Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 1yr agoActive 3hrs ago

Should the government impose stricter fuel efficiency standards on vehicles?

Fuel efficiency standards set the required average fuel economy for vehicles, aiming to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Proponents argue that it helps reduce emissions, save consumers money on fuel, and decrease reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents argue that it raises production costs, leading to higher vehicle prices, and may not have a significant impact on overall emissions.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

DMA:

Congressional District:

County:

State Senate District:

City:

Assembly District:

Zipcode:

2331 Replies

 @B74Q63H from Utah  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but needs to be a long term transition (20+ years) recognizing we don't have the infrastructure to support 100% EVs for a long time.

 @B576FNH from Utah  answered…5mos5MO

I think that Fuel efficiency will come with people wanting more fuel efficient vehicles and companies competing with each other.

 @B4B5FVS from Utah  answered…6mos6MO

We should replace fuel efficiency standards that only apply to certain models or types of vehicles with very basic universal stands for all vehicles that gradually get stricter over time. If companies violate these standards, then they should be taxed for that.

 @B45H73W from Utah  answered…7mos7MO

Remove fuel efficiency standards that only apply or work differently depending on the type of vehicle and make generous universal fuel efficiency standards that gradually get more and more strict.

 @9Z4F9VCRepublican from Utah  answered…11mos11MO

Gas and electric vehicles should be a choice. The biggest smog contributors are the big company vehicles

 @9XRD5MJWomen’s Equality from Utah  answered…11mos11MO

Keeping the world clean is important but cars are the main mode of transportation. We need to find a middle ground.

 @9XRCQVH from Utah  answered…11mos11MO

I want to say yes but it'll cause many issues with people who cannot afford cars which would pass. I am one of those people

 @9XC9W23 from Utah  answered…11mos11MO

Daily driven cars should not be affected. Working vehicles should be more restricted as their impact is higher.

 @9X748T5 from Utah  answered…11mos11MO

Current CAFE standards need to adjust to allow for smaller more affordable vehicles, and not additionally giant vehicles.

 @chasarch from Utah  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but do so in the past has encouraged auto manufacturers to increase the size of vehicles to justify fuel inefficiency, so loopholes need to be closed.

 @B33NNN9 from Utah  answered…8mos8MO

Remove regulations that only apply to specific models or types of cars, but there should be stricter universal fuel efficiency standards.

 @9N5FGW9 from Utah  answered…1yr1Y

No, unless they are ready to provide transportation in other ways for all low income individuals.

 @9PP27PF from Utah  answered…1yr1Y

No. Companies should be able to do this on their own without government involvement.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…11mos11MO

Trump’s Doom vs. Harris’s Hope as America Decides Its Fate

Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris closed out their campaigns in the final hours before Election Day in starkly different moods: The former president, often appearing drained at arenas that were not filled, claimed that the country was on the brink of ruin, while the vice president promised a more united future as energized supporters chanted alongside her, “We’re not going back.”In stop after stop, the presidential rivals essentially offered up two competing versions of reality on Monday and into early Tuesday. Mr. Trump repeatedly raised the specter of unchecked immigration and the dangers of Democratic policies as he spoke to crowds in North Carolina and Pennsylvania before closing with a midnight rally in Michigan.With a comparatively more optimistic message, Ms. Harris crisscrossed Pennsylvania, which holds 19 electoral votes that could decide the race. Stopping in Scranton, Allentown and Pittsburgh before a nighttime rally in Philadelphia, Ms. Harris talked about bolstering the economy and restoring federal abortion rights. She asserted that Americans were “exhausted” and ready to move on from the politics of the past decade.About 30 miles to the southwest, Mr. Trump was in Reading, Pa., broadly portraying undocumented immigrants as mentally ill criminals and calling those accused of crimes “savages” and “animals.”Both leaned on Hispanic supporters as they tried to rally Latino voters. The pro-Harris rapper Fat Joe, who is Puerto Rican, practically shamed his fellow Latinos in Allentown as he asked, “Where’s your pride?” Mr. Trump, still facing fallout from his rally in New York at which a comedian called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” brought Roberto Clemente Jr., the son of the Puerto Rican baseball legend, to the stage at a rally in Pittsburgh.But Mr. Trump, reaching the end of a grueling marathon of a campaign that began in 2022, looked visibly weary, battling fatigue in front of listless crowds, though he was relatively more upbeat and energized in Michigan. Ms. Harris, still appearing fresh after a three-month sprint, appealed for unity and pressed the contrast to her rival without uttering his name.“The measure of a true leader is based not on who you beat down,” she said. “It is based on who you lift up.”Despite the sharply different tones, polls suggest the race remains tight, with the final New York Times/Siena College surveys showing the candidates tied or holding only narrow leads in all of the seven battleground states.

▲  611 replies