I didn't say weather or not it was a good idea... but that doesn't change the current trade agreements :p

Nope...sure doesn't...but where I was going is that we do not have free trade or even "fair" trade. Then I hear that US drivers should pay the "real" costs for their fuel, and it makes me wonder who is really deciding all of these questions, and why they have decided to wreck the US.:confused:

When and how do we make ALL of the drivers in the world pay the same "costs" to keep the playing field level??

By the strictest definition, no we don't have free trade - but since the Regan years, we've made most steps toward it....



Not so much that they should -- but that changes would happen at an appreciable rate if they did. But tariffs are not the only cost that this question addresses (tariffs aren't really a consideration at all). Stabilizing regions with oil, the subsidies for domestic oil producers (both direct and indirect), lost domestic jobs from transfer of wealth to other countries, etc. The current costs at the pump already take into consideration any duties collected as a result of tariff....


I think I linked it indirectly before -- but here's a directly link for oil tariffs (note the exempt countries due to free trade agreement)
https://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/tata/h...er/0612C27.pdf

It's going to take a lot for the trophy soccer/hockey moms to give up their trophy 6000lb, 12-15mpg beasts that they "absolutely need" to cart their offspring and their offspring's crap around in.

They (their husbands) can afford not to care. They can swing the expensive fuel bills and can afford to pretty much ignore the social implications of their vehicle choice. These same people will carry on and on about protecting their children from every outside stimulus that "might" harm them (i.e. media, school content), but they'll make damn sure to screw up the Earth their precious kids are inheriting--be it through their massive guzzlers, disposable EVERYTHING, bottle water, etc... They can afford not to care.

Therein lies the hopelessness of the situation.

Those of us that actually give a damn are considered freaks/fringe. (Or liberal hippie faggots depending upon whose opinion you ask)

Apparently no one got the memo that families exist in Europe, and somehow these families can transport themselves in smaller, more efficient vehicles. :rolleyes:

Remind me of a joke....

Why is California like a granola bar?
Because when you take out all the fruit, crazy bits and funky goodies, you're left with a bunch of flakes :D

well you gotta remember too, european streets are tiny compared to the average us street, they almost have to have a small(or narrow) car to manuver around in just to get places. so maybe there are less bigger cars and more smaller compact cars available to buy(that and i think europeans see them as modes of transportation not social status icons.)

VetteOwner -

I agree that is a factor. The cities have medieval origins, so there will always be a "little car" niche. I think that's one reason why European cars have had a handling advantage over US cars. European car-volution required tighter/more precise turning radiuses and such.

But the gas tax has helped a lot, too.

CarloSW2

a new crx

I was reading an article that talked about the origins of MPG saving driving techniques, it referred to the gas rations of WWII as a major milestone in the public practice of these techniques. It seems that WWII caused a lot of people in this country to make "sacrifices" to their standard of living, they all seem to have had a common sense of purpose that made all those sacrifices worthwhile.

I don't think that we will have a war to be our generations "sense of purpose" to begin conserving, I think it will be brought on by the biggest economic downturn since the great depression, courtesy of Hubbert's Peak. Hard to imagine that I'm about to live through the same thing my Grandfather did when he was a boy. Oh well, I think I'm ready, just waiting on Saudi Arabia.

ajohnmeyer -

110% agreement. That's why I have a WWII gas ration card on my car :

Attachment 1008

CarloSW2

I have to agree, at last partially. Govt will take the money and spend as we/they decide, never spending as originally promised. Old story.

And AMERICAN people do hate taxes. My EU-raised dad, on the other hand, has always said that he wishes he had to pay LOTS of taxes. Because that would mean he was raking it in!

In an idealized scenario we wouldn't subsidize the oil companies, and they'd have to charge the real cost for their products. Govt. would bill them for mideast military operations, or we wouldn't do those ops. Etc. etc. That would force the fuel prices up to their real level and people would decide to pay up or use less fuel.

