US To Require That New Cars Get 42 MPG By 2016 1186
Hugh Pickens writes "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming. While the 30 percent increase would be an average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be much greater, rising from the current 27.5 mpg standard to 42 mpg. Environmentalists praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it 'one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions.' Obama's plan also would effectively end litigation between states and automakers that had opposed state-specific rules, arguing that having to meet several state standards would be much more expensive for them than just one federal rule. The Detroit News reported that automakers were on board with the new rule and had worked with the administration on creating a timeline for the transition." There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
Automakers (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course automakers are "on board"! They're now pawns of the government, just like the banks. Do you think they could really go against anything the administration wants?
Basically now Obama can do whatever he wants. He's playing all the hands himself.
On Board or Else (Score:1, Insightful)
[i]The Detroit News reported that automakers were on board with the new rule and had worked with the administration on creating a timeline for the transition[/i]
Of course, if Obama didn't like what they said, he'd just fire them all.
Equilibrium dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.
The link is really light on the math. In most systems that obey similar behavior, demand does increase, but the increase in demand does not completely erase the benefit of the increase in efficiency. In this case it can't completely erase the benefit, because if it did the end result would be a net increase in the price - and that was the original basis for the argument, that the drop in price would spur consumption. So the increase in demand has to fall short of that point.
So in the end, demand will be somewhere higher than it is now, and the price somewhat lower, all else being equal. Where on the supply/demand curve things ultimately lie will depend on the relative elasticity of supply vs. elasticity of demand.
Why always so far into the future? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do administrations always set timetables beyond their terms? Remember Bush's "man on Mars"?
Smaller cars (Score:2, Insightful)
If people wanted smaller cars they'd be buying them... depriving them of this liberty under the guise of helping the environment (which this won't do) is a mistake.
For the record, I am somewhat skeptical about the climate change hype - which I think is over-exaggerated. But even if I accept CO2 as a negative externality (which I don't), then the correct response is a carbon tax. Cost the stuff appropriately and let the market decide - don't legislate inefficient results. Don't let the government "pick winners" and definitely not a cap and trade, which is too open to corruption.
Re:Well played, Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
As a fellow inhabitant of the planet, I wish you had bought a Golf TDI, which has practically the same dimensions and performance, gets superior mileage in average driving, and which doesn't have all those batteries in it. They also have better visibility.
2016? (Score:5, Insightful)
My car gets 42mpg average right now. That's the EPA estimate and is actually what I seem to be getting in the real world.
Honda Civic Hybrid. I love it. But frankly I'd like them to be WELL up into 100 seven years from now.
Re:States rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the states created the federal government to handle particular tasks.
The goal of our federalist system is not efficiency, it is freedom. A country where the government's primary goal is to ensure the efficiency of its subjects is certainly NOT one where I'd like to live.
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the goal is to set prices, not to improve quality. Is it collusion when computer manufacturers meet to make hardware standards, or software companies to standardize APIs and protocols?
why not just tax gas? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we want people to use less gas, why not just raise the darn price?
There are times and places for government regulation, but requiring a minimum fuel efficiency? If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases, then fuel efficiency is just a half-assed proxy for fuel consumption.
42 mpg x 20 mile commute each day is a lot more fuel consumptive than 20 mpg x occasional grocery trip.
And what qualifies as a "car" and what as a "light truck" and "SUV," all of which have their separate regulations? What a mess.
People respond to their pocketbooks. In this case, it's easy to align people's incentives with the goals we want to achieve: Make gas expensive.
Gas tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Milage standards haven't worked before and they will continue to fail. Forcing car companies to make vehicles that people don't want to buy isn't going to do anybody any good.
Pretty much every economist knows that the way to achieve the stated goals is to dramatically increase gasoline taxes. After that, the market will work its magic. People will buy more efficient cars, or seek alternative transportation. When looking at where to live, the cost of commuting will play a bigger role in families' decisions. And we get to make a little dent in the whopping federal deficit.
Of course no politician will even hint at endorsing what is clearly the economically rational thing to do. So instead, we'll spend money on subsidizing bio-fuels and other not-all-that-bright ideas.
Re:Equilibrium dynamics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, what that study showed is that if you get 200,000 miles out of a Prius and a Hummer, they'll have similar energy costs. How likely is a Prius to run more than 200,000 miles? It has a teensy tiny little high-performance (for what it is) engine in it. Granted, only Diesel Hummers are likely to make more than 200k, and they are in the minority. Either way, if you're buying a new car to save the planet you're a dipshit :D
Hopefully, it is modified (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully, the dems will grow a pair and do what is right.
Re:Why always so far into the future? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why do administrations always set timetables beyond their terms?"
Is this a trick question?
By setting timetables beyond their terms they get the brownie points for passing some retarded law, but they know they won't be around for the shit-storm of public backlash when the law actually goes into practice.
Consider Kyoto, for example, which allowed the governments who ratified it to make a lot of fuss about how wonderfully 'green' they were, even though there was little to no possibility of most of them ever meeting the quota requirements which would be imposed many years later; by that time they'd probably be fat and happy on the lecture circuit while other politicos would be responsible for destroying their economy for no good reason to meet those quotas or the bad press if they failed to do so.
