« BIO Releases New Report on Sustainable Agriculture to Support Growing Biofuel Industry | Main | Shell Canada Announces Efficiency Improvement in Oil Sands Processing »
Survey: 3 Out of 4 Americans Want Detroit and Washington to Impose 40 MPG Fuel-Efficiency Standard
21 November 2006
 |
| Support for increasing fuel-efficiency standards. Click to enlarge. |
Fully 78% of Americans want Washington to impose a 40 mile per gallon (mpg) fuel-efficiency standard for American vehicles, according to a new Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) national opinion survey released by the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI).
Ninety percent of Americans expect gas prices to rise again “in the near future,” with nearly half (46%) “definitely” expecting a resumption of higher fuel prices.
According to the survey, 70% of Americans say they are factoring “expected future gasoline price increases into consideration in thinking about buying a new vehicle.”Forty-five percent say they are now more likely to buy a “hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle” than they were six months ago, compared to 30% who are unchanged in their plans and 24% who are less likely to make such a vehicle purchase.
These findings should be a real wake-up call to any auto executive in Detroit who is hoping against hope that Americans will fall back in love with gas-hog vehicles. What Americans are saying to American carmakers is that they are ready for change. We know the technology exists for higher fuel efficiency that will save money, reduce this nation’s dependence on foreign oil and diminish the pollution linked to global warming. What Detroit needs to realize is that low gas prices have not—and will not—lead to the demise of the now very strong and continuing demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles. If American carmakers make that wrong-headed gamble for a second time, it may just be the last losing bet they can afford to make.
—Pam Solo, Civil Society Institute President and Founder
Other results of the Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted for the Civil Society Institute include the following:
- 76% think US automakers have been blind to US consumer needs and tastes;
- 50% think that Japan is ahead of the US in hybrid or other fuel-efficient technologies, 36% think the countries are roughly equal and 6% think the US is ahead.
- 85% support White House pressure on automakers for reducing “energy consumption and related global-warming pollution”;
- 66% support Federal incentives for automakers in return for increasing investments in fuel-efficient technologies;
- 90% want automakers to start selling more fuel-efficient vehicles that they make or sell overseas but do not offer in the US; and
- 74% support federal gasoline taxes devoted to renewable energy R&D.
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted among a sample of 1,016 adults (509 men and 507 women) age 18 and over, living in private households, in the continental United States. Interviewing by ORC was completed during the period of November 9-12, 2006. Completed interviews of the 1,016 adults were weighted by four variables: age, sex, geographic region, and race, to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total adult population. The margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the sample of 1,016 adults. Smaller sub-groups will have larger error margins.
CSI has conducted more than a dozen major surveys since 2003 on energy issues, including vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, global warming and renewables. CSI is the parent organization of 40mpg.org and the Hybrid Owners of America.
Resources:
November 21, 2006 in Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6902353
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Survey: 3 Out of 4 Americans Want Detroit and Washington to Impose 40 MPG Fuel-Efficiency Standard:
Comments
I really doubt 3 out of 4 Americans would still want the 40mpg mandate if they found out they have to give up their SUVs, V8s, luxury cars, 0-60 in 5 seconds, pickup trucks etc... etc... etc...
I'm sorry but this is BS statistics.
Posted by: freeze | Nov 21, 2006 11:26:13 AM
If you want to increase fuel economy, tax gasoline into oblivion. Fuel economy standards never work. They are just feel good laws so politicians can show that they are doing something about it. Automakers always find away around CAFE. Taxing fuel is the big stinker that no American politician would touch with a 10 foot pole because they know its suicide.
Posted by: Pastulio | Nov 21, 2006 11:30:10 AM
I think they talked to the same 78% of Americans who think Elvis is actually alive and working on a road crew in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Posted by: Matthew | Nov 21, 2006 11:36:45 AM
46% of the public also believes that the US president has the power to set crude oil prices amd 80% or more think we have been visited by aliens and that there is proof. I consider the public idiots and surveys writen in a way to produce the results that their sponsors want. It's long been known that simply rewording aquestion can produce exactly the opposite results.
I would love to hear these respondents explain just how automakers are going to magically produce 40 MPG wonders that the public will buy. If all these people want 40MPG vehicles, how come no one is buying them now? According to this survey, no automaker should be able to give away
a pickup truck or full sized SUV these days. When will these "Greenies" ever learn that half measures like conservation and enforced fuel mileages are nothing more than drops in the bucket that never accomplish squat.
Posted by: kent beuchert | Nov 21, 2006 11:38:39 AM
Considering the fact that 30-40 mpg vehicles are already well represented in the market (think Corolla, Prius, Hybrid Escape, etc.) I tend to agree that the preferences expressed in this survery are "fantasyland" ones -- performance, size and price the same, we'd all prefer 40 mpg to 20 mpg. But given the sacrifices needed to acheive 40 mpg in the real world... well... I'd say that the American consumer has already voted with his wallet.
The only possible other explanation is that people are hoping to end the "arms race," in which consumers feel they need bigger and faster cars to either keep up with the joneses on status, or keep up from a safety perspective -- i.e. "I'd love to drive a Smart, but I'm worried that with all these giant SUVs around, I'd get flattened in case of an accident." If rigorous fuel economy standards are mandated, SUVs will dwindle and crash compatibility will increase, making drivers less scared to drive the small cars they'd otherwise be happy to drive.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | Nov 21, 2006 11:49:18 AM
Theres a little book called:
HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS
This survey uses every trick in the book. Surveys like this really don't help anyone. It just hurts our credibility.
Posted by: Esperanza | Nov 21, 2006 11:49:42 AM
Now would that be 40MPG as measured by the EPA (Economic Protection Agency formerly known as the Environmental Protection Agency)?
And, anyway isn't it a moot question? What the American People want (whoever They are) does not matter, it is what are duly bought representatives decide.
Posted by: jcwinnie | Nov 21, 2006 11:51:34 AM
46% of the public also believes that the US president has the power to set crude oil prices
The president has no power to influence oil prices? Is that your position?
---
But given the sacrifices needed to acheive 40 mpg in the real world... well... I'd say that the American consumer has already voted with his wallet.
The Camry Hybrid hits 40 mpg -- with 190 hp, ample room, and a middle-of-the-road price -- all in a quality, proven vehicle.
40 MPG is a very timid target.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 21, 2006 11:55:18 AM
When will these "Greenies" ever learn that half measures like conservation and enforced fuel mileages are nothing more than drops in the bucket that never accomplish squat.
Why do you come to a website called GREEN Car Congress and insult "greenies"?
