Monday, January 26, 2009

Yeah, that'll work.

I see in today's news that President Obama is going to push to have the automakers produce more cars that American's will not buy. (Obama orders push to cleaner, more efficient cars)

Starting his second week in office, Obama took a major step toward allowing California and other states to target greenhouse gases through more stringent auto emission standards, and he ordered new federal rules directing automakers to start making more fuel-efficient cars as required by law.

The auto industry responded warily. Reducing planet-warming emissions is a great idea, carmakers and dealers said, but they expressed deep concern about costly regulations and conflicting state and federal rules at a time when people already are not buying cars. U.S. auto sales plunged 18 percent in 2008.

And industry analysts said the changes could cost consumers thousands of dollars — for smaller, "greener" cars.


Here's a better idea. Why doesn't the federal government step away from the drawing board and let the automakers produce vehicles that people want to purchase at a price the people can afford.

Or is this a deep rooted plan to keep people off the road? Might work in cities but rural American will cling stubbornly (and correctly) to their workhorses--the larger, four wheel drive SUVs and pickups.

Hey, I'm all for reducing the emissions and raising the MPG, but not at the hands of a government mandate. If I can get a vehicle that will haul and tote the materials I need to haul and tote, one that will have four wheel drive so I can safely and successfully maneuver over and up snow covered roads and hills, one that will have an MPG rating that will make a difference in my wallet, one that is not going to cost me an arm and a leg above the current level, then I'll consider buying it and the automakers may have found a winning formula.

Until then, it seems to me that the government is forcing the manufacturers to produce something that will cost more than I can afford and will, at best be marginally better in the MPG and emissions area while sacrificing the hauling, toting and safety issues. If they continue along this course, I'll be looking for a reliable used vehicle instead of one with all the mandated bells and whistles and they (government and manufacturers) can suck eggs.

6 comments:

Rev. Paul said...

My Expedition doesn't do TOO badly at highway speeds - average about 17.5 mpg, which is not bad for a 6,000 SUV. Nearly everybody up here has an SUV of one size or another, because - in spite of Algore - we get lots of snow & the roads are treacherous.

Having said that, I should also point out that CARB rated my truck a low-emissions vehicle when it was produced. We have I/M testing here, and the place I take the truck cannot detect any CO emissions at the level Alaska considers a threat.

I'll not downsize anytime soon, because - as you said - I need room for my family, luggage, and hauling of furniture, groceries, or whatever. If it uses more gas than another, then that's MY problem, not Washington DC's.

Rev. Paul said...

That's 6000-pound SUV ...

Anonymous said...

it's not about our needs. 90% of all'08 suv's and pick up's are still on the lots. here in mass., a 30,000 full size pick up, 4x4, w/ plow, is selling for 19 to 21 grand............

Shelley said...

Well you know I'm in the motor city. I don't see people paying more for a greener car. In northern Michigan - they need their pick up trucks to survive!

Shelley said...

Well you know I'm in the motor city. I don't see people paying more for a greener car. In northern Michigan - they need their pick up trucks to survive!

JihadGene said...

Obama is a greenhouse gas.