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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

Hey, troll: Next time you fill up your gas hog, remember: Usama thanks you and hopes you come back soon for more.

Durka that.

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.

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.

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.