Here’s a surprise: Chinese law requires greater automotive fuel efficiency than American regulations. Although we’re not comparing Granny Smiths to Mandarin oranges– China uses a weight ratio, the US uses categories– it’s roughly 36 to 24mpg in favor of the Chinese. You’d expect this sort of disparity from Europe, Australia, Japan and Canada. But China? How can that be? In automotive terms, China’s just waking up. Or is it that the US is still asleep?
In 1975, in response to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, Congress enacted America’s federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The new rules dictated the average fuel economy (in miles per gallon) of a manufacturer’s fleet for any given model year. The plan was simple: reduce US domestic oil consumption by increasing vehicular efficiency. The formula was complex: non-commercial vehicles were excluded under rules designed for commercial vehicles, manufacturers were allowed to pay fines for non-compliance (e.g. BMW), and now, vehicles that will never see a drop of E85 fuel are tallied as if they were running on corn juice 24/7.
The impact of the legislation on oil consumption has been less than impressive. According to The US Department of Energy, from 1985 to 2005, America’s net oil imports grew from 4.3 mmbd (million barrels per day) to 12.6 mmbd. Transportation currently accounts for 69% of that total. Obviously, there are more cars on the road, and you could argue that the figure would have been much higher without CAFE breathing down the automakers’ collective necks. But even if you believe that the CAFE standards are working, clearly they’re not doing a very good job of achieving their original intent.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world has proven itself far more determined to achieve greater fuel efficiency for their privately owned vehicles. Their industry regulations and auto-related taxes are tougher on automakers and end users alike, using whatever legal strictures they can muster to discourage low-mileage, high pollution vehicles. In England, for example, company cars are taxed on the amount of CO2 they emit, which forces corporations to run smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. While there’s a patchwork of national laws and taxes in this regard, it’s clear that the rest of the world is moving towards a common standard for automotive efficiency, and it's a lot higher than ours.
Generally speaking, that’s a good thing. The adoption of common worldwide standards is one of the main reasons the internet wrapped around the world so quickly. Thanks to definitive, compelling and effective worldwide technical coordination, the internet is one of the great industrial success stories in human history. Surely, worldwide standards for fuel efficiency would also have an enormous effect, reducing the cost of the technological and manufacturing development needed to reduce vehicular consumption.
Again, fuel economy standards around the globe can’t yet lay claim to any of the above adjectives. Every country’s regulations are different, both in terms of methods and goals. They change periodically. And yet, like other industrial standards, fuel efficiency regulations are starting to coalesce all on their own, stealthily. The movement towards a de facto standard is partially the result of consolidation within the global automotive industry. It also reflects a commonality of economic pressures against high mileage vehicles across the planet; including governmental edict, oil producing nations’ commercial manipulation and the “needs” of the free market.
All the major automakers selling vehicles in the United States are multinational players. They comply with fuel economy standards in every market in which they compete. For example, Shanghai General Motors Co. Ltd. is China’s number one automobile producer. Last year, this joint venture built 325,429 cars, meeting Beijing’s version of CAFE. Ford of Europe actual turns a profit, so it appears they know the lay of the land of 40 mpg. And so on, from BMW to Volkswagen. All the major players have proven themselves equal to the task of building the fuel efficient vehicles each market requires.
All this experience building fuel efficient vehicles for more demanding foreign markets renders automakers’ claims of technological impotence in the face of potentially more stringent American regulations, well, impotent. It makes their exploitation of legal loopholes– or willingness to simply pay the fines and be done with it– a morally questionable enterprise. It also raises a crucial public policy question: why can’t America be more like everyone else?
Is it because our high mileage carrots aren’t tasty enough, or our gas-guzzler sticks are sharp enough, or both? Where is the political will we need to tweak the regulatory and taxation system to achieve the goal we set for our country some 31 years ago? Even with US safety, pollution and CAFÉ regulations, the US domestic car market is more “free” than any other. The question is, can we afford it?
Strangely, the European automakers need to adapt their cars for the American market, because of more stringent emission standards. In theory, America drives cleaner cars.
The thing is, clean does not equal efficient. Here in Europe most VW Golfs have either a diesel engine, or a small 1.4 or 1.6. I think the smallest engine size for the US Golf/Rabbit is 2.0. Mazda doesn’t even offer a V6 option in our Mazda6 – I’m guessing that’s probably the best-selling version in America. Speaking of V6 engines, few Europeans would even dream of putting one in their MPVs. And how many 450 or 500 versions do you think Mercedes sells here? Not a lot – most are diesels.
When it comes to cars, there’s just a huge cultural difference between America and the rest of the world. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather drive a V8 truck than a 4-cyl hatchback as well – but this is essentially why your mmbd are still way up there.
Question: I’ve read in previous comments on TTAC that euro diesels do not meet the US emissions. What metric do they not meet? How can a 1.9l euro diesel (very common accross the EU) not meet them while a 5.7l Grand Cherokee can? Please enlighten.
My renault AVERAGES 54mpg (US gallon), and costs $90 to tax for a year here in England, compared to $324 for my old Caddy Catera, because (as Martineck points out) it’s a low CO2 emisser. GM have the [opel/vauxhall] Corsa and Ford have the Fiesta, both of which can get comparable fuel economy. I suppose I just don’t see the barrier to getting these into the states. Look at all the nostalgia re. the Chevette – everyone starts out with a small car, and as has been highlighted numerous times on TTAC, that first-car-market has been sorely overlooked be the big 2.5.
As rubenyc said, European cars need to be adapted for USA emissions controls because Europe allows greater emissions of particulates (diesel engines) and hydrocarbons than some states (notably California). In the USA carbon dioxide is not considered a pollutant while in Europe it is. So sadly it’s perfectly reasonable for a V8 10mpg sucking SUV to be classified as a ‘low emissions’ vehicle.
The CAFE rules have caveats and loopholes large enough to drive, well, an SUV through. It’s a joke but no one is laughing.
From this morning’s Detroit News:
Carmakers: European buyers don’t want ‘green’ cars
Commission warns it may force companies to reduce carbon dioxide in order to meet emissions targets.
Aoife White / Associated Press
BRUSSELS, Belgium — European customers don’t want to buy the environmentally friendly cars that would help the auto industry reach a target to lower carbon dioxide emissions, European carmakers said Monday.
The European Commission warned last week that it may need to bring in new rules to force carmakers to cut carbon dioxide because they are unlikely to meet their own voluntary target to achieve average emissions for new European cars of 140 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer by 2008.
In 2004, new cars in the region had an average of 161 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer and they would need to introduce cuts of more than 3 percent a year immediately to meet the goal of reducing car fumes by a quarter below 1995 levels, the commission said in August.
But the European automobile manufacturers’ association ACEA said customer trends were to blame despite their strenuous efforts to decrease emissions.
“This is due to strong customer demand for larger and safer vehicles and disappointing consumer acceptance of extremely fuel-efficient cars, which have been brought into the market in line with the CO2 commitment,” it said.
Not to forget that emissions don’t just include CO2. They include CO, HC, NOx, particulates (in diesels), sulfur and other pollutants.
Yes, it IS possible to make a honking massive car far cleaner in every category except CO2 for emissions, while a tiny euro-car puts out less CO2 for sure, but may actually pollute far more in every other category (having cheaper, less effective emission equipment because – well, Europeans frankly haven’t cared as much about all the other pollutants and haven’t passed emission laws as stringient as the US, California or Japan).
In fact, America and Japan put catalysts on gasoline car exhaust systems in the autumn of 1974, while Europe staged the introduction of them some 15 years later to 20 years later, depending on displacement.
Now the EC (EU) is looking at limiting CO2 to 140 mg/km, within a few years, which will effectively END the production and sale of virtually all SUVs (however tiny), MPV’s (minivans), sports cars or luxury cars.
Read the article and my comments, for yourself.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/04/eu-to-propose-legislation-to-limit-co2-from-cars/#comments
Michal summed it up: Europe turns a blind eye to particulates (soot) in favor of an overall reduction in CO2 and improvements in fuel economy. Simultaneously, most (all?) countries in Europe tax you based on engine displacement. Here in the States, most states either charge a small, flat annual fee, or an ad valorem tax on “assessed value”. This value goes down over time, so people almost always have that incentive to drive their cars for longer. Further, many states have no inspections, so you can drive an old, gas-guzzling jalopy and pay a pittance to keep it on the road legally.
It’s no wonder all the small-displacement diesel and petrol technology comes from across the pond–that’s where all the legal and economic incentives actually have relevance, unlike in the land of cheap fuel, large roads, few tolls, and lots of parking.
The adoption of common worldwide standards is one of the main reasons the internet wrapped around the world so quickly.
Not sure this is a valid comparion. Internet needs are pretty consistent around the world, but Luxemburg surely has a different vehicle use paradigm than West Texas and Montana.
Even with US safety, pollution and CAFÉ regulations, the US domestic car market is more “free” than any other. The question is, can we afford it?
We obviously can afford it if you are referring to financial affordability. If you are referring to “affording” CO2 emissions, the oceans and biomass emit a huge proportion of this gas naturally and if the climate is indeed warming there is no concrete linkage, other than incidental, of that being primarily human-caused. Do we change our lifestyles “just in case”?
I saw a video clip recently of the introduction of the Ford Tempo in the early or mid 80s. With a four cylinder engine, it ws rated at 43 mpg. 43!!!
If I remember correctly, at the time Ford had the Fiesta or Escort, Tempo and Taurus. Ford currently has the Focus, Fusion and 500. The Fusion and the 500 are larger than the Tempo and Taurus. It seems like the best (admittedly poor) comparison is the Tempo to the Fusion.
The current 4 cylinder Fusion gets 31 mpg. Twenty years later and fuel effciency has dropped by 28%. That sucks.
What about the Focus to the Tempo? The current focus gets a max of 37 mpg, which is a drop of 14%. That really sucks. At least in a Tempo, you could seat five people for a couple of miles.
Lousy design and engineering is killing the US automakers.
Don’t forget either, that “Today, there are more than 18 unique blends of gasoline mandated across the nation — again offered in three octane grades — and at least three different blends of diesel fuel.” Okay, let’s do the math. I make it… 59 different blends of gasoline spread out over 50 states. Just to make things that much more complicated, no one refinery produces all 59 blends of gas; nor is any refinery typically dedicated to any one grade.”
From The Truth About Gas
The Tempo which got 43 mpg was the diesel version, which is literally filthy compared to modern cars’ exhaust, Dr JP. (Most people don’t even recall that Tempo WAS available with a diesel). The only way a gasoline powered Tempo would get 43 mpg would be to measure it while idling as you pushed it off a tall cliff.
Here’s the info from Wikipedia about the RF series diesel engine itself. (It was produced by Mazda).
RF
The 2.0 L (1998 cc) RF was one of Mazda’s more popular Diesel engines. Bore and stroke are square at 86 mm.
A direct-injection turbo version, called the DI-TD was introduced in the 1999 Mazda Capella.
– Used in the Mazda Bongo and 1999 Mazda Demio
Used also in the 1984-1985 Ford Tempo – Mercury Topaz
1981-1985 Ford Escort – Mercury Lynx
Sorry for the double post, but I just thought – the 43 mpg for the Tempo diesel bragged about on the TV spot seen by Dr JP would have been “highway” MPG (and as well we all know, “your mileage could vary”). I’d guess the Tempo Diesel probably ran about 32-35 mpg in town, on the EPA, and combined rating of about 38?
But Dr JP’s point is well taken in that efficiency needs to vastly improve.
Which brings me to why I got a Prius. I once sold collector car insurance, a customer was speaking to me about the 25 mpg his Model A Ford could obtain and he said “there is absolutely NO reason modern cars should’t get 50 MPG”.
I thought about his comment, and then suddenly – there was the introduction of the 2004 Toyota Prius, rated at 55 mpg combination.
There sits down in the parking lot my own 2005 Prius on which the MPG meter states that for the last 65 miles, I’ve obtained 48.3 mpg. Not bad, considering the temps have been in the 30’s and 40’s. (Yeah, just like a conventional car, the MPG drops in the winter – by approximately the same PERCENTAGE – it just “looks worse” when you lose 6 mpg compared to 3 – but of course when you start out at 48 to 50, and go to 42 to 44, that looks way bad, doesn’t it? Yet I don’t quibble when our conventional car loses 3 mpg, from 25 to 22….) So yeah, I’m aware of the inbuilt bias we all have.
Thus, you have people “complaining” about their Prius MPG when in reality, the MPG exceeds that of a SMART diesel car built for two…. pretty dang miraculous if you ask me.
A study a few months back showed that, in all of Europe, the Dutch air (which I breathe) has the highest concentration of NOx. No wonder, since this is one of the main pollutants of diesel engines, which we tend to love around here.
I will not argue that a lot needs to be done here when it comes to emission laws and taxes, if only because driving an older, LPG-powered car, the cleanest alternative fuel that’s currently widely available, effectively doubles your road tax (which is based on vehicle weight in Holland, not displacement). However, emissions and efficiency shouldn’t be confused. Echoing what Glenn A. pointed out: a new Ford Expedition is likely a much cleaner car than a 1987 Mercedes 300 D. On the other hand, its resources run out three to four times as quickly as the Mercedes’.
I believe cars should be taxed more as they pollute more (or rather, taxed less as they pollute less). But average fuel economy is a different thing. When addressing the problem of foreign fuel dependency, it’s not what comes out the exhaust that matters.
Where US automakers put relatively clean, but inefficient engines in their cars, VW’s new FSI engine line-up is a prime example of the European idea. They are generally more polluting than their predecessors, yet return better mileage.
I wonder how much longer it will be before we can, on a large scale, improve both economy and emissions at the same time, as both are so important to our future. We could call it the Atlantic take on things.
“if the climate is indeed warming there is no concrete linkage, other than incidental, of that being primarily human-caused. Do we change our lifestyles “just in case”?” -jazbo123
What is the alternative? What if you are wrong and there is a direct link to human activity and global climate?
I use a wrist-rest and utilize an ergonomic workspace “just in case”
I don’t eat candy three meals a day “just in case”
I wear my seatbelt “just in case”
I have life insurance “just in case”
Maybe we could get global climate life insurance…you know, “just in case”
There are a lot of things we do, and a lot of money we spend just in case. Yes, we should change our lifestyle just in case. If that means not driving a 6.7L diesel pick-up to an office job in a posh suburb of Washington DC, well so be it. I’m not saying don’t own the truck, just don’t commute in it. Or if you do, pay the price in the form of a higher usage tax. This tax could come in the form of a per-mile tax calculated when you go through annual inspection; a progressive tax based on displacement; a Euro-model grams-per-mile tax; or, my personal favorite, a $2 per gallon bump in the gas tax. That would place the average price of a US gallon at around $4.00 for the near future. Oh, and my tax revenue would go directly into a fund to pay for new technology development or to subsidize existing technology so it can be more widely utilized.
Lousy design and engineering is killing the US automakers.
Another major difference is the performance and weight of the cars. A 4 cyl Tempo weighs less than 2800 pounds and probably went from 0 to sixty (not sure about the diesel). The fusion has an extra few hundred pounds of weight and will hit sixty it a fairly quick 8 seconds.
When looking at highway driving, the engine plays a small part in the overall efficiency. Frontal area and drag are the biggest factors. Cars that come with both four and six cylinder engines don’t show a big variation between the two engines with regard to fuel efficiency. Just look at the Corvette. Massive engine with better fuel efficiency than my four cylinder Forester.
Cavendel
When looking at highway driving, the engine plays a small part in the overall efficiency. Frontal area and drag are the biggest factors.
Very good point. I remember reading that, of the three factors that contribute to fuel economy (rolling resistance of tires, internal resistance of drivetrain, air resistance), only one of them increases as the SQUARE of velocity. Guess which one…
I suppose that explains all the small pickups that get, eg, 18/22mpg. Around town, small trucks are almost as efficient as midsize cars, but at higher speeds they really show their bricklike aerodynamics. OTOH, my 8-year-old Passat 2.8 with a Cd of ~0.29 can be abysmal in the city with the V6, but can return nearly double the mileage when cruising efficiently.
Green regulations can only help America be more competitive. The longer we stick our head in the sand, the more we cede green technologies to other countries. Nobody doubts that eco-tech is going to be an important part of the economy, but the US’s attitude is embodied in its carmakers who know they can’t compete and therefore fight every regulation that seeks to increase those standards.
Of course we are in a Catch 22 of having large SUVs all over the road and therefore requiring massive crash protection in every car, thereby reducing handling, requiring more power, and increasing weight. Perhaps a progressive, recurrent weight tax on cars would be the most useful thing.
And anyone who denies global warming just so they can drive around in an overweight, ill-handling SUV doesn’t really belong on a car enthusiast site anyway… “Just in case” can also be seen as “Before it is such a huge problem…”
That would place the average price of a US gallon at around $4.00 for the near future. Oh, and my tax revenue would go directly into a fund to pay for new technology development or to subsidize existing technology so it can be more widely utilized.
Do you recall where a lot of the tobacco settlement money went? Around here it was put in a general fund despite being targeted for smoking cessation and health programs. We got new pork barrel projects aplenty. This miraculous gas tax so many poeple want would end up being used to buy votes, plain and simple.
Please recall, I did phrase my “just in case” comment as a question? Of course we often take preventative measures when we have a definable risk. Rather than out of environmental fearmongering it will be more effective to promote energy conservation for security reasons. Like not sending so much money to repressive, hostile regimes.
“if the climate is indeed warming there is no concrete linkage, other than incidental, of that being primarily human-caused. Do we change our lifestyles “just in case”?” -jazbo123
Jazbo’s argument has been thoroughly discredited – at least if one pays attention to mainstream science (as opposed to industry funded “confusionists”). Even many automakers have moved beyond jazbo’s blanket denial.
