According to the AP:
Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for cars and trucks, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon standard. Consumers should expect to pay an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016, officials said.
[Link]
One would like to think the Obama Administration is closet fan of Pax Plena. I suggested a similar policy as fuel prices began to rise last July.
While my ego is certainly stroked, I cannot help but view the issue as a lost opportunity for Republicans. This solution was obvious. No where was the economic recession more strongly felt than when Americans paid $4 per gallon for gasoline last summer. Why not give consumers more bang for their buck, and make better cars that go further on less fuel?
Had Republicans championed the idea, they would have scored a major win on energy policy, and shored up hitherto absent credibility on the environment. Instead, President Obama will announce his energy/environmental initiative flanked by automakers, union leaders, and the Republican governor of California while the rest of the GOP stands idly by offering no solutions.
Republicans have have earned some policy victories in the past few weeks, but I suspect this mileage & pollution plan is a major 'w' for team Obama.
The Conservative Blog Network
10 comments:
35.5 miles per gallon. CAFE Corporate Average Fleet Economy. Well, There are two ways. The bean counter method, and the scientific method. If I were Ford, I'd buy Harley-Davidson. They could then easily come up with a sipper that would come in at 70 MPG. Honda and Suzuki are all set. Generous Motors and Chrysler are done, stick a fork in them...If the companies have a truck division, they'd be wise to dump them. These actions above would raise the CAFE. Though, all of this would go right over the heads of the idiots in government that hatched this scheme. Also, going over their heads: The science of fuel economy. As, any student of physics knows the only way to increase the CAFE is to reduce the size and weight of the vehicle. The economy gained is in the reduction of the windage and friction losses.
The government could easily pass laws about things that are already under their control...But they wouldn't dare. Things like traffic control signal synchronization to minimize the changes in momentum to minimize the losses in kinetic energy. However, you'll find that most states synchronize their traffic controls to maximally constipate traffic flow, to maximize both fuel consumption, and its attendant gross tax income on the wasted fuels. When confronted with these observations, state bureaucrats will cite the safety issue: "For the children." Never mind that The National Highway Traffic Safety Institute can provide figures showing that when these nimrods play this game.that traffic fatalities will necessarily increase. More light-weight plastic, and less steel to the human cargo means increasing highway carnage. These are available facts. Never mind those facts though, all they look at, or care about, is money. How to take whats your's and make it theirs. That's the reason they support abortion, the inheritance tax, they are the culture of death.
Now if they wanted to get serious about alternative fuels. Like nuclear generated electricity. Forget about it! They will not build new nukes, even if there was a shred of truth to anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a scam, green house gas emission control are a farce. These are all just mechanisms to falsely justify the separation of a productive people from their money and freedom. I earlier pointed out in this blog that after it invents the perfect battery, that America needs to treble its nameplate electrical generating capacity, building only "carbon free" nukes, about 40-50 new 1 Gigawatt units per state, would be a start.
Hey! Since we're now lead by The One: Why didn't He just repeal the law of gravity? The laws of motion, and the laws of thermodynamics? These are laws, they are all lawyers, and after all, He is the One..Right?
Hi,
We have just added your latest post "Pax Plena: Obama's Mileage & Pollution Plan" to our Directory of Environment . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory for getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a valuable backlink to your site.
Warm Regards
greenatmos.com Team
http://www.greenatmos.com
Batman- your view neglects to mention that technologies already exist to make vehicles more fuel efficient.
Isn't it a dead weight loss to avoid the implementation of more fuel efficient measures when the technology already exists to make it happen?
It's also worth mentioning that the new measures were welcomed by the both government and the auto industry.
If the wherewithal exists in Detroit, and the states/feds are on board with a more fuel efficient measure, then why oppose what would obviously benefit most Americans?
Tory,
Refer to Figure 1 in http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811124.PDF.
Note the inflection points 1976-79: 1986-1987. This is in response to CAFE legislation.
