Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4831
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:25:43 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> >magnitude of what they did.
>>
>> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
>Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
While this has been reported, it's wrong.
*SOME* in the Japanese gov't were willing, but the emperor and most of
the rest of the gov't weren't.
Otherwise, a surrender would have been easy to work out, since we had
already decided to not depose the Emperor, knowing the extremely high
position he held with the populace. While he was allowed to stay, he
was reduced to a figurehead.
>We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
Hardly; we know full well that the Japanese would have defended the
home islands with every means available, to include farm tools.
We know this beacuse they have said so themselves, and were in the
process of arming the civiliam populace to resist invasion.
>I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>ended it.
>
>Ed
It's very hard to read the future. You may be very right; with an
ability to see the future, Truman may have not used the Bomb.
The tradce-off would have been extremely costly in human lives,
though.
And it's not just the lives of the Japanese, Americans, British,
Austrailians, New Zealaners, and other allies who were fighting in the
South Pacific. The Chinese also have to be considered; Japan still
occupied vast areas of China, and were being especially brutal there.
Very few people have even heard of Nanking, yet the Japanese took
brutality to new levels there.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/~jsch...troduction.htm
gives a report from a Japanese student.
Did Truman know about Nanking? I can't find info one way or the other.
Did the Bomb save lives? There's not really much dispute there.
if we hadn't used the Bomb in Japan, would the Cold War not have
happened? I can't see why not; Russia developed the Bomb shortly after
WW II. Even if we hadn't used it, we still had it. The presence of the
Bomb on both sides wasn't the cause of the Cold War, merely one of the
weapons that could have been used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> >magnitude of what they did.
>>
>> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
>Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
While this has been reported, it's wrong.
*SOME* in the Japanese gov't were willing, but the emperor and most of
the rest of the gov't weren't.
Otherwise, a surrender would have been easy to work out, since we had
already decided to not depose the Emperor, knowing the extremely high
position he held with the populace. While he was allowed to stay, he
was reduced to a figurehead.
>We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
Hardly; we know full well that the Japanese would have defended the
home islands with every means available, to include farm tools.
We know this beacuse they have said so themselves, and were in the
process of arming the civiliam populace to resist invasion.
>I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>ended it.
>
>Ed
It's very hard to read the future. You may be very right; with an
ability to see the future, Truman may have not used the Bomb.
The tradce-off would have been extremely costly in human lives,
though.
And it's not just the lives of the Japanese, Americans, British,
Austrailians, New Zealaners, and other allies who were fighting in the
South Pacific. The Chinese also have to be considered; Japan still
occupied vast areas of China, and were being especially brutal there.
Very few people have even heard of Nanking, yet the Japanese took
brutality to new levels there.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/~jsch...troduction.htm
gives a report from a Japanese student.
Did Truman know about Nanking? I can't find info one way or the other.
Did the Bomb save lives? There's not really much dispute there.
if we hadn't used the Bomb in Japan, would the Cold War not have
happened? I can't see why not; Russia developed the Bomb shortly after
WW II. Even if we hadn't used it, we still had it. The presence of the
Bomb on both sides wasn't the cause of the Cold War, merely one of the
weapons that could have been used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4832
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
is worse than
> > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
case is being
> > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
environmentalist schedule or terms.
#4833
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
is worse than
> > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
case is being
> > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
environmentalist schedule or terms.
#4834
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"z" <gzuckier@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0311220857.5c6200cf@posting.google.c om...
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<olesrvsl6emilb2rgfbes8n605i91jdluj@4ax.com>. ..
> > >>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure
is worse than
> > >>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the
case is being
> > >>>> >dramatically overstated.
>
> I've always wondered why 'conservatives' (to use the term loosely, as
> it correlates with most 'no global warming' folks) think that a
> billion dollars invested in developing new industries such as energy
> conservation and energy sources that do not involve combustion of
> fossil fuel is more wasteful and a drag on the economy than a billion
> dollars spent on trying to cope with the flooding of our coastal
> cities as the ocean rises.
>
You've got conservatives all wrong then. Part of the reason conservatives
tend towards opposing the global warming crowd is who that crowd is and what
their aims are. Headline environmentalism has transformed over the last
decade or so into an extremist and anti-capitalist point of view. Whatever
the facts are regarding global warming, the extreme view pulls into it's
agenda the shift of power from capitalism towards socialism.
We have a fossil fueled based economy. Someday it will change and thank
goodness for it too, but, God willing, it won't be on the extremist
environmentalist schedule or terms.
