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.
42 you say?
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.
That's called "collusion", when the government isn't involved.
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.
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!
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
Before you say "well drive a car", well if I could find a car for someone my size I would easily drive a car. I cannot find a car that fits someone of my height and girth, thus I HAVE to drive an SUV.
Or you could also, like, exercise a bit from time to time and eat healthier.
A friend of mine who is 6'8" and well over 300 pounds has no trouble in my 3 door Audi S3. That's a hatchback.
Sure, he has to adjust the seat a lot, but he fits no problems, passenger or driver.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a past owner of both makes, I'll pick Toyota's quality and reliability over that of Volkswagen every time, thanks.
My last Toyota saw me through more than twice as many miles as the Volkswagen it replaced; and then went off to college for four more years with my son. Both were bought new, by me, so no possibility of neglect by previous owners or such.
The Prius isn't my first choice either. But I'll certianly not by a car again whose VIN doesn't start with a 'J'.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
I understand that safety is now a major concern and safety drags down mileage. But the numbers are not far fetched.
from the article
"The CRX HF got an Environmental Protection Agency-estimated 57 mpg gallon in highway driving. Today, the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid Civic you can buy gets an EPA-estimated 34 mpg on the highway. Even today's Honda Civic Hybrid can't match it, achieving EPA-estimated highway mileage of just 45 mpg. The Toyota Prius, today's fuel mileage champ, gets 46 mpg on the highway."
some peoples moderation does not include weed
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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