It shows that every time CAFE legislation is tweaked, that deaths per VMT increase. See the positive slope change upticks at 1976-1979, 1986-1987
The negative inflections that caused steady reductions in carnage were caused by innovations like Chrysler (may it rest in peace) unibody crumple zone and air bag technologies. And, the post 1987 declines were caused by increases in vehicle weight. (Increase in more protective steel panels)
There is no panacea. There are only trade-offs. You exchange weight in surrounding protective steel for heavy batteries either in front of you, under you/behind you. Economy up, safety, down.
Yes, hybrid electric technology with its regenerative braking have helped the energy efficiency. If the batteries were increased in size and weight, the economies are rapidly lost. Adding more weight: Either protective weight or increased energy storage impacts economy and safety.
We can conserve our way to prosperity like we can tax our way to prosperity. Impossible! You either need to reduce human progress, or increase our energy supplies. Plug-in cars will help. But, where does that energy come from? Burning coal, uranium. The compressed air Indian Tata: Zero emission vehicle. Perhaps you can harness all the windbag energy from congress to fill the air tanks. Ha! But, you'll again find: The energy has to come from burning oil, coal or Uranium. And, there are irreversible losses that happen when you compress and expand air, as well as the electrical losses in electric transmission, and the ever attendant generation losses. Wind power is not economically feasible. Solar is a pipe dream. Natural gas comes from production of oil. The 111th congress recently fixed that up right away: By again banning U.S. drilling: They set us up for a repeat performance of what happened last year.
The inviolable laws of thermodynamics for laymen: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You can't even get out of the game.
Let the free market dictate what needs to be done. Not some government pin-heads. To increase man's material welfare for increasing population: We need to develop and exploit energy from every source. Oil, coal and nuclear. We need to stop frittering away the stolen tax money on low yield green projects like wind and solar. Let the consumer have his hard earned money back and let the free market direct what vehicles are needed when.
Agreed that there are no cure-alls in energy consumption. But implicit in your point is that nothing should be done, and that the markets should dictate what happens next in the auto industry.
I agree in principle, but fuel efficiency is simply a market externality of auto sales that consumers have been unable to influence. The mantra "let the free market dictate what needs to be done" has been our de facto energy and environmental policy for the past 20-30 years. What it has led to are widely fluctuating gasoline prices, increased pollution levels in major cities, and light trucks that average less than 20 mpg. This is simply inexcusable.
Once again, none of the points mentioned address my questions to you:
1) Isn't it a dead weight loss to avoid the implementation of more fuel efficient measures when the technology already exists to make it happen?
2) If the wherewithal exists in Detroit, and the states/feds are on board with a more fuel efficient measure, then why oppose what would obviously benefit most Americans?
Perhaps another angle can be taken that would address both the safety concerns and the fuel-economy concerns. There has been talk for quite some time about intelligent autodrive systems in cars. The technology is getting there to really start making this happen for real. If cars drive themselves and talk to each other about where they're going and can thus stay out of each other's way and operate in a completely-legal, completely-safe manner outside of human interference, concerns about traffic-light synchronization and the safety aspects of new designs are greatly lessened. And the required infrastructure buildouts for this to work properly should fit the Democrats' "stimulus" ideas perfectly.
Chris- Excellent points about the autodrive systems. I think an autodrive system might fare well in a city like New York, or perhaps LA - somewhere crowded, with a lot of people who would be interested in the new technology.
But in places like Oklahoma, for instance, I'm not sure how useful it would be since you have all that open space and relatively few people. There, the CAFE standards would actually be beneficial because we really measure distance not in miles but in how long it takes to get from A to B.
On the other hand, people like to get the latest technology. If you put an autodrive system inside a car, I'm sure people would buy it, and it certainly is a compromise between the fuel efficiency and safety.
My own take is that it's cheaper to build more fuel efficient cars than it is to implement an autodrive system. And I'm not convinced that engineers can't make a more fuel efficient car that is also safe.
