The report cited multiple emails showing that agreements were negotiated
behind closed doors with a small group of auto makers, in violation of
the Administrative Procedures Act. The companies were pressured into
agreeing to the new standard by the Environmental Protection Agency,
which threatened to allow California to set its own mileage standards.
Had the Golden State done so, auto makers would have had to make two
sets of cars, one for California, and one for the other 49 states, or
one set that was California-compliant.
The technology does not yet exist to make cars that get 54 miles to the
gallon that are no smaller than today’s models. EPA estimated that the
retooling to make lighter cars would cost $140 billion for model years
2017 to 2025, following a cost of $51 billion for model years 2012-2016.
Ron Bloom, White House Assistant to the President for Manufacturing
Policy until his resignation in August 2011, told Toyota executives last
summer, “Our technical folks think you can get there. It’s the best we
can do.”
Prices of new cars will rise. The nonprofit, unaffiliated Center for
Automotive Research anticipates an increase of $4,000 to $11,000 between
2008 and 2025. If that occurs, fewer motorists will buy new cars and
employment in the auto industry will suffer. As for used cars, their
prices will rise too, as new cars are avoided.
As EPA told a Mazda official in July 2011, as documented in the House
Committee on Reform and Oversight report, the administration needed to
do a final rule before the 2012 presidential elections because the
president “wants to secure his legacy.”
Summary:
The administration negotiated it with a few companies in violation of the law. The technology doesn't exist. The consumers will buy fewer autos in the coming years. Can you spell auto bail out again? Political gain.
This administration has to go.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4066062120776667625#editor/target=post;postID=7543859397465304989
If your link points to the basis for the topic, I wasn't able to get in. However, I did find these:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.globalwarming.org/2011/08/15/issa-54-5-mpg-fuel-economy-standard-negotiated-outside-scope-of-law/
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/05/20/20greenwire-vow-of-silence-key-to-white-house-calif-fuel-e-12208.html
The second link is a bit superfluous, as the first provides it embedded in the text. Regardless, interesting reading, especially as I heard about these standards on my morning commute. The potentially illegal aspect of these actions aside, it's one thing to promote what has the potential to be a good tack, higher fuel efficiency (duh, higher mpg is not exactly a bad idea, per se), it's another to pry and lock open the public jaws and force it down our throats. I'll avoid the more distateful metaphor that may come to the minds of some. Any idea as to where Issa went with this?
Jean
It was a mandate from the EPA. It is currently open for comments and will be published as law when the comment time frame expires.
DeleteThe EPA was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. Laws without congresional act as they are enforcing laws already set by congress. Another bureaucratic agency enacting laws.
That commie Nixon, what was he thinking?
DeleteGuess that Nixon guy was a Democrat in disguise.
DeleteLOL.
Just shows you that any good thing can be perverted into a monster.
Wonder why it does that?? Tracked the yahoo article back to the infamous Marketwatch
ReplyDeletehttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-fuel-standards-dont-add-up-2012-08-31?link=home_carousel
Timely post for me as I was just delving into this publication:
ReplyDeletehttp://mercatus.org/publication/regulation-primer
Stupid is as stupid does. They only way they can make it happen is if everyone is forced to by tiny fiberglass deathtraps and good luck doing that with all of the safety requirements. Not even most liberals will fall for that. Meanwhile, the Government will be taking more and more of our economic freedoms away. Don't sell that old beaten up suburban, it's going to be worth a mint! America's roads will look like Cuban roads 20 years from now. Flooded with 30+ year old cars.
ReplyDeleteStupid is as stupid does. You can say that again.
DeleteSo I guess that This administration thinks that this will not raise the price of new vehicles,well they may want to think again.
SO what happens when no one can afford to purchase these wonders of the highway? Quite possibly could lead to a further reduction in auto manufacturing.
Humm here is that old regulation Vs jobs thingy again.
Here is another little tid bit in the MW story.
ReplyDeleteIn a reference to the tens of billions of dollars that the Obama administration used to bail out GM and Chrysler, the Committee report said, “the Administration’s investment in GM and Chrysler gave it great leverage to force the companies to improve fuel economy without regard to cost
THIS Friends and neighbors is what you get when you have the Government Involved in a business.
Either agree to the proposal as it's the best we can do or we call the bill due.
DeleteYes indeed, a fair government still out of control.
Whilst talking to a member of my family who is both pretty right leaning and also an engineer, I made a comment one day that the market is lazy. IE, it will ALWAYS take the path that is cheapest over a solution that may be smarter but require more work or be more expensive. He disagreed with that, but later in the same conversation mentioned how chip engineers are only now starting to write code for chips that is not bulky sloppy and that makes better use of the technology in the chips. I commented that kind of makes my point and he reluctantly agreed.
ReplyDeleteI don't want the complete control of the market that conservatives are obssessed with claiming the left wants. But by the same token, from finance, to production, I feel like I have seen more then enough of what purely market driven solutions yield; they yield what is cheapest and brings the best profit, not necessarily what is best for the consumer, the environment, or the country. A segment of customers may demand higher millage vehicles, but with a mandate that all manufacturers meet millage standards, the industry will drag its feet for as long as possible. The same goes for safety. When you have deep pockets, you can afford a settlement here and there as long as it is cheaper then retooling a plant.
I don't understand this true obsession there is regulation right now. We are so less regulated then we ever were under Carter and Reagan.
There are more angles to that problem than you reveal. Yes it is true that a company will take the cheapest route to a product but one thing I find surprising in most discussions, primarily with Democrats, is the amount of influence that is injected by the government in the form of regulations and subsidies. Petroleum product prices are held unnaturally low by the government. Were the true cost of production, because of subsidies, and the true cost of travel, road maintenance were placed squarely on the driver... consumer attitudes would naturally change. Many times.... really most times, government meddling causes most problems in the long run. As for your last line about 'deep pockets'... again a function of the government.... not one incitement of big bankers even though we know that they broke the law... not one incitement of a US banks that laundered money. Of coarse companies will go the route of least resistance and most profits, especially if they know that their regulatory agencies will only give them a fine equal to a small amount of the profits.
DeleteI meant to say that "one thing I find suprising in most discussions, primarily with Democrats, 'is the lack of acknowledgement' of the influence......
DeleteThe issue is cost vs benefit. Is it beneficial to have a vehicle that has 50 MPG that is $8,000 more that fewer people can afford to buy?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for westerners there are few choices other than auto as it's a long way to anywhere.