Surprise! The day after the president told the world that his administration is ignoring public opinion and re-bailing out Chrysler and GM, the Chief Executive’s minions have revealed their new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) targets. First, the dig [via the AP]: “Under the changes, which are slightly less stringent than those proposed by the Bush administration [emphasis added], new passenger cars will need to meet 30.2 mpg for the 2011 model year and pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and minivans will need to reach 24.1 mpg.” Why the roll-back? David Kelly, acting director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Obama’s decision to adopt the old Bush figures “showed the agency had done a good job after two years of work. For as much as people wanted to criticize NHTSA, this is clearly the best step that is out there that is the best step to improve fuel economy and do so in a reasonable way that doesn’t force manufacturers into bankruptcy.” Right. Sorry, I forgot: can’t bankrupt Chrysler and GM. ’K. Math. Fallout. Jump.
The new fuel economy numbers may be lower than G. W. Bush’s goal, but they represent an eight percent hike above the 2010 model year requirements, and a [you figure it out] increase over the fuel economy mandated by the 2007 energy bill (35 mpg by 2020 for cars and trucks combined). Barack’s Boyz say the new standards will save 887 million gallons of fuel and eliminate 8.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
As for the future, today’s move doesn’t obviate California’s attempt to usurp (and raise) federal standards. “The Obama administration is expected to decide by May whether to give California and 13 other states permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to impose a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2016,” The Detroit News reports. “The regulation would have the effect of a fleetwide fuel economy of 34.5 mpg by 2015.”
Environmentalists have pronounced themselves satisfied [via the AP]. “Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, a project of the Center for Auto Safety, said the 2011 standard would require the administration ‘to make up for it in the following years. The good news is that they’re promising that they will.'”
So… he’s not going to let CA set fuel regs for the country?
Or, he is going to let them, but he wanted to let the soon-to-be-moot federal regs ease up a bit to make himself look better?
wow – that’s some challenging math…
I’m really starting to think getting rid of CAFE and moving to a euro-style system where you tax engine size is better.
There are some incremental improvements that could probably take cars up to 35. Not sure about trucks. RAV4 V6 gets about 28 highway, which is impressive.
But if you want real improvements, you either have to go with diesel (bad) or smaller engines.
Cutting out the worst offenders (large SUVs) would seem to be the best way to move towards more fuel efficiency. The problem I have with CAFE is it doesn’t take into account how cars are driven and used.
The tree-huggers need to remember the basic fact about politicians – they lie.
“The good news is that they’re promising that they will”
Yeah, and Ontario’s premier Dalton McGuinty promised he wouldn’t raise taxes… My bet is, that when GM and Chrysler come running to Uncle Obama saying they can’t meet the fuel economy regs, Obama will scrap said regs, or delay them until GM and Chrysler meet them.
The problem I have with CAFE is it doesn’t take into account how cars are driven and used.
Right, the problem is that some people do genuinely need a powerful truck or van for work, whereas many other people prefer them, though not as strongly. When you try to regulate what automobiles can be sold a la CAFE, you have a choice of screwing over the people who need it, mandating expensive investigations to see if people “really need it,” allowing just politically connected people who know how to work the system to have powerful cars, or having loopholes that everyone can use to get a powerful car (like SUVs).
The economic way to distinguish between need and want is to use pricing. Taxes on gas or engine displacement would mean that people who really needed them would suck it up and pay (and pass some of those costs along, surely) but people who just wanted more power if they could get it would switch. Yes it would be unfair in the sense that it would hurt people with less money more, but I don’t think it’s any worse than any of the other options (at least if you goal is to actually improve MPG.)
If you have to raise government revenue some way, then the gas tax is one of the least bad ways to do it. And since the Highway Trust Fund really is running out of money since the tax hasn’t been raised (and our new Democratic overlords, unable to raise the gas tax over bipartisan objections, have subsidized the Trust Fund via general appropriations the last two years), and driving continues its historic decline”, I think it makes sense.
Of course, everyone, drivers included, wants to come up with some way to make everyone else pay for it, even if nominally in favor of reducing oil usage.
I just have a problem with the implication that US engineers are too incompetent to make more efficient cars without bankrupting the companies they work for. These are the same people who have found ways to radically increase horsepower & torque in smaller engines over the last few years – a midsize sedan w/ a 4-pot averages, what, 165 hp nowadays? To say that these engineers can’t possibly now focus on fuel-efficiency is just silliness, IMO.
I think snabster might be on to something – taxing cars differently based on engine size isn’t a terrible idea, or even the Euro model of taxing cars based on emissions seems workable. That way, the people who want/need big V8 power have it available, but normal-usage drivers are disincentivized to overbuy. There is a slight disincentive presently, with engine upgrades typically costing a bit more upfront, but the idea that you’ll also get hit every year w/ higher gas bills (lower mpg) AND a significant tax bump might make people stop and think for a bit about how much car they actually need.
