35 MPG CAFE average by 2020 in the USA cannot be accomplished. That's why Toyota joined the Detroiters in the battle against it.
The market will not bear the high prices the carmakers would have to pay to make existing technology perform that feat.
And technology to make it simple and cheap does not exist.
And too many people STILL want to buy the biggest, nicest car they can afford.
It cannot be done unless you FORCE smaller cars on the public. If the buying public would accept smaller cars and/or pay an extra $10K for large SUVs with hybrid batteries and other fuel-saving technologies, then it could happen.
Larsb you are Exactly correct. People seem to want bigger, look at the new Accord, faster look at Lexus back to the drawing board to get their new LF-A to go faster than 205 MPH.
Many would love to have luxury and high Mileage. The latest LS600h has luxury for sure. With less than hoped for mileage.
I think the average American buys the best he can afford, whether it is a sedan, CUV, SUV or PU Truck. Within that parameter mileage is just one of many aspects they consider.
Even with all the hoopla over GW, most buyers do not compare GHG emissions of their respective choices.
Just checking the 2008 Accord. It is bigger than the competition and now rated by the EPA as a Large car. The 2008 Toyota is still listed as midsized. Honda caught Toyota sleeping, or did they go too large? Initial consumer reviews indicate buyers like the new Accord.
The top trim Accord and Camry both have EPA estimates of 22 MPG combined and 8.3 tons of GHG per year. Twice the GHG of the Prius with only 4 tons per year. I think the sales say people want bigger no matter how much gas it uses or how much GHG it emits.
And too many people STILL want to buy the biggest, nicest car they can afford.
Though Dodge's SRT division is small, I think they hit it right on the head for most people, with their music lyrics - "It's all about power, it's all about speed ...". gagrice just echoed this fact too.
If people could have the Bat-mobile they would. If people could have an M-1 tank they would. If people could have a Star Wars Super-Stardestroyer they would. People want size, power, safety, and security for themselves. Maybe they're for other people conserving?
by a lack of fuel supply and skyrocketing prices that will force the hands of the government(s), the driving public and the vehicle makers.
GW is a highly visible concern with a lot of PR and concern from parties all over the world.
But peace in the streets, empty vehicles sitting in driveways all over the country and empty wallets and/or maxed out oil credit cards hit home a lot harder and swifter. Not being able to get to work will trump any concerns about GW.
If something is not done to curb our usage ( CAFE is one solution that will work ) then the GW question may become solved by lack of supply and increased demand. We do not have enough ready supplies to satisfy our own demand 10-20 yrs from now. One thing is certain at that time there will be more of us driving, we will be driving more vehicles and we will be stuck in traffic more often burning fuel doing nothing. Do we want to be driving today's vehicles at that time or do we want to be driving something more efficient?
If something untoward happens internationally we as users of 25% of the world petroleum production have the most to lose. That's not a pretty picture to imagine. Who wants to be the first to give up their right to drive?
The second effect that appears to be taking hold now as we read this forum is that oil is going up far faster than any of the general public imagines. Consider what a very small increase of $.50/gallon annually would do to the price of fuel in say 2017.. $7-$8 a gallon. That's $200 to fill up an F150; $120 to fill up a Camry or Accord or Malibu; $80 to fillup a Prius.
With the continuing devaluation of the US$ the rate of increase will only speed up. Foreign oil producers will not accept $80 a bbl in 3 yrs if the US$ is 25% lower in value. They'll want their 'normal' short-supply increase and their "devalutation" surcharge
Though Dodge's SRT division is small, I think they hit it right on the head for most people, with their music lyrics - "It's all about power, it's all about speed ...". gagrice just echoed this fact too.
If people could have the Bat-mobile they would. If people could have an M-1 tank they would. If people could have a Star Wars Super-Stardestroyer they would. People want size, power, safety, and security for themselves. Maybe they're for other people conserving?
Yes they do want these thing. It is part of our national psyche...thus far.
Now put fuel at $6 or $8 or $10 a gallon and/or tell the driving public that each driver is allowed 15 gal every 7 days. What do you think 'we' will want?
Or alternatively to match demand with supply one might see a law that driving licenses can't be obtained until one reaches the age of 20 and it must be surrendered at age 65. This is awfully extreme but it will take drivers off the streets.
A likely first step is already being considered, congestion taxes in major cities, possibly followed by a ban on all fossil-fueled vehicles from city centers.
Wrong! CAFE has been a dismal failure, from many standpoints. I'm not going to take the time to detail the adverse consequences of CAFE here, since it's been amply detailed in other discussions. A higher gas tax, on the other hand, will reduce fuel consumption, as it has in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. For those who oppose higher taxes, a higher gasoline tax could be made revenue neutral by an offsetting decrease in another tax.
First, very nice posts in #265 and here. The only thing I will quibble with you is on the word "want" in the following: Now put fuel at $6 or $8 or $10 a gallon and/or tell the driving public that each driver is allowed 15 gal every 7 days. What do you think 'we' will want? People will still want the size, power and speed - it is inherent in our nature, and will only change over a long evolutionary period. I think it would be more accurate to say people of moderate means will be forced to move to a low-cost option. People will still want More, and will buy so if they have the $.
Only higher and higher prices will force people into more energy efficient vehicles and general lifestyle. There isn't much political will to politically force people into conservation in a democracy as the people who want more will not vote for such candidates; at least when conservation becomes onerous. Remember Carter and the Dems. were replaced for just such actions.
"35 MPG CAFE average by 2020 in the USA cannot be accomplished. That's why Toyota joined the Detroiters in the battle against it.
The market will not bear the high prices the carmakers would have to pay to make existing technology perform that feat.
And technology to make it simple and cheap does not exist.
And too many people STILL want to buy the biggest, nicest car they can afford.
It cannot be done unless you FORCE smaller cars on the public. If the buying public would accept smaller cars and/or pay an extra $10K for large SUVs with hybrid batteries and other fuel-saving technologies, then it could happen.
But everyone knows that is a pipe dream."
But isn't Europe already at @ 35 mpg? And we can't even achieve the current European standard in 13 years? Europeans use about half the oil per person that we use in the U.S. And they don't seem to be suffering from a lower standard of living. Worse, our high energy consumption makes us more vulnerable to rapidly increasing costs and supply constriction. Apparently our energy policy will be rationing via price.
Wrong! CAFE has been a dismal failure, from many standpoints. I'm not going to take the time to detail the adverse consequences of CAFE here, since it's been amply detailed in other discussions. A higher gas tax, on the other hand, will reduce fuel consumption, as it has in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. For those who oppose higher taxes, a higher gasoline tax could be made revenue neutral by an offsetting decrease in another tax.
I'll debate this as long as you want. CAFE is not perfect by any means but it has worked. The average fleet fuel economy before CAFE was instituted was about 12-13 mpg. Now it's 20-27 mpg depending on what system you use.
The new proposals would mandate a 32-35 mpg average for the entire fleet. If we say that the current average of the national fleet is 22 mpg and the new CAFE sends it up to 33 mpg that means that we will save 33% of what the current fleet uses. It's only math and it's clear as day.
But the point that's even more important is that by the time the new CAFE is implementd in 2020 our driving 'usage' will be 60% higher than it is now as a result of population increases, more drivers on the road, more congestion meaning inefficient use of vehicles/fuel.
In addition fuel will be at least $8 or $10 or even higher at that time.
Here is the problem we have to deal with, by the numbers. As a nation we use 25% of the world's oil production today; i.e. 20.5 milliion bpd. Two thirds of our usage goes toward transportation, that's about 14 million bpd. We will need 60% more fuel by 2020 just to keep our national fleet on the road and still maintain 'our freedom and our way of life'. That means we have to 'find' an additional 8.5 million bpd just to feed our vehicles. It's not available.! Not easily anyway.
If it's not available then what do we do to spread the current supply over a 60% greater usage? ..ration the fuel so that everyone gets their fair share; if you buy 25 gal now you might be able to buy 10 or 15 gal then. ..take drivers off the road; ....a) you and I and the rest reading this are only allowed to drive on even or odd days. ....b) age resitrictions; no one under 18 or over 70 can drive at all. ....c) mandatory mass transit carpooling; each personal fuel-consuming vehicle must contain a driver and at least one passenger at all times. ....d) you must work within 5 miles of your domicile. ....e) recreational use of fuel is prohibited. ..mandate the imposition of the use of small vehicles; ..impose a fuel tax to make it hurt to drive; a $2/gal fuel tax which would probably 'hurt' enough to make us change our ways now would take nearly $1 Billion dollars out of the economy every day for ever. Each fuel pump would be an agent of the Fed Govt collecting $1200-$2000 from each of us every year - after income taxes btw.
OR...
..we can extend our current easy-to-acquire petroleum supplies though the use of alternative fuels and the use of more efficient vehicles.
Alternative fuels is our best longterm hope because it's a lasting change and it has potentially a lot of economic, political and environment benefits. However building the infrastructure is the key problem. In the meanwhile we are still gobbling down pertroleum-based fuels and the rate is increasing as we grow in population. We have to stop the growth of petroleum usage ASAP. It can be done in a draconian manner like the solutions above or we can make the vehicles use less fuel....all of them. CAFE done fairly will accomplish this 'extending our current supplies'.
MONEY: Our national wealth is at risk. Fuel will be in the $6 or $8 or $10 per gallon price range in the next decade. Luckily most of our 'imported oil' comes from our two closest friends. But an increase in oil prices, as a fungible commodity, benefits all producers. It may appear that at $10/gal most of our payments might end up in Canada or Mexico but that only means that others who want to bring down our country and way of life are benefitting in other areas. The solution is to use less petroleum-based products, NOW, as quickly as possible. More alternative fules and more efficient vehicles.
What's more than curious is that this Conservative Republican administration and this Liberal-leaning Senate/Congress both are ready to pass significantly more restrictive fuel economy measures.
I see that as they've both been given a view into the near future and it's potentially very very ugly.
35 MPG CAFE average by 2020 in the USA cannot be accomplished. That's why Toyota joined the Detroiters in the battle against it.
The market will not bear the high prices the carmakers would have to pay to make existing technology perform that feat.
And technology to make it simple and cheap does not exist.
Of all people...
You yourself, today 12 years from the imposition of these new rules, drive the most popular auto in the country and your model gets precisely 35 mpg - or better. The technology is here already this year in 2007.
The Camry hybrid, Altima hybrid, new Accord diesel, new Malibu/Aura hybrid, Fusion hybrid ..everyone of them will be in the 35-ish range if not higher. That's with no technological improvements at all in the next 12 years. None of these are extraordinarily expensive.
In addition the smaller vehices and smaller hybrids are close to or well above the 35 mpg average - today. None of these are extraordinarly expensive.
A huge segment of the national fleet is already at or near the 2020 standard, with no additional technology.
So what needs to be addressed? Crossovers and vans Small trucks Large trucks SUVs
As I read it nowhere does it say that every vehicle on the road has to hit the new standard of 32 or 33 or 35 mpg. Only the national fleet has to hit this average.
So if the national fleet consists of... ..10% ultra efficient specialy vehicles like the Volt, PHEV Prius, new Honda hybrid, compact diesels say in the 60-100 mpg range; ..10% very efficient vehicles like the normal Prius, HCH, and larger diesels like the new Jetta in the 50-60 mpg range; ..30% highly efficient midsizers like the hybrid Camry, Fusion, Altima, Malibu/Aura and the diesel Accords, Passats etc. in the 40 mpg range; ..20% hybrid or diesel vans, 'wagons' and crossovers in the 30 mpg range ..20% diesel or hybrid trucks in the 25-30 mpg range; ..10% diesel or hybrid SUVs in the 20-25 mpg range; then the weighted average of this hypothetical national fleet is 38.2 mpg
10% x 70 10% x 55 30% x 40 20% x 30 20% x 27 10% x 23
The technologies to do this exist today or are right on the horizon and none of them is ultra expensive; the costs are even coming down.
I still maintain that a higher fuel tax (with offsetting reductions in other taxes) is preferable to CAFE. Whereas a more stringent CAFE will improve the fuel economy of vehicles, higher fuel prices will incent people to change their behavior, not only through the vehicles they purchase, but also in the number of miles driven. With higher CAFE, but essentially unchanged fuel prices, what incentive is there for people to drive less? In fact, they may well drive more, since the cost per mile for fuel would be reduced, through more mpg.
Also, higher fuel prices help align vehicle design more closely to consumers' need and desires than legislated fuel economy standards. Look, nobody enjoys paying more for fuel. CAFE is more politically palatable because it creates the impression that there's no sacrifice required on the part of the consumer. That's simply not true. Unfortunately, there ain't no free lunch. CAFE may be politically expedient, but there are costs and distortions associated with this solution. I'm against it.
While one can imagine a CAFE system that works, it doesn't seem to exist. It's hard to address all the issues that will keep makers from trying to 'game' the system. It's also open to manipulation from lawmakers, like the CAFE boost given E85 gas hogs. So a moderately increasing, constantly rising gas tax (so that there is clear expectation that high mpg cars will be a good buy) would be a good way to go.
Given your post that the most popular cars are already at the 35 MPG proposed as a CAFE standard. Why bother with the legislation? Sounds like the market will do what is needed on its own. I just do not see any reason to fine an automaker because I want to drive a large SUV instead of a midsized car. That is the reason Toyota has joined the Big 3 to lobby against the new CAFE laws.
You also cannot compare the USA to the EU. The EU does not have nearly as strict emissions regulations as the USA. If they did the current crop of cars being sold in the EU would not pass the law.
The environmentalists and the oil companies are closer to each other than most would suspect. Throw in the tax collectors and you have a formula that says keep upping the emissions standards and maintaining the same flow of tax, I mean oil.
Why bother with the legislation? Sounds like the market will do what is needed on its own.
There is no real market. The only market that exists is the market created by automobile manufacturer advertising campaigns and the subtle messages that are sent. The highly illogical decisions made by the US buying public are basically the same as 5-8 year old kids displaying precocious opinions about world politics. The parent plants the opinion and then the kid recites the message and gets rewarded through praise when it is said to neighbors and family. In reality, a 5-8 year old kid still believes in Santa Claus and couldn't possibly have an informed political opinion based upon logic. I view all of my wants and the rest of society's wants in a similar way. Although I strongly agree with the comment that CAFE will simply be corrupted by exceptions, I also believe that government regulation is the only way to actually accomplish the mission of reducing emissions (that is in the absence of stopping the myriad of automobile commercials- which might be perceived as a "free speech" violation).
Although I am enamored by fast cars, I am still amazed that the free market allows the road registration of a vehicle that can go over 200 mph when the highest legal speed limit outside of a track is 70 mph. This act is simply perpetuation of government by providing the logic that now a cop is needed to police the person that bought the fast car.
While I agree that there is little reason to build a vehicle that will go so much faster than the speed limit. There are good reasons to build larger more luxurious vehicles. Many, myself included, do not like small or midsized sedans. I do not want a cramped plastic CUV that is designed to fall apart in the sunshine after about 5 years. I like either a truck or SUV that is built of steel that is not so thin that it flaps in the wind going down the highway. I do not need it to go a whole lot faster than the speed limit.
I would like it to get better mileage than the current gas guzzling vehicles being pushed on us by the regulations inacted by our governmental agencies. The sad part is PU & SUVs that get good mileage are available in most of the world, just not the USA. That tells me that saving fossil fuel is not a high priority for our government.
As far as commercials selling bad vehicles. I worry more about the commercials that sell my grandchildren the food they like. There is no such thing as a good dry cereal. Yet our kids think there is because they see it on TV. The food we are being sold will kill us before the cars we drive use up all the fossil fuel and raise the temperature to where we all drown.
I still maintain that a higher fuel tax (with offsetting reductions in other taxes) is preferable to CAFE. Whereas a more stringent CAFE will improve the fuel economy of vehicles, higher fuel prices will incent people to change their behavior, not only through the vehicles they purchase, but also in the number of miles driven. With higher CAFE, but essentially unchanged fuel prices, what incentive is there for people to drive less? In fact, they may well drive more, since the cost per mile for fuel would be reduced, through more mpg.
There is no question that a fuel tax will work. Europe shows that it will. But it still remains that for it to work it has to 'hurt' and to do so will drain the economy of anywhere from $1000 to $4000, per driver, every year forever. This is money we spend on clothing, food, babysitters, tuition, rent and entertainment. It's gone down the black hole of the US Treasury to be used whereever the current Administration sees fi; c.f. Social Security.
The other argument that with more efficient vehicles we will not save any fuel because we will all drive more is a red herring. The primary limitation is that there are only 24 hours in a day. If one were now driving a 20 mpg vehicle 15000 miles annually but were suddenly to be given a 100 mpg vehicle do you really thing that driver would start driving 75000 miles annually???
The VMT study done for the DOT a few years ago addressed this point and found that there is no linkage between CAFE and better fuel efficiency and additional miles driven. VMT Study The reasons for more miles being driven from 77 to 2000 are: ..the population is a lot larger ..there are more drivers on the road ( working women, younger and older drivers ) ..there are more vehicles on the road ( more one occupant vehicles ) ..more severe congestion.
Also, higher fuel prices help align vehicle design more closely to consumers' need and desires than legislated fuel economy standards. Look, nobody enjoys paying more for fuel. CAFE is more politically palatable because it creates the impression that there's no sacrifice required on the part of the consumer. That's simply not true. Unfortunately, there ain't no free lunch. CAFE may be politically expedient, but there are costs and distortions associated with this solution. I'm against it.
Yes there is a basic unfairness in the CAFE system in that if puts all the responsibility on the manufacturer and none on the buying public. The buying public has to bear some of the responsibility too.
But one could see a system of 'forcing' the public to drive more efficient vehicles, no matter what size they choose. 'Incentivize' might be a better phrase. Give those who do choose to buy/drive a more efficient vehicle a tax benefit. Charge those who choose not to buy/drive a more efficient vehicle a tax penalty.
This takes the responsibility off the manufacturers and puts it where it belongs...US.
If a manufacturer chooses not to make more efficient vehicles well then he has to answer to his shareholders and the court of public opinion.
The reason that manufacturers 'game' the system is that they have all the responsibility, all the risk and all the penalties. We have a clear conscience.
I think a system that reverses that responsibility will work. You get paid a bonus to drive a more efficient vehicle. The more efficient it is the bigger the bonus.
You can choose to drive a less efficient vehicle but then you have to pay a premium....which is passed through to the other group of buyers
In the beginning the penalties will likely outweigh the bonuses, then be neutral then possibly not fully cover all the bonuses being paid to drivers moving en masse to more efficient ones.
As gagrice noted above, if fuel is going to go up and up and up anyway why not let the market take care of everything. It could but we need to save fuel even faster. Mandating more efficient vehicles only sets a floor to ensure that no matter what the market does we at least will save 1/3 the fuel that the current national fleet uses. The other options are ..fuel tax ..rationing ..restricting miles driven ..restricting the number of drivers on the roads ..imposing mass transit usage ..imposing the use of small and very small vehicles
Again here are the numbers..
