Trading blood for oil: Feinstein (D-CA) proposes increased gas mileage standards

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
With Democrats newly in majorities in Congress, they are looking at yet another proposal to mandate increased gas-mileage standards for automakers.

Higher mileage can certainly be had. Mostly by building smaller, lighter cars. Expensive methods such as developing dual-drive "hybrid" vehicles can nearly double the price of the car, eating up any potential fuel cost savings and more, as well as pricing these highly-effficient vehicles out of the range of what most people who buy cars of that size, can afford.

And just as inevitably, driving smaller, lighter cars, translates directly to more injuries and deaths from car crashes. Study after study has shown that, when two small cars collide, the resulting injuries and deaths are worse on average, whan when two large cars collide. And of course, when a small car and a large car collide, it's not difficult to predict which car's occupants will come out worse.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is proposing a bill to force auto makers to increase their corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Apparently Ms. Feinstein believes that the savings in fuel would more than offset the thousands of additional deaths that would result.

Recently we have been treated to TV pictures of "protesters" carrying leftover signs screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL". When do you suppose they will visit Ms. Feinstein's office to remind her of the (possibly unintended) consequences of her plans?

Has there ever been a time when one of these do-gooder legislators has looked out beyond the rosy glow of their own idealistic vision, to the real world where people suffer the REAL consequences of what they propose?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-cafe9may09,0,3790776.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Where the heck is all that oil that the anti-war crowd says the current administration as a reason for war?
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
With Democrats newly in majorities in Congress, they are looking at yet another proposal to mandate increased gas-mileage standards for automakers.

Higher mileage can certainly be had. Mostly by building smaller, lighter cars. Expensive methods such as developing dual-drive "hybrid" vehicles can nearly double the price of the car, eating up any potential fuel cost savings and more, as well as pricing these highly-effficient vehicles out of the range of what most people who buy cars of that size, can afford.

And just as inevitably, driving smaller, lighter cars, translates directly to more injuries and deaths from car crashes. Study after study has shown that, when two small cars collide, the resulting injuries and deaths are worse on average, whan when two large cars collide. And of course, when a small car and a large car collide, it's not difficult to predict which car's occupants will come out worse.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is proposing a bill to force auto makers to increase their corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Apparently Ms. Feinstein believes that the savings in fuel would more than offset the thousands of additional deaths that would result.

Recently we have been treated to TV pictures of "protesters" carrying leftover signs screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL". When do you suppose they will visit Ms. Feinstein's office to remind her of the (possibly unintended) consequences of her plans?

Has there ever been a time when one of these do-gooder legislators has looked out beyond the rosy glow of their own idealistic vision, to the real world where people suffer the REAL consequences of what they propose?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-cafe9may09,0,3790776.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
True (unless they used carbon fiber, which they're not), nonetheless, once you factor in the effects of global warming and terrorist funding via oil revenues, it's entirely possible that the net total deaths will decrease. Gotta look at the whole picture.

Besides, with all the safety equipment available in today's cars it's more a problem of people being idiots then cars failing.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
Hydrogen fuel cell engines. Find a cheaper way to manufacture those, and we have the solution to our oil dilema. Trust me oil will be a thing of the past within 20-30 years, at least for the U.S.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Hydrogen fuel cell engines. Find a cheaper way to manufacture those, and we have the solution to our oil dilema. Trust me oil will be a thing of the past within 20-30 years, at least for the U.S.
'Huge oil find' in Gulf of Mexico

Chevron said the oil field may be a "significant discovery"
Three companies led by US-based Chevron say they have found an oil field under the Gulf of Mexico that could boost US reserves by more than 50%.
Drilling at a test well yielded "a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day", Chevron said.

The discovery may rival the biggest US oil field in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.

Experts caution that the true size of the oil field is not yet known and it will be a long time before any of the oil there enters the market.

"In the last 15 years, there've been so many great projects that started out and then petered out," Matt Simmons, the head of a group of energy investment bankers, told Reuters news agency.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5318776.stm
 

onedomino

SCE to AUX
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
478
Points
98
The no blood for oil crowd thinks we went into Iraq for oil. At best, Iraq produces about $20 billion per year worth of oil, depending on the price of crude. We have spent $500 billion in Iraq. America could have instead purchased every drop of Iraqi oil for 20 years, given it away for free, and still been $100 billion ahead of the game. The blood for oil slogan makes no sense and demeans the sacrifice of the men and women, Americans, British, Iraqis, and others, that have given their lives trying to bring democracy and freedom to a place where they have never been known.

