Week 9 (Blog) 2

So here is where I finish my social ranting... (placed within the text)

March 30, 2006

I thought new CAFE standards were dead?

From the NYTimes (U.S. Raises Standards ...):

The Transportation Department announced new fuel economy standards Wednesday for sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans that will make some of them go farther on a gallon of gasoline than the average car does, and will apply to many of the biggest S.U.V.'s for the first time. An SUV that gets better mpg than a car, sign most of America up. Thing is, will this be more like the Ford Escape Hybrid? Can we acheive the mpg of that hybrid (31-33 combined mpg) without a hybrid engine, and if we can, does this mean we can acheive 40-45 with a hybrid engine? With measurements taken with realistic conditions and drivers instead of the way EPA mpgs are measured? (I think I touch on this in an earlier response how EPA mpg is not accurate - it's usually too high.)

But the overall fuel savings, 8.1 percent when the rule is fully phased in, were characterized as too modest by many conservation advocates, who also noted that the biggest pick-up trucks will still be unregulated. Remarks by auto manufacturers were restrained.

Here is something I said about CAFE standards back in August.

August 23, 2005

New CAFE standards

From the WSJ's Evening Wrap:

The U.S. Transportation Department imposed new fuel-economy standards on trucks, minivans and some SUVs, a move it said would cut consumers' gasoline bills, at a time when gas prices are at record highs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said new calculation methods -- representing the biggest change to the fuel-efficiency regime in decades -- would encourage auto makers to build heavier vehicles, improving highway safety. But the new standards don't apply to cars or the biggest SUVs, such as the Hummer. And environmentalists said they were too lax to significantly cut gasoline costs or reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Despite what we think of CAFE standards, this is welcome news.

Update (8/25): My knee jerk reaction was that any fuel efficiency proposal must be a good thing. I'm a bit embarrassed now. Instead, let me say this: We don't like CAFE standards. More reasons why are here (below) and here (below that) and here (below both of those).

July 28, 2005

Fuel Efficiency

Today's NYTimes reports that the USEPA is delaying a report that says that fuel efficiency has declined significantly since the late 1980s (duh):

Some of what the report says reaffirms what has long been known. Leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient, and the rise of sport utility vehicles and S.U.V.-like pickup trucks has actually sapped efficiency. The average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's, according to the report. What is the obsession with speed? A vehicle realistically doesn't need to go above 80mph (speed limits, remember those?) and, quite frankly, people with vehicles that go from 0-60 is 2 seconds tend to get jumpy around stopped situations and can cause wrecks (remember those, they are bad and people get hurt or killed). Unless you're in the Indy 500, there really is no reason to beable to get from 0-60 is 2 seconds on your way to the grocery store... Plus this sudden burst in speed wrecks havoc on mpg - sudden speed is a major drain on gasoline and a steady increase is much easier on an engine, transmission, and fuel consumption.

The problem seems to be that the new energy bill does not improve fuel efficiency or conservation when one goal of the energy bill is (or should be) the reduction in dependence on foreign sources of oil, oil consumption in general and greenhouse gas emissions. Releasing the EPA report this week might be embarrassing.

But what about raising CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards in order to achieve this goal? Economists have, for a long time, said that CAFE standards aren't really the way to go.

For one thing, the amount that people drive, and therefore emissions, aren't regulated. The perverse effect of rising fuel efficiency is the increased incentive to drive more miles. If I get 40 mpg instead of 15 mpg it is cheaper to drive so I'll drive more. The positive impact of higher fuel efficiency is reduced.

Another problem is safety. One way to increase fuel efficiency is to make the cars lighter and therefore less safe. The increased miles driven also decreases safety. The increased time spent on the road by each driver and the increased congestion makes it more likely that something bad will happen.

So, what can be done to increase fuel efficiency and safety efficiently? How about raising the gas tax? Okay, so an increase in mpg may increase miles for many of Americans - this is where education comes into play. Yes, there is a time when people need to travel long distances, but there is also a time when people need to invesigate alternatives. Quite frankly, why do people drive most often? Honestly it is to go somewhere to spend money and purchase items (from personal experience, my husband and I do not shop more than is necessary... so we go to Kroger for groceries once or twice a month and maybe we go to the mall once every 3-4 months...) therefore, if we decrease the need for consumption, we may find that we decrease miles driven.

