Slashdot Mirror
US To Require That New Cars Get 42 MPG By 2016
Hugh Pickens writes "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming. While the 30 percent increase would be an average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be much greater, rising from the current 27.5 mpg standard to 42 mpg. Environmentalists praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it 'one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions.' Obama's plan also would effectively end litigation between states and automakers that had opposed state-specific rules, arguing that having to meet several state standards would be much more expensive for them than just one federal rule. The Detroit News reported that automakers were on board with the new rule and had worked with the administration on creating a timeline for the transition." There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
Of course automakers are "on board"! They're now pawns of the government, just like the banks. Do you think they could really go against anything the administration wants?
Basically now Obama can do whatever he wants. He's playing all the hands himself.
It appears SUVs will continue to have pretty horrible gas mileage.
42 you say?
As a Prius owner, I look forward to the day when I look at the cars on the road around me and say, "man, I wish I was driving one of those - they get serious mileage."
There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
The link is really light on the math. In most systems that obey similar behavior, demand does increase, but the increase in demand does not completely erase the benefit of the increase in efficiency. In this case it can't completely erase the benefit, because if it did the end result would be a net increase in the price - and that was the original basis for the argument, that the drop in price would spur consumption. So the increase in demand has to fall short of that point.
So in the end, demand will be somewhere higher than it is now, and the price somewhat lower, all else being equal. Where on the supply/demand curve things ultimately lie will depend on the relative elasticity of supply vs. elasticity of demand.
Place a brick underneath the gas pedal.
Why do administrations always set timetables beyond their terms? Remember Bush's "man on Mars"?
If people wanted smaller cars they'd be buying them... depriving them of this liberty under the guise of helping the environment (which this won't do) is a mistake.
For the record, I am somewhat skeptical about the climate change hype - which I think is over-exaggerated. But even if I accept CO2 as a negative externality (which I don't), then the correct response is a carbon tax. Cost the stuff appropriately and let the market decide - don't legislate inefficient results. Don't let the government "pick winners" and definitely not a cap and trade, which is too open to corruption.
That's called "collusion", when the government isn't involved.
<sarcasm>
I think it was established as a well known fact that driving a Hummer is many times more environmentally friendly than a little Prius. If Obama was truly interested in saving the planet he would mandate that every commuter drives a Hummer and we scrap these pointless high MPG cars.
</sarcasm>
Vehicles have simply gotten too heavy of late for this to be feasible without a big change in the way vehicles are powered... if we could join the efficiency of modern engines with the weight of vehicles from the early to mid 1980's, we would could meet this goal using existing technology.
This will be the death knell for trucks and SUVs based upon them... the laws of physics mean there just not going to reach these goals cheaply (or perhaps at all), and they will die for all non-necessary purposes.
Good riddance... maybe I'll be able to see traffic lights again without being buried amongst an oversized mob of excessively tall vehicles, or blinded by headlights that are at the same elevation at the roof of my car.
I will miss multi-cylinder engines, though... every manufacturer is focusing on smaller engines now, implying the death knell for the V8. Americans seems to think that a V8 has to have at least 4 liters capacity... why not just decrease the engine volume? Sure, it's got more internal friction, but the sound and smoothness more than make up for that.
It's an uncertain time for car enthusiasts.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
My car gets 42mpg average right now. That's the EPA estimate and is actually what I seem to be getting in the real world.
Honda Civic Hybrid. I love it. But frankly I'd like them to be WELL up into 100 seven years from now.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Because the states created the federal government to handle particular tasks.
The goal of our federalist system is not efficiency, it is freedom. A country where the government's primary goal is to ensure the efficiency of its subjects is certainly NOT one where I'd like to live.
If we want people to use less gas, why not just raise the darn price?
There are times and places for government regulation, but requiring a minimum fuel efficiency? If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases, then fuel efficiency is just a half-assed proxy for fuel consumption.
42 mpg x 20 mile commute each day is a lot more fuel consumptive than 20 mpg x occasional grocery trip.
