[Nixon]

Today a federal judge in Vermont ruled that Vermont had the legal right to force BMW and all car manufacturers to meet a new higher emissions standard. This higher standard would be set by California, and this same standard will be adopted by at least 14 other states including Vermont. These 15+ states represent about half of all US car sales.

These emissions rules are predicted by some to require automakers to meet by 2016 a fleet average fuel economy of about 43 miles per gallon in vehicles that weigh less than 3,750 pounds and an average of about 26 m.p.g. in heavier vehicles.

BMW sued to have these standards blocked in a joint lawsuit with 20 other car manufacturers (Aston Martin, BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Ferrari, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, Peugeot, Renault, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota and Volkswagen). BMW's claims were rejected.

BMW now has to decide if it wants to LEAD car manufacturers by developing and selling low emissions/high MPG cars in the US.

Or does BMW want to join more lawsuits to fight against the will of the majority of their customers in these 15 states? Or does BMW cut and run in these 15 states, abandon their customers, and stop selling cars to half of the US market?

I hope BMW chooses to be leaders.


disclosure -- I stole big chunks from these news articles for this post:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...SS01/709130435
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008508187

[atr_hugo]

It'll go a bit higher in the appellate structure before it's all said and done. ; -)

[larryn]

BMW already sells SULEV in Massachusetts, where I live. I think it's a great idea to make these cars available in all other states.

As far as the new proposal goes, I think BMW realizes that the cars that will be sold in 2016 are being developed (on paper) now, and they know that there's no way in bloody hell that they'll meet 43mpg using current available technologies. So, they would be fighting against legislation that they know is not attainable.

Remember, that if they are not able to meet those regulations, they will still be able to sell the cars, they will probably just tack on a federal mandated enhanced gas guzzler tax, that we'll end up paying for.

[ducati]

Why not let the market shake this out? Raise gasoline taxes so gas is on par with Europe's prices.

Mileage will naturally climb

Bummer of a loss for the enthusiasts of the world

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by larryn

I think BMW realizes that the cars that will be sold in 2016 are being developed (on paper) now, and they know that there's no way in bloody hell that they'll meet 43mpg using current available technologies. So, they would be fighting against legislation that they know is not attainable.

BMW globally already sells plenty of cars that can beat the 43 mpg standard for small cars, and the 26 mpg standard for large cars. They are the 120d, 123d, 335d, and 535d. There are also the 116i, 118i, 120i, 320i, etc gas engine vehicles that get very good gas mileage that could bring up the fleet average. And don't forget the BMW hybrids, both their own designs and the joint GM/Benz/BMW hybrid system. These could very easily make it to market within 9 years if BMW wanted to push them.

http://reviews.cnet.com/BMW_X3_Hybri...7-6333734.html

Also keep in mind that the 43 mpg and 26 mpg figures are the creation of the folks that want to scare us into thinking the new emissions standards are not possible. These are the same folks who told us that the whole US car industry would collapse if catalytic converters were manditory, and if air bags were manditory. These numbers are based on the assumption that current emissions systems cannot get any more efficient than they were in 2005 when these numbers were made up, and the only way to cut emissions is to cut the total amount of gas that cars use. In reality, if both better MPG and more efficient emissions controls are used, the fleet average will not have to be as high as the 43 mpg and 26 mpg figures. (although that kind of fuel efficiency would be nice...)

9 years is a long ways away by modern car development standards. I can say with great certainty that the 2008 M3 did not start serious development in 1999.

If there ends up being a real technology problem 9 years from now that keeps manufacturers from reaching the emissions goals, the EPA has an appeal and waiver process which could be used to extend the time limit. The appeal is automatic while the waiver is being considered by the EPA.

There is no justification for giving up on a goal today that is 9 years away just because some road blocks may or may not show up 9 years from now.