#4835
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. <
After the bloodbath on Okinawa had Truman not used the atomic bombs, but
instead sent thousands of American and Allied servicemen to their deaths
invading mainland Japan, he'd have likely been impeached. The expanding
scenario had even worse implications. Thus, while the deaths of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians was regrettable, in the end the results
justified the means.
The combined political and military actions by the USA and the western
Allies in the closing months of WWII prevented a military nightmare had the
proposed multi-pronged invasion plan been launched, prevented the Soviets
from occupying Northern Japan and partitioning the Country ala Korea, and
prevented a likely years long guerilla campaign by Japanese militarists.
Retaining the Emperor allowed Japan to recover as a unified culture and
permitted the development of a democratic and economic miracle.
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. <
After the bloodbath on Okinawa had Truman not used the atomic bombs, but
instead sent thousands of American and Allied servicemen to their deaths
invading mainland Japan, he'd have likely been impeached. The expanding
scenario had even worse implications. Thus, while the deaths of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians was regrettable, in the end the results
justified the means.
The combined political and military actions by the USA and the western
Allies in the closing months of WWII prevented a military nightmare had the
proposed multi-pronged invasion plan been launched, prevented the Soviets
from occupying Northern Japan and partitioning the Country ala Korea, and
prevented a likely years long guerilla campaign by Japanese militarists.
Retaining the Emperor allowed Japan to recover as a unified culture and
permitted the development of a democratic and economic miracle.
#4836
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. <
After the bloodbath on Okinawa had Truman not used the atomic bombs, but
instead sent thousands of American and Allied servicemen to their deaths
invading mainland Japan, he'd have likely been impeached. The expanding
scenario had even worse implications. Thus, while the deaths of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians was regrettable, in the end the results
justified the means.
The combined political and military actions by the USA and the western
Allies in the closing months of WWII prevented a military nightmare had the
proposed multi-pronged invasion plan been launched, prevented the Soviets
from occupying Northern Japan and partitioning the Country ala Korea, and
prevented a likely years long guerilla campaign by Japanese militarists.
Retaining the Emperor allowed Japan to recover as a unified culture and
permitted the development of a democratic and economic miracle.
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. <
After the bloodbath on Okinawa had Truman not used the atomic bombs, but
instead sent thousands of American and Allied servicemen to their deaths
invading mainland Japan, he'd have likely been impeached. The expanding
scenario had even worse implications. Thus, while the deaths of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians was regrettable, in the end the results
justified the means.
The combined political and military actions by the USA and the western
Allies in the closing months of WWII prevented a military nightmare had the
proposed multi-pronged invasion plan been launched, prevented the Soviets
from occupying Northern Japan and partitioning the Country ala Korea, and
prevented a likely years long guerilla campaign by Japanese militarists.
Retaining the Emperor allowed Japan to recover as a unified culture and
permitted the development of a democratic and economic miracle.
#4837
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. <
After the bloodbath on Okinawa had Truman not used the atomic bombs, but
instead sent thousands of American and Allied servicemen to their deaths
invading mainland Japan, he'd have likely been impeached. The expanding
scenario had even worse implications. Thus, while the deaths of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians was regrettable, in the end the results
justified the means.
The combined political and military actions by the USA and the western
Allies in the closing months of WWII prevented a military nightmare had the
proposed multi-pronged invasion plan been launched, prevented the Soviets
from occupying Northern Japan and partitioning the Country ala Korea, and
prevented a likely years long guerilla campaign by Japanese militarists.
Retaining the Emperor allowed Japan to recover as a unified culture and
permitted the development of a democratic and economic miracle.
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. <
After the bloodbath on Okinawa had Truman not used the atomic bombs, but
instead sent thousands of American and Allied servicemen to their deaths
invading mainland Japan, he'd have likely been impeached. The expanding
scenario had even worse implications. Thus, while the deaths of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians was regrettable, in the end the results
justified the means.
The combined political and military actions by the USA and the western
Allies in the closing months of WWII prevented a military nightmare had the
proposed multi-pronged invasion plan been launched, prevented the Soviets
from occupying Northern Japan and partitioning the Country ala Korea, and
prevented a likely years long guerilla campaign by Japanese militarists.
Retaining the Emperor allowed Japan to recover as a unified culture and
permitted the development of a democratic and economic miracle.
#4838
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
> What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
> fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
> Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
> our lifestyles.
The problem here is CAFE. Many people in the USA want big cars. Plain and
simple. Instead of working with that, other people decided they would
just make is so people couldn't get affordable big cars. The result
was CAFE and the SUV explosion. Now, had CAFE not occured, only the
gasoline price shocks and emissions regs, today people would probably
be driving the sedans and wagons of the same large size they had for
decades with fuel economy that is significantly better than the SUVs
CAFE gave us.
