« | »

New ‘Obama Cars’ To Cost $1,300 More

From an unquestioning Associated Press:

Automakers, Obama announce mileage, pollution plan

Ken Thomas and Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers
On Tuesday May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016.

Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for vehicles, as well as require an overall or industry average fuel efficiency standard at 35.5 miles per gallon.

Carol Browner, the White House energy and climate director, publicly confirmed the new initiative in appearances on morning network news shows, calling it a "truly historic" occasion and saying tougher standards are "long overdue."

Obama’s proposed change in rules would for the first time combine pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road, said senior administration officials speaking anonymously, ahead of the announcement.

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, they said

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections…

The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion…

Besides the obvious costs, and further strangulation of the already dying auto industry – is this not really ‘blood for oil’?

Where are the estimates about how many more traffic deaths will be caused by trying to meet these standards by building lighter and less safe cars and trucks?

How many will die on the altar of the false god ‘Global Warming’?

Oh, and note how the AP removed the first sentence in their article, compared to the earlier version below.

(Thanks to BillK for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, May 19th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

30 Responses to “New ‘Obama Cars’ To Cost $1,300 More”

  1. BillK says:

    Hey, it’s only an extra $1300 – just for the car.

    When you ride in limos, what does it matter?

    From the [Associated Press]:

    Automakers, Obama announce mileage, pollution plan

    By Ken Thomas and Philip Elliott

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama wants drivers to go farther on a gallon of gas and cause less damage to the environment – and be willing to pick up the tab….

    Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for cars and trucks, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon standard. Consumers should expect to pay an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016, officials said…


    That’s OK, cars are just given to you by your contributors anyway, right?

  2. 1sttofight says:

    They will sell almost as good as the current models do.

  3. proreason says:

    As Steve says, $1300 per car is the tip of the iceberg. Like Health Care, the true cost will be measured in human lives cut short.

    But they don’t care. It’s more important to them to control you than it is for you to live.

    The real end-game here is public transportation as the only option.

    Cars just provide too much mobility and freedom. Our government masters can’t monitor our movements when you can just jump in your car to go meet somebody. And you have a feeling with a car, that you are providing it yourself, not being bequethed the gift of transportation from Big Brother.

    • Enthalpy says:

      PR, It makes no difference if it’s this or the CO2 meetings, we are simply incidental to the whole process. I think that they have equal contempt for us and their own supporters; each of us is an equally annoying, necessary pest-for now.

  4. Confucius says:

    Where are the estimates about how many more traffic deaths will be caused by trying to meet these standards by building lighter and less safe cars and trucks?

    Don’t forget all those extra batteries sitting next to the gas tank.

  5. BigOil says:

    I wonder how they came up with the $1300 per car figure. Looking at cars this weekend, a Ford Fusion hybrid sitting next to a standard gas guzzling model was $6000 higher in price. At current gasoline prices, you can’t pay out the added expense over the useful life of a car.

    Not that free market economics ever mattered to Marxist dictator.

  6. pdsand says:

    That’s just the estimated extra cost of the technology I’m sure. With the new higher selling prices, I’m sure the UAW will get a proportional labor cost increase, and we will pay more tax on the selling price of the car. Higher car prices means higher interest, and probably higher interest rates if it gets above a certain price level. Plus a lot of people won’t qualify for car loans of the more expensive vehicles, so can anyone else foresee a subprime car loan crisis?

  7. beautyofreason says:

    Well, I suspect the used car market will increase, the U.S. auto industry will shrivel, and the average American family will have to pay more for a car made of cheap plastic bits more susceptible in an accident than heavier steel counterparts…

    Goodbye, glorious Hummer…So long, beautiful SUVs…

    Why can’t the government allow people to choose vehicles based on what they want (ex. fuel efficiency, or better accident rating, etc) instead of forcing it down people’s throats?

  8. proreason says:

    Honda Hybrid “biblically terrible”


    Note: Honda is the best car manufacturer of all time. Highest quality. Best customer satisfaction. Most innovative. Best engineering/cost ratios.

    And even they can’t build a good green car.

    But it meets all of your governments standards. Indeed, it’s a triumph from the govevernments perspective (other than that it doesn’t force any entrepreneurs out of business).

    • Pro, you missed the best part, which is in the same paragraph as the “biblically terrible” part. “It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more. “

  9. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    If you look at the viable “green” solution, diesel, the left constantly blocks any attempt to convert from gas to oil burners. The big three all had plans for small block v-8 diesel’s in their light duty pick ups. They have all been scrapped. Not only are they more powerful, but use less fuel, emit less CO2, and they last 3 times longer than a gas motor. How much carbon is saved by not making the two extra cars to cover the life of one diesel? They can also run on any flammable oil, talk about energy independence.

