The Conservative Edge

I’ve been thinking about the future of the automobile. Partly, because I recently found a stash of car magazines I had hidden away for the last 15 or 20 years. As I’ve been re-reading some of them, I have found it interesting to see how the car industry strayed from the expected path of development and refinement.

Back in the early-to-mid-eighties, we were just coming out of a period of oil shortages and high gasoline prices. This was the time that the Japanese car makers began taking market share by selling fuel-efficient cars at reasonable prices. Americans soon realized that these cars were also well-made and reliable. In addition, there were still plenty of vehicles made for the individual; sporty cars that were small, fun, and responsive. I remember well cars like the Toyota Celica and MR2; the latter was a mid-engined sports car (with only 2 seats), that was a thrill to drive and got great gas mileage to boot. Other notable cars were the Triumph TR7, the Volkswagen Rabbit GTI, the Pontiac Fiero, and Chrysler’s line of Omni/Turismo/Laser/Daytona sport coupes.

I actually owned a Fiero for a while. GM had originally designed it as a two-seat commuter car, but later added some flash to the design. I liked driving the Fiero, even though there were some compromises in the design. The general idea back then was that, for millions of people who drove themselves to work or school, a small, efficient car was required. There was no need seen for huge, hulking vehicles when the average number of people riding in a car worked out to slightly less than 2.

Where did that idea go? Look at the roads today, and you’ll still see one or two people in a car (for the most part), but that car now is a rather large SUV or even larger truck. I am sad to see that there are no more Celicas, TR7s, MR2s—vehicles that were fun, fast, and efficient. We used to drive cars that expressed our individuality, cars that were made for the delight of one or two people. Now, we are inundated with vehicles that seem to made for a crowd. The problem is, the vehicles themselves don’t stand out from the crowd anymore. They all look alike and pretty much function alike too.

Maybe it’s all part of the emasculation of American society. We don’t see the Marlboro man anymore, nor do we see many Westerns at the theaters. So maybe it follows that our vehicles are less aggressive, and more gender-neutral in appearance. Instead of reflecting rugged and/or sexy individualism, our cars now have to play nice to the friends and family.

Some might say that I’m old-fashioned or out of touch. That’s fine by me. I’d rather have an old Vette than a new Civic any day.

Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced a plan to require new cars and trucks to become more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. The goal is to cut auto emissions and increase mileage up to 30 percent by the year 2016. Vehicles will have to meet a fuel mileage standard of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Right now, it is estimated that consumers will pay an extra $1300 (or more) per vehicle for the cleaner cars and trucks. Before the Obama plan was hatched, carmakers were going to meet a mileage standard of 31.6 mpg by the year 2015. To meet that standard, it would cost the auto industry $47 billion. How much more will it cost them to meet the new requirements for both fuel efficiency AND emissions? Can we be sure that we won’t end up paying $2,000 or $3,000 more for cars and trucks that will meet the new regulations?

What’s really amusing (but also infuriatingly dumb) is the comment by an Obama administration official on the added costs. Here is an excerpt taken from a report on Yahoo!: “Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

“That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections.” Notice the “so what?” attitude about consumers paying more for new vehicles; if we’re already paying extra, what’s a few hundred dollars more, right? Shouldn’t the government be finding ways to make cleaner technology cheaper, so more people could afford to buy better cars and trucks?

But the real joke is the statement that we will get the money back through fuel savings if gas prices follow government projections. There is absolutely no way that the government will be able to predict gas prices with any kind of accuracy. Nobody can predict prices for the next 6 months, let alone project out to the year 2016. Is this the government’s way of telling us that it believes gas prices will be 6 or 8 dollars a gallon by 2016? That could be the final nail in the coffin for the auto industry and personal transportation.

The only way that our government could forecast gas prices for the next 7 years is if we had our own supply of oil. With much of our oil coming from unstable countries, it is impossible to predict what will happen to the supply and the price of crude. But if our government would put more people to work securing a predictable supply of oil, we could stabilize prices by cutting our need for foreign oil. The United States and Canada have roughly 15 percent of the world’s proven reserves. We need to get more of that 15 percent to market, available for use here at home.

The Obama administration may be crowing over its new plan to squeeze the life out of the auto industry. But no one is willing to talk about the higher costs the consumer will be shelling out. Not only will new cars cost thousands more, but gas prices will skyrocket again, perhaps from additional future gas taxes. And you can be sure that mandatory emission tests will soon be required, resulting in even more fees to be compliant. It looks like the real reduction in fuel use and emission output will come from the fact that no one will be able to afford cars anymore. Maybe that’s what the liberals want after all.