Do u support Bidens new MPG for cars? Would u buy a hybrid/EV? Will it help reduce pollution? Will it just swap dependence OPEC oil->China minerals?

[DrPepper12]

The new standards require American automakers to increase fuel economy so that, across their product lines (NOT INDIVIDUAL VEHICLES) their passenger cars would average 65 miles per gallon by 2031, up from 48.7 miles today.

The average mileage for light trucks, including pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, would have to reach 45 miles per gallon, up from 35.1 miles per gallon.

The standards will also require heavy-duty pickup trucks, such as the Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD, and large vans, such as Amazon delivery vans, to reach 35 miles per gallon by 2035, up from 18.8 miles per gallon today.

For reference, China is producing EVs for @ $17K and have a 100% US tariff on them. Only a matter of time before they break into USA market.

YES I support the higher MPG laws and this is why:

NO I don't support higher MPG laws and this why:

[Surely]

I am all for clean air and unheard of fuel mileages. But, when the government is continually pushing for stricter emissions limits. For the life of me. I cannot fathom how burning more fossil fuel can lower the emissions put out the tailpipe!
In 1975. The government introduced us to catalytic converters and unleaded fuel. Gas mileage dropped considerably during a fuel shortage! Because of the emissions reduction requirement.
A friend of mine. Worked in a Chevolet truck garage. He told me that Chevy produced a pickup truck that they distributed to their major fleet users. At the end of the day. You filled the fuel tank from your garden hose. No idea of what happened to them.
As long as carbon based fuels are burnt. There probably will be bad stuff out the tailpipe.
EV’s are not good for everyone. Not everyone will want one. I watched a show on Nicola Tesla. They predicted that EV’s will work when they can build the charging grids into the road surface. So that your car would pick up the energy like wireless cell phone chargers.

[Surely]

Thank you for the MHO!

[OlderAndWiser]

I live in Florida, about ten miles from the Atlantic Ocean. What's going to happen when a hurricane is heading this way and we are ordered to evacuate? There won't be enough charging stations, the process takes too long, cars with discharged batteries will be blocking the evacuation routes.

There is no economy for me in an EV. The batteries are horribly expensive, the require lithium that we get from CHINA!, and as gas usage declines, the states will impose road use taxes to offset the loss in gas tax revenues.

[DrPepper12]

All excellent critiques but this should be an ASPIRATIONAL policy goal.
I
I never considered the evacuation route angle. Thank you! But Dear Leader just said that "rising seas will create MORE beachfront property" Read that as many times as you need.

I don't like the dependence on Chinese rare earths. Very scary and must be addressed asap.

[handsomelad70]

The batteries will have to be smaller sized.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[northerngal]

OK for me its quite simple... yes i support it. Ultimately support EVs (or other zero emission tech) but I think we are not ready for them. Thus we need to do something in the interim. Making vehicles more efficient is one of them. Most people have no reason to drive huge trucks or mini vans frankly. I think for now plug in hybrids could work great. For urban use you run on the batteries and have zero emissions for longer trips on a very efficient engine. I know many still think climate change is a hoax... but hey even if it is would breathing cleaner air be beneficial on many levels?

[DrPepper12]

I could have wrote that! Were in a LONG transition. The climate hoax people bother the shit out of me. The strain of anti-intelectualism in this nation is virulent and spreading.

[AviatorTom]

The technology to achieve those targets does not yet exist, and despite efforts, will not exist. The auto-makers will just go to the government and get waivers, as they have every time the government establishes a target they say they cannot meet.

It would be better for the US government to put more money into mass transit, which would get more pollution-creating vehicles off the roads. If teh government's goal is to reduce pollution, and its affect on perceived climate change, mass transit would have a better short-term and long-term useful effect.

[OlderAndWiser]

No need for me to comment. You have said it all.