And what qualifies as a "car" and what as a "light truck" and "SUV," all of which have their separate regulations? What a mess.
People respond to their pocketbooks. In this case, it's easy to align people's incentives with the goals we want to achieve: Make gas expensive.
Milage standards haven't worked before and they will continue to fail. Forcing car companies to make vehicles that people don't want to buy isn't going to do anybody any good.
Pretty much every economist knows that the way to achieve the stated goals is to dramatically increase gasoline taxes. After that, the market will work its magic. People will buy more efficient cars, or seek alternative transportation. When looking at where to live, the cost of commuting will play a bigger role in families' decisions. And we get to make a little dent in the whopping federal deficit.
Of course no politician will even hint at endorsing what is clearly the economically rational thing to do. So instead, we'll spend money on subsidizing bio-fuels and other not-all-that-bright ideas.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Instead of seeing it jump directly to it, I would rather that the fleet be required to increase to that on a straight line yearly. IOW, it is better to require that the fleet average increases ~2mpg each year. If we wait until 2016 to increase it, then the incoming admin will destroy it as being bad for the economy. In addition, over the next 8 years, America will buy the OLD standard cars and they will remain for 10-20 years.
Hopefully, the dems will grow a pair and do what is right.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Oh yeah, ask southern blacks all about the wondrous freedoms of states' rights.
It'd be interesting to see what the average and top mileage cars have been getting over the past 20-30 years or so. Up until 1990, I had a car with a small displacement 6-cylinder (instead of a 4-cyl, cuz I wanted air conditioning), manual 5-speed transmission, and cruise control that routinely got me above 40 mpg on the highway. If the weather cooperated and I wasn't driving into a headwind the entire way, more often than not I was able to make a trip from S. Ohio home to Chicago on a single tank of gas. Then, for some reason, it was almost impossible to find a car that got better than the low 30s. Once SUVs became popular, availability of high mileage cars dropped even further. If one were to plot mileage over the years, I'd bet that we'll finally be getting back to what should have been commonplace in the mid/late '90s. Fifteen years or more of progress totally wasted. Pity. And the managers of American auto makers wonder why their companies are in the toilet.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Smaller, lighter cars are fine in a crash with other smaller, lighter cars. But in the US the average vehicle is so heavy that the minority of people in the small cars would get squished like a pancake. Plus US drivers seem to spend proportionately more time going at higher (highway) speeds (commutes in most other countries generally involve less highway).
In Europe and Japan and other places where smaller cars are the norm, I don't think they are perceived as unsafe at all. Particularly when they are generally used for city driving at speeds = 60 km/h anyway, you simply aren't likely to have any massively high energy impacts. As the parent said, they are also a lot more agile on the road and stop a lot quicker so can avoid accidents in more cases.
A lot of families I know have two cars. A city car (e.g. a Mazda 121 or other ultra-small vehicle), and a normal sedan. The city car gets used every day. The larger car is used for the weekend roadtrip (since it's undeniable that large vehicles are nicer for long trips, and larger engines are better for highway cruising ... and not that bad efficiency-wise if you put the cruise control on 110 km/h and leave it there).
Are you nuts? That would require a 100 gallon gas tank!
On the otherhand a early 1980's civic got 41mpg city and mid 50's highway, but it weighed roughly 1000lbs less.
I am curious how the fuel economy would be if we put a modern powertrain into an older much lighter body.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Allow me to translate that:
US gallon = 3.78 liters
UK gallon = 4.54 litres
Therefore it would be 50 mpg in UK... good luck with that!
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
I'm not an expert, but haven't cars that get better than 42MPG been on the road for years? I'd like to see a law prohibiting the use of gasoline powered cars by 2016. The industry will adjust.
The 2006 Honda Civic almost reaches this level. It has the top rating in every IIHS crash test. The manufacturer is routinely rated at or near the top of the industry in reliability. The Civic's price is comparable to a typical American car. The 2009 Civic Hybrid already tops these standards under recently tightened milage measurements. There is no reason a 42mpg car has to be unsafe, unreliable, or overly expensive.