    While they talk about going “green,” they never plan to actually do it. They only to use the idea as a campaign slogan to buttress their socialist agenda. We have to take over the car manufactures because they don’t make environmentally friendly cars. We have to take over all industry to ensure they are meeting the carbon caps. We have to control your diet to ensure your health…….

    Of course I’m preaching to the quire. The trick is to get the Obamanots to pull the man’s hand out of their pooper so they can actually see what is going on.

  10. Yarddog1 says:

    Ahhhh……. simply another step in the march to totally destroy America and bring its citizens to their knees. I note that the mOron declined to meet with the govenor of Nevada and its business leaders to discuss the negative impact the O Hole’s remarks have had on Nevada’s economy. This miscreant is either bound and determined to destroy America or he is the most incompetent human to ever live. The more I see, the more I believe it is destruction he has in mind.

  11. Liberals Demise says:

    But “I” thought he said he DIDN’T want to be in the car business …………..

  12. VMAN says:

    This is driving me crazy!!!! Does anyone remember the Honda Cvc back in the late 60s early 70s that got 50 MPG or more? Am I the only one that remembers that. Heck I bought a Datsun B210 in 1976 that got between 35 and 40 MPG. Again am I the only one that remembers this. I guess I am. When I talk to people about this I get the “deer in the headlights look” like I’m crazy. Fast forward to 2009 and were talking about getting 35MPG by 1016. This is insane. Somebody is screwing with us. And what about hydrogen? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that that seems to be getting buried. Gee whiz separate water into its components and you get two elements that burn like crazy and not just burn bur burn cleanly. Heck an elementary school student can do a simple experiment with a battery and wire and separate the two and we’re supposed to believe that it can’t be done on a commercial scale? We should have engines that can separate and burn the two. I know I’m just nuts. I remember when I was a kid you always heard the story about some guy building an engine that ran on water and oh how we all laughed. Well maybe somebody really did. My wifes grandfather claimed to have done just that back in the 1940s and was killed and all his records went missing. Oh I know I’m just crazy. Again we’re getting screwed and not just now but we have been getting reamed for decades.

    • Right of the People says:

      Vman, you’re not the only one. I had a ’72 Honda 600 with a tiny 600cc motorcycle engine that got over 50 mpg in the city and nearly 70 mpg on the highway, plus it had a top speed of nearly 100 mph. I also had a Ford Fiesta that averaged over 43 mpg, a Renault Alliance that got over 40 mpg and even a Rabbit that got nearly 40 mpg on the highway. I’m always complaining that if they could build cars like that back in the ’70’s and ’80’s, why can’t they do it now with our better technology. There was a video going around a couple years back of a guy in Florida who produced an engine that did exactly what you said about running on water by splitting the H2O molecule to produce hydrogen and oxygen. It ran on hydrogen and exhausted the oxygen. He supposedly was working with one of the major automakers. I imagine the oil industry is trying hard to squash this.

      “Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for vehicles, as well as require an overall or industry average fuel efficiency standard at 35.5 miles per gallon.”

      I thought we already had emissions standards going back to the early ’70’s when they put all that smog crap on our engines and choked them to death. Plus what the hell is the CAFE? I thought it stood for Corporate Average Fuel Economy so we already have fuel effciency standards. Just like everything else they do, the Obammy administration has to paint it another color then take credit for creating it.

      Revolution is just around the corner. I’m Hoping for some Change.

    • pdsand says:

      A retarded technicality. The CAFE standards regulate how much fuel goes in. They’re now talking about specifically regulating how much CO2 comes out. It gets at the same thing, the car has to be smaller, lighter, and less powerful.

    • pdsand says:

      The ability to build an efficient car has never been the problem. The problem is that they also build and sell inefficient trucks and SUVs that people want and need. These are fleet standards, so they have to either reduce or eliminate the trucks and SUVs in order to make the average of all their vehicles reach 35mpg. The democrats would like to pose this as some sort of NASA moonshot thing, giving the car manufacturers a goal and setting them to work at inventing and innovating. All they’re really doing is setting a date by which americans will no longer be able to buy the cars they want.

    • canary says:

      I remember. My dad told me years ago, all the new stuff they were doing to cars to make them more green, was what was making cars get less gas per gallon.

      I read India’s got a new car called a “nano” that gets 50 miles to gallon, cost about 2000, but think it has bad emissions.

