Survey Finds Strong Support Among Voters for Mandatory Auto Fuel Efficiency Increases
29 July 2007
 |
| Voters showed a preference for the 35 mpg by 2020 proposal. |
A recent poll from more than 30 congressional districts across Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Michigan found strong voter support for the US House to pass fuel efficiency standards at least as strong as those passed by the US Senate in June.
The Senate bill proposes an increase in fuel efficiency standards in cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. (Earlier post.) In the House, Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA) have introduced legislation that would lock-in that 35 mpg target. Another bill introduced by Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE), proposes maintaining separate standards for cars and light-duty trucks, with a combined average of no less than 32 mpg and no more than 35 mpg by 2022. The auto industry is backing the Hill-Terry proposal.
| Voters Favoring Increased Fuel Efficiency | |
|---|---|
| State | % Favor |
| Kentucky | 90% |
| Florida | 89% |
| Pennsylvania | 89% |
| Tennessee | 89% |
| North Carolina | 88% |
| Ohio | 88% |
| Michigan 15th | 84% |
The polls, commissioned by the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency and conducted by The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies from July 13-16, found that nearly nine out of ten voters want mandatory increases in fuel efficiency.
Given a choice between the two proposals, about three-quarters of the respondents preferred the Markey-Platts bill (35 mpg by 2020) over the Hill-Terry bill (max 35 mpg by 2022).
About 85% of voters wanted the standards to be implemented earlier (2018) rather than later (2022). Slightly more than 60% opposed a mandatory cap on fuel economy standards.
The poll also explored voter reaction to arguments both for and against fuel economy standards.
When asked which of the two following positions “is closer to your point of view”...
We should not require auto companies to meet higher fuel efficiency standards over the next decade because it will hurt American auto companies while helping foreign automakers, cost American jobs, as well as keep autoworkers from getting their pensions and benefits. It will result in lighter, unsafe cars on the road, increase the cost of automobiles, and take vehicles off the market, like SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks.
We should require auto companies to meet higher fuel efficiency standards over the next decade because American technology can produce cars, SUVs, minivans and pickups that are both safe and fuel efficient, and producing such vehicles will help make American auto companies more competitive and will save consumers money. Moreover,our national security requires us to become less dependent on foreign oil and the best way to do that is by reducing our consumption of gasoline.
...between 74% to 80% of respondents supported the second position, B.
Voters thought that increased fuel economy standards were more likely to:
Reduce their cost of fuel;
Decrease air pollution; and
Make the US less dependent on Mid-East oil.
Voters thought it unlikely that increased fuel economy standards would:
Make cars, trucks and SUVs smaller and less safe;
Make cars, trucks and SUVs less powerful;
Harm the US Economy; and
Cause US autoworkers to lose their jobs, benefits and pensions.
Between 69% and 81% said that higher standards would encourage automakers to innovate, thereby saving jobs and helping the economy.
Resources:
From the article:
“Voters thought it unlikely that increased fuel economy standards would:
Make cars, trucks and SUVs smaller and less safe;
Make cars, trucks and SUVs less powerful;
Harm the US Economy; and
Cause US autoworkers to lose their jobs, benefits and pensions.”
The average American is even duller than I thought, and I always thought they were pretty dull.
So we can still have full size SUV’s that are just as large, safe and powerful as today, but get double their current MPG at a price we can still afford.
I know, we can use the “100 MPG” carburetor.
When given the option, the average citizen in poll questions always chooses the “free lunch” option when it is presented to them. I believe this survey is what is known as a “push poll”.
Posted by: Yukaburbahoe | 29 July 2007 at 08:37 AM
How many of those polled already drive one of the available models that achieves 35mpg? 1%?
The other 99% fall into 2 categories:
1) Those who want others to drive 50mpg vehicles so that gas for their 15mpg SUV becomes cheaper.
2) Those mentioned in the post above who believe there is some engineering pixie dust which can be sprinkled on vehicles to double fuel economy without affecting weight, size, performance or cost.
It is apparent that empirical evidence and reason are irrelevant at this point. The best we can hope for is that 'our' demagogues are better sheep herders than 'their' demagogues.
Posted by: Desiri | 29 July 2007 at 09:43 AM
Peak oil makes CAFE moot, anyway.
Posted by: Cervus | 29 July 2007 at 09:47 AM
Lets first put this all in perspective - even the most aggressive plan is not proposing anything that radical. The current CAFE is 27.5 for cars and 22 for trucks/SUVs. If they were proposing a 50mpg CAFE, I'd agree that consumers expectations were unrealistic, but not with this.
Treated equally, cars would have to become about 28% more efficient while trucks would have to become close to 60% more efficient. Obviously, the latter is not realistic with trucks of similar size and performance, but this is an average. While trucks would struggle to pull their own weight, two things are highly likely; 1. a higher percentage of cars will be sold, 2. cars should be able to achieve well more than a 28% increase.
Assuming a fair consumption rate of 45mpg for a Prius, you already have a car that can be mass produced at a reasonable cost, meets most consumers needs in terms of room, safety, and performance, and exceeds the current CAFE avg by over 63%.
The upcoming Tahoe/Yukon hybrid will consumer about 25% less fuel overall.
Neither of these vehicles incorporate:
1. The latest battery technologies (LION)
2. The latest valve control
3. Direct injection
4. Reduced weight through increased use of composites
5. Waste heat recovery
6. Advanced combustion (like HCCI or variable compression)
Most of the above can be added within a few years, so I see no reason why we couldn't achieve such modest goals within 10 years.
Yeah, such competition may result in a few companies being left by the wayside, but who says it will be the American companies? They might be behind a little now, but I trust in our capabilities to innovate and execute, especially when our backs are against a wall (as they are close to being right now).
Posted by: Angelo | 29 July 2007 at 11:45 AM
Desiri: What I wrote six month ago commenting on a similar article:
"What they really meant is that 3 out of every 4 Americans think that everybody else should be required to buy 40 mpg cars. Alternatively, they think that the water carburetor is for real." :-)
Yukaburbahoe: Great take. I think your line:
"When given the option, the average citizen in poll questions always chooses the “free lunch” option when it is presented to them."
should be our motto.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 29 July 2007 at 11:49 AM
The psychology is a bit more complicated than "I want a free lunch." I wrote about this and an excellent column James Surowiecki published in The New Yorker recently.
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/?p=244
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | 29 July 2007 at 12:31 PM
Meeting the needs should not be a problem.
Also, in 30 years we are still going to be able to buy powerful cars/trucks that get 20mpg or less as there will always be a need for heavy haulers and utility vehicles. Even Sport Utility Vehicles. If you have a farm there is no need to fear, you can still haul your horses and hay. And if a 120lb woman need the equivalence of a suburban to take there 50lb kid to soccer she still can.
However the propulsion and fuel on many cars, and weight of many cars is going to change.
Also peoples Ideas are going to have to change in how they look at transportation, and they are.
What we will have in 10 to 25 years will be as unthinkable as what we didnt have 10 to 25 years ago.
Anyone else out there remember brick sized cell phones, no internet, PC's being a luxury item etc.
in 1990 the Idea of whats in a prius now was unthinkable to the everyday person. So would be a cell phone the size of a calculator with a camera and color screen, totally alien concepts back then...it didnt exist. The Idea of a megabyte was a huge amount of memory.
Automotive tech has made leaps and bounds since then too. We have new materials, new ways of manufacturing, Only those who use them and take advantage of new ways of doing things will move forward, not advancing is suicide in this day and age, sure you can still get a horse drawn carriage and horse today but its not mainstream. The same is true for current cars.
Leaders in the market will go forward.
If there was a company out there that made say only brand new 1975 dogde darts that were exactly 1975 sure some would sell but its not sustainable or capable of making a comeback to be main stream.
If that new suburban was a carbon fiber frame powered by in wheel electric motors with a Lithium Ion battery pack with a back up small hybrid engine. skinned with aluminum and plastic panels with all the standard safety features would be safer than one of todays. Id take a carbon fiber frame over steel any day.
In all likely hood it will be partially self powered by paint that converts sunlight to electricity(yes they have it now) and a plug in capability will in all likely hood get 50mpg or more and often use no gas at all.
Could it be here in 10 years...15maybe...why not?
Yes it will be expensive. But premium items just as the prius was a premium item in 2004
Yes such a SUV will most likely cost 150k but that will be normal by then as our dollar keeps falling and inflation is rampant, it will be right in range with a 40k to 60k SUV of today.
