A post by Maynard
You’ve probably heard about Obama’s plan to command automobile fuel-efficiency of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.
First, let me acknowledge (and I annoy some of my conservative brethren in saying this, but it’s what the numbers tell me) that 1) the “addiction to oil” thing is a real problem, and domestic drillable oil is dwindling, and 2) the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by human activity, and the impact to the ecosystem is a valid concern, and 3) the flow of dollars to oil-exporting nations, which are mostly run by maniacs, presents a real threat. So I believe we’ve got something of a national and a global interest in addressing these real problems, and I’m not going to respond with an unthinking knee-jerk reaction in opposition.
On the other hand, it’s obvious that the Left jumps onto these issues because it’s another excuse to control the people. Lacking a declaration of martial law, it’s essential that we ask whether Washington has the need or authority to manage our lives to this extent. Or at least it’s fair to ask whether the solutions being contemplated are maximally effective and minimally invasive.
Pause for a moment to recall Obama’s recent speech on Guantanamo, which Pat included in this blog. Obama decried Bush’s treatment of terrorists. “Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.” This is yet another example of the egregious double standard working against us: The “rule of law” is sacrosanct for the benefit of mass murderers, but disposable with respect to ordinary Americans. Same thing for pushing UAW to the front of the line in the Chrysler debacle, while screwing the highest tier of bondholders. Seems that our “deeply held values” and the protection of law and the Constitution only applies to the scum of the Earth, and is in fact inverted for the benefit of political cronies. The rest of us can go pound sand. That’s not consistent. If we’re willing to uphold Obama’s notion of the “rule of law” at the risk of getting nuked, we should be equally willing to uphold that selfsame rule of law and risk the consequences of carbon dioxide. And by the way, the carbon dioxide is rising whatever we do, whereas we might manage to avoid getting nuked if we play our cards right.
And what was that Obama said about not raising taxes on ordinary Americans? So instead he implements a policy that will raise the price of the average car by $1300. To argue that this isn’t a tax is deceitful sophistry. Obama signs a law that makes your car cost a lot more. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
This Economist article is mainly about the cap-and-trade proposal, but it also touches on the fuel standards.
On May 19th [Obama] announced that he would impose tougher fuel-efficiency standards. Carmakers will have to produce vehicles that go eight miles farther on a gallon of petrol by 2016. Cars must eke out 39 miles per gallon, on average; light trucks must manage 30 miles. Carmakers, some of whom would be bankrupt if Mr Obama was not pumping them full of taxpayers’ money, meekly applauded. In the past an agreement such as this would have been thought impossible, the president crowed.
Mr Obama admitted that more fuel-efficient cars might cost more. But he promised that motorists would save thousands of dollars by cutting their fuel bills. In fact, they can already cut their fuel bills by buying smaller cars, but most choose not to. Mr Obama could discourage petrol use more directly and efficiently by taxing the stuff, but that would be unpopular. Ideally, politicians who want to save the planet would be honest with voters about how much this will cost. But America’s leaders do not seem to think Americans are ready for straight talk about energy.
This cuts to the heart of the problem. Obama is pulling a fast one so America won’t see what he’s doing, and the result will be a mess. Instead of the simple and straightforward and less invasive approach of raising gas taxes and letting the market find ways to use less, he prefers the role of micromanager. He takes away our choices and dumps expenses in our laps and otherwise imposes his ideology and his “correct” solutions into our lives, meanwhile piously (and falsely) proclaiming that he hasn’t taxed us. He’s got the automakers on the ropes so they’ve got to go along with his whim. The new rules will be in place before the American people know what hit them.
And again…I do believe we’ve got a problem that’s worthy of government attention. As a personal matter, I try to do my part and drive a compact American car, and to drive it as little as possible. I want to convince other Americans to do likewise. But Washington’s “daddy knows best” authoritarianism ought to scare the hell out of civil libertarians.
