take public transportation? Be careful, the black helicopters are coming for you!

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Politics has taken over:

      “Top climate expert’s sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report”
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614097/Top-climate-experts-sensational-claim-government-meddling-crucial-UN-report.html#ixzz30CLIXjQb

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      Sure thing BTS – and I assume that the earth is 5000 years old and evolution is also a myth?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      For goodness sake,
      BTSR – I don’t believe in manmade global warming no more than you(and I’ll leave it at that), but is it really necessary to make a massive commotion in every article with similar basis? Anyone who is decided on either side of the argument aren’t going to change their opinions all of a sudden. In fact, that usually happens when they do, for themselves their own research. Otherwise their opinions are basis of what they have been told, and tend to relate with other values they may hold.

      No ones going to change their opinions.
      The ones that agree with what you post tend to stay silent at either because you’re extreme about it, or their opinion is now posted via someone with similar opinions.
      The ones that disagree with you are going to call you names and (in this case) repeat things they have heard used on comedy central, that are 100% entertainment and 0% fact based, simply because they believe that tossing out some shibboleth (i.e. age of the earth, or more likely “Fox News”) will show everyone their political bone fides.

      In short, at worst your not helping anyone, at best your bringing to the surface those that are tools. (while looking like a tool)

      • 0 avatar
        This Is Dawg

        Hummer, I agree with the point of your post, in that internet arguments have no winners, but acting like observable facts are 100% entertainment quickly erodes your sympathy.

    • 0 avatar
      mr.cranky

      Here folks, is a great example of TTAC’s “Best and Brightest” (rolls eyes).

      bigtrucksreview has absolutely NO facts to back up this junk. He probably got it from one of the many global warming denier sites out there.

      Keep your head up your ass where it belongs. I have no faith in you ever getting it un-stuck.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @BTSR: Agreed on all points. And I’m the non-tree-hugging EV driver.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      CAFE is about oil imports, not CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, government exists in the political realm, and politicians cannot openly attack oil imports (post-OPEC embargo) without risking pointless political backlash and bluster. Instead, politicians say America must “save the planet”, then Congress boosts EIA funding to study the impact on US oil imports, US consumption, and projected oil prices.

      We have to eliminate oil imports to deal with China, too. We can scarcely accuse them of predatory international trade, when we commit suicide with oil imports.

      No more talk of transportation freedumb, unless you’re going to relinquish your unfunded social security benefits.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The best way to eliminate imports is to develop the energy resources we have, which are considerable. It actually made sense to use imported oil when it was cheap, and save our own resources for later. It’s now ‘later’, imported oil is no longer cheap, and there are new discoveries and technology to extract our own resources more cheaply than imported equivalents can be bought. The only thing getting in the way of America producing surplus oil is government regulations.

    • 0 avatar
      WheelMcCoy

      >> #1 CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT

      Well, not in the phosphates or pcb sense. I don’t think climate scientists ever called CO2 a pollutant. Note that water isn’t a pollutant either, but it has the power to nurture, or drown you. It can carve canyons, wash away cities, and indirectly start a nuclear melt-down (I was just reading about Fukushima). CO2 is like that too. Think of CO2 as an atmospheric insulator if that helps.

      But this thread is missing the point of the story: the automakers are *ahead* of schedule, with their 2nd biggest improvement in 30 years! That’s a great achievement. I never thought of the auto-industry as the nerdy kid who hands in his homework before it’s due, but here we are. Lower CO2 emissions and better fuel economy means a better future.

      • 0 avatar
        an innocent man

        >>I don’t think climate scientists ever called CO2 a pollutant.

        The EPA did.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?_r=0

      • 0 avatar
        lne937s

        “Well, not in the phosphates or pcb sense”

        Actually, CO2 is a pollutant in the same sense that phosphates are pollutants. Phosphates are natural occurring chemicals, essential to the plant growth. Without them, many plants would die. However, when you put more man-made phosphates into the environment than are beneficial, this essential nutrient becomes a pollutant. You could say the same about many plant nutrients, which are harmful to the environment at higher than natural levels and in ecosystems where they are not beneficial. Manure makes plants grow, but you don’t want it in your drinking water (where it becomes a pollutant).

        In the same way, adding more man-made CO2 to the environment is not beneficial and does damage, even though the presence of some level of it is needed for plant growth, just like phosphates. Adding more does not make things better. Therefore, CO2 is a pollutant.

      • 0 avatar
        WheelMcCoy

        Ah, I stand corrected about CO2 designated a pollutant.

