Automakers Call Senate Fuel Mileage Plan "Unattainable"

Unattainable? no.
Uncomfortable? maybe.
Lazy? American.

You know..I get really sick of people saying that American=lazy. I know alot of hard working people..don't generalize us that way.

I must say that perhaps it is the people to whom I speak, but one of the least persistent assumptions I hear about Americans is that they are lazy. Americans work more hours per year than their in any other industrialized nation- or at least they did last I read anything about it.

“The average American works 25 hours a week; the average Frenchman 18; the average Italian a bit more than 16 and a half. Even the hardest-working Europeans--the British, who put in an average of 21 and half hours--are far more laid-back than their American cousins.”

-Forbes , http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/steven-landsburg-labor_cx_sl_06work_0523landsburg.html

Deep down, we Americans are still Puritans.

hate to break it to you but luxury car companies are the ones that have issues attaining good gas mileage...and most of them are european, NOT american.

The consumer has the power to change things. If consumers only buy fuel misers, then the auto companies will only produce fuel misers. If a consumer chooses to buy a big SUV, it is not the company's fault.

"Fleetwide average" is the key to the problem. If you're in the performance car business, then that's going to be tough. If you're in the hybrid/smartkar business, then no problem.

If you do both then it will change the kinds of cars you can sell to meet those standards.

This artifically changes the market and I don't like it.

There should be tax credits for high mileage cars to give consumers incentives in the form of a tax break on the high gas taxes to promote buying fuel efficient cars, not punishments to the automotive industry which should make what people want, not what the government forces them to make.

Environmental emissions should be regulated, but fuel economy should be market driven.

EMISSIONS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO FUEL CONSUPTION... so the most obvious and effective way of reducing emissions is reducing consumption!

Example as to why it's not effective:

Ford has 3 cars with combined average of 40MPG
It has 1 truck with an average of 20MPG

Fleet average = 35MPG

Although, the truck outsells the 3 cars 10:1.

The mandate should adjust respectively to vehicle sales...doesnt Washington get this?!

the average takes into account sales volume, so, very plainly, (20*10+40)/11= 21,8 (this is inaccurate, but representative...)
which is why Ford and the others in this group do not want this bill, it's feasible, but it would cost them money and efforts... funny one of their arguments is that it's going to cost the customer too much, how lovely, they care so much...

Raising the cost of gas would be stupid. I drive a little Geo, and with $6 a gallon, I'd have to pay $60 each time I gas up... And don't say 'use the buses.' If you lived in this town, you'd say the bus system is very useless. Maybe taxing the SUV's themselves would work better?

Green please? I am all for being green and all but according to this article autos only account for 5% of greenhouse gases! Some of us have to commute to work and transit is not attainable so $6. a gallon would kill the lower and middle class! Are you rich? Or possibly too poor to afford a car to begin with because you don't work and have a lot of time on your hands to tell all us people how we should save the planet! Greenplease PLEASE focus on the other 95% of industry that are responsible for greenhouse gasses and when you are done that then come and tell us how we can kill the working poor.

Nope, only Saleen.

The others all fall under Automotive groups, so Bugatti and Lambo (under VW) are fine, as is Ferrari (Fiat).
Perhaps why Porsche is now practically a part of VW group, to fit in with European Co2 emission regs.

Ferrari is counted with fiat, lambo and bugatti with VW/Audi... besides, they are very low volumes.

Greenplease is right..it would screw them over. However, they'll just pass on the the added cost to the consumer. They'll gladly pay the extra cost when you shelling out 150+ anyway..

SUV will most likely kill this goal.

The only reason car makers are fighting this is because they want to build and sell what people are willing to buy. Don't blame car makers, blame all the people out there that drive huge SUVs and trucks that don't really need them.

daytonaviolet, you mean those prick you think they are bada$$ because they drove those big truck and SUV? Where I live in OC, they are many pathetic idiot who drive gigantic truck or SUV just to make them feel big.

There are so many time where I see a truck or SUV that is so long, they need 2 parking space to park it. I think people are buying this kind of cars "NOT For Business or Work Related" need to pay a huge fee or something.

We already are paying too high of gas taxes and all taxes for that matter. I'm about small government, not more taxation. The average person cannot afford 100% gas taxes and the average person cannot afford to just throw away their cars and buy hybrids. 100% gas tax would instantly kill many market segments and criple any economic growth for 10+ years and beyond.

This would have a crushing effect on our economy which means people won't be buying ANY HYBRIDS, and unimployment would skyrocket because we are ADDICTED TO OIL. Taxes won't fix that.

Instead let market forces drive up the price of gas. This will make the natural market incentives higher, especially with tax credits, to drive money into R&D and ultimately very efficient cars & fuels that will displace the need for fossil fuel based petrol. It's already happening. At no time was any economy taxed into prosperity.

i agree with you on the theory, but i can only say that there are more urgent matters to deal with then a slight drop back in economy, and the eco-friendly market is bringing already more money than the big three in the US, since they are LOSING it!
besides eco-friendly can be redemptory for the big three because most manufacturers are on a fresh start on the subject, and it's probably the only way they can make up the gap between them and others, through R&D (ie: i think it obvious that a GM 3er competitor isn't for tomorrow since BMW's been working on it for years...)

The "average" person should therefore not have a car. Use public transport. And the average person could buy used, in which case no tax.
Next year, stick 10 cents on fuel, and do the same for the next 10 years.

