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.
That's a shitty headline.
I was just going to say.
Also, cite the source.
I love Rahm.
Our conundrum is that we'll never break our ruinous addiction to oil until it becomes expensive enough that other alternatives become economically feasible.
Quote from: dazzleman on June 20, 2010, 04:54:41 PM
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... :huh:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 20, 2010, 05:07:03 PM
I've never understood why Americans want fuel economy in their cars but then don't want 150-hp Golf's or Polo's... :huh:
Because we want other things more.
Quote from: ifcar on June 20, 2010, 05:09:10 PM
Because we want other things more.
0-60 in 5 seconds
1/4 mile in 12 seconds
V8 power
Got it. :ohyeah:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 20, 2010, 05:10:16 PM
0-60 in 5 seconds
1/4 mile in 12 seconds
V8 power
Got it. :ohyeah:
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.
Quote from: TBR on June 20, 2010, 04:43:43 PM
That's a shitty headline.
Yes it is, but I'm not going to edit anything since it's not my article.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 20, 2010, 05:07:03 PM
I've never understood why Americans want fuel economy in their cars but then don't want 150-hp Golf's or Polo's... :huh:
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.
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.
Quote from: Rupert on June 20, 2010, 04:48:53 PM
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
Quote from: SVT666 on June 20, 2010, 06:47:45 PM
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. :ohyeah:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 21, 2010, 02:22:49 AM
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. :ohyeah:
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.
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.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 21, 2010, 02:22:49 AM
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. :ohyeah:
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.
Quote from: Onslaught on June 21, 2010, 04:25:17 AM
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? :lol:
(http://www.goclipless.com/images/2007/04/03/fat_american_walking_dog_from_car.jpg)
Quote from: EtypeJohn on June 21, 2010, 07:01:05 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 21, 2010, 07:37:32 AM
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:
(http://images.publicradio.org/content/2008/08/05/20080805_rural_road_33.jpg)
(http://www.danheller.com/images/UnitedStates/Midwest/Highway/highway-03-big.jpg)
Heck yes - Europeans aren't buying diesels and little crap boxes because they want to - their governments in various ways make them do it.
Quote from: Rockraven on June 21, 2010, 06:41:02 AM
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.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 21, 2010, 07:35:42 AM
Guess you also need those 350-hp V8's to keep up with your dogs when you're taking them for a walk, eh? :lol:
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.
Oh no, not this again.
Quote from: 3.0L V6 on June 21, 2010, 10:11:39 AM
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on June 21, 2010, 07:35:42 AM
Guess you also need those 350-hp V8's to keep up with your dogs when you're taking them for a walk, eh? :lol:
That person is doing it wrong. Why hold the dog leash when you can tie it to the car?
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
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 21, 2010, 03:35:47 PM
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
I don't know about that. There's certainly a market for subcompact hatchbacks in dense urban parts of the US, and more of Europe's population is in dense urban areas than ours. That's a population that not only may desire a smaller car for ease of use, but may also not rely on a car for as much of its transportation needs.
If Europe's gas prices were like ours, you'd certainly see more big cars. But there would also still be plenty of little ones.
Quote from: ifcar on June 21, 2010, 03:46:33 PM
I don't know about that. There's certainly a market for subcompact hatchbacks in dense urban parts of the US, and more of Europe's population is in dense urban areas than ours. That's a population that not only may desire a smaller car for ease of use, but may also not rely on a car for as much of its transportation needs.
If Europe's gas prices were like ours, you'd certainly see more big cars. But there would also still be plenty of little ones.
I could see the need for a little pussy car in the big city. But is the demand great enough to bring them here in the US? Outside of the big cities I see no need for a shopping cart with a leaf blower on it.
Quote from: Onslaught on June 21, 2010, 03:50:16 PM
I could see the need for a little pussy car in the big city. But is the demand great enough to bring them here in the US? Outside of the big cities I see no need for a shopping cart with a leaf blower on it.
And there are few really large cities in North America. There are some and they are some of the largest in the world, but the vast majority of this continent is rural.
Quote from: SVT666 on June 21, 2010, 04:39:21 PM
And there are few really large cities in North America. There are some and they are some of the largest in the world, but the vast majority of this continent is rural.
And I'd rather use the subway or whatever form of public transportation used in these large city's rather than have a car. I saw what cars looked like in NY and I'd never buy something and let it get fucked up like that.
