U.S. passenger vehicles emit about 20 percent of the nation’s carbon emissions and consume about 44 percent of its oil. With that in mind, the Obama administration will reveal (some time this week, Thursday probably) its proposal for fuel efficiency and emissions requirements for cars and light trucks for model years 2017 and beyond.
According to Automotive News [sub], “leading environmental groups have called on the administration to set a target of 60 miles per gallon by 2025, but officials have said that is unlikely.” They should know, they own two car companies.
What is widely believed to be handed down are yearly average mileage increases, anywhere between 3 percent to 6 percent. The 60 mpg figure would require a roughly 6 percent annual improvement. If the 60 mpg standard were in place now, U.S. gasoline consumption would fall by roughly half to 1.6 billion barrels annually, says Consumer Federation of America Director of Research Mark Cooper.
Under current law, automakers must achieve 35.5 mpg by 2016, up 42 percent from current levels.
Absolutely not. What we need is a realistic gas tax. I think a sliding tax such that the retail price stays at $5/gal would be about right. Then folks can drive whatever they like. Regulating mpgs just results in unintended consequences, like the SUV craze.
So, let me get this straight……regulating MPG’s has unintended consequences (I assume you are saying the SUV craze was a negative) but artificially controlling market prices with taxes doesn’t? Do you trust your politicians enough to slide the tax to near zero if the true market gas price climbs close to $5/gal as it did in 2008? Don’t bet on it……taxes only slide one way.
A sliding tax is not such a weird thing. The feds can set their gas tax to be $2.00, minus 1 cent for every dollar that a barrel of oil costs on the NYMEX exchange.
A gas tax also actually lowers fuel consumption. CAFE standards lead to more efficiency, which cause people to drive more. That’s not a bad thing, since people are more mobile for the same energy input, but it doesn’t really do anything about our fuel consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.
“Absolutely not. What we need is a realistic gas tax.”
Absolutely not, what we need is a realistic President and not one hell-bent on eliminating every job in this country.
I’ve always thought a higher gas tax would be a great idea – seems like it would solve all kinds of problems. Probably need to be instituted gradually over four years – say 25 cents per gallon the first year, 50 cents the next, up to a dollar. Think about it – $140 billion a year generated at that rate, covers more of the real cost of the fuel (military, corporate subsidies, pollution cleanup in addition to the existing road uses).
Most people’s behavior would change (look at the cars the rest of the world drives) but we can still choose to drive what we want, we’ll just be paying more proportionally. If you have to have a big SUV, you’ll be paying more for it. Also doesn’t hurt small specialist manufacturers that only make one model.
Try to add $3 per gallon tax on top of $2 per gallon before taxes gasoline and someone is going to get rich on smuggling.
From where. Gas smuggling isn’t that easy and Canada has more expensive gas as politicians make sure it is only slightly more expensive than in the USA
ps. In Europe the only place where there was gas smuggling and a semi operational state was Northern Ireland. I don’t consider filling up in low tax areas smuggling, besides this also happens inside the USA
A gas tax is horribly regressive and punishes the poor. Well to do folks can just shrug it off.
Tommy
I wouldn’t mind an additional gas tax, provided all the money collected is used for road repair and improvement.
Don’t micromanage. Give us a carbon tax. Cars are only 15% of US greenhouse emissions, and one of the harder places to conserve. Meat eating results in more ghg than cars do. I have nothing against 60mpg cars. I just want the investment in reducing ghg to go where it will get the biggest bang for the buck, and I don’t think cars is it.
For more on ghg mitigation policies, go here: @font-face { font-family: “Times New Roman”; }@font-face { font-family: “Arial”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } tinyURL.com/ycumbr6
Hmm, I thought we were getting past this "carbon:bad" thing. I guess not.
Why just 60mpg? Why not 600 or 6000? If your going to start pulling completely random numbers out of your ass without any consideration for what is realistically or technologically possible you might as well go for the gusto. These cars should be able to fly and turn into submarines too, that would be sweet.
+1
Keep asking questions like that and they will make you walk.
Amen!
Because 60 mpg is achievable in fact some cars in Europe already achieve higher than this
Well duh, Colin. You can squeeze 60mpg out of a Geo Metro if you really want to. They’re not talking about “some” cars here; they are talking about the entire fleet average, which means trucks and vans and family sedans and one would hope even sports cars. To offset the lower mileage of one work truck or cargo van model a car-maker would have to have other models getting 100mpg or more. Have you seen what those x-prize cars look like? That’s not going to cut it. To make realistic, practical vehicles with that kind of efficiency the industry standard in only fifteen years is just technologically unreasonable. Environmentalists seem to constantly come up with this kind of pie-in-the-ski ideological BS, and that’s why people like me end up thinking they’re all nutters.
i think it needs to be a combination of things, such as improving traffic flow in major metropolitan areas on top of making cars more efficient. there’s no point in making cars more efficient if every single one is getting 0mpg because they’re sitting in traffic jams. perhaps we can have roads that charge battery powered cars, similar to what happens during F-Zero. but pressuring the automakers alone will not make the problem go away. it will also need to be improved infrastructure as well.
I want to drive a 60MPG car before I answer.
I agree. If the goal is 60mpg, just keep hiking the tax until that is the fleet average.
It seems that the US consumes 140 billion gallons of gas per year. With a tax at $5 gallon the government could send everyone a check for $2300 a year thus making it tax neutral from the point of view of the public* If you drive a Fiesta, you’d come out way ahead. If you drive a Suburban, you’d end up way behind.
* You could in theory reduce the income tax to compensate, but I don’t think the public would trust that to happen.
If this trend in electric and EREV takes off and becomes a significant contender to the market then the overall average of 60 mpg should not be so far fetched. You have to remember, that us gear heads are a dying breed. I’m thinking cars like the Nissan Cube (ipod holder with wheels) is not so much a flop, but ahead of its time (despise not being elec. or hybrid yet), and with that said would the person buying a “transportation device” care as much as we do if it was electric?
The truth shall be told when the price of the Volt and Leaf have skimmed their way into the mainstream market place. I say it is too soon to tell for sure, but I am betting a little loose pocket change on lithium each month.
Why wont gear heads love electric vehicles? They are on the whole somewhat more conservative with engine choices see, for example fuel injection, but that doesn’t mean that they wont go with the flow. Besides electric vehicles accelerate much better than ICE.
There should ZERO mpg regulations….especially when they are being imposed under the scam that is “Global Warming”.
Let the market decide if it wants high MPG vehicles.
If the US didn’t import oil we’d have a trade surplus with the rest of the world. Would you agree to a tax to improve our balance of trade?
Even if you don’t truck with environmental issues, doesn’t it seem like a good idea to be proactive about energy security and the costs surrounding it?
To further my post below: if you buy all your oil from Canada, at worst you get some dead birds and a lot of fat Albertans. Certainly this is better** than pumping dollars into Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or the like.
** if you don’t live in an OPEC state.
The slippery slope of CAFE is getting evident. At some point they’ll have a regulation of 200 mpg and nobody will be able to afford a car except politicians… who would naturally be exempted.
I actually agree here. Cars are going to be bought based upon several factors, including mpg. Having an mpg test is good, but regulating mpg is dumb. People are going to pay more at the pump anyway for it. There really isn’t a need to regulate it differently than what people are willing to pay for the car and for running the car.
