Auto Mileage and Cost Savings?
I’ve just started looking around this morning, and the post from Michelle Malkin was the first of many I expect to find on the new CAFE regulations announce. It references this Yahoo News article.
President Barack Obama‘s new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016.
Michelle’s point is that this sounds suspiciously like a tax on people who want a car. Well, really it’s a tax on car companies that want to stay in business, passed on to the people who buy the cars. You can always choose to buy a used car, or to just drive what you have (the Legacy hit 170k the other day…). Forget saving the money back over the life of the car loan (by the way, can we convince people to just buy cars, not take out loans?), how about saving money by not buying? Oh, wait, that would further kill the auto companies.
Consumers demand higher fuel economy on occasion. They also demand the ability to hold more passengers. Moms can’t afford to get 5mpg when they have their kids and two friends in the car. It’s a safety, security, and comfort issue. This is regulation that affects the saleability of cars long-term.
Update: First, is this what we have to look forward to driving? It’s unfair, but really pretty funny.
Second, Mike fairly points out in the comments that we shouldn’t really call it a tax, since people have the choice to not pay it by not buying a new car. I’m torn, since the development in the industry focusing on lightweight, fuel-efficient, better use of alternatives, etc. Real improvements in drivability, drive train, all that suffer. That’s a tax to me, but the nuance is there.
Updated 5/22: Pirate’s Cove on our congressional desire to walk the talk.
…legislators enacting legislation that will jack up costs on everything when they themselves do not walk the talk is, well, nuts. I’ll listen to environmentalists and AGW believers if they are living the life. The rest? They need to go peddle it elsewhere.
Finding Ponies... 
Lynn, interesting theory, but I can’t see how it can be true.
If the price of oil has increased (it has) if the volume consumed has increased (it has) and if the % imported increased (it has,) how can the overall $ exported to these countries go down?
I read an interesting dynamic where someone tracked the actual national gas use from the 70’s til now and then mapped the trends of those oil producing nations towards extremism. The theory was that because the nations who produced oil were seeing a gradual decline in the overall wealth afforded via gas, they relied more heavily on backdoor deals with extremists to keep their populations focused on something else other than the dwindling $ and the use of what was coming in within those countries. If we do use less and less, are we sure extremism goes down, or is this potentially a nasty counterproductive trend (not that I’m for MORE gas to countries who hate us, but the report makes me wonder……
I articulated the nuance above, but your definition is correct and I can’t argue that the government would see the money. If anything, they’ll lose money as people use less gas. I’ll await the re-opening of the weight-mile tax.
I think calling this a tax is disingenuous rhetoric. It’s not a tax. The government will get no part of that $1,300 and people don’t have to pay it. (To be a tax, the individual has no choice and the proceeds are given to the government to disburse.)
It is a catalyst to change the status quo, and given that the status quo is unsustainable in many different dimensions, it’s a needed catalyst.
Hey, Mike, I’m there on the fact that there’s more to this than a tax. If it was purely a tax, the better thing to do would be to add a tax to the gas and direct it to new energy sources. I’d complain about that (as I do all taxes and spending), but I’d be happier with the transparency. I’m not positive that the admin or congress would be so happy with the transparency…
My point, not entirely clear above, is that the CAFE regs force changes to cars that make them harder to sell to US families. I’d developed that more a while back, and I got too lazy to link to it. I’ll see if I can find the link.
I’m all for alternate energy sources, as long as they’re not long-term propped up by the government. At least no more than current ones are.
There is a completely different angle to consider with CAFE standards. In 1977, 47% of the oil we consumed was imported. In 2007, that figure climbed to 66%. (Figures from the EIA.) Given current course and speed, what do you suppose that percentage might be in 2027? The trend is clear and it won’t change unless we are compelled to change. Now, you can argue green – feel free. To me, that isn’t the issue – it’s simple self-interest. Why should we ship hundreds of billions of dollars a year to people who want to kill us? (And, I can hear “drill baby, drill” echoing around…think about that carefully, do you want to extend the current addiction or use the pain of the moment to spur a new industry?) I know where I’d rather see my money go…
Causing the industry to change by demanding higher fuel efficiency is a means to change the market. And since the domestic industry is unwilling or unable to do so on its own, legislation is in order to catalyze the change.
There is much more at stake here than a so-called car tax foisted upon us by the liberal, socialist regime.