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 21, 2006 11:56:43 AM
I just don't believe this survey. I'm quite sure that 3 out of 4 americans would say 'yes, that would be nice. If we could get 40 mpg out of our cars. And yes, it should be possible with today's technology.'
But if you turned around and asked them what kind of car they drove and what their mileage was???
Posted by: Mike | Nov 21, 2006 11:58:18 AM
"Why do you come to a website called GREEN Car Congress and insult "greenies"?"
Why don't you face reality. Or do you prefer living in your own delusional fantasy land by only talking to the people that agree with you?
Posted by: durka durka | Nov 21, 2006 12:09:47 PM
Mike -
the "according" link points to the press release for what appears to be a separate survey conducted in Massachusetts only back in June.
Wrt the results of the present survey, I'm heartened to learn that so many Americans appear to have drawn conclusions that make sense in both energy security and climate change terms. However, I'm a little skeptical as well, because the numbers appear almost too good: did the participants really reflect a true cross-section of the US population? Were the questions in any way leading?
Moreover, survey respondents often don't realize the full implications of their statements. If all new cars on the market delivered 40+ MPG today, the resale value of the vehicle they already own would nosedive. Trading it in for one of the new models would be not just a step back to a smaller, less comfortable vehicle. It would also be quite expensive.
Unless the Democrats decide to jettison CAFE altogether in favor of higher fuel taxes, a sensible approach would be to raise the fleet average fuel economy slowly, predictably but irreversibly. Start with 25, then 30, then 35 etc. with 3 years in-between each step because that's how long it takes to revise a vehicle model. In addition, define a new per-vehicle minimum roughly 5MPG below the new mandated average. This forces carmakers to improve the fuel economy of their highest-margin vehicles first, allowing the technology to trickle down to the high-volume models a generation later. If you push too far too fast, the domestic auto industry will be successful in killing any legislation related to increasing mandatory fuel economy.
On a parallel track, manufacturers of automotive fuels and lubricants would have to support this transition to higher fuel economy, which implies lower sales volume for them. Since turkeys don't vote for Christmas, this inevitably leads to premium products that make up the difference via higher margins. Examples include standardized biofuel and xTL designer fuel blends plus synthetic engine oils, all of which must be compatible with modern exhaust gas aftertreatment technologies as well as legacy vehicles still on the road. Again, this takes considerable time. Try to push too far too fast and the lobby will be successful in killing the legislation.
On the upside, reduced demand volume would mean the US would no longer be constrained on refinery capacity in summer. It should no longer be necessary to import expensive finished gasoline from Europe and elsewhere to make up the difference.
A second critical factor for success is that lawmakers must leave it up to these industries HOW they achieve the policy goals. US politicians in particular always appear eager to push the sexy technology du jour (presumably with campaign contributions attached) instead of articulating the desired macroscopic outcome.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Nov 21, 2006 12:13:21 PM
Thanks, Rafael. Fixed.
Posted by: Mike | Nov 21, 2006 12:23:07 PM
The fact is that almost all Europeans think Americans are stupid.
I also live in E.U. and when me and my friends meet in the pub to drink 5 to 10 beers we often talk about whose car "drinks" less. And that IS a big difference between Europeans and Americans.
Posted by: Skrivo | Nov 21, 2006 12:43:17 PM
Why don't you face reality. Or do you prefer living in your own delusional fantasy land by only talking to the people that agree with you?
Posted by: durka durka | Nov 21, 2006 12:09:47 PM
Oh, you're trolling? My bad. I thought you were here to discuss the topic at hand seriously.
That "durka durka" line is funny, though - straight from "Team America: World Police".
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 21, 2006 12:43:42 PM
Pizmo --
The Camry hybrid is out, and the Prius has been out for years. And non-hybrid high-mileage cars have been around for longer. While hybrids are gaining traction (they allow us to eat our cake and have it too, to an extent, when it comes to trading off mileage and size/performance), the fact still remains that high-mileage vehicles make up a very small proportion of new car sales, and a vanishingly small proportion of the entire active fleet. Americans have voted and continue to vote with their wallets, in addition to their ballots, and our current total automotive insfrastructure is the result. Pointing to new models that sell in the dozens of units per month (Camry hybrid) hardly changes that.
That doesn't mean that the future has to stay the same, or that these survey results don't reflect optimism about gains in future technology. But they hardly seem to reflect a sober and rational response to the entirety of what it means to shift to 40 mpg under the current circumstances.
Posted by: NBK-Boston | Nov 21, 2006 1:38:23 PM
I don't doubt that the survey is correct; however, 40mpg vehicles are available now and the vast majority of the American public has no intention of trading in their SUVs for these vehicles. No doubt, they think SUVs should be required to get 40 mpg. But that's the point they want to give up nothing to get something. And they would prefer to blame the automakers for forcing them to drive low mpg vehicles.
Having said all that, I think higher CAFE standards will have a minimal impact on overall gas consumption and global warming. Even if we could drive up the mpg of new cars, that still leaves the vast majority of cars on the road with low gas mileage. The process of replacing all those cars with new higher mpg cars is simply too slow to have much impact.
A more effective approach is to make the ownership of existing low mpg vehicles intolerable to speed up the process of replacing those vehicles with higher mpg vehicles and getting people to drive less.
CAFE, while not harmful, simply will not get the job done in anything less than at least a decade. We don't have the luxury of maintaining the status quo for that length of time. Institute higher gas taxes that work their way up to $10 per gallon and/or institute gas rationing with tradeable gas coupons. The frugal will be rewarded two ways; they won't be spending as much on gas and they can make money trading their gas coupons.
Posted by: t | Nov 21, 2006 1:41:22 PM
Hey, troll: Next time you fill up your gas hog, remember: Usama thanks you and hopes you come back soon for more.
Durka that.
Posted by: dimitris | Nov 21, 2006 1:48:21 PM
Gasoline rationing - NOW!
Posted by: Lucas | Nov 21, 2006 1:53:19 PM
Skrivo: I'm not American but I can tell you Europeans aren't any smarter. They've just grown up in a land that has very little oil of its own and streets that are so narrow only a bicycle will fit. They also live in towns that were designed before the automobile was even invented. Don't confuse history and necessity with intelligence. I'll stay off the topic of pomposity, arrogance and Euro-snobbery.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 21, 2006 1:54:20 PM
Kent & durka durka are fine examples of why external costs a la carbon tax need to be phased in over time.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Nov 21, 2006 1:55:30 PM
Setting worldwide crude oil prices and "influencing" them are vastly different.
