The dems have a fighting chance to get all of this through.Note the repubs aligned with the feinstein bill.Industry is beginning to call for legislation because they cant finance projects until carbon laws are determined.
I recall the stock price of tobacco companies surging upward after the gov forced a settlement that required them to pay billions.it was bad news but it clarified the business path in the future and allowed them to rebuild their business model to match the facts on the ground.
Also, keep in mind that global warming has reached a point of acceptance beyond a point where detractors can blithely dismiss it.Coupled to global warming is fuel independence and security.This can marry two crowds together that dont normally agree on much.It gives cover to pols to make concessions to the other party and still crow to constituents that they obtained results for either the planet or for god and country.
The legislation may not survive one hundred percent as proposed but the major thrust has areal chance of being pushed through this session.

Tony,

Canada just introduced this ironically..
You get $2000 off a Prius, $1500 off a camry hybrid and $1000 off a Yaris.
You gotta pay up to $4000 more for a big SUV e.g. loaded Escalade (negligable anyway at that price range)

I read an article recently (sorry, don't have the reference) by a auto columnist which stated that the decrease in fuel mileage in a car with a mix of ethanol and gasoline is significantly greater than one would expect from the percentage of ethanol therein. According to this author, the existence of the ethnaol actually decreases the efficacy of the gasoline portion of the mix. This conclusion was based upon carefully measuring gas mileage from gasoline only, E10, etc. If true, this has implication when one is determining the grams of co2 per mile from ethanol laced fuels. One cannot simply apply a reduction of 30%, for example, to the ethanol proportion in determining the expected overall decrease in gas mileage.

Unfortunately, the author didn't explain very well the reason for this phenomenon.

Does anyone here have any thoughts on this? Does it make sense from a scientific standpoint?

R.

The consumer is the ONLY entity that will get the auto companies to do ANYTHING! Any government regs will have special intrest holes in them IE gm's bs cafe jive with E85 and flex fuel.

As my uncle used to say "Money talks and bullshit walks."

What is not GREEN about giving people a financial incentive to buy and use more efficient cars?

Stan,

This is not helpful. Political ranting may be best suited to another site in another place. I do not have control over this site, but if I did, such comments would be removed.

Please forgive Stan, he lives in a cave and for some reason his TV is stuck on Fox News.

Last few year's fuel price increases didn't reduce fuel consumption in the US because underlying cost structure did not change: gasoline is still heavily subsidized, regardless of whether its price doubles. The real way to deal with this is to shift road and gasoline infrastructure support OUT of general tax funds and INTO registration and fuel taxes. WE ALREADY pay to subsidize road support and fuel prices, we just do it every week in our paychecks. Move those charges to registration and the pump. Net change: zero. Encouragement to buy more efficient vehicles: priceless!

R,

Although his tact and delivery may be questionable, Stan's point should not go unheeded. Retaliating with insults about living in caves, and mockery of the Fox News channel are no more constructive than his comments.

Although I agree that cleaner-burning fuels are a good thing, and industry should make all attempts to minimize the pollution impacts of their products, over-regulation, environmental or otherwise, undermines the capitalistic foundation on which our country has thrived for generations.

Indefinitely tightening regulations such as this one are likely only the beginning of the onslaught of legislation that is to come. These standards should be encouraged, and perhaps promoted through the use of incentives, but the government should allow the laws of supply and demand to control what automakers produce. If a consumer has a choice between two vehicles, identical in all but emissions, most consumers will pick the lower-emitting vehicle.

Regulating chemicals such as CO2 is the first step into legislative absurdity, and potentially (although I hope not) the first step toward an Ayn Rand-ian socialism in which the government regulates away that which they find undesirable, regardless of market and economic consequences. I am not of the crazy doomsday sort, but the increasing frequency of over-regulation has begun to seriously concern me.

Water is indeed the primary contributor to the greenhouse effect, and the amount of CO2 emitted by humans relative to the amount of water and CO2, CH4, SO2, etc emitted by natural means is staggeringly small. Regulating it in vehicles will not make any significant difference, and is being done more for political gain than scientific relevance. Furthermore, it will have vastly more negative effects down the road for our nation's already struggling automotive manufacturing sector, and economy as a whole than it will have positive effects on the environment.

Mike,

You raise valid concerns but I do not believe consumers can choose that which is better when they are not given the choice. In an idea world, given two cars equal in all but emissions, I would hope the lower emission car wins in the market place. In the real world, manufacturers have no incentive to make the lower emission vehicle and therefore consumers have no choice.

Regarding regulation, the EU has much more regulation and fears of becoming Big Brother have fortunately not come true. =)

CO2 regulation is only harmful in our current market structure because so thus far there has been no cost associated with the emission of CO2. Put a cost on it and then of course the market will respond. That's where government regulation steps in. Once again, the market can only respond if there is a cost, altruism doesn't buy very much on the market.

Regarding the snipe on Stan, he has a history contributing mostly right-wing rhetoric but I concede it was unnecessary.

BTW, as far as I know, Ayn Rand was libertarian not socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand#Political_and_social_views

The requirements for seat belts, air bags, and minimum crash worthiness for automobiles sold in the United States was not driven by consumer choice or bleeding wallets. It was a government policy decision that was enforced. This has saved numerous lives and has not resulted in bankruptcy of the major automakers. They are quite capable of this based on their keen ability to mismanage by hubris. So, all this talk about green house gas emission regulation must be directly linked to consumer wallets is pure drivel. A bit of common sense goes along way. If emissions are reduced at the tailpipe of any ICE, lets not forget small engines on tractors, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, motorcycles, etc., it is obvious, based on the megatons of environmental and climate change scientific research, that everyone will be better off, now and in the future. Greed and conservative protection of the status quo is viable only in the short term, and only as long as a majority of simple thinking people continued to be suckered by polarizing platitudes. Either you for me or against me, eh?

>> I suppose my main point is that, over time, market
>> powers will come to adapt to social trends without
>> requiring government meddling

Great discussion Mike. The line above seems to be where we differ. I don't believe there is time left to wait for consumer sentiments to change especially with big oil still waging a campaign of disinformation and automakers dragging their feet. The US as a whole dropped the ball after the first oil shock. If the move 25 years ago towards conservation continued then may be a market based solution would have been in time but at this point I don't see that happening any more.

The idea that politicians can be bought out by the oil companies is not always true. More than anything else, politicians want votes and having a lot of money is the best way to run a good campaign thus staying in power. However, if a politician feels that he/she will lose a significant number of votes by not complying with public demand, then money takes a back seat.