Welcome To Our Best Deals For Xmas Gifts Outlet Online Store Orders Over $150 , Enjoy Free Shipping,save $20 shipping cost!

shoe sales online

Published: Monday 09 September, 2013

shoe sales online shoe sales online Debate Paper 3 Should Cars Be More Efficient

Over time, societys improvement in technologies has caused an increase in mobility, specifically with the switch from horses to automobiles. Although the creation of cars and others vehicles was a huge convenience, people have failed to see the detrimental effects they cause. Many argue that the use of oil and its contribution to global warming is a huge issue, and that automobiles should be more fuelefficient; this is something that the Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAFE works to do. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the works of the CAFE should be taken away for their efforts have not been effective. Besides the CAFE, other stakeholders in this issue include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA, United States Congress, automobile manufacturers, and automobile consumers. Subissues dealing with whether cars should be fuelefficient include the amounts of oil used, safety issues, and issues relating to employment and the economy.

In Taking Sides, David Friedman states the many reasons why fueleffic shoe sales online ient cars are imperative, and explains what needs to be done in order to fulfill the fuel economy goals made by the government and the Corporate Average Fuel Economy CAFE. First of all, he mentions how decreasing our usage in oil would cut back on releasing greenhouse gases, and would also help decrease oil demand, since we are mostly dependent on other countries for it. Also, he explains how with technology today, manufacturers can assure consumers that fuelefficient cars dont necessarily jeopardize the size or the safety of the vehicle, which is what many people are concerned over. In addition, the production of vehicles with a high fuel economy can always provide employment, and therefore contributing to the economy. Finally, Friedman shares the steps necessary for the government to take in order to reach target fuel economies, and mentions how including incentiv shoe sales online es such as tax credits would help the CAFE and the government reach their goal. Friedmans views overall, are based on a liberal ideological framework, for the government plays a huge part in what he believes should be done.

David Friedman makes many good points in stating his argument, but also lacks specific information on how much more this fuelefficient technology would cost. He does mention how even if purchasing a fuelefficient car is more expensive, it would pay off in the end since one would not need to purchase as much gas, but paying that extra amount off may take longer than one expects. Also, this reasoning may not be completely true in the event that gasoline prices go down. Moreover, he does not make the point that with more fuelefficient cars, people are more likely to take advantage of this fact and may drive around more than usual. In the end, the same amount of oil and mileage could end up being used as if it were another vehicle with a lower fuel economy.

On the other end of the spectrum, Charli E. Coon talks about why he is against the CAFE, and why he believes their efforts should not be increased, but should rather be repealed. Coon mainly argues that the CAFE has not accomplished any of its goals so far, and should therefore no longer exist. For example, it has not met its standards in reducing the nations dependence on imported oil or the consumption of gas. Plus, it has not proved that air quality has been improved, and in addition has even increased the injury risk in America. Coon states that the CAFEs standards for automobile manufacturers have only caused the quality of these vehicles to decrease in most aspects solely to increase its fuelefficiency. Coon says that the CAFEs efforts are actually causing what he calls the rebound effect. It is said that greater energy efficiency leads to greater energy consumption. Basically since new technology is built so that it is less energy consuming, some may believe that thanks to this fact, they can actually use the object more than they normally would. As a result, just the same amount of energy could end up being used anyway. The ideological framework Coons views are based upon is conservative, for he emphasizes more concern on the safety of the human people directly, rather than the effects the use of too much oil will cause in the long run.

In his no argument of the article in Taking Sides, Coon begins by saying that all that increasing fuel economy has done for people is cause more car accidents and decrease the safety of motor vehicles. He says that this increased occurred when the CAFE had started their efforts, but doesnt necessarily prove that it was at the fault of the CAFE. There very well may have been other factors contributing to this increase in accidents. Also, many of the statistics he used were from decades ago, shoe sales online and rapidly growing technology may have changed completely since then. These statistics may have changed by now. In addition, Coon complains about how this organization has failed to reduce overall consumption of oil and gas. Actions trying to solve a problem this large will not be completely effective over night. The CAFEs efforts are a longterm process, and would only work with various and numerous peoples cooperation.

In the New York Times article Getting to Green, Micheline Maynard discusses how most car companies are now working to come up with new fuelefficient designs that would have to rely on either little gas, or even none at all. She also talks about how it is setting off a new competition between companies and gives further details on how specific car companies are dealing with it. In general, this newspaper article agrees with David Friedmans side of the argument. Friedman himself was even quoted a couple of times in the New York Times article. Basically, the article shows evidence of what Friedman had discussed as what needs to be done in order to reduce the amount of oil being used. Maynard proves that automobile companies are actually working on it and making an effort to produce more fuelefficient cars.

In my point of view, cars should definitely be more efficient. I basically agree with all that Friedman had said, and I think that automobile manufacturers should be pushed to reach the target fuel economies set by the government. In this way, less oil will be used, therefore causing less pollution in the air. In addition, consumers will be spending less money on gasoline, which is beneficial especially now that prices are bound to rise again. Since it may take decades for all cars on the road to be replaced with more fuelefficient ones, these practices will not have the most effective results right away, but every small step taken will bring us closer to our goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions. shoe sales online