Sign In Join 



Hybrids in the News - READ ONLY

5290 messages,  Last post on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:37 AM

You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Hybrid Cars


Messages Page 522 of 529
1
...
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
...
529
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#5211 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [terry92270] by rorr
Sep 27, 2006 (5:29 am)

Replying to: terry92270 (Sep 26, 2006 2:21 pm)

"75 percent
of the State’s light-duty vehicle purchases must be Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs). A listing of all AFVs on the State’s vehicle master contract can be viewed at: http://www.pd.dgs.ca.gov/contracts/vehicles.htm "

 
Did you even look at the list of AFVs?
 
I did; the list for Alternative Fueled/Flex Fueled Vehicles and Trucks consists of: E85 compatible Chevy Impala, Chevy Tahoe, and Chevy Silverado. That's it. Now, ask gagrice how many E85 stations are in California?
#5212 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [rorr] by gagrice
Sep 27, 2006 (9:20 am)

Replying to: rorr (Sep 27, 2006 5:29 am)

E85 in CA. Still just the one retail outlet in San Diego. E85 going for $3.30. There are 3 private E85 locations on Federal property. I wonder if they let the state of CA have free E85 for being so environmentally astute. With all the noise about flex fuel vehicles and ethanol, you would think that some station in CA would take the handout from Uncle Sam.
 
What's in Your State? I see there are none in Phoenix where they need to clean up the air.
 
http://www.e85refueling.com/
#5213 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [rorr] by terry92270
Sep 27, 2006 (9:49 am)

Replying to: rorr (Sep 27, 2006 5:29 am)

Yes, and I actually read the list of what they have bought.
 
It would have shown you those vehicles are specialty items, used by the Department of Water Resources which maintains back-woods dam's and other distribution properties, as well as Fish & Game, lol. We all need to get out of the "gotcha" mind-set. The vast majority of them are normal, LEV's.
 
Everyone, just try to be happy and positive about what steps they are taking. What they are doing is 100% more than the majority of States and Countries throughout the world.
 
I do believe the Dept of General Services also has an E-85 station in Sacramento now, as well.
#5214 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [terry92270] by rorr
Sep 27, 2006 (10:52 am)

Replying to: terry92270 (Sep 27, 2006 9:49 am)

I must be confused (go figure).
 
Wasn't your initial post mostly to the effect that the State of California was mandating that 75% of their light-duty vehicle purchases MUST be AFV's? I mean, that is the part you bolded and underlined.
 
All I did was look at the link provided to see the list of the AFVs on the State's vehicle master contract. When I did so, the only vehicles I see are the Chevy E85 compatible vehicles I mentioned earlier.
 
Here's the pertinent page:
 
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/pd/contracts/vehicles/altfuelspecs.htm
 
Which I interpret to mean that 75% of the State's light-duty vehicle purchases must be Chevy E85 compatible Impalas, Tahoes, and Silverados.
 
Am I missing something?
 
"Everyone, just try to be happy and positive about what steps they are taking."
 
Well, I'm sure they ARE doing something. But your post was regarding AFVs, which in reality are nothing but (from what I can tell) E85-compatible vehicles. And it's difficult to take seriously that this means they are 'doing something' when there are but a mere handful of E85 stations in California.
 
Why not simply mandate that the California fleet mileage must be 'x' mpg? In essence, enact their OWN CAFE standards which, as purchaser, the State would have to meet?
#5215 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [rorr] by terry92270
Sep 27, 2006 (12:20 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Sep 27, 2006 10:52 am)

They did mandate lots of things, including fuel economy.
 
I will have to search through the history from home for all the links, or you could just rummage around like I did.
#5216 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [rorr] by tpe
Sep 27, 2006 (1:37 pm)

Replying to: rorr (Sep 27, 2006 10:52 am)

The state of California is going to sue all the major auto manufacturers for the damage their CO2 emitting vehicles have caused. I've read several stories on this and there is no mention of suing the people actually buying and driving these vehicles. For the sake of argument let's assume that the CO2 being generated by automobiles is a big contributer to global warming. Why wouldn't you go after the people burning the gas? Its comparable to going after a gun manufacturer but assigning no blame to the shooter. Or stating that its not your fault for being fat, it's the fault of McDonalds and Burger King. IMO, a fairly transparent political stunt.
#5217 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [tpe] by rorr
Sep 27, 2006 (1:51 pm)

Replying to: tpe (Sep 27, 2006 1:37 pm)

Simple -
 
Sue the ones with the money. Afterall, as individuals, the consumer simply CAN'T be held accountable....we've all been brainwashed, remember? Even those California state legislators driving Expeditions, Suburbans, and Navigators aren't responsible for their own actions.
 
I'm waiting for the State to sue all the oil companies next for making that heathen gasoline available at too cheap of a price.....
#5218 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [tpe] by terry92270
Sep 27, 2006 (2:17 pm)

Replying to: tpe (Sep 27, 2006 1:37 pm)

Well, think about it....
 
Suing automobile manufacturers seems a stunt, but who could have honestly predicted 30 years ago that cigarette manufacturers would successfully be sued for making a health hazard, since we all knew they were bad for us!
#5220 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [terry92270] by tpe
Sep 27, 2006 (2:56 pm)

Replying to: terry92270 (Sep 27, 2006 2:17 pm)

That's not a valid analogy. For many years the cigarette manufacturers denied that their product was addictive or caused health problems even though they had evidence to the contrary. The auto manufacturers aren't claiming that their SUV's are fuel efficient. And the auto manufacturers actually do offer efficient vehicles if the consumers wants to make that choice. There is no safe cigarette for the smoker to choose.

Messages Page 522 of 529
1
...
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
...
529
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement