It is likely that, by the time you read this, the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency will have made a joint announcement about reforming the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Originally adopted in 1978, when new cars were required to average all of 18 miles per gallon, the standards were increased by the Obama administration to a target of 54.5 mpg by 2025. (This 54.5 is actually an idealized number; as a practical matter, the real target for 2025 is about 39 mpg.)
As I am writing this, I don’t know exactly what today’s proposal will be, but an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by DOT secretary Elaine Chao and acting EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler provides some hints. Most important, the article notes that the goal is “to create one national standard.” This means that California won’t be able to impose its own, stronger standards.
As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Marlo Lewis observes, when Congress created the CAFE program in 1975, it specially forbade states from adopting their own stronger rules, probably because this would greatly increase the costs of compliance to manufacturers. Despite that, the Obama administration decided to exempt California from the one-national-standard rule. The Trump administration is going back to the actual law.
The Chao-Wheeler article doesn’t suggest what the new CAFE standard will be. Instead, it says that the proposed rule “lays out eight options for new national fuel-economy standards for model years 2021-26.” The administration probably hopes that will defuse environmental objections to the proposal, encouraging supporters of stronger CAFE standards will have to promote the option that they feel is best. However, administration critics would no doubt object to any new standard even if were just a 1 mpg difference.
Obama’s adoption of the stricter standards was supported by many carmakers, including Ford, GM, and Chrysler (the latter two of which were under the government’s thumb due to corporate bailouts). However, Volkswagen strongly objected, saying that the standards were unfair to cars while overly generous to light trucks. This may be one reason why Ford has announced it is getting almost completely out of the car business, planning to make only light trucks plus the Mustang and a new China-made small car called the Focus Active.
One problem with the Obama standards was that they assumed that two thirds of vehicles sold would be cars, and only a third light trucks. In fact, it has been about half and half. For that reason alone, the EPA in 2016 concluded that standards would have to be changed no matter who was in the White House. Changing them now just gives Democrats one more tool to use to bash Trump.
Therefore, buy levitra it also is a common disease for men. DHT hormone when it enters into the body of men will cause thinning of hair follicles that may have stopped producing hair to start producing new hair again, which can help with online levitra prescription hair regrowth in areas of baldness. It was never talked about in the same breath as http://www.devensec.com/news/Devens_Tick_Fact_Sheet_May_2018.pdf cialis sale, owing to the simplicity and safety it guarantees. Then maybe you can mention that you are an affiliate of an article syndication automation website. tadalafil prices Chao and Wheeler argue that rolling back the standards will reduce the cost of new cars by several thousand dollars and reduce total costs to consumers by $500 billion over the next 50 years. However, Americans currently spend about $1.1 trillion a year buying, operating, and insuring cars, so $500 billion over 50 years is less than a 1 percent savings on their driving bills.
The real issue is that the CAFE program has suffered mission creep. When Congress created the program in 1975, the nation was suffering from politically induced energy shortages. But the standards weren’t needed to save energy; people responded to higher gas prices by buying more fuel-efficient cars without the government standards.
Today, we have an abundance of energy: after adjusting for inflation, gas prices today are much lower than they were in 1975 and much less volatile. So there’s no need to keep the standards to save energy.
Instead, environmentalists defend strict CAFE standards in order to reduce greenhouse gases. But there’s little reason to believe that the standards will have much of an effect on climate change.
Even if you believe that reducing greenhouse gases is a sound goal, CAFE standards aren’t the best way to do it. The McKinsey Report on greenhouse gases concluded that there are many ways of reducing emissions that are far more cost effective than trying to force cars to become more fuel efficient.
Only Congress can repeal the law requiring the standards. In the meantime, rolling back the standards is probably worthwhile even if it saves consumers only 1 percent in the long run. However, I may have more commentary on this issue later this week.
“there are many ways of reducing emissions that are far more cost effective than trying to force cars to become more fuel efficient.”
Really? So a car that uses one gallon to go 30 miles vs. 20 miles? A gallon of gas produces about 20 pounds of CO2 burned. It doesn’t matter if you’re idling, driving 20,30,40,55 miles per hour. But if you can get more miles out of that gallon, isn’t that avenue worth exploring? 20 lbs per gallon, depending on fuel efficiency…. if you’re getting 40 mpg, that’s half a pound per mile.
Why not let the states impose their own standards…this is not really a federal issue.
