Broccoli or doughnuts? Ask any kid what treat they’d prefer for a mid-morning snack or after-school treat, and with the exception of what we’d term a few statistical anomalies, we’re pretty sure the latter would be the food of choice. Even adults on a diet might splurge and choose the latter over the former, even if they knew it was bad for them.
As countless health professionals will attest however, that’s no reason to stop encouraging people to live a healthier lifestyle, especially if someone’s health is at risk of diabetes, organ failure and ultimately an early grave due to an unhealthy lifestyle.
Yet habit and stubbornness means that many dieting individuals try to take short-cuts, opting for fad diets and low-calorie options which promise it’s possible to live a healthy lifestyle while eating the things you want — including those doughnuts. Give someone on a diet the choice of a regular doughnut, diet doughnut or broccoli, and they’ll choose the supposedly healthier doughnut.
Despite not being the healthiest option, the aforementioned low-calorie, low-fat doughnut gives those on a diet an excuse to eat something they know is bad for them as it’s not as bad as the full-fat option. Diet — and broccoli — be damned.
As bizarre as it might sound, that diet analogy is now being used by the automotive world to try and argue against ever-increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) targets being set by the U.S. EPA, along with tough zero emission mandates from the state of California calling for electric cars to equal fifteen percent of all new cars sold in the Golden State by 2025.
Electric cars, argues Forrest McConnel, former chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), are a little like broccoli: nobody really wants them, and they’d rather have a low-fat doughnut instead.
As AutomotiveNews reports, the comments were made by McConnel yesterday at the CAR Management Briefing Seminars held in Traverse City, Michigan yesterday. McDonnell, who still runs his own auto dealerships, complained that current legislative efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote alternative-fuelled, zero-emission vehicles were simply too tough.
Comparing California’s ZEV mandates with offering broccoli to customers who wanted low-calorie doughnuts, McConnel was one of several auto industry professionals warning that California’s ZEV mandate and the EPA’s tough CAFE targets were causing havoc in the auto industry.
The presentations come at a time when many major automakers are seeing a rise in SUV and light truck sales, fuelled by a boom in domestically-produced oil which in turn has dramatically lowered the price of gasoline.
It’s something that Smith Bainwol, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, says is making automakers even less convinced about electric vehicles and California’s ZEV mandates. The mandates — followed in a total of nine states — require automakers to produce and sell a specific percentage of zero emission vehicles for each ZEV-compliant state in order to avoid hefty fines.
Producing those vehicles, argue automakers, costs far more than producing traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. Additionally, with costly training programs required for auto dealers selling alternative fuelled vehicles, overheads for both dealers and automakers are far higher than they would be for conventional-engined vehicles, lowering profits.
‘The product mix is drifting away” from the targets set by both the EPA and California, said Bainwol.
Essentially then, automakers — with the exception of Tesla Motors — are looking to blame an apathetic, disinterested customer base and the ‘unachievable’ targets set upon them by disconnected legislators.
The problem with this philosophy of course, is that it places the onus on the car buyer and their tastes rather than the automakers. “We’ll make them,” promises the auto industry, “as long as someone wants to buy them.”
Just like tobacco companies of old ignoring the health impacts of smoking and fast food companies of decades past ignoring the impact of eating nothing but burgers and fries every day, blaming it all on the consumer isn’t a sustainable solution.Mandating labelling requirements at restaurants and health warnings on cigarette packets have made a massive impact on both of these health challenges around the world. So too have efforts to force fast food outlets and tobacco companies alike to face up to the health effects that their products cause.
While there’s a long way to go, an informed public — and healthier options — seems to be a model the auto industry needs to follow.
Of course, everything is bad for us in excess, and things that are bad for us are okay in moderation. But will the auto industry follow the path that the tobacco and fast food industry did before it? Or will it continue to blame consumers for not wanting a healthier option? Indeed, will automakers and car buyers want to work together for the benefit of others?
Leave your thought in the Comments below.
You can also support us directly as a monthly supporting member by visiting Patreon.com.