Bye-Bye to pickups, SUVs and American Pie!
There's a change-a-comin! I can feel it in my shorts![8D]
Some Democratic senators are touting China's gas mileage law as an example for the USA! Probably those one cylinder 2 hp tricycles are too radical for the USA, so the new full-size sedan will be:
Every so often in our nation's capital, a "don't just stand there, do something" mentality takes over and consumers inevitably suffer the consequences. Well, it's about to happen again as some in Congress rush to try to stop global climate change by setting drastically higher fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. And once again, consumers should beware.
There's an old saying that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Legislating to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to between 35 and 40 miles per gallon to respond to growing concern about dependence on foreign oil and global climate change is a good case in point.
Reacting to the gas crisis in the 1970s, Congress established the CAFE program to improve vehicle gas mileage and reduce dependence on foreign oil. It arbitrarily decreed the auto industry should double gas mileage over a decade. Ultimately, the automakers did so, but only because gas prices rose substantially in the late 1970s and early '80s, forcing consumers to buy smaller cars. And it didn't happen without significant adverse consequences for consumers, the industry and its employees.
For example, as a direct result of higher CAFE standards, big family station wagons were regulated out of existence. But large families, farmers, small businesses and those who tow or haul heavy loads still needed vehicles. Thus, minivans, SUVs and extended cab pickups were developed to fill that need, since by law, as light-duty trucks, they are subject to somewhat lower mileage requirements. Consumers no longer had the option of buying a full size station wagon, even though the substitute vehicles yielded little or no fuel savings.
Now some in Congress want to subject those vehicles to a 10-15 mpg raise -- with no thought as to what millions of Americans with a need to tow and haul will do about getting a vehicle that can meet those needs. So the more than 20 million towables -- campers, trailers, RVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles, boats and so forth -- may be consigned to the garage or the backyard.
Regulatory schemes like CAFE can come with a number of unintended consequences -- things like putting smaller, sometimes less-safe vehicles on the road; pricing some vehicles beyond the reach of many Americans; and artificially creating winners and losers in a highly competitive environment like the auto industry. Remember in the 1970s when Congress and the regulators required higher CAFE standards and new tailpipe emissions requirements? As a result, the American auto industry nearly buckled under regulations that clearly favored Asian manufacturers who produced only small cars and very few light-duty trucks and therefore were not as adversely affected as Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Many thousands of U.S. jobs were wiped out.
Now, at a time when the auto industry is more intensely competitive than ever, Congress may impose a regulatory scheme that will further distort the marketplace, though the old CAFE scheme has an abysmal track record in reducing America's reliance on foreign oil. In 1975, the U.S. imported about 35 percent of its oil. Today, even after nearly 30 years of living under CAFE requirements, more than 70 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources.
Recently, the Senate Commerce Committee voted to raise CAFE standards dramatically to 35 mpg by 2020 with 4 percent annual increases over the next decade -- and to apply the CAFE standards to medium- and heavy-duty trucks with the same 4 percent annual increases in the future. That may look like a good idea on paper, it's a bad idea in practice. If the intent is to cut foreign oil imports and overall oil use, we need to rely on things like biofuels, clean diesels and other alternative fuel technologies. The Senate bill does none of these.
As House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell said, "What we need now is some new thinking." He's right. Congress should not pick an arbitrary CAFE level and tell the automakers to figure out how to get there -- we have already seen the unintended consequences that approach can have. That's not a wise approach to energy policy.
Washington policymakers should slow their rush to just "do something." We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but not by building on CAFE regulations that wipe out U.S. jobs and undermine the quality of life for millions of Americans.
James H. Burnley was the transportation secretary 1987-1989. He now is a partner in the law firm Venable, LLP.
[:D]
Some Democratic senators are touting China's gas mileage law as an example for the USA! Probably those one cylinder 2 hp tricycles are too radical for the USA, so the new full-size sedan will be:
Every so often in our nation's capital, a "don't just stand there, do something" mentality takes over and consumers inevitably suffer the consequences. Well, it's about to happen again as some in Congress rush to try to stop global climate change by setting drastically higher fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. And once again, consumers should beware.
There's an old saying that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Legislating to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to between 35 and 40 miles per gallon to respond to growing concern about dependence on foreign oil and global climate change is a good case in point.
Reacting to the gas crisis in the 1970s, Congress established the CAFE program to improve vehicle gas mileage and reduce dependence on foreign oil. It arbitrarily decreed the auto industry should double gas mileage over a decade. Ultimately, the automakers did so, but only because gas prices rose substantially in the late 1970s and early '80s, forcing consumers to buy smaller cars. And it didn't happen without significant adverse consequences for consumers, the industry and its employees.