If California want’s to impose a higher fuel economy standard, let them just like most of their regulations will chase jobs out of state. If California imposed energy consumption standards on computers, Silicon Valley would flee for Arizona in a heartbeat. California is still an innovation center however, the highest energy efficient products have come out of there where automotive research continues in hybrids, electrics, fuel cells, biofuels, etc. The fact is CO2 output in the US has declined 1.5% in 2017 and has been for a decade, it’s now at 1995 levels, thanks to energy efficiency and natural gas and some renewables. We did by accident what Europe cant do with regulations and taxation and heavy technology investment.
The CAFE standards set by Obama were purely political statements. He knew he wouldn’t be there in 2025 so why not set a number which is not technically feasible. This way, his people can attack anyone who changes the standards – and the media will act as if the standards came down from God.
One reason they can’t be met are governmental safety requirements which have added hundreds of pounds per car. I am all for safety but we have to be honest. We are making a tradeoff – safer cars versus lighter cars that will give better fuel economy.
In the early 80’s, when we had fuel shortages, I bought a Mercury Lynx which got me well over 40 MPG on the highway. That is as good or better than most subcompacts today, 30+ years later. The same car would now weigh almost 1,000 pounds more and would be rated at least 10 MPG less.
So end the politics.
I agree that CAFE standard are a poor way or reducing CO2 production. It would appear that a carbon fee and dividend https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and -dividend/has the best potential to reduce CO2 production at low cost. This system could require minimum additional infrastructure charging fossil fuels at source then rebating to taxpayers through existing tax structures. High CO2 producing procedures would become more expensive while at the same time taxpayers would have additional funds to mitigate these costs, through better insulated houses, etc. This system would also prevent politicians using the CO2 fee for political projects that have nothing to do with reducing CO2 production such as California’s high speed train.
Having said that I do not consider the CAFE standards to be unrealistic. I now drive a 2017 Toyota Prius that weighs just over 3,000 lbs and really is getting 52 mpg in normal driving. On a recent 200 mile country road trip at less than 65 mph we got 66 mpg. The acceleration is excellent and it goes 500 miles between tank fill up. For safety the Prius has multiple air bags, auto braking, proximity warning, stability control, etc etc. To see just how much safer modern cars are look at this crash test of a 2009 Malibu 3,500 lbs compared to a 1959 Bel Air 3,770 lbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U. For those who might want a bigger car than the Prius the 2018 Toyota Camry weighs 3,500 lbs and gets mileage very similar to the Prius. I am told by a mechanics shop that specializes in hybrids that 10 year old Prius’ batteries need replacing regardless of mileage for about $3,000. This battery replacement is an additional driving cost but partially offset by less brake replacement and convenience of not having to fill up with gasoline as often.
Toyota claims that the Prius engine is 41% efficient https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098429_next-toyota-prius-hybrid-40-percent-thermal-effiency-from-engine-toyota-says. Mazda now claims to be readying at 56% thermal efficient engine https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a15912314/mazda-skyactiv-3-gas-clean-as-ev/. If all else is equal, admittedly speculative, then a Prius with a that now gets 52 mpg if fitted with a 56 % thermal efficient engine might get 52x(56/41)=71 mpg. So is the CAFE requirement really so onerous?
Once one has a car that gets 52 mpg it just seems ridiculous to buy anything that gets less.
Liberal arguments always tend to win in the case of public debate; two fold, tear jerking, show the crying faces and if you capture every possible scenario. If the planet’s temperature rises a degree it’s a travesty that must be inclination to spearhead aggressive action against it no matter what the cost, even if the costs incurred only alleviate it by a fraction of a degree. If the temperature drops a degree, it’s also an indication that the effect was attributed to the human augmentation of our climate; Per our investigation. Thus we must take action to insure the climate is stable, give us billions of dollars regardless. The same can be said if it rains more or less, storms more or less, forest fires occur more or less. Katrina’s devastation was the result of climate change; no it was a category 3, downgraded to a 2 which struck for a long period of time over antiquated infrastructure. BUT AH HAAAA, Hurricane Sandy was a devastating storm exacerbated by climate change. No…. it was a storm that coincidentally struck during a high tide….if it happened in a low tide, your house would have been fine…. We went nearly a decade after Katrina without a severe storm hitting landfall, til Harvey………….AH HAAAAAA. If every possible outcome can somehow be attributed to your theory; you’re never wrong.
Climate change The way I see it the solution is one of three…
1: Invent something that can take the near 1-2 teratons of CO2 we’ve added since the Industrial revolution in an economic fashion.
2: Output less CO2 per annum than what the planet can sequester using natural methods and supplement it.
