AutoblogGreen

"This, of course, is consistent with the quality of most of the assumptions made by the current administration and totally unrealistic."

Come on, Sam. Great article, spot on, but it really didn't need the political bias.

Reply

"this, of course, is consistent with the quality of most of the assumptions made by the current administration and totally unrealistic."

Sam, you are just full of it. You make this comment, yet fail to support. More "Sam opinion". Worthless. Just stick with facts and get off the useless soapbox. Your editorial comments are worthless.

Reply

"Perhaps they should just forget gas tax holidays and other silliness and just let the market take its course this time."

Apparently, you have a double-standard. If you were true to your statement above then we wouldn't have CAFE rules in the first place, would we? Instead of carrying a torch for the socialists who would have us all driving hybrid Lada's why don't YOU let the market take its course and let car builders build what they want and let consumers purchase what they want without whining about carbon footprints, emissions and the global warming hocus pocus?

Reply

1 and 3, Sam is unable to see his bias, he is blind to it.
Too bad really, if he could clean up his bias, he would be pretty good at doing his job. Sadly, his nonsense comments prevent the good work he does from being appreciated. Can he ever learn to stick to the subject and leave his worthless opinions at home?

Doubtful. He just does not get it.

Reply

Perhaps you'd be taken with more respect if you *actually backed up* your statements as to what gas prices will be in 2015. You know, the NHTSA probably actually has a list of what oil megaprojects are going to be coming online and when. Do you?

Back up your statements and they won't seem so much like bias.

Reply

Wow, the author bashing is a little more severe than warranted... my bad I guess.

The truth is the current government has done a HORRIBLE job when it has come to making assumptions. However, this failure hasn't just been limited to the executive office. Both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill have pretty much sucked at seeing things coming whether it be high energy prices, never ending wars, or Gulf Coast hurricane disasters.

Hell, coporate America and the everyday consumer have pretty much missed the boat as well. I'm not a big fan of the current administration but they do deserve a bit of a break when it comes to lack of foresight.

Reply

My 2 cents...
My favorite line - "Although manufacturers have long wanted higher fuel prices to spur demand for more efficient vehicles". This one's a good one. Detroit has lived off low oil prices so they could sell bloated gas guzzling cars since day 1. They have repeatedly said that if they had to make small fuel efficient cars then they would go out of business. And it looks like that statement is TRUE. They won't sell fuel efficient cars in the US even though they sell them all over the rest of the world.
So, sorry Sam but your article could be a bit more sensitive to the needs of the earth instead of Detroit and the Federal Government.

Reply

5. Sam, nice to know you are making progress. The first step is to admit you have a problem with bias. The problem with bias is that it colors everything you do. When are we reading the "truth" and when are we reading your bias? You now become a non-fiction writer.

From here on out, we have from your own words, confirmation that you are a writer of non-fiction.

The truth can set you free.

Reply

I realy won't matter how many new oil finds come on line in the next few years. The oil producers will still rape us of our money. We need clean fuels not more dirty oil.

Reply

The gubbermint uber-sux, and so do the corporations.

Reply

This, of course, is consistent with the quality of most of the assumptions made by the current administration and totally unrealistic.
----
7 years ago . . . it appears Sam's 'opinion/bias' is backed by a paper trail. But then again, denial is all the 27% that supports this administration has left to cling to . . .
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010517.html

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the American people are grateful to have a President who, immediately, from day one identified this as problem that needed a solution, and that they have a president who is willing to take on this issue because people don't want their lights to go out, people don't want to pay sky-high bills, they don't want to pay $2 for gas, and they know they need to look to someone who will demonstrate leadership to help get the job done.
--
Q But you're an image-maker and you're sort of a wordsmith. You've never -- you guys have never sat down and thought, wow, there could be a problem that the President, the Vice President, the Chief of Staff -- I mean, 25 people in your administration come from the energy and auto industry -- never thought that this could be problematic as you put together an energy plan that focuses mostly on supply and mostly on industry? That's never been discussed in the White House?

Reply

12. "is backed by a paper trail"

Look at Pres. Clinton track record of doing absolutely nothing for 8 years except

1) dollar a gallon gas
2) SUV sales exploded
3) No renewable energy support or initiatives.
4) The dot com bubble

Of course, all supported by a paper trail.

The reason we are in such a predicament is that Bill Clinton did NOTHING for energy independence, all supported by a paper trail.

If Clinton had done anything for energy conservation, we would not be in the trouble we are in now. Lot's of big thirsty SUVs and no energy program. We are 8 years behind where we could have been because Bill Clinton did NOTHING. "This is backed by a paper trail"

Reply

No political bias at all.
FACT: King George is responsible for perhaps the greatest decline in the United States of America by all measurements in its entire history.

Reply

"NHTSA did its calculations for the new rules with the assumption that gas would be $2.26/gallon in 2015. "

LOL. Next up: Jesus will make more oil.

Reply

"We are 8 years behind where we could have been because Bill Clinton did NOTHING. "

LOL. Yeah, maybe W can kiss some more Saudi ass and get some more oil. Oh. Wait. He tried that.

W's energy "plan:" beg his Saudi masters for some more oil. Awesome plan there W.

Reply

No to go to far afield . . . but it's pretty easy to see a hierarchy of irresponsible/poor leadership when it comes to advancing prudent policies for fuel economy:

Worst to Almost Laudable
1) Raygun - he gets the title largely because he TRULY took us backwards from where Carter was going.
2) Shrub - just another log for the legacy cabin . . . with a humongous carbon footprint
3) Slick Willie - an extraordinary underachiever from an environmental standpoint. It's a shame HIS VP was weak.
4) Bush41 - the other guys basically sux more, but there's a demonstrable difference in policy between the good Bush and his spawn. Bush41 at least REQUIRED competence before ideology. He didn't believe government existed for the purpose of advancing the interests of private industry ahead of all other concerns.
5) Carter - mediocre President? Sure, but in comparison to all that have followed, he could see the future and actually governed consistent with long-term sustainability.

Having said all that . . . every American tooling around in a land yacht (by themselves) or even a v6/8 sports sedan (by themselves) is at least equally culpable if not moreso. The auto industry (foreign and domestic) gave us plenty of more efficient choices but 92 out of 100 times we selected whatever was bigger, with more power and more do-hickies.

Reply