Yesterday I came across a clip that read, “60% of Americans support 60 miles per gallon (MPG) vehicles”. This was a result of a study commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA). A San Francisco based group that spend their every waking moment to serve and protect consumers. CFA fought for significant consumer safety advancements such as nutrition labels on alcohol products and stronger regulation of hair products that contain Keratin, whatever that is.
In a recent study titled, “Rising Gasoline Prices and Record Household Expenditures -Will Policymakers Get Serious About Ending Our “Addiction To Oil” By Supporting A 60 Mile Per Gallon Fuel Economy Standard” (that’s a mouthful) CFA claims Americans want cars that get 60mpg and they want the states to set their own emissions standards. Sorry CFA, I think your study is garbage. Oh, that wasn’t nice. I’ll try again. This study is full of politically charged left-leaning half-truths conjured up by a group of progressive hippie trial attorneys who work under the guise of a consumer advocacy group. There. That’s much better.
For my readers – the report is located here: CLICK
Just about every question asked in this so called “survey” is misleading via omission. For example – “Would you like a vehicle that gets 60 miles per gallon?” Hmm, let me think about it – uh, yes. Oh, what’s that? It’s going to be the size of the original Mini, seat 1.5 persons, move at the speed of the DMV and cost me $30,000? I retract my previous answer. That last part wasn’t included in the survey. CFA also didn’t mention the added cost (and headache) building cars to meet 50 different state emissions standards would bring, which would of course be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher cost.
You see, the game of endless Mmm-Peee-Gees has tradeoffs. Sure, the Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt and a slew of other “coming soon” eco-friendly vehicles will drastically impact our fuel consumption, but will they fit the needs of EVERY consumer? I doubt Dr. Miller and the social groups who facilitated this survey fully comprehend what it would take to create this super-efficient fleet of vehicles. I wonder if they even considered the concept of market demand into their equation?
Think about it – if you don’t have an economic incentive (i.e. high gas prices) why would you buy a vehicle that is less capable? Whether in the form of towing capacity or overall vehicle acceleration, consumer needs (translates to demand) will clash with government prescriptions.
The global community must, and will, work to transition to a cheaper and more sustainable form of personal mobility. But we can’t let this goal be clouded by ill researched and politically motivated recommendations that come as a result of half-truth questions.
I think it best for CFA to continue their focus on issues more vital to humanity, like the nutritional value of alcohol. If I knew just how much sodium was in that tequila last night I might have only had three shots instead of seven. Might.