Yes its a change. But also 20 years ago the concept of a SUV was kinda weird to until the car makers found a big market. High efficency vehicles are also finding a market. the companies will follow the money and the marketing.
It was the market and the product that made people want low efficiency SUV's the same can be done to change that Idea.
Posted by: jewelerdave | 29 July 2007 at 12:34 PM
Well, given that their constituents want it, there probably will be some creative ways found to forestall it. Either that or Dingelsaur, et al will make sure there is some loophole big enough to drive a SUV thru. For instance, only applying to cars made in countries where the Kyoto Treaty was adopted.
Posted by: jcwinnie | 29 July 2007 at 12:35 PM
Angelo:
I fully agree with you. A 35 mpg (avg) car by 2020 is definately NOT asking for too much from our Big 3 + car industry. The Prius III will do twice that or 70 mpg by 2010. A reasonable size SUV with the Prius III technology will do 50 mpg very soon thereafter.
By 2020 we should expect (and demand) 80+ mpg cars and 60+ mpg SUVs from our national manufacturers. If they can't do it somebody else will do it.
Buyers should drive the market and not the other way around. Why should we expect and accept so little.
Toyota will be taking orders for the Prius III very shorthly. It is being tested on pucblic roads in Japan and will certainly be mass produced by late 2008 or early 2009.
The wake up call is coming.
Posted by: | 29 July 2007 at 01:29 PM
How many of those polled already drive one of the available models that achieves 35mpg? 1%?
Small cars make up 20% of light vehicle sales. The Prius and Camry Hybrid are both midsize cars, so one can include those, too.
Posted by: jack | 29 July 2007 at 02:39 PM
Wow, Yuka and Desiri, you guys are true troglodytes.
I'm one of those people who drives an SUV who thinks everybody should get 35 MPG. Why? Because IN THE US, WE DON'T HAVE CHOICES. In a heartbeat, I would drive a VW Touran, a seven passenger minivan with a 2 liter TDI engine that gets 42MPG. Or I would drive Toyota's seven passenger minivan that has a hybrid drive.
But theý're not available. Why? Don't give me that bullshit about environmental and safety regulations. Both sets of regulations are carefully calibrated to exclude cars that would compete with the most profitable Detroit cars, the SUVs. Ford makes a great S-Max in Europe, powers it with a terrific diesel engine. We can't have it, because that's Ford's decision, buttressed by their support for a regulatory regime and PR engine that supports 5000 lbs of vehicle for every family.
Bottom line, the voters are right, and it would be easy to fulfill those targets in 8 years, much less 15. You two are dead wrong. Oh, that's right, you're not dead wrong, it's just all those dead guys in Iraq that are paying for your naysaying....
Posted by: dollared | 29 July 2007 at 03:03 PM
Peak oil makes CAFE moot, anyway.
NO! Peak oil makes CAFE entirely relavent!!!
Posted by: DS | 29 July 2007 at 03:31 PM
DS:
It makes CAFE moot because rising prices of oil and gasoline (not to mention inevitable shortages) will make people purchase more efficient vehicles without government mandates of fuel efficiency.
At the least we're moving into a "Peak Lite" scenario where we've either plateaued, or production will simply not keep up with demand. Hybrids are 3% of the new vehicle market already, without a CAFE rise. That share will increase as prices increase.
Posted by: Cervus | 29 July 2007 at 04:47 PM
Cervus, I know you are trying to make a point, but wouldn't it be a better idea to do something before peak oil kicks in?
Posted by: Angelo | 29 July 2007 at 07:58 PM
Its pretty easy to make a bit of a difference. Every little bit helps. drive less if you can, make sure your car is tuned. I went from driving a 14mpg corvette to a prius and average about 48mpg now.
Even down to saving bacon and cooking grease. Its not much, but about every 2 months I have enough to make about a liter of bio diesel...and I do, its fun and I give it to friends who have diesels as a small reward if they have an efficient car or run on bio diesel.
Point is, the idea of getting people to be more efficient is key. Every little bit helps but we have to get as many people as we can to see they can make a bit of a difference. Either way things will change. Look what happened when we ran short on whale oil for lighting...we got the light bulb and electricity...now that came with new problems but the point is we need to be efficient and when better tech comes out, use it, support it, and do what you can.
Posted by: jewelerdave | 29 July 2007 at 08:52 PM
Angelo:
I am arguing that it's already too late in the timeframe for the proposed CAFE increases anyway--peak oil is effectively now even if production rises a little, and it's not enough to meet demand. And I am arguing that the current price environment is already doing more than CAFE mandates could, given the increasing popularity of hybrids and future planned models like the Volt. Despite the fact that I still see these insanely lifted full-sized pickups with their V8s roaring. :P
Posted by: Cervus | 29 July 2007 at 10:46 PM
"And I am arguing that the current price environment is already doing more than CAFE mandates could"
I don't agree. I think prices could go up to $5/gallon, and driving habits would still change very little in the end. Sure, people would complain, but they'd still pay the extra money. Without increasing the CAFE, I just don't think we'll see enough of those Priuses or Volts offered to the public.
Additionally, without a conservation policy like CAFE, once prices exceed a certain threshold, say low 4s, you know there will be other short-term bandaids that would be pushed, like CTL.....
Posted by: Angelo | 30 July 2007 at 04:23 AM
Every citizen should realize that while supposedly in a democracy the majority rules, this does NOT mean that because a particular point of view wins by a landslide, one must accept that viewpoint in his or her heart uncritically.
Granted we must all obey the law, whether we agree with it or not. But for democracy to work, every citizen has a right - even an OBLIGATION - to think for him or herself, and to be presented with all sides of the argument before making his or her decision. The latter, does not appear to be the case with the matter of fuel economy laws.
Has there been adequate discussion of what draconian fuel economy requirements will mean, in terms of the mobility we are currently accustomed to? Right now, we take it for granted that we can drive 60, even 70 (or more!) miles per hour on the highway when driving 300 miles or so to visit Uncle Ned or Grandma Tillie or Cousin Bob, or wherever else we might want to go for whatever reason.
But if we keep beating up on the auto industry with ever more draconian fuel economy AND safety requirements (i.e., measures to protect pedestrians whom we may hit if they get in our way faster than we can react, not to mention ever more stringent side-impact protection for vehicle occupants), we may one day find that the cars available to us won't be able to maintain much more than 45 miles an hour. That will mean trips to visit Grandma Tillie will take hours longer than we are accustomed to.
Are Americans AWARE that this might be the price we will all pay, to fulfill the emotional and ego needs of the intellectual classes in our society? If they were, more people might chose the route I have been proposing for years: A Carbon Tax on all fossil fuels. Such a tax will provide a firm but flexible incentive to drive smaller cars, or drive less, or drive slower, or utilize as much renewable fuels (i.e. ethanol, BioDiesel) as is feasible.
The issue of hatred of the private automobile by the intellectual classes has been kept in the closet far to long. I want to bring this issue out of the closet and into the open, so Americans can hear all points of view before blindly casting their vote for ever-higher fuel economy requirements.
Hope y'all don't mind!
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 30 July 2007 at 05:51 AM
Every citizen should realize that while supposedly in a democracy the majority rules, this does NOT mean that because a particular point of view wins by a landslide, one must accept that viewpoint in his or her heart uncritically.
Granted we must all obey the law, whether we agree with it or not. But for democracy to work, every citizen has a right - even an OBLIGATION - to think for him or herself, and to be presented with all sides of the argument before making his or her decision. The latter, does not appear to be the case with the matter of fuel economy laws.
Has there been adequate discussion of what draconian fuel economy requirements will mean, in terms of the mobility we are currently accustomed to? Right now, we take it for granted that we can drive 60, even 70 (or more!) miles per hour on the highway when driving 300 miles or so to visit Uncle Ned or Grandma Tillie or Cousin Bob, or wherever else we might want to go for whatever reason.
But if we keep beating up on the auto industry with ever more draconian fuel economy AND safety requirements (i.e., measures to protect pedestrians whom we may hit if they get in our way faster than we can react, not to mention ever more stringent side-impact protection for vehicle occupants), we may one day find that the cars available to us won't be able to maintain much more than 45 miles an hour. That will mean trips to visit Grandma Tillie will take hours longer than we are accustomed to.
Are Americans AWARE that this might be the price we will all pay, to fulfill the emotional and ego needs of the intellectual classes in our society? If they were, more people might chose the route I have been proposing for years: A Carbon Tax on all fossil fuels. Such a tax will provide a firm but flexible incentive to drive smaller cars, or drive less, or drive slower, or utilize as much renewable fuels (i.e. ethanol, BioDiesel) as is feasible.
The issue of hatred of the private automobile by the intellectual classes has been kept in the closet far to long. I want to bring this issue out of the closet and into the open, so Americans can hear all points of view before blindly casting their vote for ever-higher fuel economy requirements.
Hope y'all don't mind!
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 30 July 2007 at 05:54 AM
Not to throw this discussion a curve ball ... but how much could be saved if the manufacturing industry became more efficient AS WELL AS the transportation industry.
We spend so much time worrying about transportation lately it seems those topics have largely fell by the wayside.
... and yes higher gas prices convinced me to sell my Ford Explorer and purchase a Prius ... so higher prices have some effect on some of us. Its just a matter of when it was logical to switch over.
They are all good ideas ... hopefully we can implement them in concert to get an even more effective result.
Posted by: Tom | 30 July 2007 at 07:08 AM
The misinformation about cars on this site gives one pause. Of course we can meet mid 30's mpg in a few years. As stated these vehicles already exist in the U.S. and overseas.
I have owned a Prius since 2005, with over 60,000 on it. My lifetime mileage is right around 47 mpg. This is living in the upper Midwest with very cold winters, no heated garage and driving rural interstate at 70 mph every week carpooling. I could have a lifetime in the 50's mpg easy if I drove less than 10 miles per day under 60 mph.
I have also driven the Prius with 4 people in the car on trips over 1000 miles at 70+ mph essentially the whole way. You still get upper 40's mpg on those trips. I have also driven the car above 85 mph for 30-40 miles at a time (yes lots of people drive those speeds in the heartland) with no problem, gas mileage is dinged to the low 40's upper 30's.
As stated above Toyota has this technology in vans it sells in Japan and Thailand. Trucks and true 4x4's are being worked on now by Toyota and they are road testing plug in Prii in Japan already. Toyota has a stated goal of converting the whole line to hybrids because they get such good mpg without a proportional ding in performance. It is an obvious direction but the technology still must be road tested and perfected.
The technology exists for high mileage vehicles, but the Big 3 are very, very late to adopting this technology and fought its introduction tooth and nail 3 years ago. I remember GM's ads saying that 2 engines make no sense, hybrids don't work, they will never be reliable, etc. etc. when the 2nd generation Prius was launched. They deserve to lose market share if they refuse to deliver (or delay) what the customers want.
Posted by: | 30 July 2007 at 07:13 AM
Tom:
I remember when Ford Motor Company executives said that all you would get with front wheel drive is accelerated tire wear. And earlier, Detroit auto moguls were saying that "piping gunk back to the motor" (i.e., conducting crankcase blow-by gases, a major contributor to air pollution, back to the engine instead of venting them to the atmosphere) would inevitably cause problems.
That's why I believe that if the Japanese, especially Toyota and Honda, can devise fuel-efficient cars that develop a cachet with young and environmentally aware consumers, we should reject calls for local content laws - especially if such calls come from the same intellectuals who brought up the issue of global warming to begin with.
Posted by: | 30 July 2007 at 07:29 AM
Why don't you say "draconian" about 10 more times, Alex. What a dumb post that was. I feel less intelligent now for having read it.
Posted by: jack | 30 July 2007 at 07:35 AM
dollared shares my frustration.
there is a great diesel Accord currently sold in the U.K. (50 mpg highway!) I'd love to buy today.
but it won't be available here in the U.S. for a couple of years
Posted by: Bill | 30 July 2007 at 12:51 PM
Bill writes: there is a great diesel Accord currently sold in the U.K. (50 mpg highway!) I'd love to buy today.
And I'm glad you can't, because I don't want to have to roll up my windows and turn on the AC every time I am stuck behind another diesel's toxin plume. When diesels are really clean, and when they will stay that way for their lifetime, then we can talk. Until then, they don't cut it for a world where someone has to drive behind you.
Posted by: George | 30 July 2007 at 07:11 PM