|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: More evidence that government want green cars to fail. |
 |
|
http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974>1=10365
Dirty Secret: Green Cars
Automakers Won't Sell You
by Lawrence Ulrich
Buying these environmentally friendly cars often depends on where you live.
PZEVs such as this Ford Focus are so clean that hydrocarbon emissions from grilling a single burger are equivalent to a three-hour drive in this car.
On a recent run from Boston to Cape Cod, I test drove the 2008 Honda Accord, the latest version of this family favorite. The new Accord boasts an environmental first: a six-cylinder gasoline engine that's cleaner than many hybrid systems.
There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act�in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off�anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Masta_Don
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought it was all Ron Paul's fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe car companies cannot sell experimental vehicles to consumers because when car companies sell cars to consumers they are held to some important laws. For example, they're required to stock parts for any model car for x number of years. It may seem like a big conspiracy but it has more to do with consumer protection laws.
There may be other after market responsibilities a car company has to follow, maybe like keeping track of real world safety performance.
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
There may be other after market responsibilities a car company has to follow, maybe like keeping track of real world safety performance.
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
This happens a lot with technology as a whole.
The biggest issue is capacity. Will enough people buy it to make it worth while?
In such situations, you really need a good government to support change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I believe car companies cannot sell experimental vehicles to consumers because when car companies sell cars to consumers they are held to some important laws. For example, they're required to stock parts for any model car for x number of years. It may seem like a big conspiracy but it has more to do with consumer protection laws.
There may be other after market responsibilities a car company has to follow, maybe like keeping track of real world safety performance.
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Edited:
I just showed this to my spouse. We concur on my original response:
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I believe car companies cannot sell experimental vehicles to consumers because when car companies sell cars to consumers they are held to some important laws. For example, they're required to stock parts for any model car for x number of years. It may seem like a big conspiracy but it has more to do with consumer protection laws.
There may be other after market responsibilities a car company has to follow, maybe like keeping track of real world safety performance.
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Edited:
I just showed this to my spouse. We concur on my original response:
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!! |
EFL, given your performance on this board, your wife has no doubt long learned she needs to simply agree with you or suffer your wrath. I pity her.
Anyway, the fact remains, there's a rather simple non-evil reason why car companies might not be selling their small experimental electrical cars. Doing so means having to comply with after market trade laws meant to protect consumers.
See, EFL, the difference between me and you is before putting on the tin foil hat (or running to my wife for help) and creating a new sock and jumping on Dave's to lecture the world about what part of the sky is about to fall, I first look for a more prosaic explanation. "Hrm, could there really be a massive conspiracy or is this just some tin foil hat trying to fit the evidence?"
Now here comes your customary biatch slap. You ready for it, EFL? You must. Gopher gives it to you enough:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=457
| Quote: |
"'Maintaining service and parts, along with customer-service representatives, gets pretty expensive for a fleet of 600 vehicles,' said GM spokesman Joe Lawrence.
"If the cars were kept on the road, GM would be required to provide replacement parts for 10 years. Because many of the parts were made in a single run, GM has to cannibalize off-lease vehicles for parts, Lawrence said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| California, New York or six other northeast states |
Hmmm...let's see. That's a total of 8 states. Seven of them in one compact area and the other the largest state by population and with a different climate.
Sounds like a good strategy to test new technology while waiting for the other states to adopt the more stringent California-type anti-pollution laws.
Once more, federalism sounds like a good working model. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I believe car companies cannot sell experimental vehicles to consumers because when car companies sell cars to consumers they are held to some important laws. For example, they're required to stock parts for any model car for x number of years. It may seem like a big conspiracy but it has more to do with consumer protection laws.
There may be other after market responsibilities a car company has to follow, maybe like keeping track of real world safety performance.
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
Did you even read the article?
This is not some "experimental" car, it's the new Honda Accord. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
But shouldn't that be up to the car companies, and not the federal government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I believe car companies cannot sell experimental vehicles to consumers because when car companies sell cars to consumers they are held to some important laws. For example, they're required to stock parts for any model car for x number of years. It may seem like a big conspiracy but it has more to do with consumer protection laws.
There may be other after market responsibilities a car company has to follow, maybe like keeping track of real world safety performance.
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
Did you even read the article?
This is not some "experimental" car, it's the new Honda Accord. |
My point is there's a bigger debate about the conspiracy between government and industry to kill electrical cars et al. There was a documentary recently called The Death of the Electric Car that has largely touched off this debate. One of the points was how EV car owners wanted to buy their EV cars but GM wouldn't allow it. That seems like evidence in support of the anti-EV car conspiracy but there is a more prosaic reason.
By the same token, before simply taking one writer's word that this is smoking gun evidence, consider there may well be a less pernicious explanation.