Aside from questions of fuel standards, The Economist article is worth reading for its take on cap and trade. The general idea, in its pure form, would be a carbon tax:
Industries that emit carbon dioxide would have to buy permits to do so. A fixed number of permits would be auctioned each year. The permits would be tradable, so firms that found ways to emit less than they were entitled to could sell some of their permits to others. The system would motivate everyone to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way. It would raise energy prices, which is the point, but it would also raise hundreds of billions of dollars, most of which Mr Obama planned to give back to voters. Alas, that plan looks doomed.
On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned. The bill’s supporters say this colossal compromise was necessary to win the support of firms that generate dirty energy or use a lot of it, and to satisfy congressmen from states that mine coal or roll steel.
Giving away permits creates several problems. First, it generates no money, thereby royally messing up Mr Obama’s budget. Second, it means that the permits go not to those who value them most (as in an auction) but to those whom the government favors. Under Waxman-Markey, electricity-distributors would get the largest share, with the rest divided between energy-intensive manufacturers, carmakers, natural-gas distributors, states with renewable-energy programs and so on. Oil firms, with only 2% of the permits, feel hard done by. But most polluters, having just been promised hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of permits for nothing, are elated. So it is not just the owners of ski resorts and businesses with negligible carbon footprints that are queuing up to praise the bill. Duke Energy, a power generator with lots of coal-fired plants, is also enthusiastic.
In other words, more corrupt micromanagement from Washington, with anyone who falls out of political favor losing the right to run their industry, while the anointed favorites will generously grease the powerful political palms that feed them. And it will seem politically palatable because it’s not a tax. Obama will tell us that everybody wins, when in fact the nation is being stripped of liberty today and prosperity tomorrow. And the bad times to come will make an excellent excuse for additional controls down the road.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Dear Maynard,
I think you need to read the chapter on Enviro-Statism in Mark Levin’s book, Liberty and Tyranny.
Increasing CAFE standard is pointless and I’ll explain why here and let Levin’s chapter take care of the rest.
I’m “addicted” to oil as I am to clean water, clean air, clothes, food and medicine. What is this “addiction” nonsense? Oil is a commodity and we seem to have plenty of it, even here domestically. Think of all the advances we’ve made in human history because of incorporating fossil fuels. It’s nothing short of remarkable. However, in continuing with progress, we will continue to work on new methods for securing energy (wind / solar etc.) but in the meantime, let’s use what we have. Which leads me to my second point about carbon dioxide. Didn’t you see Tammy’s blog post about the volcano Redoubt? We should sue the volcano for leaving a HUGE carbon footprint. Let’s see them cap and trade that mother****** (those asterisks are for “nature”). Third, raising CAFE standards will not slow the money going to maniac-controlled OPEC nations. By 2016 (originally 2020), we’ll have more fleet on the road. We’ll still be consuming oil. The salt-water hovercraft will not be invented in the next ten years, I promise you that.
And finally, if OPEC realizes we’re not consuming enough oil, they’ll just cut back production to drive up the price.
The solution: securing our own domestic supply of energy through readily available technology and drilling and mining shale for oil and natural gas. Only we’re not serious about putting new nuclear facilities and we’re not serious about drilling off-shore. Neither are we serious about extracting oil and gas from shale.
I refuse to drive a compact American car because those orange juice cans are coffins on wheels. High mpg is great but surviving an auto accident is a lot more desirable. I will look to buy a solid American automobile before considering other alternatives be it domestic or foreign.
And hybrid cars? Those battery cells contain all sorts of elements that are harmful to the environment. I think we send them to China to recycle electronic waste and they promptly dump it into their rivers which go right into the ocean/ecosystem. And the cost to buy a “gas-saving” Nissan Altima hybrid is still greater than the regular Nissan Altima even when considering fuel savings.
CAFE standards: completely missing the long-term solution. A sisyphean energy plan if you ask me.
Now read the chapter on Enviro-Statism, PLEASE.
Maynard, with all due respect, human beings are not the cause of the temperature increases of the 20th century. The CO2 theory is dead.
The increase in CO2 does not match the increase in temperature. While CO2 has increased steadily for the last 100 years temperatures have both risen and fallen. The models used to predict temperature have all failed to predict the decrease in temperatures since 1998 (yes, Maynard, it’s not getting hotter any more).