Now, to fix to really address the problem with federal and state tax dollars on gas for fixing roads, it should be a percentage like sales tax and have a minimum value, say the current tax level. MPG through regulation is not smart.
Silvy, I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. I realize you think global warming is fake, that’s fine, but I’d like you to try something for me.
You strike me as the sort of person who has a garage – go ahead and put your truck in there. Now go get a kiddie pool, put that in the garage and fill it with water, right up to the top. Ask your neighbors for some houseplants, maybe uproot a bush – put that in the garage. Now close the door.
With me still? Good. Now. In this scenario, and I realize the measurements are off a bit, the kiddie pool is the oceans, the plants are ‘nature’ and you will be playing the part of ‘the human race’ – your truck is industry in all of it’s CO2 producing glory. Please go ahead and turn your truck on – give it a few revs and then let that sucker idle – maybe dabble your toes in the pool. Have a carrot.
Let me know when you’re satisfied that it has no effect on anything….oh, wait, wait, actually, don’t do what I just said because you’ll die.
If you wouldn’t mind explaining to me how the world and it’s atmosphere are not your garage in this scenario, I’d love to hear it. Emmissions having a negative effect on air is not some high science myth – there is a reason why you can’t put your mouth on your tailpipe – i’m confident you agree with that, so why is there an argument that it has an effect on the whole of the planet?
I realize that you are scared – fear is the major reason why people resist the idea that something is happening with the planet – it’s natural, but to have your reaction to that fear be driving as big a truck as you can find and trying to convince other people to do the same, to argue against the idea of taking precautions…think about our kids. Check out that scenario up there and imagine shutting the garage door on them. Unsettling, no?
Hanksingle,
What you are describing isn’t even close to the theory of global warming. Cars emit lots of gases. The ocean absorbs some and there is plenty in the air. The heat from the exhaust isn’t the problem by the theory. It is that CO2 traps heat that would be normally escaping the earth and that it is in the air for a VERY long time. Air quality and global warming aren’t the same thing.
Steve – Yes? I thought I was being clear – global warming is a fairly high mind concept for most people (myself included), air pollution seems a little easier to grasp as having an immediate impact, even if one feels that pollution of any kind is actually a liberal hoax funded by Ford Motor Company(not me). This was supposed to be a hands on demonstration of how endless legions of ICEs running could negatively effect the world, regardless of whether or not one believes in Ecomentalist ‘myths’.
I’m not sure how Hank’s demonstration is even remotely relevant. Silvy’s point was simply that forcing fuel economy is a waste of time. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents. If we want 60 mpg cars, we’ll buy them. If we’re forced to against our will, don’t expect a favorable public opinion or re-election.
Dear lord, did I just agree with Silvy?
All vehicles within the same regulatory group are limited in the amount of pollutants that they can emit, as per the Clean Air Act. Therefore, a Lincoln Town Car or a Mercedes S-Class cannot, by law, emit more pollutants than a Ford Fiesta or Honda Fit, even though they burn more gas.
Increasing fuel economy standards will not reduce the level of pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. These pollutants have been decreasing in this country for decades anyway.
Think about the “44% of it’s oil” figure.**
If you cut that, the US can almost rely on Canada (and perhaps Mexico) alone. Think about all the externalized costs of oil that simply “go away” if that happens. Heck, if this had happened a decade or so ago you’d have likely avoided the second war in Iraq and saved billions of dollars.
** and forget the oil is fungible, I know
You know who loves this fantasy-mileage thing? The luxury car manufacturers. Companies like Mercedes and BMW did the math a long time ago and decided it’s just a lot easier to cough up the fine and ignore the whole stupid game.
Chrysler concocted some epic CAFE maneuvering prior to the Daimler Disaster, including declaring the end of a model year around mid-March one time. I want to say it was about 1998 or so, but I forget the details.
Only a bunch of government clowns would dream of fostering innovation through threats and punishment.
They also classified the PT Crusier as a “van”.
More of the same.
I suspect EVs will become the new ethanol loophole, with 80-100mpg credits given for every EV or plug in hybrid. Everyone is happy, President Hopeychangey can talk a good green game making the tree huggers all warm and fuzzy and big ethanol gets there sweet sweet Gov. Cheese. Meanwhile outside the beltway people will continue to enjoy their F150s, Cute-Utes and Canyoneros and grumble when fuel foes north of $3/gal.
Come on M1, it worked so well in the 70s! [/sarcasm] ;)
Tommy
It is truly amazing how folks continually see taxes as an alternative. One can argue exactly the opposite. The fuel economy standards force manufacturers to produce efficient cars that artificially suppress the demand/price of gasoline.
Why not let the price of gasoline reach its own free market determined level thereby creating real demand for fuel efficient cars?
At present, I am happy to see all the Prius’ and the like on the road keeping gasoline cheap so I can use it in my trucks and big blocks.
Government bureaucracies can always be relied upon to make the wrong decisions. That is how they remain bureaucracies. If we would allow for true free market efficiencies, we would probably reach the true pricing level for gasoline much faster.
The fuel economy standards is a tax. Produce to many cars that use a lot of fuel and you pay the tax.
The problem with a fuel economy tax is that it only influence the new car buyer. Not the owner or second hand buyer. Which means that trucks are cheaper to operate in the USA and thus are kept longer
If anyone is interested, here’s what “Big Tuna” had to say on this matter.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/farago-on-prs-takeaway-at-606am-est-raise-the-gas-tax-if-you-must/
“Big Tuna?” Did he know you called him that?
No. I just watched “The Office US” and heard the phrase. For some reason in my head, it suits Big Bad Bob.
The ‘Nard Dog!
WIN Cammy…WIN!
No matter what your politics, the government needs to raise some revenue through taxation. The question then is what is the best way to raise that revenue. Do you want to tax income, real estate , capital gains, imports or maybe a tax on booze, cigarettes or gas?
In 2009 total federal income tax revenue was 951 billion. A $3 gallon gas tax would generate $420 billion in revenue that is enough to reduce the income tax burden nearly in half. Why is one better than the other?
Um, no. How about, no matter what your politics, the government needs to spend less.
Those advocating dramatic tax increases seem to be living on somebody else’s dime (mom and dad, trust fund, sugar daddy), have a government job, not making enough to pay much in taxes anyway, or making so much that paying more taxes does not really impact their daily lives. Most of the rest of us in the middle don’t need or want more of our income funneled to Washington.
Who said anything about raising taxes? I think I specifically said we should slap on a $3 a gallon gas tax and cut income taxes in half.
Why are you such a big fan of income taxes? Why not tax the things we don’t want (massive oil imports) and tax less the things we want (making money).
Why won’t raising gas taxes and cutting income taxes work? Simple…..those at the low end who comprise the 90% of the population that pay the least income tax will all of a sudden become taxed more through the gas tax. This 90% also votes. Also, how naive are you to think that the fed would actually roll back income taxes in favor of gas taxes? I agree that usage taxes are how it should be done. The problem is that it might be a lot of revenue at first, but as soon as consumption drops and revenue plummets, guess what’s coming? You guessed it!!!! More taxes!!!! Just look at all the creative ways that local governments are taking to raise revenue…..automated camera ticketing anyone?
“Simple…..those at the low end who comprise the 90% of the population that pay the least income tax will all of a sudden become taxed more through the gas tax. ”
That’s why I proposed the $2300 per capita gas tax rebate. Everyone gets the same back. Those who drive Fiestas and live 3 miles from work will do very well and those who drive Suburbans and live 60 miles from work have to pay up.
