Editorial: Obama Lets California Determine National Fuel Economy Standards

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

California accounts for a huge chunk of America’s new car sales (at least for the transplants). And 13 other states (Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) follow its vehicular emissions laws. Put them together and they account for just under half of all American new vehicle sales. And now, thanks to President Obama’s decision to grant California a waiver from federal emissions regulations, they’re going to call the shots for the entire U.S. automotive industry.

President Obama will free California impose its own vehicular tailpipe regulations. Those rules, already drafted, consider CO2 a pollutant. (Global warming and all that.) Manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles in California and its legislative clones will have to meet a new, fleet-wide CO2 standard. As CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel economy, CA et. al. will be, effectively, directing the carmakers to sell higher mileage vehicles. Significantly higher.

“The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable,” The New York Times reports. “The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.”

There are two schools of thought on the effects of this move. First, not only can Detroit and the rest of them meet the higher standards, but it’s about fucking time.

“This is a complete reversal of President Bush’s policy of censoring or ignoring global warming science,” Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, told the Gray Lady. “With the fuel economy measures and clean energy investments in the recovery package, President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.”

For environmental activists, the idea that automakers can meet the new California standard is a given. Another shibboleth: carmakers would have already done so if not for their greedy, SUV-pimping, foot-dragging ways. The fact that $4 a gallon gas did more for the environmentalist’s cause than decades of federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards is shoved aside. As is the fact that the electorate voted with their wallets.

There’s a planet to be saved; free markets be damned. From this perspective, the federal waiver is a victory for Mother Earth that will be fully vindicated by its non-impact on the auto industry and its immeasurable impact on the earth’s climate. One way and the other, decades hence, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Alternatively, the decision to empower California to set national fuel economy standards will, as the automakers have warned, wreak havoc on a fragile industry, drive-up prices for consumers and, ultimately, fail.

There’s no way automakers selling cars in America can meet the California mob’s higher, fleet-wide fuel economy standards within the deadline without chopping low-mileage models from their lineup within the relevant states. (The fuel-sucking CUV halfway house, for example, just became an evolutionary dead end.) Detroit News columnist Daniel Howes described the CA mandate as the involuntary hybridization of the nation’s fleet. That sounds about right to me.

Whether manufacturers would offer low[er] mileage vehicles for sale outside of the 14-states is a tricky question, given the intersection of politics, PR and commercial reality. Whether those non-CA-friendly vehicles could be “imported” into the 14-state cabal is even trickier. And speaking of tricky…

As The NYT points out, the new laws mean “automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule.”

Has anyone looked at the U.S. new car market recently? Who’s got money for that shit? And who’s going to pay cash money to buy these newfangled fuel misers? What if these wonderful machines don’t sell?

All of which highlights the small matter of what “we” (i.e. taxpayers) are going to do about GM and Chrysler, currently (and for the foreseeable future) sucking on Uncle Sam’s teat.

While the Department of Energy is preparing to dole out dole worth $25b for retooling “loans” to build these more left-coast compliant vehicles, this turn of events suggests that Uncle Sam will be on the hook for even more more money for GM and ChryCo. Hey, you want us to build way cool fuel efficient vehicles? You gotta pay. I mean, loan.

