
White House Looks to Cut Fuel Economy Standards - bryanrasmussen
http://www.thedrive.com/news/18418/white-house-looks-to-cut-fuel-economy-standards
======
orf
> ... the federal agency projecting 10 percent of new cars and trucks sold in
> 2030 would have to be hybrid or plug-in electric to meet the standards.
> Under the Obama administration proposal, the figure would have been 61
> percent.

I'm lost for words. Why accept the future when you can legislate yourself back
into the past?

Seems to me that American cars are not competitive (outside of America) not
because of excessive big government legislation, unions, liberals, George
Soros or whatever. It's because they are large, fuel inefficient monsters.

But times have changed. It's kind of funny how the people introducing these
changes do so under guise of "being more competitive", as if harking back to
the "good ol' days" is anything other than rose-tinted mastrubaion.

~~~
PricelessValue
> Seems to me that American cars are not competitive (outside of America)

American cars are very competitive in china. They aren't competitive in europe
and japan because of laws protecting their own car industries, smaller roads
and expensive gas.

> It's because they are large, fuel inefficient monsters.

Which is what american people want. The top 3 selling vehicles in the US are
all large trucks for a reason.

> But times have changed.

It hasn't. The top 3 selling vehicles in the US are trucks - Ford F-Series,
Chevrolet Silverado, Ram P/U.

You might not like it but you can't blame american car manufacturers for
wanting to build cars that americans like.

There is a reason why small european car companies aren't doing well in the
US. The markets are different.

~~~
api_or_ipa
Big cars and trucks sell immensely well in the US because of the effective
subsidization of fuel, as well as anti-competitive behaviour in the light
truck sector.

Virtually throughout the entire world, governments put taxes on fuel to
address negative externalities caused by fuel consumption. As a result, most
countries have much higher gas prices than the US, where in some places, is
below $2/gallon. As a result, Americans buy bigger cars because they aren't as
affected by gas prices as many other car markets.

Since the Ford Ranger met it's demise in the US, there hasn't been any
significant light trucks sold in America because of CAFE regulations that
treat full size trucks very differently from light trucks and cars. Car
manufactures don't have any incentive to make light trucks because they're
effectively counted as cars when counting fleet emissions where full size
trucks get a pass.

~~~
PricelessValue
> Big cars and trucks sell immensely well in the US because of the effective
> subsidization of fuel, as well as anti-competitive behaviour in the light
> truck sector.

No. Big cars and trucks sell well because we like big cars and trucks. SUVs,
Range Rovers, Trucks, even humvees are what americans generally want. Or gas
guzzling sports cars. Cars are part of american culture.

> Virtually throughout the entire world, governments put taxes on fuel to
> address negative externalities caused by fuel consumption.

No. Oil poor countries and regions put taxes on gas/cars in order to push the
market towards smaller and more efficient cars that use less gas. We are oil
rich and therefore really don't require such interventions.

> As a result, most countries have much higher gas prices than the US, where
> in some places, is below $2/gallon.

I know. I'm american. I know gas is cheap. But even when gas was expensive (
$4+ ), the top selling vehicles were trucks, SUVs, etc. It's not politically
feasible in the US to push people to smaller cars. People will simply vote for
politicians who promise lower gas and bigger cars. It's why even elon musk
wants tesla to get into SUVs and trucks.

People think that the government supports big vehicles and cheap oil and
that's why americans buy big cars and use lot of oil. You have it backwards.
We like big cars and cheap oil and that's why the government supports big cars
and cheap oil.

~~~
orf
Firstly, $4 a gallon is not expensive. Secondly up until 2008 Europe produced
pretty much the same amount of oil as the USA, parts of Europe are incredibly
oil rich. Thirdly there are huge negative externalities to having such a
ridiculously high volume of carbon emissions per capita[1][2]. You can't throw
your arms up and say "oh it's just the _American_ way, sorry
environment/health, there is just _no damn way_ we can stop the ridiculously
disproportionate per-capita CO2 emissions! Sorry world, but we _like our big
ass trucks_ , what can we do about it? drive more fuel efficient vehicles?
pffftt". I mean in what world is that a defense.

Because people like something doesn't mean it's OK, or action should not be
taken to curb that like for the greater good.

1\.
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S0SwXvk1C0D_VWLPlU2C...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S0SwXvk1C0D_VWLPlU2CS2TlcTCmKGuvS0lIaWXjpu4/edit#gid=1)

2\.
[https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/carbon...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/mar/01/carbon-
emissions-automotive-industry)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Firstly, $4 a gallon is not expensive

Yes it is. Just because someone somewhere has it worse doesn't mean it's not
bad.

>You can't throw your arms up and say "oh it's just the American way, sorry
environment/health, there is just no damn way we can stop the ridiculously
disproportionate per-capita CO2 emissions! Sorry world, but we like our big
ass trucks, what can we do about it? drive more fuel efficient vehicles?
pffftt". I mean in what world is that a defense.

