WH really excited about new CAFE standards costing jobs

posted at 5:10 pm on May 27, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

In a move sure to please his environmentalist base as we gear up for the 2012 election, the Obama administration’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are quietly moving to make another round of changes to CAFE standards. (That’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy, for those keeping score at home.) The changes would affect model years from 2017 to 2025.

While previous trial balloons on this front fell flat with both manufacturers and consumers in the polls, the White House seems to be trying a new tactic this time. If you want to push through an unpopular program, you need a villain to blame, so what will it be this time? High gas prices, of course. “We’re doing it to save the consumers!”

“Continuing the successful clean cars program will accelerate the environmental benefits, health protections and clean technology advances over the long-term. In addition to protecting our air and cutting fuel consumption, a clear path forward will give American automakers the certainty they need to make the right investments and promote innovations,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We will continue to work with automakers, environmentalists and other stakeholders to encourage standards that reduce our addiction to foreign oil, save money for American drivers, and clean up the air we breathe.”

“We must, and we will, keep the momentum going to make sure that all motor vehicles sold in America are realizing the best fuel economy and greenhouse gas reductions possible,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Continuing the national program would help create a more secure energy future by reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, which has been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s.”

Unfortunately for Secretary LaHood, the Law of Unintended Consequences is still in play and ready to jump up and bite him where the sun don’t shine. In order to meet higher standards – particularly if those standards represent a significant jump from current technological capabilities – manufacturers are going to have to produce more “unconventional” (i.e., “green”) vehicles to bump up their average fuel efficiency across their fleet. Unconventional, green vehicles cost consumers more. And, according to the Energy Information Agency, more expensive cars during an economic downturn equal lower sales, which equals… (wait for it…) fewer jobs!

The cases estimate a demand response for new vehicle sales as a result of changes in average new vehicle price by employing a price elasticity of demand of -1. While this measure attempts to quantify the potential impact of the increase in vehicle price on sales, it is not intended to be inclusive of all the potential factors that could affect new vehicle purchase decisions made by consumers. As a result of higher vehicle prices, total new LDV sales in 2025 are 8 percent lower in the CAFE3 case and 14 percent lower in the CAFE6 case than in the Reference case.

Here’s a pop quiz for the folks at the EPA and the DOT. Don’t think about it too long or your heads will explode. What do you think happens to the American auto industry and the literally millions of jobs associated with it if their sales drop off by 14% in a single season?

Cue the Jeopardy music.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What do you think happens to the American auto industry and the literally millions of jobs associated with it if their sales drop off by 14% in a single season?

Bailouts.

ProfessorMiao on May 27, 2011 at 5:12 PM

They really, really want to lost the election next year.

INC on May 27, 2011 at 5:13 PM

bbbbbut if you save $5 in gas every week but spend $5000 more for a car in 1000 weeks you’ll break even

– libtard math

angryed on May 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM

This president is historic. Not because he is the first black president, but he’s the first Anti-American president.

Oil Can on May 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM

angryed on May 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I usually drive my cars for 10 plus years, because…I’m cheap. But image the cost to replace the battery after 5 to 7 years.

Oil Can on May 27, 2011 at 5:16 PM

I can’t wait to drive these fascists out … of the country preferably.

darwin on May 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Note to canopfor:

Please, please, please don’t post those photos of the (not so) SmartCar accident reconstruction.

I’m still having nightmares…

turfmann on May 27, 2011 at 5:20 PM

This will kill the boating and RV industry. Good luck towing a 5th wheel or a boat with a Prius.

Are you listening voters in Indiana where most RVs are made in America? Are you listening voters in Fl where most boats are made in America?

angryed on May 27, 2011 at 5:20 PM

What do you think happens to the American auto industry and the literally millions of jobs associated with it if their sales drop off by 14% in a single season?

Of course Jazz ignores that this displaced labor will be working on ultra efficient and cost effective high speed rail projects. Jazz needs to put on his liberal thinking cap look at the bigger picture.

WashJeff on May 27, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Another mandate for Palin to reverse when she gets in office.