Re:Collusion (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing to do with interoperability here.
And the goal here isn't to improve quality, it's to lower it. People don't want these cars. They only way they can get away with making them is if they're the only cars people can buy.
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:States rights (Score:3, Insightful)
About damned time. (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be interesting to see what the average and top mileage cars have been getting over the past 20-30 years or so. Up until 1990, I had a car with a small displacement 6-cylinder (instead of a 4-cyl, cuz I wanted air conditioning), manual 5-speed transmission, and cruise control that routinely got me above 40 mpg on the highway. If the weather cooperated and I wasn't driving into a headwind the entire way, more often than not I was able to make a trip from S. Ohio home to Chicago on a single tank of gas. Then, for some reason, it was almost impossible to find a car that got better than the low 30s. Once SUVs became popular, availability of high mileage cars dropped even further. If one were to plot mileage over the years, I'd bet that we'll finally be getting back to what should have been commonplace in the mid/late '90s. Fifteen years or more of progress totally wasted. Pity. And the managers of American auto makers wonder why their companies are in the toilet.
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Illegal Hummers coming? (Score:1, Insightful)
It will only illegal to make them. You will still be able to own one. Plus it sounds like these standards are just for light duty trucks like SUVs
A Hummer is not light duty except for the H3.
As per usual, they are not touching large trucks. They are still needed to make deliveries no matter how much they pollute.
So now we will all be driving our tin cans around while giant semis roll right over us.
Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Actually, what that study showed is that if you get 200,000 miles out of a Prius and a Hummer, they'll have similar energy costs."
Huh? Considering that the Prius gets over twice the mileage of a Hummer, I find that hard to believe. Having said that I certainly wouldn't trade my used car for a Prius-doesn't make enconomic sense.
And the Prius will certainly use LESS energy. Most of the energy associated with vehicles comes from driving.
"Either way, if you're buying a new car to save the planet you're a dipshit :D"
True. About as useful as calling a large house in the suburbs "green". :)
Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time. (Score:3, Insightful)
This of course doesn't really apply to cars. Most energy use occurs due to driving the car, not its manufacture.
It may not apply to large energy sucking appliances either....
Re:Collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Insightful)
2016? Why not 2010? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well played, Mr. President (Score:5, Insightful)
I see your Golf TDI and raise you a Bluemotion Polo [wikipedia.org].
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
And the goal here isn't to improve quality, it's to lower it.
Yes damnit! I want my car to be seriously fuel inefficient. Imagine, I'll be spending less on gas, and I'll be polluting less too! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!
Is it only me, or is party politcal tribalism a possible new DSM classification?
Re:States rights (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the substance of your comment, just because some states did bad stuff means we should scrap the principles on which America was founded? Where are we going to be when the Feds control everything and do bad stuff? With 50 different styles, at least some are going to be better, but with a homogeneous government, the chance that it is bad everywhere is much greater. Oh wait
Re:States rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you talking about the southern states where there was slavery, or the northern states where it was simply illegal to be black? Or the politicians who wanted to preserve the new territories for whites-only?
Re:why not just tax gas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until we have a Republican president... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama better get himself reelected then. Because, you can bet if he loses to the Republicans the deadline for compliance to the 42 mpg average will be pushed back to the year 2167 lickity split.
And I don't mean that to sound partisan, because I hate both major political parties. But in my opinion, history has shown that the Republicans are definitely in bed with the oil companies. The Democrats might be too, but they keep it on the DL.
Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mod for existing vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine, I'll be spending less on gas, and I'll be polluting less too! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!
Why is it that everyone thinks that the most fuel efficient is also the least polluting? There are basically three ways to tune a car.
1. For the most power
2. For the best fuel efficiency
3. For the lowest emissions
If 1 is done correctly, the emissions shouldn't be much worse than in the case of 2, just different. That is unless you are running a pair of big ass carburetors on top of a tunnel ram.
In the case of 2, you get the most mileage out of the fuel, however it's harder on the engine and doesn't burn the fuel as well causing more pollution Than 3.
3 releases the least amount of bad stuff from the tailpipe, however at the cost of both 1 and 2.
It all has to do with choosing the air-to-fuel ratio that is the best compromise for what you want. If you favor one over the others, in this case fuel economy, then you will sacrifice power and increase pollution.
Personally I think it's past due for someone to start regulating commercial diesel trucks. Have you seen the amount of crap that comes out of some of the dump trucks and 18-wheelers? I bet one commercial diesel vehicle dumps more crap into the air than 100 cars/SUVs. Unfortunately that industry seems to have paid off the right people to keep it quiet while in plain view.
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gas tax (Score:3, Insightful)
That God-damned representative government! People doing what they want, instead of what's best for them! I tell you, if I was in charge, we wouldn't have any of this inefficient "voting" or "town hall meetings" or any of that crap.
