(EPA stands for the Environmental Protection Agency, and CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy.)
The EPA: Politics Ahead of Science
The EPA writes and enforces its regulations that are based on laws passed by the Congress. The EPA administrator (currently Lisa P. Jackson) is appointed by the president and approved by Congress.
The author of this cited report, Mark R. Powell, is an American Association for the Advancement of Science Risk Fellow with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report makes it abundantly clear that EPA puts its regulatory role ahead of science. As Powell correctly notes, the main impediment to research at the EPA is that it is first and foremost a regulatory agency: “EPA’s primary constituencies tend – with some justification – to view science and analysis as an obstacle to regulatory action.” Science often has little to do with how a decision is made: “EPA for a variety of reasons is unwilling, unable, and unequipped to address and acknowledge the uncertainties in the underlying science.” [emphasis mine]
From this source, we get this quote: “This announcement is more of the same from an administration that cares about political science more than independent science. Furthermore, the decision sidelines science at a time when the EPA is actively considering revising standards meant to protect the public’s health from lead and ozone pollution. The EPA’s announcement means the best available science will now be watered down by politics, and the public’s health will suffer as a result.”
Here is another source and another quote: “In a stunning act of political kowtowing, the EPA caved to special interest groups and politics and declared CO2 a ‘dangerous pollutant’, even though it is part of the natural cycle of life.”
This source says that the EPA puts its ideology ahead of common sense: The Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (Lead RRP) regulation officially took effect on 22 Apr 10. The Lead RRP regulation is meant to protect pregnant women and children from exposure to unhealthy levels of lead paint. Even so, the rule illustrates how EPA is currently driven more by ideology and bureaucratic inefficiency than common sense. The rule requires that any renovation of any building built before 1978 affecting six or more square feet of paint must be overseen by a government-certified renovator and conducted by a government-certified renovation firm. Certification requires completion of an EPA-approved training course and payment of a fee to the agency. The rule applies to anybody – including painters, electricians, plumbers, and carpenters, plus general contractors and property owners – who “disturbs painting” in covered structures. But as of April 22, EPA had certified exactly 204 course trainers.
We can now see that the EPA is politically motivated, as the first two references illustrate, how it will cave into pressure from special interest groups, as the third reference illustrates, and places its ideology ahead of common sense, as the fourth source illustrates.
About Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator
Lisa Perez Jackson is from the lower 9th ward in New Orleans, LA. She was introduced by President-elect Barack Obama at a Chicago news conference where the president-elect unveiled his energy and environmental team. In brief remarks, Jackson said, “At the top of the list is the threat of climate change, which requires us to transform how we produce and use energy throughout the economy.” The Natural Resources Defense Council hailed Obama’s choices and said the Jackson pick, “signals to the rest of the world that the United States will be a leader on global warming.” “This is certainly a person who understands environmental justice and who has launched and initiated efforts to reduce pollution and therefore the cancer and health impacts in communities of color, ” said Monique Harden, co-director of Advocates for Environmental Human Rights.
In an appearance before the USA TODAY editorial board, Lisa Jackson also said the agency will soon propose rules to cut greenhouse emissions from cars. “We will continue to move stepwise down the path toward regulation of greenhouse gases,” Jackson said.
But not all are pleased with Jackson, who worked with the US EPA from 1987 to 2002. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a resource for government whistle-blowers, released a scathing press release calling Jackson’s record “disastrous.” The press release claims that Jackson neglected hazardous waste sites, failed to address rising air and water pollution, missed deadlines on meeting greenhouse-gas reduction targets, and became too cozy with industry.
On 27 May 11, Jackson said: “Continuing the successful clean cars program will accelerate the environmental benefits, health protections and clean technology advances over the long-term. In addition to protecting our air and cutting fuel consumption, a clear path forward will give American automakers the certainty they need to make the right investments and promote innovations.” Regarding jobs, in order to meet higher CAFE standards – particularly if those standards represent a jump from current technological capabilities – manufacturers are going to have to produce more “unconventional” vehicles to bump up their average fuel efficiency across their fleet. Unconventional, green vehicles cost consumers more. And, according to the Energy Information Agency, more expensive cars during an economic downturn equal lower sales, which equals fewer jobs!
About CAFE
The EPA, in Apr 10, finalized its program to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy for cars and trucks. These rules were developed in response to President Obama’s call for a strong and coordinated federal greenhouse gas and fuel economy program. The rules will simultaneously reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy security, increase fuel savings, and provide clarity and predictability for manufacturers. Climate change is one of the most significant long-term threats to public health and the global environment. It is caused by an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which effectively trap some of the Earth’s heat that would otherwise escape into space. The key effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future include, but are not limited to, more frequent and intense heat waves, more severe wildfires, degraded air quality, heavier and more frequent downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, continued ocean acidification, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.
