(4)
U.S. fuel plan hardly one giant leap of any kind
/AP FILE PHOTO
President Barack Obama’s plan to cut fuel consumption won’t improve anything, says Peter Gorrie.
That was U.S. president John F. Kennedy, back in 1961. By literally reaching for the moon, he set the standard for what can be achieved by erecting an audacious goal and going hard for it.
"No longer will we accept anything less than a common effort, made in good faith, to solve our toughest problems."
This was President Barack Obama last month, urging Americans to "imagine a world as it could be," as he announced the "historic calling" to cut the fuel consumption of U.S. cars and trucks.
Kennedy's was what's now called a "stretch goal." It required scientists and industries to accomplish something few people thought possible. It succeeded through immense effort, fuelled by imagination and pride.
Obama's rhetorical flourishes notwithstanding, achieving greater fuel efficiency wouldn't be as lofty or appealing as the effort that led to Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong's "giant leap for mankind" in July 1969.
It's hard to imagine people glued to their communications devices seven years from now as Obama announces that his target – a 30 per cent fuel-efficiency improvement – has been reached.
At a recent forum on the future of the car, Dave Pascoe, an executive director at Magna International, argued that the best way to increase fuel economy is "to continue to drive up the fuel economy requirements.
The solution is not to legislate the type of car but to simply raise the bar – `You've got to get 60 miles per gallon (3.9 L/100 km) across the fleet' – and that will be delivered." That suggests a stretch goal could work.
But Obama's "historic calling" is not in that league. The proposed U.S. standard is already exceeded by the current regulations in Europe and Japan, and roughly equal to China's. It's also less than what would have been achieved already if, as I wrote about recently, North American carmakers hadn't larded their vehicles with unnecessary size, horsepower and accessories.
Pascoe describes Obama's target, which Canada will copy, as aggressive, and predicts it would increase the average car price by $1,500 (U.S.). "It will cost automakers significantly to achieve the goals. They will have to revamp the fleets. Cars will be smaller. Engines will be smaller.'' Hybrids will play a big part, especially if diesels – Europe's mainstay – are curtailed here due to other pollution issues.
A target of 3.9 L/100 km by 2016 would be a stretch. Devising the technology would be less of a challenge than putting Armstrong and company on the moon, Pascoe says. But it would be much harder economically and socially.
It would add $10,000 to $20,000 to typical price tags. With 12 million cars sold annually in North America, the cost would total at least $120 billion and could hit $240 billion. The entire Apollo program, cost the equivalent of $140 billion in current dollars.
That puts fuel economy in the same financial ballpark as the moon landing. But millions of individuals would pay directly rather than having the cost obscured in everyone's tax bill. Only the rich could afford gas guzzlers, and even "regular" sized cars might be beyond the reach of most people.
Most evidence suggests North Americans still want cars with size and power and aren't galvanized enough about climate change or energy security to happily accept downsized, pricier offerings.
So Obama's announcement was a political compromise that will produce only a small reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, dressed like something far more significant.
He stretched his vocabulary, but he's not stretching the industry or consumers.
Peter Gorrie is Wheels' environment columnist. He can be reached at
Woman's win over Honda opens door to mileage claim free-for-all
Video: Chevrolet Sonic a small car with a big car price
These four affordable, mid-size SUVs are worth a look