For example, as a direct result of higher CAFE standards, big family station wagons were regulated out of existence. But large families, farmers, small businesses and those who tow or haul heavy loads still needed vehicles. Thus, minivans, SUVs and extended cab pickups were developed to fill that need, since by law, as light-duty trucks, they are subject to somewhat lower mileage requirements. Consumers no longer had the option of buying a full size station wagon, even though the substitute vehicles yielded little or no fuel savings.
Now some in Congress want to subject those vehicles to a 10-15 mpg raise -- with no thought as to what millions of Americans with a need to tow and haul will do about getting a vehicle that can meet those needs. So the more than 20 million towables -- campers, trailers, RVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles, boats and so forth -- may be consigned to the garage or the backyard.
Regulatory schemes like CAFE can come with a number of unintended consequences -- things like putting smaller, sometimes less-safe vehicles on the road; pricing some vehicles beyond the reach of many Americans; and artificially creating winners and losers in a highly competitive environment like the auto industry. Remember in the 1970s when Congress and the regulators required higher CAFE standards and new tailpipe emissions requirements? As a result, the American auto industry nearly buckled under regulations that clearly favored Asian manufacturers who produced only small cars and very few light-duty trucks and therefore were not as adversely affected as Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. Many thousands of U.S. jobs were wiped out.
Now, at a time when the auto industry is more intensely competitive than ever, Congress may impose a regulatory scheme that will further distort the marketplace, though the old CAFE scheme has an abysmal track record in reducing America's reliance on foreign oil. In 1975, the U.S. imported about 35 percent of its oil. Today, even after nearly 30 years of living under CAFE requirements, more than 70 percent of our oil comes from foreign sources.
Recently, the Senate Commerce Committee voted to raise CAFE standards dramatically to 35 mpg by 2020 with 4 percent annual increases over the next decade -- and to apply the CAFE standards to medium- and heavy-duty trucks with the same 4 percent annual increases in the future. That may look like a good idea on paper, it's a bad idea in practice. If the intent is to cut foreign oil imports and overall oil use, we need to rely on things like biofuels, clean diesels and other alternative fuel technologies. The Senate bill does none of these.
As House Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell said, "What we need now is some new thinking." He's right. Congress should not pick an arbitrary CAFE level and tell the automakers to figure out how to get there -- we have already seen the unintended consequences that approach can have. That's not a wise approach to energy policy.
Washington policymakers should slow their rush to just "do something." We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but not by building on CAFE regulations that wipe out U.S. jobs and undermine the quality of life for millions of Americans.
James H. Burnley was the transportation secretary 1987-1989. He now is a partner in the law firm Venable, LLP.
[:D]
0
-
We're running about 16 MPG out of both Expeditions, and I'm looking at trading the older one in on a newer one for son number two.
I found a nice 04 Eddie Bauer with all the trimmings today and only 17,500 miles (actual), and I'm giving it some serious consideration. I may wait to trade until he graduates from Notre Dame next year and not risk the dents he might get on campus, but it's probably about time to trade his in on a newer model.
The mileage may not be as good, but he got hit in the side three years ago hard enough that he might not be alive if he had been driving an econo-box. Al Gore can go to hell, I like my boys and will try to protect them.0 -
Feinstien and Boxer have the wits of a gnat!
[:D]0 -
Some folks seem to be of the opinion that no matter what the government does, it is bad and can lead to nothing but ruin...
... conveniently forgetting that the government is the one that makes the military possible.
So that having been said, all I see here is a lot of complaining about higher mileage standards because it's the government advocating it.
Now I don't know about you, but my last name isn't Rockefeller, Bush, Kennedy, Gates, or Turner - I can't really afford to drive a 2 MPG behemoth because the fat cats at Ford, GM, and Chrysler can't be bothered to get off their fat @$$es and design a car that goes further longer.
What we have here is a puff piece for anachronism. When gas was a nickel a gallon and you earned a dollar an hour, who even knew what gas efficiency was?
But now things being what they are, we should watch our pennies a little closer. But if you had your way, we'd still be driving cars packed with 1940's technology.
This is not about opposing some sort of socialist agenda, but rather, seeing to it that we keep the sociopolitical elite rich, fat, and happy for absolutely nothing in return. It's why Toyota supplanted GM as the world's largest auto manufacturer - because our industry - hell, the entire American mindset seems to be summed up in the motto: "Good enough is good enough and don't you dare tell me to excel."