The writer on the MSN site gives us little go on:
| Quote: |
| Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act�in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off�anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states. |
Errr okay. What part of the law? Why? And of course the author does not tie it to a conspiracy. It's an unwarranted jump by the OP to go from one article that can't be bothered to explain the law to government conspiracy.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
But shouldn't that be up to the car companies, and not the federal government? |
Then I guess the car companies should replace the federal government with a new form of government that doesn't believe in consumer protection laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
But shouldn't that be up to the car companies, and not the federal government? |
Then I guess the car companies should replace the federal government with a new form of government that doesn't believe in consumer protection laws. |
How does a federal law preventing out-of-state sales protect the consumer? The law to guarantee replacement parts should do the trick. If the car companies don't see a demand in other states, then they won't sell the cars there. I don't see why we need this additional layer of "protection." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
But shouldn't that be up to the car companies, and not the federal government? |
Then I guess the car companies should replace the federal government with a new form of government that doesn't believe in consumer protection laws. |
How does a federal law preventing out-of-state sales protect the consumer? The law to guarantee replacement parts should do the trick. If the car companies don't see a demand in other states, then they won't sell the cars there. I don't see why we need this additional layer of "protection." |
I don't know. As I've noted above the MSN writer tells us nothing about the actual supposed law. Isn't that kind of a red flag? If the guy investigating this story can't articulate the actual law? Don't you want to know? That seems good journalism. Why can't he answer beyond some handwaving? If there is such a law, I'm not saying it's a good law. It just might not have the intent implied.
According to this site, even they can't figure out what law the MSN writer is talking about.
| Quote: |
| What I think Ulrich means is that car companies cannot sell a car and call it PZEV outside of states that have taken California's laws as their own. |
and
| Quote: |
There is a misunderstanding there. Nothing in the law prohibits the sale of clean green cars anywhere in the US. The Clean Air Act does prohibit any state from setting up "third standard" different from the California or Federal standards, or requiring a car model different than one meeting CA or Fed standards.
So, why aren't some of these green versions not sold outside of California? The charitable excuse is limited availability, they only have enough for the CA market. The real reason is that the non-green version is cheaper to make and has a higher profit margin, so that is the only one the manufacturers want to sell outside of CA. It's the manufacturers that won't allow dealers outside of CA to "sell green", not the government.
That puts dealers on the spot. Some dealer made up the excuse about it being illegal and the "$27,500 civil fine" when confronted by a customer wanting the unavailable version, and didn't want to loose the sale. It has now become another urban legend.
Could you imagine the squawking and protests that would erupt if the government actually tried to fine someone $27,500 just because they wanted to drive green? |
Conspiracy or just sloppy journalism? What does your wife say, EFL?
I think it comes down to this.
1) New technology costs money.
2) Accord owners won't pay much more for a PZEV car.
3) Profit margins are therefore very slim.
4) California lets car companies sell PZEV instead of EV cars to comply with laws.
5) Honda can't produce many of them, even if it wanted, and it won't make much money yet.
6) So it prefers to sell the cars only in markets where laws compel it to sell so many cars.
7) Journalist decides there's a law against this.
8 ) EFL with the permission of his wife decides the government is involved in a conspiracy and it should be illegal for companies to expect a profit from their R&D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
In short, it's simply not worth a car companies time to comply with consumer protection laws for the sake of a dozen cars. |
But shouldn't that be up to the car companies, and not the federal government? |
Then I guess the car companies should replace the federal government with a new form of government that doesn't believe in consumer protection laws. |
How does a federal law preventing out-of-state sales protect the consumer? The law to guarantee replacement parts should do the trick. If the car companies don't see a demand in other states, then they won't sell the cars there. I don't see why we need this additional layer of "protection." |
I don't know. As I've noted above the MSN writer tells us nothing about the actual supposed law. Isn't that kind of a red flag? If the guy investigating this story can't articulate the actual law? Don't you want to know? That seems good journalism. Why can't he answer beyond some handwaving? If there is such a law, I'm not saying it's a good law. It just might not have the intent implied.
According to this site, even they can't figure out what law the MSN writer is talking about.
| Quote: |
| What I think Ulrich means is that car companies cannot sell a car and call it PZEV outside of states that have taken California's laws as their own. |
and
| Quote: |
There is a misunderstanding there. Nothing in the law prohibits the sale of clean green cars anywhere in the US. The Clean Air Act does prohibit any state from setting up "third standard" different from the California or Federal standards, or requiring a car model different than one meeting CA or Fed standards.
So, why aren't some of these green versions not sold outside of California? The charitable excuse is limited availability, they only have enough for the CA market. The real reason is that the non-green version is cheaper to make and has a higher profit margin, so that is the only one the manufacturers want to sell outside of CA. It's the manufacturers that won't allow dealers outside of CA to "sell green", not the government.
That puts dealers on the spot. Some dealer made up the excuse about it being illegal and the "$27,500 civil fine" when confronted by a customer wanting the unavailable version, and didn't want to loose the sale. It has now become another urban legend.
Could you imagine the squawking and protests that would erupt if the government actually tried to fine someone $27,500 just because they wanted to drive green? |
Conspiracy or just sloppy journalism? What does your wife say, EFL?
I think it comes down to this.
1) New technology costs money.
2) Accord owners won't pay much more for a PZEV car.
3) Profit margins are therefore very slim.
4) California lets car companies sell PZEV instead of EV cars to comply with laws.
5) Honda can't produce many of them, even if it wanted, and it won't make much money yet.
6) So it prefers to sell the cars only in markets where laws compel it to sell so many cars.
7) Journalist decides there's a law against this.
8 ) EFL with the permission of his wife decides the government is involved in a conspiracy and it should be illegal for companies to expect a profit from their R&D. |
Yep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Masta_Don wrote: |
| I thought it was all Ron Paul's fault. |
No but he has done whatever he could to make things worse.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
