Slashdot Mirror
Green Cars You Can't Buy
Geoffrey.landis writes "Auto industry blogger Lawrence Ulrich notes that Honda is now making a "Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle" (or PZEV for short) version of the 2008 Accord, an all-new vehicle that is redesigned to meet California emission standards. He notes "So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving."
But the irony is that it's actually illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states they were designed for! Apparently, anybody selling one of these ultra-green vehicles out of the correctly-designated venue — which means either California, or seven northeast-states with similar pollution laws — "could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.""
What the fuck does that even mean?
I'm totally screwed. I live in a red state.
Ending a sentence with a preposition.
What possible reason could they come up with to justify such a law? I could see them trying to target the worst (most poluted) states first and limiting inventory to other states temporarily, but to actually pass a law with fines sounds extremely fishy.
Seriously, you Uh-mericans need to get rid of Bush, quick fast and in a hurry! Ron Paul might give you half a chance to get your freedom & economy back... and perhaps environment... Good luck!
Is it because the popularity of green vehicles is shifting crop production and making food prices go up (motivating the legal discouragement of green vehicles)?
Or do they expect that by limiting their potential customer base they will make more money?
Or am I just missing something?
I RTFA and the author fails to tell why it's illegal in most states. Just dangles the fact that it is in front of us.
Need more information. Maybe I just dont understand why you can't sell a "green" vehicle anywhere?
Ah, the smell of technology innovation being stifled by stupid legal action in the morning.
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time." Danny Vinyard -American History X
Because California wants to protect it's precious and clean air.
if you can even call it 'air'
One thing to remember is that much of Europe has various cars that have diesel (and bio-diesel) engines that are not licensed for sale in the US.
And even the so-called plug-in hybrids (which I love) that will be sold by GM and Ford etc will be in such short supply that production until 2012 will be so minimal it's unlikely you'll be able to get one.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The article seems to contradict itself ...
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500.
...
then
It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions--or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.
It DOES sound like the fault of the automaker. If they don't have to sell a cleaner car in other states why should they?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So my 2004 Prius has a big sticker on the rear, driver's side window that says "PZEV," indicating that it is a Partial-Zero Emission Vehicle per the standards. Does this article imply that Toyota has been breaking the law selling the Prius around the nation, or are there different versions of the Prius that are "clean" and "cleaner"? It mentions Toyota and the Prius, but doesn't make the connection that the Prius is also a PZEV.
Just like the beef packer down in Kansas who wanted to test all of their cows for mad-cow disease, so they could be certified to ship beef to Japan. The USDA rightfully shut them down, because it would have been unfair competition, giving these guys a competitive edge over everybody else in the market.
:-)
If they let Honda sell near zero emissions automobiles in states where it's not mandated, that might put pressure on everybody else to also make near zero emissions cars, and that's just not fair!
So we should all thank our friends in the Government, for helping ot insure that competition in the marketplace does not create unfair competition.
Sometimes you can't tell spoof from reality.
I would kill for a decent recent diesel car over here in the states. Modern diesel engines are way more efficent then hybrids for a cheaper price. I still don't get why they are not common place over here. I assume because people still think of them as a enviromental disaster ....
...but how does regulation like this even work? I would have thought that if your emissions laws were less stringent, you would still be able to drive a car that surpassed your state's standards. What is the justification for keeping these cars out of the rest of the country?
Partial zero emission vehicle means that during some portion of time while the vehicle is operating, it does not produce any emissions. Example: The Toyota Prius is a PZEV because when the engine is off and it is operating on its electric motors, it is operating and not producing any emissions. Note that not all hybrids are PZEVs because with some the engine runs constantly.
PZEV is becoming one of those buzzwords that journalists like to latch onto. It's meant to simplify what is being talked about, but taking a literal interpretation without knowing the background makes it rather confusing and a little misleading, in my opinion.
Speaking of buzzwords, I still giggle a little every time I am behind one of those Honda CRV's with the little decal that says "Real-time 4WD". As if someone wants a 4WD vehicle in which they would have to wait 30 minutes for the front axle to start pulling. "Automatic" would be a more appropriate word, but it doesn't have the buzzword effect that "real-time" does.
For some reason, I don't think we're getting the full story here. Usually, there's at least some sort of somewhat-logical reasoning behind something like this. Anyone know the full story? Or is this an example of the rampant corruption that plaguing the US government?
Apart from a little snippet about how it's because of the Clean Air Act, why can't auto makers sell those cars outside of special regions? I'm having a rough time coming up with concrete specifics about the assertion.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Just stop talking about this fucking article. There's a reason nobody can figure out what is going on here, and the reason is shitty reporting. If the idiot writer can't make any more sense than this, ignore him and wait for somebody with a clue to cover the story.
Right, "Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell You". Possibly the most misleading headline you'll see all week.
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California (for example; there are several other states involved). The automakers are not allowed to sell them anywhere else. It's that simple.
If these vehicles were produced without subsidies, they'd be so expensive that no one would buy them. Lawrence Ulrich seems to think that automakers should make a highly expensive clean-burning vehicles on their own and sell them at a loss, perhaps so they can go out of business in two or three years.
At least Slashdot used a non-misleading headline instead. Kudos for that.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
... you cant buy one :)
Vincent Price's Orphan Powered Death Machine has zero emissions too; it does not exist.
Or does it..?
BS.
"if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving."
My lawn mower uses about 1 quart per hour. If any of these cars gets 40 mpg, then by this quote they are producing 200 times more pollution than my one hour of yard work. Because the primary pollutant of burning gasoline is CO2. In fact, one hour with my lawn mower uses less gas than one hour of driving one of these cars at 60 mph.
Don't forget that diesel is denser, so you can't compare MPG with petrol really. A 50MPG diesel emits more CO2 than a 50MPG petrol car.
Laws that inhibit good and desirable behaviour, are bad laws. No other way to say it.
Dominant Meme
You cannot have something that is partially zero. Zero is an absolute. This is like saying that something is "partially complete". Partially complete is management speak for incomplete, partially zero is management speak for not zero. More advertising bollocks.
Could we get a TINY bit more info? Do those cars fail to pass certain regulations in those states? Or does the government in some mind-twisting plot try to use this as some kinda statistics comparision thingie (i.e. do "green" cars actually cause an affect, a statistic that would of course be tainted if the cars could drive anywhere)?
Before I put on my tinfoil hat, does anyone have a bit more info than "must not sell them there"? "Why" is the only really interesting question (most of the time it is), and if one question isn't answered in the linked article, it's this one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
North Carolina has decided that already having the 5th worst air in the country isn't nearly patriotic enough so they're doing away with emission tests on the annual inspection soon. Since 75% of all newly registered vehicles are either pickups or SUV's you can bet that they'll all have bigger dirtier engines eventually. I'm getting a ribbon magnet the size of a small child to slap on the side to proclaim that my underwear is an American flag and my blood runs red white and blue.
That this retarded restriction only applies within the US's jurisdiction?
California gives automakers huge grants for making CA only cars. The cars are subsidized by the state, so if you sell it in another state you are basically taking tax dollars away from California residents (both in the Car's sale, and in the state's funding of the car manufacturing/R&D).
I am not saying it's right, but it is not 100% rediculious.
Does that mean that if you were to drive one of these cars across state lines, you would be in violation of some DOT code? Or if one wanted to drive across state lines, would they have to have their sensors/PCM calibrated to fit the requirements of the destination state? If either of these is true, someone must think the buyers of these vehicles are cute... because they want to screw them.
The game.
The article makes the claim that car companies can't sell cars that have emission levels below CA and national standards. EPA and related standards set MAXIMUM levels of pollutants, not minimums. It would have been a big help if the author had provided any references to the regulations he's writing about. Until then, I'll remain very skeptical of his claims.
Yes this is shotty reporting even for MSNBC. Where is the Report from the people who charge these fines Why are they charging fines. As of right now this is just yellow journalism reporting meant to stir the blood and get people angry without knowing why. Because even if we did go and yell at the states that disallow these cars what law is preventing it? Is it just the automakers not filling out the correct forms that don't require these cars to be sold or is it something more?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Because you didn't RTFA:
Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500
Don't the states that sell them offer tax credits or rebates? Wouldn't seem fair if I bought it in CA with this discount when I didn't live in the state. A sort of reverse taxation without representation.
I see no reason why it would be illegal under any state or federal law to sell a car that has super-low emissions. The end of the article implies that the manufacturer doesn't want to sell cars with the low-emissions hardware outside the states with strict emissions laws because 1) it increases the cost of the car, and 2) the manufacturer would have to eat up the cost of this equipment because consumers wouldn't want to pay extra for a feature that has no benefit in terms of gas mileage (and isn't exactly a luxury add-on). Basically the manufacturer eats up the cost in certain states because of the fact that they have stricter emissions laws, and they wouldn't otherwise be able to sell the car at all.
One caveat is that the electric transmission capabilities are not up to the task of something like this. Yes, in theory there is sufficient power generation capacity, but moving there isn't a strong enough transmission infrastructure to move this capacity around to where it would be needed. That's one of the reason there's so much extra generation capacity to be found.
Here's the text of TFA:
Dirty Secret: Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell You by Lawrence Ulrich
On a recent run from Boston to Cape Cod, I test drove the 2008 Honda Accord, the latest version of this family favorite. The new Accord boasts an environmental first: a six-cylinder gasoline engine that's cleaner than many hybrid systems.
There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.
So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving. Grill a single juicy burger, and you've cooked up the same hydrocarbon emissions as a three-hour drive in a Ford Focus PZEV. As the California Air Resources Board has noted, the tailpipe emissions of these cars can be cleaner than the outside air in smoggy cities.
That's amazing stuff. But what's more amazing is how few people have a clue that the gas-powered, internal combustion engine could ever be this clean.
Naturally, no company wants to bring too much attention to a car that most people can't buy, unless it's Ferrari. And there's the catch. PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them.
These cars aren't the only green leaf that's being dangled over our heads. The sweet-looking, sporty-handling Nissan Altima Hybrid borrows its hybrid system from the Toyota Camry, and sipped fuel at 32 mpg during my week-long test drive here in New York. But once again, if you'd love to buy the Nissan and burn less fuel, you're out of luck--unless you live in California or the Northeast.
It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions--or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.
Honda appears to be doing just that. It currently charges Californians and other green-staters about $150 extra for these solid-citizen models. But experts suggest that it costs carmakers closer to $400 a pop to install the gear.
Another issue: The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Would most self-interested Americans even pay a lousy 100 bucks for cleaner air that doesn't put fuel savings back in their pocket? "With hybrids, the selling point is fuel economy, so there's a dollar amount on that," said William Walton, Honda's product planning chief for U.S. cars. "We want to give people the cleanest vehicles we can produce, but how much are people willing to pay for clean air?"
Then again, so what if Honda or others lose a few million at first? Toyota clearly went into the red on every Prius it sold in the early years, but shrewdly viewed that cash as an investment to create buzz and build a loyal foll
Caveat Utilitor
My '07 rabbit, purchased in AZ is PZEV!
How you like them apples?
I'm going to call BS on this article. Every single story I can google takes this as the original source for the claim that PZEVs are illegal under the Clean Air Act, and there's no link to any government or advocacy website (you would assume environmental groups would be up in arms.)
One possible reason this is BS: the Clean Air Act is a Federal act, so can not vary from state to state?
One possible reason for the confusion: modifying the emissions control on your own car is illegal under the CAA, but that's covering people who I don't know, remove the catalytic converter or something -- not car makers who introduce new emissions-control facilities.
I'm going to call BS unless someone can provide a statement of this fact that does not originate with the autos.msn site.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
This is slightly misleading, in that the law only says the vehicles manufactured for special markets must be limited to those special markets (for what byzantine reason I have no idea).
There is nothing preventing the car makers from releasing the same vehicles into all the other markets; they don't because the cars cost a little bit more ($150-$400 according to the article), but still get the same MPG even if the tailpipe emissions are almost nil. They don't believe consumers will pay the premium so they don't bother.
In other words, the manufacturers are free to produce the same exact car but instead of stamping "CALIFORNIA ONLY" on it and being unable to sell it outside that designated market, they can just sell it everywhere with no problem.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
I'm just guessing here, but: The manufacturers made a deal to produce a limited supply of these vehicles with the several states mentioned. It is in the interest of these states to keep these vehicles within their borders so they reap the benefits of their operation. In order to ensure that they do remain where sold, they enacted legislation (or terms in the sales contracts) imposing this requirement.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're right, lets not discuss the assinine laws that prevent green vehicles from being sold in all locales. Let's, instead, get picky over a term. That's more important, isn't it?
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Let us European tree huggers protect the planet. You just keep on rolling in your five-point-oh's and give us a call in 30 years or so, from below the heavy CO2 winter clouds.
Almost ALL of those euro diesel cars have less emissions than some of the best american gasoline cars.
I's purely politics. The Smart is safe as hell as-is but the Morons at the Govt make them put in useless safety crap and jacks the price up to insane levels so nobody buys them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Its a lot like our company could offer its software on 20-30 platforms (different CPUs, OS's and releases) at a time, but generally only the three most profitable. Recompilation to a new platform usually just takes hours at most, but we do exhaustive testing, spend months going through FTC export compliance, etc.
I beleive auto companies have to do the same with each new model- pollution controls, mileage claims, safety, etc. Honda Fits and Smart cars were delayed at least a year because of these certifications.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
the article was short on information.
True, comparing global warming emissions on a diesel to a gasoline engine is difficult.
Then you have to measure source for such things as fuel cells (where did they get the hydrogen and oxygen - from coal? net loss) and plug-in hybrids (not everyone has 99 percent green power like the Pacific Northwest does with our hydro and wind based electricity - most US sources are coal-based).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... to have my sarcasm detector checked. Well played.
:-)"
"So we should all thank our friends in the Government, for helping [to] insure that competition in the marketplace does not create unfair competition."
Hey now, some businesses poured lots of their hard-earned money into the pockets of Lobbyists so that they could, in turn, make sure that their elected representative truly represents their voice. Hotels and dining in DC isn't cheap.
Besides, what's good for them, is good for their employees and unions, right?
"Sometimes you can't tell spoof from reality.
Indeed!
So go do your part and buy a few Humvees ...
This is just a shallow attempt at getting the public all riled up against the feds so Congress can pass a uniform law about emmisions. 'Corse, we all know what happens to any emmisions laws in the Bush White House. Emmisions up = good. Emmisions down = bad.
We wouldn't want to "hurt" domestic auto manufacturers nwo would we?
This article makes no sense. The writer describes these amazing new super-efficient cars but doesn't say anything about what makes them clean, other than saying that they don't get good gas mileage. Huh? Then he talks about the Toyota Camry Hybrid's 32 mpg as though that was amazing. Then he talks about how these cars can't be sold elsewhere, but doesn't cite the law that says so or give any reason why. There may be a story behind all this, but it isn't in this article.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I must have missed the news story of the "green" states erecting semi-permeable membranes around themselves that can keep out pollution from the other "non-green" states. Otherwise, why would they only benefit from those cars being driven solely in their state?
Here's some more of the story on PZEV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZEV
To quote the FA "The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions". It's not reducing the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere. It's reducing the amount of unburned and partially burned fuel being released into the atmosphere (which is a good think to do in its self).
However, I think that labelling something a "Partial Zero Emission Vehicle" is deceptive. Better the label it something like "Ultra Low Smog Emission Vehicle" (ULSEV)
But also:
The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions.
This is quite telling. If the PZEV cars get the same fuel efficiency as conventional vehicles, then they are consuming the same amount of carbon and putting the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So how can they be less polluting than a lawn mower? The article must NOT be including CO2 as a pollutant (the same view the Bush administration took of the Clean Air Act). So these vehicles probably emit less sulfur and nitrogen compounds and particulates, but the same amount of CO2.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
Less pollution (including CO2 presumably), but it gets the same gas mileage. Pollution is directly related to 2 items; the cleanliness of the fuel/air AND the efficiency of it. If the fuel is being burned 100% efficiently, it will use less fuel for the same distance. The side pollutants are an indication of loss of efficiencies.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
My state, Maine, has similar auto emissions regulations as California (we adopted the California emissions standard in 2000). You could not buy a new VW diesel car here in the state because they do not meet the emissions standards (new 2004, 2005, and 2006 TDIs were banned for sale by dealers in the state). VW decided to hold out until 2007 when the low sulfer diesel formulation was available which would allow them to pass the emissions tests without redesigning the engine. For the record, the TDI VWs passed all the tests except the nitrogen oxide test. I think the 2007 TDIs were available in Maine, bu I"m not positive
People couldnt afford to pay for that much extra electricity useage, and before you suggest some scheme where the power is provided free/gratis, if some old-white-man who is already rich isnt going to get MORE rich off of it somehow, it'll never fly... Until the halliburtons of the world can make money off of it, those hybrids will remain unplugged.
> From RFTA: "..."
Care to explain what "From RFTA" means?
From Researching For The Article: "..." ?
