Gack. Now Obama is ranting about how he's going to make the corporations give us super fuel-efficient cars, find awesome new sources of oil, make renewable energy affordable, and invent a really delicious fat-free ice cream. However did we manage to get through the first 200 years without Barack Obama to beat some progress out of the corporations that have been holding us back?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
How?
Socialist control of the means of production, that's how
Don't you know there're cars that get 200 miles to the gallon but the MAN is keeping it down
The MAN is shipping good jobs overseas and shipping more poor folk here to lick there boots at even cheaper wages
Obama learned about the MAN and the PLAN at the feet of the Reverend Jerimiah Wright and he knows what he knows
How?
Socialist control of the means of production, that's how
Don't you know there're cars that get 200 miles to the gallon but the MAN is keeping it down
The MAN is shipping good jobs overseas and shipping more poor folk here to lick there boots at even cheaper wages
Obama learned about the MAN and the PLAN at the feet of the Reverend Jerimiah Wright and he knows what he knows
Now now. Not all corporations are paragons of morality, social contribution, and powerful innovation like Wal*Mart is. The Googles of the world occasionally need wise government policy to prod them in the right direction. :)
I remember Dumbya Bush making most of those promises, too - and instead of going "gack," Megan voted for the worthless piece of shit.
Where was her gack then?
I guess she's still dizzy from the beating Glenn Greenwald gave her.
ML+J,
Maybe she's learned from that mistake. Obama is nothing more than a typical politician: pandering, lying, and ultimately power-hungry. Simply pointing that out in the face of the rampant messianism, is a service. That and from his first book, I'm sure he's look for paternal approval through implementing hard leftist policies.
Did he mention anything about dogs and cats living together in harmony?
skullberg writes: "Maybe she's learned from that mistake. Obama is nothing more than a typical politician: pandering, lying, and ultimately power-hungry. Simply pointing that out in the face of the rampant messianism, is a service. That and from his first book, I'm sure he's look for paternal approval through implementing hard leftist policies."
You silly wingnuts consider anyone left of Bo Gritz to be a "hard leftist." You're all essentially insane. Obama's policies are quite mainstream and all of your scare stories are laughable.
By the way - she's an Obama SUPPORTER, idiot. Of course, given the alternatives, all rational voters are.
Skullberg,
You're very gullible.
Paul Volker does not endorse Marxists.
I recommend you start thinking for yourself.
Also as for the fuel efficient cars the record shows that if the bar is not set by Congress the manufacturers will not reach for it. The entire SUV = truck travesty is typical of the "free market" approach. Just because you like low taxes doesn't mean you have to be naive about power. Smarten up.
The entire SUV = truck travesty is typical of the "free market" approach.
Except that the entire SUV = Truck travesty was introduced by government legislation.
So in fact, it is evidence that government tends to make the problem WORSE. If only because the government will always be distorted by pressure groups.
I don't know what I would enjoy more; watching the Obama fanboys lose to John Sidney McCain III in November, or watching the Obama fanboys turn on their president in a frenzy when he ultimately has to sell them out after Mitch McConnell steals his lunch money for the umpteenth time.
"Obama's policies are quite mainstream and all of your scare stories are laughable."
Uh... Obama has been rated as the most liberal member of the Senate.
Hardly mainstream.
Also as for the fuel efficient cars the record shows that if the bar is not set by Congress the manufacturers will not reach for it.
Er, what record would that be? The National Academy of Sciences concluded that after 27 years, CAFE standards had decreased fuel consumption by a whopping......14%. And at the potential cost of up to 2,600 additional motor vehicle accident fatalities per year.
We're gonna feel pretty stupid when the lights go out and we're shivering in hair shirts because the Chinese can't imagine anything we have they'd want to trade for.
Umm, you can make "corporations" (or engineers) give us more fuel-efficient cars simply by increasing fuel efficiency standards. If they passed a law tomorrow that said all cars sold by 2010 must get 45mpg, Detroit could do that pretty easily. They just don't, because they don't have to.
You can also create more use of alternative energy through tax incentives for research and production. Go to Germany and check it out for yourself. My family there has a farm in Bavaria with a windmill that generates power (they sell the excess). It cost about $1 million to build but with the tax benefits, it pays for itself in 5-6 years. You can make alternative energy "affordable" by the same means.
And once the demand boost created by the government assistance and tax incentives causes the industry to be built up to scale, lowering the unit costs of production, you can begin to phase out said government assistance and incentives.
Re: Windmill power
I'm all for that, but when we have people in Congress who don't want to have it in their own backyard, getting things like that done makes it nearly impossible. (Ted Kennedy in particular, who is completely against it on his back 40).
It's just more "do as I say, not as I do" talk.
And for the 45mpg cars, the unions are going to have fits when Detroit has to start laying off people due to the added expense of engineering these new cars.
It doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long time for a car to go from the drawing board to the highway.
You silly wingnuts consider anyone left of Bo Gritz to be a "hard leftist." You're all essentially insane. Obama's policies are quite mainstream and all of your scare stories are laughable.
And what else did the leprachaun say?
TH: You're right, Detroit could make all cars 45 MPG pretty easily. It'd involve every car being either a SmartCar built for two anorexic pygmies, or a hybrid that costs $10,000 more than the same car with a normal engine(not to mention all the toxic waste problems when it dies). Oh, and of course, there'd be no vans, trucks, or anything else capable of actually moving cargo of any size.
Speaking for myself, I don't think depriving poor families of the ability to buy a car is good public policy, but maybe that's just because I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. It's good to see you can find someone to take up the contra to any position you can envision, though - keeps things lively.
"If they passed a law tomorrow that said all cars sold by 2010 must get 45mpg, Detroit could do that pretty easily. They just don't, because they don't have to."
Sheesh-o-matic.
Why should they HAVE to? Screw Detroit. Let 'em keep building products that the market won't buy, die on the vine, and be replaced by really innovative corporations that will build good cars.
But Detroit? That's not gonna happen in Detroit no matter what kind of laws "they" make tomorrow. Detroit becomes more irrelevant with each pump price increase.
TH,
I think the scare-quotes around "affordable" says it all.