An excellent source of scientifically based information on global warming can be found at:
http://www.realclimate.org/
Perhaps TTAC might invite one of the scientists from realclimate.org to write an article on global warming.
Fine, now show me proof it is not a natural earth cycle.
Jazbo, I’d invite you to spend some time at the above-mentioned site and ask all the questions you can possibly think of. Seriously.
2 big differences:
1) In Europe, cities are more compact, mass transit is much better, not everyone owns a car, and of those who do, not everyone drives it every day. Thus for the great majority of folks, the car is not a lifestyle choice that tells the world who you are, and you are more likely to buy what you actually need, which is usually a compact car. The whole attitude towards cars is different — for the most part, Europeans never had the myth that they could jump into a big, powerful machine that would transport them away from their petty lives into a wide-open landscape of endless possibilities. From what I’ve been told, Australians come closest to sharing our national myths, and they also share our fondness for big, overpowered cars.
2) Six bucks a gallon does a lot to sharpen your thinking about how much car you really need. I drive a small SUV that gets about 25 mpg, versus a Prius that gets real-world about 50 mpg. I put on average about 40 gal. a month into its tank, which costs me an extra $40 — a cost I’m willing to pay for the greater utility. If that rose to $120 I’d feel pretty silly blowing $1500 / year for the ability to haul building materials, firewood and furniture around every now and then.
Ash78,
You are correct, that is the diesel.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Ford_Tempo.shtml
Cavendel,
Yes there are huge performance differences between the Fusion and the Tempo; it is an admittedly poor comparison and the diesel versus gas engines makes it worse.
How about this: a 1985 gas Tempo could get 34 mpg highway. A 2006 Fusion can get 31 mpg highway.
Why can’t it get better gas mileage with 20 years of advancements? Poor engineering (the fusion is heavier, probably 400 pounds) and corporate inertia. That and buyers want performance over effciency.
Steven,
I’m sure there are lots of dot-orgs and blog sites that argue both sides of the issue. Such things are probably beyond the scope of TTAC. Suffice it to say that we both agree we need to reduce consupmtion and thereby reduce emissions. Perhaps with different perspectives on why.
I may not be properly versed (and probably hold some misconceptions about CAFE).
I always thought that CAFE was written with decent intent to reduce the consumption of oil and increase mileage. What was the biggest failure is that our laws forced this upon the car mfgrs rather than the consumers. Consumers were hardly punished (albeit a simple and non effective gas guzzler tax) for buying 8-10 mpg vehicles. For years small cars were considered dangerous and low society status icons and people flocked to 4000lb+ suvs as daily drivers and commuter vehicles (though ironically more dangerous due to single vehicle rollovers).
So demand for gas guzzlers ignited a big problem and the Big 3 and other business pushed legislation to create loopholes in CAFE big enough to (literally)drive a Ford Valdez through. Take the Explorer which gets on a good day going downhill with a tail wind can get 14city/17hwy on regular gas. With E85 (it is registered as a 20+mpg vehicle CAFE helping avoid penalties) it only gets 10city/13hwy as E85 takes more fuel. So that 400 mile tank is now only 300 mile and makes you fill up more often for the same price!
CAFE was originally a bad piece of legislation as it restricted supply rather than influenced demand. I’m a economist by trade and in this situation the best way to change consumer behavior (which is what we need to do) is to establish regulations on their purchase (have a national gas tax of $1 per gallon, large cities with major congestion should require consumers to prove the need for a 5000+ suv and tax them more heavily as they cause more air pollution and greater weight to roads, toll roads can charge more for single occupant suv drivers, etc.).
There’s many ways to slowly change their behavior. If that’s the case then demand for gas guzzlers will drop and suppliers have to meet the new demand (though we have to remember some people need them but they need to prove it).
Our current agenda is to wait for circumstances outside our control to finally do the smart thing. Big Oil makes their record profits and reinvest little back into our infrastructure as a decrease in demand for gas. But of course the lobbyists are paying their way into our gov’t so much that it seems that here is no hope anymore.
Jazbo, the issue here isn’t that some of us may have a disagreement. The issue is that you are making major claims not supported by the scientific mainstream.
Facts matter. No one on this site would get away with arguing that a Lincoln LS with a V8 gets 60 mpg city driving. Allowing such a fallacy to stand would go against this blog’s commitment to telling the truth.
If we are going to talk about global warming here (which is an issue relevant to the auto industry), it is time to involve scientists who actually have a grounding in the facts of the case. You would be perfectly free to disagree with them. However, you might wish to brush up on your science first; as it stands, you’d get clobbered.
What major claim am I making? The major claims seem to be on the other side of the argument. I’m merely being a sceptic. Scepticism has served me well so far in life :)
Remember, most scientists once agreed that the earth was flat. In the grand scheme of things we are not much smarter now than we were then.
Caution? Sure. Panic, not yet.
OK, I’m done before RF gets pissed off.
Why can’t it get better gas mileage with 20 years of advancements? Poor engineering (the fusion is heavier, probably 400 pounds) and corporate inertia. – Dr. JP
A significant amount of that extra weight comes from 1) vehicles getting bigger, 2) vehicles having higher feature content (those LCD screens are heavier than the mouse fur and plastic they replace) and, perhaps the biggest effect, 3) vehicles being designed for greater structural performance, both stiffness (for improved ride, handling and NVH) and strength (for improved crash energy management, driven by government regulation and IIHS comparo testing) All vehicles from all manufacturers are getting heavier, for those reasons.
Considering what a vastly different market China is and its relative poverty compared to the U.S., why on earth would you assume China “should” have lower CAFE than the U.S., and why would it surprise you that China has higher economy standards?
Obviously CAFE-type laws are going to be grounded in pre-existing reality. Government is not going to come along and double required MPG overnight, that would cause lots of problems. For cost reasons the bulk of the China market naturally goes for much smaller cars even without any government intervention.
Oil is priced at international rates but labor is cheap in China – you try buying lots of gasoline and steel on a Chinaman’s salary. Gasoline and a large vehicle are far more affordable to a typical American that to a Chinese. I would further presume that the typical Chinese car buyer is confined to urban congestion far more so than the average American.
The point is the Chinese market would aim at economy cars anyway, and that’s the starting point for the government intervention. The difference in CAFE standards between the two countries is entirely predictable and rational and shouldn’t be a surprise.
What is the alternative? What if you are wrong and there is a direct link to human activity and global climate?
I use a wrist-rest and utilize an ergonomic workspace “just in case”
I don’t eat candy three meals a day “just in case”
I wear my seatbelt “just in case”
I have life insurance “just in case”
Maybe we could get global climate life insurance…you know, “just in case”
What if you are wrong and there really is a God? Are you going to church “just in case?”
From a policy standpoint, the goal should be to line up the price of fuel with the true cost of its production and use. I believe you can make an argument that the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels are nowhere near captured in the pricing, even without considering global warming. Lots of superfund sites and that dark cloud over LA are evidence of that. Unfortunately, in the US, we don’t have the political will to make that happen. With a main reason being that the political system here has not demonstrated any level of competence at handling the huge transfer of resources it would take to make it happen (tax dollars tend to not end up where they were intended).
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with burning up all the oil on earth. But the way it’s set up now, the user doesn’t have to pay for the environmental damage created, and the profits fund our enemies.
“Remember, most scientists once agreed that the earth was flat.” – Jazbo123
Can you support that assertion? Given that the scientific method isn’t all that old, you might have trouble with this.
Science is really all about models or discovery of principles. When man’s horizons were the apparent horizon, the “earth is flat” model was both decent science and a useable model. However, once man began to travel about and society had the economic power to support “scientists,” the flatness of the earth was one of the things that came into question. There were noticeable phenomena that could be better explained with a “round Earth” model than a “flat Earth” model.
Since science, per se, was still such a small part of people’s lives and, for most practical purposes, the “flat Earth” model still worked well for people (and does today – do you need a sperical map to navigate your town?), interest in the “round Earth” model was limited.
One ancient Greek philosopher even came up with – given the limitations of his tools – a decent estimate of the Earth’s radius.
The important and well-known challenge to the “round Earth” model came not from science (which was finding the “round Earth” model explained more and more things as time went by) but from dogma and politics. Dogma and politics make for very bad science and this trend continues today.
Government scientists have been muzzled by the current Administration. That’s not scientific progress that’s suppression of science by dogma and politics. It’s not healthy today.
Do we understand, completely, the mechanisms of climate? No. However, we have a good enough understanding of the basic science to be very, very alarmed at what may happen in the near future. Considering the stakes (survival of the species maybe in question), adjustment is a good idea.
Could climate scientists be wrong? Well, probably they could. However, if we drive down carbon production, principally by reduction in use of fossil fuels, we can achieve other goals beyond survival:
Reduction of funds available to terrorists. Generally, oil would be taken off the table as a global political tool.
