NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration on Tuesday is set to propose stricter fuel economy standards in an effort to cut down vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.
The plan will require passenger cars and light trucks to get an overall average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, according to a senior administration official with knowledge of the plan. By that year, cars will be expected to average about 39 mpg and 30 mpg for trucks.
With two of the "Big Three" US Automakers currently filing for bankruptcy protection, putting insanely high fleet mileage requirements in place for only six years hence isn't going to change things, is it? We're going to apply Colonel 0bama's Magical Unicorn Dust to the internal combustion engine and wrangle 30% more efficiency in six years, right? And struggling car manufacturers - already trying to simply stay solvent - are going to be falling over themselves to invent stunning new technology to meet these specifications...
The manufacturer that can build a truck that gets 30 MPG will decimate the opposition - *if* they can do it without sacrificing payload or towing capacity. Ditto the car that gets 39 MPG - all the ads currently running put the mileage of even the little cars (Corolla, Civic, etc.) at or below that figure - and 39 MPG is supposed to be the average, meaning that any car that only gets 30 MPG (which is pretty darn good) will need equal numbers of 48 MPG cars to offset.
We tried this in the early 1990s: See Metro, Geo. It's listed under Sales, Abysmal.
I particularly liked this bit:
The proposed plan is expected to add about $600 to the cost of a car, the official said. That's on top of $700 added by changes to fuel economy rules that have already been recently enacted, the official said, but consumers should be able to save enough in gas to make up for the cost.
Oh, our mucking around in things we neither understand nor really care about is *only* going to cost the consumer $1,300. First off, everyone who thinks this will *only* cost $1,300, raise your hand. I have some seacoast property in Utah to sell you. Secondly, if there were an improvement that could be made for $600 that would raise gas mileage from 27.5 MPG to 39 MPG, don't you think the manufacturers would have been FALLING over themselves to do it when gas was $4/gallon???
I can't tell what scares me more: The thought that 0bama is this freaking clueless, or that he's not...
That is all.
6 comments:
"I can't tell what scares me more: The thought that 0bama is this freaking clueless, or that he's not..."
That's got me worried, as well. On some issues, he is clearly clueless (economics, for example - the guy never even ran a hot dog stand). On this issue, who knows.
However, the irony of what must happen is amazing. Auto sales will plummet if cars cost more (that's on top of the already piss-poor prospects for the worldwide industry). People will pay $500 or $1,000 or $3,000 in a heartbeat to extend the life of their vehicle by a year or two, vs. spending $20,000+ on some mobile deathtrap. That'll put more union workers out of work - not bad for a pro-union President, eh? Either that, or if reasonably practical battery-powered cars suddenly materialize from the cloud of fairy dust which Maobama thinks he has, they will have to be powered from our already over-stretched electrical grid. That means many, many new powerplants will be needed all over the country. If they're trying to limit carbon dioxide output, coal and natural gas are out, leaving only nukes (because the option of solar just doesn't cut it right now, not unless Maobama has LOTS of fairy dust).
Diesel? Well, first off the very word causes the enviro-freaks to go almost as crazy as the phrase "nuclear power." Second, we can't produce enough diesel to power millions of new cars without more refineries.
So, here you are: his plan will lose union jobs by the tens of thousands, either pump millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere or require the building of nukes, and/or require diesel vehicles by the million and new refineries.
Oh, and what, exactly, happens if the electrical grid goes down, either due to being overstrained, storms, terrorism or a solar storm? A bad one is forecast for 2012 - so says the National Academy of Sciences http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478024,00.html Not only will your fridge and your electric stove, oven, TV and A/C not work, you won't be able to go anywhere once the charge in your mobile electric coffin runs out.
Can you say "schadenfreude?"
It shows one of the prime beliefs of the Left: Any problem can be solved by passing a new law.
We do live in interesting times. I would love a 30 MPG 4X4 Silverado, but I doubt they can pull it off without driving the cost of the vehicle beyond reason.
If I buy anything in the near future, it will probably be from FORD; so far they have not been asking for our tax dollars. Chrysler can vanish from the earth for all I care ... rescued twice by the government in my lifetime; that is far too often.
"[...]but consumers should be able to save enough in gas to make up for the cost."
Except that you also have to make a bigger down payment. Consumers don't "save enough in gas to make up for the cost" before they actually buy the car, do they?
Maybe he's trying to bankrupt Ford, too.
Regarding battery powered cars, if a neighborhood electric vehicle works for you - we're there (25 or 35mph top speed, depending on your states law, up to 40 mi range). Check out the rigs at MCElectricvehicles.com - they're currently moving the Zenn at 12,900+license - out the door. Or look at Bleecker Automotive in Fayetteville, nC. The cars aren't toys anymore.
I agree, however, that running up consumer costs is never a good thing, and that federal auto regulation is generally a bad notion.
Obama might just be trying to bankrupt Ford, too - so he'll be able to get them more thoroughly under his regulatory thumb.
GC
I for one welcome the day when a collision between my motorcycle and an Obamamobile results in scratched paint for me, but a total rework of the chickenwire and paper-mache bodywork of the car.
On the serious side, I doubt the people who propose this crap do much driving in the midwest during winter, when having steel around you is a serious benefit as somebody else's car smacks into yours, or hauling a load of dirt, gravel, or recently deceased-by-bullet deer. I suspect most of them are worried about mileage between the Washington beltway to their home in the Virginia countryside.
Post a Comment