3 of 13

No

Write now Article Tools

This last week President Obama released details of the new US fuel-economy standards required for vehicles. I have perused an article about it by Henry Pulizzi in the Wall St Journal (20 May 2009) It has got me wondering whether or not the US car industry is being pushed by Federal Government onto the right track to establish future prosperity for the industry, which is dependent on US consumer approval.

Apparently car makers (the Big 3) say they will produce more hybrids and diesel-powered cars. Cars will be smaller, lighter, with more aluminum parts and be more fuel efficient. At the target year of 2016, according to the new rules, cars should use on average 6.0 liters/100kms (now 8.6) and SUVs 7.8 liters/100kms (now 10.2). This represents up to 30% improvement in fuel efficiency, assuming all other things are equal, which they are not.

There is a fixed amount of energy that can be derived from a liter of fuel. The easiest way of improving fuel efficiency is to make the car smaller and lighter. By doing so the car becomes more dangerous to the occupants in an accident (higher insurance premiums), less able or unsuitable to tow boats and trailers, and uncomfortable for long distance driving, which means in the US at least, decreased consumer appeal. Why should the Government be telling us what sort of car we have to drive?

The reasoning behind this move seems to be twofold. Hovering over all this Government (Democrat) decision and policy making is a Green cloud of Utopian environmentalism, such as is promoted by Al Gore. According to their belief system, oil supplies are running short thus causing fuel price rises. The greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are polluting the atmosphere thus causing serious global warming. Therefore we must make radical changes to our life style.

We must reduce our fuel consumption and become more energy independent.

We must stop polluting the atmosphere with CO2 and so save the world from global warming.

Is this the right way to go? I don't think so. It is the pathway to economic disaster and towards an undesirable lower standard of living for the populace, with unknown political consequences.

None of these Green fears stand up to scrutiny. Energy is not in short supply. Only our ability to develop it has taken a battering by the Green Movement. The world is not coming to an end due to global warming, but rather the opposite, global cooling is more likely in the future. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should US car manufacturers be required to increase the fuel economy of the vehicles they produce??
We want to hear your view. Write now!