Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

nippononly

Exactly, so that wouldn't reduce the problem we are talking about - people oversizing their vehicles. Hence the straight displacement and size tax, rather than a HP to weight ratio system.

And these taxes could be INSTEAD of the valuation tax in California - the state would still get its money, and people would have big financial incentives to downsize as much as possible.

And manufacturers like Bugatti just pay enormous CAFE fines (to the tune of $10,000 for every car sold, or more) and pass along the costs to their customers.

seminole_kev

Not a fan of displacement taxes or restrictions as again, it is beating around the bush/not a direct attack on what you want to change.

If you tax displacement, what if my 2.0 turbo 4cyl motor gets less MPG than the 3.5 L V6? The 3.5 L gets taxed more, which makes no sense to me.

To indirect in my opinion.

gagrice

Trying to control our choice in cars with taxation does have a nasty ring to it. As you have pointed out it would not be possible to administer fairly. It also assumes that everyone has a choice in what they drive. When the housekeeper is stuck with driving a 15 year old Ford that only gets 16 MPG what do you do. I met a young fellow driving a 1990 Vanagon. I asked about mileage. He said he is lucky to get 8 MPG around town. It was all he could afford to own with 4 kids.

I think basing weight to HP limits would be more effective. If the automaker is now paying fines for going under 27.2 MPG, have additional fines for going over 150 HP in a mid sized and 110 HP in a compact car. It is not the Bugatti that is the problem. It is the CamCords with over 200 HP that are using more fuel than necessary to get where you are going.

I have a friend with a 1979 Ferrari in his garage. It has under 3000 original miles. Exotics are not the problem. It is the person commuting 65+ miles per day in a V6 mid size or a V8 SUV/PU.

seminole_kev

Still though, under that scheme you could have two cars with the same 150 HP, but wildly different MPG ratings being taxed at the same rate. And I'm pretty sure it is the MPG ratings that "we" are trying to go after here.

Again, I think you have to attack the problem directly.

Either a direct gas tax increase, or perhaps a MPG rating tax (the worse the rating, the higher the tax) on new car sales. The latter is about the only reasonable thing I can think of.

Other than that, you're really screwing with the market in different areas hoping to influence the main problem indirectly.

gagrice

The problem as I see it, is you have two competing forces. Those that would like to cut consumption of fossil fuel, and the group that receive the gas tax to maintain the infrastructure. Environmentalist like to save on fuel, cutting emissions and GHG. The DOT need the gas tax to maintain the roads. I think a realistic study would show that our fuel consumption is up some and our use of the roads is up much more. building cars that get 50 MPG or more is cutting into the revenue needed to maintain the roads. Raising the gas tax is a poor solution. In CA they use the money for all kinds of Pork barrel projects. Taxing by the mile to be used for maintaining the infrastructure is more direct to the problem.

CAFE means so little anymore. Automakers have found they can circumvent the CAFE standards with adding an E85 option to the vehicle. That does nothing to bring about better fuel economy. I would not mind paying the 50+ cents per gallon if they would fix the roads around my area.

rockylee

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/AUTO01/704270356/1148- /AUTO01

Rocky

boaz47

Is a lot like the spitting on the sidewalk laws some cities had. The idea may have been good but there is simply no way they work.

nippononly

Tax the heck out of the gas, I say. Give lower-income folks big tax breaks for purchasing gas and fund free public transportation. Even the Canadians tax their gas more than us, and they also have huge distances to drive, a national trucking industry, and more oil reserves than the U.S.

rockylee

Well what do you want the U.S. to do with those taxes ?

Rocky

boaz47

Your intention is good but the reality of how things work just doesn't hold water. You and I both know if they raise taxes on fuel the poor will not get a tax break. Even if they find a way to cut the minimum wage earners a break there will be a loop hole the size of a Hummer someone can drive through. I agree with you in principal if they also offer us some alternatives in our vehicle choices or alternative fuels. The big problem I have with increased taxes is they hardly ever use them for their "stated" Purposes. Remember the lottery and how it was supposed to help our Schools? All they did was give the schools about 33 percent of the sales and then cut back on funding for the schools by almost that same amount. The lottery money had strings attached that the origional funding didn't so who benefited from the money in the first place? Not the schools. It is my personal opinion if you took every CAFE and CARB consultant and stuck a quarter in their mouth and tossed them off a bridge all you would lose is your quarters.

nippononly

"It is my personal opinion if you took every CAFE and CARB consultant and stuck a quarter in their mouth and tossed them off a bridge all you would lose is your quarters."

My goodness! :-P

All I can say is it works everywhere but here, and U.S. government is no more or less corrupt than theirs, certainly not enough to have a significant impact on the outcome of such a plan.

50-state diesel is as good as here, the Germans and the Japanese have engines ready to go and I am sure the Americans can find something in their repertoire to do the job too.

In Europe, gas taxation has led most of the market towards diesels.

In the ultra-urban Japanese market, there has been a move towards lower power and smaller engines, in order to boost fuel economy running regular gas. And of course, more recently, there has been a run-up in hybrids.

The U.S. could take either approach, or a combination of both, or God forbid it could actually INNOVATE to meet the new taxes head on. :-/

gagrice

Well we see eye to eye on this subject. In California they throw the gas tax into the general fund and our roads are not maintained as was intended. Mass transit for all but downtown urban areas is a big tax drain with little benefit. What works in NYC or LA does not work in urban sprawl. I for one would not live in any city I have visited. I am 25 miles out of San Diego and plan to move another 15 miles further. Too many people cause too many problems. Bring on the diesel cars and we will cut consumption. CAFE and CARB have done little or nothing to that end.

Kirstie_H

It's really difficult to legislate a "lifestyle issue" like high gas consumption out of existence, IMO. People will generally put more energy into finding a way around legislation in order to preserve their existing lifestyle than they will toward changing it.

The best way to effect change is to bring desirable and affordable replacement products to market. For example, I have switched many light bulbs in my home to the compact fluourescent bulbs because, in the long run, it saves me time & energy. I hate climbing up on a ladder to change the regular bulbs as they burn out often and I rarely remember to get them at the store. Changing a light bulb every few years saves me time & money (overall), not to mention the energy savings reaped.

nippononly

More fuel-efficient cars would increase the duration of time between gas station stops, that might be a benefit to promote if we could get some frugal powertrains on the roads.

It's funny how little Americans think of anything but the initial upfront costs when making major purchases. Gas over the life of the car can cost as much as the car initially cost to buy, yet fuel economy is mostly ignored in purchase decisions.

I think that's part of the reason we see so many sub-prime mortgage defaults right now, and so many people are in loans at 21% on their Ford Expedition, that they can't even afford to gas up and insure any more, let alone make the payments for.

iluvmysephia1

that doesn't explain why people will sign home loan paperwork and barely read it first!

Bruce Williams would give them the meanest stare and look at them like they're crazy. Really, when you're signing on to a home loan you'd better be smart enough to read all of the paperwork and ask questions of you don't understand all of it, and/or, hire a real estate lawyer to help you navigate your buying process and real estate loan. If you think that will be too expensive you'd best be thinkin' again on that one.

The sub-prime mortgage defaults are partly the blame of the consumer stretching recklessly to get the loan and the agents, brokers and lenders are to blame for the rest.

Too far in to the Lost Wages category for me to venture.

Diesels are not a nirvana ending, for me, anyway. Loud clangy, stinky chatterboxes for each and every driver in America? Imagine the possibilities! Huh...I'd rather look to Charles Barkley for NBA basketball advice than pick me up one of those contraptions. :sick:

boaz47

Well much like my friend Nippon there has to be some things we agree on. There are simply too many people that hope a failed system will somehow correct itself. CAFÉ has proved how it works in all the years we have seen it in effect. We moved from big cars with the aid of CAFÉ to bigger SUVs, vans, mini vans and Pickups that get even fewer miles per gallon than the cars they replaced. But the chest thumping has been going on for more that thirty years. CARB is just as bad.