There should be a Godwin corollary for comments like yours.
... seems we already have such a monstrosity.
As for the substance of your comment, just because some states did bad stuff means we should scrap the principles on which America was founded? Where are we going to be when the Feds control everything and do bad stuff? With 50 different styles, at least some are going to be better, but with a homogeneous government, the chance that it is bad everywhere is much greater. Oh wait
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I drive a small car... I hear the whole 'squished like a pancake' thing all the time, but despite hearing it and seeing lots of even major car accidents on the Los Angeles freeways, I see a lot of people take hits in small cars and not only survive, but their cars are still working well enough to drive them away from the scene.
maybe that's because the average commute speeds in LA are so low (5-11 mph average in the sepulveda pass). :P
There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
So true. If my car got 8 million miles per gallon, I'd totally drive 8 million times as much.
Obama better get himself reelected then. Because, you can bet if he loses to the Republicans the deadline for compliance to the 42 mpg average will be pushed back to the year 2167 lickity split.
And I don't mean that to sound partisan, because I hate both major political parties. But in my opinion, history has shown that the Republicans are definitely in bed with the oil companies. The Democrats might be too, but they keep it on the DL.
There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
Which references the following passage:
Why? Because improvements in fuel economy effectively make fuel less expensive, and when costs fall, demand tends to rise. As driving has grown cheaper in recent decades, people have done more of it - choosing to drive to work instead of taking the bus, for example, or buying a second car, or moving to a house with a longer commute, or sending the kids to college with cars of their own. Between 1983 and 2001, data from the Energy Information Administration show, the annual amount of driving by the average American household rose from 16,800 vehicle-miles to more than 23,000.
This is known as a variant of Jevon's Paradox.
Jevons is ONLY correct if the supply of energy resource is A: available and B: steady or increasing in availability. This is true because with steady or increasing availability, price remains stable or decreases. However, if the availability is not steady and/or decreasing, then conservation is the only possible route for economic growth, as one must reduce one's consumption *below* the depletion curve in order for "extra" resource to be put into expanded production.
This also eventually fails. Energetic resources (oil, coal, gas, uranium, the gallium in solar cells, etc.) eventually give out, and are never uniformly distributed. What happens is you run up against asymmetries and granularities. The asymmetries result in cartels, and testing the granularities results in Very Bad Things like revolutions.
So, basically, the article is essentially correct, if we were living in the 1990s. But we are not. We are either at or very near peak oil production, and from here (or the very near future) it is a constant down slope in energy availability. Unfortunately Solar/Wind/Nuclear etc. is not ramping up fast enough and is ill suited to many basic applications and materials (such as carbon fibre, plastics, and fertiliser) and it seems very likely that we will get "caught out" in the mid 20teens, making the 2020s a rather dire time.
According to the ,a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf">Hirsh Report it takes 20 years of expensive conversion efforts to shift society to a new energy paradigm. 10 years is a bare minimum and likely to be difficult. We're still talking about trying to save the Happy Motoring Culture, which is another way of saying, we're caught with our pants down.
Make plans or have them made for you.
And remember, Mother Nature's plans do not include your survival, much less comfort.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
I understand that safety is now a major concern and safety drags down mileage. But the numbers are not far fetched.
from the article
"The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway."
some peoples moderation does not include weed
Diesels? Dream on. You've got a cartel of 5 envirowacko states with pollution standards in excess of Europe's, which are essentially keeping most diesels out of the country now. The unreasonably-stringent anti-sulphur emissions standards are only capable of being met with some advanced anti-pollution equipment involving a reservoir of urea to process the exhaust to meet the emission standards of these 5 states. Most manufacturers deem this too great a burden to bring their (62 mpg) cars into the USA, so only VW and Merceedes do so, and forgo sales in those 5 states. 42 mpg average by 2016? Guffaw! It isn't going to happen. Between the safety Nazis making cars weigh more, and more, and more so they can crash at Star Trek's Warp 9 and have everybody walk away without a scratch, and the envirowackos trying to get the exhaust to be cleaner than the air that is ingested by the engine, we're soon going to have _no_ cars bigger than a breadbox that can be purchased in this country.
