The news announcement on August 28th that Obama was pushing new fuel economy standards was greeted by confusion by anyone who has ever written a research paper in the 6th grade.
The new rules state that fuel efficiency needs to improve from the current average of 28.6 mpg to 54.5 mpg by 2025. Failure to comply will be met with (surprise, surprise) a fine for the automakers. The Obama administration says that this will save around $8,000 in fuel during the life of the car.
This is where it gets interesting and where any 6th grade teacher would have had a fit. Jon Carson, the director of Obama's Office of Public Engagement, was on Twitter tweeting about the $8,000 savings. His source was the New York Times. The source that the New York Times cited for their article is th Obama Administration. Nothing like sourcing yourself for something that will cost the tax payers, especially low- and middle-income tax payers, billions of dollars in added cost when they need to buy a car. That's just the out-of-pocket financial cost.
The other side of making cars more fuel-efficient is the safety factor. According to the National Academy of Sciences, in a report issued more than a decade ago, the current fuel economy standards have contributed to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. For a program that has been in place for over 20 years, that number is staggering.
The Obama administration should be ashamed of itself for pushing forward with standards that are not only going to financially harm millions of Americans, but also going to kill thousands of them.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 15
If you are opposed to gas efficiency in cars, what is your suggestion to reduce the hundreds of billions of dollars that americans send to OPEC every year? Drill baby drill won't do it.
Do you thing the laws of physics will allow such a vehicle acheive 54mpg?
If we moved the commercial fleets to natural gas, let the tars sands oil flow from Canada, let more US drilling, develop a long-term energy use strategy such as the use of 'smart' energy metering, 360 degree assessment of actions before they are force on us (think of all the effort that went into repacing paper with plastic ignoring that trees are a renewable crop). There are many things, the 'evil' capilist industries have reduces energy consumption per pound of product over the years than the EPA could have ever imganed.
The current Administration sees energy and conservation only as headlines and have no understanding of how science of technology even works in the practical world. Remember there are many educated fools and simply have a Phd and the aclaim of other academics doesn't make for a smart person in the practical applications of science.
I'll have to do my best to keep it, we will be like Cuba puttering around in 50/100 year old cars.
Al I can say to our fearless leader, you first. The bad thing is we will be driving Trabant like cars, where will Obama find the space (and battery/alternator power) to keep the icebox to keep his 40 ounce "Cold .45s" cold? With his old lady, he'd need something like a pimped out 1972 Caddy with two 12 volt batteries in parallel and a police interceptor alternator to keep things going.
Hopefully President Romney will put a stop to this insanity.
Have you stepped into a small car in the past 30 years? Try a Ford Fusion. It's just as safe as an SUV. No, it's far safer than an SUV.
And Mr. Wiegard - you just watch that descending tone! Just because green complements the salad leaves stuck between your teeth from lunch, doesn't mean it's everyones' color!