“That’s why I proposed the $2300 per capita gas tax rebate. Everyone gets the same back. Those who drive Fiestas and live 3 miles from work will do very well and those who drive Suburbans and live 60 miles from work have to pay up.”
So in other words….Redistribute the wealth….right?
Leave my money to me to make decisions and I will make the correct ones for me. Don’t take my money and give it back to me if I behave as you want.
“So in other words….Redistribute the wealth….right?”
So, given the choice between a gas tax and an income tax you’d go with the income tax? Sorry, I’d say go with the gas tax and reduce income taxes. If income taxes aren’t reduced then institute a rebate system. Or some politically viable combination of the two.
Their net effect is what makes one better than the other. One disproportionately impacts middle and lower income members of our society.
The “fair tax” crowd, usually either wealthy or uneducated, will not acknowledge this fact.
The ‘sin’ taxes also most affect the poor who have no voice or power to lobby against them.
The powerful abusers will have a day of reckoning – maybe at the end of pitch forks and torches or on Judgment Day.
“So in other words….Redistribute the wealth….right?”
You right-wingers kill me with that phrase. You throw it around as if it’s some “AHA!” against the “left” (as if we actually have one of those), while yourselves cheering on the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the world’s wealthiest multinational corporations.
Sometimes I think it should be legal to hunt right-wingers, as long as they get used for pet food, biodiesel, or something else useful…
So when democracy and persuasion fails, kill your political adversaries? Stalinism always slips out when you talk to a leftist long enough.
@Toad:
Oh how unusual, a humor-impaired right-winger on the verge of hysteria!
Haven’t seen one of those in *several* minutes.
“You right-wingers kill me with that phrase. You throw it around as if it’s some “AHA!” against the “left” (as if we actually have one of those), while yourselves cheering on the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the world’s wealthiest multinational corporations.”
Did I say that I approve of corporate welfare? Gotta love stereotyping and intolerance no matter where it comes from.
beezlebugtrigger: You right-wingers kill me with that phrase. You throw it around as if it’s some “AHA!” against the “left” (as if we actually have one of those), while yourselves cheering on the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the world’s wealthiest multinational corporations.
Try thinking for a change, instead of mindlessly relying on false stereotypes. Most conservatives and all libertarians are AGAINST corporate welfare.
In fact, one of the biggest examples of corporate welfare came about when the Bush and Obama Administrations bailed out GM and Chrysler. On this site, at least, it has been the left that lectures on the need for this bailout, while painting those opposed to it as out-of-touch Ayn Rand worshippers.
So, if you are upset about corporate welfare, you may want to start sending the message to your fellow lefties. They seem to love it.
Most conservatives and all libertarians are AGAINST corporate welfare
So are most actual leftists. But it doesn’t matter.
The problem is that both parties in power have been very, very good at hoodwinking their grass-roots members into seeing their opposite number as an extreme, whereas the grassroots on both sides actually have more in common with each other, philosophically speaking, than their autocratic counterparts.
Statist and left-wing aren’t linked at the hip any more than statist and right-wing are. What is common is that, in the US, right- and left-wing statists are all there is. The libertarian right is drowing in a sea of idiot social regressives, while the anarcho-syndicalist left flat out doesn’t exist.
Or, to put it bluntly, that American Libertarians have more in common with Ralph Nader than George Bush.
The flip-side of this is that you have those same people saying “Well, Bush wasn’t really a conservative” or “Obama isn’t really socialist”. This doesn’t matter: as long as the kind of conservatives who elect Bush, or the kind of progressives who push for Obama continue to either hoodwink, marginalize or, most likely, co-opt their localist members the state of affairs will continue and we’ll continue to see people talking past one another.
Personally, I’d like nothing more than to see a presidential election campaign between Ron Paul and either Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, rather than the two flavours of vanilla that’s common now.
+1 psarhjinian
You nailed it, brother.
In 1865, William Jevons noted that as steam engine efficiency improved (miles/ton of coal), coal consumption did not decrease. Instead it increased, because trains got so cheap to run that they started being used much more intensively. The same phenomenon applies to cars. There was a recent study that showed that hybrid car drivers drove on average 25% more miles than the rest of us. This shouldn’t be surprising – it makes more economic sense to invest in efficiency if you know you’ll really benefit from it.
So proclamations that 60 MPG cars will lower our oil consumption by roughly half are complete idiocy, and people who make them should feel a little sheepish for not understanding basic economics.
In my book, the only thing that makes sense if we want to lower our oil consumption is to tax it. Which I hope we do sooner rather than later.
Also read an article recently that more efficient light bulbs (compact florescent and LED) have not decreased energy consumption because people just burn more or brighter bulbs and/or leave them on 24/7. People budget X for a something and it appears that come hell or high water they’re going to spend X.
There’s a good book about the Jevons paradox and similar issues: The Bottomless Well.
Lady and Gentlemens, we have a winner. And someone who didn’t nap in his Econ and Psych classes to boot. Yes, as something becomes more efficient (cheaper to use), it gets used more. This is simple economics — as well as how the human mind rationalizes consumption (well, look how much I’m saving, so it’s okay to have/use more).
You want to cut consumption by half, make it twice as expensive. That’s where the tax comes in. We can argue the Euro-Socialist-logic of such a move — as well as how badly our elected officials would probably muck such a tax up — all we want. But done correctly, we’d cut oil consumption by half (either through driving less, or driving more efficiently), and we could probably cut our deficit to zero if we applied it to our national debt and not to more spending.
Throw in legalization of pot, we’re in the black, baby — all while decriminalizing our modern day prohibition experiment.
Now, where are my rolling papers.
“You want to cut consumption by half, make it twice as expensive.”
That would depend on the elasticity of demand.
It would be nice to have options in automobiles, some that get great mileage, some that can haul 4 kids, some that can tow boats.
Mandating mileage does not take into account usage. Not everyone rides one per vehicle. Some folks use their cars to haul things. Hauling is not a strong suit for tiny 60mpg cars.
It would be great if there were cars that got 60 mpg to add to the mix of cars available. But to mandate such us nonsense.
Or, perhaps people who need to drive a lot tend to buy hybrids. Similarily, the only fixtures with CFL’s in my house are the lights that are used most often.
Either way, you’re getting more productivity for every ton of coal or gallon of gas- more good for no more fuel, and that is GOOD for productivity.
If they continue the CAFE program, the MPG standards should be the same for both cars and trucks.
It’s truly amazing to see so many people here think that they are not taxed enough. Are you people so incompetent with your money that you think government can do a better job of spending it or do you think that you somehow won’t be paying the yaxes? I, for one, think that the government gets too much of my money and wastes most of it.
You do understand that taxes almost never go down, if they are raised on one thing, they aren’t reduced anywhere else. A government without money is one that will be less inrtusive in peoples’ lives. So I like the idea of a broke powerless government.
“So I like the idea of a broke powerless government.”
No courts, no police, no army, no navy, no interstate highway system, just broke and powerless. Gee…. sign me up!
+1. People wanting no government seem to forget about little things like roads and emergency services.
It’s truly amazing to see so many people here think that increasing the gas tax couldn’t be accompanied by decreasing some other tax. In fact, that is probably the only way the law would be able to get passed.
