- Liar. In July 2008, gas hit $4.12 under Bush. In fact, when Republicans took over in 2000, gas was roughly a $1.60 and it went up to it's highest point in 2008 at $4.12, then dropped and rose again and has actually be on the decline. Please stop lying to yourself and everyone else.
dontlikeneocons - Let me correct myself. Gas hit $4.27 in 2008 under the Bush Administration. In fact, it pretty much climbed for 8 years under a Republican administration.
dontlikeneocons - The reason we need to incentivize the EVs is because of the enormous subsidies the oil industry gets. If you had to pay the full cost of oil, you couldn't afford it. In addition to the normal tax incentives that total in the tens of billions, we have the military costs of protecting our access to oil. The RAND Corp. found that we spend $80 billion every year for this purpose, exclusive of the wars for oil. This works out to 55 cents a gallon by itself. If you were to add in something for the $1.5 trillion cost of the Iraq war, you'd add at least another dollar/gallon for a good ten years.
Thousands of Americans die prematurely every year from the effects of pollution from internal combustion. Millions get sick, but don't die. Many of these are children who live lear freeways where cancer rates spike. You contribute to this pollution when you drive, but you pay nothing for it when you buy gasoline. This is a direct subsidy to you from those who suffer and die.
The environmental degradation from the extraction, shipping, refining, distributing, and use of oil costs society hundreds of billions, yet, again, you pay nothing for this when you buy gas.
Unless you are willing to pay these costs, then you have no business complaining about subsidies for EVs. Paul Scott
Problems occur when non-technical people arbitrarily impose standards on something as complex as a car. Obama's 50+ mpg goal is achievable, but only by dramatically shrinking and lightening cars and by using expensive engineering for the powerplant. Americans simply can not or will not pay $>$40K for this, witness the Chevy Volt. When gas prices approach $5/gallon, people will seek out efficient cars without the government's meddling. BTW, the Detroit can not make enough profit selling small cars to stay in business as the margins are too small. STS_PA- Internalize the external costs of oil in the price and people will pay the extra cost of an EV. This is the unlevel playing field we have today and it's why the government is right in subsidizing EVs.
BTW, the Mitsubishi EV costs around $19K in CA after incentives. That's plenty affordable. Paul Scott
Can't you guys read? The Inquirer is telling you what to think about this issue: "It should not be seen as a partisan or controversial notion." Don't go digging up facts on your own or thinking for yourselves. Where will that lead us? You both might be up for some re-education in the not too distant future. Right:&Right- This should be nothing new.....conservatives are used to not thinking for themselves.
dontlikeneocons
Don't hit a leaf w/ the new cars... They will need to be built so light to achieve these savings, that if you DO hit a leaf, the car would be totaled.
Expect more collision fatalities as well. turkytom- The LEAF weighs 3,400 lbs and has a 5 star safety rating. The Volt is about the same weight and also has a 5 star safety rating. EVs like the LEAF do not carry explosive gasoline on board and the batteries are very safe in an accident.
Please tell us why you think these are not safe cars. Paul Scott - Sigh, I was talking about leaf, as in Autumn, raking, bagging.
I was joking that the cars will need to be made with lighter materials, which will make them easier to total even with a "fender bender". Safety will be a problem because even if they can build a cage safe enough, the entire car would be thrown around in an accident, causing more trauma than otherwise. turkytom
Why not mandate that gas mileage be tripled? Just think of the savings and jobs that would be created. There's never a downside, right? Philly.Tru- No need to mandate anything other than that the price of gasoline and diesel reflect its cost. Once you do that, the market will do the rest. You "conservatives" like to talk a good market game, but you seem reluctant to actually play it on a level playing field. You like to spend hundreds of billions in military costs to protect our access to oil around the world, but you want that money to come out of the general fund (in reality increasing our debt). You sure don't want to actually pay for your use of that fuel. Why is that?
Paul Scott
Hey I LIKE spending 100 bucks to fill my car up twice a week. Obama wants to take this free market pleasure away from me. He is a socialist and a bad man. I will stamp my foot in anger now.
(stamp) Richard Hamblin and his Orchestra- Agreed, if you are unhappy, you should respond by buying a vehicle that is more fuel efficient. As would I if I were unhappy with what I pay for gas, as would most people. And if they did, the automakers would respond to that demand. Some people, however, are willing to trade that cost for more power and speed. If the true intent is to save people money, why should they need help making that decision? Or worse, why should they be forced to make it?
Right:&Right
With prices at the pump high and threatening to climb higher, we need better, more efficient cars that guzzle less gas. That's why I joined hundreds of my fellow Pennsylvanians at a public hearing in Philadelphia last week to testify in support of new standards that would mean significant savings for drivers, cleaner air, a safer climate, more jobs, and better vehicle choices.
A few weeks ago, President Obama proposed strengthening fuel-efficiency and carbon-pollution standards for cars and light trucks to 54.5 m.p.g. by 2025. That means the average Pennsylvania family buying a car in 2025 would save more than $3,500 on gas over the car's lifetime, even after paying for fuel-saving technology.
Instead of sending nearly $1 billion a day overseas for oil, we could be investing it in businesses here in Philadelphia and around the state. America's oil addiction also puts our troops at risk around the world and our health at risk here. Burning and refining oil releases contaminants that cause respiratory illnesses, trigger asthma attacks, and can harm lung function and development.
Burning fossil fuels is also cooking the planet. Nearly every day brings news of severe droughts and devastating storms that show climate change is well under way. A spike in the number of extreme weather events, shifts in migratory patterns, drought-induced wildfires and crop failures, devastating floods of coastal communities due to rising sea levels, and disruptions of critical habitats and food chains are costing us billions of dollars and threatening our way of life.
Cleaner cars that burn less oil won't solve all these problems, but they are an important part of the solution.
Last week in Philadelphia, I stood alongside veterans, public-health officials, small-business owners, and other concerned citizens who support cleaner cars. They aren't unusual. Higher fuel-efficiency standards enjoy the support of three-quarters of Americans. And 13 major auto manufacturers, including Detroit's "Big Three," have committed to strong standards.
It's not hard to understand why the idea is popular. Stronger efficiency standards would drive demand for fuel-saving technology and put money back in Americans' pockets. They would create an estimated 484,000 jobs by 2030, including 43,000 in the auto industry. And we would be using 1.5 million fewer barrels of oil per day by 2030 - the same amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year. That would have the same impact on carbon pollution as shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants for a year.
President Obama's proposal to double the efficiency of America's cars and light trucks would be the biggest single step we have ever taken to break our dangerous addiction to oil and tackle climate disruption. It should not be seen as a partisan or controversial notion. Saving families thousands of dollars, cutting pollution, creating jobs, and protecting the climate should be benefits we can all get behind.
Robin Mann is the president of the Sierra Club and a resident of Rosemont.







First, when Obama was elected the price of a gallon of retail gasoline was $1.62. Todayit is? Where is it going?
Second, government should not be mandating fuel standards. Allow consumers to decide what cars should be made and the invisible hand of supply & demand will work flawlessly. If there is enough demand for tiny vehicles that get high mileage returns, manufacturers will surely make those vehicles. Currently, that demand does NOT exist...and for government to artifically try to create that demand (again) is terrible public policy. Let consumers decide what products the market should be supplying.....not some empty headed polticos.