Fuel Economy Opposition Running on Vapors

Do they expect that we'll go back to the era of horse and buggy if the law is passed? (This argument reminds me of what street sweepers had to clean up back then.) Putting all auto companies on the same footing will not prevent cars from being manufactured or sold.

If we can build cars can park themselves, then squeezing an additional 2-3 percent more fuel efficiency per year is possible. The vehicles may look a little different and cost a little more, but consumers aren't going to suddenly walk or take public transit (not that that's would be a bad thing).

Like seat belts before, fuel economy is a health and safety issue. Just ask people with asthma and the global warming experts who connect the dots to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Throw in the safety issue of energy independence (limiting oil imports keeps our money safe too), and reducing fuel consumption makes even more sense than when we required adding airbags.

Reaching 35 miles per gallon on average is possible within a decade. Between lighter weight materials, fewer unnecessarily oversized SUVs, and increased sales on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and diesel (like the Honda Accord), we can get to 35 mpg.

The auto industry hasn't moved the needle in fuel efficiency for years because it is cheaper in the short term to keep the status quo.

According to EPA stats quoted by the AP, cars and pickups in 2007 used just as much fuel as in 2006, while SUVs gained a whopping 0.3 mpg.

Of course according to the current administration, doing nothing is progress.

"EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said the findings were evidence that 'automakers are answering President Bush's call to improve fuel economy and decrease our nation's dependency on foreign oil."

There will be pain, and perhaps a few less new cars will be sold if the price goes up by $2,000 or so. On the other hand, if there were a 35 mpg SUV, perhaps sales would take off, as they have for Toyota's miserly vehicles.