[DrPepper12]

Love the mass transit idea but as long as California sets higher standards or no waivers the car companies will play ball. They can't be locked out of that market

[normalice]

I don't see why plug in hybrids aren't the default, personally. More power, substantially cheaper short range driving, and basically unchanged long range driving.

[DrPepper12]

Agreed but in full honesty some of that electric is generated by coal and natural gas AND some of that is from the disaster that is fracking so it's a "hidden" cost

[normalice]

That isn't the point. Electric engines are simply more efficient as the electricity to move them comes from super efficient grid generators instead of car engines that necissarily have increased cubic_meter_of_CO2/kWh emissions (because car engines are made for versatility not constant maximum efficiency). It's dumb that we use coal for electricity but nonetheless the more of our transportation power we get from the grid instead of fossil fuels, the more it matters to push power from other sources onto the grid. And that's something we can actually do, which is important because the alternative is to just keep using combustion engine cars and have nothing to do about it.

[hahahmm]

@normalice What do you think about the observation that most of the leading 1st world countries spent generations polluting the world as they built themselves up into successful modern Empires and now want to lecture/force countries that are in the middle of developing to restrict their own development as part of making up for the mistakes of the earlier countries. So you have countries like China and India with billions of people who are going to keep polluting as a means of making rapid development regardless of what the west does.

[normalice]

I think it was Socrates that talked about the drunk man who shows up at your house to tell you your house is on fire. Are you going to say "but what about your drunkeness?" Or are you going to do something about the fire?

Who contributed most to the problem is an important discussion but it is one to be settled after we've all agreed to do something about it, which we have not done. Discussing it beforehand only allows people to get distracted with blame wars, thus assuring nothing gets done. In fact, at some point, the people who stir up the blame wars will surpass all others for being the biggest contributor. It's just that that's harder to calculate.

[hahahmm]

Or some very powerful people will just press buttons to reduce population by say 80%, These buttons have labels like "bioweapons", "nuclear war", "EMP attacks"

[normalice]

There is no need. Volatile weather will wipe out 80% of our food in 10 years and so 80% of the population will quickly follow - each of us being 100% made of food, after all..

[hahahmm]

If that's true then why worry about cars? That problem would be solved when most people die off. Not that I plan to be one of those caught unprepared -- but of course, we never really know when our time is up.

[normalice]

Because it can be avoided.

[hahahmm]

Nope. Seems arbitrary and intended to get rid of non EV/hybrid cars. If the EV costs, technology AND maintenance cost (10 year cost) was there, they wouldn't have to force it. People would see the benefits. The government didn't force people to switch from horses to automobiles.

[DrPepper12]

It's not arbitrary, EPA has been doing for years. Yes it's designed to transition to ev/hybrid. That's the point! Maintenance costs for EV is equivalent and dropping. Govt always uses incentives and punishment like sin taxes to promote policy. There's nothing new here.

[hahahmm]

The cost is not equivalent because you have to factor in battery replacement cost in the first 10 years. Can't skip that.

[DrPepper12]

I did!

[hahahmm]

Which car model (s)?

[DrPepper12]

Hybrids. Especially Toyota Prius.

[hahahmm]

I looked into it. On paper it seems good. But I also remember my experience with battery powered lawnmowers. At first it seemed great. Then at some point the proprietary battery manufacturers started increasing the price to absolutely insane levels. A battery that was once like $45 was $99 and then practically $300. Then mid $300s. Mind you, you would need 4 batteries to do 1/4 acre uninterrupted. And you can buy a better gas lawnmower for $300-$400. Point is, I have no faith that the system -- full of tax credits to make people think things cost less - in fact the only reason -- I believe - the Prius and other hybrids seem to have good 10 year values is because of tax credit that allows the maker to give warranty replacement of the battery in the first 8-10 years.

It's true tho that hybrid is a million times better than full EV. I bet you once the government forces people to switch to hybrid they would then have a new game of forcing people to switch to full EV with $20k-$30k battery replacement costs and no battery warranty beyond 3 years or something. We'll see.

