I Need a Big Gas Guzzler by Motte Brown on 05/21/2009 at 11:34 AM

My heart sank when President Obama announced new fuel economy standards for auto makers for models to be built between 2012-2016. And it wasn't because our government is forcing regulations on us to curb greenhouse gasses to "prevent' unproven man-caused global warming. It was because I have a family of eight.

Let me explain.

The new standards will force auto makers to build smaller cars. The auto makers complain that Americans do not want smaller cars and worry no one will buy them unless the government helps push gas prices above $4 a gallon. President Obama has said in the past that he wants to "help people make the adjustment" to $4 a gallon fuel prices.

$4 a gallon gas prices will mean my monthly fuel bill will go from $200 to $400 or more. That's $200 more a month that I can't put toward food, clothing, school supplies, health care, or housing. For a family of eight trying to live on one salary, it's substantial.

And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car? Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?

I wonder if by "help people make the adjustment" to higher fuel prices, what President Obama really means is forcing them to have smaller families.

I Need a Big Gas Guzzler by Motte Brown on 05/21/2009 at 11:34 AM

My heart sank when President Obama announced new fuel economy standards for auto makers for models to be built between 2012-2016. And it wasn't because our government is forcing regulations on us to curb greenhouse gasses to "prevent' unproven man-caused global warming. It was because I have a family of eight.

Let me explain.

The new standards will force auto makers to build smaller cars. The auto makers complain that Americans do not want smaller cars and worry no one will buy them unless the government helps push gas prices above $4 a gallon. President Obama has said in the past that he wants to "help people make the adjustment" to $4 a gallon fuel prices.

$4 a gallon gas prices will mean my monthly fuel bill will go from $200 to $400 or more. That's $200 more a month that I can't put toward food, clothing, school supplies, health care, or housing. For a family of eight trying to live on one salary, it's substantial.

And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car? Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?

I wonder if by "help people make the adjustment" to higher fuel prices, what President Obama really means is forcing them to have smaller families.

Comments

[1. Pak said the following at 11:58 AM on May 21:]

1

Maybe instead of forcing Detroit to make all of these new fuel-saving cars, the President should lead by example and replace all of those SUVs that transport his entourage wherever he goes. Maybe then he'll realize that the demands he makes are unreasonable.

[2. Texas Craig said the following at 12:07 PM on May 21:]

2

Don't worry, Motte. There will always be large vehicles available for your family. it would be a virtual legal impossibility for the government, as things currently stand, to pass laws that would not provide for vehicles sufficient to carry 8 or more people. If they cannot be made to meet government standards, then there will be exemptions created for them.

[3. kimberly said the following at 12:24 PM on May 21:]

3

Hmmm...smells like china!

[4. Andy said the following at 12:26 PM on May 21:]

4

Or maybe he is forcing auto makers to implement new technology to create vehicles that can accommodate families as large as yours and still adhere to the guidelines.

Automakers will always create what there is a demand for, Obama is just forcing them to do it in a new way that in the end will SAVE you money if you can buy a minivan that gets 36 MPG.

[5. Hannah C. said the following at 12:34 PM on May 21:]

5

If only auto companies would make station wagons again...if I recall correctly they had pretty good gas mileage. My family used to have one, but it died. My fiance used to drive one, but now his older sister has it. I would rather not have to pick between a Suburban and a minivan or van...

[6. brx said the following at 12:45 PM on May 21:]

6

Sure Motte - didn't you know there's legislation in draft to set a three child maximum for US families? But don't worry, I'm there will be a grandfather clause in there somewhere!

ha-ha-ha!

[just kidding folks... but then again, it's not totally inconceivable that in the next 30years, someone with their worship out of whack could with rational seriousness introduce such a bill]

[7. Keith said the following at 12:46 PM on May 21:]

7

My girlfriend grew up in a family with 10 siblings !! And they were poor and never had a car.

Again, why do big families "need" a car?

To have a car is a privilege, and not a right. To have a big car is a privilege and not a right.

I think all of us will be a bit healthier if we did some more walking and less driving anyway.

[8. Mark W said the following at 12:53 PM on May 21:]

8

This is an absolutely brilliant move in the middle of an economic meltdown. Further restrict automakers (an industry that domestically is already on its deathbed) in what they can and cannot make. Why? Well, obviously, the gov't knows what all of us should be driving better than we do. Increased production costs? Don't worry about them. The American auto industry is taxpayer supported now, so consumers don't have to worry about more expensive cars - they'll already be subsidizing them, and I'm sure we can expect the same level of efficiency at GM that we can always count on our gov't for. And if foreign manufacturers need to cut costs to compete, don't worry, it's not like they employ any U.S. citizens that could be hurt by the competitive advantages that a gov't owned company would have in a heavily regulated industry. Yes, the future truly is bright for American consumers and Government Motors.

[9. Adam said the following at 1:12 PM on May 21:]

9

I am torn with the announcement. I am very much an advocate of letting the free market do its thing. If gas gets expensive, the market will demand more fuel efficient vehicles. This was clearly shown last year.

On the other hand, I also believe that this country needs to be able to function independent of other countries. Right now, if Saudi Arabia stops pumping oil to us tomorrow; our gas prices will skyrocket and much of industry grinds to a halt. We are dangerously dependent on other countries for our oil.

As long as gas remains cheap, people will not see value in efficient vehicles. We saw this in the 90s with the explosion of the SUV market.

I seriously doubt family size was even considered when Obama was working on this. There are always ways of getting around the requirements. Porsche bought a majority stake in VW. Because of VWs economy lineup they will be able to make a Porsche as gas-guzzling as they see fit. I'm sure some form of that will transfer to Suburbans as well.

Also, on occasion government drives innovation. It isn't ideal, and probably not the cheapest way, but it happens. Just look at the space program.

On principle I'm against government regulation - but maybe this will help encourage some real innovation at the car companies rather than just business as normal.

[10. Mary Beth Palmer said the following at 1:14 PM on May 21:]

10

As a child from a family of 7 my heart breaks to hear decisions like this. One of my favorite childhood memories is packing in the van to go to church or on family vacations. What does this mean for a family like mine? Driving in different cars? More likely than not it means we won't be going on family vacations any more...this is another way of breaking the family down. This is something that our country does not need any help doing.

[11. brx said the following at 1:15 PM on May 21:]

11

"Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?"

Speaking as an engineer, yes, it is possible - with a combination of various trade-offs in areas such as: lighter, more costly materials; slower acceleration; reduced top speed; reduced driving range; and reduced safety factor.

Not yet being a parent myself, I was surprised to learn that knowing their loved-ones are riding with the safety of a heavy-duty 'tank-like vehicle' is a significant factor in the sales of large SUVs like Suburbans and Explorers.

Don't worry too much, Motte. We can always buy buses.

Grace, peace & adventure in compromise for the sake of loving your neighbors

[12. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 1:25 PM on May 21:]

12

This also concerns me too. We have five children, and it is also difficult for me to find a vehicle that will fit us all, be affordable, and good on gas. Our's gets 22 MPG, and my dh's car gets 36 mpg.

The gas prices hurt our family (and families like ours) in other ways...Due to the downturn in the economy, he drives 68 miles each way to work (though car pools)...there's no public transit in our area, and most of the houses in our area are up for sale, so moving is not optional either...the people who live in rural areas like ours, where jobs are moving further and further away, are the ones who are being really hurt by these idiotic policies, and the more policies like these go into practice, the more people will have their houses foreclosed. Our little town has many foreclosures, stemming from this problem in particular.

Obama and others in congress don't have a clue because none of them have ever worked for a living or held real jobs (and I refer to both republicans and democrats...same brand of ice cream just different flavors in my opinion). It must be so much easier when you can vote for your own pay raise, huh?

[13. Jarod said the following at 1:51 PM on May 21:]

13

Smaller families, that is silly! I think Obama has been hearing from Oprah and that every family should have a corporate jet instead! Plenty of room for big families there!

[14. Ted Slater said the following at 1:54 PM on May 21:]

14

It's notable that at the same time our government is forcing higher fuel efficiency in vehicles, they are also mandating fuel formulations that give us fewer miles per gallon. Real gasoline might give 21 MPG; the stuff with corn in it might give a mere 16 MPG.

[15. obewan said the following at 2:02 PM on May 21:]

15

And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car? Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?
------------------------------------
All I have to say is that we can all take a lesson from China. At least a year of two ago, I saw an article and photo on a 10-passenger van they are making that gets 30mpg.

The new fuel standards do not say that mini vans have to get 35 mpg. It is an average number. If we have enough cars getting 40 mpg, and enough hybrids at 50 mpg, then some people who need to can get by with less.

I mean, what is better - an SUV at 12mpg, or a mini-van at 24mpg?

I think the law is going to force things in the right direction in a world where the oil supply is expected to run out in 50 years or so.

And as far as safety goes, the fatality stats are worse for SUV’s than for cars. I have side air bags on my mid-sized Honda and am not worried at all. And when the law downsizes things I will be even safer. I would rather get hit by another Honda than a monster truck, and the probability is headed in MY favor – a SAFER direction.

[16. Em said the following at 2:41 PM on May 21:]

16

In response to #7: Why do big families "need" a car?
-----

Ummm...perhaps because I grew up in the country this question doesn't quite make sense to me. Big families have to get around just like small families. And unless you live in a city, you can't get from point A to point B without a car. And having a big family is easier to transport with a big car, instead of multiple vehicles. Not to mention being able to take your kids to see relatives or go on vacation - definitely more cost effective (or at least it used to be) to drive than fly or take the train.

[17. Erin said the following at 2:49 PM on May 21:]

17

Also in response to #7 (thanks #17), I grew up as the eldest of 10 children, so a "minivan" just doesn't cut it. I also grew up in the country where the nearest grocery store or ANYTHING was a 20 minute trip. Walking was not an option.

[18. Laura said the following at 2:53 PM on May 21:]

18

Guys! This is NOT a "restriction" and it's not being "forced" on those poor, poor automakers. Seriously. What is happening is this: instead of having to meet different state standards (which is expensive), the automakers will now have ONE standard for fuel efficiency and emissions. Many automakers actually expressed RELIEF at this move.

They ALREADY make vehicles (including big SUVs) that meet these standards -- now ALL their vehicles will have to meet them, not just the ones going to California.

Yeah... that's so terrible. How awful to make one consistent standard that will also help reduce emissions and protect the earth, which we are supposed to care for and steward. For reals.

[19. Mark W said the following at 2:56 PM on May 21:]

19

@Pete #12,

It's certainly not in the Bill of Rights that the gov't should make it easy for people to raise 6 kids. That's because it's not the government's job to do much of anything that doesn't involve creating, interpreting, or enforcing laws. However, it is in the Bill of Rights (see the 10th amendment in particular), and the Constitution as a whole, that the federal gov't doesn't have the authority to make these kind of arbitrary, fiat pronouncements about what private industry can and can't do.

[20. Ariana said the following at 3:12 PM on May 21:]

20

I feel bad for any family facing economic hardship for any reason. But as far as this new policy is concerned, 1) I don't think it's meant to be any type of judgment upon family size. The great majority of US families are well under 8 children. 8 children is great, but you can't make nation-wide policy based on what works for a small minority. 2) We need to reduce our oil dependence, period.

I believe that it is fully possible for the manufacturers to create fuel efficient large passenger vehicles if the proper investment is made in the research.

[21. DannieA said the following at 3:12 PM on May 21:]

21

IMHO, not everything is a conspiracy.

And from the families and people I know...it will be just fine. People with large families are often very resourceful.

It will all be ok.

[22. Dan Gill said the following at 3:15 PM on May 21:]

22

Laura (#19): Please give an example of a big SUV that meets the proposed fuel economy standard. I'm just dying to know.

There are only two emissions standards: California and the rest of the country.

Higher fuel costs hurt everyone, but hurt the poor even more than the middle class or the wealthy.

[23. Kellie said the following at 3:22 PM on May 21:]

23

I think Motte is getting ahead of himself....doesn't Jesus tell us not to worry?

Considering fuel efficency hasn't changed much in the last 20 or so years, I guess the government feels the only way to get the auto makers to get interested in this is to force them to.

[24. Denny said the following at 3:32 PM on May 21:]

24

The other interesting question is what will the government do when people use less gas and the amount of revenue from the gas tax drops. I suppose in states like California, the state will raise the gas tax to maintain revenue and we get less and have to pay more.

[25. Rachael said the following at 3:43 PM on May 21:]

25

The article about what Obama said in the past was written last year...

I don't know what gas prices will do, but they were at least better for awhile, though they be going back up...

Maybe he wants to help the adjustment if that's what ends up happening...but, maybe it won't happen in the near future?

[26. John the Aggie said the following at 3:48 PM on May 21:]

26

I am a conservative who lives in Texas. There has only been one major move that Obama has made that I agree with, and it has been the move towards better fuel economy.

The free market is a beautiful thing, but can lead to excesses. The auto industry has been focusing on improved power, with sustained fuel economy, from the beginning (the Model T Ford got 25 mpg - just with less power than our current vehicles). When I see suburban mothers driving around in 5,000 pound SUV's it makes me sick. It is completely unnecessary and socially irresponsible.

Oil will not last forever, and we squander this resource by driving powerful and unnecessarily large vehicles. For your family of 8 perhaps an SUV is a good call, but the majority of large vehicles on the road have one or two occupants in them, which is simply ridiculous. Government intervention is not the ideal solution, but it is better than allowing our nation to continue its abuse of fossil fuels.

[27. KJ said the following at 4:09 PM on May 21:]

27

To #7:

I too grew up in a large family in the country. Not having a car was not an option. The closest church that we could have considered attending was over three miles away...it's since gone downhill, so the next closest option is the one we attend, which is 13 miles away. Not to mention that my dad works 10 miles from home, and the closest Walmart is probably 30 miles away...and the closest grocery store is two miles away, so by the time one would walk home with the groceries, all the perishables would've gone bad. Not to mention it would take several trips to get enough for a family for a week.

The country: the best place (IMHO) to raise a large family, but you've gotta have a car.

[28. Frazer said the following at 4:30 PM on May 21:]

28

This is a pain! I'm a big guy at 6 foot 5 inches and about 290 lbs. I need at minimum a midsized car and even small SUVs like the Ford Escape or Toyota RAV4 are a bit to small to drive comfortably. My Mom has an economy car (Hyundai Accent) that I can hardly get into. If I had to drive one of those sized cars I'd be a risk to the public! The car is just to small for me to safely reach the brakes and gas pedals. This is why I never drive her car. (She hates having to ride my truck lol)

Of course maybe this will force the auto makers to put V6 engines back in their full size pickups. I think it was a bad idea to stop putting smaller engines in the full-size pickups. If my older truck dies I'd have to buy a big 'ol V8 to get a comparable truck.

[29. BDB said the following at 4:57 PM on May 21:]

29

Keith (#7) wrote:

>>Again, why do big families "need" a car?<<

Keith either doesn't live out West, or lives in San Francisco where he can take Bart.

[30. Giselle Aguiar said the following at 5:12 PM on May 21:]

30

Who's to say they can't come up with a vehicle that seats 8 AND gets great gas mileage? The thing is to make it affordable.

[31. anonymous said the following at 5:19 PM on May 21:]

31

Nobody "needs" a big gas guzzler, period. Get over yourselves. I will never understand the resistance to reducing our dependency on a finite supply of foreign oil. Higher fuel standards and higher gas costs are a *good* thing in the long run, because they push us to come up with better alternatives like more efficient and safer cars, public transportation, and alternative forms of fuel.

[32. Elisabeth said the following at 5:35 PM on May 21:]

32

As a member of a large family (I have 7 siblings), this is very worrisome to me. Our family's big vehicle just had a tree fall on it; we're going to be searching for a new one, 'cause taking two cars everywhere isn't practical. If automakers are no longer allowed to make big cars, then the few that remain will go up in value. I think Mr. Brown's conclusion ("I wonder if by "help people make the adjustment" to higher fuel prices, what President Obama really means is forcing them to have smaller families") may be all too accurate.

[33. BDB said the following at 5:54 PM on May 21:]

33

John the Aggie (#27) wrote:

>>When I see suburban mothers driving around in 5,000 pound SUV's it makes me sick. It is completely unnecessary and socially irresponsible.<<

I'm guessing you don't have any female friends with small children?

Driving a vehicle perceived to be safe is not a rational calculation about the expected utility, it's mom wanting to keep her kids safe no matter what hits them.

True, the average SUV accident involves the SUV loing control. But if you've ever seen an SUV vs. tiny car accident, the SUV passengers often walk away, while the pieces of the other car are checked for survivors.

A friend of mine had one of those little Smart Cars. She loved it! Until she was literally hit by a school bus up near my house. She is still recovering from her injuries months later.

[34. BDB said the following at 6:09 PM on May 21:]

34

Adam (#9) wrote:

>>If gas gets expensive, the market will demand more fuel efficient vehicles. This was clearly shown last year. <<

That wasn't the only thing that happened. There was also a huge public outcry demanding that regulatory barriers to U.S. drilling be removed. Facing he outcry, the Democratic-controlled Congress backed down and let the offshore drilling ban expire.

I guarantee that, if the administration attempts to use some sort of legislative means, such as taxes, to raise gas prices to $4 a gallon, we will quickly see a change in the makeup of Congress.

Witness the rejection yesterday of all the tax increases on the ballot in California's special election. This blue state has had it with taxes.

[35. Chris said the following at 7:34 PM on May 21:]

35

Motte writes:

The auto makers complain that Americans do not want smaller cars and worry no one will buy them unless the government helps push gas prices above $4 a gallon. President Obama has said in the past that he wants to "help people make the adjustment" to $4 a gallon fuel prices.

$4 a gallon gas prices will mean my monthly fuel bill will go from $200 to $400 or more. That's $200 more a month that I can't put toward food, clothing, school supplies, health care, or housing. For a family of eight trying to live on one salary, it's substantial.

For some time now, smart economists have said the best way to deal with the problem of oil dependency is to establish a carbon tax such that gas is very expensive (e.g., $4/gal). Money from this can be refunded via payroll tax to lessen the burden on lower income people.

By maintaining gas prices this high regardless of what the oil market does, you establish incentives to conserve energy, develop/drive more fuel efficient cars, and so forth. You then let the market do its work. We saw this last year when gas was $4 and sales of SUVs dropped while smaller car sales did better (or at least didn't drop as much).

Personally, I find the President trying to get us to transition to expensive gas to be far sighted, particularly when it comes to national security. Energy policy is an important part of national security. I'm not one of those "war for oil" types, but petroleum supply is in the national interest. As long as we are over-dependent on it, we will be overly involved in those sections of the world that have it. And it will give those people a rallying point, even if it is bogus. Plus, it puts us at the mercy of a certain group (OPEC) that engages in actions that would land them in court were it to happen in the US.

Quite frankly, I find personal concerns about gas prices to be rather selfish under these conditions.

[36. Hannah C. said the following at 8:14 PM on May 21:]

36

Keith (#7):

I'm the oldest of nine and, unlike other posters, I did not grow up in the country.

I grew up in the Dallas suburbs. In one of the suburbs which does NOT have DART - in fact, the two cities next to the one I lived in don't have DART or any kind of public transportation either, as far as I know.

So the city I grew up in, just outside of Dallas, has absolutely no public transportation. I've never walked to the closest grocery store, but it's a five to seven minute drive..and it took me thirty minutes to get a third of the distance while walking, and I walk pretty fast. So walking would NOT be an option at all to go to the grocery store, especially not with a family of eleven. The nearest Wal-Mart is about ten minutes drive away.