        Actually, in the same way I can see water as a threat in the form of a tsunami, I can see the threat of CO2 as an atmospheric insulator without it being called a pollutant. Unfortunately, many cannot or choose not to see the threat of too much CO2 and climate change, so politicians and lawyers have to adopt a language that we can recognize and act on.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      I agree with BTS point for point. There’s a lot of money to be made involving the businesses of Global Warming and whenever there’s money to be made the truth is nowhere to be found. “Follow the money” is probably the first and most important step in seeking the truth

    • 0 avatar
      This Is Dawg

      http://arlohemphill.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-hoax.jpg

      With less than 100 years of satellite data, it’s ludicrous to claim the world isn’t made of peanut flavored toothpaste. This is what you sound like to people who have actually looked at these ice cores in a lab.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    How could the earth NOT be building up CO2? We’ve cleared half of the world’s forests in the last century. The population of the earth has quadrupled. All of these people are burning coal, oil and natural gas, releasing carbon that was stored for millions of years. Scientists are measuring higher concentrations of C02 in the atmosphere, and they are tracking rising global temperatures. We have a theory of global warming, and the data supports the theory. As to the contrarians: it’s hard to measure data when your head is stuck in the sand.

    Even assuming the world isn’t warming, how does it hurt if we throttle back a bit and save some resources for those who come after us?

    • 0 avatar

      The forests take in CO2 and output O2, but they aren’t the only sequesters for CO2. The Oceans and soil also sequester CO2 and another thing the climate models fail to take into account is the tremendous heat capacity of water – and the warming of antarctic ice coming from volcanoes beneath the ice. Keep in mind, Earth has undergone freezing/ warming cycles and usually what causes it is the freezing perpetuating itself by reflecting insolation back to space – causing Earth to frost over, and then the ice covering the earth to block the heat beneath it from tectonic movements and volcanism – which eventually melts the ice and starts the warming cycle.

      Anyone hear ever hear of Rodinia? How about Pangea?

      It’s amazing that no one can think in GEOLOGIC TIME and recognize that humans have only existed for a microsecond compared to the Earth’s “hours”.

      less than 1 million years of human history vs. 4.5 Billion years of Earth.

      An Earth that has existed throughout meteorite bombardment, volcanism, plate tectonics, radiation bombardment, magnetic reversals of the poles…

      …but somehow a PRIUS and a Model S are going to protect it from ending.

      I love how people attack C02 emissions, yet completely ignore the energy use and wastes being created by an increase of population from 1 Billion to 6. Even if none of us drove cars at all, they’d still need to feed these people – meat industry creates plenty CO2.

      But C02 isn’t the problem.

      I think my favorite fallacy is when Bill Maher held up a picture of MARS’S surface and claimed “the earth would look like that”, completely glossing over the FACT, that MARS is FREEZING. The temperatures their are more than 50 degrees below 0. But because it “looked” hot, (color is reddish due to iron oxide) he thought it was.

      I LULZ.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        “Ocean Sequestration” of CO2 is better known as “Ocean Acidification.”

        I’m surprised a Famed Geologist, such as yourself, doesn’t seem to be making the connection and drawing some useful conclusions.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        “The Oceans and soil also sequester CO2 and another thing the climate models fail to take into account is the tremendous heat capacity of water.”

        I just… can’t process the amount of derp in this statement.

        • 0 avatar

          So explain to me why it’s not correct.

          Because it is.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            You really need me to explain that climate scientists are aware of specific heat capacity?

            Here, this one has lots of pretty colors.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_reel/OceansClimateChange640360

            Here’s the version without the animations:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract

          • 0 avatar
            Kinosh

            BSTR, you’re correct that we’re still trying to figure out the ocean heat capacity models to use. Not because of conspiracy, but because we’re uncertain.

            Every model I’m aware of accounts for the oceans. The differences are in heat transport patterns.

            You’re specifically wrong when you say “climate models fail to take into account is the tremendous heat capacity of water”.

          • 0 avatar

            > So explain to me why it’s not correct.

            The solubility of gases in water decreases with temperature. This makes for a positive feedback cycle.

            Someone with any degree never a science one should understand what this means.

            > It’s amazing that no one can think in GEOLOGIC TIME and recognize that humans have only existed for a microsecond compared to the Earth’s “hours”. less than 1 million years of human history vs. 4.5 Billion years of Earth.

            The next 50 years are quite relevant to the human species.

            This sort of basic ability to determine relevance might be missing in the sort of HS dropouts whom this very low level science-denial material appears targeted to, but quite odd for STEM degree holders.

          • 0 avatar
            philipwitak

            hey bigruck – do you actually understand and agree with anything factual? given your credibility on this website, i would not even take your advice on big trucks…

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            My condolences to the families of the people who died and to those who lost their homes in the outbreak of nearly 100 tornadoes that occurred across the Southern states in the last week. The severity of storm systems will only increase with rising global temperatures and more water vapor to enhance the storms further.
            No need to resort to ridicule of those whose beliefs aren’t likely to change – use the growing body of facts to educate those who can change their world for the better – our youth.
            I’m almost ashamed to admit that in the past, I owned gas-guzzling cars, and I liked to put the hammer down, too. But the knowledge of climate change was limited back then (the 70′s), and the popular science of the time made little note of the nascent field.
            As restitution, I’ll relate my beliefs on this subject to anyone who will listen, and do what I can to cut my energy use as much as is practical. I’ll also vote for candidates that at least are willing to include “sustainability” as part of their philosophy.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      What is the scientific community offering to encourage risk-averse behavior? They can’t promise better weather or climate stability, and they certainly can’t promise the people of today longer, better quality of life.