From a linked article : http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid =4024642
The Catch
Geography can be conspiring against eco-conscious buyers. The PZEV's limited availability is not a result of sales volume, marketing or any other political force; it's all about fuel quality. The reformulated fuel available in what's called the California Emission States--California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and Maine--make PZEV possible. Take a PZEV to Kansas and the change in fuel quality will knock down its emissions performance. Many PZEVs like the Ford Focus may be available in states bordering the California Emission States but in the case of Ford the 130-hp DURATEC 20E engine is a no-cost option.
I bought a 2004 Ford Focus ZTS PZEV in Utah. It was the only one on the lot. I wonder if they were not supposed to sell it? I do know that the salesperson that sold it to me left the dealership shortly after.
.000066667lbs of pollution per mile is pretty damn good if you ask me, especially considering most cars pump out around 1 pound of emissions per mile. I have only 9000 miles on the car.
I live in California now and I'm pretty happy with it, though it has no State provided benefits like the toxin trap that is a Prius.
I wouldn't be surprised if the car is more efficient than an incandescent light bulb!
But the fact it is burning gasoline is still a problem that cannot be ignored. I'm helping to legitimize wars, you know? At least it is not a Hummer.
-Drache Kubisuro
>> Don't forget that diesel is denser, so you can't compare MPG with petrol really. A 50MPG diesel emits more CO2 than a 50MPG petrol car.
:-)
Could be true, but there are many more 50mpg diesels than 50mpg petrol cars. And a 125g/km diesel emits less CO2 than a 150g/km petrol car. And at the same time, the Diesel engine gives you much more power at lower speed (that is, everything up to the speed limit
Look, if Californians want to state-subsidize cleaner automobiles, that's fine.
/still/ get to buy cleaner cars. And in fact, if other people could buy them, too, maybe the price would go down and California would not have to subsidize them so heavily.
But how does letting other people buy the same kind of car in other states hurt their investment? The people of California would
Now I could see California saying they will only pay a subsidy for cars sold IN California, which would mean they would cost more in other states that don't subsidize. But I don't see why they would care.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
FTFS:
. .Has been corrected to read:
. .VW decided to hold out until 2007 when the low sulfur diesel formulation was available which would allow them to pass the emissions tests without redesigning the engine.
Not quite, it was so that they could start using their euro designs in their US fleet. The problem was that before the fall 2006 cutover to ULSD the sulfur in US fuel would have contaminated the catalysts that allow for the much reduced emissions of certain engine byproducts.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This article names the states - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington - and gives a bit more detail. Note that the adopters include some northwestern states as well.
i l.cfm/news_id=10492/state=PA
http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_news_deta
This article completely ignores the fact that these are gas-burning cars that create just as much CO2 (it mentions they get the same gas/petrol mileage as non-PZEV cars). Localised pollution is in some ways a good thing to reduce global warming, although bad in more general sense, simply because this pollution reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth (aka global dimming, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming, but note that there are some interactions between global warming and dimming).
Anyway - pretty pointless concentrating on the less important pollutants rather than on those that may irreversibly change the earth's climate through global warming...
You may now waste lots of time trying to convince me that global warming doesn't exist or is not caused by human activity. (FX: rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.)
Interesting the Democans claim they are for the environment and the Republicrats claim they are for business rights, yet neither are for this technology and they will create unconstitutional laws simply to prevent technology like this from emerging.
If it were up to the free market rather than unconstitutional government force, this would be selling like hotcakes and the oil cartel wouldn't have as much power.
Yet another reason for me to vote straight Libertarian.
________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
So I read the article and am pretty confused.
What law provides fines for selling these vehicles in other states?
I understood the desire by automakers not to sell them because they cost more, but where did the big fine come from?
I think the idea behind a PZEV is that it's a part-time ZEV, not that it's partially zero -- which would be like being partially pregnant, partially vegetarian, or partially pacifist.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Remember this when you ask for a Law, or a Commission, or "Guidelines" to solve whatever problem you perceive in the world. Might I suggest that you focus instead on building a product that people want to buy, and letting it compete in the marketplace?
Just a suggestion.
If you take this idea to its logical extreme, you wind up with this
Part of the Second American Revolution!
I rented a Zipcar the other day, which just happened to by a Subaru Outback PZEV. Didn't even notice it until I was loading some stuff in the trunk and thought, "How can it be partially zero? Sounds like a marketing term for low ". Anyways, the car was fine, but I didn't know how rare they are. Zipcar is good service, and they always seem to be trying to get greener cars. They've got a few dozen Prius's in Boston and a few Hybrid Escapes too. Only thing I noticed (I haven't driven an outback before this) is that the car had little 'omph'. Not that any car needs it, but when I tried to push it down the Jamaica Way, it didn't kick like a Mini Cooper even would have (nor did it hold the corners) but it's a station wagon so I didn't expect it to.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
The thing you have to realize that is the United States isn't supposed to have much of a federal government. It's not the UnitedStatesofAmerica, but the United *States* of America. So States are supposed to be free to do whatever they want, including pay carmakers to make greener cars for sale within that state. There's only a strictly limited list of things that the federal government can do -- not that anybody believes that any more. What's funny is how far they're willing to stretch the Commerce Clause to cover anything -- and if they can't stretch it, they won't do it.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
That last quote's the big bell-ringer. OK, a car that puts out less emissions by turning off the engine part of the time. And you expect me to believe that it gets the same gas mileage? How, by dribbling fuel out on the road through a hose?
Forget the car, I want to know how they divided zero! I can use that for all kinds of things:
Partial Zero Taxes
Partial Zero Rent
Partial Zero Marketing Speak
Think of the possibilities!
pure wild random speculation. Maybe that's the case, maybe it's not.
You're just adding noise to the discussion.
I know that the Clean Air Act as amended does not allow any state to impose more stringent air quality standards than California and only allows certain states to enact rules as stringent as California's. Why this would keep a company from selling a car equipped for California emissions standards in another state I have NO clue, as AFAIK the rules talk about minimum standards for products and maximum standards that the states can impose, not minimum emissions a vehicle can produce.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The US has one of the nastiest diesel supplies in the world- regulations on diesel here haven't kept pace with those on regular gasoline. As a result, our diesel supply has a much higher rates of contamination with sulfur and other impurities than diesel in the rest of the developed world. The poor quality of diesel fuel here results in higher emissions, and can play hell with some of the components of those nifty Eurodiesel engines. This, combined with the low quality of some of the consumer diesel autos sold in the 60-70's in the states have resulted in diesel's bad rap- you can't even buy new diesel autos legally in CA anymore. When some non-third world regulations on the diesel supply go into effect here in the states (which I think is in the works- a modest improvement, at least), then diesel may start to have a chance again.
But there's a reason there aren't any diesel cars on the market here today - they are much dirtier than your typical gasoline engine and require expensive exhaust treatments to clean them up to today's standards.
Yes, but a 50Mpg diesel is a Volkswagon Jetta, wheras a 50MPG gas car is a old Geo Metro. The diesel has a hell of a lot more power. A better comparison would be to compare the same car... Ie, a 17MPG Jeep liberty with its 3.9L engine, or a 30MPG Jeep liberty 2.4L Diesel (that they only produced for 2 years in limited quantity, when will they bring them back???) There is more CO2 in a gallon of diesel, but in the same car, the diesel will get you almost 2 times as far, so unless it has 2 times the CO2 per gallon (it doesn't) diesel is the better choice. Then you get into the fact that diesel uses much less "refining", so less energy and chemicals to create it. Or the fact that the engines last much longer, and are simpler, so less waste from the cars "wearing out" and getting replaced, etc...
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Or, that might just be a result of our incestuous news cycle. The fact that all stories (taking what you're saying at face value) have no more information than this one, I'm leaning towards "incestuous news cycle".
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'll start by saying that I don't *want* the US to be in decline. I much prefer a US hegemony to a Chinese hegemony.
I'm just a bit worried about your economy, your human rights and your leader. Oh, and your economy. Oh, and your economy.
By the way, ad hominem attacks are fun, but if a hippy says something true, it's still true no matter what kind of hair they have.
Peter
California pays billion$ from tax money to support illegal mexicans that the ruling elite in mexico don't want to pay a living wage (down there) to (which is why they come to the US, because our elites support their elites down there, and they want a two class only society across north america eventually, a dirty little secret no one, especially the illegal alien supporters and capitalist pigs wants to acknowledge). What they drop on cleaner cars is a tiny fraction of that "support the mexican billionaires" figure. Of course, their infrastructure is falling apart, and they have run out of water as well, so the point is moot, california is about to undergo some serious economic and social changes. The heat wave, lack of enough electricity, the housing mortgage flipper greed bubble, illegal aliens, the huge crime wave in the inner cities (that's the real top terrorism in the US, hispanic gangs), the collapse of the educational system there, and etc. Might take a few more years, but a little sanity will be starting to manifest itself there pretty soon. That's my best guess anyway. Either that or the best and the brightest (companies and people) will start emigrating away and just let cal slip into being the northern mexican province, which is what the aztlan/ la mecha racists want anyway. Of course, their culture and economy sucks goats, so they want to reproduce it here for some crazy reason.
