Dems Reach Deal on Energy Bill

AP via Google ^ | December 1, 2007 | H. JOSEF HEBERT

[CutePuppy]

I am disappointed. By 2020 they could mandate 100 miles per gallon of water. For a body that is so far ahead of emerging technologies this bill betrays a very narrow and short-sighted thinking. No wonder we are losing technology lead - Congress ain't what it used to be, when Congresspeople invented the Internet.

[edcoil]

“Dems Reach Deal on Energy Bill”

This cannot be a good thing for America.

[ProCivitas]

I would have thought that the natural market demand for higher mpg would be the right thing to rely on for raising the auto industry's average fuel efficiency.

Why are we allowing the states or Federal government to mandate what can be offered to people?

[gpapa]

Veto bait.

[JLS]

So this is what all those Pew Trust ads playing locally during the Limbaugh show have been about recently. Every time I heard one I wanted to yell DRILL IN ANWAR, but I know it would be a waste of breath.

[Sooth2222]

...which also is expected to require a sharp increase in ethanol use as a motor fuel and require nonpublic electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from renewable energy sources such as wind or solar energy.

1.) Somebody needs to tell Congress that there is less energy contained in a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline or a gallon of diesel. So MPG goes down significantly on ethnanol.

2.) And if utilities can't produce 15% of their power from the wind turbines that Ted Kennedy doesn't want to see near his estate, well, brownouts and blackouts, here we come!

[RightWhale]

Seems like Congress demanded 35 mpg thirty years ago. This is progress!

[DugwayDuke]

“Why are we allowing the states or Federal government to mandate what can be offered to people?”

Geez, do I have to tell you everything? Because the people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. Therefore, the democrat party must take things from you (money, big cars, etc.) for your own good.

[mysterio]

So no new drilling, no new nuclear, and no advanced coal. Our government is very close to worthless on this issue.

The fact that they refuse to understand that energy independence is a main plank in any successful war on terror is absolutely criminal.

[Mr Rogers]

This is do-able. All we need is for Ford & Chevy to start producing 2-wheeled cars with 125cc engines, and for Pelosi to require us to buy them. Guess it will suck lining in northern NY, but perhaps global warming will bail us out.

I’m not sure why they didn’t just go whole hog and mandate we all use magnetic flying saucers powered by unobtainium.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for ping. Gasoline cost isn’t going down. That’s the starting point.

[Windcatcher]

35mpg city or highway? I ask because I have one of these and I was getting 27mpg highway (with a 5.0L V8, no less) when it was new (this one isn't mine, but it's close enough). Birds have gotten a lot heavier since then (500lb or so) and that's one reason why their mpg has suffered (another reason being that these had highly restrictive heads specifically for boosting mpg at the expense of hp).


1987 Ford Thunderbird

[bmwcyle]

They were fun to drive.

[CutePuppy]

The problem with unobtanium is that it can only be obtained by mining on Utopia which, as we know, is in another galaxy.

At least plutonium can be mined on Pluto, which, I suspect, is the real reason behind the conspiracy of declaring Pluto a non-planet.

[CutePuppy]

Our government is very close to worthless on this issue.

Worthless would be an improvement.

[exit82]

I had a 1988 Thunderbird 3.8 liter V-6 that was very efficient on gas. First time I did the mileage test( I bought it used in 1991) it was like 26 mpg. It was not a small car.

I always liked its design. That’s because it was ahead of the car styling curve at the time. GM was still making boxes on wheels.

It was also a low maintenance car—had very little problems with it.

Bought a 1993 T-Bird in 1995 with 35,000 miles, and put 135,000 miles on it. Gave it to a friend a year and a half ago, and it is still going strong.

My son’s 1995 Cougar was a VERY comfortable well riding car, much more than the T-Birds, which shared the body.

[CutePuppy]

Veto bait.

You are right, what else is there for Dems to do, it is an elections season... isn't it always for them, though?

Another benefit for them is they are trying to expose some Republican Senators in "marginally red" states to a choice of voting against "clean air" and "energy independence" or being "a moderate" and voting for the bill and incur the wrath and/or apathy of conservatives on election day.

It's a no-lose proposition for Dems, which is how, I suppose, they convinced Dingell and some others "blue dog" Dems to go along with it.

[Windcatcher]

I had a 1988 Thunderbird 3.8 liter V-6 that was very efficient on gas. First time I did the mileage test( I bought it used in 1991) it was like 26 mpg. It was not a small car.

I always liked its design. That’s because it was ahead of the car styling curve at the time. GM was still making boxes on wheels.

It was also a low maintenance car—had very little problems with it.

Bought a 1993 T-Bird in 1995 with 35,000 miles, and put 135,000 miles on it. Gave it to a friend a year and a half ago, and it is still going strong.

My son’s 1995 Cougar was a VERY comfortable well riding car, much more than the T-Birds, which shared the body."

You (or maybe your son) might like this site:

Cool Cats

[exit82]

WC, thanks for the link. Makes me want to buy another ‘88 T-Bird!

I love the sequential turn signals you can get now for them—I had them on my 1967 Cougar. Yellow, black segmented racing stripe, black vinyl roof, 289 V-8.

Had to sell that car to pay for the baby doctor—for previously mentioned son 30 years ago!

[Windcatcher]

"WC, thanks for the link. Makes me want to buy another ‘88 T-Bird!"

Hee-hee :^) Don't go to the message board and check out the "for sale" section if you want to keep your cash, then...there are lots of them out there.