You could blow up a pipeline from a major producer (example: Nigeria & their rebel problems) and influence the price. No one person in the world can "SET" the price.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 21, 2006 2:01:30 PM
I think that 3/4 of the American public really meant is to have large cars and SUV's that are capable of 40 mpg. Large car is synonymous with America. Small cars would be considered un-American. Hopefully technology will eventually deliver 40-mpg-6000-lb SUV's. Meanwhile, all automotive engineers: full throttle ahead. Y'all have got a lot of work to do!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Nov 21, 2006 2:09:40 PM
By the time 40mpg is available for large and powerful SUVs, if ever, we will want even more powerful and larger SUVs. The problem is not the technology; the problem is that Americans raise the bar every time the technology is improved. This is a treadmill and we will never get to decent gas mileage.
Posted by: t | Nov 21, 2006 2:18:28 PM
One other thought. The auto companies should welcome a cap on available gasoline and/or higher gas prices because this will increase turnover. As long as they have to guess what oil prices will do, they will go back and forth between higher mpg vehicles and lower mpg vehicles.
Posted by: t | Nov 21, 2006 2:21:08 PM
40mpg 6000lb SUV with fast acceleration...I welcome that. Then I would be able to pick up a 2500lb sub-compact with decent acceleration and close to 100mpg fuel economy.
Gas rationing is my favorite choice. Up to X gallons you get the standard price...above that you get the highly taxed "gas guzzler" price. Then they can remove the "gas guzzler" tax from the vehicles and apply it to the people who actually guzzle the gas. Carpooling? Then anyone in the car can use part of their ration when they get gas. Driving with a spouse or other licensed drivers all the time? Share your gas ration...seems reasonable to me since you are likely to be both going to the same place in one car anyways. This way you can still buy your oversize SUV if you want but you don't pay a penalty unless you actually do use more than a "reasonable" share of gas.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 21, 2006 2:30:57 PM
No one person in the world can "SET" the price.
Huh, did anyone anywhere ever claim that they do? Or is that a strawman?
Denial of an extreme strawman is used to shift discussion away from a rational evaluation of the relative power and influence of various actors upon energy prices.
===
Pointing to new models that sell in the dozens of units per month (Camry hybrid) hardly changes that.
What you said is "given the sacrifices needed to acheive 40 mpg in the real world". So what are those "sacrifices"? It's the top-selling automobile in the country, and the price point of the hybrid version is below the average price of a new vehicle. It has ample horsepower. So what exactly is the "sacrifice" that would be necessary to get most vehicles up around that fuel economy level?
As for the sales volume, this wensite has charts showing several thousand units per month, not "dozens of units".
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/us_sales_of_hyb.html
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 21, 2006 2:35:40 PM
Given the level of SUV sales in the US, I find this survey extremely hard to believe.
Posted by: Jeff | Nov 21, 2006 3:14:57 PM
Calm down boys.
If you want to fix economy standards - in a democracy, something else has to give and that thing should be emission standards.
If you mandate aggressive improvements in economy you had better give the manufacturers some time and allow them focus on economy or perhaps CO2 but don't expect them to improve emissions at the same time.
If you really wanted better economy you could relax the specs so diesel could could be used - like matching the latest or next Euro standards.
Higher taxes won't do it - in Europe we have fuel at approx $5 / US gallon and we have not got to an average of 40MPG(US).
There are a reasonable nummber of cars that get 40mpg(US) in Europe, but they are either very small, diesel or mid sized hybrids - cars most americans appear to prefer not to drive.
So what am I saying - freeze emission standards, perhaps allow diesel in all states and mandate better CAFE standards. You could back this up with a federal tax on fuel to pay for the research if you liked.
Posted by: mahonj | Nov 21, 2006 3:16:31 PM
I enjoyed reading these comments. Is the majority of Green-Congress readers or 75 of the American people disconnected.
We should rejoice. Isn't this survey exactly what we had hope for. The average American finally wants more efficient cars (40 + pmg), and is willing to stop buying American built gas guzzlers from GM/Ford/Chrysler. In fact, they are doing it.
This survey shows that a few months with $3+/gal gas is changing the acquired attitude on bigger inefficient cars.
Politicians with enough guts are needed to justify, sell and impose a progressive gas tax of up to $3/gal over a 6 year time frame.
With gas at $4+/gal, more than 75% would insist on more efficient cars, even 50+ mpg.
Celebrate and do not shoot the messenger nor your fellow Americans
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 21, 2006 3:24:25 PM
A large gas tax, w/price total floor and ceiling ($2.70-$6.50/ga gasoline & diesel, total), would likely make powerful 10-20 mpg new cars/trucks toys of the upper tier professionals, and the rich (5%). Existing vehicles w/similar fuel consumption levels would likely either be sold off, or stay with current owners as limited use vehicles (10-50 trips/1,000-3,000 mi per year). Pocket rockets (2,500 lbs curb, supercharged/turbo 300hp/300lbft max, Prius level aero, 6 speed AMT), w/variable engine profiles (max economy 120/120, mixed 200/200, max performance 300/300) would be a workaround.
___Those who DO use light duty trucks/vans/large MPVs for work, farmers, construction, delivery (bigger than pizzas, but not UPS lorry size), can get rebates for fuel costs. It would be advantageous for rebates to be scaled, and linked to equiping vehicles w/fuel saving technology. The same would apply for truckers.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 21, 2006 4:03:48 PM
Patrick; I totally agree with you that a system of "gas rationing",or "base line allowance" to use our public utility's terminology, is the smart way to go.We in California already have driver's licenses that are credit card like, so it should be a fairly easy task to let the gas pump determine if your card (or your rider's)allows you x amount of gas for the base price, then every gallon above that at a price that encourages economy, and is earmarked to promote fuel efficiency. Richard
Posted by: Richard C Burton | Nov 21, 2006 4:24:25 PM
Harvey D,
Cold snap this winter, likely return of hurricanes, Iran jitters, Nigeria and Venezuela uncertainties, initial lower OPEC output, hot summer, and wild card events will make for high fuel/energy prices next year.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 21, 2006 4:41:28 PM
Pizmo --
I misread the hybrid Accord numbers for the hybrid Camry numbers. I stand corrected on that sales figure.
Going forward -- we'll see where the average fleet economy goes over the coming years, both the average economy of all new cars sold, and the average economy of the total fleet in service (as best it can be estimated) as new cars enter and old cars are retired.
Up to now, I think it is hard to deny that Americans have chosen a pretty inefficient fleet mix, and pretty driving-intensive habits. This may change, and we'll see how those changes correspond to the attitudes reported in this survey.