[BMWeber]

:middlefin That's what i got to say to the tree hugging hippies. I can understand emissions but mandating a car manufacturer to meet a gas mileage average that high is just stupid someone always has to ruin thing for the enthusiasts by coming up with some stupid plan to save the world. makes me want to go out and buy a 69 chevelle with a 454 and duel quads high compression no emissions 4.56 gears and an automatic:middlefin freakin hippies.:drinking:

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by BMWeber

:middlefin That's what i got to say to the tree hugging hippies. I can understand emissions but mandating a car manufacturer to meet a gas mileage average that high is just stupid someone always has to ruin thing for the enthusiasts by coming up with some stupid plan to save the world. makes me want to go out and buy a 69 chevelle with a 454 and duel quads high compression no emissions 4.56 gears and an automatic:middlefin freakin hippies.:drinking:

Folks like you always make me laugh. Here you are driving around Boston breathing nice (relatively) clean air, thanks to the same bunch of tree hugging hippies you bash who cleaned everything up from your '69 Chevelle. Instead of giving them the finger, you should be thanking them for saving Boston from becoming a hell hole of pollution like Beijing, Calcutta, or Mexico City. Who do you think is responsible for our (relatively) clean air? Chevy? Mobil?

Get some gratitude for those who have brought you the life you now live unless you would rather drive around in air like this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...Q_fIj69CJmT8nA

[Big Red One]

In general I prefer to let the voice of the market, rather than the voice of government, determine the products that Business develops and sells.

If cars with fuel efficiencies along those lines are truly the "will" of the majority of residents of those states, then why does the government need to force manufacturers to make those products?

If the people's will is to have cars that can attain 40+ mpg, then they'll make that will known by spending their dollars on vehicles that meet their desires and withholding their dollars from manufacturers whose vehicles don't. The smart companies that wish to stay in business will note those desires, and that a large market potential exists for meeting those desires, and develop products that address that market.

In my opinion, legislation is rarely about informing Business about the will of the majority and forcing business to bow to that will. Darwin's theory forces companies to bow to that will (even in the absence of legislation) if they wish to stay in business. No, in my opinion legislation of this type is most often about forcing the will of a vocal minority on an sadly apathetic majority.

There are already cars available that get North of 43 mpg. I say forget the legislation - the people of Vermont need to decide what's more important to them: Driving a BMW or driving a car that gets 43 mpg.

[135i_]

Big Red One is dead on

Or does BMW want to join more lawsuits to fight against the will of the majority of their customers in these 15 states? Or does BMW cut and run in these 15 states, abandon their customers, and stop selling cars to half of the US market?

The will of the majority of their customers? You're on drugs.

Like he said if people really cared they wouldn't buy the cars with the low gas mileage. Until then the government can stay out of my life and let me buy what I want.

If you're so concerned about it sell your car and get a bike. That'll make up for the extra emissions from my car.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Big Red One

In general I prefer to let the voice of the market, rather than the voice of government, determine the products that Business develops and sells..

That just doesn't work when it comes to matters of health and safety. Especially when the damage is cumulative and abstracted away from the source, like pollution. The only time the free market works in matters of health and safety is AFTER the harm has reached such a critical mass and has become so damaging that there is public outrage. Even then it takes Gov't intervention to force companies to clean up their acts. Do we really want to wait until after every single bad product has caused enough damage to create market outrage before it gets pulled?

Without gov't intervention, all of our children's toys (and our houses) would be coated in lead paint. Our gas would still be pumping out lead into the air, there would be no airbags or catalyic converters, no safety glass, no crash standards.

All of these were mandated through gov't intervention instead of the free market. The free market did not work to make them standard. The fact is that something like cars are way too complex for free market pressure to have any meaningful pressure on any single individual feature, like emissions, side impact safety standards, 5 mph bumpers, or child safety seats. There simply are too many features in a car for the market to single out any safety feature and apply market forces to make all manufacturers include them.

Imagine if every product that every company produced was only limited by the free market. The public would be in constant battles with every company for every product. With a market free of regulation, food makers would put out tainted food until there was a big enough public outcry to change the market. Do you remember the story from China where a street vendor was stuffing his food with steamed cardboard? Without food standards, you would be lucky if the worst thing you ate was just cardboard. There have been so many cases of nasty food being stopped by regulators that it just isn't funny. Businesses just do not have a good record of patroling themselves. And individuals do not have enough time in their days to do in-depth research to figure out which of all the products they buy are safe and which ones are not. Which ones are poisoning their backyard, and which ones are not. These are true Third-World conditions you are promoting with a strict free market policy.