My family has not owned a car that can hold all of us for the past couple years, because the only one that can is a big van and we don't have the money for it. We have a minivan and a smaller car -- and almost never go anywhere as a family. If we did not have at least one car we could not survive - Dad could not get to work and we could not get food. And this is in the suburbs. Those in the country, as previous people have pointed out, are in much worse straits.

Cars ARE a necessity in most places in the United States, whether you like it or not. Corner stores don't exist where I live. And even if public transportation is available, grocery shopping on public transportation when one has to feed eleven people does not seem like a feat that could be accomplished.

Personally, I think there should be other options for cars that seat more than five people - as far as I know the only ones being made now are SUVs (gas-guzzlers), vans (big and hulking), and stretch or six-door limos. Once again, I say bring back the station wagon!

[37. Lauren T. said the following at 10:31 PM on May 21:]

37

Oh, it feels funny to be on this side of the argument...but...

The concept that "we should all just walk everywhere" is really narrow-minded and lacks a great deal of tolerance for those who may look at life differently.

Furthermore, it's an example of the majority imposing their morality on those of us who are minorities - i.e., big families who use a big vehicle in their business.

Tongue-in-cheek stuff aside, this whole situation is very troubling to me. Our van won't last forever either, and I don't like the idea of having no option for replacement. There are a lot of reasons we drive these things, folks!

It's HIGHLY unlikely these standards will result in more efficient big vehicles. For one thing, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. If you folks knew the sweat and tears that goes into shaving just one pound off the weight of these cars or how excited people are to gain just one number on the mpg rating, you'd see things differently. There's already a lot of hard work that goes into getting better gas mileage on these cars because people always want the vehicle they like with better gas mileage so they don't have to buy so much gas! Faced with an impossible task like the one our president set for them this week, the car companies will most likely simply drop their big vans rather than pour any more wasted effort into making them comply.

In my view, all this ridiculous legislating will do is sink our poor car companies even more finally than they're already being sunk.

You should see my state. We are being beat up from all the rest of the country because we had the temerity to build a product that is useful, innovative, and matching the desires of the consumers. Our cities are beginning to look like ghost towns and folks elsewhere are congratulating themselves about all the good they're doing for the environment...

[38. ptschett said the following at 10:41 PM on May 21:]

38

A few comments:

-A car's mileage for CAFE purposes is unrelated to its window sticker mileage. It's usually higher than the EPA highway mileage. I wouldn't expect the car selection in 2016 to look too different from what you can get from, say, Honda right now.

-I can't prove it for the 2016 standard, but heavy-duty vehicles with gross weight ratings above 8600 lbs (i.e. 3/4 ton and bigger pickups, SUV's, vans) have historically been exempt from CAFE. To seat more than 7 you usually need a vehicle in that class anyway.

-There's still room to improve the internal combustion engine. Fiat Powertrain recently unveiled a system called Multi-Air which looks to have some promise.

[39. BDB said the following at 10:50 PM on May 21:]

39

The more expensive we make new cars, the more difficult it is for the poor to afford the newer, cleaner cars. So they're stuck with their old, polluting cars.

Here's a good WSJ article on the other pollution costs that come from these ineffective CAFE standards.

[40. BDB said the following at 11:03 PM on May 21:]

40

Incidently, my Honda is classified as a Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle but because of the way I drive (ahem) I seem to get less than 20 mpg.

There is a little "ECO" light that blinks on and off. I finally came to understand that it's designed to re-train the driver to drive more economically. This can result in a 30% saving in fuel consumption. Oh. I guess the hybrid crowd has been all atwitter about how they can achieve amazing mileage by driving more carefully.

If those driving skills were learned across the driving landscape, we could easily save far more gasoline than any mandates could ever deliver.

[41. Samantha said the following at 12:52 AM on May 22:]

41

Should Christians be seperating themseleves on issues like this?

[42. Heidi said the following at 2:21 AM on May 22:]

42

In response to the comment about walking everywhere being healthier...walking down a busy street you inhale a large amount of exhaust fumes known to cause health problems. Ironically, as long as you're getting enough exercise eslewhere, riding in a care is clearly healthier with far less exposure to the fumes.

My family still uses bikes and walking a lot, where walking a mile to the library and back or bike riding 3 miles to the store and back for groceries is not considered strange (even my 9 year old little sister would make the trip on her own bike). But we still need a car.

For my part, I prefer they'd come up with an affordable and effective electric solution so that I could use the sidewalks without choking on chemicals. Forget the environment--I like my lungs!

I have a hard time thinking they would stop makiing larger cars; those companies will bend over backwards to meet demand almost no matter what obstacles stand in their way.

[43. S said the following at 4:08 AM on May 22:]

43

Seriously? Out of all the angles to take a story on cars, you go with "small cars discriminate against large families"? This is a serious issue, especially for those who have ties to the auto industry. This isn't a topic for conspiracy theory.

[44. Tiff said the following at 6:17 AM on May 22:]

44

Comment #11, your sign-off is right on! Are we willing to compromise our comfort for the sake of loving our neighbors?

Higher fuel efficiency standards are better for the environment and national security. But we get all twisted around that it might mean making sacrifices to our comfortable lifestyles (and yes, if you live in the United States and are reading this on a personal computer, your life is comfortable.)

[45. obewan said the following at 6:34 AM on May 22:]

45

#40. BDB had the following to say on May 21 at 10:50 PM:

"The more expensive we make new cars, the more difficult it is for the poor to afford the newer, cleaner cars. So they're stuck with their old, polluting cars."
--------------------------------------
But the automakers are saying that the average cost will only increase by about $1800. The thing to remember is that the consumers are expected to get back 2-3 times that amount in fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.

[46. Adam said the following at 7:55 AM on May 22:]

46

One possibility is that we will just adjust the power/performance curve a bit.

In 1992, you could buy a Geo Metro that got 55 mpg. I drive a '96 Toyota Tercel that gets around 37 mpg consistently. For the past week, I've been driving a Toyota Rav4 that got about 27 mpg. If they reduced the power that the Tercel or the Rav4 produced, they could increase the mpg substantially.

We have gotten used to being able to accelerate uphill on a mountain pass. The cars I had growing up were great for daily use, but it you tried going up a steep hill, you would slowly lose speed. Even then, you could pretty much always maintain 50 mph.

Perhaps it isn't as much about Obama forcing $4 gas on us. Motte, last year's $4+ gas was under a Republican president. Perhaps Obama is just saying that while we may not be able to control the gas prices, we can do something to help families like yours get more bang for your buck when you fill the tank.

IMO, the best solution would be to relax standards. That way a greater range of vehicles could easily be introduced into the US market. The smart car was available in Europe for years before it was able to be brought over here. I saw several being driven up in Canada before we could even buy one in the US.

Perhaps then we would see efficient, affordable vehicles for large families - instead of just ones like the Chevy Suburban - $37,000 5.3L V8 engine that gets 14mpg.

[47. obewan said the following at 8:08 AM on May 22:]

47

#15. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 21 at 1:54 PM:

"It's notable that at the same time our government is forcing higher fuel efficiency in vehicles, they are also mandating fuel formulations that give us fewer miles per gallon. Real gasoline might give 21 MPG; the stuff with corn in it might give a mere 16 MPG."
---------------------------------
While I hate to see the use of ethanol, your argument concerns probably do not apply to this discussion. I think the gov’t CAFE standards at 35 mpg will probably be based upon 100% petroleum and not ethanol, or they would have a different scale for ethanol. Our engineers are smart enough to know that much, and oil is the resource they are intending to save anyway, so that is the fuel they will probably base the tests on.

[48. Joyce said the following at 9:24 AM on May 22:]

48

It seems that you all live in a different world than I do. My family is fortunate to have cars. But because of high gas prices, sometimes we would rather use public transportation than drive. Cars are still a luxury in my country so anything that has better fuel economy is a big plus.

[49. Ariana said the following at 10:19 AM on May 22:]

49

It seems an underlying idea behind criticism of the new policy is that Americans should be able to live how they please, and if the government doesn't make it easy or possible for us to do so, it is wrong. That mentality is part and parcel of the reason we're in this predicament in the first place--Americans and American businesses refusing to have sustainable lifestyles.

We cannot have all things all ways. What about suburbanization? If people moved back into the cities, such extensive use of cars would be much less necessary. There will of course be reasons that people don't want to do that, either.

There will always be sacrifices that have to be made somewhere, by someone. To suggest otherwise seems a bit selfish.

[50. obewan said the following at 10:45 AM on May 22:]

50

#49. Joyce had the following to say on May 22 at 9:24 AM:

"It seems that you all live in a different world than I do. My family is fortunate to have cars. But because of high gas prices, sometimes we would rather use public transportation than drive. Cars are still a luxury in my country so anything that has better fuel economy is a big plus."
------------------------------------
I have to say a big hearty AMEN to that! I have been to Europe and seen the village networks all interlinked by an efficient rail system.

In America, there was a time where we did try to develop a rail system - then we grew to worship the car, and paved over all the tracks.

When the oil is gone, and the stuff really hits the fan, we will have only ourselves to blame.

We built up huge suburbs miles away from work, only to create urban squalor and enormous traffic jams. There is a better way to live, and many people are now choosing it by locating closer to work or public transportation. It was a big factor in my housing choice. I am only 3 miles from work and can bike in about 15 mins.

Just Google "Death of Suburbia" to see what is going to happen with this. There is even a major documentary movie called “The End of Suburbia” that has been made...When the diesel is gone, the remote grocery stores will be barren...But, many Christians simply say they don't care because the rapture will take them away before they starve...
www.endofsuburbia.com/

[51. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:14 AM on May 22:]

51

Motte,

While I understand you situation, I tend to agree with those that say that better planning was/is needed.

I have said in the past that for the most part I have no sympathy for those who complain about high gas prices and drive an SUV. That applies to you too I'm afraid.

No one forced you to buy that Suburban. Now, you might say that you had "no other choice" but that's not true. Perhaps a used station wagon (go to www.fueleconomy.gov and do an Advanced Search. I found a number of station wagons with decent gas milage), or simply using two cars less frequently to truck the family around.

Since we've all experienced $4/gallon gasoline, you should've been aware that the price might come there again one day. And that means not buying the big gas guzzling SUV.

I appreciate the sacrifices you've already made to expand your family, but you might have to make further ones in the future. It's all about what standard of living you want to maintain.

[52. Motte Brown said the following at 11:33 AM on May 22:]

52

Mike Theemling (and others judging me about what kind of car I drive):

You really have no idea what goes into choosing a car to seat 2 adults, 4 kids, and 2 infants.

We spent months researching the appropriate automobile based on storage space in the back for a double stroller, groceries, as well as other odds and ends that need transporting. Additionally, there's the width of the car to consider to fit three car seats and two boosters; there's ease of access to rear that three children under 7 can negotiate without too much trouble; the safety of the latch system and shoulder seat belts; and then you weigh all that with what we could afford with the cost of raising 8 kids.

There's actually more to consider. But you get the idea with accessibity, comfort (meaning seat width), storage, mileage, price, and yes, fuel economy.

My wife is carting around those kids by herself all day long running errands, shopping, etc. She needs (yes, I said needs) a big gas guzzler. I say that with a clear conscience because it's not like we enjoy getting only 15 miles per gallon. It was the best we could do for the money we had.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[53. brx said the following at 11:41 AM on May 22:]

53

Re: ptschett [#39],

Thanks for that news on Fiat Powertrain's Multi-Air - a continuously variable valve implementation. A mechanically efficient and reliable design for that has been one of the 'holy grails' of internal combustion engine design for the last 20 years. I'd kind of stopped following the development 12 years ago when I got into the embedded computer industry.

But, I wish I'd caught wind of Fiat's announcement 3 months ago and bought stock! Of course, it does seem like kind of a 'duh' obvious solution after the know-how advances made with common-rail injection.

Those interested can check the link below and click 'start movie' on the lower right for a brief explanation; the press release is a longer development history.

http://www.fptmultiair.com/flash_multiair_eng/home.htm

All things are possible with God!

[54. farmer Tom said the following at 12:07 PM on May 22:]

54

I do not have time to write a long diatribe about some of the comments on this thread, but I can say without any reservation, that most of you are in fact practical socialists. You have accepted as normal and natural the concept that the state (government) knows better than the individual what is best for society. You believe that central planning, top down organization and "progress" enforced by the gun are superior to personal freedom and responsibility.

And I'm ashamed of you all.

What has become of our Biblical foundations. Of individual soul liberty and self determination.

Most of you are vassals of the state, obediently mouthing the platitudes of the materialist, godless statists, willy to drive whatever they deem expedient, live in their cities, make yourself totally dependent on the "authorities" for your food, water, utilities, transportation, healthcare, family size, education, and most of you will let them tell you what and who you should worship, (Mother Gaia).

I want to live by a different standard.

"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

"Give me liberty or give me death."

I'll make my own choices about what to drive, where to live, how many children to have, whether of not to send my children to the government indoctrination centers, etc.

I am not a slave or servant of the state.

I am a servant of Jesus Christ.

Too many of you claim the name of Jesus Christ, and actually worship the state.

[55. obewan said the following at 12:13 PM on May 22:]

55

Motte: It is not that we disagree with your "need" to own an SUV. It is that you seem to not see OTHERS need to NOT own one, and want to use a bully pulpit to attack something that may bring a lot of good.

There are countless SINGLE women at my church who are currently driving or want to drive a monster truck ALONE long distances from the suburbs to work. Their poor stewardship for sure does not make me want to consider them "wife" material. The only reason they did it is because it was the “in” thing to do and “everyone” was doing it.

It is that kind of "entitlement" mentality that I hope the new law puts an end to.

For all I care, you could drive a school bus and have 30 kids. You are also the exception and not the rule.

Your type of argument could apply to a lot of conservative issues. I mean, if you want “compassion” for those "conservatives" who "need" a gas hog, then where is the “compassion” for the "liberal" who is homeless because they got sick and lost their health insurance? (Which is a bigger problem than the “right” to drive a gas hog.) Life sometimes does bring its unique stresses, and we are then forced to live with them.

You are setting up a straw man. Even with the new CAFE there will still be SUV's. By the time the law takes effect some of your kids might be grown anyway, or will be driving their own cars. And in a few years, your kids will be in school and not riding around town with your wife all day.

I suppose it might be hard to get the family to church though, but I know lots of families that drive 2 cars to church. My own sister and brother in law do it all the time because she is the organist and is on a different schedule.

We all need to realize that our own unique choices will sometimes force us to make some personal sacrifices in life. And, two cars at 30 mpg equal one SUV at 15 mpg. And, if the two cars get 35 mpg there is a net savings vs. the one SUV. And, what about the guy that as a family of 12? There is no end to the argument if your logic is applied…

[56. Chris said the following at 12:17 PM on May 22:]

56

Motte writes:

and then you weigh all that with what we could afford with the cost of raising 8 kids.

Just for clarification purposes, was the Suburban used or new?

[57. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:29 PM on May 22:]

57

Motte,

My apologies if you were offended. I was not judging you per se on your vehicle selection. I was just simply surprised that you are complaining about a policy that is years away and isn't even certain to happen. Even if Obama's plan isn't implemented or doesn't result in "no big vehicles being made" (which I doubt will happen), the return of $4/gal gasoline is something that will occur occur sooner or later (more likely sooner).

The reason why I have often said that I have "no sympathy" towards those that buy SUVs and complain about high gas prices is because to them it often sounds like some grave injustice has just happened when I often just attribute it to poor planning (e.g. people assuming fuel prices would stay at a constant).

It sounds like you planned quite well based upon your assessment of your requirements and budget. If you are comfortable with your decision, then what is there to really to complain about? A policy that might not even occur or have the impact as expected? $4/gal gasoline which might still occur anyway? Do you understand where I'm coming from?

I still believe that there are alternatives out there. For example having a friend watch some of the kids at home while your wife goes on errands. Of course, it's your preroggative on how your family operates. But I still reject the "no other choice" argument.

"And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car?"

Well hopefully, by the time your Suburban gives out you won't need the space for the car seats and boosters anymore since the kids will be older. You'll just need the space for passengers and the occassional cargo. By that time, I'll sure that there will still be minivans or vehicles which seat 8 passengers around.

[58. Jonathon said the following at 12:37 PM on May 22:]

58

Farmer Tom #55,

Hate to pick a fight - but - you know that Christianity and Capitalism, Christianity and America, are not the same thing?

"I want to live by a different standard.

"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

"Give me liberty or give me death." "

That is an odd juxtaposition of a quote from the Bible with a quote from one of America's Founding Fathers... I get the feeling you equate "America" with "God's chosen people"...

"I'll make my own choices about what to drive, where to live, how many children to have, whether of not to send my children to the government indoctrination centers, etc.

I am not a slave or servant of the state.

I am a servant of Jesus Christ.

Too many of you claim the name of Jesus Christ, and actually worship the state. "

C'mon, this is ridiculous. Christianity is not a political belief system

[59. Tami said the following at 12:38 PM on May 22:]

59

I admit, I don't like SUVs. Especially when I'm driving behind them. Or trying to PARK next to them in the Compact area. :P And I really don't like seeing so many of them on the road, especially when there's only one person in there, and there's no cargo.

But... I think there are situations where they really *are* more practical, and having a big family like Motte's is one of them. [The others being when they are actually used for the "S" (Sports) or "U" (Utility)... not going on a run to Starbucks.] I remember "back in the day," before SUVs were the rage, that I knew a couple families who had Suburbans, and they were the ones with at least 3 kids.

In a *certain* sense, they are more efficient, in that they can carry a lot of people to one place in one vehicle.

Maybe someone will come up with a way to re-engineer these trucks so they run more efficiently.

Cuba keeps popping into my mind. You see all those cool old cars there -- but it's not because people necessarily love driving old cars. It's basically because they didn't have a choice but to keep up what they had. And I don't necessarily think that's *always* a bad thing -- we could stand to do *more* of that in the US -- but the reason behind what happened in Cuba is not great.

The problem is, the government can't legislate human behavior. A blanket law hurts folks with legitimate concerns (like Motte), and it won't stop those who were already go to whatever length to fulfill their desires.

[60. obewan said the following at 12:41 PM on May 22:]

60

#55. farmer Tom had the following to say on May 22 at 12:07 PM:

"I do not have time to write a long diatribe about some of the comments on this thread, but I can say without any reservation, that most of you are in fact practical socialists."
-----------------------------
You are WRONG farmer Tom. I am a libertarian, and I voted for Chuck Baldwin, AND I like the proposed CAFÉ standard.

The reason I voted for the Constitution Party was because it was the only way for me to vote against Middle East wars and still vote pro life.

I think you must admit that part of the platform of the Constitution Party is to disinvolve the U.S. from its Middle East oil addiction, and the oil wars to come.

A sensible attitude about conservation of oil also a step in the right direction.

Then too, austerity is a sign of Christian virtue - not "socialism”.

[61. brx said the following at 12:47 PM on May 22:]

61

farmer tom [#55]

Too many of you claim the name of Jesus Christ, and actually worship the state.

Or is is that too many of us claim the name of Jesus Christ and forget that God did not design us to function wholly independently of each other? Is it that too many of us that claim the name of Jesus Christ forget the subtleties of what it means to live with, work with, and love our neighbors? Is it that too many of us who claim the name of Jesus Christ have forgotten how the Bible's teachings apply to our healthy functioning in a democratic republic?

[62. Motte Brown said the following at 12:57 PM on May 22:]

62

Mike Theemling:

Thanks for the clarification. And please forgive my haughty "you have no idea" language.

obewan:

Your assumptions do not add up in the real world.