      Climate science is irrelevant to the general public. The incentives necessary to change human behavior are a matter of economics, and game theory can explain the futility of trying to scare people towards an optimal outcome.

      • 0 avatar

        > What is the scientific community offering to encourage risk-averse behavior?

        People in science do science, not political/econ policy. The point of science is to inform, which evidently loses its value against the power of willful ignorance on full display above.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    That’s all wonderful, but at what cost? Environmentalists conveniently leave out that side of the equation when promoting their utopian dreams.

    CAFE isn’t about saving the environment. It’s about limiting consumption. It’s just not “fair” that come people can afford to consume more than others.

    • 0 avatar
      heavy handle

      We now have the fastest, most reliable, best handling cars we’ve ever had, so CAFE’s not all doom and gloom. You would think from some of the comments that any car made after 1975 is a piece of government-mandated crap, but we forget how bad those cars really were.

      My dad’s generation dreamed about cheap cars that did 0-60 in 6 secs and still got 30+ real-world highway MPG and ran 150K miles without much more than a few oil changes.

      I don’t buy the theory that you’re not allowed to use as much gas as you want. Just get a new Suburban and load it up with bricks if you want to use lots of fuel and get that genuine pre-CAFE ride and economy. Nobody’s stopping you.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        The cars made in the decade and a half after CAFE was implemented *were* pieces of government-mandated crap. It’s only taken automakers 30 years or so to overcome those obstacles and give us the cars you descride.

        This time around, it won’t be as bad as automakers already have a head start developing a lot of these solutions. They aren’t starting from scratch as they did 40 years ago, but there will still be significant negative impacts.

        • 0 avatar
          jacob_coulter

          CAFE also created the SUV market, which led to even more oil consumption.

          Before all of these ridiculous CAFE laws, moms weren’t driving Suburbans to take their kids to school.

          Americans wanted larger sedans, and since the automakers couldn’t build them, they instead made even larger trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            heavy handle

            My mom drove Caprice wagons, which got worse mileage than a 2014 Suburban. It wasn’t noticeably smaller either.

            We would dump them after 5 year/100K miles and there wasn’t be anything left: engine, transmission, body, interior, suspension, everything was completely worn-out.

            CAFE may seem ridiculous to you, but it had the benefit of forcing Detroit to spend money on R&D. GM would still be selling us carburated SBCs if it wasn’t for that.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “GM would still be selling us carburated SBCs if it wasn’t for that.”

            GM continued to sell carbureted SBCs in regular production cars for a decade and a half after CAFE was enacted. It’s safe to say they didn’t need to abandon them to meet the FE targets. Even as targets were lowered slightly in the late 80′s, cars continued to switch to EFI.

            Many automakers were experimenting with and using various forms of fuel injection well before CAFE. The proliferation of reasonably cheap and reliable EFI was heavily dependent on the development of the microprocessor industry. CAFE did not gift us these things.

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            What would a Caprice sized wagon get for fuel economy today with modern fuel injection and overdrive transmissions?

            But now SUVs are a common car for families to have instead, we’d have been much better off with larger cars as a solution instead of giant trucks.

            The government created a distortion that made the problem worse.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            “What would a Caprice sized wagon get for fuel economy today with modern fuel injection and overdrive transmissions?”

            We had those. The 1996 Caprice Wagon with a MPI 5.7L V8 and 4 speed automatic was rated at 15 mpg city and 24 highway.

            The closest comparable today would probably be a 2WD Suburban. 5.3L = 15/21 mpg.

            Even an arguably less capable Traverse FWD with a DI 3.6L V6 is rated at 17/24.

            I realize the EPA test cycle changed between now and then, but in my experience, it’s not hard to meet or exceed the EPA numbers in those LT1 cars.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          CAFE is giving us electric power steering, automatic transmissions with a wider spread of gear ratios, fewer engines with more than 4 cylinders, and direct injection. CAFE pushes these changes out to the market a little sooner than they would without the regulatory push. The result to consumers is better fuel economy offset by uncommunicative steering, transmissions that upshift rapidly and downshift reluctantly, more engine vibration, and valve deposits. The negative issues will get sorted out eventually, but cars will take a long-term reliability hit for several model years.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      It’s also about reducing or even eliminating our need to import oil.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Is it fair that my kid die in Iraq so you can drive to the grocery store alone in your Suburban?

  • avatar
    VoGo

    We actually live in extraordinary times. Despite the rants of a few cavemen, the climate is changing, and industrial man is undoubtedly the cause.

    But on the other hand, the technology available today is extraordinary. The best midsized car, available for $30K, is the Honda Accord hybrid, which is routinely averaging 45 MPG, while offering strong performance and all around goodness. This is roughly double the efficiency which was the norm a decade ago, in a much better vehicle.

    And for all the whining about the government, all this technology is available for ~$5K above the price of a regular ICE midsized sedan, and will easily save consumers $500/year.

    If only we could convince people that investing $5,000 today to save $500/year for the next 17 years represents good math.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      The climate has been changing since day one of the creation of this planet. Ten thousand years ago the climate was that of an ice age and warmed up long before humans had any input.

