Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars

This is the Libertarian/Objectivist myth: We should all be
independent agents and only look to the government for defense. Why
even have a government then? Let's just have everyone defend
themselves. If you want a small private army to defend your turf and
can afford it, go ahead. Others who don't want or can't afford that
can spend less and take their chances. If Hitler can afford to build
a big army and take over, that's free enterprise.

However, if you are only a pseudo-libertarian who thinks that you need
a nanny state to protect you, then you must consider that the nanny
state might also be able to serve other purposes for the common good.
By acknowledging the need for tribal defense behavior writ large, you
open the discussion of whether other tribal behaviors could allow us
to do more as a community then we ever could as individuals.
Chimpanzees figured this out long ago. It should be fairly obvious to
21st century humans.

Incidentally, If you really want to commute in a 4mpg monster SUV
there is absolutely nothing in CAFE which will interfere with your
doing so. Vehicles that exceed 6500 pounds GVWR are considered Medium
Duty trucks and are exempt from CAFE. That is why the H2 doesn't even
have an EPA mileage estimate. My question is why we allow these
vehicles be licensed as cars.

 

I do not understand why high fuel consumption
is mated in people's mind exclusively to suvs and
trucks. EVO (which is high on my shopping list)
sips the fuel like a Durango.
Is EVO efficient? Hell yes!
It could be made lighter by 500 pounds or so but
then it won't be a 30k car and it won't consume
that much less even if the engine gets
detuned to be inline with the reduced weight.

What I'm trying to say is that people who
are about to revise CAFE at the expense of
the automotive enthusiasts deserve to be slaughtered.

I don't blame the supreme court granting
the EPA additional rights. But EPA officials
have to realize that by accepting the
extra authority over other people fun
there is potentially a price to pay.

Back to the truck issue: why in the world do
the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while
the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg
pigmobiles???

 

Different purposes. Trucks are cargo haulers, cars are people haulers. Buses
and trains are allowed even more fuel consumption, I'm sure.

Mike

 

I don't have any experience with either vehicle, but I bet that if you
drive the Durango like the EVO (to the extent possible) it will get
worse mileage.

Sorry, you can't have a performance vehicle because CAFE has to be
rigged to allow the Pig 3 to sell more Urban Assault Vehicles. If you
don't like that, call your Congressman.

You have it backwards. The Supreme Court decision went AGAINST the
EPA. The EPA wanted the court to tell them they could NOT regulate
CO2. It's the Bush administration, remember?

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070415/NEWS/70415005

Now they have to have to crack down on cars so they can pretend they
are trying to reduce CO2 and still allow their corporate masters to
sell Suburbans and Expeditions.

You can buy anything that someone is willing to make. And the
manufacturers can make anything they want. The lie that the car
makers have to sell 30 mpg cars to offset the 20 mpg cars is bullshit.
(Where are the 30 mpg Lambos?) You just have to pay a penalty, about
$55 for every mpg by which you miss the standard. Hell, the extra gas
you will burn will cost you a lot more. The gas guzzler tax is what
kills you, especially as you drop below 18.