Ok, what does Fuel economy have to do with Politics?
913543
don't confuse liberals with the truth,  Bush is in the oil business, so liberals want something to attack bush on, and lies work well if told loud enougn  and long enough\n\nThe government over all ( congress) does control the oil industry,  they tell them where they can drill and where they can't.  They tell them how they can drill,  they control how the oil has to be transported, stored and treated.\n\nSo in basics, there is no way for them to complete really against each other using any different method, since they are all controled.  And they all pay about the same price for imported oil\n\nAnd oil companies are making alot of profit now because they can't explore for oil hardly anywhere,  off shore of Fla and California have been blocked in court,  they can't in alot of alaska.\n\nAnd if you look not at the total billions profit, but look at the precent of profit,  it is so low that if they were not that big, they would close,  if a store or other business operated at the percent of profit oil companies do they would be considered operating poorly.  It is only thier pure size that makes them appear to be making such a big profit.
455493
No. But I Sure Do From The Clinton/Gore "Regime"!Here's Why; As of 1996, all Vehicles Must Conform to the Insane EPA-OBD II Law that Applies to the Car that You're Driving, Right Now! That Law Dictaes that all Vehicles under that law must Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. Any Deviation from that, even if Fuel Economy is Improved, and Emissions are Lowered, will Result in a Failed Vehicle Inspection, and the Vehicle will be Illegal to Operate! That's the Law! And Clinton/Gore did it,"Because It's Good For The Children"! This is Insane!Please! Don't "Blame Bush" for That! So what's the suppressed Alternative? I've come up with a way to Convert Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane. I'm not the First, only the Latest. I went to the US Patent Office, and Checked Out the "Wild Stories" about how other similar Vapor Fuel Units have been kept off the Market. Guess What? It's True! Case in Point, the Pogue Carburetor, which is on File as having Achieved 100 + MPG on a Flathead Ford V-8 that, at best with a Conventional Fuel System got 15 MPG! My System could get 50 + MPG with even the Largest SUV, with an Equally Remarkable drop in Engine Pollution Emissions ! My System is Safe, Compact, and uses Low Pressure Air to turn Gasoline into Propane. To Run an Engine on Conventional Propane requires the use of a Large, Expensive, Cumbersome Tank, which must be Hauled with the Vehicle. Also, Expensive, Complex Fuel Metering Equipment. And, Finally the Extra Hassle of Specialized Refilling of the Tank. So much Hassle, that even with Gas at $3.00 per Gallon, it's just not worth it! See, on a Molecular Level, all Petroleum is the Same! I can Prove it! I can also Wind Up in Jail, or Worse! Every Vehicle on the Road could get at Least 50 + MPG, but thanks to Clinton/Gore, "It Ain't Gonna Happen"! Want Further Proof? Go to http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html Please, if You have an open Mind, Read it all!Don't"Blame Bush"
644078
Your in the section of Politics and Government....what other explanation do you need???
1113313
G21 project: Small-size car but with a large interior, a new design for the 21st century.\n\nonly later did fuel economy come up (aiming for 20 km/l, a 50% improvement of other cars of its class). later in the design, when picking an engine, did they also go with low emissions...
267397
Fuel conservation linked to newspaper delivery?  \n\nI suppose, but I suspect you're far off the mark.
654839
Politics. Not much to say about that.
542493
to save the environment!! Hybrid cars and some alternative fuel cars save on emissions and do not attribute to the overuse of fossil fuels such as petrolium ( which is refined into the gasoline that we use in our cars).  Yes i am a tree hugging hippie..but at this time of global warming and overall ecosystemic breakdown...we all should be...did you know that by 2050 the north pole is expected to be ice free through the summer months?? That will mean a dramatic increase in ocean levels...meaning a dramatic loss in usable land mass...meaning people will be moving further in land...rebuilding..using up more of nature's building materials and facilitating further breakdown of nature...and eventually both world economy and humanity itself...never mind the aesthetic value of once booming tourist attractions going way downhill
542488
Oil is so politicized these days that I'm sure that you will never be told or be readily allowed access to the real story but please keep trying.\n\nBy the way if you think about it, I mean really think about it, oil is too cheap.
