The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

I really doubt these companies are getting zero government funding. I would bet they are being subsized in one form or another.

If by "subsidized", we are saying they are getting some relatively small tax breaks here and there, then yes. But following that logic, that means we should be up in every company's business, and I'm not OK with that. Are you?

 

If we are talking like GM/Chrysler or ML/B of A here, where they are being propped up by the government, then I'm sorry but they have given up some control.

 

[southsider2k5]

If by "subsidized", we are saying they are getting some relatively small tax breaks here and there, then yes. But following that logic, that means we should be up in every company's business, and I'm not OK with that. Are you?

 

If we are talking like GM/Chrysler or ML/B of A here, where they are being propped up by the government, then I'm sorry but they have given up some control.

 

I'm not saying this is right at all. It was just a few short weeks ago that this was a GREAT idea when it involved punishing the banks. It amazing that both parties did a complete 180 on punative measures so damned quickly.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not saying this is right at all. It was just a few short weeks ago that this was a GREAT idea when it involved punishing the banks. It amazing that both parties did a complete 180 on punative measures so damned quickly.

They are completely different circumstances, as I said in my previous post.

 

[southsider2k5]

They are completely different circumstances, as I said in my previous post.

 

Not really. Both parties are trying to use punishment through the tax code to try to get companies to behave how they want them to behave. It is more erosion of our economic freedoms.

[kapkomet]

Not really. Both parties are trying to use punishment through the tax code to try to get companies to behave how they want them to behave. It is more erosion of our economic freedoms.

And it's just getting started. Before the end of 2010, we will have a federal tax on every product we touch in some form or another.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really. Both parties are trying to use punishment through the tax code to try to get companies to behave how they want them to behave. It is more erosion of our economic freedoms.

Not really? You don't see a difference between a business that is living off huge government funding, and one that is fine on its own? Come on now, if you can ignore than, then all you are doing is trying to make a partisan example.

 

[southsider2k5]

Not really? You don't see a difference between a business that is living off huge government funding, and one that is fine on its own? Come on now, if you can ignore than, then all you are doing is trying to make a partisan example.

 

So by your example we should totally leave alone all businesses that are not being funded by the government?

[NorthSideSox72]

So by your example we should totally leave alone all businesses that are not being funded by the government?

We should tax and penalize all businesses not currently propped up by the government fairly and equally based on current fiscal structure.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama officially announced the administration's two-pronged plan for greener automobiles. Long story short... 35.5 mpg fleet average by 2016, and a 30% reduction in emissions.

 

Linky.

 

[StrangeSox]

Good luck with that fleet average. Currently, its about 21 MPG. That leaves about 5 years of engineering for a 50% increase.

 

edit: looking back at the numbers, its more like 21 for an average. That's a 70% increase.

Edited May 19, 2009 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Obama officially announced the administration's two-pronged plan for greener automobiles. Long story short... 35.5 mpg fleet average by 2016, and a 30% reduction in emissions.

 

Linky.

Seven years to get it to 35? Color me unimpressed. Most foreign companies are probably there or close to it.

[StrangeSox]

Seven years to get it to 35? Color me unimpressed. Most foreign companies are probably there or close to it.

 

Not even close. Mini is the highest, and they're not even at 28 with small, generally impractical lineup.

 

http://www.automotivetraveler.com/index.ph...&Itemid=131

 

You can't legislate technological/ scientific advances. Getting 35 MPG while hauling around 2 tons of steel + passengers is not an easy thing to do.

[NorthSideSox72]

Good luck with that fleet average. Currently, its about 24 MPG. That leaves about 5 years of engineering for a 50% increase.

25 right now, 35 in 7 years is 40% in those years. Definitely a hard thing to accomplish, but entirely possible.

 

The downfall of this, of course, is that the cost of manufacturing cars (and price to the consumers) will increase. But so will the price of gas, which will be offset by this legislation. So, you can either pay less for the cars and more for the gas, or vice versa. I'd rather that same money go to high tech work and engineers here, then to the Middle East as oil money.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Seven years to get it to 35? Color me unimpressed. Most foreign companies are probably there or close to it.