And yes, 45mpg is easy--just force the mfr's to stop making cars the size and performance people want. Stroke of the pen, law of the land-pretty cool!
TH,
Umm, you can make "corporations" (or engineers) give us more fuel-efficient cars simply by increasing fuel efficiency standards. If they passed a law tomorrow that said all cars sold by 2010 must get 45mpg, Detroit could do that pretty easily. They just don't, because they don't have to.
No, they couldn't. They'd go bankrupt. Thousands of people would lose their jobs, and the communities that depend on them would be devastated.
You can also create more use of alternative energy through tax incentives for research and production. Go to Germany and check it out for yourself. My family there has a farm in Bavaria with a windmill that generates power (they sell the excess). It cost about $1 million to build but with the tax benefits, it pays for itself in 5-6 years. You can make alternative energy "affordable" by the same means.
Thanks to government policies, Germany has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, and all the subsidies the German government provides for renewables also have to be paid for in higher taxes. Solar isn't remotely cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and wind is only competitive in small markets. Both suffer from other serious problems (intermittent, unreliable, remote).
TH--
Umm, you can make "corporations" (or engineers) give us more fuel-efficient cars simply by increasing fuel efficiency standards. If they passed a law tomorrow that said all cars sold by 2010 must get 45mpg, Detroit could do that pretty easily. They just don't, because they don't have to.
The only way Detroit "could do that pretty easily" is by ceasing to manufacture almost anything that the American market wants to buy.
Sure, the Smart Car gets good mileage, but it's useless if you need to transport three people.
Look, automotive engineers around the world have been working really hard to increase fuel efficiency since the early '70s. They've made considerable progress, but it's simply not as easy as you think to develop an engine that will provide the same power at half the fuel usage.
Governments cannot mandate technological breakthroughs. That's just flat-out impossible. The best that governments can do is fund research into possible breakthroughs...but they usually screw that up, because they tend to want to fund fad-of-the-moment instead of actual bleeding-edge technology.
You silly wingnuts consider anyone left of Bo Gritz to be a "hard leftist." You're all essentially insane. Obama's policies are quite mainstream and all of your scare stories are laughable.
Thank you for your reasoned analysis, which was most convincing.
TH sez: "Umm, you can make "corporations" (or engineers) give us more fuel-efficient cars simply by increasing fuel efficiency standards. If they passed a law tomorrow that said all cars sold by 2010 must get 45mpg, Detroit could do that pretty easily. They just don't, because they don't have to."
Yup; they're called "mo-peds". Try bring groceries home in the rain on one.
I pay $350/month in car payments plus insurance, gas and maintenance so that I _DON'T HAVE TO_. I don't have to freeze in the winter and bake in the summer while pedaling 10 miles to work, and I only carried my kid on the back when it was FUN, and ENJOYABLE.
As an engineer by training, I resent your ignorant and paranoid assertion that we have been bought off somehow, and that it would be "pretty easy" to create a 45MPG vehicle if we all weren't so corrupt.
TH: You nailed it, brother. We need $90,000 cars that get 60 mpg. I'm tired of sharing the road with po' trash that's too busy yacking on their cellphones and parking in the left lane on their way to the welfare office. Screw the losers with extreme CAFE standards. Make the middle and lower class take the damn bus.
Regarding your solution-by-fiat ideas, you really must study up on Marxist history before you embarrass us further there. You're still in that Stalin era school of philosophy, e.g. "I decreed it, therefore it is" economics. That's a nice ego trip if you can get it, but buddy, you're doing it wrong. For ridding the world of 40 million peasants, jews, or other undesirables we on the left love to target in our misdirection, it's a great technique but you've got to remember it's not used to solve engineering problems like mileage, economic alternative energy, etc. Don't forget: Liberalism is never, ever direct. You tell them what you really intend and they rebel, throw tea over a ship, the slaves leave the plantation, the Jews flee the country, etc. Instead, you have to talk opposites, and use "magic" solutions like engineering-by-decree, or spook them with magical curses like global warming. Find straw men, like Jooos, Evangelicals or Corporate types that you can blame all the ills on. Kills two birds with one stone: it distracts the idiots and gives you a shill to paint the blame for liberalism's structural problems on.
Anyway, back to our regular programming...
Vote Obama in 2008! Change! Transform! Free puppies! Hot babes for ugly nerds! Cure for AIDS! Make $1 million a month while watching TV and drinking beer! Lose weight eating nothing but carbs! Save the polar bears! CHANGE!
They'd go bankrupt. Thousands of people would lose their jobs, and the communities that depend on them would be devastated. - Mixner
Well, that's wrong. Sweden has cut its CO2 output by 8% since 1990, and its dramatic economic growth over the past decade has increased CO2 output by...nothing. The auto industry said catalytic converters, seat belts, CAFE standards and airbags would all ruin the industry. All wrong. The Japanese are doing just fine; what ruined the industry is Detroit stupidity and insistence on building SUVs.
You noted above that the NAS estimates CAFE standards have cut gas consumption by 14%. You have some problem with this? If Congress had actually raised CAFE standards at some point in the past 20 years we'd have saved even more gas. And note that the total savings come even though better mileage encourages people to drive more.
The claim that smaller cars lead to higher fatalities is confused. It's the split in car sizes between truck/SUVs (exempted from CAFE) and small cars that causes fatalities. What we need to do is include trucks/SUVs in CAFE standards rather than maintaining the mindless exemption; that will reduce the number of SUVs on the road and cut fatalities. In other words, what's killing people is the exemption of SUVs from CAFE standards, not the standards themselves.
ML+J,
Scare stories? What stories have I told? Also, I never said he was campaigning as a hard leftist, but I do believe that is where he would prefer to take this country. He's saying what he has to to get elected, and he'll work out policies once in office.
Can't I be saddened by all three? That seems pretty rational? I think the cult of Obama is scary and not at all healthy (and he's a lightweight), McCain is old and economically illiterate and Clinton is an authoritarian.
NO,
I never said he was a Marxist. His dad was, he grew up in Hawaii with Communists and was the member of a church for 20 years rooted in marxist interpretations of Christianity. I think he's looking for approval from an absentee father through exploring his political ideals, whether his heart is in it or not.
