« GE Introduces Hybrid Locomotive Prototype to Public | Main | US Firm to Build $150M Ethanol Plant in Philippines »
Automakers Rally US Citizens to Oppose Higher Fuel Economy Standards
27 May 2007
by Jack Rosebro
Beginning this Memorial Day weekend, members of the auto industry are rolling out a comprehensive campaign to convince Americans to oppose proposed increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and to pressure their elected officials to vote down such proposals.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) has launched a website (www.drivecongress.com) that encourages citizens to compose messages of protest against “unrealistic fuel economy increases” to be hand-delivered to elected officials. AAM represents BMW, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
The website allows users to insert statements provided by the AAM, such as “I value fuel economy, but I also want many other attributes in my automobile like safety, passenger and cargo room, performance, towing, hauling capacity and more” or “Rather than setting a harmful mandates [sic] like the one being proposed, the government should encourage the use of alternative fuels like ethanol, and provide incentives for consumers, like me, to purchase alternative fuel autos.”
The Detroit News reports that the campaign will also include at least a million dollars of radio ads in ten states that have a high percentage of truck and SUV owners.
The AAM’s efforts are bolstered by parallel campaigns from DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, each of which has brought a dedicated website online to help with the campaign.
According to GM’s website (drivingamericasfuture.com), CAFE standards “deter innovation”; “have no near term effect on oil consumption”; “foster competitive disparities that discriminate against US automakers”; and are “a 1970’s solution to a 21st Century problem.”
The website cites the steady rise in US oil consumption as an indicator that CAFE standards have failed, but does not calculate the level of consumption that might exist if such standards had not been enacted.
DaimlerChrysler’s password-protected website (www.grabdemocracybythehorns.com) is described as a “grassroots advocacy website, a legislative activation tool that provides employees, retirees, dealers and suppliers with a means to conveniently contact elected officials about the issues that concern you, your family and our company.”
CAFE standards were enacted in 1975, when Congress ordered automakers to more than double the fuel economy for passenger cars from 13 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon within a decade, which the industry achieved. Since then, Congress has regularly considered increasing CAFE standards, but has not approved a fuel economy increase for passenger cars. Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) increased fuel economy standards for SUVs by 2 percent per year, rising from 21.6 miles per gallon to 24 miles per gallon by 2012.
May 27, 2007 in Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (117) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/18843856
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Automakers Rally US Citizens to Oppose Higher Fuel Economy Standards:
Comments
I don't understand what the problem is. look around at the rest of the world and fuel economy is already much higher than what the proposed standards are to be. most of these companies just don't want to bring the technology over the big blue.
Posted by: barry | May 27, 2007 3:32:31 PM
Shame on them.
Increased fuel economy is EXACTLY where they should be going - not ethanol or Iraq or Iran.
Just make cars that use less fuel.
Europe can do it, Japan can do it. Soon enough China will be doing it.
American engineers can do it - it is just marketing and management that need to get with the program.
Posted by: mahonj | May 27, 2007 3:45:33 PM
Talking about the auto industry in major denial. Higher CAFE standard should have been enacted 10 years ago, and that would have saved the Big 3 in a big way.
Oil prices have waxed and waned, thus can't be depended solely as the means for improving fuel efficiency.
Plus, there is a long time lag of years between the rise in oil price and auto industry introduction of fuel-efficient vehicles. Meanwhile, the public always wanted bigger and more powerful vehicles, and the automakers want to produce those for higher profit margin.
With CAFE, the automakers are forced to produce a significant numbers of smaller cars having higher fuel efficiency without necessarily incurring any extra development or production cost, and the public thus will have more choices of fuel-efficient vehicles to buy. No need to dabble in expensive hybrid technology just to get higher mpg numbers. Just downsizing the vehicle fleet and making 'em more aerodynamic, instead of making SUV's with super-duper large bore engines, having the in-your-face aerodynamic of a brick, would vastly improve the CAFE number.
Posted by: Roger Pham | May 27, 2007 4:24:20 PM
This is practically suicidal. Not just environmentally, but in terms of American industrial competitiveness. Not to worry, oil prices will soon provide the education (by 2x4 over the head) the spoiled American SUV driver and the truck-pushing automakers desperately need. And if oil prices don't do it, the coming carbon tax regime certainly will.
The worst part of this type of shameless corporate propaganda is that it frames the issue as a zero-sum tradeoff of comfort and functionality vs. efficiency. The truth is that efficient cars are actually better, more functional and more convenient. And dealing with the efficiency challenges would position the automakers as global technology leaders and protect them against their gargantuan liability exposure in the coming post-carbon world.
The shareholders should revolt against this arm-dragging stupidity before they lose it all.
Posted by: BlackSun | May 27, 2007 4:36:37 PM
What was the famous line? Playing the violin while Rome burned?
"To do something trivial and irresponsible in the midst of an emergency; legend has it that while a fire destroyed the city of Rome, the emperor Nero played his violin, thus revealing his total lack of concern for his people and his empire."
Posted by: Ender | May 27, 2007 4:49:56 PM
Holy cow--is this the brainchild of Bob Lutz? It sure sounds like his handiwork.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | May 27, 2007 4:53:04 PM
...take the market rules into account.
There is no need for a law that regulates fuel consumption of each car.
There should be only strict emmission rules!
The rest is would be done by the price of fuel and the money people want and are able to give for the gallon.
Posted by: Michel | May 27, 2007 5:00:36 PM
Black Sun: Apparantly you didn't read the article, because it was not only American auto makers that are resisting higher CAFE standards. And you speak of a "carbon tax regime". What regime is that? I have not heard or read of a single viable bill, or any other legislation, that would impose a carbon tax on American consumers. I think you may be out of touch.....
As far as fuel prices go, my vehicle is greater than 50% business use, so I write off my fuel costs every year. Fuel costs don't concern me, because you and every other American taxpayer is buying my gas.
Posted by: Mike | May 27, 2007 5:31:08 PM
I agree that the CAFE standards should have been raised years ago, it would have saved us from our own greed and driven technology.
Also, the market is now correcting that error and the big three are learning the hardway. How stupid can they be?
Posted by: Paul | May 27, 2007 5:33:15 PM
WOW pass the crack pipe Green freaks!!!
American car companies and Japaneese companies are making the guzzlers we want. Anybody check the fuel milage on the new Tundra pickup. LOL
Carbon tax will go down in flame, just like strick cafe standards. Shoot most tools are driving sedans with over 200hp, it's far from just SUV's you idiots.
Posted by: Richard | May 27, 2007 5:37:26 PM
Mike
And just where do you think that those foreign car companies sell the most cars? That's right, in america. So of course they're going to oppose legislation like this in america. Well I say, show me where I can help get the bill passed to raise the CAFE standard. These companies just ticked me off. Is there anyone out there where I can start forking money over to to start an advertising campaign against this campaign?
Posted by: flabby | May 27, 2007 5:49:29 PM
Thank goodness Honda didn't sign their name to this crap.
Posted by: flabby | May 27, 2007 5:52:36 PM
Just goes to show you how little respect Big Auto has for its customer! They believe that with a big PR campaign they can convince the American driver that mileage goals are not needed. This has always been the answer by Big Auto, plow more money into lobbyists, lawyers and ad men to control the industry, and not where it would really do the most good...R & D.
These are the people who have the the majority of U.S. citizens talked into driving huge SUVs at 16 mpg knowing the price increases by Big Oil were on the way. Right now they are in the process of dumping their gasoline SUVs at discount prices which will destroy their CAFE contracts and they know they cannot meet the standards without changing their business plan to include efficient smaller automobiles. An area where the margin is smaller than selling huge trucks and SUVs.
America, don't fall for this crap! It will not serve you well and will create another set of problems down the line; I suspect the problems will be expensive diesel engine/large auto related as that's what they are setting up to sell as an answer to fuel economy. Instead of gasoline powered huge SUVs they will attempt to sell diesel powered huge SUVs and claim how good the mileage from 16 mpg SUVs to 20 mpg SUVs are.
