Posted on 10/06/2010 6:41:39 AM PDT by facedodge
Want pigs to fly, Brussels sprouts to taste like Twinkies, and Justin Bieber to get a haircut? By the government’s logic, just make a rule mandating that it must be so and…voila! All of a sudden beachfront property can now to be purchased in Kansas!
The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency suggested Friday that by 2025 new vehicle fleets would need to meet a high gas mileage standard of between 47 mpg and 62 mpg. The administration’s plans for the country’s future fuel efficiency standards are extremely aggressive — so aggressive that some experts wonder whether the mandates are even attainable.
Despite panic by some, Charlie Territo, senior director of communications for the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, says that it is important to keep in mind that the mileage standards are not definite, as Friday’s announcement was merely a preliminary notice of intent.
According to Territo, the rule making process will be a long one, but there will be consequences for the average consumer. “Anytime you add technology to a vehicle you add cost,” he told The Daily Caller. “And the types of technologies that would need to be added to a vehicle to meet those standards could have the potential to price consumers out of the market all together.”
Even without the government’s insistence, auto manufacturers already work exceptionally hard at innovating and improving their products’ capabilities. Spokesman Matthew Russell, for example, told TheDC that since the late 1970s BMW has been working to do just that. “We have a comprehensive program in place already, which is designed to extract the maximum balance of performance and efficiency from several different energy sources, so not just gasoline but diesel, hybrid technology, and even hydrogen where applicable,” Russell said.
An industry observer told TheDC that in order to meet the mileage range the government could demand, people will have little choice but to buy electric cars. “It’s great, it’s a great thought, and we hope we get there, but you have issues of range, you have issues of infrastructure, and you have issues of cost. Now if, if gas stays around the three dollar a gallon range, people are not going to go rush to pay thousands of dollars more per vehicle. It’s going to be very, very difficult,” the industry observer said.
Sam Kasman, the general council for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told TheDC that the goal is far too high to be realistic. “Frankly I think they are in fantasy land,” he said. “To one extent I expect they are placing a very heavy bet on electric vehicles, but it is easy for them to bet because they are betting with our money, not their own.”
Beyond whether a 62 mpg car is fathomable, the fact remains, cars that are able to attain such high gas mileage tend to be lightweight and dangerous. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety spokesman Russ Rader told TheDC that safety is always harmed with ratcheting up a vehicle’s fuel efficiency. “If the rules lead to incentives for people to buy smaller, lighter vehicles, then, we’re trading more crash deaths for better fuel economy. That’s the bottom line,” he said.
Automakers hope to maintain safety and the same wide range of consumer choice Americans currently enjoy, while at the same time meeting the government’s expectations. Territo says that auto manufactures in the past have been able to have their voices heard in the rule making process.
“The goal is to ensure that consumers continue to have a wide variety of vehicles,” said Territo. “And the way that can be done is to give manufacturers the right amount of lead time to do it. The more realistic the standards are the better the chance they have of meeting it with the least possible impact on the consumer.”
The administration hopes to have a proposal by September 2011 and a final rule by July 2012.
Ping.
“Ya think, DiNozzo?”
Wow, that was easy! Now we just need to legislate a cure for cancer!
Since it will decimate the already molested auto industry, when everyone is walking, Bike Riding, and skateboarding to the rice paddies, auto accidents will be a thing of the past.
The real target is FAMILIES.
When the cars are smaller, you can’t have as many kids.
That’s the goal.
The fatal flaw in your argument is that government employees will of course be exempt from any of these rules, and will mow down us serfs for the sheer joy of it with their gas guzzling SUVs. But I suppose that'll really be the SUV's fault, not the driver..
Indeed, Comrade, since we shall live on collective farms at that point. We shall sing songs extolling the virtues of The Party as we toil in the soil. That, or we can vote in this election and put this nonsense to rest.
There will be a clash between reality and fuel standards. Voters are complacent, perhaps deluded into thinking that a silver bullet exists. Perhaps the standards will be relaxed when the realization about the impact of the standards occurs. With the Democrats, the more likely result is just vicious attacks on the auto industry and more government control. If the standards are not relaxed, family vehicles will be a relic of the past.
When we all move to electric and 65 mpg vehicles the state and federal gas tax will be sliced. They will then seek new ways to go after drivers.
Europe has had mandated high gas pricing for decades. It has not lead to the developemnt of 62mpg vehicles, crap powered vehicles, electric cars or any other utopian modes of transpo.
We really need to drasticly reduce the power these federal agencies have usurped.
They are already talking about taxing by the mile driven instead of by a gas tax.
To do this, however, they will need to install devices that let them know our cars’ positions at all times.
Small does not mean unsafe. There was a video a while back with a modern smaller car crash tested against an old land yacht — the smaller car won due to better technology. The point is to let manufacturers develop the technology to build small and safe. Mandating small before the technology is there to make it safe means more deaths.
Actually, it has. Small diesels have been popular over there for a long time.
Well, it’s buying habits that make mileage increase difficult. My wife’s ‘95 Subaru is needing replacement. She was thinking about a small 4WD truck. But you can no longer seem to be able to get one with a 4 cylinder engine. Everyone wants the V-6s. Subaru no longer has the 1.8 or 2.2 engines... all 2.5s.
And so on. Americans opt for the bigger more powerful engines, even though there’s seldom any point to it for residents of metropolitan areas. The govt will have to force people to buy smaller less powerful cars because they won’t do it on their own. I’m sure that the libs would love that. Smaller lighter cars means more highway deaths.... a much desired outcome for the left.
No one can define, for you or me personally, what ‘safe’ is. Is it save to drive a new Volvo to a rock climbing cliff?
Why are people driving old, ancient land yachts? Because they can not afford new, safe cars, because the prices of new cars grows faster than the consumers income. Why would manufactures build cars that cost more than their customers can afford? Because they are ordered to.
Customers, and the private market are two private parties exchanging goods and services between them.
Also, I love the government weasel word, ‘mandate’. What they really mean to say is ‘order’, or ‘command’. Think how the sheeple would thing, possible, about their status vis a vis the powers if the word ‘ordered’ was used instead of the weasel word ‘mandate’. “Today the EPA ordered that you will obey... the Labor Reich Leader Ordered that all...The State capital ordered all local towns to ....”
You get the picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.