McCain says states should set their own fuel efficiency standards:

Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080718/NEWS15/80718037/1215)

Doing that would essentially make it impossible for any automaker to plan product development, as efficiency / pollution standards would be an ever changing target. I believe this to be an interstate commerce issue, and as such, the federal government should handle it, not the states.

McCain says states should set their own fuel efficiency standards:

Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080718/NEWS15/80718037/1215)

Doing that would essentially make it impossible for any automaker to plan product development, as efficiency / pollution standards would be an ever changing target. I believe this to be an interstate commerce issue, and as such, the federal government should handle it, not the states.

I don't see the problem per se with states making internal standards for local manufacturers who want to build cars. they just couldn't sell them cross state lines without meeting federal guidelines.

I don't see the problem per se with states making internal standards for local manufacturers who want to build cars. they just couldn't sell them cross state lines without meeting federal guidelines.

So why hamstring your own state industries, or other state industries that would want to sell in your state. Essentially, you are killing competition, and destroying any possibility for economies of scale. The consumers would end up paying a fortune.

Transportation is a major cost factor in our economy, and if you make that more expensive through unfriendly policies, our cost of living increases, while our quality of life suffers.

Granted, I am a little out of my depth here, but how are states not already doing this in one way or another?

California has all sorts of special controls on automobiles that are special for their state. Manufacturers have to choose if its worth doing business there.

I personally thinks it sucks. I have a friend who is an executive with John Deere. He tells me that California regulations effectively push up the price of their good substancially, and everyone else is paying for Californian policy.

I really want a manufacturer to finally give Cali the middle finger. All those labels that say "This product is known by the state of California to cause cancer" to have added "The other 49 states know better."

California formed their Air Resources Board prior to the EPA being formed, so CARB is grandfathered under the federal law - no other state can do it. Libs try to make it sound as if there is a large block of states making moves, but only CA has the legal authority to do it, unless the EPA refuses to allow it. Not sure what can / can't be done through CARB, but their latest moves regarding PHEV's vs. ZEV's is excellent, and should give manufacturers some lee-way to support CARB's goals.

McCain says states should set their own fuel efficiency standards:

Link (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080718/NEWS15/80718037/1215)

Doing that would essentially make it impossible for any automaker to plan product development, as efficiency / pollution standards would be an ever changing target. I believe this to be an interstate commerce issue, and as such, the federal government should handle it, not the states.

What do you have against free market? California can set a standard. Car companies can decide whether or not to sell in the California market. Chrysler can so no to California. Toyota will say yes.

The free market works.

What do you have against free market? California can set a standard. Car companies can decide whether or not to sell in the California market. Chrysler can so no to California. Toyota will say yes.

The free market works.

Government interference is anti-thetical to free markets. The only thing that will happen if CA and other states are free to usurp the EPA is that fewer cars will be available in those states, and all states will pay more for their vehicles, as economies of scale shrink.

Government interference is anti-thetical to free markets. The only thing that will happen if CA and other states are free to usurp the EPA is that fewer cars will be available in those states, and all states will pay more for their vehicles, as economies of scale shrink.

I think car companies that figure out how to hit the toughest standard will flourish. Car companies that want to continue to build and market dinosaurs will go extinct.

I don't think that all states will pay more for their vehicles if they are buying Toyotas or Hondas that meet the most stringent requirements.

This is just another canard of those that believe that U.S. car companies can control government.

We need to deal with global warming. If GM and the other U.S. car companies didn't obstruct progress for all these years, I would be more sympathetic.

I think car companies that figure out how to hit the toughest standard will flourish. Car companies that want to continue to build and market dinosaurs will go extinct.

You and I both know that legislators will over-reach and force auto companies to use expensive techs that consumers won't buy. You forget that consumers have the choice of buying a new car, or nursing along their old cars, which is far worse than anything offered currently today.


I don't think that all states will pay more for their vehicles if they are buying Toyotas or Hondas that meet the most stringent requirements.

As stated above, people will just keep using their old cars, defeating the purpose of legislation.


We need to deal with global warming. If GM and the other U.S. car companies didn't obstruct progress for all these years, I would be more sympathetic.

That's two strikes right there. Global warming is a fraud, and GM didn't obstruct progress - they attempted the EV1 and found that they could not succeed with that design.

That's two strikes right there. Global warming is a fraud, and GM didn't obstruct progress - they attempted the EV1 and found that they could not succeed with that design.

Let's see, we have Jason Hendler, chief blogger on GM-Volt.com versus the vast majority of the scientific community and peer-review research.

I hate to be rude but you flatter yourself!

Anthropogenic climate change is very much not settled science. Climate change in general is still very mixed. All scientists agree the climate changes, though they're not sure of the direction.

Anthropogenic climate change is very much not settled science. Climate change in general is still very mixed. All scientists agree the climate changes, though they're not sure of the direction.

Well, it appears that some on this board will choose to ignore the growing scientific consensus supported by peer-reviewed research that concludes that the climate is warming and the results will be devestating.

Would you care to share your ExxonMobil study to the contrary?

Science is science. I'm sure you'll believe what you want though and accept only that which you believe regardless of methodlogy.

Let's see, we have Jason Hendler, chief blogger on GM-Volt.com versus the vast majority of the scientific community and peer-review research.

I hate to be rude but you flatter yourself!

I will not deny that I am more than equal to the task.

Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true, the real fact is that there are large numbers of people who WANT it to be true.

I'd like my science without bias, please.

I'm so glad this has devolved into another GW debate forum. There are many a place I can go on the web to find virtually the same "yes it is" v.s. "no it ain't debate". With all due respect to the freedom of speech, can we go back to the original posters concerns about the non-standardization of policy between the states and the effect it may have on an effective design.

Jason, do you have an alternative policy that you consider more appropriate, and what do you consider its benefits and drawbacks?

McCain says states should set their own fuel efficiency standards.
John McCain says a lot of things.

Jason, do you have an alternative policy that you consider more appropriate, and what do you consider its benefits and drawbacks?

... so glad you asked.

California's CARB was grandfathered in before the feds started creating national standards, so they have made some good requests, like catalytic converters, which were cheap bolt on solutions. Recently, they conferred with automakers to mandate reasonable increases in the sales of HEV's and/or ZEV's.

The 2007 CAFE standards are a good roadmap for the next few years, and shouldn't be tinkered with until a couple years prior to the 2007 CAFE standards reaching their plateau.

Between the reasonable steps currently requested in CA and the existing increases defined by the 2007 CAFE standards, this is all the US should do until the 2007 CAFE standards plateau. I suspect that competition will be tough as it is, causing many new start-ups to over-reach (Aptera risks poor market acceptance due to its looks and lack of utility, in spite of double the range of any other EV available), so no government should look at these extreme performance cases as a guide for new policy.

High oil prices are spurring all the innovation we need, so government should stay out of the way for now.

It was interesting watching oil prices nosedive for three days after Bush said we need "Low Gas" and he supports drilling on the coasts in a press conference last week. A temporary dip?

It was interesting watching oil prices nosedive for three days after Bush said we need "Low Gas" and he supports drilling on the coasts in a press conference last week. A temporary dip?

It would be permanent if Pelosi bowed to pressure and allowed the states to decide whether or not they want to drill.

... so glad you asked.

California's CARB was grandfathered in before the feds started creating national standards, so they have made some good requests, like catalytic converters, which were cheap bolt on solutions. Recently, they conferred with automakers to mandate reasonable increases in the sales of HEV's and/or ZEV's.

The 2007 CAFE standards are a good roadmap for the next few years, and shouldn't be tinkered with until a couple years prior to the 2007 CAFE standards reaching their plateau.

Between the reasonable steps currently requested in CA and the existing increases defined by the 2007 CAFE standards, this is all the US should do until the 2007 CAFE standards plateau. I suspect that competition will be tough as it is, causing many new start-ups to over-reach (Aptera risks poor market acceptance due to its looks and lack of utility, in spite of double the range of any other EV available), so no government should look at these extreme performance cases as a guide for new policy.

High oil prices are spurring all the innovation we need, so government should stay out of the way for now.

I gleen from the above statements you feel that 2007 CAFE should the only standard by which proceed. Is there anything that you feel should be different with 2007 CAFE? I have to go and look up the standard to form an educated opinion.

I gleen from the above statements you feel that 2007 CAFE should the only standard by which proceed. Is there anything that you feel should be different with 2007 CAFE? I have to go and look up the standard to form an educated opinion.

CARB's HEV and ZEV mandates are all we need for now, beyond what is in the 2007 CAFE standard - let's just see how the corp's perform against these measures.

Jason, drilling in ANWR won't do a thing to gasoline prices for a variety of reasons. You should really know that, considering how much you talk about economics.

Yeah, having a bunch of states set different standards wouldn't help things very much. What's desperately needed is a national initiative to increase efficiency and lower pollution, including national standards for auto manufacturers. I'm holding out for Obama doing something along those lines as president as part of his new energy policy, but we'll see how that pans out. Mccain would be hopeless in this regard.

And seriously guys global warming is ****ing real get over yourselves and stop listening to big oil PR.

Detroit, the motor city, used to be under several hundred feet of ice. It melted, leaving unmistakable landforms, Lake Huron, the like. So, yes, the climate is getting warmer. Seen any Mammoths lately ?? Seriously, aren't more stringent emissions controls in effect in Japan and Europe ? I know for motorcycles, at least, the limits for most emissions are more strict in England, Germany, france, at least.

Here's a blog (http://www.desmogblog.com/) where you can go and argue about climate change with climate scientists. Good luck.

While McCain obviously feels that states ought to be able to set their own standards, he has said he would like a national standard high enough to make state standards unnecessary.

The only standard we need is the high price of gas. Works like a charm. ;)

The only standard we need is the high price of gas. Works like a charm. ;)

True, which is why further tinkering with CAFE and CARB standards would only hurt current efforts to switch to alternative fuels.

This author sounds as exasperated as I feel with McCain:

Link (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/OPINION03/807210326)

McCain has demonstrated ignorance on a range of issues during the course of this campaign. You can't talk straight if you don't know what you're talking about.