Originally Posted by Big Red One

There are already cars available that get North of 43 mpg. I say forget the legislation - the people of Vermont need to decide what's more important to them: Driving a BMW or driving a car that gets 43 mpg.

OR you can have a large BMW that gets 26 mpg in the driveway, and another small BMW that gets 43 mpg. Nobody is taking BMW's away. BMW isn't going to pull out of half the US market.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by 135i_

Big Red One is dead on


The will of the majority of their customers? You're on drugs.

So you think the majority of BMW customers want to drive around in increasingly worse air pollution as the population and the number of cars on the road increases? I think you are dead wrong. Nobody wants their kids sucking your tail pipe.

The funny thing is that you live in the luxury of not having to suck tail pipe air every day BECAUSE the people who came before you cleaned up the air by enacting regulations JUST LIKE THIS ONE.

Add another ungrateful prick to the list of people who just don't get how good their life is due to the efforts of people they mock now.

Just because you are too thick in the head to make the connection between clean air legislation and clean air doesn't mean that the majority of BMW buyers don't want clean air.

ungrateful prick. I guess you would rather see your Hudson river there in New York light up in flames like that river did for your neighbors down south in New Jersey than to have gov't regulations keep it clean. Is this what you think BMW buyers want too? Dirty air, dirty water. Toss in some acid rain just for some fun.

I don't think you are smart enough to know what you want or how to get it, much less what the majority of BMW buyers want.

Originally Posted by 135i_

If you're so concerned about it sell your car and get a bike. That'll make up for the extra emissions from my car.

I've got a bike. My Suzuki SV650 gets 48-52 MPG and it uses about the same amount of gas to ride to work for a week than a Chevy Suburban uses in a single day.

[BMWeber]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Folks like you always make me laugh. Here you are driving around Boston breathing nice (relatively) clean air, thanks to the same bunch of tree hugging hippies you bash who cleaned everything up from your '69 Chevelle. Instead of giving them the finger, you should be thanking them for saving Boston from becoming a hell hole of pollution like Beijing, Calcutta, or Mexico City. Who do you think is responsible for our (relatively) clean air? Chevy? Mobil?

Get some gratitude for those who have brought you the life you now live unless you would rather drive around in air like this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...Q_fIj69CJmT8nA

I understand that but some things just don't make sense. lets worry about emissions and keeping the air clean. Say emissions technology made a massive jump in the next 8 years and BMW had 0 emission cars but didn't get high enough gas mileage they wouldn't comply with there tree hugging hippie law. I'm not well enough educated on this subject to know all the facts but I think that kind of gas mileage requirement is a bit overboard.

[larryn]

Originally Posted by Nixon

These could very easily make it to market within 9 years if BMW wanted to push them.

The only way I see them making 43mpg for the 3 series is if they continue to add weight to the car, making it fall into the "Large sized car" category. Seeing how they ARE packing weight on these cars over the past decade, I don't doubt that a 3er will weight 3750lbs by then (they are only ~150lbs from that now), and they would be incompliance with the engines they use today. Heck some xi and wagon 3er configurations weight more than 3750 now already.

The 5er is already above 3750, and already makes 26mpg highway.

[Khobin~]

Anyone notice that amoungst those car manufactures trying to sue, are companies that pride themselves on how great their fuel economy is and how they are trying to save the environment? Toyota, Honda and Suzuki to name a few...


On the plus side, maybe that help to encourage BMW to bring the 123d to N/A sooner rather then later...hehe

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by BMWeber

I understand that but some things just don't make sense. lets worry about emissions and keeping the air clean. Say emissions technology made a massive jump in the next 8 years and BMW had 0 emission cars but didn't get high enough gas mileage they wouldn't comply with there tree hugging hippie law. I'm not well enough educated on this subject to know all the facts but I think that kind of gas mileage requirement is a bit overboard.

I covered this point earlier. This is an emissions law. Raising the gas mileage is just one way to comply with the law. The 26 MPG and 43 MPG numbers were created in 2005 by those people who would like to scare you into believing the sky will fall. These numbers assume NO advancements in emissions technology in the 11 years between 2005 and 2016.