Stretched availability of fossil fuel supplies. They’re useful and convenient. Why use them up right away?
Reduction of trade deficit, which gives us a higher standard of living.
Economic development. This is the big one. We can own the energy technologies (both the conservation and production technologies) of the 21st century or we can rent them from somebody else. I’d rather own them. To do that, we’re going to have to put money into developing them and provide clear incenvtives to adopt them.
Regarding the higher advertised MPG of mid-80’s cars, I believe this was more a result of the fast-and-loose manner in which MPG was calculated back then. I seem to remember in the mid-80’s there was a big EPA or Consumer Protection Agency crackdown on manufactuer’s MPG claims because they were, to put it mildly, stretching the truth (i.e. advertising MPG that could never be acheived in the real world.)
Ash78 said: I suppose that explains all the small pickups that get, eg, 18/22mpg. Around town, small trucks are almost as efficient as midsize cars, but at higher speeds they really show their bricklike aerodynamics.
I have to disagree. I owned a 1984 Mazda B2000, which was about as brick-like as a vehicle can get. With a camper shell and a bunch of stuff in the back, I routinely got over 30mpg and once going down I-5 from Washington to California, I was able to turn nearly 37mpg. That truck had an 11 gallon tank and I routinely went over 350 miles on it.
The down side? It was so slow that VW buses blew my doors off. It was silver, and since nobody would ever mistake it for a “bullet”, I called it “The Silver Slug.” The 2l carbureted motor put out something like 90hp, and weight was probably at least 3000lb, at least with the stuff I carried. No power steering made it fun to try and park, and do you even need to ask about air conditioning?
One of the reasons I get frustrated with modern manufacturers is they seem to have forgotten that there are some people out there who would just like something simple, economical and reliable like my old Mazda truck. Honestly, I’m glad I don’t have it anymore, I think the cramped seat, lack of AC, pitiful power and crappy AM radio would become frustrating in a few miles, but for the two years I owned it (1989-1991) it was exactly what I needed. A modern version of this truck – with a modern, injected, OHC motor, 5 or 6 speed tranny and power steering – could probably still get 25mpg without breaking a sweat.
Where is the political will we need to tweak the regulatory and taxation system to achieve the goal we set for our country some 31 years ago?
What’s more important, some 31 year old goal set during one of the crappiest eras in US history when oil happened to be at an artificially high price, or the current will of the people? Yes, democracy always sucks when people disagree with you.
One of my favorite economic precepts is “revealed preference”. People lie, but the behavior that they reveal does not. Like it or not, 50% of the US market buys trucks and half of the rest buy gas-guzzler cars. That is a free choice.
If you are a politician in the representative democracy, you might notice that despite all the BS and rhetoric, 75% of Americans have proved beyond any further debate that they want gas hogs. Gas at $3 a gallon? OK, maybe the number drops to only 71%, until gas comes down to $2.15 again – and they go back to buying SUVs.
There’s probably not a single political issue in the land on which there’s more unanimity of agreement: Americans want gas hogs.
Seems pretty obvious frankly. Where’s the confusion?
The CAFE has never worked effectively. In the early 80’s, when gas hit record highs, manufacturers regularly exceeded the CAFE. When gas got cheap, the loopholes were found and exploited: heavy-duty trucks and SUVs were exempt, etc. The price of fuel (or some other economic factor) is what will change buyers habits, as we’ve seen this past year. If our society really cares about this issue (CO emmisions), a higher tax on fuel, like Europe, is the only realistic solution to affect a change in consumption habits. The percentage of humans who will “do the right thing” voluntarily without economic incentives has and always will be low, probably similar to the percentage of car sales that the Prius has.
CAFE is broken from the start: your government can’t tell menufacturers what kind of cars to build no more than it can tell you what kind of car to buy.
This is such a misguided (but politically smart) law.
Consumers will buy whatever they want, given they can afford it. 15 mpg car? why not. Gas is cheap.
The only way to reduce consumption is to steer consumers away from gas guzzler (= make gas more expensive) and you will see higher demand for fuel efficient vehicles, that’s precisely what CAFE does not.
Blaming manufacturers for not meeting CAFE is asinine, manufacturers are in the business of building cars consumers want, that’s kind of the principle of a free market economy.
Do you recall where a lot of the tobacco settlement money went? Around here it was put in a general fund despite being targeted for smoking cessation and health programs. We got new pork barrel projects aplenty. This miraculous gas tax so many poeple want would end up being used to buy votes, plain and simple.
Please recall, I did phrase my “just in case” comment as a question? Of course we often take preventative measures when we have a definable risk. Rather than out of environmental fearmongering it will be more effective to promote energy conservation for security reasons. Like not sending so much money to repressive, hostile regimes.
I’m going to have to go along with jazbo here, “confusionist” or not.
“Consensus” is not Science and Science is not “consensus”. Science is based upon duplicable results of scientific testing–not anyone’s “feelings”.
Science doesn’t need any “defenders” because the evidence will speak for itself.
Hence, whether or not some scientists are “funded by the oil companies” (shudder) or not is irrelevant to the science at hand. (It is instructive to note that people never seem to question the science funded by environmentalists–as if they couldn’t possibly have an agenda of their own–oh, no.).
There must, however, be an atmosphere of open debate–free from stigma–where scientists are allowed to openly discuss the evidence without feeling pressured to swing one way or the other. (Suffice it to say, I will never forget how I learned about Bjorn Lomborg way back when. It was neither “pretty” nor “scientific”.)
But this is a car blog.
Csaba Csere does some explaining about CAFE’s failure to increase mileage here:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11527/the-steering-column-why-mileage-hasnt-improved-in-25-years.html
He argues that consumers have done better than CAFE all on their own.
About this CO2/particulate split–
Are there any examples of policies which address both issues at the same time?
The other thing that worries me is the enthusiasm for wholesale importation of policies from other countries with barely any study of its effects or its suitability to the domestic economy.
Another concern of mine is the singular obsession with automobiles as the source of carbon dioxide emissions. Any serious push to decrease would have an effect on energy consumption across the board–including electricity in our homes.
It is my understanding that Great Britain is the only country in the world that is on target to meet its obligations under the Kyoto “thingy”–and mainly because of it’s past (pre-Kyoto) efforts to replace coal with natural gas (of which it has plenty) as the main source of domestic and industrial power.
No CAFE in sight.
I am not particularly convinced that there will ever be a solution to this “energy crisis” in which we find ourselves.
Economic penalties are not for the faint of political heart, and they are no doubt going to be inevitable in any scheme to cut emissions.
It is instructive that not even the most “European” states dare raise gasoline taxes to $5.00 and $8.00 levels (huffing and puffing aside).
People have come to expect a certain standard of living–particularly since the boom of the 1990s, and many people still view environmentalism as a hobby for extremely wealthy (and loud) people.
When mortgages skyrocket because materials costs balloon (transport taxes do compound) then people will be asking some serious questions about the equality of sacrifice between the rich and the poor:
http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=200601735&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=2006”
(And that is not only an American question. I have lived “elsewhere” and observed the same thing.)
To end the rambling (mercifully), I’ll say that without an honest appraisal of energy choices and even an investment by the government in research and piloting–to make it as cost-effective as fossil fuels (no, “green taxes” will not help–just remember tobacco), and without a wholesale, personal energy-use appraisal by individuals like you and me, this problem will never go away.
But even if you believe that the CAFE standards are working, clearly they’re not doing a very good job of achieving their original intent.
I just want to add that the above is an EXTREMELY big statement to make with little or no basis; certainly, consumption has risen since CAFE standards went into place. What you would need to do is take into account trends of consumption growth prior to CAFE, extrapolate those out over the period as if CAFE hadn’t been put into place, including controls for other factors like the oil crisis, and then compute the difference between consumption with and without CAFE. In other words, an extremely complex and involved process that I’m sure has been attempted numerous times in academic papers, and which dismissing so quickly in an editorial is fallacious.
Martin Albright
It was a whole ‘nother discussion about the increasing bloat in modern “compact” and “midsize” pickups. I wasn’t accounting for outliers like your old Mazda–I was thinking more along the lines of new Tacomas and Frontiers (19/22 and 16/21, respectively, with V6 2WD auto). The city/hwy gap is typically much narrower on vehicles with obviously poor aerodynamics. But that’s just from my observations.
My intent with the article was not to vet the efficacy of CAFE, nor to address any environmental issues. Those are ripe for picking at another day. I wanted to show, but way of China, that there is an emerging international standard – for better or for worse – that domestic US production is ignoring. The complexities of CAFE would fill another 12 TTAC articles. The benefits of tracking CO2 and other particulates, would fill an additional six, maybe seven. I thought it was interesting that much of the world was going one way, while the US was going another.
Kevin:
There’s probably not a single political issue in the land on which there’s more unanimity of agreement: Americans want gas hogs.
That’s probably true. Most people want what they want, especially if they see others around them enjoying the same thing. Sometimes it’s the function of leaders and laws to help people understand the common good instead. I “want” to walk into any store and take whatever I want without paying for it. Part of being an adult is understanding why I can’t do that.