I understand the rationale behind California’s zeal and President Obama’s support. But there’s no doubt that they’ve just invoked the law of unintended consequences. Thought politically toxic, a gas tax hike would have been a far more effective solution. As we shall soon see.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 144 comments
  • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Jan 28, 2009
    HeBeGB: A straight gas tax might be more effective, but for some guy just trying to make it from paycheck to paycheck…an extra $20 in gas just getting to/from his crappy job can be tough. Well, are we a "free market" or not? I agree a gas tax is prob the best idea. Tax those who use the infrastructure. That must include commercial interests though too. No loopholes. Let the end consumer pay these taxes through slightly higher prices. No need to let heavy traffic use up the roads while the private vehicle drivers pay for them. If the theoretical dude is hurtin' so bad for some gas money b/c of taxes maybe he can lay off spending it on something (consumer distractions like computers or MP3 players) in favor of some more gas to make it to his job. Maybe he can work a second job until he has gotten a promotion at one of his jobs to make up the difference. Maybe he can get an education so he can get better jobs. Maybe he can get a reliable roomate or put off expenses a little longer. Time for a scooter or bicycle instead? Not as "cool" as a Camaro or Mustang but must society keep it's taxes low so the lowest income folks are able to purchase an image accessory? Needs vs wants... Disclaimer: I consider my Navy years and my college years to have been years that my wife and I were working poor like manby other people. The Navy never paid me more than $15K and our fulltime jobs during our college years never paid us more than about $8 per hour either. The working poor I've known are still living pretty well and a there are plenty of frivolous expenses in modern life that a person can cutout. What does pretty well mean? I mean cellphone plans, custom ringtones, subscription TV, pizza and beer, HVAC, video games, etc. Not like poor in 1960 where a person had a radio, a bathroom down the hall, a payphone in the hallway and the most basic lifestyle. Wait - that was my military years in a nutshell... Too many times I hear people complaining about not having enough money when they are spending it on frivolous stuff like the latest video game console. My economics prof called "opportunity cost". My Dad called it "priorities". These are simple things that I fear our corporate leaders (looking at you Detroit) and political leaders alike have forgotten or maybe never knew if they were from wealthy backgrounds. That's the problem with letting the elite run our country - corporate or gov't leadership. Maybe Dave Ramsey needs to run our treasury... Back to the broke bachelor. There are always second jobs to be had. Once upon a time we bought our first house working a pair of $8 an hour jobs in a small TN town, going to college and mowing yards on the side. Meanwhile we were making a new car payment and paying child care. Hell, if we can do that so can others. Is there really such thing as POOR in this country anymore or are there people who perpetually make poor choices? I think the argument that people make against this tax or that one b/c of a stereotypical poor single working mothers who can't make ends meet needs to be retired. I don't want to sound heartless but everybody has choices in life. Work hard, get an education, spend wisely, DON'T HAVE KIDS if you can't afford them and aren't settled domestically, move to places where a better job and lifestyle can be had. Find safer towns where you can live downtown near your job and walk. Losing the automobile from your lifetime budget would yield HUGE savings. Learn to get along with the people around you, make friends, and make good choices. Maybe the hardships some people's families faced once upon a time is what motivated generations to do better than their parents. Maybe we are making it too easy to be 19 years old without any personal ambition??? We can all go to college if we want to (fed loans or the US military GI Bill), choose when we want to have children, choose what we want to drive (expensive or frugal), free to live where we want to, most of us can spend a few years in the military saving up some cash or finding a career path, etc etc etc. I don't want to see the country treading water b/c we have to wait for lowest common denominator to come along too. The American Dream still exists but you get there by careful choices. The American Dream doesn't mean everybody gets a McMansion and two $40K SUVs either. For some of us it is a modest home full of happiness with paid bills and a nice dinner cooking on the stove. The Norman Rockwell dream... VBG! A person just needs a little education - at least high school, teach yourself some stuff like how to use a computer/manners/fix something, learning to fit in with the crowd you want to earn a living with (can't look like "A' if the rest of the office/customers look like 'B' - got to be able to function/speak/dress/manners/etc), etc etc etc Maybe the old statement "Go West Young Man" needs to be revised to "Go Somewhere Else Young Man". We do need to conquer modern life's teenage distractions and work hard... A big dose of that and America could fix alot of it's problems. I'm not the wise one behind these ideas - I'm just parroting that which I have collected so far in my lifetime.
  • Joeaverage Joeaverage on Jan 28, 2009