Sometimes industry needs a kick in the rear. And you'll pardon me for saying so, but this is one of those times.
And to all of you contrarian fearmongers, let me just say that there's a difference between improving mileage in a car and seizing our guns by force... a BIG difference.
Sometimes I wonder... is it small government you want or total anarchy? Can you even tell the difference? Sheesh...0 -
Yup. Americans are too dumb to produce a vehicle with horsepower and fuel efficiency. If the government demands that we have fuel efficient cars, the whole industry is gonna take a nosedive.
I'm sorry, but if our engineers are so useless that they can't design a fuel efficient vehicle without resorting to microscopic cars, maybe they ought to be unemployed.0 -
quote:Americans with a need to tow and haul will do about getting a vehicle that can meet those needs. So the more than 20 million towables -- campers, trailers, RVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles, boats and so forth
Someone needs to look up the defination of the word NEED vs the word WANT.
You may WANT to tow your junk toys around, but you damn sure don't NEED to. In fact you don't even NEED the toys in the first place.
Your soccer mom neighbor may WANT to go to the nail salon in her H2, but she dosn't A) NEED to go in the first place and dosn't NEED to use that type of vehicle to get there (and as fat as her backside is, walking there would probably be a better idea anyway).0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tailgunner1954
quote:Americans with a need to tow and haul will do about getting a vehicle that can meet those needs. So the more than 20 million towables -- campers, trailers, RVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles, boats and so forth
Someone needs to look up the defination of the word NEED vs the word WANT.
You may WANT to tow your junk toys around, but you damn sure don't NEED to. In fact you don't even NEED the toys in the first place.
Your soccer mom neighbor may WANT to go to the nail salon in her H2, but she dosn't A) NEED to go in the first place and dosn't NEED to use that type of vehicle to get there (and as fat as her backside is, walking there would probably be a better idea anyway).
Your right on the fact that I do not NEED to drive my full sized Bronco!
But with this being a free country I have the right to WANT to drive it!
And to be honest, after 16 years of driving 18 wheelers I do not feel right or safe in a little rubberband type car! And my Bronco is about as small of a viechle that I am comfortable in.
And safety comes into play as well, because I know how 90% of the idiots in this country drive and I want some good steel around me incase I ever end up tangleing with one of them and thier idiotic ways!
I also do not drive enuff to worry about having to get that 35mpg since I do not work anymore. I drive almost stricktly for pleasure so I will stay with what I'm comfortable in.0 -
Get_r_done
I did NEED my F-150 when I rebuilt my (current) house, and I NEEDED it to move from old house to new house, BUT I did NOT NEED it to commute 160 miles to work (320 round trip). BTW, Doug W. dosn't NEED to tow his horses around either (they have legs, and know how to use them)
I could get by with a "dinky cracker box" car, but I prefer a little comfort (and NEED to save money) during my commute so I sold the truck and purchased a used Park Ave that "only" got 28mpg. I've since moved the wife into the PA, and put a Ford 500 (also averaging 28mpg) under my butt. Both are comfortable, both get decent milage for MY type of driving etc, but IF my commute was the typical 10-20 miles of city driving, you can believe that I wouldn't have choosen either of those 2, instead I'd have gotten something in the 35-40mpg city range and put up with the cramped.
Every week I see the same "yuppies" driving their Escalades and Hummers dragging the same boats/dirt bikes/jet skis/snowmobiles up north and have to listen to them whining and crying about how much they spend in fuel just to have fun.
It would be a fairly safe bet that 95% of the (non-comericial) miles driven in this country could be easly handled by cars in the Ford Escort class.
Everyone whines about the amount of debt they carry also, ever stop to think how much of that debt was created by WANTS and how much was created by NEEDS (does your kid realy NEED a new play-station, do you realy NEED a 72" big screen in yur 12x15' living room etc).
If your WANTS are more important to you than your NEEDS, than quit crying about the cost of those WANTS.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Tailgunner1954
Get_r_done
I did NEED my F-150 when I rebuilt my (current) house, and I NEEDED it to move from old house to new house, BUT I did NOT NEED it to commute 160 miles to work (320 round trip). BTW, Doug W. dosn't NEED to tow his horses around either (they have legs, and know how to use them)
I could get by with a "dinky cracker box" car, but I prefer a little comfort (and NEED to save money) during my commute so I sold the truck and purchased a used Park Ave that "only" got 28mpg. I've since moved the wife into the PA, and put a Ford 500 (also averaging 28mpg) under my butt. Both are comfortable, both get decent milage for MY type of driving etc, but IF my commute was the typical 10-20 miles of city driving, you can believe that I wouldn't have choosen either of those 2, instead I'd have gotten something in the 35-40mpg city range and put up with the cramped.