I agree with the legislation in principle, but make no mistake, its not a small task. Anything more would be insanely expensive to achieve. The cost increase should try to match the savings on gas, more or less, and from what I have read, that is how the Energy department came up with these values to propose to Obama.

 

Again, one thing Obama is doing well is relying on actual experts, like scientists, to come up with the right policies.

 

[StrangeSox]

The admin. estimates $1300/ car price increase to meet this new standards.

[NorthSideSox72]

The admin. estimates $1300/ car price increase to meet this new standards.

Yup, and that's about what they project will be in the increase in gas prices for typical ownership of a vehicle in that period without changes to mileage.

 

Like I said, how novel is it to see an administration making policy based on at least some degree of scientific data.

 

[StrangeSox]

It feels....weird

 

I'm skeptical that they'll meet this standards while still producing vehicles people want for only $1300 more, but I'm hopeful that they can.

[NorthSideSox72]

It feels....weird

 

I'm skeptical that they'll meet this standards while still producing vehicles people want for only $1300 more, but I'm hopeful that they can.

There is of course some guess work there, the projections of gas prices and average car price increases are still just that - projections. But at least its a thought-out target for them to hit. Either factor could fluctuate.

 

 

[mr_genius]

$1300 more per car is a lot, but I still approve of this move

[southsider2k5]

The admin. estimates $1300/ car price increase to meet this new standards.

 

Judging by how their budget estimates have gone so far, all I have to say is

 

ha-ha.

[Cknolls]

I agree with the legislation in principle, but make no mistake, its not a small task. Anything more would be insanely expensive to achieve. The cost increase should try to match the savings on gas, more or less, and from what I have read, that is how the Energy department came up with these values to propose to Obama.

 

Again, one thing Obama is doing well is relying on actual experts, like scientists, to come up with the right policies.

 

 

Like the experts who predicted the nebulous JOBS SAVED/CREATED scheme?

[Cknolls]

25 right now, 35 in 7 years is 40% in those years. Definitely a hard thing to accomplish, but entirely possible.

 

The downfall of this, of course, is that the cost of manufacturing cars (and price to the consumers) will increase. But so will the price of gas, which will be offset by this legislation. So, you can either pay less for the cars and more for the gas, or vice versa. I'd rather that same money go to high tech work and engineers here, then to the Middle East as oil money.

 

 

How will the price of gas be offset by this legislation? If gas increases a dollar a gallon on average it will take that much longer to recover the extra cash expended on the purchase of the car. Also people will probably drive more if they feel perceive they are "saving" money, thereby reducing their said savings. Also, I think we need to be skeptical of the $1300 price increase. It will be higher, gov't is never right on estimates for anything.

[Cknolls]

Will the administration also own the increase in traffic deaths due to the new autos?

[NorthSideSox72]

How will the price of gas be offset by this legislation? If gas increases a dollar a gallon on average it will take that much longer to recover the extra cash expended on the purchase of the car. Also people will probably drive more if they feel perceive they are "saving" money, thereby reducing their said savings. Also, I think we need to be skeptical of the $1300 price increase. It will be higher, gov't is never right on estimates for anything.

I think the math is pretty simple. Certainly we are talking about projections and estimates here, and it is impossible to know FOR SURE what will happen. But if you are so deathly afraid of even trying to change things, then you are going to be a lot more screwed.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Will the administration also own the increase in traffic deaths due to the new autos?

Ah yes, the paranoia from the right begins. Fuel efficiency does not mean sacrificing safety. In fact, fewer gigantic, heavy SUV's on the road will probably decrease traffic deaths. So even if an increase in smaller lighter cars ends up increasing traffic deaths (which I think is not really likely, as lighter cars are better at avoiding accidents), you have the offset on the other side.