My basic contention has been and continues to be that this survey overestimates the current American propensity to choose high efficiency, and probably does so by not supplying the people asked the questions with a realistic picture of what 40 mpg means or will mean in terms of price, performance or product.
Point of referense: The MSRP of the hybrid Camry is $25,900; its MPG is 40/38. It's total passenger plus cargo volume is 112 cu.ft. (1, 2). The MSRP of a Ford Five Hundred SEL with AWD is $26,080; its MPG is 19/26 and its volume is 129 cu.ft. (3, 4). Plus, Ford gives a better rebate off the MSRP.
The point is, with hybrids you either pay more money or get less car -- though you can make it up on fuel economy in the long run assuming the numbers crunch. That fact has to be made clear to survey participants, or alternatively, the R&D costs associated with going from the present state of technology to one where the production price differential does not exist.
That is not to say that hybrids are bad. Far from it. The costs of going over to hybrids is almost certainly much lower than the price of business as usual, in the long term. But the distribution of those costs across people and across time has to be made clear, and I don't think this survey did that.
(1) hybridcars.about.com/od/buyingahybridcar/p/camryhybrid.htm
(2) www.fueleconomy.gov
(3) autos.yahoo.com/2006_ford_five_hundred/
(4) www.fueleconomy.gov
Posted by: NBK-Boston | Nov 21, 2006 4:47:43 PM
Now that gasoline is becoming more expensive in the USA, and the average Joe is starting to grok that future prices are likely only to go higher, said Joe would certainly like his next pickup to get 40mpg--who wouldn't?
The problem Joe and the rest of us have is that the pattern of development in much of the country doesn't support viable alternatives to driving. If Joe lives on a cul de sac in the 'burbs, he probably has to drive just to get a half-gallon of milk from the store. His wife Jane is shuttling the kids all over creation for soccer practice, ballet lessons, and on and on. Joe drives 35 miles to work, alone in his car, fighting the traffic, burning gas in stop-and-go traffic. A hybrid car/truck would help reduce the waste, but only at the margins, I'm afraid. Green cars won't fix the wasteful use of energy that has been programmed into Joe and Jane's life by the urban planning malpractice of suburban sprawl.
Posted by: Nick | Nov 21, 2006 5:20:06 PM
This is funny stuff, no welcome level headed debate allowed. You must be a big oil hating, gas taxing greenie weinnie or your dissed.
Taxes, sure they would have the affect 0% chance of actually happening. You false outrage grennies are forgitting the poor working joe who's job is being outsource.
And while hybrid card(which I invest in) now make up a whopping 1.5% the F150 is still the top selling vehicle. Give American car makers incentive to make the SUV's/trucks more efficient and you'll see the biggest gains.
Thanks for the comedy though
Posted by: Richard | Nov 21, 2006 5:27:30 PM
One alternative would be to make consumers prepay for 200,000 miles of gasoline.
Using the Camry example, a bare-bones 4 cyl with automatic is 19,320 and a hybrid is 26,200 - a difference of a little less than 7,000. But take the rolling average of regular gasoline for the past year (2.64) and the estimated FE of the conventional 27 and the hybrid at 39, and it comes to 6,000 more for fuel for the conventional over 200K miles of driving.
Obviously there'd be much more to it than that, but the basic concept of front-loading fuel costs would level the playing field.
Posted by: jw | Nov 21, 2006 6:47:58 PM
"Americans have voted and continue to vote with their wallets, in addition to their ballots, and our current total automotive infrastructure is the result."
Hey, let's not forget the string-pulling big oils and cronies who have consistently subsidized Ameri-gas prices with aggression, spin marketing and... F E A R. Had these guys wanted to tolerate alternate fuel vehicles we'd have had Li-ion batteries and bio-fuel thirty years ago.
Just because you have a "vote" doesn't mean you are being given good choices to vote for.
Posted by: gr | Nov 21, 2006 6:52:02 PM
"urban planning malpractice of suburban sprawl."
These practices are only practical and desired by consumers due to cheap transportation fuels. A national plan to phase in a $3/gal gas tax at $0.01 per month over 25 years would gradually change these designs.
Just think, if the previous generation had the foresight and fortitude to do this after the last oil crisis we would already be there.
Posted by: Desiri | Nov 21, 2006 7:26:08 PM
What they really meant is that 3 out of every 4 Americans think that everybody else should br required to buy 40 mpg cars. Alternatively, they think that the water carburetor is for real.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | Nov 21, 2006 8:04:53 PM
Desiri--
Agreed. Gradual increase in motor fuel taxes would be good policy. Future development can and must be smarter. I don't know where that leaves the existing suburbanite stranded far from the office--telecommuting?
Posted by: Nick | Nov 21, 2006 9:25:00 PM
NBK-Boston wrote: Point of referense: The MSRP of the hybrid Camry is $25,900; its MPG is 40/38. It's total passenger plus cargo volume is 112 cu.ft. (1, 2). The MSRP of a Ford Five Hundred SEL with AWD is $26,080; its MPG is 19/26 and its volume is 129 cu.ft. (3, 4). Plus, Ford gives a better rebate off the MSRP.
The point is, with hybrids you either pay more money or get less car...
It would appear that the data you cite here kinda undermines your point. The extra 17 cu. ft. in the Ford may or may not be useable space, I haven't compared them closely. For most people, AWD is not wildly better than FWD. On the plus side for the Camry: It's a Toyota. Great NVH. Spectacular Mileage. Same price. If the Ford were half as much, that would be different. If the Camry were some ridiculous little micro car, that would be different too. But it's not. It's a big, powerful, comfortable, reliable 5 passenger car. That's the real point- You get a 40 mpg car and you don't have any serious sacrifice. All the Browns posting here sound like they feel threatened; what a horrible, awful country this would be if we didn't all have a God-given right to pay fifty grand for a 350 horse Escalade pimpmobile, fave of ghetto thugs and Republicans alike.
Posted by: George | Nov 21, 2006 10:16:05 PM
freeze writes: I'm sorry but this is BS statistics.
Because you don't like the results?