This isn't flamebait, just the stark truth of things once you strip away the politically correct BS.
Read up on common-rail diesel engines. The assertion that diesel == dirty is no longer valid, and in a couple of years we're going to be seeing common-rail diesels in America (the Accord will be first, IIRC). I expect them to give gasoline engines a real run for their money. I also expect America as a whole to make the worst decisions possible.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Also bear in mind that UK gallons are much larger than US gallons!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Every indication is the America is still chugging along just fine.
Such as fighting a war on two fronts? That worked well for the Germans. Or how about this?
Nah. Nothing to worry about.
America is still the richest, mightiest, most influential country in the history of the world.
One down, 62399 to go. Keep at it!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I seem to recall that most (All?) Navy ships these days are powered by Clean Atomic Energy and are also therefore zero-emission vehicles. So when can I get an SUV that runs on nuclear energy and which you can "land" multiple other SUVs on? That would be awesome...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
illegal for automakers to sell these green cars
I read the blog that slashdot linked to. Aside from explaining that car manufacturers don't want to sell the more costly vehicles in non-"green" states, he doesn't explain anywhere HOW this is actually illegal; he just says the EPA Clean Air Act makes it illegal, without a single citation, quote of the Act, etc. Apparently Volvo wrote this letter saying "It's illegal!" and everyone else is believing them.
I have yet to find anything in the CAA that says "you can't sell a low-emissions vehicle outside California or Massachusetts" (or NY, which, incidentally, is NOT PART OF NEW ENGLAND...)
In fact, I found the following:
Please help metamoderate.
I don't even begin to see why this is considered a significant item. There are already tens, if not hundreds, of automobile models I can't buy in the USofA.
My children are grown, and it's my wife and myself, and I'd like a commuter car. Specifically, I'd like to buy a VW Polo BlueMotion, a 2-door 1.4L diesel that gets 67 mpg. I use this example because it's concrete, but there are scads of such cars available to Europeans, to Japanese, in South America, even in Canada. And there are VW dealers on every other block, here in San Antonio.
So can I buy this VW? Heck no. The dealer thinks I need to buy a Jetta, which is "really a small car" (as compared to what, a Ford Excursion?) or maybe I should test drive a nice Toyota Tundra, c'mon, be a _MAN_...
Pfui. A pox on their houses.
I just can't wait for the price of gas to hit $5/gal. Good for 'em all.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Partial zero is what you get when you divide zero by anything greater than one.
paintball
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Big Oil purchased the laws...
Since I can't buy this green car, I'll just stick with my big block musclecar!
This looks pretty damn good too.
I just OWNED you Sucker!!! I win, you lose. Game, Set, Match.
Sort of. The "zero" part refers to emissions from the fuel system, which are a significant greenhouse contributor. (My chemistry knowledge here is a little dim but apparently the aromatic hydrocarbons are actually worse when released into the atmosphere than the combustion products, hence all the vapor-recovery nozzles and such.)
The tailpipe emissions have to meet stringent standards as well, SULEV I think, but it's the fuel-system that gets them the "Partial zero" instead of just being 'Super Ultra Low' or whatever.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I think plug-in hybrid's are the way to go. If you have access to a place to plug you can get around without having to use any gas but gas is a backup if you need it. I wonder how much effort is really required to go from making a hybrid to making a plug-in hybrid - it'd seem they'd just need to add another way for the batteries to be charged which would amount to a cord and maybe some circuitry to get voltage and stuff adjusted.
My experience has been that hybrids, in general, have fewer maintenance needs than standard engines. I'm doubtful about buying from an American automaker though because having owned several cars I can say overwhelmingly that the Honda and Toyota branded cars were more reliable than Ford and GM branded cars. I did see an article a few months ago where Ford admited to this and that they claim they're working to improve their standards. Maybe if they'd make a plug-in hybrid available I'd give them another shot. If not, I'll probably buy a Hybrid Accord.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
There are too many politics involved with the oil industry and electric cars, so we choose to build our own. http://www.diyelectriccar.com/
The Smart may be safe on a track, or in a crowd of other Smarts and other similar sized vehicles, but would you *really* want to be in one knowing the soccer mom behind you is driving a SUV that is too heavy for local road/traffic use, while talking on her cell phone, texting her BFF Jill, drinking her $12 starbucks almost-but-not-quite-completely-unlike-coffee drink, and worrying about her precious unique snowflakes who are fighting over what DVD to watch in the back seat?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
No they have not been. The emissions for car diesel engines in some of the states has been way higher than those in Europe. The other problem is diesel fuel in the US was allowed to have much higher amounts of sulfur than Europe. The new requirements I think they are called Tier 4 Bin 5 are much stricter and cars that pass that will be okay to sell in all 50 states.
The US has had the most strict emissions and safety requirements for years. That is one reason that many European cars just where not available in the US.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I fully expect that in the next few years diesel cars will be available that are as clean as current gas cars, but diesel cars available today are not as clean.
I personally am looking forward to a diesel PHEV, the combination of the two should produce some impressive fuel economy.
California receives back $0.79 for every $1.00 it sends to Washington, making one of the ten biggest net contributors to the federal budget.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Is it just the R&D that's subsidized, or perhaps the overall cost inherent in the vehicle? Perhaps sales of enviro-friendly vehicles are - in fact - subsidized through taxes as well?
...and don't just assert that "the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states".
Which government? (state, fed, local) What's the code title, section, paragraph?
Is that so hard?
The article is soooo messed up.
The newer Prius gets better mileage. You are doing quite well getting 42 mpg from a 2007 Corolla - those usually get about 35. You must be a careful driver, you might get better mileage than I do from a Prius.
I mostly drive to work and back. Mixed city/highway. My wife gets 57 mpg occasionally in the same car, which is better than the EPA rating, but I consider this a freakish anomaly.
Well that's cool, because people in California are so much smarter than the rest of us Americans. At least that's what Cartman said in the "Smug alert" episode. Get all of you hippies in one spot where you can hug each other, leave the rest of us alone to let the market sort things out.
As someone in the market for a new car that wants to be at least a little fuel-friendly, is there a list of new cars indexed on their miles per gallon and if they are hybrid engines or not?
Seriously. I want something fuel-friendly and am willing to pay a few extra bucks for it.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
FACT: In high pollution areas, a PZEV (also known as SULEV, super ultra low emissions vehicle) engine has exhaust that is less polluted than what goes into the air intake. The actual EPA regulations are not quite as restrictive as described, but they do prevent most people from access to such vehicles. I was able to buy such a car last year from a dealer in my home area, even though I don't live in CA or one of the other states that follow CA regulations. My cost differential over the non-SULEV version of the engine was less than $200; the additional engine hardware reduces maximum output, but by less than 3 HP. The exhaust is breathable immediately on engine startup, without any of the normal foul smell of most cars' startup emissions. My $200 extra cost was my contribution to a greener world. Every time I smell a cold auto engine's exhaust I rejoice that I made this investment. -- anonymous for obvious reasons
Fiat's been making PZEVs for a long time. They emit no emissions whatsoever when they're being towed to the shop.
Does anyone know? I assume this applies only to the auto dealers, and that the doctrine of first sale applies, namely that the vehicle can be re-sold outside the state in which it was (legally) purchased. If you really wanted one of these cars, just buy through a proxy; it'll be an impossible law to enforce, seeing as how cars can move across state boundaries readily and legally.
"Flag industry blogger Lawrence Ulrich notes that Slashdot is now making a "Twelve Stripe Version" (or TSV for short) of the 1960 United States Flag, an all-new flag that is redesigned to meet California wind-flapping standards. He notes "So, just how less stripey is a TSV flag? Well, if you just unfurled your thirteen stripe flag, congratulations, you just put out more stripes in one hour than these flags do in 2,000 miles of flapping." But the irony is that it's actually illegal for flagmakers to sell these stripe-reduced flags outside of the special states they were designed for! Apparently, anybody selling one of these reduce-striped flags out of the correctly-designated venue -- which means either California, or seven northeast-states with similar stripe laws -- "could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Annin & Co sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its stripiest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.""
The Chevy Volt is supposed to come out in two flavors. Gasoline/E85 and Diesel/BioDiesel. http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
As noted above, CA, NY, and the mystery six other northeastern states* subsidize the cost of PZEVs, thus they constructed laws that make it difficult to use such a car in other states. I don't understand why these eight states didn't simply tax non-PZEV sales instead; add a new tax and make exceptions for hybrids and PZEVs. This would make it okay to sell these anywhere, and pressure is applied to consumers to buy with the environment in mind.
