White House Considers Massive Reductions In Fuel Economy Standards

MPG should be 100% market driven.

Let the essays begin.

I actually agree on that, just keep squeezing emmisions so we are not spewing stuff that impacts people directly (carcinogens) or indirectly (CO2) and I could care less if a car/truck/suv gets 0.5mpg. Let the market decide.

Oh the same page with @valhallakey. If it wasn't for the pollutants I would agree as well. Tired of breathing crap air in dense cities. Not everyone lives in the boonies.

Emissions is dependent on the amount of fuel burned, 1 gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, the only way to reduce the emissions is to reduce the amount of fuel burned, either increase the efficiency (MPG) or reduce the number of miles driven.

I am all for that! Tax procreation! Instead we do the opposite, we encourage it.

All my kids were banged out strictly for tax gain.

There are methods to capture CO2 and potentially to break it into O and C.

Lets reduce the requirement so that the orange one can better complain that Europe is not buying American cars.

@Haureg Ahh yes! The tolerant Alt-Left strikes again.

@MDarringer: Alt.Right-ers, such as yourself, sure do cringe when someone throws accountability in your face :-) I believe you refer to this as being "triggered."

TheSteve stfu you angry turd!

@xjug1987a TheSteve loves his little non sequitur responses that flail more that Xanax-taking, been-to-the-rodeo-before prissy ice skater in Korea.

Here’s an idea:

1) Allow US vehicle manufacturers to build vehicles with the fuel economy they deem fit. Let this be market driven!

2) Don’t penalize foreign brands, if that’s what American consumers want.

3) Don’t penalize foreign countries if they don’t want to buy American cars.

4) And if US automakers can’t stay in business based on their own smarts, street savvy, and creating products that people actually want, then by all means, don’t subsidize them, or bail them out when they go bankrupt.

Let the market decide!

Now the interesting question is whether AutoSpies members who claim to believe in a free market soundly agree, or whether they speak out of both sides of their mouth: Let US automakers do what they want, but if it ends up being a dumb move, then punish the foreign automakers who made sound decisions, punish the countries and people who don’t want to buy want undesirable US products, and then thrown billions of US taxpayer dollars at failing US auto companies who can’t make products that people want.

Want a free market? Here's some ideas too:

1) allow automakers to sell and service directly if they want
2) get rid of all subsidies and tax breaks, including military support for fossil fuels production and transport, eminent domain for pipelines, etc.
3) penalize for corruption, cheating, and law breaking, break up companies that break the law
4) pay the true cost of emissions, spill ups, environmental, health and quality of life impact

vdiv: +1!

SInce you already know that I am not a conservative - I am not in agreement with your statement - at least not completely. SOrry - but I do not believe that ANY matter such as this is completely market driven - nor do I believe that it could be completely as well.

The underlying basis for the requirements is Pollution - something that has to be addressed at all levels - at market and not at market. I have been to a number of cities around the world where the air is simply not fit to breathe - and even some time in California - I have had problems doing so. I do not believe that consumers will simply BUY less polluting cars - nor do I believe the manufacturers will make them - unless there is some requirement to do so. The manufacturers will do what makes the most money - and we could return to coal fired electric plants - and soot filled air (I was brought up in a town that had a coal plant - and saw the resulting layer of soot from cleaning the stacks by blowing air up them into the sky - and down on our houses and us)

Yes - the government could set achievable standards and resulting penalties for not attaining them - but RICH people (I am now one of that class) - will simply ignore it as they buy whatever they want. I am not stupid enough to believe that even GM or FORD would be willing to make emission controls OPTIONAL - because if the consumer was given the choice - they would NOT buy them.

So - TheSTEVE _ show me how keeping the air clean (Dont give me the it is not there argument - that is nonsense) - could be completely market driven. I still believe that minimum standards (THAT is what these laws actually are) should apply just as safety standards should apply to Children's items as well. Actually - ALL laws are minimum standards - and you can decide to do better - you just cannot decide to so worse.

