CAFE Objections: Big-3 + Even from Toyota

[SVOboy]

If someone uses language they know will cloud their point I begin to wonder if they really have one or are trying to cover the fact that they do not.

[The Toecutter]

If you want a brief summation then:

The automakers claim that CAFE hasn't done much. I agree. Fuel economy has been stagnant since the 1980s. However, the automakers don't think there is demand for high mpg cars and this is false; this is their copout excuse. If anything, the standards are ineffectual because they aren't strict enough.

What I'd like to see done is to either scrap the regulations altogether since they are so inneffective, OR give the regulations some teeth so that they are effective. No use having rules that don't do anything.

The automakers often claim that the technology for high fuel economy isn't there, even though they've built numerous working prototypes. I gave a list of some of those prototypes to show what is feasible. 60+ mpg CAFE would be easily doable immediately without serious hardship on part of the U.S. as a whole, with benefits that will likely far outweigh any negative consequences.


That last paragraph that seems to have either offended or annoyed a few here illustrates my view of how the automakers and oil industry should be addressed. They've been given a free ride long enough, and their interests have no reason to be heard at this point until they dramatically modify the way they operate. They can whine all they want, but their concerns are nothing compared to the concerns of society as a whole and the problems society has to face as a RESULT of the actions of these companies. But the government isn't going to do anything, even if we the people want them to, so it's up to us to use any means at our disposal to change things, legal or if that doesn't work, illegal. The legal methods haven't been bringing meaningful change for decades. The oil industry still holds as much sway over our electoral process and lawmaking as ever(if not moreso), and the auto industry hasn't given us anywhere near the best they could. The government is still hijacked by special interests. What the current crop and previous crops of activists have been doing isn't working. Time to step things up a bit or change methods completely.

If that is still all completely over anyone's head, I'm sorry, but there's no helping you there. If you consider me or my views obnoxious, fair enough. You ultimately decide whether or not they have merit to you and for what reasons, and whether they are rational or emotional in their content.

***edit***

I'm the opposite. I probably have one hell of an FBI file because I tend to be at a protest at least once per month, and write several letters (my friends call them rants) to my representatives per week. I'm actually thinking of running for city council in Cape Coral this year as an independent. The government is more corrupt down here than it is even in DC. The city of Cape Coral is run almost entirely by real estate agents (the exception being the mayor) who are moving protected land to areas that don't need as much protection so that more waterfront condos can be built. Under their stewardship, the cost of real estate in Cape Coral has risen by about five times in the last 10 years. They did a great job of helping themselves.

I'm pretty passionate about my political views.

I'm glad to see another activist on these boards. I've been involved in protests against Monsanto, ADM, and Anheiser Busch. I've also been involved in protests against the Iraq War.

However, I changed my views a few years back. 100% complete nonviolence doesn't work unless the powers that be allow it to. If they don't want to cooperate, a different method is needed. However, the dilemma is that the people that threaten you with arrest or worse are just doing their jobs, even if their job is to oppress, intimidate, arrest, and convict.

If I would have stuck to the nonviolence philosophy? I'd have been arrested on numerous occassions. And I will be if I ever get caught. Would be tough luck I suppose. I recently quit going to protests where lots of law enforcement or feds would be involved because I'd be too tempted to carry a firearm. That would get me in a lot of trouble if I'd foolishly use it to assert what rights I should normally have.

One tip to stay out of jail that won't involve hurting anyone: keep a pair of scissors under your belt. They'll get the zipties off, if you can get to them.

Glad to see you're running for office. In local offices, you have a chance(however small). Anything above that, not really since the process is rigged at the higher levels that can actually make larger scale impacts. I imagine if I ran for Alderman or some such near worthless position in my area I'd have a chance, but anything after that would require money.

I've written letters to my representatives and senators many times before. I've gotten all maner of replys except for what was wanted: some geniune feedback. I've gotten automated replies, replies from secretaries who say the issue doesn't concern them, replies reminding me to vote for such and such candidate next election, replies saying that I am ignorant of the issue and only our leaders have the authority to make such and such choices instead of we the people(although it was dressed up to look friendly), but never a genuine response. But voting them out with paper-trail free machines and where votes from areas such and such candidate doesn't like mysteriously go uncounted? Heh.

[The Toecutter]

Well, I say things as I intend to say them, and figure people will understand. It's much easier to say big oil should go **** themselves than to explain this meaning in a more polite but excruciatingly more detailed manner. Someone once told me that brevity is brilliance.

[The Toecutter]

What a waste of good honey.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I am certainly behind much, much stronger regulations, but I have very little respect for the opinions of people whose argument centers around rhetoric such as toecutter's.

All arguments are based on rhetoric. Those that aren't are usually called laws (phys), theorems, etc... And can stand on their own. That being said,

The reasonable being adapts to the world around him. The unreasonable being bends the world to their will.

Ranting about CAFE standards isn't reasonable, and protesting doesn't do much these days. A reasonable being would try to maximize the impact they have on the issues they care about. And imo, protesting and ranting don't do much...

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Unfortunately, calling the automakers names won't get anything done. 300,000 people (including myself) marching in the capitol could not give the country second thought about waging war, what do you think a few people waving signs that say "**** you ****s" will do for environmentalists.

I think you're selling yourself a little short. The only other comparable oil price spike was the result of the Iranian revolution and Iran/Iraq war. A reasonable assumption is that military action in the ME would spark another price spike, and the subsequent increase in profits. It seems like that's what happened. So, over ~4 years, an extra ~$30 in pure profit on every barrel is roughly a trillion dollars per year in pure profit on the world market.

