Want Congress to hear you?

www.drivecongress.com


Use it and spread the word.

My post over there:

As the owner of a small business which requires the use of light-duty trucks to operate, as well as an auto enthusiast, I strongly oppose the ill-conceived legislation pending which unrealistically increases fuel economy standards.

Mandates like this are myopic and reactionary and ignore both the issue of feasibility and the negative side effects. Legislators should resist the knee-jerk tendency to use mandates and regulations to address our energy needs in this country. Rather, they should incentivise the push toward alternative fuels and propulsion technologies.

C.A.F.E. is all the example required to see how such regulation is doomed to failure. Unintended consequences are the legacy of such action along with the failure to attain the results desired. A far better approach would be to encourage the inventiveness of the American people, free their creativity, and support such endeavors economically if positive results are the goal. Please don't lean on the failed strategies of the past.

Opportunities abound in all areas of energy supply and consumption to increase our efficiency and energy independence. However, we will never conserve our way out of the current situation. As a matter of national security I urge you to think beyond the existing parameters and make alternative energies the main priority.

The last thing we need to do is to encumber our dwindling manufacturing base with any further draconian restrictions and our citizens with any more social engineering. A free nation is at its most innovative when allowed the latitude to create independent solutions. Encourage those.

Freedom always trumps regulation.

My message:
Rather than setting a harmful mandates like the one being proposed, the government should encourage the use of alternative fuels like ethanol, and provide incentives for consumers, like me, to purchase alternative fuel autos.
E85 and alternate methods of propulsion are the ways to go in the auto industry. Cars can get 35-40 MPG in the next few years, however, if they still use gasoline, what's the point? Just because they're getting better MPG, they're still using gasoline and polluting the atmosphere more than it's polluted now. The Chevrolet Volt is the wave of the future in my eyes. Commuting on pure electricity is much more economical than getting 40 MPG. Imagine every day at rush hour in a sprawling city. Thousands of cars sitting in traffic, with their engines running, for no reason. Now imagine, those thousand cars using technology as such soon to be found in the Chevrolet Volt. Then there will be those thousands of cars sitting in traffic, without the engines running....producing virtually no pullution. Let's face it, the only real way to force the vast majority of Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles is to raise the price of gasoline substantiably throughout the years. Instead of punishing consumers and auto-makers alike, I believe the government should take a different stance. Provide incentives for the auto-makers to produce alternate propulsion for vehicles. This will, not only, provide the cost of building and buying these vehicles to be cheaper, it will also boost the economy.

Thanks for taking the time.

All of my elected officials now have a copy of my letter, make sure yours do too. It can be done via the same site.

Fuel tax > CAFE

As long as gas is only $3 people will continue buying gas guzzlers. The public needs to want to buy more fuel efficient cars. Subsidizing big oil then putting unfair regulation on the automakers is not the way to do it.

I bet if gas climbed $1 a year until it reached $8-$10 a gallon you would see a lot of fuel efficient cars that are desirable come out of Detroit real quick.

Fuel tax > CAFE

As long as gas is only $3 people will continue buying gas guzzlers. The public needs to want to buy more fuel efficient cars. Subsidizing big oil then putting unfair regulation on the automakers is not the way to do it.

I bet if gas climbed $1 a year until it reached $8-$10 a gallon you would see a lot of fuel efficient cars that are desirable come out of Detroit real quick.

You know im almost inclinded to agree with you as long as we can give tax breaks to businesses that need to use trucks.

Taxes aren't the answer.

Taxes aren't the answer.

No. Cars like the telsa roadster and the chevy volt are the answer. Now we are just faced with the problem of getting people to WANT to buy those cars. Because right now Americans dont want to buy those cars. (at least not in the numbers that they should.)

In a supply and demaned market; you cant fix a problem on the supply side. Everyone loses. The people making the product and the people buying the product. You have to fix it on the supply side. And the only way I can think of doing that is by offering taxes breaks to those who buy electric/hybird/alternative fueled vicheals. And encouraging automakers to make quaility cars like this that people want to buy.