When they started CARB demanded pollution free vehicles and wanted the manufacturers to move towards Evs or at the very least zero emissions vehicles. The manufacturers told them they didn’t believe they could produce any pollution free vehicles and suggested that they could produce a reduced emissions vehicle and they even called it a hybrid. CARB flat turned the industry down. Remember the industry was heavily domestic when CARB started. Toyota, GM and Ford had Evs in production and they even had several commercials supporting the concept. By the way I am not saying that Evs were the solution but it was one that CARB was willing to support and hybrids were rejected at the very beginning. As the deadline approached Toyota and Honda had a brainstorm. They presented a new concept that no one thought about 30 years ago. The gas hybrid. Wow said CARB who would have thought of that? And they promptly dropped the requirement for a ZERO emissions vehicle. Honda and Toyota started selling hybrids and Ford, GM and Toyota dropped their EV efforts like a hot potato. I fully believe that everyone on the board for CARB can tell you what their own large intestine looks like from the inside, personally. CAFÉ was never any closer to getting their act together. CARB has consistently been anti diesel and now that the EPA is getting into the fuel game because of the supreme court I am not so sure things are going to get any better. I simply do not believe there is a way to fix CAFÉ.

explorerx4

in ct, registration charge for pickups increases with payload capacity.

explorerx4

i don't think the system is failed. 30 years ago, my 6 cyl plymouth duster could get 17 mpg average on the highway. when i had an expedition a few years ago, it could match it at times.
that being said i am enjoying getting about 30 mpg's in my pzev focus(25 city/33 hgy epa). i never take long highway trips.

boaz47

In the last twenty years has the fleet fuel average, the goal of CAFE, improved? If you had a corporation that preformed as bad as CAFE would it still be in business if it didn't show a profit in twenty years?

explorerx4

maybe 'cafe' has not improved by a lot, but emissions are much better(not withstanding 'greenhouse' emissions which are a recent topic).

boaz47

All I am saying is you would call just about any business or program that has had this little success a failure but people seem to feel that CAFE will somehow cure itself and that isn't likely. It absolutely proves the saying, that is close enough for government work. It sure goes to prove that if you don't expect much from a government program you won't be disappointed.

nippononly

But CAFE has nothing to do with smog-forming emissions. Overall, since the mid-80s, fleetwide fuel economy has gone DOWN, in the U.S., largely because of the SUV loophole in CAFE regs. And we have talented lawyers in this country, ready to find the new loophole in the regs if we revise CAFE, no matter how carefully we do it.

Not to mention, I have to agree A LITTLE with the carmakers when they say that it is unfair to place the onus for improving fuel economy on them when the consumers are just as guilty in the whole process, by the nature of their buying decisions. Yet that is what CAFE does, place the onus on the carmakers.

gagrice

Of course you are correct. CAFE has one agenda, EPA another. Then you add CARB that controls the sale of a large percentage of the vehicle fleet. No one accepts blame only point to accomplishments. It kind of reminds me of our intelligence community. No one wants to share information.

The automakers just want to sell what the public wants without getting cross ways with any of the above agencies. So nothing much has happened since the 1970s. Lower emissions and slightly better economy. Europe has us beat on every angle. Except we still have lower taxes.

li_sailor

Did someone say "lifestyle issue"? Hey, maybe something interesting will come up here

boaz47: In the last twenty years has the fleet fuel average, the goal of CAFE, improved? If you had a corporation that preformed as bad as CAFE would it still be in business if it didn't show a profit in twenty years?

This is a curious statement. CAFE has mandated averages for 2 classes of vehicles. Both classes perform at or under these averages. Exactly how is this considered a failure?

If you make a law that requires 28 mpg (for example) and everyone averages 28 mpg, then how do you justify a complaint that everyone isn't averaging 35?

The problem isn't the CAFE regs, per se, but rather why CAFE isn't something more. Clear goals and political will are the issues, not CAFE as is stands today.

seminole_kev

Well one of the major problems is right in your post. The two different classes.

