Obama to tap consumers for emission/mpg standards.

President Barack Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 — all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said Monday night.

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700 for mileage standards that had already been approved. The comprehensive Obama plan would add another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said.

Link

I'd pay an extra $1300 for cleaner air.  What about you?

Hell, I'll pay any extra cost for a more environmentally friendly car.  I'm supposed to get my first car in October and Alex is already researching the best car for the environment within our price range and needs.

I know a lot of people are probably going to bitch and moan about the extra cost, but hey, you breathe the air too.  Help clean it.

I wonder, though, does this mean any cars that don't meet these specifications wouldn't be allowed on the roads?  Or is it just all new cars being made have to be up to the new standards?

I wondered that too, cd - I think just new cars would have to meet the new standards.

I think this is great. It's long overdue.

It's amazing what people will pay extra for when it comes to a car! I'd rather pay $1300 for better mileage and cleaner air, than for something stupid like a heater in the seat :)

Fascism at its finest... What a meddling SOB...  States already have their own emission standards.  What is fitting for San Francisco, CA is not necessarily fitting for Omaha Nebraska.

Mileage is only one criteria by which consumers choose vehicles.  Some people value other features more than mileage.

Laissez-faire...

Original Post by ds1973:

Laissez-faire...

Doesn't work when you factor in market externalities. 

it's absolutely necessary.  lots of people are going to be responsible, but some will forever insist they "need bigger, faster, more powerful (and more polluting) vehicles.

it also pisses me off that the american auto manufacturers have been so resistant to selling efficient vehicles (even when they so obviously had the knowledge and technology to do so).  it's time to force the issue.

Original Post by figurethefat:

It's amazing what people will pay extra for when it comes to a car! I'd rather pay $1300 for better mileage and cleaner air, than for something stupid like a heater in the seat :)

 I dont know about that, my bum is always freezing even tho it has the most fat .  If I could I would pay for both. But I can't afford any car right now anyway.

Figurethefat,  You must live in a warm climate 'cause a heater in the seat where I live is WONDERFUL during the winter months.

sometimes in winter i get in the car and the seat is so solid it's like sitting on bricks.  never really felt the need for an ass warmer, though.

Original Post by jewelsmcblah:

I'd pay an extra $1300 for cleaner air.  What about you?

When we eventually have to get another car, sure.  But unless one of ours is totaled or stolen, that won't happen for at least 6 years.

Does that estimated $1,300 factor in the planned energy tax credits?

Original Post by pgeorgian:

it also pisses me off that the american auto manufacturers have been so resistant to selling efficient vehicles (even when they so obviously had the knowledge and technology to do so).  it's time to force the issue.

And have had this technology for years, I know this because they have been selling them over here. All  cars here have to pass emission tests and if it's above the acceptable level you get hit with a whopping yearly road tax.

Even our big fast cars are low emission.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

sometimes in winter i get in the car and the seat is so solid it's like sitting on bricks.  never really felt the need for an ass warmer, though.

 Oh, pg....it's awesome.  I didn't know what I was missing until I had one.  Now, I'm never going back  :D

Original Post by ds1973:

Fascism at its finest... What a meddling SOB...  States already have their own emission standards.  What is fitting for San Francisco, CA is not necessarily fitting for Omaha Nebraska.

Mileage is only one criteria by which consumers choose vehicles.  Some people value other features more than mileage.

Laissez-faire...

 until Omaha Nebraska is inundated with and decimated by tornadoes because of the extreme weather patterns generated by global warming...

It's ok to say 'here is the standard' - and give everyone a whack at competing in the market. Still a free market but a responsible one.

And you are wrong -  a lot of states don't have nearly high enough standards for emisssions, which is why the fed is forced to this position.

pgeorgian said:

"lots of people are going to be responsible, but some will forever insist they need bigger, faster, more powerful (and more polluting) vehicles.... It also pisses me off that the american auto manufacturers have been so resistant to selling efficient vehicles"

Is there some reason you wish to dictate what others should buy?  Why do you have a problem with someone purchasing a powerful car?   If they have the means to, and they enjoy it, why not?  I bet you're one of those people who sits in traffic next to a hummer and starts fuming that this person is being so irresponsible by driving such an evil gas-guzzler.   Does it also make you angry to see people buy 5lb bags of m&ms knowing they could get fat off of them?

