The DOT wants to raise CAFE standards even higher. To meet the new standards, automakers will have to downsize and lighten everything they offer. However, their expertise (and profit) is in large trucks/SUVs. Whatever will they do? Well, there's always China. The Associated Press reports China's nouveau riche auto buyers think size does count. They're going for gas guzzlers like large SUVs and luxobarges; they're the fastest-growing market segments in the People's Republic. And the automakers know it. The star of the GM display at the Beijing Auto Show is the Escalade, which they'll introduce to the Chinese market next year. Mercedes says China is the second-largest market for the S-class (the U.S. is the largest), R-class sales are up 110 percent in the first quarter and the M-, G- and GL-class sales are up 100 percent. Remind me again why we're raising our mileage standards to cut fuel consumption here? Oh yeah. We're giving up our gas guzzlers so the most polluted country in the world will have plenty government-subsidized fuel for theirs. Got it.
Find Reviews by Make:
Looks like China is the new America!
Frank, a very interesting New York Times Op-Ed pretty much answers your question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-lede-t.html?ei=5087&em=&en=d8cc9200fb79ea20&ex=1209009600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208872681-CepOw6HVRjzUNNPSNG6WsA
Basically, we can’t always wait for everybody to move on together, lest we never advance. Just look at most of the other industrialized countries, which have not waited for the U.S. to implement pretty stringent emissions control programs.
The U.S., having been the black sheep of environmental protection for the past 8 years, really cannot use the Chinese excuse anymore, although it is right in seeking China and India’s participation in emission controls programs.
Seriously, the U.S has been the champion of clogging its roads with large SUVs used in their large majority to carry one person to work.
Blaming other countries for the trouble we’re in, however justified the claim is, will not make the situation any better.
@AKM:
I thought America still had among the most stringent emissions controls, which is why diesels aren’t here in meaningful numbers yet.
And I remember reading that all the Kyoto signers have failed to reach their ambitious targets. And we still don’t know the true cost to the economy, which could easily be trillions of dollars, AND we don’t know if it will even work. Hardly seems worth the effort.
Bash China all you want, but they already have much more aggressive fuel economy standards than we do.
Mercedes S-class sold 1622 units in US in March.
So per the article above, sales in China are even lower.
Its not the 1500 S-class Mercs that give US the gas-guzzler label, its the 100,000+ large pickups and similar number of large non-luxury SUV’s sold every month.
The “nouveau rich” as well as the traditionally rich in the developing countries will buy the high end sedans and suvs because they can afford them inspite of high import duties and huge gas prices.
Just like the rich in US would continue to buy bentleys and rolls royces even if the the gas guzzler taxes increased 10 fold
Because gas and energy in general in the US is so cheap ($3/gallon is still cheap in comparison to the rest of the world))anybody can afford these large vehicles.
Thats the difference between the US and the rest of the world – energy efficiency is not valued in the US because it is so cheap.
That is why US consumes 25% of the world’s oil with 5% of the world’s population
The easiest way to change this is to make energy more expensive. but since this is political suicide, maybe laws like CAFE are the best bet.
I can see a big future for the current Trailblazer in China: Slap a Buick badge on it, call it something like Ranier or Electra, watch it outsell all the other Buicks there combined, which would be impressive.
I wish I could take credit for this idea; a friend of a (the?) union steward at our local Trailblazer factory apparently saying this is going to happen since a new product isn’t coming… 80% will go to China/Arab countries and 20% for domestic fleet. The union apparently proposed this idea… I am impressed seeing them think outside the box if it’s true.
I thought America still had among the most stringent emissions controls, which is why diesels aren’t here in meaningful numbers yet.
That’s true, but I believe they are mandated at state levels, are they not?
I’m not blaming the U.S. for everything, far from it, or praising Europeans and Japanese for everything (plenty of hot air over there too).
This said, although the Kyoto protocol is flawed, and unsuccessful, it seems to me that economic costs are relative, while environmental costs are absolute. When one is digging a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. From that perspective, encouraging (or forcing, for that matter) people to use less energy and limit the pollution they create cannot be a bad idea.