I do, and that's why I'm not a fan of Obama.
Now, I tend to think his church membership was cover for being a half-white politician on the south side of Chicago. But that only makes Obama look more like your average pol. He's an expert speaker, a great panderer and a liberal senator running as "Change I can believe in" without ever actual changing anything or being any kind of vanguard.
Speaking of mopeds... should I just go for a 2,000 one for small commutes? Or should I chunk down 8,000 for the Honda Silverwing? At that point, is it just more cost-effective (and safer?) to buy a good motorcycle?
Now now. Not all corporations are paragons of morality, social contribution, and powerful innovation like Wal*Mart is. The Googles of the world occasionally need wise government policy to prod them in the right direction. :)
Christian: That's precisely the problem.
Obama is in the pocket of Google people. People who fuel their private airliners with money made by selling out dissidents to the Chinese government.
Some guy who looks like me will be shot in some dark Communist prison so that some Bay Area liberal one-up his other plutocrat buddies.
Gives us a pretty good understanding of liberalism, if you ask me.
That's funny, I was just wondering the same thing about Hillary...
TH, let me acquaint you with the Golden Rule of Engineering: "Everything is easy - to the guy who doesn't have to do it himself."
Show me your design for a 60 - no, even a 30 mpg car (which my 20 year old junker routinely betters in real-world driving), and we can start talking turkey.
Oh, you do know how CAFE numbers are calculated right? Weighted average fuel economy based on what the customers actually demand? Means that unless you consolidate all of American industry into one corp ("MarxCar"?), the customer choice will be the driving factor in what CAFE numbers are actually generated. Based on the quality of your argument, I presume you think that people in the US still buy SUVs and pickups 'cause they're too gullible and fall for marketing hype. Please do a bit more research and stop beclowning yourself - with the price of gas so high, auto sales in general are weak, trucks and SUVs in particular are experiencing the sharpest drops in sales they've seen in decades. It's why everyone who can is getting out of Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio all over again.
This is of course not to mention how the CAFE mileage of each model is calculated - it comes from an EPA speed/time chart. That means if I have a car with a given wheel size, a given engine fuel map, and a set rear differential gear ratio, I can pick a "magic gear" or two for the transmission so that at the speed range with the longest time, I can set it so that my engine only has to run so fast. I can further optimize it in an automatic by proper shift-point selection and shifting scheme. Gaming the fuel standards this way is the first thing a lot of people in auto engineering learn in grad school, if not the last thing learned as an undergrad. Still doesn't help in real-world driving unless you drive EXACTLY the same speed, for the same amount of time, as the EPA uses to set these things (a hint. Red lights and the like are "simulated;" no driving is actually tested in a CAFE test. I highly recommend not driving to the curve).
CAFE is a malignant joke that's done more for reducing safety and increasing costs (which I might add are passed on to the buyers) than just about any other dumb "engineering" by fiat that Congress has ever written.
I think the cult of Obama is scary and not at all healthy (and he's a lightweight) - Skullberg
Yeah, Harvard Law School is well known for its predilection for lightweights, and they usually pick the ditziest guy in the class to be Editor of the Law Review.
That pretty much explains why all those other lightweights, like Nobel Prize winning economist Edmund Phelps, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, etc. have endorsed him.
-- Blacksmith
Here you go:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/10/epa_prius.html
EPA Finds Prius #1 in Gas Mileage
By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.com
"The 2007 Prius tops the list with 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 mpg on the highway. Many Prius owners, however have disputed the government mileage numbers from previous years and have reported to ConsumerAffairs.com that average fuel economy for the hybrid is approximately 43 miles to a gallon."
EPA measurements have since been revised for greater realism. Current measurement for the Prius: 46 mpg combined city/highway.
Some guy who looks like me will be shot in some dark Communist prison so that some Bay Area liberal one-up his other plutocrat buddies. - secret asian man
SAM, John McCain is literally the preferred candidate of the Vietnamese government. Ask any high-ranking Vietnamese Communist who they want to win the US election. It's McCain. The former warden of the Hanoi Hilton literally said he wished he could vote in the US elections so he could vote for McCain.
"Some guy who looks like you" is currently locked up in a dark Communist prison so that John McCain can get off on trading war stories with the guys who shot him down. Or something. I don't actually understand why McCain thinks Vietnam's Communist Party is a-okay (while apparently China's isn't). I'm not sure McCain understands why he thinks this either. I'm not sure McCain understands much of anything, really, in any depth.
brooksfoe,
Well, that's wrong. Sweden has cut its CO2 output by 8% since 1990, and its dramatic economic growth over the past decade has increased CO2 output by...nothing.
Let's see: I make a statement about what would happen if the U.S. auto industry were required by law to dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of its vehicle fleet in less than two years, and in response you claim this is "wrong," on the basis of a claim about the change in Sweden's CO2 output over the past 18 years. Can you spot the fallacy in your argument? Do you know the meaning of the word "nonsequitur?"
I'm not sure what point you think you're making with the business about Sweden and CO2, either. You are aware, aren't you, that Sweden has a small population and abundant hydroelectric power? Do you think that might have something to do with the trend in its CO2 emissions?
You noted above that the NAS estimates CAFE standards have cut gas consumption by 14%. You have some problem with this?
14% in 27 years. At the cost of a substantial increase in motor vehicle accident fatalities. And other costs. Not exactly a compelling argument for CAFE, is it?
The claim that smaller cars lead to higher fatalities is confused. It's the split in car sizes between truck/SUVs (exempted from CAFE) and small cars that causes fatalities.
No, it's the CAFE standard, which forced manufacturers to reduce the strength and safety features of vehicles in order to save weight.
brooksfoe,
Yeah, Harvard Law School is well known for its predilection for lightweights, and they usually pick the ditziest guy in the class to be Editor of the Law Review.
So we may assume you have a high regard for George W. Bush's intellectual abilities on the grounds that he went to "the other Harvard," Yale University, right?
That pretty much explains why all those other lightweights, like Nobel Prize winning economist Edmund Phelps, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, etc. have endorsed him.
During the 2004 election, the Bush-Cheney campaign released a letter signed by 368 of the nation's leading economists, including 6 Nobel laureates, denouncing Democratic candidate John Kerry's economic agenda. Given that you're so impressed by the opinions of professional economists, especially Nobel Prize-winning ones, one can only assume you share their very low opinion of Kerry's proposed economic policies.
No, it's the CAFE standard, which forced manufacturers to reduce the strength and safety features of vehicles in order to save weight.
No, it's the split in car sizes. People die when heavy cars crash into light cars. If we could get the SUVs off the road, we'd save more lives. CAFE standards "lead to higher fatalities" because they exempt SUVs.
You appear not to understand the concept of percentages. How high do you expect fuel savings to go over time? "If it saves 14% after 5 years, it should be saving at least 5 times 14 = 70% after 25 years! Why, after 50 years, it should be saving 140% of fuel consumption!" CAFE standards haven't changed in decades. How exactly do you expect the fuel savings to increase?
So we may assume you have a high regard for George W. Bush's intellectual abilities on the grounds that he went to "the other Harvard," Yale University, right? - Mixner
How many other people named Obama attended Harvard in the generations before Barack Obama went there?
Do you know what the term "legacy" refers to?
brooksfoe,
No, it's the split in car sizes.
No, it's the CAFE standards. Read the NAS study. If SUVs and trucks had been subject to the same fuel economy requirements as cars, their safety would also have been compromised by the need to reduce weight, producing even more fatalities.
You appear not to understand the concept of percentages.
You appear not to understand the meaning of 14% in 27 years. Or the meaning of "more fatalities."
CAFE standards haven't changed in decades. How exactly do you expect the fuel savings to increase?
By the gradual replacement of older vehicles built before the standards were imposed with newer ones, by increases in fuel economy in response to market pressures, and by other mechanisms.
How many other people named Obama attended Harvard in the generations before Barack Obama went there?
I don't know. And the point is.....? You have a real talent for nonsequitur.
Do you know what the term "legacy" refers to?
Sure. Do you know what the term "affirmative action" refers to?
How many other people named Obama attended Harvard in the generations before Barack Obama went there?
One: Barack Obama.
What, you're surprised? And what election primaries have you been watching?
Do you know what the term "affirmative action" refers to?
Do I understand you correctly to be saying that Barack Obama is not really smart, and only got into Harvard Law School because he is black?
This is your claim?
You appear not to understand the meaning of 14% in 27 years....By the gradual replacement of older vehicles built before the standards were imposed with newer ones, by increases in fuel economy in response to market pressures, and by other mechanisms.
You continue to fail to understand how percentages work. If CAFE standards reduce gas consumption by 14% after 15 years, and you don't then raise them any higher, then they will not get you any further percentage gas consumption savings after 20 or 27 years, except for the minuscule savings from that tiny percentage of cars older than 15 years gradually being taken off the road. Your stat would most likely show that CAFE standards cut fuel consumption by 13% after 10 years, and have not improved things much since then, since they haven't been raised.
Your comments about "market pressures" etc. are incomprehensible, since the stat you provide is supposed to refer to how much gas has been saved by CAFE standards, not how much has been saved by everything in the universe that has happened in the last 27 years.
I mean, to go back to the starting point:
ranting about how he's going to make the corporations give us super fuel-efficient cars
Honestly, I don't understand what Megan is thinking with this comment. It seems to reflect her reasoned suspicion of government regulation metastasizing into an unreasoning prejudice, one that ceases to actually make any sense.
The government can in fact impose technological standards on industries. Such standards have in the past done horrible things like eliminating lead from gasoline, getting E. Coli out of packaged meat, cutting sulfur dioxide from coal-based electric plants emissions, and on and on and on. For some reason, though, Megan is here implying that it is impossible for the government to set minimum fuel-efficiency standards in cars. The reasoning, if I may be allowed to reverse-engineer it, would be that if cars could be made more fuel-efficient, the industry would already have done so. This simply flies in the face of all data, logic, fact, elementary historical knowledge, and even the kind of basic economic reasoning Megan would normally be expounding.
You can also create more use of alternative energy through tax incentives for research and production. Go to Germany and check it out for yourself. My family there has a farm in Bavaria with a windmill that generates power (they sell the excess). It cost about $1 million to build but with the tax benefits, it pays for itself in 5-6 years. You can make alternative energy "affordable" by the same means.
I live in a country bordering Germany where alternative energy is made "affordable" (to the producers) by the same method - giving energy producers the right to sell energy at a fixed price (of course far above the market price). If you think that adorning the landscape by building as many windmills as possible is a great idea then you can consider this policy to be a success.
And once the demand boost created by the government assistance and tax incentives causes the industry to be built up to scale, lowering the unit costs of production, you can begin to phase out said government assistance and incentives.
I guess that's why all those producers of alternative energy are now fighting tooth and nail to get more money. But of course they are fighting for us - not for their own pocketbooks...
As someone who can see on his energy bill how European energy policy works I find it amazing that Americans seriously regard us as model. But obviously it's not my choice to make.
Re: CAFE standards had decreased fuel consumption by a whopping......14%. And at the potential cost of up to 2,600 additional motor vehicle accident fatalities per year.
14% is not trivial. And those "2000" lives are purely fictitious, industry propganda. During the 80s when the car fleet downsized significantly, highway deaths went down, not up. (Look it up, that's a fact). Modern-day cars are simply safer.
Re: Oh, and of course, there'd be no vans, trucks, or anything else capable of actually moving cargo of any size.
We're talking cars, not trucks. Trucks and buses are not under the same CAFE as cars.
Re: Speaking for myself, I don't think depriving poor families of the ability to buy a car is good public policy
Poor people generally buy used cars.
Re: No, they couldn't. They'd go bankrupt.
Phase it in over several years and they'd be able to retool gradually.
I live in a country bordering Germany where alternative energy is made "affordable" (to the producers) by the same method - giving energy producers the right to sell energy at a fixed price (of course far above the market price). If you think that adorning the landscape by building as many windmills as possible is a great idea then you can consider this policy to be a success. - heartofEurope
Yeah. I live in a country which, like every other country in the world, makes automobile transportation "affordable" (to the consumer) by the method of giving away roads for free to anyone who wants to drive on them. If you think that adorning the landscape with as many superhighways as possible is a great idea, then you can consider that policy to be a success.