I am not taking about small crossover suvs, but the real ones, the ones with a truck underneath, say a Tahoe, Escalade or Durango. One of these can crush my normal sized car in a pinch. They make the road unsafe for me and others, and most of them don't have a real reason to exist save for the big egos of their drivers. They also consume stupid amounts of gas needlessly. Most of the people driving these behemots do it because the perceived 'safety' the give to them. Too bad the things are too prone to rollovers. Also, I am not supporting anybody's agenda, least of all the liberal agenda. I just expressed my opinion that driving cars so big is a stupid waste of resources and unsafe to everyone.
Greetings, programs!
That, my friend, is the whole point... It may cost a lot of money to fix or replace a car that has been so crushed, but ultimately cars are expendable, people are not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I realise that people in the US are a bit strange, but on what highways are you liable to encounter a car going the other way in your lane of traffic?
That only leaves you getting rear ended, and from what I've heard about US highways, that'll involve a 6 mph fender bender.
As for what happens to your car - if you are involved in a high energy crash, you're much better off if your car is the one that absorbs as much of the energy as possible. Personally I'd rather be able to walk away from a car that can't drive away, than be driven away in a car that I can't walk away from.
Besides - if you are THAT keen on being in the biggest vehicle in a crash, may I introduce you to Mr. Big Rig? Plenty of space for the kids in the cab. No worries about hooking up a trailer if you need it. Best view over traffic you can possibly get. And you can probably crash into an H1 Hummer and tell your friends "I crashed into one of those tiny suburban soccer mom trolleys ... I'm still picking bits out of my grill."
You make a good case for making the gas tax revenue-neutral. If the average person uses 400 gallons of gas per year and the tax is $1.00 per gallon, then with a revenue-neutral gas tax, the government would mail everyone a $100 check every 3 months. If you're poor, that $100 could go a long way paying for groceries.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
This sounds like a great idea, but I fear it. You know why? Because something always happens that nobody properly predicts.
Here's an example. Remember station wagons? Not the things they have now, but those great big monstrosities that used to carry something like eight people or a garage band + equipment. You don't see those around any more. Why? Because they raised the fuel standards and there was no way that station wagons could reach that. Bye bye, big loader.
But just because they disappeared, it does not mean the need for large cars disappeared. Enter the minivan-- which has lighter standards, but still stringent. And most earlier examples of minivans were crap for anything but moving people. (Current models sometimes switch pretty well, but may not have engine capacity.) So then what? Enter the SUV. It falls under the "truck" standards, so it doesn't need to meet as stringent requirements. It seats more than four people, which is important for some people, and it can do things like move furniture. It also doesn't drive like a beached whale.
A lot of the posters at Slashdot don't seem to have considered the family angle. Carseats are freaking HUGE and it's sometimes hard to fit them in a sedan. And of course, you can't do more than two since the front seat is off-limits. So no friends. (Remember field trips where the parents used to drive? Yeah, they can't do that any more either. But that's another rant.) Once again, minivan or SUV. And quite honestly, after being in a hit-and-run accident, I wanted five-star safety rating AND a slightly higher profile. So our vehicle is what's called a crossover-- six seats, so when we have a couple of kids we'll still be able to put some adults in. And incidentally, it gets 24-26 miles to the gallon IN city.
The upshot is that yeah, this sounds great. I'm all for better mileage and I shop for it. BUT there's something else that's going to happen that we haven't predicted. It could be safety issues; it could be price. I don't know. But I'm always afraid of well-intentioned things like this coming back to bite us in the butt.
Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
For the first, depends on which emissions. For CO2, it beats gasoline hands down, but it loses in terms of NOx emissions.
As for the latter, that's not completely relevant. Gasoline and diesel come from the same barrel of oil. The main part of the refining process is separating the mix of hydrocarbons that make up crude.
