Senate Rejects Auto Fuel Economy Boost

dlai

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Location
The Insane Asylum Known As CA
TDI
2005 Passat, Stonehenge Gray, 2002 Black Golf 5M
Senate Rejects Auto Fuel Economy Boost
Wed Jul 30, 3:42 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A new energy agenda being fashioned by the Senate will do little to force automakers to substantially increase fuel economy, although cars and SUVs gobble up 40 percent of the oil that is used daily in the United States.

The Senate turned back an attempt Tuesday to include in the energy bill a requirement that automobiles cut gasoline use by 45 percent over the next dozen years. Instead it approved an industry-supported measure that includes new requirements that must be considered before the government can imposing future fuel economy improvements.

With the auto fuel issue essentially disposed of, the senators planned to turn their attention Wednesday to electricity market issues.

Democrats have criticized a largely GOP-crafted electricity proposal, saying it fails to adequately address consumer protections — an area of increased concern in the aftermath of the California power crisis and market abuses by Enron and other electricity traders.

Opponents to the tougher automobile fuel measure argued that manufacturers would be forced to stop making larger cars and SUVs, resulting in thousands of autoworkers to lose their jobs and forcing consumers to buy smaller, less safe vehicles.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., called such claims a red herring and said his amendment, directing new cars achieved a fleet average of 40 mpg by 2015, was technologically feasible without making vehicles smaller or resulting in industry job losses.

But his amendment was rejected 65-32. Instead, senators by a 66-30 vote directed that the Transportation Department consider tougher fuel economy standards, but only after taking into account impact on jobs, highway safety and other issues that could adversely harm the U.S. auto industry.

It assures "that future standards are based on sound science" rather than "a politically arbitrary (mileage) figure," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., whose state has a half dozen auto production facilities.

But critics said it would create unnecessary hurdles to any significant increases in fuel economy by the transportation agency with future rules likely to be challenged more easily in court.

"We are going backwards," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.

The average fuel economy for passenger vehicles has been declining since 1988 as more and more motorists have favored buying SUVs, as well as vans and pickups, that are not required to meet as stringent fuel economy standard as passenger cars. A number of senators were planning an amendment to close the gap between the SUV and passenger sedan requirement, but its prospect is uncertain in light of Tuesday's solid twin votes against more stringent CAFE standards.

The core of the anti-CAFE debate focused on jobs and consumer choice.

"What about choice?" asked Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "This is still America."

Pointing to a picture of a European mini-car he had brought to the Senate floor, Lott declared: "I don't think we should be forced to drive that automobile."

Supporters of higher CAFE requirements cited a National Academy of Sciences report that concluded that substantial increases in fuel economy are achievable using current technology — such as advanced transmission designs, aerodynamic improvements and direct fuel injection — without reducing vehicle size or jeopardizing safety.

But they failed to sway enough senators. And opponents quoted from the same study, which also noted that when vehicles were downsized to make them more fuel efficient in the 1970s and 1980s, the result was an increase in highway deaths.
 

eschady

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Location
Milton, WI
TDI
2003 Jetta GL Black w/gray int.
I just got done reading that article at lunch. It just pisses me off. It is hilarious that we are willing to admit that the US is too stupid to develop the technology to improve gas mileage, and how ignorant we are to sit around and wait for someone else to do it.
 

mavapa

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Location
rome, ga
TDI
2001 golf
It will take a crisis to make them consider increasing fuel economy standards, and by then it will be too late. The unfortunate part is that those of use who are trying to do the right thing will be suffering right along with the idiots who are wasting all the fuel. Except congressmen. They won't suffer.
 

VWannabe

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 2, 1999
Location
Lawrenceville, GA USA
I am not surprised by this development. Bush and the Congress have no desire to really affect the energy issues, except to drill in remote areas and invade foreign nations with oil. When the next energy crisis hits, we will be sorely hit, with the economy and jobs affected. Then the people will look to the govt. to help, only to find out that something could have been done to avert this possibility. As long as you are driving a diesel, though, you can find other alternatives to petroleum and weather the storm.
 

tongsli

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2000
Location
Baltimore, MD
TDI
2000 Jetta TDI, 2004, Jetta Wagon TDI PD
Uhhh...you BUSH basher need to look at the Senate vote. There were plenty of Democrats that supported killing this legislation.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., called such claims a red herring and said his amendment, directing new cars achieved a fleet average of 40 mpg by 2015, was technologically feasible without making vehicles smaller or resulting in industry job losses.

