Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The LA Times is worried that rolling back fuel economy standards might allow drivers to choose the solidly built gas guzzling cars they want instead of being forced to buy climate friendly plastic boxes on wheels.
Rolling back fuel economy standards could mean bigger cars — and less progress on climate change
By Tony Barboza
Gas prices have been so low in recent years that more Americans are choosing to buy bigger vehicles, a trend that has stymied efforts to cut auto emissions.
One thing reining in consumer appetite for trucks and SUVs has been tough fuel economy standards adopted several years ago by California and the Obama administration. Those rules are forcing automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put cleaner, more efficient gas, hybrid and electric vehicles in showrooms, whether customers want them or not.
But this week, the Trump administration declared that those standards are too onerous for the auto industry and should be weakened — a move that would undermine the single biggest action the federal government has taken to slow climate change while threatening California’s ability to adopt its own, stricter rules for tailpipe emissions.
…
Those strict standards were necessary, experts in environmental regulation say, to push against the influence of low gas prices.
“For many, many years until these standards were issued we saw no increase in average fuel economy,” said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA. “Now we’re seeing many more models that are either zero-emission or very high-economy hybrids. We see larger cars getting more fuel efficient and regular combustion engines getting more fuel efficient. I don’t think that happens without government regulations.”
…
“The focus in the past has been on making manufacturers in Detroit, making manufacturers in various parts of the country make cars that people aren’t going to buy,” Pruitt said. “Our focus should be on making cars that people purchase actually more efficient.”
…
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fuel-economy-impacts-20180406-story,amp.html
I love articles like this, because they draw back the veil on the intense frustration greens seem to feel about ordinary people having the liberty to make choices which greens don’t approve.
Ask any liberal and they’ll tell you that people who don’t work for government aren’t smart enough to run their own lives.
That’s why the government has to be in charge of everything.
Like Clinton said when discussing a possible tax cut: “I’d like to give you one, but I’m afraid that you won’t spend the money properly and that will hurt the economy.”
I wish we could have a similar roll back on other regulations on automobiles. I would love to once again be able to buy a smaller rear wheel drive based solid axle 4×4 like the old Jeep XJ Cherokee from 1984-2001. Because of crush standards, stability standards etc, you have to buy the much heavier, wider and longer 4 door Wrangler in order to get a rear wheel drive based solid axle Jeep, And you still can’t get a solid fixed metal roof.
CAFE also ruined the market for sedans. Real sedans where the trunk lid was big and the roof didn’t slope down because of ‘coupe like’ styling. It would be great to have a sedan that once again looks like a sedan and all the roominess and practicality they once had.
I yearn for the return of the Lincoln Town Car and its Ford and Mercury counterparts.
Hopefully, this is just the beginning!
EPA, USDA, FDA and others have meddled in areas that they do not have any business meddling.
Nor are any of the Federal/state agencies willing to correct side effects for regulations they’ve mandated.
Far too many devices and appliances are far less efficient because the makers are trying to meet arbitrary regulations.
Let’s not forget that those official MPG numbers are based not based on real world driving.
Are based, are not based
All your bases are belonging to us.
As I think I have written here before, I was told after and intense meeting one day by an attorney and executive director of a very prominent environmental organization that humans must be regulated in everything they do because they can never be trusted to do “the right thing.” Of course “the right thing” as defined by the organized environmental community.
Funny how the humans category never seems to include them.
United Nations and the Rule of Law
Environmental Law
Law and Environmental Sustainability
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/thematic-areas/land-property-environment/environmental-law
Using law for control.
Did he mean we should have a law requiring me to shoot worthless nimnuls like him on sight? Charming:)
They should roll them back even more, to 22 MPG. Then there will be more large cars and less SUVs, and overall higher mileage.
“For many, many years until these standards were issued we saw no increase in average fuel economy,” said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at UCLA. “Now we’re seeing many more models that are either zero-emission or very high-economy hybrids. We see larger cars getting more fuel efficient and regular combustion engines getting more fuel efficient. I don’t think that happens without government regulations.”
YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT! lives on.
Mazda just perfected compression ignition for a gasoline engine, basically turned a gasoline engine into a diesel, with the associated increase in efficiency (25%) AND power (25%). The reason they could do it, computing power has increased to the point that made it possible. It just took time and technology improvements, not regulation. If the technology is applied to all gasoline engines, fuel efficiency would jump across the board by 25% and government regulation would have nothing to do with it. But be assured government would take credit for it. “You didn’t build that!” is competing with catastrophic manmade global warming for the biggest lie award.
“There’s life in the old gal yet.” The gas engine abides. Here are three recent videos on Mazda’s new “spark-controlled compression-ignition” engine, coming in summer 2019, the best of which is:
“Skyactiv-X: Mazda’s Revolutionary Engine Explained”
http://bit.ly/2GxOg1K
It’ll be coming out in about a year, and it’ll give EVs a run for the money. Here’s an article and two other videos on it:
“Spark Controlled compression-ignition” gasoline skyactiv X engine; Feb. 2018 article:
http://bit.ly/2GPUrl9
“Mazda Creates The Holy Grail Of Gasoline Engines – HCCI SkyActiv-X”
http://bit.ly/2GBsH0p
Mazda Skyactiv-X HCCI Engine Technology Explained | AutoExpert John Cadogan | Australia 8/17
http://bit.ly/2wy9tUH
Hopefully, it would mean less CAFE fines.
https://www.fleetcarma.com/gas-mileage-car-manufacturer-paid-cafe-standards-fines/
The quickest way to improve fuel efficiency is to ban the adulteration of gasoline with ethanol.
“less progress on climate change”. This phrase is dripping with hubris.
I don’t like big gas-guzzling cars, but I dislike the Greens and Climate-Warmistas, much, much more!
They weren’t going to meet 50+ mpg by 2025. This was supposed to be reviewed and updated a few years ago, but the Obama Admin kicked the can down the road for obvious political reasons.
When the Obama Administration originally issued the new CAFE standards (ultimately, 54 mpg), Iowahawk wrote a piece on it that was classic. My favorite part was the question: “54 mpg? Why not 54 million mpg?” Clearly the latter would be better, wouldn’t it? Obama and his minions were of the ilk who, having no idea how wealth is actually created, believed that a command issued at the point of a gun would make it so. It’s good to see that “choice” will be extended to our selection of cars, instead of restricted entirely to whether to abort or not.
Honestly, what is the difference between a rock and plastic in a landfill?
EMD spent a whole year (2015-2016) not selling ANY new locomotives in US (exports were ok, SD70ACe and others to mexico not allowed into US) costing lot of jons and already CA politicians are clamoring for ZERO emissions (not only nox.co2 but everything) making it so NO petrol fired engine can work yards in CA.
I didn’t buy my truck for the fuel economy, and from reading various articles around the internet neither does anyone else. I can’t afford to own a different vehicle for every use-case so I have to by the one that serves my highest requirement and deal with the consequences. For me I needed to pull a 10k lbs trailer, that meant buying a full size truck with a massive engine. I do wish I could get more than 13 mpg on my normal commute but it is a sacrifice I made with full knowledge and intent. If the government, or anyone else for that matter, doesn’t like that I drive my truck daily then they are welcome to buy and insure another vehicle for me to use when I am not towing the trailer.