First of all, we sold our 7 passenger 2005 Toyota Sienna to buy the 8 passenger 2004 Suburban. The Sienna got 19 mpg in the city (only 4 more mpg than the Suburban). Our other car, a 1998 Suburu Legacy, get's 21 mpg in the city.

We actually thought about keeping the Sienna (because we loved it) and taking two cars when the whole family needed to go to church (or anywhere together). But that thought lasted about 2 seconds. It's simply not practical to not have a car that can transport the entire family at once.

Here's one example: We're planning a family trip later this summer. Would you have us take two cars, spend almost twice as much on fuel, and have two exhausted parents because we each drove 12 hours? Not to mentiont he fact that we wouldn't have another adult to take care of the babies while the other drives.

Tell you what, you make your sacrifices for your priorities, be they greenhouse gasses or whatever. Just please don't lecture me on the sacrifices I should be making.

[63. BDB said the following at 1:10 PM on May 22:]

63

obewan (#46) wrote:

>>But the automakers are saying that the average cost will only increase by about $1800. The thing to remember is that the consumers are expected to get back 2-3 times that amount in fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.<<

For someone with a professional paycheck, it's not a big deal.

For a struggling construction worker or pre-school teacher, that $1800 is an impassible barrier.

The unfortunate reality is that many improvements in environmental impact come at the expense of the poor. I think of the Asarco smelter that was in Tacoma Washington. This created the "Aroma of Tacoma," an unpleasant smell from the smokestacks.

It's all gone now. The air is much better. The poor neighborhood that was below the smokestacks is experiencing a revitalization.

And all the jobs are in Mexico, with the smelter that was moved.

[64. BDB said the following at 1:33 PM on May 22:]

64

Mike (#58) wrote:

>> For example having a friend watch some of the kids at home while your wife goes on errands.<<

You mean hire a nanny?

It's true that single people can get by with a little car. I spent more than a decade with little cars. They were even fun to drive - even the 85 hp Saturn, which got GREAT gas mileage.

Of course, I with those little cars, I couldn't do grown-up things like drive my co-workers to lunch, because they wouldn't fit. I had one incident where I offered to drive, and the other three guys were over 6 feet tall. It was comical fitting them into a Saturn SC.

There was also a work situation at a conference when I could have been the designated driver for everyone else- but my tiny car wasn't practical to haul people around.

Part of the solution is having a fleet of vehicles:

1 - Small, efficient car for commuting alone.

1 - Mid-sized family car with things like anti-lock brakes and traction control for hauling the family in bad weather

1 - large vehicle with 4x4 for safely transporting the family in snow, to the mountains, camping, etc.

You can of course rent the big vehicle for a few hundred dollars when you really need it. For one business trip, four of us carpooled on the 4-hour drive in a rented SUV. Hauled eveyone's stuff, including golf clubs.

Those who are against suburbs apparently haven't been a crime victim in the city yet. Cities are awful places to live. Suburbs exist precisely because they are ideal environments for raising children. It's also price-driven: you can get far more space in the suburbs than you can in the city at the same price.

It's not just the U.S. by the way. I've read about how suburbs also grow up in places like the U.K. - at the end of the train line.

[65. obewan said the following at 1:47 PM on May 22:]

65

Motte Writes"

"obewan:

Your assumptions do not add up in the real world."
-------------------------------------
My apologies. However, you need to realize that I was not talking about your past situation. I was talking about a hypothetical future scenario. And, yes it even works with my current Honda Civic. Two Civics for 8 passengers at 34 mpg is a net savings vs. 1 SUV at 15 mpg. On cost too since they could be had for about $28-30K vs. $35K-$40K for a SUV. I am NOT trying to force that scenario on you, just trying to get you to realize there ARE people that it WOULD work for.

And again, what about the family with 12 kids? They would be forced to make a sacrifice on a family vacation, unless we market an even bigger vehicle for their "special" need.

Have a safe vacation, and enjoy being all together with my best wishes.

[66. obewan said the following at 2:10 PM on May 22:]

66

P.S.
Motte Wrote:
"Tell you what, you make your sacrifices for your priorities, be they greenhouse gasses or whatever."
----------------------------------
Gee, that for sure says you know nothing about me. But I suppose it makes sense since Ted has been the one to deal with most of my posts on this subject.

I have made my sacrice and ALREADY paid my dues on this one. I put tens of thousands dollars of my hard earned money into liquid coal investments - to help provide fuel for all those wasteful SUV's. Because the liquid coal refining process is not global warming friendly, my investments that were once worth $40 a share are today trading at $3.82. (Due to cancelled projects)

I STILL support some of the global warming concerns because I see the silver lining in the clouds being a reduced concern about running out of fuels so soon.

In this case, I was willing to put my money where my mouth is. If liquid coal will help put food on the table, so be it, or if increased conservation will do it, then that works too. The bottom line is that God is in control, and a win win would be BOTH conservation AND liquid coal.

And, if we had the liquid coal there would be plenty of fuel for all those families that "need" SUV's.

[67. John the Aggie said the following at 5:05 PM on May 22:]

67

Regarding the safety of an SUV and young children: luxury vehicles are known for having incredible crash safety. Instead of a $40,000 gas-hogging SUV, you could get a $40,000 BMW or Lexus and be arguably at the same safety level.

If everyone took the logic of "buy bigger so I win in a crash," the escalation would become ridiculous. People would buy hummers to beat SUV's, then monster trucks... and you see my point. The argument of buying bigger to crush the other people in case of a wreck does not stand up to scrutiny.

[68. Motte Brown said the following at 5:31 PM on May 22:]

68

obewan:

Again, real world talking here. We scrimp and save to buy our USED cars outright. We do not have (nor do I foresee us ever having) 40-60k in our bank account for two Honda Civics to satisfy *your* personal idea of what kind of sacrifices we should make to save the environment. And if we did, it would probably mean that we could afford $4 a gallon fuel no matter what BIG CAR we choose to drive. I would never invest in *your* idea of what I should drive because I don't believe in the unproven, man-made global warming hysteria.

Further, I simply do not believe, or think you can prove, that there "ARE people" with 6+ children who would buy two small cars instead of having one big one if they could afford it. Is my wife supposed to have our oldest child who's 9 get behind the wheel of a second Civic to go to the grocery store or to take her to piano or to do the million other things she does during the day while I'm at work?

An SUV isn't "wasteful" for a large family, it's necessary.

[69. brx said the following at 5:58 PM on May 22:]

69

Re: Jonathan [#59]

Christianity is not a political belief system

We could rephrase that as: Christianity is not a social management policy system.

Well, if not, then it's darn close! Christianity is the belief in and following of the teachings of Jesus as the Christ. Jesus upheld all of the Father's policies for social management as found in the Bible - and He pointed deeper that they're meant as policies to govern even the hearts of people.

Sounds like a political belief system to me...

[70. Texas Craig said the following at 7:36 PM on May 22:]

70

I still say "much ado about nothing" because there will always be vehicles available to transport families of 8, 10, or 12 (higher than that and you better be buying yourself a "Partridge Family" bus!). So, I think any concerns in this area are entirely unfounded. But, I guess time will tell. ;-)

[71. BDB said the following at 8:13 PM on May 22:]

71

John (#67) wrote:

>>The argument of buying bigger to crush the other people in case of a wreck does not stand up to scrutiny.<<

It's not even necessary to hit another car for safety to be valuable.

And yes, luxury cards USED to be quite sturdy. My dad had an old, old, old (paid for) Mercedes 220. Completely underpowered, but built like a tank. Back when they used STEEL in cars, before the CAFE standards.

Here's an article about a modern Mercedes in my hometown was sliced in half by two other CARS. You can see the front half of the car here.

Now, I'll admit that my preferences are impacted by my experiences. I witnessed an accident one day - I was the first car stopped at a stoplight when a small, fuel-efficient Honda CVCC collided with a Volvo that was turning left.

The force of the collision spun the Honda around. It missed my (little) Saturn by a couple of feet, and slammed into the motorcyle next to me, knocking the rider to the curb.

I literally got out of my car and went to check on the Honda driver, who was badly injured. The Volvo guy had a cut hand. He got out of his car somewhat dazed and said, "Wow - those airbags deploy fast."

To let traffic continue, I had to move parts of the Volvo (such as the bumper that came to rest up against my front tires) in order for the Ambulance to get there.

But even if everyone rode mopeds, it would still be quite dangerous. We came upon several fatal accidents in Cambodia, where almost everyone is on mopeds instead of cars. Hit a fixed object on a moped and you're in a world of hurt.

Speaking of hurt, the idea of taking two cars to haul the family around presumes there are two drivers. Last week my father broke his leg in a volunteering accident. While we expect a full recovery, he was definitely not able to drive himself home. When I think of all the families enduring breast cancer or any other chronic illness, you could easily have a situation where only one parent is available to drive.

If you can afford a nanny to drive the other car, great. But that's not really a viable situation in an emergency, or in the case of a serious medical condition.

[72. Nathan said the following at 8:52 PM on May 22:]

72

For me personally, I am concerned about the law of supply and demand.

If the government forces gas above $4, it might suceed in its motivation to increase mpg on new cars. That means that the demand for gas might decrease some. Last I checked, the US cannot even get close to producing enough gas (offshore, Alaska, etc) to meet the US need.

If demand decreases, what is going to keep OPEC from simplying decreasing supply to keep profits steady? If OPEC decreases supply, gas prices will increase even more over what was caused by the government regulatory controls.

Am I wrong? Anytime that you start to regulate a free market, there can be far reaching consequences. It is not a simple matter where you change one input out of a desire to change one output. The market is seriously more complicated than that.

[73. BDB said the following at 10:13 PM on May 22:]

73

Nathan, you are exactly right - mere regulatory changes will not create soley positive results - they will result in winners and losers. This is why China and India continue to insist that all the "climate-change" pain needs to be taken by developed nations - so they can continue to grow.

They actually said the U.S. and other developed economies should give up 1% of their GDP or so to offset climate change so they wouldn't have to stop their rapid economic development. Article is here.

[74. Mark W said the following at 11:09 PM on May 22:]

74

@obewan 60,

"You are WRONG farmer Tom. I am a libertarian, and I voted for Chuck Baldwin, AND I like the proposed CAFÉ standard."

I'm sorry, but if you are in favor of federal regulation of private industry, you are neither a libertarian nor a Constitutionalist. Coincidental agreement on two policy issues does not mean that your philosophy or rationale behind those points of agreement lines up with the philosophy of liberty.

The platform of the Constitution party is about disinvolving the U.S. from all foreign adventurism because it is not Constitutionally authorized or morally right. The fact that non-interventionism will make us more secure, prosperous, internationally well liked, and most likely have a favorable effect on the price of oil is a happy coincidence, but the effects of non-interventionism should not be confused with the philosophical reasons for it.

If your political philosophy is to do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired ends, then you're no different from those who advocate Middle Eastern interventionism other than that you disagree on which side of the issue is ultimately more beneficial. As farmer Tom said, you're a functional socialist/fascist who believes that the state should do whatever it deems necessary for "the common good."

@brx,

You obviously seem to think that the gov't should forcibly enact the principles of the Sermon on the Mount upon its citizens. What about its citizens who don't believe in these principles? What about the separation of Church and State? I'm not saying that gov't shouldn't take some of its cues from religion when trying to draft its laws (because in a Natural Law sense, I do), but does the gov't have the right to force everyone to live according to a certain belief system?

Also, please tell me from where the U.S. federal government derives the authority to interfere with private business.

@Nathan 72,

You raise an excellent point! No matter what our gov't does, OPEC ultimately has far more control over the price of oil than any taxation plan ever could. Our government might mean to pressure us, and then as a result, OPEC could strangle us. Don't forget the law of unintended consequences... (Or the stupidity of politicians!)

[75. Leah said the following at 12:05 AM on May 23:]

75

Hannah C... plenty of manufacturers still make station wagons. But I've never seen a station wagon that would fit 8 people. These days they only fit 5, although when I was a kid it was common to get them with a bench seat in the front, meaning they could then fit 6. When my parents needed to buy a new car about 7 years ago (6 people in the family) they searched high and low. Dad didn't want a minivan because they generally have pathetic engines and rubbish towing capacity, and we frequently took caravan holidays. He didn't want a 4WD (SUV) either (probably because of fuel inefficiency, among other things). He wanted a station wagon, like we'd always had. They generally have good engines, plenty of luggage space (a must-have for a family of 6 that often travels), etc.

Trouble was, the industry had stopped making station wagons with the bench seat in the front. He ended up buying a second-hand ex-fleet station wagon from our state's capital city (1000 miles away), so it was still good condition and was only 2 years old. None of the second-hand places in our city had them.

(Btw they took out a loan for it but had no troubles paying it back).

BDB (comment 64)... you're not seriously suggesting families have a fleet of 3 cars??

obewan... big families these days have little choice other than SUVs (or Four Wheel Drives [4WD], as us Aussies call them). The industry no longer makes 6-seater station wagons, as I previously mentioned. Minivans are often more dangerous than 4WDs (a much smaller crunch-area in the front) and have far less luggage space (which, as I also said earlier, is a must-have for large families which frequently travel) and usually have rubbish towing capacity (which bigger families often need). Two cars would probably be less fuel efficient than one "gas-guzzler". Not to mention families often don't have the option of two drivers. How does Mum take 6 kids below the age of 10 to school, sports, music lessons etc when Dad's at work?

[76. Leah said the following at 12:08 AM on May 23:]

76

Mike Theemling - I've never seen a station wagon that seats 8 people.

[77. Leah said the following at 12:13 AM on May 23:]

77

obewan (50) - Rail is not as efficient for America and Australia and similar countries, because we have such large distances to travel. In Europe, a twenty minute train ride can put you into the next country, city, village, etc. In Australia (and I'm sure the US) there are many places where it would take a minimum of 6 hours in a train to reach another city. Our train systems in our capital cities are great, but outside of those, rail really isn't a viable option most of the time.

[78. obewan said the following at 2:08 AM on May 23:]

78

Motte Wrote:
"I would never invest in *your* idea of what I should drive because I don't believe in the unproven, man-made global warming hysteria."
------------------------------------
You are putting words in my mouth that have never been there. I never said I am worried about "global warming." I am worried about the projected depletion of the world oil supply within the next 50 years or so.

And as I said before, I have no concern about what YOU drive

[79. Anthony said the following at 11:36 AM on May 23:]

79

Re 77 / Leah:

Yes, the U.S. is spread out. Yet I don't see that as such an issue for rail-based transportation. Trains go about as fast (if not faster) than cars and are more efficient. How on earth is this not a viable option? If our rail systems were expanded, we could have more trains on the tracks going in more directions. I surmise that a huge part of the population would opt for public transit (i.e. cross country trains) if it was easier, more rewarding, and cheaper.

[80. Hannah C. said the following at 1:19 PM on May 23:]

80

When I said station wagon, I was referring to the ones that sat seven or eight - bench seats in front and middle, and the extra seat in the back which usually seats two. As far as I know they don't make any like that anymore - my family was looking for a new car, and could only find such cars used.

Another problem for large families with small children - boosters take up SO MUCH ROOM in cars, and so do carseats. Cars aren't built for them anymore...and now boosters are being required in some places when they may be useful but really aren't absolutely necessary...Then again that is safety worries so it makes more sense.

My family has never owned a new car; we've never had the money, and I'm positive we're far from the only people in this same position. Thankfully Texas law has exemptions from emissions for old cars otherwise my family would have been out of a vehicle at one point.

There is a Texas program where you can trade in an old car and get $3000, I believe, but that doesn't go very far towards a new car...

[81. BDB said the following at 2:58 PM on May 23:]

81

Leah (#75) wrote:

>>BDB (comment 64)... you're not seriously suggesting families have a fleet of 3 cars??<<

Well, I'm saying that from an operational perspective, that's the best mix. I only have one. The middle one, the family-car with traction control. I do have a family member with several vehicles - they like to restore classic cars as a hobby.

Part of my feeling relates to being trapped at home in the snow. Not a problem here in Southern California. But just last Christmas, we were pretty much all stuck at home because of snow. It disrupted all our family plans because each family had only one vehicle that could safely operate in snow - my dad has one 4x4 truck and my stepfather another truck they're comfortable driving in the snow with weight in the back. It was VERY uncomfortable stuck in the back of these vehicles with my luggage over Christmas.

If there were kids in car seats, it wouldn't have worked at all.

Of course, I don't know anyone who would buy all three new. One family with this vehicle mix had a large SUV (1991) when their kids were younger, and they just kept it after it was paid off, and got another new small car. The big one sits most of the time.

Snow-capable vehicles are all expensive to operate. But I was also reminded of their value when riding in a Nissan Altima with someone who was from the South, and it snowed while I was visiting. I felt so bad - she hates driving in the snow. Sliding all over the road. But, nevertheless, an example of what happens if you don't have a vehicle at home that can get out in the snow: you still have to go out or leave people stranded.

I slid off the road once in my dad's car - while driving a car full of people. A guy in a jeep happened by and pulled us right out within a couple of minutes. Embarassing for me, the driver. But a great example of why vehicle type matters in snowy weather.

But you don't need a 4x4 during sunny, dry weather. A little Honda Civic or Saturn might even be fun to drive in those conditions.

I can't think of any Biblical justification for a convertible...

[82. brx said the following at 3:50 PM on May 23:]

82

Re: MarkW [#74];

You wrote that I "obviously seem to think that the gov't should forcibly enact the principles of the Sermon on the Mount upon its citizens."

No, that's not an obvious conclusion; I think you are being silly and argumentative. I said Jesus upheld and taught the Father's principles for a society's well-being. Jesus pointed out that laws enforced by men can only go so far in getting people to do right; it's men's hearts that must submit to God's principles and only they can let their heart submit.

"What about its citizens who don't believe in these principles?"

What about them? - You don't have to believe in a principle in order to obey it. Remember the 10 Commandments? Truth is truth, regardless of what one believes, silly. Foreigners were welcome to dwell in Israel - so long as they kept the Father's decrees.

"What about the separation of Church and State?"

What about it? Do you know what that principle in the US Constitution is? It simply says that no law shall be made that _unfairly_ gives material favor to a particular religious denomination over another. Evidence strongly suggests that the writers of the US Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution documents had accepted the existence of a Creator God as a fundamental axiom. And further, that understanding the character of that God is fundamental to the wise governance of a nation.

And, just like Israel, we sinful people get caught up in trying to meet the letter of the law while our hearts are selfishly far from its principles. Our bodies can be made to submit to the law but our hearts must be given to God's principles willingly.

Grace, peace & adventure in reconciling the differences

[83. brx said the following at 3:53 PM on May 23:]

83

Re: MarkW [#74];

I think I was slightly antagonistic in my response just now. Sorry about that, MarkW.

[84. obewan said the following at 7:44 PM on May 23:]

84

#74. Mark W had the following to say on May 22 at 11:09 PM:

@obewan 60,

"You are WRONG farmer Tom. I am a libertarian, and I voted for Chuck Baldwin, AND I like the proposed CAFÉ standard."

I'm sorry, but if you are in favor of federal regulation of private industry, you are neither a libertarian nor a Constitutionalist. Coincidental agreement on two policy issues does not mean that your philosophy or rationale behind those points of agreement lines up with the philosophy of liberty.
------------------------------------
There are more issues with socialism that I do not agree with than the libertarian view.

Agreement or disagreement on one or two issues does not make or break membership with any one party in my opinion.

I can be libertarian and still favor a government minimum wage - or speed limits for that matter.

You sound like a hard core libertarian to me with an all or nothing philosophy.

I recognize that compromise is required, but please do not call me a socialist!

[85. Kit said the following at 7:59 PM on May 23:]

85

We waste gas. We don't need the cars (most of us) that we drive. We just don't. Some people do. But most of us just think it looks hot to drive a big car.

It's excessive and unnecessary, and there's nothing wrong with what Obama is doing. He is not saying you can't drive a big car. He's saying that the big cars will have to meet the same standards as the small ones. There is not a giant conspiracy to make us shrink our families, just to restrain much of the excess that often comes with the next biggest car.

[86. Chris said the following at 8:16 PM on May 23:]

86

BDB writes:

Part of the solution is having a fleet of vehicles:

1 - Small, efficient car for commuting alone.

1 - Mid-sized family car with things like anti-lock brakes and traction control for hauling the family in bad weather

1 - large vehicle with 4x4 for safely transporting the family in snow, to the mountains, camping, etc.

You write as though these attributes are mutually exclusive.

A decent car with FWD and a manual transmission can navigate snow with the right driver as well as any AWD or 4x4. Of course, YMMV (pun intended). My experience with 4x4's is that most people do not know how to use it properly and/or think it provides some magical shield or "supertraction" on ice. I would argue that for the average driver, 4x4s are dangerous since they provide a false sense of safety and can be used improperly.

As for camping/cargo/etc., one can buy a trailer hitch and hitch cargo carrier for about $300. You can also throw on a roof rack and use a cargo box or bag; it's very easy with newer cars since many already have the mount points for racks built in. This easily allows you to increase cargo capacity when needed without having to buy a truck or SUV or wagon.

And you can buy small, efficient cars with ABS, traction control, etc.

[87. Chris said the following at 8:30 PM on May 23:]

87

Leah writes:

Minivans are often more dangerous than 4WDs (a much smaller crunch-area in the front) and have far less luggage space (which, as I also said earlier, is a must-have for large families which frequently travel) and usually have rubbish towing capacity (which bigger families often need).

What, pray tell, is needed for towing capacity for a large family?

My Toyota Matrix can tow 1500 lbs. My 14' 1965 fishing boat and trailer, loaded with stuff, probably don't top 600 lbs.

SUV towing capacities are upwards of 3000, 5000, or 7000+ lbs. Are these families towing all their possessions in a trailer? Does a family really take that much weight on vacation?

These towing capacities are for things like large boats, campers, and the like. They are not because large families need to tow a lot of stuff to make life easier.

[88. Anthony said the following at 9:00 PM on May 23:]

88

No one here is addressing the fact that oil is not part of our future. Within 50 years, our oil resources will be effectively drained. Within 25 years, only the affluent will be able to afford to drive. Motte, I'm sorry, but you're no one special here -- everyone's going to be hit by diminishing oil reserves. I'm no fan of Obama's ardent support of the auto industry. This move is yet another that merely puts off the inevitable: that, as social critic James Howard Kunstler puts it, the automobile will be a diminishing part of our lives. Everyone's talking about "green-car-this," "hybrid-this," and "ethanol-wonder-that," that fact that we need to accept is that we need to let go of the car. Successful societies existed for thousands of years before Henry Ford.

Motte, you wrote: "Is my wife supposed to have our oldest child who's 9 get behind the wheel of a second Civic to go to the grocery store or to take her to piano or to do the million other things she does during the day while I'm at work?"

Motte, I'm sorry, but I have to call it as it is: it sounds to me as though you're living an impossible suburban life. T.S. Eliot, one of Christianity's most powerful and fully-realized poets, wrote in his most explicitly Christian work that "all dash to and fro in motor cars/Familiar with the roads and settled nowhere." We must all throw away the notion that we are victims to society. Our Lord has given us choices in our lives, many being social. We do not have to own a car. We do not have to have our planners packed with weekly activities demanding us to drive ten miles for soccer practice and thirty miles for church. We don't need this kind of "mobility." Does God really want us to live in the rush that we do? Is your daughter going to learn more in piano tutoring than riding the subway next to a homeless man? I don't think so.

I'm not talking about the environment here. That is a different topic, toward which I am not as interested. Rather, I'm speaking of the social tolls of car use and car-based mobility. I recently completed a study titled "The Neighborhood Church in Limbo: Three Approaches to Community-Based Religion." In this project, I profiled several churches in my area of varying denominations, geographic locations, socioeconomic and ethnoracial makeups. What I found was distressing: parishioners across the board were choosing to cultivate multiple communities in diverse geographic bounds. Few tried to centralize their communities and were essentially spread too thin. They lacked any sort of meaningful connection. Even the churches struggled to maintain community as their congregants had so many activities taking place not only outside the church but outside a given church's geographic region.

When I return from studying abroad in a few months, I'll be moving to a small city, highly urbanized with superior infrastructure and a booming community feel. I'll never have to drive a car. Everything is walkable. There's vibrant public transit and a train and bus that travels to hometown. Being relatively young, I've never owned a vehicle. Last year, I shared with my parents and commuted to school. I walk to one workplace and bike to the other. I work at a local half-wine shop/half-international grocery store which acts as a community hub in the neighborhood. The most rewarding part of this job as a mere clerk has been interacting with the "regulars"--neighborhood customers who come in every afternoon for the same pack of Parliament Lights and bottle of 14 Hands. The truth is that I live in the suburbs. That I can have this experience of true community, as obtained without the automobile, should be a testament that most can.

I understand that some suburban residencies are much more isolated than mine without a corner store in walking distance. For residents of these suburban developments, I ask, "Why choose to live in a perceived (perception, not fact, is a unfortunate key to this) place of safety when all you're really doing is cheating yourself from true and meaningful community?"

As you can see, these new fuel efficiency standards are connected to everything. Someone said earlier that we live in a society that depends on cars. He/she was right. But it doesn't have to be that way. Sorry for these disjointed thoughts, but I do have one more:

Obama's idea of $4 for a gallon of gas is a joke. It needs to be $9-10 a gallon to reflect the actual cost of driving a car (most Europeans pay close to the actual cost). What most Americans do not understand is that their car use is subsidized to an extreme degree by the federal and state government. We've been living in a dream and need a wake up call. Unfortunately, Obama is neither progressive nor ballsy enough to ring the alarm. Aside from $3 on a Chicago toll-way, we're not paying anywhere near the true cost to drive a car. The government pours in over $5 in road and infrastructure work for cars to every gallon we pay for. Taxes hardly cover this. And then there's this mentality that we shouldn't have to pay to park our car--another awful joke. Conservatives should be jumping on this one to cut the Federal budget and to demand more responsibility from citizens. Here's to hope.

[89. Chantel said the following at 9:09 PM on May 23:]

89

I'm sorry, but this post is somewhat ridiculous. God appointed us as stewards of the earth, so everyone should be concerned about the use of gas guzzlers.

Global warming is not unproven to a certain extent. There is a cyclical warming of the earth, but humans are making it worse. So, it is natural but humans are contributing to it. I do not believe the world is going to end because of global warming (I believe in the 2nd coming), but that does not mean that we should not make an effort to protect the environment.

By the way, oil is not going to last forever. We are too dependent on oil and making more efficient vehicles will help with that. Also, it is definitely possible to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet new emission standards of 35.5. mpg.

Barack Obama is not forcing people to have smaller families. People already have smaller families. American families usually have two children now. I have read on this website or one of the other Focus on the Family websites that God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. However, He did not say that indefinitely and I'm sure you know that the earth is getting pretty full. Jesus said any man who builds a tower, let him count the cost first or else others will mock if he cannot finish. In other words, if you have children, you better be able to support them. Please do take offense at anything I am saying because I do not want to be contentious in any way. God bless.

[90. BDB said the following at 10:01 PM on May 23:]

90

Chris (#86) wrote:

>>I would argue that for the average driver, 4x4s are dangerous since they provide a false sense of safety and can be used improperly.<<

The average driver can't drive stick, either.

I did have the opportunity to drive my mother's 80's-era manual transmission Honda Prelude one Christmas in the snow. It had studded tires on the front drive tires, and indeed performed well. If I had the 3-vehicle configuration, and lived in an area where it snowed in the winter, one of the three would be something small, sporty, with a stick shift and studded tires in the winter.

However, there were two problems:

1) Other cars on the road out of control. Doesn't do any good to be in control in your little car if a larger sedan, without studded tires, loses control and slams you into the snow bank.

2) The 2-door Prelude was way too small to effectively put car seats in the back.

The reason for the 3-vehicle configuration is that two of the vehicles are big enough to go get the kids when it starts snowing during the school day and drive them home. In the town I grew up in, when this happened, the small number of families with 4x4 vehicles often would end up picking up their own kids AND their kids' friends and driving them up and down th hills during these snow emergencies. I'd rather be the parent driving than the one who can't get out of his driveway.

Fun Fact: One of the School superintendents we had used an easy method to determine whether to close school for the day: it depended on whether he could get out of his driveway without chains. He lived on one of the hills, and had a steep driveway. The official policy was to go drive a lot of the bus routes on the hills very early in the morning - he and a couple of other district people did so every time it snowed, and came to an agreement about whether it was safe to let the busses opeate. Sometimes they just delayed school by 2 hours and changed to "snow" routes for busses, which meant no school bus service in the hilly residential areas. But consistently, if he couldn't get out of his driveway, it meant that many of the other streets weren't safe, either.

[91. Ted Slater said the following at 10:18 PM on May 23:]

91

I find it remarkable how some of the comments here come across as so sanctimonious and prideful, so critical of those who choose to live a certain lifestyle and raise their children a certain way.

Does it make you feel better to boast of your tiny carbon footprint and to diminish those who use more energy during the day than you do? Seriously, why should you care that Motte and his family drive a large vehicle? Why the indignation? Are you looking for someone to blame for our climate cycles, and Motte is a more convenient person to blame than the Creator?

I just find it odd that the SUV has become such a source of derision, that it has come to represent a devilishly indulgent abuse of resources.

Anthony (#88) -- you wrote, "What most Americans do not understand is that their car use is subsidized to an extreme degree by the federal and state government." I'm not following you. Are you saying that because gasoline/petroleum taxes don't cover the cost of making and maintaining roads, that somehow government is making up the difference? Where does "government" get their money from? From me. They take my money, and your money, and Motte's money ... to pay for the roads. "They" are not subsidizing anything; I am.

Regarding your concern about oil running out within a few decades, that's just not true. We're fine for a long, long time, as I explained last year. In addition to not panicking about oil, we should be exploring nuclear energy and other clean sources of energy.

You make some fascinating points about community and neighborhood churches. I think we could benefit from participating in churches close to where we live. I feel that I need to urge you, though, to be careful that your knowledge doesn't make you feel somehow better than others, that the common Christian who drives five miles to church rather than walking a few blocks is ignorant or is somehow missing out on God's best. I know how education can make one feel "special."

Chantel (#89) -- you wrote, "if you have children, you better be able to support them." I don't understand how that is relevant here. Are you saying that Motte and his wife are wrong to have six children? Do you have something against families that our current culture would consider "large"?

Earlier you wrote, "There is a cyclical warming of the earth, but humans are making it worse." What do you mean by "worse"? The earth has been much warmer than it is currently; was that a bad thing? Is another ice age preferable to a slightly warmer environment? What is the ideal global temperature?

[92. BDB said the following at 10:36 PM on May 23:]

92

Anthony (#88) wrote:

>>that fact that we need to accept is that we need to let go of the car. Successful societies existed for thousands of years before Henry Ford. <<

Well, poor societies existed, yes. These were the societies that lost millions of lives each year to things like the flu...societies where hunger and malnutrition were common because it was too expensive to move food from areas with longer growing seasons.

In short, calls to eliminate automobiles are too silly to be taken seriously.

The real solution is to improve electric storage capacity. Electric motors are plenty powerful enough. All those big catepillars, not to mention locomotives, use diesel-electric powerplants - the motive power is actually an electric engine.

We have PLENTY of coal and Uranium in the U.S. to last for centuries. The solution is to build more of these electric generation plants, improve the use of electric vehicles powered by these plants. If nothing else, those power plants can provide the energy necessary to produce the fuel for fuel-cell vehicles.

Part of the reality of internal combustion engines is that they are not very efficient at converting the power in gasoline to mobile energy. Far too much is lost in heat and friction. These are engineering challenges that need to be solved. Boeing is doing precisely this with the 787 Dreamliner which is designed to be 30% more efficient on fuel use than current aircraft. These kinds of incremental changes are what will stretch out the "50 year" red herring.

Brazil has also done quite a bit with biofuels. Mostly, they are destroying engines, because biofuels have a lot of problems. However, they've also significantly reduced their use of petroleum. While it's foolish to make ethanol out of corn, like we've been doing in the U.S., it's quite likely that we can find ways to use non-corn biofuels to reduce reliance on petroleum - again extending the run-out date.

The hybrid-electric vehicles have a lot of potential to reduce the need for petroleum. Things like regenerative braking conserve the use of fuel by turning kinetic energy back into electricity, instead of simply dissipating it as heat through the brake pads. This kind of engineering works on locomotives; it can work just fine on SUV's also.

[93. BDB said the following at 10:45 PM on May 23:]

93

Anthony (#88) is bad at math.

>>The government pours in over $5 in road and infrastructure work for cars to every gallon we pay for. Taxes hardly cover this.<<

The government can't pour money into roads without taxes. In reality, much of the taxes collected for the Highway Trust Fund have been sitting there. The "Stimulus Package" finally puts these funds into infrastructure. But they were already collected in taxes.

If you really want to make transportation tax dollars go further, eliminate the prevailing wage rules that waste huge amounts of money in highway construction projects.

[94. BDB said the following at 10:50 PM on May 23:]

94

Anthony (#88) must have never lived places where gunshots are heard evey weekend.

>>"Why choose to live in a perceived (perception, not fact, is a unfortunate key to this) place of safety when all you're really doing is cheating yourself from true and meaningful community?"<<

Can hearing gunshots and watching helicopters regularly chasing suspects at night affect your perception of an area's safety? You betcha!

The first apartment I lived in after college seemed to have Sheriff's helicopters visiting an awful lot. When I moved out, the leasing office had a "Why are you moving" survey.

I wrote: "Too many helicopters for my taste."

I got a letter back from them insisting that they didn't feel there was a crime problem. They exactly knew what I was talking about!

Anyway, you can also look up crime statistics. It's not merely perception, it's also statistical reality.

As for community, in my quiet little cul-de-sac, I actually know my neighbors. Just like I did growing up in a small town. But unlike my experience livng in less-safe areas.

[95. BDB said the following at 11:36 PM on May 23:]

95

The CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplane has come out with an interesting article suggesting a fuel-efficiency standard for airplane standards.

Does that mean Boing is green?

Not really. It means that they have an efficient plane, and Airbus does not. Boeing's biggest competitor is actually older Boeing planes. I suspect they want to use the regulation to force airlines to get rid of their old planes and buy new ones. Nevertheless, the work being done on biofuels in planes will further reduce demand for petroleum.

[96. farmer Tom said the following at 6:48 AM on May 24:]

96

Philippians 4: 19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

Scripture tells us that our needs are known by God, and He supplies them from His vast resources according to His sovereign plan.

We also see in Scripture that God expects us to plan and conduct ourselves wisely.

Luke 14:28

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

Proverbs 6:

6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: 7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, 8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

I Timothy 5:8

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

God made each of us individually responsible for ourselves and our families. Even when it comes to personal defense, Jesus told His disciples in Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Nowhere in Scripture does God suggest that individuals or families are to look to the government for personal needs, food, raiment, (transportation) or defense. Look at Proverbs 6 again, the ant has nor government agency, no rules for conduct, no president, telling the ant what to do. The ant is an independent free creature who provides for and takes care of itself.

But, somehow “christians” at this blog, seem to believe that government should tell us what to eat, where to live, how many children to have, what to drive, whether or not we should arm ourselves, and on and on, because they have less ability or desire to provide for their own needs than the ants.

They have become vassals of the state, doing exactly as the government dictates. Believing the propaganda spread by the sycophantic media, that somehow man in his finite ineptitude can destroy the planet and the wealth of resources it contains, because mankind is incapable of doing anything to provide for his own needs himself.

And thats why I called most of you socialist/Marxists.
You have accepted the philosophy which states,

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Right out of Karl Marx' manifesto. Many of you believe that the state(government) knows better than the individual what each persons needs are. The assumption within the Marxist philosophy is that the state actually knows what each individual needs. This assumes that in fact the state is god, knowing how best to meet the citizens needs. Yet, Scripture says that God will supply our need. Is the state your god or do you believe that God gives the individual the ability to provide for him/herself? You believe that the state should be able to determine whether or not Motte drives a vehicle in which his whole family fits, rather than letting Motte, a free man, the sovereign head of his own household, determine what vehicle best suits the needs of his family.

By what God given authority do you have the right to tell anyone what they can drive? Yet you assert that the state should make those demands. Supposedly, we the people, you and I, are the sovereigns in our Republican form of government. Yet you use the cloak of government power to force your fellow citizen to do your bidding in the area of transportation. You demand that Motte conform to your belief systems about the environment, global climate change, and peak oil theory so that your belief system will be honored.

I don't see Motte demanding that you drive a Hummer, yet you would demand he buy/own two cars to transport his family. Get over your god complex. You are not given the authority by God to demand any behavior from anybody, and just because you vote for leaders in government to do your dirty work for you does not absolve you of your wickedness.

I believe God has given Motte, the authority to determine for himself what he should drive. God knows our needs better than we do, and we know far better than some self aggrandizing political hack, what our needs are. A truly free society allows the individual to determine need and provide for that need, without the threat of interference from government. We need to be free of government mandates about what kind of transportation is acceptable.

[97. Jo said the following at 10:38 AM on May 24:]

97

Can someone explain to me why in the world the US government would care even a little bit about whether average Joe Bloggs has one child or ten? I just don't get this particular conspiracy theory.

Presumably the rising costs are an attempt to stop those who don't need a big car from 'guzzling gas' unnecessarily. And yeah, it sucks when you get penalised because of the irresponsibility of other people. I can totally understand Motte's frustration. But to suggest that it's happening because Obama wants to punish big families seems like clutching at straws to me.

[98. Jonathon said the following at 12:24 PM on May 24:]

98

brx, I disagree. You said, "Christianity is the belief in and following of the teachings of Jesus as the Christ." I say it is the belief in and following of Jesus Christ. Maybe that's semantics but I think it's valid. I do see your point about that there is a certain Christian worldview and I agree. I just don't think that worldview is Capitalism. Or American.

[99. brx said the following at 4:19 PM on May 24:]

99

Re: Anthony [#88];

I'm very interested in the topic of authentic faith & community and would like to read your paper: "The Neighborhood Church in Limbo: Three Approaches to Community-Based Religion." It sounds very interesting. Can you post it somewhere for people to access?

Reading your comments has brought to mind two particular thoughts. The first, is that they sound a bit like the mother character in the film "Almost Famous" - she had a passion for wanting everyone to think, feel, and reason the way she did. The second is that the way you live your life and how you employ your gifting depends heavily upon others living their lives differently and employing their gifts differently. And that's according to God's good design.

Your comments led me to consider the extremes of social networking. For simple illustration, let's take depth and breadth to represent the measurable dimensions of one's social network - like the depth and width of a triangle. These dimensions are limited by one's resources and time. If I pour all my time and resources into maximizing the depth dimension, or all my time and resources into maximizing the width dimension, then in both cases, I end up with a triangle of little area. If I find the right balance between depth and width, I can maximize the area.

Similarly and as a point of stewardship, I think Jesus calls each of us to seek the right balance in using our time and very unique resources to build our own social networks with the right balance of depth and breadth so as to maximize its area as best we can; so, that area - those people - can be impacted by Jesus' love through us.