Group A, which is the largest group shall have to have higher standards than Group B. Hey, how come the market is shifting to Group B instead????

li_sailor

There's no question that the 2 classes present a problem.

The question is not really whether CAFE has reached the end of its usefulness, but perhaps whether the present government has

Obviously, if the CAFE averages were raised more significantly than what is current, the fleet average would improve. Why wasn't that proposed? Because this government doesn't have the political will to do it. Their political base does not have oil conservation on their "todo" list. That is the crux. If improving the efficiency of the fleet is not a goal, then you don't get to step 2, i.e., how do we do this.

Kirstie_H

(not the host here...)

Did someone say "lifestyle issue"? Hey, maybe something interesting will come up here

That would be me. But I didn't say "I don't like SUVs, why..."

And yes, it's a lifestyle issue. Thirty years ago, folks lived just fine without these behemoths that now grace our fair suburban streets. Granted, cars were bigger but that was an engineering issue rather than a need-based design.

But people aren't going to give up gas guzzlers without a personal incentive to do so, and IMO, manufacturers are better motivated to change by the vision of profits over regulation. Think about it - with an average MPG regulated, manufacturers have zero incentive to achieve anything above & beyond mere compliance.

I would so rather see Congress devoting energy to passing legislation that promotes alternative fuel sources, technologies, and high MPG vehicle production, rather than simply regulating a minimum standard. When you set the bar low, most will achieve just that.

boaz47

I could agree with you if CAFE had done anything in the past to prove itself. But the CAFE standards have pretty much stayed flat with the exception of the first few years. It wasn't technology that helped in those first few years however. People simply bought more cars that were already meeting the standards. Remember Civics, early Accords, Corollas, Sentras gained a place in the American driveways during the first few years and they were already getting fuel mileage in excess of CAFE standards. So with the increase in the number of these cars sold even Toyota made their little economy cars bigger and a bit more powerful and even introduced a few less economical cars because they had fuel economy credits to spend for the next few years.

I can in no way claim to be as smart as a corporate bean counter but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how things work. Corollas are no longer Toyota's number one seller the Larger Camry is and has been for a long time. The Civic is no longer Honda's number one seller the Accord is. But with the help of the Corollas and Civics we can have Accord V-6 with 260 HP or Camrys with similar HP numbers. It isn't hard to see how easy it is to beat CAFE standards without trying. Even the new standards my friend Nippon has pointed out for trucks has a giant hole you can drive a 3/4 ton truck through. Has anyone else noticed that 1/2 ton trucks are getting bigger? If you think about it they are closing in on 8000 pounds even today. Add 920 pounds to a 8000 pound 1/2 ton Ford and guess what? more than 700,000 Fords become exempt from CAFE. So if I were doing the math it could be something like this. I could spend the tooling money and try to develop a truck in the half ton range that had a new engine or was even a hybrid that I would make very little profit on for five or ten years or I could make my current truck 920 pounds heavier, call it the improved stronger 1/2 ton and take 700,000 trucks out of the fuel mileage equation.

What kind of corporate creeps would do that? During the current CAFE standards SUVs at one point represented almost 50 percent of the car sales in the US. GM and Ford Both sold SUVs and light trucks in record numbers and neither paid one dime in Gas Guzzler fines because of credits and other offsets by offering multi fuel options that no one really bought.

Here I have to agree with Nippon. Fuel prices not CAFE has hurt SUV and light truck sales. Fuel prices has invigorated small cars sales that were in the basement for so many years. It is the consumers wallet that has had a far greater impact in the last four years than 30 years of CAFE. I would conclude that CAFE has indeed been a waste of money. Now they want to change the standards again to a standard that Honda and Toyota may already be meeting? Putting regulations into effect that the market forces are already effecting isn't doing anything. Well maybe I am being harsh. At least CAFE creates government jobs and allows someone to live off of taxpayers money.

nippononly

Actually, I thought it was 50% trucks, of which about half were SUVs, so roughly 1 in 4 cars sold.

But what you say is so true: raise the price of gas, and you will begin to save gas and therefore oil on a societal level. That's why those gas taxes have to come up. Use some of the new revenues to make public transportation free.

