Probably not let the cars be sold in the US or levee a tax on each one?
Dunno. Big brother makes the rules and doesn't really share some info until it has to.

 

co2 is really negligable. Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles.

until the reach age x (cant find the specific number, it varies between species) like the redwood forest, then it produces c02. but try and tell a tree hugger that they need to chop down some redwoods and replant them and what their head spin like the excorcist.

 

Probably just slap a gas guzzler tax on. A little extra revenue always seems to shut politicians up.

 

No gussler tax for a specific car because the CAFE is representative of the Manufacturer across the board.

If I remember correctly, if the cafe is not met in a given year...2007 for example, da Gov gives the Manufacturer the following year to make it up...i.e., 2008. After that penalties are assessed and paid to da Gov.

May have changed from 7 years ago.

 

Well there is more to the majesty of living on earth than making every little thing wicked efficient.
Cutting down huge huge old growth to make room for the new would make sense if we were that close to extinction. But the reality is enough other forests can be replanted without resorting to that.

 

Like the US, Canada relies heavily on the lumber industry and those folks are doing a pretty fine job replanting what they harvest. It still results in the displacement of some animal life, but not like the past...

While I would prefer that the feds (on both sides of the border) would raise fuel economy requirements it is not for the "greenhouse gas" reason - it is so that we can all become less dependent on oil. If we could get better fuel economy there would be more than enough fuel in Alberta, Texas, and other North American oil fields to supply our needs. Kiss my arse OPEC!

Seeing as the Corvette Z06 can get 27mpg on the highway while pumping out 505hp, I don't think I'm dreaming...

 

Its all about gearing and displacement On demand, now if they could just make it work with a switch so that it did not come on when you did not want it.

 

How can a "heavier" car like the Grand Prix, Lasabre (sp?) & Impala get 30 mpg on the highway, yet much lighter cars, the HHR with 4 cylinder engines, can only get slightly more?

The GM 3.8 ltr engine is a great one! It has power, get-up and go and still has great gas mileage.

In 1984 I bought my first new car, a Ford EXP with a 1.9 ltr 4-banger in it. On the highway with good weather I got 40 mpg going to Florida from Michigan and back.

Car companies build what consumers want, they can still build better and the American car companies better start building better, or they won't exists in a few decades or so?????

 

Sure they will because of die hards like myself that will never buy a foreign vehicle.