The article stated that Honda's PZEV costs about $400 on top of the car to produce (CA subsidizes $250 of this), so if we assume four non-PZEVs sold for every PZEV purchase, CA could add a $100 tax to the cost of non-PZEVs and use that money to subsidize the full $400 cost without using money from its budget. However, this doesn't solve the out-of-state problem. Increase sales tax on non-PZEVs by 0.5% (an $85 increase to a $17k Honda Civic, a $275 boost to a $55k Hummer H2) and decrease sales tax on PZEVs by 2% ($348 less for the Civic and ... the H2 won't get a PZEV package). If we assume the PZEV sales won't exceed the non-PZEVs, the state spends less money while almost fully subsidizing in-state (only!) sales. Better yet, this plan would encourage PZEV sales and there would be no reason to discourage out-of-state purchases by those environmentally savvy.
I'm also of the opinion that an excise tax (section 4001 (a)(2)(B), referring to section 179A) should be revisited for more aggressive definitions of fuel efficiency. I'm from MA, where all vehicles are covered by excise tax; I didn't know until just now that laws are already in place to tax less efficient (and luxury) cars, though I do recall hearing that President Carter implemented such things in the late 70s (as seen in the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? ). I'd like to see something like a steep excise tax for fuel-inefficient cars, with an aggressively growing threshold like 30mpg + 1mpg per year after y2k, so 37mpg for cars of this model year and 38mpg in 2008, with NO LIMITS (it is expected that the 2009 Prius will exceed 100mpg, which would meet this threshold in 2070). This should act as a firm reminder that SUVs and other noncommercial trucks are luxury items.
* "California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules" aren't named anywhere in the article. MA, VT, and ME are mentioned in a sister article, leaving three more; it may be fair to assume "northeast" means "New England" (which contains six states), but PA and NJ are often included in the northeast states. On a humorous note, the sentence seems to imply that California is in the northeast.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
You forgot yet another one: Diesel engines are easier to run off of non-petroleum derived fuels. In fact, they were designed to! The 1900 World's Fair featured a diesel engine running on Peanut Oil! The sturdy construction and glow plugs of diesel engines even today are artifacts of the diesel engine being designed to run on virtually any properly filtered oil of the correct viscosity.
No, diesel available today is not as clean.
It has nothing to do with the cars. European cars running off the clean diesel over there are plenty clean. (And those cars can't even run over here because of how dirty the diesel is.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
State governments don't want fuel efficient cars. Even some cities and counties are having conniption fits over it. Alternative fuel vehicles and alcohol burners don't pay as much, if any, fuel tax. Governments want that money!! If you start buying less gas, governments get less money. So, while the politicians speak out one side of their face that they're for a greener environment through more fuel efficient cars, better look at those crossed fingers behind their backs. Governments have even gone after people who build their own 100% ethanol vehicles to pay gasoline taxes. In Oregon, for example, they want to start taxing by the mile because of dropping fuel tax revenues. Ah, what a game these pols play with our money.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
The reason why car companies can't sell diesels in the US is because our emissions regulations are a lot more strict. This is why your Jeep Wrangler diesel is no longer produced. I deal mostly with industrial diesel engines, which have a seperate emissions guideline, but diesels will soon be FAR cleaner than gas. In 2011 the air coming out of a diesel engine exhaust pipe will be cleaner than the air outside. This is done with many systems (at serious cost increases to the OEM/customer). There are particulate traps, urea systems, charged air coolers, and more efficient fuel injection that help clean up the exhaust. Currently only one or two of these systems are used to meet emissions standards, but by 2011 (2008 for on-highway?) all of these systems will probably be used. Add low emissions on top of good fuel economy and bio-diesel, and "clean diesels" will be on American roads far sooner than your electric car. -TC
Amazing they leave out the other side of the argument. That the reason you cannot buy high mileage low emission diesel motors is because they're actually illegal in CA. So without the CA market, or the NY market, they're not worth producing.
Remember CA is also the state that initially *failed* the GM Impact electric car because it didn't have a tailpipe. So they couldn't take emissions testing, and it failed, until GM had a fake tailpipe welded on.
But we can't go blaming the Blue States for the majority of the problems they cause, now can we?
Now I could see California saying they will only pay a subsidy for cars sold IN California, which would mean they would cost more in other states that don't subsidize. But I don't see why they would care.
Um, if you could buy an expensive car in state X, or the same car for cheaper from some guy that bought one in California, marked it up to less than you could buy it in state X and delivered it to you, which would you buy? They have to completely restrict sales to prevent this.
> But the article is lame because it doesn't give any of the reasons why..
No, the article is lame because of WHY they didn't give any details. After admitting the fault is the government's the author uses most of the article to IMPLY that it is all some sort of conspiracy of the automakers. Had the author gave a clear explanation of what sort of government stupidity was preventing 'out of area sales' on these green cars he would have looked pretty daft trying to lay the blame on the auto industry. But because he did actually mention there being a law being against it and didn't outright put on his tinfoil hat he won't be called to account for his yellow journalism. J school students should study this one as a canonical example of how to do agenda journalism. (And since modern journalism is overtly agenda journalism, out to 'make the world a better place' instead of old fashioned 'just the facts'......)
Democrat delenda est
It's helpful if you think of it in these terms.
It all comes down to the fact that dividing the zero emissions by an integer greater than two (so that we may have several "parts") resulting in something non-zero (because there are in fact emissions) is an impossibility.
Now as you may have read in TFA, these cars cannot legally be sold in most places. This actually stems from the fact that Honda has priced the cars at partially free.
Cunningly, Honda simply divided the partially-free price tag by the partially-zero emissions (and vice versa) and found that the equation worked.
I don't speak legalese, but that doesn't appear to apply. No individual states are mentioned, only some "Administrator" (cue ominous music). If this is the source for the fine, then it seems that fine is being instituted due to a government initiative (e.g., from the Bush administration) and not (directly) this section of the Clean Air Act. I am more inclined to think that this problem doesn't exist at all, seeing as how many slashdotters besides myself have reported being able to buy PZEV vehicles in states where they're supposedly not sold.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Interesting bar chart, there.
.com bubble, were tax revenue was artificially inflated in the same way the US economy was artificially inflated.
Clinton's presidency was from 1993 to 2000, not 1994 to 2001. He entered office January 1993 and left office in January 2001.
So in reality, George W. Bush gets one of those black bars for himself, and Clinton picks up a fifth red bar.
And that chart also neglects to mention that the black bars only showed up after Democrats lost the congress and Republicans took over. It also forgets that those times were during the
US Diesel (at the pump) is high in sulfur and other contaminants. Euro diesel is mandated to be virutally sulfur free (so low in sulfur that France forced oil companies to add 5% biodiesel to their Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel to regain the lubricity that sulfur gives). If the fuel you burn is full of crap, so will the smoke that's spat out of the other side.
The first US Diesel motors were rubbish. So utterly terrible that no-one who had ever driven a car with an Oldsmobile V8 Diesel (at a whopping 350 cubic inches) would never want to drive anything that wasn't powered by gasoline ever again.
US cars are heavy. Because they're generally much larger than their European equivalents, US cars can't use any of the clean, efficient, 1.4-2.2l diesel engines that are popular in Europe without being unbearably slow.
There's no diesel culture. Because of the above three factors, Diesel is nowhere near as widely available in the US as it is in Europe.
Diesel engines will crack the US eventually. Clean diesel will eventually become more widely available, and the negative conotations of the original diesels will gradually recede. What's surprising is that it hasn't caught on already - there's plenty of people driving 12MPG SUVs that would easily be 20+MPG if they used an appropriately sized diesel engine instead of their >4.0l gasoline engines.
Incorrect. You can buy new diesel cars in the United States. They represent about 1% of the auto sales, excluding light trucks. In general, diesels have a negative image (loud, dirty, poor acceleration) that impacts their sales. The two largest car markets in the U.S. also ban their sale. Unfortunately, all those cleaner Euro dielels are still too dirty to be sold in California or the other states (Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont) that follow the Calfornia rules.
And at the same time, the Diesel engine gives you much more power at lower speed (that is, everything up to the speed limit
Please study and understand the relationship between Power, RPM, torque, gearing, and road speed.
Diesel engines provide more torque at a lower engine RPM but they provide less torque at higher engine RPM. Because of gearing (in the transmission), this is independent of road speed. Power is Torque*RPM (ignoring units). If you use gearing to increase the torque 10x, you reduce the speed 10x and end up at the same power - same thing applies if you increase the speed 10x and reduce the torque 10x through gearing.
In Soviet Russia, car partially zeroes you!
They still seem to behave badly on smog.
I remember that a small european country (Belgium) recently had to declare a country-wide speed limit of 80 km/h because of smog.
That was definitely a first and this is a country with 50+% diesel cars. If you've ever seen the black puff of smoke that comes out
of these "modern" european diesel cars when the driver floors it you'll realize that there is some rhetoric present from the diesel side also.
The country in question was flat but California has a lot of valleys which makes the smog problem worse.
I for one am not looking forward to all these so-called clean diesels on california roads.
And BTW, I did rent a VW jetta last time I was over there and I got about 6.6 km/100km, which is 35 mpg, in real world driving. I wonder what car
I need to rent next time to get to that 80 mpg value.
If healthcare was purely capitalist, the doctors, pharmacists, insurance companies and so on would be acting for the benefit of the consumer.
But that means curing people. There's more money to be made in treating symptoms. And don't you dare try to change that! You'll be called anti-business for trying to cut into their profits.
If those sites are what you've been reading then it's no wonder you're worried about the U.S. declining. If find the anti-Bush site particularly interesting. There's a lot of good sound bites in there and there's a grain of truth in every one of them but the author is insinuating a number of cause-effect relationships where there is only correlation. Please, let's not forget about reason. Correlation does not prove causation. It's not just something you use when doing science, it's a foundation of any sound reasoning.
I'm not going to go through everything you posted and rebut each one but I can at least cherry pick a few as examples. For instance, "I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period." Or how about, "I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. " The government does not control the stock market last I checked although they do regulate it. Let's also not forget that when Bush took office we had a highly inflated stock market due to several investors speculating on companies with no serious business plan. But I'm not going to turn around and blame Clinton for that even though that occurred on his watch. Anyone who puts his money into a company with no sound plan is taking a huge risk. Sometimes it pays off. I find it odd that anyone would hold the government responsible for this at all.
Sayers discussed this quite a bit in her excellent book The Mind of the Maker. Why is it that people look to politicians to solve their problems? That is simply not their job. Their job is to keep the government running as in protect the country from invasion and to allow the people in the country to live their lives with as little interference as possible. That's it. If you haven't read The Mind of the Maker you should. It unfortunately gets shoehorned into the theology category so you may find it over in that section of your local bookstore. You can also find various copies of it online since the copyright has long expired. The online copies all have varied levels of transcription errors.
Anyway, getting back to the point, some of the criticisms of Bush are valid. For instance, "I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security " Yeah, he did do that, and I'm not particularly happy about it although I'm not sure that what existed before with various government agencies fulfilling overlapping niches was necessarily better.
Then there's the Olbermann piece. Frankly, I find Olbermann to be as much of a journalist as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. He's an opinion maker and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that except for that he tries to pass off his opinion pieces as hard news which in my book makes him a hack.
NBC regularly puts Olbermann on the Nightly News identifying him as a reporter. Every segment he does is absolutely loaded with opinion. Again, there's nothing wrong with being an opinionated journalist but please don't pass it off as hard news reporting. It would be like FNC putting O'Reilly or Hannity on the Fox Report. Not that the Fox Report is unbiased but it is intended to be a hard news pure reporting program, not an opinion/entertainment program. I'm very wary of anyone claiming to do a hard news program. It's impossible for any normal human not to have some level of bias. Better to disclose your bias than to try to keep it in the closet. Sooner or later anyone with half a brain can clearly see what's going on.
enough said...
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
This to me looks like the federal government trying to force the other states to adopt the same pollution laws that California has.
The story faults the car makers for "not wanting" to sell a cleaner version of the same car. I call bullshit on that. It's a fishy as "partly zero" If they make it, and people want to pay for it, then why wouldn't they sell that version to anyone in any state? It's like making a automatic and a limited manual version. The law is the reason they wont sell it, and its government acting in its usual strong arm fashion.
If they allow these cars in 3 states, are they not denying them and thus encouraging pollution in 47 states? God dammit, I wish the fed would get the hell out of the way and let people buy what they want.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
It is frustrating that everyone uses semantics to argue their point without providing any data to back it up. I'm pretty sure that mowing my lawn doesn't produce more "pollution" than driving my Honda Accord 2000 miles. Maybe more un-combusted gasoline, or that it burns more oil, but not CO2 expelled (1 gallon of gas vs. 30 gallons). It reminds me of the argument that a Prius "pollutes" more than a H2.
Canada is almost as weird on the subject of cars as the U.S. Not quite, but almost.
There are a few models that sell well here, like Smart, that aren't sold in the U.S. There are a few the other way around: the Lotus Elise appeared in the U.S. before it appeared in Canada.
It gets weirder with private imports. A long time ago, the Feds passed laws that permitted private imports if the car was 15 years old. This was mainly aimed at collectors of 1960s and 1970s U.S. muscle cars. It's 2007 now, 15 years old means 1992 cars, and a lot of very desirable stuff is coming across the Pacific. We're talking Nissan Skylines, Toyota Soarers, lots of other Japanese goodies. The Mitsubishi Delica (we get the 4x4 diesel version) has become a hot item with outdoorsy types. The government reaction? An FUD campaign on how evil imports are (especially those Japanese ones with the steering wheel on the wrong side), with threats to increase the age limit to 25 years.
...laura who wants to import the first Renault Twingo to Canada next year (1993 + 15 = 2008)
You sir, are wrong. As of October 15, 2006, most on-highway diesel fuel sold at retail locations in the United States is ultra low sulfur diesel. In fact, ULSD isn't required in Europe until 2009. Currently they are required to sell 50 ppm diesel (and merely have ULSD available, nor required). The US went from a 500 ppm requirement to 15 ppm in 2006 (for most applications). You simply can't compare old diesel engines to their modern counterparts. You are talking about a mechanically driven, and poorly engineered engine to the far more advanced (electronic, high pressure common rail, effecient injection, variable geometry turbocharger, cooled EGR subsystem) diesel engine of today. The argument that current clean diesels can't propel a heavier American car is complete nonsense. Let me repeat myself, the MAIN reason that diesel engines aren't in the US is simply because they don't meet the EPA's on-highway fuel emission specs. It is that simple. You think it is coincidence that all diesel engines (aside from light duty trucks) are no longer sold in 2007 car models? The same year that the EPA requires on-highway vehicles to reduce particulate matter by 90%(.10 PM (g/hp-hr) to 1.0 PM)? I don't think so.
Right, libertarians would have those cars (and probably even better technology) sold in all 50 states.
Since our great government graciously 'allows' clean air cars in 3, does that mean they support polluting the other 47?
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
There's no diesel culture.
I bet there are tens of thousands of people, at least, that will line up to buy a diesel VW. I'm sure an equal amount of MB drivers would say the same. As soon as VAG gets it's act together and meets EPA specs (and then actually imports the bad boys), you'll see a diesel culture in full force.
Please, please let me have a diesel Rabbit. Please. ( Not that I'd trade in my MkV GTI for the world, mind you! )
The technology is in place to build cars that require no fossil fuels and no not pollute the atmosphere. Only it is illegal to build, sell, or drive them because they are considered "unsafe" by lawmakers.
I'm reading that I should buy one of these cars and duct tape a few of those old fashion reel-lawn-mowers to it then mow my lawn that way.
With zero evaporative emissions as a component, it makes sense that the classification is only relevant in states that require vapor recovery at refuelling. Otherwise, each time you fill up the tank you expel all the vapor into the atmosphere, making a joke of any zero evaporative emissions from the other components of the vehicle. In that sense it would be misleading to sell a car as PZEV in a state that doesn't have the infrastructure to support it.
From driveclean.ca.gov:
ZEV
Zero Emission Vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions and are 98% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
AT PZEV
Advanced Technology PZEVs meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty, have zero evaporative emissions and include advanced technology components. For example, a plug-in hybrid or a compressed natural gas vehicle would qualify in this category.
PZEV
Partial Zero Emission Vehicles meet SULEV tailpipe emission standards, have a 15 year / 150,000 mile warranty and have zero evaporative emissions.
SULEV
Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 90% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
ULEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicles are 50% cleaner than the average new model year vehicle.
LEV
Low Emission Vehicles are the least stringent emission standard for all new cars sold in California in 2004 and beyond.
As far as I can tell, diesel passenger cars are still sold in the US. A co-worker just mentioned something to me today about her diesel Mercedes Benz, and I knew she drove a late model car... so I Googled and found this.
--Aaron Greenberg
If the climate was getting colder, would CO2, produced by man, still be the problem?
Yet, you have an out, you can purchase carbon credits so that you can be carbon neutral, without changing you life style. Look at the "green" ads on TV, "we are planting trees, so we are green" while we rent you cars that produce just as much gunk as they ever did, and we don't have to change a thing because we are planting tree. Really!!!!
I promise not to brew beer because of the CO2 that the fermentation produces, I will sell the credits. For that matter, if Dish network is correct that one tree produces enough oxygen for a family of four for a year, then I can sell the credits for the oxygen from the other 500+ trees on my property, and I still don't have to change, because I have trees........
What? Making it so oil sales can remain higher in the other states?
Who would want that?
The Jetta certainly isn't one of the 80 MPG cars - it's pretty big by European standards - there are 3 smaller models in the UK line-up. It depends on exactly which model you got and where you were driving I guess. Automatics are significantly lower efficiency than manuals - in fact for the smallest diesel engined Jetta, with automatic transmission, driving in town, the quoted fuel economy is 36 mpg.
There is a VW Polo model that does 57mpg urban and over 88mpg extra-urban. It's one of the 1.4 diesels and there are quite a few similar models with similar fuel economy.
This black puff of smoke idea, I'm not too sure where you get this idea - I rarely see this. I've just got a diesel myself, 5 year old Ford Focus, so fairly average in terms of emissions. There is a very small amount of soot when the accelerator is genuinely floored, but even driving aggressively it's pretty rare and pointless to floor it, and I'm not sure the tiny amount of smoke would be noticed by any other drivers. Only poorly maintained cars or really old ones emit a significant amount of soot.
Mmm, what is that smell? Smells like a dumb reactionary that believes everything he reads on the internet, even when it doesn't even begin to cite a source. If you believe uncited unexplained claims, then you are just acting like a dumb sucker. I am pretty sure nowhere in any states law does it say, "You can't sell low emission cars 'cause the corporations, big oil, Iraq, Haliburton, and George Bush 666 Ahahaha!".
This discussion has over 300 posts and yet no one has found a single law to explain that stupid and statement in the article that is made without even a shred of citation. When a few thousand Slashdotters can't FTFL (find the fucking law), it probably doesn't exist and this is just a case of shitty/sensational/biased journalism.
Far more likely? California provides some sort of subsidy or mandate for selling the cars and other states don't. The brain dead journalist in question probably couldn't wrap his small mind around the difference between a subsidy in California, and a law BANNING ALL GREEN CARS IN THE US EXCEPT CALIFORNIA!!1!!!!111!
Please, read the crap you dredge off the internet with a critical eye instead of gobbling up every piece of sensationalist crap you run across.
If I buy in California, can't I sell my own car in another state? If this is the case surely one of your (I am from UK) ammendments would cover this liberty to sell your own property in any state?
If a person or entity can purchase the cars and sell in another state then the way around this stupidity of a law would be for the dealer to actually purchase the vehicle in California and then send it to a dealer outside to sell. Hence the Californian dealer is the official owner/seller.
Solved...Next stupid article please...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Why is the author comparing a Car to a lawn mower, saying that "Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving."
It's a horrible comparison because he's comparing a car to a two stroke engine. They emit more smoke, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter than the gas-only four-stroke engines found in newer motorcycles. "One of these two-stroke engines produces the same amount of pollution as 50 Honda Accords,"
This is just horrible reporting and bad journalism. Quit comparing apples to oranges, and keep it accurate.
Alternatively, a vehicle run from a completely clean burning fuel would be ZEV (Zero emissions vehicle) and your average gasoline powered car falls in the LEV (low), ULEV (ultra low), SULEV (super ultra low) categories.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Heh -
I removed all the sound shielding from the engine compartment of my Jetta, so my diesel sounds like a diesel. Don't tell me there's no damn diesel culture in this country. You can hear it clear from sea to shining sea damn it!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The black puff of smoke is very real. I've seen it many times on all kinds of cars and they didn't seem old or badly maintained. I had the impression that the common thread was "fast" diesels like BMW 5 or 7 series but I would not swear on it. It may be more visible on these high-performance diesels but that's the kind of diesel an american would want. Now OTOH the polo and other similar sized cars do not stand a chance in California. They are tiny compared to the prius and one needs to compare apples with apples. Even the Jetta doesn't compare well when it comes to interior space. Compare it with something like a passat. And the Jetta I rented was a manual, not an automatic and at least half of the driving I did was on the highway.
I had a Ford Taurus and remember what the report said when I had a non-OBD emissions test. Not only did it pass, but the emissions were 0 on all except hydrocarbons which were 3 ppm and the legal limit was 220 ppm.
So 70 of my car would still pollute less than one barely legal car.
Making clean cars cleaner is nice. Getting rid of the gross polluters is better, otherwise it is like pouring a Dixie cup in Lake Mead, it won't do much.
And if you fail emissions, pay enough in repair bills in attempting to get it to pass, but can't, some states (I know Nevada is one - I believe the limit is only $400) WILL give you a waiver that allows you to register it anyway, and I think old enough cars are exempt too.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
if Californians want to state-subsidize cleaner automobiles, that's fine. But how does letting other people buy the same kind of car in other states hurt their investment?
Are you the guy who coined the phrase, "yes we sell them at a loss, but we make up for it on volume!"
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving.
Depends how you define pollution. The PZEV Accord gets 19/29 MPG city/highway. So if we're talking CO2 emissions, the Accord emits much more pollution.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is the fuel blends required by PZEV vehicles is available in sufficient quantity only in California and the others states. If other fuel blends were used the vehicles might not run as cleanly, or even worse than non-PVEZ equivalent vehicles, or maybe even damage the engine. The distribution of boutique fuels is limited to only a few states. It'll take a while, if ever, for the entire US to be using the same type of ultra clean gasoline.
At the Frankfurt Motor Show Peugeot will showcase its new 308 Hybrid HDi, which emits just 90g/km of CO2 and reduces fuel consumption by 38% in the Combined Cycle compared to a standard 308 HDi.
In addition, the engine has been designed to meet the future Euro V directive which comes into force in 2009 and offers the possibility of driving exclusively in electric or "ZEV" (Zero Emission Vehicle) mode for journeys in regulated urban centres.
Here goes another article about it. Apparently it gets 69MPG (US gallons) or 78MPG for urban driving.
There are several places in the Clean Air Act like this. The reason is because back when the CAA was being drafted, California was already tackling air pollution problems (due to nasty smog in L.A.) with its own laws. Rather than override what California had already done, the CAA adopted a split strategy. Under the CAA, California has the right to set its own air pollution related regulations that are stricter than those in the CAA. Other states then have the option of adopting either the California version or the general U.S. version. Many northeastern states have adopted California's regs. Car manufacturers (and business interests in general) were very concerned that there would be different requirements in every state, and this split was a compromise. Incidentally, now that the Supreme Court has asserted that greenhouse gases are indeed pollutants that can and should be regulated under the CAA, California is developing regulations to curb CO2. Northeastern states are expected to follow suit. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but an air quality researcher.
Aim low, and never be disappointed.
I just don't get it, the article did not mention WHY it is illegal to own. It just said that because of environmental laws it was illegal to own outside of California and some eastern states. But Why?
I'm from LA and I know the traffic there. I also know that if there is an accident on the Golden State Freeway, there are at least 20 different ways you can go. About the worst bottleneck is the 405 pass between the Valley and Downtown. If that is really hosed, you can still use Laurel Canyon or another route. If you run into a traffic backup on the freeway, you can take the next exit and use the surface streets going the same direction. The bottom line, you have options.
Here, in Washington DC, you often have one way in, one way out. If something goes wrong on a major route, it can and does hose the whole city:
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
... When someone who live in California buys one of these cars and then decides to move out of state? Do they have to leave their car behind?
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
You're right, I'm totally wrong on the two stroke engine thing. Although, the lawn mower I own puts out a lot of smoke. Probably means that I need a new one.
I agree on the shenanigans, but you called BS on the statement that "The PZEV cars don't get better gas milage". PZEVs don't necessarily get better gas milage. Hybrids, like yours, are a subset of PZEVs which DO get better gas milage... but most PZEVs in question are simply going to involve a bolt-on component that removes smog forming emissions, and are still burning gasoline at roughly the same rate and emitting ~20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas.
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel was mandated to be sold at all stations that sell normal diesel as of this time last year, the US is up to (and actually surpassed) international standards for a year now.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I've been wanting to buy one of the BMW gasoline/hydrogen cars for years, and you can't. Cars like this seem (to me) to be the real solution to the gas issue, but they aren't available to the public. http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/stragegy.htm (For those that won't read the article, the engine runs on gas and hydrogen. There's a solar cell on the roof, and the car will convert water into hydrogen and store it for you.)
not to get too nitpicky, but most 4WD systems engage equal speed to the front and rear wheels, and the open diff axles (the majority) will apply equal torque to the 2 wheels on its axle. Only the traditional AWD systems will apply equal torque to all wheels, thus one free spinning wheel could result in nearly 0 power to all wheels. The traditional 4WD system (when engaged) would require a front wheel, and a rear wheel to be spinning. Since their is a direct coupling between front and rear driveshafts if one front wheel is free spinning, 100% of the power would go to the rear wheels (traction allowing.)
