Ah those glass houses

[dude1394]

A lot easier to gripe about someone else than it is to have someone checking you out. Pretty funny, he gets the auto mileage wrong in the first place while he bitches at detroit then it turns out he's just another gaz-guzzling american. This actually makes me want to vote for the dude. 340 horsepower...vrooommm...

Obama talks hybrids, but his ride has a Hemi

May 11, 2007

BY MARK PHELAN

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Sen. Barack Obama talks a good game. He also drives a good car, but the two are not entirely compatible.

The Democratic presidential contender was in Detroit on Monday, oozing charisma and environmental awareness as he chided local automakers for building too many big vehicles and not enough fuel-efficient hybrids.

So his choice to drive a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes. Obama's choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars. The 340-horsepower 300C has plenty of room for the lanky senator, his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters. It gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway, good for a big sedan, but far short of hybrids and compact cars.

His campaign Thursday said it leases a flex-fuel vehicle, and Obama, whose family has just one car, "believes we need to work together to achieve energy independence."

So although owning a hybrid is politically correct for presidential aspirants -- many report that they do -- this week reminds Detroit that campaigning still is sometimes about doing what I say, not what I do.

[dude1394]

Not to mention that he's trotting out that tired old cafe standard deal.

Obama's Auto History
CAFE is not the cure for what ails American car makers.

Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Barack Obama blew into Detroit on Monday, where he offered a tart indictment of "the tyranny of oil" and, by extension, the U.S. automotive industry.

"For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American auto makers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars," he declared. "And whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel-efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could've saved their industry." Where to begin?

The Democratic Presidential candidate was extolling Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require auto makers to produce cars that get a certain mileage across their entire fleet. These mandates currently stand at 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles and 22.5 miles to the gallon for "light trucks" like minivans and SUVs. They were enacted in 1975 on the heels of the Arab oil embargo, and raising them has now become an all-purpose political gesture toward reducing carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Obama would ratchet up CAFE standards by 4% a year beginning in 2009, or about one mile per gallon per year. Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that would raise them to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and the Bush Administration is hawking its own, more modest plan as well. This is all the triumph of politics over experience.

Since 1974, domestic fuel economy has risen by about 60%. The gains initially came through sharp reductions in the size and weight of cars; think of the Pinto or Chevette. Since the 1990s, improvements have been driven by technological advances. But over the same period, oil imports have increased; Americans use more gasoline than ever and hence emit more as well.

That's because the indirect tax of mileage standards is an exceptionally inefficient way to influence consumption. CAFE doesn't affect how many vehicles are on the road (a figure that keeps going up). And by making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient, it may encourage people to drive more. If you get more miles to the gallon, then driving becomes cheaper, so driving demand goes up and offsets any overall efficiency gains.

Designing high mileage vehicles is relatively easy--they're all over Europe--and such cars have been introduced to the American market in the past. Consumers have plenty of such options to choose from now. But aside from fads like the Prius, Americans have proved unwilling to buy them. The miles-per-gallon advances over the last 30 years have translated into bigger, more powerful cars with more features. These are the vehicles Americans actually want.

Not without reason, either: There is a tradeoff between safety and efficiency. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that CAFE standards contributed to as many as 3,200 additional fatalities each year, because downsized cars are less safe in accidents. Other studies from the Brookings Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute put that number significantly higher.

So much for Senator Obama's claim that fuel efficiency is the savior of GM, Chrysler and Ford. Their problems, rather, are due to public perceptions of quality and to legacy labor costs. Pensions and health care cost Detroit an estimated $1,500 or more per vehicle than foreign competitors, and raising CAFE standards won't do anything about that. Mr. Obama generously offered to let the government pick up 10% of the Big Three's health-care tab in exchange for assurances on fuel economy--which means putting taxpayers on the hook for union and management mistakes going back 50 years.

CAFE would only add to that burden on Detroit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising CAFE standards by 3.8 miles per gallon would cost $3.6 billion per year, which would reduce consumption by 10% over 15 years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates this would add $3,000 to $5,000 to the price of an American vehicle. The United Auto Workers says it could cost the jobs of 17,000 auto workers and 50,000 auto-parts workers.

What exactly would that get us, in terms of reducing emissions or oil use? Almost nothing. Passenger vehicles account for about 20% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions; a 10% cut of 20% is just 2%. This would not make a huge difference in domestic oil consumption either, because passenger vehicles account for 40% of U.S. oil demand; so a 10% cut reduces total oil consumption by 4%. These reductions are negligible compared to global emissions and energy demand.

Senator Obama's Detroit speech was cast in the press as bold truth-telling. Yet the quickest and most efficient way to deter gasoline consumption, if that is his real objective, is not CAFE standards, but higher gasoline prices--i.e., through a carbon tax. Consumers clearly don't want to pay more for gas, however, so Senator Obama wasn't so bold or truth-telling as to suggest that. It seems he has his eye on the voter market more than the car market.

[Mavdog]

what? barak obama has the gall to criticize detroit and actually drive one of their cars?

now that this piece of news is out I'm sure his campaign is doomed.

rather than attempt to make barak obama look like a hypocrite (which he isn't), I wonder why the author of the above piece doesn't address obama's proposal, and its affect on our auto industry.

the author feels that improving the efficiency of cars, and making them more reliable, is a bad thing due to these benefits putting more cars on the road and also by making it more affordable for people to drive, hence motivating them to drive more.

excuse me, but if the cost of fuel increases by 30%, making the cars more efficient will mean people will possibly be able to not spend MORE. if the cars get better gas mileage it's not like they will have all this extra money, they'll be fortunate to stay even.

finally the author gets to the causes of detroit's problems: perceptions of quality, legacy costs and the fact that the asian cars (especially toyota) are more fuel efficient.

the quality percepetions will change with quality cars being built, and that progress has been seen over the last decade. american cars now are close to and in many cases equal in quality.

so what of the legacy costs and the fuel efficiency? why, strangely that's exactly the issues that barak obama addressed with his proposal.

obama says to detroit, you build more fuel efficient cars (by way of agreeing to higher cafe standards) and we, the federal government, will take on your burden of legacy costs.

so the manufacturer wins, the employees of that industry all win, the economy wins with a competitive auto industry, and with more efficient vehicles ourf fuel consumption per person goes down..

I'm still trying to understand what's bad in obama's proposal and why this author felt the need to attack obama for putting forth one of the few ideas made on how to aid the american auto industry?

well? any ideas?

[Ninkobei]

well thats impressive of the writer..he took something good from obamas campaign and turned it into something else. I guess the writer would prefer for all of america to drive hummers. Based on his logic that would reduce emissions because no one would ever drive anywhere. maybe everyone should just stay at home from now on and never go anywhere.

[FishForLunch]

So what if he drives a gas guzzling Sedan, at least he show he cares. I guess you guys have not heard the politicians favorite saying. "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!" or is it "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!"

[dude1394]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...-laundry-room/
May 17, 2007, 11:33 am
Green Isn’t Clean In the Laundry Room

By John Tierney

Tags: behavioral economics, cars, energy

In the battle against global warming, there is no more beloved phrase in Washington than “energy efficiency.” Mandating energy-efficient appliances costs nothing in the budget and sounds painless to voters. Who could be in favor of energy inefficiency? Congress is working on legislation now to tighten standards further — and touting all the money that consumers will save.

But if these efficient appliances are such a great deal, why do people have to be forced to buy them? The usual justification is that consumers are too shortsighted to factor in the energy savings — and you can support that with theoretical arguments from behavioral economists. People can indeed make dumb short-term decisions about long-term investments.

But when it comes to picking washing machines, it looks as if consumers are less shortsighted than the energy experts in Washington. Thanks to new federal standards, washing machines are using less energy — but as a result they cost more and clean less, as Consumer Reports concludes in its new issue:

Not so long ago, you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more.

Which is precisely what Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute predicted six years ago when the Bush administration enacted the new efficiency standards with promises that new technology would clean clothes better and save money. Mr. Kazman forecast dirtier clothes and pointed out the dubious assumptions in the cost calculations, but he was no match for the coalition of environmentalists and manufacturers eager to mandate expensive new machines.

Mr. Kazman and CEI are now urging consumers to register their displeasure by sending their dirty underwear to the Department of Energy. But it would take a lot of underwear to prevail against the forces on Capitol Hill currently working to impose still higher energy-efficiency standards on washing machines and other appliances — and on the biggest target of all, the automobile.

When the federal government imposed automobile fuel-efficiency standards three decades ago, the unintended consequence was an additional 2,000 deaths annually as a result of downsized cars, according to the National Research Council. As Congress debates new fuel-efficiency standards for cars, some engineers say that safety problems can be overcome with new technology. But I’m skeptical. Sure, there’s better safety technology today, but rigid standards can force engineers to make compromises, and every dollar invested in fuel economy is one less dollar to invest in safety. I think a gas tax is a far better way to save energy — quicker and more efficient — than rules mandating what kind of automobiles can be built.

If you disagree, here’s a question from Mr. Kazman for you to answer: “If the feds can mess up something as simple as washing machines, why trust them with cars?”

[Ninkobei]

"When the federal government imposed automobile fuel-efficiency standards three decades ago, the unintended consequence was an additional 2,000 deaths annually as a result of downsized cars, according to the National Research Council."

Could it possibly be that there are more Drivers on the road than there were 30 years ago? and 2,000 is probably within the ~5% rule of statistics so its probably just an anomoly.

also, saying that they are right (which is only slightly possible)..
2,000 deaths isn't much compared to the millions of potential deaths caused by global warming.

This guy is suggesting a gas tax? isn't gas already taxed enough? I don't see how it would save energy it would just piss people off more. as if $3.00 per gallon isn't enough. Jesh. I'm guessing this writer doesn't have any money problems.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

"When the federal government imposed automobile fuel-efficiency standards three decades ago, the unintended consequence was an additional 2,000 deaths annually as a result of downsized cars, according to the National Research Council."

Could it possibly be that there are more Drivers on the road than there were 30 years ago? and 2,000 is probably within the ~5% rule of statistics so its probably just an anomoly.

also, saying that they are right (which is only slightly possible)..
2,000 deaths isn't much compared to the millions of potential deaths caused by global warming.

This guy is suggesting a gas tax? isn't gas already taxed enough? I don't see how it would save energy it would just piss people off more. as if $3.00 per gallon isn't enough. Jesh. I'm guessing this writer doesn't have any money problems.

He's suggesting a tax because if you don't do that, when the price of gasoline goes down, people will revert back to their old habits. The key here is for gasoline to truly become expensive, that's not going to happen because there is so much of it. Of course it would save energy, costs more, less gets used.

[mcsluggo]

No.

Gas doesn't have to become "truly expensive" for a gas tax to work, the cost (at the pump) of gas just has to equal the "true cost" of gas, inclding all the externalities.

THe idea here isn't to make diving so expensive that nobody does it anymore, the idea is to have the actual costs of driving inserted into the equation, when people are deciding how much to drive. Inserting things like global warming, general bad effects on health, safety, congestion, visual blight, and whatever multitude of other things that people MIGHT want to insert are tricky to estimate, not to mention somewhat somewhat subjective. So the number for a tax is damn hard to estimate exactly (if not impossible), but we know for certain that it implies some non-zero level of taxes. If nothing else, it would be wise to pay for ALL of the roads and highways out of a gas/diesel tax, rather than out of the general fund, so that at least THOSE costs of driving were incorperated into the driving decision.