THIS CAFE HAS GOOD EATS
The Senate did a very good thing last week. For the first time in 30 years, they actually passed a bill to significantly increase fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and trucks. You can read all the details in this New York Times article, but here's the long and short of it:
Environmental groups, though disappointed by the setbacks on renewable fuels, nevertheless hailed the vote on higher mileage requirements as a long-sought victory that could eventually reduce American gasoline consumption by more than 1 million gallons of gasoline a day.
If the Senate bill becomes law, car manufacturers would have to increase the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, compared with roughly 25 miles per gallon today.
Car companies had lobbied ferociously for a much weaker requirement of 30 miles per gallon for light trucks and sport-utility vehicles. To muster enough votes to prevent a filibuster, about a dozen lawmakers from both parties hammered out a deal that included the higher standard but omitted explicit requirements for further increases in efficiency after 2020.
The automobile companies (of course) fought this thing to the bitter end, and I couldn't have less sympathy for them. I know that I shouldn't be surprised by these things anymore, but I'm quite stunned that they've been able to get away with this for so long. Year after year, the car manufacturers have argued that increasing fuel efficiency standards in their vehicles would be financially devastating and technically implausible. This argument is so tired it makes Rip van Winkle seem energetic. Don't tell me the country that pumps out lightning fast computers and "do everything" iPods like candy can't make a better car within a two decades time frame. As a friend of mine always says of his newly purchased vehicle, "This is the same car I had twenty years ago." And isn't it sad that American cars wouldn't even be allowed in China or Europe because they get such crappy mileage?
To be honest, the thing that baffles me more than anything is why car companies would even want to continue this battle. If you look at the financial outlook for GM, Ford, and Chrysler; they are hemorrhaging money right now. And if you ask anyone the reason, they will all say that the Japanese are killing them with fuel efficient vehicles. I am the CEO of nothing, but even I'm smart enough to notice SUV sales went way down and hybrid sales went way up when gas prices skyrocketed. I suppose I can understand -- but not agree with -- their old reasoning that Americans want fast, powerful cars. But the resistance to aggressively developing fuel efficient cars is HURTING THEIR BOTTOM LINE (even Republicans should worry about that). And I'm clearly not the only one having these thoughts. Here's what a fellow blogger wrote:
They don't know it yet, or maybe they do, but US automakers are a dead men walking. How can we take people with attitudes such as these exhibit seriously? It's almost like they want to fail. Maybe they do, maybe they want to fail so that they can break the last of the unions and their pension funds too.
There are a few organizations like Friends of the Earth that don't think this bill is very good due to the fact that it doesn't have any mandates on the use of renewable energy sources, like solar or wind. My concern is actually that it isn't even aggressive enough for just the CAFE standards alone. Many respectable scientists have stated that we only have about 10 years to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid a "tipping point" from which we can't recover. So, dates like 2020 just don't cut it in my opinion.
This whole discussion might be a moot point anyway, because the bill still has to go through the House before it becomes law, and who knows how watered down it will be by then. But for now, the average man should savor the victory.
Labels: automobiles, cafe, senate
2 Comments:
Thanks for the plug. Have you seen this? This inventor may have stumbled on a more efficient way to separate hydrogen from sea water.
Anyway, Ford took on an enormous amount of debt last year, and they used the plants and equipment for collateral. Bill Ford and family were trying to sell their Ford stock the other day too. Ford is doomed. GM is doomed too. Goldman Sachs came out with a buy rating for GM a couple days ago, methinks they are trying to unload before the plunge. Pump and dump, as old as the hills. Chrysler got bought out and the Cerberus (sp?) and is selling bonds right now for improvements. Daimler Chrysler has the Gem, and they built a mountain of compacts back in the day. They might survive. Ironic. Thanks again for the mention.
This is a HUGE victory and a great start... what we need is a way to recover from the SUV infestation.
In 1987 I bought a little Chevy Sprint that got well over 50 mpg on the highway. Why did I get rid of it? Well, once Princess Whackamole was born, I started getting nervous. I began to see more and more SUVs on the road, their bumpers seemingly aimed directly at the baby's car seat.
The Sprint got great mileage because it was lightweight. This advantage began to feel like a real liability once I was sharing the road with a lot of SUVs. When I was offered an great deal on a used SUV, I took it, feeling both safe and sorry as I did so.
It seems to me that the roads work best when the users agree on certain things. For example, driving 25 in a 65 zone creates a hazard, as does driving 65 in a 25 zone. It's the disparity in speed that creates potential for harm. In the same way, disparity in mass and height--Sprint bumper vs. Suburban bumper--there's a greater potential for harm than Sprint v. Sprint or Suburban v. Suburban.
This safety issue came up again regarding the electric Xebra: I want one for the efficiency, but I would not be protected in an accident, unless it was an accident with another Xebra or other lightweight vehicle.
How do we solve this? Can we make the roads safer so people can choose a lightweight, fuel-efficient car without feeling like they're gambling their lives? I think the drivers' demand for safety, at least as much as bling, is what's holding us back. Your friend's car is not exactly the same car he bought twenty years ago: cars are much heavier now than they used to be because of airbag systems and other safety features--and all of that weight sucks down fuel.
If we were all equally vulnerable, I think we'd be okay. But the disparity scares me.
SUVs will NEVER be as fuel efficient as lighter, lower profile cars. It's just physics. They're bigger and bulkier than a passenger car needs to be.
Maybe meeting the CAFE standards will put the price of SUVs out of reach? I guess your post just makes me start thinking how much I wish we could reclaim our city roads for smaller cars (and bikes)--but how?
Post a Comment
<< Home