Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet

[JimG]

I keep hearing that we are running out of oil. Yet oil prices remain low. That does not indicate a rapidly diminshing resource. Demand is down and refineries are running at less than capacity.

I also keep hearing that North American has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. I’m not an oilman so I don’t know if that’s true or not. But if that’s the case, why aren’t we developing and using those resources?

Here’s the thing: because oil and petroleum products continue to remain cheap, the only way the government can get us to quit using them is to make them more expensive–artificially. That’s what cap & trade will do. That’s what gas taxes will do. By artificially increasing prices, the government hopes to decrease the use of oil and make us use higher priced alternatives. But the less we use, the cheaper the oil will become. Other countries will be using it to enhance their development, at our expense.

Try driving, say, just from Ft. Worth to Weatherford to Mineral Wells, Texas. Most the of vehicles you’ll see on the road will be trucks or vans. I can’t imagine seeing that highway populated with small cars, but when the time comes, I guess it will be a sight to see.

And as was mentioned before–large families, families with 4 or 5 or 6 children, they’ll be discriminated against with higher prices on gasoline and higher taxes on those larger cars.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I keep hearing that we are running out of oil.

The most recent data on world oil consumption is 85,085,664 barrels per day which translates into over 31 billion barrels per year. The USGS estimates the total amount of technically recoverable oil in world reserves to be approximately 2.272 trillion barrels. Even if we wrongly assume that world oil consumption won’t increase, total recoverable world oil reserves would be completely depleted within 73 years. Of course, the reality is that world oil consumption increases every year by around 1.2%. Be my guest if you want to do the math.

Yet oil prices remain low. That does not indicate a rapidly diminshing resource.

That depends on how you define “low”. The price per barrel of oil is significantly higher than it was, say in the 1940s.

I also keep hearing that North American has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. I’m not an oilman so I don’t know if that’s true or not. But if that’s the case, why aren’t we developing and using those resources?

The total amount of oil is irrelevant. All that matters is how much of it is recoverable and whether or not extracting that recoverable oil is cost effective. The largest oil reserve in United States territory is the Bakken Formation. The problem is twofold. First, only half of it is recoverable. Second, it’s oil shale which means that it’s expensive to extract and refine and it loses 40% of it’s fuel value in the extraction and refining process so oil companies shy away from it until the price of crude oil goes through the roof.

Here’s the thing: because oil and petroleum products continue to remain cheap, the only way the government can get us to quit using them is to make them more expensive–artificially. That’s what cap & trade will do. That’s what gas taxes will do. By artificially increasing prices, the government hopes to decrease the use of oil and make us use higher priced alternatives.

If that’s what it takes to make Americans understand the fact that oil is a finite resource and that there isn’t enough of it to sustain us for much longer then so be it. Alternative fuel vehicles are not that expensive and you can always buy a conversion kit if you don’t want to buy a new car.

 

[Wolseley]

Funny thing about statistics—they are always so open to being manipulated by those using them to say whatever they want them to…

 

[didymus]

Here’s a Fortwo ad from Germany –

youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=smart+fortwo+ad&aq=f

– who knew they had a sense of humor? “Ohne ruckback” = no back seats.

 

[manualman]

Too bad nobody ever learns anything from history. What you never hear in the media or history analysis is that the original CAFE was a disaster that killed the station wagon and created the SUV. In other words, it had exactly the OPPOSITE effect that it intended.

The original CAFE rules had much tougher mpg standards for “automobiles” than for “trucks.” At the time it passed, the ubiquitous 7 passenger vehicle of choice among families was the traditional station wagon. CAFE did have some effect on these vehicles and by the time the Chevy Caprice wagon was discontinued in the early 1990’s, they had achieved highway ratings of up to 27-28mpg .

But automakers saw an opening! They created the SUV and the minivan to replace the station wagon and designed them to fit in the TRUCK category, not the car. Thus, they could provide family friendly vehicles that the people wanted and avoid dragging their car mpg average down. Their marketing machines went to work and worked VERY well.

Today the full sized station wagon is utterly dead and considered ‘uncool’ and families have universally replaced them with SUVs and minivans that have a much higher roofline, more aerodynamic drag and worse mpgs.