As for the US automakers, if they're not adapting to market needs, why  is the Obamination saving them?  Shouldn't he just let them go under?  Oh wait, his union cronies won't let him.

Environmentalism is a convenient replacement for religion on so many levels.  It really gives the powers that be an unprecedented control over so many sheep in the population, and the sheep get to feel all self-righteous like they're serving their God.  It's nazi-like.

The “green revolution” and the anti-industrial movement have supplanted James’s “warfare against nature,” which means warfare against man. To the pragmatist open to the vociferous moral proposals of others (so long as they “work“), reason and reality can be dismissed as the subjectivist leanings of others and disregarded. Man is destroying the planet, those others claim, so something must be done about it, even if that means compulsion.

Floggingsully said:

"Doesn't work when you factor in market externalities"

Please elaborate in the context of this discussion.  Are you saying that the cost of air is not factored into the price of the car and therefore should be by the government?  If so, what is the "correct" price?  Would the increase in mpg actually offer an incentive to take more driving trips, thus resulting in equivalent total emissions? 

I'm amazed at the fact that people are even arguing this issue!! What's the harm in raising the standards of fuel efficiency? Oh, god forbid, someone actually does something that makes sense! Hmmm... using less gas and saving money. Yeah, what an SOB for enforcing that! (sense the sarcasim)

Original Post by ds1973:

Floggingsully said:

"Doesn't work when you factor in market externalities"

Please elaborate in the context of this discussion.  Are you saying that the cost of air is not factored into the price of the car and therefore should be by the government?  If so, what is the "correct" price?  Would the increase in mpg actually offer an incentive to take more driving trips, thus resulting in equivalent total emissions? 

The free market only determines the most efficient way of producing/number produced if the entire cost of production is paid by the consumer.  For many goods (including cars) there are costs associated with the production and use of a good that are not paid by the producer and thus not transfered onto the consumer in a free market.

Cars produce pollution, which has costs that individuals must pay (in our current system) reguardless of whether or not they consume the good which produced the cost.  This causes market failure. 

People who buy 5lb bags of m&m's don't diminish the quality of my health - just their own (or maybe their kids).

People who insist on buying hummers pollute the air that they share with everyone else - and with the incidence of asthma and allergies on the rise, I would say air quality is pretty damn important to our health.

Original Post by ds1973:

Is there some reason you wish to dictate what others should buy?  Why do you have a problem with someone purchasing a powerful car?   If they have the means to, and they enjoy it, why not?  I bet you're one of those people who sits in traffic next to a hummer and starts fuming that this person is being so irresponsible by driving such an evil gas-guzzler.   Does it also make you angry to see people buy 5lb bags of m&ms knowing they could get fat off of them?

i don't want to dictate what anyone else drives, but i do want to limit the amount of damage we all have the capacity to do to each other and our environment.  because, as a species, we've proven that we can't set those limis for ourselves.

yeah, i do fume about people who drive hummers.  i think a hummer is a universal badge of idiocy.  the only reason to drive one of those is to illustrate the fact that you're willing to crush all the toyotas and hondas on the road.

as for the m&m's - that's a terrible parallel.  your m&m's don't affect my health.

Original Post by ds1973:

As for the US automakers, if they're not adapting to market needs, why  is the Obamination saving them?  Shouldn't he just let them go under?  Oh wait, his union cronies won't let him.

believe me, i do think the big three should have been allowed to fail.  no apologies.  but they weren't, and here we are.  maybe this is a little bigger than politics?

Original Post by ds1973:

I bet you're one of those people who sits in traffic next to a hummer and starts fuming that this person is being so irresponsible by driving such an evil gas-guzzler.   Does it also make you angry to see people buy 5lb bags of m&ms knowing they could get fat off of them?

I don't know about PG, but personally, no, because for all I know they're buying that 5 lb bag of M&Ms to split up among candy dishes at work.  Or using them for bingo markers at a children's birthday party...or simply buying a bunch of M&Ms and then only eating them 15 at a time once per day for their lower calorie chocolate fix.  Of course, they could also get fat if they were buying bananas and grapes - what they're buying is irrelevant to the point that I don't know how it will be consumed.

The amount of pollution generated by vehicles like a Hummer is known.