As much as you and I might not like it yes you can. Part of living in a
society is putting up with societal norms. Taxes, indifference to dragnet
surveillance, acceptance of fuel inefficient vehicles, a love of fast food,
under-appreciation for small business, etc, etc. You can't hand wave away the
majority opinion (or indifference) as hand waving.

If you don't like it then you have to convince a critical mass of people to
work to change it.

~~~
orf
> If you don't like it then you have to convince a critical mass of people to
> work to change it.

Great idea, lets convince car companies to sell more economical cars through
regulations/tax breaks/whatever, and have them do the work to change public
opinion.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Unfortunately the politicians who propose this tend to get replaced, due to
lobbyism, and the average voter's general ignorance.

People don't want to face the fact that they're doing something bad. They want
to live in la-la land.

------
vannevar
Probably meaningless at this point. The market is moving toward
electrics/hybrids and I don't think cutting back on the regs will change that
at this point, particularly given that California will maintain its own
standards (along with other progressive states, most likely).

------
toomuchtodo
California has a great amount of leverage in emissions standards [1]. It’s
possible only a few other largish states would need to join them (12 already
do) to negate any slippage on CAFE standards at the federal level.

At the same time, it's unlikely automakers are going to move away from
technology they've already developed to target meeting Obama-era emissions
standards, and electric cars will only see rapid increases in manufacturing
rates and sales (petrol costs are moving up again [1], and EVs are half the
cost of petrol vehicles per mile to operate).

[1] [https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/25/california-passes-new-
ca...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/25/california-passes-new-car-
emissions-standards/)

[2] [http://www.gasbuddy.com/Charts](http://www.gasbuddy.com/Charts)

~~~
megaman22
Yes, California has the weight to throw around to ruin nice things for the
rest of us, if they want to.

I'm still bitter that I can't buy the old gasoline cans that actually work
anymore.

~~~
imglorp
Some can have all the safeties removed with a knife.

I wonder what disaster prompted so much grief. Not like any kids would get
very far trying to drink it.

~~~
gascan
As vehicle combustion has gotten cleaner, simple evaporative emissions of raw
gasoline has become a major contributor to smog & air quality. Old style half-
empty gas cans in a hot garage are also hazardous, and have blown up many a
garage according to my auto mechanic father.

------
lev99
What impact will this have on my selection of cars over the next 20 years?

~~~
abawany
IMO, we might have a replay of what was going on in the early 2000s when
iconic sports cars (IMO) such as Supra etc. disappeared and were replaced by
body-on-frame SUVs. Even if you want to do the right thing and buy a fuel
efficient car, you will likely take your life in your own hands for no good
reason; [1] below shows nearly an entire family in a Fiat 500 killed when a
drunk driver in a jacked-up jeep crossed medians and hit them head on. Edit:
correction.

[1] [http://www.statesman.com/news/local/driver-was-drunk-
northwe...](http://www.statesman.com/news/local/driver-was-drunk-northwest-
austin-collision-that-killed-woman-teen-police-say/G7TnLTE8egP4sUxnBDqicL/)

~~~
ericmcer
Are there laws preventing people from doing things like lifting their bumpers
above the average cars bumper height? It seems insane that I could lift my car
until it effectively negates all the safety precautions and innovations built
into todays vehicles.

------
carry_bit
This is probably reasonable. Economy, emissions, safety, and vehicle cost have
trade-offs with each other. We're probably already beyond the point where it
can be justified from a cost-benefit analysis.

~~~
beached_whale
The rest of the world is paying the price or even better finding ways to do it
without driving the cost up.

~~~
valuearb
That's not true. There is a cost to every regulation or it would already be a
market standard.

~~~
beached_whale
But I didn't say there wasn't a cost, just that everyone else will be paying
it and the cost may not affect consumers. Pricing doesn't just reflect the
cost but other factors too.

------
jbob2000
Don't see this as Trump's doing, this is the American auto industry using
Trump as their punching bag for something they've always wanted.

American auto companies do one thing well; large and loud. SUVs, pickup
trucks, muscle cars. They lose when they compete against Germans for luxury
and sport, and they lose when they compete against Japanese/Korea for economy
and quality. (Yes yes, you will cherry pick a handful of cars to "prove me
wrong" but this is a general sentiment that I think most car aficionados would
agree with.). Tesla is an exception (everyone is afraid of them).

American auto will have a tough time turning around to "efficient and
economical". Just watch any Dodge commercial; the entire brand is built around
american over-consumption, it is fundamentally opposed to the new age of the
automobile. This is their last ditch effort to stay in the game before
electric takes over.

It's either this, or we have another recession while the auto market fails and
people move to other industries.

~~~
FireBeyond
It's absolutely Trump's doing. He is -more- than happy to oblige. Don't act
like he's been bullied into this and he'd be much happier if we went all
electric.