Posted by: George | Nov 21, 2006 10:17:56 PM
GR hit it. The american market is not driven solely by consumer demand (what I keep seeing as "people have voted with their wallets). The kabul of automakers, energy companies, and paving companies all have a vested interest in keeping people blindly addicted to automobile-centric life. Big industry most definitely shapes the reality through influencing politicians, plus marketing to the mass public that is substance dependent on main stream media worse than a daily hit on the crack pipe. Most americans buy what they are programmed to buy through advertising. The rich and powerful must be laughing hysterically at how the middle and lower classes are totally sucked in. The corporations tell us what to buy via marketing in magazines, TV, billboards, and radio, and we blindly open our checkbooks. What to label this consumer behavior...stupidity, blissful ignorance, brutal reality ??? Urban sprawl and 16 lane highways as far as you can see, one of the great outcomes of capitalism, eh?
Posted by: john galt | Nov 22, 2006 6:31:52 AM
>>Alternatively, they think that the water carburetor is for real.
Just waiting for the bait to be taken. ::popcorn::
Posted by: nemo | Nov 22, 2006 7:14:50 AM
Many on this site maintain that our gas guzzling ways are largely a result of mass programming by the corporations. Is the programming different in Europe? And if so, why?
Posted by: t | Nov 22, 2006 7:29:35 AM
Survey results don't lie, right? LOL
Posted by: Hydrid+E85 | Nov 22, 2006 7:56:35 AM
I think people should also look at NBK's earlier point about safety and the size "arms race". This is a major issue here in the US. I owned and drove a Civic Hybrid for two years, which got 40+ mpg, had no significant problems and generally was a wonderful car. Then my wife's parents, driving a Saturn SL1 (roughly the same size as a Civic), were killed by a drunk driving an F250 (who was nearly unhurt, unfortunately). All of a sudden I realized that 5-star crash safety ratings didn't mean much if your vehicle was 1/3 the weight of other vehicles on the road. We desperately need to match safety and MPG goals - it may be that some vehicles are just too small, and also that the large vehicles must be redesigned to reduce the damage that they do to smaller vehicles in crashes (there are some who think we should simply ban the large vehicles, but I think that is impractical for reasons outside this discussion; suffice it to say that many of the construction workers who can justify having a large truck are the same people most likely to drink and drive). In case you're wondering, less than a month after the death of my wife's parents I had traded the hybrid in for a 4300lb SUV, though at least I was able to get a diesel one and stay in the 23mpg range instead of 16. For everything but safety the Civic Hybrid was a great car.
Posted by: zach | Nov 22, 2006 10:01:09 AM
I had traded the hybrid in for a 4300lb SUV, though at least I was able to get a diesel one and stay in the 23mpg range instead of 16. For everything but safety the Civic Hybrid was a great car.
Unfortunately, you seem to be making an emotional decision, not a logical one. The 01-02 Civic had a driver fatality rate of 67 per million vehicle years - the same as all midsize SUVs (with 4WD) as a class. Most truck and SUV size/transmission classes fared worse than the Civic - sometimes by a substantial margin.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf
In the meantime, the safety technology in Civic has vastly improved since the 01-02 model years.
I'm sorry to hear about your in-laws. That's tough.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 22, 2006 10:54:19 AM
George: "freeze writes: I'm sorry but this is BS statistics.-- Because you don't like the results?"
Social scientists use the phrases "expressed preference" and "revealed preference" to make the distinction between what people do and what they say. Clearly, that survey found that a lot of people have learned it is PC to say cars should get 40 mpg, but they still go to the Toyota dealer talking about buying a Prius and drive home in a Sequoia.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | Nov 22, 2006 11:13:52 AM
It seems that drivers of F-250, Hummers (and similar monsters) have above average (relative) drunken driver occurrences than Civic (and similar cars) drivers.
Is it because they are more He-Man types? heavier drinkers, more domineering? warmongers, less educated? have more of an acquired attitude problem?
Has anybody done (or heard of) an in depth study on those drivers?
Who represents the most danger to the general public?
Many insurance companies are charging much more to fully insure those monsters. There must be a good reason. They have to pay when they drive over (demolish), hurt and kill others.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 22, 2006 11:43:40 AM
This is a really interesting discussion. I've been following GCC for a few months now, and haven't posted anything, but this topic seems a bit closer to the heart of the matter, so let's go.
Regarding the survey: I think it's great that 78% of Americans want more efficient vehicles and want a 40mpg requirement for fuel economy. I don't see why anyone would dispute that as being true. At the same time, it is likely that people don't understand what it will take to make that happen. This should not in any way diminish the desire of people to have that standard for fuel economy. While its great to talk about what people should do as far as buying smaller cars, and getting away from large gas guzzlers, etc, let's look at the facts of what people are doing. They want large cars, for comfort, carrying capacity, whatever reason, they want them. Let's work with this. If we know that the majority of large SUV's get between 10 and 20mpg, and yes, this may be optimistic, but work with me, then doesn't it stand to reason that even doubling this is going to be a significant benefit? If SUVs get twice the fuel economy, they will use half the fuel. If we have a large majority of SUVs in the country, then as those start to turn over in stock to more efficient ones, they will lower the amount of fuel used. Yes, this will take time, but we know that, so lets get started.
Now, there are all sorts of arguments on here about what it will take to get the fuel economy of a large SUV to increase. Let's look at these. For full disclosure, I'm no engineer or scientist, just curious and concerned. I also drive an SUV, with a V-8 engine, with a really cool fuel economy monitor on it that I watch all the time. The reason I got this SUV is personal, it won't help the cause and it's beside the point. The reason I got the V-8, does matter. The V-6 is standard on the 2006 Trailblazer, with a V-8 as an option, with Displacement on Demand. That's the key, the ability to shut off 4 cylinders when I don't need them, giving me the same average fuel economy as the V-6. I would never have gotten the V-8 without this option, for the simple reason of fuel economy, it wasn't worth it to me to have the additional power, but suck gas like a baby does milk. But hey, if I can get the best of both worlds, then awesome. If by having Displacement on Demand (DOD), then I can get 15-18mpg, instead of 11-14, that's great. This should be standard on all V-8 engines out there. For that matter, why can't larger engines be more efficient than they are now? If it has been possible to increase the efficiency of your standard midsize car, without shrinking the size of the car, or the engine, why is that technology not being applied to the larger engines? Is it because it can't be done? I don't think so, as the difference between a 4 or an 8 cylinder engine is simply the number of cylinders. Yes, there are timing and control differences, but the function is the same, combustion is the same, power transfer is the same process, just scaled up. Yes, it is more complicated to increase the efficiencies of how they work together, but it's not impossible. It's a matter of money. There is no incentive for the big 3 to change how they research autos. If they can give lip service to increasing efficiency by spending less R&D money to make smaller cars more effient, they will. This is regardless of the fact that they make their money selling large vehicles, and that's what they sell more of. It costs more to make them more efficient, so why would they do that? People on GCC say that there are cars out there that are this efficient, but people don't want to buy them, and this might be correct. If people have an SUV now, to carry their kids around, go to soccer games, whatever, and need a new car, will they be able to do the same thing with a smaller car, that gets better mileage, but won't haul their crap? Probably could, but won't. Give people what they are asking for, and people will buy it. People do want 40mpg cars, but they want them in a form that they are interested in buying. I'll be the first one to say that the minute an SUV comes out that has the same performance characteristics as my current SUV, but gets significantly better gas mileage, I'll sell mine and purchase that one. As to those who say that 40MPG is too high, or out of reach for large SUVs, I say why limit ourselves. If we look at all the technological achievements we have made in this world, from electronics to mechanics to physics, doesn't it seem a little odd that increasing the efficiency of a 6000lb vehicle versus that of a 3000lb vehicle is so impossibly difficult? Besides, if we shoot for 40mpg, or 50mpg, and only come up with 30 or 35mpg for large SUVs, is that so bad? That's still more than double what the average is now, so that means over time, a gradual halving of the oil used. Yes?