Quote from: ifcar on June 21, 2010, 03:46:33 PM
I don't know about that. There's certainly a market for subcompact hatchbacks in dense urban parts of the US, and more of Europe's population is in dense urban areas than ours. That's a population that not only may desire a smaller car for ease of use, but may also not rely on a car for as much of its transportation needs.
If Europe's gas prices were like ours, you'd certainly see more big cars. But there would also still be plenty of little ones.
Shit, I live in a city, and most of the people I would be hauling around (brother, girlfriend, close friends) are all either tall or tall and broad. I find that in the city, the time I need a car most is either when I need to leave (often with a few people and/or room for cargo/luggage), or when I need to pick up something I can't load in a granny cart. Sadly in either case a little Mini or w/e won't do. Even something the size of an MKIV Jetta is too small.
The bulk of the cars on my block now are of steady residents... it's all station wagons, minivans and regular midsize cars (most notably a tastefully modded E39 M5). Parking is a bitch if you don't drive to work or work close enough that you can use your lunch break to move your car, but beyond that a regular size car is OK. Despite my obsession with car lengths earlier, truthfully unless a car is like a Mini, as long as it's not a full size sedan or w/e length is no big deal. Avenues in major cities are 2 to 5 lanes wide, and side streets are rarely too narrow for even a tractor trailer. This I think contrasts to Europe, where on top of high gas + car taxes many city roads are incredibly narrow.
Where the compact car could make a resurgence is just with the enthusiast crowd. I like the idea of a Golf GTI, but I hate the fact that its execution resulted in a 3400lb hatchback. The VAG 2.0T in a Polo to me makes much more sense. People live and die by 180-220HP 2200 lb Civics, so I think bringing that kind of power and getting close to that kind of weight in a modern package would find some buyers. They'd just have to design the cars to not look emasculating like the Fiesta and Mazda2
What you're saying is that there would be no demand in Europe with US-level gas prices. The fact that more than a hundred thousand subcompact cars sell in the U.S. in the typical year -- concentrated in cities, in a nation that is much less urban than Europe -- suggests that's not the case. Demand would drop, but it would still be high.
Ifcar, you're forgetting overall cost of ownership.
Small cars are cheap. Not just cheap to fuel, but cheap in general. In fact in many cases they might get the same mileage as larger options, but they're still cheaper overall.
When I lived in a crowded city and bought my Aveo, I wasn't thinking, "damn, I need this thing because parking is such a bitch." I bought it because it was one of, if not the, cheapest new cars you could buy on warranty.
Quote from: Tave on June 21, 2010, 06:32:11 PM
Ifcar, you're forgetting overall cost of ownership.
Small cars are cheap. Not just cheap to fuel, but cheap in general. In fact in many cases they might get the same mileage as larger options, but they're still cheaper overall.
A big factor in Japan, EVERYTHING is expensive, just the cost of living in general in addition to the costs to own a car beyond fuel and taxes.
Not only this, but small cars that are sold overseas are designed and engineered to use their space limitations a lot smarter than the cars sold here do.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 21, 2010, 06:35:40 PM
A big factor in Japan, EVERYTHING is expensive, just the cost of living in general in addition to the costs to own a car beyond fuel and taxes.
Right. Even in a city like NYC, people just aren't buying Smart cars. Minis sell because they have been approved by the Starbucks contingent. In a big city, space is definitely a consideration- you just can't parallel park a Coupe DeVille- but I would say it's definitely not a deciding factor. People are gonna buy as much car as they can afford, and in Europe, money spent on cars just doesn't go as far as it does here.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on June 21, 2010, 08:24:47 PM
Right. Even in a city like NYC, people just aren't buying Smart cars. Minis sell because they have been approved by the Starbucks contingent. In a big city, space is definitely a consideration- you just can't parallel park a Coupe DeVille- but I would say it's definitely not a deciding factor. People are gonna buy as much car as they can afford, and in Europe, money spent on cars just doesn't go as far as it does here.
Some people are going to buy as much car as they can afford; others will not take that mentality. Especially in a crowded city where size is a plus. I work in upscale neighborhoods in D.C., and you have a healthy mix of Range Rovers and Fits there.
Again, what has been stated in this thread is that Europeans wouldn't buy small cars anymore if their gas cost what ours costs. The very obvious point that I've made and you've ignored is that Americans buy small cars with fuel at that cost, especially Americans who live in the sort of dense urban areas that represent an even greater section of Europe. Are they in the minority? Sure. Is that minority big enough to support a market for subcompact cars? Of course.