If you like driving a big car or SUV, the good news about Obama’s new fuel-economy standards is that they won’t dictate what kind of car you will be able to buy in the future. If you want to buy a 15-mpg SUV, Detroit (or Aichi or Wolfsburg) will be free to make and sell you one.
The bad news is that the standards may make your car more expensive. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are actually calculated as the mean of gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. So, as of 2016, for every 15-mpg model made by an auto maker, that company will have to make five models of cars that can go 50 mpg in order for its fleet to meet Obama’s new target. Since bringing each new model to market can cost billions of dollars, if there are not enough people who want to buy those fuel-efficient cars to cover their design costs, the company will have to add a share of those costs to your SUV.
If you want to save energy, the good news is that Obama’s standards are more stringent than those in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 — but not by much. While the 2007 law required new car fleets to average 35 mpg by 2020, Obama’s standard requires fleets to average 35.5 mpg by 2016.
The bad news is that nothing in Obama’s standard guarantees that they will actually save energy. The rule only requires that the mean fuel economy of all models, not all cars, made by a manufacturer meet the 35.5 mpg standard. Not much energy will be saved if gas guzzlers sell well and hybrids don’t.
If gas prices go up, people will buy the fuel-efficient models that auto makers are forced to make — but that would have happened anyway. If gas stays cheap, people will continue to buy fuel-inefficient cars (tempered only by having to pay extra to cover the start-up costs of models no one wants). If you believe that saving energy or reducing dependence on foreign oil is important, then you should prefer a stronger form incentive over this mandate.
The worst-cast scenario is that the new standards increase the cost of buying new cars but don’t save any energy (except to the extent that a few people can’t afford to own a car at all). The best-case scenario is that Obama’s standards result in future auto fleets that are not much different from what a free market would have produced. Considering that Honda and Toyota are now in a price war over their Insight vs. the third-generation Prius, that may be closer to the actual outcome.
The good news is that auto makers readily acquiesced to this standard, partly because they feared something worse but partly because they didn’t think it would cost much. The Obama administration estimates that the added cost of the new standard will be $1,300 per car, but that (if gasoline remains $3 per gallon) it will save drivers $500 per year. That means it could pay for itself in the long run — but only if people actually do buy more fuel-efficient cars.
Your stamina and tadalafil for sale energy will also be helpful for your body if you’ll do high fiber diet. Its sildenafil generic sale effects last for up to six hours. 2. It is an inability to achieve and maintain an erection during acquisition de viagra sex. Any adult can get affected with the influence of this levitra ordering health problem from their male partner. The debate over the standard reminds me of the debate after Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate air quality in 1970. One faction favored of technical solutions to pollution, such as catalytic converters. The other faction argued for behavioral tools aimed at getting people to drive less.
Today, we know the behavioral solutions were a complete failure. Although many cities imposed urban-growth boundaries, built light rail, and implemented various disincentives to driving, not one can say they have reduced per-capita driving by even 1 percent.
On the other hand, the technical solutions were highly successful. Though we drive nearly three times as many miles as in 1970, total automotive air pollution has declined more than 50 percent.
There was a third faction in 1970 whose voice was almost inaudible: economists who argued that incentives would clean the air better than mandates. The mandates that were put in place only acted on new cars, and it took more than a decade (and now takes almost two decades) to turn over the American auto fleet. Properly designed incentives could have acted on all cars and cleaned the air much faster (by, for example, giving people a choice between retrofitting their cars or paying a pollution fee that was dedicated to cleaning up pollution elsewhere).
The lesson libertarians take from this is that incentives are better than mandates. But the point I like to make is that, though incentives might work better than mandates, technical solutions work far better than behavioral ones.
Despite the past failure of behavioral tools, there is a strong movement in the administration and Congress today for more behavioral controls aimed at reducing driving to save energy and greenhouse gas emissions. These behavioral tools will be expensive, they will have costly unintended consequences, and in the end they will do little to protect the environment.
I remain unpersuaded that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But if there is a political need to do so, we should at least do it in ways that cost little and provide other benefits that will help cover those costs. McKinsey & Company estimates that the United States can meet the most stringent greenhouse gas targets by investing in programs that cost no more than $50 per ton of greenhouse gas abatements. More fuel-efficient cars meet this test, says McKinsey, and will also reduce the emissions of other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides.
Meanwhile, light rail, growth boundaries, and other behavioral tools, if they save energy and reduce greenhouse gases at all, will only do so at costs of tens of thousands of dollars per ton. Though I am far from thrilled about Obama’s new policy, at least it reminds us that, for a relatively low cost, we can significantly reduce energy consumption and various pollution emissions without trying to socially engineer American lifestyles.
The war of words over which is most efficient, cars or transit is now over.
Cars won!
The BHO Mandate fleet efficiency of 35.5 mpg average ends the debate about the best way to save energy, reduce CO2 and reduce foreign oil imports. There can no longer be any debate. The answer is unequivocal: the best way to save money, save energy, reduce CO2 and reduce oil usage is by driving a new car instead of taking transit!!
After a decades of transit’s decreasing energy efficiency and automobiles’ increasing energy efficiency cars have pulled ahead of transit in most cases. Now the BHO Mandate has taken a quantum leap and made cars the clear winner in energy and CO2, just as the market place made cars the winner almost 100 years ago because of the car’s superior convenience, and over the years, production efficiencies made cars the lowest cost means of comfortable mechanized transport.
Lets look at fleet average which INCLUDES SUVs etc (Not not the hummer sized suv, the popular ones that are all over town):
Proposal is for 35.5 mpg (Obama to Toughen Rules on Emissions and Mileage, NYT, May 19, )
that is 125,000/35.5 = 3521.13 BTU/vehicle-mile
3521 / 1.57 = 2243 BTU/passenger-mile
The BHO Mandate result:
35.5 mpg car/SUV = 2,243 – efficient, low cost and convenient
Commuter rail = 2,751 – ENERGY WASTER!
Amtrak = 2,935 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average Transit Rail = 3,228 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average BUS =4,160 – GAS GUZZLER!! (Ok its really Diesel)
The best of all worlds: save money, save energy, reduce CO2, reduce oil imports and have instant transportaion waiting at your door – the new efficient car! Mass transit is now obsolete, because it has NOTHING to offer over the car! Not energy saving. Not CO2 reduction. Not cost saving. Not convenience.
Of course the bad news is that more people will die due to smaller, less safe cars, but the good news is that driving will still be safer than light rail (and probably Amtrak).
But, all those extra deaths will be for a good cause: GREEN!! And we don’t have to tippy-toe on arctic wastelands.
Thanks
JK
You want to encourage better fuel economy. On the window sticker with the MPG, list the car in that class with the best economy even if it is made by another manufacturer.
ROT: Meanwhile, light rail, growth boundaries, and other behavioral tools, if they save energy and reduce greenhouse gases at all, will only do so at costs of tens of thousands of dollars per ton. Though I am far from thrilled about Obama’s new policy, at least it reminds us that, for a relatively low cost, we can significantly reduce energy consumption and various pollution emissions without trying to socially engineer American lifestyles.
THWM: Although the oligarchs paying you to prevent people from having other travel options like rail, is social engineering.
JK: But, all those extra deaths will be for a good cause: GREEN!! And we don’t have to tippy-toe on arctic wastelands.
THWM: Well Mr.Karlock you’re the type of guy that gloats at the thoughts of death.
THWM: Although the oligarchs paying you to prevent people from having other travel options like rail, is social engineering.
JK: And which transit whore is paying you?
THWM: Well Mr.Karlock you’re the type of guy that gloats at the thoughts of death.
JK: Learn to understand what you read. I am pointing out that it is the transit lobby and anti car green zombies who are getting people killed for their cause.
JK, using the auto industries own figures and what you quoted I came to this number.
35.5 mpg car/SUV = 2,934
THWM: JK, using the auto industries own figures and what you quoted I came to this number.
35.5 mpg car/SUV = 2,934
JK: Meaningless number. 2,934 what? vehicle miles; passenger-miles something else?
What is the fuel/BTU conversion rate?
What is the vehicle occupancy?
Do you understand what you write?
Thanks
JK
One faction favored of technical solutions to pollution, such as catalytic converters. The other faction argued for behavioral tools aimed at getting people to drive less.
And no doubt a faction of antiplanners complaining that (1) pollution was a phony problem made up by Rachel Carson who just wanted to make money off her book, and (2) that catalytic converters would make cars more expensive.
Shorter Randal:
I have to make something up, quick, to gin up opposition to higher efficiency vehicles!
DS
Shorter Dan: I can’t think of anything substantive, so I’ll throw in a quick cheap shot.
Better fuel efficiency, especially for larger vehicles like SUVs
and pickup trucks, is going to be easy (though somewhat more
expensive) for any auto manufacturer to achieve.
Just offer Diesel engines as an option, and get an
instant increase in fuel efficiency. Until recently, because of
the way U.S. vehicle emission rules were written, Diesels were
usually only offered in pickup trucks and other vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight of at least 8500 pounds. But no more.
Thanks to the availability of ultra-low-sulfur Diesel fuel
nationwide for highway use, we are staring to see Diesels in
lighter vehicles as well, and I hope that we soon see Diesels
in vehicles like the Ford F-150 pickup, the Ford Expedition
SUV; the Toyota Tundra pickup and the Toyota Sequoia SUV; and
the Chevy/GMC C/K1500 and their Suburban SUV brandmates.
Antiplanner wrote:
“So, as of 2016, for every 15-mpg model made by an auto maker, that company will have to make five models of cars that can go 50 mpg in order for its fleet to meet Obama’s new target. ”
Most cars in the UK are of the smaller kind. So, the question so far unanswered is this – why don’t US car drivers want smaller (cheaper cars). It’s not wealth – wealthy people are the biggest hunters of bargains. In a survey of people leaving an electronics store, very few people could list the specifications of what they had bought, but they could readily volunteer two-for-one and discount offers that they had accepted.