So we see that a key justification for a CAFE boost is the reduction of “greenhouse gases” and their effect on the environment. I guess that the EPA has not been informed that “global warming” is a myth. But that’s a subject for another post. Besides, as we saw above, the EPA doesn’t let science get in the way of ideology.
The new CAFE requirements will, of course, cost. Hybrids, like the Chevy Volt, have battery options that offer a huge opportunity to cut gasoline use to almost zero for most drivers’ daily routines. The cost of the new battery technology will add a significant amount to the price of a car. Big families and less well-off households may not be able to afford the dream cars of the fuel-efficient future.
Neither environmentalists nor the automakers seem entirely satisfied with the proposed CAFE standards, for different reasons. From this source we find that are four reasons.
- What the White House Wants: Barack Obama wants to try to toe the line between the agenda of his most ardent environmentalists supporters and his corporate partners in the plan – international automakers.
- What the Auto Industry Wants: Many in the auto industry would probably wish there were no CAFE restrictions. Gloria Berquist, the spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers argues that environmentalists significantly overestimate how much consumers want “green” vehicles. The restrictions also have been shown by some studies to increase the dangers associated with crashes, due to the use of less metal, and other factors. The Center for Automotive research claims a mandate of 62 mpg by 2025 would add $10,000 to the cost of new vehicles. They say such a mandate could kill the recovering industry.
- What Environmentalists Want: Environmentalists were moderately happy with President Obama’s proposal. However, some complain that it doesn’t go far enough. They were hoping for 62 mpg.
- What’s Next: The White House is happy with this proposal, but no one else is. It is expected that there will be significant modifications before September. Ultimately the proposal should be an interesting test of exactly how strict the Obama administration thinks it can be with the automakers, which some claim are “indebted” to it for saving them with bailouts.
Results of EPA Decision on CAFE
From this source we see that the new CAFE standards will reshape the automobile industry. The question is: By how much? One key issue: Industry spokespeople say the 62 mpg CAFE, sought by environmentalists, could be too costly and may not be feasible. One industry ally says hitting 62 mpg would require widespread vehicle electrification, adding nearly $10,000 to the price of a new vehicle. Federal agencies say the cost would be lower, $3,500 per vehicle, at most, and would be offset by consumer fuel savings. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group, has warned that the 62-mpg CAFE standard could cut car sales by 25 percent, costing the industry 220,000 jobs. Sandy Stojkovski, president of AVL Strategic Analytic Services, a technology consulting firm in suburban Detroit, said automakers could meet the less aggressive 3 percent target, the 47-mpg CAFE, with advanced internal combustion engines. But, she said, more aggressive targets will require greater vehicle electrification. Even then, Stojkovski said, the likelihood of creating affordable versions of powertrains such as plug-in hybrids is uncertain.
Eric Peters, noted car guy, says that Obama has decided to ban cars outright. His just-announced proposal that new cars be required by law to average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025 will effectively do just that. To achieve an average of 56 MPG, he contends, one or more of the following would be necessary:
- Massive reduction in vehicle weight: It is easier to move a lighter car than a heavier car. The problem is the engineering/economic conflict between weight and safety. For decades, the federal government has been passing one safety-minded mandate after another, each of which has had the effect of making newer cars heavier than their equivalents of the past.
- Lowering weight while maintaining crash worthiness will not be cheap or easy: There are ultra-lightweight race cars that are extremely crash worthy. You can hit a wall in one at 150 MPH and walk away with nothing more than a few bruises. Of course they also cost hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars each. High-strength, lightweight materials such as carbon fiber and titanium cost a lot more than steel or aluminum, the materials used to make ordinary passenger cars. The car Obama wants could be made of carbon fiber and average 56 MPG while also being very safe in a crash.
- Cut size: You could always just eliminate all cars larger than the SmartForTwo car (which incidentally only gets 41 highway and seats only two people). Maybe with a diesel engine such a car could manage to get close to 56 MPG, average. There are micro-compacts in other markets, such as Europe, that approach 70 MPG on the highway.
- Cut capability Absent some technological miracle, there is no way – period – any vehicle you could describe as a truck or SUV will ever average 56 MPG. If cost is no object and you don’t mind driving something very, very small, the car Obama wants us to drive is at least theoretically possible.
From this source we get the following points about the CAFE.
- Since planning, designing, engineering, and tooling a new model require at least four years, automobile manufacturers must begin to plan to meet future CAFE standards based upon extremely uncertain forecasts of the level of gasoline prices in the years in which a model is actually sold.