I'm not proposing an alternative to democracy. There really isn't anything better. I'm merely pointing out that there are cases (and this is one of them) where democracies fail. Another failing that we are seeing is that representative democracies prefer public debt above either increased taxes or cuts in subsidies.
The fact that substantially higher gas taxes isn't a politicly viable solution in American democracy doesn't take away from my claim that it is the most economically rational one.
And just because something is economically rational, doesn't mean that the restructuring it entails wouldn't be extremely painful. People in distant suburbs would be doubly hurt. Their commuting costs would go up painfully and their house prices would drop exactly because commutes from those locations are expensive. I don't see a fix for that which wouldn't undermine the point of such a gas tax.
But once we are fully out of the recession, gas prices will rise on their own, and they will stay high next time. Still, I would prefer for some of the money to be going into the US treasury than into the hands of the big oil producing countries.
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cool. Diesels at last. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why not just tax gas? (Score:4, Insightful)
If we want people to use less gas, why not just raise the darn price?
Or possibly because some of us think punitive taxes are an inappropriate use of government power, and only serve to distort the market?
Despite being a hardcore fiscal conservative, I have no problem with taxing something that has a real, direct, tangible, accountable cost to cover. What I do have a problem with is setting up taxes to cover the "environmental damage" of doing things, such as releasing a ton of CO2. Exactly what is that cost? Is Mother Nature going to send me a bill at the end of the month? Not only that, but is the government going to use those tax revenues to somehow pay that cost so that there's no net impact of me polluting? It's all a sham pyramid scheme.
I'm actually all for raising the gas tax to actually cover the cost needed to keep the highway system in excellent repair. Our infrastructure is going to hell and our politicians don't have the balls to do what needs to be done. The problem is that politicians as a group are a lying, sleazy bag of weasels, and the minute they see tax dollars coming in for roads, they'll try to either call everything a road or start cleverly siphoning off part of the cash.
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other passive or near passive things.
Take the extra crap out of the trunk. Take the food wrappers out of the back seat.
When approaching a traffic signal that is yellow or red, lay the hell off the gas and coast toward it. Too many people floor it toward red lights, for what? You can't GO anywhere.
Drive with no more than half a tank of fuel. Extra fuel is extra weight. If you know you won't be able to get more fuel, ok, fine. But if you are in a typical area with plenty of places to refuel, then don't haul around more than you need. For me, a half a tank is about four days worth of driving so plenty of time to get more when it gets low.
Drive 5mph slower than you usually do. This means you're probably still over the speed limit but what the heck. Unless you are driving really long distances, slowing down by 5 or 10 won't actually take that much longer to get where you are going, but it will save gas and maybe avoid tickets if your town is like mine these days.
Re:Why always so far into the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Clarkson is for entertainment. He's not to be cited as an authority on anything besides what Clarkson's opinion is.
Re:Don't be stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Collusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gas tax (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm merely pointing out that there are cases (and this is one of them) where democracies fail.
Depends on what you mean by fail. In one sense, sure, it didn't go for the academically optimal solution for the assumed problem (burn less oil, presumably with an ideal solution of smaller, hyper-efficient cars driven less, possibly powered by non oil-based fuel).
I'd argue that this was a shining example of democracy working. The populous did not want this solution, therefore it did not come about. What they got has other problems, but it's what the majority of people wanted. I'd much rather have that than an autocratic government forcing their idea of optimal solutions on me.
Re:Plastic Cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
That, my friend, is the whole point... It may cost a lot of money to fix or replace a car that has been so crushed, but ultimately cars are expendable, people are not.
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm 6'5" with most of my height in my back. My brother at 6'2" has the same leg length. My chiro thinks I'm 6'7" because of the length of my back. I don't get this leg length thing.
In almost *every* vehicle I've driven, I crank the seat almost as far forward as it will go, then tip the seat back until my head doesn't hit the roof. If I stretch out my legs at the same time, my shoulders end up in the back seat, and I can barely reach the wheel. People who complain about leg room have never suffered insufficient head room. On an aircraft with my knees jammed into the seat in front of me, if I tip my head back, it's a 90 degree bend before my head rests on the seat top. I'm nose to the air vents.
Long ago on trans Atlantic flights I learned to rip the seat cushion off the aluminum air frame (usually velcro) if I wanted to sleep for a couple of hours. Talk about hard and cold, but it beats sleeping in the chin on sternum position.
One time sitting in the aisle seat I managed to corkscrew myself sideways far enough to sleep with my ear on the headrest. The flight attendant rammed the beer cart of Lilliputian portions into my kneecap as hard as she could three times before I managed to regain consciousness, determine the source of the red flashes (oh, that's my pain system), and complete the origami move to remove my knee from the battering path. I've never slept well on a plane since.
Trucks, SUVs, whatever, they all lack headroom. Thirty years ago I had an Austin America where I could sit up straight. This is because the top of the seat cushion was about 4" off the floor boards. Loved it. If they add comfort, I'm screwed, no matter how much hulking metal they mold around it.