Another problem with CAFE is that it doesn’t change behavior. Or, with Jevon’s paradox, it might even change behavior in a counter-productive way. The goal is supposed to be to use less oil. It doesn’t matter if that is achieved by more efficient vehicles or driving less or driving in a more efficient manner. CAFE focuses exclusively on only one parameter. In the 35 years of CAFE we have had increasing miles driven, increasing miles flown, and increasing home energy consumption.
While I’m sympathetic to the tea party, taxes are going to have to have to go up unless you really sit the country down for a serious talk about cutting the spending in very popular programs. Things like the military, social security, and medicare.
I’m willing to see those programs cut pretty strongly, but I’m in a very tiny minority.
Roads and emergency services are local issues.
The only reason the Feds need more money is, they spend like drunken sailors, both parties. Check the Social Security trust fund.
Tommy
I’m well aware of Jevon’s paradox but personally, I don’t have any more TIME to spend driving around, even if someone was PAYING ME TO DO IT!
Miles per car has leveled out over the last few years and its probably due to the time constraint. Making driving free with a 10,000 mpg car isn’t going to create more time to use it. Yes, at the margins, some people whose budget limits the consumption of transport will use more transport, but the 60 mpg car is going to come about by transferring the cost of fuel to the purchase cost. So it actually won’t overall be cheaper, but the dollars will go to manufacturers of car components rather than OPEC, which is desirable from a geopolitical perspective.
Furthermore, going from 26 to 60 mpg is a much bigger fuel savings than going from 60 to 10,000 mpg.
On a 100 mile trip, 26 mpg means you burn 3.85 gallons, 60 mpg burns 1.66 gallons, and 10,000 mpg burns .01 gallons.
This means going from 26 to 60 saves you 2.19 gallons of fuel on your trip! Big savings. Going from 60 to 10,000 only saves you 1.65 gallons on your trip. Nice, but a much smaller savings than 2.19 gallons. Getting infinity mpg would only bring that up to 1.66, so you’re NEVER going to save as much fuel as you saved going from 26 to 60. As fuel efficiency increases, further improvements become more and more marginal.
This is the flaw in measuring efficiency in mpg.
“going from 26 to 60 mpg is a much bigger fuel savings than going from 60 to 10,000 mpg”
….you must be a member of congress. I realize that the entire 10,000 mpg thing is hypothetical, but seriously, you are saying that it is a bigger fuel savings to use 1.66 gals to go 100 miles than 0.01 gallons to go 100 miles?
No- I’m saying the low-hanging fruit saves a lot more gallons of gas. It doesn’t take long until the sacrifices of increasing mpg to very high numbers is disproportionately high compared to the savings those additional mpgs get you. Measuring fuel economy in mpg is what does this.
Lets use round numbers
60 mpg is 3x 20mpg. On a given trip (lets call it 100 miles, for the sake of round numbers), the 20 mpg car will burn five gallons. Upgrading to the 60 mpg car you will burn 1.666 gallons on that trip. Great- you saved 3.33 gallons!
Lets triple mpg again, from 60 to 180 mpg, which is 9x the original 20 mpg. Last time we tripled our mpg we save 3.33 gallons on our commute, and 180 mpg is steller, so we should save just as much, right? Now we burn .5555 gallons on our trip. We only saved an additional 1.11 gallons, and it was REALLY expensive to buy that 180 mpg car :( We just spent all that money and the upgrade is only 1/3 as much as we were expecting :( Hear is the yearly fuel use and cost for the cars at $3/gal and 12k miles per year…
20mpg: 600 gallons, $1,800
60mpg: 200 gallons, $600. $1,200/year savings over 20 mpg
180mpg: 66.7 gallons, $200. $400/year savings over 60 mpg, $1600/ year over 20 mpg
See how the 60 mpg car, getting 3x the mpg, saves nearly as much money and gas as the car that gets 9x the mpg? To save as much money and gas as we’d save going from 20 to only 40 mpg, we’d have to go from 40 to infinity. Most people probably have in their heads that you’d have to go from 40 to 80. The problem is psychological. MPG is a number of quickly diminishing value.
The problem is psychological. Mileage doesn’t matter- we need to be concerned with GALLONAGE. If measured efficiency like Europe, the window stickers would say “5g/100mi”, 3.33g/100mi and 1.11g/100mi. If you know how far you drive, and the price of fuel, you’ll know exactly how much you’ll save by moving from one car to another. There’s a floor, too. you’ll never get better efficiency than the limit approaching 0g/100mi, while with cars you could have a 1000 mpg car, and a 10,000mpg car, and you’d think one is 10x as good as the other, but in g/100mi you’ll realize they both take so little fuel that efficiency is no longer a driving factor in operating EITHER car. They’re basically the same even though they are 1000% apart.- .1g/100mi vs. .01g/100mi. Would .09 gallons really be a factor in your purchase price? At 12,000 miles per year and $3/gallon…
1000 mpg: 12 gallons of gas, $36
10,000 mpg: 1.2 gallons, $3.60
Even at $25/gallon, you’d only save $260/year- under a buck a day.
“They should know, they own two car companies.”
Haha, +1!
60 MPG? Yeah, okay…
I just find it odd how many folks are apparently unaware of the massive dependency almost every industry has on US government spending.
Hey, it’d be great to pay lower taxes, wouldn’t it? But then those contracts would dry up and more people than you’d ever believe would find themselves out of work (and, by the way, the first thing even the most libertarian or “conservative” person does when they’re fired is apply for unemployment insurance).
So you want the government to spend all the money it can, but you don’t in turn want to pay any taxes on the money you ultimately make because the government is spending said money.
Anyway, that’s an aside. 60 MPG seems hard to fathom, but Prii are in the low- to mid-50s already, so maybe it’s achievable?
I believe CAFE is still using the old tests, so a Prius is probably already a 60 MPG car. On the other hand, whenever I see a Prius parked at the airport I think hypocrite… a single flight can wipe out a year’s worth of gas saving.
dingram01: Hey, it’d be great to pay lower taxes, wouldn’t it? But then those contracts would dry up and more people than you’d ever believe would find themselves out of work (and, by the way, the first thing even the most libertarian or “conservative” person does when they’re fired is apply for unemployment insurance).
So, based on that logic, we should have the government tax all of us at 99 percent of our income, and then hire everybody to work on various projects. Unemployment problem solved!
And of course libertarians and conservatives apply for unemployment insurance when they lose a job. Last time I checked, they weren’t exempt from having unemployment insurance taxes deducted from their paychecks. They’d be dumb NOT to apply for it…they earned it.
” On the other hand, whenever I see a Prius parked at the airport I think hypocrite… a single flight can wipe out a year’s worth of gas saving.”
What logical sense does that make?
Second – do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
“The A380 arrived in the U.S. today. The plane can carry 81,890 gallons of fuel and flies 8000 nautical miles, i.e., it burns approximately 10 gallons of fuel per nautical mile or 9 gallons per statute mile. The plane can seat 850 people if configured as an all-economy ship, so the mpg per person is approximately 95 (assuming the plane is fully loaded, which most planes seem to be these days). The Prius gets around 45 mpg in real-world driving and, though it can seat 5, is typically occupied by one person.”
You also have to understand that if people had more money in their pockets from less taxes, there would be more consumer spending. Sure many companies are dependent on gov’t spending and SHOULDN’T be. Some of those industries should receive gov’t money, like defense contractors. I understand that this is a huge portion of gov’t spending, but probably also the most necessary. There is also a lot of waste in gov’t spending. Less waste, more consumer spending will offset the losses from gov’t spending.