I always find that about 40 comments for an article means that I will really enjoy it. So this one now qualifies.
I do believe in global warming and our effect on it. I don’t, however, think we have much clue as to what effect we are having. From journals I’ve read, CO2 seems to be about the weekest of the “Greenhouse” gases, and there is so much out there already that the window is pretty much closed, so adding more and more CO2 will have a very small effect on the environment. Particulate matter seems to be much more important to me.
Ash78: It was a whole ‘nother discussion about the increasing bloat in modern “compact” and “midsize” pickups. I wasn’t accounting for outliers like your old Mazda–I was thinking more along the lines of new Tacomas and Frontiers (19/22 and 16/21, respectively, with V6 2WD auto). The city/hwy gap is typically much narrower on vehicles with obviously poor aerodynamics. But that’s just from my observations.
I understand your point, I just don’t think it has anything to do with aerodynamics. If anything it has to do with the size, weight and complexity of “small” trucks, which has gone steadily up since the 1970’s.
Hell, my 1985 Toyota 4×4 pickup with a carbureted 22RE 2l engine and 5 speed could routinely get 25mpg. Again, no power steering but the truck was small and light enough that it didn’t really need it. And were you to park it next to a Tacoma of today, you’d be amazed at how much bigger the Tacoma is, in all dimensions.
As far as the difference in focus of emissions rules between the US and Europe, if offered a choice of avoiding something that might cause you harm and something that will cause you harm which is the smarter choice? In this country, at least until recently in California, we have chosen to limit the emissions of CO, NOx, HCs, and particulates; because we KNOW exactly why and how they will damage the environment and, because we live on this planet, us. The Europeans have decided to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, due to the possible impact they might have on global warming. Maybe it is wise to limit “greenhouse gas” emissions, but certainly not at the expense of increasing known proven pollutants.
I think that despite what they might state as the reason for the focus on CO2 emissions, the real underlying reason for the CO2 standards (de facto fuel efficiency standards) in Europe is due to their historic dependence on foriegn oil. Their own reserves are so small that they are much more reliant on foriegn countries for oil than the US, particularly 40 or more years ago. They have lived for generations with an overwhelming reliance on foriegn oil. North Africa was a big part of WW2 because both the axis powers and England needed the oil there to fuel their war industries, tanks, planes, etc. On the other hand, the US has had significant oil reserves in production. However, between the depletion of oil reserves that were already in production, the inability to develop new oil production in this country (for whatever reasons), and the rise in demand; the US is quickly becoming as dependent on foriegn oil as Europe.
I read somewhere that with the 2007 EPA emissions standards, cars are now actually cleaning the air. Automobile exhaust is actually cleaner than naturally occuring hydrocarbon oxidation in terms of CO, N0x, HC.
In order for manufactures to meet 2007 EPA emission standards the engines have to run richer hence worse fuel economy for 2007 MY vehicles.
There is some scientific evidence that CO2 causes a warming affect. Lets all go buy a Hummer H1 and floor it !
Global warming would be a good thing.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reisman/reisman25.html
swc7916 wrote: What if you are wrong and there really is a God? Are you going to church “just in case?”
Yes, churches have people like that in them. Those of us who actually take Jesus Christ seriously look at them as pew-warmers, that’s all they are good for. They consider church as “anti-fire insurance.” Guess what? It ain’t gonna work for ’em.
But back to the subject of the thread.
Lots of talk here about how cars have gotten heavier and larger, due to safety equipment, etc. Doesn’t have to be so.
OK back to my favorite example; my Prius. Not perfect, but wow. 2900 pounds? Check. Virtually the same interior room for people as a Ford LTD or Chevrolet Tahoe SUV? Check. Aerodynamic as all get out? CD of .26. Check. Good highway mileage? Check. Atkinson cycle engine so it gains near-diesel efficiency? Check.
I’ve seen 70-99.9 mpg running on gasoline in the 45 mph range, flat & level to very slight downhill grades. Uphill on the same road, I’ve seen 45 mpg. This averages out to about 65 mpg, folks. That’s not “near diesel efficiency” that IS diesel efficiency.
When I need to haul something like a couch, or a refrigerator or whatever I cannot get into the Prius, I take our “conventional car” and hook up my little multi-purpose canoe trailer / carrier trailer (canoe stays in the yard). I don’t need to haul around 2000 pounds extra weight in a vehicle with the aerodynamics of a barn door for 1% of my carrying needs.
In fact, I’ve had a 27″ HDTV in the box, in my Prius. Also, another time, I’ve had a Honda snowblower in the Prius. The hatch shut on both occasions (rear seats down, of course).
The Chinese Toyota factory is the only non-Japanese factory building Prius cars in the world, only for Chinese consumption I might add.
It might do the big 2 1/2 well to actually use all the hybrid technology they supposedly used a boatload of OUR taxpayer monies from the Clinton administration to develop, and bring such vehicles to market. The “Supercar Initiative” remember? It was just another pork- barrel means of pissing away money by our “esteemed leaders” but hey, why SHOULDN’T we demand some results from it, as citizens? It was OUR money they gave away to “Detroit Inc”.
As for global warming, I am not convinced either “for” or “against”.
But we’re back to the other subject again – as a Christian, I know that the “human race’s owner’s manual” (i.e. the Bible) specifies that I and all the rest of us should be careful with God’s earth and that we (humans) are responsible for it, and should be good stewards. Not wasting resources for example. Like, oil. Not ruining the place with pollution, for another example.
Steward means “one who manages another’s property or affairs” (Webster’s II dictionary).
It all ties together, folks.
That’s probably true. Most people want what they want, especially if they see others around them enjoying the same thing. Sometimes it’s the function of leaders and laws to help people understand the common good instead. I “want” to walk into any store and take whatever I want without paying for it. Part of being an adult is understanding why I can’t do that.
That is the most chilling statement I have ever read in a long, long time.
I surely hope that no modern leader ever gets away with such a contemptuous attitude towards the citizenry (although it’s too late already).
I do question the idea that everybody should do the same thing at the same time for the same reasons.
That “other people are doing it this way” may be interesting in and of itself, but it is no reason at all to abandon one practice and adopt another. (Well, it is a reason, just not a very smart one–as teenagers discover over and over again).
As with all things America will do nothing until there is a crisis. Then it will react looking for an immediate solution instead of putting serious funding behind a cohesive energy policy. Our electrical grid needs to be upgraded, new sources or fuel and or energy savings need to be researched. You will find no politician with the drive and ability to enact legislation for the greater good of the American people. The people want what the people want and only the free market will change our way of life. The only way to enact true “For the Greater Good” laws is to have a totalitarian regime. Boosting gas prices to $7 a gallon over the course of 5 years could not be done in America. But it would be for the greater good, forcing more fuel efficient cars and better mass transit systems. Requiring all children from age 12-17 to have a passive birth control device installed could not be done in any democracy. Would it be for the greater good? Yes. No more children having children who then fall into the welfare system for generations. Banning firearms except one hunting rifle and one shotgun (excluding law enforcement), not in America. Would it be for the greater good? Of course fewer shooting deaths but it won’t be done.
Giving a people new freedoms is easy, taking them away can only be done when faced with crisis. Even then it only lasts as long as the crisis or until the next headline hits the media.
Want to save some money so that we can put it towards true research and conservation? Pull American forces out of all the shitholes in the world and bring them home. Middle east goes up in flames? Who cares we have hydrogen power, E85 and super-dense battery hybrids and the flux capacitor on the way.
Want something done? Put me in charge, no Steve for President, Steve for King, the country would be fixed inside of 10 years.
Well, Somethingtosay and Steve S, I have to respectfully ask you why the statement
“Sometimes it’s the function of leaders and laws to help people understand the common good instead.”
has you so scared? Are these scary?
Winston Churchill, 1940 speech to Parliament and carried on the BBC, envigorating the British public to stay the course, don’t give up the good fight. Ultimately, Naziism was defeated.
John F. Kennedy’s speech about “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
As for laws, what is so difficult to understand about them? It is analagous to my teaching our first-born son at age 2 that he must NOT put his hands up onto the stove-top at any time, or teaching my Newfoundland dog to NOT run off into car traffic. Generally speaking, fair and logical laws are just for such purposes – in order to make civilization work.
So, what would “King Glenn” do to “fix” the problems? I’d take the crown off my head, and say “long live the Constitution” instead, for starters. But as President, I would go ahead and start putting import tariffs on imported oil(entirely Constitutional according to the intent of the founders – unlike the VAST MAJORITY of current taxation).
This would allow fantastic, American-invented technologies such as may be seen at http://www.changingworldtech.com to come to fruition, and also technology such as may be seen at http://www.butanol.com simply because if purely imported gasoline were properly tariffed, it might cost what fuel costs in the UK.
When we were paying $3.20 a gallon, “they” were paying $9.50 a gallon.