These days I'm getting 8.8 liters/100km (27 U.S. MPG according to Google calc.) in a 1991 Toyota pickup with a heavy, indestructible, yet somewhat underpowered engine (50% city, 50% highway, by minutes operated). If you goose it a bit on the flat, it'll happily do 140kph up an 8 percent grade in the BC interior (two occupants, no load). However, if you fall below 110kph, you're unlikely to recover without taking 3rd gear into jet engine territory. The engine is plenty adequate if you plan ahead, not so adequate for whims and impulses.
The real problem here is people purchasing enough engine displacement to carry a Bigfoot camper while towing a 30 foot boat across the Rockies, and then using it half the time to drive down the street to fetch a six pack.
There's no way to idle a huge displacement engine efficiently. I've long suspected that the trick of turning off two cylinders only gets you half the benefit of not having those two extra cylinders in the first place.
The other thing is that I'm moderately heavy on the gas pedal, light on the brake pedal. (I've read that peak fuel conversion efficiency typically corresponds 2/3rds of max. engine output.) Light on the brake pedal requires more traffic anticipation than the average person can muster while talking on a cell phone. I can usually detect these people pretty quickly. They're the ones riding up my ass while I coast up to a red light (or one that is about to become red long before I get there), make an abrupt lane change to pass me, then come to an abrupt halt when the light actually turns red.
MPG figures are pretty much useless if they aren't evaluated in terms of the actual driver and typical trip conditions (e.g. three mile round trip of road range while talking on a cell phone to fetch a six pack).
Re:Wish in one hand, crap in the other... (Score:3, Insightful)
I realise that people in the US are a bit strange, but on what highways are you liable to encounter a car going the other way in your lane of traffic?
That only leaves you getting rear ended, and from what I've heard about US highways, that'll involve a 6 mph fender bender.
As for what happens to your car - if you are involved in a high energy crash, you're much better off if your car is the one that absorbs as much of the energy as possible. Personally I'd rather be able to walk away from a car that can't drive away, than be driven away in a car that I can't walk away from.
Besides - if you are THAT keen on being in the biggest vehicle in a crash, may I introduce you to Mr. Big Rig [18-wheeler-insurance.com]? Plenty of space for the kids in the cab. No worries about hooking up a trailer if you need it. Best view over traffic you can possibly get. And you can probably crash into an H1 Hummer and tell your friends "I crashed into one of those tiny suburban soccer mom trolleys ... I'm still picking bits out of my grill."
Revenue-neutral tax shift (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a good case for making the gas tax revenue-neutral. If the average person uses 400 gallons of gas per year and the tax is $1.00 per gallon, then with a revenue-neutral gas tax, the government would mail everyone a $100 check every 3 months. If you're poor, that $100 could go a long way paying for groceries.
The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like a great idea, but I fear it. You know why? Because something always happens that nobody properly predicts.
Here's an example. Remember station wagons? Not the things they have now, but those great big monstrosities that used to carry something like eight people or a garage band + equipment. You don't see those around any more. Why? Because they raised the fuel standards and there was no way that station wagons could reach that. Bye bye, big loader.
But just because they disappeared, it does not mean the need for large cars disappeared. Enter the minivan-- which has lighter standards, but still stringent. And most earlier examples of minivans were crap for anything but moving people. (Current models sometimes switch pretty well, but may not have engine capacity.) So then what? Enter the SUV. It falls under the "truck" standards, so it doesn't need to meet as stringent requirements. It seats more than four people, which is important for some people, and it can do things like move furniture. It also doesn't drive like a beached whale.
A lot of the posters at Slashdot don't seem to have considered the family angle. Carseats are freaking HUGE and it's sometimes hard to fit them in a sedan. And of course, you can't do more than two since the front seat is off-limits. So no friends. (Remember field trips where the parents used to drive? Yeah, they can't do that any more either. But that's another rant.) Once again, minivan or SUV. And quite honestly, after being in a hit-and-run accident, I wanted five-star safety rating AND a slightly higher profile. So our vehicle is what's called a crossover-- six seats, so when we have a couple of kids we'll still be able to put some adults in. And incidentally, it gets 24-26 miles to the gallon IN city.
The upshot is that yeah, this sounds great. I'm all for better mileage and I shop for it. BUT there's something else that's going to happen that we haven't predicted. It could be safety issues; it could be price. I don't know. But I'm always afraid of well-intentioned things like this coming back to bite us in the butt.
Re:Collusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Plastic Cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the crumple zones saved both of them: they dissipated the kinetic energy of the whole impact. This guy was able to walk away from the accident BECAUSE the other guy was driving a car with crumple zones. This is also the reason why the car was demolished instead of simply taking a hit.
If the other guy had been driving a steel car too, he wouldn't be posting on /. today.
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
You're speaking of combustion engine tuning. There are many ways to improve all 3 of more power and more efficiency and less emissions. We have a ton of low hanging fruit we're ignoring. Here are 3 of them:
Dump the "slushbox" (the conventional automatic transmission with torque converter). There are so many ways to get the efficiency of the manual with the convenience of the automatic that it's criminal that we aren't doing it. Next, manufacturers choose gear ratios that are good for jack rabbit starts and passing while going uphill and using the air conditioning, but which are terrible for fuel economy. High gear isn't nearly high enough.
Another big one is weight reduction. We use steel because it's cheap, not because it's all that great. We can replace many steel parts with lighter ones that are just as strong or stronger. We could also revamp the safety regulations to keep things just as safe without having to weigh down the car with super strong B pillars and such. Why is it we can ride motorcycles, which are far more dangerous, but we can't bring a car from Mexico to the US because it isn't "safe" enough? We dumped the 5 mph bumper of the 1970s. We need to trim the regulations again.
Then there's aerodynamics. Most vehicles are miserable on that point. Observe that the front grill openings of a typical car are much wider than necessary, extending well beyond the radiator. Why? Because people think it looks better that way. They've thought so for at least 50 years, and the limp noodles in marketing haven't bothered with any reeducation on that point. This purely cosmetic feature unnecessarily scoops a lot of air into the engine compartment, which acts a bit like a drag chute. It takes lots of energy to make air swirl violently around the engine compartment. That air has to go somewhere and it does. Most of it goes under the car, which has the worst aerodynamics of the whole body. But nobody pays attention to the underside of a car, and smoothing that out would cost a little more money, so it isn't done. But shrinking the grill openings would cost nothing. That's right, we waste gas over trivial appearances.
Anyway, I disagree with this sort of ham handed management of fuel economy. Push the gas tax through the roof, and we customers will roast manufacturers who don't give us good fuel economy. We ought to bump the gas tax in the US up by 10 cents per gallon every month until we've added at least $1, then index it to inflation so it doesn't erode away like it has. No need for government fuel economy mandates. Make fuel economy worth having, and let the market figure out the details.
Re:Good luck! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you do that every day...get a van.
If you do it once a year...hire a van.
Re:Good luck! (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent point!
Now you and the other 0.1% of people that actually use their industrial vehicles for their intended purpose can feel free to keep buying them.
In the meantime, freedom isn't free, and if grandma wants an H2 to go grocery shopping, it should cost her proportionally more to do so.
Welcome to 'modern' capitalism.
I for one have no problems with the federal or state governments regulating our markets to educate the populace of the true costs of consumption. People, as a whole, are irrational idiots, and need to be hit upside with a financial brick every once in a while.
Re:twnety year old civic gets 57mpg (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't Mythbusters show that AC doesn't effect MPG? Let me rephrase that, Anonymous Cowards only effect MPG when you pick them up.
Re:Automakers (Score:5, Insightful)
I say, it's about time, really. 42 mpg sounds rather high - but only because we haven't even TRIED. Remember the oil embargo of the '70's? Congress mandated some radical new goals for fuel mileage way back then, to help break our dependence on foreign oil. They even set the national speed limit at 55mph to save fuel. All sorts of drastic measures were taken.
Joe Sixpack and Detroit, in their infinite wisdom (selfishness) decided to create new "cars" built on truck frames, which would be exempt from fuel mileage requirements.
Ingenuity, huh? Well, that ingenuity has finally come back to bite Joe and Detroit in the ass. Today, we finally start seriously saving fuel, or else.
I like it.
(note - I'm not a demoncrat, I'm not an Obama cultist, I'm not even some tree hugging activist. It just makes sense to stop WASTING everything we can, just because we can.)
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric motors make a lot of sense with trains, but not for hauling cargo on the road.
It's the long hauling of cargo on roads, itself, that doesn't make sense.
Re:Plastic Cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir are a moron. Those crumble zones saved not only his life but yours as well. A frontal collision at that speed can easily be lethal. The reason you are alive to make your post is that the other car had crumble zones that absorb some of the energy in the impact thereby making it softer for both of you. You should probably have offered him half the cost of a new car because by sacrificing his vehicle both of you coudl walk away from the accident.
If you doubt my word try the following. Drop one egg onto a pillow and put another egg into a metal strongbox that you drop on the floor. I give you one guess which egg is more likely to crack.
Re:Collusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I just visited that website and reviewed all PDFs in their Glossary. Not once does it explicitly define CO2 as a pollutant.
No, it wouldn't. Technically, I'm not sure I would either.
The issue with CO2 is not pollution per se, it's one of imbalance. We do not generally define exhaled breath as "pollution", nor would we call CO2 from the decay of biomass such.
Where CO2 from fossil fuels becomes an issue is carbon sink depletion. Carbon that was previously sequestered from the atmosphere for millenia as oil or coal is released predominantly be human activities. This throws the existing system out of whack. We don't know by how much - most estimates are pretty pessimistic, though even the optimistic ones aren't exactly reassuring.
The CO2 coming out a vehicles tailpipe doesn't matter. The hydrocarbons going into the fuel tank do. If they're fossil fuel derived, burning them adds to the problem; otherwise, it's carbon-neutral. So, to give a hypothetical example, a heat engine that uses hydrocarbon fuel does not cause any problem if the carbon involved comes from inside the carbon cycle; think a bio-diesel IC engine.
