TWENTY YEARS OF MANDATORY AIR BAGS . . . AND A FEW C4C “AIRBAGS” FROM CALIFORNIA

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

On September 1, 1989, driver side air bags became mandatory in all new cars built for sale in the United States.

While the safety record for air bags is mixed (and thankfully Speedzzter has never deployed an air bag), most certainly some owe their lives to them.

Our larger problem, however, is a different kind of “air bag.”

The sort of air bag that deploys every time we exercise our automotive liberties in ways they don’t approve of. These “air bags” are “green” and are working to outlaw or regulate out of existence virtually all of the automotive hobbies and most grassroots motorsports.

The Greeniac "air bags" view almost all hot rodding as "tampering." They see all antique vehicles as "gross polluters." And they provide no alternatives or incentives to help vintage automobile enthusiasts enjoy their passion while minimizing and mitigating the environmental effects.

These Green "air bags" see car-crushing “buy backs” such as the CARS Act as a potentially potent tool in their attack on automotive liberty. Although the CARS Act has now thankfully wheezed off into history, the propaganda war for the next round of vehicle scrappage has already begun.

They are the new "mandatory air bags." Hopefully they won't stay in power for the next twenty years . . . .

Chad Lohnes over at Bangshift.com and Daniel Strohl over at Hemmings Motor News spotted a recent Los Angeles Times story by a couple of apparent "green air bags" (Ralph Vartabedian and Ken Bensinger) which trashed the Specialty Equipment Market Association’s effort to limit the horrific damage done by “Cash for Clunkers” to vehicles built after 1984.

The story, entitled “Why 'clunkers' program won't take some of the most polluting cars” amounted to a thinly-veiled call to expand the “War against V8s” and vintage vehicles to vandalize and destroy the 3-5% of the vehicle fleet that was built before 1984.

See, Truth With Speedzzter told you so!

Here's part of what I sent to one of the alleged journos via e-mail and posted over at Bangshift: (feel free to copy, modify and e-mail to them if you like)

I found your article to be highly one-sided and biased toward the state-sponsored vandalism of low-priced vintage vehicles. The free market, not some taxpayer-funded welfare program ought to decide which vehicles survive and which do not. Short-sighted schemes such as “Cash for Clunkers” corrode the free market. They also breed welfare sucklings who depend of borrowed-tax-money funded handouts. This dampens personal industry and self-reliance.

Of course the real intent of these programs is to drive people out of the automotive hobbies. As General Phillip Sheridan proposed in 1866, “Kill the buffalo and you will kill the Indians.” [see the “Buffalo” post link in the “Best of Speedzzter” sidebar]

It’s the same with vintage automobile interests. Basic economics teaches that as costs and barriers to participation rise, fewer chose to participate. If the power-mad environmental lobby can deplete the supply of affordable “vintage” donor and potential collector cars, the price of used replacement parts will necessarily skyrocket. In some situation, this could cause severe damage to the aftermarket. These state-sponsored vandalism plans also hurt vehicle resale markets and many small businesses who depend on servicing vintage vehicle market niches.

Nor do public relations “puff pieces” supporting vehicle scrappage like yours take into account the entire “life-cycle” cost to the environment of a vintage vehicle. Virtually all of the energy and pollution costs of producing a vintage vehicle have already been “amortized” to the environment. And such vehicles have a limited impact on air pollution, notwithstanding the handwringing claims of “experts’ at [the California Air Resources Board (CARB)]. The comparison of the Malibus [A CARB hack compared a pre-emission controls Chevelle with a current Malibu in the story] is most unfair, given both the rarity of such models for regular transportation use and the infinitesimally tiny amount of “pollution” of most current new vehicles. Most chain saws, motorcycles and lawn mowers probably emit several times the “pollution” as the imaginary new Malibu -- and are much more common than a vintage 1960s collector car -- but they are not singled out for venom and slack-jawed demonization. Based on their cumulative effect (e.g. vehicle miles driven), many, if not most, of the vehicles destroyed in Cash for Clunkers plans are NOT “some of the most polluting cars.”

These wasteful plans are indiscriminate. They sweep up fairly common-place utility models as well as rare milestone vehicles which have the misfortune to be at the low ebb of the depreciation cycle and in the custody of greedy, welfare-loving “appliance motorists.” However, to true students of automotive history and design, any pointless destruction of potential collector or donor vehicles is an irreplaceable loss to future generations of motoring enthusiasts.

