50 MPG CAFE standard... in a TV ad?
Bill Richardson's (one of the Democratic presidential candidates) new TV ad includes a reference to a 50 MPG CAFE standard. Bill must be the automotive industry's nightmare candidate. The car industry is already in a serious fight over the new CAFE standard in the energy bill. Even car companies that support oil taxes don't like CAFE. Bill is willing to put his CAFE plan as the second point in a 30 second TV ad. That must have them worried.
Below the fold is a video of Bill talking about a 100 MPG car. I recorded that in late May when he was on Meet The Press. He was responding to a question asking if his CAFE standard would bankrupt American car industry. It's hard to compare all the candidates on CAFE, alternative fuels, etc. because it's so early. The actual election is over a year away.
[Source: Youtube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ug 4:37PM (8/12/2007)
I'm all for higher mileage standards regardless of what it does to the auto industry, but Bill's policies on immigration will wreck the entire US economy for sure. Driver's licenses and full free healthcare for illegals, for instance:
Comprehensive reform needed; but McCain-Kennedy bill flawed. (Jun 2007)
McCain-Kennedy bill is not amnesty; it has strong standards. (Jun 2007)
A wall on Mexican border is not America. (Jun 2007)
A wall divides families and doesn't solve the problem. (Jun 2007)
The 2007 immigration bill is not an amnesty bill. (Jun 2007)
Opposes compromise immigration bill: it tears apart families. (May 2007)
Border fence hasn't worked; border patrols & tech have. (May 2007)
Driver's licenses & scholarships for illegals; not amnesty. (May 2007)
Legalization plan, not this stupid wall being proposed. (Mar 2007)
Declared state of emergency on Mexican border. (Nov 2006)
Path to legalization if illegals pay taxes & learn English. (Nov 2006)
Reduce immigration; no automatic citizenship for kids. (Nov 1996)
Guarantee human services to illegal immigrants. (Nov 1996)
Reply
Lascelles 5:00PM (8/12/2007)
"Regardless" of what it does to the industry? I am not saying Bill's plan is too extreme but assuming there was a standard that went too far, don't you think the real people hurt would be consumers? I personally don't like CAFE.
I think a MPG trading system is a better idea. A few years from now, it will be clear the industry will just hit the CAFE ceiling and stop spending money on R&D. It's really not that hard to get to even 50 MPG in 13 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_daxtSltWg
Reply
rgseidl 6:19PM (8/12/2007)
I wouldn't get too hung up on the specifics of what Gov. Richardson is proposing. It's still early in the election season and, any discussion of replacing CAFE with higher fuel taxes remains the perennial third rail of American politics. Rep. Dingell prefaced his recent fuel tax proposal by saying he was advancing it merely to prove that politically, it's not an option. For everyone's sake, I hope he's dead wrong.
If all Gov. Richardson achieves is broad public support for the very notion of a comprehensive energy policy ("Apollo program"), he will already have made an important contribution. Without such a beast, there is literally zero chance of persuading China, India and others to accept slower but more sustainable economic growth. Even with it, it would still be an uphill battle.
The knee-jerk response that rapid change in the externalities (laws, taxes, regulations etc.) of the US economy would invariably wreck it is not well-considered. Certainly, there would have to be extensive consultation with the affected industries and geographies to minimize disruption such as accelerated write-downs of capital investments and massive layoffs. The government would need to reduce investment risk and create business opportunities via a program of deficit spending designed to avoid much larger future costs to society. Keeping such a program from degenerating into yet another pork-barrel oinkfest would indeed be very hard. However, if the US public can be persuaded that this simply must be done and decides to hold the next POTUS accountable for it, it will succeed.
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." - Winston Churchill
Reply
miike-1-2-7 7:06AM (8/13/2007)
Go Bill Go!
Let's point out the BS from where it's really coming from, the auto industry. If Chrysler can build a V10 800hp engine, for what, a 1000 customers, and still make a profit, they surely can make 800cc engines or 1.4Lturbo diesel, or hybrid tech that we, the U.S. Taxpayer has already financed.
