PEE-EEWWW! LIBERAL PEW CAMPAIGN SPEWS MORE PROPAGANDA ON FUEL ECONOMY.

As the Ford Motor Company (F) is scaring up six or so bids for its "English patients" (the mangy kitten -- Jaguar -- and Land Rover), the REAL action is in Washington D.C.

Congress is deciding the fate of our automotive freedom of choice through jacked-up CAFE legislation. And the uber-left Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency is in full demagogue mode by ramping up the pressure to chose the most draconian of the proposals (the technologically-insane Markey-Platts 35 m.p.g. bill).

In the July 18, 2007, edition of The Hill (a Capitol Hill wonk rag), the PEW-istas ran an ad labeled "Dangerous." It features an approximately eighteen-year-old photo of oil wells burning in Kuwait. The PEW-istsas breathless prose includes the charge that the "Hill-Terry bill leaves America Much Too Dependant on Foreign Oil" because the U.S. allegedly would import 1.1 million barrels of oil per day more in 2020 than it would under the freedom-killing Markey-Platts proposal.

Markey-Platts would demand combined car-truck standards of 35 mpg by 2018-- an extreme and unworkable proposal. (Kiss your GT500 and your race car hauler good-by under that one) The "dangerous" (according to the PEW-istas) Hill-Terry alternative logically keeps car and truck standards separate. However, it still pumps up the fleet average about 30 to 40 percent by 2022. (not too many SRT-8s or SUPERDUTY pickups will fit under that one, either)

For small businesses, enthusiasts and grassroots racers, it’s a choice between a punch in the gut (Hill-Terry) or a gunshot to the head (Markey-Platts). But even a cursory review of the PEW-istas claim shows that it’s misleading because they arbitrarily selected a point (year 2020) when Hill-Terry is still escalating.

Of course, if importing of oil is per se "dangerous," wouldn’t virtually ANY level of imports force the USA to "defend" its strategic interests. (the world oil market is fungible, after all) Thus, the relevance of the PEW-ista’s comparison isn’t immediately apparent.

(And of course these same sorts of folks blithely ignore our growing dependance on a NUCLEAR-ARMED, HUMAN-RIGHTS ABUSING, COMMUNIST, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA for nearly every consumer good except oil, so perhaps their concerns for "energy independence" are a cynical smokescreen for radical environmentalism, if not merely inconsistent).

Moreover, the PEW-ista’s assumptions obviously fail to account for market reactions and consumer choices.

According to the Automotive News, The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers branded the PEW-istas advertisement "a scare tactic." AAM Vice President Gloria Bergquist said:"The alliance urges all groups to join us in a serious policy discussion and stop running negative, scare-tactic ads." She continued, "Setting realistic fuel economy standards is an important priority, and this policy will affect every American. We need a serious debate on the issues, including the effect of proposed legislation on jobs and on the vehicles that Americans need, and we need a serious discussion of public investment in research and development on alternative fuels and battery technologies. We hope there can be a serious discussion on adequate lead time, affordability, consumer incentives, alternative fuels and advancing new technologies." (http://www.autonews.com/)

Of course, this isn’t the first time the PEW-istas have been called out.

Back in May, vehicular freedom-hating liberal Senator Barack Hussein "Osama" Obama (D-IL) ripped on the Detroit 3 for building the performance cars and trucks people want instead of force-feeding us Japanese-style high m.p.g. fruit cups on wheels. Barack Hussein Obama then said:

"[W]hile our fuel standards haven't moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon."

Hussein Obama’s rant was based on conclusions fed to him by the PEW-istas. John Hinderaker at the brilliant "Powerline" blog skewered the PEW-ista’s bumper-sticker quality data:

"Of course, you could generate some excellent fuel efficiency data if you included go-karts in the statistics. Let's return to the chart showing 2010 goals for Japanese vehicles. Note that the weight categories for "vehicles" go all the way down to [less than]1,548 lbs. This suggests that the Japanese statistics include quite a few vehicles that we would not classify as "cars." Whether these are "mini-cars"--death traps by American standards, which wouldn't be driven on a highway--or motorcycles, I don't know" http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/017618.php

Anyone familiar with Japanese motoring notes that a substantial percent of the "JDM" is populated by under-500cc "mini cars" (which WOULD BE "death traps" . . . or at least "moving chicanes" . . . on American roads). Anyone remember the Subaru 360?

The "elephant in the room" is that BOTH Markey-Platts and the "Dangerous" Hill-Terry cram down huge fuel economy increases (in contravention of market-based choices) and will horribly restrict performance and safety.

The PEW-istas, of course, could care less about sporting performance, given that their dream cars are the wimpy Toyota Prius and other telephone-booths-on-wheels. And they rely on the miracle of "airbags" to defy the laws of physics (which tend to prove over and over that regardless of whether the rock hits a glass jug or the jug hits the rock, the jug still gets it).

The Automotive News is hardly innocent in this propaganda campaign to strip Americans of their right to choose the vehicles of their desire. For example, Keith Crain, scion of the Crain family and head honcho of Automotive News and Autoweek has cheerlead draconian CAFE increases for years.

Most recently, Crain attacked the AAM in a June 4, 2007, column entitled "Industry Wrongly Fights CAFE Boost." Crain’s screed lambasted the AAM’s advertising and lobbying efforts for the Hill-Terry bill. His blast was obviously short-sighted and misplaced.

The AAM is finally (albeit somewhat tepidly) attempting to mobilize grassroots support for seeking sensible transportation and energy policies which balance many competing national priorities, including traffic safety, environmental protection, economic growth, manufacturing job preservation, energy security, functional vehicle diversity, and personal liberty regarding choice of new light vehicles. The AAM hopes that its http://www.drivecongress.comand the related targeted advertising campaign prompts Congress to enact realistic and practical legislation which addresses the "energy problem" on a comprehensive, economy-wide basis.

