Comments on: Obama to Tighten Auto Fuel Efficiency Standards http://priceofoil.org/2009/01/26/obama-to-tighten-auto-fuel-efficiency-standards/ Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming barriers to that transition. Sun, 20 May 2012 12:28:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tony http://priceofoil.org/2009/01/26/obama-to-tighten-auto-fuel-efficiency-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-881082 Tony Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:37:42 +0000 http://priceofoil.org/?p=3306#comment-881082 Do you really think pushing an already defunk industry to produce an efficiency four years ahead of an already reasonable schedule will empower them to succeed and stay afloat as a viable, stable, profitable company? Plus, did you stop and think that these cars will most certainly (and this is a fact) cost anywhere from 2 to 10 thousand dollars more than regular cars? In a time of high unemployment and a struggling economy, this would render any bailout or socialized effort null and void, causing whatever-trillions pumped into the economy to be for naught. We need to give them tougher standards, yes, but at a realistic pace. Plus, do so in such a way that allows them to price these vehicles so that they are affordable. Did you ever learn of the concept of inflation? Moreover, did you ever learn what can cause inflation? A standard 2 to 10 thousand dollar increase in car price on every vehicle will, without question, cause high, irreverisble inflation, while putting undue stree on blue collar families who are seriously struggling in this economy. Having two sets of stanards for different states, before 2016, is too much for the automotive industry to handle. Plus, having states mandate how many of what kinds of cars can be sold in-state will horribly distort local car-markets again to the detriment of low to lower-middle class families. Again, did you ever take an economics course? This time I'm not talking about money and business, I'm talking about simple cause-and-effect. You can't just push for wonderful standards and plush, green, eco-friendly, global warming theories to dictate actual laws and regulations without there being a CONSEQUENCE. Yes, for our air quality it would have a positive consequence, but what about ALL the other consequence which will be born from these decisions? Sensability is key in these uncerain times. Yes, change should come, but at an appropriate pace. At a pace that will make certain that the change coming will not cause more harms than good. And oh, all car manufacturers should just make more fuel efficient cars to conform with California anyways? Do you know what all is required for a new car to go from scribble on a napkin to show-room floor? Hmmm, apparently not. It takes years to design, test, and then get the newly tested-design to pass all government regulations. Then you have to re-tool your factories. That takes more designing and testing, and since everything is very robotic, there is a lot of software and hardware engineering that must first take place (more designing and testing). Then, you must retrain the human workers in the factories (again, you must design and implement these retraining programs) and finally test that the new manufacturing process can produce virtually defect-free cars, every time. Not to mention the expensive ad-campaigns and the physical transport of the millions of new cars to millions of dealerships around the country. Yes, this all can and should be done in the effort to lower our international dependency of foreign oil. But, as to my point earlier, cause-and-effect should be taken into consideration when we expect unrealistic change (fueled by even more unrealistic regulations) to happen quicker and quicker. So, the cost of making every car meet California standards (or even producing two sets of efficient cars to California-standard states) by the deadlines they are discussing is (again, another economic fact:) simply too much for them to handle. That will absolutely put them all out of business in the American market. In summation: Think. Please mix your eco-friendly ideas with current facts to produce realistic and truly helpful ideas. Please, just think. Do you really think pushing an already defunk industry to produce an efficiency four years ahead of an already reasonable schedule will empower them to succeed and stay afloat as a viable, stable, profitable company? Plus, did you stop and think that these cars will most certainly (and this is a fact) cost anywhere from 2 to 10 thousand dollars more than regular cars? In a time of high unemployment and a struggling economy, this would render any bailout or socialized effort null and void, causing whatever-trillions pumped into the economy to be for naught.

We need to give them tougher standards, yes, but at a realistic pace. Plus, do so in such a way that allows them to price these vehicles so that they are affordable. Did you ever learn of the concept of inflation? Moreover, did you ever learn what can cause inflation? A standard 2 to 10 thousand dollar increase in car price on every vehicle will, without question, cause high, irreverisble inflation, while putting undue stree on blue collar families who are seriously struggling in this economy.

Having two sets of stanards for different states, before 2016, is too much for the automotive industry to handle. Plus, having states mandate how many of what kinds of cars can be sold in-state will horribly distort local car-markets again to the detriment of low to lower-middle class families. Again, did you ever take an economics course? This time I’m not talking about money and business, I’m talking about simple cause-and-effect. You can’t just push for wonderful standards and plush, green, eco-friendly, global warming theories to dictate actual laws and regulations without there being a CONSEQUENCE. Yes, for our air quality it would have a positive consequence, but what about ALL the other consequence which will be born from these decisions? Sensability is key in these uncerain times. Yes, change should come, but at an appropriate pace. At a pace that will make certain that the change coming will not cause more harms than good.

And oh, all car manufacturers should just make more fuel efficient cars to conform with California anyways? Do you know what all is required for a new car to go from scribble on a napkin to show-room floor? Hmmm, apparently not. It takes years to design, test, and then get the newly tested-design to pass all government regulations. Then you have to re-tool your factories. That takes more designing and testing, and since everything is very robotic, there is a lot of software and hardware engineering that must first take place (more designing and testing). Then, you must retrain the human workers in the factories (again, you must design and implement these retraining programs) and finally test that the new manufacturing process can produce virtually defect-free cars, every time. Not to mention the expensive ad-campaigns and the physical transport of the millions of new cars to millions of dealerships around the country. Yes, this all can and should be done in the effort to lower our international dependency of foreign oil. But, as to my point earlier, cause-and-effect should be taken into consideration when we expect unrealistic change (fueled by even more unrealistic regulations) to happen quicker and quicker. So, the cost of making every car meet California standards (or even producing two sets of efficient cars to California-standard states) by the deadlines they are discussing is (again, another economic fact:) simply too much for them to handle. That will absolutely put them all out of business in the American market.

In summation: Think. Please mix your eco-friendly ideas with current facts to produce realistic and truly helpful ideas. Please, just think.

]]>