But his amendment was rejected 65-32.
In a pretty balance Senate, that spread is very significant.
Look and see if your Senator voted pro or con and blame Him or her. Or, call them.


Bushy campaign contributors make more money as we kill the planet with accelerating speed
What about the campain contributors to Makulski???
My Senator was CO-Sponsor of the less stringent bill, and she's a Democrat.

I am so sick of people making un-informed statements. When my "pro-environment" Senator does something like this, no one seems to care.

Lito
 

NussWag

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Location
Madison, WI
TDI
2003 Golf GL, Reflex Silver
Uhhh...you BUSH basher need to look at the Senate vote. There were plenty of Democrats that supported killing this legislation.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., called such claims a red herring and said his amendment, directing new cars achieved a fleet average of 40 mpg by 2015, was technologically feasible without making vehicles smaller or resulting in industry job losses.

But his amendment was rejected 65-32.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In a pretty balance Senate, that spread is very significant.
Look and see if your Senator voted pro or con and blame Him or her. Or, call them.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bushy campaign contributors make more money as we kill the planet with accelerating speed


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What about the campain contributors to Makulski???
My Senator was CO-Sponsor of the less stringent bill, and she's a Democrat.

I am so sick of people making un-informed statements. When my "pro-environment" Senator does something like this, no one seems to care.

Lito
[political rant/]
In general, I'm inclined to agree with you. Essentially, the lines between Democrats and Republicans on many of these issues have been blurred to the point of non-existant. Both camps are in bed with big business this is no secret. They just use different reasons to justify their positions to their constituency.

However, (I'm sure I'll get flamed for this) the current administration is incredibly BOLD with regards to their lack of support for REALISTIC alternative fuels or improved technologies for more efficient uses of our current fuels (i.e. diesel). Granted, Bush promised a bunch of support for fuel cells. But most of us know that this technology, in no way, will make us less reliant on foriegn oil. Not to mention the incredible infrastructure costs that would be required to bring something like this on line (remember, I said realistic alternative fuels).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, many of our elected officials are money-grubbing b@stards who would rather spend billions of dollars on military operations (endangering our nations youth) to secure foriegn oil than tell the average american that they can't use an Expedition or Suburban to taxi their 1.5 kids around to soccer practice.
[/political rant]

whew, I feel better.
 

ertzog

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 1999
Location
SW corner of Michigan
TDI
2K Golf, 05 Sprinter 118
It is not a Republican/Democrat issue, never said it was. I'm a bushy hater because he is the posterboy for what's wrong. Lots of dems also feed at the trough of the corporate machine.

But nobody raises cash like bushy (he will likely double the all time record for campaign contributions, he has $170 million to spend on the primaries - where he runs unopposed) - and nobody rewards the contributors (to the detriment of the planet) like him and his puppet masters either, go figure.
 

tongsli

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2000
Location
Baltimore, MD
TDI
2000 Jetta TDI, 2004, Jetta Wagon TDI PD
Well,

I'm not a Bushy hater, so I don't blame him for everything, that would be too easy. There is enough blame to go around and I prefer to put pressure where it can be applied especially if it's MY representative to Congress.

Congress always gets a pass, no matter how hypocritical or disengenuous they are; that's what I hate.

L
 

ertzog

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 1999
Location
SW corner of Michigan
TDI
2K Golf, 05 Sprinter 118
This thread has strayed from TDI's and mpg standards - for which I apologize.

Just guessing but this thread may now be short lived. A better place for Banter/debate of this type is the BioDieselNow.com GD section (see my signature).
 

RC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 13, 2000
Location
Maryland`s Eastern Shore
TDI
Two White 96 B4 Wagons
mavapa said:
It will take a crisis to make them consider increasing fuel economy standards...
I consider one body bag a day to be a crisis.
To them, both Reps and Dems, a crisis is no longer getting campaign contributions from big business interests. It`s time we throw the whole bunch out, they have forgotten who they are supposed to be representing. The founding fathers are reaching extremely high RPMs in their graves with the actions (read inactions) of these scoundrals.

There can be no "War on Terrorism" with our continued dependance on petroleum that belongs to the terrorists. This is despicable. I fear for our future as a nation of free and prosperous people. We are living in "interesting times", just like the ancient Chinese curse suggests. Hold on to your hats fellas.
 

gern_blanston

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Location
PNW
TDI
Golf, '03, Silver
Bear in mind that the auto makers make the vehicles that people buy. It's not political in any way, it's profit-driven. If people (you know, smart people like us) were crazy to get their hands on 50 mpg cars, then after a brief shortage of 50 mpg cars, every manufacturer on planet Earth would have 50 mpg cars in stock. It's the mindset of the public, not some evil empire of politicians and auto manufacturers. Like the office gal at work who has no kids or desire to drive in the snow who commutes to work in a 4WD Expedition with 21" wheels at 10 mpg, people in the U.S. WANT to drive big cars with big engines.
As my dad always used to say, "The masses are asses."
 

