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.

“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

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.

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.

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.”
Michael Crichton

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.

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.

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.