So, I have been meaning to blog about something now for weeks. So, today I'll drop two quick little entries, and hopefully be back in the full swing of things.
Pres. Obama just signed into law a regulation that will require auto makers to up their fleet mpg to 35. I like this. Before anyone starts talking about free market etc. etc., I don't buy it. When the consumer has true choice you might be able to argue free market. However, that is not the case. The vast majority of people either cannot afford some sort of hybrid car, or the cars currently in manufacture will not meet their needs (large families, etc.). Furthermore, I believe that as a country we have a flat out security/environmental need here. Our petroleum based economy is absolutely flawed, and we need to get off the oil kick (not just because of foreign oil, I frankly don't care that much where it comes from), and we have a need to lower emissions in any responsible way possible. And in case you've never read my environmental opinions before, that stance isn't because I implicitly believe that we are causing global warming or any such thing. It is because I believe we are required to be wise stewards and I do not think, as a society, we are....at all.
So, thumbs up Pres, I think that is a great move.
6 comments:
You're right, the market has nothing to do with this issue. As you so obviously implied, automakers have been making cars with lower fuel economy for no market/cost-related reason whatsoever. They just do it because they hate the environment and are in cahoots with the oil companies.
When automakers are forced to bring their cars up to a certain mpg, it won't impact the cost of building the cars at all. And, even if the cost of manufacturing a car goes up, it's not like consumers and buyers are ever going to have pay for that.
Yep, markets are irrelevant.
Well, thanks for defeating that argument, that you were able to misconstrue out of what I said. Now on to relevant topics.
There is no competing market to what automakers put out in the U.S. They all build the same car, call it something different and pretend its innovation. In 50 years the vast majority of innovation used to improve cars has to do with a woman telling you where to turn to get to the closest starbucks.
Hybrid's aren't truly available because they are priced out of almost everyone's range, why? Because they aren't mass produced.
No real innovation has been used to make any real move to better gas mileage. There is no reason to. Its not like you can either buy Ford's truck that gets 17mpg or Toyota's that gets 29mpg, all trucks suck at mpg. There is no real competition.
I'm sure your cost argument has been used throughout time. Federally mandated seatbelts, that'll just cost the consumer, federally mandated airbags, pass the cost to the consumer, etc. etc.. Sometimes its worth passing costs on, when it is something important enough.
The technology is there. You act as if the car companies haven't been sitting on the ability to produce such cars, which is baffling seeing how fast they were able to put out much more fuel efficient vehicles when gas hit 4 bucks. They didn't do the R&D in a few weeks.
In this case the market is irrelevant as far as fixing the problem.
Dan, cars already cost $20,000. If they go up any more, I will be forced to kick your butt.
The federal government has no authority whatsoever to set fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. The Constitution has never been amended to grant such authority. And if you say it's implicit in the Commerce Clause, I'll punch you right in the nose! If that authorizes this, then the feds have only enumerated limitations on their powers. That's not what my Constitution looks like.
It would be nice to have a car that gets 35 mpg, but I can't afford one. Do the new regulations make them magically affordable, or do I now have to wait until 2025 instead of 2018 to be able to buy a 2010 model?
And your "50 years of innovation" rant was just mental. Reminds me of when Sam Alberts took me aside to relate the horrible tale of how the car companies suppressed his father's water-powered car invention.
In 1959, NBC began broadcasting weekly drama programs in color. In 1960 the PDP-1 computer was brand new. The Salk polio virus was licensed in 1962. Audiocassettes were introduced to the US in 1963. Looking back on what's happened in those areas of technology, how much are you willing to bet on "the vast majority of innovation" in the last 50 years of automotive technology? Have you ever heard the word carburetor mentioned in an old movie? Maybe you should have consulted Dad before putting your foot in your mouth.
Um, I meant "vaccine" rather than "virus".
I'm with you on the policy end, letterman, but you're wrong on the constitutional side. Fuel economy standards fall squarely within the realm of interstate commerce, meaning that you don't have to stretch the Commerce Clause at all to allow for it. Even so, given the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- including with the limits that the court has put on it in the last 20 years or so -- there's no question the mpg rules would qualify.
To say that the Constitution has to be amended to cover every area of regulation boggles the mind. It says Congress has the power to "regulate interstate commerce among the states." That covers a lot of territory.
Though, just because something's constitutional doesn't make it good policy.
One thing that I am concerned about is our oil consumption in terms of national security.
The amount of wealth redistribution via oil is so vast it is hard to contemplate. The effects of this wealth shift has a huge impact on certian geo polictical areas that are less than desirable.
So while this mpg cache standards can be seen in terms of a market regulation domesticly I think that there a vastly more important international issue mixed with a national security intrest.
How this effects the wisdom of the mpg cache standards is up for debate.
Post a Comment