Libtards don’t understand that probably a third of Americans don’t even physically FIT into those sh!tbox cars that would meet these mileage mandates.

karenhasfreedom on May 27, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Uh-what will happen when the states and feds don’t collect all the revenues from the gas taxes? I know, I know…

Les in NC on May 27, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Either Obama and company flunked Econ 101 or they just don’t care. The marketplace will take care of what vehicles are available if the government will just “butt out”.

duff65 on May 27, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Fine. You first.

rogerb on May 27, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Like I said before; 2012 will be too late.

And it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Midas on May 27, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Buy a new car, you pay taxes on it. And you pay higher state taxes to register it yearly. You also pay higher insurance. There is no effin way that these cars save people money. Do democrats pols have any idea what it is like in the real world???

And the aholes destroyed the used car market with their dumb clunkers for cash program – another freakin Obama failure.

Blake on May 27, 2011 at 5:41 PM

turfmann – but all I keep hearing is how safe they are!

Midas on May 27, 2011 at 5:41 PM

smart cars are like smart phones. Most of them owned by idiots (ok, not all…)

ted c on May 27, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Either Obama and company flunked Econ 101 or they just don’t care. The marketplace will take care of what vehicles are available if the government will just “butt out”.

duff65 on May 27, 2011 at 5:31 PM

They didn’t take Econ 101, they took Marxism 101.

Dog bites on May 27, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Mr. Shaw after reading these last few posts it just begs the question, has there ever been a more broadly based, all encompassing fraud ever perpetrated on this country than the enviromental movement and its ridiculous tenets?

fourdeucer on May 27, 2011 at 5:46 PM

the Obama administration’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are quietly moving to make another round of changes to CAFE standards.

Two of our most unconstitutional federal departments screwing us up even more.

DEFUND!

BierManVA on May 27, 2011 at 5:54 PM

“Continuing the national program would help create a more secure energy future by reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, which has been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s.”

BULL!

Point 1: These aren’t the cars the American consumer is looking for, O-B-NONE-KANOBI! Top selling cars are the F-150, Chevy Silverado.

Point 2: Your fuel efficient cars won’t help our dependence on oil one bit. Jevons Paradox– technological efficiency gains—specifically the more “economical” use of coal in engines doing mechanical work—actually increased the overall consumption of coal, iron, and other resources, rather than “saving” them, as many claimed. Supply and demand. The more fuel efficient, the more people will drive.

Point 3: Don’t worry Dems… Obama will still be able to punish people who dare to exercise their right to travel with his little “black box” plan.

Glenn Jericho on May 27, 2011 at 5:55 PM

If you want to push through an unpopular program, you need a villain to blame, so what will it be this time? High gas prices, of course. “We’re doing it to save the consumers!”

Yeah, Dems…that’s it: Make high gas prices the villain…I double-dare you!!!!

…but you Dems may not like the more enlightened taxpayers’ solution: removing the major impediment to domestic energy production…which is YOU!!!

landlines on May 27, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Farmers need trucks, big honking trucks, to haul stuff, like fencing, rocks, soil, migrant workers (legal)

Kini on May 27, 2011 at 6:02 PM

My contribution to Smart Car dumb@$$ery photo gallery. What’s wrong with this picture:

http://goo.gl/lsYg3

The only thing I’ll say about the picture is that this is a two way street. I guess it proves that you don’t have to have intelligence to drive a Smart Car.

ReaganWasRight on May 27, 2011 at 6:03 PM

“Continuing the national program would help create a more secure energy future by reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, which has been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s.”

Liar.

We want to reduce dependence on FOREIGN oil. Lying piece of communist crap.

darwin on May 27, 2011 at 6:03 PM

What do you think happens to the American auto industry and the literally millions of jobs associated with it if their sales drop off by 14% in a single season?

No problem. I take your tax money to bail out Government Motors and Cry-Slur again, and I will win Michigan. Then Honda and Toyota will move back to Japan, which needs to be rebuilt after the tsunami. Then I take your tax money to bribe the Brazilians to sell us cheap oil. And everyone will be so fit and trim and slender, just like Michelle and me, from riding 15,000 miles a year on a carbon-free bicycle.

/Barack Hussein Obama.