Re:Automakers (Score:2, Insightful)
42 mpg is too high. That's about 5.6 l/100 km, so just about 0.6l more than what a TDI Golf might use, and this is supposed to be the average for all cars sold? Obviously, there are smaller cars than the Golf, but decreasing the size further doesn't make much of an improvement to the efficiency, as for instance the gutless 51kW 1.4TDI in the Polo only manages 4.7 l/100km vs 4.9 for the more powerful 80kW 2.0TDI in the larger Golf. The story is pretty much the same for the petrol engines.
I'm not a particularly big fan of taxing everything, but that just might be a better way than pushing through regulations like this. Slowly raising the gas prices will gently change the consumer preference and the car makers will have to adapt, vs the hard top-down approach like this. As a benefit, it doesn't completely destroy all the good cars in the process (see the 70s).
Re:why not just tax gas? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with this. We have gotten quite good at measuring the short-term impact of pollution (google "external cost"), so it would be quite reasonable to charge people for the environmental damage caused by their cars and let people pollute to their hearts' content... if they're willing to suffer all the evironmental and health damage caused by themselves.
Hopefully this will open up an incentive for governments and businesses alike to actually set up a half-decent public transportation system.
Re:Automakers (Score:4, Insightful)
As a European (British, but I consider it a region of Europe), I find it strange that 42mpg seems so draconian.
For the last decade at least, the UK and the rest of Europe has had diesel cars the size of an Accord / Aura / Fusion which could average 42mpg (50mpg Imp.) in mixed driving - at least it was never a problem for me - urban driving reduces the mileage of course.
My Octavia (basically a Jetta liftback with a cheaper badge) averages 45-50mpg (55-60 Imp.) on my 30-mile runs to work; and there's enough room for a 6-footer to be comfortable (more head- and leg-room than a Freelander or a RAV4).
My wife's Renault Clio averages 60mpg (72mpg Imp.) when I drive it, and the driving position doesn't feel cramped.
These are not hybrids, by the way. Even the Freelander and RAV4 can achieve 35mpg with a diesel engine.
Since we're paying the equivalent of $8/gallon for fuel over here, cars like this make a lot of sense.
Don't attribute what you see in your area (Score:3, Insightful)
as an indication of what is anywhere else.
For every mini/smart I can show you a dozen of practically any other car, if not more. Hell in many areas I can show you more than a dozen times that in SUVs about anyhwere.
The people who want fuel efficient cars are buying them (fwiw I own a miata (30 avg which I track on fueleconomy.gov) and a R1200RT (49 avg). People vilify SUVs but go look at any luxury car lineup and tell me what you see. I don't see how companies like Infiniti or Lexus can meet the goals unless they roll up under their parents mileage figures. Granted Lexus will have a hybrid sedan soon even it will barely average 34.
Now what would be impressive if Obama and Corp can get small diesels all around. California has been the problem there so are they going to prevent us from getting the high mileage diesels Europe has or did Obama and Corp make a deal with California?
Ford is going to have an issue because their "Eco Boost" is a joke. Instead of truly down sizing the engines offered with this direct injection turbo setup they are offering even higher horsepower and torque. In other words, they have an opportunity to make nice small engines for their midsize cars but chose to just pump up a six while claiming it still beats the other guys eights.
Re:Collusion (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not an asshole instinct, it's a mating instinct.
Women control the womb-space, which means they set the terms of behavior that will be rewarded with mating opportunities. Western women presently pass out such rewards based in large part upon status -- or more precisely: upon status displays. Big ridiculous cars are an approved status display, which means they increase their owners' mating opportunities, which means people buy them.
"slushboxes" are generally better than manuals now (Score:5, Insightful)
because the majority cannot get more efficiency from a manual than what a computer controlled automatic can. I don't know why your bellyaching about something that already has happened. It takes some stupid hyper miler tricks to get many manuals past the best of the automatics. Really, what century are you in? The trick for the last decade in improving highway mileage has been very tall gearing in the last one or two gears of the transmission. The key is that new autos will downshift to pass and resume the tall gear as soon as possible. Throw in cylinder deactivation and you can improve many big vehicles.
Safety regulations, well your out of the loop again. The Feds are implementing even stiffer roll over requirements so that roofs will not collapse if someone has a roll over. Just how are you going to relax safety standards in a nanny state? Comparing car safety to motorcycles is like comparing apples to dogs.
We bring cars made in Mexico here everyday, they are sold under the GM and Chrysler name. Now have you seen crash test of home grown cars from Mexico or China? If your asking us why we don't allow them go ask Europe why they rejected them!
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
We have a station wagon, a Volvo XC70 Cross Country, and we love it. Yes, it doesn't have bench seats so you can't put a third person in the front, but it does have a foldup seat in the trunk area. I won't say it entirely replaces the capacity concerns for fitting 6+ people, but it solves a lot of the issues of needing to haul stuff. Plus the kids absolutely love riding in the trunk facing backwards on the once or twice per year occasions when we need to move 7 people in one vehicle.
To be honest, though, the backwards facing seat scares me from a safety point of view, and so I have been thinking it would be easier to rent a van on those occasions. Given that, when it is time to replace the vehicle in a few years I will downgrade to a smaller car for the 99% of trips when it is just the four of us and take that rental otherwise - the money I save in fuel will more than offset the rental cost.
