Dingell to Obama: Mind your own business!
John Dingell has been in the House of Representatives for fifty-two years, seven years longer than Barak Obama has been alive. When the prospective Democratic presidential nominee came to Detroit recently and berated the domestic carmakers for not building more efficient cars, Dingell was not pleased. Over the past half century Dingell has made a point of defending his home town industry at every turn. While it's not totally unreasonable for a politician to promote policies that benefit business in their district, it's time for Dingell to change his tune. I live in Dingell's district and a lot of autoworkers have lost their jobs in the past decade. If the carmakers don't start making some serious headway on fuel economy they will continue getting less and less competitive.
Instead of criticizing Obama, Dingell should be promoting policies to light a fire under the companies in his constituency. If the carmakers are forced to get more efficient, they will end up being in a more advantageous position in the market. Dingell should also be looking at ways to stimulate demand for more efficient cars.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Travis Rassat 9:29AM (5/17/2007)
"Instead of criticizing Obama, Dingell should be promoting policies to light a fire under the companies in his constituency. If the carmakers are forced to get more efficient, they will end up being in a more advantageous position in the market. Dingell should also be looking at ways to stimulate demand for more efficient cars."
Well said. Dingell is only hurting his own cause by turning this into a political pissing match that accomplishes nothing when he could use the constructive criticism as fuel for improvement.
Reply
Vince Caruso 11:40AM (5/17/2007)
Dito.
I would love to buy USA! but the product they make is not cutting it, period.
The whole group of auto co's, auto mag's (C&D), and even the U of M in Ann Arbor are simply enablers of the worst sort.
Lead, follow or get out of the way, John and Co.
Coming from Ann Arbor this whole Michigan/US auto maker mess is very depressing.
We can do a lot better if we were to just take our heads out of the sand.
Reply
Chet 12:48PM (5/17/2007)
Suggesting that a Congressman harass automakers to address vehicular fuel efficiency is just more cowardly misdirection.
The automakers will build the cars that consumers demand. As long as fuel is cheap, we'll demand the safest, most luxurious, best-performing, highest-status vehicles we can make the payments on.
Perhaps you should be telling the Congressman to support financial disincentives for operating inefficient vehicles.
Perhaps you should be telling your own Congressperson that you support financial disincentives for operating inefficient vehicles.
Perhaps you should stop perpetuating the myth that automakers can somehow magically overcome physics, labor handicaps, and consumer demand simply by trying harder.
Reply
Michael Hippenhammer 1:35PM (5/17/2007)
Dingell must push the US auto makers to do better. Protecting them from criticizm only hurts the US auto industry. All day we are brain washed with commercials on TV stating "fuel efficiency" and "best fuel efficiency in its class". That is the biggest B S I have ever heard. There is no honor in 15mpg or even 20 when the Europe can do the same at 35mpg and better. If we continue to let the auto companies lie to us about efficiency we will start to believe them. Why do we need 300 hp to go to the grocery store?! I see people go to Home Depot with their huge pickup truck and have a 10ft board sticking out the back! I use my TDI Beetle with a utility trailer and haul off with 1500lbs of concrete or wood and I still get 40 mpg. When will the Big Three start putting smaller turbo diesels into the smaller pick up line that can get 25-30mpg with all the pulling power and hauling capabilities of a gas guzzling equivelent. Put me in charge of one of the failing companies and I could turn them around in 1 year! At this point there is absolutly no reason to buy an American made vehicle!
Reply
MikeW 3:10PM (5/17/2007)
Both of them should criticize the EPA. The diesel fuel transition was terrible 500ppm to 15ppm.
Low-ish sulfur diesel 500ppm came around October 1993, a nice step from high sulfur fuel up to 5000ppm.
They should have set a goal to reduce that an order of magnitude in one decade, to 50ppm. Oct '03
Then another decade to do another order of magnitude. 5ppm by 2013. Australia considers 5-10ppm sulfur free.
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/pubs/paper2.pdf
Now how about making gasoline better [less sulfur, higher AKI], national standards to rival Germany 91,95,98 RON fuels
Reply
evenSteven 11:43PM (5/17/2007)
@#4. "why do we need 300 hp to go to the grocery store?!" Answer- We dont, nobody does, but that is not the point. Its not what anyone "needs" it what they want. Why does anyone need a retro VW, they dont, but they choose to purchase it out of PERSONAL FREEDOM. People buy what they want, that is how it should be. Fuel efficiant options are out there - your car, Prius, Aveo, etc. If the market demands more fuel efficiant cars than the automakers have to make them -or face going out of business. If that means GM or Ford or anyone else go out of business, than so be it. Thats how a free market works. Legislation to force corporations to run business a certain way is a recipe for disaster and bordline economic socialisim -( everyone knows does not work, ask the North Koreans). If gas continues to rise in price, and it will, the market, not congress, will demand higher fuel economy from the cars and trucks. European cars achieve higher standards because gas is $5-$8 a gallon over there due to insane taxes . The market over there supports the small cars and oil burners. If gas would suddenly drop to $1.25 a gallon, this blog probably would not even exist anymore. For the masses it all about the $$$$ and that alone will change what you see on our roads.
Reply
mike 8:56AM (5/18/2007)
evenSteven, as much as I hate to say it, you are absolutely right. The market will, and is, driving the behavior of auto makers. As the price of gas rises so will fuel economy. As with anything, the result (more fuel efficient automobiles) follows the symptom (high cost of gas). Ford and GM are doing tons of work on fuel efficiency. I wouldn't be shocked if one of them ended up on the front end of the trend rather than the back end in the near future.
Reply
The Other Bob 10:47AM (5/18/2007)
Environmentalists need to remember that the point is to clean the environment, not punish auto makers to make ourselves feel better.
If the point is to clean the environment, then Dingell has the right idea because he wants all emitters of pollution to reduce their emissions, not just 20% of the producers of pollution, which is the proportion of what our cars produce.
Oh, and their are plenty of reasons to buy American:
One, we have more stringent factory emission standards than many other countries (remember, it's the planet we are trying to protect, not just our back yard)
Two, unless you are buying a Prius, often the import nameplate get WORSE gas mileage than an American counterpart. When I bought my 2001 Saturn L series it got the best mileage in the mid sized class. It beat Toyota and Honda, and after 110,000 miles still manages 34mpg highway.
Problem here is, we are acting like cars produce 100% of our pollution and that if the nameplate is American, it automatically gets worse mileage. Neither of which is true.
Let's get back to fixing the problem, not creating scapegoats.
Reply