That is why I cannot vote for another Republican politician all they seem to care about is deregulating business, defending Israel, unlimited access to oil drilling, and giving huge contracts to defense contractors for weapons systems that we may never use.

> Wow, thats the kind of thinking thats
> leading GM and Ford down the tubes.

No, it is a question based on an accurate observation.

The UAW has been part of the problem, with unsustainable employee and retiree costs. The auto industry in the South is doing well.

> More efficient cars will be huge sellers. [...]

It will take time for the new line to get through, and it’s not only efficiency that matters but more attractiveness of the product as well as improvements still to the Big 3’s reputation for quality. “Build better products” (which is what the UAW says but also what auto buyers say) is the key, and is not restricted to efficiency, but extends to design, appeal, the rest.

Some innovation is in order, too — such as offering already existing good products that aren’t in the USA. Many people following the auto industry resent that there are some attractive vehicles that are available in other nations (many of which are efficient, by the way) produced by Ford and GM, but are not offered for sale here.

>There was an article on GM where an exec was saying
> they don’t make money on regular cars, just the high
> end and SUV’s.

The cost structure is one reason why, along with lower desireability of GM and Ford versus imports for cars.

> If you are a car company and can’t make money
> on cars you need to figure something out or get
> out of the business.

Ford and GM are heading out of business if they don’t seriously reduce costs (beginning with the end of the JOBS bank and lowering employee costs) as well as offer better products. (Why they don’t act more quickly to test-offer some foreign-market vehicles here is another matter.)

Good luck to Kerkorian or whoever else finally buys Chrysler (which Daimler is dumping). It will be interesting where the offices will be and where the production will be.

Wow, thats the kind of thinking thats leading GM and Ford down the tubes. More efficient cars will be huge sellers. Toyota and Honda are doing great business with hybrids while GM sales are lagging and they still have the lions share of their marketing budget pushing Hummers while gas is $3 a gallon. They can sit there and blame it all on unions and healthcare costs when the reality is they’ve needed some innovation and better quality in their products for some time now.

There was an article on GM where an exec was saying they don’t make money on regular cars, just the high end and SUV’s. If you are a car company and can’t make money on cars you need to figure something out or get out of the business.

Edwards is also the guy who says he is pursuing federal health care even if he knows it will increase the federal deficit. Economic issues are not Edwards’s strong point. (Smiling and looking good apparently is.)

And less union costs that are crippling Michigan, to which redesign and increased vehicle costs would be added to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. I’m fully aware of the auto industry from Greenville around to Alabama and into Tennessee.

How are auto emissions reduced? In large part (which so many know) by demanding higher fuel efficiency standards so less fuel is burned in the first place. It’s obviously not only an insistence on burning fuel more thoroughly (cleanly).

I agree that if you don’t deal with this problem globally, you are creating local imbalances that can cause economics to go wonky. I wish there were some sort of Protocol for this type of thing or something…. =)

That has a mistake. I meant to write, economic impacts when considering environmental regulations. In other words, if a new regulations puts people out of work is of no concern to the EPA. The belief is that people can always get another job or industries can evolve. So yes, if you are a manufacturer of anything in the United States that admits greenhouse gases now is the time to start looking for a country where you can relocate your facility.

The problem is that the economic impacts are being massively undersold. John Edwards believes he can create one million jobs (such a round numbers means that his staff just pulled it out of their ass) while not killing any jobs.

I wonder how many people rememeber that the EPA is forbidden from considering environmental impacts when developing regulations.

Blatantly untrue. The Clean Air Act expressly gives the EPA the ability to regulate many aspects of what would fall under any normal use definition of ‘environmental impact’. I would say these include, but probably aren’t limited to:

“Air quality”
“Ozone protection”
“injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to and the deterioration of property…”
“to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population”

Indeed. Aside from any outrage by normal people to environmentalist overreach, what will these people do when facing the desperate, dying United Auto Workers and members of Congress from Michigan?

I think that is a bit of a mischaracterization. No one is saying people have to give up their SUV or BBQ. What they are saying is we need tougher standards on emissions… even China has higher standards than we do. And it is not like all the poor emissions vehicles and equipment we have now would be forced off the road. There would obviously be a cut-off date, as in cars built before a certain time would not be subject to the new tougher and environmentally friendly standards. However, because of better emission standards and better mileage, people will eventually by the new, more efficient car because in the long run it will be cheaper.

I noticed that you did not address the point about what can be expected from any future administration. If Greenhouse gases are to be regulated on the same level as SOx, CO, PM-3, NOx, there severe actions will need to be taken.

Of course, American businesses will not be the only one affected. The soccer moms in the suburbs will have to give up the SUV, the BBQ, and vacations. But of course, none of the Democratic candidates is going to be willing to say more than they support a clean environment.

I wonder how many people rememeber that the EPA is forbidden from considering environmental impacts when developing regulations. It is Congress’s role to make the environment/economic tradeoffs.