New CAFE Standards Signed into Law - Page 5 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #41 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-21-2007, 02:12 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBenz94 View Post
Interesting, but if you remember Chrysler built a few turbine cars and leased them for a year. Dont know what kind of MPGs they got, but for whatever reason it was scrapped.

Im always suspicious of the 100mpg carburator that was "squashed" by the big three.

Lets think about it. If the Industry can come up with an ultra efficient engine, motor or combination thereof and have huge advatages over the other players, then why would they hold back?

If I or any industry could capitilize on something so grand, they would gain marketshare hand over fist and the current stock owners would benefit grandly.

So the question I pose to you: Why has it not happend?
One of the reasons is management is afraid to commit to change. If they are right they are the hero. If they Edsel, they are ridiculed and run out of the biz.

Look at concept cars. Drop dead gorgeous. But when you see the car that makes the street, much more conservative, even if the concept got rave reviews. WHY? FUD, Fear, Uncertainty and Dread. It MIGHT not work. So the Corporate machine goes with what it knows is safe. And it knows Internal combustion engines are safe.

GM tried Diesel, they rushed it, got it wrong, failed and are taking a very long time to go back even though it would help them attain their numbers. Flex fuel is easier for them.

Turbines were not a success as the 30,000 RPM motors had a bit of a fragging problem which is not as serious at 3000 RPM as it is at 30K. They also heated up like crazy and got average gas mileage for the era.

Chrysler turbine engines and cars

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-21-2007, 02:24 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR View Post
I'm wondering what the fuel economy of the 2009 ZR1 'vette will be. 620 hp has to come from somewhere...

Seriously, it's a 6.0 liter motor, with a supercharger. Easy. I get roughly 350 hp out of a supercharged 3.2 liter V6. It's no big secret that IC engines are like lungs; more air = more power.
I would guess that the Blue Devil will get 16/24 or so. It should come with 6sp manual which is double overdrive so low revs at speed is not an issue. On my 89 vette I got 31 Hway in 6th at 75mph as it was cruisng at .5 OD.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #43 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-21-2007, 03:58 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
MonkeySpanker's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2006
Vehicle: 1988 420SEL
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Diesel engined vehicles look like a short term future fuel using alternative, but wait, last I checked, diesel costs more than regular gas in the US.
Why is that? do you ask.

Because of all of the lawmakers in our country deciding that it is a quick way of taxing the people without their knowledge. By taxing the trucking industry on their usage, these costs are passed onto the consumer through delivery charges.

Now that diesel cars are starting to become more popular, we will have to directly pay for these higher charges. A comparable gas and diesel car comparison is that the diesel car costs a little more for the engine but gets better fuel mileage. Over the life of the car, by paying the difference between the cost of the diesel fuel, sometimes as much as 40% more in cost,compared to the cost of regular gas, you really have to drive many more years worth or a lot more miles per year to actually break even on the cost of the cars.

In Europe, it is the opposite, diesel fuel is alot cheaper if not the same cost, your savings over time by paying for the diesel engine car come back to you a lot sooner.

If our legislators want to help, they must reduce the amount of tax charged on diesel fuel so that it becomes comparable to gasoline in cost. This will make it more popular and provide the economic benefit for the average driver.

I also read in NY times, WSJ etc... that approximately 35-40% of the cost of a barrel of oil is only because of speculation. If their was a way to stop these speculators from increasing the margins that we pay as consumers on the cost of a barrel of oil, we would still be at about $60-$65 per barrel.
MonkeySpanker is offline  
post #44 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-21-2007, 06:43 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeySpanker View Post
Diesel engined vehicles look like a short term future fuel using alternative, but wait, last I checked, diesel costs more than regular gas in the US.
Why is that? do you ask.

Because of all of the lawmakers in our country deciding that it is a quick way of taxing the people without their knowledge. By taxing the trucking industry on their usage, these costs are passed onto the consumer through delivery charges.

Now that diesel cars are starting to become more popular, we will have to directly pay for these higher charges. A comparable gas and diesel car comparison is that the diesel car costs a little more for the engine but gets better fuel mileage. Over the life of the car, by paying the difference between the cost of the diesel fuel, sometimes as much as 40% more in cost,compared to the cost of regular gas, you really have to drive many more years worth or a lot more miles per year to actually break even on the cost of the cars.

In Europe, it is the opposite, diesel fuel is alot cheaper if not the same cost, your savings over time by paying for the diesel engine car come back to you a lot sooner.

If our legislators want to help, they must reduce the amount of tax charged on diesel fuel so that it becomes comparable to gasoline in cost. This will make it more popular and provide the economic benefit for the average driver.

I also read in NY times, WSJ etc... that approximately 35-40% of the cost of a barrel of oil is only because of speculation. If their was a way to stop these speculators from increasing the margins that we pay as consumers on the cost of a barrel of oil, we would still be at about $60-$65 per barrel.
You are correct on two fronts. 30-40% of the cost of a barrel is in speculation costs. As has been proffered on this board before, OIL has no place in a commodities trading market. There is just too much artificial volatility introduced into the system for something that is required for so much commerce and daily life.

And yes, they banged everyone hard when they taxed the diesel fuels so much. The other contributor to extra costs is the new formulation for low sulfur fuels being mandated. It might just be the right time to hit Congress up to rescind the extra taxes on Diesel to spur on car purchases. Now that the EPA has smacked California, NY and Mass to where they can't drive the standards any longer Diesels should be 50 state available in the very near future.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #45 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-21-2007, 06:46 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
You are correct on two fronts. 30-40% of the cost of a barrel is in speculation costs. As has been proffered on this board before, OIL has no place in a commodities trading market. There is just too much artificial volatility introduced into the system for something that is required for so much commerce and daily life....
So if it isn't traded as a commodity, what do you suggest as an alternative?

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #46 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-21-2007, 07:46 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
So if it isn't traded as a commodity, what do you suggest as an alternative?
In the past oil was traded on a long term contract basis that was not subject to the fluctuations of either the daily news or computerized commodities trading that exacerbates fluctuation with programed buying/selling. [While this is a great "feature" if you are a commodities broker it plays havoc with the energy pipeline for the 239,999,000 Americans who are not].

What has happened is the Commodities market has computerized to where it is very beneficial to the brokers who slice off each trade [much like the Stock Market] but the Commodities chain is not as able to accept the fluctuations that computerization provides. While brokers do well, downstream is hit with higher costs due to enhanced churn in the market. The difference between this and Stock Market churn is that nearly everyone playing the stock market is doing so of their own free will. With the commodities market, broker churn causes EVERYONE to pay higher prices for no good reason.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #47 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-22-2007, 10:07 AM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
In an effort to solidify regulations instead of having a hodgepodge of rules for the special snowflakes the EPA is finally putting a Federal stamp on emission requirements. This can only help simplify and speed up the process.

While short-term the environmentalists will complain, in the long run this is a better, more rational plan. And with a very good potential for a Democratically held Congress and WH in under 2 years, they hard details can be ironed out on a Federal level giving a solid roadmap for testing and research.

______________________________________
EPA denies state CO2 rules

By HARRY STOFFER, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS


Auto industry leaders said they hoped the Bush administration would use a tough new federal fuel economy law as added legal grounds on which to deny states their own greenhouse gas emissions rules.

The administration did not waste any time following through.

On Wednesday, Dec. 20, just eight hours after President Bush signed a bill creating a 35 mpg fuel economy standard by 2020, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced a rejection of California’s requested waiver under the Clean Air Act.

“The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution--not a confusing patchwork of state rules--to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles,” Johnson said.

Had the waiver been granted, California and at least 14 other states would have been able to enforce greenhouse gas emission limits on cars and trucks, starting with 2009 models. The principal target is carbon dioxide, a byproduct of burning fuel.

Automakers had said they did not know how they could comply with state-by-state rules. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said late Wednesday the state would sue to overturn the EPA ruling.

The decision, which was expected, set off a series of denunciations from states’ officials and environmental groups.

It also is expected to intensify court battles and will certainly be an issue in Congress next year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an e-mail last night, “We will examine this decision closely as part of our broader efforts to ensure America’s energy security.”

Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said: “We commend the EPA for protecting a national, 50-state program.” The alliance represents the Detroit 3, Toyota and six other automakers.

EPA denies state CO2 rules - AutoWeek Magazine
Published on Friday, December 21, 2007 by The Los Angeles Times

EPA Chief Is Said to Have Ignored Staff
The head of the agency rejected written findings in ruling against a California emissions law, sources say.

by Janet Wilson

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff’s written findings in denying California’s request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday.1221 03

“California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers,” said an EPA staffer. “We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts.”

EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced Wednesday that because President Bush had signed an energy bill raising average fuel economy that there was no need or justification for separate state regulation. He also said that California’s request did not meet the legal standard set out in the Clean Air Act.

But his staff, which had worked for months on the waiver decision, concluded just the opposite, the sources said Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk with the media or because they feared reprisals.

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said she was also told by EPA staff that they were overruled by Johnson.

She said Johnson’s decision showed “that this administration ignores the science and ignores the law to reach the politically convenient conclusion.”

Nichols, who served as assistant EPA administrator overseeing air regulations under President Clinton, said she had helped write waiver decisions there, and “I know California met all the criteria on this one.”

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to fight in court to overturn the decision.

Technical and legal staff also concluded that if the waiver were denied, EPA would very likely lose in court to the state, the sources said.

But if Johnson granted California the waiver and the auto industry sued, “EPA is almost certain to win,” said two sources quoting the briefing document. They advised him to either grant the waiver outright or give California a temporary one for three years.

Instead, three sources said, Johnson cut off any consultation with his technical staff for the last month and made his decision before having them write the formal, legal justification for it.

“It’s very highly unusual,” said one source with close ties to the agency.

Normally the technical staff would be part of the final decision-making process, including briefing the administrator and writing the formal legal document before his decision. In this case, the briefings were done, but the formal finding has yet to be drafted.

Johnson could not be reached for comment late Thursday.

In Wednesday’s media briefing announcing his decision, he said his staff “presented me with a range of options with a lot of pros and cons” and that he had considered them all.

Press secretary Jennifer Wood said Johnson chose to make his announcement before the decision was written because “he was also doing his best to keep his commitment to [Schwarzenegger]. He made a commitment to the governor to get the decision out by the end of the year, and he was ensuring he would be able to do that.”

Some staff members believe Johnson made his decision after auto executives met with Vice President Dick Cheney and after a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the White House outlining why neither California nor the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases, among other reasons. The Detroit News reported Wednesday that chief executives of Ford and Chrysler met with Cheney last month.

“Clearly the White House said, ‘We’re going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we’re done, the deal is done,’ ” said one staffer.

Chrysler spokesman Colin McBean said that records show that Chrysler submitted position papers on the mileage issue with the Bush administration’s Office of Management and Budget about five weeks ago. Neither McBean nor a Ford spokeswoman would comment on whether company executives met with Cheney.

Jennifer Moore, a spokeswoman on environmental issues for Ford in Dearborn, Mich., said her company had no reason to question the EPA administrator’s assertion that his decision was independent of the White House.

Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington, said there was “absolutely not” any linkage between his trade group’s decision to support the final version of the Senate energy bill and the EPA’s decision to deny California’s request for a waiver. Territo said the industry has always stressed a national mileage standard and opposed the California petition.

In a letter to Schwarzenegger on Thursday, Johnson said, “I have instructed my staff to draft the appropriate documents setting forth the rationale for this decision.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Thursday announced they were opening investigations into the waiver denial and told Johnson to turn over all documents related to the decision. Waxman also told Johnson not to destroy any documents.

In response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EPA could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to public health, Johnson had promised to have his staff prepare by Dec. 31 a national proposal on how greenhouse gases from vehicles should be regulated.

Staff and other sources said the proposed standard cleared all EPA internal reviews and was forwarded to the Department of Transportation last week, before the energy bill was done.

But it is now unclear, when, if ever, such a proposed regulation will be issued.

Johnson ordered staff to stop work on the federal greenhouse gas proposal, said two sources inside and outside the agency.