Every week I see the same "yuppies" driving their Escalades and Hummers dragging the same boats/dirt bikes/jet skis/snowmobiles up north and have to listen to them whining and crying about how much they spend in fuel just to have fun.
It would be a fairly safe bet that 95% of the (non-comericial) miles driven in this country could be easly handled by cars in the Ford Escort class.
Everyone whines about the amount of debt they carry also, ever stop to think how much of that debt was created by WANTS and how much was created by NEEDS (does your kid realy NEED a new play-station, do you realy NEED a 72" big screen in yur 12x15' living room etc).
If your WANTS are more important to you than your NEEDS, than quit crying about the cost of those WANTS.
I was not crying about it!
I only stated that I do want to drive my full sized Bronco and that it is my right to do so!
As for Debt! I personally am Debt free! And I do not have any credit cards or anything that can put me into debt! If I do not have the cash I don't buy it!
And if I did need to comute 30 to 40 miles every day to go to work I might feel different about driveing what I drive. But I really drive very little. Heck my Bronco has not even been started in the last 3 days because I have not needed to go anywhere! I probly only average 100 miles a week if that!
I last filled up about a week ago and I still have about 3/4 of a tank in it right now and it would be more than that but I had 2 trips to my brothers in Charlotte and a trip takeing my daughter to the doctors.
So no I do not feel bad for driveing my big viechle. And since it only has 20000 miles on the new motor in it I plan on driveing it for a long time to come!0 -
We are in an energy crisis, in case some of y'all haven't noticed.
Every ten years we send the Marines to the Middle East to protect an oil rich country.
This makes it every American's business to conserve energy.
The Feds have mandated insulation standards in houses. I imagine some of y'all are outraged at that. This is why new houses now have ten inches of fiberglass in the attic, instead of the three inches they used forty years ago. It keeps a person's heating bills lower, and it means the country does not have to import as much foreign oil.
Y'all who love your 14 mpg cars, I urge you to go into your attics and tear out that surplus 7 inches of insulation, that way, you won't be having the Feds tell you how to live.
We could realize a huge energy savings if the Feds would mandate a 35 mpg CAFE standard.
If we conserved enough energy, it might get to where we could let jackasses like Saddam invade Iran, or Kuwait, or anybody else he wanted to, and we could stay here and mind our own business.0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
We are in an energy crisis, in case some of y'all haven't noticed.
Every ten years we send the Marines to the Middle East to protect an oil rich country.
This makes it every American's business to conserve energy.
The Feds have mandated insulation standards in houses. I imagine some of y'all are outraged at that. This is why new houses now have ten inches of fiberglass in the attic, instead of the three inches they used forty years ago. It keeps a person's heating bills lower, and it means the country does not have to import as much foreign oil.
Y'all who love your 14 mpg cars, I urge you to go into your attics and tear out that surplus 7 inches of insulation, that way, you won't be having the Feds tell you how to live.
We could realize a huge energy savings if the Feds would mandate a 35 mpg CAFE standard.
If we conserved enough energy, it might get to where we could let jackasses like Saddam invade Iran, or Kuwait, or anybody else he wanted to, and we could stay here and mind our own business.
Sounds like an ad for GREENPEACE![xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(]0 -
quote:We could realize a huge energy savings if the Feds would mandate a 35 mpg CAFE standard. If we conserved enough energy, it might get to where we could let jackasses like Saddam invade Iran, or Kuwait, or anybody else he wanted to, and we could stay here and mind our own business.
Yep...WE, as in the US, could conserve energy, but what you aren't taking into account is China and India and Russia and all the other developing countries. THEY aren't conserving oil. That (especially China and India)is what drives the market. NOT US! Somebody a lot smarter than me said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Let Congress set the CAFE standards up to 35, and then we can all gripe and moan about how much US made cars cost just to cover the technology used to reach that magic number. And for the tree huggers, they can biatch about how much green house gas was released in developing that new technology. How about this: Why can't we let the free market decide what sells and doesn't sell? There's a novel idea! If the American people don't want gas hogs, they won't buy them. And Chevy and Ford and Dodge can either produce efficient cars, or not, and go bankrupt. THe same thing with the example you gave of insulation in the house. If I decide I want more energy efficient insulation, I will buy it. MY DECISION! OF course, we would be stupid not to do that, but it is still a matter of individual freedom, albeit a bit extreme. My point is that the govt tries so hard to "protect us from ourselves" that they have their finger in every pie out there. Sometimes it is necessary, but not very often.
