If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get our troops killed. http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior General Motors (GM) executive said. Bob Lutz, GM's vice chairman and the head of global product development, said the proposed changes to the government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards would represent an unfair burden on the traditional Big Three automakers. "For one thing, it puts us, the domestic manufacturers, at odds with the desires of most of our customers, namely larger vehicles," Lutz said in a year-end posting on a website maintained by GM. "That effectively hands the truck and SUV market over to the imports, particularly the Japanese, who have earned years of accumulated credits from their fleets of formerly very small cars." Lutz, a longtime critic of government fuel economy regulations, compared the attempt to force carmakers to sell smaller vehicles to "fighting the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell garments only in small sizes." A group called the Energy Security Leadership Council, which includes more than a dozen prominent U.S. executives and retired military officers, issued a report earlier this month calling on Congress to take steps to reduce the reliance on imported oil. The group called for tougher fuel economy regulation, including a 4% annual increase in CAFE standards, which have been held essentially flat for the past decade. In a related move, the Consumer Federation of America released a study last month showing that nine of 13 major automakers had a fleetwide average fuel economy performance that was lower in 2005 than it had been a decade ago. (snip) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get > our troops killed. Since when do you give two ****s about our troops???? -- LBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops: "Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take the place of these two. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2 Message ID: |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Brent P wrote: > > >>The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional >>sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil >>overseas. > > > Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program > to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller > cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would > save both money and lives. THINK > If you think those are worthy goals than lobby for higher fuel taxes. It's the only way the public is going to do it. Think, indeed. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk > Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: >> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get >> our troops killed. > > Since when do you give two ****s about our troops???? Of course the troll doesn't care. If fuel economy was a real issue then we would have european style taxes on fuel. Placing the burden on the manufacturers makes Lutz's anaology spot on. The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil overseas. It's more profitable because the US tax payers and those in the military pay the price for the instability of the region. If big oil had to foot the bills of foreign aid, military intervention, etc and so forth, middle east oil would be too expensive to bother with. Oil shale would look dirt cheap. Middle east oil might not even be profitable if all those costs were carried by the oil companies. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Brent P wrote: > > The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional > sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil > overseas. Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would save both money and lives. THINK |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get > our troops killed. > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm > > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people want to buy? And of course the politicians will keep buying gas guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are about the environment. If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis might quit buying them off. I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM. Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Ed |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: >> Brent P wrote: >> >> >>>The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional >>>sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil >>>overseas. >> Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program >> to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller >> cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would >> save both money and lives. THINK >> > > If you think those are worthy goals than lobby for higher fuel taxes. > It's the only way the public is going to do it. Think, indeed. The troll is completely off base as the processes for unconventional oil already exist and are profitable at current oil prices without tax money. The problem is that cheap to extract middle east oil has a huge government subsidy in the forms of military costs and foreign aid. The problem with consumption taxes is that income taxes will not go away to off set them. I would prefer consumption taxes, however government implementation of such will probably include all sorts of tracking and logging. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Ed White wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: > >>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get >>our troops killed. >> >>http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm >> >>GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules > > > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people > want to buy? And of course the politicians will keep buying gas > guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the > hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at > the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are > about the environment. > > If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they > should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis > might quit buying them off. > > I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I > just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they > won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM. > Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will > just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel > economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and > Chrysler. > > Ed > People who buy these gas guzzlers are given 18,000 dollar tax breaks. You don't get those for driving fuel efficient cars, carpooling to work, riding public transportation riding bikes or walking. The market for these vehicles is artificially propped up, by socialism for the rich. I have little sympathy for them. Also the idea that they face more competition from Asia for monster suvs than hybrid vehicles betrays common sense. These are lazy ceos, no wonder they are losing market share. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Ed White wrote:
> So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people > want to buy? That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few wanted them to keep doing it. Today's SUV is just the successor to last generation's full-size station wagon - a very popular car for families with kids a generation ago. Both are the vehicle families hauled Scout campout stuff or hunting gear in. A Prius won't do that. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
L98: starts, but won't keep running. | Dave Gee | Corvette | 15 | October 22nd 05 08:43 PM |
Can 02 Mustang show which cylinder misfires on scanner? | John Shepardson | Ford Mustang | 3 | August 29th 05 03:40 AM |
High Gas Prices Fuel an Octane Rebellion | MrPepper11 | Driving | 434 | August 18th 05 12:25 AM |
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell | Shrike | Dodge | 0 | March 30th 05 09:03 PM |
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? | Robert | Audi | 7 | August 7th 04 11:52 AM |