- In research performed over the past fifteen years, traffic safety analysts have found that occupants of lighter cars incur an elevated risk of serious injury and death in crashes compared to occupants of heavier cars.
- Fuel economy regulation inevitably leads to smaller, lighter cars that are inherently less safe than the cars that would be produced without a binding fuel economy constraint. When safety considerations are included, CAFE appears to be a very costly social policy.
The EPA and CAFE is also changing the business model for “large” car makers. The EPA is not just mandating 56 mpg by 2025, effectively creating a standard only hybrid electrics can meet, it is putting in place harsh fines for companies that make internal combustion engines. Fines for failing to meet arbitrary mpg edicts have been the cost of doing business for luxury automakers for decades since CAFE rules debuted. Mercedes, for example, paid $2.9 million in 2010 because it makes a limited menu of high-performance vehicles. “This is basically an attack on the way they do business because the things they traditionally sell are based on size and power,” Bill Visnic, an auto analyst with Edmunds.com, told the Wall Street Journal. “To do something like this is essentially putting them out of business here.” The EPA will put luxury automakers in a tough spot: Make electrics its customers don’t want, or make gas-powered cars priced out of reach by government fines.
In another article by Eric Peters, he states that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) says that SUVs are safer. [note: IIHS tests crash worthiness, while the EPA sets/tests mpg; both are government agencies] The first two vehicles on the IIHS list are the Audi A6 and the Mercedes Benz E-Class. But both the A6 and E-Class Benz are large luxury-sport sedans, not SUVs. IIHS describes these two as being “4WD.” Apparently, IIHS doesn’t know much about cars. The A6 and E-Class do offer all-wheel-drive. But AWD is not 4WD.
The thing to know about the IIHS report is not that “new SUVs” are safer, it’s that bigger/heavier vehicles are almost always safer than small, lighter ones.
How Are Electric Cars Doing?
The Nissan Leaf sold 573 units in April versus the Chevy Volt’s 493. Compared to March’s results, which had Leaf sales at 298 and Volt sales at 608. Those sales numbers are not exactly setting the world on fire. Both the Leaf and Volt are hybrids and small cars. Here are some earlier sales figures.
Having invested heavily in luxury automakers Tesla and Fisker, the Obama administration is now putting the screws to their gas-engine competitors like Porsche and BMW. Not uncoincidentally, the Obama Energy Department has invested $529 million in Fisker Automotive and $465 million in Tesla. Both are Silicon Valley based, Friends-of-Barack, luxury electric carmakers. Fisker will use its federal loan to build the $100,000 Karma and $50,000 Nina luxury electrics. Their wealthy buyers will get a further taxpayer gift of $7,500 on purchase. Tesla’s loan goes to development of the $60,000 Model S sedan.
The EPA has strangled gas-powered automakers with penalties with draconian rules in beginning in 2017. The automakers haven’t made electrics a priority because their customers don’t want them. Electrics are simply inferior to high-performance gas engines. Take Tesla’s $120,000 Roadster sports car. Though impressive in performance, it is less capable than the similar Lotus Elise, which costs half as much. That’s one reason the Roadster is going out of production this year.
Here is an opinion about electric cars by Eric Peters. He says that electric cars make sense at amusement parks and golf courses – and on the road, if the road is mostly flat, it’s nice and warm out (but not too warm) you’ve got money to waste, don’t have to go very far (especially in winter) and don’t mind waiting a couple hours before you can go someplace else.
In another article by Eric Peters, he discusses the fate of the Tesla, an electric car in which the Obama administration invested. The Tesla electric sports car is dead, a victim of its own defective economics. The company created an electric version of the gas-powered Lotus sports car, and tried to sell it for twice the price of the gas-powered version. Just 1,650 of these electric lemons found people rich enough – and dumb enough – to spend $109,000 for a $51,845 Lotus Elise stripped of its perfectly good gasoline engine and converted to run on electricity.
Tesla Model S electric sedan is less expensive, starting at just $58,000. And the $58K Tesla S is only good for 160 miles before its exhausted batteries need to be recharged. Meanwhile, a really nice 2011 BMW 330d (diesel) could be yours for only $44,150. It gets 36 MPG on the highway.
Where Are We Now?
We now know that the EPA puts politics ahead of science, that it will take an engineering miracle to meet the EPA defined 56 mpg, that Lisa Jackson is a “global warming” ideologue, that big cars are safer than small cars, that meeting CAFE regulations will cost both money and jobs, and that consumers don’t want electric powered cars. So, until Obama is history, and until the EPA is reined in, we consumers are doomed.
But that’s just my opinion.