Out of our current 20.5 million bpd usage 14 million bpd currently fuel our national fleet. By 2020 at current standards we will need 22-23 milliion bpd for the national fleet. If however we can 'save' 1/3 of the current 14 million and 1/3 of the additional 8.5 million bpd then in 2020 we can fuel 60% more demand with just 15 million bpd which is about what we use today. this technology is here currently or will be soon. It just needs to be implemented across the board.
I would like it to get better mileage than the current gas guzzling vehicles being pushed on us by the regulations inacted by our governmental agencies. The sad part is PU & SUVs that get good mileage are available in most of the world, just not the USA. That tells me that saving fossil fuel is not a high priority for our government.
I think that you have to make a distinction between Fed Govt and State Govt here...and they each might not be on the same page.
I think the Feds are keenly aware of the need to derease the use of fossil fuels. I think the state governments are more concerned with local issues like air quality. National supply and demand is a Federal issue.
"...a moderately increasing, constantly rising gas tax (so that there is clear expectation that high mpg cars will be a good buy) would be a good way to go."
"...it still remains that for it to work it has to 'hurt' and to do so will drain the economy of anywhere from $1000 to $4000, per driver, every year forever. This is money we spend on clothing, food, babysitters, tuition, rent and entertainment. It's gone down the black hole of the US Treasury to be used whereever the current Administration sees fi; c.f. Social Security."
Apparently you missed where I suggested making the fuel tax revenue neutral, through a reduction in other taxes.
"The other argument that with more efficient vehicles we will not save any fuel because we will all drive more is a red herring. The primary limitation is that there are only 24 hours in a day. If one were now driving a 20 mpg vehicle 15000 miles annually but were suddenly to be given a 100 mpg vehicle do you really thing that driver would start driving 75000 miles annually???"
Simply not true. Of course mileage won't go from 15,000 to 75,000. That's a gross exaggeration, but it most likely would go to something greater than 15,000. Maybe it would be 15,500, or 16,500 - I don't know the number, nor do you -but higher cost per mile for fuel incentivises people to combine trips, plan routes more carefully, take public transportation (where available), car pool (when possible), choose a home that's closer to their work when they move, buy an economical vehicle when they trade, etc., etc. The opposite holds when the per mile cost of fuel is reduced. Maybe the elasticity of demand for fuel is low in the short term, because it's difficult for people to suddenly change their routines, but in the longer run the elasticity of demand is meaningful. And why wouldn't it be?
"The other argument that with more efficient vehicles we will not save any fuel because we will all drive more is a red herring. The primary limitation is that there are only 24 hours in a day. If one were now driving a 20 mpg vehicle 15000 miles annually but were suddenly to be given a 100 mpg vehicle do you really thing that driver would start driving 75000 miles annually???"
Why make it so complicated, and so political? Gradual increases in the fuel tax, with offsets, will accomplish what you propose. That's a lot simpler than an politically charged system of punishments and rewards.
This takes the responsibility off the manufacturers and puts it where it belongs...US.
It does, and it doesn't. Look at the loophole that is open currently. They are giving the big Flex Fuel PU trucks a 35 MPG rating. Is this in anticipation of the CAFE going up? Not only does the E85 lower mileage by a considerable amount, it is not being used in most of the vehicles being sold. The whole state of CA has less than 6 stations selling E85. Yet the FlexFuel vehicles are readily available here.
john500: There is no real market. The only market that exists is the market created by automobile manufacturer advertising campaigns and the subtle messages that are sent.
If that's the case, then one wonders why companies in dire financial straits - which would include GM, Ford and Chrysler - don't simply dream up razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns to move the metal. If advertising campaigns are really the driving force in creating demand, then why don't more companies use them to do so?
Chrysler, for example, had unsold new vehicles parked in lots throughout the Detroit area. The logical response to Chrysler's predicament is to realize that in the free market, too many Chrysler products have been weighed in the balance and found wanting by buyers. Hence, their current location in storage lots, as opposed to owners' drivways.
Do we really believe that this problem can be solved by an inventive advertising campaign?
john500: The highly illogical decisions made by the US buying public are basically the same as 5-8 year old kids displaying precocious opinions about world politics.
Just because you don't agree with their choices doesn't make said choices "illogical." People buy new vehicles for a variety of reasons, of which fuel economy is only one.
john500: Although I am enamored by fast cars, I am still amazed that the free market allows the road registration of a vehicle that can go over 200 mph when the highest legal speed limit outside of a track is 70 mph.
The 200 mph vehicle is a red herring. These vehicles are sold in such small numbers that they can hardly be called representative of what people are driving.
You do point out a problem - although not quite the one you probably intended. (Incidentally, the highest legal speed outside of a race track in the U.S. is 80 mph on some Texas roads.)
Obviously, virtually every new vehicle can exceed 80 mph - even Accords, Civics and Focuses, the mainstream versions of which are not sold on the basis of their blazing performance. (If so, I must have missed those advertising campaigns. The Civic Si, the one "performance" version of those cars, is sold on the basis of razor-sharp handling and braking, as opposed to the ability to travel at triple-digit speeds.)
This shows that speed limits on many limited access highways are silly at best and outdated at worst (80 mph is the flow of traffic on some Pennsylvania limited access highways; out West there is even more room), and sophisticated, informed drivers know this, and drive accordingly, with the help of radar detectors and CB radios. The last thing I'm going to spend my money on is a car limited to 80 mph.
Apparently you missed where I suggested making the fuel tax revenue neutral, through a reduction in other taxes.
Not really... I just don't trust the various agencies to give us our money back in full. Call it administrative costs, leakages, friction, grease or they might just take it for use somewhere else in an emergency.
Even moreso that's money that comes our of our pockets right now every day and week of the year. Would you have us wait til we file our taxes to reclaim it? But then what's the purpose? We give the Feds money and they in turn just give it back to us? HUH?
Simply not true. Of course mileage won't go from 15,000 to 75,000. That's a gross exaggeration, but it most likely would go to something greater than 15,000. Maybe it would be 15,500, or 16,500 - I don't know the number, nor do you -but higher cost per mile for fuel incentivises people to combine trips, plan routes more carefully, take public transportation (where available), car pool (when possible), choose a home that's closer to their work when they move, buy an economical vehicle when they trade, etc., etc. The opposite holds when the per mile cost of fuel is reduced. Maybe the elasticity of demand for fuel is low in the short term, because it's difficult for people to suddenly change their routines, but in the longer run the elasticity of demand is meaningful. And why wouldn't it be?
Of course I exagerated to show the full illogical conclusion. But to take your specific example, will a driver of a more efficient vehicle suddenly take more time on the road unnecessarily just because he has this vehicle? I don't think so. Why if he now drives 15000 mi annually would he suddenly decide to drive more? spend more time in the car? more time in traffic? spend more time away from home?
Again the VMT study I referenced showed no effect at all on the total Vehicle Miles Travelled by the driving public due to the current CAFE structure. There is no reason to expect that to change.
Why political? I believe that right now we are at the doorstep of a huge problem that very few take seriously because we go to the pump, b*tch and pay, and get all the fuel we want. If you couldn't get the fuel you want next week what would you do about work? Family necessities? etc. We'd normally look to the Feds and say 'Hey what happened, where'd the fuel go? I need 25 gal for my truck. So where do I fill up now?'
It is a political problem because it will affect us all and someone is going to have to give so that others can get. The solution will be a political one.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I favor market based solutions and simplicity, where possible. One could correctly argue that raising the fuel tax is political, but this solution then allows the marketplace to decide how best to allocate fuel supplies. The consumer retains maximum choice and flexibility, as he does now, and car makers can continue to compete freely to provide the vehicles that best meet the needs of consumers. A system that rewards people who purchase fuel efficient vehicles, through the tax system, and punishes those who choose or may genuinely need inefficient ones, is needlessly complicated, can be gamed more easily than if there's only a single variable (gas prices), and it distorts the market in terms of which vehicles are produced.
One of the main things we disagree on is the elasticity of demand for gasoline. You say miles driven aren't affected by the price. I disagree. For example, I say that some people might choose to go on a Sunday drive, or to visit a friend or relative in the next state,if gasoline is $2.50 per gallon, but they might choose to do something else if gas is $6 per gallon. Driving for fun, or to pass the time, or for other purposes would be reduced; not eliminated, but reduced, regardless of whether cars get 27.5 mpg or 35 mpg, under the proposed new CAFE standard.
I say that some people might choose to go on a Sunday drive, or to visit a friend or relative in the next state,if gasoline is $2.50 per gallon, but they might choose to do something else if gas is $6 per gallon.
I agree; I'm in that some group. I certainly base my discretionary on the cost to get there, and whether to take that trip at all. I used to have a Honda CRX, and I thought nothing of driving somewhere as the gas was neglible. Now when I had a Silverado, I used to question whether I really needed to drive the few miles each way to the store, or could I go on my way to work the next day.
I think your examples represent the majority of drivers, which is a major reason why CAFE hasn't been an effective solution for reducing fuel consumption. Any plan with so many variable has a low chance of success, because it can be gamed by manufacturers , distributors, and consumers. Simplicity is a virtue, which is why a higher fuel tax, while far from perfect, has contained fuel consumption in Europe and Japan.
Yes the whole scenario at the end of the post was an 'IF' but a plausible one based on today's technology. The capabilities will be much better 12 years from now.
I see no reason why there should not be some expectation that the fuel economy of all new vehicles won't be better 12 years from now than it is today. The only question is the composition of the national fleet between ultra-efficient vehicles and gas guzzlers.
If the national fleet falls into the rough approximations I've suggested then voila it's done with 10% to spare.