You're missing the point entirely. Work is energy that comes from gasoline, coal, or uranium. Work-energy is defined by the integration of a force over a distance. The acceleration of a mass is force. The only way to reduce the energy is to reduce the mass being accelerated, or reduce the acceleration. Since acceleration is needed for safety, The remaining key to more MPG is to reduce the mass being accelerated. Reducing the mass involves removing the protective steel around you..Dead weight, until the instant you need it. The next time you wash the windshield, ponder the construction of the debris you scrub off the glass. Had those bugs been built like humans, they would be mere puddles, The body construction of those insects is 100x more resistant to impact than the human body, yet they are still no match to the glass moving 60 MPH. This is why we require energy absorbing mileage robbing materials like steel between you and what might up becoming convolved with your vehicle.
Light trucks getting less than 20 MPG is not a problem. While the hypocritical government is dictating we drive around in roller skates, the U.S. postal service delivers mail in heavy vehicles built like armored cars. Why aren't they mandating light weight electrics? Why does it have to be: Do as we say, not as we do? But, even all those light trucks aren't the problem. Heavy trucks moving 36 tons of goods in stop and go traffic get less than 10 MPG of diesel. And, there is no way to make it better. Even regenerative braking would not be effective. The laws of physics get in the way.
Our de facto energy and environmental policy for the past 20-30 years is PRECISELY what has led to are widely fluctuating gasoline prices, increased pollution levels in major cities. In Illinois, I'm back to paying $3.00 per gallon for gasoline this week. What say you? Why? Well, our government EPA meddling has not allowed the construction of one new oil refinery in the past 30 years in this country. They've only been closing them, squeezing more from existing plant. When I was young, I used to count the refineries along route 66 between St. Louis and Chicago. There were 17 in the 1960's. Now, there are 3. Joliet/Lockport which used to have 5, now has 2. Only the behemoths remain. BP nee Amoco in Whiting IN. Shell in Roxana, and Exxon/Mobil in Joliet. CITGO and Exxon (nee Mobil) Woodriver, which used to have 3, now has 1, AMOCO(nee Standard), Clark, Shell. Only Shell remains, Chicago's Clark refinery: Closed. Besides saying nyet on new refining capacity that would stabilize price: EPA rules dictate designer blends of gasoline for different seasons. Accentuating the problem. Refineries, being scarce, have to shut down to re-tool, and also due to catastrophes, there are not enough of them to level out the price. Big swings in price vary with season, weather, and these shut-downs. The EPA requires poisons called oxygenators to be added to fuel. Look up how nice the chemicals methyl and ethyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE/ETBE. Adding of ethanol as oxygenator reduces the MPG. Also, these oxygenators clean up one problem, while causing others. These oxygenators actually increase oxides of nitrogen, increasing photochemical smog. Progress and expanding economy caused more vehicles to be on the road, compounding air quality problems. So, we can reduce smog by killing the economy, and removing the freedom to own an automobile. Reducing the population will also help. Less people, less cars and trucks to move goods. Since government views increasing populations as problems, Statists like Fidel, Che. et al are viewed as green environmentalists?
As far as Detroit. They don't make cars there anymore. Detroit is DOA. Most productive people left that city 10 years ago. Its mostly boarded up, or crack houses. Most cars are now made in Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama.
Fair enough. I neglected to address your points about safety because I took you at your word when you said there was a trade-off between efficiency and the strength of the materials in cars.
I still think you overlook the revolution in materials engineering taking place that allows for stronger, light-weight vehicles, but I won't begrudge you your jollies (for now).
Taking the trade-off for granted, it still stands to reason that more Americans would likely prefer (viz., consumer choice) paying higher gas prices (or current gas prices) if their cars would simply carry them further down the road.
The bottom line is that it is in our best interest to increase efficiency. This is simply a classic, conservative argument. By the by, since when are conservatives against efficiency!?
Your argument (that we should do nothing), and its attendant harangue about the 'hypocritical government' and the 'statists' simply ignores the reality of a latent market externality, and the need to make the American fleet more fuel efficient.
But the glaring problem is that it offers no solution to the pressing issues of pollution in major cities...
Thanks for sharing this photo ,.,.,.,.
__________________
Christena
More Movies More Fun & Entertainment
Post a Comment