Oldman

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Location
Leander,TX,USA
Gern, I don’t agree at all, it is an evil empire. Look CAFÉ was set to help America off energy dependence, now after 25 years, we import almost twice as much oil. If I want a larger car, I can’t have one without paying a premium, I’m forced to buy a SUV which has a much less restrictive CAFÉ and smog. The standard is set by the government, sold to the public under the guise of being better for us as a nation, and as implemented takes people out of safe and efficient cars and puts them into expensive, unsafe and inefficient trucks. Would the be ANY SUVs sold today if the all passenger vehicles had the same CAFÉ? OK sure there would be a few, but not many people would willingly pay a say $5000 premium to drive a 20 MPG Expedition over say a like size Impala. CAFÉ is setup by the government to rip off the American people and line the big industries (oil and car) pockets with ill gotten gain. All the while making use of the mindless bean-curb-nibblers to crusade their cause. A perfect illuminate if there was one.

Net results we as a people now drive an unsafe, expensive, gas hog, SUVs with far more smog, while the safer, smaller, cheaper, car drivers are stuck with brunt of conformity as well as becoming far less safe due to their lower but better performing height and weight, which is OK for the big oil and big industry.

So it is an evil empire parading around as free choice and individual liberty, now all the right ringers and soccer mom’s can scream that it is their right to buy SUVs that they have been brain washed into “needing”. Why could I like the majority of my life with a 63 Ford inline 6 with a whole 120 bhp? I mean tow, carry loads up some of the steepest roads in the world, and go over some serious terrain, now Joe Average urban warrior needs a 7000 lbs, 360 HP SUV just incase he may have to climb a curb at a church picnic. All in the name of free choice. Show me in the constitution where we have the “free choice” to destroy the environment and consume all the resources of the country (don’t get me on the saddle the youth with all the incurred debt).
 

gern_blanston

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Location
PNW
TDI
Golf, '03, Silver
Try as they might, though, the government can't legislate common sense. I spent the majority of my life driving a '65 Chevy in-line 6 of similar horsepower that my father bought new in '64, and I thought it was a great rig for the 20 years that I owned it, so I know we're not too far apart. People won't buy what they don't want, though, no matter how much gas-guzzler tax you subject them to. It's America, the land of exesses. It's the feeble-minded sheep mentality that causes the problems. Advertisers show Explorers and Grand Cherokees flying through snow and mud that most SUV's never come close to, and buyers buy 'em because of the image of 'freedom', or 'adventure', or 'luxury' or whatever. SUV's are just the station wagons of the 21st Century. Marketing geniuses have been able to sell them to wannabe's who don't want the stigma of a minivan or station wagon. Education is the way to make this work, although educating sheep may prove difficult.
We're NOT stuck with mediocrity or conformity, either. The fact that we're on this site proves that we're non-conformists. How many TDI's do you see on an average day.
If you want an SUV, buy one, if you don't, don't. Most SUVer's are mindless drones that would probably by Lada's if they saw enough commercials glamorizing the little clunkers. And 'WE' don't drive dangerous, gas-guzzling SUV's. THEY do! You're a little smarter than the average driver, obviously, and you know what you need in a vehicle. Most people don't realize what they need, because, to quote my dad again, "The masses are asses."

-ps- Not to stir the pot any further, but the Constitution actually doesn't prohibit Americans from destroying the environment and plundering all available natural resources. Fortunately there are reasonable heads to at least try to dampen these activities, though.
 

RC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 13, 2000
Location
Maryland`s Eastern Shore
TDI
Two White 96 B4 Wagons
gern_blanston said:
... Not to stir the pot any further, but the Constitution actually doesn't prohibit Americans from destroying the environment and plundering all available natural resources. Fortunately there are reasonable heads to at least try to dampen these activities, though.
I fear too little, too late. The next few decades will be interesting.
 

