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

[Little-Acorn]

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]

Where the heck is all that oil that the anti-war crowd says the current administration as a reason for war?

 

[Mr.Conley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[TheStripey1]

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...

 

[Gunny]

This thread so smack of "Big Brother" it's unbelievable.

 

[onedomino]

This thread so smack of "Big Brother" it's unbelievable.

Elaborate.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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]

and your solution is to what? Keep driving your big gas guzzling SUV?

Why does it bother busy body libs what other people drive?

 

[red states rule]

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

 

[TheStripey1]

Gee, I thought you would say the troops are hiding the oil in their tents

Only a complete idiot would think that... is that why you came up with it?

 

[red states rule]

Only a complete idiot would think that... is that why you came up with it?

The conspiracy kooks have said from day one the war was for oil

So where the hell is it?