The automakers invest in what sells.”

Yeah. Isn’t that exactly the SAME excuse that Ford, GM and Chrysler kept investing in building truck-based gas guzzlers like Explorer (prev. generation), Trailblazer, Commander, etc. in the last decade, until the gas price sky rocketed and the Domestic three found their cupboard is bare and they essentially have no alternatives to offer to Americans?

The result: two went for bankruptcies and had to be bailed out. The other one lost a total of JUST under 21 billion dollars in the past five years.

Yeah, you read it right, despite bumper profits in the last couple of years, it still suffered a staggering amount of combined LOSSES (just under 21b) in the past five years. JOB WELL DONE!

You should both believe that Obama said that, because he did. I’ve seen it played about 20 times! You should look it up on youtube, unless you want to maintain plausible deniability.

“The proposal comes in the midst of an Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers campaign to pressure lawmakers to oppose the new standard on the grounds that consumers will REFUSE to buy more efficient cars and trucks.”

Yes, as a consumer I definitely OPPOSE buying more efficient vehicles. I want a car that fuel economy is 4/7 cty/hwy. That’s the kind of car I want because I love spending my hard earned money on fuel.

—@ John101,

Really? Am I supposed to believe Obama said that?

—@ James Davis,

I found your last post funny. Thx! Not saying if it’s true or not, but it made me smile.

—@ Jakub Kudlacz,

I agree with you. I want a vehicle that can do 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, tow at least 8,000lbs., get at least 50 mpg, fit 7 passengers comfortably and cost no more than $18,000.

Anyway, oil dependence is a National Security issue and the government and the American people should act like it is and fully engage in ways that will get us away from our dependence on oil exporting countries that are neither politically stable or friendly to us and our gov’t.

So let’s get beyond our petty bickering, blame game and finger pointing that has become our national past time and prioritize our needs as well as innovate our way into a better, less dependent future.

Nothing is impossible, but it is all about finding right balance. I think government should push more on increasing MPGs for TRUCKS then regular cars.

FORD sells more FORD F-150 trucks each month then any other passenger car.

FORD F-150 sold 49,618 units in June of 2011

Best selling passenger car in June of 2011 was Chevrolet Cruze sold only 24,xxx units.

I would remind everyone that the majority of consumers think in a very narrow short-term framework. Beyond common manufacturing problems, or lack of production vehicles, consumers generally will tend to buy more fuel efficient vehicles when fuel prices are high and less fuel efficient vehicles when gasoline goes back down and when fuel prices remain constant (mid-priced) over time we revert back to less fuel efficiency.

John101 & Duude
You need to think first about your arguments. Those hidden costs if forced in a more direct way onto the market, they will tend to cause short-term losses of profit eg. mandatory $750 EcoBoost would reduce overall profit margins and extra costs will be passed onto the consumer. Consumers may in turn buy another vehicle that has less of a profit margin than the truck because of the higher cost. Over time markets tend to find greater efficiencies and reduce costs for extra fuel saving technologies. However, trucks may be priced higher regardless of the time frame but this will make CAFE more realistic and make consumers think about their options eg. to go with a V6 or diesel engine instead of a V8 or if they truly need a truck.

If ACAGal’s next door neighbor buys an excessive amount of gas hog vehicles he/she has every right as a consumer to do so. But what the argument is really about is if consumers should pay more in a direct way for their excess to reduce collective problems with petroleum or should we be passive for the sake of personal liberties and short-term profits and turn our heads away from the long-term implications.

In general and broadly speaking this means we either try to collectively manage long-term problems or we wait till problems arise and then we deal with them when we only need to do so. I think its ok to have a manage now or wait and see attitude towards things just as long as we understand the implications of both points of view.

Quote Obama, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”