The link between the 26 MPG/43 MPG limits and the emissions standards is that reducing the amount of fuel burned will reduce the amount of emissions coming out the tail pipe. This law does not encode any mpg standards at all.

Increases in emissions system efficiency will also change the equation, which would allow manufacturers to continue to build cars that get lower mpg. In the hypothetical that you present, BMW would be fully compliant under this "tree hugging hippie law".

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by larryn

The only way I see them making 43mpg for the 3 series is if they continue to add weight to the car, making it fall into the "Large sized car" category. Seeing how they ARE packing weight on these cars over the past decade, I don't doubt that a 3er will weight 3750lbs by then (they are only ~150lbs from that now), and they would be incompliance with the engines they use today. Heck some xi and wagon 3er configurations weight more than 3750 now already.

The 5er is already above 3750, and already makes 26mpg highway.

Yes, many of BMW cars that they currently sell, especially the larger ones, are already well under this law's new emissions limits, which reduces the WHOLE fleet requirements.

Keep in mind that we aren't talking about limits on individual cars. We are talking about whole fleet averages. So BMW could still put out a bunch of 135i's that still have 300 hp/tq, and as long as they sell enough 535d's and 123d's, etc to balance out the fleet averages.

To be honest, I think there is a very good chance that BMW could meet these emissions standards with technology they already have in production, and with the technology they already have in the pipeline for release in the next few years.

[BMWeber]

Originally Posted by Nixon

I covered this point earlier. This is an emissions law. Raising the gas mileage is just one way to comply with the law. The 26 MPG and 43 MPG numbers were created in 2005 by those people who would like to scare you into believing the sky will fall. These numbers assume NO advancements in emissions technology in the 11 years between 2005 and 2016.

The link between the 26 MPG/43 MPG limits and the emissions standards is that reducing the amount of fuel burned will reduce the amount of emissions coming out the tail pipe. This law does not encode any mpg standards at all.

Increases in emissions system efficiency will also change the equation, which would allow manufacturers to continue to build cars that get lower mpg. In the hypothetical that you present, BMW would be fully compliant under this "tree hugging hippie law".

Oops my bad don't i look like an ass Leave it to me not to read the informative posts all the way through. sorry for my ignorant comments and what not. hmm wonder why there putting up such a fuss i can see Aston martin and daimler Chrysler/mercedes all their cars are big gas guzzling heavy beasts but BMW is half way there like most japanese cars. oh well it doesn't sound that bad. thank you for educating me and i will try to read a little more before I rant next time.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Big Red One

In general I prefer to let the voice of the market, rather than the voice of government, determine the products that Business develops and sells.
...
If cars with fuel efficiencies along those lines are truly the "will" of the majority of residents of those states, then why does the government need to force manufacturers to make those products?
...
Darwin's theory forces companies to bow to that will (even in the absence of legislation) if they wish to stay in business.

All of this presumes a free market is in place. But we know that is not the case. 21 car companies have formed a cartel and have all agreed to oppose better car emissions in the US.

How can free market pressures work when Aston Martin, BMW, Daimler Chrysler, Ferrari, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Isuzu, Kia, Maserati, Peugeot, Renault, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota and Volkswagen have all banded together in a unified front?

For market pressures to affect this cartel, the market would have to ignore every single positive quality/feature that these manufactures have to offer, and refuse to buy any of their cars just because their whole fleet do not meet higher emissions standards. That is assuming some other manufacturer would even offer a whole fleet of vehicles that DO meet higher emissions standards. I know of no such manufacturer.

By banding together in a cartel, these companies have effectively formed a monopoly. And if you really understand Adam Smith's theories about free markets, you would understand that a monopoly destroys the fundamentals of the free market.

To quote Adam Smith,

"The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got."

The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VII

So there is no free market for emissions, and there is no way free market pressures in the United States can affect emissions from cars, or break the 21 manufacturer cartel.



Now if we want to talk about systems where a free market system WOULD work, we can do that. They exist, just not here in the US.

For example, there are systems for charging people for the actual pollution their individual cars produce. Right now in the United States, we basically spread our pollution for free once we buy the car, no matter how much pollution our individual cars produce.

In systems that bill car owners yearly for the pollution damage their individual cars generate, a free market economy CAN work. Those who choose to pollute more with higher emissions vehicles just pay more for the pollution damage they are responsible for. These systems are all about individuals taking personal responsiblity for themselves and the pollution they generate. These most commonly come in the form of higher yearly vehicle taxes and/or registration fees for higher emissions vehicles. Much higher gas taxes can also have this effect, but since they are not directly linked to emissions, they do not have the same direct free market effect on emissions as taxes/fees based directly on the vehicle's emissions.

If you would like, we can discuss the upsides and downsides of changing the US from a gov't fleet-regulated emissions control system, to a free market system where each individual becomes responsible for paying for their own emissions. But your claim that the free market can handle this without regulation simply falls flat under Adam Smith's free market theories.

[Big Red One]

Originally Posted by Nixon

That just doesn't work when it comes to matters of health and safety. Especially when the damage is cumulative and abstracted away from the source.

I agree here, for the most part. That’s why my original comment was preceded by the “in most cases” qualifier. Say a person wants to buy paint that is made by a company which is environmentally friendly. It’s pretty darned hard and time consuming to do the kind or research that one would need to do to make sure the various paint manufacturers don’t have factories that are dumping pollutants into rivers, etc. It’s a lot harder for the consumer to vote with their dollar in that case because the harm is – as you put it so well – abstracted from the source. In this type of situation I generally support reasonable and pragmatic legislation to ensure environmentally friendly practices.

But in the case of a car, the harm is in no way abstracted from it’s source, nor is that source hidden from the consumer or otherwise difficult for the consumer to research. Every new car has a window sticker that details its fuel efficiency. The Internet is chock full of auto reviews which provide information about real-world fuel consumption numbers people experience when driving specific vehicles. Consumers have easy access to all of the information they need to reward car manufacturers who meet their standards and punish those that don’t – by voting with their dollars.

Originally Posted by Nixon

Without gov't intervention, all of our children's toys (and our houses) would be coated in lead paint. Our gas would still be pumping out lead into the air, there would be no airbags or catalyic converters, no safety glass, no crash standards.

All of these were mandated through gov't intervention instead of the free market. The free market did not work to make them standard. The fact is that something like cars are way too complex for free market pressure to have any meaningful pressure on any single individual feature, like emissions, side impact safety standards, 5 mph bumpers, or child safety seats. There simply are too many features in a car for the market to single out any safety feature and apply market forces to make all manufacturers include them.

If the auto industry were monopolistic, this might be largely true. But I must respectfully disagree with you here. You have to go pretty far down-market to find a car that doesn’t have ABS these days. Traction control is getting to be as prevalent in the standard features list. It used to be that a 6 CD changer – or even just a CD player – could only be had with the selection of an expensive option, now they’re standard on all but the lowest of the loss leaders. We’re starting to see “iPod integration” become more and more standardized. I’m sure there are others not coming to my mind right now. And why all of this value that’s been provided to the consumer without the need to regulate it in? Because that’s what the manufacturers have HAD to do to remain competitive in the market place.

Your position starts from the assumption that Business is fundamentally malignant, and will only do good if forced to do so by regulatory fiat. But that argument falls apart when you realize that the definition of “doing good” is truly “providing value to the consumer”, not simply “making cars safe”. Why would manufacturers make a car more luxurious or sophisticated in order to meet the will of the majority of their buyers, but refuse to listen to that same majority with regard to safety. That simply makes no sense. The safety of a car is part of the overall value equation a consumer considers when making a purchase. A standard place to plug in their iPod and a navigation system are likely not going to outweigh the dangers of a tall, narrow-based SUV that tips over easily in most consumers’ minds. So why would a manufacturer listen intently when their target market is clamoring for In Care Entertainment, but ignore them completely when those same people are asking for LATCH? Would you really assert that consumers will use their dollars to vote for the manufacturer that gives them the greatest non-safety feature list, but throw their hands in the air and say “I really want anti-lock brakes, but the car with the best sounding stereo doesn’t have them, so I guess I’m just going to have to skid all over the place in the Wintertime”? I just don’t understand the notion (which is really the foundation for your assertion) that car manufacturers will voluntarily differentiate their product all day long when it comes to non-safety items, but have to be forced to make their cars safer. If that is, in fact, the case, then we as consumers ought to be ashamed because that simply means we’re willing to give the manufacturers our money for a product that we don’t think is safe.

And your airbags example is an interesting one. How many children lost their lives when an airbag snapped their necks? And how many of those children might be alive today if they were simply wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle that didn’t have an airbag? And does it strike you somewhat ironic that manufacturers are now required to provide a means for disabling the very same airbag that they were required to put into the vehicle starting back in 1991? See, consumers still have the ability to vote whether or not they have an airbag in their car, only now they vote with their key or a button rather than with their dollars. When NHTSA first started trumpeting airbags, they claimed the devices would reduce fatality risk by 40%. Turns out the figure is really only 13%. Seatbelts, on the other hand, reduce fatality risk by 45% (information found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n1-per.html). Am I saying I don’t want airbags in my car? No. Even if they weren’t required, I would buy a car that had them. And that’s the key. I would vote with my dollars. And the smart manufacturer would follow those dollars. What I am saying, though, is the airbag debacle is a perfect example of how rushing into an issue headlong behind legislative mandate can actually do as much or more harm than good. The following passage, taken from the link above, says it well:

“Now, faced with public outcry and congressional pressure, NHTSA is hurriedly considering a host of regulatory fixes: liberalized rules to allow consumers to deactivate air bags; changes in federal performance criteria to permit less forceful deployment; and requirements for "smart" air bags, which supposedly sense and respond to occupant characteristics.


The fate of these proposals is unclear. What is clear is that if we had known in 1977 what we know today, the air bag mandate would never have survived politically. Regardless of how many lives the mandate might save on balance, the public would have rejected its forced use.


The air bag mandate began as an attempt to override individual choices regarding seat belts. To many people it represented the height of paternalistic government—a 1976 Department of Transportation tally of over seven thousand letters received shows a majority opposed the mandate. But in retrospect, the mandate has also taught us something about technocratic government. The public, after all, might have accepted the official line that air bags save lives and let the matter rest at that. It did not. Whether we are concerned about paternalism or technocracy, the strength of public reaction against a rule once deemed reaction-proof is, at heart, an encouraging sign of limits to public acquiescence.”

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by BMWeber

Oops my bad don't i look like an ass Leave it to me not to read the informative posts all the way through. sorry for my ignorant comments and what not. hmm wonder why there putting up such a fuss i can see Aston martin and daimler Chrysler/mercedes all their cars are big gas guzzling heavy beasts but BMW is half way there like most japanese cars. oh well it doesn't sound that bad. thank you for educating me and i will try to read a little more before I rant next time.

No problem, thanks for the post. Don't feel too bad, millions of dollars are being spent by companies to produce your exact first reaction!

But I don't blame the companies too much. They have to compete in a free market economy with regards to every other feature/function besides safety and emissions. They are in a cut-throat business, and they are just trying to stay competitive.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Big Red One

I agree here, for the most part. That’s why my original comment was preceded by the “in most cases” qualifier. ... It’s a lot harder for the consumer to vote with their dollar in that case because the harm is – as you put it so well – abstracted from the source. In this type of situation I generally support reasonable and pragmatic legislation to ensure environmentally friendly practices.

But in the case of a car, the harm is in no way abstracted from it’s source, nor is that source hidden from the consumer or otherwise difficult for the consumer to research. Every new car has a window sticker that details its fuel efficiency.

I disagree. This is about emissions and pollution. Better fuel efficiency is just a related side issue that comes into the discussion as a side effect related to better emissions. But people don't see the pollution they personally are causing, they only see the pollution from the sum of all cars. And even then, they don't see how much help clean emissions laws have had on pollution, because that pollution has been cleaned up!

So the abstracted harm is pollution. Specifically the lifetime pollution coming from a car that is bought new. This is very abstracted away from the free market where people make a one-time purchase without any real consideration as to how much the car will pollute over the car's lifetime.