CAFE standards were frozen by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Does anyone think seriously that we are ever going to make up for 21 years of standing still (and backsliding in the overall mix, as we trended towards trucks)?

What kirstie said has resonance for me - I was reading this review in C&D last night of the latest Suburban with the 6.2L engine. They made a point of saying that while it was a decent improvement over its predecessor, it was becoming increasingly irrelevant in the age of $3 gas. You know what fuel economy they achieved? TEN MPG! In a vehicle whose city EPA rating is 14, both of which figures are abysmally low. Consumers will move away from them post-haste in the next few years I think.

Which gives CAFE half a chance to do its job, I suppose, if we can get the standards up quickly. Hadn't thought of it that way. But if gas prices subside again for more than a few months, people will forget. People forget so quickly...

li_sailor

Hey, you got the ref, LOL.

Actually, IMO, the fact that it's only a lifestyle issue is really the problem. Like it's discretionary. Something those granola-crunching, treehugging, Bush-impeaching Vermonters would do, but not a real USA-loving, it's my god-given right bleating, "deal with it" types.

But people aren't going to give up gas guzzlers without a personal incentive to do so...

And certainly not with a leadership vacuum. I have no intention of turning this into a political rant, but one should not underestimate the power of leadership on this issue. We are heading towards an energy crisis and although the transportaion sector is only one of several major pieces, it's a big one. The first step to solving the problem is recognition and right now, our leadership is in denial. On this and many other issues....but I refuse to digress

...with an average MPG regulated, manufacturers have zero incentive to achieve anything above & beyond mere compliance.

Absolutely true. The obvious answer to that problem is to raise the bar.

I would so rather see Congress devoting energy to passing legislation that promotes alternative fuel sources...

That would be good, too. Frankly, I think we need both, because we need all the "push" we can get, since we are pretty much mired in the mud on this.

boaz47

Well it does look like we are both moving towards the middle here. But I also agree with the idea that they will always set CAFE to the lowest common denominator. With Toyota and GM both bragging about all of the cars they make that get in excess of the CAFE standards it will be consumer pressure not CAFE that drives the industry for the next 20 years. Like I said before, CAFE almost killed your favored Sub Compacts, while promoting larger more powerful vehicles. It doesn't matter what we think their intention was CAFE was a political compromise from the very beginning that made no one happy. And the new law proposed for Trucks exempts GVWs of over 8900 pounds. Could not a fully loaded Expidition exceed that easily? You could make a case for a 600 CI Caddy SUV with 22 inch wheels easily. IN fact call it a hybrid and you would get a tax break under CAFE regulations. Does that sound like a system that still has a legitimate usefulness to you? Do you think a government system that has been mired in the mud for 30 years can be corrected? Not just ideally but realistically?

li_sailor

It isn't hard to see how easy it is to beat CAFE standards without trying.

Not sure what this means. CAFE's goal is to set an average for the fleet. It has accomplished that, so what "beating" is going on?

Has anyone else noticed that 1/2 ton trucks are getting bigger?

These are outside CAFE's scope. I agree, CAFE's scope should change.

...neither paid one dime in Gas Guzzler fines because of credits and other offsets...

GG tax applies to cars only, not trucks.

Fuel prices not CAFE has hurt SUV and light truck sales.

The standard for LTVs has been under 22 for a long time, and with MVs and mini-utes getting much better (thereby bringing the LTV avgs up), of course SUV sales have not been impacted much.

I would conclude that CAFE has indeed been a waste of money.

What money? The cost to administer? What is that cost?

As for the benefit, I offer this:



Observe that mpg went from about 18 mpg before CAFE to 27 in a few years. Since then, as CAFE has remained constant, so has mpg.

Putting regulations into effect that the market forces are already effecting isn't doing anything.

I don't follow this. The overall average is not increasing now. The current effect of the market is net zero.

li_sailor

Like I said before, CAFE almost killed your favored Sub Compacts, while promoting larger more powerful vehicles.

I fail to see any evidence that CAFE did either of these things.