Good job government. But they are SO much smarter now. New government programs never have massive unintended negative consequences anymore.

 

[wapsi]

But automakers saw an opening! They created the SUV and the minivan to replace the station wagon and designed them to fit in the TRUCK category, not the car. Thus, they could provide family friendly vehicles that the people wanted and avoid dragging their car mpg average down. Their marketing machines went to work and worked VERY well.

Today the full sized station wagon is utterly dead and considered ‘uncool’ and families have universally replaced them with SUVs and minivans that have a much higher roofline, more aerodynamic drag and worse mpgs.

You’re right about the CAFE standards and the Detroit push for “trucks” which would be similar to cars. But as I recall, station wagons were decidedly uncool by the early 1980’s and the public was hungry for an alternative. The 1984 introduction of the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager helped save Chrysler - they were that popular. And the popularity of those two vehicles forced Ford and GM to develop similar minivans.

Even Chrysler must have been shocked at the incredible reception that greeted the minivans. Virtually overnight the definition of family transportation shifted in America. Chrysler sold a stunning 209,895 minivans during that first year. And suddenly the Chrysler Corporation itself seemed almost healthy.

General Motors responded to the challenge presented by Chrysler’s T-115 with the Chevrolet Astro and GMC Safari for 1985, and Ford’s reply came in the form of the 1986 Aerostar.

edmunds.com/dodge/caravan/history.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you think Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would ever drive one of these cars?

Of course not. It’s so much more fun being rich when the difference between you and the rest of us peons is dramatic. That way, ordinary people can’t help but know who their betters are.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The largest oil reserve in United States territory is the Bakken Formation. The problem is twofold. First, only half of it is recoverable. Second, it’s oil shale which means that it’s expensive to extract and refine and it loses 40% of it’s fuel value in the extraction and refining process so oil companies shy away from it until the price of crude oil goes through the roof.

I was under the impression that the largest shale oil reserve in the U.S. is the Green River formation. But not being an expert, I will defer to those who are.

It is my further impression that, unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to get permits to extract shale oil due to environmental regulations, just as it is impossible to find out how much liquid oil there really is in ANWR or off the California or Florida coasts, because the only tried and true method of exploration (drilling) for the latter is not allowed. But we definitely know oil is there. Notwithstanding that knowledge, the government won’t allow drilling.

To one as ignorant as I am, it is reminiscent of a miser who doesn’t know how much money he has because it’s all under his mattress and he’s afraid to look for fear it isn’t as much as he would like it to be.

So I don’t really know that anyone can truly say the availability of domestically-producible petroleum is this or that and consequently, everybody is allowed to guess according to his prejudices.

Meanwhile, Americans are told they must thread in and out of gargantuan trucks in small cars with no kids in them, and do without coal-generated electricity because the prejudices of the elites will not allow them any alternatives except those the elites want them to have.

I recall reading that in the late 19th century the population had grown to the point that horses were taking up an inordinate amount of agricultural productivity and created horrendous environmental degradation. Fortunately, the internal combustion engine (and steam trains, of course played their part) saved the nation from drowning in horse dung. But it seems to me all this governmental refusal to allow fossil fuel development in favor of what really seems like pie-in-the-sky “green” energy is a bit like the government decreeing, in, e.g., 1880, that all horses would forthwith be shot because surely someday some alternative mode of power would be invented. The problem then would have been (as I suspect it is now) that the insistence on eradicating one form of energy in favor of one not yet invented would have made life unnecessarily miserable for all but the elites who could have had peons carry them about on palanquins.

But, as I admitted right off, I am an ignorant man who has not yet learned to tug my forelock in the face of the wisdom of my betters.

 

[davy39]

To a previous poster::: Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are already subsidized by the Japanese government, so they don’t really need our money, although their sales are down 30-40 percent from a year ago. Also, my nice confortable Ford Escape gets 27 mpg on a trip, so why should I trash it for a cramped clown care with no room to travel for an extra 4 mpg? It just doesn’t make any sense, unless you gain some prestige from being “green”. I could care less.