VWannabe

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 2, 1999
Location
Lawrenceville, GA USA
Gern:

I unfortunately have to agree with you about the Constitution not prohibiting environmental destruction or legislating common sense. It was written, though, before the Industrial Revolution, which has allowed man to explode in population and desecrate the environment to a degree not possible before this time. Before I get too carried away, I will stay current and say that while the big talk with politicians is environmental protection, neither party is really doing a lot to curb the current practices. There are individuals in Congress who have some good ideas, but they are not the majority. There would be one way to get people interested in high mileage vehicles - INCREASE THE PRICE OF GAS. When gas prices started going up last year, high mileage cars got real popular. Then people (and automakers) cried to the government to lower the price of gas, which they did to restore the balance of power to the oil and car companies. The current administration advocates an alternative fuel choice that will take decades to implement, protecting him and his buddies for years to come. Even Hollywood stars trumpet environmental legislation while driving huge SUVs and fuel guzzling cars. A few do put their money where their mouth is, but overall they are like the Congress on this issue as well.
Even VW does not push their high mileage TDI, although the diesel scene here in America is sad. Toyota and Honda both are the two biggest advocates in terms of fuel efficiency, and when they start bringing diesels into this country, VW and others will be hurting. Hopefully we can hold out until better times.
 

gern_blanston

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Location
PNW
TDI
Golf, '03, Silver
Excellent post. So many people pay lip service to the importance of fuel economy, then do nothing about it. And I agree that the only way most of the masses will ever care is if fuel prices go up. Or in the current political environment, perhaps VW or Toyota would kill with an ad campaign emphasizing the fact that the only way the average American can affect the oil-producing countries and so-called 'Big Oil' is to buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
 

NussWag

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Location
Madison, WI
TDI
2003 Golf GL, Reflex Silver
Or in the current political environment, perhaps VW or Toyota would kill with an ad campaign emphasizing the fact that the only way the average American can affect the oil-producing countries and so-called 'Big Oil' is to buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
Perhaps. But it will NEVER happen. One of the biggest obstacles to get people over is the fact that our government/administration is indeed in BED with BIG OIL! The American public, even though they KNOW that the government is crooked as hell, want's to believe that the government is working in THEIR best interest. This is very beneficial to elected officials. As long as they can keep scandals and such out of the "press cycle" and hidden behing more "exciting" things like sex scandals and stories about how "those terrorists" bombed "our military" in "their country," they can move along with "business as usual."

So what am I getting at?

1. The American public is too forgetful, ignorant and idealistic to believe any advertisement linking the gasoline they buy to terrorism. Hell, many people don't even think about the fact that the food they buy may come from the farm that they built their suburban home next too and then tried to shut down because "it smells."

2. Most ad agencies and companies don't have the "nuts" to start an ad campaign that would piss off big oil. Period. It would be like General Mills (big cereal maker) starting an ad campaign talking about all of the health problems associated with eating dairy products.

3. Which cars to you think Toyota makes more money on? The Prius or the Landcruiser? Why would they want to tie one of their biggest money-makers to terrorism?
 

tjl

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Location
California, USA
TDI
2001 Golf GLS
gern_blanston said:
the only way the average American can affect the oil-producing countries and so-called 'Big Oil' is to buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
One problem is that many Americans do not believe that 35+ mpg is even possible in a car larger than a Metro or Insight. Some people don't believe me when I tell them that I get over 50mpg in a Golf.

So the debate about fuel economy in the US tends to revolve around "forcing people to buy smaller cars" and the like, even though it is certainly possible to get better fuel economy with the same size cars as now.

E.g.

Small car: typical 28mpg, Toyota/Honda 35mpg, diesel or hybrid 45-55mpg
Medium car: typical 25mpg, diesel or hybrid 40-50mpg
Medium SUV: typical 16mpg, diesel 25mpg
Large SUV: typical 14mpg, diesel 20mpg
 

eisenkrote

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2002
Location
Austin/SA, TX
Pointing to a picture of a European mini-car he had brought to the Senate floor, Lott declared: "I don't think we should be forced to drive that automobile."
Someone with a clue should have brought a picture of a Mercedes E270 diesel or BMW 520d, both of which get over 40MPG. Go on, force me to drive one of those. Twist my arm...
 

Steve York UK

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
York, UK
TDI
SEAT Ibiza Sport 130hp TDI Black
Unfortunately, you have got a car based society in the US and you will have live with it.

I have a TDI and enjoy driving it but only for pleasure. My commute to work is 2 miles each way by bicycle, which I really enjoy, plus its exercise.

If I need to go to London, I go by train. Twice as fast and no parking problems.

However, the UK is moving toward the American dream of large SUVs, particularly for taking children to school (I used to walk, but people don't do that anymore). Mrs. Thatcher was to blame here - she said anyone over 30 on a bus or a train was a loser.

