He forced the market to continue to innovate. Instead of waiting for people to scream about $10/gal gas. *shrug* There might be philosophical and/or ideological reasons as to why it's wrong. But I think he did the right thing. If you can get the same performance with half the gas, then why not do it? Also, we need to start somewhere with improve energy efficiency and technology. Light bulbs and cars are a good place to start. One step at a time as they say.

He forced the market to continue to innovate. Instead of waiting for people to scream about $10/gal gas. *shrug* There might be philosophical and/or ideological reasons as to why it's wrong. But I think he did the right thing. If you can get the same performance with half the gas, then why not do it? Also, we need to start somewhere with improve energy efficiency and technology. Light bulbs and cars are a good place to start. One step at a time as they say.

How do you figure his speeches did that?

His speeches don't fund research in alternate plans. His speeches don't have enough impact to cause a hundred million Americans to change their lifestyle. His speeches didn't cause regulatory changes.

Yes it is something, a non-zero improvement to discuss it. The discussion brings attention to the energy issues that we will need to address. Giving a speech calling others to action for something that obviously needs to be resolved also has no real negative repercussions other than people asking him to do more, so he has no real reason not to.


The only thing I can imagine with enough pressure to cause necessary change is either spending huge amounts of money to reduce the barriers (which the government cannot afford), or having prices increase thereby making the changes into the less expensive option for consumers and businesses.

You cannot add market pressure by taking actions to relieve the market, such as releasing oil reserves.



Where did the speeches on energy actually force the market to do something? I don't see that.

[quote name='ChurchSkiz' timestamp='1311270887' post='4838545']
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1311270078' post='4838542']
Hitting $5/gallon is enough for some people to switch from gasoline to natural gas; switching from one fuel to another doesn't solve the issue. Hitting $6 or $7 or $10 will push many others over to different fuels, but I still don't see that as enough to change their habits. I can't imagine a serious national change in habits until gasoline and other fuels hit $15 or $20 per gallon equivalent in today's money.

Maybe I'm optimistic but I think if we started using natural gas, it would stay effective until solar energy, or cleaner electrical energy (to produce fuel cells), or some alternate source of power was developed enough to create a better solution altogether.
[/quote]

But as you pointed out, you are swapping from one fossil fuel to another without making serious change. That's just the cost of fossil fuels getting swapped, not the problem of energy dependence generally. It isn't until the change to an altogether better solution that the real issues get resolved.
[/quote]

Right, but just like with power plants. People bitch about wanting solar or wind power instead of nuclear power. Meanwhile we are BURNING COAL to turn on our lights. We're letting the best be the enemy of the good. If we switched to natural gas for cars, we avoid and improve a lot of problems and give ourselves a solid century to come up with a better solution. Yeah it's trading one resource for another, but it's for all the right reasons. The other option is to sit and bitch about gas for another few decades until someone invents the plasma coil engine.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1311276072' post='4838591']
He forced the market to continue to innovate. Instead of waiting for people to scream about $10/gal gas. *shrug* There might be philosophical and/or ideological reasons as to why it's wrong. But I think he did the right thing. If you can get the same performance with half the gas, then why not do it? Also, we need to start somewhere with improve energy efficiency and technology. Light bulbs and cars are a good place to start. One step at a time as they say.

How do you figure his speeches did that?

His speeches don't fund research in alternate plans. His speeches don't have enough impact to cause a hundred million Americans to change their lifestyle. His speeches didn't cause regulatory changes.

Yes it is something, a non-zero improvement to discuss it. The discussion brings attention to the energy issues that we will need to address. Giving a speech calling others to action for something that obviously needs to be resolved also has no real negative repercussions other than people asking him to do more, so he has no real reason not to.


The only thing I can imagine with enough pressure to cause necessary change is either spending huge amounts of money to reduce the barriers (which the government cannot afford), or having prices increase thereby making the changes into the less expensive option for consumers and businesses.

You cannot add market pressure by taking actions to relieve the market, such as releasing oil reserves.



Where did the speeches on energy actually force the market to do something? I don't see that.
[/quote]
Did he passed legislation to toughen fuel standards? Aren't more people buying fuel-efficient cars and automakers creating more models of fuel-efficient cars? Is the link below invalid for some reason I'm unaware of?

Obama passes fuel-emissions law

It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

This really does make a lot of sense. And the government should force higher tax on the gas to achieve the same goal.

[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1311217883' post='4838272']
It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

This really does make a lot of sense. And the government should force higher tax on the gas to achieve the same goal.
[/quote]

So, a higher tax on gas forces people working near minimum wage jobs to pay that much more for the fuel in the cars they're not going to be able to afford to replace any time soon, just so they can continue to travel to and from work?

How does this help the market or the economy? By forcing more people to put off buying a new car for longer, because they have to put more money that could have gone into savings for a new car in the future into fuel prices today?

[quote name='Instigator' timestamp='1311288533' post='4838685']
[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1311217883' post='4838272']
It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

This really does make a lot of sense. And the government should force higher tax on the gas to achieve the same goal.
[/quote]

So, a higher tax on gas forces people working near minimum wage jobs to pay that much more for the fuel in the cars they're not going to be able to afford to replace any time soon, just so they can continue to travel to and from work?

How does this help the market or the economy? By forcing more people to put off buying a new car for longer, because they have to put more money that could have gone into savings for a new car in the future into fuel prices today?
[/quote]
Not that I agree with higher gasoline taxes, but at this point the choices are: higher gas taxes or toll roads all across the US. And I didn't make that up. That's Congress (both Houses) saying that.

So, a higher tax on gas forces people working near minimum wage jobs to pay that much more for the fuel in the cars they're not going to be able to afford to replace any time soon, just so they can continue to travel to and from work?

Psh... you should know we don't care about poor people here in the good old US of A. If they didn't want to be poor, then they should make more money!

[quote name='Instigator' timestamp='1311288533' post='4838685']
[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1311217883' post='4838272']
It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

This really does make a lot of sense. And the government should force higher tax on the gas to achieve the same goal.
[/quote]

So, a higher tax on gas forces people working near minimum wage jobs to pay that much more for the fuel in the cars they're not going to be able to afford to replace any time soon, just so they can continue to travel to and from work?

How does this help the market or the economy? By forcing more people to put off buying a new car for longer, because they have to put more money that could have gone into savings for a new car in the future into fuel prices today?
[/quote]
If gas prices were to hit $2 a gallon across the country, should gas efficient vehicles stop being made?

[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1311301807' post='4838751']
[quote name='Instigator' timestamp='1311288533' post='4838685']
[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1311217883' post='4838272']
It's really not a necessary bill. This is a self correcting problem, as gas prices go higher, people want more gas efficient vehicles and (intelligent) auto makers respond to that demand. There really is no need to legislate it as that's the direction that automakers are already going.

This really does make a lot of sense. And the government should force higher tax on the gas to achieve the same goal.
[/quote]

So, a higher tax on gas forces people working near minimum wage jobs to pay that much more for the fuel in the cars they're not going to be able to afford to replace any time soon, just so they can continue to travel to and from work?

How does this help the market or the economy? By forcing more people to put off buying a new car for longer, because they have to put more money that could have gone into savings for a new car in the future into fuel prices today?
[/quote]
If gas prices were to hit $2 a gallon across the country, should gas efficient vehicles stop being made?
[/quote]

What does the price at the pump actually have to do with what is being made? Artificially raising the price of fuel is a needless burden on people, and isn't going to have a huge effect on what cars are being produced.

Want a tax that will encourage efficient cars? Tax the hell out of inefficient systems, and provide rebates on efficient ones. People who are struggling to make ends meet with their current old car aren't slapped with extra taxes they can't afford. Directly impacts people who are actually buying new cars,... You know, the people actually encouraging what the automotive industry produces. The guy buying the cheapest used car he can find has zero impact on what new models hit to road, so why should he get hit with a tax designed to change what is being put on the market?