I suggest everyone demand their Congressmen vote for the new CAFE standards because that's the only chance we have to hold Big Autos feet to the fire of good sense.
Posted by: Lad | May 27, 2007 6:01:00 PM
One of the reasons I have a Honda Civic Hybrid.
Posted by: Lucas | May 27, 2007 6:03:18 PM
This is an interesting coalition of automakers. And it includes some that already have fuel efficient vehicles (Toyota and Mazda).
Given Jevon's Paradox, I'm curious what the effect of the CAFE standards was on consumption when gasoline prices dropped below $1 in places in the late 90s.
Posted by: Cervus | May 27, 2007 6:13:42 PM
With this website you can send any message you like - I am going to suggest that the 50mpg standard ought to come in the year 2020 and not 2030.
Jesus. I already get 50mpg. Why are these people so (*&(*& stubborn. This is so lame....
Regarding the foreign manufacturers, they merely state that AAM represents BMW, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen. They don't state whether all of these manufacturers support this ham-handed attempt to influence Congress...
Posted by: eric | May 27, 2007 6:17:24 PM
CAFE is a failed policy. Why do you want to extend it? Because it makes you feel good?
P.S. Thanks for pointing me to the web-site Jack.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | May 27, 2007 6:17:56 PM
Cervus:
Nice one on the Jevon's Paradox reference!
In my economic experience, Jevon's Paradox has been used as a reason to ignore CAFE requirements (or at least leave them where they are) at national policy level as a means to reduce fuel usage for reasons inherent in the paradox itself. Rather, most economists propose fuel taxes to decrease consumption. Personally, I oppose an incease in any tax ;), but the fact that they work is well established, and would probably be the best way to approach the problem.
Posted by: Joff Pentz | May 27, 2007 6:24:43 PM
Has the automakers lost their F---ing minds. This campaign is the most ridculous this I have ever heard of. They should take the million dollars wasted on the this stupid campaign and put it to better use. Like building a real full size truck that gets a minimum of 40 mpg. CAFE standards should have been increased every ten years since the 70s or until someone comes out with a new type of engine that uses a renewable source of energy.
Posted by: neptune | May 27, 2007 6:26:58 PM
Everyone use their page to send letters to senators recommending INCREASING CAFE standards… unless of course they filter their emails to remove messages that do not conform to their propaganda needs.
Posted by: Ben | May 27, 2007 6:45:37 PM
Looking at this page http://www.autoalliance.org/fuel/?PHPSESSID=d82675ce8faca9ab3d388ea01715697f
I have to say I like "Motivate consumers to conserve fuel and to consider buying one of the many fuel-efficient autos on sale today." So how do you do this, fuel taxes, stick a carbon tax on the fuel. CAFE does not address peoples behaviour like a fuel tax would. To avoid a major shock to people ramp it up over a few years but I feel this would really change peoples behavior. If you know gas will cost $6 or more what would you look for in your next car.
Oh don't like that, want the somewhat (compaired to other western countries) cheap US fuel? CAFE is a cop-out for politicians whe fear the backlash of a fuel tax. That would be most of them BTW:
Let me explain for those that think CAFE is a great Idea:
The median age of a passenger vehicle in the US is almost 9 years. So a new car today may well be used for 18 years, more considering that cars are better built now than in the early 90's which would be some of the oldest cars in the current "fleet". That 35 MPG CAFE doesn't kick in for over a decade. So we won't get the 35 MPG average in the vehicle fleet for about another 25-30 years years or more. Consumer demand for higher MPG would bring this about much quicker. Fuel tax, yes the AAM will hate it too.
One last thing, stop blaming "Detroit", lots of automakers are building fuel hogs including Toyota (AAM member).
Posted by: Tim Russell | May 27, 2007 6:48:09 PM
I say let the CAFE backlash begin. Protesters with picket signs in front of your local Toyota dealer will help them get their name off this piece of conservative crap legislation in a heartbeat.
Nobody can save Detroit from the own $ demise orchestrated by conservatives who'll be the first in line asking for another taxpayer bailout. I say let them rot in economic hell before I'll pay taxes to bail out a conservative cause.
At least the Jap's listen to customers, but they're already making $ billions, so greed must be their motivation. If Toyota bails, this CAFE thing will fizzle as it should.
Down with Toyota Greed!
Finally, if the AAM thinks the current proposed CAFE increase is extreme, let's show them what EXTREME REALLY is!
I say 50 mpg by 2015. It's techincally possible, if only we can get those anti-technology, doom and gloom, cry baby conservatives out of the way!
Posted by: Mike Mangan | May 27, 2007 7:36:56 PM
lol, CAFE is a failed policy. Yeah right. That's why fuel efficiency has doubled since the 70s and we still get to drive big, comfortable, safe vehicles. Get a clue.
Posted by: DD | May 27, 2007 8:18:26 PM
CAFE may soon be irrelevant when there isn't enough gasoline to go around. When the minimum operating level is subtracted from gasoline stocks there is only 1 to 1 1/2 days supply margin. If a hurricane knocks out the Gulf of Mexico rigs or Texas refineries and that margin disappears.
Posted by: tom deplume | May 27, 2007 8:19:19 PM
Automakers were also in Europe against the EU 120 G / KM CO2 Rule as "impossibel" but foregot that AUDI himself produced in the Year 2000 already the AUDI A2 1.2 which had a record of only 81 G / KM of CO2 without hybrid ( better then the about same interior size Prius2 with 104 G / KM ) .
So today it is eve more easy to produce efficient ars !!
C. Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 27, 2007 8:51:17 PM
Why those rats!
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 27, 2007 8:54:44 PM
Come on. CAFE isn't a failure, WE ARE! CAFE ain't jack if we stand by while these companies fail to do anything about their fuel-inefficient vehicles and convince the politicians they shouldn't do anything either. If you think this is bunch of bull as I do, write your congressman, tell your friends, hook up with groups like 40MPG.ORG, post your frustraions on You Tube or any blog or forum. As Michael Moore would say "DO SOMETHING"!
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 27, 2007 9:24:06 PM
Garbage!!! I'll never buy a car that doesn't get 30+MPG
Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2007 9:57:28 PM
Hey my 1994 sedan can do 30mpg, it is using 30 years old carburator engine, and with a 3-speed automatic gearbox, furthermore it was built by a small auto maker.
With all the latest technology available, whats so difficult to do 27mpg??
Posted by: rexis | May 27, 2007 10:40:50 PM
Last summer I drove a 1997 Ford Escort wagon with about 130+ thousand miles on it. It wasn't in the best shape. I drove it for a few hundred miles during my vacation in New England.
It consistently got 35mpg. Equaling my year-old Corolla.
2007 Ford Focus w/ 2.0L Duratec is 27/37 EPA. Not bad.
2007 Chevy Cobalt, 2.2L Ecotec, 25/34. Decent.
You know, it's not as if the domestics don't sell small vehicles that get competitive mileage. It's the huge SUVs that folks here despise so much.
Posted by: Cervus | May 27, 2007 11:31:40 PM
C. Spangenberg,
The Diesel Audi you refer to (1.2 TDI "3L", i.e. 78 US MPG) was MUCH smaller than a Prius and much less powerful. It was also extremely light thanks to aluminium body and lack of ALL kind of "luxury" (including power steering !). The fact is, it was definitely extremely fuel-efficient... but nobody here in Europe wanted to buy such a tiny, relatively expensive car. Fuel is not expensive enough, even here, to make such a product economically sensible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A2
Posted by: François | May 27, 2007 11:48:36 PM
Well it would be a ton easier for the carmakers to reach the goals if...
1 The customers werent idiots.
2 The customers werent lieing about everything in every poll ever polled.
3 If people actualyed valued fuel economy enough to pay for the research as well as the components.. unlike sound systems powerful engines.. fancy tires,, fancy paint jobs.. fancy hubcaps...
4 Ifcustomers no matter how hard the carmakers tried still always view higher mpg as cheaper econobox.
We constantly tell car companies to build cars we never buy from them.
We say shrink the engine yet.. do ANY of you when buying a car choose the smallest engine option?