Specifically, people think clean air is taken care of by the gov't, not through their choice in cars to buy. They think this because this is a true statement. We do not have a system of free market emissions, we have a regulated system.

I thought I did a very good job of explaining the difference between systems where there are free market forces acting upon emissions, and our system. I know it is some very dry reading, but please re-read what I posted before and explain to me how (if) you think there is a free market in the US for emissions.

Originally Posted by Big Red One

If the auto industry were monopolistic, this might be largely true. But I must respectfully disagree with you here.
...
Your position starts from the assumption that Business is fundamentally malignant, and will only do good if forced to do so by regulatory fiat.

I don't actually believe that Business is funamentally malignant. I work for a Fortune 200 company and I'm just as much a corporate pinhead as the next guy. I believe that Business is fundamentally driven by market forces. And I've worked it from the inside, so I've seen how the cogs churn. The market is neither good nor evil. It is the market. But the free market cannot mandate where a free market does not exist.

I find it interesting that you dismissed my statements about there being no free market for EMISSIONS STANDARDS and changing the topic to other car features like anti-lock brakes. I didn't claim there was a monopoly on all car features. Please explain how there can be a free market for EMISSIONS when 21 companies form a cartel and launch a lawsuit for the purpose of keeping the same existing emissions standard in place for all 21 companies?

I'm tempted to just post this point. Because the whole rest of your post about free markets falls flat on it's face, until you can explain how 21 car companies banding together and suing to keep the same emissions standard fits in a free market system.

But you are so wrong about airbags that I have to go on.

Originally Posted by Big Red One

When NHTSA first started trumpeting airbags, they claimed the devices would reduce fatality risk by 40%. Turns out the figure is really only 13%.
...
What I am saying, though, is the airbag debacle is a perfect example of how rushing into an issue headlong behind legislative mandate can actually do as much or more harm than good. The following passage, taken from the link above, says it well:

According to your cato institute quote:
"What is clear is that if we had known in 1977 what we know today, the air bag mandate would never have survived politically. Regardless of how many lives the mandate might save on balance, the public would have rejected its forced use."

First off, the national speed limit was just 55 mph in 1977 when NHTSA claimed a 40% reduction in fatalities. That law had been repealed by the time cato calculated their 13% number. I don't think NHTSA can be bashed for their predictions being thown off by a 20 mph raise in speed limits.

But even using cato's statistic of just a 13% success rate for air bags since 1991 (I don't know if cato is accurate with that number or not) that means there are around 100,000 people alive today who would disagree with the cato institute. Add in all of their children and spouses, and the number of people who very personally disagree with cato gets much larger than the 7 thousand whiny letters NHTSA got. The 30 children killed by airbags barely compares to the 100,000 saved by air bags -- of which I'm sure more than 30 were children.

The airbag "debacle" (I'm not sure how saving 100K people's lives can be described as a debacle) just shows that regulations can respond to market forces too. When information came out about actual deaths being caused by airbags, new regulations for de-powered airbags and airbag shutoffs were developed. Overall, the airbag regulations have been a huge net benefit despite the problems that had to be re-regulated. The regulations behaved the same way a good free market should work by responding to consumer pressures.

But I don't want to get off on a debate about the specifics of airbags. I know I brought it up, but let's get back to emissions.

[Tijuana]

I pretty much agree with everything Nixon has said so far.

People cannot be counted on to make the best decisions in a situation where they cannot measure all of the factors. Polution coming from a vehicle is very hard for the average American consumer to measure; we rely solely on fuel economy unless you are researching what the European market is doing.

Gas prices are not high enough for people to decide it is in their best interest to buy a car that uses half as much gas, much less consider how much CO2 they are putting out. Without an emissions tax in the US (which would fly about as well as an ACME anvil in a Warner Brothers cartoon), individual consumers cannot be counted on the make the right decisions for the future of the environment. So instead of putting the burden on the consumer (which would be nearly impossible), the government is asking corporations to take on the burden (which is quite difficult given the size of their lobby).

If you need evidence that consumers cannot be counted on, simply take a look at the number of people driving an hour back and forth to work each day by themselves in a vehicle that gets less than 15mpg.