Like so many things supported by liberals, the actual results of their crusades don’t really matter – it is the intent that counts. They never stop to consider the consequences…they are just too smart.
So here we go careening off the deep end, Hell bent for leather and damn the consequences:
When the Obama administration announced in August its plans to increase fuel economy standards to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks, all eyes were on the lofty goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saving consumers money at the gas pump and reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil. But the problems with practically doubling the fuel efficiency standards, some experts say, have unintended consequences, such as reducing vehicle safety and, ironically, hurting the environment.
The mpg regulations, called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, were established by Congress in 1975 in response to the oil embargoes and energy crisis of the times. The goal was simply to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adjusted the regulations over the years and then set the average mpg for car manufacturers’ new car fleets at 27.5 mpg for two decades.
Now, the administration’s jump to 54.4 mpg by 2025 worries a former car company attorney, Robert E. Norton. One of the ways manufacturers can improve mpg is by making smaller, lighter cars — cars that Norton says won’t fare well against larger cars and trucks on the road.
“The bigger vehicle wins in the collisions,” says Norton, a former attorney and consultant for car part manufacturers and car companies like Chrysler. Now, as vice president for external affairs at the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Norton is concerned about the implications of federal regulations requiring car manufacturers to increase their fleet average mpg.
And the only thing green about these rubber band powered rolling coffins is the color of the paint:
What concerns Zehner most is the narrow focus on better fuel efficiency, and not the other energy used to manufacture a car when it’s not in use, which includes the mining required for iron and other materials used to build cars, or chemicals leaching into the ground from cars rusting in landfills.
As cars slim down to meet mpg standards, rare materials are needed such as magnesium or carbon-fiber composites.
“One of the reasons (green) vehicles are so expensive is largely a reflection of the fossil fuels that go into building those cars,” Zehner says. “They are not expensive because they are green; they are expensive because they are energy intensive to build.”
In other words, they are not really green.
Well, spank my ass and call me Sally. They aren’t safe and they aren’t really green. I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you. You could have knocked me over with a the left nipple tassel of a Vegas stripper.
Sort of reminds me of “gun safety” legislation that makes no one safer, labor laws that make workers safe by eliminating their jobs, environmental policies that prevent natural forest fires and increase wildfire severity, welfare programs that don’t actually improve anyone’s actual welfare and retirement plans that can’t pay for your retirement.
Liberal intelligence – an oxymoron if there ever was one.