Regarding mandated auto mileage standards: they would in fact reduce or slow consumption. So would a 55mph speed limit, required use of public transportation, required car pooling, and slashed discretionary driving. But I do not favor government enforcement of such policies. Rather than concentrate on punishing public use of energy, the government should instead concentrate on the research and development of alternative sources of energy. If the free market does not make economically viable alternative sources, e.g., new nuclear power plants or coal gasification, then the government must step up and develop the resources. We know the oil will run out and we must have replacement energy sources ready to go online. Then, when nuclear power, coal gasification, geothermal, solar, hydrogen, helium 3, etc., become economically viable, the government can then sell those assets to private organizations and shareholders. We are not going to get out of this mess by mandating fuel economy or driving 55mph. As a nation, collectively, we have to identify the future sources of energy and press with all our might to develop them right now, even if it means temporarily setting aside the belief that free market forces will always lead to the most adaptive solutions. Sometimes the free market only leads into a box canyon.
 

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
Where the heck is all that oil that the anti-war crowd says the current administration as a reason for war?
It's laying on the ground in Iraq because the insurgents, who according to DICK cheney are in their last throes, keep blowing up the pipelines...
 

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
With Democrats newly in majorities in Congress, they are looking at yet another proposal to mandate increased gas-mileage standards for automakers.

Higher mileage can certainly be had. Mostly by building smaller, lighter cars. Expensive methods such as developing dual-drive "hybrid" vehicles can nearly double the price of the car, eating up any potential fuel cost savings and more, as well as pricing these highly-effficient vehicles out of the range of what most people who buy cars of that size, can afford.

And just as inevitably, driving smaller, lighter cars, translates directly to more injuries and deaths from car crashes. Study after study has shown that, when two small cars collide, the resulting injuries and deaths are worse on average, whan when two large cars collide. And of course, when a small car and a large car collide, it's not difficult to predict which car's occupants will come out worse.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is proposing a bill to force auto makers to increase their corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Apparently Ms. Feinstein believes that the savings in fuel would more than offset the thousands of additional deaths that would result.

Recently we have been treated to TV pictures of "protesters" carrying leftover signs screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL". When do you suppose they will visit Ms. Feinstein's office to remind her of the (possibly unintended) consequences of her plans?

Has there ever been a time when one of these do-gooder legislators has looked out beyond the rosy glow of their own idealistic vision, to the real world where people suffer the REAL consequences of what they propose?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-cafe9may09,0,3790776.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
and your solution is to what? Keep driving your big gas guzzling SUV? :cuckoo:
 

TheStripey1

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
23
Points
16
Location
Left Coast
Regarding mandated auto mileage standards: they would in fact reduce or slow consumption. So would a 55mph speed limit, required use of public transportation, required car pooling, and slashed discretionary driving. But I do not favor government enforcement of such policies.

Rather than concentrate on punishing public use of energy, the government should instead concentrate on the research and development of alternative sources of energy. If the free market does not make economically viable alternative sources, e.g., new nuclear power plants or coal gasification, then the government must step up and develop the resources.

We know the oil will run out and we must have replacement energy sources ready to go online. Then, when nuclear power, coal gasification, geothermal, solar, hydrogen, helium 3, etc., become economically viable, the government can then sell those assets to private organizations and shareholders.

We are not going to get out of this mess by mandating fuel economy or driving 55mph. As a nation, collectively, we have to identify the future sources of energy and press with all our might to develop them right now, even if it means temporarily setting aside the belief that free market forces will always lead to the most adaptive solutions. Sometimes the free market only leads into a box canyon.

well said One... well said...
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Where the heck is all that oil that the anti-war crowd says the current administration as a reason for war?
What I want to know is, "Where the hell are the oil revenues that were supposed to pay the for the costs of the war...Which Paul Wolfowitz, embattled head of the World Bank...told us would only be about $60 billion?" Can anyone answer me that?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
It's laying on the ground in Iraq because the insurgents, who according to DICK cheney are in their last throes, keep blowing up the pipelines...
Gee, I thought you would say the troops are hiding the oil in their tents
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top