Yesterday the EPA, NHTSA and Obama administration proudly announced huge leaps in the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards that automotive manufacturers will be required to adhere to by the year 2025 to the tune of 54.5 mpg. Currently the standard is set to 29.7 mpg equivalent for 2012 model year vehicles for sale in the U.S. These statements have created a fire storm of criticism from conservative groups and individuals.
I read one comment that claimed that the laws of physics would need to be defied in order to achieve such a result. The commenter said that we'd have to sprinkle fairy dust on the cars to achieve those kinds of figures. While the tongue-in-cheek comment was funny indeed, I take issue with the logic behind that criticism.
The fact of the matter is, we've been able to build cars with 30+ mpg and enough power for highway speeds since at least the 1960's, but we're only just beginning to achieve that as an average for our fleets (not quite, but close). Back then, car companies were working with carbureted, points ignition, push rod engines, nylon bias-ply tires and the aerodynamics of a brick. We now have cheaply available technologies such as direct or port fuel injection, computer controlled ignition systems, dual overhead cams, variable valve timing, low rolling-resistance tires and wind-tunnel-honed body shapes that would put to shame the aerodynamics of even the highest-performing race cars from that era. That's not to mention the weight-saving materials technologies that have been developed since then. We've now got lighter, stronger steel and aluminum alloys, carbon fiber and other composite materials, and the ability to use computer modeling and prototyping to design parts with lighter weight and greater strength than ever before.
With that said, it's safe to say that I don't believe 54.5 mpg for a large passenger vehicle capable of highway speeds and adequate acceleration to be a hard target to attain to. In my opinion, that target is an underachievement. If we've learned anything from the information age, it's that technology can always be made better and cheaper with each passing year. My phone, which fits in my pocket, is 1.25 times as powerful as the computer that I paid about $1000 for in the year 2000. It uses way less power, generates way less heat and only cost me $25. The engineering of mechanical devices follows a similar trend toward increasing utility for less money, and cars and trucks are no exception.
The thing about the CAFE regulations that I take issue with is the notion that the government has actually achieved anything here. It's been known with reasonable certainty for about 60 or so years that the oil supply that we use to power our cars is finite and that it will likely cease to be an economically viable energy source within the current century (probably within the next couple of decades). It's also been warned for several decades now that the carbon dioxide that is released from the burning of fossil fuels is a greenhouse gas that could possibly irreversibly raise the temperature of our planet, and more and more evidence accumulates supporting that notion. But we've only just achieved what was possible 5 decades ago in fuel efficiency.
The fact of the matter is, for at least the first 30 years of anti-pollution regulations by the EPA and other government entities, the government was actually counter-productive in the quest for more efficient, lower emitting power systems in vehicles, and continues to be so. The responses to regulation were cumbersome and prone to failure. Engines generated less power and worse fuel economy, and the resultant vehicles are generally regarded as some of the worst engineered of all time.
It's taken from the late 1960's until very recently to surpass the kinds of power and efficiency numbers that were regularly seen back then. The engineering of cars and their engines continued to be of inferior quality until the market demanded, by educated consumer sentiment (using information available via the internet) and increasing oil prices, that manufacturers produce a more powerful and efficient product than was previously available.
This goes to show you that markets are what drive innovation, and that politicians ride the coat tails of those market forces to achieve their own ends. Most government intervention serves to stifle the market forces that generate innovation in favor of the interests of the politicians and their cronies. Since the average citizen is barred from direct influence in the modern political process on the national level, those groups with the most money pull the most weight, and are the true constituents of the national politicians. Which group do you think benefited most from the low fuel-efficiency of American cars? Answer that question correctly and it will tell you who bought the elections and guided the policy of the last 50 years regarding such issues.
And that brings me to my final point. The EPA and the NHTSA have no constitutional authority to generate policy. Laws and regulations can only be written legally by the legislative branch of the government, while the EPA and NHTSA are part of the executive branch. The U.S. Constitution was written in such a way as to prevent any one group or individual from gaining absolute power. Any executive order dictating a new law is unconstitutional on that basis alone. The conflicts of interest that arise as a result of this violation are obvious, and were not lost on the writers of our Constitution.
I count myself as a supporter of the science behind the global warming theory, so I have no love for heavy and inefficient cars being on the road. But if we're going to make sweeping rules that govern such things, it should be done through the proper channels, and via the legislative branch of our government in order to dilute the influence of one group or another, and to truly represent the people who voted for these politicians.
All of this rule-making is beside the point anyway. By the time 2025 rolls around, gasoline powered cars will need to do better than 54.5 mpg just to stay competitive with the technologies that will replace internal combustion engines. Rising gas prices will essentially render internal combustion engines obsolete. The market will force these companies to innovate or risk bankruptcy. The best thing the government could do at this point is to get out of the way.
Links:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/13f44fb4e2c2d39d85257a68005d0154!OpenDocument
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/Model+Years+2012-2016:+Final+Rule
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment