Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
"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.
Using a 4500 lb. box to carry a 180 lb. person was always a stupid idea. Like you said, good riddance.
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?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
You're both right. For every conscientious person, there's an asshole that follows his animal instinct to perpetually consume as much as he possibly can.
I think you have articulated the solution to the problem. It's a folly to mandate fuel efficiency since people will try to find a way around the regulations. Your post shows that when you increase the price of fuel, there is a powerful incentive to get better mileage. Here in Switzerland we don't have CAFE but almost everyone drives small fuel efficient cars. Fuel is the equivalent of about $6.00 a gallon. Problem solved. All we need is a carbon tax or fuel tax and people will reduce CO2 emissions.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Clarkson is for entertainment. He's not to be cited as an authority on anything besides what Clarkson's opinion is.
Not a typewriter
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.
Nobox: Only simple products.
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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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.)
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
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.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br