      So, this would have to mean, small, thinner plastic cars. I have a 94 safe larger car and it’s falling apart, but I want another big safe car, but I’m afraid to buy a news car, aside Obombi scare, the likes of NYC charging the older taxies more for older gas guzzlers, and taxing the newer efficient cars saying that it won’t hurt them, since they’ll pay less for gas.
      If you buy a car that’s not government run, what if when you go to get it fixed, they won’t give it back until you pay to get it upgraded? I mean the govt can do what they want. The gas company pulls this stuff. The law says a leak within 40 feet of your house, but they cut your gas and forced me to pay to drill a hole in house, and put the meter smack next to my house. They constantly add something new you have to do. And they got the power literally. Any suggestions on what brand car to buy?

  13. Reality Bytes says:

    It’s nice to know the air under the bridge I will be linving under will be cleaner.

  14. David says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if people just stuck to what they were good at…
    We could let the engineers design the cars,
    Our Commander in Chief could win wars and keep the country safe,
    and community organizers would go … organize a community I guess.

  15. proreason says:

    AM Thinker credits Steve and S&L for Steve’s thoughts on this article:


  16. Come on, honestly how many people do you really think are gonna die while driving around cars like this:


    Oh wait…..

  17. Moonspinner says:

    Excuse me. I realize I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but can a president make up rules and regulations like this? I mean shouldn’t congress have to vote on something or other? Why have a congress? I realize congress is mostly dems and will jackboot along with Obama, but shouldn’t they be put on record that they have voted and passed a law for these Obama regulations. Gee, this guy gets away with everything he wants. I’ve never seen a president (not even Clintoon) whose word is law. Period. No vote. No discussion. No debate. What Obama wants, Obama gets. It’s because of his race isn’t it? Everyone is scared to go against the black guy and be called a racist.

    • proreason says:

      “I’ve never seen a president (not even Clintoon) whose word is law”

      you see it now.

      It’s called a dictatorship.

    • heykev says:

      Since BHO is going to dictate, why doesn’t he dictate one formulation of gas for the entire country. There’s over 10 different formulations of regular unleaded gas. We’d pay less for just one formula since we cannot build new refineries because of the EPA’s onerous requirements.

  18. Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

    It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016

    Time for some math OK? Oil consumption in 2007 in the US was 20.68 mil. barrels a day. (CIA World Factbook) 1.8 bil divided by 20.68 mil = 87.04. So for all of this effort we will save 87.04 days worth of crude oil consumption between now and 2016. Talk about negligible results!

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Hence the cheerleading from the WH flunkie: ‘…truly historic…’. Ugh.

  19. retire05 says:

    There are a number of problems that we will be facing, not withstanding the fact that more Americans will die/be severly injured in auto accidents due to lighter weight vehicles.

    #1) The addition cost is being estimated by an administration that can’t seem to get the numbers right on anything. Remember their estimated national deficit. So you can plan that the new “green” vehicles will cost as least $2,000 more per vehicle.

    #2) With the high vehicle cost, insurance will be higher. It will cost more insurance not just to cover the vehicle, but personal injury rates will go up as more people are injured in the Obama Saran Wrap Rice Burner I.

    #3) The federal government is the biggest winner in the profits game on gasoline. Anyone who thinks the government is going to give up revenue to go green is delusional. So how does the Pelosi Gang keep revenues the same? They raise taxes on gas per gallon.

    Many people who live in my town work in, or around Austin. It is not uncommon for them to drive 2,000 miles a month to/from work. There is no work in small towns, unless you go to work for a small local business or Wal-Mart.

    So let’s say you currently drive a safe pick-up like my F250 diesel that gets 18 mpg. That means I would burn around 111 gallons a month for work. Now, increase that to 29 mpg as The One is proposing. I now burn 68 gallons a month for work. Multiply that by millions of Americans all across the nation. Do you think the feds will cut the budget to meet those short falls? Hell, no, they will increase the cost of gas to off set those short falls.

    Gasoline taxes on both the state and federal level will have to be increased to offset the tax shortfall. Gasoline taxes will have to increase by about 50 cents a gallon to offset lost tax revenue.

    How long will it take to recoup any savings by buying a more fuel efficient vehicle? A long, long time and I doubt that the vehicle will last that long.

    • proreason says:

      And globally, there will be no reduction in oil production or usage.

      Foreign countries will use every drop, and the environment will be far worse off because the US is by far the most careful about protecting the envirnoment when exploring and extracting resources.

  20. MinnesotaRush says:

    Boy, oh boy!

    This o-blah-blah guy is just amazing isn’t he?!?

    I’m really delighted that he finally stopped with the community agitating and in-your-face training, left his senate do-nothing positions, and arrived on the presidential scene so he could get to work fixing just .. everything!

    Good thing he didn’t exhaust all his energy on the “small things”.

    Good grief!!!

« Front Page | To Top
« | »