An increase in CAFE regulations of ~30% would only cut a hundred or so billion bucks of profit from the bottom line. The administration is more likely to respond to 50,000 marching about an issue that can impact profit margins of their sponsors marginally than they will respond to 300,000 people marching about an issue that can cut the profit margins of their sponsors in half. If that made any sense... To put it bluntly, imo they are much likelier to cater to the more powerful lobby.

[rh77]

OK, the post was designed to provoke some intelligent conversation on the fact that CAFE standards were (as usual) being attacked by automakers. What didn't surprise me was the "Big-3" involvement, but rather Toyota.

I expected to delve perhaps into their strategy in the Full-Sized truck segment, but yet how this Political involvement doesn't help their image as a "Green" company.

Perhaps some solutions would be to:

• Continue to express your thoughts to governing bodies (write Congress)
• Boycott products by these manufacturers
• Vote for candidates with a platform similar to your interests, or run yourself
• Write a letter to the Editor to your local paper
• Make your opinion known in informal discussions
• Further Discuss the concept of CAFE: should a handicap be placed on Ethanol or other low-BTU fuels?
• Are you surprised that Toyota is in on it?

And let's keep it Civil folks, geez.

RH77

[The Toecutter]

Anyway, semantics aside, I think the manufacturers are guilty but the consumers are even guiltier; after all it is they who are voting with their dollars.

To an extent, yes, but the consumers can't buy a product that is not available. Consumer demand for EVs in the US where gas was cheap was extremely positive, but that is demand that the auto industry wished was not expressed and demand that the auto industry did not want to meet. Never mind Europe, where gas is $7.00/gallon and demand for EVs is even higher. The industry refuses to meet it, regardless of what the consumer wants. They know that the small companies willing to offer EVs don't have the economic means to make their product affordable.

If someone today were to put to market a 60 mpg midsize car that did 0-60 mph in 9 seconds, cost $15,000, and didn't use a hybrid drivetrain, the public would flock to it like crazy and demand more of these sorts of cars be built. But since such a car hasn't been built...

Even the hybrids of today fly off the lots like crazy. Just a few months ago no where near enough were being made to meet demand. Before the TDis were taken out of the market in the US, they were flying off the lots post $2/gallon as well, with demand unmet.

For fuel efficient cars, it's been a sellers market for years. With big SUVs sitting in the dealer lots colecting dust, the Big 3 complain about the foreign automakers offering a marginally better product, that marginally better product being that which customers flock to since that's the best the companies are willing to make.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by rh77

• Are you surprised that Toyota is in on it?

Not really, considering it's Toyota of America who's involved iirc. They're trying to cut into the juicy big truck/SUV market, and this potential CAFE increase is tailing the introduction of their newer, more powerful Tundra. Business' are around to make money, and some do it a wee bit more ethically than others, but they're still here to make ph4t l00tz...

Regarding the lack of decent economy from small cars, I'm surprised no one has mentioned inter-brand pressure. For instance, most car buyers believe that by spending twice as much, they're getting twice the car. But given the technology, that's just not possible. They're simply paying a premium for some add-ons... Most of the cost is in the platform. So, car manufacturers may detune a specific engine to not make as much power, and not threaten the sales of a more expensive line. Or leave off aerodynamic improvements in a base model, just so the mileage of the hybrid is noticeably greater. Because they want to make the more profitable high end cars more appealing. Even if they could offer a stripped down version with manual windows (Are these even made any more?), super tall OD, and a small engine that could do as well as the hybrid mileage wise, why would they hamstring their own hybrid sales?

There's also tooling and supply contracts. GM can't just tell Delphi that they don't want any more V8s. They have contracts, and I'm guessing stiff penalties if they're violated. So, they see where they have some wiggle room via analysis of the market and whatnot, and try to do the best with what they can. Like putting V8s in passenger cars with cylinder deactivation, etc... So they don't get hit by their suppliers too hard, and don't get hit in the market too hard. Until they can burn through the *current stock. In this context, the US would serve as the dumping ground for most major manufacturers less FE friendly components, since gas isn't taxed nearly as much here, and power/size has always been pushed. A CAFE increase may leave manufacturers with tons of unusable parts, that they have to sell off wholesale for a loss.

*Which is a PITA. Go check out GM trucks. They still have last year's models, which they're selling as legacy pickups or something. No a good indicator.

[repete86]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

However, I changed my views a few years back. 100% complete nonviolence doesn't work unless the powers that be allow it to. If they don't want to cooperate, a different method is needed. However, the dilemma is that the people that threaten you with arrest or worse are just doing their jobs, even if their job is to oppress, intimidate, arrest, and convict.

I am nonviolent, but then again, I don't consider self-defense violence, and I don't consider destruction of corporate property to be violence. Most of my activist friends are direct action eco-anarchists in groups like Earth First! or Root Force. I'm definitely not the "sit down and start singing John Lennon" type.

[ELF]

Its hard to blame the car buyers for not choosing a fuel efficient car.
The government has worked hard/ used military force ect. to insure that we here in the US have a plentiful supply of cheap fuel.
The auto industry has been constantly advertising big vehicles for years.
more Horsepower, torque, zoom, more room, They have brainwashed the public into big and powerful is better.

I think the recent news of global warming is changing some minds but I fear the only way Americans will change is if the gas price jumps significantly.