I'm afraid things will get worse before they get better. Now we have Iraq's oil, we can make bigger and better SUVs.

Steve
 

NussWag

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Location
Madison, WI
TDI
2003 Golf GL, Reflex Silver
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pointing to a picture of a European mini-car he had brought to the Senate floor, Lott declared: "I don't think we should be forced to drive that automobile."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Someone with a clue should have brought a picture of a Mercedes E270 diesel or BMW 520d, both of which get over 40MPG. Go on, force me to drive one of those. Twist my arm...
I've got a couple of ideas on things that Senator Lott should be forced to drive...They're a little more his speed.

1. A team of horses, oxen or mules (jackasses would be the most fitting really)
2. A Ford Excursion (gasser) only, no air travel, or public transportation, while the gasoline costs come out of his pay for 1 year.
 

Ricdude

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
TDI
NB, '03, Pt Grey, GLS
VWannabe said:
There would be one way to get people interested in high mileage vehicles - INCREASE THE PRICE OF GAS. When gas prices started going up last year, high mileage cars got real popular.
Last year, when I swiped my card at the pump, and it cut me off before the tank was full (Ford Bronco, V8, 28 gallon tank, 11 mpg), I figured it was time to look into a more fuel efficient car. I was always planning on getting something more fuel efficient. I was just hoping I could hold out until the Bronco was paid off. As it turns out, I could not. Commuting 50 miles/day round trip requires much more fuel than a 15 mile/day round trip (what I had when I bought the car). Checked out the hybrids, liked what I saw, then heard the word "biodiesel". Decided to go with proven, century old technology and a (blend of) renewable fuel over driving a mobile battery pack. With what I save in gas every month (even at $3/gallon for B100), I'm more than making up the difference in payments.

I bet if gas was over $2.50/gallon, you'd see more cars with carpoolers than solo drivers. Traffic jams would be a thing of the past. People might start taking the bus once in a while, or walking somewhere for lunch. Pigs might even fly! Hit 'em in the wallet hard enough, expecially on the daily consumables, and eventually they'll change their ways. As of today, I've saved $726 in fuel expenses over what I would have spent in the Bronco.
 

NussWag

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Location
Madison, WI
TDI
2003 Golf GL, Reflex Silver
I bet if gas was over $2.50/gallon, you'd see more cars with carpoolers than solo drivers. Traffic jams would be a thing of the past. People might start taking the bus once in a while, or walking somewhere for lunch. Pigs might even fly! Hit 'em in the wallet hard enough, expecially on the daily consumables, and eventually they'll change their ways. As of today, I've saved $726 in fuel expenses over what I would have spent in the Bronco.
Nah...That'd be too easy!

If gas were to go to $2.50 a gallon, I'm afraid we wouldn't see people changing their behavior much. Instead, there would be public outcry and much finger pointing until the government decided to increase the deficit further by increasing subsidies.

It's the American Way!

As it is gas prices are artificial.
 

RC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 13, 2000
Location
Maryland`s Eastern Shore
TDI
Two White 96 B4 Wagons
eisenkrote said:
Pointing to a picture of a European mini-car he had brought to the Senate floor, Lott declared: "I don't think we should be forced to drive that automobile."
I`d love to take Trent Lottanonsence for a ride in one of our B4 variants, how about taking that Tom Delay a$$ too. Not sure where I`d drop them off though.
 

mavapa

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Location
rome, ga
TDI
2001 golf
Gas wouldn't be expensive at $2.50 a gallon. Not really, when you consider that gas was essentially the same price 20 years ago that it is today, give or take a little variation by season, oil bidness greed and petro-state invasion. People who buy SUVs would whine if they had to pay $2.50 a gallon for gas, but they would buy it anyway. I think $3.50 or $4.00 a gallon would be better. Even I might whine a little at that cost.
 

RC

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 13, 2000
Location
Maryland`s Eastern Shore
TDI
Two White 96 B4 Wagons
mavapa said:
Gas wouldn't be expensive at $2.50 a gallon. Not really...
With inflation, et al, it`s never been cheaper. Go into a convenience store after filling up on $1.30/gallon fuel and then buy a gallon of bottled water. How perverse when water costs more than what has been withdrawn from a few miles down, shipped halfway across the world, highly refined, then shipped to your local retailer. You know we are in trouble when this is the case.

mavapa said:
I think $3.50 or $4.00 a gallon would be better.
At least. Let`s tax the hell out of it, like the Euros.
 
Top