[HighValue]

Isn't it odd that often people that support things like yhat also support giving more and more bombs and missiles to other countries that cause MUCH greater pollution than automobiles ever could?

[DrPepper12]

Odd juxtaposition.

[hahahmm]

Same people are 100% for people fighting in a certain war, but if they thought they would be drafted tomorrow they would be singing a different tune.

[MysticDevice]

Biden belongs in a nursing home and his handlers haven't got a clue about automotive industries, nor do they actually care about saving the environment.


YOU are the carbon they want to reduce.

[handsomelad70]

Biden belongs in a nursing home (as does Trump), but how do you know Biden doesn't care about the environment?

[MysticDevice]

If they did, they wouldn't sending hundreds of billions overseas to finace more foreign wars. They'd be spending it on actual clean and green energy.

And no, electric cars are not green. Like they love to keep telling us.

And yeah you're right. Republicans aren't much better. This is the government our Founding Fathers rebelled against.

[DrPepper12]

Interesting if inaccurate claims.

[handsomelad70]

Maybe they'd have voted for Cornel West or Jill Stein.(Well, I wouldn't go THAT far: West is a black man; Stein, a white woman, and the U. S. Founding Fathers were largely slave owners and wouldn't have supported female suffrage. It was a government of, by, for and only for propertied [including slaves] white men.)

[MysticDevice]

Was and were. Slavery is illegal and woman's sufferage is the law.

I stand by what I said though. I don't believe for one second that the Government has our best interests in mind. Both sides want more control over your life. And that I can't abide.

[handsomelad70]

In 1776, slavery was legal (until 1865) and female suffrage illegal until 1920, with black Southern women denied the vote until 1965.

[Alex-Snow]

I definitely do... it should have been done a long time ago. Not sure why the GOP is against it... maybe only because it was Biden's idea.

[exitseven]

No, it is totally ridiculous. Instead of doubling the milage of the vehicles he should concentrate on cutting gas prices in half.

[DrPepper12]

He can't do that. Not even Jesus can. Why don't u people get that?

[exitseven]

The US pumps about a third less oil than it did 4 years ago. That makes it scarce and it is over 80 dollars a barrel. The oil gets expensive, then gasoline gets expensive and after that everything gets expensive.

[msc545]

Nobody needs SUVs and very few people need pickup trucks. We cannot keep burning oil or we not have breathable atmosphere, or the oil will run out. There is a limited quantity of oil. What do you suggest we use for energy beside oil?

[handsomelad70]

As I previously stated, EVs/hybrids can't begin to really dent the car market until EVs can go about 1,000 miles between charges.

[DrPepper12]

Scary thing is the Chinese EVs with a 100% tariff are approaching those numbers.

[OddBeMe]

Toyota is practically an American company with over 60% of its workforce here. So how do we define a company’s ethnicity?

[AngryCarl]

65mpg by 2031 sounds pretty unrealistic.

[DrPepper12]

Across the whole product line. The EVs at 100 will make up for the trucks at 35.

[Anonymous]

No because it will involve selling the US to China and likely a mass genocide of millions of people

[Pterodon]

Fuck no I don’t support Biden on anything

[DrPepper12]

Why not fuel economy?

[Pterodon]

It’s bigger than that. It’s the government limiting my choices and the government forcing me to do what it wants

[Pterodon]

You just don’t get it

[DrPepper12]

Govts, aka collectively, " we the people" do that all the time for a orderly society. It's the very purpose we institute govts. Do you think the same about sin taxes limiting your liberty?

[Pterodon]

Well I don’t believe in it. Let the people decide what we want

[DrPepper12]

You must be dizzy from circular reasoning. We the people DO DECIDE

[Pterodon]

That’s right and we’re not choosing evs

[DrPepper12]

Majority says your wrong.

[Pterodon]

Wrong. Were choosing hybrids not evs