Sadly, too much of the public debate thus far has been driven by radical environmental activists with a minimal command of the technical, scientific and geopolitical realities at the heart of this policy debate. These passionate but uninformed voices are unjustifiably amplified by both a shallow, uncritical mass media and highly-organized, well-funded groups advancing interests antithetical to those of automobile buyers, dealers and manufacturers (such as the PEW-istas). Moreover, the opposing stakeholders – which include a sizable majority of the American people -- are diverse, disorganized and mostly uninformed about the foreseeable consequences of the extreme fuel economy "reform" proposals in play.

The AAM as well as other politically-active groups in the industry hopefully can marshal the support of the millions of ordinary Americans who depend on or desire vehicles which do not fit into the harsh limitations proposed by the climate change alarmists. But it doesn’t look too promising at the moment.

It’s true that advanced and emerging technologies (such as Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition engines, Miller and Atkinson Cycle engines, direct injection, variable valve/cam timing and phasing, cylinder deactivation, variable intake geometry, continuously-variable transmissions, dual-clutch "manu-matic" transmissions, mild hybrid starter-alternators, parallel and serial hybrids, turbocharging, supercharging and "twincharging") and development of alternative fuels infrastructure will assist the OEMs in providing a range of useful and exciting new products that meet consumer needs for initial cost, economy, performance, luxury, reliability and utility.

BUT no known technical innovation can repeal the laws of physics! Vehicle weight and, to a lesser extent, aerodynamics will continue to set the outer limits of potential fuel economy gains. The AAM could educate the public (and empty-suit grandstanders like BarackHussein "Osama" Obama) on these realities.

While certainly it is technically possible to build larger vehicles out of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials and to add a full measure of the aforementioned fuel-saving powertrain technologies, the costs of such fantasy vehicles to the consumer would be astronomical. Speedzzter does not know too many people who can purchase a $100,000.00+ Ford Mustang or a $400,000.00 SUV!

Moreover, the costs to insure, maintain and repair such exotica is well beyond what the present system will bear. Therefore, reductions in vehicle size, powertrain weight (reducing engine size, component durability, horsepower and torque, and noise, harshness and vibration performance) and, consequently, vehicle utility and performance are inherent in some of the politically-motivated fleet average targets now being floated in Washington D.C.

CAFE increases of the magnitude being proffered in Washington will virtually outlaw entire classes of light vehicles. They will endanger the personal safety of millions of Americans on the nations' highways. They will escalate new and used vehicle prices for all Americans. They will accelerate job losses in the auto sector. They will hamper economic growth. And they will deprive ordinary citizens of meaningful choices in personal transportation.

For example, millions of small businesses depend upon affordable light trucks, vans and "box trucks" to move equipment, tools and workers to job sites across the nation and to deliver a myriad of services. Fuel economy averages requiring as much as 32 m.p.g. for light trucks will drastically increase transportation costs and will likely force many businesses to rely on even larger, less fuel efficient medium-duty commercial trucks to compensate. The Markey-Platts one-size-fits-all 35 m.p.g. average will force this result.

Crain’s and the PEW-istas' jack-up-CAFE cheerleading falls in lock-step with the propaganda of other environmental activists. In fact, Crain's parroting arguably gives the enviro-radicals aid and comfort from a voice "inside" the industry. However, it ignores the fact that to get back to parity with 1960s levels of OEM performance required twenty years and millions of dollars. It ignores that the initial regulatory targets were extended several times. It ignores that the escalation in the technology required to build several classes of large or high-performance vehicles, and the need to maintain fleet fuel economy averages, have already priced such vehicles out of the budgets of millions of consumers. It inaccurately presumes the industry’s ability to work another technological miracle on command.

The current array of consumer choices in the automotive marketplace arose out of the relatively stable regulatory environment since 1990. Stable regulations have allowed the creativity of the OEMs to blossom. Consumers have benefitted from increased content, reliability and performance, albeit at an escalated cost. However, unrealistic fuel economy targets without any "off ramps" will plunge many of the OEMs back into the technological scramble for engineering resources and solutions that marked the darkest days of the 1970s.

Moreover, even alternatives such as the Bush Administration’s size-based CAFE apparently ignore the adverse effects of setting fuel economy based on generalized, limited parameters. Although most sports cars are limited-use vehicles which contribute infinitesimally to national fuel consumption, size-only-based CAFE standards could lead to dramatic limitations in vehicle choice. Speedzzter is not sure the market is ready for a diesel Corvette (notwithstanding the competition success of the Audi R10) or a super-sized one just to homologate its traditional gasoline V8. Such a "sports car" would be obviously compromised and less marketable.

Finally, the sort of targeted policies that AAM is opposing would produce more of the unintended consequences and unforeseen market distortions as the ones we've seen in the past thirty years. Notwithstanding the EPA, CAFE, CARB and the legions of empty-headed, grandstanding politicians, ordinary citizens DO decide our "national energy policy"through their market choices. Dozens of available new vehicles already can obtain the momentary holy grail of 35 m.p.g., but many consumers shun them in favor of larger, more powerful choices. Much of America's affection for light trucks and SUVs is simply market-based circumvention of CAFE.

In other words, market choices, not central planning have established the de facto fuel economy "standard." Although CAFE has limited market choices and wildly driven up transportation costs (a hidden tax), it has failed to force millions of "ordinary citizens" to adopt the government's "conservation" policy.

Simply ratcheting up the standards is just another step down this failed road. At least the AAM is making an effort to seriously engage this debate. And more so than the reckless scare-mongering of the freedom-hating PEW-istas!