Also, people aren’t dumb. They will take gov’t benefits because they paid for them. If the gov’t is going to help, I am absolutely going to take the help because if I don’t, someone else will and I will be just paying them. Like cash 4 clunkers. I didn’t agree with the program. But, if I was looking for a car and had a “clunker” that qualified, I would have done it, absolutely.
JMO, my comment about a Prius parked at the airport was making the point that even with efficient cars (Prius) people can still very easily consume huge amounts of fuel using other means (airplanes). Your figures for the A380 demonstrate the point: each of those passengers can gulp nearly 200 gallons of fuel on a single round trip, which is about as much as a Prius might save over a Corolla in a whole year of driving.
I’m all for Priuses, electric cars, bicycles, and fuel efficiency, but I just think the CAFE will always be ineffective at reducing oil use, as cheap fuel just means consumers will figure out ways of using more of it.
@SunnyvaleCA:
Perhaps the owners wanted a mid-sized hatch.
After all, many TTACers are hatch happy…
“your figures for the A380 demonstrate the point: each of those passengers can gulp nearly 200 gallons of fuel on a single round trip, which is about as much as a Prius might save over a Corolla in a whole year of driving.”
So, how does that make them a hypocrite? Would you respect them more if they drove an Escalade? Also, that 200 gallons is for 8000 nautical miles – how do you know that Prius owner wasn’t going to Las Vegas or St. Thomas? When you were feeling all smug and condescending; how did you know the owner was on that O’Hare to Singapore flight?
Really, you need to explain why you’d think they were a hypocrite.
Huh? If the government stopped spending, taxes would go way down, and people would have a lot more money to spend. They’d buy nicer cars, vacations, invest more, pay for more learning, etc. This spending would employ people.
Granted there would be a massive hiccup while some industries spooled down and others spooled up, and the work force retrained.
The question you really should be asking is if you think the government spends your money as carefully and efficiently as you’d spend that money.
If the government stopped spending, taxes would go way down, and people would have a lot more money to spend. They’d buy nicer cars, vacations, invest more, pay for more learning, etc. This spending would employ people.
This is hallucinogenic. If government stopped spending, you’d see infrastructure and national security go to hell in a handbasket. I think you mean “If they stopped spending on things I don’t like”.
The other point I would make is that the vast majority of Americans don’t see a big difference in their pre-tax and post-tax income. You could argue that corporations would then pay less tax, and that said tax wouldn’t be passed along, but I suspect they’d just bank the difference, at least for a while.
Income tax breaks benefit, at best, 10% of society, and that’s being generous. That’s not enough to drive consumer spending as tax breaks mean absolutely nothing to the other 90%. The evidence that it does is largely coincidental, and relies on tax cuts for the wealthy coinciding with a long, sustained boom in the west. Tax cuts haven’t really done much since median wage flatlined.
If you want to see consumer spending improve on a large scale, you need to see the lower- and middle-class re-empowered, and the only way to do that is to stop relying on credit as a substitute for earnings. Incidentally, you’d also see increased tax revenue as a result, and certainly across a broader group.
Federal income tax reductions benefit more than 10 percent of the population. They benefit the top 45-50 percent who pay them. The reason federal income tax reductions benefit the upper brackets is because the bottom half do not pay these taxes at all.
And right now it would be a good thing if people didn’t immediately spend the money not paid in taxes. That money is saved and becomes capital for reinvesment, which is what we need. We’ve been overspending and undersaving for years.
Until the CAFE regulators can decide if the PT Cruiser and Subaru Outback are trucks or not, I don’t feel I can entrust them with this level of decision-making.
Until the EPA regulators can decide whether to vilify diesels or not, despite inherently higher mpg numbers, I don’t feel I can entrust them with this level of decision-making.
For the time being, chalk me up as a pro-tax guy. The increased fuel prices of 2008 were the most influential, quickest single blow struck against our buying habits since the early 70s. Instead of padding the pockets of the Saudis, how about we use that revenue for more alternative fuel exploration, COORDINATING THE F*CKING TRAFFIC LIGHTS (a huge fuel waste), and maybe fixing the roads. A little something for everyone.
What right do you have to say whether or not peoples’ buying habits are good or bad? Are you the final arbiter of how everyone shoulf live? Stop and think just how presumptuous you are being. This is a more or less free country and you or no one else has any right to tell anyone how they should live their lives. Would you like it if I followed you around all the time and told you everything you could or couldn’t do? So everyone here who thinks they are smarted than everyone else just shut up and take care of yourself first and get over the idea that you are capable of running the world. You aren’t.
I am :-)
I guess the problem with a gas tax is that it’s a third rail. Nobody wants to touch it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Any Government is necessary. If you don’t like government, buy an island and live there by yourself. And get a satellite dish so you can watch FOX Noise, while you are at it.
To get the technology for 60 mpg across the board, Government has been investing in research to make it happen. Once it does happen, a few companies will profit greatly from the tax dollars that were invested in the initial research. THAT, TO ME, IS CRIMINAL – THE TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE FREE TO THE AMERICAN MARKET IF TAX DOLLARS GOT IT DEVELOPED.
Governments take on tasks that private industry can’t or won’t. Roads, water and sewer systems, education, social safety nets, flood insurance to name just a few.
Our infrastructure is crumbling because folks like you have rerouted our tax dollars into the perpetual war machine, totally neglecting our Nations real needs.
You have cut budgets mercilessly then complained that programs don’t work. What a bunch of Republicans (hypocrites).
No, the government will screw it all up, misappropriating excessive amounts of funds to their buddies, while the Automotive X-prize and others will SUCCEED, only to have their success curtailed by government regulation that favors the aforementioned buddies.
I don’t care which side of the aisle you’re on–that’s how it works.
The best thing that could come out of this recession and its disproportionate pain to the US is to reduce our standing in the world. I’d love nothing more than to be able to keep more of our tax revenues here at home, so other countries can come begging to us for a change. I’m very philanthropic…I’m just sick of the standing expectation that the US will be there for every natural disaster (hooray, America) or preemptive military intervention (boo, America) everywhere, every time.
forraymond: Any Government is necessary. If you don’t like government, buy an island and live there by yourself.
The fact that government is necessary doesn’t mean that every proposed government program or regulation is a good idea.
In my lifetime, we’ve had the 55 mph speed limit, the ignition interlock of 1974, 5-mph bumpers and speedometers that only went to 80 mph. Those were championed by strong proponents of regulation at the time, and people who disagreed were castigated as uninformed, shills for the industry, etc.
Today, even many liberals agree that those government actions were misguided at best, with several unintended consequences, or downright stupid at worst.
forraymond: To get the technology for 60 mpg across the board, Government has been investing in research to make it happen. Once it does happen, a few companies will profit greatly from the tax dollars that were invested in the initial research. THAT, TO ME, IS CRIMINAL – THE TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE FREE TO THE AMERICAN MARKET IF TAX DOLLARS GOT IT DEVELOPED.
The entities that I see investing lots of money to improve mileage are Honda, Toyota, Ford, BMW and Mercedes. In some cases they lobby for tax credits for certain vehicles, because said vehicles would not be economically feasible in the free market – meaning, people won’t pay the price for the technology needed to boost the mileage.
I’m sure that Honda could make an Accord that gets 100 mpg on the highway. Only problem is that most people wouldn’t pay $150,000 for that Accord, nor would they be willing to put up the compromises in comfort, safety and acceleration necessary to reach that goal.
forraymond: Governments take on tasks that private industry can’t or won’t. Roads, water and sewer systems, education, social safety nets, flood insurance to name just a few.