Much like a ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” Cash for Clunkers disproportionately attacks the lower economic classes. It is therefore elitist in effect.

Cash for Clunkers programs also disproportionately affect affordable V8 powered vehicles. Some have described them a as a “war on V8s.” Given the coming hikes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (motivated in part to placate a minority of California enviro-socialists), fewer RWD V8s will be produced and the few that survive will become significantly less affordable. Thus, one of the apparent aims of Cash for Clunkers plans is to limit the availability of traditional V8 performance vehicles.

Undoubtedly the most radical of the greens (and some allegedly “objective” journalists) will not be satisfied until vehicular liberty is decimated. A world of slaves to public transportation and/or electric micro-golf cars is their nirvana. I suspect that is your goal as well.

Your story did a real disservice to all readers who hold a more balanced, historically-sensitive perspective in the war against automotive liberty.

The discussion at Bangshift eventually turned to Hot Rod Magazine’s legendary “Crusher Camaro.” That was a project car from a couple of decades ago which was snatched out of line from a stupid UNOCAL “clunker” purchase program (If memory serves, UNOCAL was trying to offset the pollution of a California refining operation . . . which foreshadows what will happen on a larger scale if “Cap and Trade” ever become law).

Hot Rod Magazine honcho David Freiburger has written that the Crusher Camaro will likely return for an encore.
There’s a larger opportunity here.

The Crusher Camaro originally emphasized the point that properly-tuned vintage hot rods don’t really pollute all that much (especially when their limited use is factored in)

But Hot Rod could do more this go-around. The point that needs to be made now is this: if the environmentalists and CARB bureaucrats really weren't anti-hot rod and generally anti-car, they would make compliance easier and cheaper.

Maybe when Mr. Freiburger brings back the Crusher Camaro, he'll do some sort of home-brewed "green machine" version of it to tweak our know-it-all car-hating critics and point out the ridiculousness of the current regulatory scheme.

A reborn "Crusher" powered by a hybrid Tahoe powertrain** (turbocharged and converted to E-85***) would open a few eyes . . . . It would also be interesting to see how much CARB would hassle such a set-up. (CARB seemingly hates aftermarket turbocharging and CARB’s engine swap rules are byzantine to say the least.)

_______________________________

**Truth With Speedzzter realizes that this driveline is virtually unobtainable for 99.9% of rodders and that hybrids are dependent rare earth metals that are becoming in short supply And Truth With Speedzzter is also aware of the complexity of such a swap.

*** Truth With Speedzzter is aware that E-85 is often criticized as on environmental grounds, And it's not really available in Cali . . . But you can run so much more freakin' manifold pressure (turbo boost) with it!

IS CASH FOR CLUNKERS REALLY ENDING ON AUGUST 24,2009?

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to several media reports, the Obama administration will stop dealer funding for the "Car Allowance Rebate System [sic] at 8 p.m. August 24, 2009. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also announced that the $3,000,000,000.00 appropriated is nearly all gone.

Is this the end of "Cash for Clunkers?"

Don't bet on it.

Washington D.C. is the one place on Earth where obvious failure can guarantee a program's continued viability.

As David Freiburger's prescient editorial in the October '09 Hot Rod Magazine predicts, the Congress will whitewash the dubious environmental benefits of the "Car Allowance Rebate System" [sic]. This will provide "cover" for the next round.

There WILL likely be a NEXT ROUND.

Truth With Speedzzter predicts that then superlobbyists like the Dave McCurdy of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers will cajole Congress into renewing the "Cash for Clunkers" welfare/bailout plan as a means of: (a) furthering the recovery; (b) reducing the newly bloated inventory of FWD wimpsters that won't sell without about $10,000.00 "cash on the hood;" and (c) making sure that New GM and Chrysler can "pay back" a fraction of the billions the taxpayers have invested in them.

The OEMS have jacked up production. Dealer lots bulging with non-selling enviromobiles will play right into this scheme.

The OEM, labor, dealer, and environmental lobbyists will use the declining impact of the CARS welfare plan and the horrible job that NHTSA has done in administering it to dramatically reduce the restrictions on what can be traded in during the next go-round of sodium silicate vandalism.

Moreover, if Cap and Trade somehow becomes law, utilities and big industrial concerns will likely devise "crusher plans" to "trade" as "offsets" or "credits" for their carbon emissions.

So why do they want to destroy old cars?

In the blinded minds of the radical, freedom-hating Greens, racing, hot rodding, tuning, customizing, antique car collecting and other grassroots automotive pursuits involving historic vehicles are "killing the Planet." These freedom-hating, power-grabbing, "we-know-what?s-best-for-you" environuts cannot fathom why anyone would waste their time pursuing any automotive hobby or automotive aftermarket vocation in the first place. They will never understand that participation in these automotive pursuits often define much of who we are (just as hiking in the woods, eating tasteless vegan food, and blocking the fast lane in their slow, wimpy Priuses defines who they are).

The liberal "true believer" greens see such "Car Crazy" "rebels" as an impediment to their dream of banishing internal combustion and the 20th Century "car culture" to the ashcan of history. And the only way to "kill the Car Nuts" and subjugate them to the "uniform, happy, shiny, government-designed, sanitized, tamper-proof, disposable electro-micro car 'reservation'" is to flatten the "obsolete," "dirty," "rebellious" objects of our "Car Crazy" passion. In other words, crushing our supply of historic and milestone parts cars and "project cars," and thereby destroying the businesses which depend on them is in essence the "slaughtering of our buffalo."

Just as slaughtering the buffalo didn't exterminate all of the Plains Indians, a well-heeled and resourceful remnant will survive [the] war on Automotive "choice." But our "tribes" will be much smaller, much more insular, and much less diverse. And the "entry costs" for participation will escalate dramatically.

* * * *

Make no mistake about it, "Cash For Clunkers" is still a declaration of war against the automotive aftermarket and all "old car" automotive-based hobbies. The current suspension is merely a truce, not the end of hostilities.

"DEMO-CAP" AND TRADE: BACK TO THE '70S (THE 1870S!)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Regular readers of Truth With Speedzzter know that Speedzzter's predicted the power-grabbing anti-Carbon Dioxide madness gripping internationalist politicians threatens to destroy our automotive liberty and turn back the clock to the low-performance '70s.

Congressman Joe Barton's (R-TX) prediction is even more dire.

If the Democrats favored "climate change" bill, known to beltway insiders as "Waxman-Markey" passes, Barton opines that we'd be venturing back to the '70s alright . . . the 1870s! "[S]et the flux capacitor to 1875. That's the last time Americans' carbon emissions matched the goals set by the Waxman-Markey legislation."

[Y]ou can test drive Waxman-Markey by sailing down to Haiti, because current CO2 emissions are where Waxman-Markey wants America's to be in 2050. Radical environmentalists think such a CO2 level will be heaven on Earth, but the place that has actually achieved it is a nation swimming in bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, typhoid fever, dengue fever and malaria, with 47 percent illiteracy and a life expectancy of 49 years.

And the predicted impacts on your personal use of energy are an 800-pound sack of "not good:"

Your electricity bill will increase by 77 percent to 129 percent. Filling up your gas tank will cost anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent more. The cost of home heating oil and natural gas will nearly double.

These inflationary costs would be devastating to the automotive hobbies and grassroots motorsports. They would imperil Ford Motor Company's fragile plans for recovery and deepen the current automotive depression into a lengthy national depression.

"DEMO-CAP" and Trade (or perhaps OBAMA-CAP and trade) will also contract domestic production as more jobs are exported to "developing" countries like Communist China.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, a cap-and-trade law will cost 3 million to 4 million net jobs lost. The Heritage Foundation puts it between 1.8 million and 5.3 million, and Charles Rivers Associates estimated it as high as 7 million. . . . [W]e can expect to start buying more Mexican cement, Chinese fertilizer and Indian steel.

Barton explains that with Waxman-Markey, "we are capping our economy and trading away our jobs."

Pushing Waxman-Markey are a potent and powerful mix of "true believers" in the Greenhouse Gas faith, quasi-scientific bureaucrats, developing country politicians who want an unfair advantage in international trade, and liberal internationalists who want the untold sums of money and power that a "carbon credits" auction system will generate. Of course the ultimate source of that "cap and trade" tax money is the end user . . . consumers like you.

There wasn't a lot of motorsports fun to be had in 1875. Returning to that era would destroy most if not all of our automotive liberties and the industries upon which they're based. Thinking motorists, racers and automotive business persons must vigorously oppose Waxman-Markey and all similar "Demo-Caps" on the free market for energy use.

“LIL’ BILLY LONGS FOR A HUGE AMERICAN GAS TAX”

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

We’ve come to expect an outbreak of crackpottery on “Earth Day.”

And FoMoCo scion William Clay Ford, Jr. (Lil’ Billy) almost never fails to disappoint.

So when Autoblog Green reports that Lil’ Billy is apparently campaigning for a return of $4.00+/gallon gasoline in the U.S.A., courtesy of a massive spike in the federal gas tax, our expectations for Earth Day insanity are exceeded.

Lil’ Billy is apparently intent on squandering what little good will Ford has left with American consumers.

While Chrysler and General Motors are saddled with the “Scarlet B” (as in "bailout"), which seems to have generated a backlash among some consumers, Ford has emerged as the exclusive choice for those who still want to “Buy American.” Ford is also somewhat alone among the Detroit 3 in the capacity of its captive financing arm enabling more buyers to obtain vehicle loans.

And as fuel prices moderate from the hysteria and speculator-driven, pre-recession peaks, a slim hope for economic recovery and increased Ford sales is emerging.

Still, FoMoCo’s cash burn, the looming prospects for collapse of Chrysler and GM, and huge uncertainties about Obamanomics mean that Ford’s survival is not assured.

A prudent Ford leader would concentrate on continuing to stabilize Ford’s business model and improving the competitiveness, quality, and value of Ford’s products.

Yet FoMoCo’s bumbling Executive Chairman has decided to alienate a good percentage of Ford’s potential customer base by campaigning for a regressive tax increase that even Barack Obama has the good sense not to openly advocate.

(Most certainly, last weeks’ erroneous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finding of “endangerment” under the Clean Air Act for carbon dioxide, and the “fast track”** push by the Democrats for the huge stealth tax increase euphemistically known as “cap and trade” will amount to even more of a constraint on energy use than a mere tax at the pump – but the Obamaians are counting on the American voters not to notice, until it’s too late)

Instead of focusing on improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles customers might actually want to buy (i.e. an EcoBoost electric hybrid V8 (not V6) Mustang, E85 capability across Ford’s non-diesel lines, lighter weight diesel pickups and SUVs, credible V8-optional sports sedans, an EcoBoost/mild hybrid Focus) and then letting the not-so-free market decide, Lil’ Billy wants a return to the very conditions that killed the market for new vehicles!

Perhaps a “gas tax” isn’t much of a big deal when you’re a filthy rich trust fund baby and environmental dilettante who mostly failed at running the family business. But for millions of Americans, jacking up fuel taxes would mean the death of the American dream.

It would compromise safety.

It would deny full participation to scores of auto enthusiasts who have struggled to obtain one last sliver of supercar excitement before they die (or the liberal greens and their Democratic sycophants completely outlaw most of our vehicular liberties in worship of the false “climate god”).

It would further force migration from smaller communities in the heartland to increasingly crowded urban centers.

It would help impoverish small-town America and drive up prices on virtually every consumer and business good or service sold.

It would gut what’s left of grassroots motorsports for at least a generation.

It would destroy America’s farms and ranches.

It would squeeze small businesses and entrepreneurs.

It would lead to the extinction of our beloved Ford Mustang in any recognizable form.

It would subsidize even greater expansions of the federal government.

Yes, Lil' Billy, it would be as brilliant and effective as some of the moves made by the Detroit Lions football club.

(Perhaps the NFL ought to tax losing, so that the Ford Family can get a better taste of punishment through taxation.

. . . Or better yet, why not just tax the hot and “dangerous” gasses escaping from Lil’ Billy’s apparently empty head . . . . )


**

House lawmakers drew their battle lines in the debate Tuesday [April 21, 2009] over a massive climate bill, opening hearings on a sweeping proposal to curb carbon emissions and restructure the nation's energy industries.

House Democrats lauded the draft plan, saying the time had come to address climate change and praising a fast-track schedule set by the plan's authors, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat.

ANOTHER REASON "TEAM MUSTANG" OUGHT TO FEAR THE 2010 CAMARO
(assuming GM hangs around long enough to build them, that is)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to the Los Angeles Times "Up To Speed" automotive blog:

Chevy originally suggested the EPA-rated highway gas mileage for the base-model Camaro with the V-6 engine and manual transmission would be 27 miles per gallon, but final EPA testing placed the highway number at 29 mpg -- not bad for a 304-horsepower, 3.6-liter engine. City mileage is EPA rated at 17 mpg.

Ford's relatively low-tech Mustang six lags far behind at the pump. (16 m.p.g. city/24 m.p.g highway)

Of course there's simply no techological reason why Ford couldn't match or beat the V6 Camaro's fuel efficiency with a properly outfitted V8 engine in a RWD Mustang. A smaller, high-tech EcoBoost V8 (or better yet, a "twincharged" DOHC V8 outfitted with Ethanol Boosting Systems' direct ethanol injection) would provide a traditional symphony of V8 sounds on demand (Fabulous sounds no "buzzin' half-dozen" or rough, raucous "weed whacker" four could ever hope to duplicate) yet deliver spectacular part-throttle fuel economy.

A high-tech EcoBoost V8 in the 2.0-3.5 liter range could be a legendary high-performance engine which would preserve Ford's V8 tradition during the coming "Automotive dark ages" and would have measurably more panache than a relatively boring EcoBoost 4 or 6.

(Competition-savvy readers will note that the legendary Ford Cosworth DFV V8 was a 3.0liter engine and the later turbocharged Ford Cosworth XB/XD/XF V8s were 2.65 liter engines.)

Additionally, such an engine would be a lock for nearly permanent status on Ward's Ten Best Engines.

Given the current sales tanking of low-performance electric hybrid cars, perhaps it's time to shift the hybrid niche more into the "high-performance hybrids."

A 30+ m.p.g. variable-displacement V8 Mustang with 500+ "on boost" horsepower could generate more excitement (and sell for a higher premium) than a boat-load of "low-po" 41 m.p.g. Fusions (which are slated to be no more than a paltry 1% of sales).

Moreover, such a car would send an even stronger message to Ford's loyal owners regarding Ford's committment to balance its recent "Green faith" with its storied racing and performance heritage.

If Ford adapted the clutched integrated-assist motor system of Porsche and backed up the powerplants (IC and electric) with a manual transmission, a hybrid-electric V8 Mustang could be a huge kick to drive. And during that 95% of driving when high performance is not used, the hybrid electric V8 Mustang could make room under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy cap for some cheaper models (i.e. Coyote V8-powered Mustangs).

Ford should note that the electric hybrid Mustang driving experience would not have to be as automatic or antiseptic as a "mainstream" hybrid, because drivers of sporting cars enjoy more driver interactivity and are more engaged in the experience. Thus, some of the transitional seamlessness current hybrids provide is unnecessary in a high-performance hybrid.

(Note: For simular reasons, "Truth With Speedzzter" believes that if variable displacement technology would have been introduced in sports and musclecars, instead of in the ill-fated 1981 Cadillac V4/6/8, it would have been successful years ago in the marketplace.

Moreover, "Truth With Speedzzter" is disappointed that Chrysler and GM have failed to pair up such technology with manual transmissions or in their highest-performance models.

Finally, "Truth With Speedzzter" expects retrofits of variable displacement technology to become an aftermarket modification (JSC Engineering already claims to have built a 21 M.P.G. SRT-10 "Viper" Truck with a "mild" injector-shutdown cylinder deactivation "Fuel Saver" system.

The JSC "Fuel Saver" is a "mild" deactivation strategy because it does not reduce pumping losses in the deactivated cylinders. Aggessive OEM-style cylinder deactivation disables the intake and exhaust valves in addition to cutting the fuel on the deactivated cylinders))

Besides, to have any hope of volume production of any traditional muscle under the Obama CAFE caps (and to any market after Obama's "cap and trade" scheme drives up the cost of fuel), Ford will need to adapt such technologies to their V8s.

So why not get started now?

CAP AND TRADE-- A HIDDEN TAX INCREASE ON ALL AMERICANS

[Get the latest Truth With Speedzzter here]

In a Wall Street Journal opinion article about President Obama's tax & spend ways (nearly $11,000.00 in spending for every person in the U.S.A.), the editorialist makes the following essential point about "cap and trade" limits on carbon emissions:

[I]t's unclear why Mr. Obama thinks his climate-change scheme won't hit all Americans with higher taxes. Selling the right to emit greenhouse gases amounts to a steep new tax on most types of energy and, therefore, on all Americans who use energy. There's a reason that Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means panel, which writes tax law, is holding hearings this week on cap-and-trade regulation.

