— Dan Feb 10, 2006 11:42 AM #
put a gallon of gas in the trunk of a pure EV and claim to get infinite miles per gallon!
Seal it tightly or you’ll have to account for evaporation. ;)
I agree, it is extremely misleading as a passing sound bite, and could have a PR backlash on the program. It probably would be better received with some reasonable explanation.
— Dan Feb 10, 2006 11:49 AM #
In contrast to the old news topic, Sweden seems to have a different plan
(we could do SO much more if only…)
— JohnG Feb 11, 2006 22:04 PM #
Reducing “Middle East” imports by 75% is not only feasable, but almost EASY.
We import just under 20% of our current total consumption from the area, reducing that 20% by 75% would mean importing only 5% from the “Middle East”. Other countries could easily make up that 15 percentage point difference.
The real question on oil is when will our elected officials stop pandering to the “Big Three”, and get some CAFE improvements!?
Think about it. Had the EPA increased CAFE requirements as they had been doing during the late ‘70s and ‘80s, the average economy of vehicles would be close to 20% better than current regulations require. That equates to a 20% reduction in emissions from new vehicles.
Of course, they (the EPA) continues to ignore the fact that the “dritiest” 2% of all vehicles cause about 80% of ALL our automotive related pollution.
Time for some smarter folks at the EPA.
— Dan Feb 12, 2006 20:12 PM #
Regarding CAFE:
Since 1983, manufacturers have paid more than $500 million in civil penalties. Most European manufacturers regularly pay CAFE civil penalties ranging from less than $1 million to more than $20 million annually. Asian and domestic manufacturers have never paid a civil penalty.
The malingering “big 3” have been bullying our government for years into believing Americans can’t do any better than this. Maybe they’re right. No wonder they’re going out of business.
put a gallon of gas in the trunk of a pure EV and claim to get infinite miles per gallon!
Seal it tightly or you’ll have to account for evaporation. ;)
I agree, it is extremely misleading as a passing sound bite, and could have a PR backlash on the program. It probably would be better received with some reasonable explanation.
In contrast to the old news topic, Sweden seems to have a different plan
(we could do SO much more if only…)
Reducing “Middle East” imports by 75% is not only feasable, but almost EASY.
We import just under 20% of our current total consumption from the area, reducing that 20% by 75% would mean importing only 5% from the “Middle East”. Other countries could easily make up that 15 percentage point difference.
The real question on oil is when will our elected officials stop pandering to the “Big Three”, and get some CAFE improvements!?
Think about it. Had the EPA increased CAFE requirements as they had been doing during the late ‘70s and ‘80s, the average economy of vehicles would be close to 20% better than current regulations require. That equates to a 20% reduction in emissions from new vehicles.
Of course, they (the EPA) continues to ignore the fact that the “dritiest” 2% of all vehicles cause about 80% of ALL our automotive related pollution.
Time for some smarter folks at the EPA.
Regarding CAFE:
Since 1983, manufacturers have paid more than $500 million in civil penalties. Most European manufacturers regularly pay CAFE civil penalties ranging from less than $1 million to more than $20 million annually. Asian and domestic manufacturers have never paid a civil penalty.
The malingering “big 3” have been bullying our government for years into believing Americans can’t do any better than this. Maybe they’re right. No wonder they’re going out of business.