You need energy. Where do you want to get it from? You can have coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, or windmills. Personally I suggest you learn to like the look of windmills -- though presuming you're Danish or Dutch, you really ought to have, by now.
Incidentally, wind power now costs about the same as any other kind of electric power at the market price. I suggest you check whether the guaranteed price on offer is really "above the market price" or whether you are living in a nostalgic never-never land.
Yeah. I live in a country which, like every other country in the world, makes automobile transportation "affordable" (to the consumer) by the method of giving away roads for free to anyone who wants to drive on them. If you think that adorning the landscape with as many superhighways as possible is a great idea, then you can consider that policy to be a success.
What about charging money for the use of roads?
As someone observing the situation in America only from abroad I refrain from making comments. As I've said - It's your choice and for better or worse, you'll have to bear the consequences.
I am, however, familiar with the peculiarities of the nostalgic never-never land I'm living in (aka Austria) and I've no doubts about the feelings I have with regard to our enlightened policies (and no, it has nothing to do with my aggrieved aesthetic sensibilities). If you grant me some time I can give you more facts.
In the meantime I can give some suggestions what not to do:
- turn energy companies into state-owned fiefdoms of local politicians
- built a nuclear power plant, then when it is finished decide that you don't want to use it after all
- try to prevent all neighboring countries from building nuclear power plants (or from using them after building them). At the same time import energy produced in nuclear power plants. If you use it to pump water into the reservoirs in hydro-electrical power stations it's no longer nuclear power - it's eco-friendly hydro-electrical power.
I agree with Heart. The Green and Socialist ambition to turn Germany (at least) into a nation of giant pinwheels and solar panels is nothing but a slow-moving joke. That former government also killed nuclear power while trying to prevent coal-fired generation -- while at the same time heavily subsidizing the legacy coal-mining industry in the Rhineland.
Ultimately, electricity consumers have seen their bills go up drastically as they have been yoked to pay for all these Utopian dreams. It's only by virtue of the corporatist nature of German politics that the government hasn't driven all productive industry into neighboring countries. Yet.
(Full disclosure: I've been back in the US for the last five years.)
brooksfoe,
"Incidentally, wind power now costs about the same as any other kind of electric power at the market price."
You (and those who originally made this statement) are comparing apples and opals.
Current technology wind turbines have an availability of ~35% and a capacity factor of ~25%. Nuclear and coal generators have an availability exceeding 90% and the ability to operate at capacity when they are available.
Achieving ~90% availability of 3 MW with 3 MW wind generators would require the installation of a minimum of 5 wind generators and storage capable of holding their entire output for use when the wind was not blowing. Alternatively, in the absence of such storage (as at present), 8 wind generators located in 8 weather-diverse locations selected to minimize or eliminate wind coincidence, could provide the output of one of the wind generators with ~90% reliability.
Comparing the cost of "source of opportunity" power, such as wind and solar, with the cost of reliable power, such as nuclear or coal, is a fools game. Wind and solar power can currently be used (with reasonable government incentives) as an energy replacement, but not as a capacity replacement.
Any discussion of regulating vehicle production in any way should be framed by one central principle: Cars are consumer products. They must be attractive enough to the consumer so that that consumer will scrimp, save, and sacrifice to buy it and feel good enough about the purchase to sign up for the long-term financing of it.
"Detroit," contrary to what so many here seem to believe, isn't staffed by morons. SUVs were already fading from the marketplace before the current run-up in fuel prices as consumers increasingly moved to more car-like "crossover" vehicles which combined SUV-like utility and more economical and comfortable car-type unibody engineering. And those crossovers -- like the Ford Edge and Escape, Chevrolet Equinox, and GMC Acadia -- are still relatively strong sellers. Detroit built them because consumers want them.
The SUV craze of the late-Eighties to late-Nineties was built around the simple fact that that's what consumers wanted to buy. When CAFE standards were first introduced, manufacturers responded by downsizing their cars and switching wholesale to front-wheel drive. In short, they produced less attractive cars. So the SUV, which had been around for 60 years before that as a marginal product for work crews and university Geology departments, suddenly became an acceptable alternative.
It's tough to remember now, but the whole SUV craze took the manufacturers completely off-guard -- they initially had nowhere near enough product in that niche to fill demand. It was wholly consumer driven as buyers sought to "work around" regulations that kept them from getting the sort of vehicles they wanted. The SUV products that followed that were the natural reaction of corporations chasing the market to where it is rather than where the government thought it ought to be. In short, Detroit followed the money.
Go ahead and increase the CAFE standard to 45 mpg. What will happen is that consumers will only buy the vehicles that they want -- and be aware that they may once again discover a way to work around the mandates. And if they don't find that they want cars that get 45 mpg and there's no reasonable work around, they'll opt out of the new vehicle markets for ever longer periods of time hanging on to what they already have. That by itself will probably be enough to kill Chrysler outright and threaten Ford's future immediately.
And that would be calamitous. Not only as production plants close, but as thousands of dealerships across the country are shuttered and abandoned.
The market always trumps regulation.
He may be a fine lawyer, and even a scholar, but he's shown me nothing but rookie mistakes over ths primary season. Also, I don't remember anyone crediting W with intelligence due to his MBA from HBS. And Obama's father went to Harvard, so I'm not sure there wasn't legacy at work there as well.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they have similar political beliefs, and that explains the endorsement. Obama gets not reflected intellgence or stature of those guys, just as Curt Shilling's endorsement of W said nothing about his fastball.
Todd Gack?
The automakers have met CAFE standards by making cars lighter and less safe. CAFE standards have killed thousands of people in this country. As far as Detroit having all of this wonder fuel efficiency technology that they won't produce, don't you think the military might be interested in such technology if it existed? More fuel efficient vehicles means that the logistic chain has to transport less fuel which gives you more room for things like food and bullets and the like. If such technology were out there, the military would be using it on its tanks and humvees and the like. Even if the US military were in the pocket of big oil and refused to, the Chinese or the Russians certainly wouldn't. There is no magic technology being withheld by the auto companies.
Further, when you increase the gas mileage of a vehicle, you lower the marginal cost of driving a mile. You thus make it more attractive to drive and people drive more miles, create more pollution and in some cases actually use more gas. It is one of those odd anti-intuitive conclusions that economic analysis gives you.
Of course I doubt Michelle and Barack Obama understand any of this. Not because they are not bright people, they are, but because I doubt they have gotten much formal education beyond the hate whitey, black liberation theology, Marxist critique of the black experience of black students at Princeton in the black community variety.
Sure! Raise the CAFE standards to 45mpg. Simple. Of course, we'll all be driving glorified motorcycles covered in tin foil, but that won't really matter until someone gets in an accident, and what are the chances of THAT happening? We just need to fund State mandated driving classes for everyone to fix that!
And while we're at it, let's tear up all those nasty freeways that are encouraging all us little nitwits to drive so much. Of course, we need those freeways to move goods-- like food-- around this greedy country of ours, but, hey!, Americans could afford to lose a little weight. Or better yet, the freeways should only be used by freight trucks! And the rest of us can apply for a permit from our friendly federal bureaucrat to take a trip between cities, provided we can come up with a good enough reason.
Oh, what a glorious paradise Obama has in store for us! Change... can you feel it?
I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I had only a look at my last energy bill which informs me that various extra charges for alternative energies added ca 4% to my costs. Of course that's only the part of the subsidies that is obvious to me as consumer.
"Comparing the cost of "source of opportunity" power, such as wind and solar, with the cost of reliable power, such as nuclear or coal, is a fools game. Wind and solar power can currently be used (with reasonable government incentives) as an energy replacement, but not as a capacity replacement. "
This is absolutely true and one of the things that the public in general does not understand about Wind power.
Wind power is a nice to have but will never be a major source of energy. Currently it is less than 1% of US energy generation. And I would guess that it's ceiling is somewhere around 5% given the geography of the US and its energy needs.
At the end of the day the greenest feasible option for the US power industry would be lots of nuclear plants, some natural gas fired plants, our existing Hydro (most of the avaiable hydro is allready exploited), and a little wind and solar where feasible.
Wind and solar will never be a major source of energy for a country like the US due to intermitiency, land requirements, and transmission constraints.
And yet you still support him, right?
How can anyone who calls themselves a libertarian even think about supporting Obama? Or Clinton or McCain?
"Wind power is a nice to have but will never be a major source of energy. Currently it is less than 1% of US energy generation. And I would guess that it's ceiling is somewhere around 5% given the geography of the US and its energy needs."
Keep in mind that both parties are anxious to increase the population of the US past the half billion mark in the next few decades. The total amount of wind power possible is fixed, the total amount needed is increasing rapidly.
Northern Observer,
You imply that the CAFE standard is basically solely responsible for the increase in fuel efficiency. However, if you look at the most recent NHTSA report, car makers have been operating well above the current CAFE standard for years. Attributing all efficiency increases to government mandates seems questionable to say the least.
There are some rather illustrative economic myths in this discussion. For instance:
I guess that's why all those producers of alternative energy are now fighting tooth and nail to get more money. But of course they are fighting for us - not for their own pocketbooks...
Forget the overused "fighting" word which leftists call to reflect upon their brutal 20th century of death heritage, these alternative energy producers had better be focusing on making at least a normal profit. Given the risk premium required in innovation and experimentation, they really should do more than that in order to facilitate reinvestment and provide a risk-adjusted return for their efforts to whoever has financed the operation.
What about charging money for the use of roads?
Who pays for them today? Please, not "the government." Many states use a taxation approach were the more productive half of the population is asked to pay for the roads, and the lower half is allowed to be a free rider. As one in the upper half, I would welcome a consumption-oriented model which I would probably pay as much, but countless thousands of Mexican and Canadian trucks which damage our Iowa roads and provide no compensation would be required to bear a more true cost of their business.
Understand however that usage fees will be argued to be a regressive tax, penalizing the poor. Already, we have proposals for shifting gas costs to the same "lower-half free, upper-half pays" approach by the U.S. House.
There are some rather illustrative economic myths in this discussion.
I admit that I was not providing many details, but just in case there are any misunderstandings: I was referring to a specific situation in my home country where the regulatory framework for subsidizing renewable energy is coming up for renewal. Fight is certainly an apt description for what is going on now. And to make my point clear: I think we are an example that is to be avoided, not imitated.
Incidentally, wind power now costs about the same as any other kind of electric power at the market price. I suggest you check whether the guaranteed price on offer is really "above the market price" or whether you are living in a nostalgic never-never land.
I don't know if you really are interested in the facts, but I promised to provide them, so here you are (to avoid any misunderstandings: I'm referring to the situation in a European country, not in the USA): Alternative energy can be sold (and has to be bought) at a guaranteed price (differing for various sources of alternative energy (I've to concede that wind energy is not the most expensive)). After a certain period of time (it depends, but at least 10 years), you can only charge the market price (which is still well below the guaranteed price although it has increased considerably). So, surprise, I really got my facts right.
If you want to know more instead of providing uninformed sneers look for the website of E-Control or the Ökostromgesetz.
Northern Observer,
You imply that the CAFE standard is basically solely responsible for the increase in fuel efficiency. However, if you look at the most recent NHTSA report, car makers have been operating well above the current CAFE standard for years. Attributing all efficiency increases to government mandates seems questionable to say the least.
Posted by MnZ | May 7, 2008 10:59 AM
I was more focused on the subversion of the CAFE standards for SUVs that took place in the late 1980s through the loophole of calling SUVs light trucks instead of cars. It is a perfect example of market corruption by oligopolies for economic advantage, also known as monopoly rents.
A government mandate for automakers was useful in that it helped the car manufacturers begin their drive for fuel efficiency on an even playing field. Knowing that your competitor is going to have to meet the same standard as you are removes a barrier to investment, in that you know that you are not going to pour money into innovation while your competitor dumps his into marketing and steals your market share.