Steve Z on May 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Fewer jobs and a lot more fatalities on the road. Car accidents happen… but if more people die because Government forces them to buy less safe vehicles that is morally unacceptable.

DANEgerus on May 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Do democrats pols have any idea what it is like in the real world???

No.

oldleprechaun on May 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Well, f**k me – that’s all it takes for added fuel efficiency to emerge? Government decree?

We should have done this years ago. We could have been driving Cadillacs powered by unicorn kisses by now.

landshark on May 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM

But we have the answer right before us as of yesterday. Congresscritter Washerperson Shlitz Malt Liquor is leading us by example. No way would she drive a 20mpg car if it weren’t going to enjoy some exemptions. And probably slated by mandate to be made in Brazil Florida by illegal Cuban and Haitian immigrants union workers transplanted from Detroit.

Robert17 on May 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM

In addition to protecting our air and cutting fuel consumption, a clear path forward will give American automakers the certainty they need to make the right investments and promote innovations,”

This isn’t fascism because…????

Commerce Clause?

hillbillyjim on May 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Where the hell do these cheese-nosed bastards get off deciding what are “the right investments”?

Ok. I feel better now.

hillbillyjim on May 27, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Has no one pointed out the obvious?

Cars are cheap because of mass production…if you cannot sell enough cars to maintain a production line, then it gets shut down…theres no saying “O lets just make 15 cars this month…”, its 100s/mo or zero. Nothing in between (cheaply).

orbitalair on May 27, 2011 at 9:21 PM

I’m starting to believe that these people really do want to destroy this nation.

jnelchef on May 27, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I’m starting to believe that these people really do want to destroy this nation.

jnelchef on May 27, 2011 at 9:35 PM

late arrivals are welcome.

Slowburn on May 27, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Job Loss, we could care less about any job loss, we just want to control what you drive and every other part of your life we can get our mitts into. If you let us we will be controlling your water ration, electricity ration, and your oxygen ration. We will only allow you to breath during certain times of the Day. Some people will die but we will be in control of the ones who live. YEA YIPPEE.

stupid liberal socialist.

old war horse on May 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Democrat math.
Obama thinks 2 carpenters driving two small pickups doing 21 miles per gallon saves fuel over 1 carpenter driving a HD FOrd doing 15 MPG.

seven on May 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM

Dammit, if we can’t create a demand for green cars with $5 gas, then we’ll force the supply to increase. See, we understand economics.

/0

John Deaux on May 28, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Well, we’ll never know WHAT Obama flunked or passed in school will we? ‘Cause all his records are sealed arent they? Will somebody PLEASE get these democrat’s boots off our necks????

abcurtis on May 28, 2011 at 10:41 AM

What do you think happens to the American auto industry and the literally millions of jobs associated with it if their sales drop off by 14% in a single season?

Ummmm…the White House would get to decide which dealerships to close????

Farmers need trucks, big honking trucks, to haul stuff, like fencing, rocks, soil, migrant workers (legal)

Kini on May 27, 2011 at 6:02 PM

So if–I mean when–only big corporations can afford such equipment, the farmers will be forced to move to the cities to survive, as in all Marxist countries; where they will be absorbed into the 22% unemployed, subway-riding blue-voting mass.

if more people die because Government forces them to buy less safe vehicles that is morally unacceptable.
DANEgerus on May 27, 2011 at 6:09 PM

This government is already deciding who keeps their jobs, their pensions, their investments and needs health care. Their death panels will decide who gets medical treatment without any regard for previous payment, as insurance companies’ care panels do. Morally unacceptable? You misunderstand, sir; they’re too busy trying to remove incivility from our speech to worry about real morals./sarc

rwenger43 on May 28, 2011 at 4:40 PM

and Jazz let us never forget: all the people who have died as result of lighter cars due to CAFE standards plus the hundreds of thousands hurt, crippled and maimed by the same CAFE standards plus the suffering and grieving families left behind. And dare I mention all the associated costs of all that carnage? Plus opportunity costs plus pure waste that corporations need to endure because of CAFE standards??

Amendment X on May 28, 2011 at 5:57 PM