I fuel tax would help in the effort to encourage people to want to buy these products. Of course, this is only if we used those tax dollars to repair roads and such. (You here that Missouri? stop being cheap and get on board with building that bridge on route 3?!?).


Anywho, if you have a better suggestion to get people to want to buy these products. I'd love to hear about it. Because while I think taxes would work, Im worried about where the money would go.

Congress hearing and Congress listening are two completely different things.

I am 100% against a higher gas tax. I am all for a much more strick gas-guzzle tax on new vehicals (with excpetions for businesses that require such vehicals) and tax breaks on fuel effcient vehicals.

You know im almost inclinded to agree with you as long as we can give tax breaks to businesses that need to use trucks.

Agreed. It would be tough to do at first. Maybe just up the IRS mileage write off. Taking away oil subsidies would be the first thing I would do. That would raise prices and bring in more tax dollars that could be used to give breaks in other areas.

Eventually you would have 30-40 mpg Silverados, but that would take time. We can't turn every contractors or delivery truck into a 2 stage V6 diesel hybrid, or hydrogen fuel cell truck over night.

Fuel tax > CAFE

As long as gas is only $3 people will continue buying gas guzzlers. The public needs to want to buy more fuel efficient cars. Subsidizing big oil then putting unfair regulation on the automakers is not the way to do it.

I bet if gas climbed $1 a year until it reached $8-$10 a gallon you would see a lot of fuel efficient cars that are desirable come out of Detroit real quick.

This would screw over the poor guy. They couldnt afford to drive the vehicles they have and couldnt afford a new hybrid/alternative fuel/electric vehicle. Your well off guy could still drive whatever he wanted.

As much as I hate CAFE, I think that if something doesn't prod Detroit to produce efficient and/or small cars it's going to result in their ultimate downfall.

We get excited when something can hit 30MPG on the highway. I had a Grand Am that could do better than this in 1989, and it was even reasonably quick! Nearly 20 years later, it's almost hard to find a car that can do better than that grand am.

Don't forget that the way EPA mileage numbers are figured has changed with the result being lower, more realistic numbers.

The way to move on this is to encourange,reward, and in some cases subsidize, the delvelopment, infrastructure, and usage of alternative fuels and propulsion.

Looking for one magic bullet or attempting to socially engineer conservation is just foolish. We need a more permanent, sustainable, domestic answer to our energy needs.

This would screw over the poor guy. They couldnt afford to drive the vehicles they have and couldnt afford a new hybrid/alternative fuel/electric vehicle. Your well off guy could still drive whatever he wanted.

Nothing new, the poor guy gets screwed over many other ways in this country. Tax codes are written by the rich for the rich. One thing that could be done is lower the % of income tax that people making under lets say $15,000 a year pay.

I am 100% against a higher gas tax. I am all for a much more strick gas-guzzle tax on new vehicals (with excpetions for businesses that require such vehicals) and tax breaks on fuel effcient vehicals.

What about used cars? Gas guzzler tax doesn't make people drive less. It just cost the automakers a little more money via lower profit margins. $3000 tax on a Tahoe will mean that Chevrolet will have to lower the price $3000 to keep sales up all while the public is still consuming at the same rate.

check this out http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/27/gm-chrysler-and-the-auto-alliance-create-websites-to-sway-consu/

check this out http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/27/gm-chrysler-and-the-auto-alliance-create-websites-to-sway-consu/


That site makes me cry on the inside:


There is no reason to have cars that go 0-60 in under 5 seconds, and certainly not be able to go 160 MHP. Even if you have one of those gas hogs, you don't have to demo that from red light to red light. When people start driving sanely, then I will increase my sympathy level.

No reason for a lot of the **** you own im sure.

But, of course, there are No Conspiracy's in the U.S.
Just, good, honest, Back-Room-Deals to keep ExxonMobile Relevant in a future America. But, no, that can't possibly be construed as a Conspiracy against the American consumer.

We want Bio-Diesel Plugin Electric Hybrids.

1.) What?

2.) No I dont. What the hell is wrong with this guy? I want pure eletric and some eletric/fuel cell plug in Hybrid.