That’d make it possible to put Americans to work producing Butanol for $1.25 a gallon, and that’d make it possible to put up plants to take sewage, garbage, etc. and make US produced oil out of it, and the oil companies would either have to buy licenses and compete, or go the way of the buggy-whip manufacturers.
One could only hope, Glenn, that enough Americans would be employed by the butanol industry, because quite a few would be looking for jobs in short order.
It continues to amaze me the zeal with which many Americans feel that “companies” need to be “punished”.
They are not the ones who pay.
I have a 3 year old who I try to teach proper values. As far as he is concerned my house is not a democracy it’s a reasonably benign monarchy. That’s because I know what’s better for him than he does. He still wants to have cookies for dinner, he just doesn’t get them. Americans still want cheap gas and to buy whatever they want and being adults we can do that as long as we are willing to pay for it. Is that for the greater good? No.
I’m no better than anyone else. I just bought a car. I could have gotten a Prius, Civic Hybrid or TDI Jetta. All good mileage cars that show responsibility, practicality and maturity. What did I get? A Mazda RX 8 which at best gets 20MPG and averages around 17MPG. Granted it’s no 10MPG but it still isn’t the practical choice. So why did I make that choice when obviously I know I should be more practical? Because people want what people want and I can afford it. There also isn’t Mom and Dad around saying I can’t have cookies for dinner.
All of you who think the government needs to step in and force us do what we don’t want to for our own good or the good of society, who gets to determine what is for our own good? Inteligent people like you. Heres an idea, I’m an adult let me decide what is good for me. I promise to let you decde what is good for you. You can have your 5 hp deisel motor bike, I can have my mid-size Mazda6, and somebody who has the money to afford the cost can have their Lincoln Navigator. We have this thing called the constitution that was written as the basis for our federal government. The purpose of this document was to protect what the founders of this government believed were the rights of every person from the tyranny of the majority. You are, of course, advocating something else, a tyranny of the minority. You think those who know best should tell the rest of us commoners what to do and how to behave. Your definition of those who know best: the people who agree with you, of course. I prefer the idea that we all have inheirent rights and should be free to decide for ouselves what is good for us. When my good violates your right to determine your good we have a crime.
Science becoming religion,
Goverment becoming parent,
Adults becoming children.
I hope we are not heading there.
The reason the Chinese have a more stringent mileage standard is because they already see the effects of global heating, such as the Gobi Desert’s expansion (imagine the Mojave taking over California), and they are frightened by what they see.
One thing that is an important footnote to all of this Europe vs. US vs. Everybody else is the fuel itself. Gas is not gas, and diesel is not diesel the world over. There are so many different specifications, grades and types in the world that it makes arguing some of these points moot. Even here in the US, there are different grades of gasoline all across the nation. You can even find different grades of gasoline in the same city. Diesel is another story all together. In the 90’s, EU manufacturers didn’t want to send their diesel engines to the US out of fear of the sulphurs in the fuel eating the block apart. As I recall, that was a similar problem for gas engines as well. An engine that is just wonderful for the EU market may just come apart once fed US fuel, and vise-versa.
The reason the Chinese have the CAFE is one of the methods it loots and controls its people, the reason government has alway introduced scheme and plans – what business is it of president Hu whether your mr (or Mrs) Chang buys a Aveo or a 7.0 litre corvette.
I had a used (very) diesel Tempo for a time, not that I remember it too fondly. I do remember, however, driving 550 miles on one tank of diesel in a beat up old car with a worn out engine. Today my company has a Toyota Prius (not for fuel economy, but because you can drive them in the carpool or HOV lanes here in CA – but that’s another story) that in the real world gets 45-48 mpg. So are we really progressing? It seems to me we (as the public) can’t even agree on what it is we are trying to reduce, consumption, pollution, etc.
I read a few years back that Volvo (Ford?) developed a coating for radiators that actually cleaned the air that passed through it by trapping contaminates, so the vehicle had a net positive impact on the air quality. If I remember correctly it was not put into production because of cost issues. We can build clean cars if we want, the public doesn’t really want to pay for them.
The whole Prius fad is indicitive of this. The first generation Prius an Honda Insight were largely ignored. It wasn’t until the 2nd generation Prius had a facelift to make it “attractive” that Hollywood and political figures really jumped on the bandwagon.
It will by no means happen that’s why I say the people want what they want. Until supply and demand drives up the price of gas until they/we can no longer afford what they/we want will we be forced to change. It’s the way it is America reacts, it is not proactive.
levarvis, speaking for myself, it was not “looks” that interested me in the 2nd generation Prius compared to the first.
I live in Michigan. First gen Prius’s (Prii?) were not sold here.
Even had they been sold here, I regarded the car as a very interesting science-experiment.
When gen II became available, it
a) cost the same as a Gen I car
b) got 4 mpg better
c) was a mid-sized car (inside, where it counts) instead of a subcompact
and subsequently, I have also found out that
d) Toyota used 30% LESS energy to build it than Gen I cars.
Finally, Gen I cars has been available in Japan since 1997, and thus, the reliability factor was no longer a question.
Bottom line; I agree, we Americans won’t change our habits (for that is all they are) until something “big” happens to “make it happen.” Unfortunately.
In 1973, just before I started driving, that “something big” turned the US economy into a 2-holer outhouse and turned Detroit onto it’s collective ear.
Those who do not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Yes, churches have people like that in them. Those of us who actually take Jesus Christ seriously look at them as pew-warmers, that’s all they are good for. They consider church as “anti-fire insurance.” Guess what? It ain’t gonna work for ‘em.
My intent was to point out the fallacy of your examples: that people do things “just in case” only because they believe in them or of their possibility/probability of happening. The statement:
Maybe we could get global climate life insurance…you know, “just in case”
sounds like a lack of commitment, sort of like “well…it might not help, but it seems like as good an idea as any, so let’s do it and see what happens.”
Here’s my rant: I personally feel that the whole “global warming” green movement is about one thing: global political power. Did you notice where Mikhail Gorbachev went after he was ousted from power? To the green movement. Why settle with just ruling the Soviet Union when you can tell the whole world how to live? The same thing goes for Al Gore. The last people that I trust to protect the environment are politicians.
Lumbergh21 pointed out that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the tyranni of our neighbors. True enough. Here’s the first sentence from the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A few years ago, my Dad said something to me that caused me to look at this in an entirely new way. “What if we recognize the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an imperative?” Well… and why not. The rest of the preamble is.
And therein lies the Constitutional rationale for taking an activist approach to energy policy.
Among other things, in the late 18th Century or so, there were just a few million of us and pollution control generally needn’t be anything more elaborate than moving the outhouse when the pit was full and shoveling some dirt back in. We could get along just fine that way.
However, our numbers and level of industrialization has caused us to realize that we can’t act as though our actions have no consequences and, in fact, it is imperative that we find ways as a society to cooperate more closely.
You can’t just dump wastewater anywhere you like.
Heavy metals should be recycled, rather than dumped.
That unburned gas going out your tailpipe? That’s a problem for other people’s lungs.
It took a long time to recognize pollution as a problem and a long time still to get people to understand that, no, damn it, you can not just dump whatever you want wherever you want because it is, in fact, going to affect someone else.
And, surprise, our economy didn’t collapse as we applied effective pollution controls to more and more sectors of activity.
We have reached the point where energy policy is a similar issue. CO2, in the quantities in which we emit it, IS a pollutant. We must control it. Your big SUV is bad for the country. Appealing to people’s better natures is kind of a lose. We have to look to Congress and the Executive for some leadership here and some vision that gets us to the 22nd Century with a functioning economy and healthy environment. And, if we want other countries to cooperate in lowering their CO2 emissions, we’ve got to get our house in order and set an example.
To achieve this, there will be changes. Some of us recommend a higher gas tax. As one poster mentioned, we are not paying for the real cost of fuel. For one thing, the highway tax doesn’t even start to pay for the highways we use. At the very least, it should cover that AND make a dent in the defense budget commensurate with our dependence on foreign oil.
You can still have your big SUV but you’re going to pay what it really costs to support it.
dhathewa – well said. Our system of government is predicated on the existence of a responsible, engaged citizenry with a concept of reciprocal responsibilities. We enjoy “rights” to fundamental things like freedom of speech and freedom of association. Using a finite commodity stupidly and wastefully is not a “right.” Eighteenth-century Americans no more had the “right” to cut down all the trees in the area for their personal fuel consumption than we currently have the “right” to pollute as much as we want, for whatever reason.
And I would add that some folks seem confused about the difference between rights and privelges. Buying the products you want (and cars are a product, much as we love them) at the price you want is not a right.
While we are saddling our own industries with more and more environmental regulations, we are importing more from countries who do not have the same expenses and regulations. In effect, we have exported our pollution, and jobs, overseas. The net effect is the same or maybe worse. Environmentalism is a luxury that nations only embrace when they are rich enough to do so. Don’ t expect the Chinese to stop building inexpensive coal-fired utility plants until they have caught up with us economically.
The CAFE, in theory, promotes vehicle fuel efficiency. Ultimately, however, the intent of CAFE was to reduce fuel use. Fuel efficiency is but a tiny part of the fuel use equation, as fuel use encompasses the amount each vehicle is driven and the number of vehicles. Fuel use also encompasses home heating and cooling, lighting, and appliances. For these reasons, CAFE (even with higher limits and tightened loopholes) will never make more than a small dent in fuel use.
Fortunately, there is a systemic mechanism for reducing fossil fuel use: a “carbon tax.” The tax could be phased in slowly enough to allow people to plan and change their behavior. The tax could create so much revenue that other taxes (sales tax, income tax, and social security tax) could be scaled back greatly. The tax could easily be effective enough that CAFE would be irrelevant and could be dismantled completely.
“dhathewa – well said. Our system of government is predicated on the existence of a responsible, engaged citizenry with a concept of reciprocal responsibilities. We enjoy “rights” to fundamental things like freedom of speech and freedom of association.”
You’re leaving quite a few rights out there. Like the right to private property ownership and free commerce.
“Using a finite commodity stupidly and wastefully is not a “right.” Eighteenth-century Americans no more had the “right” to cut down all the trees in the area for their personal fuel consumption than we currently have the “right” to pollute as much as we want, for whatever reason.”
Actually, if you owned the land you could cut down all the trees you wanted to. A smart land owner would not cut down every tree because what would he do in the years to come. As much as they understood the need for sustainable harvesting and were able to apply it with the technologies of the time, they did. Without a sustainable source of lumber, you couldn’t expect to stay in the lumber business for very long. No lumber meant no money which meant no food at that time. Failure was not the option then that it is now, as they could not count on the government to rescue them.
“And I would add that some folks seem confused about the difference between rights and privelges. Buying the products you want (and cars are a product, much as we love them) at the price you want is not a right.”
In this country it is a right for two parties to come together and exchange products. You may not have the right to purchase a product at a given price, but you do have the right ot buy a product at a price that is agreeable to you and the person selling the product. If you look beyond the preamble to the constitution you will see exactly what rights are enumerated and what restrictions are placed on the federal government.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A few years ago, my Dad said something to me that caused me to look at this in an entirely new way. “What if we recognize the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an imperative?” Well… and why not. The rest of the preamble is.”
And the rest of the constitution explains specifically what rights the people of the country have and establishes restrictions on what the federal government can do. For a proper understanding of how the government was to promote the general welfare and how it was not to do this, you need to go beyond the preamble. The Federalist Papers are a good source for the thinking of the people who wrote the constitution, and of course, the actual words of the constitution are a good source.
“For one thing, the highway tax doesn’t even start to pay for the highways we use.”
In the state of California where I live, you are absolutely right, the taxes on fuel don’t even start to pay for the highways we use; however, they are used for plenty of other state programs. It would be nice if we could force the state government to spend the taxes collected for the reported purpose of maintaining the roads to actually maintain the roads. Unfortunately, they ignore the laws that have been passed by the voters through this state’s proposition process, and continue to spend the money as part of the general fund.
Fortunately, there is a systemic mechanism for reducing fossil fuel use: a “carbon tax.” The tax could be phased in slowly enough to allow people to plan and change their behavior. The tax could create so much revenue that other taxes (sales tax, income tax, and social security tax) could be scaled back greatly. The tax could easily be effective enough that CAFE would be irrelevant and could be dismantled completely.
Surely you must be joking!? I reached for my wallet right there and then…
fuel use will be reduced when gas is about 6 bucks a gallon. i am in favor of that.
then companies will think twice about locating in ex-urbs. Employees will too. Suddenly, we will “discover” public transportation. Cities will be more than quaint places that are to be avoided.
Lumbergh:
“you do have the right to buy a product at a price that is agreeable to you and the person selling the product.”
That’s true as far as it goes, as long as I don’t use it to infringe upon your rights. I have the right to buy a bullhorn, but I don’t have the right to stand outside your bedroom window at night and yell through it. I can buy herbicide, but I can’t pour it all over your yard. When it comes to global warning, we are all in each other’s yards. If you figure out a way to only inflict global warming on yourself, be my guest.
“Actually, if you owned the land you could cut down all the trees you wanted to.”
Again, true enough, but at least in Colonial New England, the town green and the fields and forest outside the village proper were viewed as communal resources unless specifically owned by someone. My point was that there may or may not have been a law against your cattle grazing the common down to the roots, but you were going to face considerable pressure from your neighbors not to do it.
Look, I’m not suggesting that any vehicle be mandated or prohibited. I am suggesting that we should all be conscious that we are using up a finite resource, with serious detrimental consequences to our future, when we burn petrochemicals — and that we should act responsibly in how we do so.
And I find it infuriating that in a time when our leaders are eavesdropping without warrant, imprisoning Americans without charge or trial, trying to steal elections and dragging us into bloody, expensive wars, what really gets some folks truly angry is the suggestion that we be encouraged to use less fuel.
I see a lot of people advocating a fuel tax and emissions tax similar to those imposed on European and British drivers.
The implementation of one or both will only result in the elevated costs in transport being offloaded to consumers — considering that the vast majority of goods are transported by truck. Those truckers are more than willing to ask for the higher costs in fuel to be passed on to the customer in the form of higher prices on goods.
Secondly, the greater revenue acquired from these new taxes will enable state and federal government to spend like never before. If you thought that government mismanaged taxpayer money, then wait until they get a whiff of these new fuel taxes.
Depending on how high these taxes are, the desired effect of weaning people off their own rides and pushing them towards “sensible behavior” such as taking the train, bus or carpooling will go unrealized. Instead, the law of unintended consequences springs forth…….in the form of a pissed-off electorate clamoring for politicians to throw into the bay. This would be the “fate worse than death or scandal” for career politicians.
Oh, and did I mention a mild to moderate recession triggered by people throttling back on overall spending and rising unemployment due to companies trimming down their bottom lines in response to higher fuel, labor and materials costs?
fuel use will be reduced when gas is about 6 bucks a gallon. i am in favor of that.
then companies will think twice about locating in ex-urbs. Employees will too. Suddenly, we will “discover” public transportation. Cities will be more than quaint places that are to be avoided.
I’m not. Neither are the companies and their employees. And the only actions garnered because of the above will be at the voting booths. The mere idea will be rescinded in short order and those who openly suggested such will be further castigated and ostracized.
The mere idea will be rescinded in short order and those who openly suggested such will be further castigated and ostracized.
Sadly, that’s true. And that’s a big part of the problem.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s06003.htm
“MY2006 light-duty vehicles are estimated to average 21.0 miles per gallon (mpg). This average is the same as last year and in the middle of the 20.6 to 21.4 mpg range that has occurred for the past fifteen years, and five percent below the 1987 to 1988 peak of 22.1 mpg.”
Two words come to mind: “National Disgrace”
Secondly, the greater revenue acquired from these new taxes will enable state and federal government to spend like never before. If you thought that government mismanaged taxpayer money, then wait until they get a whiff of these new fuel taxes.
Oh, and did I mention a mild to moderate recession triggered by people throttling back on overall spending and rising unemployment due to companies trimming down their bottom lines in response to higher fuel, labor and materials costs?
Good point, but it loses sight of the goal (to reduce foreign dependence):
If we are subject to another oil price shock due to strained supply (for whatever reason), the entire extra cost of oil (which will be passed on to the consumer) goes to the producers – that is to say not the US, since it a net importer.
We know this will happen again, and probably again after that. So do we want this money to go to the oil producers (ie Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and many other potentially unfriendly nations), or to the government?
The problem of proper use of tax funds is a legitimate concern, but doesn’t override the fundamental purpose; we can’t be assured tax funds will be used irresponsibly. Personally, I’d rather see that kind of money being used to implement universal health care – with the right resolve I think it’s possible.
Great subject and commentary, everyone!
Just to add a couple of minor points:
The EPA city/highway mpg ratings (posted on the window sticker and used in advertising) were “adjusted” downward starting in the 1985 model year, so any comparisons with earlier models aren’t accurate. The EPA lopped 10% off the calculated city rating and 22% off the highway rating.
This means that a 1984 subcompact (or diesel Tempo) that attained 40 mpg on the “highway” had its mileage rating reduced to 31 mpg the next model year!
Ironically, the CAFE standard (on which penalties are assessed, for example) still uses the UNADJUSTED mileage calculations, so the whole scheme is based on what are known to be optimistic ratings.
With regard to small pickups, my 1998 Nissan Frontier regular cab, with 2.4 L 4-cylinder and 5-speed manual, is rated at 22/26 mpg.
On my commute, which is mostly highway, I get 26 mpg time after time. On the few longer trips I have taken with it, I get about 29 mpg, so several of you must be correct about the not-so-good aerodynamics. I do have a/c and power steering, so it’s a very handy vehicle to have.
I suppose only the ancient Ford Ranger can achieve such economy today, now that all of the other small trucks have “grown up.”
