TomServo92 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) just my prediction tim, guiness wager?...oil companies will lower production to keep prices up, reality is when they see their profits lower they will use some excuse to counter....right around the corner is lower sulphur...and guess what...it WON"T be cheaper....... How come that didn't happen when the economy slowed and demand dropped? Edited May 19, 2009 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 how, they may lobby and house fruitcake special interest groups, but they DON"T run the country..... In a way CARB already did. To sell in CA they had to meet the requirements, most just sold 50 state versions anyway. Now it is national. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) how, they may lobby and house fruitcake special interest groups, but they DON"T run the country..... Follow the bouncing ball: (1) California Assembly deems CO2 a pollutant. Considers CO2, and not greedy developers responsible for mudslides and wildfires that are NOW affecting people rich enough to live in the wilderness. (2) CARB acts to regulate CO2 emissions by such common sense measures as all but banning black cars and carving out gigantic loopholes for exotic cars. (3) Various people who think CARB is full of it sue, saying 'You can't regulate fuel economy, only emissions of pollutants' (4) The Supreme Court says "CO2 is a pollutant" (5) The EPA refuses to grant CARB's waiver request. (6) Nutjobs (left wing, this time) come out of the woodwork saying that the EPA is a tool of Big Oil, despite the fact that the EPA had just promulgated rules that were substantially in line with, and in some ways more fair than CARB's rules, at least up till 2015. (7) The EPA is likely now to approve draft regs that follow CARB standards up to 2020. Why? Because they understand that they cannot grant CARB a waiver to regulate fuel economy without setting dangerous precedent. So, ultimately, the US fuel economy standards are being set based on laws passed only in the state of California, and then only because of a colossal irony. If people didn't live in sprawling suburbs and feel that they should be able to live in nature and yet be immune to nature's vagaries--the wildfires, droughts, and mudslides that were used to justify the law that prompted the regulations--none of this would have happened. In short, people want to have their way with nature and then turn around and blame other people's abuse of nature when something bad happens to them. --- I mean, I'm not saying better fuel economy is bad, just decide for yourself if that whole situation is laughably absurd Edited May 19, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Whenever there is a higher standard the Chicken Littles come out: The sky is falling, the sky is falling! I call it opportunity. In this case I think Ford is ready for it. Speed kills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Greene Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Foreign producers....many of them national oil companies....will have to keep production high in order to pay for all the roads, hospitals, and other infastructure building they are doing. Many are trying to move their countries into a modern world. They don't have the luxury of reducing production. If demand for petroleum based products falls, prices for gasoline will stay low as well. These new "proposed" standards may reduce some demand, helping to keep gasoline prices reasonable, and it may help some of you guys be able drive your F 250's to work and back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well, frankly, it IS California's fault. What car will you be buying new in 2016 Richard Ford Ka, Fiesta or Focus maybe a Chrysler/Fiat Panda or a little Fiat 500 for nipping around the rocky mountains hike or fishing trips you do, or will you buy an expensive hybrid made from paper mache. Just interested to see what you would buy Richard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 What car will you be buying new in 2016 Richard Ford Ka, Fiesta or Focus maybe a Chrysler/Fiat Panda or a little Fiat 500 for nipping around the rocky mountains hike or fishing trips you do, or will you buy an expensive hybrid made from paper mache. Just interested to see what you would buy Richard. Or he could buy an F-250, which will undoubtedly still be in production and selling in substantial volumes. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 How come that didn't happen when the economy slowed and demand dropped? counter that with lower demand and a BETTER economy...sit back and watch.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 In a way CARB already did. To sell in CA they had to meet the requirements, most just sold 50 state versions anyway. Now it is national. consequence of higher population and cars per capita...inversion layers don't help... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Follow the bouncing ball: (1) California Assembly deems CO2 a pollutant. Considers CO2, and not greedy developers responsible for mudslides and wildfires that are NOW affecting people rich enough to live in the wilderness. (2) CARB acts to regulate CO2 emissions by such common sense measures as all but banning black cars and carving out gigantic loopholes for exotic cars. (3) Various people who think CARB is full of it sue, saying 'You can't regulate fuel economy, only emissions of pollutants' (4) The Supreme Court says "CO2 is a pollutant" (5) The EPA refuses to grant CARB's waiver request. (6) Nutjobs (left wing, this time) come out of the woodwork saying that the EPA is a tool of Big Oil, despite the fact that the EPA had just promulgated rules that were substantially in line with, and in some ways more fair than CARB's rules, at least up till 2015. (7) The EPA is likely now to approve draft regs that follow CARB standards up to 2020. Why? Because they understand that they cannot grant CARB a waiver to regulate fuel economy without setting dangerous precedent. So, ultimately, the US fuel economy standards are being set based on laws passed only in the state of California, and then only because of a colossal irony. If people didn't live in sprawling suburbs and feel that they should be able to live in nature and yet be immune to nature's vagaries--the wildfires, droughts, and mudslides that were used to justify the law that prompted the regulations--none of this would have happened. In short, people want to have their way with nature and then turn around and blame other people's abuse of nature when something bad happens to them. --- I mean, I'm not saying better fuel economy is bad, just decide for yourself if that whole situation is laughably absurd oh trust me rich, ANYTHING to do witth someone mandating THEIR agendas and thus involving special interest groups, lobbiests and Attourneys is nothing BUT absurd..