It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: The GUT
Don't want the prices to be down when we open up the reserve spicot and start exporting in earnest is most probably the main reason.
originally posted by: Nickn3
There is some truth to that statement, my new Ford F-250 diesel is 700 pounds lighter than the older model. But the new aluminium body is paper thin. It can’t be as safe as steel, can it?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
Lets just force everyone to ride motorcycles, lots of gas savings, traffic jams gone...40% increase in deaths is very acceptable..
The study, which was presented at the Association des Constructeurs Européens de Motocycles (ACEM) 2012 Conference in Brussels, found that if 10 percent of all private cars were replaced by motorcycles in the traffic flow of the test area, total time losses for all vehicles decreased by 40 percent and total emissions reduced by 6 percent (1 percent from the different traffic composition of more emission-reduced motorcycles and 5 percent from avoided traffic congestion). A 25 percent modal shift from cars to motorcycles was found to eliminate congestion entirely.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Edumakated
can you show where it has been shown higher gas mileage causes people to drive more?
you still get gas, jut less time at the pump. doesnt mean you add more diving... you simply fill up less
makes no sense...
drinking lowfat milk causes people to drink more milk?
cheaper insurance causes people to get into more accidents?
mentalist logic is great logic for mentalists
...often called the ‘rebound effect’, suggests that drivers will undo some or all of these increases by responding to the increased efficiency with more driving. After all, the effective cost of each mile driven is now lower. Indeed, an expectation that 10% of the gains from increased fuel economy will be clawed back is built into government estimates of the effects of the new Corporate Fuel standards (NHTSA 2012). Yet, the magnitude of this effect is a contentious empirical question, with estimates ranging from 5% to 30% depending on the empirical approach and the length of time studied (Gillingham et al. 2013).
One might expect that this increase in fuel economy would induce more driving because the price of driving each mile has fallen. However, improvements in fuel economy are often accompanied by other changes in vehicle characteristics. We show that the more fuel-efficient vehicles purchased by the eligible households were cheaper, smaller, and less powerful. Figure 2 shows that vehicles purchased by barely eligible households were less expensive than those purchased by barely ineligible households; similar patterns hold for vehicle characteristics that proxy for comfort, size, and performance. Text
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: angeldoll
Perhaps I missed it, but is there a link to the specific proposal at the link?
Surely the admin is not using such a laughable argument against the fuel standards. I would not be surprised, but I can't imagine having to have to use such a poor position.
I also see he is going after the rights of individual states.
almost like they're performing an inside joke just to troll certain segments of society who will lose their collective mind over something like this.