But in the real world, that's not going to happen. Adding the tax to the fuel sold is a workable substitute. Forces consumers to rethink their decisions. Doesn't function EXACTLY the same as the idealized scenario but works pretty good in EU. Loads of diesel and high-mpg things on the roads there - and it's not just because of the tiny roads.

speaking of, im restoreing my great grandpas 1929 Ford Model AA truck. when my grandprents went to get the title out of the bank they found they also had a WWII ration card for it with it. here it is below

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...06c9082843.jpg

VetteOwner -

Wow. At 3100 miles max per year, I'd be maxxed out in two months, :( .

Maybe the miles were longer back then?!?!?! ;)

CarloSW2

Yeah, but on 280 gallons I could go 14,000 miles, :p

Nautical ? :p

This is PRECISELY the kind of car that has managed to turn people AWAY from small cars. Although this sort of car is no longer built, many people still have BAD memories of hamster-powered small cars that have SO little power, that people are terrified to merge or pass (think small cars from the pre-MPFI and multivalve days). 85-95HP with the meager torque that a 1.3/1.4 liter engine is likely to give is just WAY too little for a 2200-2400 pound car to be driven with safety or confidence on the American road. Something has to give here. And what I would like to see here is less weight. Perhaps if the car could be made from aluminum or even a stronger alloy steel (which would allow the use of less material), weight could possibly be brought down by at least a few hundred pounds. The car would then have acceleration that most people would deem acceptable. And as a happy side effect, fuel economy would actually increase as well.

The other possibility would be to make the car as is, but make it a light hybrid. That would certainly help to deal with the inevitable acceleration problems associated with having such a small, low power engine in such a relatively large car.

SVOboy -

You mean 4*(70 per quarter), right? I didn't reference that because I wasn't sure of it was in gallons. If it is 280 gallons, I could go 11,200 miles. Soooooo, I would be cut off around mid-year ... With that restriction, I'd be forced to get a Honda Insight and/or a motorcycle. At least I've have another excuse to work from home!

CarloSW2

Uhh...just because there isn't the political backbone to do the RIGHT thing, doesn't mean that doing the easy-thing (tax the little guy) is the *almost* RIGHT thing. IMO, taxing the group least able to resist the imposition of taxes is pretty much the definition of the most WRONG thing. Guess they are the same people that think it would be ok to steal lunch money from the geeks/nerds instead of going after the football team's money.;) So...sounds like a rehash of the old "ends justifies the means" argument...and look where that got a lot of people in Europe.:eek:

And, no disrespect intended to your father, but just because you pay more in taxes, doesn't mean you take more home at the end of the day!! Sometimes, yes... (shrug). ;)

I would counter that the MUCH shorter distances between destinations, smaller roads, lower speed limits, history (WWI, WWII, etc), lack of urban sprawl for many more years, rampant lawsuits, differing safety standards, and a few other unnamed factors (consumer perception, marketing, etc) have lead to the smaller more FE vehicles that are abundant in the EU.

The lack of diesels, though, I think we can lay mostly at the feet of California and the New England states that have followed their completely misguided approach to emissions in the last several years.

About California (and thereby the rest of the country's) diesel and gas emission standards, It's mainly a problem of government regulatory agencies (bureaucracy anyone?) being a few decades behind. They're mainly concerned with particulate and smog forming emissions. Sure, those were a big deal back in the 80's with all the LA smog and acid rain and such. But we've had that situation under control for over a decade, just another decade to go before they realize it.

not saying it won't come back, just that it won't come back if we stick to our current level of emission standards. We don't need to keep tightening particulate emission standards every couple of years. We need to be worried about cutting total emissions. Reducing average engine displacement and increasing MPG standards would help cut both CO2 and all the particulates.

"we need to be worried about cutting total emissions" true that

more vehicles on the road every year +
more miles/vehicle =
more emissions every year

unless standards keep getting tighter

an alternative may be to stop the growth

*ding! ding! ding!*

We have a winner!


Unfortunately, no leader in their right mind will ever voluntarily do that.

Let me see....

WE buy the cars we want.
WE buy gas, whether it's expensive or not.
WE choose where to live and how long our commute is.
WE ski, snowboard, water ski, motorboat, race cars, used golf carts and ATVs, listen to IPODs, watch TV, and even use the damned computer; all using energy.