My old stupid friend campaained for years for a fast food joinnt to sell healthy food.. he comes around with a big byger and I ask why hes not buying the healthy menu... because it doesnt taste as good and I cant afford it he says... we truely are on the eve of destruction.
Posted by: wintermane | May 27, 2007 11:57:10 PM
Mike:
"And you speak of a "carbon tax regime". What regime is that?"
Actually, Rep. Pete Stark already put forward a proposal for a $10/ton tax, which is way too low. The true cost is $30-$80/ton. But either way, it's in your future. The next U.S. administration will face strong pressure to make America responsible for its actions for a change instead of being the global exception to every rule.
America: 5% world population. 25%-30% of world energy and resource usage. Shameful.
"Fuel costs don't concern me, because you and every other American taxpayer is buying my gas."
Exactly. Thanks for making my point for me. You and the cretin politicians who cater to you are the ones who need to get hit over the head with the 2x4. Your comeuppance is on its way, buddy.
Posted by: BlackSun | May 28, 2007 12:04:04 AM
America: 5% world population. 25%-30% of world energy and resource usage. Shameful.
So... what? You want us to use the same amount of energy as the average Chinese?
Total World GDP 2005: $44.7 trillion.
US GDP for that year: $12.4 trillion.
So it seems that 5% of the world's population also produces 1/4 of the world's economy. In that light it seems reasonable to me. (Source: World Bank.)
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 12:14:15 AM
Toyota supports the AAM campaign because it will help them to capture market share from GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler in the future. It will allow the big three to continue a little longer focusing on making the cars that will be impossible to sell 7 years down the road when it is $6 a gallon.
The big 3’s push for this strategy is just as intelligent as a little boy on a cold winter day choosing to pee in his pants because he freezes. I suddenly feel a lot more confident that Tesla and others like them will make it big in the US at least.
Posted by: Henrik | May 28, 2007 1:03:26 AM
I just sent both of my senators and my congressman the following message:
"I favor higher fuel economy for light duty vehicles through legislation. I believe fuel taxes are more effective than CAFE limits.
If raising the fuel taxes by $1 to $2 per gallon is not politically possible, I favor a strong increase in CAFE limits and elimination of the E85 loophole. "
Posted by: Bill Young | May 28, 2007 4:26:17 AM
Car makers can easily reach the goal. They dont need extra time.
Simple grooving of gasolene or DI diesel engines will reduce fuel usage by 20% plus. Technology is available and granted US Patent to Mr Somender Singh of Mysore, India.
He has single handedly modified more than 150 cars/motor
bikes/buses with sucess and some of these have done more than 100,000 mile. He has followers in US and other countries, who have modified their cars successfully.
The technology,if adopted in the manufacturing stage of the engine will cost very little (may be less than $20).
Details of the invention and car modifications can seen at his web site www.somender-singh.com.
Posted by: K.S. Viswanathan | May 28, 2007 4:28:51 AM
So we've all just got to buy from the other guy...sure does limit your choices though.
Posted by: dave | May 28, 2007 4:51:52 AM
Hi Cervus what You write about the Audi A2 1.2 is wrong . The Car looks smaller from the Outside than the Prius2 but it has about the same maximum interior volume and in fact you can put two Bicycles upright inside you can not do with the Prius2 at all !
Even the ordinary gasoline version with all luxury inside took me less gasoline than the Prius2 which in practical test with "Auto und Straßenverkehr" needed 6.6 and in a test with "Auto Motor Sport" needed 6.8 L on 100 KM which in Europe is not exceptionell at all .
So a equal size Year 2000 nonhybrid Audi 1.2 has 81 G / KM CO2 where a 2007 Prius2 gets only 104 G / KM .
Something to think about ?! isn`t it ?
C. Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 28, 2007 4:52:50 AM
This "concern" with "global warming" is not only un-patriotic, but un-godly.
Ever think it might be the work of the Almighty, and the US is blessed whereby we consume 25% of god's resources?
What does it matter, because Christ is coming soon anyhow.
Posted by: M. Jeremiah | May 28, 2007 5:00:05 AM
Pass a law in U.S. similar to the New Canadian one.
Directly charge the Manufacturer on a sliding scale
$ 100.00 for every mpg under the CAFE per vehicle
and give a credit for every mpg over .
Max limits either way of $ 4000.00 .
Only certain vehicles sold to say Construction companies
or Heavy Trucking could get any variance from this.
They could be building Hybrids NOW , if they really wanted to , And 'with maybe a "performance" switch'
these hybrids could be real Performers for those who
want to 'burn rubber' ..
Posted by: Laurence | May 28, 2007 5:04:58 AM
Is the AAM stuck in 1998 or something? I guess we're forgetting the utter collapse of GM (how many billion did they lose again?) and DaimlerChrysler (bought for $36 billion in '98, sold for $7.4 in '07) thanks to the sharp decline in SUV sales since the rise in gasoline prices started in 1999.
I don't know if it's just me, but I wouldn't want to be following any kind of plan that those two losers sign on to. Frankly, I'd be staying well away from them considering the, ahem, wonderful job they've been doing for their companies and their workers so far.
It's like they want to lose money...but then again, maybe they're short on a bunch of GM shares or something. Who knows in the magical world of the AAM?
Posted by: Aaron | May 28, 2007 5:13:57 AM
Jevon's Paradox!! Aren't you the clever one. One small problem: reality. Annual miles driven did not double after CAFE doubled the average mileage.
Posted by: DS | May 28, 2007 5:59:39 AM
Cervus i have got the interior volume of the A2 its 390/1140 Liter and the Prius2 408/1210 . So there is no big difference except that the Audi A2 1.2 gets without hybrid much more mpg than the Prius2 ( Audi 1.2 has 81 G / KM CO2 where a 2007 Prius2 gets only 104 G / KM )
C. Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 28, 2007 6:04:07 AM
we should have the choice, Detroit is ailing because of Healthcare cost and wages. Both are extremely high compared to the competition. The top ten list of vehicles sold is 2 to 1 american.
You guys would have reasonable arguments if you learned to have a clue about business.
Increasing the hybrid credits is the way to go!!!
Posted by: Richard | May 28, 2007 7:32:43 AM
The people of the US have a better material lifestyle because they are less oppressed than those in other coutries, and in general more honest and fair.
I don't believe in Global Warming, the Ozone Depletion Theory, or other bogus theories used for economic and political control.
Points on the Ozone Depeletion Theory
1. Only occurs at South pole
2. No one else except the few with access to the South pole could investigate
3. Soft UV sunlight creates ozone
4. Hard UV sunlight consumes ozone
5. With months of darkness at the South pole, there is less ozone, a hole is not unexpected
6. No real environmental damage was discovered
7. So no manufacturer of fluoro carbons could be sued
8. But fluoro carbons were banned world wide, except in some 3rd world countries (Gee so dangerous, yet not so dangerous they can still sell it)
9. So manufacturers make much money selling replacement refrigerants
Yes, I do believe some in the academic committee are corrupt, and most politicans are corrupt.
A carbon tax is wrong, it would only feed the corrupt politicians more.
Posted by: Lawrence Miller | May 28, 2007 8:17:49 AM
... and people wonder why I have so little hope for the future of humanity...
Posted by: Tony Thompson | May 28, 2007 8:38:32 AM
Thanks for the website to action:
I doubt my message will get through via their service, but I also sent the same letter to my representative via snail mail:
I value fuel economy, so I urge you to PASS the fuel economy laws. Without this, our American Auto companies will stagnate in the changing world where energy efficiency is becoming much more important. Foreign companies will overtake and destroy our auto industry if they continue with their current wasteful fleet that will be shrinking in the market place. American jobs are at stake if american auto companies keep losing market shares to better cars, with more safety, technonoly, performance, towing/hauling capacity, AND FUEL ECONOMY!
This legislation is need to tell the auto companies to get off their butts and stop complaining, and do something productive for the American people and the world.