One element that is rarely included in arguments that environmental programs hurt the economy are externalities. Pollution causes diseases, which cost money, and may well end up costing more money than the possible reduction in economic growth rates would create.
The Chinese leadership is extremely conscious of that, with a LOWER life expectancy in the coastal areas than before the supercharging of the economy, due to the lack of safety regulations, the upsurge in cancers and other pollution-related illnesses, and the breakdown of the healthcare system. Unfortunately, even the Chinese leadership has a hard time going against the short-termist capitalist instincts of a population that delightfully discovers the Western lifestyle.
The Chinese (and Indian, of course) population and leaderships will NEVER accept compromises to their growth if all developed countries don’t do the same thing first, the U.S. above all else due to its sole status as a superpower and leading democracy.
At least all the current U.S. presidential candidates seem serious about climate change, although many of their initiatives seem flawed.
There always seems to be confusion between true air pollution (CO, NOx and unburned HC, as well as diesel particulates, etc) and CO2 (the so-called greenhouse gas effect).
In actual fact; it was the United States which led the way in reductions of air pollution, from static sources (starting in the 1950’s with the US invention of catalytic convertors for stacks on factories and power plants) and starting in 1963 with (admittedly crude) emission equipment on cars, getting more serious in 1967, and even more serious about true air pollution reductions, culminating in the adoption of catalytic convertors for automobiles in the fall of 1974 – some 15 to 20 years before the Europeans. So, I find the arrogance of the Europeans particularly galling pertaining to their lecturing US about CO2, especially given this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU&eurl=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/20/global-warming-101-professor-carter-explains-climate-realism
PS Somebody, call the White House…. Oh, never mind. They just got onto the CO2 band-wagon. You can’t talk to fools.
At least the Europeans are catching on to NOT making food into ethanol fuel and have stepped away from that idiocy. So, they’re ahead of the US on that one, let’s give them that.
@menno:
Very true, and acknowledged. As a European iving in the U.S., I often had to berate Europeans’ intensive use of diesels, although now, with compulsory particle filters, the problem is far less acute. But there are still plenty of older, heavily polluting diesels on the roads.
Well let them smog to oblivion, smog wasn’t new to Chna anyways. And is not getting by the day.
Whenther you’re rich or poor u still breathe the same air, unless u wear a Versace design diamond studded Scuba oxy tank with a pig head face mask.
AKM,
I really object to the prhrase “last 8 years”. If you want to take a swipe at Bush, prove it. With all the griping about him, the results are no worse environmentally than Clinton. He simply failed to be socialist enough to get a pass from the greenies.
I was going to edit my comment because I left a point out, but got held up by a phone call before the hour was up. My friend’s main point was the plan set forth by the UAW would probably be adopted, except they’d move production of the TB to China because of 50% or whatever of the manufacturing having to be there. And we’d still get 20% fleet vehicle Trailblazers – from China.
@landcrusher:
for what it’s worth:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1013-12.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/BushRecord/
The multiplication of coal-based plants, drilling in Alaska, refusal to consider international treaties, don’t paint a very rosy picture. Sure, Clinton was not an environmental green knight, but it has nothing to do with so-called “socialism”. The use of this word actually weakens this argument in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
This said, I probably shouldn’t have taken a swipe on a politician on a car website, so I’ll leave it at that and apologize for potentially offending comments.
It doesn’t really matter what America does at this point. There are one billion Chinese and one billion Indians who are all about to buy their first automobile. And we can’t do a damned thing about it.
…it seems to me that economic costs are relative, while environmental costs are absolute.
AKM:
Relative to what? How wealthy the country is. America is the most wealthy, so as far as I can tell, it stands to lose the most. Which doesn’t surprise me, seeing as how we pretty much subsidize the growth of the entire third world and still get hated by every other nation.
Maybe if we stopped invading random countries, they would hate us less. :-P
AKM,
The apology is nice. I don’t have any problem with insulting politicians, but I am a bit tired of what has become too common on both sides of the aisle: the subtle, unsupported jab.
As for the socialism comment, I stand by it. Socialists get a weird pass from the environmental movement in spite of a terrible track record on the environment. I believe if you took the actual results of the Bush administration (outperforming almost all Kyoto signatories on the Kyoto standards), and somehow credited them to a socialist leader in a survey, that most environmentalists would give him a passing grade based on the curve. If at the same time, you took the performance of the best of the socialists and attributed them to Bush, they would grade the performance as an F without reflection. All they need to hear is “Bush” and they pull out the flunking grade.
You would do well to use more objective sources for links. Neither is non-partisan. That commondreams thing would have been more convincing if they didn’t try to hide their agenda to support Kerry.
Alright, I can’t believe I’m going to say this but I agree with Landcrusher on the Bush-environment issue. (And this is crazy because I’m pretty sure we disagree on everything.)
The actual results of the Bush administration on the environment are no worse than the Clinton administration or any democratic President. Arguably, it’s even better. Not saying that it’s good; they’re all bad on environment but I this Bush has been targeted more harshly by environmental groups relative to more liberal presidents who are just as bad if not worse on the issue. (Won’t comment about the socialists getting a free pass or whatever, seems like a strange argument though?)
As for the article itself… I mean seriously? Is that last line supposed to be a joke? Sometimes I feel like TTAC is just baiting me. AKM has already made all the relevant points as to why cutting fuel consumption is a good idea so I won’t go any further about that. But c’mon guys, stop baiting me. I love TTAC and would hate to get my IP banned so please, for my sake, give me a break.
Qusus
NO baiting intended, but relative to other presidents in recent times, the only president with a worse environmental record is Reagan (I will admit to his many other virtues, and his obvious value to a morale starved America circa 1980). President Reagan openly stated is dislike for environmental regulation; only congress prevented him from dismantling the EPA. (a little irony here: What was the first agency to occupy the new office building named after President Reagan? Yup, the EPA). Anyway, there is always a need to establish a balance with the need for growth and the possible implications created when you write regulations/restrictions that MAY result in a slowdown in economic output or higher costs. Often the protections offered, whether they be clean air, safety, job protection, make the economic cost worthwhile. The idea is to balance the economic AND social (there’s that word again) costs. Sadly, IMHO, President Bush always errs on the side of Big Business. His record is quite clear in this regard. Clinton was not perfect either, but it seems to me he had way more balance in his policy. Bringing this back to cars, it can’t be stated that the Clinton/Gore ticket did not show concern about fuel consumption and mileage standards because they did. However, they were banned from doing so. When the Republican Party took control of Congress, the Department of Transportation attached a rider to the Highway appropriations bill forbidding the administration from even studying fuel mileage issues, let alone floating the idea of raising them. A total bone tossed to the fat cats in Detroit. That bone is real tasty now, isn’t it?
Qusus,
Thanks for your support. Perhaps I need to find a good example to use so you guys will get the socialism thing. The bottom line is that much of the environmental movement is more concerned with defeating capitalism than helping the environment to the point that they will let the earth rot to get rid of capitalism.
G2H,
Reagan was against the EPA for very good reasons. Mostly, property rights. He did not feel the EPA was doing enough positive work on the environment to justify it’s damage to the country.
This specific example aside, I do not believe that wanting to dismantle a large government department places someone against the thing that department regulates. The best example is the Department of Education. Getting rid of it would be, IMO, pro education, pro students, pro family, pro America, and pro teachers.
The EPA has been much reformed, though still problematic. I believe that creative destruction is an ingredient that most bureaucracies would benefit from. I am concerned with results.
The process over progress problem with our government has gotten so bad that most statistics we get out of them are contrary to reality. My most recent favorite is household income. Household income is down, not because wages are down (they are up) but because households are now smaller on average. Yet we never hear any of our leaders talk about this in proper context because they either don’t get it, or want to misrepresent it to grab power.