All of which are entirely different animals from boosting one aspect (gas mileage) of the performance of a consumer product (automobiles). Let’s compare apples to apples, please.
forraymond: Our infrastructure is crumbling because folks like you have rerouted our tax dollars into the perpetual war machine, totally neglecting our Nations real needs.
You have cut budgets mercilessly then complained that programs don’t work. What a bunch of Republicans (hypocrites).
Actually, no. Take it from someone who works in state government. The biggest drivers of the federal government budget are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, not military spending.
Those “Big Three” programs account for over 40 percent of the total federal budget, compared to about 21 percent for the military (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Plus, most infrastructure spending is done at the state level, and the states are broke because of excessive pensions and benefits for state and public school employees, combined with generous entitlement programs.
40/3 is less than 21/1, 40/2 is even less than 21/1 so defense is atleast the second largest program
All three of those programs are closely linked, and are classified as “entitlements.” They easily outstrip defense spending. The gap will only grow in the coming years, as spending for all three is projected to increase by even greater amounts.
All three combined outstrip defence but not even that much. Besides if the government didn’t pay for Medicare and Social Security than the individual taxpayer has to pay for those insurances themself so the the total savings for the average taxpayer isn’t that big if the state wouldn’t pay for it. But the same can not be said of defense spending. Every dollar not spend there leads to a dollar more for the taxpayer
charly: All three combined outstrip defence but not even that much.
All three combined are almost twice as much as defense spending; I’d say that is a significant amount. Plus, spending for all three is projected to skyrocket in the coming years at current rates; the same is not true for defense spending.
charly: Besides if the government didn’t pay for Medicare and Social Security than the individual taxpayer has to pay for those insurances themself so the the total savings for the average taxpayer isn’t that big if the state wouldn’t pay for it.
The simple fact is that all three are basically broke – Medicare, for example, is running deficits in the billions. And even with Medicare, you need supplemental health insurance. A member of our church needed open heart surgery; if he had relied solely on Medicare, he would have faced a bill of $69,000. And I hope that no one is relying solely on Social Security. Plus, studies have consistently shown the the returns on Social Security (meaning, how much in benefits they get for the taxes paid) for the average person are pretty poor.
The money supposedly set aside for Social Security is really a bunch of IOUs from the federal government. The simple fact is that these programs are running big deficits because demand for them far outstrips the amount of money available, and this will only get worse in the coming years. Which, of course, always happens when people believe that they can get benefits paid for by someone else (or they think that they can).
The only reason that these look cheaper than private alternatives is because the government is not charging taxpayers the true cost of each program.
charly: But the same can not be said of defense spending. Every dollar not spend there leads to a dollar more for the taxpayer
You are assuming that we can live without a modern armed forces, which is not true. So people would have to rely on a private army. Those mercenaries don’t work for free.
Medicare and Spending, 2010:
$743 billion
Social Security Spending, 2010:
$678 billion
Defense Spending, 2010:
$663.7 billion
Military spending is projected to go down over the next decade, but even that won’t be popular in Congress. The number elderly is going to double in the next 25 years. Social Security is going to go up, and Medicare is going to go way way way up.
let’s talk CAFE vs. gas taxes.
CAFE does not work because it’s a law. Law’s have loopholes and require enforcement. CAFE killed full size wagons, or did they? make a full size wagon 4wd and call it a light truck, and people will but it undera different name without paying the guzzler tax. our EPA government paid enforcers do nothing but collect paychecks and watch the SUV’s drive by at 14 mpg.
OR, you can raise the gas tax. Raising hte gas tax COSTS NOTHING to the government. There’s no regulating agency, no rules to publish, no loopholes to beat. It just is. Limited government at it’s finest.
Tax gas at $2/gallon and wonderful things start to happen:
1) the free market reigns. OEM’s can build whatever cars they can sell. If you can afford a 14mpg truck, then go buy one. your dime.
2) OEM cars get better in quality. (say wha?) OEM’s have to guess at consumer whims right now. When gas was $4/gal, small cars flew off the lots. The SUV heavy domestic OEM’s were caught flat footed, despite putting the best and most talented engineers and designers into high profit SUV development. Now that gas is $2/gal, premium small cars are on the outs, and people are buying cross overs and SUV’s again. That wastes a lot of money to try to build to both sides of the equation. Make gas expensive all the time and consumer demand will be more predictable. OEM’s can spend money developing cars that people will want and like instead of guessing and getting it wrong.
3) roads, bridges and intersections get fixed. yes, you’re paying more for gas, but your 40 minute commute just became 30 minutes becuase the state could afford to fix three bridges and redesign 4 traffic jam intersections. bonus: quicker commute means you use less gas sitting in traffic.
4) the gas tax is free money for everyone (say wa again?!?) The last time gas went to $4, something amazing happened: proof of elasticity in fuel demand. It’s undeniable now. Take $2.50 gas and tax it to $4.00. That’s $1.50 in tax revenue. Well, demand will go down becuase people will either drive less or buy more efficient cars. So that $2.50 gallon of gas maybe drops to $2.00/gal. due to surplus. overall gas cost, with the tax, drops to $3.50/gallon. So the consumer is only paying $1/gallon more than they were before, but $1.50 of tax revenue is still generated. That $0.50/gal is a huge revenue stream that came from nowhere but basic economics, and it’s money going into the country infastructure and jobs creation instead of overseas coffers.
CAFE is a coward’s way out, since it’s not an explicit cost to the consumer. BUT, it does shift all the costs to the consumer anyway, and then bills them on top of it for the governemnt workers to maker sure that the rules are followed.
It’s great that cars are supposed to get 60 mpg. But the governemnt is making you pay for it out of your own pocket right to the OEM’s, and you get less than nothing back. None of that money goes into roads or bridges. And when you get 60 mpg instead of 30 mpg, the states get half the money to keep those roads and bridges working, becuase you pay gas tax by the gallon. half the gallons means half the revenues.
Call your congressmen, tell them to grow spines, reduce governemnt size, increase free market reign to the OEM’s, and give you the best bang for your buck; a serious gas tax hike.
And you are gullible enough to believe the governemnt will use the money to improve roads? Look at the Social Security fund, it’s been looted to pay for everything else. Highway funds are used for other purposes. The government wastes money, they pay off constituencies for votes, they cannot be trusted with one dime. Anyone who believes that a gas tax would be used to cut other taxes is naive to the degree that they are unfit to vote.
$4+ gas was a great thing to the urban political class solving the world’s problems over sushi. $4 doesn’t matter at city white collar pay scales. $8 wouldn’t either. These people could trade their Grand Cherokees for Escape hybrids on a whim. And they did.
In the part of the country that feeds you those $75 fillups aren’t an academic concept they’re a real hardship. $15 an hour was a pretty decent job in a lot of places. Having a job at all is a pretty decent job in a lot of those places right now.
The last thing a town with 15 % unemployment needs is another tax.
Completely agree with all your points. Does seem like a win for everybody. And I drive 100 miles round trip a day and would welcome a higher gas tax. (I just won’t drive the sports car as often).