I understand both of your positions and I'm in the same group. When I lived in the NYC area I used to drive 4-5 hrs to Boston or to DC on business instead of taking the Shuttle from LaG. It was more flexible and I just liked driving.
However, I recognize that the majority of the population hates driving, traffic and being couped up in a vehicle. It's one of the least favorite things that they like to do. We are on an auto enthusiast forum, our viewpoint is skewed.
Nevertheless I go back to the VMT study referenced above. There is no statistical proof of increased driving due to the imposition of CAFE in the 80's. All the increased mileage is due to other reasons.
What a fuel tax will do is discourage those who like driving from driving extra distances. It will have little or no effect on the general population, except to take money out of their ( our ) pockets every day and every week.
Now I can see a scenario where a fuel tax might be doubly beneficial.
Let's agree that a $2/gal surcharge is phased in over 5 yrs above and beyond any market driven increases. $2 / gal will generate about $350 Billion each year to the Feds.
Fuel is likely to continue to escalate at the rate of about $.50 a gal each year now, so in 5 yrs we can expect it to be about $5.00 to $5.30 from market forces and an additional $2 surcharge from the Feds. $7.00 / gal in 5 yrs!!!
First the poor and those struggling just make ends meet need to be addressed. The wealthy have no risk in this situation it's more of an inconvenience than anything else. For a middle class family of two working parents and 3 kids, two in private schools and one in daycare, $7 / gal fuel is going to cost them $10,500 annually - after tax, out of pocket - just to buy fuel for two 20 mpg vehicles. Today for comparison those two vehicles cost $4500 to fuel up. That's $6000 additional being sucked out of their family budget every year, $3000 of it is being taken by the Fed Govt. This family needs some incentive to move up to more efficient vehicles.
The Feds will be taking in $350 billion every year forever. ..Those who drive and are under a certain income level have to be exempt from the fuel surcharge; How is this to be done? Fuel Stamps iso Food Stamps? ..The funds collected at the pump need to be recycled to incentivize the purchase of new technologies with improved fuel economy. This will encourage both the consumers and the manufacturers. Consider a $2000 bonus for a 35 mpg vehicle; $3000 for a 45 mpg vehicle; $5000 for a 55 mpg vehicle; $6000 for a 65 mpg vehicle? Excessive? Consider how much $350 Billion in additional tax revenue is. If every new vehicle buyer in a given year, say 15 million, were to suddenly switch from whatever they currently drive to say a Civic or Corolla or Focus or Mazdz3 @ 35 mpg gaining a $2000 bonus the bonuses paid out to these buyers would be ( 15 million x $2000 ) or ... $30 Billion, that's it. The Feds would still have $320 Billion left over. Even if the entire buying public suddenly purchased 15 million new Volts or new Prius' getting 65 mpg and earned a $6000 bonus each on the purchase the 'outflow' would only be $90 Billion leaving the Feds $260 Billion...every year forever. ..Offer bonuses to anyone turning in a 10+ y.o. guzzler to have it taken off the road for recycling. A flat $2000 bonus paid per destroyed vehicle could offer some the downpayment to get into a new more efficient vehicle. It could also be a boon to manufacturers as the demand for new vehicles might surge.
For me to see a fuel tax work the funds have to be earmarked to come back to us not disappear just into Federal Black Hole.
The fleet average has remained stagnant for the better part of 15-20 yrs due to the price of fuel being ultra low and there being no incentive for the manufacturers to push the technology in fuel economy. They ( the vehicle makers ) also fought - and won - against incremental increases that were to take effect during that time. Technology was pushed however in terms of luxury and size and power.
Again I go back to the basic problem is that soon we won't have enough fuel to drive anything but a hybrid or econobox. When that time comes the public is going to wake up and say 'Hey what was everybody doing for the last 20 yrs? Didn't all you smart people ( in govt and business ) see this shortage coming?' Well, these smart people are telling us now...
" WAKE UP !!! "
Just because we the public don't see the forest for the trees doesn't mean that the problem ( our future lack of fuel ) doesn't exist.
But isn't Europe already at 35 mpg? And we can't even achieve the current European standard in 13 years? Europeans use about half the oil per person that we use in the U.S. And they don't seem to be suffering from a lower standard of living. Worse, our high energy consumption makes us more vulnerable to rapidly increasing costs and supply constriction. Apparently our energy policy will be rationing via price.
Europeans, on average, drive much smaller cars than we do. Also, they drive more diesel cars than we do. With the accompanying air quality issues. Americans simply don't want to drive Fiat Panda's, Ford Ka's, Peugeot 206's or Smarts. They just don't.
Chrysler, for example, had unsold new vehicles parked in lots throughout the Detroit area. The logical response to Chrysler's predicament is to realize that in the free market, too many Chrysler products have been weighed in the balance and found wanting by buyers. Hence, their current location in storage lots, as opposed to owners' drivways.
Do we really believe that this problem can be solved by an inventive advertising campaign?
You have to accept advertising as a statistical game. Nothing is ever 100 % effective. The fact that Chrysler sells ANY cars is a testament to just how powerful advertising is. The dilemma is that almost all political campaigns are dominated by advertising (i.e. he/she who spends the most corporate money, wins, 80+ % of the time). The US government as a solution to global warming might be something analogous to a "Catch 22".
For me to see a fuel tax work the funds have to be earmarked to come back to us not disappear just into Federal Black Hole.
From the looks of our highways and bridges, I would say the current gas tax is in some black hole.
Adding a tax to main stream Americans is a sure way to not get elected. The only way you get people to agree to higher taxes, is if they think it is not THEM paying those taxes.
If your scenario of 65 MPG cars were to ever come to fruition. The amount of tax would drop significantly. I say taxing by the mile is the only fair and equitable tax. High mileage cars are not a good way to make the tax collector happy. It looks good on CNN, and bad to the revenue people. The best way for us to evolve to a better source of transportation is for the Government to get its nose out of it. They have screwed up way more than they have helped in the last 20 years. Not much has been accomplished since Nixon in truth. Clean up the fuel so it is not causing excessive emissions and let the market sort it out. When the oil is gone it is gone. We will have plenty of advance warning. If not get a bike or a horse.
All the doomsday GW rhetoric is just political babbling to scare the masses and keep them stirred up. I have not seen any change in the crazy driving habits in my area with all the GW talk.
Don't buy a new car. Drive the one you have until its undrivable and then drive another used car. Its silly to say you just bought another 6000 pounds of steel and threw away 6000 pounds of steeel that was perfectly good to help the enviroment.
If people had electric cars, and I certainly believe we would have to build many, many new fossil-fuel burning power plants, do you think people would also waste energy similarly.
Good question. But the answer is more complex than one might assume. Most discussions of power supply involve only gross quantities of power required vs that available from various existing or potential (NPI) sources. What is missing is consideration of WHEN the demand occurs vs when generation is available. Fossil and, to a much lesser extent, Nuclear generation can be varied as demand requires (nuclear has a very low slew rate). "Renewables" such as wind and solar are available only at natures whim which bears little relation to demand. Since we cannot control the availability of (most types) renewable generation and have little influence on demand, there must be controllable generation in reserve to serve the demand when renewable generation capacity is dimished. Since the preponderance of controllable generation is fossil, increases in renewables require some percentage of new fossil generation as "back-up". This is quite expensive since utilities must raise enormous capital to build, and expend operating funds to maintain fossil generation that will provide low ROI, since it will operate only when renewables are not available. Discussions of renewable generation cost rarely mention these additional costs attributable to remewables.
The only alternative to reserve generation capacity would be energy storage, but the technologies available for this are limited, enormously expensive and have high energy losses. And while it is true that the availability issue is diminished somewhat when considered on a national scale, that consideration must include the energy losses in long distance transmission, however distributed it may be.
You are of course making the quintessential argument for a carbon tax (or a cap and trade system), something already in the wind up on Capitol Hill. If fossil fuel generators had to charge prices that include the true cost of the emissions they produce, wind especially but eventually solar too would suddenly become so cost-competitive they wouldn't need incentives any more for companies to put up the capital for infrastructure construction.
But mainly my question was rhetorical: why not think out of the box? And at the same time, let's plan for a future 50 years ahead rather than 5 or 15. That's what the automotive industry is doing these days, after all...which is something else that will heavily influence the face of the cars and trucks we see for sale in the years to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Out of the box or not, we will always need a power system that can supply the peak demand WHEN it occurs. To accomplish that with wind and/or solar (and some other "renewables"), requires sufficient excess capacity, widely distributed, to assure that the peak demand can be supplied for any conceivable operating condition. Of course, the same applies to our fossil generation but THAT can be brought on line as needed, independent of weather, limited only by the physical reliability of the equipment and its maintenance requirements (which exist for any technology). This means that the installed renewable capacity must be much greater than required for a predominantly fossil fueled system, as we have now. Ultimately, of course, fossil will be limited by the availability of fuel, but society seems unwilling to spend todays dollars for future costs.
And yes, some form of economic manipulation will be required to change the economic landscape if higher cost power options are to be implemented. More important, the PUBLIC must be willing to PAY those higher costs for energy.
Regarding "true" cost, if the price of most any of our products were to reflect their actual burden to society and the environment, our consumption patterns would change dramatically! Our food supply would be in upheaval as the price of corn and factory raised beef, pork and poultry rose astronomically. And I'm sure that the mythology and popularity of corn ethanol would quickly disappear allowing us to pursue REAL alternative motor fuels.
If fossil fuel generators had to charge prices that include the true cost of the emissions they produce,
And if farmers had to pay for all the chemicals that leach into the rivers and lakes. And if food manufacturers had to pay for many health issues. And if lawyers had to pay for increasing everyone's medical payments by running up malpractice rates. It sounds a little too complicated and wishy-washy on the effects. The fact is that people who are alarmed by GW only see negatives; while those who can accept change might see quite a few postives of GW.
