[Lou_Dorchen]

Though medium and heavy duty trucks will count toward CAFE numbers soon, does anyone know how zero-emission electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf count towards it?

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Though medium and heavy duty trucks will count toward CAFE numbers soon, does anyone know how zero-emission electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf count towards it?

Of all the options out there, why did you choose the Leaf as your example?

[OldScoolCamaro]

Foreign manufacturer sales should not count into our equation I would imagine. Electric is slow to take a foothold here, the infrastructure is not set in place, the GOV in an awkward position not taking a strong stand to promote the logical succession to gasoline and have a cohesive plan to get it jumpstarted. In conclusion, re-election campaigns, hinged on special interest backed with PAC groups and lobbyists take the wind out of our elected officals very quickly in DC.

[Lou_Dorchen]

The Volt has a gasoline engine as well, right? I believe the Leaf is all electric so I chose it. Sorry if I offended ya, I'm no expert on hybrids and EVs.

Old School, The foreign automakers have to meet CAFE too as well, right?

[OldScoolCamaro]

US CAFE laws are what are placed upon US auto manufacturers as I understand it....foreign manufacturers requirements in regards to our market and it's regulations and what they can sell here I can't provide an answer to...I am sure there are others here more knowledgable who can shed some light on that subject and answer your Leaf question.

[Lou_Dorchen]

I thought it was just the average MPG of all eligible cars sold that year in the United States by each manufacturer. I know foreign automakers are bound by it in some way though, as Mercedes has been fined several years for CAFE issues.

[OldScoolCamaro]

I say since the current administration likes to mandate so many things, act as if they are champions of the environment and global warming, and court other countries about their responsibilites to make the planet a cleaner place, they should put our money where their mouth is and have a national agenda to further electric cars and the national infrastructure needed to support them, other than talk about it and do nothing other than burden business where green house gasses are emitted on a lesser scale.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

....let's face it. Greenhouse emissions, the GOV, and the consumers are not going to go away by any part or measure. The intent is to improve the climate by reducing the carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. I get that. In the end will it matter? I am not convinced. Cars are not the biggest ozone bully on the block. We have no real voice in the matter, it's more of a common sense issue. We globaly need to at least try to make some difference, as futile as it may be. I am not an Al Gore supporter BTW..... The elephant in the room is that today we have technology that will satisfy everyones need, from fuel efficiency to high performance, much unlike what we faced many decades ago.

If all those wondeful things are so AWESOME, why don't they "sell themselves"? You would think that such great advances would not have to be unconstitutionally mandated and justified using junk science.

If it's so great, why is it FORCED on us? This is not Red China, is it?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

Foreign manufacturer sales should not count into our equation I would imagine. Electric is slow to take a foothold here, the infrastructure is not set in place, the GOV in an awkward position not taking a strong stand to promote the logical succession to gasoline and have a cohesive plan to get it jumpstarted. In conclusion, re-election campaigns, hinged on special interest backed with PAC groups and lobbyists take the wind out of our elected officals very quickly in DC.

Why is it "logical" to take an energy source that is cheap and abundant and has plenty of infrastructure to support it, and FORCE it to be abandoned in favor of expensive, unreliable, and unproven technologies that actually are WORSE for the environment?

The only persons who would be in favor of such a thing would be someone who would stand to make tons of money from it, and will kick a lot of it back to those who use influence and clout to FORCE it on everyone.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

I say since the current administration likes to mandate so many things, act as if they are champions of the environment and global warming, and court other countries about their responsibilites to make the planet a cleaner place, they should put our money where their mouth is and have a national agenda to further electric cars and the national infrastructure needed to support them, other than talk about it and do nothing other than burden business where green house gasses are emitted on a lesser scale.

We currently don't have any technology that can manipulate solar activity, so the climate will continue to change no matter how many stupid things we throw good money after. Why not use that money for something on a much smaller scale that presents a much larger danger?

Maybe we could cure cancer, or heart disease, or something? Heck, even an asteroid defense shield would be more achievable than altering the solar cycle, and would save a lot more people.

[OldScoolCamaro]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

We currently don't have any technology that can manipulate solar activity, so the climate will continue to change no matter how many stupid things we throw good money after. Why not use that money for something on a much smaller scale that presents a much larger danger?

Maybe we could cure cancer, or heart disease, or something? Heck, even an asteroid defense shield would be more achievable than altering the solar cycle, and would save a lot more people.

...you quoted me twice, I'll do you once...you are speaking in terms of generalism, not mentioning specifics, you are vague and nonspecific. WTF are you talking about Max Headroom??? Take a stance, be prolific, but my God talk in a context that makes sense my good man.

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Why is it "logical" to take an energy source that is cheap and abundant and has plenty of infrastructure to support it, and FORCE it to be abandoned in favor of expensive, unreliable, and unproven technologies that actually are WORSE for the environment?

The only persons who would be in favor of such a thing would be someone who would stand to make tons of money from it, and will kick a lot of it back to those who use influence and clout to FORCE it on everyone.

Just looking at the face of the green movement is enough to say that is 100% accurate. Al Gore, the Vice Presidential, Nobel Prize winning, Academy Award winning, TIME's Person of the Year, has made himself absolutely filthy rich off environmental activism. This guy, who I'm seriously convinced is borderline mentally retarded, has been in Gov't all his life, he's never held a 'real' job. He has become one of the super-rich via the Gov't. He's created nothing. People complain about money in politics, but the fact is there's plenty of it in activism as well. The Gov't made Al Gore rich. Without our Gov't having the power to steer that much money to certain 'private' interprises, Al Gore would never have become rich. It's sickening. And it's infuriating that people lose freedoms when they pass these laws just to enrich themselves. And he is by far the only politican to become rich because of new regulations passed that always somehow seem to really pay off in terms of the investment portfolios of those voting for the new regulations.

[OldScoolCamaro]

....LOL.. and he sold his cable network to Al Jazeera, for about 30 million, Al is a real stand up guy. Oops, sorry, back to Camaro's...

[Lou_Dorchen]

I'm hoping I didnt get too political. I was really just using the old adage of "Follow the money". Unfortunately the 'Green Laws' money trail goes through politics and politicians. I apologize if I went too far. I tried to stay out as much as possible while still making my point.

But I'm one of those who thinks we might actually be further along in terms of HP/MPG without any Gov't intervention than we are now with it. I'm only 41, but I look at the incredible progress in other industries that have had little to no regulation. When I was a kid we marvelled at the Atari 2600. Now we have MMORPGs where thousands can play almost lifelike games with millions of others online. I've seen communication going from rotary phones, to pagers, to brick-sized cellular phones, to phones that have cameras and can play video games. I've seen music mediums go from vinyl, to 8-tracks, to cassettes, to CDs, to digital music. And every bit of those incredible, and fast, technology advances were done with ZERO Gov't mandates as to how quiclky the industries had to move forward. When the 8-bit NES came out, no one mandated they have 64-bit games within two years. When cell phones came out, no one mandated they have cameras in them within three years. When people were buying vinyl records, no one said vinyl was bad and thus all music had to be digital within 10 years. Let the market move naturally. Chevy wants to be able to make cars with more power but higher MPGs than Ford, and vice versa. Let that drive future technology, not a bunch of elitists who are doing it to enrich and empower themselves. It works every time.