But they do not want to pay for it nor drive small cars.

The majority is changing fast. Just a few years ago, anybody who mentioned 60 mpg cars would have been call a nut or a commie.

The majority wants a car to look big to impress the neighbors. It doesn't have to weight 3 tonnes. A large but low unit with very low drag (below 0.20,) with a very light weight frame covered with ultra light weight materials and padded with light weight foam, could satisfy our love of looking big. It should not weight much more than 1000 lbs. With ancillaries, batteries and motors, a one tonne or 2200 lbs (looking large) car is possible.

Air balloons are big but don't weight that much.

Gee, I guess clean diesels not being allowed here explains why 80% of Jetta wagons now sold are clean diesels.

I am forced to enjoy taking swipes at the usual troublemakers ,ham fisted spindoctors and barrow pushers that inhabit this part of the (*known universe) as if there aren't better things we could be doing.
IT goes like this.Just yesterday.Stan,AKA Stas Peterson, ex demo, the Goracle. Posted:
Posted by: ExDemo | September 01, 2010 at 12:19 PM

"Here is one case where I agree with ai_vin and Harvey D. Unlike their reflexive statist mommyism, I agree that Diesel exhaust is injurious. How injurious is subject to debate, but I won't even go there.

Our beknighted fellows always cackle about the advanced virtuous, socialist States of Europe. I always believed EU was actually trying to kill off its older people to make its national health care solvent. Therefore, they have half their vehicles powered by much dirtier Diesels than California and the US allows, under their purposely lax regulations, specifically for that purpose. How else can you possibly explain their very poor, toxic emission regulation, yesterday, today and as far as we can see into the future?

I thought just like in the US however, cancer incident rates, corrected for all the other killers that used to get you first, have been plunging there as well. For certain, cancer cure rates are soaring, as cancer death rates drop.

That would beg the question of just how dangerous these toxic emissions really are, especially compared to what we used to endure. But it is certainly exaggerated.

Even back then with no emissions controls, people were not dropping dead in the streets, and only occasionally, in London coal smoke smogs.

I actually support the CARBite idiots in their attempts to emplace Level III SULEV II toxic emissions on diesels to match the Zero toxic emission levels already achieved by Otto ICEs, but not even mandated by law. Inexplicably, the domestic selling automakers produce Zero emission ICEs even when not required by the highminded and super virtuous, selfless, CARBite saints. The E-V-I-L auto makers, who putatively are only concerned with the last buck of profits, are inexplicably doing more than they must.

As soon as they promulgate that regulation, California can abolish the CARB, as their day has come and GONE!

After all, what more is needed after all vehicles, cars, trucks, rail locomotives, boats, ships, construction and farm equipment must be totally clean, non-polluting, zero emission machines?

Posted by: ExDemo | September 01, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Although the comparison between the thrust of this confusing persons comments are a little hard to understand in a literal sense because there is no point being made, there is one constant theme.
He actually only writes to denigrate the US democratic party or the californian Shwartznager and Mr Obahma in particular, To that end we are or should be aware that the US auto industry is geared to petrol vehicles and that there is likely support for domestic production from a national self interest and applicable technology perspective that is nearly a century old. Certainly not anything to level a broadside on the current regime.
He really should be posting on the "Our own self importance fan club for deranged politicians supporters site.

We know this poster as a trouble maker that frustrates the intent of this site with his insider 'DIRTY TRICKS", party political childish rhetoric.

Back to the subject
70% of Americans polled favour 60mpg vehicles is a good thing indeed.
Rising to 83% if the savings are recouped within 3 years (compared to what?) sounds like a given seeing as the savings should be greater and be paid for sooner in most instances.

It is not an unrealistic figure and I suspect that they will be prepared to do without the 'kitchen sink' to achieve this.

While I am personally optimistic that similarly efficient and practical electric, EV's PHEV's and HEV's will be a real choice, High efficiency ICE will be required for some applications for another 50 years.

If driving an economical car is more economical than driving a gas-guzzler, probably 100% will favor it.

So it's very simple : CHANGE (not expand) taxes from income-tax to consumption-tax. If income-tax is lowered and the 'losses' are compensated by higher taxes on fuel, it has only advantages : working is no longer punished (making it more advantageous to work), people have incentives to drive more economical cars (so less money is wasted on oil-imports), and people can choose how much tax they pay by using less fuel (instead of working less and pulling the GDP down).
Who could object ? Socialists should be happy because only "rich" people drive gas-guzzlers and so, "poor" people can therefore avoid taxes. Capitalists should be happy, because income taxes will decrease more (in $) than the increase in fuelprices. Economists should be happy because people get less incentives to be less economically productive and because it is positive for the trade balance. Ecologists should obviously be happy. The car industry (and their workers) should be happy because more expensive cars will be sold. Only OPEC should be unhappy.

