When it comes to the debate over proposed increases in U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, rational argument takes a back seat to politics as usual, as this article in Pennsylvania's Patriot News illustrates. Hometown rep Todd Platts, lead Republican is lead on a bill raising federal mandated fuel efficiency by 40 percent (to 35 miles per gallon) by 2018. Platts: "The auto industry, as it does today, said it was impossible– it would compromise safety, choice. Obviously, history has proven that their statements were untruthful and technology did allow the advances." The opposition (a.k.a. "one industry lobbyist"): "Under this bill, in wanting to make the U.S. more like Europe, every American would be driving a Toyota Corolla. I don't think most Americans want that." Will Platt compromise with the forces of evil? Sure! "We believe there is technology that would allow you to go beyond 35, but we also know that given the special interests that are lined up against us — the auto industry and the oil industry — you have to be realistic," Platts said.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
The most common answer you ever hear when proposing change is ‘no’. On the other hand though, if one company (as pointed out, Toyota) is able to say ‘yes’ you look at it’s competetor (the big 2.5) and shake them like a crying baby and ask “why the truck can’t you do it?!”
If the Domestic’s argument is that raising the standards will cause everybody to drive Imports…well then that right there is a problem in itself. I want the domestics to do well, really I do. Deep down I am a Chevy guy, and this is their opportunity to really come back. They need to recognize that and get on it instead of watching emerging technology get devoloped by their cometition.
The Big 2.8 neglected the compact fuel efficient market with also rans in order to solely focus on profits from their gas guzzlers.
Do they lie to us? You betch – remember Ford’s mantra “Quality is Job One”? Yeah that was a bold faced lie – but they figured if they said it enough stupid people would believe it – and stupid people will believe anything.
Personally I hate the Government telling me what kind of car I can and cannot buy. Provide incentives, don’t mandate change.
I want a truck with better mileage, I don’t want it to be my only option.
RAISE GAS TAXES if you want to decrease demand for gasoline – and reinvest the $ somewhere else
don’t regulate the industry and set CAFE standards
The Big 2.8 are dead anyway. You all will drive what the Japanese call “city cars” and like it. Stop whining.
It seems that in Europe many of those who can afford to do so buy large cars. Mercedes S-Class anyone? The market here in the U.S. seems to be slowly becoming more like Europe. Fewer people will buy large cars and trucks and more will buy smaller ones.
cretinx –
I agree with you; I would rather pay more for gasoline through higher gas taxes than playing around with CAFE, or any other regulatory substitute, for that matter.
I think people should be able to buy whatever car/truck/tank they wish, and I find the whole premise of CAFE ridiculous. I also think the retail price of gasoline should be much higher, for a variety of reasons.
Then all the cajoling for people to drive something smaller goes away. Motorists would “pay to play” since anyone that wanted to burn a lot of gasoline for whatever reason – driving an SUV to run errands, driving a Maybach to run errands, or some other permutation, would be paying a lot of money to exercise that sort of desire. And we would never have to discuss CAFE again.
Because, frankly, if gasoline was a sustained $5 or $6 a gallon, the demarcation between needs and wants regarding what people drive would become a lot more pronounced. Only families with 5 kids that lived on a mountain that got a lot of snow would decide they needed a 7-passenger AWD SUV to get around in, for the most part. Sure, there would be exceptions – people who could afford the gasoline and got a kick out of driving something big around, but not too many. Most people would not get enough pleasure from driving something that got 10-12 MPG to justify the cost of the gasoline. Purchasers of such vehicles would be confined to people that just couldn’t make a smaller vehicle that got better gas mileage work for them because of their particular (real) needs.
Gasoline is cheap in the U.S., and until it is more expensive, there will be no migration towards highly fuel-efficient vehicles. Most Americans do not respond to efforts to save gasoline for the good of the planet, they don’t respond to efforts to induce guilt, if they’re not forced to buy the cars made as a result of CAFE, then they won’t, they don’t respond to societal pressure, they’re not conservationists, and national security is an issue to them, but one they can usually only think of in tangible, military actions. It’s tough for many of them to connect the dots – paying money to people that have oil, who in turn give the money to people who want to kill us; that really doesn’t register with a lot of people as something we should minimize. Particularly when they want gasoline for their vehicles. So, none of those things are going to make Americans use less gasoline.
But Americans do react to economic forces, and fairly quickly. A large increase in the retail price of gas, implemented over a few years, would get everyone moving towards the same goal of reducing gasoline consumption. You could make it tax-neutral overall by reducing the federal income tax rate a small amount.
And then we could get focused on all of the other things that use petroleum-based fuel and put out pollutants – it’s a long list, and it is the lion’s share of our problems in this area, but at least we’d have the part with passenger vehicles being worked on, and that’s a good start.
B Moore – Autosavant.net
Toyota Corolla? A Yaris won’t even get 35 MPG.
Amazing to me how Americans will vote to enslave themselves. Raising gas tax will just cause economic/dollar decline and inflation and limit the “poor” people’s upward mobility…Which is what politicians want in order to create a society of grumpy yet obedient sheeple. A doubleplus good idea. (See Europe)
Raising gas tax punishes everyone – even those who are making a real effort to reduce their consumption. Why not just raise the minimum mpg for the gas guzzler tax and make it apply to light trucks. Also, instead of a one-time tax, tie it in with the registration so the owner has to pay it each renewal time. Businesses could be exempt but private owners would have to pay up.
I think you can tax people by the GVW. Those who choose to own 5,000lb plus vehicles get taxed more annually (heavier cars tear up the road more than a lighter car – big rigs get weighed and taxed based on that weight to help pay for future road repairs).
As an economist the easy and best way to do it from an efficiency standpoint is a gas tax. It is always easier to motivate consumer behavoir on the demand side rather than the supply side. Let them make mpg and green house emissions a major consideration rather than something forced on them.
Additional gas taxes would seem to be the most workable, simpler solution, but unfortunately not politically viable at this time. Perhaps after 20 January 2009? Only if the money is also reinvested toward infrastructure and energy R&D? We’ll see I guess.
Of course there’s an economic penalty, especially for people with lower incomes. But don’t think already that they aren’t paying disproportionately in the US, including military service to secure (you guessed it) strategic oil supplies overseas.
I’ve also wondered about what other countries’ experiences with displacement taxes (why so many cars from overseas have engines just under 2 liters) or perhaps horsepower taxes–the advantage I can see with the latter is that it might encourage more use of diesels, with their comparatively lower hp but still have the torque that more Americans seem to like.
Raising (gas) taxes is a very bad idea.
Why do some think (well, emote perhaps) it’s a good idea to send more money to the Federal government, which in turn will piss it away on politically favored insiders?
Ethanol, a not-very-good idea, is one close-by example of government bureaucratic stupidity in action: dramatically energy inefficient to produce, performs like crap and raises the price of food (throughout the chain, anywhere corn is used) while the beneficiaries continue to bribe the elected.
Where is the evidence that government allocates resources better than the masses of individual decision-makers?
Well, I guess I’ve gotten bolder as I’ve aged. :(
The way to achieve demand for more efficient cars is to raise the price of fuel – an extra couple of bucks a gallon gas tax would do it. And then the government can give poor people and REAL farmers and construction workers and those who NEED big vehicles a subsidy out of the taxes collected. This way those who NEED big vehicles and can’t afford the fuel will be helped, and those who don’t need gas guzzlers, or are well off will either chose more efficient transportation, or pay the taxes.
Raise taxes? Brilliant! ‘Cause the government ALWAYS spends our money more judiciously than individuals can.
Those that think cheap gas is making a comeback need to wake up. $20 and a steak dinner say we hit $4/gallon in the next year. Any takers?
Luther: A doubleplus good idea.
Well played.
JCross
The right hurricane and it might be 5 or 6. And that is if we are lucky, ie no lines or shortages.
If the dollar keeps falling against the Euro at the same pace as last year, it’s 4 buck gas even if gas doesn’t go up for a year, and that isn’t likely.