A CAFE Rant from someone who hasn't heard of the Prius

[Tempus]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6396

Political Hay
Kerry and the 2006 Chevette
By Eric Peters
Published 4/7/2004 12:04:32 AM


If John Kerry wins the presidency, most of us will be driving Chevettes -- or the modern-day equivalent, at any rate. The Massachusetts senator has proposed jacking up federal fuel economy requirements for new cars to as much as 36 miles-per-gallon as part of his plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The problem is that only subcompact economy cars are capable of achieving nearly 40-mpg. If the government put such a requirement into place, if would in effect be outlawing mid-size and larger passenger cars -- and all SUVs and pick-up trucks.

There is not a single 2004 model year pick-up or SUV that comes close to achieving 36-mpg. Mid-size family cars like the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry don't make the cut, either -- even in four-cylinder form. Equipped with V-6 engines, they're not even in the ballpark.

Better get your V-8, before it's too late…

Kerry has proposed these wrenching changes to reduce energy use and thus wean us away from our dependence on the oil produced by politically unstable Middle Eastern countries such Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But the idea of imposing top-down fuel efficiency requirements is not a new one. It has been tried before -- during the energy crisis of the 1970s.

It didn't work then. And it won't work now, either.

Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements have been in effect for decades -- yet there has been no reduction in overall fuel consumption. Today's cars and trucks are indeed more efficient than the cars of the 1970s and 1980s. But Americans drive greater distances as a result -- burning more fuel each year than they did in pre-CAFE days. What makes Kerry think that people would drive less if their cars went even further on a gallon of gas? Or does he plan to impose restrictions on how many miles Americans may drive each year?

CAFE requirements have also had unintended side effects -- most notably the boom in SUV and pick-up sales -- which now account for about half of all new vehicles sold. When the original CAFE mandates came along, they effectively outlawed large, rear-wheel-drive passenger sedans and station wagons equipped with V-8 engines. In fact, just one such mass market model exists today -- the Ford Crown Victoria. But the marketplace did an end run around CAFE by switching over to "light trucks" -- SUVs and pick-ups. These formerly niche vehicles -- mostly bought by farmers, contractors, and so on -- were subject to a less-strict CAFE requirement. But these vehicles provided the same attributes people used to buy large sedans and station wagons for -- roominess, size, and powerful engines. Thus the SUV boom was ignited -- courtesy of CAFE and the law of unforeseen consequences.

Does Kerry have another "plan" to deal with the unforeseen consequences of CAFE II?

One consequence, though, is a sure bet. If the government imposes the draconian new fuel efficiency requirements Kerry is agitating for, the automakers will have to build smaller, lighter -- and thus less safe -- vehicles, just as they did in the 1970s. While non-engineers such as Kerry like to talk in generalities about "new technologies" that will somehow allow us to drive mid-sized and larger cars that also manage to return the fuel economy of subcompacts, the fact is such technology does not yet exist -- and may never exist. The internal combustion engine has already been refined to the nth degree and significant improvements in fuel economy will be hard to come by -- or very expensive. Few Americans -- excepting perhaps a millionaire such as Kerry -- could afford a $60,000 family car, even if it can get 40-mpg.

As before, the automakers will simply shave weight -- and build smaller cars -- to comply with CAFE II. And as before, people will die. It has been estimated that about 2,000 people are killed every year as a result of the CAFE-induced "downsizing" of the typical passenger cars -- which lost about 1,000 lbs. on average between the 1970s and the 1990s. All the air bags and crumple zones in the world won't prevent a similar body count in the event Kerry's proposal becomes law.

But only if Kerry becomes president first.


Eric Peters is a Washington, D.C.-based automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International, Spring 2004).

[jasond]

That's a right-wing rant in a right-wing paper. They don't care about facts.. only about scaring people out of voting against Bush.

[twindad]

Interesting...
There's threads aplenty on this site about the american automakers missing the hybrid boat. Suppose the above becomes true (Kerry, high MPG). Like in the 70s, the american car makers have nothing to offer the public, but the Japanese do (prius, civic etc). Sales of Japanese cars soar, American makers crumble. Japanese automakers hire workers to meet demand, Americans are laid off. Nice way to keep jobs in America.

[Wolfman]

If this article does have any merit, it'll just be one more example of how the great Kerry is just oh so in touch with the American People.

[jasond]

Originally posted by twindad
Interesting...
There's threads aplenty on this site about the american automakers missing the hybrid boat.  Suppose the above becomes true (Kerry, high MPG).  Like in the 70s, the american car makers have nothing to offer the public, but the Japanese do (prius, civic etc).  Sales of Japanese cars soar, American makers crumble.  Japanese automakers hire workers to meet demand, Americans are laid off.  Nice way to keep jobs in America.