Posted by: occ | May 28, 2007 9:15:19 AM
We only have CAFE because incentives (through tax policy) are anathema to politicians. A fuel tax/income credit scheme could accomplish our goals with no net new taxation and without mandating fuel economy. It's the market-efficient way to go. Where is the leader who will have the courage to propose a sensible policy and the savvy to survive the attacks of his opponents?
Posted by: Nick | May 28, 2007 9:19:56 AM
C. Spangenberg:
Um... look at that response again. It wasn't me. It was Francois.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 9:20:07 AM
DS:
Annual miles driven do not have to double. Overall usage can still increase because more people can afford to drive, even if the number of miles driven per person remains the same. I am simply asking if the historically low gasoline prices during the 90s may have enhanced that effect. Given that's when the SUV craze really took off, I think it's a reasonable idea.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 9:24:10 AM
I submitted the following on the website's comment form, sent to my senators Wyden and Smith:
Today's automobiles are dangerously overpowered. Increasing CAFE standards, even if this means reducing "performance" standards, will save lives. The vehicle technology with the most potential to improve safety while meeting CAFE standards is the Plug-in Hybrid.
(Plug-in Hybrids incorporate a hi-tech battery pack that provides electric driving range of a few dozen miles at low speeds up to 30 mph or so. Some 'start/stop' hybrids do not convert to plug-in hybrid status.)
The LA Times published an article regarding Plug-in Hybrids titled, "The 500 MPG Solution", but the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg' description applies to the technology. Plug-in Hybrid potential far surpasses hydrogen fuel cell.
Plug-in hybrid technology is applicable to all vehicle weight classes (unlike fuel cell), matches perfectly with rooftop photovoltiac solar panel systems, (invaluable in an emergency or utility grid failure), affects land-use planning whereby other fundamental means of urban/suburban travel benefit - walking, bicycling, mass transit.
Increasing CAFE standards is essential. Congress should not doubt that achieving 50 mpg is possible and desirable.
Posted by: Wells | May 28, 2007 9:48:10 AM
You might want to send these messages directly as well. This website might try and filter out messages that don't agree with their point of view...
Posted by: eric | May 28, 2007 10:32:35 AM
Is it wonder we're F*ed up today! Here's a White House Press Q&A from May 2001
Q: Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day.
LINK
Posted by: DS | May 28, 2007 10:43:38 AM
"This website might try and filter out messages that don't agree with their point of view..."
It doesn't. Recently, comment guidelines had to be added, but that's it.
Posted by: Jack Rosebro | May 28, 2007 10:44:49 AM
Let these automakers give the people what they want. This
is still a free country and cash is king. If our citizens
want to squander their assets on inefficient transportation,
then let them. They are just supporting, not only our growing
trade imballance, but our dependence on foreign governments
who subsidse rogue regimes who look to take us out any way
possible. This is the addicts lifestyle. Use now, ignore
the consequences, that will surely be our downfall, untill
later. This stuff is not going to be around for ever, so lets
get it, while the gettings good. We don't have to buy oil
if we don't want to. It's just that we've gotten so used to
the good stuff that it's hard to cut back or go without. Let
the consumers vote with their money when they purchase those
new EV's and PHEV'S. You will see the ICE manufactures jump
ship and get on board with these soon to be proven technologies.
You don't need to legislate common sense. You just need to actually have some to begin with. Educate consumers.
Posted by: William | May 28, 2007 10:48:52 AM
Sorry Cervus - so it must be directed to Francois
C.
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 28, 2007 10:49:34 AM
Why are we even debating these absurd incremental mileage increases when the stakes are so high and when we need radical (radical) change? The billions spent securing energy in the Middle East could have us driving in whatever the next generation of clean cars is within a decade. Wake up and smell the Cronies before you wake up and smell the collapse of all our ecosystems - including the ones that provide you with air, water and food. http://www.theyrule.net
Posted by: Chillo | May 28, 2007 10:57:32 AM
Even the ordinary gasoline version with all luxury inside took me less gasoline than the Prius2 which in practical test with "Auto und Straßenverkehr" needed 6.6 and in a test with "Auto Motor Sport" needed 6.8 L on 100 KM which in Europe is not exceptionell at all
You can always get horrible mileage even with a Prius when driving like an a**hole or at maximum speed on Autobahn. The fact is, it needs less gasoline than a Audi A2 in the same conditions.
So... what? You want us to use the same amount of energy as the average Chinese?
Actually, even if nobody wants it, you will be forced to use less energy per capita. Nature is limited, think about it.
Total World GDP 2005: $44.7 trillion.
US GDP for that year: $12.4 trillion.
So it seems that 5% of the world's population also produces 1/4 of the world's economy. In that light it seems reasonable to me.
That kind of reason is not expandable to the planet, that's the problem.
Posted by: François | May 28, 2007 11:00:15 AM
I sent the following message to my senators using the AAM website:
The US automobile industry is once again putting their short term profit ahead of the security and health of our country.
We need much higher CAFE standards with no loopholes and no ineffective credits such as that for flexfuel vehicles.
We are faced with the most serious threats to our society that we have ever seen, global warming and peak oil. Reduced energy consumption is an absolute requirement for our modern society to survive.
As well as increased CAFE standards we need a carbon tax, a floor price for oil, electrically powered mass transit, energy efficiency building codes, population stabilization and a trade policy (tariffs) that forces our trading partners to comply with our environmental and energy policies.
Posted by: glenn | May 28, 2007 11:08:04 AM
Francois:
There's a difference between limits imposed by nature and the government-enforced limits that some here seem to advocate. The implication is that "it's not fair" we use so much energy. Well, life isn't fair. And that's not a good reason for imposing limits. The world's resources are not evenly geographically distributed.
I was reading in Nature about some new undersea mining startups. There are ores around extinct thermal vents that have ore concentrations an order of magnitude higher than anything you find on land. Copper, silver, iron, just sitting on the seafloor. And getting it is supposedly less energy intensive than digging in the rock.
The only limits we have right now are technological ones, and we're always pushing those boundaries faster and farther.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 11:22:54 AM
"Actually, Rep. Pete Stark already put forward a proposal for a $10/ton tax, which is way too low. The true cost is $30-$80/ton. But either way, it's in your future."
Legislation being proposed is different from legislation being signed - and it won't be. No politician is that suicidal, despite what they say - remember, they have to get elected first, and most Americans agree with me. It's in my future if I move to Europe, but not in the US.
"America: 5% world population. 25%-30% of world energy and resource usage. Shameful."
And our GDP is the largest in the world. We worked for the right to use those resources. Don't like it? Move somewhere else, because we aren't going to change.
"Exactly. Thanks for making my point for me. You and the cretin politicians who cater to you are the ones who need to get hit over the head with the 2x4. Your comeuppance is on its way, buddy."
The Politicians write these laws because that is how they remain wealthy. The last time they changed the tax laws, all they did was change the section 179 deduction for SUVs from $100,000 to $25,000. Thay means you paid for most of my Land Rover, and when I buy fuel for it, that $70 comes out of your pocket. Once again, if you don't like it, then move, because it isn't going to change. On the contrary, the deduction increases every year. And all the politicians, Dem and Rep, take advantage of it, so it isn't going to change. There is not going to be any comeuppance. Fuel costs $10 gallon? Write off. Carbon tax? Write off. My Land Rover costs $100,000? Write off $25,000 and accelerated depreciation. I guess it makes you fell powerful to threaten some vague comeuppance at the hands of the environment, but it won't come "buddy". The majority agrees with me, people aspire to drive large cars with crap fuel mileage, and that's the way it is. I won't get "hit over the head with a 2x4" because for that to happen, the politicians will have to take it also, and they won't let that happen - they like their lifestyle too much.
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 11:42:06 AM
US GDP includes Health Care, at likely the highest cost in the world. Since health care is like plant maintenance (maintenance of the workforce)it should not be included.
