Support NeoGAF

[gcubed]

Are we still making isolated assumptions devoid of the complexities of reality?

damn seatbelts... where is eznark when you need him

 

[GhaleonEB]

Oh good, let's mandate making cars more expensive when the industry's struggling as it is.

This is just idiotic. Raising efficiency standards, especially this gradually, have rarely ever impacted the price of a product. (Need the refrigerator post again?) Part of the reason the industry supports this plan is because it phases in the new standards gradually, so they don't have to make changes to vehicles in the pipeline over the next two years. They wanted a hard target far enough out that they could target their R&D correctly. They got it.

This will not affect prices. It will help the industry to make cars people actually want to buy, and will also have the bonus side effects of furthering the global warming reduction policy and as well as taking a huge bite out of oil consumption.

 

[charlequin]

On today's policy points: I'm super-excited about the CAFE standards but I'm still pretty much convinced that Health Care is going to be a fiasco.

Although that Pew study on torture is a bit disturbing. :-(

A bit disturbing? The evangelicals are bringing up the average for everybody.

It doesn't really surprise me that atheists are polling lower on support for torture here, even though I don't buy the idea that atheists are somehow inherently more moral; the obsession with abortion has warped the shape of what American Christians as a whole support and who they listen to, and the public leaders thereof have completely failed in their duty to speak out against wrongs like torture.

Depends on how you view things. I believe it's the Senate that makes things possible to past.

No way. The Senate is bullshit. The "two Senators per state" provision ensures that rural interests are drastically over-represented; the small number of total Senators makes it significantly easier for special interests to woo votes; the existence of the filibuster makes it trivially easy for minority parties to obstruct and for "centrists" (e.g. corporate shillbags) to extort "concessions" on legislation that benefit no one but whichever business interest is paying for their re-election.

It's such an odd line of attack too...I understand the point of it: redirect the blame to Pelosi (hence, democrats) but they'd be better off simply trying to drop it.

This plan is based around the idea that Democrats don't have spines, so all they need to do is vaguely and ominously threaten one of the Dems' peeps and they'll slink off into the night. (In the GOP's very slight defense, historically this has been pretty accurate.)

 

[thefro]

Oh good, let's mandate making cars more expensive when the industry's struggling as it is.

You realize that California, NY, 12 other states and DC (that together amount for over 50% of cars sold in the US) have all mandated changes like this?

All Obama is doing is making it a national standard so that the auto companies don't face uncertainty and don't have to make two completely different lines for the same country.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

The only issue I have with the fuel economy legislation is that people are trying to pass it off as an environmental act, but that's not what is important. It's energy conservation that is first and foremost. Environmental policy is a waste of time, and I wish they'd stop whitewashing all legislation as being environmental. If CO2 levels are reduced I'd call it an added benefit, but it's largely irrelevant. Reducing energy consumption has actual tangible benefits.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Yah yah woo. Those legs go all the way to the ground, if you know what I'm saying.

I think Michelle's legs may be as tall as Mayor Bloomberg!

 

[ronito]

bah! again we're ignoring the big wins here for more of the usual. Requiring car companies to install flex fuel tanks into every new car would only cost the manufacturers an extra $100 and would do more to cut back on gas than any new standard.

 

[JayDubya]

The auto industry seems to support it. =\

You don't say?

The buffoons currently sucking down hard on the government's teat to keep their jobs are not averse to accepting these conditions?

Gee.

 

[Souldriver]

The only issue I have with the fuel economy legislation is that people are trying to pass it off as an environmental act, but that's not what is important. It's energy conservation that is first and foremost. Environmental policy is a waste of time, and I wish they'd stop whitewashing all legislation as being environmental. If CO2 levels are reduced I'd call it an added benefit, but it's largely irrelevant. Reducing energy consumption has actual tangible benefits.

Fuel efficiency and environmental protection are both important, and it's nice that these go hand in hand so that a good policy on one issue benefits the other. and just because you think one or the other is a "wast of time", doesn't make it so. :/

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Fuel efficiency and environmental protection are both important, and it's nice that these go hand in hand so that a good policy on one issue benefits the other. and just because you think one or the other is a "wast of time", doesn't make it so. :/

Environmental protection is fine if it's for the right thing. Like air quality. But CO2 doesn't effect air quality. All it does is give bad science something to scream about.

 

[Souldriver]

Environmental protection is fine if it's for the right thing. Like air quality. But CO2 doesn't effect air quality. All it does is give bad science something to scream about.

Oh come on. Just a little change in temperature around the world has immense negative impact, let alone a major change in a very short period of time. I'd thrust scientists when they say this is a very serious issue, rather than you who says everything's fine.

 

[Tamanon]

Despite those setbacks (or perhaps because of them), Steele will insist that the future of the GOP lies not in looking back but in pushing forward — using the tried and true example of conservative icon Ronald Reagan.

“Ronald Reagan never lived in the past,” Steele will say. “Ronald Reagan was all about the future. If President Reagan were here today he would have no patience for Americans who looked backward.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/th...-house-cheat-sheet-steele-1.html?hpid=topnews

Hmm.....there's something odd about the message and the example......let's figure out what it is......

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqq_XftKVPM

:lol :lol

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Oh come on. Just a little change in temperature around the world has immense negative impact, let alone a major change in a very short period of time. I'd thrust scientists when they say this is a very serious issue, rather than you who says everything's fine.

See, I trust scientists like John Christy who show empirical data that global warming isn't caused by anthropogenic CO2, and who casts the entire concept that the global temperature is rising into doubt. I take the pragmatic approach of fixing problems we know are real and we know we can fix over bad science, that's all. But I suppose this debate isn't meant for this thread.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/th...-house-cheat-sheet-steele-1.html?hpid=topnews

Hmm.....there's something odd about the message and the example......let's figure out what it is......

Wow @ the irony in that. It reads like an Onion piece :lol

 

[Learn2read]

Hear that people, it's JUNK SCIENCE!!

 

[WickedAngel]

Wow @ the irony in that. It reads like an Onion piece :lol

An "era" of apologizing? They fucked up for eight years and they've done nothing but complain about Obama since November 5th; when did they apologize for their many, many mistakes?

 

[mckmas8808]

The only issue I have with the fuel economy legislation is that people are trying to pass it off as an environmental act, but that's not what is important. It's energy conservation that is first and foremost. Environmental policy is a waste of time, and I wish they'd stop whitewashing all legislation as being environmental. If CO2 levels are reduced I'd call it an added benefit, but it's largely irrelevant. Reducing energy consumption has actual tangible benefits.

But it's not passed off as a environmental act. It's being pushed as less energy consumption, better finanically for familes, and better for the environment.

 

[Tamanon]

An "era" of apologizing? They fucked up for eight years and they've done nothing but complain about Obama since November 5th; when did they apologize for their many, many mistakes?

To be fair, Steele did say "my bad" one time for everything. BUT NO MORE!

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

What do you expect from the minority party? Dems complained for 6 years too. It's just your typical cycle.

 

[mckmas8808]

You don't say?

The buffoons currently sucking down hard on the government's teat to keep their jobs are not averse to accepting these conditions?

Gee.

Do you realize that most of the car companies that were there aren't getting American government money?

And it's weird to see so many people in this country pissed off at better technology.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

But it's not passed off as a environmental act. It's being pushed as less energy consumption, better finanically for familes, and better for the environment.

That CNN Money article sounded more like an environmentalist scoreboard. It may not have been the motivation for the legislation (and I agree with that, actually) but it doesn't mean it's not being spun that way. The global warming stuff is pretty populist right now, so it's obvious they're going to spin it in that direction.

Edited for clarity.

 

[speculawyer]

Man, seeing some of these Intelligence reports that Rumsefeld made with all those biblical sayings about how righteous the fight in Iraq is makes my blood boil. I mean, it actually gives the appearance that the administration made this into a Holy War. It seriously looks like something you'd expect off some of the Taqfiri propaganda.

I mean, look at this shit!