The fundamental reason that energy use is so sky high is that WE love to use energy. So, is it a surprise that WE elect representatives who would never deny us our energy?

Most humans, in general, won't do that either. Even more so when dictated by culture (in our case, a consumer driven economy). Which is why to keep up with the population explosion - tightening emissions standards attempts to keep up :/

-----
On the subject of LA - perhaps it's not as bad as it was in the 80's, but I still couldn't see the mountains when I drove by.... And the central valley... My old house mate's hometown can't see the mountains unless it rains.... Although, the brown clouds can be attributed to ag. equipment more so than cars... To be fair, both regions are affected by their local weather systems - but that doesn't change that writers' descriptions of the scenery 100+ years ago is veiled :/

trebuchet03 -

You mean "smoggy"?!?!?! I wish I could find the quote, but I think Native American's original name of the LA region was something like "valley of fog" or "valley of smoke" because the topography has *always" caused a hazy effect.

CarloSW2

rvanengen -

I'm happy I have cleaner lungs because of California emissions. However, I did some google-research and I found alot of articles that favor your argument :

It Gets 78 Miles a Gallon, but U.S. Snubs Diesel - May 27, 2001
https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...y%20Efficiency

Diesel Car Sales Continue to Thrive in Western Europe - August 22, 2005
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw386.html

Diesel Auto Sales Trending to Exceed Gasoline in Europe in 2006 - 30 January 2006
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2006..._auto_sal.html

Clean Diesel: The End of Clink! Clatter!! Clash!!! Smelly! Smokey!! - December 04, 2006
https://allthecar.blogspot.com/2006/1...k-clatter.html

As of today, I don't mind diesel coming to the USA so long as we have clean diesel fuel and stringent regulation of diesel emissions.

CarloSW2

I too enjoy cleaner lungs! I just wish I had the same choice of clean burning cars that most of the rest of the world has enjoyed!! Who cares if the VW Jetta was one of the cleanest burning cars of the year???


I remember in the summer of 2003 buzzing around Spain in a great little 4 door Opel turbo diesel...I think it was a 1.4L...not a race car off the line, but after a couple seconds, it was scooting VERY nicely! After a couple days in the car, we filled it up at EU prices (BAD BAD BAD!!!), and I think we averaged about 50mpg in a mixture of city and highway driving using the A/C 100% of the time!

That was a brand new (at the time) car that met the tough EU emissions...but we cannot get the car here...why?? At least two reasons, and more likely a third:

1) Might or might not have met US crash standards...but I am betting that it would beat the minimums w/o problems...
2) CA and the NE states have their heads firmly CRAMMED up their collective (dare I say it...socialist) rear ends...about diesels....even if this one was likely a CLEANER car than my wife's 2003 Taurus gasser...
3) And the biggie...I am sure that GM was convinced that nobody here would buy a comfortable, peppy, responsive and affordable smaller car when they can shove the latest incarnation of the Jimmy down our throats!

(errarrrraaaaggghhhhh!!!)

Particulate filters can virtually eliminate the most annoying of the pollution from a modern turbo diesel...and since a diesel can use up to 30% less fuel than a gasser, it has to make you wonder why CA is so bullheaded to simply reject a car outright w/o finding out if it might actually be BETTER!?! Another source of pollution that would be reduced (not quite eliminated) by switching to diesel: fumes...you wanna cut the smog...take a look at how much less a gallon of diesel off-gasses compared to a gallon of gasoline.

And when all those cars are stuck idling in LA traffic...guess which ones use less fuel? ;) :D Too bad you can't buy them...to quote "Get Smart"....

"...Missed it by *that* much...":rolleyes:

*****sigh******

rvanengen -

I'll take a "socialist" democracy over a corporatist democracy any day ;) :

Best functioning democracies
https://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1543571.ece
CarloSW2

woot go finland!(wheremy family origionally was from) oh and canada too!(cuz canada always rocks)

Good luck to ya! Hope it NEVER happens here...but seems that we are hell-bent on it anyway.:(

I have seen the effects of socialism (and communism) firsthand and my wife has lived under it -- forget the basic economics (which are bad enough), it destroys the very soul itself. Unfortunately, seems like the corporate model is almost as bad.