IMO the average temp. of the Earth is too low. Life and human population density is much higher in warm and tropical areas. So maybe I'm in favor of paying the utility companies more to burn fossil fuels.
And at the same time, let's plan for a future 50 years ahead rather than 5 or 15.
The general public and politicians rarely ever implement anything that looks out more than 10 years. If the government wants an energy plan for 50 years out, they should start investing more heavily (i.e. Manhattan Project size) in developing fusion technology.
That's what the automotive industry is doing these days, after all...
Well not Ford and Chrysler as they're trying to figure out how to survive the next 5 years. As far as I know the auto manufacturers are working on clean diesels, hybrids, electric, and H2 energy sources all of which come back to oil, or (mainly) carbon-fuel based electricity generation.
The challenge for mankind is to develop an energy source that is not carbon-based. I just don't think wind and solar will ever get you enough energy to satisfy the growing population. The future energy source is going to have to be nuclear of some form, to continue growth in a modern society. Or we figure out how to drill (maybe a large solar-powered laser? ) a hundred miles into the Earth and tap the magma.
kdhspyder: Nevertheless I go back to the VMT study referenced above. There is no statistical proof of increased driving due to the imposition of CAFE in the 80's. All the increased mileage is due to other reasons.
Sorry, can't buy that. More efficient vehicles can make those "other reasons" that are increasing miles driven more feasible.
For example, if people live 50 miles away from work, as opposed to 10 miles away, I doubt that they will say that more efficient vehicles were the driving force behind that decision.
They almost always say that the reason for living farther away from work is better neighborhoods, better schools, larger houses available at more reasonable prices, etc.
The bottom line is that more efficient vehicles make driving less expensive, and thus make it feasible to locate 50 miles away from work in pursuit of those other goals.
(And while people may say that they hate commutes, from what I've seen, they hate small houses and iffy schools even more, especially if they have children.)
Interestingly, for all of the complaints about high gasoline prices, today gasoline takes a smaller percentage of household income - even with higher prices - than it did in 1962, when gasoline was supposedly so cheap.
john500: You have to accept advertising as a statistical game. Nothing is ever 100 % effective. The fact that Chrysler sells ANY cars is a testament to just how powerful advertising is.
Chrysler's sales are more a testament to an existing dealer body, SOME loyal customers, and plain old inertia.
Unfortunately, it appears as though the second reason is growing smaller every year, and the third reason is sputtering.
"The fact is that people who are alarmed by GW only see negatives; while those who can accept change might see quite a few postives of GW."
For mankind to ascribe goodness to his ability to affect any complex system that he does not understand is arrogance in the extreme. We don't know what the consequences of our influence will be or how fast they will occur, but we now know that we have an influence and it would be folly to assume that it is benign.
Its sort of like cavemen riding in a aircraft on autopilot who discover the cockpit. In their exploration they may eventually affect the plane's flight, but if they assume that they know what they're doing and do not return the controls as they found them, they will likely have a bad day!
"Out of the box or not, we will always need a power system that can supply the peak demand WHEN it occurs"
Just FYI, most folks who are paid to think about the power industry and environmental issues and plan for the future now envision a decentralized future, without the enormously vulnerable and inadequate transmission infrastructure we have now, but with home-based generation instead. That could occur in many ways which are rapidly reaching viability, starting with hom generation from existing natural gas supplies, but moving out from there in various directions.
In such a future, which the talking heads seem to think represents a very likely scenario, the costs of generating electricity (or hydrogen) for personal cars CAN come way down both in terms of money and environmental impact.
Hey folks, oil hit $96/bbl today! Yippee! Anyone besides me longing for an automotive future NOT powered by oil?! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Reminds me of a favorite book from last century where everyone had a nuke in their garage running their house and car. No more grid or power lines blighting the landscape.
I've been fighting a flaky carb all week on my leaf shredder so I'm about ready to swear off gas!
Comments
The market will not bear the high prices the carmakers would have to pay to make existing technology perform that feat.
And technology to make it simple and cheap does not exist.
And too many people STILL want to buy the biggest, nicest car they can afford.
It cannot be done unless you FORCE smaller cars on the public. If the buying public would accept smaller cars and/or pay an extra $10K for large SUVs with hybrid batteries and other fuel-saving technologies, then it could happen.
But everyone knows that is a pipe dream.
Many would love to have luxury and high Mileage. The latest LS600h has luxury for sure. With less than hoped for mileage.
I think the average American buys the best he can afford, whether it is a sedan, CUV, SUV or PU Truck. Within that parameter mileage is just one of many aspects they consider.
Even with all the hoopla over GW, most buyers do not compare GHG emissions of their respective choices.
The top trim Accord and Camry both have EPA estimates of 22 MPG combined and 8.3 tons of GHG per year. Twice the GHG of the Prius with only 4 tons per year. I think the sales say people want bigger no matter how much gas it uses or how much GHG it emits.
Though Dodge's SRT division is small, I think they hit it right on the head for most people, with their music lyrics - "It's all about power, it's all about speed ...". gagrice just echoed this fact too.
If people could have the Bat-mobile they would. If people could have an M-1 tank they would. If people could have a Star Wars Super-Stardestroyer they would. People want size, power, safety, and security for themselves. Maybe they're for other people conserving?
GW is a highly visible concern with a lot of PR and concern from parties all over the world.
But peace in the streets, empty vehicles sitting in driveways all over the country and empty wallets and/or maxed out oil credit cards hit home a lot harder and swifter. Not being able to get to work will trump any concerns about GW.
If something is not done to curb our usage ( CAFE is one solution that will work ) then the GW question may become solved by lack of supply and increased demand. We do not have enough ready supplies to satisfy our own demand 10-20 yrs from now. One thing is certain at that time there will be more of us driving, we will be driving more vehicles and we will be stuck in traffic more often burning fuel doing nothing. Do we want to be driving today's vehicles at that time or do we want to be driving something more efficient?
If something untoward happens internationally we as users of 25% of the world petroleum production have the most to lose. That's not a pretty picture to imagine. Who wants to be the first to give up their right to drive?
The second effect that appears to be taking hold now as we read this forum is that oil is going up far faster than any of the general public imagines. Consider what a very small increase of $.50/gallon annually would do to the price of fuel in say 2017.. $7-$8 a gallon. That's $200 to fill up an F150; $120 to fill up a Camry or Accord or Malibu; $80 to fillup a Prius.
With the continuing devaluation of the US$ the rate of increase will only speed up. Foreign oil producers will not accept $80 a bbl in 3 yrs if the US$ is 25% lower in value. They'll want their 'normal' short-supply increase and their "devalutation" surcharge
If people could have the Bat-mobile they would. If people could have an M-1 tank they would. If people could have a Star Wars Super-Stardestroyer they would. People want size, power, safety, and security for themselves. Maybe they're for other people conserving?
Yes they do want these thing. It is part of our national psyche...thus far.
Now put fuel at $6 or $8 or $10 a gallon and/or tell the driving public that each driver is allowed 15 gal every 7 days. What do you think 'we' will want?
Or alternatively to match demand with supply one might see a law that driving licenses can't be obtained until one reaches the age of 20 and it must be surrendered at age 65. This is awfully extreme but it will take drivers off the streets.
A likely first step is already being considered, congestion taxes in major cities, possibly followed by a ban on all fossil-fueled vehicles from city centers.
Wrong! CAFE has been a dismal failure, from many standpoints. I'm not going to take the time to detail the adverse consequences of CAFE here, since it's been amply detailed in other discussions. A higher gas tax, on the other hand, will reduce fuel consumption, as it has in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. For those who oppose higher taxes, a higher gasoline tax could be made revenue neutral by an offsetting decrease in another tax.
People will still want the size, power and speed - it is inherent in our nature, and will only change over a long evolutionary period. I think it would be more accurate to say people of moderate means will be forced to move to a low-cost option. People will still want More, and will buy so if they have the $.
Only higher and higher prices will force people into more energy efficient vehicles and general lifestyle. There isn't much political will to politically force people into conservation in a democracy as the people who want more will not vote for such candidates; at least when conservation becomes onerous. Remember Carter and the Dems. were replaced for just such actions.
The market will not bear the high prices the carmakers would have to pay to make existing technology perform that feat.
And technology to make it simple and cheap does not exist.
And too many people STILL want to buy the biggest, nicest car they can afford.
It cannot be done unless you FORCE smaller cars on the public. If the buying public would accept smaller cars and/or pay an extra $10K for large SUVs with hybrid batteries and other fuel-saving technologies, then it could happen.
But everyone knows that is a pipe dream."
But isn't Europe already at @ 35 mpg? And we can't even achieve the current European standard in 13 years? Europeans use about half the oil per person that we use in the U.S. And they don't seem to be suffering from a lower standard of living. Worse, our high energy consumption makes us more vulnerable to rapidly increasing costs and supply constriction. Apparently our energy policy will be rationing via price.
I'll debate this as long as you want. CAFE is not perfect by any means but it has worked. The average fleet fuel economy before CAFE was instituted was about 12-13 mpg. Now it's 20-27 mpg depending on what system you use.
The new proposals would mandate a 32-35 mpg average for the entire fleet. If we say that the current average of the national fleet is 22 mpg and the new CAFE sends it up to 33 mpg that means that we will save 33% of what the current fleet uses. It's only math and it's clear as day.
But the point that's even more important is that by the time the new CAFE is implementd in 2020 our driving 'usage' will be 60% higher than it is now as a result of population increases, more drivers on the road, more congestion meaning inefficient use of vehicles/fuel.