One US car driver volunteered that smaller cars were ‘SUV road kill’. If safety is the reason, maybe something should be done about this.
Antiplanner wrote:
“…technical solutions work far better than behavioral ones.”
This is very true, particularly if you ask someone to NOT do something.
Please do not think about your left elbow.
So, did you manage it?
Jim Karlock wrote:
“There can no longer be any debate.”
That’s a bit premature…
A car listed at 35mpg will almost certainly not accomplish this. A 60mpg diesel car in the UK is achieving more like 40mpg in real life. I would be surprised if the new cars achieve more than 30mpg.
Table 3.4 of this:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2008edition/section3energyenvironment.pdf
A train should yield 100mpg per person (source: Virgin Trains). A jet airliner comes in at 60mpg per person.
“Mass transit is now obsolete, because it has NOTHING to offer over the car! ”
The following are now officially banned, as contributing nothing to society.
Elevators
Escalators
Cable cars
Buses
Trams
Metro
Taxis
Trains
Airplanes
Ferries
Francis King,
Why don’t Americans drive the small cars found in Britain and Europe? Here is a possible explanation:
Gas taxes in the U.S. average 39 cents per gallon. In Canada, 93 cents; Japan, $1.25; European countries $1.25 to $2.70. See Oil and Gas Prices, Taxes, and Consumers.
RJ:
I’m sorry your critical thinking skills aren’t sufficiently developed to see the implicit assertion in my comment above.
As for the diesel option, the PMx emissions are still problematic. We are, after all, trying to reduce the externalities – esp those on human health – of personal auto transport.
DS
Dan said: As for the diesel option, the PMx emissions are still problematic. We are, after all, trying to reduce the externalities – esp those on human health – of personal auto transport.
THWM: Though there are also better kinds of auto use too, like taxis and car sharing.
http://www.zipcar.com/
A few new LRT lines and a few places with UGBs hardly constitutes a serious effort at “behavior changes.” More like pissing against the wind in a tiny corner, considering the size of the U.S.
Supporting land use policies such as reforming zoning that results in downzoning would make a big difference, as would converting fixed or hidden costs into direct mileage-related charges, e.g., pay as you drive insurance, road fees based on miles driven rather than fixed annual fees, deregulating parking mandates and charging for actual use. These sorts of things would reinforce Obama’s efforts to reduce fuel consumption and are mostly consistent with market/pricing principles. Under such circumstances, transit investments would also be much more effective overall.
The Antiplanner said:
Francis King,
Why don’t Americans drive the small cars found in Britain and Europe? Here is a possible explanation:
Gas taxes in the U.S. average 39 cents per gallon. In Canada, 93 cents; Japan, $1.25; European countries $1.25 to $2.70. See Oil and Gas Prices, Taxes, and Consumers.
Antiplanner, those tax rates on European fuels are too low. You are forgetting that European governments also impose substantial VAT taxes on the cost of fuel, and in some cases on top of the fuel tax itself. This drives up the cost of fuel in Europe to $5 – $8 per gallon.
I am not happy with the U.S. government decision to impose these new mileage standards. There is strong evidence from history that many people don’t seem to care too much about fuel economy until the pre-tax price of fuel is higher than $3 per gallon, preferring to purchase other features that a car or truck may have to offer. When prices do go above $3 per gallon, then people do get more conscientious about fuel economy. In 2008, there was a general collapse of the SUV type market while sales boomed amongst more fuel efficient cars. The market should have been left to sort this out.
Francis, my part of America is known in the automobile industry to be the world’s largest market for pick up trucks. Yes, we live up to stereotype down here, but pickup trucks are quite useful, especially if you own your own business, need to move things, for hauling boats around, for bringing home game from a hunting trip, and so on. Tastes and utility really do matter when purchasing a vehicle, something that those who push ever more stringent fuel standards don’t seem to understand.
You greedy libertarian assholes complain about draconian policy, but then you want to impose draconian policy.
You want space, but you don’t want others to have their space.
Tastes and utility really do matter when purchasing a vehicle, something that those who push ever more stringent fuel standards don’t seem to understand.
Shorter Meyer:
We’re not clever enough to adapt, despite the vivid and certain proclamations by small-minority ideologies that The Market is clever enough to adapt.
DS
Dan said: We’re not clever enough to adapt, despite the vivid and certain proclamations by small-minority ideologies that The Market is clever enough to adapt.
THWM: Then there is the irony of the oligarchs who pay for this blog that want selective market limitations.
THWM: Then there is the irony of the oligarchs who pay for this blog that want selective market limitations.
Hey, THWM, we are still waiting for you to tell us who is paying you to post silly, inaccurate, things on this blog.
Damn Mr.Karlock, are you ever delusional!
Who are the oligarchs?
What are “selective limitations”? It’s true that many corps want those. That’s a shame that those special interests are sometimes allowed by politicians.
BTW, “The market” (ie businesses) produces all of our personal goods.
People choose to purchase.
Should gov. coerce us to pay for certain things?
Well, it’s happening, often.
So in other words Scott, you’re spoiled brat.