I don't drive a gas hog because I don't NEED one. My little Jeep Cherokee with a manual tranny gets 26 mpg on the highway and I am fine with that. My wife's minivan is a "flex fuel" vehicle. Tried two tanks of that e-85 crap, and decided it wasn't worth it. Right now E-85 is just another "feel good" story. We are being told that it is helping, and we believe. There goes that reaction-opposite action thing again. What are the higher grocery prices attributed too? The high-demand for corn to make ethanol!!! For a bunch of gun-loving folks who spout off about "freedom to own what they want" on the gun side, and how terrible it is for the govt to TELL you what is right and wrong to own on the gun side, you folks sure have a skewed idea of personal "freedom!"0 -
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
quote:We could realize a huge energy savings if the Feds would mandate a 35 mpg CAFE standard. If we conserved enough energy, it might get to where we could let jackasses like Saddam invade Iran, or Kuwait, or anybody else he wanted to, and we could stay here and mind our own business.
Yep...WE, as in the US, could conserve energy, but what you aren't taking into account is China and India and Russia and all the other developing countries. THEY aren't conserving oil. That (especially China and India)is what drives the market. NOT US! Somebody a lot smarter than me said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Let Congress set the CAFE standards up to 35, and then we can all gripe and moan about how much US made cars cost just to cover the technology used to reach that magic number. And for the tree huggers, they can biatch about how much green house gas was released in developing that new technology. How about this: Why can't we let the free market decide what sells and doesn't sell? There's a novel idea! If the American people don't want gas hogs, they won't buy them. And Chevy and Ford and Dodge can either produce efficient cars, or not, and go bankrupt. THe same thing with the example you gave of insulation in the house. If I decide I want more energy efficient insulation, I will buy it. MY DECISION! OF course, we would be stupid not to do that, but it is still a matter of individual freedom, albeit a bit extreme. My point is that the govt tries so hard to "protect us from ourselves" that they have their finger in every pie out there. Sometimes it is necessary, but not very often.
I don't drive a gas hog because I don't NEED one. My little Jeep Cherokee with a manual tranny gets 26 mpg on the highway and I am fine with that. My wife's minivan is a "flex fuel" vehicle. Tried two tanks of that e-85 crap, and decided it wasn't worth it. Right now E-85 is just another "feel good" story. We are being told that it is helping, and we believe. There goes that reaction-opposite action thing again. What are the higher grocery prices attributed too? The high-demand for corn to make ethanol!!! For a bunch of gun-loving folks who spout off about "freedom to own what they want" on the gun side, and how terrible it is for the govt to TELL you what is right and wrong to own on the gun side, you folks sure have a skewed idea of personal "freedom!"
Exactly!
I have no problem with anyone who chooses to drive a gas saver if that is what they want to drive!
But I'll be damned if I'm going to let you knock me because I choose to drive what I want to drive!
And as stated! You are a hipocrite if you preach about freedom of choice when it comes to guns but you want to mandate what viechle a person drives!0 -
(OUCH![}:)])
[8D]0 -
One of the points I was trying to make, is that it is not difficult to have your cake, and eat it too.
That is what we have done - I don't believe our economy has ever been "needs" based - always what we want has driven it - at least since the end of WWII.
The truth is, I don't need to haul my horses, but I want to. That's why I have an old gas guzzling truck to do it in. It's a '90, and with 70,000 miles in it, that's an average of less than 4,000 miles a year, and for the last 5 years it's been around 1500 miles. The RamCharger (a '75) is a lot like GRD's Bronco - I just use it for fun, and I don't need it, at all. It gets less than 1000 miles a year put on it - just bustin' rocks and spalshin' mud.
Almost 100 percent of the 100,000 or so miles we drive in a year is done with cars that get pretty good mileage.
I'm going to take Perfect Daughter Deanna to LA in a couple of weeks to see her Grandpa and we are going to take my 40MPG Sentra. I'd rather take one of the trucks, but that doesn't make economic sense. Neither does flying or taking the train. The round trip is about 2500 miles.
I'm NOT a tree hugger - maybe an anarchist, but not a tree hugger.
So, from my point of view, one can have both.
Doug0 -
If anyone need their air conditioner fixed or replaced, I'll be bringing my tools and equipment in a F-250 SuperDuty.
or else....
A/c men, plumbers, welders, and electricians don't drive a Prius.0 -
Here in Texas, they would![:D]
Desperation drives the ac business.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
46 comments