Re:Automakers (Score:4, Insightful)
Ingenuity, huh? Well, that ingenuity has finally come back to bite Joe and Detroit in the ass. Today, we finally start seriously saving fuel, or else.
Or else what? There's no laws, rules, or even social norms to discourage me from driving a 10 liter 3 ton pickup truck everywhere I go, in point of fact, we own a 5.9 liter 1/2 ton truck that could be used as our daily driver if we wanted, we choose to leave it parked unless needed, but my wife likes to drive it when the weather is foul because it makes her feel safer.
The real waste in our two driver household is actually the third vehicle - we probably emitted more carbon footprint in the purchase of our "lightweight" around town car than we will save in fuel consumption difference over its lifetime. I didn't do a carbon analysis, but dollar-wise, assuming the (purchased at 1 year old) $13K commuter lasts 8 years and resells for $1K, that's $1500 per year in capital costs, plus about $500/yr in additional insurance / maintenance, so we'd have to save 800 gallons a year (at $2.50/gallon) to make the choice truly economical. Say the truck gets 12mpg and the car gets 36 (to be really generous, our car gets more like 27 around town)... we'd need to transfer about 14,400 miles per year from the truck to the car to "break even" on fuel consumption dollars. Considering that the car has only been driven about 12,000 miles a year, it's not really saving us money. What it is doing is giving us a small, easy to park "right sized" vehicle to serve our around town driving. It looks more economical than going everywhere in the truck, but it isn't.
We have legitimate reasons for using the truck, about 10 times a year. Renting might be slightly more economical, but it completely destroys the convenience and power of owning your own vehicle, ready at a moment's notice. There's also the convenience of the redundant backup, the "third" vehicle is 19 years old - well maintained, but about once a year it needs some repairs and it's nice to be able to park it and do the repairs at leisure rather than having the pressure of "needing" the vehicle. The truck is 10 years old, so it's going to start falling into that periodic repair category soon too.
Legislating increased fuel economy in new vehicles isn't biting anyone in the ass. It's about time, just like in the late '60s / early '70s, our engine technology is producing more power than is really useful for getting from A to B. It's about time to turn that technology away from making overpowered vehicles into making them more efficient, just like they did with the initial CAFE standards. The free market clearly values "fun" over efficiency, and why not? Life is short. It won't seriously hurt anyone's happiness for CAFE to rise by 30%, electronic engine management systems can pull off that and more, but not without additional incentives outside the free market.
Re:Collusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you can wallow in ignorance, self-delusion based on your particular ideological predilcctions.
As do the people who believe the science on global climate change is certain, but who don't understand what it means that GCMs don't conserve energy in their basic equations.
This drives me nuts: smug ignoramuses who couldn't integrate a first order PDE accurately to save their life telling me that scepticism toward anthropogenic climate change is self-delusion. It isn't self-delusion to note that GCMs are unphysical, crudely parameterized models that would take a miracle to get the SIGN of the response to a given climate forcing right much less magnitude or detailed geographic distribution.
Ocean heat content appears to be a quite significant signal that the globe is warming (and has the added virtue of being thermodynamically meaningful) and it is unquestionably plausible based on modelling that CO2 and other anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases are very significant contributors to that phenomenon. But treating anyone who is a sceptic as delusional is as unscientific as the nutjobs who dismiss it all as a left-wing conspiracy.
The science behind anthropogenic climate change is nothing like as solid as the advocates of particular political platforms would like it to be, and honest politicians (but I contradict myself) should be advocating minimal interventions based on the precautionary principle (that is, any government intervention carries huge risk, so we should be extremely cautious about intervening, in the same way any major climate change carries huge risk, so we should be extremely cautious about doing nothing.) Market-based solutions like cap and trade have been effective in other areas, and are probably the most reasonable precautionary measure with regard to CO2.
Re:Automakers (Score:3, Insightful)
We're probably boned either way, but at the moment I'm less distressed with the president buying corporations than I was with corporations buying the president.
This is a vast centralization of power with greater opportunities for abuse of power and future corruption than merely renting the presidency would provide. For example, who will defend the interests of the car industry in this gas mileage proposal from the US government now that the US government owns two of the three big companies? It's real convenient for Obama that he took out a considerable portion of the opposition to the proposal.
In comparison, a business can bribe the president, but as an A.C. replier noted, they're one among many. Their influence is diluted. They also run various risks from getting caught to being punished for supporting a group that fell from power. Sure a business can get tremendous wealth by playing the political game, but they risk much in the process.
Re:Collusion (Score:1, Insightful)
If people don't want fuel-efficient cars, why do I see so many Minis and Smart FourTwos on the road?
Well, I don't see that many of them.
Further, the Mini is not a particularly fuel-efficient car. The Mini certainly is a small car, but it's extremely heavy. The mileage sucks compared to other small cars.
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's how I fish:
(1) Grab fishing rod and tackle box.
