Posted on 08/02/2012 4:42:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
DEMOCRATS like to portray themselves as defenders of science, but their pursuit of a “green” environmental agenda often involves goals that defy the laws of physics. Take the fuel-economy standards the Obama administration pushed through in 2011. Those regulations require the U.S. vehicle fleet to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
Even with advances in engineering, that goal is daunting. The power required to move something as massive as an American vehicle (full-size trucks weigh between 7,500 and 12,000 pounds) at high speeds necessitates burning a little fuel.
Consider this: Many 2012 model motorcycles don't get 54.5 miles per gallon, according to www.totalmotorcycle.com. Even if they did, we doubt many families are willing to have mom and dad double up on a motorcycle and ride flying down the Interstate with junior riding the handlebars just to satisfy liberal notions of environmental progress.
This leaves auto manufacturers in a quandary. In response, Ford is trying to develop an F-150 truck with a largely aluminum body. That could prove a tough sell. Many truck buyers, recalling what happens when their 5-year-old stomps a pop can, may be hesitant to drive an aluminum vehicle when high-speed collisions with deer and other cars aren't uncommon. Aluminum will also increase the cost of the vehicle, since it's more expensive than steel. So truck drivers may pay more for the opportunity to feel less secure.
Ironically, the new fuel standards could also increase consumption of electricity generated by the coal plants that environmentalists love to hate. Car plants use magnets to move steel sheets, but electricity-guzzling vacuums are needed to move aluminum.
Other automakers are pursing a different tack. The Wall Street Journal reports that General Motors will try to meet the new fuel standards by producing two different trucks. One will be a traditional full-size model appealing to customers who, well, drive trucks. The other will be a smaller truck with better gas mileage appealing to government bean counters.
The new fuel standards may result in production of small trucks that few want to buy in order to meet an arbitrary fuel standard. You'd think environmentalists would be appalled by that waste of materials and power.
With its fuel-economy standard, the Obama administration is not only trying to defy the laws of science, but also punish American consumers who prefer the safety and power of a larger vehicle to the fuel-efficiency and explode-on-impact qualities of the 1970s Ford Pinto.
MIT economist Christopher Knittel determined the average fuel economy of automobiles sold in the United States rose about 15 percent between 1980 and 2006, but the average curb weight increased 26 percent and horsepower jumped 107 percent. Put simply, Americans accept a loss in fuel economy in exchange for a comfortable ride in relative safety.
Instead of trying to punish millions of Americans for wanting a vehicle with passenger space and enough power to top a hill, we'd suggest an alternative to the Obama administration: Let consumers decide what type of vehicles they want to drive. And to increase fuel supplies, why not increase domestic drilling? Sadly, with this administration, that may be more of a pipe dream than the 54.5 mpg fuel standard
I think they want to make commuting as economically unfeasible as possible. They want us packed into cities like sardines.
You’re correct.
I’ve long felt all the safety and emission and fuel economy regulation was really intended to drive up the price of vehicles and get average folks into public transportation.
You’re correct.
I’ve long felt all the safety and emission and fuel economy regulation was really intended to drive up the price of vehicles and get average folks into public transportation.
Romney doesn't seem to be much of a fighter wrt individual issues, maybe because as Gilbo says, he really believes the same as Obama on most of them.
Republicans only have one good fight per year in them, and that was the ChickfilA support day. I think we have to wait a year for another.
I know Romney would never do this but the race sure would get fun if he picked Allen West as VP,.
” I know Romney would never do this but the race sure would get fun if he picked Allen West as VP,. “
I’m old enough (58) to believe anything is possible. Picking West, in my estimation, would be the smartest move Romney could possibly make right now. West would rip Obama’s head clear off, while Romney could(to his relief) stay “above the fray”. It would also obviate the proverbial “racism” moniker : )
did mittens eat a chicken sammich ??? didnt think so...
Republicans only have one good fight per year in them, and that was the ChickfilA support day. I think we have to wait a year for another.the race sure would get fun if he picked Allen West as VP,.
we *might* get another round out of em on the 2A and/or fast & furious this yr...but i would bet on a lukewarm, bi-partisan result in the name of *common sense*...
allen west would be an uncle tom on day one...the race card would be beaten over mittens head, for daring to turn the VP role into house slave, and last but not least, wests own shortcomings would be the only narrative that anyone would see, and his voting record is lukewarm, but has potential...
They have been planning this for decades. Soros, and his ilk, the communists in the democRAT party. They are trying to do everything they can right now in a silent coup to overthrow the nation. They simply must win the next election or they're done and they know it. So expect there to be "unrest" in the fall.
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.