Sundowner – Wow…..that’s so simple…..that extra $1.50 just appears out of nowhere…..amazing!!! Uhm…..ooops….now I have $1.50 less to spend on something else because I still have to drive the same distance to work…..uh-oh…..didn’t see that coming!!!! Ooops…..my dollar now has less buying power because transportation costs of food and retail goods has gone up…..didn’t see that coming either!!!! Huh….I guess that $1.50 doesn’t really appear out of nowhere…..looks like it and more come out of my pocket….go figure.
Did you happen to notice how the economy came to a standstill in 2008? It wasn’t just the SUV manufacturers…..nearly every aspect of the economy was negatively affected.
Sundowner
+1
this the most concise answer I read (so far) on this, the key is the implementation adding $1.50 to gas over night would cause a knee jerk reaction as happened when gas went to $4 a gallon.
1996MEdition
“because I still have to drive the same distance to work” – Yes but you’d be driving a more efficient car or would car share or use public transport or ride your bike or move closer to work or work closer to home OR decide that you need a HD truck to travel 30 miles to work carrying yourself and your McDonald’s breakfast – and suck up the cost! The point being you have choices.
I’ll use myself as an example. Originally from England I drove a Diesel wagon that got ~ 45 mpg(us). At the time (07) gas was £0.90 – 0.95/ltr (~$7 us gallon) – I moved to America where gas was ~ $3.50 /gallon and brought an CUV that got ~22 mpg(us). My total fuel cost per mile remained about the same
Sundowner,
Some good points, but you forget one key item: the US isn’t the sole market for oil. This site has well documented the explosive growth in vehicle sales in China, Brazil, India and other developing markets. If through taxes the US were to see a 5% drop in oil use, that oil goes back on the market to countries adding millions of new vehicles each year. Our usage isn’t enough to drive the world market like it did 10, or even five years ago.
When we sell 11M cars/year in the U.S., those usually replace 10.5M cars that come off the roads due to age. In China/India, these are “new” cars that are just adding to net registrations. What we do in the US regarding efficiency and environmental regulations becomes more irrelevant by the day. I live in Asia and see it firsthand. With developing countries exempted from Kyoto caps, millions of these cars have few if any emissions controls at all on them.
Fuel Tax is only a convenient ‘hidden’ tax to fund roads or infrastructure – period. Any belief that it’s a boon for the environment is folly. It’s irrelevant.
Ahhhh….I love the smell of divisive politics in the morning. CAFE standards are a stupid way to achieve greater efficiency, a sliding tax would make more sense (not that I want one). It would also allow those who wanted to, to keep their Range Rovers and Suburbans. I don’t care about carbon, but I would like us to consume less oil. But not at the expense of the liberty to drive what we please. The CAFE standards are designed to eliminate certain car options, rather than just making them more expensive. They are also illogical in an era of specialization. Chrysler makes money selling Challengers and Pickups. Why should it have to make puny cars nobody wants and which it makes badly? Let Kia sell those. Toyota is good with hybrids, as is Ford why make others invest in that tech if they don’t want to?
It seems public school grads are FAR too stupid to live free.
This is the 2nd time I’ve seen you make a disparaging comment about those that went to public schools. I guess they didn’t teach tact or manners at your private school.
That is a stupid comment. You must’ve missed the class on noblesse oblige.
Tommy
Conservation isn’t about miles. It’s about gallons. Thugs like Chavez aren’t powerful because we don’t drive enough miles.
Talking about the oil problem in terms of MPG is utterly missing the point. It’s like combatting obesity by regulating the size of spoons.
Anyone who thinks a huge jump in fuel taxes will change behaviour has a great case study to thier north. Here in Western Canada we have had excessive gasoline taxes for over 3 decades. A litre of regular unleaded in my corner of the world runs about 1.08 canadian. That works out to about 3.70 a US gallon in US dollars. We are less than a days drive from Calgary Alberta where most of it comes from. People further away pay even more. At least half is tax. Unless you are in an urban center like Vancouver, what you will see for vehicles can be summed up in one word: Trucks. Yep, even with those high taxes people still drive what they want and need, not what some socialist politician thinks we should drive.
The reason is simple. Taxes are just another cost of living and over time wages will increase to cover cost of living increases. Back in the late 70s and early 80s when punishing taxes first were applied here, people did indeed modify thier driving choices and behaviour. Today these taxes have much less impact than they once did since wages rose to cover them. The impressive revenue stream it generates is most assuredly not used to maintain and improve roads, so anyone who thinks that will happen should take a drive in Ontario or BC.
Obama shouldn’t need to legislate 60 mpg cars, having recently nationalized the automotive industry in the US. Just start building them and let the market decide !
From some of what I read here, people aren’t entitled simply to their own opinions, but also to their own facts. I don’t claim expertise in too many subjects, but I’m decent at sensing when people are mostly talking through their hats. Maybe the site needs to introduce a fact-checking system to stanch the flow of misinformation, half-truths and canards.
Might as well eliminate the comments section :-)
Maybe the site needs to introduce a fact-checking system to stanch the flow of misinformation, half-truths and canards.
Facts would be boring. Give me the misinformation, half-truths and canards instead. Much tastier.
I wouldn’t object if the Ferrari I can’t afford got 60 mpg just as long as it could still get from 0 to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds and topped out above 180 mph.
My car gets only about 17 mpg in town, but I shop close to home and organize my trips so I am making one efficient loop. My neighbors with more efficient cars put 3 times the miles on their cars as they drive hither and yon on a moment’s whim. And I don’t trust the current administration with any more of my tax dollars as they would be wasted on additional entitlements and boondoggles like the “stimulus” plan.
Yeah I have the same view. I drive what I want and drive less. However, a lot of folks don’t have that option.
In a word: NO.
More words. CAFE should include all vehicles sold by manufacturer so we can avoid people with PT Cruisers saying they own heavy duty pickups. And 60 mpg is a damn pipe dream. There is no single car available for sale today that will get that number, not even the precious Prius. I don’t really think a gas tax is the answer because people with lower incomes would be too adversely affected, they don’t have the ability to respond to a 150-250% price spike in an essential good by moving closer to work, etc. Why not just increase the gas guzzler tax or apply it to every vehicle? If you got every guy who was going to get the big 5.0 F150 to pick the Ecoboost v6 instead, that’s a huge percentage increase in efficiency right there considering the truck will probably do 150K+ miles. Getting a soccer mom from a Camry into a Camry hybrid who only drives 10K miles a year for 3 years and then returns it off lease…..not as good.
@meefer, “And 60 mpg is a damn pipe dream. There is no single car available for sale today that will get that number …”
The VW Polo BlueMotion is rated at 3.3 L/100 km on the highway, or about 72 mpg (US). The cars exist today, though they may be small and in Europe only.
As for your argument, gas prices will drive customer *behaviour* (before and after the sale) in a way that gas-guzzler taxes never can.
I wonder what the Polo BlueMotion would get on the EPA cycle. It seems that the VW motors don’t get rated nearly as high here as they do in Europe.
I wonder what the Polo BlueMotion would get on the EPA cycle.
This is pretty easy to extrapolate. The Prius gets 72mpg (Imperial) on the same test, but 50mpg (US gallons) EPA combined. The 2.0TDI Golf gets 59 (53 auto), and EPA combined is 34. That would place the Polo a bit above the Golf, but well below the Prius.
Basically, European consumption figures are highly optimistic, hybrid or diesel.
Dear Ajla…well yes, of course diesels over here get less MPG than the European…because the gallon there (Imperial) is substantially bigger than the U.S. gallon here.