Reply
DaveZ 10:54AM (8/13/2007)
I live in Iowa and have been seeing this ad on television for a number of weeks. Whenever government gets involved in a free market issue, like CAFE standards, look for a program doomed to failure. A CAFE standard at 50mpg is totally unrealistic. The CAFE standard exists because our politicians do not have the guts to impose a substantial fuel tax that will push the driving public toward purchasing more fuel efficient cars. With the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the Feds are having to face reality that our infrastructure is in disrepair. A new interstate RE-construction project is needed (without the typical pork projects) to get our roads and rails in world class condition. A fuel tax of $2 to $3 per gallon would solve both the fuel mileage and the infrastructure problem.
Reply
Lascelles 10:57AM (8/13/2007)
DaveZ,
Dingell proposed a .50 gas tax. The article below talks about that and includes a video of Bush talking about bridges and a gas tax. I think you are right but .50 probably won't pass. $3 does not have a chance.
There is one tax I think has real potential. It would set a base for gas. Only tax if it got below a set price. That way other technologies could compete. OPEC clearly lowered prices to destroy alternative energy companies. I guess the real problem there is no one doing anything about OPEC.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/10/rep-dingell-calls-for-50-per-gallon-gas-tax/
Reply
naggs 1:26PM (8/13/2007)
bill richardson was an possibile canidate for me until i heard him say 50 mpg CAFE by 2012. that is rediculous. thats not even a full product cycle from now. he mine as well be trying to mandate a 50 % increase in sunshine and happiness by 2009...
just drop out bill, its not gonna happen. you'd make a great sec of state though.
Reply
naggs 1:26PM (8/13/2007)
sorry, 2020. still 50 mpg is not going to happen if your mechanism for change is CAFE. a gas tax or some kind of feebate system for new cars is the only way.
"all you hear about is, this is not possible, it won't pass the congress..."
what if is actually... just not possible bill?
Reply
doglet 1:30PM (8/13/2007)
raise the gas tax 25 cents every 6 months. at the end of the year cut equal checks to every family in the country. those that use more fuel will be subsidizing those that use less and the economy will not take a hit because the money will stay in circulation is this country.
CAFE is fin retared.
Reply
Lascelles 3:18PM (8/13/2007)
Doglet, that's an amazing idea! A Refundable Gas Tax... I like it!!!!
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/6b51901d5294bebb852571a20068ed15?OpenDocument
Reply
Chessia 2:24PM (11/04/2007)
Way to go Bill! Hes really getting out the message, and I like that. The US needs to get on the path of tougher standards. The energy bill being considered in congress right now would implement a 35 mpg standard by 2020 and create a standard that 15% of electricity come from renewable resources by 2020. This is pretty much a baby step in comparison to what Richardson is proposing, and in terms of what the US should be doing, but it is the BIGGEST step the US has taken! It is so important that this bill pass with these provisions to get the US on the green path. Like he says, we put a man on the moon in 10 years, we can certainly do this. Sign the petition at http://www.energybill2007.org to let our representatives know how important this bill is.
Reply
Grant Cook 2:42PM (11/12/2007)
CAFE standards were an idiotic, political way to accomplish a worthy goal. They twist the market in knots, all because politicians are too cowardly to speak honestly about the issues and environmentalists are too anti-progress to accept anything but the most onerous path.
CAFE does not in any way inhibit consumer choice or preference - customers that want a big sport ute or cargo van can buy one. Businesses that need that type of vehicle can buy one. What it does do is require some sort of arbitrary standards on what the automakers sell. So if 100 people want full size sport utes, and can pay for them, the automakers have to find some way to get another hundred people to buy teeny pickup trucks (trucks and car model economy is totally separate). So consumers largely want one product (as they did in the 90's with sport utes), and the automakers are forced to find a way to push out another product, usually at a loss, to make things balance.
Now they can up the overall fuel economy of the fleet - use aluminum wheels, smaller engines, etc., but consumers often reject those options. Parents want vehicles with lots of space; yuppies want handling and pickup. Westerners want something that can tow. All these hinder the weight-saving and other tricks to up the fuel economy.
If you serious about reducing gas consumption, tax the heck out of the ONE thing directly tied to mileage - gas purchases. If you want a big sport ute, fine, as long as you pay an extra $15-30 a tank to fill up. Give a deduction to truckers, so gas doesn't feed into things like food prices. People will change their habits rather quickly then. And we'll be honest about the problem, rather than living our consumption-laden lives and grousing about how the evil automakers need to figure it out.
Reply