Do you think a government system that has been mired in the mud for 30 years can be corrected?

Absolutely. It's called an election

gagrice

The first step to solving the problem is recognition and right now, our leadership is in denial.

I assume you are referring to the leadership in Congress? I wonder what Pelosi is doing to cut back on energy waste?

I do agree that leaders must make the first step to conserving our natural resources. Do you know any that have? Congress is the one to blame for the lack of progress with regards to CAFE standards. They are also responsible for lowering the standard in 1986.

Congress specified that CAFE standards must be set at the “maximum feasible level.” Congress provided that the Department’s determinations of maximum feasible level be made in consideration of four factors:

(1) Technological feasibility;
(2) Economic practicability;
(3) Effect of other standards on fuel economy; and
(4) Need of the nation to conserve energy

For what years and at what levels have the passenger car CAFE standards been set?

To meet the goal of doubling the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 (to 27.5 mpg), Congress set fuel economy standards for some of the intervening years. Passenger car standards were established for MY 1978 (18 mpg); MY 1979 (19 mpg); MY 1980 (20 mpg); and for MY 1985 and thereafter (27.5 mpg). Congress left the level of 1981-84 standards to the Department to establish administratively. Subsequently, standards of 22, 24, 26, and 27 mpg were established. For the post-1985 period, Congress provided for the continued application of the 27.5 mpg standard for passenger cars, but gave the Department the authority to set higher or lower standards. From MY 1986 through 1989, the passenger car standards were lowered. Thereafter, in MY 1990, the passenger car standard was amended to 27.5 mpg, which it has remained at this level.


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

boaz47

Once again you are correct. And in that time period not just one party was in control. So it isn't a party issue it is a burocacy issue and that hasn't changed in years. And these programs do not administer themselves someone has to do that and someone collects a check to do so.

So the leadership has changed several times over the last 30 years, and yet the system hasn't worked. So a change in leadership now isn't likely to make much difference. The question falls back on, has the fleet average improved in twenty years? If the answer is no then CAFE doesn't work. If it doesn't work shouldn't we try something else? And if we should try something else why keep CAFE? :confuse:

grbeck

Interesting information, gagrice. Note that control of Congress was divided in 1986 - the Senate was still in Republican hands, but the House of Representatives was Democratic.

After the fall 1986 elections, Congress was firmly in control of the Democrats (the Democrats captured the Senate and increased their majority in the House of Representatives), but nothing was done to raise CAFE.

Nor was anything done after the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 - and until the fall of 1994, both the executive and legislative branches of government were under Democratic control.

Considering that the gains by Democrats in the most recent national election were made by either moderates in the South and West, or legislators in the mold of Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) (who is more concerned about preserving UAW jobs than raising CAFE), it remains to be seen whether a big rise in CAFE standards is the province of reality or wishful thinking.

grbeck

boaz47: If the answer is no then CAFE doesn't work. If it doesn't work shouldn't we try something else? And if we should try something else why keep CAFE?

I think we should restore the 55 mph speed limit. After, that one was a huge success.

After that, we'll reinstate Prohibition.

gagrice

To prove our point the number one selling car does not even meet the current 27.5 MPG average. The Camry 4 cylinder automatic is rated on the old EPA schedule at 27 MPG combined. I would imagine that will go down with the new more realistic EPA tests.

gagrice

I was hoping those facts were obvious. It seems many have a short memory and for some reason think that a change in the color of the party will result in other changes. The only change is from one politicians pocket to the others.

boaz47

"I think we should restore the 55 mph speed limit. After, that one was a huge success.

After that, we'll reinstate Prohibition."

Now that was something that made me smile. We as a people seem to be willing to attack a problem that we can't solve with the same methods and somehow expect different results. I believe if I was an automotive lobbiest I would push for them to keep CAFE. After all it is better than letting them try something else that that might be challenging for them.

rockylee

Kirstie, the CAFE standards some in congress are proposing I think are a little to stiff. The bottom line CAFE, is going to hurt jobs and give people what they don't want to drive in automobile choice. I still think the ultimate fix is throwing billions of dollars at alternative energy and a infrastructure to support it.