FWIW, I drive a 2003 Diesel Jetta. I drive conservatively but I wouldn’t call what I do any more than mild hyper miling. I get 70MPG driving the 8 miles to work….and I’ve averaged, over 2.5 years, about 52-53MPG. The reason it’s so low is there a limit to how *slow* I can drive on my frequent trips 90 miles to NYC, particularly on the New Yrk State Thruway. The liberatarians and the rest may complain about government regs but there’s no escape the square/cube penalty physics inflict on all the speeders. Why don’t you ever complain about that?
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/sdean7855/jetta
They’re putting the industry in a vise: raise mileage while adding significant weight for insignificant safety gains.
W/o major tech advances new cars will be costly and cramped. The reg will raise the price of used cars and depress new car sales. Maybe the guv will order old cars crushed?
Higher gas taxes will revive calls for something akin to food stamps but for gas for the “working poor” and the tax will depress real estate in the exurbs. The people who commute 2 hours a day to earn their “dream” house will feel angry and betrayed. The urban elites will smile at that and enjoy the heavy subsidies the higher taxes will provide to mass transit.
“Under current law, automakers must achieve 35.5 mpg by 2016, up 42 percent from current levels.”
What this really means is 35.5 CAFE MPG for cars. Not real MPG, not EPA MPG and not for “trucks” like the Subaru Outback. I think some automakers are already making this number today.
OMG, I love it when statists start spewing their so called, “Fixes.” Let the Free market do its things. when gas prices spike, see how fast people dump their SUVs and trucks, its already happened. Then, how bout this; if oil consumption in this country is 44% slated for transportation, where does the other 56% go. How about tackling that problem, Nuclear power anyone? Lastly, for the ignorantly stupid, blind, and dangerous global warming crowd; last I checked, CO2 goes by another name, PLANT FOOD! Now that I am done with my rant, you guys, and gals, may resume your regularly scheduled comments.
The Manager of the Economy is a failure and another Government imposed rule and regulation will fail also.
Buy whatever suits your needs and pocket book. Aboslutely no WHINING about the price of a gallon of gasoline. No bailouts of auto loan debtors or the lenders.
A2007 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances shows that 35 percent of families with debt have mean auto loan debt of $14,600. Cannot afford health care for their families but can do installment debt. (About 23 percent of families have no mortgage or consumer debt.)
2007 DOT records show that passenger cars, PU’s, SUV’s and vans consumed 136,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline with an average of 11,700 miles per year by 237,000,000 vehicles. Perhaps The People should think about responsibility instead of politicians trying to ram it down their throats.
The government can institute a gas tax anytime they want to and -get this- its actually constitutional. It’s called a tariff. Yes the one thing that the framers actually gave the green light to tax. Imports. I know that a lot of oil comes from the u.s. but a large enough portion is imported that the gov’t could drop a tariff on it and thereby increase the price of all of it. You would raise the price and over time increase the domestic production of oil and/or increase the use and development of oil substitutes.
Somehow, the Union has managed to survive 234 years without 60 MPG cars or $5/gallon gas. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think it can continue to survive just fine without them.
Yeah, but you don’t see many of those big heavy 10 miles to the hay bale draft horses that were so common for the first 150 years. What does pluperfect Hades does 234 years and the Union have to do with anything rationally connected to cars or pollution or climate?
No other country has these regulations, and yet most manage to use less fuel.
All the CAFE standards do is make US cars less competitive and suck up all the research money of the US manufacturers.
Anybody who giddily accepts a law forcing other people to drive certain cars should be prepared themselves to be forced into eating certain foods, or observing certain religions.
You can’t use legislation to take away others’ basic rights while expecting to keep yours.
+1 – Spot on, Don.
Wow, for the party that’s supposed to be “pro-choice” the Democrats sure do like taking away people’s choices. But I guess they are way smarter then us so it’s OK.
I have stayed out of this one until now. First the practical. CAFE has had all kinds of unintended consequences, including a terrible weakening of the US auto industry. It was a bad idea in the 1980s and is a bad idea now. Pick a number – 35 mpg or 9000 mpg. It forces the industry to provide vehicles that people do not want. Unless fuel prices go way up, then it isn’t necessary. Under CAFE, small efficient cars are not just small efficient cars. They have to be sold to more people who want them at a reasonable price, so they have to be practically given away, and therefore are made as cheaply as possible so that the manufacturers lose as little on them as possible. Anybody who studies the industry over the last 30 years can see the games that were played and the distortions in the market in order to meet the terms of the law.
On a more philosophical point, I cannot say it better than Don1967. Gasoline costs what it costs. For everyone out there who can go out and buy a new Prius or Fit there is someone else trying to scrape out a living hauling junk or cutting grass and is doing all he can to keep the 94 Chevy pickup on the road. Remember when the government taxed the crap out of yachts? All the boatbuilders got laid off. I happen to think that energy spent to support hockey in warm climates is a waste and should be outlawed. But there are a lot of people who disagree with me and are happy that I am not king. We have become a nation of people who want to tell other people what to do. When some consider this their right, this is not a good thing.
My vote is for a carbon tax. Absent a carbon tax, a gradually increasing gas tax would be my next choice.
Look at the projections for the rise in the Chinese auto market over the next 20 years. Whereas the US cars that are made generally replace old ones, the Chinese cars are additions. We have no moral authority to get the developing nations to take harsh environmental actions unless we are willing to make sacrifices ourselves.
When I was in Spain in 1970 it cost US$1/litre for gas. Most cars had engines smaller than 1.0L and many of those were Diesel. Mass transit systems were full of riders.
Today when I watch video of the morning commute in L.A. I see tens of thousands of cars on the freeways, most with engines of at least 2.0L, more or less idling their way to work while the buses running on the surface streets are almost empty. How foolish can you get and keep a straight face?
There seems to be very little if any self control when it comes to conserving what isn’t going to last for a whole lot longer. The government, or somebody, has to do something.
I’m naive to believe in individual responsibility based on the actual behavior of people, but I’d be much more naive to think that the government could do it better.
For those advocating the government earmark gas tax money for only road programs, let me share something with you – they already have a gas tax and that money continually is looted to support the program du jour which happens to be anything but road improvement. Even when the Feds do announce things like “The Highway Bill”, is it shocking to hear that it’s so larded up with stuff that has nothing to do with road improvement? Bottom line – the government, like big corporations, should not be trusted.
Regardless of how good it sounds, we do not have responsible leaders who will do the right thing.
But there I go again preaching about individual responsibility. But you know, it’s the lesser of the rest of the evils.
For those still not convinced that gov’t is an irresponsible spender, please name any program the government does more efficiently than the private sector save national defense and the justice system.
Medicare, Medicaid, C4C, Education, any of them… if these were privately held companies or divisions, the CEO’s and the executive teams would have been fired long ago for incompetence and mismanagement. Or, they would have gone broke because they wouldn’t have enough customers.
Has anyone seen what’s missing here? Over the last 30 years, cars have gotten extremely fuel-efficient, but gov’t safety standards have forced cars to get heavier. More mass requires more energy to move. One force moving against the other, status quo. Although my 2005 Impala gets over 30 mpg hwy/24.5 mpg city, it weighs as much as a ’58 Impala. Progress has been made, but for every two steps taken forward, one is taken back. Just my humble observation.
You want to give this outfit more of our tax money?-http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/09/unreal-obama-says-gop-pledge-to-cut-spending-is-irresponsible/