There is, in fact, no compelling scientific evidence tying CO2 to warming. All that exists are computer models that have varying degrees of positive feedback (increases in temperature due to heat trapped by greenhouse gases supposedly result in further increases in temperature). The most recent work by Roy Spencer shows that the feedback is almost certainly negative meaning that temperature increases are not amplified but actually reduced by the earth’s climate system.
By itself, a doubling of CO2 could increase temperatures by at most 1 degree C. Computer models use positive feedback to increase this by two to five times.
Moving from the virtual world to the real world we find that satellite measurements show that this increase would be reduced by about 30% meaning that a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase temperatures by only about 0.7 degrees C. This is hardly the “thermogeddon” predicted by Al Gore and company.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
If you think that Spencer is just one voice then check out John Christy or Christopher Monckton or Roger Pielke.
Reading this as I watch Dick Durbin bend over backwards to defend everything Barry does even when his words and actions bear no relationship with eachother or are diametrically opposed.
The “rule of law” is just another rhetorical medallion to these people, that doesn’t actually mean what honest normal people usually think it means. It’s another link in the chain of the Big Lie Theory, which this administration follows to a tee: as Goebbels said, people will more likely believe a big lie than a small lie, especially if you repeat it constantly. The “rule of law” here means the opposite of the rule of law, because it means to create rights where none previously existed and to undermine those that existed before. The consistent value is not adhering to the law itself, but doing whatever favors the administration’s friends and supporters (whether organized labor or the academic legal left) at the EXPENSE of the actual rule of law and the wider interest of the country.
In their mind they’ve GOT TO DO SOMETHING but I’m afraid their way is too rigid with political agendas rather than true science. Can you imagine Algorians during Pangaea or the last several cliamate changes? Mother Earth is in a constant state of change whether us pecky humans are here or not and she will be here long after we’re gone.
While sun and wind energy produce only 1% of our energy, carbon-based sources remains the cheapest. Petroleum scientists in coordination with the auto industry could (or maybe already have) produce fuel efficient cars that will not be an enemy to humanity. But big oil has been vilified and conservation and science has been politicized. How unfortunate for us as consumers. Our doom is politicized science and environmentalism.
“We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.â€
Michael Crichton
And their (the Algorians) myopic view of the Earth just infuriates me!
There is so much to comment on with your three arguments:
1) Your premise is incorrect. We are not running out of domestic drillable oil. We are running out of what has already been tapped, not untapped resources.
The center of the earth is hot molten lava. Due to this fact, it appears that the earth is actually constantly brewing oil, not running out of it. The US has plenty of untapped oil reserves and when we tap into them it actually decreases natural oil seepage into the ocean (see Santa Barbara article below):
http://is.gd/CXWv
http://is.gd/CYCt (Santa Barbara, CA)
http://is.gd/CXVd
http://is.gd/CXOJ
http://is.gd/CXRr
http://is.gd/CXSw
2) Again, your premise that “the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by human activity†is simply incorrect. Human activity doesn’t add enough.
CO2 levels appear to follow temperature; not what humans are doing. What causes temperature to rise? It’s mainly due to the sun and the fact that the center of the earth is hot molten lava.
The ecosystem of the planet is far too complex and it is pure human arrogance that assumes we can fix the planet or cause its destruction by our daily routines. The planet has been taking care of itself through billions of years of meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, large and small ice ages, etc.
http://is.gd/CY62
http://is.gd/CYbW
http://is.gd/CYhB
http://is.gd/CYTx
3) I agree with your third premise of “the flow of dollars to oil-exporting nations, which are mostly run by maniacs, presents a real threat.†I also agree that we should not be dependent upon foreign oil since that gives foreign dictator thugs control over the US economy.
