Don't forget pickup trucks.
Posted on 12/22/2007 3:22:32 PM PST by bruinbirdman
The energy bill that President Bush just signed into law is a significant victory for environmentalists, who have long pushed for such measures as expanded ethanol production. But the centerpiece of the bill--for which environmentalists have been agitating for years--is a major increase in automobile fuel economy standards, the first such increase since 1975.
The law forces auto manufacturers to increase the average mileage of cars, SUVs, and light trucks to 35 mpg by 2020. Currently, the standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and light trucks.
It might seem obviously beneficial to decree that cars must use less fuel. But according to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "The new mileage standards will make cars more expensive and more dangerous and will cause many more traffic fatalities.
"Compelling automakers to achieve higher mileage forces them to compromise automobile safety. To achieve fuel economy, they are forced to make vehicles lighter and smaller. But lighter, smaller vehicles are much more dangerous in an accident. Because the car absorbs less of the crash impact, the passengers absorb it instead.
"The original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, imposed in 1975, have already led to a substantial increase in traffic fatalities--an additional two thousand traffic deaths per year, according to a 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences. With the new standard, manufacturers will be forced to downsize even further all cars, as well as SUVs and light trucks. But these vehicles will still be sharing the road with buses, delivery trucks, and massive commercial trailer trucks. One shudders at the thought of how much greater a risk Americans will face. Nevertheless, environmentalists have continued to fight for higher fuel economy requirements, consistently and cavalierly dismissing the risks and the tragic consequences.
"Despite the drumbeat of constant assertions to the contrary, it is far from a settled scientific fact that we face catastrophic dangers from climate change. Yet, under the guise of protecting us from the alleged dangers of global warming, environmentalists force upon us the very real, provable dangers of increased auto injuries and deaths. Clearly, what they value is something other than human well-being."
I’m sure that we could counteract the ill effects of lightweight vehicles by banning large trucks from the national roadway system and imposing a national speed limit of (say) 30 miles per hour and requiring the manufacture of vehicles with devices that forbid them from exceeding this national speed limit. Let us be as realistic as the Congress and ignore the economic maladies that these measures might cause.
The latest estimates are this will lead to about 4,000 more deaths per year....or more than the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq. Of course these will include mothers and children.
More blood for oil. More Americans will die annually due to this law than have died in the entire Iraq war.
“Clearly, what they value is something other than human well-being.””
Quite correct.
However, I don’t see that happening. What I see happening is the wealthy will give up their current flavor of SUV in favor of “one ton” versions and larger that don’t have to comply to any of these CAFE standards.
Say hello to the new freightliner SUV...powered by caterpillar, cummins, and detroit diesel...and getting 6 miles per gallon.
I’m in the trucking industry. Don’t give them any ideas.
If the automakers could produce a 50mpg SUV, the whacko’s would still be angry and want them off the roads.
This will result in more miles driven per person, and more congestion, along with higher death tolls.
Hybrids only save fuel under particular circumstances, where there is a lot of idling.
I think that they are going to have to rely more and more on diesel to meet this regulation.
Don't forget pickup trucks.
Some research will find:
Cars today are HEAVIER than back in the 60s and 70s. So govt. fuel economy rules did NOT result in lighter vehicles.
Cars today have more power than back in the 60s and 70s.
Cars today are far safer than back in the 60s and 70s. Most of the safety features were NOT govt. mandated, like ABS, disc brakes,
Cars today pollute much less than back in the 60s and 70s.
Cars today get better gas mileage than back in the 60s and 70s.
These results have been due to some government regulation and to a free market.
I believe the future will be similar. My preference for my future vehicle is a high end turbo-diesel station wagon. Maybe soon in the US.
Turbo diesel alone gives substantial improvements in fuel economy. That is why 50% of new vehicles sales in Europe are now diesels. Where gas is over $6.00 per gallon.
So any thought of saving some money on gasoline to offset the higher cost of a new vehicle is out the window, as you'll be paying more in "mileage taxes."
Mark
Oh sure, you just had to go sticking a bunch of facts up in the middle of a nice witch hunt.
I’m not sure what his first “fact” means if the rules haven’t been changed since 1975.
The government needs to stay out of private enterprise. The free market would take care of this is it's own way. This is a law that is designed to apease one special interest group and to garner votes. Bush should be horse whipped for signing it. Not veto proof? So what, he should stand by what he believes and veto all such nonsense bills that come across his desk.
The government needs to get the hell out of the banning business. The constitution gives them no powers, and certainly no rights, to ban or regulate anything.
Bring back the constitution, bring back freedom and we can drill for oil HERE and become energy dependent. When we actually run out of oil an alternative will be invented, until then we need to do what is best for the people in this country and quit worrying about the GD greenies and their ilk.
Personally, I think the CV transmission is the next big thing. This transmission keeps an engine at constant RPMs. So an engine design can be optimized for only one speed. The use of a CV transmission with a small diesel engine and lightweight automobile construction should give us some amazing fuel economy figures. The next step after that would be hybrid tech. But there’s some research work to do before a compression ignition engine can be used in a hybrid powertrain.
We won't have to worry about that once we get the new "John Galt "Kinetic Energy Engine" technology" going.
Another example of government trying to micro-manage the free market. More dollars down a rat hole.
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.