The other thing is that CAFE is not a replacement for industry led innovation. It is an inducement to invest now, rather than invest later. Because high fuel consumption means future high gas prices all things being equal. So today we have high gas prices driving the innovation, car manufacturers are running as hard as they can to be fuel efficient as a selling feature, hell a survival feature, for their product. Should the government never have 'pushed' efficiency? You can make that argument but I would ask you to think about why it was done first. It's a macroeconomic issue for the US in that fuel inneficiency means high oil imports and balance of payment issues. There is an overall national ecomomic benefit to be had through lower fuel consumption. This was the big issue for the standards in the 1980s. Events have overtaken us since then.
Obama is the only Law Review president to have no published writing on a legal topic in the Review format. None. Unusual, to say the least.
heartofEurope, just want to say I appreciate your comments. It's nice to hear about alternative energy sources from someone who's actually experienced them.
Thank you, although my experience is admittedly limited to having a closer look at my energy bill and using common sense. I just wanted to point out that you should be careful not to end up throwing money at yet another lobby group.
What I find interesting is that Americans don't seem to like another lesson they could learn from Europe. If you want people to use less energy make it more expensive (a third of my energy bill are various taxes).
Skullberg types: "Obama gets not reflected intellgence or stature of those guys, just as Curt Shilling's endorsement of W said nothing about his fastball."
You're not just another useless dimestore psychologist. You're a useless dimestore psychologist who can't write very well.
How many times a week do you sit on Steve Sailer's lap?
I've seen the results of the government intervention in a free-market. I wouldn't let them mow my lawn.
Meddling politicians, employing poll-driven and short-sighted policies, create financial sink holes to be filled by taxpayers. Because of government intervention, we cannot tap into the plentiful oil resources in our own territories. But, we can cause world hunger by using vital food crops as a source of energy -- without any significant benefit to the environment.
How's that Ethanol thing working out for ya, Mr. G?
I have to agree with HOE, in that the government should raise taxes on energy to curb consumption. It encourages alternative energy R&D, which the energy tax monies collected should be used to help support.
Big Government is never the answer. A truly free-market economy does not require the political pontifications of Mr. Obama to remain effective. Unless Mr. Obama's real goal is total government control of private industry in this country.
That's what Communists do.
I've seen the results of the government intervention in a free-market. I wouldn't let them mow my lawn.
Meddling politicians, employing poll-driven and short-sighted policies, create financial sink holes to be filled by taxpayers. Because of government intervention, we cannot tap into the plentiful oil resources in our own territories. But, we can cause world hunger by using vital food crops as a source of energy -- without any significant benefit to the environment.
How's that Ethanol thing working out for ya, Mr. G?
I have to agree with HOE, in that the government should raise taxes on energy to curb consumption. It encourages alternative energy R&D, which the energy tax monies collected should be used to help support.
Big Government is never the answer. A truly free-market economy does not require the political pontifications of Mr. Obama to remain effective. Unless Mr. Obama's real goal is total government control of private industry in this country.
That's what Communists do.
ML+J,
I see that you concede my point and move directly to insults... What about that quote shows dimestore psychology? It seems like an apt analogy, since the Nobel laureates' endorsement of Obama has as much to say about Obama's intelligence as Shilling's does about W's fastball.
Want to try again? I think children always deserve a second chance.
What I find interesting is that Americans don't seem to like another lesson they could learn from Europe. If you want people to use less energy make it more expensive (a third of my energy bill are various taxes). - heartofEurope
I disagree. Many Americans, including the wonderful hostess of this blog, do support higher energy prices. Something like 98% of those who think energy should be priced higher will be voting Democratic this fall.
Wind power is a nice to have but will never be a major source of energy. - eccdogg
The general consensus is that wind power could supply about 20% of a country's electrical grid. Obviously, in a country the size of the US, when the wind is not blowing in one place, it is blowing in another. You could point to how "inefficient" it is to have to build 5 windmills to get 3 turning at any one time. But let's compare it to, say, a gas turbine. A gas turbine can run almost all the time -- if you pump the gas out of the ground thousands of miles away, buy it, liquefy it or put it through a pipeline, and so forth.
When you build your windmill, you don't then have to buy the wind to make it turn. It just blows. This subsidizes considerable "inefficiences" in other areas.
Many Americans, including the wonderful hostess of this blog, do support higher energy prices.
The last time taxes on energy were increased here in Austria we had falling energy prices, so the effects where not obvious to voters. When I look at a similar question - various proposal concerning taxes on gas in the current campaign - I have my doubts about Americans really wanting to pay more taxes (I know that Obama has not proposed to cut the tax on gas, but I can't remember that he has proposed to raise it either. If you want to compare: Here we pay ca € 1,30 per litre).
You can tell how popular higher energy taxes really are in America by counting the politicians that actively campaign promising to raise them. At the moment, I am up to zero in my count.
I think Obama is very straight forward on these issues. He says that he can't make a company bring jobs back to the US. What he says is that is obscene Americans have to PAY companys to send their jobs overseas. And he is right. Our tax code needs to be stripped of anything that encourages tax dodging, outsourcing or unfair advantages to foreign countries on trade.
Boy I would have loved to see bitter Megan during the Kennedy years. "Go to the moon! What a crazy dreamer! America could never do anything so difficult."
brooksfoe,
"The general consensus is that wind power could supply about 20% of a country's electrical grid. Obviously, in a country the size of the US, when the wind is not blowing in one place, it is blowing in another. You could point to how "inefficient" it is to have to build 5 windmills to get 3 turning at any one time."
The general consensus is based on the understanding that most utilities have a capacity reserve margin of ~20% on peak; and that, if the wind were not blowing, that capacity could be used to replace the output of the wind farms.
The fact that the wind is blowing in Oklahoma would be of little consolation to folks in LA, where the wind was not blowing.
If you had 5 wind turbines in one location, assuming all were functional, all would either be operating or not. They would operate at some output ~35% of the time and at rated capacity ~25% of the time. The remainder of the time, they would produce no output.
If you had 8 wind turbines in 8 carefully selected and matched locations, they would produce the rated capacity of 1 of the turbines at a reliability of 90%; and, about twice the capacity of 1 of the turbines on average.
The key to greater wind power use is economical storage.