Posted by: John Schreiber | May 28, 2007 11:58:29 AM
But Health care is included, because that is the way it is measured. And how do you know it is the highest in the world? If you are going to deduct Health care because it is plant maintenance, then you can only deduct it from the workforce, so the healthcare of everyone under 16 or that isn't seeking employment is still added in. It is certainly expensive, but the highest? Highest because of our population? Highest from expense. If a nation uses a single payer health care system, how do we find the correct numbers? Besides, if we decuct "plant maintenance" from every country, then some nations are under-represented.
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 12:40:50 PM
To respond to Mike's comments: People DO want to drive fuel efficient cars, they just don't know it yet! For example: My mother has a SUV, but she complains daily about the cost of gas.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 28, 2007 12:58:56 PM
If she wanted to drive a fuel efficient car, she would unload her SUV and purchase a fuel efficient car. I suspect that, in reality, your mother, like most people, just likes to complain.
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 1:02:58 PM
"And our GDP is the largest in the world. We worked for the right to use those resources. Don't like it? Move somewhere else, because we aren't going to change."
WORKED for the right? More like fought wars for the right. And we're fighting one now. How many lives per gallon? It's more than just a slogan.
How about when China has the worlds largest GDP? I guess it will be THEIR right, then. Either way, the comeuppance is still coming. You still need to have air to breathe and a climate that supports life. I don't care how many Americans vote for it, nature will not be fooled.
And 1.5 billion Chinese taking your attitude will turn the tables on America like you can't imagine. Enjoy your delusional free ride while it lasts...
Posted by: BlackSun | May 28, 2007 1:11:05 PM
Blacksun:
I suggest that if you really believe as you do, lead by example. Remember, you're a member of this "free ride". If you want to consume as much as the average 3rd world citizen, you're more than welcome to it. What's stopping you?
If you want to put solar on your roof and a wind generator in your yard and live off the grid, you can do that.
If you want to recycle vegetable oil into biodiesel, you can do that.
If you want to only use a single light bulb in your entire house, you can do that.
You have options. You can live as energy efficiently as you want. So use them, and don't lecture the rest of us on what you think is the right way to live. You sound like a street corner preacher telling everyone that they're sinful and they're going to Hell.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 1:36:59 PM
I amazed at the number of people who want to try to FORCE others to change their ways. Human nature is a cosntant; it won't change for long or amybe at all. It won't workl in any permanent way.
The USA has 5% of the population; it consumes 25% of the fuel; It also produces 30% of the worlds goods.
That my friends is called efficiency. Its not omething to demean with half a slogan, as th e totalitarians used ot do, but somnthing of which to be proud.
Francois thinks that humanity can't increase the pie to the size where everyone has enough to afford the US lifestyle, but that is an unproven assertion by someone who doesn't follow history.
Almost 50% of the world's larger population of today lives a lifestyle that only a handful of Kings could do as short as a hundred fifty years ago. If the population was the same size as then 100% of the world's population would ALREADY be at that lifestyle.
It is easy to see the means by which Energy will become easy to attain and goods will make everyone in the world as wealthy as the typical American of today.
Electrified ground transport; clean primary electrical generation will do that in a lot fewer than another hundred and fifty years. There are a half dozen technologies, any one of which would suffice, but all may or some combination of them WILL with certainty.
All you people so anxious to criticize should remember than the US auto fleet mileage was 13 mpg in 1981 and 21.5 in 2006, as published this week on this blog. Progress. And yet we don't have pregnant unsafe roller skates like the stripper A2 to drive; the vehicles have volume, safety crush zones, airbags, creature comforts, ABS, and stability anti-skid control.
The death toll from accidents is way down, outright in gross numbers, and especially in terms of miles driven per death. At the same time, the air we breath and the water we drink, is much cleaner than it has ever been. Reasonable compromises say I. America has made the right choices in a democratic thoughtful way.
PHEVs are coming as the battery makers and auto assemblers gear up to produce them. Stop jiggling their elbows; they have lots of good work to do.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | May 28, 2007 1:53:45 PM
Black Sun:
The funny thing about it is that if I am going to suffer from some comeuppance in the form of dirty air or a worldwide shortage of energy, you are going to suffer from it too. The difference is this: I wasn't some sort of environmental poser that pretended I didn't benefit from the standard of living Americans worked (fought?) for. The computer you are using to post, the home you live in, and the transportation you use are all products of the "delusional free ride". Let me ask you a few questions: Do you drive? Do you use purely renewable energy? When is the last time you formed your own compost in the backyard. Put your money where your mouth is and give it all up. You won't, because I know your type - long on talk and short on action. I may be delusional, but you're right there with me. Enjoy the "ride".
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 2:19:33 PM
If you want to consume as much as the average 3rd world citizen, you're more than welcome to it.That ReichWing talk radio brain fart is getting old! I drive a Focus and get better than EPA milage, my electricity provider totaly Green. Why should I do more? Way should I carry A*holes like you on my back?
Posted by: DS | May 28, 2007 2:38:50 PM
DS:
"Why should I do more? Way should I carry A*holes like you on my back?"
Because you don't have a choice.
Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 2:42:18 PM
if the CAFE standard wasn't frozen for the past 20 years or so, we wouldn't have to import oil from opec..
At the same time, the air we breath and the water we drink, is much cleaner than it has ever been.
wow is all i have to say.
Posted by: Charlie H. | May 28, 2007 2:53:27 PM
Every time I hear a quote like "And our GDP is the largest in the world. We worked for the right to use those resources." I see red because it's usually followed by yet another CIA backed coup or military invasion to remove one (often democratically elected) government in favour of some corrupt dictator who'll sell his country down the road for some american dollars.
I remember an old Get Smart episode where Laraby and the Chief are trapped in a air tight vault. When Laraby starts exercising the Chief tells him that he's using up the air. Laraby's response was that he's allowed to use his half of the air any way he wanted.
Posted by: Neil | May 28, 2007 2:56:23 PM
DS:
You make a lot of assumptions about me and never hesitate to engage in ad hominem attacks. But I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain how much you're wrong--I have described my own efforts in other threads. And you clearly have a lot of anger as well.
And Mike, you're really not helping matters here.
But I'm amazed this discussion has remained this civil for this long anyway.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 3:00:34 PM
Cervus:
I appreciate the fact that I am not helping, but you have to understand: these people are basically religious fanatics. You cannot convince them of anything that is contrary to their belief system. They take a small kernal of truth, create an apocolyptic fantasy, and worship at the altar of their scientist priests. If you disagree, they poison the well by labeling you a denialist. Try to convince a scientologist that they are wrong - you'll get just as far.
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 3:16:46 PM
"Let me ask you a few questions: Do you drive? Do you use purely renewable energy? When is the last time you formed your own compost in the backyard. Put your money where your mouth is and give it all up. You won't, because I know your type - long on talk and short on action. I may be delusional, but you're right there with me. Enjoy the "ride"."
Mike,
You know what your problem is? You just can't imagine that your actions actually have consequences, and that you might bear some responsibility. Therefore you look at other people and simply assume they must be hypocrites because they're not as careless and flip as you are.
Well let me answer a few of your questions: First off, I drive an efficient hybrid, which CO2 I still pay to offset. I also offset the carbon from my electricity and gas consumption, which cost about $250 for the last year. Every time I take a flight, I offset the CO2 from the flight. I participate in the LADWP's green power program as well.
Having said that, it's not near enough. I would like to use zero fossil fuels, and soon it will be possible. As soon as it's practical, I will do it.
But even if half the population did what I did, it still wouldn't be enough to offset the "I don't give a crap" attitude you are demonstrating here.
"You have options. You can live as energy efficiently as you want. So use them, and don't lecture the rest of us on what you think is the right way to live. You sound like a street corner preacher telling everyone that they're sinful and they're going to Hell."
Cervus,
It's not a question of sin, it's a question of short-term vs. long-term thinking. Sure, the babies don't want their candy taken away. But someone has to explain to them that they might have to get by with a little less candy now so they can have more later.
So if I sound like a preacher, maybe it's because I used to be one ;-)
But take issue with the message if you want. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there are unlimited resources and we can all use as much as we want for the rest of our lives with no consequences. Tell me Americans have some sort of divine right that doesn't belong to the other 6 billion people we share the earth with.
