Another Reason to Source Global Fleets -- "We Own the Auto Companies"
I'm hoping that every Spend Matters reader in North America who either has control over fleet spend or their own personal automotive purchases is doing their patriotic duty to not buy American. Or at least to not buy Government Motors or Chrysler. Because when you see behavior like Senator Tom Harkin's, telling Congress that he wants "to use a climate bill to force auto companies to make new cars and trucks capable of running on 85 percent ethanol as well as conventional gasoline," you've got to think twice about how he plans to do it and how uncompetitive government owned automotive companies will be in the future. In his view, it's easy, because "We own the automobile companies. Why not? I think that will be an easy one." NAM's Shop Floor Blog, quoted above, suggests Harkin's reference is due entirely to "government interests in Chrysler and General Motors".
Let's examine Harkin's motivations for a minute and why this comment is so scary -- and why we need to treat this as a Spend Management policy decision that is worth taking action on to send a message. Senator Harkin is from the Corn Belt -- Iowa to be exact. His motivation around ethanol is entirely based on propping up the price of corn to keep his constituents happy (as if government farm subsidies, which Obama has been too much of a wuss to tackle and that we all pay for in higher prices, are not enough).
So let's get this straight. Under the guise of climate change, a Senator, with motivations for his own selfish re-election and fundraising reasons, wants to mandate that "government owned" car companies run on the very substance that keeps him in office, bringing home the bacon (pork) so to speak. Never mind the fact that building engines that run on both fuels cost more to develop, sub-optimize power and economy for conventional fuel by requiring the flex-fuel option, in some cases weigh more than conventional engines and do not result in any savings to consumers.
If there was ever a better reason for all of us to vote with our dollars and go out and buy Fords, Hondas and Toyotas, I'm not sure what it is. Let's hope the government does dictate such standards because in the end, if they do, it will hasten the demise of organizations that have no business being owned by the government in the first place.
- Jason Busch
TweetBacks
[Quote]Never mind the fact that building engines that run on both fuels cost more to develop, sub-optimize power and economy for conventional fuel by requiring the flex-fuel option, in some cases weigh more than conventional engines and do not result in any savings to consumers. "[/quote]
It costs less than $150 to change a Non flex fuel vehicle to a flex fuel vehicle..all the Parts are the same ..occaissioanly they use a different fuel injector and then they change the fuel map (computer software instructions)
And as far as a FFV "weighs more" thats rather amusing..how does a car with the same parts weight more ? Please enlighten us ! lol
The bottom, line is for #$150 the consumer now has and actual CHOICE aty the pump ..God for bid we actually allow Americans choice at the p[ump and starting breaking down Oils Monopoly.
Corn is at $3.39 for 56lbs (1 bushel) http://cbot.com which literally means their is literally 6 cents worth of corn in a $3.29 1 lb box of corn flakes.. .06 cents scary isn't it .
Not that corn ethanol really matters in the larger picture anyways as by law only 15 billion gallons of ethanol can come from corn and we are already at 11 Billion gallons.
After 15 billion gallons all ethanol will be coming from Cellulose materials ..which has already started.
Now of course the last thing Oil wants is to loose hold of their Monopoly ...ethanol is the only threat to their monopoly and they will keep dissemination of nonsense trying to sway public against Flex fuel vehicles and ethanol in general....
On another note, Jason, how can "Cancel" be the first button even before "Post" on the comment form? I wonder how many commenters lose their content like did a minute ago....
BTW, it also looks like you've got some motivations here judging from your link. Remember, this is a sourcing and supply blog -- not a blog designed to drive cost up for individuals, companies and tax payers. Just the opposite.
"Professor John Deutch, a professor of chemistry at MIT and former director of energy research and Undersecretary of Energy in the Carter Administration, states that federal ethanol subsidy is costing the taxpayers $120 for every barrel of oil displaced by ethanol. With the price of oil hovering around $70 per barrel, only the ethanol industry (or maybe a politician) would consider that a bargain."
Aside to Zoli, time to check those quality assumptions about Japanese cars. Ford is surpassing them in many ratings now. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19073071/
We're having a record or near record corn harvest. I don't think anybody is going to go hungry because the price of corn is nowhere near the record... Besides, given the great obesity and diabetes problem that we now face, it wouldn't be bad if high fructose corn syrup went up.