Ok, I am sure that I will get slammed for a lot of things I've said, and the way I live my life, and likely a lot of things, that's fine, bring it on. I just want to hopefully bring up topics to start a convesation about what people want, and why won't the auto companies see that and give it to us? People to a large degree, aren't going to change what they do now, in a dramatic fashion. However, at the same time, if given the option for something similar to what they have now, but more efficient, people won't turn it down, and will embrace it. This is not a short term fix, but until the Big 3 and the foreign auto companies, start to give the large percentage of people who do drive large vehicles, and are not willing to give them up, the option of increased efficiency, then there will be no long term fix either. I'll admit that I don't know how to force auto companies to do this, but I imagine it has to start at the cash register. Everything follows the money trail, and it starts with each of us, and our purchasing power. If we go with the companies that are starting to provide efficient larger vehicles, which at this point seems to be Toyota, Honda, etc, then the others will be forced to adapt, or go extinct, and yes, that would be a reference to the dinsoaurs of the Big 3, which I support, but only until something better comes along.
Alright, bring it on, food for thought, I only ask that you respect my opinion as much as I respect yours.
Posted by: Russell | Nov 22, 2006 11:52:13 AM
Is the answer more engine options? More diesels. More turbochargers. More hybrids? And yes more rationally sized large vehicles ie less body-on-frame.
Posted by: fred | Nov 22, 2006 12:31:14 PM
I do think that a significant portion, but certainly not all, of the large truck buyers are macho types who are predisposed to bad driving. Not all, though (except for Hummer owners where I think it is 100%), and in many cases someone may be a macho type AND truly need the truck for work. From a safety perspective, I think we need to:
1) Limit vehicles over a certain weight, maybe 3500lbs or so, only to people with spotless driving records. For very heavy vehicles over 5500lbs, maybe require several years experience and a somewhat more stringent driver's license. [Incidentally, the drunk who killed my wife's parents had crashed and totaled a different F250 on the same stretch of road two years earlier - talk about outrageous.]
2) Work heavily on vehicle compatibility. Honda and the Europeans seem to be doing this on cars, but I also think trucks/SUVs should be required to have low bumper heights and more "crash compatible" engineering. There is a limit to how much improvement you can make on the smaller cars. In many car/truck accidents the truck literally drives over the car. This can easily be prevented. High bumpers are kept mostly for appearance and offroad ability; but while I think many people have legitimate uses for trucks (hauling trailers or large cargo in the bed), I see hardly any who really use them offroad.
From an efficiency standpoint, I think we need to look not just at vehicle size/weight but also relative power levels. The US seems to think that all vehicles have to accelerate fast and cruise effortlessly at 80+ mph (not legal anywhere but Montana, and frowned on there). There are a lot of vehicles in production that could accomplish all their real-world goals with 2/3 or less of the engine HP that they have now, and in most cases they would get significantly better mileage if they did have smaller engines.
Posted by: zach | Nov 22, 2006 1:09:24 PM
If gas taxes are regressive, then why not an excise tax. If the state of California levied $5000 tax on the purchase of a new SUV and charged $1500 per year to register them, fewer of them would be sold without hurting poor people.
Posted by: SJC | Nov 22, 2006 1:52:23 PM
Zack,
A 3,500 lb curb weight limit would cut out D segment cars. For that matter minivans, and large wagons fall under the same catagory. Even some upper C segment cars would be caught, like the Nissan Maxima at 3,591lbs curb, would be restricted. A Chevy Impala is 3,555 lbs curb (classified D class due to cargo and passenger volume+seating for 6) would also be cut out.
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 22, 2006 2:19:43 PM
zach,
To reinforce some of your thoughts: look at the link pizmo provided. It is interesting to see that most sedans have a tendency to have higher multi-vehicle fatalities than single vehicle but large trucks have a tendency to have higher single vehicle fatalities than multi-vehicle. The Civic you used to have was statistically safer than the F-250 and the Saturn SL is the worst of the three.
pizmo,
kent said "46% of the public also believes that the US president has the power to set crude oil prices"
you responded, "The president has no power to influence oil prices?"
...so once again: influencing the price of oil and setting the price of oil are VASTLY different. No one sets the price of oil...many people, environmental, and political factors influence the price of oil (to varying degrees).
Please provide the data or evidence indicating where the president SETS the price of oil. The original assertion was NOT that the president influences the price of oil.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 22, 2006 2:23:20 PM
Gas tax increases have happened in the UK and in my opinion don't make much difference to the size of vehicles that people buy.
Gasoline in the UK currently costs 86 pence per litre which equates to $6.20 per US gallon. Diesel is higher at 92 pence per litre which equates to $6.64 per US gallon. Yet people are still prepared to buy large cars, even SUVs. I myself drive a VW Passat 1.8T which gets 28 USmpg, yet I'm still prepared to pay $90 to fill the tank. However diesels are much more effecient. My partner drives a 1997 Audi A6 2.5TDi and it can get as much as 45 USmpg on good runs. But still compared to US gas prices remains to be expensive to run in the UK.
In the UK prices just make driving a more expensive necessity. Public transport is only an alternative for the privelidged few who are lucky to live close to mass transit that serves a convenient link to work. Even for the most efficient cars high gas prices still make them expensive to run.
Prices in the US may feel like they are eye wateringly high in the US but are less than half price compared to the UK and is considered to be cheap.
