US To Require That New Cars Get 42 MPG By 2016

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.

Comments

Re:Amusing story

[pmarini]

Allow me to translate that:
US gallon = 3.78 liters
UK gallon = 4.54 litres
Therefore it would be 50 mpg in UK... good luck with that!

Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time.

[burnin1965]

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.

Actually, what the study showed was that if you wrote a report with complete bullshit absurdities you could convince some people that a gigantic vehicle that gets 14 MPG average would have better or equivalent energy consumption to a small vehicle that gets 46 MPG.

Some people tried to analyse what little information was available about the report and found absurdities such as the Hummer H3 rated at 207,000 miles in its lifetime and the Prius at only 109,000 miles. While still others ran known models that are used to measure life cycle energy consumption and even when using the absurdities from the Dust to Dust report they still could not produce the ridiculous energy consumption numbers from the report.

The fact is that more than 80% of an automobiles life cycle energy is consumed in the operation of the vehicle. That bit of information makes it virtually impossible for a vehicle that consumes more than 3x the operating energy of a smaller car to some how use less or the same amount of energy as the small car over their life cycles.

As far as new versus old, just as its a no brainer that a small fuel efficient car will consume less total energy than a monster SUV its also obvious that buying a new car will not magically reduce total energy consumption. However, since we know autos have a life cycle there will be a need for many new vehicles so it may not be a bad idea to use some of our no brainer knowledge to have a positive impact on our energy consumption.

Re:Gas tax

[DerekLyons]

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.

Yeah, and all those people who can't afford to buy new cars or who don't have access to alternate transportation will just have to suck it up and choose between gas and food or rent/mortgage payments.
 
 

When looking at where to live, the cost of commuting will play a bigger role in families' decisions.

Yeah, and all those people who can't afford to move will just have to suck it up and choose between gas and food or rent/mortgage payments. And who'll buy all those properties now too expensive for people live in? (And after selling your house at a loss, if you can sell, you'll be in a wonderful position to compete for houses closer in - houses whose prices are now rising because of demand.)
 
It sucks to be a real person instead of a mathematical abstraction I guess.
 
 

Of course no politician will even hint at endorsing what is clearly the economically rational thing to do.

I find it much more likely that politicians and their advisers are much smarter than you are and understand that real world economics aren't abstractions and that what seems 'rational' in the extremely oversimplified and over abstracted world you live in is in fact a recipe for significant economic disruption in the real world.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[Anaerin]

Easy. Here in Canada we use Diesel at -40 (C or F, they're the same at that point), with no problems. It's a matter of additives, block heaters, and glow plugs. But as that's standard for most automobiles here (gas or diesel), it's pretty much moot point.

Re:Collusion

[TheThiefMaster]

If you look up crash tests of the Smart ForTwo on youtube you might be surprised: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU

The Smart ForTwo's main advertising point (apart from it's small size and fuel efficiency) is the visible "Tridion" frame around the passenger compartment, showing that you're going to be safe.

Now look up your BMW (I can't, as you didn't give the model).