Yeah, that stuff is bat-shit crazy. You want to go to war? OK . . . but then you frame intelligence briefings in a war in a Muslim country with Christian Biblical quotes? That is massively fucked up.

And they kept doing it even after people complained:

The Bible quotes apparently aimed to support Bush at a time when soldiers' deaths in Iraq were on the rise, according to the June issue of CQ magazine. But they offended at least one Muslim analyst at the Pentagon and worried other employees that the passages were inappropriate.

I mean how stupid are these people? Even though there is executive privilege, you know that everything you do will eventually come out in the long term . . . and more likely the short term if it is controversial. And you dickheads were OK with intelligence briefings that framed the Iraq war as a Christian crusade? WTF? Christ is rolling over in his grave.

The story doesn't seem to have got much play in the USA . . . but I can only assume that everyone of those intelligence briefing covers is on Jihad websites and being shown on Al Jazeera non stop. I wonder if this story resurfaces because this is just like if those additional Abu Ghaib photos were released.

Here is the slideshow of various intelligence briefing report covers with lots of biblical quotes:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

 

[gcubed]

Do you realize that most of the car companies that were there aren't getting American government money?

And it's weird to see so many people in this country pissed off at better technology.

jaydubya has his moments where you think someone hijacked his account due to insane shit spewing from his mouth... libertarian stuff aside as that is his beliefs and nothing wrong with it.

I think he was disappointed by the lack of fanboy action

 

[dave is ok]

What do you expect from the minority party? Dems complained for 6 years too. It's just your typical cycle.

Dems complained.

Republicans are basically throwing tantrums

I've never seen a party be such sore losers.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You don't say?

The buffoons currently sucking down hard on the government's teat to keep their jobs are not averse to accepting these conditions?

Gee.

Still trying to find a full list. But here's a partial list of the auto companies that are represented right now at the announcement and are supporting it:

General Motors Corp.
Ford Motor Co.
Toyota Motor Corp.
Honda Motor Co.
Daimler AG
"and others"

I'm sure Crystler was in that others category. Only one of the five companies listed is currently "on the government's teat". The compromise struck gave the states, environmentalists and the auto companies what they wanted, and then some. Your position is dated, as reality has shifted from under your ideological feet.

 

[speculawyer]

Dems complained.

Republicans are basically throwing tantrums

I've never seen a party be such sore losers.

Well, there were plenty of sore losers in 2000 . . . they even egged Bush's motorcade. Of course, they had a bit more reason to be sore losers . . . the conservative Supreme Court stepped in and handed a closely disputed election to Bush plus Gore actually got more votes than Bush in the overall popular vote. But they were sore losers nonetheless.

But this time, Obama won a very decisive victory yet GOPers in Georgia, Texas, and other states are talking about secession. Sure, various liberals talked about moving out of the USA . . . but the GOPers talk about taking states out of the USA.


And remember all the "Why do you hate America?" talk? The GOPers brought that up non stop and constantly accused liberals of "hating America" (as coulter still does). The tables are turned . . . but you don't hear many on the left of accusing the right of "hating America". Although they do, like this rant, bring up their talk about secession. I don't think most people would deny that Dick Cheney really cares about his country . . . we just thing his policies are counter-productive, wrong, sometimes illegal, and sometimes just bat shit crazy.

 

[Kinitari]

I didn't even know the Pentagon did this:
Link

Pentagon briefings no longer quote Bible
Under Bush, cover pages of daily intelligence report included verses

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon said Monday it no longer includes a Bible quote on the cover page of daily intelligence briefings it sends to the White House as was practice during the Bush administration.

More at the link. I mean... bible quotes? On matters that addressed the war on Iraq? Really? Isn't that just a bit... like mixing religion and the state?

 

[speculawyer]

Wow that is my boy that is secret service detail in the background... they must have him on the serious workout, he was never that big in school.

Really? You know a guy in the secret service?

Have you ever asked him if he'd take a bullet for Obama?

 

[speculawyer]

A bit disturbing? The evangelicals are bringing up the average for everybody.

It doesn't really surprise me that atheists are polling lower on support for torture here, even though I don't buy the idea that atheists are somehow inherently more moral; the obsession with abortion has warped the shape of what American Christians as a whole support and who they listen to, and the public leaders thereof have completely failed in their duty to speak out against wrongs like torture.

I wouldn't say that atheists are "inherently more moral", I just want the complete bullshit view that atheists are inherently less moral that is espoused by many religious people to be completely destroyed. Just call it even.

 

[mckmas8808]

I didn't even know the Pentagon did this:
Link



More at the link. I mean... bible quotes? On matters that addressed the war on Iraq? Really? Isn't that just a bit... like mixing religion and the state?

And Pat Buchanan thought that it was a good idea yesterday. He took up for Rummy and Bush big time over this issue.

It was crazy. :lol

 

[Neo C.]

But it's not passed off as a environmental act. It's being pushed as less energy consumption, better finanically for familes, and better for the environment.

Exactly. I love your current government, Obama does the very correct move to lower the oil dependence. In a few years, when a gallon is over 4$ again, you surely will praise him a lot.

Stealth edit: I wish he would be a bit more ambitious though. The goals are more or less on par with those of the EU, most car companies can reach them easily.

 

[ronito]

Exactly. I love your current government, Obama does the very correct move to lower the oil dependence. In a few years, when a gallon is over 4$ again, you surely will praise him a lot.

Stealth edit: I wish he would be a bit more ambitious though. The goals are more or less on par with those of the EU, most car companies can reach them easily.

You could argue this is a good move. But correct for oil independence? No, it's not.

 

[Neo C.]

You could argue this is a good move. But correct for oil independence? No, it's not.

Why not?

 

[ronito]

Why not?

How does this make us more oil independent? We use less fuel but still need it. He's adding $1,300 on average to the price of a car that doesn't solve the problem when you could require cars to have flex fuel tanks for a compartively cheap price and give the customer choice as to what kind of fuel they'll use. Gas goes up $4 a gallon, well then, you're better served in giving people the choice of what they fuel their car with instead of making the car a tich more efficient. I'm all for efficiency but to get oil independence you need to change the way the system works, not just try to make it more efficient. Pennywise pound foolish and all that.

 

[Malleymal]

Really? You know a guy in the secret service?

Have you ever asked him if he'd take a bullet for Obama?

Yea thats my friend Joey and I never asked him about that , but i am sure he would, lol.. .we played ball together. Never really talked about getting into the field when younger.. i was shocked to hear it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You could argue this is a good move. But correct for oil independence? No, it's not.

I think "oil independence" is a bit of a pipe dream, but I'm all for reducing the impact that gas price fluctuations have on the economy as a whole. The spike last year was one of the factors that helped make the economic meltdown worse. Even small changes in efficiency standards for inefficient vehicles will have a HUGE impact. At least the media is helping make this point; I already saw some blowhard on NBC saying the rise in gas prices could "derail" any recovery this year.

Also, this sure puts what Obama just did in perspective:

The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table.​

And struck a deal in five months, one which - to my utter shock - does not suck. If they can get half that kind of progress on health care and energy, I'll be delighted.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Stealth edit: I wish he would be a bit more ambitious though. The goals are more or less on par with those of the EU, most car companies can reach them easily.

To be fair, anything that would seem standard in EU would be decried as socialism here.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Bible quotes make us less safe. You understand that, Cheney?

Nah, of course not.

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/th...-house-cheat-sheet-steele-1.html?hpid=topnews

Hmm.....there's something odd about the message and the example......let's figure out what it is......

:lol holy moses, his statements get better and better! i love this man.. its like an onion skit... i hope he never goes away!

 

[Neo C.]

@ronito: I see your point. Though in my defense, I never argue about oil independence but lower oil dependence. North America won't be oil independent for the next 20 years anyway (and it isn't really a favored goal, oil still has a lot of positive aspects).

 

[Neo C.]

To be fair, anything that would seem standard in EU would be decried as socialism here.

One more reason not to call it an environmental act: People should realize it isn't against the economy, on contrary it will help the economy on the long term. I strongly believe an efficient industry is better than a wasteful one.