Spokesmen for both the Department of Transportation and EPA said Thursday that because of the energy legislation signed by Bush on Wednesday, they were reviewing whether they still had the authority to set their own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.

Transportation Department spokesman Brian Turmail said in an e-mail, “We are still analyzing the regulatory implications of the new energy law and will be deciding the best course of action shortly.”

EPA staff and critics noted that the auto industry for decades had vigorously fought higher fuel efficiency standards only to change its stance in recent weeks.

“Clearly EPA’s involvement in the California waiver and the federal vehicle standard both is why we are where we’re at with this energy bill suddenly going to 35 mpg, which is very positive in a way,” said an EPA staff person. “But that is not the end of the story.”

Staff and critics said delay or outright elimination of the federal regulation on vehicles spells possible trouble for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from other major sources.

“Once EPA makes the . . . finding on vehicles, then it opens the door to standards for smokestack industries as well,” said Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch. “That’s why the Chamber of Commerce and all the others wrote to the Senate. . . . They weren’t doing it because they were worried about fuel economy for cars. The did it because they understand the legal ramifications if EPA moves forward with greenhouse gas standards.”

janet.wilson@latimes.com
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #48 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-22-2007, 11:11 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
A264172's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: 1967 Irish/ Pole
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Is the implication here that; Dick's wishes are being fulfilled by the Johnson administration?

-Marty


"...pour out of one vessel into another; and as those old Romans robbed all the cities in the world, we skim the cream of other men's wits, pick the choice flowers of their tilled gardens to set our own sterile plots."
-a Richard Burton
A264172 is offline  
post #49 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-22-2007, 11:16 AM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1428 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
...instead, three sources said, Johnson cut off any consultation with his technical staff for the last month and made his decision before having them write the formal, legal justification for it.
Any sentence written with the words Johnson cut off is just plain wrong
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #50 of 66 (permalink) Old 12-22-2007, 12:58 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeitgeist View Post
Published on Friday, December 21, 2007 by The Los Angeles Times

EPA Chief Is Said to Have Ignored Staff
The head of the agency rejected written findings in ruling against a California emissions law, sources say.

by Janet Wilson

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff’s written findings in denying California’s request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday.1221 03

“California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers,” said an EPA staffer. “We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts.”

EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced Wednesday that because President Bush had signed an energy bill raising average fuel economy that there was no need or justification for separate state regulation. He also said that California’s request did not meet the legal standard set out in the Clean Air Act.

But his staff, which had worked for months on the waiver decision, concluded just the opposite, the sources said Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk with the media or because they feared reprisals.

California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said she was also told by EPA staff that they were overruled by Johnson.

She said Johnson’s decision showed “that this administration ignores the science and ignores the law to reach the politically convenient conclusion.”

Nichols, who served as assistant EPA administrator overseeing air regulations under President Clinton, said she had helped write waiver decisions there, and “I know California met all the criteria on this one.”

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to fight in court to overturn the decision.

Technical and legal staff also concluded that if the waiver were denied, EPA would very likely lose in court to the state, the sources said.

But if Johnson granted California the waiver and the auto industry sued, “EPA is almost certain to win,” said two sources quoting the briefing document. They advised him to either grant the waiver outright or give California a temporary one for three years.

Instead, three sources said, Johnson cut off any consultation with his technical staff for the last month and made his decision before having them write the formal, legal justification for it.

“It’s very highly unusual,” said one source with close ties to the agency.

Normally the technical staff would be part of the final decision-making process, including briefing the administrator and writing the formal legal document before his decision. In this case, the briefings were done, but the formal finding has yet to be drafted.

Johnson could not be reached for comment late Thursday.

In Wednesday’s media briefing announcing his decision, he said his staff “presented me with a range of options with a lot of pros and cons” and that he had considered them all.

Press secretary Jennifer Wood said Johnson chose to make his announcement before the decision was written because “he was also doing his best to keep his commitment to [Schwarzenegger]. He made a commitment to the governor to get the decision out by the end of the year, and he was ensuring he would be able to do that.”

Some staff members believe Johnson made his decision after auto executives met with Vice President Dick Cheney and after a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the White House outlining why neither California nor the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases, among other reasons. The Detroit News reported Wednesday that chief executives of Ford and Chrysler met with Cheney last month.

“Clearly the White House said, ‘We’re going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we’re done, the deal is done,’ ” said one staffer.

Chrysler spokesman Colin McBean said that records show that Chrysler submitted position papers on the mileage issue with the Bush administration’s Office of Management and Budget about five weeks ago. Neither McBean nor a Ford spokeswoman would comment on whether company executives met with Cheney.

Jennifer Moore, a spokeswoman on environmental issues for Ford in Dearborn, Mich., said her company had no reason to question the EPA administrator’s assertion that his decision was independent of the White House.

Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington, said there was “absolutely not” any linkage between his trade group’s decision to support the final version of the Senate energy bill and the EPA’s decision to deny California’s request for a waiver. Territo said the industry has always stressed a national mileage standard and opposed the California petition.

In a letter to Schwarzenegger on Thursday, Johnson said, “I have instructed my staff to draft the appropriate documents setting forth the rationale for this decision.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Thursday announced they were opening investigations into the waiver denial and told Johnson to turn over all documents related to the decision. Waxman also told Johnson not to destroy any documents.

In response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the EPA could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to public health, Johnson had promised to have his staff prepare by Dec. 31 a national proposal on how greenhouse gases from vehicles should be regulated.

Staff and other sources said the proposed standard cleared all EPA internal reviews and was forwarded to the Department of Transportation last week, before the energy bill was done.

But it is now unclear, when, if ever, such a proposed regulation will be issued.

Johnson ordered staff to stop work on the federal greenhouse gas proposal, said two sources inside and outside the agency.

Spokesmen for both the Department of Transportation and EPA said Thursday that because of the energy legislation signed by Bush on Wednesday, they were reviewing whether they still had the authority to set their own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.

Transportation Department spokesman Brian Turmail said in an e-mail, “We are still analyzing the regulatory implications of the new energy law and will be deciding the best course of action shortly.”

EPA staff and critics noted that the auto industry for decades had vigorously fought higher fuel efficiency standards only to change its stance in recent weeks.

“Clearly EPA’s involvement in the California waiver and the federal vehicle standard both is why we are where we’re at with this energy bill suddenly going to 35 mpg, which is very positive in a way,” said an EPA staff person. “But that is not the end of the story.”

Staff and critics said delay or outright elimination of the federal regulation on vehicles spells possible trouble for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from other major sources.

“Once EPA makes the . . . finding on vehicles, then it opens the door to standards for smokestack industries as well,” said Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch. “That’s why the Chamber of Commerce and all the others wrote to the Senate. . . . They weren’t doing it because they were worried about fuel economy for cars. The did it because they understand the legal ramifications if EPA moves forward with greenhouse gas standards.”

janet.wilson@latimes.com
This is going to play out very interestingly. The auto industry has been trying to get one set of standards for years. It helps their costs and streamlines their R&D. Short-term it is a "defeat" for environmentalists who clamor for more strict standards but long-term it is a "win" as it provides everyone with a single focus to start addressing problems without boutique solutions being required. If this encompasses gasoline blends as well as emission standards then California residents should start seeing less expensive gasoline prices as much of the ceiling costs are in the boutique forumlae that different California areas demand.

California needs to quit being the tail that wags the dog and that has gone on this this industry for too long.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

Last edited by mcbear; 12-22-2007 at 01:00 PM.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Shariah ( Islamic ) law vs Talmud ( Jewish ) law Designo_E320 Off-Topic 37 06-15-2007 12:03 PM
    Nice cafe in Berlin KMP W123 E,CE,D,CD,TD,TE Class 1 09-02-2006 12:37 AM
    Just signed for a brand new .. . emcstd C219 CLS-Class 20 05-29-2006 03:48 PM
    Signed the contract! itsme W164 M-Class 8 08-01-2005 05:20 AM
    so who signed my engine? adrose R170 SLK-Class 3 08-25-2003 12:28 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome