Flash! Senator Clinton’s Plan to Save the Auto Industry
Emmy Award winner Senator Hillary Clinton, who won an Emmy Award for reading her own book, It Takes a Village, has served notice that she now wants a Nobel Peace Price.
The Nobel Prize, if you are not familiar with it, is a sort of climate-awareness oblation given out by some Swedes. Al Gore won it this year for convincing the world that we are doomed.
Senator Clinton, to her credit, intends to win it by taking positive steps. She has announced support for making U.S. automakers meet a 55-mpg combined fleet average by 2030.
(Click through to read more of William Jeanes' reaction to Senator Clinton's proposal.)
This simple move, the senator says, will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons. Wow. Why didn’t we think of that?
Senator Clinton’s hapless opponents in the race for the Democrat presidential nomination were quick to point out that they are just as intent as she is on saving us from those mean old automakers.
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) noted that he actually went out to Detroit and told them a thing or two.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), recognizing Clinton’s plan for the weak sellout it is, would raise the CAFÉ standard to 50 mpg by 2017.
Former senator John Edwards, who uses more electricity heating his many homes for a day than most of use in a year, avoided the CAFÉ one-upspersonship. He just wants is all to throw away our horrible, inefficient SUVs.
Clinton’s plan has sixteen pages, and God knows what’s on the remaining fifteen. Well, that’s not exactly true. We peeked.
Among other things, such as massive government subsidies, Clinton wants the federal government fleet to add 100,000 plug-in hybrids by 2015. She would give consumers a $10,000 tax credit for buying a plug-in hybrid.
Plug-in hybrids, as we technically inclined auto writers know, have batteries that you recharge by simply plugging them into an outlet. An outlet, while we’re defining terms here, is where you get free electricity that was generated somewhere or other at no cost and with no use of fuel of any kind.
All of these CAFÉ-related proposals—as well as the very real measure passed by the Senate last summer which would raise the combined figure to 35 mpg by 2020—are called “getting tough.
Comments
Robert
Oh good. Another right wing-nut spewing his "democrats are all out to get us" rhetoric. I expected better from Winding Road.
traps
Hillary could do it on the flip....but lose it on the flop :
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2007/11/05/obama-baracks-clinton-wh...
Steve
Of all the many comments that I could post about this one, I'll limit myself to two.
1. I see that you "technically inclined auto writers" have a firm grip on all things scientific. Would you care to explain to the rest of the scientific community why they're all wrong about climate change? What is it that they're missing? You guys seem to have your finger firmly on the issue, straighten out all those experts!
2. If we got to the moon in less than a decade, we can get to 55mpg in 23 years. Is it a fix all? Nope. Will it help? Yep. Stop being foolish about it.
Carrie
Jeanes for President
Clint
All of you critics obviously didn't look at the accompanying photograph. Hillary is pointing with TWO fingers. That means she's really serious about this.
On a more serious note, government mandates/meddling have forced the auto industry to do such "terrible" things as: install airbags that save lives, install third high-mounted brake lights that help prevent accidents, design cars that can crash without immediately causing the fuel tank to burst into flames, make bumpers that can actually withstand a 5 mph impact (which wasn't always the case), even think about side impact protection, make manufacturers liable for poorly engineered and constructed components, fit cars with electronics that will remind the average inattentive driver that tire pressure is low, fit electronics that stabilize the car when the driver ignores the warning and blows a tire on the highway, fit devices that prevent cars from blowing poisonous smog into the air, and even (God forbid) make cars that have better mileage.
Regardless of what you think of Hillary or the realistic feasability and effectiveness of her plan (which is certainly debatable), politicians forcing manufacturers to take steps to improve their products and our quality of life isn't exactly evil or misguided. Also, it's not to say that car manufactures are without social conscience when left to their own devices, but it's a lot like car racing: in a competative environment, you're not going to waste resources on something that will make you less competative unless the organizer forces everyone else to do it. Fuel efficiency is only beginning to be a major factor in American car buyer choices (unlike styling, cargo/towing capacity, and performance), and I have no problem with the government demanding that cars continue to become more efficient over time.
2030 is more than 20 years away. When commercially produced cars have only been around for 80 years, nuclear power for 60, space travel for 50, personal computers for 30, and the modern internet for less than 20, I have faith that electrical and mechanical engineers can continue to improve cars in the future.
Dicky
Finally, "the press" makes some reasonable comments regarding CAFE! The feedback thus far has been classic! No one said the "Democrats are all out to get us." Nor did the author say the scientific community was "all wrong about climate change." The author's point is simply that laws that set MPG standards aren't going to solve our energy or climate problems. What is needed is better technology and an incentive to get it in customers hands. For years, we've had the ability to manufacture fluorescent light bulbs. Yet only recently are they marketed as an easy way to save energy. Why? Because GE, Sylvania, and others made a ton of money on light bulbs that were replaced more frequently. The basic design of the internal combustion engine is over 100 years old. If you were going to design automotive infrastructure (engines, refueling stations, etc.) today, the internal combustion engine wouldn't even be a top 5 choice for a powerplant. It is wildly inefficient. So, to paraphrase one comment, if we got to the moon in less than a decade, why don't we reinvent automotive infrastructure in the next 23 years? Then we might be talking about cars that get 55 miles per liter of hydrogen or vegetable oil instead of assuming oil will always be the fuel of choice. I suggest we fix the problem instead of trying to squeeze more blood from the same shriveled turnip.
Rex
My question to any commenter is how many Nuclear Plants do want to build near you? How many Coal Plants?
This seems like a Chicken or Egg situation. Should an Industry be mandated by government to build fuel efficient vehicles by a specific date? Or should market place determine what happens. Industry says it doesn't want to be stuck with cars just sitting in a lot that nobody wants. Like that isn't happen now. I think we Americans need to stop living and Driving in a bubble.
I agree that we should have a more mature debate about our energy use. I mean last years Republican congress solution of changing Day-Light saving time from the last weekend of Oct. to the first weekend of Nov. has surely saved our environment so much than any of the proposed solution of Mrs. Clinton or any of her Democratic colleagues could offer.
Clint
Dicky - I generally agree with you, but take issue with your claim that the internal combustion engine wouldn't be a top 5 choice for a powerplant today, and is wildly inefficient. Can you think of any technology feasible now or within the next five years that is more efficient than the ICE? I can't.
Even considering hybrids and diesels, the Scion xB and the Jeep Wrangler are some of the most energy efficient vehicles out there, considering lifetime costs:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060331/31hybrids.htm
Kenneth
By forcing Detroit to archive 50mpg CAFE, it may actually has a fighting chance to win back consumers that has gone Japanese for years.
The rest of the world has been enjoying a class of automobile called "K car" for years. It has 4 door and sits 4 and can get 50mpg even without a hybrid drivetrain. So why it is so hard for Detroit to even get 35mpg CAFE.
Ducati Minor
I’m going to have to quarrel with Clint on this one. Yeah, the author’s post is clearly tilted against the senator, and could have been expressed better, but there is a legitimate argument to be made against the senator’s attitude on industry. Safety was not something that just came into our minds when Congress began passing legislation creating mandatory safety and environmental standards in the 1970s. Ford Motor was marketing safety innovations in the middle 1950s–including with the T’Bird. Sales dropped, as consumers of the decade associated an automaker’s promotion of driver security with the vehicle being unsafe to begin with.
It comes down to the role of the state. Is it the duty of the state to manage industry? Private enterprise has had examples of abuse that warranted state intervention, such as turn-of-the-century business trusts and the meat-packing industry so elegantly written about by the man who inspired Ralph Nader and Michael Moore: Upton Sinclair.
Fuel efficiency was of debate fifty years ago, if you read automotive publications of the period. There were frequent complaints about the poor mileage produced by large American sedans, which resulted in a growing market share from imports–most notably, the VW Beetle. The industry did respond, with the Nash Metropolitan and AMC Ambassador arriving in the 1950s; and with more favorable sales figures from the Ford Falcon and Plymouth Valiant in the 1960s. Ford, GM, and AMC had compact vehicles either in production or set for production years before Congress enacted laws regarding emissions and fuel economy in the 1970s.
No, I am not a libertarian, but I do not agree with the senator’s aggressive approach to having the state manage–not just regulate–our privately run industries. I do support state effort to raise mandatory fuel economy standards, but not in the drastic way the senator and her colleagues would like to.
Dicky
Clint-
First here is some data on the internal combustion engine. In a typical low compression engine, the thermal efficiency is only about 26%. In a highly modified engine, such as a race engine, the thermal efficiency is about 34%.
This means that for a stock engine, only 20% of the power in fuel combustion is effective.
That's pretty inefficient. But doesn't even begin to account for the energy that is lost in finding oil and getting gasoline to market.
To answer your question, No I can't think of any technology now or in the next 5 years that is more efficient than ICE. The operative word in your question was "feasible." If the infrastructure was in place, other more efficient engine options would be feasible.
But infrastructure is a 25 year question, not a 5 year question.
Sometimes you have to look outside the box. Here is an example:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001706.html
Am I suggesting that we add parasails to every car? No, but we could use wind, solar, nuclear, and other energy sources to responsibly reduce our reliance on oil.
Brock
The air bag is a brilliant example of how government has improved the automobile. If you are not a 70th percentile size/wt human, you will die from an explosive device inches from your face, where otherwise you could have walked away. Five mph bumpers, please. Extra mass and overhang located at each end of a vehicle does wonders for its stability and control. but they did keep repair bills down if you hit something at 4.5 mph, but they went out of sight if you were going 5.5 mph. Cars cost more, are more deadly and less efficient due to the wizards in Washington.
Clint
Dicky - Interesting link. Sometimes old ideas can be new again. I've read articles about the return of zepplins for long distance heavy cargo transport via air. It's certainly worth investigating.
As for efficiency and infrastructure, I think we more or less agree, but I'm coming from the viewpoint that even starting from a clean theoretical slate, hydrogen, elecrtic, and biodiesel infrastructure have significant hurdles that have no current theoretical solutions. Of course, I'm not saying that we shouldn't put more work into finding potential solutions, it's just that I don't think we have theoretical solutions to problems involved with hyrdogen production and storage, increased electrical production and storage, and ecological and land-use issues involved with biodiesel. However, I clearly agree with you that no logical person would design the fossil-fuel dependant system we have today if given the choice.
People have argued that China could be a test bed for hydrogen power, as they are not as heavily invested in oil as we are, but the math remains fuzzy as to whether anyone could ever manufacture hydrogen in a process that results in roughly the same amount of energy coming out as goes in. Plus, it looks like demand is growing too fast there to wait for hydrogen technology to mature.
Ducati - We're both capable of forming coherant and educated arguments, so I'm not going to start referencing the Articles of Confederation and addressing the pros and cons of a Federalist vice Anti-Federalist approach. I think we can both agree that government has a role in regulating industry, but we would have differing opinions as to when "regulation" crosses over into "running". On the bright side, as I live and work in D.C., I can promise you that whatever demands she makes will be watered down with compromise and back room deals to the point that they'll be somewhat acceptable and feasible to all parties if passed into law, both economically and scientifically.
Ducati Minor
Before this goes on into an even longer debate, let's ask: What is the simple solution to cut fuel demand and reduce pollutants? It's to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles, and to drive less and slower. The Prius, Camry Hybrid, and Civic Hybrid are all sedans that produce mileage above 35 mpg (the Camry is about on the line, there), and two of those cost less than $25,000. The Honda Fit, Kia Rio, Nissan Versa, and Toyota Yaris average over 30 mpg, and retail for $16,000 or less. The Toyota RAV4, Subraru Forester, and Honda CR-V are small SUVs offering better mileage than some V-6 mid-size sedans--with extra versatility. These are all products currently on the market.
It is the consumer that shapes the industry. When shoppers turned to the Beetle in the 1950s, automakers responded with compacts of their own. When Pontiac's stripped-down, high-output GTO found 32,000 buyers in its first year of production, Detroit saw an influx of medium-size sport coupes following the same formula hit the streets. Toyota's Prius became a green icon, and now automakers across the board are trying to offer competing hybrid powertrains to lure eco-savvy consumers.
Wouldn't a gasoline tax, unpopular as it would be, be the better avenue? The state and country benefit. Leisure driving would be cut back, public transportation would be pursued, and middle- and lower-class purchases of thirsty vehicles would drop. Even if gasoline consumption fell by a high percentage, the state would be taking in a vast influx of capital. That is one state act I would lend support to if enough time was permitted to allow drivers and industries to adapt to the impending law.
alan
Yay. We're all going to be forced to drive Priuses, but I really hope not.
I call BS. Politicians say stuff just to draw interest to them so they get elected, democrat or republican. This her try for her 15 minutes of "fame".
Clint
Brock - Government mandates provided design challenges that ultimately resulted in safer and better cars. Maybe the first generation of air bags, 5-mph bumpers, and pedestrian-safe Euro noses had adverse effects or looked strange, but engineers found ways to address the demands in subsequent generations without severe adverse effects.
Current generation airbags use weight, distance, and occupancy sensors in the seat to control deployment and deployment speed, as well as airbag cutoff switches and advanced accelerometers to deploy only when absolutely needed. I would rather have a broken nose than a broken skull. I would rather pay to have an airbag replaced than pay to go to the emergency room with a concussion.
If you feel that government mandates such as these create unsafe, poorly handling cars, there are plenty of brilliant cars from the 50s and 60s that don't have government mandated airbags or seat belts. They also come with nice heavy chrome bumpers that you can knock back into shape whenever you run into something. If you want, you can delude yourself into thinking these don't effect your stability or control as much as lightweight plastic 5-mph bumpers with styrofoam shock absorbers behind them.
Dicky
Here we go with the gasoline tax again. I think it would work IF politicians actually used the money to develop new infrastructure. But the problem is, they won't. They will squander every dime and 25 years from now, we'll be in the same place we are today. To get results, innovators in industry have to "wag the dog." They have to decide that disruptive technology is worth the risk of failure. They have to commit to a strategy and make it work. They then have to package the technology and market it to consumers in such a way that they actually want to buy it. By definition, dissruptive technology may not resemble what we do today. What if the discussion around MPG ended and we started measuring something else, like price per mile travelled. We could even come up with a new acronym - $PM?
Dicky
By the way, the two biggest (market cap) organizations in the world are Exxon Mobil and PetroChina. Innovators focused on dissruptive technology could generate revenue in the billions by attacking the business model of the world's oil companies.
dante
Wait, the government regulates industry? I thought the corporations controlled the government.
Environmental technology is the wave of the future for the world market whether someone thinks there's a problem or not. We can either invest in the future or end up a militarily powerful third world economy.
detroit9000
Sheesh. Someone is angry about not getting the Pulitzer.
I think these reforms make perfect sense. I would raise gas taxes and Cafe standards if I had any power. American drives so much because it's lazy. Lazy is bad, any way you slice it.
So it makes sense to me. Then again, I have more of an education than, say, someone who gets $100k/yr. to drive a fork-lift. Which is apparently the kind of audience this article was penned for.
I live outside Detroit and work very hard to make ends meet. Whose laughing last?
Not the guy who has to live in Redford, MI. Unless he's drunk. Which is probably is.
The sinking of Detroit is the by-product of 100 years of NOT changing things. Of letting Detroit be status-quo. Let her go. Let her die.
Brock
Clint--no "severe adverse effects"? How about the cost in R&D necessary to pound the square pegs of IIHS, NHTSA & other self-proclaimed auto experts' mandates as to what makes a "safe" automobile into an automaker's product? There was no consumer clamor for IAED's (Interior Auto Explosive Devices) they arose because bureaucrats didn't like the fact that people didn't want to use seatbelts and shoved the ignition interlocks back down their throats. There is no evidence that a person in 3 point belt, properly used is any less safe in a vehicle without airbags. Airbags, therefore are not only worse than useless and dangerous they take resources away from other projects that actually could make vehicles more efficient.How much technology is required to provide the "Miracle Airbags" we have today? And how long will it last and work properly if ever needed? Look around, the world is not full of new S-Classe Mercedes, but of 5 year old Kia's and Hyundai's.I know their airbag tech is top of the line, just like you say. And I'm so glad that who knows how much was spent on those floppy plastic bumpers that are now strewn about the highway like so much roadkill. And backed by styrofoam, do you say? Brilliant.So, yes, after how much money spent and man hours wasted we now have autos with ugly, useless bumpers, but we can feel good because they are made with plastic and have styrofoam backing them up.
Andrew
Given the state of known resources and the gap between the discovery of more oil resources and our existing consumption rate, it doesn't seem likely that I'll be able to afford gasoline 20 years in the future, even for a car as efficient as 55mpg. That's assuming that we get substantially more efficient at extracting and processing heavy oil such as the Alberta tar-sands.
But discussing peak oil with a crowd that still denies the scientific facts of global warming is probably a waste of time.
David
I think the real issue is not how do we solve the problem real or perceived that we actually have global warming and even if we do what the impact will be, but what role should our elected representatives have in the function of our society. Should government only pass laws that protect us from those who would infringe on our rights to freedom of choice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or should government take the role of telling us what to eat, what to drive, where to live, what jobs we should have, and of course, the ultimate, which people we should vote for .. or wait, when they go that far our democracy will already be gone. To me that is the issue with any regulation. We should vote for those that want to allow us to exercise our God-given right to choose and only work to provide us the protection needed to keep us safe from those that would take away our freedoms, either internally (criminals) or externally. We have already crossed the line to a great extent. It is our duty to select those that will protect and serve, not direct and edict. We must find good honest people to take over from the power-grabbers of both parties and take back that upon which this nation was founded. This may sound corny, but it is the issue we face today.
Jesda
The government is so wise. So very wise. They never make mistakes in DC.
John Carder
Anybody want to consider the economic effects of Hillary's mandate or the gas tax increases that have been suggested instead? Both would destroy the economy, unless you think living like an Amish farmer is a good economic way of life.
iDrive1
I can't believe the article I just read. Someone who actually reports that the doom and gloom of all this warming news actually has another side to it. The only problem with the article is that you mentioned 'God'. Kindly keep your religious fervor to yourself. We need the separation of Church and Everything, which is in the constitution. Isn't it. (ha)
John Carder
The global warming debate is a political debate, not a scientific one. There are many dissenting scientists who have strong evidence and strong arguments. Rarely do their arguments receive serious consideration. They threaten the political machine that's funding the bulk of the scientific research. So, if your experiment does not show that man is causing the current bout of warming, you conclude that the area merits more research.
For those who actually have open minds,
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
and
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
One of the least understood parts of the climate is clouds (aerosols). The reason is simple. Low level clouds (<3km) reflect heat away from the earth, and reduce global warming. So, the political machine is loathe to fund research in that direction.
Politicians want power. They want to control as much of the economy as possible. Global warming is their excuse to seize power. That's why they waste so much energy trying to prove man is responsible, and create dire predictions based on badly flawed models.
Luke
Clouds reflect heat in whichever direction they receive the light from - so cloud cover can also serve to insulate the earth.
I don't think this is an unreasonable attempt by Senator Clinton to do something about the US' excessive use of automobiles. I think that we should really worry about China, India, etc. - we are no longer the biggest emitters of pollutants. She's doing something fairly small that would have a large overall effect.
That said, conservation and awareness about how to conserve what we already have are tantamount. The average car lives for about 17 years - and newer cars are bound to continue that trend. The goal should be to allow grassroots change so that people can eventually abandon automobiles for a sustainable, equally wealthy way of life. Of course, that's a bit of a pipe (bong?) dream.
I don't think that politicians are using climate change to gain any great amount of power. There isn't much power to be gained. The corporations that fund the government via taxes and donations stand to gain everything by denying climate change. It's become an issue because it is quite worrisome - the prediction game is a lose-lose situation because no one really knows. We're just pissing in a well at this point.
Tim E
If you were really a "technically inclined auto writer"
you would have learned that plug in cars are cleaner when operating on batteries, no matter what kind of fuel was used to produce the electricity, yes even coal. Also better because they use the electricity generated during the time of night when grid usage is at it's lowest, so power plants are generally idling. So it is not "free" as you say, but it is cheap and relatively clean.
So yeah we will be "forced" to buy plug in hybrids because they will be cheaper. Damn I hate that....
Tim
35 mpg CAFE Bill Stalls in Senate After Passing the House -
[...] amount since they were put into place in 1975. Though many members of Congress supported even tougher mandated standards, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., called the bill “our generation’s declaration of [...]
Post new comment