Though to answer the question, 1 barrel (42 US gallons) of oil yields about 19 gallons of gasoline, 10 gallons of diesel, and another 13 gallons of other stuff, such as fuel oil, petroleum feedstocks (for plastic and chemical production), propane, coke (the fuel, not the drink), asphalt, lube oil, and other things.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Sure, buddy. Just provide a single quote, footnote, or anything supporting your claim that the founding fathers would be against this particular regulation. Seems rather ridiculous, doesn't it?
There's no direct constitutional support for the CIA, NSA, Air Force, CDC, FDA, FEMA... the list is pretty long. The founding fathers could not conceive of of much of our modern world. So, did they in particular have a propensity to deny states certain rights that threatened the prosperity and security of the nation? I would say yes.
Does dependence on a finite fuel which has been bankrupting our country for decades count as a danger? Is the freedom to produce an inefficient car that important in comparison? Again, I would say that the "freedom" to have a Hummer matters far less than the freedom to be free of entangling alliances and dependence on foreign nations for basic transportation.
But you can stick to your petty little remarks, if you like. Or say something meaningful, if you disagree. It's up to you.
Yup, the Brits dropped that useless system a long time ago. They just film two versions of Top Gear, one for the domestic market using the kilometers and liters and another for BBC America with miles and gallons. Makes sense to me.
And while we are at it, when did stone become an SI unit?
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Actually, the crumple zones saved both of them: they dissipated the kinetic energy of the whole impact. This guy was able to walk away from the accident BECAUSE the other guy was driving a car with crumple zones. This is also the reason why the car was demolished instead of simply taking a hit.
If the other guy had been driving a steel car too, he wouldn't be posting on /. today.
Nobox: Only simple products.
Allow me to translate that:
US gallon = 3.78 liters
UK gallon = 4.54 litres
Therefore it would be 50 mpg in UK... good luck with that!
It would seem they don't need luck.
Every economist? You can take your social metaphysics and control by fear and shove it wherever you like, but lets just be clear you are talking about ideal high school Keynesian Economics and not real world, grown up Austrian Economics. I am glad you had the capacity to drool over colorful supply and demand graphs, but if you have any additional brain power, try a real book like "The Theory of Money and Credit" or "Keynes the Man" which is contemporary to "The General Theory". And as much as I might like to simply agree with Mesis and Rothbard, I think if Keynes were alive today he would say we were taking all this WAY to far. Keynes advocated for community level collaborative interventionalism, not the head of the Federal government appointing himself CEO and engineer of the next generation of high speed coffins that fart strawberries. Holy Shit!
Strong language is for effect. So long as everyone with the slightest critique is getting modded to hell, I might as well go down all the way.
Oh yeah, and fuck using taxes as moral regulatory tool. What, you run out of Bibles to choke people to death with?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
42 miles per gallon = 17.8560357 kilometers per liter. According to Google. Sounds very doable. Your average Jap city car these days, already gets that, and more.
My 20 year old VW Golf Diesel goes 22 km/liter (and the motor is pretty worn out), so i really think that new cars should be able to top that. The Mini Cooper Diesel goes 25.6 km/liter in EU mix (thats both urban driving and freeway driving) and it is not slow either.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing"
You sir are a moron. Those crumble zones saved not only his life but yours as well. A frontal collision at that speed can easily be lethal. The reason you are alive to make your post is that the other car had crumble zones that absorb some of the energy in the impact thereby making it softer for both of you. You should probably have offered him half the cost of a new car because by sacrificing his vehicle both of you coudl walk away from the accident.
If you doubt my word try the following. Drop one egg onto a pillow and put another egg into a metal strongbox that you drop on the floor. I give you one guess which egg is more likely to crack.
But those are all diesel cars. They always get better mileage than petrol cars.
Still if you look at this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_May_2008_UK_fuel_economy_ratings
There are several petrol cars that get over 50 mpg.