In addition fuel will be at least $8 or $10 or even higher at that time.
Here is the problem we have to deal with, by the numbers.
As a nation we use 25% of the world's oil production today; i.e. 20.5 milliion bpd. Two thirds of our usage goes toward transportation, that's about 14 million bpd. We will need 60% more fuel by 2020 just to keep our national fleet on the road and still maintain 'our freedom and our way of life'. That means we have to 'find' an additional 8.5 million bpd just to feed our vehicles. It's not available.! Not easily anyway.
If it's not available then what do we do to spread the current supply over a 60% greater usage?
..ration the fuel so that everyone gets their fair share; if you buy 25 gal now you might be able to buy 10 or 15 gal then.
..take drivers off the road;
....a) you and I and the rest reading this are only allowed to drive on even or odd days.
....b) age resitrictions; no one under 18 or over 70 can drive at all.
....c) mandatory mass transit carpooling; each personal fuel-consuming vehicle must contain a driver and at least one passenger at all times.
....d) you must work within 5 miles of your domicile.
....e) recreational use of fuel is prohibited.
..mandate the imposition of the use of small vehicles;
..impose a fuel tax to make it hurt to drive; a $2/gal fuel tax which would probably 'hurt' enough to make us change our ways now would take nearly $1 Billion dollars out of the economy every day for ever. Each fuel pump would be an agent of the Fed Govt collecting $1200-$2000 from each of us every year - after income taxes btw.
OR...
..we can extend our current easy-to-acquire petroleum supplies though the use of alternative fuels and the use of more efficient vehicles.
Alternative fuels is our best longterm hope because it's a lasting change and it has potentially a lot of economic, political and environment benefits. However building the infrastructure is the key problem. In the meanwhile we are still gobbling down pertroleum-based fuels and the rate is increasing as we grow in population. We have to stop the growth of petroleum usage ASAP. It can be done in a draconian manner like the solutions above or we can make the vehicles use less fuel....all of them. CAFE done fairly will accomplish this 'extending our current supplies'.
MONEY: Our national wealth is at risk. Fuel will be in the $6 or $8 or $10 per gallon price range in the next decade. Luckily most of our 'imported oil' comes from our two closest friends. But an increase in oil prices, as a fungible commodity, benefits all producers. It may appear that at $10/gal most of our payments might end up in Canada or Mexico but that only means that others who want to bring down our country and way of life are benefitting in other areas. The solution is to use less petroleum-based products, NOW, as quickly as possible. More alternative fules and more efficient vehicles.
What's more than curious is that this Conservative Republican administration and this Liberal-leaning Senate/Congress both are ready to pass significantly more restrictive fuel economy measures.
I see that as they've both been given a view into the near future and it's potentially very very ugly.
The market will not bear the high prices the carmakers would have to pay to make existing technology perform that feat.
And technology to make it simple and cheap does not exist.
Of all people...
You yourself, today 12 years from the imposition of these new rules, drive the most popular auto in the country and your model gets precisely 35 mpg - or better. The technology is here already this year in 2007.
The Camry hybrid, Altima hybrid, new Accord diesel, new Malibu/Aura hybrid, Fusion hybrid ..everyone of them will be in the 35-ish range if not higher. That's with no technological improvements at all in the next 12 years. None of these are extraordinarily expensive.
In addition the smaller vehices and smaller hybrids are close to or well above the 35 mpg average - today. None of these are extraordinarly expensive.
A huge segment of the national fleet is already at or near the 2020 standard, with no additional technology.
So what needs to be addressed?
Crossovers and vans
Small trucks
Large trucks
SUVs
As I read it nowhere does it say that every vehicle on the road has to hit the new standard of 32 or 33 or 35 mpg. Only the national fleet has to hit this average.
So if the national fleet consists of...
..10% ultra efficient specialy vehicles like the Volt, PHEV Prius, new Honda hybrid, compact diesels say in the 60-100 mpg range;
..10% very efficient vehicles like the normal Prius, HCH, and larger diesels like the new Jetta in the 50-60 mpg range;
..30% highly efficient midsizers like the hybrid Camry, Fusion, Altima, Malibu/Aura and the diesel Accords, Passats etc. in the 40 mpg range;
..20% hybrid or diesel vans, 'wagons' and crossovers in the 30 mpg range
..20% diesel or hybrid trucks in the 25-30 mpg range;
..10% diesel or hybrid SUVs in the 20-25 mpg range;
then the weighted average of this hypothetical national fleet is 38.2 mpg
10% x 70
10% x 55
30% x 40
20% x 30
20% x 27
10% x 23
The technologies to do this exist today or are right on the horizon and none of them is ultra expensive; the costs are even coming down.
Also, higher fuel prices help align vehicle design more closely to consumers' need and desires than legislated fuel economy standards. Look, nobody enjoys paying more for fuel. CAFE is more politically palatable because it creates the impression that there's no sacrifice required on the part of the consumer. That's simply not true. Unfortunately, there ain't no free lunch. CAFE may be politically expedient, but there are costs and distortions associated with this solution. I'm against it.
You also cannot compare the USA to the EU. The EU does not have nearly as strict emissions regulations as the USA. If they did the current crop of cars being sold in the EU would not pass the law.
The environmentalists and the oil companies are closer to each other than most would suspect. Throw in the tax collectors and you have a formula that says keep upping the emissions standards and maintaining the same flow of tax, I mean oil.
There is no real market. The only market that exists is the market created by automobile manufacturer advertising campaigns and the subtle messages that are sent. The highly illogical decisions made by the US buying public are basically the same as 5-8 year old kids displaying precocious opinions about world politics. The parent plants the opinion and then the kid recites the message and gets rewarded through praise when it is said to neighbors and family. In reality, a 5-8 year old kid still believes in Santa Claus and couldn't possibly have an informed political opinion based upon logic. I view all of my wants and the rest of society's wants in a similar way. Although I strongly agree with the comment that CAFE will simply be corrupted by exceptions, I also believe that government regulation is the only way to actually accomplish the mission of reducing emissions (that is in the absence of stopping the myriad of automobile commercials- which might be perceived as a "free speech" violation).
Although I am enamored by fast cars, I am still amazed that the free market allows the road registration of a vehicle that can go over 200 mph when the highest legal speed limit outside of a track is 70 mph. This act is simply perpetuation of government by providing the logic that now a cop is needed to police the person that bought the fast car.
I would like it to get better mileage than the current gas guzzling vehicles being pushed on us by the regulations inacted by our governmental agencies. The sad part is PU & SUVs that get good mileage are available in most of the world, just not the USA. That tells me that saving fossil fuel is not a high priority for our government.
As far as commercials selling bad vehicles. I worry more about the commercials that sell my grandchildren the food they like. There is no such thing as a good dry cereal. Yet our kids think there is because they see it on TV. The food we are being sold will kill us before the cars we drive use up all the fossil fuel and raise the temperature to where we all drown.
There is no question that a fuel tax will work. Europe shows that it will. But it still remains that for it to work it has to 'hurt' and to do so will drain the economy of anywhere from $1000 to $4000, per driver, every year forever. This is money we spend on clothing, food, babysitters, tuition, rent and entertainment. It's gone down the black hole of the US Treasury to be used whereever the current Administration sees fi; c.f. Social Security.
The other argument that with more efficient vehicles we will not save any fuel because we will all drive more is a red herring. The primary limitation is that there are only 24 hours in a day. If one were now driving a 20 mpg vehicle 15000 miles annually but were suddenly to be given a 100 mpg vehicle do you really thing that driver would start driving 75000 miles annually???
The VMT study done for the DOT a few years ago addressed this point and found that there is no linkage between CAFE and better fuel efficiency and additional miles driven.
VMT Study
The reasons for more miles being driven from 77 to 2000 are:
..the population is a lot larger
..there are more drivers on the road ( working women, younger and older drivers )
..there are more vehicles on the road ( more one occupant vehicles )
..more severe congestion.
Also, higher fuel prices help align vehicle design more closely to consumers' need and desires than legislated fuel economy standards. Look, nobody enjoys paying more for fuel. CAFE is more politically palatable because it creates the impression that there's no sacrifice required on the part of the consumer. That's simply not true. Unfortunately, there ain't no free lunch. CAFE may be politically expedient, but there are costs and distortions associated with this solution. I'm against it.
Yes there is a basic unfairness in the CAFE system in that if puts all the responsibility on the manufacturer and none on the buying public. The buying public has to bear some of the responsibility too.
But one could see a system of 'forcing' the public to drive more efficient vehicles, no matter what size they choose. 'Incentivize' might be a better phrase.
Give those who do choose to buy/drive a more efficient vehicle a tax benefit.
Charge those who choose not to buy/drive a more efficient vehicle a tax penalty.
This takes the responsibility off the manufacturers and puts it where it belongs...US.
If a manufacturer chooses not to make more efficient vehicles well then he has to answer to his shareholders and the court of public opinion.
I think a system that reverses that responsibility will work. You get paid a bonus to drive a more efficient vehicle. The more efficient it is the bigger the bonus.
You can choose to drive a less efficient vehicle but then you have to pay a premium....which is passed through to the other group of buyers
In the beginning the penalties will likely outweigh the bonuses, then be neutral then possibly not fully cover all the bonuses being paid to drivers moving en masse to more efficient ones.
As gagrice noted above, if fuel is going to go up and up and up anyway why not let the market take care of everything. It could but we need to save fuel even faster. Mandating more efficient vehicles only sets a floor to ensure that no matter what the market does we at least will save 1/3 the fuel that the current national fleet uses. The other options are
..fuel tax
..rationing
..restricting miles driven
..restricting the number of drivers on the roads
..imposing mass transit usage
..imposing the use of small and very small vehicles
Again here are the numbers..
