• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CAFE standards for big rigs.

I believe that over the last 60 years if there had been gains made the costs would be negligable today.

I do not know what the solutions are exactly but I do have a problem with the relatively small gains we've made over the last 60 years. I was looking at new trucks this past week. Most of them are listed at 12-15 mpg in city driving. Again, I could get that out of a 60 year old truck.

I would have liked to have bought a small diesel in a 1500 series Chevy truck. It would get at least in the high 20's. We even have this technology today but one can not buy that truck.

Whenever I write up a capitol project for work, the standard for acceptance is based on the rate in which the initial investment will pay off and start to generate a cost savings. Generally, my boss is looking for 1 year or less. This is pretty common for many industries.

Given the life span of trucks, it would be easy to get stuck into increased costs, even though the long term payoff would be great.
 
1. You have yet to prove that it is unrealistic. Also, unrealistic is not the same is not optimally cost effective.

I don't have to prove that it is unrealistic. Common sense tells me that a 33 1/3 percent increase is unrealistic.

2. The government has a legitimate interest in reducing dependance on a substance helps to fund elements that destabilize world peace and US interests.

The government does have a legitimate interest in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It also has a legitimate interest in preserving and promoting freedom. Instead of being tryrannical on two fronts (minimize drilling and refining and C.A.F.E. standards), I believe that liberty is a better answer. First, let the purchasers of vehicles work with the manufacturers on the best solution with regards to mileage. Second, allow for a large expansion of drilling and refining of petroleum products. Both are good for the economy. Both are good for companies. Both are good for freedom.

3. You will need to show that no government is needed and why this is so.

I understand that you think government is the answer to all things. I simply believe in freedom and buyers and sellers can work out the details without meddlesome government. I need to show you nothing.

4. So trucking manufacturers will leave the country, because they have to build trucks with a higher mpg? Did you think this through? (they still have a market here and will still have to build trucks to us specifications to reach that market)

That's not what I said, but I understand why you thought I did. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I understand that even foreign manufacturers have to comply with U.S. regulations. My thought was that it is this type of government meddling with over-regulation that is causing many companies to flee the States for better places to do business.

I want this, because economics is a competing interest among other national interests, such as the environment in which economics relies on to be healthy and security concerns.

I understand that this is the announced cause celebre behind the tyranny, but even more basic than that is that the Statists want to kill free enterprise and force everyone into their tyrannical point of view. If they cannot get it through selling their ideas, they force everyone by dictate.
 
I believe that over the last 60 years if there had been gains made the costs would be negligable today.

I do not know what the solutions are exactly but I do have a problem with the relatively small gains we've made over the last 60 years. I was looking at new trucks this past week. Most of them are listed at 12-15 mpg in city driving. Again, I could get that out of a 60 year old truck.

I would have liked to have bought a small diesel in a 1500 series Chevy truck. It would get at least in the high 20's. We even have this technology today but one can not buy that truck.

Do you believe that the Federal Government should dictate to manufacturers what they should build and the specs it should produce?
 
I don't have to prove that it is unrealistic. Common sense tells me that a 33 1/3 percent increase is unrealistic.

Ok, so you cannot prove it.

The government does have a legitimate interest in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It also has a legitimate interest in preserving and promoting freedom. Instead of being tryrannical on two fronts (minimize drilling and refining and C.A.F.E. standards), I believe that liberty is a better answer. First, let the purchasers of vehicles work with the manufacturers on the best solution with regards to mileage. Second, allow for a large expansion of drilling and refining of petroleum products. Both are good for the economy. Both are good for companies. Both are good for freedom.

Mileage has not improved for decades, which means the best solution is not being worked out. Second ANWR and the gulf account for less than 1% (I think, correct me if I am wrong) than the global market and will not affect pricing much one way or the other. Also, this approach fails to address any environmental concerns.

I understand that you think government is the answer to all things. I simply believe in freedom and buyers and sellers can work out the details without meddlesome government. I need to show you nothing.

This would be a straw man, I am a big fan of capitalism as a driver of societal progress. It accomplishes things that government never could.

That's not what I said, but I understand why you thought I did. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I understand that even foreign manufacturers have to comply with U.S. regulations. My thought was that it is this type of government meddling with over-regulation that is causing many companies to flee the States for better places to do business.

Fair enough. I misunderstood.

I understand that this is the announced cause celebre behind the tyranny, but even more basic than that is that the Statists want to kill free enterprise and force everyone into their tyrannical point of view. If they cannot get it through selling their ideas, they force everyone by dictate.

This would be another straw man. I have no desire to dominate people and wish, instead to promote and enrich them, we just disagree on how best this is accomplished.
 
Last edited:
I have no desire to dominate people and wish, instead to promote and enrich them, we just disagree on how best this is accomplished.

You desire it. You want C.A.F.E standards. You want energy standards for lightbulbs. You want big government to control what we can and cannot purchase. You may say that you want free enterprise, but your solutions are the opposite.
 
You desire it. You want C.A.F.E standards. You want energy standards for lightbulbs. You want big government to control what we can and cannot purchase. You may say that you want free enterprise, but your solutions are the opposite.