On economic efficiency grounds alone, raising the gasoline tax would be a far better approach to reducing gasoline consumption than tightening CAFE standards, because it exploits all potential behavioral responses for reducing fuel use .... Unlike CAFE, a fuel tax does not “work against itself” by encouraging people to drive more; instead it raises the cost of driving--and does so for both existing as well as new vehicles. Gasoline taxes encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles (and thus create incentives for automakers to produce them), to use more efficient vehicles if they have more than one, and to conserve fuel through their patterns of driving and maintenance. But then we do the same thing we do with the tobacco tax, hurt the poorer people. The rich people who buy big, expensive, SUVs that guzzel gass aren't strongly affected by the gas tax. These are also the people most likely to purchase the newer, more efficient vehicles. Many people who are in the lower-middle to lower classes aren't going to be able to just junk their current vehicle and purchase a newer model - therefore they won't reap the benefits of a higher CAFE standard - and definately not if they have even more of their money being flushed away in gas. This directly affects the tobacco tax which is designed to discourage smoking... When I worked at Walgreens, the biggest complaint I heard from smokers who wanted to quit was that it was too expensive to purchase the patches or gum. If you sat down and looked at it, they would save hundreds of dollars a year by quitting (if you smoke 1 carton a month at $33/carton, in a year you would spend $396! and the patchs and gum run about $20/box) the problem is the DISPOSABLE income of these people is too low to afford the patch or gum because the poor people don't buy cigs by the carton - they purchase 2 or 3 packs at a time which is more expensive (a carton comes with 10 packs in it, but a pack is almost $4). If these people don't have the disposable income to purchase a $20 box of stuff to help them quit, how are they going to have the money to purchase a newer, more efficient car??

Source: RFF Discussion Paper 03–44

August 25, 2005

CAFE: States vs Fed

The cynic wonders: why new CAFE standards now? after the energy bill rejected them?

From today's NYTimes (Fuel economy plan bypasses ...) we learn that the proposed CAFE standards are weaker than those sought by California and other (blue) states. The state standards would hurt GM and Ford more than the fed standards and are strongly opposed by GM and Ford:

But the plan conflicts with air quality rules passed by California. The administration supports legal efforts by automakers to turn back the rules, which sharply curb tailpipe emissions of global-warming gases.

Because such emissions are related to how much gas a vehicle uses, California's rules would save far more at the pump for the state's residents than the White House plan. That would also be the case in states in the Northeast and Northwest that follow, or plan to follow, California's car rules. For California alone, the state projects annual net gas savings of more than $1 billion by early next decade. This hits on an earlier post I made (if I remember correctly) because the people making the decisions are worried more about their businesses and corporations. Who was it, GM that killed the idea of US commuter trains because it wanted to see it's gas vehicles (I keep remembering someting about a stock in oil/gas)? These companies do not have society's or Earth's best interests in mind.

...

The administration's proposal is aimed at model year 2008-to-2011 light duty trucks, a category that includes sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. The administration projects 10 billion gallons of gas savings over nearly two decades, about what is consumed in 25 days.

By contrast, California's emissions regulation would effectively force automakers to have a combined fuel economy for cars and trucks of about 33 m.p.g. by the 2016 model year and save 1.7 billion gallons of gas in California alone in just five years, the state's Air Resources Board projects. Quite frankly, I think that sounds great, if we can do it, why shouldn't we? Up there somewhere it mentions lighter vehicles being more unsafe... Can I direct this conversation more to the way Americans drive? We are DEFensive drivers - or we are taught to be. If everyone drove defensively, we would be better off, but there are those who choose to drive OFFensively and they ruin it for the rest of us. In Europe, everyone there is taught to drivve OFFensively and everyone does - they have less automobile accidents. I can also attest that they have way more concentrated trafic. The SMART car (a Swatch and mercedes(?) collaboration) gets the equivalent of 70mpg. It is also small and easy to park. They also have regulations set up where on Sundays (the most popular pleasure driving day - where people usually travel the most out of city) big shipping trucks cannnot be on the roads, they must all be parked so that the roads are less congested and safer for pleausre drivers. This is only one example of regualtions that other countries have that are geared toward the happiness and safety of the CITIZENS rather than the CORPORATIONS. Priorities need to change here in the United States.

...

The White House plan is intended to help the struggling domestic automakers ... Umm... did I mention that CAFE sounded like it was more intended toward corporations than the American people?

August 24, 2005

The view on proposed CAFE standards from the Gristmill

From the Daily Grist:

The Bush administration surveyed the landscape -- gas prices rising, fears of oil dependence spreading -- and concluded that bold leadership was required. So it invaded an oil-rich country. Heh, well ... on to Plan B! Yesterday, the administration proposed a new set of auto fuel-economy rules. Tightening the standard for passenger cars? Uh, no, that would stay at an average of 27.5 miles per gallon. Finally imposing some requirements on mega-SUVs like the Hummer H2? Wrong again. Instead, most SUVs, pickups, and minivans would be divided into six categories based on size, each with its own fuel-economy requirements. The administration says the plan would increase the average mileage of these vehicles a whopping 2.8 mpg by 2011, to 24 mpg. Amazing but true! Despite the obvious logic of the plan, it has critics, some of whom point out that it would actually provide an incentive for auto manufacturers to make their light trucks larger, so they'd be bumped into categories with lower mileage standards. [emphasis added] "The proposal is almost embarrassing in terms of its effect on fuel consumption," said Eric Haxthausen of Environmental Defense.

An excellent point, and an excellent example of the types of obvious things I miss everyday.

Update (8/25): An example from the NYTimes (Fuel economy plan bypasses ...):

For instance, Ford could add less than an inch to the dimensions of its Explorer Sport Trac and move it from a class with a fuel target of 24.5 m.p.g. to one with 23.3 in 2011 models.