Posted by: Scott | Nov 22, 2006 2:47:13 PM
Allen: my 3500lbs number was arbitrary. In the very unlikely event that this idea got political support, perhaps there could be some scientific basis for determining what the cutoff would be, or even setting a varying cutoff based on some other factors (bumper height, softness of crush zones, etc.). Unfortunately I expect this is only an academic exercise.
Patrick: I'll have to take a look. My point is mainly that while good engineering is crucial, it cannot overcome an enormous weight difference between vehicles. We need to make sure that the heavy vehicles are being driven safely, and given the huge number of heavy vehicles on the road I think there is a limit below which a vehicle becomes near suicidal. One reason you'll never see me riding in a "Smart" car in the US. (Though I might ride in one if I were in a country with a different vehicle mix.)
Also, I think that intelligent rational people (a minority of the population, but probably most of the people reading this forum) can make decisions on what their personal risks are. SUVs have significant rollover risk, which is more important if driven fast and carelessly; they also don't brake as well as cars, also important to the same crowd. I know I drive carefully and fairly slowly, so that wasn't a big concern. On the other hand, a more massive vehicle protects more against a crash from another vehicle of any size, so if your main concern is other drivers then it may make sense despite the dynamic drawbacks. If I were picking a safe vehicle for a teenager it would be different from the choice for me or another older, more sedate driver. Unfortunately I'm sure far more people consider the other driver to be the problem than the number of people who are correct in that belief.
Posted by: zach | Nov 22, 2006 2:49:15 PM
Scott wrote: Gas tax increases have happened in the UK and in my opinion don't make much difference to the size of vehicles that people buy.
Scott, if you compare the vehicle mix in the US with the vehicle mix in the UK, you will see that you are enormously mistaken. Here in the US, when the price of gasoline spiked to a bit more than $3/gal for a few months, there was a large decline in SUV and large truck purchases. When prices of fuel plummeted just in time for elections, people quickly started buying big again.
Posted by: George | Nov 22, 2006 3:19:08 PM
Regarding vehicle safety, it is not entirely mass related. A larger vehicle has a bigger crush zone, giving more time to decelerate the occupants in a crash. A larger vehicle does not have to be heavier, however. A 200+ mph NASCAR car probably weighs less than most cars on the road, but they survive some pretty nasty hits. I note that the vast majority of giant SUVs that I see on the road have only one occupant. SUVs are primarily marketed to insecure people who want to feel more "powerful".
Posted by: George | Nov 22, 2006 3:26:34 PM
When I look around, the average SUV driver in my area seems to be a woman in her early 30s to late 40s. Not exactly testosterone oozing, thrill seeking, "macho" men. Full size trucks on the other hand...I rarely ever see a woman piloting one of those.
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 22, 2006 4:12:10 PM
My vehicle is larger, higher, heavier, more powerful and faster than yours and I can crush most cars without getting hurt.
It is the commercial hybrid version of the new 8-wheel drive, V-12, 10-ton general purpose army vehicle.
Hummers and F-250 move aside.
This is not a video game. It is some kind of desease that almost 50% of the American male population has caught. It seems very difficult to cure.
My last monster was a 1977 Chrysler 440, V-8. It went 10 to 11 mpg but it would do 125 mph and float over the road like a slow board. It would take almost 1/4 mile to stop it. The engine blew up at about 50 000 miles. I switched to Toyota Crown, Nissan Maxima and Toyota Camry and never had engine problems since. The next one is going to be a Camry Hybrid or a Prius.
I've never missed the monster boat on wheels.
Most Hummer, SUV and F-250 owners don't realy need such large and heavy vehicles. A Camry 4-cyl hybrid is more than enough to go to work, go shopping, drive the kids to school and the ball game etc.
Those of us who still need the feeling of driving large vehicles could become bus or heavy truck drivers or weekend soldiers.
Posted by: Harvey D. | Nov 22, 2006 6:35:11 PM
Please provide the data or evidence indicating where the president SETS the price of oil.
Why would I do that? I didn't, nor would I make, such an absurd claim.
The original assertion was NOT that the president influences the price of oil.
No, your original assertion was that there's a lot of people who claim the president sets oil prices. If you could do me a favor and show me several examples of that, that would be great.
You miss the point, as I said, since if someone critiques the president and his policies with respect to energy, this strawman that you're using (ie, that people claim the president sets prices) is used to defray any serious debate about the ways in which energy markets are influenced/manipulated by people in power. Taking over the country with the world's second largest petroleum reserves would count as one thing which influences the market, to say the least. There's plenty of other ways of influencing price as well.
But if you're going to stick with silly strawmen which mischaracterize people's actual positions, then then you just end up with garbage. To deny that a president (and especially this president) doesn't intentionally act in the interests of higher fuel prices is patently absurd. Just look at the prices and how they've moved. It's not a coincidence, and there's clear logical connections between policies and results.
And, no, I have no interest in discussing this further.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 22, 2006 9:46:13 PM
On the safety issue, I think people vary in the degree to which they are concerned about passive protection -- meaning, the scenario in which one imagines being victimized by an "unavoidable" accident.
In reality, though, most accidents can be prevented. We pay far too little attention to being better drivers (the software) and far too much attention to having invulnerable vehicles (the hardware).
If people were truly concerned about safety, they'd work first and foremost to avoid driving in the first place. No matter how good of a driver you are, no matter how "safe" your vehicle, the simple act of going out on the road (and especially at higher speeds) is simply one of the riskiest controllable activities a human being engages in.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 22, 2006 10:00:41 PM
Russell:
Next year GM will begin sales of full-size pick-up and SUV with two-mode hybrid transmission. It is way more sophisticated and efficient drivetrain then in current Toyota hybrids, developed together with DC and BMW. Dodge and BMW models will follow. This transmission allows towing. Currently bigger variety of this transmission is widely employed on GM hybrid buses. We will see the sales numbers.
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 22, 2006 11:18:26 PM
Pizmo,
Most turob-libs who don't understand business and economics think that we went in to raise the price for oil companies. Ask and expert and they will correctly tell you we went in to keep it cheap for you the consumer addict. If we went in for oil at all, high % of people think we did.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 23, 2006 6:13:36 AM
Most turob-libs
Turbo-lib? Are you like 12 years old?
who don't understand business and economics
I understand both extremely well.
think that we went in to raise the price for oil companies. Ask and expert and they will correctly tell you we went in to keep it cheap for you the consumer addict.
So, I'm a "turbo-lib" and a "consumer addict". I see. So, if the intention was to "keep it cheap", how come precisely the opposite occurred? Now please lecture me about "supply and demand" and yammer some more. Then maybe you can go consult actual global supply and demand numbers for the past few years and try and find a logical correlation with price.
