If you increase fuel efficiency in autos, you CUT the fuel cost of driving each mile. That doesn't encourage LESS oil usage, it does quite the opposite.

So you're saying that if autos were miraculously twice as fuel efficient tomorrow, we would more than double our consumption? Doing what, driving in circles?

"If you increase fuel efficiency in autos, you CUT the fuel cost of driving each mile. That doesn't encourage LESS oil usage, it does quite the opposite."

jim, that is not correct according to the department of transportation.

Here are the averages (per passenger vehicle) for miles traveled, miles per gallon and annual gallons of gas per car per year for 1970, 1980 and 2000.

MIles Trav. 10,300, 9,100 & 12,000
Mile/gallon 13.5, 15.9 & 22
Gallons consumed 760, 576 & 556

The cut in consumption is greater than the increase in total miles driven per year.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html

If you increase fuel efficiency in autos, you CUT the fuel cost of driving each mile. That doesn't encourage LESS oil usage, it does quite the opposite.

In addition, can anyone name an "SUV" that was on the market prior to the first CAFE standards going into effect?

Lotsa luck trying, they were designed and marketed as a direct result of avoiding the CAFE law. If anyone thinks the automakers and most importantly the American consumer won't follow that example your nuts.

Poor Obama, he just doesn't have a clue.

You certainly don't need to shut down the economy in order to improve the planet. The largest solar energy company is a German firm and is planning on building it's first U.S. factory in Oregon.

Americans still want to hang on to driving big SUVs and cars while in much of Europe and Asia 1/8 or more of the vehicles are high mpg motor scooters.

I can drive the 16mpg Oldsmobile on a rainy day. But for most days the 94mpg motor scooter is just more fun to drive and easier to find parking for. And I can carry back two large bags of groceries between the two locking trunks and a field pack. My last Oldsmobile fillup, $20. My last scooter fillup, $2.75.

When I switched from regular oil to AMSOIL Synthetic 4 Stroke Motor Scooter Oil my mpg increased from 83mpg to 94mpg. How many persons waste gas by using fuel wasting normal oil when high quality synthetic oil will more than double the service life of a motor as well as save fuel. Fred Meyer Bakery in Portland, Oregon cut their electricity costs by $80,000 a year by using AMSOIL synthetic gear oil in their bakery machinery.

Government could ease licensing of motor scooters if they wanted to cut fuel use in the U.S. or encourage more use of energy saving synthetic oil.

BTW Baghdad barney, your stats are crap.

At the bottom of the table is this caveat - "1. Includes personal passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks."

Guess what, their addition renders the data as inapplicable to this discussion.

hooson:

You certainly don't need to shut down the economy in order to improve the planet. The largest solar energy company is a German firm and is planning on building it's first U.S. factory in Oregon.

And before the first spade of dirt is turned over the NIMBY's and enviro-whackos will stop it in it's tracks.

When I switched from regular oil to AMSOIL Synthetic 4 Stroke Motor Scooter Oil

Did you have to add the brands name? Oh wait... you probably sell it along with all the other non-union (built in highly polluting coal-fired plants) chinese crap you sell.

Government could ease licensing of motor scooters if they wanted to cut fuel use in the U.S. or encourage more use of energy saving synthetic oil.

Yeap... and an entire new industry begins. Building 4 passenger scooters that also double as grocery getters for "soccer Mom."

(Not to mention all the billions spent, read highly paid construction crews, to add "scooter only" lanes to the billions of miles within the interstate highway system.)

When do we start?

"BTW Baghdad barney, your stats are crap.

At the bottom of the table is this caveat - "1. Includes personal passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks."

Guess what, their addition renders the data as inapplicable to this discussion." by marc

Look again marc, the stats I used were for personal cars only. I guess you have a comprehension problem.

And BTW... not that I think saving fuel is a bad thing. But due to the influence of lunatic politicians like those in the corn belt who are pushing our FOOD SOURCES (like corn) as the way to go when they are pointing towards the wrong road.

I suspect the real "road" to taken is the Norwegian Hydrogen Highway.

Come on... be honest now. How many of you have read of this project?

And more importantly, how many politicians can you name that knows of it?

Baghdad barney:

Look again marc, the stats I used were for personal cars only. I guess you have a comprehension problem.

And for once, (out of how many hundreds of times?) your right.

BTW, when was the last time you admitting to being wrong?

Marc, I have no connection whatsoever to AMSOIL, but in my experience no other motor oil even comes close in quality, even Royal Purple and MOBIL 1 came up far short in my use in cars I've owned compared to AMSOIL.

If you know of any oil that even comes close to AMSOIL in engine service life, mpg and horsepower increase, I'd sure like to hear about it. The worst I've ever used was SLICK 50 which robs both power and mpg and was the subject of some legal problems over their claims of improved mileage as well.

Motor scooters aren't slow moving vehicles like bicycles or require special car lanes like bicycles. Some have a top speed of 90mph. My smaller engine model can go about 45, but a 68mph version is also available as well. Because of the favorable hp to weight ratio in motor scooters, most can dust an automobile off the line in any 0-40mph matchup as well. It takes too much hp to get 3,000 lbs. of metal up to speed compared to the lighter motor scooters with a far better power to weight ratio in many normal cars. Even many little Vespas can go 70mph, and are real quick off the line as well if they have a CVT type transmission.

Hooson:

If you know of any oil that even comes close to AMSOIL

Yadda... yadda... yadda...

Motor scooters aren't slow moving vehicles like bicycles or require special car lanes like bicycles.

You miss the point (how [not ]SHOCKING), SUVs and vehicles carrying more than one don't need them either but billions have been spent for "lane only" accommodations for them and in many cases they go empty even during rush hour.

If you want to ply the highways in your cheap assed scooter in the midst of 2 ton passenger cars and 20 ton trucks be my guest. But if you think they are anythng close to a solution your living in LaLa Land.

mantis ~ I didn't say usage would necessarily increase by the exact proportion of increased efficiency, or by the same users, but it would increase. It's simple economics: when you reduce the cost of something, demand increases for it.

Barney ~ Are you saying we use LESS gasoline in automobiles now than we did then? If our goal is use LESS oil, lowering the cost does not help.

This is not to say there are NO benefits to increased efficiency - of course there are. But we can NOT cut consumption by cutting the price.

In addition, can anyone name an "SUV" that was on the market prior to the first CAFE standards going into effect?

marc, the Chevrolet Suburban was introduced in 1933. Jeep Wagoneer, 1963. The Ford Bronco, 1966. Chevrolet Blazer, 1969. Jeep Cherokee and Dodge Ramcharger, 1974. CAFE introduced in 1975.

Sorry, chum...

J.

Barack needs to read the WSJ article this past weekend that explained Dingell's approach to cram down CAFE standards. And he only understands it because of his constituency.

Barack is a complete moron (the natural result of a weak first termer that won against a scandalized opponent... Ryan: grrrr!) on the Kyoto benchmark. Why not just shutter entire sectors of our economy and hand out massive tax credits (the result of signing Kyoto) or allow corporations to transition by outsourcing capacity. No...that makes too much sense. Instead, he wants to cripple corporate America....all in the name of attaining more power. Liberals have no soul.

Jim, the implication was that it would not be worth it to increase fuel standards because consumption would increase in kind (otherwise why would you point it out?). I'm wondering if you actually think consumption would increase at a rate which would make higher standards not worth it, or if you live in a fantasy land where there is no cap on demand, as long as prices go down. If consumption doesn't match the increase in efficiency, then you have a net decrease in consumption, right?

In any case you were constructing a strawman to begin with. The quote is this:

prompt U.S. automakers to build cars that use less oil

Cars that use less oil, as in use less oil to go the same distance, right? You don't need an economics degree to know that that makes sense for a large percentage of auto drivers. Increased efficiency isn't going to make my commute any longer.

Paul H.
Please provide some verifiable economic metrics that demonstrate that solar power can push the required MgW through the grid.

Marc, I wouldn't personally recommend motor scooters on the nation's highways even though many can go 70-90mph except for the biggest models. Many motor scooters are far safer for use in the city. Even going 40mph in them is pretty thrilling, with no seat belt, open body and small size. Certainly you feel like a gnat next to a truck or big SUV on the street.

But here in Portland, Oregon there are many bicycles here. And motor scooters offer me something far faster than a bicycle that can travel anywhere in the city easily compared to many bicycles. Motor scooters offer advantages in parking, low fuel consumption and high mpg that even the best hybrid automobiles cannot match so far.

I always felt that Obama was the second coming of Jimmy Carter. It feels more that way everyday.

Obama loves to come up with "ideas" that makes him and his loony left buddies feel good, but Jim is right that he'd devastate the economy. The Kyoto treaty was negotiated in 1997. As I recall, Bill Clinton was president then. Hmm. . . one has to wonder why the U.S. wasn't a party to the treaty back then in the "good old days".

And on autos, let me ask the question. What car gets better passenger fuel efficiency -- a fuel efficient car that gets 40 MPG with one person in it or a big SUV that gets 15 MPG and that has 5 people in it? If you want to reduced fuel consumption and reduce emissions, you have to change people's driving habits. Kind of hard to do unless you live in a big city (i.e., a blue area) and have mass transit.

I wonder how long Obama thinks it's going to take to replace the U.S. auto fleet. It probably takes 20+ years to start seeing the impacts. Habits. . . you have to change habits and do it without crushing the economy.

HughS, I'm simply not an expert on solar power, someone here that knows more about it can better answer your question.

I spent over 20 years of my life as TV-Electronics repairman, and I find solar power fascinating. I've been thinking about building a solar powered motor scooter, but again complex state licensing laws make alternative vehicles difficult to register here in Oregon. It took me about two months just to register my imported Chinese gas motor scooter I built myself from a shipping pallet from Taizhou, China.

Government unfortunately discourages high mileage alternative transportation vehicles through very restrictive licensing requirements that exceed any normal concerns for the safety of the vehicles. It's far easier to register some heavy dirty 9mpg truck than a 90mpg motor scooter for example. One motor scooter model now claims as high as 142 miles per gallon, but that doesn't make registration any easier.

mantis ~ Nice preempt, accusing me of constructing a "straw man" as you do that very thing!

What you INFER is not necessarily what I IMPLY, and in fact my statement was quite clear. Either you are being intentionally obstinate, or you are dumb as a rock.

For those who may be confused by this diversion (which was likely mantis' intent), consider the example of beef chuck roast. If the price falls, more will be sold. That doesn't mean every single family will buy precisely as much more beef proportionate to the amount of the price cut, of course. But more beef WILL be sold, in total.

Of course, if one understood basic economics, one wouldn't be a leftist stooge . . .

Notice how the entire emphasis of the left is on the relatively minor point of fuel efficiency, and they completely ignore the economic disaster following the Kyoto protocol would be?

"BTW, when was the last time you admitting to being wrong?" marc

The last time I was wrong.

"But we can NOT cut consumption by cutting the price." jim

But, that is not what you wrote: "If you increase fuel efficiency in autos, you CUT the fuel cost of driving each mile. That doesn't encourage LESS oil usage, it does quite the opposite."

See "fuel efficiency" was your point and not cheap oil. Republicans are pushing the "cheap oil" meme by advocating more drilling.

I think you got your facts wrong and you should admit it.

Karl Marx (no relation to Groucho Marx for those in Rio Linda) and Valimar Lenin would be real proud of Obama right now. That speech is right from the Communist Manifesto that was written by Karl Marx in the 1850s and carried out by Lenin and his right hand man, Josef Stalin, in the early part of the 20th Century against the Russian People. They too advocated for the confiscation of private property and nationalizing the heavy industry. Look at what a mess that turned out to be.

Why is it that the Dims want to be a part of the Kyoto protocols when their hero in chief would not even sign his name to it? Even the Senate rejected this piece of shit 99-0 when it was submitted to them for ratification. The only ones that want this are the eco-terrorists and their butt buddies like Obama and algore.

algore wants this treaty so he can claim that he did something in his less than colorful life. I guess that he was tired of Tipper being in the news all of the time being a hypocrite about dirty song lyrics and nudity in the movies.

I always felt that Obama was the second coming of Jimmy Carter. It feels more that way everyday.

jpm

I've been searching for that comparison...couldn't quite put it to words though. How true it is. Emmett Tyrell calls him the littlest ex president. Maybe we should call Barack the littlest wannabe president. Oh, wait, Edwards got that one.

But back back to the Jimmy Earl comparison: Guess that means disco is on the way back too? That's cool...now where is that ABBA vinyl I put away just yesterday?

What you INFER is not necessarily what I IMPLY, and in fact my statement was quite clear.

Oh, I see, you didn't mean to imply that increased demand would offset efficiency making higher CAFE standards ineffective. You just wanted to show us how smart you are for understand basic economics, and how stupid you are for assuming others don't. Hope you get your junior debate society pin soon.

I'll put it simply then: if you don't think that increased consumption as a result of increased efficiency will match or outweigh that efficiency, what was your point?

Notice how the entire emphasis of the left is on the relatively minor point of fuel efficiency, and they completely ignore the economic disaster following the Kyoto protocol would be?

Who is "the left" in this scenario? I for one don't argue for Kyoto, it's flawed and should be amended in a couple of major ways. And who has called for signing the Kyoto protocol? In any case, sorry for responding to one thing you wrote when I was supposed to ignore it and respond to the other thing you wrote. Didn't mean to provide the diversion of commenting on what you wrote.

No, Barney, you've been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and your reaction is to ignore it.

Paul H., solar power? My god it takes an extraordinary amount of ignorance to cite solar power as a significant way to reduce greenhouse gas production. Given the efficiency of solar cells, one would have to cover half the size of the average home lot to supply the electric power used by the same home.

The only way to achieve the kinds of reductions that Obama is talking about is either a collapse in the population of the United States of the order of magnitude of a nuclear war or a massive building program of nuclear power plants that would make the Manhattan Project look like a junior high science diorama.

Kyoto was never about cutting clean air because it excempted India and China who are the world's worst polluters. It was about establishing a legal mechanism for 3rd world tyrants to bill the USA for the pollution they would have produced if their economies weren't 3rd world sh*t-holes condemned to poverty by their tyrants.

Just ask Kyoto's author:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." -- Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

Given his close ties to China, it doesn't really sound like Maurice Strong was trying to clean up the environment.

Compare a car from 1980 to a car from 2007 and you'll see a heck of a lot missing.

No CD player, no 6-12 cup holders, no home entertainment system, no 4 or more cigarette lighter sockets, no CD player, no traction control, no ABS, no air bags, no heated seats, no GPS, no surround sound, etc...

Nevermind the extra weight for Safety & Emission Requirements.

The Automakers have been making strides in fuel economy. They customer & government have just layered on the expectations that it has negated improvements. The technologies to gain more are getting very complex and expensive. Even so, you can only get so much blood from a stone.

To get the fuel economy Environmentalists want, we have to strip all those above features out and/or drive sub-sub-compacts.

Enjoy driving with you knees up around your face.

If you increase fuel efficiency in autos, you CUT the fuel cost of driving each mile. That doesn't encourage LESS oil usage, it does quite the opposite.

What about increased drilling, as Republicans advocate? How does that encourage less oil usage?

But we can NOT cut consumption by cutting the price.

Oh, so we cut consumption by more drilling?

Baghdad barney:

The last time I was wrong.

I'm sorry, I musta missing that occurrence. Can you point me in the proper direction via a link?