    geeber: Those features cost money, and Americans have not been willing to pay for them in a small vehicle. When I was in Germany, I looked over an Opel Astra on the showroom floor. Beautiful car, but the sticker price, when converted into dollars, was far higher than what Americans have historically been willing to pay for a vehicle of that size (and that was even taking into account the taxes added to the price). Wonder how much of the European prices includes tax. I suspect there is some built in or otherwise we couldn't buy the Astra here at anything below the Euro-converted prices. Asking b/c I don't know. I agree though - alot of Americans not ready to pay premium prices for a small car. Some folks would rather have a lower quality larger vehicle for the same price. Gas is still considered a small part of ownership costs. For me though I still remember the $25K+ price of gasoline over the ownership of a car. More for a large SUV. I'd rather spend that somewhere else by driving frugally. Used car and good gas mileage makes me most happy. Not the same yardstick for everyone of course. I'd rather have a Mini than an Aveo. I would not rather have a Buick Century vs a Mini if the prices were the same but that's just me. A recent survey showed that a high percentage of small-car buyers were actually dissatisfied with their new purchase. I wonder how many of those people surveyed were folks making knee-jerk reactionary small car purchases? The ownership experience is certainly going to be related to your expectations in a small car. There are people out there who follow the herd without considering the actually interior size of a small car, what a small displacement engine with short-gearing is like on the interstate, how big trucks seem when driving a small car, etc. I have also heard declarations that a car is a "POS" substituted for "this car does not meet my expectations" b/c that person has a different set of qualifications. Of course I hear POS and I start wondering about it's quality and durability b/c those are my first qualifications for a vehicles value. My m-inlaw came to dislike her Saturn car way back when b/c on a long uphill highway stretch on her morning commute the tranny would shift down into some lower gear that left the engine revving at 3500 rpm for several minutes. I took a year but she was tired of that car. She never considered the buzzy engine at purchase time. I on the other hand figured that out when I was sixteen (a decade before) that I didn't like automatic transmissions or three speed manuals for that reason. She also refused to slow down so the car would stay in high gear and would not even come close to driving a stick so she could choose which gear the car would make use of at any given time. All she wanted was silent power and gas mileage was optional so now she drives a large Saturn SUV Outlook and raves about it's capacity to carry seven people despite not really needing that very often. Her choice individually I suppose but if everyone makes those kinds of choices we get $4 a gallon gas (assuming the greeedy men behind the curtain aren't artificially trading the futures up). That's when our collective choices gets on my budget's nerves. She is one of my imaginary focus group participants. VBG! For small cars to come around in big numbers again here I think there will have to be a big leap in sustained gasoline prices and an self-educational process where people learn what it is like to live with a small car again and what they need to do to make themselves most satisfied with living them. Yeah I could just say "get used to them"... Again freedom of choice. I look forward to better economy standards for a selfish reason: more small cars like mine on the road and for a hopefully cleaner atmosphere to breathe. We surely have plenty of haze around here when the wind is still.
  • 3-On-The-Tree 2014 Ford F150 Ecoboost 3.5L. By 80,000mi I had to have the rear main oil seal replaced twice. Driver side turbo leaking had to have all hoses replaced. Passenger side turbo had to be completely replaced. Engine timing chain front cover leak had to be replaced. Transmission front pump leak had to be removed and replaced. Ford renewed my faith in Extended warranty’s because luckily I had one and used it to the fullest. Sold that truck on caravan and got me a 2021 Tundra Crewmax 4x4. Not a fan of turbos and I will never own a Ford again much less cars with turbos to include newer Toyotas. And I’m a Toyota guy.
  • Duke Woolworth Weight 4800# as I recall.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X '19 Nissan Frontier @78000 miles has been oil changes ( eng/ diffs/ tranny/ transfer). Still on original brakes and second set of tires.
  • ChristianWimmer I have a 2018 Mercedes A250 with almost 80,000 km on the clock and a vintage ‘89 Mercedes 500SL R129 with almost 300,000 km.The A250 has had zero issues but the yearly servicing costs are typically expensive from this brand - as expected. Basic yearly service costs around 400 Euros whereas a more comprehensive servicing with new brake pads, spark plugs plus TÜV etc. is in the 1000+ Euro region.The 500SL servicing costs were expensive when it was serviced at a Benz dealer, but they won’t touch this classic anymore. I have it serviced by a mechanic from another Benz dealership who also owns an R129 300SL-24 and he’ll do basic maintenance on it for a mere 150 Euros. I only drive the 500SL about 2000 km a year so running costs are low although the fuel costs are insane here. The 500SL has had two previous owners with full service history. It’s been a reliable car according to the records. The roof folding mechanism needs so adjusting and oiling from time to time but that’s normal.
  • Theflyersfan I wonder how many people recalled these after watching EuroCrash. There's someone one street over that has a similar yellow one of these, and you can tell he loves that car. It was just a tough sell - too expensive, way too heavy, zero passenger space, limited cargo bed, but for a chunk of the population, looked awesome. This was always meant to be a one and done car. Hopefully some are still running 20 years from now so we have a "remember when?" moment with them.
Next