I’m beginning to like the environment. First, the greens spiked Charles “Double Nickel” Hurley’s nomination for the top slot at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As we reported earlier, Hurley’s federal pension plans came a cropper for daring to suggest that larger cars were safer than fuel misers (at the IIHS, back in the day). Now, tree huggers have torpedoed the current cash-for-clunkers bill. Reuters reports that California Senator Dianne Feinstein, a friend of the Friends of the Earth, is not happy with the compromise cash-for-clunkers bill.
Here’s the [your] money shot from the lady who wrote the Senate version: “Essentially what it means is that perfectly good vehicles would be scrapped, so that vehicles with below average fuel economy could be purchased.” Yes way! It gets better.
Feinstein referred to the compromise as the “automobile industry’s version.”
“American taxpayers have already pledged $33 billion in bailout funds to this flagging industry — without any special considerations for achieving greater fuel economy,” Feinstein said. “This is unacceptable.”
By jove she’s right! This IS a boondoggle! The fact that Feinstein’s objection is that it’s not the RIGHT KIND of boondoggle troubles me not one bit. What was that about the friend of my enemy being my frenemy? Like that. Only where TTAC tilts at windmills at the margins, Diane gets the MSM to put up its metaphorical speed bumps and steamroller those suckers. Oh wait. She likes windmills. Anyway . . .
Under the House bill, owners of small trucks and SUVs face even a lower threshold than car owners to get a voucher. They could get a $3,500 voucher if their new vehicle gets at least 2 miles per gallon more than the old truck or SUV. The voucher increases to $4,500 for a difference of at least 5 miles per gallon. For larger trucks, the new truck only has to exceed the fuel efficiency of the old vehicle by 1 mile per gallon to generate a $3,500 voucher.
Quote Di-Fi: ” “American taxpayers have already pledged $33 billion in bailout funds to this flagging industry — without any special considerations for achieving greater fuel economy,” Feinstein said. “This is unacceptable.” “
Uh-huh. Would someone please remind Senator Feinstein that the 2015 CAFE regulations call for a 31.5 CAFE?!?! As for her aforementioned “special considerations for achieving greater fuel economy” the die is already cast, the rules have already been passed Senator.
We should just give everyone turning in a car a free Aveo instead.
i’m holding out for a free Sebring
Look at it this way….
the govt is just using running car companies as a practice lap for the big one…..health care.
@meefer: last month Dan Neil suggested that DOE buy each of us a 2010 Prius.
meefer: When they peel my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel of my Accord.
We should just give everyone turning in a car a free Aveo instead.
It would have to be a Focus or Cobalt, you know, Made in the USA?
Look at it this way….
the govt is just using running car companies as a practice lap for the big one…..health care.
Yes
It was just another “keep the poor people dependent on government” bill, as it would make their access to cheap used cars much more limited, so they cannot work, and they can remain dependent on people like Feinstein. It is just a dress rehersal for how those in Washington want every voter – completely dependent on them for wealth redistribution.
That dependency would ensure they dependably vote to re-elect her. So look for some boondoggle to get passed eventually.
It does make more sense in the gas per 100kms(or miles) argument vs. gas mileage. Going from 15 to 18 mpg saves over about 1.1 gallons per 100miles vs. from 40 to 43 saving only .18 gallons for the same distance traveled. So making only a marginal improvement on the low end is actually more sensible than trying to replace the already efficient vehicles.
What is really stupid is allowing more efficient used vehicles, that are already built, sit idle on car lots. To get the fleet efficiency down you have to get the most efficient cars that already exist back out on the road.
Our marketing division’s research (requested by the DoE) suggested people are indeed keen to get out of their stupid SUVs to smaller cars but are holding off because they’re being burnt on the residuals (which isn’t going to improve).
Stimulating the used market has a supportive effect for the economics of car leasing/residuals. “Bottom Up” as someone is fond of saying.
Of course, that doesn’t work, because the idea is to pump yet more money into the new car market/manufacture/failure.
What was that about the friend of my enemy being my frenemy?
I think it goes this way: “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
This almost makes me want to buy an old musclecar.
To dwford:
Are Focuses/Foci event produced in USA? I thought they were built in Mexico at the former Escort/Tracer plant.
I wanted to actually write an article on the house version of the bill. There are NO cars that would have qualified. Go look up and find car with less than 18 MPG combined EPA.
They are either 1994 Ford V8s or high end imports (M5). That’s all. It is based on the original EPA mileage, not on what you get.
So the bill, ironically, had some merit because it targeted SUVs. Some merit. Yes, marginal improvements in MPG of SUVs can make a huge difference, but not from a pollution perspective.
I’d rather see a bill giving me money NOT to drive, or to drive less. Reduces gas use, reduces our national import bill, and reduces our need to borrow money from the Chinese.
Also, the German version paid for itself through taxes — new cars sales is taxes. Congress is already giving us a break on sales tax on cars. I’d suggest if you want to support the auto industry increase the income cap — right now you can’t get the credit if you have a family income of 250K. Instead cap it at the tax break — anyone can get a tax break up to $4000, which might encourage rich people to buy more cars for their children.
That twat should be brought up on charges…her and her husband (CBRichard Ellis) had a nice little scam goin’…she refurbished the closed Military Bases. Hubby flipped ’em.
Perp march the Feinstien family.
snabster, “I’d rather see a bill giving me money NOT to drive, or to drive less. Reduces gas use, reduces our national import bill, and reduces our need to borrow money from the Chinese.”
Two words: gasoline tax.
My 1991 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser gets 17 MPG combined. I wanted my ‘free’ money =(
ttacfan: The current Focus is only built in the Wayne, Michigan assembly plant. Also a former Escort/Tracer plant.
If the greens and the GW people really cared about the environment, they should encourage the government to simply require the oil companies to raise their gas prices $1-2 themselves. The pricing signal to the market is the same with the same net result, but a lot quicker to implement and fewer systems to upgrade.
If they don’t want the nasty oil companies to have the money, require the gas station owners to do it and keep wholesale prices constant. Then “local small business owners” would get the insane profits and probably plow a lot of it back into their local economies across the nation.
Why are usurious federal taxes automatically the answer? Oh wait, that’s obvious. The point isn’t to reduce oil consumption but to enrich the government. It’s all about who gets the money and thus, who decides how it gets distributed out to their campaign supporters.