the tindog coffeehouse

President Bush is expected to sign the recent energy bill passed by Congress which would require auto makers to increase the fuel efficiency of their cars to 35 mpg by 2020. Sounds good, right?

The AP is reporting how manufacturers will be “getting creative” to meet those figures, rolling out more advanced hybrids, using “cylinder deactivation systems,” and experimenting with lighter materials such as carbon fiber and aluminum. Still sounds good, doesn’t it?

Until you realize what this really means for consumers:

But Merkle noted that all of these alternatives will not come cheaply. Clean diesel and hybrid technology typically adds several thousand dollars to the cost of a vehicle, and more lightweight parts will also carry additional expenses.

When will we learn that economic regulation rarely benefits the consumer? Of course, this energy bill isn’t about benefiting the consumer, is it? This is election-year legislation created by Democrats to appeal to environmentally-conscious voters and those that argue for curbing our dependence on foreign oil. It also goes over well with farmers in the midwest (Iowa, anyone?), who stand to make a killing over the increased demand for corn-based ethanol, which itself drives up prices of food and other manufactured products, straining the budgets of millions of Americans.

I bought a new car about a month and half ago, and one of the primary reasons was to save money. I wanted a more fuel efficient car, but you soon realize that going with a hybrid may actually cost you more money. Compare the Honda Civic Hybrid with the regular Civic. The hybrid is more fuel efficient but costs about $5000 more. So you save money on gas but not enough to offset the higher monthly payments versus the non-hybrid model.

Do we need more fuel efficient cars? Yes. Do we need environmentally cleaner cars? Yes. But these technologies cost more money, and by forcing consumers to pay those higher costs, Congress is ultimately hurting Americans.