Just got done reading the actual "study" by The Economist...or I should say, article...they do not detail the actual results by category, only the summary results. https://www.economist.com/media/pdf/D...EX_2007_v3.pdf Makes me wonder exactly how they know/collected enough information for the categories by country in order to get some to score perfectly. Too many perfect 10's if you ask me. ;)

Just the 1st read through was enough to make me doubt the objectivity of the entire article, and not because the USA scored lower than #1. :p Seems like something that I would have expected to see in USAToday, not The Economist...they should know better!

Of course, there is also the glaring problem displayed in the complete lack of understanding of the definition of democracy. We don't actually live in a democracy...most people in the world do not.

Anyway... *sigh* *shrug*

Sounds like you only find that it doesn't fit in because the ideas don't swing your way...that's not a judgment from just this statement, either.

*shanghaiwhip*

Nope...not at all...even been in the Netherlands, and a lot of my family is from there...but I don't want to live there. Just reading the story, but don't see exactly how their derived their numbers, but it would be interesting to see how. Certainly the Nordic countries would fare well, but they are pretty homogeneous populations...and France rates very poorly and is currently having a lot of problems with recent immigrants.

My complaint (if you wanna call it that) is that the story is only telling part of the story. ;) :D I would like to see the details of each country, not just the summary. They keep the old saying going "figures lie...and liars figure" when they don't give all the information. Really just seems much more like a political statement on the UK by The Economist than anything else, IMO.

But, hey...think whatcha wanna think! ;) *really big shrug*

They explain the scoring system in their methodology ;) And looks like a great deal of their data came from surveying citizens (the irony).

It did make a very good point in it's opening paragraph:
I very well can believe that number 1 is Sweden - I remember from high school history seemingly useless facts like the 95% voter turnout in Australia (compared to around 50% for the US.

Hell, Sweden has the "Pirate Party." An official political party with a platform for IP, copyright, patent, etc. reform in addition to privacy protection. This is why you'll find a lot of bootleg movies et. al. coming from Sweden - their government doesn't bother with it.


Sure - that's why I mentioned the weather systems in both regions :p But the difference between moisture induced haze and poo brown cloud is literally deadly....

Yes...the scoring system was quite detailed, but what were the figures actually applied for each score by country? Like I said, interesting story.

Do you mean the categorized questions list?
i.e.:

Or I'm just not understanding your question.... Are you asking to see the raw data for all of the 60 questions?

In any case, here's the website for their main source of data:
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

VetteOwner -

My Mom's family is from Norway, so her family settled in Minneapolis (go Vikings!), so I have a sweet spot for fjords.

CarloSW2

rvanengen -

I think I know what you mean, aka we live in a constitutional republic, yes?

From my POV, at the end of the day they're all just "isms". If you go into a university, they all work "in theory". However, the moment they are implemented in reality, they are subject to corruption. Once an "ism" is in place, the loopholes are exploited and the system is usurped and slowly brought down the tubes. For me, the legitimacy of a system can only be deermined by the quality of life of the people that live under it. Right now I see the USA in a kind of pre-1929 economic instability.

I think that you need a (messy) mix of the isms in tension with one another. The goal is to make them work for you and me.

You're critique is fair. I think the homogenous part is important. My POV is, what countries are "getting it right", and can we translate their solution to our context?

CarloSW2

Yes...the raw data is exactly what I am looking for to better understand the survey story. :D

After looking through the database, I am quickly seeing that the latest survey data for Norway is 1996, Sweden is 1999, USA 1999, Netherlands 1999, Great Britan 1999, East Germany 1999, West Germany 1999, and the newest data point is Iraq in 2004.

Not quite sure what to make of the ages of the data points they are analyzing just yet...:confused:

Perhaps there is more data to be "had" by downloading the entire dataset versus browsing it via their online access??