Rocky

fezo

Had CAFE been left well enough alone instead of the freeze way back in the Reagan years we might have something. It certainly serves no purpose in its present for at the present time.

There is merit in giving credits for alternative fuels but not when they are doing it for E85. You can't subsidize a crop, guarantee prices, tariff the heck out of imported sources and then give credit to car manufacturers for making vehicles you can burn the stuff in.

Speaking of E85 the milk prices are going through the roof (even more so than gasoline) and the culprit is increased feed costs for the cows. You guessed it - corn.

If you had a pretty straight CAFE that increased gradually it could work. Watching how both parties have attached pork to every bill and special interest rules as well I don't see this happening.

li_sailor

I assume you are referring to the leadership in Congress?

No, Bush, in case you were unsure

Congress is the one to blame for the lack of progress with regards to CAFE standards.

Actually, no. The Sect'y of transportation administers CAFE and is responsible for the standards set and he reports to the Prez.

Not that congress couldn't do anything, but it would have to get past Dubya's veto. And congress, with its newly minted backbone, is a bit preoccupied with other things at the moment.

li_sailor

So it isn't a party issue it is a burocacy issue and that hasn't changed in years.

We could argue about parties and interests, but the fact is that the current administration is not in favor of increasing CAFE. That's a fact.

...and yet the system hasn't worked.

Actually, it has worked perfectly. It was designed to bring the average to CAFE levels and it did. I'm not sure what the source of your POV is.

has the fleet average improved in twenty years?

Have the Cubs won the pennant? CAFE has no mechanism to achieve higher averages than it specifies nor can it help the Cubs.

If it doesn't work shouldn't we try something else? And if we should try something else why keep CAFE?

How about increasing the average it specifies? If your complaint is that is hasn't been increased, wouldn't the remedy be increasing it?

li_sailor

To prove our point the number one selling car does not even meet the current 27.5 MPG average.

LOL....and what point would that be? That CAFE failed to make 27.5 the minumum mpg rating for all vehicles? Are you under the impression that it was designed to do that?

...many have a short memory and for some reason think that a change in the color of the party will result in other changes. The only change is from one politicians pocket to the others.

Oh yeah. Bush? Gore? Probably all the policies would be the same. That's a good one :=)

li_sailor

The bottom line CAFE, is going...to give people what they don't want to drive in automobile choice.

Well, that's getting to the point. If people don't really think that improving the efficiency of our fleet is important, then nothing else is going to matter.

I still think the ultimate fix is throwing billions of dollars at alternative energy and a infrastructure to support it.

No doubt about it. But the solution is probably 10-20 years away from making a major impact, and that's a long time to do nothing about our current fleet.

rockylee

It's worth the wait if it took that long. I still think the change over could be done a lot faster than your projection if we threw money that folds instead of that which jingles at.

Rocky

gagrice

We are throwing billions at alternative energy today. It mostly ends up in the pockets of Mega Ag Corporations like ADM. Clinton spent billions on electric vehicles and the only automaker that benefited was Toyota using the NiMH battery invented by a GM subsidiary using our tax dollars. Hydrogen is another waste of tax dollars. How many decades have they promised a solution to the problems surrounding fuel cells?

rockylee

It's going to take several billions more gagrice. I'd rather spend the money solving this problem than other's some people have chosen. I think this Mission could be Accomplished.

-Rocky

gagrice

Who do you think would be best to give these billions to? We gave a bunch to the Big 3 for EV research and what is there to show for it? Government is lousy at coming up with solutions to problems. Until we see the bottom of the oil well, not much change will come about. If the government was serious about conserving oil, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. That includes both parties and their respective so called green candidates. We would have a fleet average much higher than we currently have. We would have diesel cars that get 25-40% better mileage than their gas counterparts. Special interests do not want us getting better mileage and the environmentalists go along to push their agenda of lower emissions. Every time a car gets a better emissions rating the gas mileage goes lower. You can see that trend on the EPA website.