" Our tax code needs to be stripped of anything that encourages tax dodging, outsourcing or unfair advantages to foreign countries on trade. "
Bingo! The best thing we could do to our tax code is make it uniform, and get congress out of the business of selling manipulation of the tax code for bribes (which they call campaign contributions.)
The entire legitimate purpose of the tax code is to raise the funds to perform the constitutional duties of the government. Using taxation as an instrument of policy is not just stupid, it's morally repugnant.
-jcr
jcr,
BRAVO!
We should be investing tons of money into carbon nano materials. Seriously, it's the only way to keep progressing without killing ourselves, and I really don't think we are too far off into major breakthroughs in this area. Imagine shingles that work as solar energy collectors. Even if we didn't solve the battery problem, could you imagine what kind of impact that would have on the energy grid? When the sun is shining, the house simply switches on the panels and the juice flows. It's getting to the point where they really just need a cheap manufacturing process. If I had a million dollars, or even a 100k, I'd be investing it in that. I just have a feeling that this is going to be the bridge that holds us until fusion.
Something like 98% of those who think energy should be priced higher will be voting Democratic this fall.
All twelve of them, yes.
"Higher energy prices" are the favored child of the coastal privileged class who frequently live in smaller, denser housing in areas with mild maritime climates and ready access to both international shipping lines and public transportation. The rest of the country has temperature spreads ranging from -30F (winter in the northern midwest) to +115F (summer in the southwestern desert) and has places seperated by a thing called "distance" on a significant scale.
Those people are generally not clamoring for higher energy prices, and it is coincidentally worth noting that they also tend to see wind farms as an economic opportunity rather than an inconvenience to a $5M view.
Remember, Corporations are merely a piece of paper in a file drawer somewhere. People run corporations. People also run governments. But with corporations you get choice. I can pick mcdonalds or I can pick burger king. Very few corporate people have total power over me and yet those that run the government do.
Brooksfoe, I cannot believe you wrote that
"When you build your windmill, you don't then have to buy the wind to make it turn. It just blows."
How familiar are you with guide-vane stage design? There's a reason they're used in gas turbines. Maybe - MAYBE - if you put your windmill on a revolving base so that it could be turned to properly take advantage of wind direction, it could work as you describe. The design of the bearings on such a multiton-capacity rotating stage is left as an exercise for the student. Oh, and it has to be able to support the turbine in a hurricane-force wind - see here for why (from Danish TV):
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/25/wind-turbine-self-de.html
That isn't a hurricane-force wind. It's a mere "squall," just a sustained wind storm. If there's a chance the brakes might fail, maybe a telescoping turbine support is in order - adding more complexity and expense.
Regarding the EPA numbers, the combined cycle did recently get its top speed increased - from 55 mph to what, 60? You drive at 60 mph on a highway and they'll be picking your remains out of the grill of the first tractor-trailer that comes along at 70 (legally or otherwise). Driving this past weekend on I-75, I was getting passed left and right by semis - and I was carrying a significant percentage more speed than was acceptible by law. No, the Prius is just a Corolla in a fancy wrap with a big battery - deadweight at highway speeds, sorry - and a CVT. Great for puttering around town in but worse on the highway than the Corolla, even in marginally-less-cooked-book "new" EPA numbers. The other "real world" increases include things like air conditioning and other parasitic loads on the engine. Thanks to thermodynamics, those aren't going to change much, which is probably why they were left out in the first place.
Jake S., I'm all in favor of private individuals and companies continuing focused research across a whole spectrum of technologies. I can't say I'm much in favor of government funding it at all though - and I say that as a (soon to be EX-) government-funded researcher! Government funding of research is too often an intellectual circle-jerk, where people tend to overthink certain sky-pie problems and ignore other, more practical ones. Which leads to the "10 more years" syndrome, instead of adopting imperfect new techniques right NOW, and using the efficiency gains to fund further research.
jim: Spot. On. Funny thing is that if you handed a fast food place to a politico, with a perfect location and well-trained staff, the politico'd find a way to go out of business before a single year passed. Elected officeholders aren't smarter or harder-working than the rest of us; they're just better at begging others for money.
It is so obvious, once we have a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, we can pass laws that mandate anti-gravity and perpetual motion, and repeal the law of supply and demand. Nobody will want to be a Republican any more because they will suddenly realize that they are icky. Everybody will be equal, and the urge to compete will dissipate like a stinky in the presence of air freshener. We will all agree on the very best Utopia, and that will be that.
following up on an earlier point ... has anyone seen the file on obama's admission to harvard law? how was his undergraduate record? (we all seemed to know the bush and kerry yale records before the election). was obama an affirmative action pick for harvard?
Brooksfoe,
So apparently you haven't heard of federal and state gas taxes? So much for "free" roads.
I think Obama is very straight forward on these issues. He says that he can't make a company bring jobs back to the US. What he says is that is obscene Americans have to PAY companys to send their jobs overseas. And he is right. Our tax code needs to be stripped of anything that encourages tax dodging, outsourcing or unfair advantages to foreign countries on trade.
Ah. So you favor lower corporate taxes?
Me too!
Obama was chosen as Editor of the Harvard Law Review as a compromise candidate after 19 rounds of balloting -- so it's not as if he was everyone's first choice. And Obama's absentee father, Obama Sr., attended Harvard before Obama Jr., did, so Obama Jr. did indeed get points on his admission as a "legacy" candidate. Jr. probably also received additional points for being black.
A lot of people like to claim that Obama Jr. is brilliant, but so far nobody has produced any actual evidence of it. As George W. Bush has proven, having a Harvard professional degree (he has a Harvard MBA) is no guarantee of brilliance, or even competence.
If Obama wins in November, I will expect my free pony to be shipped to me immediately. I worked for my pony, I'm entitled to it, plus my kids need a pony and they'll be crushed if they don't get one for Christmas.
If Obama doesn't send me my free pony, I'm going to put a big bumper sticker on my car that says, "HEY OBAMA, WHERE'S MY PONY?" I will also call my congressional representatives on a daily basis to remind him of his obligations.
Free ponies for everybody: Obama must understand that it's a case of equity and justice.