Many would say that automakers wouldnt have bothered with fuel efficency
at all if it weren't for CAFE. That's wrong if any one has an
understanding of the subject. The fuel economy gains came through
the same control systems that brought about the emissions, reliability,
and performance gains. So long as the market demands reliability and
performance, so long as the emissions regs exist, we get the technology.
> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
> What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
> fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
> Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
> our lifestyles.
The problem here is CAFE. Many people in the USA want big cars. Plain and
simple. Instead of working with that, other people decided they would
just make is so people couldn't get affordable big cars. The result
was CAFE and the SUV explosion. Now, had CAFE not occured, only the
gasoline price shocks and emissions regs, today people would probably
be driving the sedans and wagons of the same large size they had for
decades with fuel economy that is significantly better than the SUVs
CAFE gave us.
Many would say that automakers wouldnt have bothered with fuel efficency
at all if it weren't for CAFE. That's wrong if any one has an
understanding of the subject. The fuel economy gains came through
the same control systems that brought about the emissions, reliability,
and performance gains. So long as the market demands reliability and
performance, so long as the emissions regs exist, we get the technology.
#4839
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
> What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
> fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
> Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
> our lifestyles.
The problem here is CAFE. Many people in the USA want big cars. Plain and
simple. Instead of working with that, other people decided they would
just make is so people couldn't get affordable big cars. The result
was CAFE and the SUV explosion. Now, had CAFE not occured, only the
gasoline price shocks and emissions regs, today people would probably
be driving the sedans and wagons of the same large size they had for
decades with fuel economy that is significantly better than the SUVs
CAFE gave us.
Many would say that automakers wouldnt have bothered with fuel efficency
at all if it weren't for CAFE. That's wrong if any one has an
understanding of the subject. The fuel economy gains came through
the same control systems that brought about the emissions, reliability,
and performance gains. So long as the market demands reliability and
performance, so long as the emissions regs exist, we get the technology.
> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
> What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
> fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
> Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
> our lifestyles.
The problem here is CAFE. Many people in the USA want big cars. Plain and
simple. Instead of working with that, other people decided they would
just make is so people couldn't get affordable big cars. The result
was CAFE and the SUV explosion. Now, had CAFE not occured, only the
gasoline price shocks and emissions regs, today people would probably
be driving the sedans and wagons of the same large size they had for
decades with fuel economy that is significantly better than the SUVs
CAFE gave us.
Many would say that automakers wouldnt have bothered with fuel efficency
at all if it weren't for CAFE. That's wrong if any one has an
understanding of the subject. The fuel economy gains came through
the same control systems that brought about the emissions, reliability,
and performance gains. So long as the market demands reliability and
performance, so long as the emissions regs exist, we get the technology.
#4840
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
> What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
> fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
> Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
> our lifestyles.
The problem here is CAFE. Many people in the USA want big cars. Plain and
simple. Instead of working with that, other people decided they would
just make is so people couldn't get affordable big cars. The result
was CAFE and the SUV explosion. Now, had CAFE not occured, only the
gasoline price shocks and emissions regs, today people would probably
be driving the sedans and wagons of the same large size they had for
decades with fuel economy that is significantly better than the SUVs
CAFE gave us.
Many would say that automakers wouldnt have bothered with fuel efficency
at all if it weren't for CAFE. That's wrong if any one has an
understanding of the subject. The fuel economy gains came through
the same control systems that brought about the emissions, reliability,
and performance gains. So long as the market demands reliability and
performance, so long as the emissions regs exist, we get the technology.
> The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being used to
> develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
> these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away.
Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
> What is constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil
> fuels, with no actual replacement technologies available.
> Obviously, this will cause a major change in almost every aspect of
> our lifestyles.
The problem here is CAFE. Many people in the USA want big cars. Plain and
simple. Instead of working with that, other people decided they would
just make is so people couldn't get affordable big cars. The result
was CAFE and the SUV explosion. Now, had CAFE not occured, only the
gasoline price shocks and emissions regs, today people would probably
be driving the sedans and wagons of the same large size they had for
decades with fuel economy that is significantly better than the SUVs
CAFE gave us.
Many would say that automakers wouldnt have bothered with fuel efficency
at all if it weren't for CAFE. That's wrong if any one has an
understanding of the subject. The fuel economy gains came through
the same control systems that brought about the emissions, reliability,
and performance gains. So long as the market demands reliability and
performance, so long as the emissions regs exist, we get the technology.