AS far as a truly FREE market - those people who claim to espouse a truly FREE market - are speaking through their asses. WOULD YOU be willing to give up Liability laws for defective products and go back to let the buyer beware instead? Would you be will to give up minimum standards on things like WATER purity. AND - how about no traffic controls - get rid of the speed limits - and have chaos in the city streets. Would you like to go back to the times before they tested cars for crash standards - and remove speed limits and other traffic laws - and EVERY man for himself.

There are point to both sides

TomM: I'm onside with you with respect to reducing pollution. If you notice, my post does not suggest easing pollution regulations. Let US automakers create cars that get 5 MPG or burn buffalo dung, so long as they meet emission standards (and hopefully the current administration doesn't undo those "impediments to business.")

My point is if folks want US automakers to have the freedom to make vehicles that get poor fuel economy, and if that doesn't work out for them, then please don't reward them for making bad decisions, or punish others for making sound ones.

I has been my experience that when people use the "FREE MARKET" statement - what they really mean is - they want to only keep the laws that are in their favor.

The Carbon pollution and higher gas mileage go hand in hand - when you reduce the first - you increase the latter - and in Europe they actually use a Carbon amount as part of their requirement. Actually they DO make vehicles that get poor fuel economy - among them - the most expensive exotic and Luxury cars (Like ROLLS and Bentley and Bugatti and Lambo and Ferrari) - and what this is to me - is simply allowing the rich to do something that the average working man cannot - which is spend themselves out of the recognizing the problem.

AS far as the emissions - California will not back down from its need to reduce pollutants - and that will essentially create a situation where the auto makers will need to produce cars for California (Their market is too big to abandon) - and when they DO -the other states will want those cars sold there - because of the advantages. THat has happened in the past. Since They already have to address the EUROPEAN pollution standards now -there really is not an upside in allowing cars sold in the USA meet lower standards that most of the rest of the world.

@TomM: +1 for your opening paragraph. I also acknowledge that fuel consumption is closely related to emissions. I just didn't want to make the issue overly complicated for Alt.Right-ers, who get easily distracted and are prone to nit-picking. So I kept the discussion focused on fuel economy, as per the thread's subject and article.

Most of the world, including China, is trying to clean up its act, while the current US administration is heading in the opposite direction, getting rid of pollution laws, crippling and dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency, and promoting "clean coal" (quote from the prez in the SOTU). Yeah, you can't make this sh*t up :-(

The Alt-Lefters are writing essays again.

And THE Anarchist right wingers - are not saying what they mean

What they want is NOT Truly free market - they want a market where the LAWS all favor THEIR position - but not that of others.

TomM you really are a nut! You’re always right and everyone else is wrong. Typical socialist liberal who is so arrogant and so superior and we should bow to your brilliance. You’re a Pathetic arrogant, angry, narcissist. Yeah the “anarchist right” who want reduced govt, less intrusion on our liberty and wants folks to enjoy the fruit of their labor vs govt confiscation... MAGA!!!!!

@Xjug1987a Now you've gone and done it. Tommie and Steevie will have to write more of their ignorant essays.

Guys, try to keep the comments down to a couple of lines with monosyllable words so the alt-right can participate as well.

^^^
valhallakey: Priceless! :-D

@MDarringer: I’m sorry that the education system has failed you so profoundly as to cause you to suffer when encountering words arranged into complete sentences and paragraphs, and presenting complete and cohesive concepts.

But don’t give up, Matt. Your disdain for reading is not necessarily a setback. In fact, you appear to have all the characteristics of what it takes to be a POTUS! Well, at least like the *current* one. I’m sure BOTH of us can feel good about that statement! :-)

@TheSteve just keep on showing everyone how hateful you are. You don't realize how you're sinking yourself.

^^^
@MDarringer: I'm sure your posts and mine make it perfectly clear who is who :-)

Alt.Right-ers (such as yourself) -- who encompass the gamut of Nazis, White supremacists, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, anti-LGBTQ, etc. -- don't see themselves as toxic, or hateful. You just see yourselves as right.