It would make more sense to translate that into sane, metric units:
1/27.5 mpg = 8.6 L/100 km
1/42 mpg = 5.6 L/100 km
However, to compare it with EU goals you'll also need to calculate the CO2 emissions:
8.6 L/100 km: 206 g/km (petrol)
5.6 L/100 km: 134 g/km (petrol)
8.6 L/100 km: 232 g/km (diesel)
5.6 L/100 km: 151 g/km (diesel)
Claus
On a moped, if you pedal and it's downhill. With a following wind.
Typical subcompacts are around 8l/100km.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
as an indication of what is anywhere else.
For every mini/smart I can show you a dozen of practically any other car, if not more. Hell in many areas I can show you more than a dozen times that in SUVs about anyhwere.
The people who want fuel efficient cars are buying them (fwiw I own a miata (30 avg which I track on fueleconomy.gov) and a R1200RT (49 avg). People vilify SUVs but go look at any luxury car lineup and tell me what you see. I don't see how companies like Infiniti or Lexus can meet the goals unless they roll up under their parents mileage figures. Granted Lexus will have a hybrid sedan soon even it will barely average 34.
Now what would be impressive if Obama and Corp can get small diesels all around. California has been the problem there so are they going to prevent us from getting the high mileage diesels Europe has or did Obama and Corp make a deal with California?
Ford is going to have an issue because their "Eco Boost" is a joke. Instead of truly down sizing the engines offered with this direct injection turbo setup they are offering even higher horsepower and torque. In other words, they have an opportunity to make nice small engines for their midsize cars but chose to just pump up a six while claiming it still beats the other guys eights.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
because the majority cannot get more efficiency from a manual than what a computer controlled automatic can. I don't know why your bellyaching about something that already has happened. It takes some stupid hyper miler tricks to get many manuals past the best of the automatics. Really, what century are you in? The trick for the last decade in improving highway mileage has been very tall gearing in the last one or two gears of the transmission. The key is that new autos will downshift to pass and resume the tall gear as soon as possible. Throw in cylinder deactivation and you can improve many big vehicles.
Safety regulations, well your out of the loop again. The Feds are implementing even stiffer roll over requirements so that roofs will not collapse if someone has a roll over. Just how are you going to relax safety standards in a nanny state? Comparing car safety to motorcycles is like comparing apples to dogs.
We bring cars made in Mexico here everyday, they are sold under the GM and Chrysler name. Now have you seen crash test of home grown cars from Mexico or China? If your asking us why we don't allow them go ask Europe why they rejected them!
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Only problem is that the US gallon is about 83% of the Imperial gallon. 42 US mpg is equivalent to 50.4 mpg in the UK.
The numbers you quote are for current distillation settings that mirror current demand fractions. The refineries can produce more diesel and less gasoline, for instance, if there were demand for it. They have processes to make heavy hydrocarbons into lighter ones, and vice versa.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
My 91 Honda Civic gets 45 consistantly, and up to 50 mpg. I always laugh when the new car commercials claim "Amazing 32 mpg!" for a economy sedan.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Yeah, but you know what they say about mopeds.
Mopeds are like fat chicks, sure, they're both fun to 'ride', but, you don't want your friends to see you on either one of them.
Thank you, I'll be here all week.....try the veal.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's 35 not 42. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/19/19climatewire-white-house-proposes-new-stricter-national-f-12208.html Helps to do some research.
If the market can figure out the details, why have the government artificially raise the price of fuel?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The Polo is not a supermini.
It's a "compact" or whatever your marketing term is, but it's no smaller than a Prius or the actual revamped Mini.
The principles on which America was founded were the ability to run a slave farm without having to pay taxes to Britain, and only allowing rich white men to vote.
Slavery was a source of contention between Northern and Southern states from the beginning. Every state north of Delaware abolished it by 1804. It remained legal in Britain until 1840.
Taxes in the colonies were relatively low.
Neither country guaranteed all women the right to vote until the 1920s. A large minority of British men were disenfranchised by property requirements until after World War I, and a significant number of landowners could vote in multiple districts until 1948.
You won't really get that, due to air resistance from your tinfoil hat.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire