You're right- global warming is about idealogy and not science. You have to disbelieve everything science has learned about the earths previous temperature and CO2 changes to fall for the premise Al Gore & Co are peddling.

↓↑report

You're completely missing the idea. Raising CAFE has nothing to do with science, it's about not understanding economics. Environmentalists want people to use less gas right? But owning and selling cars with low fuel economy uses no gas and produces no pollution. The problem with increasing CAFE doesn't address the problem. Gasoline is too cheap and creates more cost on the world then simply the cost of consumption (negative externality). But by raising CAFE gasoline stays cheap. What has driven the interest in alternative fuels recently? It's the price of gas or cost to the consumer that matters. CAFE will reduce gas consumption (probably marginally as people will drive more), but wouldn't it be better to tax gas? Of course no one would ever support such legislation, but people are just too afraid to come to a real solution and instead do something that's economically inefficient.

↓↑report

I am a lefty and I am totally against increasing CAFE. Why? Because it won't help the environment ,but will cost us jobs.

Increasing gas mileage 40% will not take any existing car off the road, plus despite all the environemental movement's rhetoric, American-market cars produce less than 1.5% of the worlds CO2. So we can't even reduce the 1.5% by 40%, so what's the point?

Instead of forcing all the companies to come up with stopgap engineering to meet these new standards, we should stop wasting R&D on CAFE and allow companies to continue researching a replacement for the internal combustion engine.

A few weeks ago GM moved 700 engineers to work on the Volt. If CAFE increases happen, GM will likely have to move them into other areas to try and tweak more mileage out of existing powertrains.

Now onto these nuts:

"This new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists says that higher fuel economy standards could create a quarter million new jobs by 2020. As many as 24,000 of those could be in the automotive sector."

These are the same idiots who claim that GM can make a 40mpg minivan with $400 of off the shelf parts. If that's the case, why isn't one single maker of cars in the world producing such a vehicle? These nitwits have no credibility.

↓↑report

Another thing to consider that has been repeatedly shown to be true is that if you increase fuel economy, people will simply drive more.

↓↑report

"because as the price of fuel rises, car buyers will feel the strain on their wallets and choose more economical vehicles"

I can't agree. This is not the first "fuel crisis" nor the same price of fuel 1 year, 2 year or more years ago. We still got Hemi's again and bigger diesels and bigger cars. Nothing has changed since the 25¢ gallon. People adapt and then want the "bigger is better".

↓↑report

That's OK--no problem! The Hemi sold well when introduced at the time gas was under $2 per gallon. Far fewer Hemis are sold now.

Yes, people do adapt. And if they can afford thirsty cars, so what? We use Arab oil because it's the cheapest fuel we can buy.

The best way to move away from foreign oil is for its price to rise to the point where people economize voluntarily and, with gas costing much more, alternative fuels become cost effective at higher prices.

Forcing car makers to make what bureaucrats dictate instead of what people want was a bad idea in the '70s and it's a bad idea now. It was also a failure then and will be again.

↓↑report

Government mandates make sense where the market doesn't work. I absolutely agree. In which alternative universe can the conservation of a commodity be increased by providing the implements that make it cheaper to use? Can not more of us move from inner cities to the burbs where commuter vehicles are a must? If you owned AMTRAK (actually, because of tax subsidies, most of us do), how would you feel about legislation that makes your competition (the automobile) much, much stronger? CAFE will have the unique distinction of simultaneously making mass transit LESS economically viable, and private transport more desirable. Can anyone think of a scenario designed to INCREASE our dependency on foreign oil more?

↓↑report

There is so much rhetoric on this topic. An increase in CAFE doesn't necessarily mean higher costs. Current engineers and designers could just as easily design cars that are more fuel efficient as they currently design for more horsepower. There are some easy things that could be done, for example, lower horsepower in V8s, reduce the number of V8s, put more R/D in small vehicles instead of SUVs. All of these things only require a refocusing of current resourses. There are other alternatives that in the long run could be used such as hybrids, diesels, and other alternative fuels. Again this is an allocation of resourse decision. Over the next 20 years, The Big 3 will be spending money on R&D for something, it's a question of what.

↓↑report

"bet you're the type who argues against global warming with 'truths' like the sun is getting warmer. "

I bet your the type that thinks words like "believe" and "highly likely" are science.

There is zero scientific evidence of AGW.

A scientist's opinion is not scientific evidence.

↓↑report

True science is not political. Scientists whose sole source of funding comes from politicians desperate for a cause will say anything to keep the money coming.

Let me ask you a few questions and explain to me how higher CAFE standards apply:

1) Why is it getting hotter on Mars without any SUVs and private jets emitting carbon dioxide? If it’s the sun that’s responsible for the warming on Mars, then maybe it’s also responsible for the warming of the Earth.

2) How can you explain past warming and cooling cycles that started long before the introduction of the first internal combustion engine? There was a Medieval Warm Period from 900-1300 and then a Little Ice Age from about 1500-1800. By simply looking at the covers of our most popular periodicals over the past century, these cycles are clearly evident. We worried about a coming Ice Age from 1895 to 1930, then it was the threat of global warming from the 1930s to the 1960s, followed by another imminent Ice Age during the 1970s, and now we’re back to the threat of global warming again. There’s no such thing as an “ideal temperature" for the earth. Average surface temperatures are constantly in flux, up or down about a few tenths of a degree every year. These cycles are normal.

3) If man is solely responsible for the increased levels of CO2, then how do you explain the Ordovician Period, 440 million years ago, when the CO2 level was 16 times higher than today? Or, the Cretaceous Period, 140 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and CO2 was 8 times higher? Or, the CO2 levels from 95 million years ago which were about the same as levels today? How can these levels be changing long before the appearance of man?

The problem with the notion that those who don't buy into the whole global warming hype are anti-science is completely false. In fact, it is just the opposite. Those who foist this malarkey are in denial of everything science has learned about the earth over the last 100 years. If the truth doesn't fit your agenda- create a new one.

↓↑report