Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
After doing a post on Google’s push for driverless automobiles over the weekend, I assumed I was done with the car talk for the foreseeable future. But that was before the panjandrums in the Obama Administration (you know, those folks who would never dream of intervening in the business decisions of the automobile industry?) rolled out their newest proposal for innovation by bureaucratic fiat. According to the Detroit Free Press:
The White House is ramping up its discussions with automakers and elected officials regarding fuel economy standards for 2017-25, and informed the Detroit Three that the government is considering boosting those requirements to 56 miles per gallon by 2025.
I’m reminded of M. Stanton Evans’ dictum that “liberals don’t care what you do as long as it’s compulsory.” The logic at work here is that all Americans will be better off because of the savings at the pump, the decrease in reliance on foreign oil, and the salutary effects for the environment. False, fallacious, and fantastical, respectively.
If the amount of money saved via fuel efficiency was a standalone economic rationale, we’d expect to see it play out through market forces rather than through government-imposed diktat. But even if the numbers pencil out, you can’t look at the cost of an automobile’s fuel in a vacuum.
The fuel efficiency technology also drives the cost of vehicles upward at a rapid rate. And with this utterly soviet standard, the increase will be astronomical. A study put out by the National Research Council last year estimated that a full hybrid vehicle could cut fuel use by about 50 percent -- but that it would drive the vehicle's price up by about $9,000. That may sound like a world in which we're all taking out second mortgages to drive a Prius, but keep this in mind: even that most iconic of hybrids (average of 50 MPG) doesn’t meet the administration’s proposed standards. And focusing on the retail price also doesn’t factor in the safety risks that often accompany more fuel-efficient cars (the efficiency is often achieved in part by creating a lighter – and thus more brittle – auto body).
As for our reliance on Middle Eastern energy sources? Forget it. Canada supplies us with more oil than Saudi Arabia, as does Mexico. Moreover, oil is a commodity sold on global markets. With demand growing in China and other rising economies, any marginal reduction in American consumption is likely to be made up elsewhere. The Arab Street will still hate us and the oil shiekhs will still be getting rich. Why? Because they have possession one of the most efficient fuel sources available to an advanced society. “Greening” our auto fleet won’t change that. There’s no use in combating a hard truth with a soft fiction.
Then there’s the environmental claim. Most people get suckered into this because of a false conflation of fuel efficiency with emissions control. No such luck. Another (earlier) National Research Council report found that you could increase fuel efficiency by 45 percent and still not make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions.
The upshot? We get more expensive, less safe automobiles. And Barack Obama gets one line on a display in the environmental wing of his presidential library.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Based on the history of SUV's all this will do is boost the sale of trucks.
Oct '10
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
I suspect this is just an attempt by the Obama campaign to shore up the support of its base. A 2025 deadline--really? A decade after Barry moves his fuss and fustian on to the floor of UN?
Of course, I don't discount the possibility of utopian dreaming. But I think it more likely that the campaign staff are trying to give their man a flag to rally the troops around when he speaks in Austin, Seattle, and San Francisco.
Aug '10
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Time to start planning illegal imports of cheap, low efficiency, foreign made cars.
Jan '11
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Telecommuting.
Nov '10
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
There are multiple paths to efficiency. One of many is hybridization, another is removing sources of inefficiency from existing designs. This second option increases the cost of production by something closer to $2000 while having similar results. As with hybrids and electrics- it narrows the environmental operating band of the car and is somewhat less safe. One difference is that (if taken to extremes) it results in a louder operation than some other options.
However, any gain in efficiency is quickly wiped off the map considering the majority of driving involves idle time and stop and go travel. My 13mpg van doesn't cost significantly more or less to operate than my 25mpg Seabring, or my 40mpg Fiero --- without greatly extending my travel radius.
It seems few people understand the difference between pressbuzz and actual cost performance without the ample supply of calculus. If they attempt to justify by making the green investment then it is purely physiological after including the environmental costs of manufacture or actual cost of license tax.
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 3:32amApr '11
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Keep in mind that the CAFE regulations don't actually force a manufacturer to meet the standard. Companies that make mostly large luxury cars fall short of current CAFE standards and they build the price of the fines into the price of the cars. If a company decides it's cheaper to pay a $3000 fine than to put $6000 worth of additional tech into a car, that's what many of them will do. One way or another, though, it's the government saying that consumers are too stupid to choose what they want to buy without the government's coercion.
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Why not just wave the federal wand, point it and declare "fuelish infinitus!" in a firm, commanding voice. JK Rowling can write the dialogue.
Seriously, why stop at 56 mpg? Demand 1,000 mpg; it's the green thing to do. And while we're at it, I want a 1 megawatt solar panel on my house -- preferably a small one.
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
That's right, Randy. And one way or another, we all pay. Imagine the public reaction if this was actually framed as "you'll pay a $3,000 premium to drive the same kind of car you are already."
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Probably some truth to this, J.D. But if it is that cynical, it only ups the need to criticize it publicly. The administration shouldn't get a pass on pandering to its base with seemingly earnest policy proposals. If it wants to pretend this is the real deal as a matter of theater, I say we return the favor.
J. D. Fitzpatrick: I suspect this is just an attempt by the Obama campaign to shore up the support of its base. A 2025 deadline--really? A decade after Barry moves his fuss and fustian on to the floor of UN?
Of course, I don't discount the possibility of utopian dreaming. But I think it more likely that the campaign staff are trying to give their man a flag to rally the troops around when he speaks in Austin, Seattle, and San Francisco. · Jun 27 at 10:42pm
Oct '10
Re: Latest Quota from the Obama Politburo: Cars that Get Over 55 MPG
Oh, don't worry--I'm thrilled you drew it to my attention. Grist, mill, you know.
Troy Senik: Probably some truth to this, J.D. But if it is that cynical, it only ups the need to criticize it publicly. The administration shouldn't get a pass on pandering to its base with seemingly earnest policy proposals. If it wants to pretend this is the real deal as a matter of theater, I say we return the favor.
J. D. Fitzpatrick: I suspect this is just an attempt by the Obama campaign to shore up the support of its base. A 2025 deadline--really? A decade after Barry moves his fuss and fustian on to the floor of UN?
Of course, I don't discount the possibility of utopian dreaming. But I think it more likely that the campaign staff are trying to give their man a flag to rally the troops around when he speaks in Austin, Seattle, and San Francisco. · Jun 27 at 10:42pm
Jun 28 at 9:32am