Bush Ignores Gas Guzzling Cars to help Oil Addiction. WHY?

Interesting thought, Colonel, but mandating an increase in fuel mileage for motor vehicles would result in only the slightest decrease in our dependency at best (and then only temporarily), and very possibly an increase. Greater fuel mileage would mean more people on the road, more people driving, guaranteed. Besides, have you seen the number of vehicles on the road with monsterous V-8's? Americans live and breathe horsepower and torque and if fuel mileage gets altered so do the ponies. I highly doubt even you would want to be caught dead in a Yugo looking creature attached to a chainsaw engine. Or, to be more realistic, a much lighter weight vehicle than you currently own with cheaper safety equipment, because the easiest way to increase fuel mileage is to lighten the vehicle weight. There comes a point when it becomes ridiculous, uncomfortable and dangerous. Remember the first Japanese cars? Little boxes, made for short people, seats uncomfortable, made of two or three beer cans.

Now, if you try to alter the powerplant, you run into more problems. As I stated earlier, people like horsies. Women like large, safe vehicles. You can't operate a Yukon on a Toyota four cylinder, or a six for that matter. You would severely limit the lifespan of the engine if you were to do that. And get laughed at by the driver of the '66 Beetle that blew your doors off at the light. Currently, nobody makes a production vehicle that isn't controlled by a computer, sensing a minimum of 4 parameters and adjusting ignition timing, fuel pressure, vacuum control, and intelligence quotient several times a second. By changing fuel economy limits, more emphasis will be placed on electronic controls, in turn increasing the basic cost of the vehicle, increasing the maintenance and repair costs.

No, CAFE isn't the way to go. There would be a larger impact on consumption if folks remembered what the speed limit was, kids didn't start driving until age 18, people kept their vehicles properly maintained (it would help greatly if the manufacturers made it easier for shadetrees to work on their own cars), and localities figured out how to time stop lights correctly to allow for a smoother traffic flow. But, that's just my thoughts.

The two biggest increases in the demand for oil are the SUV mileage and China. One mile per gallon higher mileage saves MORE oil then they believe is in new oil fields in Alaska. Higher mileage would lower demand.

I hate to wade into automaton troll space, but I seem to recall Bush requesting an increase from Congress, since Congress is the requisite party for making such changes. I believe his request was called inadequate by most on the left, and basically ignored by those on the right. Which means yet again the C.O.L. has the wrong person or persons in his sights for this one, but that's nothing unusual for someone that would always seem to be ready to hand out 'friendly fire' (and one which many of us wishes was himself perhaps a victim of same).

Prof Robert Lieber of Georgetown Univ. and Amy Jafree of Rice University were on The News Hour and they both said that Higher Mileage for cars, SUV's and trucks is THE MOST EFFECTIVE way to lower our dependence on foreign oil!

The increase of Bio-Fuel Tech/production will reduce the amount of farm subsidization that the US Government hands out each year to farmers for not planting their fields. Farmers will start hiring more people to harvest the material needed for bio-fuels, thus producing more jobs in small town America where homes and living cost are lower. It would be nice to see people moving to the country side for a change. Thus (for all you Republicans out there) increasing the number of residence in Red States. Farms will purchase more heavy harvesting equipment, mostly built in the US.

The Railroad and Trucking industry will see an increase in contracts to move the raw material to the bio-fuel processing facilities. The tax reduction in R&D given for such research may then tempt those oil companies to start investing those record profits of theirs into the future. Bio-fuels are also much cleaner burning. A large part of the fuels sold in Brazil is produced from sugar, making that country nearly energy independent.

All in all, investing in Bio-Tech is a win-win for the US economy and a cleaner environment. While forcing higher gas mileage (as voodoo says above) will just drive more jobs over seas and keep burning dirty fuels from over seas.

Bio-Tec is a good element. That does not alter the need to require higher gas mileage! We need to also SAVE oil .

That does not alter the need to require higher gas mileage!

Why would we need higher gas mileage? If doing so would put farmers out of work and money into foreign car makers pockets. We can make American jobs, keep our larger vehicles, keep the environment clean, and SAVE oil (when not even using it) by going Bio alone. By asking for more mileage, when larger amounts of bio-fuels can be produced, you are really stifling a potential economic windfall.

BECAUSE BUSH IS A RICH GREEDY SON OF A BITCH!

You can't win, COL, it is precisely these cavalier responses that reflect the angst concerning energy independence that has gotten nowhere since--hard to believe, I know--Nixon and Carter tried their damndest to alert citizens.

Bush represents the public, and obviously the public isn't that concerned. Is the President supposed to be a camp counselor that makes sure we don't do bad things to ourselves? If people buy SUVs hand over fist, do we elect officials to make sure we can't do what we want to do?

I personally don't like the idea of the government as a 'gentle overseer' that protects me from myself. Granted, I don't drive a car that would be a problem, but God only knows how many other ways activists would want to save me from myself in other ways.

Should we be throttled as to how much water we use? We already have throttle showerheads. Should recycling be mandated? Perhaps they should force people who make our heating appliances cap them at 68 degrees so we won't waste energy? At what point do we say "Whoah, we don't need a babysitter?"

Should people not have the right to be self destructive, and if not, who gets to decide what self-destructive is? We'll implement Kyoto, and let the Sierra Club have a go, and then maybe PETA can tell us what we need to do about animals. Where would it stop?

Let's outlaw fast food because it raises health care costs while you are at it. Smoking? Hell no, too much cancer. The idea makes me a little ill.