Out of our current 20.5 million bpd usage 14 million bpd currently fuel our national fleet. By 2020 at current standards we will need 22-23 milliion bpd for the national fleet. If however we can 'save' 1/3 of the current 14 million and 1/3 of the additional 8.5 million bpd then in 2020 we can fuel 60% more demand with just 15 million bpd which is about what we use today. this technology is here currently or will be soon. It just needs to be implemented across the board.
I think that you have to make a distinction between Fed Govt and State Govt here...and they each might not be on the same page.
I think the Feds are keenly aware of the need to derease the use of fossil fuels. I think the state governments are more concerned with local issues like air quality. National supply and demand is a Federal issue.
Well said!
Apparently you missed where I suggested making the fuel tax revenue neutral, through a reduction in other taxes.
"The other argument that with more efficient vehicles we will not save any fuel because we will all drive more is a red herring. The primary limitation is that there are only 24 hours in a day. If one were now driving a 20 mpg vehicle 15000 miles annually but were suddenly to be given a 100 mpg vehicle do you really thing that driver would start driving 75000 miles annually???"
Simply not true. Of course mileage won't go from 15,000 to 75,000. That's a gross exaggeration, but it most likely would go to something greater than 15,000. Maybe it would be 15,500, or 16,500 - I don't know the number, nor do you -but higher cost per mile for fuel incentivises people to combine trips, plan routes more carefully, take public transportation (where available), car pool (when possible), choose a home that's closer to their work when they move, buy an economical vehicle when they trade, etc., etc. The opposite holds when the per mile cost of fuel is reduced. Maybe the elasticity of demand for fuel is low in the short term, because it's difficult for people to suddenly change their routines, but in the longer run the elasticity of demand is meaningful. And why wouldn't it be?
"The other argument that with more efficient vehicles we will not save any fuel because we will all drive more is a red herring. The primary limitation is that there are only 24 hours in a day. If one were now driving a 20 mpg vehicle 15000 miles annually but were suddenly to be given a 100 mpg vehicle do you really thing that driver would start driving 75000 miles annually???"
Why make it so complicated, and so political? Gradual increases in the fuel tax, with offsets, will accomplish what you propose. That's a lot simpler than an politically charged system of punishments and rewards.
It does, and it doesn't. Look at the loophole that is open currently. They are giving the big Flex Fuel PU trucks a 35 MPG rating. Is this in anticipation of the CAFE going up? Not only does the E85 lower mileage by a considerable amount, it is not being used in most of the vehicles being sold. The whole state of CA has less than 6 stations selling E85. Yet the FlexFuel vehicles are readily available here.
If that's the case, then one wonders why companies in dire financial straits - which would include GM, Ford and Chrysler - don't simply dream up razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns to move the metal. If advertising campaigns are really the driving force in creating demand, then why don't more companies use them to do so?
Chrysler, for example, had unsold new vehicles parked in lots throughout the Detroit area. The logical response to Chrysler's predicament is to realize that in the free market, too many Chrysler products have been weighed in the balance and found wanting by buyers. Hence, their current location in storage lots, as opposed to owners' drivways.
Do we really believe that this problem can be solved by an inventive advertising campaign?
john500: The highly illogical decisions made by the US buying public are basically the same as 5-8 year old kids displaying precocious opinions about world politics.
Just because you don't agree with their choices doesn't make said choices "illogical." People buy new vehicles for a variety of reasons, of which fuel economy is only one.
john500: Although I am enamored by fast cars, I am still amazed that the free market allows the road registration of a vehicle that can go over 200 mph when the highest legal speed limit outside of a track is 70 mph.
The 200 mph vehicle is a red herring. These vehicles are sold in such small numbers that they can hardly be called representative of what people are driving.
You do point out a problem - although not quite the one you probably intended. (Incidentally, the highest legal speed outside of a race track in the U.S. is 80 mph on some Texas roads.)
Obviously, virtually every new vehicle can exceed 80 mph - even Accords, Civics and Focuses, the mainstream versions of which are not sold on the basis of their blazing performance. (If so, I must have missed those advertising campaigns. The Civic Si, the one "performance" version of those cars, is sold on the basis of razor-sharp handling and braking, as opposed to the ability to travel at triple-digit speeds.)
This shows that speed limits on many limited access highways are silly at best and outdated at worst (80 mph is the flow of traffic on some Pennsylvania limited access highways; out West there is even more room), and sophisticated, informed drivers know this, and drive accordingly, with the help of radar detectors and CB radios. The last thing I'm going to spend my money on is a car limited to 80 mph.
Not really... I just don't trust the various agencies to give us our money back in full. Call it administrative costs, leakages, friction, grease or they might just take it for use somewhere else in an emergency.
Even moreso that's money that comes our of our pockets right now every day and week of the year. Would you have us wait til we file our taxes to reclaim it? But then what's the purpose? We give the Feds money and they in turn just give it back to us? HUH?
Simply not true. Of course mileage won't go from 15,000 to 75,000. That's a gross exaggeration, but it most likely would go to something greater than 15,000. Maybe it would be 15,500, or 16,500 - I don't know the number, nor do you -but higher cost per mile for fuel incentivises people to combine trips, plan routes more carefully, take public transportation (where available), car pool (when possible), choose a home that's closer to their work when they move, buy an economical vehicle when they trade, etc., etc. The opposite holds when the per mile cost of fuel is reduced. Maybe the elasticity of demand for fuel is low in the short term, because it's difficult for people to suddenly change their routines, but in the longer run the elasticity of demand is meaningful. And why wouldn't it be?
Of course I exagerated to show the full illogical conclusion. But to take your specific example, will a driver of a more efficient vehicle suddenly take more time on the road unnecessarily just because he has this vehicle? I don't think so. Why if he now drives 15000 mi annually would he suddenly decide to drive more? spend more time in the car? more time in traffic? spend more time away from home?
Again the VMT study I referenced showed no effect at all on the total Vehicle Miles Travelled by the driving public due to the current CAFE structure. There is no reason to expect that to change.
Why political? I believe that right now we are at the doorstep of a huge problem that very few take seriously because we go to the pump, b*tch and pay, and get all the fuel we want. If you couldn't get the fuel you want next week what would you do about work? Family necessities? etc. We'd normally look to the Feds and say 'Hey what happened, where'd the fuel go? I need 25 gal for my truck. So where do I fill up now?'
It is a political problem because it will affect us all and someone is going to have to give so that others can get. The solution will be a political one.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I favor market based solutions and simplicity, where possible. One could correctly argue that raising the fuel tax is political, but this solution then allows the marketplace to decide how best to allocate fuel supplies. The consumer retains maximum choice and flexibility, as he does now, and car makers can continue to compete freely to provide the vehicles that best meet the needs of consumers. A system that rewards people who purchase fuel efficient vehicles, through the tax system, and punishes those who choose or may genuinely need inefficient ones, is needlessly complicated, can be gamed more easily than if there's only a single variable (gas prices), and it distorts the market in terms of which vehicles are produced.
One of the main things we disagree on is the elasticity of demand for gasoline. You say miles driven aren't affected by the price. I disagree. For example, I say that some people might choose to go on a Sunday drive, or to visit a friend or relative in the next state,if gasoline is $2.50 per gallon, but they might choose to do something else if gas is $6 per gallon. Driving for fun, or to pass the time, or for other purposes would be reduced; not eliminated, but reduced, regardless of whether cars get 27.5 mpg or 35 mpg, under the proposed new CAFE standard.
"A crime against humanity"
I agree; I'm in that some group. I certainly base my discretionary on the cost to get there, and whether to take that trip at all. I used to have a Honda CRX, and I thought nothing of driving somewhere as the gas was neglible. Now when I had a Silverado, I used to question whether I really needed to drive the few miles each way to the store, or could I go on my way to work the next day.
I see no reason why there should not be some expectation that the fuel economy of all new vehicles won't be better 12 years from now than it is today. The only question is the composition of the national fleet between ultra-efficient vehicles and gas guzzlers.
If the national fleet falls into the rough approximations I've suggested then voila it's done with 10% to spare.
I don't really see anything pending that's going to really revolutionize the gas mileage statistics.
People (car buyers) have to want to PAY for the improvements, and so far, they won't even pay $300 for a PZEV option.
I understand both of your positions and I'm in the same group. When I lived in the NYC area I used to drive 4-5 hrs to Boston or to DC on business instead of taking the Shuttle from LaG. It was more flexible and I just liked driving.
However, I recognize that the majority of the population hates driving, traffic and being couped up in a vehicle. It's one of the least favorite things that they like to do. We are on an auto enthusiast forum, our viewpoint is skewed.
Nevertheless I go back to the VMT study referenced above. There is no statistical proof of increased driving due to the imposition of CAFE in the 80's. All the increased mileage is due to other reasons.
What a fuel tax will do is discourage those who like driving from driving extra distances. It will have little or no effect on the general population, except to take money out of their ( our ) pockets every day and every week.
Now I can see a scenario where a fuel tax might be doubly beneficial.
Let's agree that a $2/gal surcharge is phased in over 5 yrs above and beyond any market driven increases. $2 / gal will generate about $350 Billion each year to the Feds.
Fuel is likely to continue to escalate at the rate of about $.50 a gal each year now, so in 5 yrs we can expect it to be about $5.00 to $5.30 from market forces and an additional $2 surcharge from the Feds. $7.00 / gal in 5 yrs!!!