And thank you for proving my point, that the result of raising these issues is simply to resort to ad hominem attacks ("turbo-lib", "consumer addict", "you are clueless about economics and business"), as well as vague appeals to authority ("experts say...").
Unfortunately, I understand all these things quite well, and clearly your level of understanding is limited to talking points fed to you from forums that breed individuals who sent powder to people in the mail.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 23, 2006 7:57:49 AM
Andrey,
Not quite, but 25% improvement is still useful. One caveat is that the 25% gain over gasoline (25-30% efficiency) is within the lower range of high efficiency diesels (35-42%). It may come down to modern clean diesels (2008-2010) vs 2 mode hybrid (and perhaps upgraded version).
Posted by: allen_Z | Nov 23, 2006 9:18:27 AM
Allen:
I believe that for real high-duty applications (often towing and cargo hauling) diesel is way better, as commercial vehicles – all diesel – have proved. I hope clean diesel will be available soon in US for big pick-ups and SUVs. However, as all of us know, there are tens of millions of such heavy vehicles almost exclusively used as one-passenger commuter car. For such buyers two-mode hybrid seems to be ideal.
Posted by: Andrey | Nov 23, 2006 2:27:38 PM
Pizmo, yes only a turbo-lib uneducated in business typer person who defends moveon.dumbass would pump this crap about price that you are.
Take an economics class you might enjoy it and profit.
China and India are why oil went up. 20 yrs ago all bikes now millions of cars.
You think it got expensive, If Sadam had captured Kuwait unabaited he could have driven the price up 10x more than it went up.
Your 8th grade level arguments defy someone experienced in the topic. Though most of you fellow enthusiast are equally inept.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 24, 2006 5:51:03 AM
I'd respond, but first someone would need to translate that into English from Gibberish.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 24, 2006 9:12:36 AM
I didn't think moveon had an indepth analysis for you so your stuck.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 24, 2006 9:34:09 AM
I'm still waiting for that global supply and demand data correlated with price, "professor". Having trouble with that in the midst of babbling about "moveon" or whatever?
You must be quite traumatized by recent events.
Have a nice life.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 24, 2006 9:38:09 AM
we hold your breath I don't bother with people who don't understand the economics of extreme shortages and what that does to pricing.
We did have this little storm last year that cut off most gulf of Mexico oil for 6months and the price shot up from 50 to 80 on oil.
If you got out of High School you could do the Math on Sadam controlling Kuwait.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 24, 2006 10:00:51 AM
It would sure be nice if everyone drove more fuel efficient cars.
Posted by: riaalwtaafi | Nov 24, 2006 10:28:10 AM
This post appears to win the longevity record. No shortage of discussion fuel anyway.
One simple point: If we were driving vehicles propelled 100% by electrics - we would have far less concern for:
1) MPG
2) GHG
3) Geopolitics of petrol
4) vehicle size/weight
Of course the big oil boys want us to think EV, PEV, PHEV is still "down the road." In fact they're with us right now.
And Robert, most people know you cannot carburete water, you have to e-vaporate it first.
Posted by: gr | Nov 24, 2006 12:59:40 PM
Yes increased demand by China and India are certainly a factor among dozens, but this "Global War on Terror" chicken little BS farce is the big one.
Posted by: fred | Nov 24, 2006 1:12:21 PM
Yeah I am big oil and I do want you to think that.
I also invest in alternatives energy and think electric is great. Other than the Telsa $100,000 car the average joe cant afford what's being offered for sale?
Posted by: Richard | Nov 24, 2006 1:15:24 PM
Richard:
Not much on the market yet that's able to replace your main family car, but if some of the other options are used then the industry will get a chance to grow. It's partly up to the consumer.
What's being offered for sale?
Conversions: do it yourself or hire someone.
NEV's: for getting arround to do errands (good as a second vehicle)
Electric Motorcycles,Scooters and bikes. - short/medium length commutes and errands
If we don't buy them, they won't build them and survive long enough the build cars.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 25, 2006 1:48:54 AM
gr, yes electrics CAN eliminate those concerns - but a significant problem is that most electricity in the US and China (two of the most energy hungry and growing economies) comes from coal, perhaps the worst possible fuel from a GHG perspective. A fleet of electrics that are indirectly powered by coal just moves the pollution to a less visible source, and may on the whole increase the overall pollution due to the inefficiency of generating and distributing the electricity and then charging the car batteries (or other storage medium). Biofuels are very interesting because they bypass the need for solar-electric generation (to avoid GHG creation at that end) and may, on the whole, be less harmful from a GHG perspective.
Posted by: zach | Nov 25, 2006 9:44:26 AM
Even when the power is generated by coal an EV is still cleaner than gasoline cars. Biofuels may be much better than their fossil equivalents but you are still creating the pollution where people live and breath.
Posted by: Neil | Nov 25, 2006 7:56:29 PM
It's good to know that there's broad-based support for higher fuel economy standards.
Posted by: pizmo | Nov 27, 2006 11:24:16 PM
Fuel efficiency standards are an example of real bad economics. Our public policy should be a heavy tax on low mileage cars and a tax rebate on high mileage cars. Tax bad stuff and reward good stuff - it ain't that complicated. This tax should be imposed every year with the car is re-registered through the state DMV. The tax schedule should be adjusted every year over a period of a decade or so until we achieve mileage averages of over 80 MPG. This is easily attainable right now with Full Plug-In BioDiesel Hybrids. See the success of the U.S. DOE funded PNGV program from the late 90s.
Posted by: Daniel | Dec 4, 2006 10:02:56 AM
Low mileage cars and biofuels .... is this not the answer?
marcusfielding@googlemail.com
Posted by: marcus fielding | Dec 31, 2007 8:12:21 AM
I find the majority of this discussion elitist in nature.
References to the diminished mental abilities of anyone not participating is particularly offensive. Try to broaden your focus and understanding of the general population. I do however, have some questions.
1. Where does this rebate/tax money come from? - My pocket or yours.
2. Who will subsidize my dear old granny, living on social security in a small town without public transportation? - Or doesn't she count by virtue of being retired and poor?
3. How do you like the increased costs hidden in much of the food you purchased today? Costs created by the diversion of corn to ethanol plants.
One final thought. This is a complex problem. Most of the posts attempt to quantify it as a simple "one answer fixes all" problem. Do a complete analysis.
As usual our representatives have taken the make everbody feel good approach. And the president signed it!! There is teamwork.
Posted by: Marsh | Dec 31, 2007 11:39:47 AM
