In your opinion what are some pros and cons on raising fuel economy standards?Are you in favor or aginst it?

Answer 1

Let the market decide. If we want more fuel efficient cars they will make them. I do not want to be forced to buy them by the government.

Answer 2

Fuel economy standards are a weak regulatory tool, and tend to be easily evaded. For intance, such standards were tightened in the 90s, esepcially in CA - but they were focused on passenger vehicles, that is, cars. Trucks were exempt - afterally, most people didn't drive trucks, they were primarily work vehicles. The result: SUVs soared in popularity, because, they were legally trucks, and could provide the power and luxury drivers craved, even though those things were detrimental to milage.

Increasing the cost of fuel, in the long run, will do more to encourage fuel economy. In the 70s, when gas prices spiked durring the oil embargo, cheaper smaller, more fuel-efficient cars became more popular. If prices were high, but stable, and could be expected to remain high indefinitely, then more fuel-efficient vehicles would be demanded.

Answer 3

Gas won't be around forever. I think there is a fine line in what the goverment should be able to do, when it comes to our rights. If they can raise the fuel economy and still make the cars Americans want to buy ok. However, if they start outlawing cars because of poor mileage that borders on taking away our rights.

Answer 4

i think of that there are various execs and cons, and you have indexed the main ones nicely. that's elementary to evade pointless arguments and it does not take long to make certain which questions are actual and that are heavily stirring. blocking off time-venerated apostates is clever. even however, i in my opinion think of that the weighting of the pros and cons isn't comparable to one individual to the subsequent. One individual could haven't any problem with time administration and solutions, different individuals (like me lol) can locate it complicated to bypass away issues be and waste hours and hours online. So interior the top, it comes down on your individual record and self assessment on the way you're going. I extremely does no longer criticize any brother or sister for determining the two way so a procedures as yahoo solutions is going!!!

Answer 5

There is no reason this should have not been done yesterday, so to speak. The CAFE (as I've heard) is about where it was when Reagan went to DC, and THAT'S no coincidence. 100 mpg for a compact size car, or doing away with gasoline entirely, is NOT an unreasonable goal in the same time frame of the time of when JFK announcement was made to when the moon landing was actually accomplished. If we had a GOOD and ELECTED president who cared about the people, which we don't, we would do it again, "not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

Answer 6

In general, Americans are too retarded to figure out a good deal.

They see...

Regular car costs $20,000
Afterthought - 20 mpg

Fuel efficient car $35,000
Afterthought - 65 mpg

The normal American only thinks - damn, 35,000 is a lot of money.

What they need to do is think, how much can i put down? How big of a loan will i be taking out? What are the monthly payments on this loan? How many miles can I expect to drive in a year? What's a reasonable estimate for the avg price of gas in the next 5 years? How much will i save/spend on gas?

Make informed decision.

Hells no!! you either gotta ram fuel efficient cars down the throat of the normal American or he will continue to make uninformed decisions based solely on the fact that 20,000 dollars is less than 35,000 and therefore it is the way to go.

Answer 7

Our fuel economy standards are half of China's and Europe's....America dropped the ball on this because we are spoiled brats who think only of how something could hurt us individually. This is unpopular and will get me a lot of thumbs down, but is true. The biggest thing standing between Americans and changing our reliance on oil is our spoiled lifestyle and our self-centeredness.

Answer 8

Rainbow honey I am just not sure, seems that it might be really bad for poor people who can't afford to go out and buy these brand new cars and our country is in enough debt as it is, but for the wealthy that will make a killing off of it this might be a really good thing so even though I am for less government I know that they gov. won't stay out of things so I am not sure?

Answer 9

Less pollution (clearer skies, healthier people), people save more money, America can be seen as the role model it should be instead of gluttons..

One con is that State governments get less money in road taxes, as people buy fewer gallons of gas, that is less money coming in from taxes. And of course if you work for an oil company or a gas station, that's less profit for you.

Answer 10

I am in favor of it. We'd be near the last of the list of countries in doing so, as CO2 emissions could be drasticlly reduced by using less fuel. I'm in favor of re-teaching people to learn to drive efficiently.

For those against it, why are you? What is the harm in it? (Chri**, Dennis S, 'let the market decide'? YOU are the market.

.

Answer 11

I am in favor of it to a certain point.

We can make alcohol fuel that will burn nearly as well as gasoline for 1/2 the price, but the FDA and the BATF will not let it be sold.