Whoa buddy...aren't we feeling a little communist today :) I don't know what dictates "An average person" but I for one, would like to have the right to choose where and how I spend my money.

you still have the right to buy a fuel guzzling car, but it will just cost you more. Petrol in Europe is around 6$ a gallon, but we pay it, and as a result drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. We have huge numbers of cars which you don't get, because Americans are used to big rides.

Perhaps what would be better would be a federal car sales tax:
0% on cars with a city EPA mpg of 45 or more
2% on 40-44
4% on 31-39
10% on 26-31
15% on 21-25
40% on 16-20
80% on those under 15 with a recurring annual tax of 10 points for every mpg under 15 for the time the car is owned.
People could still own what they wanted. Only, at last, people would be paying the cost to the environment, health and society if they chose to drive SUVs or cars going faster than anyone needs to go.

In Britain you can reclaim the VAT (sales tax) on commercial vehicles, including pick-ups but not SUVs with rear seats.
BUT you have to prove that you need the pick-up for your work and couldn't be fine with an ordinary car.
So basically, ordinary self employed people in offices can't claim back the VAT on their pick-up. Pick-ups aren't very popular here anyway, we use vans.

Tax penalties do not work.

And Tax penalities that are designed to change social-economic behaviors work even less.

The American way is about CHOICE. And if it's legal to burn gas, then it should be legal to buy as much as you want or more than you need.

That doesn't make it a good idea, and I'm not suggesting gluttony is a lifestyle that should be rewarded, but penalizing with taxes only hurts the economy and will not save the environment.

If you want to argue about "carbon footprint" then all this will be is a tax on the poor since the poor gets screwed the most on these taxes. The rich will simply pay the tax, and not change their behavior, and the rich have, by far, the largest carbon footprint.

You have to give INCENTIVES to everyone to make better choices, (the carrot), not hit them over the head with taxes (the stick).

This has been proven time and and time again, Economics 101.

Indoctrinated, That was the most logical way of putting it! This is what I was going to say! There are some pretty scary ideas from some of the rest of the bunch! Some logic too.I have a 2007 civic ex that is good on gas and that is sporty too! The 0-60 times are nothing to brag about although it is fun to drive! And yes I would rather drive a porche but I need the Honda for the fuel mielage.

And by the way, before you debate about how to get people to use less gas, you should identify why. Is it to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Is it to reduce pollutants? Is it to reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Im sure most of you will say "all of the above" but each of those reasons can, and should be targetted using different approaches, and not with tax penalties.

People need to be discouraged from buying big gas guzzling pickups and SUV's plain and simple. Yes it is market driven but when the costs go up enough to operate these behemoths on a regular basis the market will change. We control interests rates that drive consumer spending why can't we control fuel use? Europeans drive small cars because of the fuel costs.

Again, show me one senario where taxing something to limit it stops it's use? IT DOES NOT HAPPEN, because we are too dependant on it. Not with alcohol, tobacco, or oil. all it does is make create inflation and make the costs of living.

The ONLY REASON that there is R&D money spent on making engines more efficient is that there are profits to be made doing it. Companies will not spend money making cars that they can't sell to make money.

In the US, with gas prices at an all time high, sales of SUVs and fuel hogging cars have not slowed. They slow for a short while, but they continue to sell. The cost of the gas does not stop Americans from spending big bucks on gas.

Taxes wont work. Never have, never will.

There MUST be profit for companies to develop and sell cars that consumers want, and if you make the costs of these cars come down with tax breaks, you give a cost advantage to help INCENT both corporate America AND consumer America to buy greener cars.

I don't know why you socialist minded idiots can't understand this, but that's the way IT IS and continues to be.

If you think I'm wrong, then just go out and read the hundreds of study's done by top universities and research firms that conclude that unless there is a profit and an incentive, Americans (and most 1st world countries) will not choose something green if it means it costs more money, and/or compromises safety and/or necessary function.

Seriously need an edit button; I hit enter to submit before I could correct the numerous grammar errors in that above post.

The only way I think taxes should be used to help get oil consumption down is in the form of grants for research & development on technologies that are proving to be successful.

There's a lot of waste in most of these programs, so I'm usually skeptical that the money is well spent, but sometimes this can help.

One of my favorite types of these programs are "reward" grants given to firms that can achieve a challenging engineering goal.

Like this one, the Darpa Urban Challenge.
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp

2 million dollar prize awarded to first unmanned vehicle to cross the 132 segmant of the Mojave desert.

We should introduce a bill for U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, seeing as Hawaiians drive so often. I say that we increase taxes on tourism dollars, and hula skirts.

Lewissalam-That would kill tourism! Then there would be no money from tourism and extra taxes.

e34: "how do you fund these r+d grants without a tax?"

Read my post: "The only way I think taxes should be used to help get oil consumption down is in the form of grants for research & development", and I added a disclaimer to that as well.

E35: "please recomend a source of income"
Answer: The tens of millions of new cars purchased by Americans every year.

If European nations want to tax the hell out of their gas, then that's fine for them. That economic model does not work in the US.

Fact is, the American market buys more cars, and drives more miles, than anyone else in the world, so if it is not for Americans buying those German and Japanese cars, there wouldn't be nearly as much money flowing into all automative industries and their economies, which is the lifeline for R&D funding.

Most of the R&D comes from the US, more patents are filed from US inventions than any other country, and more patented technology is exported than any other country in the world combined, thanks to the billions of dollars Americans spend on these things, including cars.