Science becoming religion,
Goverment becoming parent,
Adults becoming children.
I hope we are not heading there.
After reading a lot of these posts…Too Late… We are already there.
It seems the main argument people are having on this post (and it doesn’t have anything to do with the article…) is where do we draw the line between government regulation for environmental protection and letting the free market decide for itself. Unfortunately most people base their decisions on their pockets and not on what will be good for the environment. Since the effects of our decisions won’t be seen until years later it’s all too easy to act like nothing’s wrong. And people are STILL arguing that the effects of global warming that we’re seeing today aren’t caused by us even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Science isn’t religion, it’s theory proved by research. If scientists are saying that we need to change our behavior “or else” how do we handle this? Especially since we know a free market left unregulated will certainly not handle this. Faith in Jesus will not save the planet. It is up to us. We need to find an agreeable balance between totally free market and regulated. Where that balance falls is the real debate in my mind.
Two big problems with CAFE: The active word is “Average” and its rules focus on cars. It really needs to include trucks– all SUVs, minivans, pick-ups and most vans. You can bet that if auto makers couldn’t get away with averaging the mileage of vehicles we wouldn’t have nearly as many 10-15 mpg gas hogs running around. The SUV craze would not have happened.
There needs to be a Fuel Mileage Requirement along with an annual tax or registration fee, perhaps based on engine displacement, vehicle weight, etc., that puts pressure on car makers to produce more efficient cars and education to encourage people to change their behavior. Unfortunately, it would require getting the goons we send to D.C. off the auto lobbyist payrolls and actually having the courage and integrity to do something. Like that’ll happen.
There should also be an increase in the gas tax to get gas around $3-$4/gallon with the tax money going to energy research and improving some aspects of public transportation, such as rail service for more urbanized areas. Higher prices will drive people to more fuel efficient cars. I don’t like $3+ /gallon gas, but I think we need to take a longer view than how much gas will cost for commuting or vacation.
No one needs a 3-ton SUV or Hemi-engined truck to commute to their office. If they want one, that’s fine, just don’t whine about $100+ fill-ups.
Jazbo123, Lumbergh21 and Luther:
“Adults becoming children” – I often think we’re there already, too. We do not face up to our responsibilities and one of these is, as the chief economic and military power in the world, to set an example for the rest of the world in terms of protecting the environment. But precious few people get past, “I want it, I can afford it, I’m going to have it,” with no regard for consequences. This is why laws are, ultimately, necessary, to preserve the future of the country because individual initiative and acceptance of responsibility is sorely lacking. The adults are like whiny brats.
“Science becoming religion” – is another facet of that same phenomenon. Not that science has become religion, I’ve never heard of a credible case of a researcher with any kind of credibility failing to get a hearing for an unpopular or controversial idea. Sure, scientists can be petty, vain and selfish but science is still about integrating facts. No, it’s the noise from the “Adults becoming children,” “I want it, I can afford it, I’m gonna have it,” and they justify their childish intransigence with “Science has become religion.”
As with the “flat Earth” vs “round Earth” conflict, science isn’t the problem in the global warming debate. Imperfect knowledge is a limiting factor but it’s an ostrich-like refusal to ocnsider the problem that holds the greatest danger.
Our own President has finally admitted that global warming is a serious problem. But, like an over-indulgent parent, he does nothing to encourage self-discipline among Americans. He coasts along, in Big Oil and Big Coal’s pocket and the CO2 levels continue to climb.
One of the most difficult things for many people to understand is the idea of a social contract. Whether you know it or not, your life is dependent on a series of social contracts that have enabled you to get where you are today. Defense, transportation networks, air and water as clean as it is, your education, the fact that you can hire educated people, the very fact that we do not live in chaos, is all a result of the generations of Americans who went before you, who contributed to our current success and laid the groundwork for the future. Failure to recognize this is a grave danger to our shared future.
Without me and my ancestors and the other 300million people in this country and their ancestors, nobody would be driving an SUV. You’d have a lifespan of 45 years and you’d spend it looking at the back end of a draft animal.
The level of pontification for this article is so deep I need a set of those waders that go up to my armpits.
It’s real simple, folks.
China has tighter emission and fuel economy standards because the air quality in their cities completely sucks and because they can.
Oh, and you want to run this game according to England’s rules? Fine, so long as you’re prepared the standard motor in your car being less than 1.5L.
Pistonheads whining about fuel economy never ceases to amaze me. First, you beat down on cars with small engines and lower power output, then you whine about how much gas American cars use. The comment about the Model A getting 25mpg and why a modern car cannot get twice that is especially telling. Modern technology is capable of making such cars without resorting to hybrid tomfoolery, but no one in the US wants to buy them. Remember the Chevy Sprint and Geo Metro? They did it with 30+ year old tech. The only reason GM kept them on the lots was to pull down their CAFE averages. They probably sold 100 Cavaliers for each Metro that went out the door. Hardly anyone wanted them. Oh, and you’ll also have to give up some of that beloved safety equipment too. You can’t have an straight internal-combustion engined car that’s built like a brick outhouse, has respectible 0-60 times, and gets that coveted 50mpg.
If you want better economy, and the buying public isn’t willing to buy the cars, then you have to resort to other “incentives”. Things like taxes and other regulations. Do US citizens want to go there?
The answer as I see it is battery-assisted fuel cells, but you can be sure the oil companies are doing everything they can to delay that until they’ve figured out some way to make a lot of money off them.
There are a couple points that are being missed here.
Improving efficiency does not and will not reduce anyone’s “dependence on foreign oil.” Improving efficiency increases the demand for energy, it doesn’t lower it! That’s basic economics, good grief it’s common sense, it has the exact same effect as lowering the price.
China has stiffer fuel-economy regulations than the US because that’s the sort of stupid thing authoritarian state s do. Note that at the same time a large part of our present elevated oil prices can be blamed on demand from China, demand that has been artificially inflatedby price controls meant to encourage growth(which of course led to shortages and rationing,) so don’t point to them any kind of model to follow! And all that the European regulations have done is increase air pollution and slightly delay the rise of car culture, car use is growing faster there than in the US.
Regulating C02 is a euphemism for rationing energy use, for tyrannical centralized control over every aspect of our lives, and we are told this is necessary by politicans and professional activists who spend more time flying than most of us do driving.
What really riles me is why supposed automotive enthusiasts don’t get this. The success of the automobile is the the most obvious symbol of the triumph of capitalism and personal freedom, it’s why socialists posing as “environmentalists” hate them so. There’s no point in trying to appease them!
Lumbergh21:
As much as they understood the need for sustainable harvesting and were able to apply it with the technologies of the time, they did. Without a sustainable source of lumber, you couldn’t expect to stay in the lumber business for very long. No lumber meant no money which meant no food at that time. Failure was not the option then that it is now, as they could not count on the government to rescue them.
They didn’t apply sustainable harvesting. That’s why the coast of Maine is rocky. The trees went down to the water until they were cut.
dhathewa:
One of the most difficult things for many people to understand is the idea of a social contract. Whether you know it or not, your life is dependent on a series of social contracts that have enabled you to get where you are today. Defense, transportation networks, air and water as clean as it is, your education, the fact that you can hire educated people, the very fact that we do not live in chaos, is all a result of the generations of Americans who went before you, who contributed to our current success and laid the groundwork for the future. Failure to recognize this is a grave danger to our shared future.
Well said!!!
The original article has two assumptions. 1. that we shoudl use less oil 2. that CAFE laws are a good way to use less oil.
I actually agree with #1. My daily driver averages 30 mpg (1999 Ford Contour, 2.0l 4 cyl, 5 speed manual).
But I don’t agree with #2. We live in a democracy, and most Americans love big and/or fast and/or stylish wheels. Fuel economy is simply not an issue, even today gas is very small part of house hold budget. So any CAFE law passed would have so many loop-holes it would do nothing.
Indeed part of the SUV craze was caused by CAFE laws – people who wanted the ‘big iron’ simply bought pickups and SUV’s.
The only thing US loves more than gas is hypocracy. In opinion polls we often say we want to force automakers to offer better mileage – but what do we buy (and I don’t believe SUV’s were forced down anyone’s throats).
I want a vehicle that uses no gas and is a blast to drive at safe speeds.
Wait- it’s my bike!
and to the comment about forcing car makers to build better cars, i am torn on that one. On one hand, if it were not for federal safely regs, we’d probaldy all be dead by now – as opposed to “only” 40,000 or us a year(gulp). So that seemed to work.
However, i think that a flat $4 a gallon tax on fuel would do a better job, and be easier to administrate. Even lawmakers can count to 4.
Where is the political will we need to tweak the regulatory and taxation system to achieve the goal we set for our country some 31 years ago?
Oh don’t worry. If a new tax is needed, we will get one.
Must credit dhathewa on his comment again about social contract. I cannot help but feel that we are already sliding down the slippery slope to the degradation of human society with climate change about to kick our butts within this century. Hard thing is do we accept defeat or try and stop us from loosing?