First the poor and those struggling just make ends meet need to be addressed. The wealthy have no risk in this situation it's more of an inconvenience than anything else. For a middle class family of two working parents and 3 kids, two in private schools and one in daycare, $7 / gal fuel is going to cost them $10,500 annually - after tax, out of pocket - just to buy fuel for two 20 mpg vehicles. Today for comparison those two vehicles cost $4500 to fuel up. That's $6000 additional being sucked out of their family budget every year, $3000 of it is being taken by the Fed Govt. This family needs some incentive to move up to more efficient vehicles.
The Feds will be taking in $350 billion every year forever.
..Those who drive and are under a certain income level have to be exempt from the fuel surcharge; How is this to be done? Fuel Stamps iso Food Stamps?
..The funds collected at the pump need to be recycled to incentivize the purchase of new technologies with improved fuel economy. This will encourage both the consumers and the manufacturers. Consider a $2000 bonus for a 35 mpg vehicle; $3000 for a 45 mpg vehicle; $5000 for a 55 mpg vehicle; $6000 for a 65 mpg vehicle? Excessive? Consider how much $350 Billion in additional tax revenue is. If every new vehicle buyer in a given year, say 15 million, were to suddenly switch from whatever they currently drive to say a Civic or Corolla or Focus or Mazdz3 @ 35 mpg gaining a $2000 bonus the bonuses paid out to these buyers would be ( 15 million x $2000 ) or ... $30 Billion, that's it. The Feds would still have $320 Billion left over. Even if the entire buying public suddenly purchased 15 million new Volts or new Prius' getting 65 mpg and earned a $6000 bonus each on the purchase the 'outflow' would only be $90 Billion leaving the Feds $260 Billion...every year forever.
..Offer bonuses to anyone turning in a 10+ y.o. guzzler to have it taken off the road for recycling. A flat $2000 bonus paid per destroyed vehicle could offer some the downpayment to get into a new more efficient vehicle. It could also be a boon to manufacturers as the demand for new vehicles might surge.
For me to see a fuel tax work the funds have to be earmarked to come back to us not disappear just into Federal Black Hole.
Again I go back to the basic problem is that soon we won't have enough fuel to drive anything but a hybrid or econobox. When that time comes the public is going to wake up and say 'Hey what was everybody doing for the last 20 yrs? Didn't all you smart people ( in govt and business ) see this shortage coming?' Well, these smart people are telling us now...
" WAKE UP !!! "
Just because we the public don't see the forest for the trees doesn't mean that the problem ( our future lack of fuel ) doesn't exist.
Europeans, on average, drive much smaller cars than we do.
Also, they drive more diesel cars than we do. With the accompanying air quality issues.
Americans simply don't want to drive Fiat Panda's, Ford Ka's, Peugeot 206's or Smarts.
They just don't.
Do we really believe that this problem can be solved by an inventive advertising campaign?
You have to accept advertising as a statistical game. Nothing is ever 100 % effective. The fact that Chrysler sells ANY cars is a testament to just how powerful advertising is. The dilemma is that almost all political campaigns are dominated by advertising (i.e. he/she who spends the most corporate money, wins, 80+ % of the time). The US government as a solution to global warming might be something analogous to a "Catch 22".
From the looks of our highways and bridges, I would say the current gas tax is in some black hole.
Adding a tax to main stream Americans is a sure way to not get elected. The only way you get people to agree to higher taxes, is if they think it is not THEM paying those taxes.
If your scenario of 65 MPG cars were to ever come to fruition. The amount of tax would drop significantly. I say taxing by the mile is the only fair and equitable tax. High mileage cars are not a good way to make the tax collector happy. It looks good on CNN, and bad to the revenue people. The best way for us to evolve to a better source of transportation is for the Government to get its nose out of it. They have screwed up way more than they have helped in the last 20 years. Not much has been accomplished since Nixon in truth. Clean up the fuel so it is not causing excessive emissions and let the market sort it out. When the oil is gone it is gone. We will have plenty of advance warning. If not get a bike or a horse.
All the doomsday GW rhetoric is just political babbling to scare the masses and keep them stirred up. I have not seen any change in the crazy driving habits in my area with all the GW talk.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/30/vampire.electronics.ap/index.html
If people had electric cars, and I certainly believe we would have to build many, many new fossil-fuel burning power plants, do you think people would also waste energy similarly.
It would be good to get people into smaller cars too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Good question. But the answer is more complex than one might assume. Most discussions of power supply involve only gross quantities of power required vs that available from various existing or potential (NPI) sources. What is missing is consideration of WHEN the demand occurs vs when generation is available. Fossil and, to a much lesser extent, Nuclear generation can be varied as demand requires (nuclear has a very low slew rate). "Renewables" such as wind and solar are available only at natures whim which bears little relation to demand. Since we cannot control the availability of (most types) renewable generation and have little influence on demand, there must be controllable generation in reserve to serve the demand when renewable generation capacity is dimished. Since the preponderance of controllable generation is fossil, increases in renewables require some percentage of new fossil generation as "back-up". This is quite expensive since utilities must raise enormous capital to build, and expend operating funds to maintain fossil generation that will provide low ROI, since it will operate only when renewables are not available. Discussions of renewable generation cost rarely mention these additional costs attributable to remewables.
The only alternative to reserve generation capacity would be energy storage, but the technologies available for this are limited, enormously expensive and have high energy losses. And while it is true that the availability issue is diminished somewhat when considered on a national scale, that consideration must include the energy losses in long distance transmission, however distributed it may be.
As always, there is no free lunch.
But mainly my question was rhetorical: why not think out of the box? And at the same time, let's plan for a future 50 years ahead rather than 5 or 15. That's what the automotive industry is doing these days, after all...which is something else that will heavily influence the face of the cars and trucks we see for sale in the years to come.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And yes, some form of economic manipulation will be required to change the economic landscape if higher cost power options are to be implemented. More important, the PUBLIC must be willing to PAY those higher costs for energy.
Regarding "true" cost, if the price of most any of our products were to reflect their actual burden to society and the environment, our consumption patterns would change dramatically! Our food supply would be in upheaval as the price of corn and factory raised beef, pork and poultry rose astronomically. And I'm sure that the mythology and popularity of corn ethanol would quickly disappear allowing us to pursue REAL alternative motor fuels.
And if farmers had to pay for all the chemicals that leach into the rivers and lakes. And if food manufacturers had to pay for many health issues. And if lawyers had to pay for increasing everyone's medical payments by running up malpractice rates. It sounds a little too complicated and wishy-washy on the effects. The fact is that people who are alarmed by GW only see negatives; while those who can accept change might see quite a few postives of GW.
IMO the average temp. of the Earth is too low. Life and human population density is much higher in warm and tropical areas. So maybe I'm in favor of paying the utility companies more to burn fossil fuels.
And at the same time, let's plan for a future 50 years ahead rather than 5 or 15.
The general public and politicians rarely ever implement anything that looks out more than 10 years. If the government wants an energy plan for 50 years out, they should start investing more heavily (i.e. Manhattan Project size) in developing fusion technology.
That's what the automotive industry is doing these days, after all...
Well not Ford and Chrysler as they're trying to figure out how to survive the next 5 years.
As far as I know the auto manufacturers are working on clean diesels, hybrids, electric, and H2 energy sources all of which come back to oil, or (mainly) carbon-fuel based electricity generation.
The challenge for mankind is to develop an energy source that is not carbon-based. I just don't think wind and solar will ever get you enough energy to satisfy the growing population. The future energy source is going to have to be nuclear of some form, to continue growth in a modern society. Or we figure out how to drill (maybe a large solar-powered laser?
Sorry, can't buy that. More efficient vehicles can make those "other reasons" that are increasing miles driven more feasible.
For example, if people live 50 miles away from work, as opposed to 10 miles away, I doubt that they will say that more efficient vehicles were the driving force behind that decision.
They almost always say that the reason for living farther away from work is better neighborhoods, better schools, larger houses available at more reasonable prices, etc.
The bottom line is that more efficient vehicles make driving less expensive, and thus make it feasible to locate 50 miles away from work in pursuit of those other goals.
(And while people may say that they hate commutes, from what I've seen, they hate small houses and iffy schools even more, especially if they have children.)
Interestingly, for all of the complaints about high gasoline prices, today gasoline takes a smaller percentage of household income - even with higher prices - than it did in 1962, when gasoline was supposedly so cheap.
Chrysler's sales are more a testament to an existing dealer body, SOME loyal customers, and plain old inertia.
Unfortunately, it appears as though the second reason is growing smaller every year, and the third reason is sputtering.
For mankind to ascribe goodness to his ability to affect any complex system that he does not understand is arrogance in the extreme. We don't know what the consequences of our influence will be or how fast they will occur, but we now know that we have an influence and it would be folly to assume that it is benign.
Its sort of like cavemen riding in a aircraft on autopilot who discover the cockpit. In their exploration they may eventually affect the plane's flight, but if they assume that they know what they're doing and do not return the controls as they found them, they will likely have a bad day!
Just FYI, most folks who are paid to think about the power industry and environmental issues and plan for the future now envision a decentralized future, without the enormously vulnerable and inadequate transmission infrastructure we have now, but with home-based generation instead. That could occur in many ways which are rapidly reaching viability, starting with hom generation from existing natural gas supplies, but moving out from there in various directions.
In such a future, which the talking heads seem to think represents a very likely scenario, the costs of generating electricity (or hydrogen) for personal cars CAN come way down both in terms of money and environmental impact.
Hey folks, oil hit $96/bbl today! Yippee! Anyone besides me longing for an automotive future NOT powered by oil?! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've been fighting a flaky carb all week on my leaf shredder so I'm about ready to swear off gas!
Come on 120 dollar a barrel oil. :surprise: