President Obama may be about to slam shut - and nail down - the coffin lid on the U.S. auto industry.



It was announced on Sunday that his administration plans to give California and a handful of other states legal authority to impose their own mileage, emissions and fuel economy requirements - requirements that exceed federal standards.



The auto industry - already crippled by sales that are off as much as 30-50 percent from last year - will now have to either build two sets of cars for two different markets (California and the rest of the country) or make all their new vehicles meet the stricter "California standard" - which will be both complex and costly.



Either way, it's a devastating blow - and one that the enfeebled U.S. auto industry probably cannot withstand.



It all sounds nice on paper. Who could oppose "cleaner" cars? But the reality is not so simple. Obama is neither an engineer nor a businessman - having spent about a year of his entire career outside the government. So he probably doesn't understand that, in the first place, current-year cars are already close to emissions-free. Compared with a car built during the 1970s, a 2009 model year car produces virtually none of the noxious combustion byproducts (unburned hydrocarbons) that combine to form smog and reduce air quality. In fact, less than 2 percent of what comes out of the tailpipe is other than water vapor and carbon dioxide - neither of which have any effect of air quality.



But California regulators - and now Obama - want to go after that remaining 1-2 percent. No matter how expensive. An economist would call this pursuing diminishing returns. But Obama is not an economist; he is a politician - and he knows that people (most people) will like the sound of what he is proposing.



What they might not like, of course, is the price tag that will come with it.



It ought to be obvious - even to Obama - that in today's economy, anything that adds significantly to the bottom line cost of a new car is not going to help Detroit sell cars - no matter how "clean" they supposedly are. Fleets of unsold (but clean!) new cars sitting on dealership lots across the country aren't going to save the planet.



But they may just write the obituary of the American auto industry.



Then there's the more subtle shivving - California's intention to categorize carbon dioxide - an inert gas that plays no role whatsoever in the formation of smog - as an "emission" for regulatory purposes.



Unlike other exhaust byproducts of internal combustion (such as unburned hydrocarbons) which can be reduced by making an engine run more efficiently, there is only one way to reduce the output of C02 - burn less fuel. That will mean smaller engines in smaller cars.



If CA gets its way and a 40 MPG standard is imposed in the name of reducing C02 "emissions" - it will mean a Stalin-esque purge of virtually every vehicle larger than a current Honda Civic. Trucks and SUVs - which some people actually need for their work, don't forget - will be as quickly disappeared as Stegosaurus.



Whether 40 MPG cars are a desirable thing is not the issue. The question is: Should California be permitted to force 40 MPG cars down our throats, irrespective of the cost?



The other aspect of this that's kind of nutty is the idea of allowing California to impose its regulatory will on the rest of the country - even to the extent of superseding the federal EPA. Since when did the California Air Resources Board become, in effect, the Supreme Law Giver when it comes to regulating vehicle emissions for the entire country?



Why should states that don't have the population density - and unique air quality issues of places such as Los Angeles - have to accept massively costly regulatory poultices designed to deal with California's problems? Why should a car buyer in, say, Caspar Wyoming, have to spend an extra $500 on his next new car because California bureaucrats have a new friend in Washington?



You'd think the incoming Obama administration would be interested in helping America's ailing auto industry - not driving a stake through its heart. If GM, Ford and Chrysler die, the odds are so will what's left of the American economy.



This is madness - and if it's an indication of the way the next four years are going to lay out, we're in for interesting times indeed.

Frazzled wrote:That is a problem. Mayhaps we'll see car companies pull out of California.

dietrich wrote:Or you eliminate engines that burn fuel. This could be an attempt to get CA to switch to mass electric cars. But, the greenist don't want nuclear power, and they don't want emissions for cars or coal-combustion plants. I guess solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are 'acceptable'.

Frazzled wrote:

No, because then you have NIMBY.

We are doomed.

dietrich wrote:Living in Ohio, I have no problem with CA invoking tougher environmental regs. If it cripples their economy, that's their problem. However, if someone can show that it effects the rest of the US, then I have a problem.

People who don't like the regs can move out of CA. Car makers don't have to sell some (or any) cars in CA. If that means there are no cars to buy in CA, unless someone can show how that affects the Country, that's a CA problem.

My guess is that like many bills, this one has enough loopholes that the Governator could walk through - even the late 70's steroid-fueled version of the Austrian.

sexiest_hero wrote:We arn't doomed, if The bill doesn't work it will get changed, loop holed, amended, and what ever else keeps any law from actually doing anything. The US car industry was finished way before this came along IMHO.

Obama faces choice on Cape Cod wind farm
President faces two political allies on opposite sides of the issue
The Associated Press
updated 1:49 p.m. CT, Mon., Jan. 26, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's enthusiasm for alternative energy is being buffeted by two political forces on opposite sides of plans to build the nation's first offshore wind farm off Cape Cod.

A leading foe of the $1 billion project is Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., an early and influential backer of Obama's presidential bid. A strong proponent is Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a close friend of Obama and a source for some of his best campaign speech lines.

The plan to erect 130 giant turbines across 25 miles of federal waters in Nantucket Sound poses an early test of the president's energy policy, on stark display Monday with Obama's order to re-examine whether California and other states should be allowed to have tougher auto emission standards to combat a build up of greenhouse gases and his directive for the government to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry.

In the final days of George W. Bush's tenure, the Minerals Management Service issued a report saying the wind farm project poses no major environmental problems, clearing the way for the Obama administration to make a final decision on whether to issue a lease for the project. Reviews by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Interior Department's inspector general are still pending.

During the campaign, Obama had expressed strong support for wind power and indicated he wanted to double renewable energy production over the next three years. But deciding the fate of Cape Wind would force him to choose sides among friends and political allies. Patrick campaigned for Obama. Kennedy, despite being stricken with a brain tumor, is a critical backer of Obama's agenda, including health care reform.

Kennedy has fought the Cape Wind project for eight years, arguing it would kill birds and endanger sea life while imperiling the scenic area's tourism and fishing industries. The turbines would stand 440 feet above sea level when the tallest blades are pointing straight up. The Kennedy family's oceanside Hyannis Port, Mass., compound would have a clear view of the project to be located 4.7 miles offshore, but Kennedy says it is not why he opposes the project.

"The interests of our state have been basically submerged to a special interest developer," Kennedy has said of the project.

Patrick has championed the wind farm, embracing it as part of a push to make his state a leader in alternative energy.

"I haven't come to my conclusions for political reasons; I've come to my conclusions because I'm convinced that the future of our economy is very much connected to the development of a vibrant industry in alternative and renewable energy," Patrick said in announcing his support in 2005 as a gubernatorial candidate.

Project backers are wary of last-minute political meddling. They cite attempts in Congress over the years to derail it, including efforts by Kennedy.


"The opponents have proven to be very crafty and to embrace a scorched-earth approach to fighting this project," said Sue Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation, a conservation group supporting Cape Wind. "Of course we are going to be vigilant."

Kennedy complained there was a rush to approve the project as the Bush administration was departing — and before federal rules for offshore wind projects have been completed.

There are hundreds of proposals for wind-energy projects across the country, including more than a dozen for offshore projects. Wind energy accounts for only 1 percent of the nation's electricity. A federal report last year said wind energy could generate 20 percent by 2030, with offshore sources accounting for nearly 20 percent of that.

Kilkrazy wrote:Tidal power and geothermal power are the way forwards.

There must be plenty of geothermal power in Yellowstone National Park.

Kilkrazy wrote:They have a lot of geothermal in Iceland. Electricity is free in Rekjavik and a lot of people heat their driveways during winter.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm all for state's rights, and have no problem with states setting their own emissions and mileage standards.

I just expect that the additional costs for meeting state-by-state variances from the Federal baseline should be borne by those states.

If that means that California gets its wish of pricing cars out of the reach of common citizens, so be it.

Citizen revolt will throw the bums out and order will be restored.

Eventually.

sebster wrote:As dogma said, it was a lousy article. It was lousy because it pretended emissions standards are uniform across all types of cars. It was lousy because it pretended Obama was doing something that was completely out of left field, which is just not true. This is just another Obama step to undo the work of Bush.

What Obama is proposing is to return to a pre-Bush situation, where states are allowed to regulate their own emissions. Bush had previously come down on the side of the automakers, and forced California to give up its higher standards. This appears a welcome return to state’s rights, something that’s very important to the right wing until a Democrat supports it.