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) Oh yeah, that's the other irony about CARB dictating national fuel economy standards. It's largest city, the second largest city in the country has the worst mass transit system in the as yet explored universe. Okay, I exaggerate, but I swear, you'd have to go to Calcutta or Mexico City to find a worse one. Edited May 19, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) Or he could buy an F-250, which will undoubtedly still be in production and selling in substantial volumes. :D Richard said that without moving his mouth you must be an interweb ventriliqusts Nick, gotta say l have seen it it all now Good old skool kool Classic F-Series let hope we get it in the UK l would buy it as well. Edited May 19, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) In fact, on a per capita basis, California may lead the universe in gallons of gas burned at idle. So, for those of you following along at home, the solution to all of life's problems is as follows: Don't change anything at all about how or where you live. Laws will be passed that will force faceless corporations to figure out how to accommodate your excess consumption. Edited May 19, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 In fact, on a per capita basis, California may lead the universe in gallons of gas burned at idle. So, for those of you following along at home, the solution to all of life's problems is as follows: Don't change anything at all about how or where you live. Laws will be passed that will force faceless corporations to figure out how to accommodate your excess consumption. funny, i saw a similar situation happen in Auckland, New Zealand.....the country opened their arms to immigrants for a small time and people came in DROVES. Consequences meant a bump in the economy, which was great on the surface, unfortunately, those people had children, brought their families and the population increased substantially. NOW, it takes HOURS to get into downtown Auckland due to the fact that is where most work and the roads cannot cope....GRIDLOCK !...hilarious.....they just were NOT prepared.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 counter that with lower demand and a BETTER economy...sit back and watch.... BETTER economy or not....lower demand will lower prices. Raising the price will only reduce demand further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 BETTER economy or not....lower demand will lower prices. Raising the price will only reduce demand further. I don't think so...people will spend $ when the economy gets better, and gas won't be as much of an issue as when things are tight, irrespective of price.....the oil companies in my mind have set a precedence when they "tested" the resiliency of the market @ 4.50 a gallon, we bit....then the economy dove and the gas companies adjusted....if they felt they COULD still get away with ludicrous pricing they would, with the state of peoples mind set right now they obviously cannot....raise consumer confidence, raise the price of gas...hell it just happened last week....and there were ZERO reasons apart from positive economic outlooks...oh, swine flu maybe...LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 One thing is for sure, the motor companies will be forced to meet specific CAFE targets each couple of years, the biggest non conformers are not Ford GM or Chrysler, it's the likes of Mercedes, BMW and others who just prefer to pay the fines and pass the costs onto their customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't think so...people will spend $ when the economy gets better, and gas won't be as much of an issue as when things are tight, irrespective of price.....the oil companies in my mind have set a precedence when they "tested" the resiliency of the market @ 4.50 a gallon, we bit....then the economy dove and the gas companies adjusted....if they felt they COULD still get away with ludicrous pricing they would, with the state of peoples mind set right now they obviously cannot....raise consumer confidence, raise the price of gas...hell it just happened last week....and there were ZERO reasons apart from positive economic outlooks...oh, swine flu maybe...LOL! IMO, it's the speculators that do that. They drive it artificially high. Take the speculation out of it and the prices will balance better between supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) IMO, it's the speculators that do that. They drive it artificially high. Take the speculation out of it and the prices will balance better between supply and demand. IMO oil speculators names and adress's should be made public.....LOL...problem solved...watch one be Boone Pickens.... Edited May 19, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 IMO oil speculators names and adress's should be made public.....LOL...problem solved...watch one be Boone Pickens.... A few lynch mobs just might do it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's all politicians playing with numbers to make themselves look better. The amount of confusion on these boards regarding the vehicle mix needed to meet the 2016 CAFE limits will tell all of you that the avarage non car follower will be totally amazed at how manufacturers met the targets with ease....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 manufacturers met the targets with ease....... Unless your name is BMW. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Unless your name is BMW. :lol: heh heh, or Porsche....or Audi.....or Benz.....hmmm?????? All german so far..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 While it's a sad and unfortunate story, but driver error is still the biggest cause of serious accidents. Should we be forced to drive HUGE vehicles because of safety fears? People don't want to be told what to drive because of MPG requirements, but being cohered into what to drive out of fear is, well, even scarier. While on the subject, I think large trucks/SUVs over 5000-6000 lbs should be held to higher driving standard and licensing requirements. If they can cause that much death and destruction their owners need special instructions on handling/braking. The Caddy that hit their Civic was an STS, which was also probably in the 5000lbs range, but probably almost as low to the ground as their car was. 3 people in the Civic didnt make it, and the Caddy driver was taken to the hospital but hes ok. (to the best of what ive read on it) The Civic driver lost control and swerved into the #2 lane on the freeway where the Caddy T-Boned him. I dont think alcohol was involved knowing the family and driver, and the fact that it was around 10AM can help support that theory. Nevertheless, the weight of the vehicles im sure played a more important role here than size alone. Im all with you in being against people mandating what types of vehicles that we must drive. This legistation seems to be taking a passive aggressive route towards that goal. This is all just my opinion though, so take that for what its worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Unless your name is BMW. :lol: I already covered that above: the biggest non conformers are not Ford GM or Chrysler, it's the likes of Mercedes, BMW and others whojust prefer to pay the fines and pass the costs onto their customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.