Are you really taking that untenable position, or do you just not like the way I told you the truth?
Posted by: BlackSun | May 28, 2007 3:23:50 PM
Mike:
I agree that a significant portion of the modern environmentalist movement has become quasi-religious in nature. However, I try pretty hard to keep a civil tone in my responses here. I admit I don't always succeed.
Making climate change and resource use an issue of morality rather than science or money-saving efficiency is one of those things that irritate me. Hence my response to BlackSun above. Speaking of whom...
BlackSun:
It's less the message that you're sending than how you are sending it. This matters a lot, especially for people who are unconvinced and don't like being preached at. Once you base these issues in moral terms, rather than more objective economic or scientific ones, you cross into the turbulent, muddy waters of subjective value judgments. Climate change is a serious enough issue without adding all that.
You even have Libertarians discussing the merits of carbon markets vs. carbon taxes, and concluding that carbon taxes have a much better chance of working. When even Libertarians contemplate a new tax, you know the issue at hand is serious.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 3:40:58 PM
CAFE works for the poor and for the atmosphere by forcing car producers to discount small efficient cars in order to be allowed to sell more large inefficient vehicles.Lets increase it and also create a co2 feebate that makes the buyers of gross polluters pay a rebate to buyers of efficient cars and then increase fuel taxes also.If people want to use the atmosphere as a dump,they should pay through the nose,I don't care if they believe global warming theories or not.
Posted by: middleoroad | May 28, 2007 5:23:40 PM
"Once you base these issues in moral terms, rather than more objective economic or scientific ones, you cross into the turbulent, muddy waters of subjective value judgments."
Cervus,
Normally I'm totally with you on that. But when people like Mike mock those of us who are trying to do something about the problem, I can tend to get a little emotional. It's one thing to be ignorant, or not be able to make a change. But to knowingly flaunt your destructive attitudes? That's beyond the pale.
I don't see a lot of difference between the arm-dragging of Bob Lutz and Mike who's glibly tooling along laughing about his subsidized gasoline.
Both are on the wrong side of history, and both need a serious wake-up call. One would prefer they listen to reason, but they may just need to be forced into compliance by regulation and legislation. Since we're in this thing together, it's more than a little upsetting for me watching them cheerily (Mike), cynically (Bob Lutz), and needlessly (both) trying to run us all into the ground.
Then there's social opprobrium. Until the regulations are written, my goal is to make conspicuous unsustainable consumption so shameful that it becomes subject to common public ridicule. That day will come.
And, yes, I'm glad to see the Libertarians finally discussing the taxes.
Posted by: BlackSun | May 28, 2007 5:45:14 PM
these false outrage CAFE freaks are some funny morons.
I get 30mpg therefore I warrant smug arrogant hollier than though comments. LOFL guess you can't say your rich and therefor arrogant.
30mpg or 44 in a Prius, your polluting. Your house is prob bigger than the average house in 1960 Polluting again. Using fossil fuel to post on a website polluting yet more. Shut up and let the free market determine what we drive. Your green leaves are brown.
Posted by: Richard | May 28, 2007 6:36:01 PM
Richard, ROTFLMAO, by free-market you mean your government subsidized fossil-fuel-burning middle-east-war-loving terrorist-feeding planet-destroying candy machine?
Posted by: BlackSun | May 28, 2007 8:04:23 PM
Then there's social opprobrium. Until the regulations are written, my goal is to make conspicuous unsustainable consumption so shameful that it becomes subject to common public ridicule. That day will come.
If you insist on using those tactics, then you'll find your job much, much more difficult. I don't like being preached at. When I was in college an entire family of them came and shouted about how sinful we were. How horrible we were. How we were all going to Hell. You act with a similar intent to these people. You want to shame us into adopting your lifestyle.
I don't take that kind of thing from anyone. Not them, and not you. It's no wonder that so many on the right accuse environmentalism of being a religion. It's taken on many of the same tropes. And it's futile to argue with a True Believer of any stripe.
I stand by what I said. As long as you're going to base these arguments in moralistic terms, you will get a response in moralistic terms. Science and economics cease being a part of the conversation. And those, IMO, are the most important things. They are the most objective truth we have.
We should stop using fossil fuels because:
1) They are a finite resource whose production will inevitably peak.
2) They produce harmful emissions.
Two objective facts. I don't need any other reasons.
Posted by: Cervus | May 28, 2007 8:59:30 PM
Previewing your Comment
Whatever. The "Market" as most conservative types keep raving about, is working against the naysayers. Gas Prices are averaging 3.192 a gallon anually. The Big Three is losing money in lost sales and their auto plants are closing. Toyota is close to becoming the #1 automaker in the world. Mass Transit ridership is increasing and there strong demand for hybrids. Even electric cars are making a phoenix-like comeback and read stories are folks who are designing engines that can run on water and compressed air. And what these guys got to counter this?! Flex Cars (some of them don't have tubochargers)that burn ethanol fuel inefficiently and unless you live in the mid-west, good luck finding a E-85 gas pump; Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars that won't be around for another 10-20 unless of course, they fuel it with water.
Yet, these folks are spend mass sums of money to convince our government that raising fuel efficiency standards WILL hurt them, even though what's happening is hurting them now. Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 28, 2007 9:13:07 PM
Won't the CAFE standards become academic once California gets its tailpipe emissions laws through?
Posted by: marcus | May 28, 2007 10:11:25 PM
Assuming they get approved of course...
Posted by: marcus | May 28, 2007 10:12:46 PM
Regarding the carbon tax, a tax of $100 per ton of carbon corresponds to about 25 cents a gallon of gasoline. It's not going to drastically change people's behavior.
Rep. Pete Stark proposes $10/tC increasing another $10 every year. That means 2.5 cents a gallon of gasoline the first year, 5 cents the next year, 7.5 the next year, and so on. You'd know that in ten years you'd be paying an extra 25 cents a gallon, and in twenty years, fifty cents a gallon (corresponding to $200/tC).
Goodness! Who could tolerate such high taxes? I'm sure everyone would rush out to sell their gas guzzler knowing that in ten years gas would cost another quarter. Not.
The truth is that carbon taxes would have to be much higher than most estimates of harm in order to motivate people to change driving behavior. Maybe they would have some effect on businesses or utilities, who are extremely cost sensitive and watch every penny. But the average driver won't even notice this level of taxation. Gas prices already fluctuate this much every couple of months without causing much difference in driving.
The only realistic alternative to CAFE is Peak Oil. If the apocalyptics are right and Saudi Arabia's oil production decline is permanent, if other oil producers continue declining as well, we're likely to see gas costing a heck of a lot more than 25 cents a gallon extra in the next couple of years. That will do far more to motivate drivers to conserve than the relatively toothless CAFE increases proposed so far.
Posted by: Hal | May 28, 2007 10:47:11 PM
Black Sun:
Making conspicuous consumption socially unacceptable? Have fun with that. You'll have to change every rap video, every video game, every tv show, and every pubescent boy's fantasy life before you get anywhere with that. Good luck...
In the meantime, I'm going to file my quarterly tax estimate with the IRS this week. Thanks for paying my $983.55 dollar gasoline bill this quarter.
Posted by: Mike | May 28, 2007 11:09:56 PM
Hi Peterson you are wrong : The Audi A2 has volume, safety crush zones, airbags, creature comforts, ABS, and stability anti-skid control.
C. Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 29, 2007 12:13:19 AM
We should stop using fossil fuels because:
1) They are a finite resource whose production will inevitably peak.
2) They produce harmful emissions.
Cervus,
Those are my reasons as well. Add to them the geopolitics of the Middle East. And climate change. Fuels don't burn themselves. Emissions don't arise spontaneously. It's a strictly human problem. What of people who are producing more than their fair share of emissions and using more than their fair share of finite fuels without paying the costs? What of the government policies which support them?
They cannot be excluded from the equation. It doesn't take an ethicist to see the moral dimension. You're acting as if calling a spade a spade is some kind of capital offense against reason?? I'd say it's the most reasonable response. Besides, we're not talking marketing here, it's an intellectual debate.
Speaking of religion, people like Mike are the Creationists who think God's going to somehow just keep making them more fuel to burn. Lutz is the pastor of their megachurch, and he doesn't want his tax exemption taken away.
It's not my job to convince them otherwise, any more than it is yours. But they are simply wrong on the facts. We'll all feel the effects of their inaction, and this time it won't take 30 years. Thought experiment: What if we could go back to the 70's and rewrite CAFE to have included light trucks? It'd be a different world today.
Automakers lobbying against increased standards presents an ethical problem of the highest order. It's also a serious political issue, seeing as America imports 2/3 of its oil. If it's wrong to speak up about it, than what's the point of blogs like this? Caring about it makes me a true believer??
In the end, it sounds like you actually agree with me, (but just don't say it too loud).
Posted by: BlackSun | May 29, 2007 12:27:29 AM
Hi Peterson if you wanted to have the tax gain for a 3 L / 100 KM Car in Germany you could noct order the A2 1.2with air condition because that would bring the car over the 3L border . But otherwise you could order it with all you like and the car has of course all safety measures . So i repeat the interior volume of the A2 its 390/1140 Liter and the Prius2 408/1210 . Therefore there is only a minor difference in Size except that the Audi A2 1.2 gets w i t h o u t hybrid much more mpg than the Prius2 ( Audi 1.2 has 81 G / KM CO2 where a 2007 Prius2 gets only 104 G / KM ) and opposite to the Prius2 you can put two bicycles upright in the A2 you can not do with the Prius2 which becaus of the heavy hybrid components allows only light freight .
C. Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 29, 2007 12:37:57 AM
Instead of fuel taxation, why not get the government out of energy?
I bet things would be a lot different if we didn't spend billions of dollars on a military presence in the Persian Gulf and other oil producing regions to keep the oil flowing and those regimes in power. Maybe it's time for Saudi Arabia and the UAE to spend their fortunes defending themselves instead of relying on Americans to do it for them (while stabbing us in the back at the same time...).
And get rid of those billions in subsidies and tax cuts and let all energy sources compete on the free market. With all these savings, we could give people a nice tax cut...they'll definitely spend it better than the government can.
Maybe once the truly free market price of oil is visible to consumers we'll see some changes for the better; individuals make better decisions than the government all the time, and this is no different. Get rid of government subsidies for oil and let the free market reign.
Posted by: Aaron | May 29, 2007 3:01:40 AM
Hey all-
I'm relatively new here. Forgive me for not knowing protocol... but this conversation is so fascinating that I can't help but jump in. I have a question: how do you feel about the following statement?
"We should meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Posted by: Tony Thompson | May 29, 2007 3:04:19 AM
Ok the FACT is to realy PUSH things you must go from the OTHER side.
In the us we need to drop income taxes death taxes and all that and go whole hog into vat taxes.
THEN we can tax ALL cars quite alot but tax better cars less.. better as in safer, more mpg,more ergonomicaly safe for the people in it, safer for pedestrians hit by them.. blah blah blah.
We as a people also have to do our bit.. too many cities underspent on roads and overspent on gayjrting far too many workers for the roads to handle.. gridlock MUST be treated as waste and PUNISHED SEVERELY.
Posted by: wintermane | May 29, 2007 3:31:48 AM
I suspect a cynical setup by the foreign car manufacturers to make sure GM and Ford go broke ;-). I mean, they have been building and selling fuel efficient vehicles for years in their home markets (OK Porsche not, but Toyota, Mazda en VW definitely yes, and even Mercedes and BMW sell cars like the A and B class, the smart the 1 series an dentry level 3 series), and now in the US they oppose higher mileage standards? It would make sure GM and Ford would go bust if and when US fuel prices rise dramatically, which at some point will happen, after which they would have the US market to themselves and they can bring in their fuel efficient models.
Posted by: Petroleo | May 29, 2007 4:54:00 AM
Yeah. I always viewed BMW, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen's membership with The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) with suspicion since these companies could produce good, fuel-efficient vehicles that could make the updated CAFE standards. What's worse than car companies that can't make good product? Car companies that work to sure that the other companies that can't make good product don't.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | May 29, 2007 6:45:39 AM
Tony: that would be a definition of sustainability. I have kids so that's my goal.
Posted by: Neil | May 29, 2007 6:47:54 AM
Hi Petroleo and Shields , here in Europe the Car Makers have the same view so i dont think that they do it to lead the american car makers in a wrong direction . They simply earn more with bigger cars ! Bigger , Luxury Cars need more fuel .
C. Sp.
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 29, 2007 8:39:57 AM
"Won't the CAFE standards become academic once California gets its tailpipe emissions laws through?"
CO2 is another way for the states to control fuel consumption in their state. The Feds control fuel economy and do not want the states to have any say in this.
CO2 is to CAFE what the Endangered Species Act was to controlling growth and protection the environment.
It is another way to get what you want when you can not change Federal policy. Conservatives talk about state's rights, but that has more to do with other things than setting energy policy.
Posted by: sjc | May 29, 2007 8:51:46 AM
BlackSun:
Yes, I broadly agree with you on scientific matters. However, I strongly disagree with your methods of trying to change peoples' behavior. I did visit your blog, read a few posts, and I think it's safe to say there are many areas where we disagree on social policy. But that is a bit out of scope for this site.
Posted by: Cervus | May 29, 2007 11:32:57 AM
Here is my posting on that stupid lobby's website. I hope they actually deliver it to the senators. Jesus I remember how Detroit HOWLED when the EPA mandated only undeladed gasoline circa 1980 and how they just screamed about mandatory airbags! Pathetic Detroit excuses for each mandate ordered, but all well worth enacting!:
"Dear Senator,
I urge you to RAISE the CAFE standards to greater than 30 mpg, across the board, including trucks and SUV's.
The current standards are inadequate, and despite the self-serving protests of auto industry lobbyists, not raising standards is no longer an option.
We can no longer, as a nation, afford to fund and indulge the gluttonous overuse of oil by the significant numbers of drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles.
Increasing CAFE can exist alongside the production of safe, desireable vehicles, as the Europeans and Japanese have well proven!
Please, RAISE CAFE NOW!
Posted by: Paul | May 29, 2007 2:22:38 PM
This article at MSNBC illuminates the problems as US automakers. Specifically, Ford.
The US auto industry hates abrupt change. They can't do it from an institutional standpoint. Ford has basically mortgaged everything and hired an industry outsider to turn the company around.
Posted by: Cervus | May 29, 2007 6:04:28 PM
Thanks, Neil.
Even though I don't have kids (yet?), sustainability is still the goal... thus, "We should meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
If one agrees with that, then, using the most objective 'tool' we have - science - we can derive a few (two, I think) things that have to happen. First, the ecological system upon which we depend can not be degraded. (Somewhere above there is a comment that we have the cleanest air and water ever -- I certainly hope there is some context missing around that statement! *Maybe* the US has cleaner air and water than any time in the last 30 years... *maybe*. But certainly not in all of history.)
Second, the social system can not be degraded.
With those two points... we can start to understand what we have to do in order to be sustainable.
So how does this relate to a discussion about CAFE? Well, it seems as though about half of the posters here believe that there should be no interference from regulators regarding mileage standards. But if the regulators aren't there to protect the ecological system necessary... then who will?
It seems to me that unless we are content with the idea of destroying the possibility of future generations to even LIVE, let alone thrive... then we ought to - at a minimum - support increased CAFE standards.
Is there a *logical* counter-argument to this?
Posted by: Tony Thompson | May 30, 2007 3:17:49 AM
Tony: I don't think anyone here (serious posters that is) will argue against the goal of sustainability. There are however multiple strategies to achieve that goal and CAFE is just one. Unfortunately I have yet to hear of a single strategy that didn't have some drawbacks. So, most of the arguments here are arround which strategy is the least worst. Personally, I think CAFE has too many loopholes to be effective. I would prefer to see revenue neutral gas taxes increasingly and predictably applied over time to trigger the market to respond with cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. I'd like to see the price of gas reflect its true cost.
Posted by: Neil | May 30, 2007 5:27:47 AM
Neil - Great point. There are many possible strategies, with an equal number of trade-offs. When I think about possible strategies, I like to ask three questions:
1) Is the strategy in the right direction to achieve sustainability?
2) Is the strategy a flexible platform (as opposed to a dead-end) for moving forward with new technologies, innovations, possible regulations, etc.?
3) Does the strategy provide an adequate (social, political, financial, etc.) return on investment?
If one can answer 'yes' to these three questions, then a strategy would seem to be worth pursuing. Sounds like with CAFE, there are some big questions about how to answer the first question... i.e. your concern with loopholes.
Posted by: Tony Thompson | May 30, 2007 8:50:10 AM
We have had CAFE standards for 30 years and they have accomplished nothing. For the last 20 years, the fuel economy of our vehicles has been decreasing under the CAFE regulatatory scheme. It is simply a stupid idea used by Demo's to deceive folks who care about the environoment.
We need to create a price stucture for fuel consumption where if you use more than an average amount, you pay more per gallon. This would create an incentive to buy smaller SUV's and sedans rather than crew cabs.
We conserve water and electricity with such rate structures, why not fossil fuel?
Posted by: Van | May 30, 2007 9:55:26 AM
I have not seen any analysis of what has and has not worked with CAFE. We have the history and information, we could do a complete analysis and figure out where to go from here, but that is too logical.
People would rather rant and rave and claim that they know the way with no evidence to support their views, just more opinion.
Posted by: sjc | May 30, 2007 10:03:08 AM
"encourages citizens to compose messages of protest against “unrealistic fuel economy increases”
If you could build in the year 2000 a car as big as the Prius2 ( as i have shown before for the Audi A2 1.2 ) with better fuel usage ( 81 G CO2 / 100 KM against 104 for the Prius2 ) fuel economy increases are not unrealistic .
B U T it wont change much the Peak-Oil Time- Frame because China and India have the Money to use all the fuel you save here for them .
And that will drive fuel prices up so much that you dont have to regulate anymore - prices will do it alone .
C. Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | May 30, 2007 1:21:18 PM
Think of all the vehicles our federal, state and local gummints buy and fuel. With that kind of buying power, its an outrage that smaller displacements or turbos or clean diesels arent more prevelant. You can be certain if it was a question of those pensions not being fully-funded, a way would be found. Ooh, but wait the taxpayers bottomless checkbook trumps that.
Posted by: fred | May 30, 2007 7:55:52 PM
Posted by: DS | May 30, 2007 9:03:11 PM
I wrote an email to the Toyota CEO and here is the reply; comments?:
"Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc.
Toyota, as part of the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers (AAM), is supporting a lawsuit challenging California's right to establish a new regulation that seeks to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions through changes in motor-vehicle fuel economy.
We do not take this action lightly, knowing that environmentalists, who have praised Toyota's advanced technology vehicles for their low emissions, may target us for public criticism. However, the regulation is so extreme, ineffective and costly that we have no recourse but to fight it. The increased fuel economy requirements are drastic even for Toyota, which has one of the best environmental records in the industry.
For consumers, this could lead to higher prices and fewer vehicle choices. The cost to consumers, according to AAM, would average an added $3,000 per vehicle.
Global warming is a genuine concern for our society, and we vow to be part of the solution. The California rule has an admirable goal, but takes the wrong approach. Any solution must take at least a national approach or it will threaten economic growth while having little effect on the problem.
Rest assured, we will continue to work with others, including California and federal regulators, government representatives, academic leaders, the industry and environmentalists, to seek innovative solutions to the problem of global warming. And we will continue developing pioneer technology that will lead the way to future environmental advancements......"
Posted by: Lad | May 30, 2007 11:47:20 PM
Well, I don't usually comment on my own stories, but your letter from Toyota leads me to believe that they are forgetting their history. Whether that is by chance or choice, I don't know. However, Toyota should remember that:
- California was the first state to require emissions tests
- Beginning in 1966, California regulations were strict enough that automakers had to build special California-spec vehicles if they wanted to stay in the market.
- Beginning in 1970, California required onboard systems to control evaporative emissions of gasoline from passenger car fuel tanks.
- Beginning in 1975, California's emission limits were tight enought that most California-spec passenger cars had to be fitted at the factory with catalytic converters.
- By 1980, most California-spec cars had three-way catalysts and closed-loop systems with oxygen sensors.
- The OBD-I and later OBD-II self-diagnostic and adaptive strategy systems had their roots in California. Most industrialized countries now use some version of OBD.
So there's quite a history of state action vs. federal action here. As a result, I can raise the hood on vehicles in many countries and point to the parts that got their start in California. When each one of these measures was introduced, the major automakers called foul and said that they would pull out of the state or go broke. None did. What would today's air have looked like had California not pushed?
And I suspect that California will push even harder on the GHG issue than it did on the issues of the past.
Posted by: Jack Rosebro | May 31, 2007 12:30:36 AM
Maybe it would work if the so called enviromentalists would stop
buying new cars , I myself have made that choice , and when I take
my car for service , as I did this morning , they always ask if I would
consider buying a new one , the answer is no , not until you can provide
me with a zero emissions car .
If a few more people were a little stronger , and closed their eyes to
the relentless advertising we might start getting somewhere , take the
inititive get some like minded people together and go and picket your local
GM dealer because you can be sure that a measure as repellent as this
came from uncle Bobs office in Detriot !
Posted by: andrichrose | May 31, 2007 4:11:16 AM
It is simply a stupid idea used by Demo's to deceive folks who care about the environoment.
Too bad it got started under Nixon. Learn your history.
Posted by: anon | Jun 2, 2007 10:14:19 PM
What do you expect from Detroit? GM killed the EV or help kill the greatest car on earth. Them and their evil oil company A**holes just can't stand the thought of an american driver who doesn't need any or as much gasoline than they figure we do. Screw them- I still drive my Suzuki Swift and my Toyota Tacoma, and my Honda Elite scooter and smile when I go to get my 1.5 gallons of gas for the scooter. I will buy a new car when the first automaker that creates an affordable EV does so.
Posted by: Rob Johnson | Jun 5, 2007 3:37:03 PM
While we bicker about which method/product is most Earth friendly, most of us do nothing in the meanwhile. ie a) Slow down an avg of 5mph
b) plan/combine trips
c) car pool
d) flexible work schedule - petition your employer as this one also saves them money too!
Posted by: | Jul 13, 2007 5:47:20 PM
The people of America need to take a stand about the energy crisis we are facing. We buy 700 millions gallons a year from Arab countries and much of that money is making our enemies richer and stronger. This government is the government of the people for the people and by the people. It is time we tell our government leaders who they work for and what we the people need.
We need affordable, clean, and environmentally safe energy. The politicians in Washington just do nothing to bring relief to the people. We are the greatest country on the earth. We put man on the moon and we have the greatest Space Program in the world. It is time the American people get back some energy dividends from all the tax money we invested into that technology. How about putting that technology to work for us and use all those geeks at NASA to work for the people for a while. We can do it if this government would just act with real leadership. Folks on both side of this issue need to come to a compromise so that we can get the ball rolling for energy independents.
So, first why can’t we agree to drill for oil here in America and offshore in just a few places and start a few refineries as well as nuclear plants? Second, why can’t we agree this is only a temporary solution and we need to invest in renewable energy like solar, wind, electric and natural gas? Why can’t this government cut wasteful spending and because we are in a crisis stop spending on Capital Hill until this problem is solved. I remember during the Nixon administration the government put a temporary moratorium on our wages. So, it is time for the government to make the same sacrifices we had to make. These funds could be use temporary for development and investment in new energy as well as cars that run on electric, air, gas and hydro. We need everything working for us to make the transition off of foreign oil. The time is now! There are many solutions and we need to get started on all of them. The sooner the better and the sooner we can get off of all that oil.
Posted by: Tony | Jul 14, 2008 8:38:27 PM