The uniqueness of gifts and passions that God has made each person with, I think, testifies that God does not intend for each neighborhood, church, and city to be a homogenous community unto itself.

I'm still very interested in reading your paper.

Grace, peace & adventure building and participating in community as Jesus calls you to!

[100. brx said the following at 4:54 PM on May 24:]

100

Re: farmer Tom [#96];

...uhm...most of it is not worth it, but this is short:

Solomon was very wise from observation, but also embraced brevity. He didn't bother to point out that the ant lives in a colony - a community, giving to and receiving from it in different ways; the ant does not soley provide for its own. The ant also agrees and works in harmony with the rest of the colony (community). Solomon didn't mention those things because he probably figured they were obvious to anyone who actually took his advice to observe and consider the ant.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
- that's also Biblical, except participation is encouraged to be voluntary, not compulsory. ...problem is, a voluntary tax doesn't work so well when so many are straying, hence, systems like the Temple Tax are implemented.

[1. Pak said the following at 11:58 AM on May 21:]

1

Maybe instead of forcing Detroit to make all of these new fuel-saving cars, the President should lead by example and replace all of those SUVs that transport his entourage wherever he goes. Maybe then he'll realize that the demands he makes are unreasonable.

[2. Texas Craig said the following at 12:07 PM on May 21:]

2

Don't worry, Motte. There will always be large vehicles available for your family. it would be a virtual legal impossibility for the government, as things currently stand, to pass laws that would not provide for vehicles sufficient to carry 8 or more people. If they cannot be made to meet government standards, then there will be exemptions created for them.

[3. kimberly said the following at 12:24 PM on May 21:]

3

Hmmm...smells like china!

[4. Andy said the following at 12:26 PM on May 21:]

4

Or maybe he is forcing auto makers to implement new technology to create vehicles that can accommodate families as large as yours and still adhere to the guidelines.

Automakers will always create what there is a demand for, Obama is just forcing them to do it in a new way that in the end will SAVE you money if you can buy a minivan that gets 36 MPG.

[5. Hannah C. said the following at 12:34 PM on May 21:]

5

If only auto companies would make station wagons again...if I recall correctly they had pretty good gas mileage. My family used to have one, but it died. My fiance used to drive one, but now his older sister has it. I would rather not have to pick between a Suburban and a minivan or van...

[6. brx said the following at 12:45 PM on May 21:]

6

Sure Motte - didn't you know there's legislation in draft to set a three child maximum for US families? But don't worry, I'm there will be a grandfather clause in there somewhere!

ha-ha-ha!

[just kidding folks... but then again, it's not totally inconceivable that in the next 30years, someone with their worship out of whack could with rational seriousness introduce such a bill]

[7. Keith said the following at 12:46 PM on May 21:]

7

My girlfriend grew up in a family with 10 siblings !! And they were poor and never had a car.

Again, why do big families "need" a car?

To have a car is a privilege, and not a right. To have a big car is a privilege and not a right.

I think all of us will be a bit healthier if we did some more walking and less driving anyway.

[8. Mark W said the following at 12:53 PM on May 21:]

8

This is an absolutely brilliant move in the middle of an economic meltdown. Further restrict automakers (an industry that domestically is already on its deathbed) in what they can and cannot make. Why? Well, obviously, the gov't knows what all of us should be driving better than we do. Increased production costs? Don't worry about them. The American auto industry is taxpayer supported now, so consumers don't have to worry about more expensive cars - they'll already be subsidizing them, and I'm sure we can expect the same level of efficiency at GM that we can always count on our gov't for. And if foreign manufacturers need to cut costs to compete, don't worry, it's not like they employ any U.S. citizens that could be hurt by the competitive advantages that a gov't owned company would have in a heavily regulated industry. Yes, the future truly is bright for American consumers and Government Motors.

[9. Adam said the following at 1:12 PM on May 21:]

9

I am torn with the announcement. I am very much an advocate of letting the free market do its thing. If gas gets expensive, the market will demand more fuel efficient vehicles. This was clearly shown last year.

On the other hand, I also believe that this country needs to be able to function independent of other countries. Right now, if Saudi Arabia stops pumping oil to us tomorrow; our gas prices will skyrocket and much of industry grinds to a halt. We are dangerously dependent on other countries for our oil.

As long as gas remains cheap, people will not see value in efficient vehicles. We saw this in the 90s with the explosion of the SUV market.

I seriously doubt family size was even considered when Obama was working on this. There are always ways of getting around the requirements. Porsche bought a majority stake in VW. Because of VWs economy lineup they will be able to make a Porsche as gas-guzzling as they see fit. I'm sure some form of that will transfer to Suburbans as well.

Also, on occasion government drives innovation. It isn't ideal, and probably not the cheapest way, but it happens. Just look at the space program.

On principle I'm against government regulation - but maybe this will help encourage some real innovation at the car companies rather than just business as normal.

[10. Mary Beth Palmer said the following at 1:14 PM on May 21:]

10

As a child from a family of 7 my heart breaks to hear decisions like this. One of my favorite childhood memories is packing in the van to go to church or on family vacations. What does this mean for a family like mine? Driving in different cars? More likely than not it means we won't be going on family vacations any more...this is another way of breaking the family down. This is something that our country does not need any help doing.

[11. brx said the following at 1:15 PM on May 21:]

11

"Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?"

Speaking as an engineer, yes, it is possible - with a combination of various trade-offs in areas such as: lighter, more costly materials; slower acceleration; reduced top speed; reduced driving range; and reduced safety factor.

Not yet being a parent myself, I was surprised to learn that knowing their loved-ones are riding with the safety of a heavy-duty 'tank-like vehicle' is a significant factor in the sales of large SUVs like Suburbans and Explorers.

Don't worry too much, Motte. We can always buy buses.

Grace, peace & adventure in compromise for the sake of loving your neighbors

[12. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 1:25 PM on May 21:]

12

This also concerns me too. We have five children, and it is also difficult for me to find a vehicle that will fit us all, be affordable, and good on gas. Our's gets 22 MPG, and my dh's car gets 36 mpg.

The gas prices hurt our family (and families like ours) in other ways...Due to the downturn in the economy, he drives 68 miles each way to work (though car pools)...there's no public transit in our area, and most of the houses in our area are up for sale, so moving is not optional either...the people who live in rural areas like ours, where jobs are moving further and further away, are the ones who are being really hurt by these idiotic policies, and the more policies like these go into practice, the more people will have their houses foreclosed. Our little town has many foreclosures, stemming from this problem in particular.

Obama and others in congress don't have a clue because none of them have ever worked for a living or held real jobs (and I refer to both republicans and democrats...same brand of ice cream just different flavors in my opinion). It must be so much easier when you can vote for your own pay raise, huh?

[13. Jarod said the following at 1:51 PM on May 21:]

13

Smaller families, that is silly! I think Obama has been hearing from Oprah and that every family should have a corporate jet instead! Plenty of room for big families there!

[14. Ted Slater said the following at 1:54 PM on May 21:]

14

It's notable that at the same time our government is forcing higher fuel efficiency in vehicles, they are also mandating fuel formulations that give us fewer miles per gallon. Real gasoline might give 21 MPG; the stuff with corn in it might give a mere 16 MPG.

[15. obewan said the following at 2:02 PM on May 21:]

15

And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car? Is it possible for the auto industry to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet the new emissions standards of 35.5 mpg?
------------------------------------
All I have to say is that we can all take a lesson from China. At least a year of two ago, I saw an article and photo on a 10-passenger van they are making that gets 30mpg.

The new fuel standards do not say that mini vans have to get 35 mpg. It is an average number. If we have enough cars getting 40 mpg, and enough hybrids at 50 mpg, then some people who need to can get by with less.

I mean, what is better - an SUV at 12mpg, or a mini-van at 24mpg?

I think the law is going to force things in the right direction in a world where the oil supply is expected to run out in 50 years or so.

And as far as safety goes, the fatality stats are worse for SUV’s than for cars. I have side air bags on my mid-sized Honda and am not worried at all. And when the law downsizes things I will be even safer. I would rather get hit by another Honda than a monster truck, and the probability is headed in MY favor – a SAFER direction.

[16. Em said the following at 2:41 PM on May 21:]

16

In response to #7: Why do big families "need" a car?
-----

Ummm...perhaps because I grew up in the country this question doesn't quite make sense to me. Big families have to get around just like small families. And unless you live in a city, you can't get from point A to point B without a car. And having a big family is easier to transport with a big car, instead of multiple vehicles. Not to mention being able to take your kids to see relatives or go on vacation - definitely more cost effective (or at least it used to be) to drive than fly or take the train.

[17. Erin said the following at 2:49 PM on May 21:]

17

Also in response to #7 (thanks #17), I grew up as the eldest of 10 children, so a "minivan" just doesn't cut it. I also grew up in the country where the nearest grocery store or ANYTHING was a 20 minute trip. Walking was not an option.

[18. Laura said the following at 2:53 PM on May 21:]

18

Guys! This is NOT a "restriction" and it's not being "forced" on those poor, poor automakers. Seriously. What is happening is this: instead of having to meet different state standards (which is expensive), the automakers will now have ONE standard for fuel efficiency and emissions. Many automakers actually expressed RELIEF at this move.

They ALREADY make vehicles (including big SUVs) that meet these standards -- now ALL their vehicles will have to meet them, not just the ones going to California.

Yeah... that's so terrible. How awful to make one consistent standard that will also help reduce emissions and protect the earth, which we are supposed to care for and steward. For reals.

[19. Mark W said the following at 2:56 PM on May 21:]

19

@Pete #12,

It's certainly not in the Bill of Rights that the gov't should make it easy for people to raise 6 kids. That's because it's not the government's job to do much of anything that doesn't involve creating, interpreting, or enforcing laws. However, it is in the Bill of Rights (see the 10th amendment in particular), and the Constitution as a whole, that the federal gov't doesn't have the authority to make these kind of arbitrary, fiat pronouncements about what private industry can and can't do.

[20. Ariana said the following at 3:12 PM on May 21:]

20

I feel bad for any family facing economic hardship for any reason. But as far as this new policy is concerned, 1) I don't think it's meant to be any type of judgment upon family size. The great majority of US families are well under 8 children. 8 children is great, but you can't make nation-wide policy based on what works for a small minority. 2) We need to reduce our oil dependence, period.

I believe that it is fully possible for the manufacturers to create fuel efficient large passenger vehicles if the proper investment is made in the research.

[21. DannieA said the following at 3:12 PM on May 21:]

21

IMHO, not everything is a conspiracy.

And from the families and people I know...it will be just fine. People with large families are often very resourceful.

It will all be ok.

[22. Dan Gill said the following at 3:15 PM on May 21:]

22

Laura (#19): Please give an example of a big SUV that meets the proposed fuel economy standard. I'm just dying to know.

There are only two emissions standards: California and the rest of the country.

Higher fuel costs hurt everyone, but hurt the poor even more than the middle class or the wealthy.

[23. Kellie said the following at 3:22 PM on May 21:]

23

I think Motte is getting ahead of himself....doesn't Jesus tell us not to worry?

Considering fuel efficency hasn't changed much in the last 20 or so years, I guess the government feels the only way to get the auto makers to get interested in this is to force them to.

[24. Denny said the following at 3:32 PM on May 21:]

24

The other interesting question is what will the government do when people use less gas and the amount of revenue from the gas tax drops. I suppose in states like California, the state will raise the gas tax to maintain revenue and we get less and have to pay more.

[25. Rachael said the following at 3:43 PM on May 21:]

25

The article about what Obama said in the past was written last year...

I don't know what gas prices will do, but they were at least better for awhile, though they be going back up...

Maybe he wants to help the adjustment if that's what ends up happening...but, maybe it won't happen in the near future?

[26. John the Aggie said the following at 3:48 PM on May 21:]

26

I am a conservative who lives in Texas. There has only been one major move that Obama has made that I agree with, and it has been the move towards better fuel economy.

The free market is a beautiful thing, but can lead to excesses. The auto industry has been focusing on improved power, with sustained fuel economy, from the beginning (the Model T Ford got 25 mpg - just with less power than our current vehicles). When I see suburban mothers driving around in 5,000 pound SUV's it makes me sick. It is completely unnecessary and socially irresponsible.

Oil will not last forever, and we squander this resource by driving powerful and unnecessarily large vehicles. For your family of 8 perhaps an SUV is a good call, but the majority of large vehicles on the road have one or two occupants in them, which is simply ridiculous. Government intervention is not the ideal solution, but it is better than allowing our nation to continue its abuse of fossil fuels.

[27. KJ said the following at 4:09 PM on May 21:]

27

To #7:

I too grew up in a large family in the country. Not having a car was not an option. The closest church that we could have considered attending was over three miles away...it's since gone downhill, so the next closest option is the one we attend, which is 13 miles away. Not to mention that my dad works 10 miles from home, and the closest Walmart is probably 30 miles away...and the closest grocery store is two miles away, so by the time one would walk home with the groceries, all the perishables would've gone bad. Not to mention it would take several trips to get enough for a family for a week.

The country: the best place (IMHO) to raise a large family, but you've gotta have a car.

[28. Frazer said the following at 4:30 PM on May 21:]

28

This is a pain! I'm a big guy at 6 foot 5 inches and about 290 lbs. I need at minimum a midsized car and even small SUVs like the Ford Escape or Toyota RAV4 are a bit to small to drive comfortably. My Mom has an economy car (Hyundai Accent) that I can hardly get into. If I had to drive one of those sized cars I'd be a risk to the public! The car is just to small for me to safely reach the brakes and gas pedals. This is why I never drive her car. (She hates having to ride my truck lol)

Of course maybe this will force the auto makers to put V6 engines back in their full size pickups. I think it was a bad idea to stop putting smaller engines in the full-size pickups. If my older truck dies I'd have to buy a big 'ol V8 to get a comparable truck.

[29. BDB said the following at 4:57 PM on May 21:]

29

Keith (#7) wrote:

>>Again, why do big families "need" a car?<<

Keith either doesn't live out West, or lives in San Francisco where he can take Bart.

[30. Giselle Aguiar said the following at 5:12 PM on May 21:]

30

Who's to say they can't come up with a vehicle that seats 8 AND gets great gas mileage? The thing is to make it affordable.

[31. anonymous said the following at 5:19 PM on May 21:]

31

Nobody "needs" a big gas guzzler, period. Get over yourselves. I will never understand the resistance to reducing our dependency on a finite supply of foreign oil. Higher fuel standards and higher gas costs are a *good* thing in the long run, because they push us to come up with better alternatives like more efficient and safer cars, public transportation, and alternative forms of fuel.

[32. Elisabeth said the following at 5:35 PM on May 21:]

32

As a member of a large family (I have 7 siblings), this is very worrisome to me. Our family's big vehicle just had a tree fall on it; we're going to be searching for a new one, 'cause taking two cars everywhere isn't practical. If automakers are no longer allowed to make big cars, then the few that remain will go up in value. I think Mr. Brown's conclusion ("I wonder if by "help people make the adjustment" to higher fuel prices, what President Obama really means is forcing them to have smaller families") may be all too accurate.

[33. BDB said the following at 5:54 PM on May 21:]

33

John the Aggie (#27) wrote:

>>When I see suburban mothers driving around in 5,000 pound SUV's it makes me sick. It is completely unnecessary and socially irresponsible.<<

I'm guessing you don't have any female friends with small children?

Driving a vehicle perceived to be safe is not a rational calculation about the expected utility, it's mom wanting to keep her kids safe no matter what hits them.

True, the average SUV accident involves the SUV loing control. But if you've ever seen an SUV vs. tiny car accident, the SUV passengers often walk away, while the pieces of the other car are checked for survivors.

A friend of mine had one of those little Smart Cars. She loved it! Until she was literally hit by a school bus up near my house. She is still recovering from her injuries months later.

[34. BDB said the following at 6:09 PM on May 21:]

34

Adam (#9) wrote:

>>If gas gets expensive, the market will demand more fuel efficient vehicles. This was clearly shown last year. <<

That wasn't the only thing that happened. There was also a huge public outcry demanding that regulatory barriers to U.S. drilling be removed. Facing he outcry, the Democratic-controlled Congress backed down and let the offshore drilling ban expire.

I guarantee that, if the administration attempts to use some sort of legislative means, such as taxes, to raise gas prices to $4 a gallon, we will quickly see a change in the makeup of Congress.

Witness the rejection yesterday of all the tax increases on the ballot in California's special election. This blue state has had it with taxes.

[35. Chris said the following at 7:34 PM on May 21:]

35

Motte writes:

The auto makers complain that Americans do not want smaller cars and worry no one will buy them unless the government helps push gas prices above $4 a gallon. President Obama has said in the past that he wants to "help people make the adjustment" to $4 a gallon fuel prices.

$4 a gallon gas prices will mean my monthly fuel bill will go from $200 to $400 or more. That's $200 more a month that I can't put toward food, clothing, school supplies, health care, or housing. For a family of eight trying to live on one salary, it's substantial.

For some time now, smart economists have said the best way to deal with the problem of oil dependency is to establish a carbon tax such that gas is very expensive (e.g., $4/gal). Money from this can be refunded via payroll tax to lessen the burden on lower income people.

By maintaining gas prices this high regardless of what the oil market does, you establish incentives to conserve energy, develop/drive more fuel efficient cars, and so forth. You then let the market do its work. We saw this last year when gas was $4 and sales of SUVs dropped while smaller car sales did better (or at least didn't drop as much).

Personally, I find the President trying to get us to transition to expensive gas to be far sighted, particularly when it comes to national security. Energy policy is an important part of national security. I'm not one of those "war for oil" types, but petroleum supply is in the national interest. As long as we are over-dependent on it, we will be overly involved in those sections of the world that have it. And it will give those people a rallying point, even if it is bogus. Plus, it puts us at the mercy of a certain group (OPEC) that engages in actions that would land them in court were it to happen in the US.

Quite frankly, I find personal concerns about gas prices to be rather selfish under these conditions.

[36. Hannah C. said the following at 8:14 PM on May 21:]

36

Keith (#7):

I'm the oldest of nine and, unlike other posters, I did not grow up in the country.

I grew up in the Dallas suburbs. In one of the suburbs which does NOT have DART - in fact, the two cities next to the one I lived in don't have DART or any kind of public transportation either, as far as I know.

So the city I grew up in, just outside of Dallas, has absolutely no public transportation. I've never walked to the closest grocery store, but it's a five to seven minute drive..and it took me thirty minutes to get a third of the distance while walking, and I walk pretty fast. So walking would NOT be an option at all to go to the grocery store, especially not with a family of eleven. The nearest Wal-Mart is about ten minutes drive away.

My family has not owned a car that can hold all of us for the past couple years, because the only one that can is a big van and we don't have the money for it. We have a minivan and a smaller car -- and almost never go anywhere as a family. If we did not have at least one car we could not survive - Dad could not get to work and we could not get food. And this is in the suburbs. Those in the country, as previous people have pointed out, are in much worse straits.

Cars ARE a necessity in most places in the United States, whether you like it or not. Corner stores don't exist where I live. And even if public transportation is available, grocery shopping on public transportation when one has to feed eleven people does not seem like a feat that could be accomplished.

Personally, I think there should be other options for cars that seat more than five people - as far as I know the only ones being made now are SUVs (gas-guzzlers), vans (big and hulking), and stretch or six-door limos. Once again, I say bring back the station wagon!

[37. Lauren T. said the following at 10:31 PM on May 21:]

37

Oh, it feels funny to be on this side of the argument...but...

The concept that "we should all just walk everywhere" is really narrow-minded and lacks a great deal of tolerance for those who may look at life differently.

Furthermore, it's an example of the majority imposing their morality on those of us who are minorities - i.e., big families who use a big vehicle in their business.

