• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Help Stop the EPA from Imposing More Costly Regulations

    Tired of having to drive safe, affordable vehicles? Can’t make a decision at the car lot and want the government to narrow down the decisions for you? Well then you’re in luck. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a great new regulation in store for you.

    The agency is intending to use the Clean Air Act to improve the fuel efficiency to 35.5 miles per gallon fleetwide by 2016 – four years ahead of schedule when President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

    Sounds like a good deal. Most everyone wants his or her vehicle to get more miles to the gallon. It’s one of the things people first inquire about when buying a car. But there are many other reasons people choose certain vehicles: safety, reliability, horsepower, style, price, comfort, handling, and environmental impact. For instance, Americans use larger vehicles for practical reasons: to take their kids to practice, to tow their boat to the shore, or on small farms to haul equipment or produce. Of course, to meet these new standards, cars and trucks will need to be lighter, making them less safe. The National Academy of Sciences study pegs the cost of downsizing at 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.

    But we’re saving the planet, right? Touted as a measure to curb global warming, fuel efficiency standards have very little environmental impact. Newer vehicles with better efficiency standards may emit less carbon dioxide per mile, but increased fuel efficiency often leads to more driving and new cars “constitute a miniscule source of overall carbon dioxide emissions.” Our friends at the Institute for Energy Research note that “the rule will lead to global mean temperature being 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius lower (0.016°C) in 2100.”

    But we’ll save money, right? The initial price of the vehicle may be more expensive but over time better gas mileage will negate the increase in sticker price and eventually save money. That’s what President Obama says. George Mason economist Don Boudreuax has some reservations:

    We Americans are lucky. President Obama, although having zero experience as an entrepreneur or in the automotive industry, has designed fuel-efficiency standards that (he assures us) will save the average car buyer $2,800 over the life of his or her vehicle. What a deal!

    No one in Detroit, in the U.K., in Japan, in Germany, in Korea, in Sweden, in Italy, in France – no one anywhere, not even persons with decades of experience producing and selling automobiles – has figured out how to devise vehicles that are so obviously attractive to American consumers — and, therefore, so rich in profit-earning potential for manufacturers — as are the ones now promised to us by the Obama administration. And we can admire not only Mr. Obama’s industrial and commercial genius, but also his magnanimity in offering to the public, free of charge, his money-saving idea. He could have earned billions of dollars in profit by putting his idea to the test in the market. But no: by simply forcing us to use his idea and charging us nothing for it, he’ll forego this profit. We Americans are lucky indeed.”

    Make your voice heard. And IER has done the leg work for you. Visit their site and submit a comment today. The deadline is November 27th.  Tell the Obama Administration that America needs affordable transportation to get the economy going again—not more job-killing regulations.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    32 Responses to Help Stop the EPA from Imposing More Costly Regulations

    1. Jo,Mich says:

      Someone help me out. When did carbon dioxide become the emission

      from a car engine..I always thought it was carbon monoxide. Guess I've seen too many movies showing people in garages dying

      from the inhalation of CO.

    2. Aleta K Tompkins F says:

      Some would say alot with their mother at the dinner table but I am not one of them.First I don't understand how contitutionually all this can be happening..if you can explain that to me it would be nice…and if it is uncontitutionual why isn't this man being impeached? It seems to me alot is being done that is uncontitutionual.

    3. Scarlett Lucas, Ashb says:

      I am once again appalled at the cavalier attitudes that prevail in Washington, DC.

      We, the people, demand safer alternatives for vehicles on our highways. Your pie in the sky approaches to everything these days lack common sense and the safety for we, the people, as well as security of jobs. I was unaware that our President can now design automobiles and predict the cost savings of vehicles not yet on the design table. How lucky can one country be???

      Again, I am appalled!

    4. Debra Holbrook says:

      Please do not sacrifice our safety and affordability for your ideas that the environment comes first. You cannot do what engineers and people with years of experience have not been able to do. Please stop!

    5. Evan DeWitt says:

      Liberalisim always the exact opposite of their stated intent! – Jim Quinn Why is it that everytime the government "helps" us, I have the uncontrollable desire to hide in a cave so they can't help me?

    6. Barbara Mullis says:

      please stop > America has enough problems why cause more. These pie sky promiss are wrong and we will all suffer

    7. Darlene, PA says:

      So this new car that is not safer but will cost us probably 4,000 dollars more will save us 2,800 dollars over the life of the car, Really want to know what this President is smoking, and I don't think it is tobacco.

    8. Annette Armbruster says:

      Private climate documents hacked, published – Lateline (23 Nov 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4VKrBtUcQY

      Friday, November 20, 2009

      Evidence Of Global Warming Fraud Exposed
      http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/11/evidence-o

    9. max miles says:

      ANYTIME WASHINGTON DECLARES CHANGE OF THIS NATURE, THEY ARE A TRAITOR TO LIBERTY. WHEN WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING IGNORED FOR WANT OF POWER HAS TO BE FIRED OR IMPEACHED!! "NOW"!!! max

    10. Roger S., Ma. says:

      Here's a new take on an old joke:

      (Title: "Smell my CO2? – Then buy my car, Har, Har!)

      Question:

      "How many Haaarvuud grads does it take to design a new car?

      Answer:

      None! – Haaarvuud grads get cars to design themselves!

      Question:

      Do Haaarvuud grads get to drive them?

      Answer:

      No! – They pledged to only drive bicycles!

      Question:

      Do Haaarvuud grads hope for change?

      Answer:

      No! – They ARE hope and change!

      Question:

      How many of them are needed to change a lightbulb?

      Answer:

      All or None! — They're either so bright as to light the world without bulbs or the "black holes" of enlightenment. (Either way, no new bulbs needed!)

    11. Mary Oele says:

      The question of constitutionality is a valid one. But what is humorous is that all this effort at regulation is taking place even after the emails have been discovered that question the validity of global warming. It is hard to take any of this seriously when a few scientists have taken it upon themselves to alter the recorded temperatures so that they support the theory that the earth is growing warmer, when in fact it is not.

    12. Myrilee Collum, Erie says:

      I am not interested in energy efficient cars! I want a car that will protect me in a crash. I do not want my children's and grandchildren's lives at risk in an automobile accident. The cost of a death of a loved one is beyond comprehension.

      What kind of sense does it make to make smaller cars and then we have to drive two to get where we need to be. I have a domecile care home. I need a van to carry the adults that I take care of. It would save nothing if we had to take two cars everywhere!

    13. Bobbie Jay says:

      SAFE TRANSPORTATION! Who knows how these vehicles will be manufactured with government watching over them? NO TRUST!

      Wonder how much of a gust of wind or a semi could effect the drive?

    14. Bobbie Jay says:

      Wasn't it mentioned that the EPA is a cover for pagan religion of nature? Let history stand: this is the most messed up American government in it's history. All run by human: ignorance, arrogance and greed.

    15. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      ONE MORE TIME! This is not about carbon emissions

      or the size of cars. It about one thing, POWER!

      It's about the power of the federal government to

      control every aspect of our lives. This did not start with Obama. It started many years ago and has reached this point by the slow advance of

      political correctness which is just another form

      of Communism.

    16. William Downey NC says:

      I have very little trust in anything a politician says. If his lips are moving he's lying.

      Why doesn't the EPA have anything better to do than accelerate the date for emission reductions?

      When did the Prsident and members of his administration become experts on the design and manufacturing of automobiles?

      What happened to the concept of auto safety, a car made of plastic may be cheaper to repair, but what happens to the occupants?

      What happened to common economic sense? We all know that the cost of these cars will be much higher than the savings from "efficiency".

      This is what happens when government is "invests" in an automobile company.

    17. Texan, Corpus Christ says:

      I agree with you all, this Administration is taking us straight down the road to Socialism. Look at the health care reform bill, 35% of the people want it and almost 60% of us don't want anything to do with it yet the dems are going to shove it down our throats if they can. The global warming farce is ridiculous, when Gore got the Nobel prize I thought to myself that the Norweigens were crazy but after Obama got his that just confirmed their insanity to me. If we don't get these people out of the White House they are going to do more harm to this great country that can ever be repaired. We need to stand strong together as Americans not Republicans and Democrats but as Americans. Some of the people that voted for this guy are starting to wake up and see that he is not the person they thought they were voting for. They'll be coming after our second ammendment rights and I have talked to a lot of Texans that are using that old clechet "When they pry it from my cold dead hands" you get my drift. If we stand together, my fellow countrymen, we can take our country back. Have faith in God and ourselves and we will get through this together.