 

[Pax2u]

Two thoughts:

1. Another blow to large families who already have a hard time finding ample and affordable vehicles.

I agree, Corki…how is anyone with a family of more than 1-2 people supposed to fit them in these little vehicles? It’s another step toward Big Brother dictating every aspect of our lives.

 

[jman507]

Too bad nobody ever learns anything from history. What you never hear in the media or history analysis is that the original CAFE was a disaster that killed the station wagon and created the SUV. In other words, it had exactly the OPPOSITE effect that it intended.

The original CAFE rules had much tougher mpg standards for “automobiles” than for “trucks.” At the time it passed, the ubiquitous 7 passenger vehicle of choice among families was the traditional station wagon. CAFE did have some effect on these vehicles and by the time the Chevy Caprice wagon was discontinued in the early 1990’s, they had achieved highway ratings of up to 27-28mpg .

But automakers saw an opening! They created the SUV and the minivan to replace the station wagon and designed them to fit in the TRUCK category, not the car. Thus, they could provide family friendly vehicles that the people wanted and avoid dragging their car mpg average down. Their marketing machines went to work and worked VERY well.

Today the full sized station wagon is utterly dead and considered ‘uncool’ and families have universally replaced them with SUVs and minivans that have a much higher roofline, more aerodynamic drag and worse mpgs.

Good job government. But they are SO much smarter now. New government programs never have massive unintended negative consequences anymore.

Perhaps if the standards get too burdensome and restrictive, we can just make rebuilt cars of the old favorite standards. Who knows, someone will probably find some way to exploit the new situation.

Due to the coming inflation in a few years, and all the engineering focus on CAFE standards, I’m sure people may just think twice about buying new. Glad I don’t work in the automotive industry.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I don’t think a Smart Car is necessary to get better fuel economy. The Drudge Report is simply doing a bit of editorializing.

I average 30 - 31 mph in my 4 cyl. Hyundai Sonata. Hyundai makes a 6 cyl. version, but why get a larger engine if I don’t need it?

Because that larger engine WILL last longer and alot less likely to blow a hhead gasket in it’s life time, 2 factors much more important than gas milage.

 

[didymus]

I don’t know about mileage but if everyone’s forced into clown – I mean Smart cars they will drive a lot more carefully

I’ve long joked that in an ideal world all accidents would be fatal to both drivers so a race of competent drivers would evolve. Smart cars could do the trick, esp. if we ban driver-side air bags and seat belts.

 

[Holly3278]

Higher prices and less safety? Sorry Obama, I’m not going to accept that.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

i’m gonna drive my v8 4wheel drive tahoe till the wheels fall off. i doubt one of those ‘smart cars’ is gonna do me much good trying to get in the backwoods or marshes to go duck/deer/hog hunting.

 

[manualman]

I recall reading that in the late 19th century the population had grown to the point that horses were taking up an inordinate amount of agricultural productivity and created horrendous environmental degradation. Fortunately, the internal combustion engine (and steam trains, of course played their part) saved the nation from drowning in horse dung. But it seems to me all this governmental refusal to allow fossil fuel development in favor of what really seems like pie-in-the-sky “green” energy is a bit like the government decreeing, in, e.g., 1880, that all horses would forthwith be shot because surely someday some alternative mode of power would be invented. The problem then would have been (as I suspect it is now) that the insistence on eradicating one form of energy in favor of one not yet invented would have made life unnecessarily miserable for all but the elites who could have had peons carry them about on palanquins.

But, as I admitted right off, I am an ignorant man who has not yet learned to tug my forelock in the face of the wisdom of my betters.

Bad boy, Ridge. Give credit to Michael Crichton for your point (State of Fear). That’s where I first read it anyways. No telling who turned HIM onto the point…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bad boy, Ridge. Give credit to Michael Crichton for your point (State of Fear). That’s where I first read it anyways. No telling who turned HIM onto the point…

Never read the book, but I think now I’ll find the book and buy it. Thanks. I imagine he said it better.

I’m not sure anybody needed to turn Michael Crichton on to the notion (or me). It just makes common sense.