I just have a problem with the implication that US engineers are too incompetent to make more efficient cars without bankrupting the companies they work for. These are the same people who have found ways to radically increase horsepower & torque in smaller engines over the last few years – a midsize sedan w/ a 4-pot averages, what, 165 hp nowadays? To say that these engineers can’t possibly now focus on fuel-efficiency is just silliness, IMO.
No one is arguing the engineers are incompetent, it’s that there are tradeoffs between fuel efficiency and power. You’re absolutely right that there has been impressive improvements in engines in the last few years, leading to more power while keeping fuel efficiency the same (compare a 2001 Honda to a 2009 Honda, which is larger, more powerful, but has the safe fuel efficiency, using the new numbers.)
The other problem is that, given a choice and the current tax regime, most people take the more powerful, less efficient engine. There’s no point in building engines that people won’t buy. The engineers and the manufacturers will build what people will buy. If not, they’ll lose money and go bankrupt be bailed out. If you want to change what kind of cars people buy, change the incentives.
Taxing engine displacement is worse than CAFE. One can build a small low-mpg turbo and supercharged engine with aggressive gearing to propel a heavy car around and what have you gained over a less stressed bigger engine with economy gearing?
Taxing the heck out of fuel is what really works in the Euro zone. 90hp 1.4L engines are pretty much the entry-level standard in that market. I would be satisfied with the same here in an entry-level car, but there is insufficient demand at $2 a gallon.
How did Honda ever sell 1.3L 62hp Civic HF’s over here? It was only a decade or so ago. Has our market changed that much in such a short time? I guess is has. Entry level buyers cant drive a stick or crank a window handle, much less live without a sub-eight second 0-60 time.
Funny thing, I sometimes commute in a 1969 53(SAE gross)hp VW and still end up driving faster than most everyone else in urban traffic.
If it’s a moronic rule based on tortured (read: politicized) logic, it’s a safe bet that Congress will vote for it.
Wow, can’t wait to hear how the socio-green blogospehere responds. It’s so tough to make choices when you want two things that couldn’t be more mutually exclusive.
Fun, fun, fun!
Whatinhell is wrong with taxing gas consumption? Why add another layer of bureaucratic complexity on us when we already have the consumption tax in place? If you have a 7L engine that can get 25mpg highway why should that be penalized relative to a 3.5L engine that gets the same mileage? Whats magic about displacement – it’s the fuel economy. Want to make a real difference? Get rid of the two tier CAFE for cars vs light trucks, SUVs and vans of various types and just tax gas. Solves the problem, and provides the funding for highway infrastructure repair/replacement everyone is yammering about.
Really, as distasteful as it may seem on the surface, increasing fuel taxes and taxing based on engine size are really the only sensible way to try and get the public to consistently demand (and be willing to pay for) more fuel efficient vehicles. If you don’t and you continue demanding that manufacturers build cars that the general public doesn’t want, then you are creating a worse impact on the business than the taxes would.
In order to not hurt business expansion, you could put off setting tax credits in place for commercial applications where the need for a larger, less efficient vehicle can be demonstrated.
The simple elegant solution would be to Abolish CAFE, raise the federal tax on motor fuel $0.40-.60/gal and index it to construction & maintenance costs.
As Chuck R points 25 mpg is 25mpg regardless of coming from a big slow turning V8 or a 2.0L “Hand Grenade” turbo a la Evo or STi.
From what I understand (unofficially) Ford is quietly pushing a greater fuel tax in lieu of tougher government standards…
Whatinhell is wrong with taxing gas consumption? Why add another layer of bureaucratic complexity on us when we already have the consumption tax in place? If you have a 7L engine that can get 25mpg highway why should that be penalized relative to a 3.5L engine that gets the same mileage? Whats magic about displacement – it’s the fuel economy. Want to make a real difference? Get rid of the two tier CAFE for cars vs light trucks, SUVs and vans of various types and just tax gas. Solves the problem, and provides the funding for highway infrastructure repair/replacement everyone is yammering about.…
Agreed. Who cares how the standard is met or what meets it. So, tax the vehicles that don’t meet the standard. Institute a mileage based registration surcharge and you can dump CAFE. This way, those who chose to drive efficient aren’t taxed the same as those who chose to drive guzzlers. A gas tax penalizes everybody.
I think the government should be free to set CAFE standards however they want, so long as it does raise the prices (or reduce the availability) of V8 powered five passenger vehicles that can go 0-60 in under five seconds.