|
barneybarn
1/12/2009 10:35 AM | yes yes yes yes and YES!!! |
|
Rhea
1/12/2009 10:56 AM | An increase in MPG requirements is essential.
Maybe if we didnt spend so much to get from point A to point B then we could spend more there, or on our kids, our houses, or even to buy a new car sooner.
There should be an "escalade tax" for people that drive those resource wasting black holes. If you can afford an SUV then you can afford to pay an annual tax to an environmental charity. Required donations to save our planet.
|
|
LisB
1/12/2009 11:30 AM | Please add my AMEN to this one. |
|
Daverem
1/12/2009 11:32 AM | Whatever we do we will have to grit our teeth and pursue it despite the howls of the "addicted". Recovery from addiction is painful but ultimately worth every stab of pain. I personally am a recovering person and thanks to CONSEQUENCES I had to grow up and be disciplined and I can see now that I could have never thought my way out of my addicitions. I had to have the painful consequences before I would change my mind. |
|
Julian Haight
1/12/2009 11:45 AM | We need to ease safety standards on passenger vehicles - perhaps creating a separate non-highway class of vehicle with lower standards. This will allow many smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles onto our roads. Many small cars in use elsewhere are illegal to sell in the US due to our strict safety standards.
Lower standards for this new breed of small car will allow a flood of cheaper, smaller cars into our markets, making the promise of cheap fuel-efficient cars a reality virtually overnight.
Of course it will only hurt detroit, but they have stood in the way of progress for too long. They have lobbied the governement for too long in often-successful atempts to "tilt the playing field." It's time to give the field a different tilt.
|
|
LizzieB
1/12/2009 1:08 PM | What about these: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/23/british-motor-show-ford-fiesta-econetic-63-5-mpg-us/
I want one! |
|
daveypat
1/12/2009 1:16 PM | This is so important to change and it's sad when car companies say that 30 mpg is good gas mileage. We have the technology to be electric and have gas mileage in the 60-80 mpg. The only way to get this to happen is to increase the MPG requirements. |
|
J.M.Lee
1/12/2009 2:31 PM | To make the mandate have more teeth, incentives should also be given to companies who actually accomplish the tasks set before them. |
|
gforce
1/12/2009 2:48 PM | The New York Times Year in Ideas Issue had a great entry called Gallons Per Mile.
"..m.p.g. ratings aren’t the most useful prod, largely because the real significance of differences in m.p.g. is often counterintuitive. The jump from 10 to 20 m.p.g., for example, saves more gas than the one from 20 to 40 m.p.g. The move from 10 to 11 m.p.g. can save nearly as much as the leap from 33 to 50 m.p.g."
This seems like an easy policy change which would really help consumers understand the impact of the vehicals they buy. |
|
gforce
1/12/2009 2:49 PM | |
|
nordstromb
1/12/2009 2:53 PM | We should also use gallons per mile as the measurement as well! |
|
BrianB
1/12/2009 3:05 PM | American ingenuity can come up with safe and high mpg cars/trucks. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. Affordability is important as well. Cars cost a LOT of money for the average person. Just several thousand dollars is a lot for most people and purchasing on credit is not the wisest option. However, if you can't save money each month, how else are you supposed to pay for one of these $10000 + cars?
The first american company to offer a highly fuel efficient, safe, RELIABLE, & affordable car will litterally make millions. I'd love to purchase an american car but right now my paid in full 94 Toyota is still humming along at 30 mpg. the next time gas prices hit $4 a gallon I'd love to have an affordable American alternative. However, the bottom line is that the overall value a car company creates is what will determine if the average American will buy one.
A significant required increase is important. If you set it to just 35mpg, for example, that is exactly what we'll get. Set it high, allow a grace period for the companies to implement ideas and then we'll have true change. What do you think a minimum MPG should be?
|
|
Greetings_from_Brussels
1/12/2009 3:15 PM | What I find interesting about the question to build more economical cars in America for America is that most of the "European" economical cars are built by the American companies, so they "only" (I know this is expensive, but the research is already done) have to retool and they can be perfectly built in America.
The European Fords are of the best loved cars we have, and they are very well performing and economical! GM has Opel/Vauxhall. They have the car of the year for Europe. They also own Volvo.
|
|
wheels
1/12/2009 3:44 PM | What is true is that the Americans who most need economical cars can't afford to buy them. What I propose is a tax on gas to raise the price to $4 a gallon and use the revenue produced by this tax to subsidize the price of efficient cars.
If a car gets 50 MPG then government pays 50% of the price of the car with the subsidy going as high as 90% for any car that gets 90 MPG or more. To be eligible for the subsidy, a car has to be built in the US with 100% American built parts.
This program would reduce the use of gasoline by 25% within 5 years and within 10 years the US would be energy independent. None of the solar or winds programs could even come close to this and the program could be made revenue neutral so it would both dramatically improve our balance of payments and reduce the portion of global warming caused by transportation.
While the price of gasoline would double, poor people would be better off because they would be using less than half as much due to the mileage improvements.
|
|
grannyhelen
1/12/2009 5:21 PM | An idea that could actually make a real dent in our consumption of gasoline: better designed car seats.
I have friends with young families who have to upgrade to a gas guzzler at child number three, simply because you can't fit three car seats/booster seats into a midsize car.
I know there's got to be an easy fix to this one somewhere, and a lot of folks wouldn't buy that SUV if they didn't need to. |
|
bornintheusa
1/12/2009 6:03 PM | Your program will not work. It ignores the elephant in the room, the Federal Reserve. Also, feeding One Trillion Dollars to a bunch of fat tick construction and remodeling companies is insane! It's nothing more than trickledown job creation. What guarantee do WeThePeople have those new jobs will be created, instead of raises being given to “favored” employees. At least start with One Half Trillion to WeThePeople, and the other half for infrastructure! Unless a radical change is made, Mr. President, beginning with the re-organization of the Federal Reserve, you will become the first American President to preside over the Greatest of All Depressions. I hope this helps.
Further, Mr. President, our economic system is based on two main principals. The first is that consumer spending is two-thirds of the economy. The second is that every dollar spent at retail is spent seven times in a year. The current plan is to send 90% of the money to non-consumers. Any plan that does not target consumers is doomed to failure.
It makes no sense to offer help to fat tick construction companies when consumers are not spending and banks are not lending. Is it too much to ask that the American Family get something directly to help their “crumbling economic structure” when consumers are not spending, and banks are not lending? You are not FDR despite the Time Magazine Article. Quit listening to FDR experts. We’re at a New Gate!
http://vimeo.com/2783535 |
|
A_Trees
1/12/2009 7:32 PM | I'm surprised at the amount of hot air in some of these comments. Historically, when the government has set reasonable standards, businesses meet those standards. When government sets unreasonable standards, businesses do nothing and we waste valuable time.
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe we should consider the possibility that we can't mandate ourselves magical $5,000 trucks with 80 MPG built entirely on domestic parts.
Statements such as "If we want US automakers to be successful again, it's time to stop making Escalades and start selling affordable products that will benefit the micro and macro Economies in the US, not to mention the Environment. " so mindblowingly ignore how economies work that I don't know where to begin.
If you want very high fuel-efficient cars, be prepared to make sacrifices. Having government pay for it doesn't mean everyone will be able to get one.
Invest in research. Invest in alternative fuels and infrastructure, or alternative modes of transportation. Remove legal barriers, the safety barriers stated above for example, so that automakers can give us the smaller, more efficient cars. Heck, tax gas like crazy if you want to commit political suicide.
Mandating a higher MPG is just words. No incentive will give us the unreasonable.
|
|
Kevin J. Kauth
1/12/2009 9:05 PM | The government shouldn't mandate this with laws but through bankruptcy court. Viable buisnesses should be free to do whatever they wish. This must not be enforced with laws or regulations. |
|
kreinert
1/12/2009 10:18 PM | MEXICAN DRUG WAR is AMERICAN DRUG WAR
I strongly encourage everyone who votes up this idea to vote up the idea MEXICAN DRUG WAR is AMERICAN DRUG WAR: Revamp the Controlled Substance Act for Border Security
Here's where you can find it:
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004mhk&srPos=2&srKp=087
To be politically expedient, we should not be asking Obama to "legalize marijuana." We should ask him to revamp the Controlled Substance Act, descheduling marijuana so that it may eventually be feasible to make legalized.
Since it is a new idea and needing a BOOST, please vote this up and encourage all your friends to do so as well!
 |
|
Western Democrat
1/12/2009 11:40 PM | Amen, A_Trees. I couldn't agree with you more. |
|
DBHope
1/13/2009 7:00 AM | I believe that government is in the position to tell the American auto industry to stop supporting the oil industry and use the factories to create cars that are electric, hybrid, solar.
The technology is already know. If GM had the electric car in the 90s and they recalled it because of pressure from the outside, then have them put those back on the conveyer belt again. We don't need to continue to pollute the air and support the oil wars
. |
|
steve
1/13/2009 7:17 AM | I think that it is ridiculous for auto manufactures to think that if they sell 16 million vehicles one year then they should sell 17 million the next. Today's autos last much longer than they used to and are becoming more dependable and reliable every year. With the insane price of new cars (loaded with expensive, un-needed, ridiculous options) more cars are being bought from the used lots. Todays cars go through many many owners before their life is over. It should be common sense that sales numbers would plateau then start going down as they have been. Manufacturers need to only produce the numbers that they KNOW will sell even if it is a little lower that what would have sold. Cars need to be made simpler and more efficient. Efficient does not have to mean tiny and weird looking. I thing manufacturers make these economical cars as ugly as possible so that they do not sell well, and people will be more likely to buy a larger more expensive vehicle. BOTTOM LINE IS TO CUT PRODUCTION, MAKE VEHICLES MORE EFFICIENT, AND STOP BEGGING THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY TO COVER YEARS OF NEGLECT AND POOR BUSINESS PRACTICES!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Proud KY Citizen
1/13/2009 9:56 AM |
Corporate America-Don't Layoff People-Cut True Waste
If the companies start to value their employees as true assets, their employees will start taking pride in the job they do…. Making better products in AMERICA....
Not only give incentives to big Corporations to NOT lay people off, but find other ways to cut back on their expenses… like Salary cuts from the Execs. Not to mention the Board Members…
Instead of hiring these outside companies to find the people to layoff, have them REALLY look for the wasted areas, not wasted people, of the company… Like distribution of some reports that never get read, too many expensive office furniture makeovers… More control on office supplies… Actually, really listen to their employees about where there is waste, and don’t wait until it is too late to listen to them… All companies should start TODAY…
Make people feel proud of their jobs and whom they work for again… And not feel like “why bother to do the best job I could because tomorrow they will just lay me off even after years of dedication to this company”.
|
|
TheRealist
1/13/2009 1:11 PM | Right on A_Trees!
Americans buy what we want, ergo you can't force us to buy something we don't want.
Passing this law would likely result in some unintended consequences:
1) those with the Escalades will keep them. Businesses will start making upgrades, add-ons and rebuilds to keep your 2006 Escalade looking brand new. Why trade it in when you can make it like new??
2) People will get killed in the small cars as long as the big boys are on the road. Escalade meets econo-box is an ugly head-on collision, and lower safety standards will make it worse. Semi or moving van meets econ-box will be ugly as well. The big trucks will remain on the roads. We have a LOT of roads in the US, more than most countries. We have a LOT of drivers on those roads, and if most of those drivers are now in small cars, the odds of a semi hitting a small car get pretty good.
If someone does get killed, who does the family get to sue? The government that required the car to be made, or the car company that made the car that they were required to make?
I'm all for better gas mileage, so I buy more fuel efficient cars. If no one buys a gas guzzler, no one makes a gas guzzler. We have more influence than "the government" does; we are the government.
There are only two ways to get massively better fuel economy, no matter what the power source: lighter weight and better aerodynamics, and weight is by far the biggest issue. Until we have better light-weight composites (which currently run at least $100,000 per car) and are fine with every car looking the same (there IS a minimum drag design), we will not be at 90MPG with the same safety standards we require for our families.
Switch to electric cars now and we need to increase electric production quickly; which means burning more coal, building nuke plants, more hydroelectric and revamping our power grid due to the massive increase of watts needed. Work on infrastructure, continue looking into alternative energies but don't go headlong into it, and know that the ultimate goal is energy independence. Embracing the wrong alternative energy just leads to the next fossil fuel for us. |
|
benuts
1/13/2009 4:35 PM | The primary use of gas only engine should be stopped right now. All engines should be allowed to be taken to an authorized location and be modified to run on E85. For every engine modified would be a decrease of 85% in the use of gasoline. This idea could be started on Jan 21. All of your other ideas like "light rail" and "bullet trains" will take years to be operational. |
|
ForTheRecord
1/13/2009 5:59 PM | I agree that much of the sucess of the auto industry depends on what we the consumer buy. However, we can only buy what the market produces. When the market ceases listening to the consumer there is an impass. If the auto industy is to get any money at all it should be in the form of grants to further technological developments in AFFORDABLE models. It does not do anyone any good to unveil $100,000 concept cars that take years to make it to the mainstream market. The truth is we have the ability now to be COMPLETELY electric. There is an Asian automaker that has unveiled an electric car with 100 miles per charge. We should not be rewarding or salvaging an industry that continues to sit in ignorance and demands that it be compensated for the disjuncture between what it sells and what consumers are looking for. We can do great things when given a task. I'd like to see the American Auto Industry challenged to meet/beat the standards seen in other comparable nations. |
|
daus
1/13/2009 6:23 PM | Damn it. I just accidentaly voted down. How can I reverse that?? |