277874
It's what they use as read between the lines. Not all policies are good for the American People. Alot tend to go towards the Capitalists and Imperialists, for profits only, at the expense of the American People. You can surely understand that! They have hidden agendas in Legislature such as the Patriot Act. Raising fuel cost's, with record profits after Hurricane Katrina, and so on, and so on.
1113432
Politics and Morality are both relative terms.\nUnfortunately for us, they both happen to be totally unrelated to each other !
586341
politics is a popularity contest at the end of the day and in order to win this contest they have to create ideals and even unreasonable promises. Politicians are groomed to be liars from an early age when the have to win popularity contests in school and college. Unfortunately most of the population falls for such promises of better life and things, but in truth they are just decieving us.\n\nPs: I thingk youre HOT as hell.
213037
That depends which country - but generally in most countries, Greens are distinguished by having policies that are singularly focused on ecology and environmental sustainability.\n\nThat sometimes means being somewhat more left-wing, though not always. In Canada, the Green party is actually somewhat conservative. The US iteration of the Green Party is more focused on left wing politics, and not as much of an ecological movement (though that is still a focus.)
298590
We need an alternative government to go with our alternative fuels.  It won't happen until we get someone in the white hose with out any ties to BIG OIL.  This goes for the Dems too.
660232
I am sorry that I am unable to support my answer with direct polling and a supposed credible source - but I will say this - the answer given by the WSJ that "Americans tend to drive more miles in high-milage cars, " etc... seems very slanted in the first place. \n\nThinking about it logically, the purpose of owning a higher fuel economy automobile is so that we CAN drive further for less - but that would not mean that one would start driving outside of their normal routine. Example: Driver A has an older, lower economy automobile. Driver A works Monday thru Friday and commutes 15 miles each way to and from work. With the lower economy automobile, Driver A is getting 22 MPG (Average) and therefore is consuming 6.81 gallons of fuel for the weekly commute. \n\nIn addition to The weekly work commute, driver A goes to and from the store on the weekend, and takes a small drive - for a total of 50 extra miles, therefore consuming an additional 2.27 gallons of fuel. (9.08 gallons consumed total)\n\nDriver B owns a higher economy automobile. Driver B works Monday thru Friday and commutes 15 miles each way to and from work. With the higher economy automobile, Driver B is getting 35 MPG (Average) and therefore is consuming 4.28 gallons of fuel for the weekly commute. \n\nIn addition to the weekly work commute, Driver B goes grocery shopping on the weekend, and takes a long drive - for a total of 150 extra miles. Consuming an additional 4.28 gallons of fuel. ( that is a total of 8.56 gallons of fuel consumption)  \n\nThe above is a rediculously surmised argument - based on numbers that I am sure would be impossible to actually total - and without any real ability to monitor consumption - but the results are similar to the truth anyways - higher fuel economy undoubtably means lower fuel consumption - math does not lie - but PEOPLE DO - and the WSJ supposition is NOT based on any reasonably factual study - refute their basis, don't waste time looking for an equally foolish and slanted study to do the work for you.
1156456
First, we have an oilman as president! Bush has to go first before we can require that alt. fuels be used. Next, the government has to realize that we need to use alt. fuels for both the environment and for the economy. It would be so great to liberate ourselves from the Middle East and make that area return to its position before oil was discovered.
127995
Too low. \nBush may be wrong on a lot of things, but he does have a point regarding our dependence on fossil fuels. \nAs you increase prices, more and more people will take alternative transportation. Bicycles, public transport, hybrid cars are all viable means to reduce dependence on oil. This means healthier environments, healthier people and in the long run, a better way of life.
297795
Because Bush has too many links with the petrol industry. Too much money coming in his campaign fund from oil-men. He is totally biassed..