I said I had no desire to dominate and wish to promote them.

Free enterprise often accomplishes this, but not always.
 
I said I had no desire to dominate and wish to promote them.

Free enterprise often accomplishes this, but not always.

Tyranny works better than free enterprise... in some cases? Woof!
 
If either of you have any evidence that this will be some unbearable cost, please post it.

A brand new, low end class 8 truck costs in the neighborhood of 90 g's. This new technology isn't going to make the price go down. It's just common sense. The fuel savings won't make the price of the truck feasable, when you consider that fuel is 100% tax deductable and truck notes aren't. Besides that, over a 100,000 mile year, the difference between 6mpg and 8mpg is only 4,000 gallons. It won't add up.

By the way, it will be coming out of my pocket when I go to buy bread. I think reducing fuel consumption will be a better long-term investment though, both for me and for the country. Lower demand for fuel creates lower costs for fuel.

Your bread will cost the same, either way. You're either going to pay for the price of fuel, or the cost of government mandated equipment upgrades.



Less pollution reduces health care costs.

There won't be less polution, because small fleets and owner operators are just going to keep rebuilding their old model trucks, because it's cheaper--not to mention tax deductable--than buying a new truck.

These new model trucks, with all their new fangled crap are junk, anyway. I have 6 trucks. The newest is a 2004 International and it stays broke down. 99% of the time, it's that new fangled crap that is the problem. I have an 82 Peterbilt that rarely breaks down, and when it does have a problem, not only is it easier to fix, it costs half the price. How much with it cost to repair and maintain these fancy new engines that Obama wants to see on the road? Lots of factors there, that the out of touch folks don't think about.
 
I'm certainly mixed on this. I see these trucks sitting and idling and I know that we could come up with a way for them to still operate without sitting around idling all day. I refuse to believe that we couldn't have created more efficient vehicles over the last 60 years. Semi's in the 50's could get 6 mpg.

My sleeper trucks have RV roof unit a/c and a diesel generator that is plumbed into the trucks fuel system.
 
I am not fan of tyranny, but this doesn't cut the mustard. The simple fact is that industry has failed to advance on its own and needs help.

This is sensible regulation.

How did the industry fail and where's the help?
 
1. You have yet to prove that it is unrealistic. Also, unrealistic is not the same is not optimally cost effective.
2. The government has a legitimate interest in reducing dependance on a substance helps to fund elements that destabilize world peace and US interests.
3. You will need to show that no government is needed and why this is so.
4. So trucking manufacturers will leave the country, because they have to build trucks with a higher mpg? Did you think this through? (they still have a market here and will still have to build trucks to us specifications to reach that market)

I want this, because economics is a competing interest among other national interests, such as the environment in which economics relies on to be healthy and security concerns.

That means that ramping up domestic oil production would be a good idea. Whatcha think? ;)
 
Tyranny works better than free enterprise... in some cases? Woof!

The definition of tyranny is very specific. Automotive regulation does not fall under that definition.
 
That means that ramping up domestic oil production would be a good idea. Whatcha think? ;)

Producing energy locally would indeed be part of it.
 
There won't be less polution, because small fleets and owner operators are just going to keep rebuilding their old model trucks, because it's cheaper--not to mention tax deductable--than buying a new truck.

These new model trucks, with all their new fangled crap are junk, anyway. I have 6 trucks. The newest is a 2004 International and it stays broke down. 99% of the time, it's that new fangled crap that is the problem. I have an 82 Peterbilt that rarely breaks down, and when it does have a problem, not only is it easier to fix, it costs half the price. How much with it cost to repair and maintain these fancy new engines that Obama wants to see on the road? Lots of factors there, that the out of touch folks don't think about.

I almost never agree with what Apdst posts, but in this case he is in my opinion correct

CAFE is a idiotic way of trying to get fuel efficient vehicles on the road. It cause the vehicle makers to make vehicles the market in general does not want. If fuel efficiency is the goal, then make fuel more expensive. The increased costs of fuel will drive the demand for fuel efficient vehicles, and the makers of the trucks or cars will meet that demand.
 
The definition of tyranny is very specific. Automotive regulation does not fall under that definition.

Tyranny: Oppressive power exerted by government

As I said, tyranny.
 
Tyranny: Oppressive power exerted by government

As I said, tyranny.

Except this is not oppressive, but just a regulation, which is subject to politicians that we elect.
 
Except this is not oppressive, but just a regulation, which is subject to politicians that we elect.

ROFL!! You don't think that the government telling us what we can and cannot manufacture or produce and specifying, if it can be manufactured or produced, how it must be manufactured or produced is not oppressive. Wow! Have you read 1984?
 
ROFL!! You don't think that the government telling us what we can and cannot manufacture or produce and specifying, if it can be manufactured or produced, how it must be manufactured or produced is not oppressive. Wow! Have you read 1984?

If it was a dictatorship, monarchy, or some other authoritarian form of government, I would agree with you.

And yes, I have read 1984, it was a silly and unrealistic book.
 
If it was a dictatorship, monarchy, or some other authoritarian form of government, I would agree with you.

And yes, I have read 1984, it was a silly and unrealistic book.

LOL! A government does not have to be a dictatorship or monarchy to be oppressive. According to my Webster's, this government could be labeled as authoritarian.

Authoritarian: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.

Looks like authoritarian, oppressive and tyranny were appropriate words.

You thought 1984 was unrealistic? Hmmmm. Have you also read "Atlas Shrugged?" Would that be another unrealistic book?
 
LOL! A government does not have to be a dictatorship or monarchy to be oppressive. According to my Webster's, this government could be labeled as authoritarian.

Authoritarian: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.

Looks like authoritarian, oppressive and tyranny were appropriate words.

You thought 1984 was unrealistic? Hmmmm. Have you also read "Atlas Shrugged?" Would that be another unrealistic book?

Yes, atlas shrugged had nothing to do with real people or their concerns and I did read it (which was a waste of my time)

I was referring to the second definition

: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime> .

Tell me, are you able to vote?
 
Last edited:
Seems like not everyone dislikes the idea.



Industry reaction

Industry groups were quick to release statements in response to the new rules, most of them positive:

"Everyone was sort of patting everyone else on the back." ATA President Bill Graves to the Washington Post.

"While we haven't had a chance yet to thoroughly review the final rule, we were pleased overall with the process, and the degree to which EPA and NHTSA involved and listened to the industry." Denny Slagle, president and CEO North American Trucks (Volvo and Mack).

"Truck manufacturers and workers, state and federal regulators, and conservationists stand together behind this new rule. It shows what Americans can accomplish when we work together." Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation.

"This regulation and the process used to establish it are a model for how government and business should work together to meet energy, environment and economic goals." Tim Solso, chairman and CEO of Cummins.

"With this rule, EPA and NHTSA have now set an example for what could be a worldwide GHG and fuel efficiency regulation for heavy duty trucks and engines." Daniel C. Ustian, Navistar chairman, president and CEO.

"We support the new federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency as they affect the commercial vehicles industry. We have worked closely and productively with the EPA and NHTSA and look forward to continued collaboration on implementation of the new standards." Sean Waters, Director Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, Daimler Trucks North America

"This is an important milestone for our industry and our country. We are pleased to be part of a realistic solution that will ultimately help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve natural resources by helping to increase the fuel efficiency of our industry." Douglas W. Stotlar, president and CEO of Con-way Inc.

"Commercial vehicles account for approximately 20 percent of transportation's fuel use, so fuel efficiency standards are essential to spur affordable and widely available cleaner delivery vehicles." Frederick W. Smith, president, CEO and chairman of FedEx Corp.

"These new truck standards will reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and clean up our air, while creating much-needed jobs and saving drivers money at the pump," League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski.

"EMA and TMA members strongly support a uniform, national program to address greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency that aligns with the needs of their customers and the nation. We applaud EPA and NHTSA for their willingness to listen to manufacturers' concerns related to the unique and complex aspects of the commercial engine and vehicle market and their efforts to finalize a manageable and implementable program." Jed Mandel, president of the Engine Manufacturers Association and Truck Manufacturers Association.

"The new standards provide important incentives that will serve as a catalyst for deploying new fuel-efficient technologies such as hybrids and advanced drivetrains." Alexander M. Cutler, Eaton chairman and chief executive officer.
 
My sleeper trucks have RV roof unit a/c and a diesel generator that is plumbed into the trucks fuel system.

I thought this was interesting. I suggested to Chrysler that if they are going to build a luxury car, make a small compressor that runs off the same fuel, that keeps the car cold while I am in shopping. Leather seats, and maxi-power don't mean crap if I get in my car and its an oven & I have to sweat until the air conditioner cools it off. That is not a luxury car in my opinion. And fix that air so the trunk stays cool on my groceries or candles, etc.. What the hell good is a trunk if all you can haul is cord wood and steel plate.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the second definition

Tell me, are you able to vote?

Well, I was correct about the definition. Am I able to vote? Before I answer, would you mind letting me know why you would ask the question?
 
Then go ride a bicycle! Anyone who drives a car, even a Smart Car, and spouts this garbage is a hypocrite.

While you think the increase in fuel mileage is reasonable, I am thinking that you are looking only at the 2 mpg and not the 33 1/3 increase in the mpg. That is a huge leap in percentage. Tyrants want to put everyone into chains while freedom wants to unleash the chains. C.A.F.E standards on autos have virutally ended the era of where a person can purchase a full-size sedan and with the future plans, the mid-size and compact will disappear. Freedom allows people to purchase what they desire. Tyranny must crush those desires by putting chains on the people.

Um, the proposed standards do not dictate a 33.3 mpg increase in mileage for big trucks.
 
Seems like not everyone dislikes the idea.

Your last article has comments from those who are not happy. As for those who agree, obviously, like here on this site, some people in business have no problem with oppessive, authoritarian tyranny.
 
Back
Top Bottom