Once again, the ethanol "flex-fuel" myth lets the American automakers continue to have a loophole to get out of raising their real fuel economy.

This is just window dressing. Yet the auto manufacturers just don't look out the window. They only want to keep an eye on the rear view mirror.
Rising fuel prices will force market acceptance of cars with higher fuel standards than these, ultimately rendering this bill meaningless.

I was wonder how long it would take for people to realize that CAFE standards are just that....averages.

For every car that they make thats a plug in that averages 150mpg they can still pump out 5 15mpg SUVs and hit the 2022 target of 36mpg

Toss in other cars and hybrid systems and the targets are in fact quite reasonable.

This means so long as less than 20% of the population does what makes sense. They can still manufacture cars for those with insecurities and small wee wee's or a thirst for power and maintain the average just fine

The good news is that consumers are reacting to higher fuel costs. In the short term this is masked by reducing prices of unpopular vehicles. In the long term that cannot be sustained.

People tend to ignore what doesn't hurt. That is not some ignorance unique to Americans. It is human nature.

Energy costs are beginning to hurt in the US. They have hurt for a long time in Europe and many other places. And those places consume less energy.

The bad news? The government tinkers endlessly to shield domestic industry for the consequences of folly. This hides actual prices which sends efforts down blind alleys.

In Congress we are witnessing a new search for the Grail*. If only we add another clause encouraging some catalyst or anode or hybrid corn. Maybe add a nod toward another fuel. Or direct bureau to make another annual report, or.....

* Holy Grail, elixir, magic bullet, voodoo, Golem. Call it what you choose, the intent is to avoid consequences by conjuring.

Raising the CAFE standards, barring signficant increases in gas prices, will require the auto companies to modify their price structure to raise their prices on gas guzzlers and lower their prices on cars that get good gas. That is, if they do not also get the sham E85 loophole. The profit margins on small cars are already problematical, as it is. The decreased demand for SUVs and trucks will kill them because that is where there bread and butter is.

I am in no way trying to justify their resistance to CAFE standards but I agree that it is a very convoluted and questionable way to meet the real goal, which is to reduce oil consumption.

I can even imagine a scenario where the auto companies would have to sell high mileage cars at a loss to meet the standards.

And higher CAFE standards have no impact on miles driven. If anything, they might even increase miles driven. Miles driven is the biggest factor in our current fuel consumption. CAFE standards just affect new cars and take years to have much of an impact on the overall fuel consumption.

The real payback would be in the area of miles driven. The only way to do this is to raise gas taxes or ration gas until the desired effect is achieved. A number of other structural and cultural changes must occur, but this is where one must start.

Congress, with its reliance on CAFE standards, is demonstrating that it is not really serious about reducing oil, energy consumption, and greenhouse emissions.

Heretofore, I have been a big supporter of higher CAFE standards. The more I look at this, the more rediculous they seem, especially with the E85 loophole, which gives use the comfortable illusion that we are meeting the standards.

"The real payback would be in the area of miles driven."
Miles driven is highly inelastic, people got to drive to work no matter what.
CAFE is the only way to reduce gas consumption in the short (3 year) term.
Taxes will work in longer term, past 5-6 years.

Harass your congressman. Harass your senator. 40 MPG in 4 years!!!

"Miles driven is highly inelastic, people got to drive to work no matter what."

Only over the short term. There is nothing to say that the built environment in this country has to be laid out the way it currently is. People may like the current state of affairs, but that doesn't matter if it is unsustainable.

"CAFE is the only way to reduce gas consumption in the short (3 year) term."

Nonsense, because CAFE only affects the fuel efficiency of new vehicles, not older vehicles or how far either new or old vehicles are driven. Higher taxes would work in both the short term and the long term, depending on how much they were and if they were constantly increasing.

"For every car that they make thats a plug in that averages 150mpg they can still pump out 5 15mpg SUVs and hit the 2022 target of 36mpg"

No - the average isn't calculated like that. It's actually calculated as 1/(average gallons per mile), not average miles per gallon.

So with 5 15MPG vehicles and a 150 mpg, you'd get an "average" of 1/((1/15+1/15+1/15+1/15+1/15+1/150)/6)=17.65MPG

Ender,

I agree regarding the importance of higher fuel taxes -- a $1/gallon fuel tax would make CAFE irrelevant. But it's VERY unpopular. See the earlier post updating the Senate Energy Bill.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/update_on_the_u_2.html#more

SA 1546, sponsored by DeMint "Limitations on legislation that would drive up average fuel price for autos."

At the same time they debate energy efficiency, CAFE, ethanol, etc., they talk about NOT allowing higher fuel prices. In 2-3 more years there will be many more choices for efficient vehicles -- more hybrids, PHEVs, diesel hybrids, clean diesel ICEs, and even a few mass-market BEVs. With more choices consumers will be able to lead the way. Unfortunately our legislators are too influenced by special interests to do the right thing, especially if it's not popular.