Harvard study says Obama seeks $7 a gal. gas

[SVT666]

HARVARD STUDY SAYS OBAMA SEEKS $7 A GALLON GAS
By Mark Kleis

As the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico worsens daily, talk is increasing concerning the need to address ?global warming,? despite the obvious disconnect between the required solutions for the two problems.

The Harvard Study, as discussed in the New York Post, points to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual?s well known quote in which he suggests, ?You never want a serious crisis to go to waste ? and what I mean by that is it?s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.?

The New York Post is referring to the resurgence of the cap-and-trade bill which was introduced last year, and found to be very unpopular with the American people who did not take kindly to the idea of drastically increased costs of fuel and electricity. When the original cap-and-trade bill failed to gain traction, the Obama administration then began to push the benefits from the bill by labeling it as a ?green jobs? bill.

The green jobs push proved to be equally unpopular, as Americans took notice of the extreme failure of similar initiatives in Spain, which required an average of $774,000 in government subsidies for each green job position created. The bill would also target the clean coal, oil and natural gas production within the U.S. ? further damaging the economy and reducing jobs.

Gulf spill reignites fire behind cap-and-trade
With the massive negative publicity surrounding the current disaster taking place in the Gulf as a result of an oil rig explosion, the Obama administration is yet again hoping to re-open talks of passing a cap-and-trade bill. Obama believes that cap-and-trade would help to avoid future oil spills by pushing people away from using oil due to the dramatically increased costs through new taxes.

The Harvard Kennedy School?s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs suggested that it ?may require gas prices greater than $7 a gallon by 2020″ in order to meet Obama?s proposed goal of reducing emissions by 14 percent in the transportation sector.

[TBR]

That's a shitty headline.

[Rupert]

I was just going to say.

Also, cite the source.

[BENZ BOY15]

I love Rahm.

[dazzleman]

Our conundrum is that we'll never break our ruinous addiction to oil until it becomes expensive enough that other alternatives become economically feasible.

[cawimmer430]

Our conundrum is that we'll never break our ruinous addiction to oil until it becomes expensive enough that other alternatives become economically feasible.

I've never understood why Americans want fuel economy in their cars but then don't want 150-hp Golf's or Polo's... 

[ifcar]

I've never understood why Americans want fuel economy in their cars but then don't want 150-hp Golf's or Polo's... 

Because we want other things more.

[cawimmer430]

Because we want other things more.

0-60 in 5 seconds
1/4 mile in 12 seconds
V8 power

Got it. 

[SVT666]

0-60 in 5 seconds
1/4 mile in 12 seconds
V8 power

Got it. 

Most cars are in the 6.5-8.0 second range, very few cars get through the 1/4 mile that fast, and only a handful of cars have V8s.  what North Americans want are big cars and trucks.  Not little Polos.  You might not understand it, but our cities are not a thousand years old and our streets are much wider then European streets.  Also, our gas is cheap relative to yours.

[SVT666]

That's a shitty headline.

Yes it is, but I'm not going to edit anything since it's not my article.

[Onslaught]

I've never understood why Americans want fuel economy in their cars but then don't want 150-hp Golf's or Polo's... 

Because we've got room for real cars. And our gas isn't near as expensive. And you can get a car with power and good MPG these days.
And we can't be seen in something called a "polo" and Golf is a sport, not a car.

[Submariner]

I wouldn't put anything past that weasel - not that I would trust any of his predecessors that much more...

Anyways, I don't think America is anywhere keen enough on such draconian taxes.  BP may not be helping corporate America, but then again, neither did Obama's 37 day response. 

Massachusetts has put it's foot down when it comes to state tax hikes - I have a hard time seeing the mostly more middle majority of America believing otherwise. 

[Minpin]

I was just going to say.

Also, cite the source.

Here ya go. http://www.leftlanenews.com/harvard-study-says-obama-seeks-7-a-gallon-gas.html

[cawimmer430]

Most cars are in the 6.5-8.0 second range, very few cars get through the 1/4 mile that fast, and only a handful of cars have V8s.  what North Americans want are big cars and trucks.  Not little Polos.  You might not understand it, but our cities are not a thousand years old and our streets are much wider then European streets.  Also, our gas is cheap relative to yours.

I can understand these aspects about city size etc., but for the most part that's not really the reason why our cars are smaller. Smaller size = less weight, better gas mileage. Also, most modern smaller European cars are quite spacious on the inside. 

[Onslaught]

I can understand these aspects about city size etc., but for the most part that's not really the reason why our cars are smaller. Smaller size = less weight, better gas mileage. Also, most modern smaller European cars are quite spacious on the inside. 

Spacious for how big it is sure. But it could still fit in the trunk on our cars. We need room to fit our fat asses in.

[Payman]

If they tax gasoline, I'd like to see an equal amount removed from diesel. Not only would this make diesel cars attractive, it would (should) have a positive impact on the cost of shipping goods.

[Byteme]

I can understand these aspects about city size etc., but for the most part that's not really the reason why our cars are smaller. Smaller size = less weight, better gas mileage. Also, most modern smaller European cars are quite spacious on the inside.  

I thought a big part of it was the tax structure that rewarded smaller displacement, lower powered engines.  Which dictates smaller automobiles.  That and the fact that the European governments have taxed the hell out of fuels which pretty much dictates getting high mileage wihch pretty much dictates smaller cars.

[cawimmer430]

Spacious for how big it is sure. But it could still fit in the trunk on our cars. We need room to fit our fat asses in.

Guess you also need those 350-hp V8's to keep up with your dogs when you're taking them for a walk, eh? 