How about this...

Bush stays in office. Dollar continues to devalue against foreign currencies. Gas prices continue to climb, and the Bush administration does nothing, because everyone there has close ties to the oil and energy industries, and what's the point of being president if you can't make all your friends rich at the expense of the American people. American consumers seek out high mpg cars on their own (which they already are, as evidenced by the overwhelming popularity of the Prius).

Like in the 70s, the american car makers have nothing to offer the public, but the Japanese do (prius, civic etc). Sales of Japanese cars soar, American makers crumble. Japanese automakers hire workers to meet demand, Americans are laid off. Nice way to keep jobs in America.

Far-fetched? Well, watch that nice "Clean Fuel" tax deduction for the Prius disappear over the next two years. Bush adds all sorts of tax breaks, but makes sure he gets rid of the one that will take away profits for the oil companies. Can't encourage cars with good mpg, or his $200m re-election war chest might vanish...

Go back and read what you said again. You're basically arguing that a requirement for high MPG is bad for the US, because American cars are inferior to Japanese cars. That doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to continue wasting oil unnecessarily.

[richard schumacher]

Welcome to the global village. The majority of Japanese-maker cars sold in the US are built in the US. The majority of US-maker cars sold in the US have significant content of foreign-made components.

What do you suppose will happen to the price of gas the day that one billion Indians and Chinese go to fill their tanks?

[rflagg]

Originally posted by Wolfman
If this article does have any merit, it'll just be one more example of how the great Kerry is just oh so in touch with the American People.

bahahaha! We'd all be driving american hybrids today if it weren't for Bush reversing the hybrid funding when he got into office. Instead, he focused gov't funding for studying fuel cells - an area that's currently able to keep the oil companies still in control, how convienent!

-m.

[Danny]

Originally posted by jasond

Go back and read what you said again.  You're basically arguing that a requirement for high MPG is bad for the US, because American cars are inferior to Japanese cars.  That doesn't strike me as a good enough reason to continue wasting oil unnecessarily.

It's American engineers & company philosophies that are inferior to Japanese based car companies. The American auto worker won't lose his way of life, he'll just lose his job with craptastic Ford or GM and get picked up by one of the many manufacturers looking to expand into the US manufacturing market.

Toyota is moving all of it's truck and SUV production here by 2006, in time for the next generation Tundra. A global market creates competition, and we can't just sit back and be like "Damn, my job went overseas. What will I ever do now?" instead of being proactive and getting additional education or moving to other parts of the country.

We rest on our laurels too much here, expecting everything to be ok as long as we don't mess with it.

[Jerry P]

Richard hit the nail on the head......we will ultimately pay for the coming-of-age of China and India, and this is just a fact of life. We cannot deny these people the right to improve their lot. What is frightening is that the world oil supply and distribution system is not capable of handling the added demands of the Chinese and Indians. Our task, if we are to manage this change in the world oil demand, is to RAPIDLY embrace energy technologies that reduce our dependence on oil. Continuing to do things as we have always done them will become so expensive that our overall quality of life will decline. America has a real advantage in that we have some of the most productive land on the planet. Bio-fuels must come into play soon if we are to remain strong and free. These are constantly renewable and ecologically friendly ( if correct farming/harvesting practices are used). Wind-generated electricity is another great rising technology, though it is not usable in all parts of the country.
These technologies can not remain the darlings of the 'eco-nut' group, but have to be embraced by the general population if they are to succeed. Bush and his buddies will not bring these into play since there is no profit for his oil-dependent friends. My fear is that they will poison public opinion with negative ads aimed at Sen. Kerry, and set these technologies back.

[jasond]

Originally posted by AdminCoop

We rest on our laurels too much here, expecting everything to be ok as long as we don't mess with it.

Hey, I do stuff about it.. I bought a Prius!

On a related topic, I wonder how much al-Qaida gets, in the end, for each gallon of gas sold in the US.

Not to start an eco-argument, but I personally chose to buy my electricity from a nuclear power source, rather than from the standard source. I decided that the risk that my energy money would eventually be used to buy and detonate a nuclear bomb was higher than the risk that the nuclear plant would have a meltdown or generate too much waste. (I don't think this was true 15 years ago, but I think it's true now).

As soon as any other alternative energy source becomes available to me, I'll switch to that even if it's more expensive. I'm considering building a house with solar panels, plus outside electricity only to cover high demand... Even if it costs more in cash, I think the ultimate cost is less.