(2) Dig up a few worms from the garden
(3) Walk to a nearby lake, 15-30 minute walk depending on where I go.
(4) Fish.
(5) Walk home.
If you need to burn 300 gallons of gas to go fishing, you're doing something seriously wrong.
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
Let the market figure out the details. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the market can figure out the details, why have the government artificially raise the price of fuel?
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what's really fucking horrible, seeing that on a computer, with a quad-core CPU, just for a browser and email, and half the time idle... what exactly do you need that CPU for, again?
Fixed that for ya. Just because his toys don't appeal to you doesn't make it wrong.
Re:"every _________ knows" ~Al Gore (Score:3, Insightful)
Every economist? You can take your social metaphysics and control by fear and shove it wherever you like, but lets just be clear you are talking about ideal high school Keynesian Economics and not real world, grown up Austrian Economics.
Please tell me how what I propose is in any way Keynesian?Seriously, there is nothing Keynesian about this proposal
Gasoline usage has substantial externalities, roads, noise, pollution, congestion and diplomatic (including wars to in regions we would otherwise ignore). Internalizing those externalities places this proposal well within a neo-liberal framework.
Or are you just one of those people who shout "socialist" every time you hear the word "taxes"? These sorts of people hide behind economic rationality when it suits them (for lower taxes) and ignore economic rationality when it doesn't suit them (higher taxes).
And I still dare you to explain how this proposal is Keynesian. Or do you not know what Keynesianism really was?
Re:Automakers (Score:3, Insightful)
Replace "President" with "People of the United States"
Replace "President" with "Chancellor" and you might start to get an idea what has people worried.
Re:Automakers (Score:5, Insightful)
What you really mean is, "I am one of those arrogant pricks written about in "The Ugly American", and I have a RIGHT to be wasteful. Because I am an American, I have the right to burn thousands of gallons of fuel every year for no better purpose than to poison the planet."
Wake up and smell the coffee. Life is changing. Adapt, or go the way of the neanderthal. Your ancestors who lived through the depression would be ashamed of you.
Re:why not just tax gas? (Score:2, Insightful)
So you'd prefer we have more people languishing in poverty because we made gasoline so expensive they cannot afford to drive to work. How humanitarian of you.
Re:The Law of Unintended Consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
The limiting factor is not the size of the child, but the width of the carseat and the availability of anchor points.
Most compact to midsize sedans only have room (and anchor points) for two carseats, even though there may be three seatbelts.
There *are* midsize sedans with three sets of anchor points...you have to shop around a bit though.
Weighing the evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
The principles on which America was founded were the ability to run a slave farm without having to pay taxes to Britain, and only allowing rich white men to vote.
Slavery was a source of contention between Northern and Southern states from the beginning. Every state north of Delaware abolished it by 1804. It remained legal in Britain until 1840.
Taxes in the colonies were relatively low.
Neither country guaranteed all women the right to vote until the 1920s. A large minority of British men were disenfranchised by property requirements until after World War I, and a significant number of landowners could vote in multiple districts until 1948.
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Insightful)
I know of no time in American history when a new or increased tax has been used to reduce our national deficit. There are two basic fiscal camps active in American politics. One camp is the "tax and spend" group. The other just spends.
Re:Automakers (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the CAFE standard is that it fails to address the most fundamental problem with oil prices -- the fact that the oil industry is run by a cartel, and they control the output.
Overall, cars have become significantly more efficient over the last 30 years -- so why are we paying so much more per gallon than we did in the 70's and 80's? (Inflation, sure, but oil prices have well outpaced inflation.)
Obama can raise the CAFE standard to 42 MPG, and the oil industry will scale back production to increase the price.
Re:Plastic Cars? (Score:1, Insightful)
Secure the egg in a frame inside the strong box so that the egg cannot move (seatbelts and airbags) and repeat the same experiment. Then drop the metal strongbox on the egg in the pillow. See which one wins.
Re:Mostly just for cars (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that most community slips start at (high) hundreds of dollars per-year, and popular locations can run you thousands of dollars per-year. The fact is, there is limited marina space keeping in-water storage prices high, so if your boat is of the portable size, it's likely cheaper to keep it at home. This goes double if you already have reasons for owning a pickup truck.
When you can purchase a used 15-20' sailboat for under $2000, it's outrageous to think you'd spend that much yearly just to store it. Most people don't have that kind of money for a hobby.
Re:Let the market figure out the details. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the market doesn't care about externalities [wikipedia.org]. There are multiple externalities involved with using gasoline, even if you choose not to believe in global climate change, and the auto industry isn't going to care about any of them until it is far too late. By attaching a price to the commodity in the form of taxes it forces the market to respond to the total cost including the externalities (assuming we come up with a reasonably close approximation for the tax,) not just the immediate cost.
Re:Automakers (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of this legislation, but not because I care about a couple of out-dated car manufacturers aren't around to whine about it.
That's nice. I understand the sentiment. Not relevant to the discussion though. The problem is that Obama just eliminated considerable opposition to this gas mileage proposal by bailing out two of the auto makers. This is a small sample of why government ownership of business is far worse than business bribing government.