[cawimmer430]

I thought a big part of it was the tax structure that rewarded smaller displacement, lower powered engines.  Which dictates smaller automobiles.  That and the fact that the European governments have taxed the hell out of fuels which pretty much dictates getting high mileage wihch pretty much dictates smaller cars.

The tax structure is one of the reasons, but it factors more in the engine capacity rather than the weight of the car.

Fuel taxation is not present in all countries. The fuel tax in Germany is relatively "low" compared to other European nations such as Holland. Austria doesn't have a fuel tax at all.

[GoCougs]

The left has always wanted Americans out of their cars - it has little to do with environmentalism - preying to the naivete of GWism is just the newest tack.

All indications are Democrats will get absolutely slaughtered in November stopping cold Obama's chances on enacting ridiculous shenanigan s such as this.

[ChrisV]

The tax structure is one of the reasons, but it factors more in the engine capacity rather than the weight of the car.

Taxes on engine displacement mean small engines that don't make a lot of torque, which means they can't pull as much weight, so the car needs to be smaller.

But none of this is because the average European consumer WANTS it that way. Give them the opportunity and they buy big cars just like we do, epseiclaly if they MOVE over here.

And, you don't need a small car to fit on roads liek this:

[GoCougs]

Heck yes - Europeans aren't buying diesels and little crap boxes because they want to - their governments in various ways make them do it.

[3.0L V6]

If they tax gasoline, I'd like to see an equal amount removed from diesel. Not only would this make diesel cars attractive, it would (should) have a positive impact on the cost of shipping goods.

North American refineries are not set up to produce the amount of diesel required to fuel an additional several hundred million cars and trucks. The investment required to produce addition diesel would be billions of dollars - all added to the price of fuel.

Diesel is an industrial fuel. Trains, generators and heavy trucks all require it. Adding several hundred million cars/trucks to the demand would invariably increase the price of diesel - making transporting goods more expensive than now among other unintended negative effects on industry. Gasoline, on the other hand, is mostly used for fueling cars/light trucks - there isn't much competition for gasoline supplies from the industrial sector.

Diesel engines require complex emissions control systems to clean up as compared to gasoline engines. Particulate traps, urea injection schemes, etc. add to the cost and maintenance of a vehicle. Gasoline engines burn relatively cleanly to begin with and with the addition of fuel injection systems and catalytic converters come within a sniff of perfect combustion. Also, diesels require turbochargers to make acceptable power, gasoline engines do not - also adding to the cost premium.

[3.0L V6]

Guess you also need those 350-hp V8's to keep up with your dogs when you're taking them for a walk, eh? 

No, not need. Want.

If someone gave you an Oldsmobile Toronado like you have shown in the Plymouth Volare thread, you'd take it, right? Even though it wouldn't break 20 miles to the gallon of gas.

[Raza]

Oh no, not this again.

[Nethead]

North American refineries are not set up to produce the amount of diesel required to fuel an additional several hundred million cars and trucks. The investment required to produce addition diesel would be billions of dollars - all added to the price of fuel.

Diesel is an industrial fuel. Trains, generators and heavy trucks all require it. Adding several hundred million cars/trucks to the demand would invariably increase the price of diesel - making transporting goods more expensive than now among other unintended negative effects on industry. Gasoline, on the other hand, is mostly used for fueling cars/light trucks - there isn't much competition for gasoline supplies from the industrial sector.

Diesel engines require complex emissions control systems to clean up as compared to gasoline engines. Particulate traps, urea injection schemes, etc. add to the cost and maintenance of a vehicle. Gasoline engines burn relatively cleanly to begin with and with the addition of fuel injection systems and catalytic converters come within a sniff of perfect combustion. Also, diesels require turbochargers to make acceptable power, gasoline engines do not - also adding to the cost premium.

3.0L V6:  Eloquently stated. 

[SVT666]

Virtually everyone I know living here who is a European immigrant has bought themselves a big ass car or SUV.  My old boss even has himself a new Toyota Tundra and he's from England.  Friends of ours who are from England bought a Honda Pilot and a Honda Odyssey.  My cousin in Germany wants a Mustang more then anything else but she bought herself a BMW Z4 because the Mustang costs way too much in taxes and and fuel (gas is roughly 2.5 times more expensive in Germany as it is here in Canada and our fuel is 40% higher then the US).

[Morris Minor]

We all know that if you tax something, you'll get less of it. Tax gasoline = lower use = less produced. It's simple. So, if our leaders want us to use less gasoline they should tax it. $4-5/gallon would be about right. People can drive any sized car they want as long as they can pay the big bucks at the gas station. But most would downsize their cars; they have to feed their kids. Really simple.

Simple that is, unless you are a chickenshit politician. Sure your instinct is to be friends with your supporters and the various green evangelists on the religious left, and high taxes appeal to your government command-and-control instincts. The problem is, you need votes; they are your oxygen, your reason for being. If you vote for $7.00/gal gasoline, even the half wits who voted you in during the last election will turn against you, and your oxygen supply will be cut off.

The answer? CAFE standards, cap (tax) 'n' trade, etc. You hide the tax behind manufacturers whom you can blame for raising the prices of their products to meet your "standards." Then the halfwits will keep voting for you.

[Onslaught]

Guess you also need those 350-hp V8's to keep up with your dogs when you're taking them for a walk, eh? 

That person is doing it wrong. Why hold the dog leash when you can tie it to the car?

[sportyaccordy]

Wim

Avg West European = 5 7 140 lbs

Avg American = 5 10 210 lbs

Plus little Polos and shit can't legitimately carry 4 adults and their luggage.

I agree that American cars are too big, but I think something a subcompact is too small. If you guys weren't taxed to death there would be no market for cars like the A-Class