Tongue-in-cheek stuff aside, this whole situation is very troubling to me. Our van won't last forever either, and I don't like the idea of having no option for replacement. There are a lot of reasons we drive these things, folks!

It's HIGHLY unlikely these standards will result in more efficient big vehicles. For one thing, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. If you folks knew the sweat and tears that goes into shaving just one pound off the weight of these cars or how excited people are to gain just one number on the mpg rating, you'd see things differently. There's already a lot of hard work that goes into getting better gas mileage on these cars because people always want the vehicle they like with better gas mileage so they don't have to buy so much gas! Faced with an impossible task like the one our president set for them this week, the car companies will most likely simply drop their big vans rather than pour any more wasted effort into making them comply.

In my view, all this ridiculous legislating will do is sink our poor car companies even more finally than they're already being sunk.

You should see my state. We are being beat up from all the rest of the country because we had the temerity to build a product that is useful, innovative, and matching the desires of the consumers. Our cities are beginning to look like ghost towns and folks elsewhere are congratulating themselves about all the good they're doing for the environment...

[38. ptschett said the following at 10:41 PM on May 21:]

38

A few comments:

-A car's mileage for CAFE purposes is unrelated to its window sticker mileage. It's usually higher than the EPA highway mileage. I wouldn't expect the car selection in 2016 to look too different from what you can get from, say, Honda right now.

-I can't prove it for the 2016 standard, but heavy-duty vehicles with gross weight ratings above 8600 lbs (i.e. 3/4 ton and bigger pickups, SUV's, vans) have historically been exempt from CAFE. To seat more than 7 you usually need a vehicle in that class anyway.

-There's still room to improve the internal combustion engine. Fiat Powertrain recently unveiled a system called Multi-Air which looks to have some promise.

[39. BDB said the following at 10:50 PM on May 21:]

39

The more expensive we make new cars, the more difficult it is for the poor to afford the newer, cleaner cars. So they're stuck with their old, polluting cars.

Here's a good WSJ article on the other pollution costs that come from these ineffective CAFE standards.

[40. BDB said the following at 11:03 PM on May 21:]

40

Incidently, my Honda is classified as a Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle but because of the way I drive (ahem) I seem to get less than 20 mpg.

There is a little "ECO" light that blinks on and off. I finally came to understand that it's designed to re-train the driver to drive more economically. This can result in a 30% saving in fuel consumption. Oh. I guess the hybrid crowd has been all atwitter about how they can achieve amazing mileage by driving more carefully.

If those driving skills were learned across the driving landscape, we could easily save far more gasoline than any mandates could ever deliver.

[41. Samantha said the following at 12:52 AM on May 22:]

41

Should Christians be seperating themseleves on issues like this?

[42. Heidi said the following at 2:21 AM on May 22:]

42

In response to the comment about walking everywhere being healthier...walking down a busy street you inhale a large amount of exhaust fumes known to cause health problems. Ironically, as long as you're getting enough exercise eslewhere, riding in a care is clearly healthier with far less exposure to the fumes.

My family still uses bikes and walking a lot, where walking a mile to the library and back or bike riding 3 miles to the store and back for groceries is not considered strange (even my 9 year old little sister would make the trip on her own bike). But we still need a car.

For my part, I prefer they'd come up with an affordable and effective electric solution so that I could use the sidewalks without choking on chemicals. Forget the environment--I like my lungs!

I have a hard time thinking they would stop makiing larger cars; those companies will bend over backwards to meet demand almost no matter what obstacles stand in their way.

[43. S said the following at 4:08 AM on May 22:]

43

Seriously? Out of all the angles to take a story on cars, you go with "small cars discriminate against large families"? This is a serious issue, especially for those who have ties to the auto industry. This isn't a topic for conspiracy theory.

[44. Tiff said the following at 6:17 AM on May 22:]

44

Comment #11, your sign-off is right on! Are we willing to compromise our comfort for the sake of loving our neighbors?

Higher fuel efficiency standards are better for the environment and national security. But we get all twisted around that it might mean making sacrifices to our comfortable lifestyles (and yes, if you live in the United States and are reading this on a personal computer, your life is comfortable.)

[45. obewan said the following at 6:34 AM on May 22:]

45

#40. BDB had the following to say on May 21 at 10:50 PM:

"The more expensive we make new cars, the more difficult it is for the poor to afford the newer, cleaner cars. So they're stuck with their old, polluting cars."
--------------------------------------
But the automakers are saying that the average cost will only increase by about $1800. The thing to remember is that the consumers are expected to get back 2-3 times that amount in fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.

[46. Adam said the following at 7:55 AM on May 22:]

46

One possibility is that we will just adjust the power/performance curve a bit.

In 1992, you could buy a Geo Metro that got 55 mpg. I drive a '96 Toyota Tercel that gets around 37 mpg consistently. For the past week, I've been driving a Toyota Rav4 that got about 27 mpg. If they reduced the power that the Tercel or the Rav4 produced, they could increase the mpg substantially.

We have gotten used to being able to accelerate uphill on a mountain pass. The cars I had growing up were great for daily use, but it you tried going up a steep hill, you would slowly lose speed. Even then, you could pretty much always maintain 50 mph.

Perhaps it isn't as much about Obama forcing $4 gas on us. Motte, last year's $4+ gas was under a Republican president. Perhaps Obama is just saying that while we may not be able to control the gas prices, we can do something to help families like yours get more bang for your buck when you fill the tank.

IMO, the best solution would be to relax standards. That way a greater range of vehicles could easily be introduced into the US market. The smart car was available in Europe for years before it was able to be brought over here. I saw several being driven up in Canada before we could even buy one in the US.

Perhaps then we would see efficient, affordable vehicles for large families - instead of just ones like the Chevy Suburban - $37,000 5.3L V8 engine that gets 14mpg.

[47. obewan said the following at 8:08 AM on May 22:]

47

#15. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 21 at 1:54 PM:

"It's notable that at the same time our government is forcing higher fuel efficiency in vehicles, they are also mandating fuel formulations that give us fewer miles per gallon. Real gasoline might give 21 MPG; the stuff with corn in it might give a mere 16 MPG."
---------------------------------
While I hate to see the use of ethanol, your argument concerns probably do not apply to this discussion. I think the gov’t CAFE standards at 35 mpg will probably be based upon 100% petroleum and not ethanol, or they would have a different scale for ethanol. Our engineers are smart enough to know that much, and oil is the resource they are intending to save anyway, so that is the fuel they will probably base the tests on.

[48. Joyce said the following at 9:24 AM on May 22:]

48

It seems that you all live in a different world than I do. My family is fortunate to have cars. But because of high gas prices, sometimes we would rather use public transportation than drive. Cars are still a luxury in my country so anything that has better fuel economy is a big plus.

[49. Ariana said the following at 10:19 AM on May 22:]

49

It seems an underlying idea behind criticism of the new policy is that Americans should be able to live how they please, and if the government doesn't make it easy or possible for us to do so, it is wrong. That mentality is part and parcel of the reason we're in this predicament in the first place--Americans and American businesses refusing to have sustainable lifestyles.

We cannot have all things all ways. What about suburbanization? If people moved back into the cities, such extensive use of cars would be much less necessary. There will of course be reasons that people don't want to do that, either.

There will always be sacrifices that have to be made somewhere, by someone. To suggest otherwise seems a bit selfish.

[50. obewan said the following at 10:45 AM on May 22:]

50

#49. Joyce had the following to say on May 22 at 9:24 AM:

"It seems that you all live in a different world than I do. My family is fortunate to have cars. But because of high gas prices, sometimes we would rather use public transportation than drive. Cars are still a luxury in my country so anything that has better fuel economy is a big plus."
------------------------------------
I have to say a big hearty AMEN to that! I have been to Europe and seen the village networks all interlinked by an efficient rail system.

In America, there was a time where we did try to develop a rail system - then we grew to worship the car, and paved over all the tracks.

When the oil is gone, and the stuff really hits the fan, we will have only ourselves to blame.

We built up huge suburbs miles away from work, only to create urban squalor and enormous traffic jams. There is a better way to live, and many people are now choosing it by locating closer to work or public transportation. It was a big factor in my housing choice. I am only 3 miles from work and can bike in about 15 mins.

Just Google "Death of Suburbia" to see what is going to happen with this. There is even a major documentary movie called “The End of Suburbia” that has been made...When the diesel is gone, the remote grocery stores will be barren...But, many Christians simply say they don't care because the rapture will take them away before they starve...
www.endofsuburbia.com/

[51. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:14 AM on May 22:]

51

Motte,

While I understand you situation, I tend to agree with those that say that better planning was/is needed.

I have said in the past that for the most part I have no sympathy for those who complain about high gas prices and drive an SUV. That applies to you too I'm afraid.

No one forced you to buy that Suburban. Now, you might say that you had "no other choice" but that's not true. Perhaps a used station wagon (go to www.fueleconomy.gov and do an Advanced Search. I found a number of station wagons with decent gas milage), or simply using two cars less frequently to truck the family around.

Since we've all experienced $4/gallon gasoline, you should've been aware that the price might come there again one day. And that means not buying the big gas guzzling SUV.

I appreciate the sacrifices you've already made to expand your family, but you might have to make further ones in the future. It's all about what standard of living you want to maintain.

[52. Motte Brown said the following at 11:33 AM on May 22:]

52

Mike Theemling (and others judging me about what kind of car I drive):

You really have no idea what goes into choosing a car to seat 2 adults, 4 kids, and 2 infants.

We spent months researching the appropriate automobile based on storage space in the back for a double stroller, groceries, as well as other odds and ends that need transporting. Additionally, there's the width of the car to consider to fit three car seats and two boosters; there's ease of access to rear that three children under 7 can negotiate without too much trouble; the safety of the latch system and shoulder seat belts; and then you weigh all that with what we could afford with the cost of raising 8 kids.

There's actually more to consider. But you get the idea with accessibity, comfort (meaning seat width), storage, mileage, price, and yes, fuel economy.

My wife is carting around those kids by herself all day long running errands, shopping, etc. She needs (yes, I said needs) a big gas guzzler. I say that with a clear conscience because it's not like we enjoy getting only 15 miles per gallon. It was the best we could do for the money we had.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[53. brx said the following at 11:41 AM on May 22:]

53

Re: ptschett [#39],

Thanks for that news on Fiat Powertrain's Multi-Air - a continuously variable valve implementation. A mechanically efficient and reliable design for that has been one of the 'holy grails' of internal combustion engine design for the last 20 years. I'd kind of stopped following the development 12 years ago when I got into the embedded computer industry.

But, I wish I'd caught wind of Fiat's announcement 3 months ago and bought stock! Of course, it does seem like kind of a 'duh' obvious solution after the know-how advances made with common-rail injection.

Those interested can check the link below and click 'start movie' on the lower right for a brief explanation; the press release is a longer development history.

http://www.fptmultiair.com/flash_multiair_eng/home.htm

All things are possible with God!

[54. farmer Tom said the following at 12:07 PM on May 22:]

54

I do not have time to write a long diatribe about some of the comments on this thread, but I can say without any reservation, that most of you are in fact practical socialists. You have accepted as normal and natural the concept that the state (government) knows better than the individual what is best for society. You believe that central planning, top down organization and "progress" enforced by the gun are superior to personal freedom and responsibility.

And I'm ashamed of you all.

What has become of our Biblical foundations. Of individual soul liberty and self determination.

Most of you are vassals of the state, obediently mouthing the platitudes of the materialist, godless statists, willy to drive whatever they deem expedient, live in their cities, make yourself totally dependent on the "authorities" for your food, water, utilities, transportation, healthcare, family size, education, and most of you will let them tell you what and who you should worship, (Mother Gaia).

I want to live by a different standard.

"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

"Give me liberty or give me death."

I'll make my own choices about what to drive, where to live, how many children to have, whether of not to send my children to the government indoctrination centers, etc.

I am not a slave or servant of the state.

I am a servant of Jesus Christ.

Too many of you claim the name of Jesus Christ, and actually worship the state.

[55. obewan said the following at 12:13 PM on May 22:]

55

Motte: It is not that we disagree with your "need" to own an SUV. It is that you seem to not see OTHERS need to NOT own one, and want to use a bully pulpit to attack something that may bring a lot of good.

There are countless SINGLE women at my church who are currently driving or want to drive a monster truck ALONE long distances from the suburbs to work. Their poor stewardship for sure does not make me want to consider them "wife" material. The only reason they did it is because it was the “in” thing to do and “everyone” was doing it.

It is that kind of "entitlement" mentality that I hope the new law puts an end to.

For all I care, you could drive a school bus and have 30 kids. You are also the exception and not the rule.

Your type of argument could apply to a lot of conservative issues. I mean, if you want “compassion” for those "conservatives" who "need" a gas hog, then where is the “compassion” for the "liberal" who is homeless because they got sick and lost their health insurance? (Which is a bigger problem than the “right” to drive a gas hog.) Life sometimes does bring its unique stresses, and we are then forced to live with them.

You are setting up a straw man. Even with the new CAFE there will still be SUV's. By the time the law takes effect some of your kids might be grown anyway, or will be driving their own cars. And in a few years, your kids will be in school and not riding around town with your wife all day.

I suppose it might be hard to get the family to church though, but I know lots of families that drive 2 cars to church. My own sister and brother in law do it all the time because she is the organist and is on a different schedule.

We all need to realize that our own unique choices will sometimes force us to make some personal sacrifices in life. And, two cars at 30 mpg equal one SUV at 15 mpg. And, if the two cars get 35 mpg there is a net savings vs. the one SUV. And, what about the guy that as a family of 12? There is no end to the argument if your logic is applied…

[56. Chris said the following at 12:17 PM on May 22:]

56

Motte writes:

and then you weigh all that with what we could afford with the cost of raising 8 kids.

Just for clarification purposes, was the Suburban used or new?

[57. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:29 PM on May 22:]

57

Motte,

My apologies if you were offended. I was not judging you per se on your vehicle selection. I was just simply surprised that you are complaining about a policy that is years away and isn't even certain to happen. Even if Obama's plan isn't implemented or doesn't result in "no big vehicles being made" (which I doubt will happen), the return of $4/gal gasoline is something that will occur occur sooner or later (more likely sooner).

The reason why I have often said that I have "no sympathy" towards those that buy SUVs and complain about high gas prices is because to them it often sounds like some grave injustice has just happened when I often just attribute it to poor planning (e.g. people assuming fuel prices would stay at a constant).

It sounds like you planned quite well based upon your assessment of your requirements and budget. If you are comfortable with your decision, then what is there to really to complain about? A policy that might not even occur or have the impact as expected? $4/gal gasoline which might still occur anyway? Do you understand where I'm coming from?

I still believe that there are alternatives out there. For example having a friend watch some of the kids at home while your wife goes on errands. Of course, it's your preroggative on how your family operates. But I still reject the "no other choice" argument.

"And what happens when my big Suburban gives out and I need another big car?"

Well hopefully, by the time your Suburban gives out you won't need the space for the car seats and boosters anymore since the kids will be older. You'll just need the space for passengers and the occassional cargo. By that time, I'll sure that there will still be minivans or vehicles which seat 8 passengers around.

[58. Jonathon said the following at 12:37 PM on May 22:]

58

Farmer Tom #55,

Hate to pick a fight - but - you know that Christianity and Capitalism, Christianity and America, are not the same thing?

"I want to live by a different standard.

"For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

"Give me liberty or give me death." "

That is an odd juxtaposition of a quote from the Bible with a quote from one of America's Founding Fathers... I get the feeling you equate "America" with "God's chosen people"...

"I'll make my own choices about what to drive, where to live, how many children to have, whether of not to send my children to the government indoctrination centers, etc.

I am not a slave or servant of the state.

I am a servant of Jesus Christ.

Too many of you claim the name of Jesus Christ, and actually worship the state. "

C'mon, this is ridiculous. Christianity is not a political belief system

[59. Tami said the following at 12:38 PM on May 22:]

59

I admit, I don't like SUVs. Especially when I'm driving behind them. Or trying to PARK next to them in the Compact area. :P And I really don't like seeing so many of them on the road, especially when there's only one person in there, and there's no cargo.

But... I think there are situations where they really *are* more practical, and having a big family like Motte's is one of them. [The others being when they are actually used for the "S" (Sports) or "U" (Utility)... not going on a run to Starbucks.] I remember "back in the day," before SUVs were the rage, that I knew a couple families who had Suburbans, and they were the ones with at least 3 kids.

In a *certain* sense, they are more efficient, in that they can carry a lot of people to one place in one vehicle.

Maybe someone will come up with a way to re-engineer these trucks so they run more efficiently.

Cuba keeps popping into my mind. You see all those cool old cars there -- but it's not because people necessarily love driving old cars. It's basically because they didn't have a choice but to keep up what they had. And I don't necessarily think that's *always* a bad thing -- we could stand to do *more* of that in the US -- but the reason behind what happened in Cuba is not great.

The problem is, the government can't legislate human behavior. A blanket law hurts folks with legitimate concerns (like Motte), and it won't stop those who were already go to whatever length to fulfill their desires.

[60. obewan said the following at 12:41 PM on May 22:]

60

#55. farmer Tom had the following to say on May 22 at 12:07 PM:

"I do not have time to write a long diatribe about some of the comments on this thread, but I can say without any reservation, that most of you are in fact practical socialists."
-----------------------------
You are WRONG farmer Tom. I am a libertarian, and I voted for Chuck Baldwin, AND I like the proposed CAFÉ standard.

The reason I voted for the Constitution Party was because it was the only way for me to vote against Middle East wars and still vote pro life.

I think you must admit that part of the platform of the Constitution Party is to disinvolve the U.S. from its Middle East oil addiction, and the oil wars to come.

A sensible attitude about conservation of oil also a step in the right direction.

Then too, austerity is a sign of Christian virtue - not "socialism”.

[61. brx said the following at 12:47 PM on May 22:]

61

farmer tom [#55]

Too many of you claim the name of Jesus Christ, and actually worship the state.

Or is is that too many of us claim the name of Jesus Christ and forget that God did not design us to function wholly independently of each other? Is it that too many of us that claim the name of Jesus Christ forget the subtleties of what it means to live with, work with, and love our neighbors? Is it that too many of us who claim the name of Jesus Christ have forgotten how the Bible's teachings apply to our healthy functioning in a democratic republic?

[62. Motte Brown said the following at 12:57 PM on May 22:]

62

Mike Theemling:

Thanks for the clarification. And please forgive my haughty "you have no idea" language.

obewan:

Your assumptions do not add up in the real world.

First of all, we sold our 7 passenger 2005 Toyota Sienna to buy the 8 passenger 2004 Suburban. The Sienna got 19 mpg in the city (only 4 more mpg than the Suburban). Our other car, a 1998 Suburu Legacy, get's 21 mpg in the city.

We actually thought about keeping the Sienna (because we loved it) and taking two cars when the whole family needed to go to church (or anywhere together). But that thought lasted about 2 seconds. It's simply not practical to not have a car that can transport the entire family at once.

Here's one example: We're planning a family trip later this summer. Would you have us take two cars, spend almost twice as much on fuel, and have two exhausted parents because we each drove 12 hours? Not to mentiont he fact that we wouldn't have another adult to take care of the babies while the other drives.

Tell you what, you make your sacrifices for your priorities, be they greenhouse gasses or whatever. Just please don't lecture me on the sacrifices I should be making.

[63. BDB said the following at 1:10 PM on May 22:]

63

obewan (#46) wrote:

>>But the automakers are saying that the average cost will only increase by about $1800. The thing to remember is that the consumers are expected to get back 2-3 times that amount in fuel savings over the life of the vehicle.<<

For someone with a professional paycheck, it's not a big deal.

For a struggling construction worker or pre-school teacher, that $1800 is an impassible barrier.

The unfortunate reality is that many improvements in environmental impact come at the expense of the poor. I think of the Asarco smelter that was in Tacoma Washington. This created the "Aroma of Tacoma," an unpleasant smell from the smokestacks.

It's all gone now. The air is much better. The poor neighborhood that was below the smokestacks is experiencing a revitalization.

And all the jobs are in Mexico, with the smelter that was moved.

[64. BDB said the following at 1:33 PM on May 22:]

64

Mike (#58) wrote:

>> For example having a friend watch some of the kids at home while your wife goes on errands.<<

You mean hire a nanny?

It's true that single people can get by with a little car. I spent more than a decade with little cars. They were even fun to drive - even the 85 hp Saturn, which got GREAT gas mileage.

Of course, I with those little cars, I couldn't do grown-up things like drive my co-workers to lunch, because they wouldn't fit. I had one incident where I offered to drive, and the other three guys were over 6 feet tall. It was comical fitting them into a Saturn SC.

There was also a work situation at a conference when I could have been the designated driver for everyone else- but my tiny car wasn't practical to haul people around.

Part of the solution is having a fleet of vehicles:

1 - Small, efficient car for commuting alone.

1 - Mid-sized family car with things like anti-lock brakes and traction control for hauling the family in bad weather

1 - large vehicle with 4x4 for safely transporting the family in snow, to the mountains, camping, etc.

You can of course rent the big vehicle for a few hundred dollars when you really need it. For one business trip, four of us carpooled on the 4-hour drive in a rented SUV. Hauled eveyone's stuff, including golf clubs.

Those who are against suburbs apparently haven't been a crime victim in the city yet. Cities are awful places to live. Suburbs exist precisely because they are ideal environments for raising children. It's also price-driven: you can get far more space in the suburbs than you can in the city at the same price.

It's not just the U.S. by the way. I've read about how suburbs also grow up in places like the U.K. - at the end of the train line.

[65. obewan said the following at 1:47 PM on May 22:]

65

Motte Writes"

"obewan:

Your assumptions do not add up in the real world."
-------------------------------------
My apologies. However, you need to realize that I was not talking about your past situation. I was talking about a hypothetical future scenario. And, yes it even works with my current Honda Civic. Two Civics for 8 passengers at 34 mpg is a net savings vs. 1 SUV at 15 mpg. On cost too since they could be had for about $28-30K vs. $35K-$40K for a SUV. I am NOT trying to force that scenario on you, just trying to get you to realize there ARE people that it WOULD work for.

And again, what about the family with 12 kids? They would be forced to make a sacrifice on a family vacation, unless we market an even bigger vehicle for their "special" need.

Have a safe vacation, and enjoy being all together with my best wishes.

[66. obewan said the following at 2:10 PM on May 22:]

66

P.S.
Motte Wrote:
"Tell you what, you make your sacrifices for your priorities, be they greenhouse gasses or whatever."
----------------------------------
Gee, that for sure says you know nothing about me. But I suppose it makes sense since Ted has been the one to deal with most of my posts on this subject.

I have made my sacrice and ALREADY paid my dues on this one. I put tens of thousands dollars of my hard earned money into liquid coal investments - to help provide fuel for all those wasteful SUV's. Because the liquid coal refining process is not global warming friendly, my investments that were once worth $40 a share are today trading at $3.82. (Due to cancelled projects)

I STILL support some of the global warming concerns because I see the silver lining in the clouds being a reduced concern about running out of fuels so soon.

In this case, I was willing to put my money where my mouth is. If liquid coal will help put food on the table, so be it, or if increased conservation will do it, then that works too. The bottom line is that God is in control, and a win win would be BOTH conservation AND liquid coal.

And, if we had the liquid coal there would be plenty of fuel for all those families that "need" SUV's.

[67. John the Aggie said the following at 5:05 PM on May 22:]

67

Regarding the safety of an SUV and young children: luxury vehicles are known for having incredible crash safety. Instead of a $40,000 gas-hogging SUV, you could get a $40,000 BMW or Lexus and be arguably at the same safety level.

If everyone took the logic of "buy bigger so I win in a crash," the escalation would become ridiculous. People would buy hummers to beat SUV's, then monster trucks... and you see my point. The argument of buying bigger to crush the other people in case of a wreck does not stand up to scrutiny.

[68. Motte Brown said the following at 5:31 PM on May 22:]

68

obewan:

Again, real world talking here. We scrimp and save to buy our USED cars outright. We do not have (nor do I foresee us ever having) 40-60k in our bank account for two Honda Civics to satisfy *your* personal idea of what kind of sacrifices we should make to save the environment. And if we did, it would probably mean that we could afford $4 a gallon fuel no matter what BIG CAR we choose to drive. I would never invest in *your* idea of what I should drive because I don't believe in the unproven, man-made global warming hysteria.

Further, I simply do not believe, or think you can prove, that there "ARE people" with 6+ children who would buy two small cars instead of having one big one if they could afford it. Is my wife supposed to have our oldest child who's 9 get behind the wheel of a second Civic to go to the grocery store or to take her to piano or to do the million other things she does during the day while I'm at work?

An SUV isn't "wasteful" for a large family, it's necessary.

[69. brx said the following at 5:58 PM on May 22:]

69

Re: Jonathan [#59]

Christianity is not a political belief system

We could rephrase that as: Christianity is not a social management policy system.

Well, if not, then it's darn close! Christianity is the belief in and following of the teachings of Jesus as the Christ. Jesus upheld all of the Father's policies for social management as found in the Bible - and He pointed deeper that they're meant as policies to govern even the hearts of people.

Sounds like a political belief system to me...

[70. Texas Craig said the following at 7:36 PM on May 22:]

70

I still say "much ado about nothing" because there will always be vehicles available to transport families of 8, 10, or 12 (higher than that and you better be buying yourself a "Partridge Family" bus!). So, I think any concerns in this area are entirely unfounded. But, I guess time will tell. ;-)

[71. BDB said the following at 8:13 PM on May 22:]

71

John (#67) wrote:

>>The argument of buying bigger to crush the other people in case of a wreck does not stand up to scrutiny.<<

It's not even necessary to hit another car for safety to be valuable.

And yes, luxury cards USED to be quite sturdy. My dad had an old, old, old (paid for) Mercedes 220. Completely underpowered, but built like a tank. Back when they used STEEL in cars, before the CAFE standards.

Here's an article about a modern Mercedes in my hometown was sliced in half by two other CARS. You can see the front half of the car here.

Now, I'll admit that my preferences are impacted by my experiences. I witnessed an accident one day - I was the first car stopped at a stoplight when a small, fuel-efficient Honda CVCC collided with a Volvo that was turning left.

The force of the collision spun the Honda around. It missed my (little) Saturn by a couple of feet, and slammed into the motorcyle next to me, knocking the rider to the curb.

I literally got out of my car and went to check on the Honda driver, who was badly injured. The Volvo guy had a cut hand. He got out of his car somewhat dazed and said, "Wow - those airbags deploy fast."

To let traffic continue, I had to move parts of the Volvo (such as the bumper that came to rest up against my front tires) in order for the Ambulance to get there.

But even if everyone rode mopeds, it would still be quite dangerous. We came upon several fatal accidents in Cambodia, where almost everyone is on mopeds instead of cars. Hit a fixed object on a moped and you're in a world of hurt.

Speaking of hurt, the idea of taking two cars to haul the family around presumes there are two drivers. Last week my father broke his leg in a volunteering accident. While we expect a full recovery, he was definitely not able to drive himself home. When I think of all the families enduring breast cancer or any other chronic illness, you could easily have a situation where only one parent is available to drive.

If you can afford a nanny to drive the other car, great. But that's not really a viable situation in an emergency, or in the case of a serious medical condition.

[72. Nathan said the following at 8:52 PM on May 22:]

72

For me personally, I am concerned about the law of supply and demand.

If the government forces gas above $4, it might suceed in its motivation to increase mpg on new cars. That means that the demand for gas might decrease some. Last I checked, the US cannot even get close to producing enough gas (offshore, Alaska, etc) to meet the US need.

If demand decreases, what is going to keep OPEC from simplying decreasing supply to keep profits steady? If OPEC decreases supply, gas prices will increase even more over what was caused by the government regulatory controls.

Am I wrong? Anytime that you start to regulate a free market, there can be far reaching consequences. It is not a simple matter where you change one input out of a desire to change one output. The market is seriously more complicated than that.

[73. BDB said the following at 10:13 PM on May 22:]

73

Nathan, you are exactly right - mere regulatory changes will not create soley positive results - they will result in winners and losers. This is why China and India continue to insist that all the "climate-change" pain needs to be taken by developed nations - so they can continue to grow.

They actually said the U.S. and other developed economies should give up 1% of their GDP or so to offset climate change so they wouldn't have to stop their rapid economic development. Article is here.

[74. Mark W said the following at 11:09 PM on May 22:]

74

@obewan 60,

"You are WRONG farmer Tom. I am a libertarian, and I voted for Chuck Baldwin, AND I like the proposed CAFÉ standard."

I'm sorry, but if you are in favor of federal regulation of private industry, you are neither a libertarian nor a Constitutionalist. Coincidental agreement on two policy issues does not mean that your philosophy or rationale behind those points of agreement lines up with the philosophy of liberty.

The platform of the Constitution party is about disinvolving the U.S. from all foreign adventurism because it is not Constitutionally authorized or morally right. The fact that non-interventionism will make us more secure, prosperous, internationally well liked, and most likely have a favorable effect on the price of oil is a happy coincidence, but the effects of non-interventionism should not be confused with the philosophical reasons for it.

If your political philosophy is to do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired ends, then you're no different from those who advocate Middle Eastern interventionism other than that you disagree on which side of the issue is ultimately more beneficial. As farmer Tom said, you're a functional socialist/fascist who believes that the state should do whatever it deems necessary for "the common good."

@brx,

You obviously seem to think that the gov't should forcibly enact the principles of the Sermon on the Mount upon its citizens. What about its citizens who don't believe in these principles? What about the separation of Church and State? I'm not saying that gov't shouldn't take some of its cues from religion when trying to draft its laws (because in a Natural Law sense, I do), but does the gov't have the right to force everyone to live according to a certain belief system?

Also, please tell me from where the U.S. federal government derives the authority to interfere with private business.

@Nathan 72,

You raise an excellent point! No matter what our gov't does, OPEC ultimately has far more control over the price of oil than any taxation plan ever could. Our government might mean to pressure us, and then as a result, OPEC could strangle us. Don't forget the law of unintended consequences... (Or the stupidity of politicians!)

[75. Leah said the following at 12:05 AM on May 23:]

75

Hannah C... plenty of manufacturers still make station wagons. But I've never seen a station wagon that would fit 8 people. These days they only fit 5, although when I was a kid it was common to get them with a bench seat in the front, meaning they could then fit 6. When my parents needed to buy a new car about 7 years ago (6 people in the family) they searched high and low. Dad didn't want a minivan because they generally have pathetic engines and rubbish towing capacity, and we frequently took caravan holidays. He didn't want a 4WD (SUV) either (probably because of fuel inefficiency, among other things). He wanted a station wagon, like we'd always had. They generally have good engines, plenty of luggage space (a must-have for a family of 6 that often travels), etc.

Trouble was, the industry had stopped making station wagons with the bench seat in the front. He ended up buying a second-hand ex-fleet station wagon from our state's capital city (1000 miles away), so it was still good condition and was only 2 years old. None of the second-hand places in our city had them.

(Btw they took out a loan for it but had no troubles paying it back).

BDB (comment 64)... you're not seriously suggesting families have a fleet of 3 cars??

obewan... big families these days have little choice other than SUVs (or Four Wheel Drives [4WD], as us Aussies call them). The industry no longer makes 6-seater station wagons, as I previously mentioned. Minivans are often more dangerous than 4WDs (a much smaller crunch-area in the front) and have far less luggage space (which, as I also said earlier, is a must-have for large families which frequently travel) and usually have rubbish towing capacity (which bigger families often need). Two cars would probably be less fuel efficient than one "gas-guzzler". Not to mention families often don't have the option of two drivers. How does Mum take 6 kids below the age of 10 to school, sports, music lessons etc when Dad's at work?

[76. Leah said the following at 12:08 AM on May 23:]

76

Mike Theemling - I've never seen a station wagon that seats 8 people.

[77. Leah said the following at 12:13 AM on May 23:]

77

obewan (50) - Rail is not as efficient for America and Australia and similar countries, because we have such large distances to travel. In Europe, a twenty minute train ride can put you into the next country, city, village, etc. In Australia (and I'm sure the US) there are many places where it would take a minimum of 6 hours in a train to reach another city. Our train systems in our capital cities are great, but outside of those, rail really isn't a viable option most of the time.

[78. obewan said the following at 2:08 AM on May 23:]

78

Motte Wrote:
"I would never invest in *your* idea of what I should drive because I don't believe in the unproven, man-made global warming hysteria."
------------------------------------
You are putting words in my mouth that have never been there. I never said I am worried about "global warming." I am worried about the projected depletion of the world oil supply within the next 50 years or so.

And as I said before, I have no concern about what YOU drive

[79. Anthony said the following at 11:36 AM on May 23:]

79

Re 77 / Leah:

Yes, the U.S. is spread out. Yet I don't see that as such an issue for rail-based transportation. Trains go about as fast (if not faster) than cars and are more efficient. How on earth is this not a viable option? If our rail systems were expanded, we could have more trains on the tracks going in more directions. I surmise that a huge part of the population would opt for public transit (i.e. cross country trains) if it was easier, more rewarding, and cheaper.

[80. Hannah C. said the following at 1:19 PM on May 23:]

80

When I said station wagon, I was referring to the ones that sat seven or eight - bench seats in front and middle, and the extra seat in the back which usually seats two. As far as I know they don't make any like that anymore - my family was looking for a new car, and could only find such cars used.

Another problem for large families with small children - boosters take up SO MUCH ROOM in cars, and so do carseats. Cars aren't built for them anymore...and now boosters are being required in some places when they may be useful but really aren't absolutely necessary...Then again that is safety worries so it makes more sense.

My family has never owned a new car; we've never had the money, and I'm positive we're far from the only people in this same position. Thankfully Texas law has exemptions from emissions for old cars otherwise my family would have been out of a vehicle at one point.

There is a Texas program where you can trade in an old car and get $3000, I believe, but that doesn't go very far towards a new car...

[81. BDB said the following at 2:58 PM on May 23:]

81

Leah (#75) wrote:

>>BDB (comment 64)... you're not seriously suggesting families have a fleet of 3 cars??<<

Well, I'm saying that from an operational perspective, that's the best mix. I only have one. The middle one, the family-car with traction control. I do have a family member with several vehicles - they like to restore classic cars as a hobby.

Part of my feeling relates to being trapped at home in the snow. Not a problem here in Southern California. But just last Christmas, we were pretty much all stuck at home because of snow. It disrupted all our family plans because each family had only one vehicle that could safely operate in snow - my dad has one 4x4 truck and my stepfather another truck they're comfortable driving in the snow with weight in the back. It was VERY uncomfortable stuck in the back of these vehicles with my luggage over Christmas.

If there were kids in car seats, it wouldn't have worked at all.

Of course, I don't know anyone who would buy all three new. One family with this vehicle mix had a large SUV (1991) when their kids were younger, and they just kept it after it was paid off, and got another new small car. The big one sits most of the time.

Snow-capable vehicles are all expensive to operate. But I was also reminded of their value when riding in a Nissan Altima with someone who was from the South, and it snowed while I was visiting. I felt so bad - she hates driving in the snow. Sliding all over the road. But, nevertheless, an example of what happens if you don't have a vehicle at home that can get out in the snow: you still have to go out or leave people stranded.

I slid off the road once in my dad's car - while driving a car full of people. A guy in a jeep happened by and pulled us right out within a couple of minutes. Embarassing for me, the driver. But a great example of why vehicle type matters in snowy weather.

But you don't need a 4x4 during sunny, dry weather. A little Honda Civic or Saturn might even be fun to drive in those conditions.

I can't think of any Biblical justification for a convertible...

[82. brx said the following at 3:50 PM on May 23:]

82

Re: MarkW [#74];

You wrote that I "obviously seem to think that the gov't should forcibly enact the principles of the Sermon on the Mount upon its citizens."

No, that's not an obvious conclusion; I think you are being silly and argumentative. I said Jesus upheld and taught the Father's principles for a society's well-being. Jesus pointed out that laws enforced by men can only go so far in getting people to do right; it's men's hearts that must submit to God's principles and only they can let their heart submit.

"What about its citizens who don't believe in these principles?"

What about them? - You don't have to believe in a principle in order to obey it. Remember the 10 Commandments? Truth is truth, regardless of what one believes, silly. Foreigners were welcome to dwell in Israel - so long as they kept the Father's decrees.

"What about the separation of Church and State?"

What about it? Do you know what that principle in the US Constitution is? It simply says that no law shall be made that _unfairly_ gives material favor to a particular religious denomination over another. Evidence strongly suggests that the writers of the US Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution documents had accepted the existence of a Creator God as a fundamental axiom. And further, that understanding the character of that God is fundamental to the wise governance of a nation.

And, just like Israel, we sinful people get caught up in trying to meet the letter of the law while our hearts are selfishly far from its principles. Our bodies can be made to submit to the law but our hearts must be given to God's principles willingly.

Grace, peace & adventure in reconciling the differences

[83. brx said the following at 3:53 PM on May 23:]

83

Re: MarkW [#74];

I think I was slightly antagonistic in my response just now. Sorry about that, MarkW.

[84. obewan said the following at 7:44 PM on May 23:]

84

#74. Mark W had the following to say on May 22 at 11:09 PM:

@obewan 60,

"You are WRONG farmer Tom. I am a libertarian, and I voted for Chuck Baldwin, AND I like the proposed CAFÉ standard."

I'm sorry, but if you are in favor of federal regulation of private industry, you are neither a libertarian nor a Constitutionalist. Coincidental agreement on two policy issues does not mean that your philosophy or rationale behind those points of agreement lines up with the philosophy of liberty.
------------------------------------
There are more issues with socialism that I do not agree with than the libertarian view.

Agreement or disagreement on one or two issues does not make or break membership with any one party in my opinion.

I can be libertarian and still favor a government minimum wage - or speed limits for that matter.

You sound like a hard core libertarian to me with an all or nothing philosophy.

I recognize that compromise is required, but please do not call me a socialist!

[85. Kit said the following at 7:59 PM on May 23:]

85

We waste gas. We don't need the cars (most of us) that we drive. We just don't. Some people do. But most of us just think it looks hot to drive a big car.

It's excessive and unnecessary, and there's nothing wrong with what Obama is doing. He is not saying you can't drive a big car. He's saying that the big cars will have to meet the same standards as the small ones. There is not a giant conspiracy to make us shrink our families, just to restrain much of the excess that often comes with the next biggest car.

[86. Chris said the following at 8:16 PM on May 23:]

86

BDB writes:

Part of the solution is having a fleet of vehicles:

1 - Small, efficient car for commuting alone.

1 - Mid-sized family car with things like anti-lock brakes and traction control for hauling the family in bad weather

1 - large vehicle with 4x4 for safely transporting the family in snow, to the mountains, camping, etc.

You write as though these attributes are mutually exclusive.

A decent car with FWD and a manual transmission can navigate snow with the right driver as well as any AWD or 4x4. Of course, YMMV (pun intended). My experience with 4x4's is that most people do not know how to use it properly and/or think it provides some magical shield or "supertraction" on ice. I would argue that for the average driver, 4x4s are dangerous since they provide a false sense of safety and can be used improperly.

As for camping/cargo/etc., one can buy a trailer hitch and hitch cargo carrier for about $300. You can also throw on a roof rack and use a cargo box or bag; it's very easy with newer cars since many already have the mount points for racks built in. This easily allows you to increase cargo capacity when needed without having to buy a truck or SUV or wagon.

And you can buy small, efficient cars with ABS, traction control, etc.

[87. Chris said the following at 8:30 PM on May 23:]

87

Leah writes:

Minivans are often more dangerous than 4WDs (a much smaller crunch-area in the front) and have far less luggage space (which, as I also said earlier, is a must-have for large families which frequently travel) and usually have rubbish towing capacity (which bigger families often need).

What, pray tell, is needed for towing capacity for a large family?

My Toyota Matrix can tow 1500 lbs. My 14' 1965 fishing boat and trailer, loaded with stuff, probably don't top 600 lbs.

SUV towing capacities are upwards of 3000, 5000, or 7000+ lbs. Are these families towing all their possessions in a trailer? Does a family really take that much weight on vacation?

These towing capacities are for things like large boats, campers, and the like. They are not because large families need to tow a lot of stuff to make life easier.

[88. Anthony said the following at 9:00 PM on May 23:]

88

No one here is addressing the fact that oil is not part of our future. Within 50 years, our oil resources will be effectively drained. Within 25 years, only the affluent will be able to afford to drive. Motte, I'm sorry, but you're no one special here -- everyone's going to be hit by diminishing oil reserves. I'm no fan of Obama's ardent support of the auto industry. This move is yet another that merely puts off the inevitable: that, as social critic James Howard Kunstler puts it, the automobile will be a diminishing part of our lives. Everyone's talking about "green-car-this," "hybrid-this," and "ethanol-wonder-that," that fact that we need to accept is that we need to let go of the car. Successful societies existed for thousands of years before Henry Ford.

Motte, you wrote: "Is my wife supposed to have our oldest child who's 9 get behind the wheel of a second Civic to go to the grocery store or to take her to piano or to do the million other things she does during the day while I'm at work?"

Motte, I'm sorry, but I have to call it as it is: it sounds to me as though you're living an impossible suburban life. T.S. Eliot, one of Christianity's most powerful and fully-realized poets, wrote in his most explicitly Christian work that "all dash to and fro in motor cars/Familiar with the roads and settled nowhere." We must all throw away the notion that we are victims to society. Our Lord has given us choices in our lives, many being social. We do not have to own a car. We do not have to have our planners packed with weekly activities demanding us to drive ten miles for soccer practice and thirty miles for church. We don't need this kind of "mobility." Does God really want us to live in the rush that we do? Is your daughter going to learn more in piano tutoring than riding the subway next to a homeless man? I don't think so.

I'm not talking about the environment here. That is a different topic, toward which I am not as interested. Rather, I'm speaking of the social tolls of car use and car-based mobility. I recently completed a study titled "The Neighborhood Church in Limbo: Three Approaches to Community-Based Religion." In this project, I profiled several churches in my area of varying denominations, geographic locations, socioeconomic and ethnoracial makeups. What I found was distressing: parishioners across the board were choosing to cultivate multiple communities in diverse geographic bounds. Few tried to centralize their communities and were essentially spread too thin. They lacked any sort of meaningful connection. Even the churches struggled to maintain community as their congregants had so many activities taking place not only outside the church but outside a given church's geographic region.

When I return from studying abroad in a few months, I'll be moving to a small city, highly urbanized with superior infrastructure and a booming community feel. I'll never have to drive a car. Everything is walkable. There's vibrant public transit and a train and bus that travels to hometown. Being relatively young, I've never owned a vehicle. Last year, I shared with my parents and commuted to school. I walk to one workplace and bike to the other. I work at a local half-wine shop/half-international grocery store which acts as a community hub in the neighborhood. The most rewarding part of this job as a mere clerk has been interacting with the "regulars"--neighborhood customers who come in every afternoon for the same pack of Parliament Lights and bottle of 14 Hands. The truth is that I live in the suburbs. That I can have this experience of true community, as obtained without the automobile, should be a testament that most can.

I understand that some suburban residencies are much more isolated than mine without a corner store in walking distance. For residents of these suburban developments, I ask, "Why choose to live in a perceived (perception, not fact, is a unfortunate key to this) place of safety when all you're really doing is cheating yourself from true and meaningful community?"

As you can see, these new fuel efficiency standards are connected to everything. Someone said earlier that we live in a society that depends on cars. He/she was right. But it doesn't have to be that way. Sorry for these disjointed thoughts, but I do have one more:

Obama's idea of $4 for a gallon of gas is a joke. It needs to be $9-10 a gallon to reflect the actual cost of driving a car (most Europeans pay close to the actual cost). What most Americans do not understand is that their car use is subsidized to an extreme degree by the federal and state government. We've been living in a dream and need a wake up call. Unfortunately, Obama is neither progressive nor ballsy enough to ring the alarm. Aside from $3 on a Chicago toll-way, we're not paying anywhere near the true cost to drive a car. The government pours in over $5 in road and infrastructure work for cars to every gallon we pay for. Taxes hardly cover this. And then there's this mentality that we shouldn't have to pay to park our car--another awful joke. Conservatives should be jumping on this one to cut the Federal budget and to demand more responsibility from citizens. Here's to hope.

[89. Chantel said the following at 9:09 PM on May 23:]

89

I'm sorry, but this post is somewhat ridiculous. God appointed us as stewards of the earth, so everyone should be concerned about the use of gas guzzlers.

Global warming is not unproven to a certain extent. There is a cyclical warming of the earth, but humans are making it worse. So, it is natural but humans are contributing to it. I do not believe the world is going to end because of global warming (I believe in the 2nd coming), but that does not mean that we should not make an effort to protect the environment.

By the way, oil is not going to last forever. We are too dependent on oil and making more efficient vehicles will help with that. Also, it is definitely possible to make eight+ passenger vehicles that meet new emission standards of 35.5. mpg.

Barack Obama is not forcing people to have smaller families. People already have smaller families. American families usually have two children now. I have read on this website or one of the other Focus on the Family websites that God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. However, He did not say that indefinitely and I'm sure you know that the earth is getting pretty full. Jesus said any man who builds a tower, let him count the cost first or else others will mock if he cannot finish. In other words, if you have children, you better be able to support them. Please do take offense at anything I am saying because I do not want to be contentious in any way. God bless.

[90. BDB said the following at 10:01 PM on May 23:]

90

Chris (#86) wrote:

>>I would argue that for the average driver, 4x4s are dangerous since they provide a false sense of safety and can be used improperly.<<

The average driver can't drive stick, either.

I did have the opportunity to drive my mother's 80's-era manual transmission Honda Prelude one Christmas in the snow. It had studded tires on the front drive tires, and indeed performed well. If I had the 3-vehicle configuration, and lived in an area where it snowed in the winter, one of the three would be something small, sporty, with a stick shift and studded tires in the winter.

However, there were two problems:

1) Other cars on the road out of control. Doesn't do any good to be in control in your little car if a larger sedan, without studded tires, loses control and slams you into the snow bank.

2) The 2-door Prelude was way too small to effectively put car seats in the back.

The reason for the 3-vehicle configuration is that two of the vehicles are big enough to go get the kids when it starts snowing during the school day and drive them home. In the town I grew up in, when this happened, the small number of families with 4x4 vehicles often would end up picking up their own kids AND their kids' friends and driving them up and down th hills during these snow emergencies. I'd rather be the parent driving than the one who can't get out of his driveway.

Fun Fact: One of the School superintendents we had used an easy method to determine whether to close school for the day: it depended on whether he could get out of his driveway without chains. He lived on one of the hills, and had a steep driveway. The official policy was to go drive a lot of the bus routes on the hills very early in the morning - he and a couple of other district people did so every time it snowed, and came to an agreement about whether it was safe to let the busses opeate. Sometimes they just delayed school by 2 hours and changed to "snow" routes for busses, which meant no school bus service in the hilly residential areas. But consistently, if he couldn't get out of his driveway, it meant that many of the other streets weren't safe, either.

[91. Ted Slater said the following at 10:18 PM on May 23:]

91

I find it remarkable how some of the comments here come across as so sanctimonious and prideful, so critical of those who choose to live a certain lifestyle and raise their children a certain way.

Does it make you feel better to boast of your tiny carbon footprint and to diminish those who use more energy during the day than you do? Seriously, why should you care that Motte and his family drive a large vehicle? Why the indignation? Are you looking for someone to blame for our climate cycles, and Motte is a more convenient person to blame than the Creator?

I just find it odd that the SUV has become such a source of derision, that it has come to represent a devilishly indulgent abuse of resources.

Anthony (#88) -- you wrote, "What most Americans do not understand is that their car use is subsidized to an extreme degree by the federal and state government." I'm not following you. Are you saying that because gasoline/petroleum taxes don't cover the cost of making and maintaining roads, that somehow government is making up the difference? Where does "government" get their money from? From me. They take my money, and your money, and Motte's money ... to pay for the roads. "They" are not subsidizing anything; I am.

Regarding your concern about oil running out within a few decades, that's just not true. We're fine for a long, long time, as I explained last year. In addition to not panicking about oil, we should be exploring nuclear energy and other clean sources of energy.

You make some fascinating points about community and neighborhood churches. I think we could benefit from participating in churches close to where we live. I feel that I need to urge you, though, to be careful that your knowledge doesn't make you feel somehow better than others, that the common Christian who drives five miles to church rather than walking a few blocks is ignorant or is somehow missing out on God's best. I know how education can make one feel "special."

Chantel (#89) -- you wrote, "if you have children, you better be able to support them." I don't understand how that is relevant here. Are you saying that Motte and his wife are wrong to have six children? Do you have something against families that our current culture would consider "large"?

Earlier you wrote, "There is a cyclical warming of the earth, but humans are making it worse." What do you mean by "worse"? The earth has been much warmer than it is currently; was that a bad thing? Is another ice age preferable to a slightly warmer environment? What is the ideal global temperature?

[92. BDB said the following at 10:36 PM on May 23:]

92

Anthony (#88) wrote:

>>that fact that we need to accept is that we need to let go of the car. Successful societies existed for thousands of years before Henry Ford. <<

Well, poor societies existed, yes. These were the societies that lost millions of lives each year to things like the flu...societies where hunger and malnutrition were common because it was too expensive to move food from areas with longer growing seasons.

In short, calls to eliminate automobiles are too silly to be taken seriously.

The real solution is to improve electric storage capacity. Electric motors are plenty powerful enough. All those big catepillars, not to mention locomotives, use diesel-electric powerplants - the motive power is actually an electric engine.

We have PLENTY of coal and Uranium in the U.S. to last for centuries. The solution is to build more of these electric generation plants, improve the use of electric vehicles powered by these plants. If nothing else, those power plants can provide the energy necessary to produce the fuel for fuel-cell vehicles.

Part of the reality of internal combustion engines is that they are not very efficient at converting the power in gasoline to mobile energy. Far too much is lost in heat and friction. These are engineering challenges that need to be solved. Boeing is doing precisely this with the 787 Dreamliner which is designed to be 30% more efficient on fuel use than current aircraft. These kinds of incremental changes are what will stretch out the "50 year" red herring.

Brazil has also done quite a bit with biofuels. Mostly, they are destroying engines, because biofuels have a lot of problems. However, they've also significantly reduced their use of petroleum. While it's foolish to make ethanol out of corn, like we've been doing in the U.S., it's quite likely that we can find ways to use non-corn biofuels to reduce reliance on petroleum - again extending the run-out date.

The hybrid-electric vehicles have a lot of potential to reduce the need for petroleum. Things like regenerative braking conserve the use of fuel by turning kinetic energy back into electricity, instead of simply dissipating it as heat through the brake pads. This kind of engineering works on locomotives; it can work just fine on SUV's also.

[93. BDB said the following at 10:45 PM on May 23:]

93

Anthony (#88) is bad at math.

>>The government pours in over $5 in road and infrastructure work for cars to every gallon we pay for. Taxes hardly cover this.<<

The government can't pour money into roads without taxes. In reality, much of the taxes collected for the Highway Trust Fund have been sitting there. The "Stimulus Package" finally puts these funds into infrastructure. But they were already collected in taxes.

If you really want to make transportation tax dollars go further, eliminate the prevailing wage rules that waste huge amounts of money in highway construction projects.

[94. BDB said the following at 10:50 PM on May 23:]

94

Anthony (#88) must have never lived places where gunshots are heard evey weekend.

>>"Why choose to live in a perceived (perception, not fact, is a unfortunate key to this) place of safety when all you're really doing is cheating yourself from true and meaningful community?"<<

Can hearing gunshots and watching helicopters regularly chasing suspects at night affect your perception of an area's safety? You betcha!

The first apartment I lived in after college seemed to have Sheriff's helicopters visiting an awful lot. When I moved out, the leasing office had a "Why are you moving" survey.

I wrote: "Too many helicopters for my taste."

I got a letter back from them insisting that they didn't feel there was a crime problem. They exactly knew what I was talking about!

Anyway, you can also look up crime statistics. It's not merely perception, it's also statistical reality.

As for community, in my quiet little cul-de-sac, I actually know my neighbors. Just like I did growing up in a small town. But unlike my experience livng in less-safe areas.

[95. BDB said the following at 11:36 PM on May 23:]

95

The CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplane has come out with an interesting article suggesting a fuel-efficiency standard for airplane standards.

Does that mean Boing is green?

Not really. It means that they have an efficient plane, and Airbus does not. Boeing's biggest competitor is actually older Boeing planes. I suspect they want to use the regulation to force airlines to get rid of their old planes and buy new ones. Nevertheless, the work being done on biofuels in planes will further reduce demand for petroleum.

[96. farmer Tom said the following at 6:48 AM on May 24:]

96

Philippians 4: 19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

Scripture tells us that our needs are known by God, and He supplies them from His vast resources according to His sovereign plan.

We also see in Scripture that God expects us to plan and conduct ourselves wisely.

Luke 14:28

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

Proverbs 6:

6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: 7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, 8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

I Timothy 5:8

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

God made each of us individually responsible for ourselves and our families. Even when it comes to personal defense, Jesus told His disciples in Luke 22:36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Nowhere in Scripture does God suggest that individuals or families are to look to the government for personal needs, food, raiment, (transportation) or defense. Look at Proverbs 6 again, the ant has nor government agency, no rules for conduct, no president, telling the ant what to do. The ant is an independent free creature who provides for and takes care of itself.

But, somehow “christians” at this blog, seem to believe that government should tell us what to eat, where to live, how many children to have, what to drive, whether or not we should arm ourselves, and on and on, because they have less ability or desire to provide for their own needs than the ants.

They have become vassals of the state, doing exactly as the government dictates. Believing the propaganda spread by the sycophantic media, that somehow man in his finite ineptitude can destroy the planet and the wealth of resources it contains, because mankind is incapable of doing anything to provide for his own needs himself.

And thats why I called most of you socialist/Marxists.
You have accepted the philosophy which states,

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Right out of Karl Marx' manifesto. Many of you believe that the state(government) knows better than the individual what each persons needs are. The assumption within the Marxist philosophy is that the state actually knows what each individual needs. This assumes that in fact the state is god, knowing how best to meet the citizens needs. Yet, Scripture says that God will supply our need. Is the state your god or do you believe that God gives the individual the ability to provide for him/herself? You believe that the state should be able to determine whether or not Motte drives a vehicle in which his whole family fits, rather than letting Motte, a free man, the sovereign head of his own household, determine what vehicle best suits the needs of his family.

By what God given authority do you have the right to tell anyone what they can drive? Yet you assert that the state should make those demands. Supposedly, we the people, you and I, are the sovereigns in our Republican form of government. Yet you use the cloak of government power to force your fellow citizen to do your bidding in the area of transportation. You demand that Motte conform to your belief systems about the environment, global climate change, and peak oil theory so that your belief system will be honored.

I don't see Motte demanding that you drive a Hummer, yet you would demand he buy/own two cars to transport his family. Get over your god complex. You are not given the authority by God to demand any behavior from anybody, and just because you vote for leaders in government to do your dirty work for you does not absolve you of your wickedness.

I believe God has given Motte, the authority to determine for himself what he should drive. God knows our needs better than we do, and we know far better than some self aggrandizing political hack, what our needs are. A truly free society allows the individual to determine need and provide for that need, without the threat of interference from government. We need to be free of government mandates about what kind of transportation is acceptable.

[97. Jo said the following at 10:38 AM on May 24:]

97

Can someone explain to me why in the world the US government would care even a little bit about whether average Joe Bloggs has one child or ten? I just don't get this particular conspiracy theory.

Presumably the rising costs are an attempt to stop those who don't need a big car from 'guzzling gas' unnecessarily. And yeah, it sucks when you get penalised because of the irresponsibility of other people. I can totally understand Motte's frustration. But to suggest that it's happening because Obama wants to punish big families seems like clutching at straws to me.

[98. Jonathon said the following at 12:24 PM on May 24:]

98

brx, I disagree. You said, "Christianity is the belief in and following of the teachings of Jesus as the Christ." I say it is the belief in and following of Jesus Christ. Maybe that's semantics but I think it's valid. I do see your point about that there is a certain Christian worldview and I agree. I just don't think that worldview is Capitalism. Or American.

[99. brx said the following at 4:19 PM on May 24:]

99

Re: Anthony [#88];

I'm very interested in the topic of authentic faith & community and would like to read your paper: "The Neighborhood Church in Limbo: Three Approaches to Community-Based Religion." It sounds very interesting. Can you post it somewhere for people to access?

Reading your comments has brought to mind two particular thoughts. The first, is that they sound a bit like the mother character in the film "Almost Famous" - she had a passion for wanting everyone to think, feel, and reason the way she did. The second is that the way you live your life and how you employ your gifting depends heavily upon others living their lives differently and employing their gifts differently. And that's according to God's good design.

Your comments led me to consider the extremes of social networking. For simple illustration, let's take depth and breadth to represent the measurable dimensions of one's social network - like the depth and width of a triangle. These dimensions are limited by one's resources and time. If I pour all my time and resources into maximizing the depth dimension, or all my time and resources into maximizing the width dimension, then in both cases, I end up with a triangle of little area. If I find the right balance between depth and width, I can maximize the area.

Similarly and as a point of stewardship, I think Jesus calls each of us to seek the right balance in using our time and very unique resources to build our own social networks with the right balance of depth and breadth so as to maximize its area as best we can; so, that area - those people - can be impacted by Jesus' love through us.

The uniqueness of gifts and passions that God has made each person with, I think, testifies that God does not intend for each neighborhood, church, and city to be a homogenous community unto itself.

I'm still very interested in reading your paper.

Grace, peace & adventure building and participating in community as Jesus calls you to!

[100. brx said the following at 4:54 PM on May 24:]

100

Re: farmer Tom [#96];

...uhm...most of it is not worth it, but this is short:

Solomon was very wise from observation, but also embraced brevity. He didn't bother to point out that the ant lives in a colony - a community, giving to and receiving from it in different ways; the ant does not soley provide for its own. The ant also agrees and works in harmony with the rest of the colony (community). Solomon didn't mention those things because he probably figured they were obvious to anyone who actually took his advice to observe and consider the ant.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
- that's also Biblical, except participation is encouraged to be voluntary, not compulsory. ...problem is, a voluntary tax doesn't work so well when so many are straying, hence, systems like the Temple Tax are implemented.