      Ten thousand years from now, who knows what the climate on this planet will be like. We should all live so long.

      If someone wants to believe in global warming, that’s cool! But let’s not drag the non-believers into this to help fund this misbegotten wild hair of eco-friendliness and tree-hugging.

      For every global warming believer there are millions of others who don’t believe, and live THEIR lives accordingly.

      Eco-terrorists should stick to planting trees and shrubs, not tell the rest of us how they want us to change our lifestyles to accommodate their beliefs and live.

      I don’t buy it. Millions upon millions of others don’t buy it and we’re not going to alter our lifestyles to suit alarmists.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        The fact that the climate has changed or has always changed does not prevent us changing it abruptly ourselves and doesn’t prevent our abrupt change from having unpleasant short-term consequences. CO2 is a factor; CO2 has always been a factor but the change in CO2 has been relatively gradual for tens of millions of years and interglacial climate has been relatively stable.

        By pushing CO2 from ~340ppmv to ~400ppmv in just five decades, with no end in sight, we’ve already rolled the atmosphere’s characteristics back about a million years. We don’t need to worry about BMSR’s “geologic” time scales to see changes that are usually limited to geologic time scales.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Kix, plant more trees! To offset the increase in CO2.

          But for every good deed we in America do for the planet, that good deed is easily negated by someone else, in another country, on another continent, in another hemisphere.

          Hell, we should all give up eating beans thereby reducing the emissions of methane gas enormously. And if we stop breathing, think of how much CO2 would not be released!

          When I kick on my Wacker 75KW Diesel generator every Sunday noon, I emit more carbon, nitrogen and crud in a plume of black, billowing smoke to offset and nullify the good deeds of millions of people.

          Instead of Americans bearing the brunt and expense of atmospheric cleansing, lets get the Asians to pay for it. Most of the crap in the air is theirs to begin with.

          Oh, and all those wind mills along I-10 near Palm Springs? Most of them aren’t even being used. They’re idle! But those Californians sure continue to pay for them in their electric bills, even though they’re rarely used.

          Just to be sure that my kids in California would not suffer from brownouts and rolling blackouts THIS summer, like they did last summer, I delivered two 15KW multi-fuel AC generators to them last month.

          Wired them, plumbed them into the natgas line, tested them, and they are good to go. The reason I didn’t have to deliver one to my grandson’s residence in Fallbrook is because his father-in-law already set up that house with a multi-fuel 22KW AC generator.

          Imagine the crud all those generators will spew into the atmosphere the next time California has a brownout or blackout.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            Well, not only does somebody in some furrin’ country kick some crud into the air for every tree planted here, HDC’s gonna kick in some more atmospheric crud of his own, too.

            Thanks ever so much.

            The fact that you are uninformed doesn’t change the science or the end result of the little climate experiment we’re running live in the atmosphere right now.

            “Most of the crap in the air is theirs [Asians] to begin with.”

            Well, an eye for an eye and pretty soon we’re all blind. Smart.

            While much – maybe most – of the current traditional air pollution can be laid at the feet of the Indians and Chinese, these traditional pollutants are fairly transitory. CO2, however, takes centuries to be removed from the air and we’re still way ahead of the Asians in total cumulative CO2 emissions.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Kix, I’m not uninformed. I keep up with the concerns. I just don’t buy into it.

            I am not an alarmist. I believe in the resiliency of the planet. The planet has proven itself resilient over the millennia with atmospheric conditions and pollutants far worse than what is anticipated now by a few alarmist worst-case scientists.

            I am a proponent of people believing whatever it is they want to believe and living their lifestyle accordingly.

            Global warming is not a concern for me, and millions of others who think like me. If the next administration changes from the current one, the emphasis will be on different economic strategies and the whole greenweenie thing will fall by the wayside, just as it was when Shrub was president and Clinton before him.

            BTW, Democrat Clinton did not buy into this global warming claptrap either, and neither did JFK and LBJ or Carter give much credence to the global cooling debacle that was prevalent during the 50s, 60s and 70s.

            I say, to each his own. Just don’t fock with my oil supply.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            HDC: “I believe in the resiliency of the planet.”

            Thanks for this bit of nonsense. Sure, the planet will survive. The question is, is civilization that resilient? Our military takes this quite seriously for a reason. Famine has a way of encouraging violent conflict… as if we needed more reasons.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Kix, of course civilization is that resilient. Look at everything civilization had to overcome over just the past couple hundred years, from famine, to diseases, to the pollution of the Industrial Age, to wars.

            Even Chernobyl, Fukushima and massive volcanic eruptions did not dissuade mankind from its pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We simply adapted and overcame.

            You and those who think like you are entitled to your views and opinions. But not everyone shares your doom and gloom outlook for the planet.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I echo KixStart’s overall concerns and there are many others who agree in the so called “prepper” movement. Earth has been around for a long time and there is evidence to suggest previous civilizations have come and gone, its very possible ours could go the way of the dodo as well.

            This took me many years to learn but on one hand I’m not going to stop living my life because of what “might happen” but on another I’m going to pay close attention to what does happen and react accordingly.

          • 0 avatar

            > many others who agree in the so called “prepper” movement

            The results of AGW for the most part aren’t end-of-the-world situations but marginal external costs of pollution.

            That $4 gas you’re burning now is going to cost everyone on earth tiny fractional cents a generation down the road adding up to real money. This is a very long term economic hazard abstract in a way most people can’t grasp, so it’s often sexed up with melting ice under polar bears.

            Dummies then complain that “we’re not really going to all die, those scientists are full of it”, as if they discovered the secret.

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/04/us-energy-department-unveils-four-year-strategy-plan/#comment-3102410

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            28-Cars-Later, that is sage thinking. But yours is the cautious exception in the face of the shrill whining of the alarmists who unceasingly batter us with repent, give up oil, coal, uranium, gas…. Go back to the agrarian age! Change your lifestyle to that of the caveman! Eat plants, not meat! Etc, etc, etc…

            If THEY want to alter THEIR lifestyle, I’m cool with that. But I’m not going to alter mine just because they say it will avert doom and gloom.

            It becomes a moot point IF the alarmists are right. But in every catastrophe in the past, in every doom and gloom scenario prior to today, civilization has managed to adapt and overcome.

            The only thing we cannot guard against is the occasional space rock that may hit us and possibly annihilate humanity, as it allegedly did the dinosaurs. But even after that massive catastrophe, here we are today.

            Nothing mankind can do, short of nuclear holocaust, can even come close to what a space rock can, and has done, to the planet.

            We’re all going to die! Each and everyone of us is going to die. It is inevitable. We should be worrying about how to live our lives to the fullest instead of being dragged down by the eco-terrorists and their deviant agenda.

          • 0 avatar

            > But yours is the cautious exception in the face of the shrill whining of the alarmists who unceasingly batter us with repent, give up oil, coal, uranium, gas….

            Just to re-iterate the point, this is usually done because joe sixpacks simply don’t grasp nuanced numerical economic arguments of marginal costs, etc, etc.

            Case in point, some lead in the environment doesn’t instantly kill you (cue hysterical parents over contaminated toys, etc), but it causes enough damage over the long run that it’s not worth the immediate benefits.

            Not everyone gets it so they paint some skull/death symbols over lead to get the point across.

          • 0 avatar
            philipwitak

            re: “Just don’t fock with my oil supply.”

            we’re gonna fock with your oil supply. big-time. from here on out.
            climate change is making it absolutely essential that we do so!

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          This. The developing nations in Asia and Africa may have billions of people, and they may all be using old tech with essentially no pollution controls, but they’re just starting. The carbon footprint of the average Indian is pretty small in comparison with the average American, and we’ve been doing it for 50+ years.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            There’s a business opportunity in selling them clean tech, so they don’t develop the same carbon footprint we have.

            Of course, China recognizes this, too, which is why they’re dumping SPV panels in attempt to gain a strategic advantage in the market.

    • 0 avatar
      jacob_coulter

      $500 for 17 years? You think that’s a normal ownership experience?

      What about the time value of money? If I told you I had an investment that “might” break even in a decade, is that something you would be interested in?

      Hybrids also have greater complexity because it has both an electric motor and battery as well as well as a traditional engine. For example, at LEAST one new motor battery is going to be needed within 17 years, and if you buy and have it installed at a dealership, you’re looking at between $4,000- $5,000. Where is that in the equation? Nevermind if you need two batteries within 17 years.

      Maybe consumers are more savvy than you think.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        In some respects, the eCVT in the Prius is simpler than a regular automatic transmission and they appear to be very durable and reliable. Nor is there any evidence the typical consumer is going to need two batteries within 17 years.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Ugh. More lies, endlessly repeated. The ownership experience of taxi companies running the Prius to several hundred thousand miles shows that hybrids are much lower cost to maintain then traditional ICE. Plenty of owners have crossed the 100K mark on the same brake pads due to the regen braking system. And if they do need to replace a battery, they are about $800, not $5K.

        Look, no one is forcing you to buy a hybrid. And these lies you retell only drive down the prices for hybrids, which is fine my me.

        • 0 avatar
          jacob_coulter

          You’re the one that’s lying.

          Please show me a NEW, factory hybrid battery for $800.

          A Toyota Highlander Hybrid battery MSRP is listed at $4,848, and that’s not including installation.

          Call the Toyota dealership and ask yourself.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            With the latest generation of Prius, it’s possible to replace just the affected cells, no need for an entirely new battery. That’s a couple hundred bucks. Reconditioned packs are available for maybe $1600 or so.

            And that’s all “as if.” As in, “As if you have a clue.” Or, “As if you’ll need one.” The packs are about as reliable as Toyota transmissions… even the first generation Priuses don’t seem to need repair and that’s over 10 years on the roads. The local dealer has only ordered packs for Priuses involved in accidents.

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            Well we went from $800 for a new battery pack to $1,600 for a used one. I guess that’s progress.

            My point was that it’s VERY likely that within 17 years, you’re going to need a new battery, in fact the odds are you’ll need two. Age is a factor for battery life. Anyone who wants to say you should expect 17 years out of one of these packs knows nothing about batteries.

            I’m giving the price a dealership charges for a new battery pack. You’re giving the price for what junkyards charge.

            Some hybrid cheerleaders want to ignore all evidence to the contrary that MAYBE hybrids have some downsides.

            The fact is, even with absurd “17 year” calculations for return on investment, the numbers still don’t add up.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            j_c: “My point was that it’s VERY likely that within 17 years, you’re going to need a new battery, in fact the odds are you’ll need two. Age is a factor for battery life. Anyone who wants to say you should expect 17 years out of one of these packs knows nothing about batteries.”

            If that’s the case, the original Priuses should have started reporting, en masse, to the Toyota dealer for battery replacement about 3 years ago. They didn’t and still haven’t.

            Your unique views on hybrid reliability are unsupported by actual experience. When that happens to some of us, we change our minds.

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            How many Toyota hybrids on the road are 20 years old? The Prius was introduced in Japan 1997, and came out in 2000 in the US. So none of the ones in the US are 17 years old yet.

            Where on Earth are you getting your numbers?

            And yes, many on the road have needed new battery packs. You act like no hybrid owner has ever had to have their battery replaced.

          • 0 avatar
            KixStart

            Two batteries in 17 years implies a life of 8.5 years or less. There’s Priuses older than that on my block and the owners are perfectly happy. GM wishes people felt this way about their 8 year old cars.

            http://www.truedelta.com/Toyota-Prius/reliability-272

          • 0 avatar
            Power6

            MSRP on a new transmission for a normal V6 highlander is $4114.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      VoGo, I think your calculation is faulty. First, while the Accord hybrid fuel efficiency is excellent, no way is it going to be 45 mpg for 17 years. The real world tests for new Accord were closer to a still excellent 42 mpg combined with new battery pack. Cold weather and real world 75 mph highway driving reduce the hybrid efficiency. Lithium-ion battery packs degrade more rapidly with charge/discharge cycles than prior rechargeable batteries. Since the Accord hybrid has no transmission, the battery pack gets a workout. Phone and laptop batteries go “soft” in a few years. I expect that the Accord charge/discharge depth tradeoff is set to outlast the battery warranty, but not to last decades. End result is roughly break-even at current gasoline and battery prices.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Why would you make absurd proclamations when climate data is a Google search away? The era of mankind has been remarkable for its warmth and lack of climate change, according to ice core data. AGW science is based upon the possible negative consequences of rising CO2 concentration, not climate volatility.

  • avatar
    daver277

    I see the tobacco lobby, er, make that Big Oil lobby, is fast to the keyboard.
    Instill a bit of doubt and vocal cavemen seize the opportunity to carry on with their consumptive ways. History will not be kind.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    So when we meet our Co2 targets, how much should the Earth start cooling down?

    I think we’re at least owed a number.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      ‘Bout tree fiddy.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      It won’t. We haven’t reached equilibrium temps for the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

      • 0 avatar
        jacob_coulter

        That’s about what I expected.

        It’s never going to be enough, we’ve only scratched the surface, we’ve lost too much ground, etc. We’re never going to get a number because it’s all pseudoscience.

        We have some of the coldest temperatures on record last winter, and now we’ve gone from global warming to just climate change. Apparently the weather never had large swings before the automobile. We must have forgotten about the Ice Age.

        Just keep moving those goal posts.

        • 0 avatar

          > We’re never going to get a number because it’s all pseudoscience. We have some of the coldest temperatures on record last winter,

          This field much like evolutionary biology requires some work from layfolks to grasp the basic quantities at play.

          A good place to start would be that climate is calculated as a long averaged window, compared to short-term fluctuation of weather.

          It’s like measuring fuel consumption of a car to check for decreases as it ages rather than day-to-day driving.

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            Explain the Ice Age.

            The Earth cooled very rapidly, then warmed up considerably to thaw out.

            This was obviously done without involvement from mankind.

            If the Earth can have HUGE heating and cooling cycles without increased Co2, how do we know that’s not happening now?

            Answer: we don’t.

            And the Earth has been going through a huge cold spell last winter that is humiliating the alarmists with some of the coldest temperatures on record.

          • 0 avatar

            > Explain the Ice Age. The Earth cooled very rapidly, then warmed up considerably to thaw out.

            The natural cycles happen over long spans of time.

            It really helps here to be able to compare numbers such as a few dozen years to at least hundreds and thousands.

            The relevance here is that it’s measured against human lifespans.

            > Answer: we don’t.

            No, you don’t, and can’t. People who get their Ph.Ds in physics and research this stuff for years however can eventually figure it out.

            They sometimes take the effort to write about it at elementary levels, much like your science books in grade school.

            What the anti-science crowd do is the equivalent of “they don’t know it’s all just gravity, I seens things go up all the time”.

        • 0 avatar
          KixStart

          “We have some of the coldest temperatures on record last winter, and now we’ve gone from global warming to just climate change. Apparently the weather never had large swings before the automobile. We must have forgotten about the Ice Age.”

          You’re really quite special, aren’t you? It was cold here but, in fact, it was not shockingly cold. I don’t believe we (MN) set a single absolute cold record. In fact, it was what would have passed for “typically cold” some decades ago.

          Alaska, however, had weather that was shockingly warm. Australia was, pretty much literally, on fire. Europe and Asia had, if memory serves, warmer than normal winters.

          “Climate Change” was actually introduced by Denialists because it seemed less harmful, and was embraced by scientistific community because it is actually more descriptive. Mostly we’ll get warmer. Isolated places may cool. Some places will be drier, others will be wetter. Figuring out the exact values is difficult because weather does vary widely. But the fundamentals are simple, the climate is changing, we’re causing it and your willful ignorance doesn’t prevent it or even slow it down.

        • 0 avatar
          philipwitak

          re: “If the Earth can have HUGE heating and cooling cycles without increased Co2, how do we know that’s not happening now?”

          well, evidently, we’re much smarter than you. not buying any craptastic corporate fantasies or faith-based fairy-tales you may choose to employ.

          wishing and hoping may have worked for you and your kind in the past – but it’s not gonna get it done moving forward.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            Consider yourself warned on this. TTAC is not a forum for you to denigrate people who choose to believe in something.

        • 0 avatar
          This Is Dawg

          >It’s never going to be enough, we’ve only scratched the surface, we’ve lost too much ground, etc. We’re never going to get a number because it’s all pseudoscience.

          So if a smoker finds out he has lung cancer, is the solution to say “No I don’t?” or “I’ve lost too much ground, guess I won’t change a thing?” Or is it to seek a solution? Hell, quitting smoking seems like an obvious first step, but when applied to the bigger picture no one seems to understand prevention is better than reactive solution seeking. Instead we seem to be listening to the metaphorical tobacco companies and “teaching the controversy.”

          Throwing our hands in the air and calling it pseudoscience isn’t constructive. If we find out definitively that reducing emissions more and more for 300 years will allow CO2 to return to natural fluctuations by 2400, isn’t working towards that goal still better than saying f*ck it?

          Lastly, climate =/= weather. Weather has always been variable. Maybe you’ve only recently heard the term climate change used similarly to global warming, but the forming of the IPCC (panel on what?)in 1988 begs to differ with the notion that “now we’ve gone from global warming to just climate change.”

  • avatar
    daver277

    I see the Tobacco lobby, er, make that Big Oil lobby is quick to the keyboards.
    Instill a fraction of doubt and the consumptive cavemen quickly justify to themselves why they are so wasteful.
    History will no be kind to them.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Leaving the global warming out of it, is _anyone_ here happy that they don’t have to spend as much money on gas, or that even the sorriest little 2014 econobox is of an unbelievably higher quality than even the most well-appointed Eldorado, Mark V or Cordoba of yesteryear?

    We now have a 1.0 liter three-cylinder engine that can make 100 horsepower-unbelievable five years ago, unthinkable ten years ago, inconceivable twenty years ago. Would that have been engineered if not for CAFE or other regs? Possibly, but not in 2014.

    And those of you who immediately rush to your keyboards to spout the same tired phrases for one side or another–not playing any favorites here–do you honestly believe that one person of an opposing viewpoint in the entire world will look at your words and say, “Wow! What a well-thought-out argument! I’m sure glad he took the time to say that, ’cause he’s convinced me!”? You’re only hurting your own cause.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      Bought a plug in hybrid about two months ago, the dealer filled the tank on delivery. I bought gas for it for the first time yesterday. Me likee very much.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      I’d love my Prius whatever the price of gas or greenhouse effect of the exhaust because the idea of energy recapture is so appealing. I no longer turn all my kinetic energy into waste heat when I need to slow down.

      It’s a huge bonus to go 520 miles on just 10 gallons of gas. Combining the long range of the vehicle with GasBuddy price maps on a cross-country trip allows me to pick and choose where to fuel for additional savings.

  • avatar
    TW5

    I want to applaud the market and consumers, but CAFE regulations allow credit trading and carryforward. The manufacturers are probably just buying indulgences so they can drag their feet and lobby for more lenient implementation of CAFE Phase II (2017-2025), during the 2017 Congressional review.

    Cheap-car-lovers have some reason to be optimistic. The Mitsubishi Mirage is almost CAFE 2025 compliant. The current CVT versions make 40mpg combined, compared to the 43mpg required for 2025. Eco-friendly A/C refrigerant, start-stop or something yet to be CAFE approved, could probably put the car over the top.

    My only on-going complaint against CAFE regulations is their blatant disregard for blue-collar fullsize sedans and legitimate off-roading vehicles, like Wrangler or Xterra. Some amendments need to be made before 2025.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      Hybrid sedans ought to do the trick for families. I suspect that the number of offroad vehicles that are actually offroaded is small enough to fit in the fleet.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        Maybe. Hybridization will work for fullsize luxury sedans because the segment can absorb the cost of high-capacity full hybrid systems. Can a Dodge Charger get to 34mpg by 2025 without $8,000 in hybrid equipment and engineering? I’m skeptical.

        For CAFE 2025, the most effective way to remedy poor fuel-economy is to sell plug-ins. Chrysler has no plug-in vehicles, and Jeep sells far more non-compliant SUVs than any other company. Doesn’t look good. I hope they just put all light trucks with a solid axle in the fullsize truck category.

        • 0 avatar
          FormerFF

          For Ford and Toyota, the hybrid price differential is about $3000 for the Fusion and the Camry. As far as the Charger goes, large and V8 powered don’t go that well with fuel economy.

  • avatar
    Ridgerunner

    Can anyone tell me the temp the planet should be and how we will maintain that temp? According to most people, it was a molten mass to begin with and maybe that is how it will end, with or without our help. But I really want to know what the correct temp is. Please someone tell me so I can know if we are to hot or cold.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    While everybody is over here dumping trillions of dollars into and wringing there hands over global warming an asteroid will come up from behind and kick our collective butts into a nuclear winter type scenario destroying most of life as we know it and the cycle will start all over again. Then we can all be part of the fossil fuel used a million years from now.

    Pay it forward

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    Why are there even any alarmists on this site? If you believe there is significant warming, that it is manmade, and that it’s catastrophic, why aren’t you hanging out over at “The Truth About Public Buses?” You could debate the best place to sit to minimize NVH on your daily 7 mile, 2 hour commute. If you truly believe the danger from global warming is imminent and catastrophic, and you haven’t completely sworn off any and all use of fossil fuels, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      Because we like cars. Got a problem with that?

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      The radical left has to go somewhere. They self-identify by disparaging Fox News, Koch Brothers, Sarah Palin, Deniers, etc. so they’re easy to spot and ignore. The AGW argument is reaching its end point, with even us Massachusetts Kennedy liberal Democrats giving it up, but the true believers will hold on a bit longer and get more shrill in citing “adjusted” data and GIGO computer models, as the warming was nothing more than part of a natural cycle, and has already come to an end.

      • 0 avatar

        > citing “adjusted” data and GIGO computer models, as the warming was nothing more than part of a natural cycle, and has already come to an end.

        The science isn’t going anyway, though the crowd who can’t understand do adjust their specific misinterpretations regularly.

        The Fox News broadcasts about “adjusting” probably refer to the data fitting on the somewhat lower end of the expected range when there was inadequate measurement coverage across the planet. That’s been rectified with satellite temp reconstruction which pretty much show what the physics models predicted.

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          An article in the Science journal this month highlights the efforts of two guys named Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way to reconstruct the data set that did not give enough weight to African, Antarctic, and Arctic temperatures – the new findings revise the slowdown of warming upwards (unfortunately).
          More sobering news: The ability of soils to absorb CO2 seems to be offset by the CO2 stimulated increase of bacterial decomposition of organic matter – the hope was that the soil could become a carbon sink to moderate increases.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    What is the problem with trying to make vehicles more efficient? Is this progress?

    I can’t believe some of the comments, which appear to be approached with a simplistic rural type attitude.

    I’m no greenie and as most can tell I totally support economic freedom, whether it be the removal of protectionist measures which leave consumer with less freedom of choice.

    Freedom of choice is one thing I found on this site that isn’t cherished by many, particularly a few of our US allies.

    I do believe in constructive and progressive regulation that improves.

    If it wasn’t for regulations demanding improvement in our emission levels, whether it be NOx, CO2, etc. we wouldn’t have the high performance from vehicles we have now.

    I see nothing wrong with trying to use less fuel. Not so much for the CO2 emissions, but for our great grand kids and their great grand kids.

    Why deplete a resource just because we can?

    Does everyone spend their money until they have nothing left? (that’s a dumbass question, now isn’t it?)

    Now I see the problem. We are selfish and don’t give a f4ck for our futures. Not because of pollution, but for cheap energy.

    How many of you would burn all your firewood for your fireplace in a month over winter? I think if our forefathers saw some of the attitude displayed here they would wonder where they went wrong in teaching us right from wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      This Is Dawg

      + 1

    • 0 avatar
      epsilonkore

      +1
      The previous posters (one or two in specific) constantly find the most controversial points to bring up while ignoring the less disputed gains this article (and others) also brought to light.

      Regardless of what emissions were reduced, we are on average, selling more efficient vehicles. That means fewer trips to the pump and typically less money spent in the process (bonus for now) while conserving resources for the future generations (bonus for later).

      Whether we are already in “peak oil”, past it, or not even close to it, increased economy today gives future generations more time to formulate alternative energy solutions for the future of our species. If that reduces noxious gasses, or even reduces CO2 from becoming out of balance with natures tolerable limits (controversy aside), its just an added bonus on top of the reduced oil consumption.

      Only those ignorant to their roles in societies consumption would INTENTIONALLY drive a vehicle that used more resources than an equally affordable yet more efficient vehicle.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Meanwhile, the powerful vehicles the average red-blooded males (and some females) lust after get further and further out of reach. Don’t worry, those riding in uparmored Suburbans did this for your own good.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India