But did you know that America is the third LARGEST oil producer? The problem is that due to extreme environmental policies we are no longer able to tap our own resources to become more independent of foreign oil producers. Due to extreme environmental policies, the US hasn’t built a new refinery in 30+ years, with the last one being built in 1976, so we cannot keep up with the increasing demand. Wouldn’t newer refineries built on today’s technology be more efficient and “environmentally friendly†than those built over 30 years ago?
http://is.gd/CYjr
http://is.gd/CYxt
Carbon dioxide, oil and mankind are all natural products of the earth. CO2 is essential to the earth’s ecosystem. There is a lot of B.S. out there that blames Americans first, blames human beings for everything – in particular, Americans, etc. The earth compensates for itself and does not need the arrogance of deliberate human intervention into things they do not fully understand.
Raising CAFE standards typically results in smaller, lighter cars, which results in higher accident fatalities.
If higher CAFE standards reduces the amount of oil and gas consumed, and therefore, our dependence on foreign oil, that would reduce the amount of tax revenues to the US government that are generated by the oil and gas taxes. The government is not going to tolerate lower tax revenues.
If we begin to use less oil and gas, oil and gas taxes are going to go up regardless. This way, instead of paying overseas despots and dictators, more of the money will be going to the US government instead. It’s just a shift in who’s getting the money and the government having more control over our lives.
Pay more for a car today, but make it up in fuel savings later. A staggering increase in the budget today will be offset by identifying budget savings later. Increased government spending for health care will be paid for by systemic efficiencies to come later. The burgeoning deficit will be reduced when the stimulus spending and the containment in health care costs kick in economic growth later. It is the Wimpy economic theory: I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
Maynard,
Good piece generally. I just want to chime in on the CO2 issue. I know that out in L.A. there aren’t a lot of trees. It’s semi-arid out there. I live where it’s very green and look at trees all the time. Now for my point. TREES are made mostly of carbon which mostly comes out of …. thin air. That’s right. Trees and other plants are built from CO2 from right out of the air. CO2 is plant food. CO2 makes the planet greener. Plants recycle the consumed fossil fuel.
Oh ya! Crude oil is a renewable resource. It’s made from a special kind of naturally occurring algae which transforms organic compost into complex hydrocarbons. American R&D at Lawrence Livermore is unlocking the secrets and speeding things up.
Have a look at the Fisker “Karma.” It’s a new sexy high performance muscle car which averages 100 mpg. It’s a spin off from the US Army’s alternative fuels assault vehicle program under G.W.Bush’s tenure. Al Gore is a major shareholder in the company. (follow the money.) Gore and Collin Powell have pre-ordered theirs for delivery soon, (Fall 2009.)
On natural resources conservation I’ve always believed in exercising wisdom in their use. Personally I prefer nature in its undisturbed state. There we can see in this garden/jungle the hand of G_d.
In the affairs of people I reject the use of force. I believe firmly in a voluntary economy where the conditions of a trade are exposed to sunlight. In this simple way I trust my fellow humans to choose wisely. It’s the American way. It’s the smartest way to allocate resources.
“domestic drillable oil is dwindling” only because the Luddites of the environmental lobby are preventing any drilling anywhere.
“the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by human activity” is not a statement of fact, but of opinion with no scientific basis to back it up.This according to the scientific community at the IPCC.
http://tinyurl.com/oxepv6
The new CAFE requirements are an expensive, intrusive way to save a small amount of oil, about 5% of transportation oil (3.5% of all oil) if everything goes as announced.
Obama quoted a $1,300 increase in auto prices, but the realistic figure is $4,000 – $10,000. It is not economical to pay $4,000 up front to save the fuel from a 42% increase in efficiency (from 27.5 mpg to 39.0 mpg), driving 15,000 miles per year. The assumption is that everyone will buy an expensive, small car to save fuel.
Europe saves fuel, mostly by buying cars that are a few sizes smaller than in the US. These CAFE changes will not have the intended effects. CAFE standards have been used in the past to favor auto unions, not as a serious way to save fuel.
The result will be a massive tax on consumers, about $88 billion per year, if Obama’s oil savings are realized through this CAFE mandate.
References from Car and Driver and the US Department of Energy support the summary above.
You must log in to post a comment.