So AWD with all open diffs would technically send the most power to the fastest spinning wheel, since equal torque, and torque*speed=power. Since that wheel could be 4* the speedometer reading applying brakes to that by (at least on the early) traction control systems often launched the car.
i propose that a vehicle that uses more-or-less conventional means to reach 55 mph (and why not even some kind of slingshot or winch?!) can use pedal-power to overcome wind resistance and sustain the velocity on flat stretches. this would be a partial zero emissions vehicle. if this is feasible, the only reason it is resisted is political ambition. suppose that a car or truck capable of carrying appreciable weight needed just 1 horsepower to maintain 55 mph against normal wind resistance, a horse could be trained to provide the impetus. if less than a horsepower, pedals for passengers would be reasonable.
What I'd like to know is what will happen when the original buyer sells the vehicle to someone who moves it out of state. Or if the origianl owner decides to move out of state himself? Terms and regulatons like this could really screw up the vehicle's resale value.
Have gnu, will travel.
the 2008 Accord, an all-new vehicle that is redesigned to meet California emission standards
Maybe I'm just being picky, but if the car is "all-new" (as opposed to partially-new?) why does it need to be redesigned?
K Street has more power than even a for the kids white wash.
All states with pollution agencies prior to the creation of the EPA are allowed to continue regulating as that had done before.
New Jersey is one. I think New York is another; there are 5 to 7 of them I think.
(I wish I'd never started this conversation, but thanks for your thoughtful remarks)
You're absolutely right that the President does not control every minutiae of the economy, but it is worrying that the US economy seems to be struggling. I read recently that the Chinese have so many US treasury bonds now that if they cash them in it would devalue the dollar. I know these things are always true to some extent, but it's still not something you would have said in the 50s. Your foreign commitments are, in many ways laudable but they're very expensive and the new Asian economies are threatening in all areas.
As for Olbermann, you're quite right that he's biased but I find that worrying too. The US media seems to be so partisan now - either one way or the other - that almost all debates descend into a slanging match. Olbermann's rants are well put together (and I think they carry more of a factual basis than those others you mention), but it's frighteningly agenda driven. How are people supposed to make up their own minds when they're being brain-washed like this?
I'm sure the dangers have been exaggerated, I just think that the planet will suffer without strong leadership from an exemplary democratic nation.
Peter
Oh come on now, how many people actually live outside the seven civilized states we're talking about?
The job of the government is to govern. To manage the country, act in its best interest. Democracy is useful in giving the public some say in the government's make-up (in theory it allows the public to get rid of politicians who are becoming totalitarian or not acting in the country's interest), but I do not subscribe to the concept that it would be better if the public dictated exactly how the country were run. That said, our current politicians are mostly muppets, but that's mostly because the public chooses those muppets. Certainly here in Ireland with PR-STV voting we could choose differently (your vote counts in deciding between the major contendors even if you vote for a minor contendor), but our constituency politics means that we elect a national parliament of county councillors - acting in the interest of their local voting base or vested interests rather than the country.
Quite frankly, I do expect the government to interfere and at least attempt to rectify a country's problems. Indeed even if some problems are general problems of society, then the government should recognise them, highlight the issues and inform people, and certain act to alleviate the symptoms even if directly they can't cure the diseases of society. Partly, even our current inept governments do somewhat act along these lines, and quite rightly. Yet all a lot of commentators do is cry out about Nanny-states and interference.
The attitude of some people online who seem to think the ungoverned disaster that is Internet culture should be extended to the real world is not rational. One may as well not have a government if one were bending to the hippy-esque nonsense spewed forth from blogs, Wikipedia, etc.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
I can imagine this - Road Adventures.
A rabbit appears!
Front Left Wheel attacks.
Front Left Wheel does 24 points of damage!
Rabbit perishes.
Front Left Wheel receives 2 XP and gains 3 RPM.
Alternatively:
It is dark. You are most likely to be hit by a truck.
or:
You are in a maze of twisty little cul-de-sacs, all alike. Your GPS does not work.
What now?
Put that way it sounds like diesels are worse greenhouse gases polluters then otto (petrol) cars. Nominally, your statement is right, only because you are comparing volumes instead of masses of fuel burnt, on vehicles (wrongly) equaled by identical MPG measure. However it is not a fair comparison: 50MPG petrol car is not in same category of vehicles as 50MPG diesel, such petrol car is much, much smaller, lighter, weaker.
If you would compare fuel masses, e.g. miles per pound of fuel, they would come out almost exactly even in CO2 emission, provided fuel combustion is ideal in both. It is implicated from your initial conditions (same MPG). However, the same still applies: even for same per fuel unit mileage, diesel car carries more cargo/passengers. You get much more useful energy per CO2 emitted with diesel compared to petrol, because diesel engines' efficiency is above efficiency attainable with petrol engines due to their higher compression ratio.
... but it is not 100% rediculious. "Ridiculous." When spelling it, think of the word "ridicule." For some reason(likely having to do with pronunciation), people have far less trouble spelling the latter correctly than the former. I think it might also have to do with people not connecting the two words. (It wasn't until I did that I stopped spelling it the way you did)This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
>Um, if you could buy an expensive car in state X, or the same car for cheaper from some guy that bought one in
>California, marked it up to less than you could buy it in state X and delivered it to you,
>which would you buy? They have to completely restrict sales to prevent this.
Is there anything that prevents a Californian from selling his California-purchased car outside of California today?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
YOU voted for it. YOU are the one that keeps it in power.
i worked for the government. there are a lot of lazy people working there who feel like serving the public is a nuisance that they can't be bothered with.
hard working people who believe in their job tend to burn out in this environment, and/or get fired because they dont kiss enough ass.
and what happens? citizens like you dont do anything. you dont write angry letters, you dont petition your politicians, you dont even fucking vote. you dont follow the news, you dont understand how laws are made, you dont fight. you sure as hell wont take a low paying government job. you bitch and whine from here to eternity, but you wont lift a finger or stick your neck out one single inch to change things.
this country has the government it deserves. lazy, apathetic voters and citizens get the lazy, apathetic government they desire.
want to prove me wrong?
right now. go and find out wtf is going on. YOU DIG for the REAL STORY.
then you start writing politicians. email is fine. paper is even better.
write 10. then write 20. then write 30 or 40.
write every member of congress that serves on the relevant committees. too much work? well, i guess all those people dying on guadalcanal will understand why you cant take an hour out of your busy life to understand the basic structure of congress and how to find the email addreses of every member of a committee.
oh but the lobbyists! the lobbyists. fuck the lobbyists, write them letters to. guess what, they all work for corporations that are worried about their public image too. write those corporations. write their feedback line, they almost all have one. and if that doesnt work, buy some of their stock, show up at the shareholders meeting, and make a speech and raise hell.
---
the end
The article describes a wonderfully efficient car "sipping fuel" at 32mpg.
My Landrover does 32mpg and over here it's called, fairly or not, a "Gas Guzzler"!
Can I HAz PZEV!
Ok the first thing I read, was that there was a car coming from Honda and it was called Zero something. Are you sure this is a car and not some kind of mechanized robot that can be piloted by teenagers? I for one welcome our robot flying teenager overlords. I regret nothing! :)
Whose lobbyist do you suppose shepherded that law through congress?
Also bear in mind that UK gallons are much larger than US gallons!
Technically, like every other country in the entire world, including Canada and the UK, they use liters and kilometers. So that's kilometers per liter.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
From my searching with Google I found a special "waiver" that California obtained from the Federal EPA. Apparently it falls under the legal concept of "Preemption."
Peace!
The Passat is a car I have driven frequently as a hire car. I actually think it's a pretty rubbish car - no one seems to want one as I always get it as a free 'upgrade' from the class of car we're allowed to hire (which includes the much better VW Golf, and the even better than that Honda Civic).
The 2.0 TDI Passat gets over 50 mpg on the motorway, almost exactly on the quoted figure. I've never driven one around town much.
To get better MPG, people are going to have to get used to smaller cars, and many modern small cars are really well designed. The Toyota Yaris is an excellent example. I'm 6 feet tall and 19 stones - big even by US standards, and the Yaris doesn't feel cramped to me, although I do put the seat all the way back. I only got a Ford Focus in the end because I was buying second-hand, and the ridiculous depreciation on any Ford makes them a bargain vs second hand Toyotas.