So much for the lie that Obama and the Democrats will only confiscate more money from the top 2% of earners.

And cap and trade will cost some big coin.

The [Washington] Post cited testimony to Congress in September by Peter Orszag, currently Obama's budget director, estimating that revenue from a cap-and-trade scheme could reach 112 billion dollars by 2012.

According to Orszag, who at the time was director of the Congressional Budget Office, the program -- which would force companies to buy permits if they exceed pollution emission limits -- could generate between 50 and 300 billion dollars a year by 2020.

Cap and trade will adversely affect all automotive sectors. It will lead to inflated prices and fewer product choices. It will cut into revenues that could otherwise be used for more productive purposes. It will fuel huge increases in the size and scope of the federal government. It will dramatically increase the costs of our automotive liberty.

Cap and trade is nothing more than another tax scheme based upon the speculative, quasi-religious beliefs of an alleged "consensus" of mostly politically-motivated "scientists."

Reduced to its simplest: Cap and Trade = regressive tax on everyone.

DEMOCRATS WAFFLE ON "CAP AND TRADE"

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

Based on years of overblown “crisis” rhetoric of Al Gore, Barack Obama, and a host of liberal, big-government-loving greens, one would expect the Democrat-dominated U.S. Government to “pull out all of the stops” on regulating anthropogenic global warming.

Moreover, given the huge potential for new revenue that a crammed-down “Cap and Trade” carbon tax scheme could generate for the spend-happy Democrats to exponentially expand their tax-funded largesse and redistributions, it’s hard to imagine much more than token resistance among them.

Yet the reality of actually governing is proving to be much different from shaking down greeniacs for campaign cash or shilling for votes among drunken college freshmen.

Investors Business Daily is reporting that the Democrat leadership is not rushing to sacrifice American productivity and sovereignty on the altar of the globalist “climate change” religion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week promised a bill "hopefully" by late summer. The House is unlikely to even attempt to pass a major bill until December at the earliest, according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Crafting a bill is proving tricky. The Democrats now have a larger majority, but many of the newer lawmakers hail from Midwestern and Southern states where emissions cuts could hurt businesses.

Apparently the “adults” among the Democrats are explaining the reality of following the Gore-Obama plans for returning U.S. energy usage back to the early 19th Century. In a time of global recession and with what’s left of the U.S. industrial base near collapse, taxing the right to emit carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gasses” is a formula for regional, if not national depression.

Instead, the Democrats apparently plan to “turn up the heat” gradually. As the proverbial frog boiling on the stove, the Democrat leaders hope that if CO2 regulations and taxes are imposed slowly enough, the average American voter will not take much notice and will not hold Democrats accountable at the ballot box. They anticipate that the Socialist Greens will have no other place to go and will be sufficiently placated by incrementalism and token moves.

In the interim, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the “blue states” following California’s radical environmental lead will become the stalking horses.

If the EPA does the heavy lifting through the Clean Air Act (as grossly misinterpreted by the power-grabbing liberal activists on the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA), the Congress will be somewhat insulated from blowback.

Some in Congress undoubtedly want the Obama Administration to make the controversial moves first. That way, Congressional “moderates” from coal states and the Rustbelt can triangulate, hit up industry lobbyists for more campaign contributions, and bargain for complex carve-outs for home-town interests.

None of this is good for the U.S. automobile industry or automobile enthusiasts.

With General Motors and Chrysler “on the ropes,” Obama’s “Car Czars” will be able to extract huge anti-automotive freedom concessions in exchange for lifeline funds. Anything that smacks of high performance or motorsports will likely be bargained away, because “the people” (i.e. a minority of coastal Democrat “appliance motorists” and car-haters who do not believe in real free markets and who do not support the rights of “fly-over country” consumers to determine for themselves what sorts of vehicles best fit their needs or to enjoy motorsports) fervorantly believe that “gas guzzlers” and the promotion of “gas guzzling” are “killing the Planet.”