    18. J W, Omaha says:

      American cars are already so far behind Asian and European models (many built by Ford and GM in their overseas operations) in terms of fuel economy and emissions, that it isn't any wonder you can't sell a U.S.-made car outside the continental U.S.A. The car companies are already developing standardized vehicle platforms and engines (see Chrysler and Fiat's moves in this direction) that are starting to make their appearance on this side of the Atlantic.

      As to the contention that smaller, lighter cars are unsafe, you need to update your talking points. That study was based on 1993 crash data and new research shows it's not the mass of the car that's important to safety but the size and even here there a room for debate as the minority opinion of the NAS study highlights:

      “The conclusions of the majority of the committee … are overly simplistic and at least partially incorrect … The relationship between vehicle weight and safety are complex and not measureable with any reasonable degree of certainty at present…Reducing the weights of light-duty vehicles will neither benefit nor harm all highway users; there will be winners and losers.”

      Also even more recent research by Tom Wenzel at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs and March Ross at the U of Mich. found "Advanced materials (high-strength steel, advanced composites) may allow large weight reductions, and fuel economy improvement, without any sacrifice in safety. Here's the URL to their Powerpoint: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.p

      Based on their findings, light pickups may be more dangerous than subcompact cars. A NIH study concluded, "Occupants of passenger cars have a higher risk of fatality than occupants of SUVs in car-versus-SUV head-on crashes. Vehicle differential weight plays an important role in determining the safety of occupants involved in these crashes, but safety cannot be evaluated on the basis of vehicle weight alone. Other factors such as mismatches in vehicle design and structural load path must also be considered."

      So instead of lobbying to keep the American auto industry in the 20th century, how you we lobby not only more fuel efficient vehicles, but safer design standards?

    19. Tim Az says:

      I guess I'm the only one who sees the savings here. The savings are to be had by the government. If your dead the government is not obligated to pay out any entitlements to you. Such as social security, Medciaire, Medicaid, Disability, and welfare and others that are too numerous to mention. They call it shrink to survive. This strategy is also used in the health care bill. It seems to be a repeating theme through out the frame work of liberal government. Here's another one. Mmm MMm MMMM that's the sound Of Mao-Bama with his boot on your throat.

    20. Slick says:

      But we WILL be saving money – think about it! If 1,300 to 2,600 more people die per year just think how much money we will save on health care they won't use!!

      Watch out or the next thing you know they will be legalizing assisted suicide in all 50 States because it will has been proven that for every person eliminated X amount of carbon dioxide will not be emitted into the atmosphere!!!

    21. mary triola new jers says:

      What more are these people in DC going to do to us? I for one can't take ANYMORE of their STUPID IDEAS. All they are doing is destroying AMERICA, but the worse part of all of this is they think we're the stupid ones. We don't want anymore of their corruption and intrusion in our lives. We take a stand and they don't listen. What in GODS name is it going to take?

    22. Nikki Louisiana says:

      Obama is arrogant……No he's not listening to anyone… he thinks he's right and the rest of the world is wrong. He's like a kid in a candy shop right now. He's throwing parties in the WH while people are unemployed……have lost their homes……and if the parties aren't enough…..he's having date night or traveling around the world. He's using our money to do these things…….and is "thumbing" his nose at us. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Holder……all of his "cronies" are ruining this country………… the million dollar question………how to get them out of there!!!!!! This country will be broke because he and the rest of them have no "sense" or "self control"….

    23. Caroll MN says:

      Maybe you are wondering why the right wing Heritage Foundation didn't put up statistics on deaths per million vehicles. It would show that a cars like an A4 Audi or MB E class are safer then any USA made SUV overall. Fewer deaths per million vehicles period. The safest thing would be to ban pickups and SUV except for strictly commercial use. They have been proven to be unsafe for the driver as well as others on the road.

    24. WHICH WAY says:

      WHAT NEEDS TO BE THE POLICY IS: CUT INSPECTIONS AND ANALYISE THE ENVIORNMENTAL TESTS.IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES,CUT THE INSPECTIONS UNTIL THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN POLLUTION.ALSO CERTIFY PRIVATE ENGINEERS TO APPROVE PROCESS INSTALLATIONS TO REDUCE DELAYS CAUSED BY DUPLICATED OPINIONS OF HOW TO DO THINGS.

    25. Tim Az says:

      Caroll obviously lives well above the average American citizen and can afford to buy foreign cars. The average Amercian must there fore make their choice of vehicle based on what they can afford to protect themselves from carefree drivers like Caroll. Americans will freely choose affordable mass to expensive foreign built cars they cannot afford. If Caroll truly believed her foreign built car has superior survival abilities in a crash with an American made truck or suv then she would have no arguement against them. Or maybe she's just a staunch socialist who cannot except that Americans should be free to buy the vehicle of their choosing.

    26. Patrick Stoffel, Wis says:

      This is the Heritage Foundation right? Since when do you actually believe that global warming exists? You speak for corporate interests and the Republican party so I don't know how you could possible say that global warming actually exists. What's going on?

    27. William, Arlington says:

      @Patrick Stoffel, I think you misread this blog post. It's a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek criticism of EPA regulations. Nowhere in it does the Heritage Foundation assert that global warming is a reality. Did you read their blog about Climategate and how global warming scientists are discrediting themselves?

      http://www.foundry.org/2009/11/23/climategate-h

    28. JohnR, Santa Barbara says:

      Give us choice…….just raise gas taxes instead of forcing economy rules on the auto industry. Then we can freely choose what car or truck to buy. It works for Europeans, who have more choice than Americans.

      And, if smaller cars are so dangerous, how come European roads are safer despite higher speeds and more crowded roads.

    29. CMarquiss, Portland says:

      So glad people are waking up to this Obama-nation. White House is doing it's best to ram every bill down our throats. It's a HUGE POWER grab, so they secure democratic control for years to come. The bigger the government, the bigger the unions and the voting power that comes with union members. They will never vote out the house and senate leaders that are raising our taxes to pay for their salaries and benefits. Now they are seeking amnesty for the illegals – just more voting power to secure their strong stranglehold for years to come. We must end this madness. We will be back to the days of paying 70% taxes with no end in sight. Please, please, please help to vote all of these tax-dodging, power grabbing representatives OUT of office. Why don't the folks in Washington understand that they work for US? Because now is the time to pass their communist agenda before most of america knows what's happening.

    30. Frank Eggers says:

      Of course safety is import. But has anyone else noticed that our road fatality rate is about 30% higher than the fatality rate in the UK, even though we have better roads and bigger and heavier cars that the UK has?

      Considering that all these people profess to be so concerned with safety, why is it that no one is pushing for more thorough driver education, more stringent driver examination, periodical driver re-examination, and more diligent enforcement of traffic laws? It is because the UK does better in those respects that it has a lower fatality rate than we have.

    31. Tim Az says:

      Come on Frank stop being intelectually lazy and do some simple math. How many miles of roads exist in the UK compared to the US? Or how many drivers are in the UK verses the US. I think you will find that based on the above figures you will discover that the US has a much safer driving record than the UK. More and bigger government only serves those in government and enslaves the citizenry.

      Another helping of hope and change anyone?

    32. Frank Eggers says:

      Az,

      I am not intellectually lazy. I have done my homework. By road fatality rate, I mean deaths compared with miles traveled. The figures are readily available.

      The unfortunate fact is that the U.S. has a mediocre road safety record, based on deaths compared with distance traveled. Several countries have better safety records than we do.

      It should be obvious that safety is greatly affected by the way people drive. When people have not learned effective defensive driving procedures, fail to use lanes correctly, follow too closely, and fail to pay attention, they are more likely to have accidents. The problem is exacerbated by law enforcement officers who themselves set bad examples. Probably most of us have seen police that follow much too closely, fail to signal turns, etc.

      I suppose that if bad drivers put only themselves at risk, an argument could be made that they should be permitted to kill themselves. Unfortunately, bad drivers put others at risk and therefore we are justified in pushing for improved driver training, improved driver testing, periodic re-testing, and better law enforcement to protect ourselves.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×