Just a few years ago, anybody who mentioned 60 mpg cars would have been call a nut or a commie.

If we look at the celebrated communist state of Cuba - we see an extraordinary collection of broken down, polluting, gas guzzling clunkers. Likewise in dictatorships like Burma, Libya, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

With the single exception of commi/capitalist China - commies get the worst mileage on the planet. But they do have decent ride share programs.

As a confirmed Greenie, and a chartering Member of the Union Of Concerned Scientists, UCS back when there were genuine scientists and engineers there, I support the Performance Standard for toxic emissions. That performance standard that says all engines cannot emit more than a certain amount of pollution, and that applies to all engines of whatever type, Otto, Diesel, Atkinson, Miller, Rankine, pure electric, FCV, etc, in the USA.

As such it outlaws the dirty diesels that Europe vends as so-called "Clean Diesels" (great marketing!) but issue more pollution than even a lax T2B8 category allows. Someday in 2016 the EU will get all its diesels that clean, all the way down to T2B7+ when EU 6 and VI go into effect.

Meanwhile in the USA we have required all vehicles to achieve the lower emission T2B5 category or cleaner, to be sold here; and have had regulations to that effect since the mid 1980s, about 25 years ago.

USA automakers and foreign vendors, were required to meet California's CARBs even tougher LEV II ICE, "Ultra Low Emissions Level", ULEV, cleanliness which translates to sub-T2B4 cleanliness on the Federal scale, in order to sell cars in California. Some other states adopted the tougher and earlier scheduled, California regulations.

To emphasize that CARB sought everyone to have a Fuel Cell Vehicle, FCV, they created a special category for perfectly clean or "Zero Emissions Vehicles", ZEVs. This category was named "Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles", or SULEV II.

Only CARBite idiots could dream up these crazy acronyms.

Or think that they will prevail and force the World to adopt their pet, the FCVs.

They Lorded it over every automaker that their cars were not clean, as hypothetical FCVs would be with their SULEV II category, emitting only bilious vapors of GHG H2O. Soon an EV such as the EV-1 appeared, so they put them too into the SULEV II category.

But these BEVs were not FCVs and their pet preference, so they created "Gold stars" and quotas, (I kid you not!), to be awarded to automakers who must build their pet FCVs to earn enough Gold Stars, and the right to sell even BEVs in California (I told you they were Idiots!).

On their way to meeting the tough ULEVII (aka sub- T2B4), the automakers discovered that it didn't cost a lot more to produce ICE engines that achieved SULEV II, (aka sub-T2B2) cleanliness, and the automakers therefor did so, doing more cleanup than now required.

But all bureaucracies must move the goalposts when their jobs are in danger, and the Fed and CARB standards are unified as noted by Mr. Obama. So CARB issued its proposed LEV III new regulation. They say every car and truck in California must be perfectly clean, a ZEV, or SULEV II compliant, regardless of whether Otto cycle gasoline or Diesel. CARB admitted that 25% of the auto fleet was already SULEV II compliant, presumably none are the few T2B5 compliant diesels slowly now appearing in America.

These T2B5 diesels are produced, by taking European "Clean Diesel" engines and their pollution control suites, and adding $2000-5000 worth of primitive cleanup equipment to get them clean enough to reach down to T2B5. Or doing the equivalent to American diesels, like the Cummins truck diesel in Dodge Ram pickups.

LEV III regulations are the end of the line. After 40 years of effort since Earth Day and more before,the job is nearing an end,a least in the USA. There is nothing cleaner than CLEAN.

Maybe by 2050 Europe will achieve the clean air we are on the verge of attaining here.

Meanwhile, like Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace, I am a disenchanted Green. I too have seen the watermelons insinuate themselves, like roaches, into every nook and cranny of the UCS; and turn it into a mindless greenie fundraiser, and a great rice-bowl for unemployable marxists and others. Watermelons, who are green on the outside, and red inside, but really don't give a damn about the environment.

I read about the Marxist Front organizations, taken over and milked for whatever value they could get back in the 40s, and 50s, and laughed at the stories. Then I saw it happen to my Green organization, and realized the truth of it.

Now I am cynical and support genuine green efforts where they occur, such as this case. And call much of the so-called Green efforts, like CAGW, solar and Wind energy, and anti-Nukes, the bunk that they are.