3: Geoengineering, aerosols in the air to reflect the heat from the sun. Or using Earth’s oceans and rocks as a Co2 absorbent
Or the fourth option, Revert to renewables, regardless of cost.
Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes; it was the predominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland we could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today’s, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralized, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown. If Europe shuts down their nuclear plants it will not be water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel and imported wood chips to run their industrial society. It’s THAT or reverting back to a pre-industrial society. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power and wood extraction on large scale is worse than coal. Were 7 billion people; were gonna be 9 billion by 2050 and they’re moving to cities from the villages, the world is now 50% urban, up from 14% in 1900, it’s gonna be 60% urban people by 2030, and 80% urban by 2050 that’s 7 BILLION people living in cities and with it a appetite for city living means 24/7 power demand And they cant rely on combustion for heating, cooking, light and transportation they’ll need electric power and that’s either gonna come from COAL or Nuclear.
So the conservative estimate is it’s gonna rise one degree celsius by the year 2100 which is a terrible assumption because it assumes technical progress wont allow us to heavily reduce our CO2 emissions, stop our CO2 emissions or even extract CO2 from the air in the following decades and YES we’ll have decades since climate alarmists keep re-setting the goal post every decade when their failed predictions come to pass. A 0.17 degree change to the thermostat is not worth a Trillion dollars. Worst of all The lifestyle hypocrisy of the main purveyors; the media, celebrities and the elite.
Al Gore buying breach-front property using money he got from people who believe the OCEAN IS RISING. Why would a man who’s clearly “smarter” than us dumb conservatives……..purchase property that’s literally gonna be underwater in the future. He’s literally laughing at your expense. Well for one, the climate alarmists always reset the goal post every decade. Also their projections for when environmental disasters are always just around the corner. 2020, 2025, 2030. They figure they’ll be dead by then and of course wont have to pay up.
Once one has a car that gets 52 mpg it just seems ridiculous to buy anything that gets less.
How many 4×8 sheets of drywall can you get in the Prius (or Camry)? Yards of river rock? Campers with their tents, stove, and bicycles?
Why do you assume that your choice of vehicle to drive is the best for everyone else? Is it just virtue signaling? Or is it an authoritarian bent à la Rousseau: Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains and must be forced to be free by getting the government to force the rest of us to purchase only tiny cars?
Good point CapitalistRoader. Instead of writing “Once one has a car that gets 52 mpg it just seems ridiculous to buy anything that gets less.” I should have written “Once one has a car that gets 52 mpg it just seems ridiculous to buy anything WITH LOWER EFFICIENCY”.
It should be possible to build larger vehicles that get proportionately the same efficiency as a hybrid.
Trump is likely being realistic with his proposal.
One thing I think is going on here that the other commenters have not noted is that it is likely the case that Obama never seriously intended for MPG to be as high as 53mpg etc.
Any half realistic engineering or data analysis clearly notes that this is a pie in the sky number. My guess is that such proposals fit into the overall anti car narrative that Obama EPA officials subscribe to. Using this as a starting place, it is likely that the Obama CAFE standards are really intended not to increase efficiency but to make driving more expensive with electric cars etc etc or taxes so that people “will get out of their cars” and use public transit etc etc.
Couple the MPG standards with the paradoxically conflicting safety standards and you see the net effect: More expensive, LESS EFFICIENT, and less adapted cars. Its ironic that when you compare apples to apples most vehicles are not substantially more efficient than they were int he late 80’s. For instance my 86 Toyota pickup with the 4cly carburated 22r engine and a 5 speed manual gets the same mileage as a new Tacoma. Granted the Tacoma is much heavier and powerful and emits less pollutants but in terms of raw MPG they are about the same. There in lies the rub: If the feds were serious about fuel consumption they would likely use a pollutants per mile standard rather than a pollutants per gallon standard. Also, there would be more flexibility with safety standards such as not requiring ten airbags and abs etc etc which when you look at the crash data only makes the vehicle marginally safer for the cost. This would result in cheaper and lighter cars.
Again the real issue here is the hidden agenda which is to make cars more expensive. Returning to my example of my 86 Toyota. The truck was originally $6,500 or $14,931.99 in today’s dollars, a new 2018 is $25,400. This no doubt is good news for the anti car agenda since the last thing the would want to see is a $10,00-15,000 compact pickup that with today’s EFI systems could have twice the power and get 35-40mpg highway. As with housing and the anti sprawl types, the real goal is to make these things unattainable. Since that cannot be achieved with an obvious “pollution” tax or a massive sales tax, like the 180% one in Denmark, they conceal their agenda in maze-like paradoxical regulations that do nothing but add cost.