 

[GhaleonEB]

One more reason not to call it an environmental act: People should realize it isn't against the economy, on contrary it will help the economy on the long term. I strongly believe an efficient industry is better than a wasteful one.

Bear in mind that two related but distinct things were announced today.

1) A set of unified national fuel efficiency standards, by automobile class
2) The first-ever national carbon emissions standards for automobiles

The first will be enacted and enforced by the department of transportation, and the second by the EPA. So the former is definitely something we should look at from a broader perspective, but the second is very much an environmental initiative.

Under the compromise, the federal government would establish two sets of standards, one for mileage and one for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would set the new fuel-economy standards, which would raise the average fuel efficiency of a new car by 30 percent. Cars, for instance, would need to average 39 miles per gallon by 2016, while light trucks would need to reach 30 mpg.

The EPA, using its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, plans a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of what would be emitted by vehicles meeting the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said. The EPA needs to go through a rulemaking process to allow responses before the standards would go into effect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051901683_pf.html

 

[mckmas8808]

How does this make us more oil independent? We use less fuel but still need it. He's adding $1,300 on average to the price of a car that doesn't solve the problem when you could require cars to have flex fuel tanks for a compartively cheap price and give the customer choice as to what kind of fuel they'll use. Gas goes up $4 a gallon, well then, you're better served in giving people the choice of what they fuel their car with instead of making the car a tich more efficient. I'm all for efficiency but to get oil independence you need to change the way the system works, not just try to make it more efficient. Pennywise pound foolish and all that.

No you will need to do both. Energy efficany should always be the key cornerstone to oil independence and to a better environment.

 

[Neo C.]

Bear in mind that two related but distinct things were announced today.

1) A set of unified national fuel efficiency standards, by automobile class
2) The first-ever national carbon emissions standards for automobiles

The first will be enacted and enforced by the department of transportation, and the second by the EPA. So the former is definitely something we should look at from a broader perspective, but the second is very much an environmental initiative.

Even the second will indirectly help the industry. It force the companies to innovate and to focus on efficiency, which more or less directly lower the emissions. And indirectly it will help the economy as a whole, because a raising oil price won't effect the people in the same way when they drive efficient cars in the next few years.

 

[gkryhewy]

How does this make us more oil independent? We use less fuel but still need it. He's adding $1,300 on average to the price of a car that doesn't solve the problem when you could require cars to have flex fuel tanks for a compartively cheap price and give the customer choice as to what kind of fuel they'll use. Gas goes up $4 a gallon, well then, you're better served in giving people the choice of what they fuel their car with instead of making the car a tich more efficient. I'm all for efficiency but to get oil independence you need to change the way the system works, not just try to make it more efficient. Pennywise pound foolish and all that.

But "flex fuel" (i.e., ethanol) does not change "the way the system works" at all. By most accounts it costs about as much energy to create/process as it yields, and it drives up agricultural commodity prices.

The only way to change the equation over the long term is to a) reduce people's need to drive, through more efficient land use and multimodal transportation investments, and b) drastically increase auto fuel efficiency.

Fortunately it appears that this administration will be pursuing both of these - the next transportation reauthorization will be a big deal.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm struggling not to go on an electric cars rant. The Volt! Help GM, reduce pollution, reduce carbon emissions, reduce trade deficit, improve national security, etc. . . . all at the same time!

 

[Learn2read]

Jesse Ventura suplexes Sean Hannity

Edit: Didn't see it had it's own thread...

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

But "flex fuel" (i.e., ethanol) does not change "the way the system works" at all. By most accounts it costs about as much energy to create/process as it yields, and it drives up agricultural commodity prices.

The only way to change the equation over the long term is to a) reduce people's need to drive, through more efficient land use and multimodal transportation investments, and b) drastically increase auto fuel efficiency.

Fortunately it appears that this administration will be pursuing both of these - the next transportation reauthorization will be a big deal.

You are absolutely correct. This is why rail infrastructure needs more money!

 

[APF]

SMH: President Obowma prostrates himself in front of another world leader