The poorly organized automotive community also lacks the lobbying muscle of the utilities and other competing emitters of greenhouse gasses. Thus it’s easier to single out motoring activities and equipment to demonstrate political fealty to the Green faith.

However, should the Democrats quit talking and actually cobble together some abortion of a “Cap and Trade” tax hike, American motorsports and the U.S. auto industry are poorly positioned to cope.

As the energy price spike of 2008 proved, automotive pursuits – whether sporting or business – are highly vulnerable to increased fuel costs. Any workable “cap and trade” scheme will amount to a de facto tax on energy and land use.

Such a tax increase would likely cripple the automotive aftermarket and OEMs. It would dry up sportsman motorsports.

It would crush the development of new high performance vehicles and lead to the abandonment of production for the few remaining “supercars.”

It will lead to increased rates of scrappage and reductions in the supply of used and replacement auto parts.

It will send bureaucratic “red-tape” soaring.

Although the Democrats’ actions on anthropogenic “climate change” have not yet matched the alarmist preaching of the wild-eyed, all-natural-fiber-clad green “evangelists,” the global warming “church bus” is still poised to crush automotive freedom.

The Democrats may be waffling now, but the automotive community is still poised to get pancaked.

WILD-EYED SCAREMONGERING FROM OBAMA'S GREENIAC ENERGY SECRETARY

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Obama's Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told the Los Angeles Times

"We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either."

"Chu is not a climate scientist. [Naturally and like a vast majority of the political hacks on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] He won his Nobel for work trapping atoms with laser light. He taught at Stanford University and directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he reoriented researchers to pursue 'clean energy' technologies to help reduce the use of greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels in the U.S., before Obama tapped him to head the Energy Department."

"In the course of a half-hour interview, Chu made clear that he sees public education [e.g. a propaganda blitz geared to make energy "burners" into outlaws and public pariahs] as a key part of the administration's strategy to fight global warming -- along with billions of dollars for alternative energy research and infrastructure, a national standard for electricity from renewable sources and cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions."


Cap and trade, of course, will lead directly to ill-founded vehicle scrappage programs, such as Unocal's musclecar crushing plan of twenty years ago.


And cap and trade will probably lead to regulations against any aftermarket parts or modifications that potentially increase fuel consumption, or huge taxes on consumers buying the "right" under the caps to emit more C02 and N20.

And if we're dealing in speculative "worst case scenarios" (as is Dr. Chu in his reckless scaremongering), then "cap and trade" and other targeted land use regulations aimed at limiting fuel burning could be used to shutter motorsports facilities or tax them into virtual disuse. Even if Daytona and Indy survive with token levels of professional motorsports, will marginal local dirt tracks and drag strips be able to buy enough emissions credits to stay viable? Will sportsmen competitors be able to afford to race?

If Chu and his gang of power-mad greeniac bureaucrats use flawed science and billions in "re-education" tax dollars to con millions of non-Car Crafting Americans that all agriculture and cities in California are on the brink of oblivion, how can SEMA ever hope to cope with that Tsunami of popular opinion?

Only a few stalwarts are standing up to the hysterical "climate change religion." For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, recently commented on the Democrats’ new climate principles:

"At a time when Congress is debating a near term multi-billion dollar bailout for the American economy, once again the Democrats are proposing principles for climate legislation that will impose a long-term multi-trillion dollar energy tax on families and workers,” Senator Inhofe said.

“As demonstrated last year, when it comes to drafting comprehensive climate legislation, the devil is in the details. These principles offer nothing more than a punt on all of the difficult issues that Americans expect to be honestly debated. Congressional cap-and-trade bills, often touted as an ‘insurance policy’ against global warming, would instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. We look forward to debating these tough issues in the Committee this year.”

Automotive enthusiasts should expect to get "hammered" in climate change legislation and regulation because of their minority status and the staggering costs in play.

The L.A. Times story estimated the risk to California agriculture under Chu's "worst case scenario" at over two and one-half TRILLION dollars.

Moreover,

The International Energy Agency concluded in a new report that the price of reducing greenhouse gases by half by 2050 could be as much as $45 trillion and require the construction of tens of thousands of new wind turbines as well as many hundreds of new nuclear plants. While that might sound like a lot, the agency concluded that "the current path is not sustainable."

In comparision, the interests of the various automotive communities will appear to be "chump change."

The storm clouds are darkening . . . .