Slashdot Mirror
Why Fuel Efficiency Advances Haven't Translated To Better Gas Mileage
greenrainbow tips an article about a research paper from an MIT economist that attempts to explain why technological advances in fuel efficiency haven't led to substantially better gas mileage for the average driver. Quoting:
"Thus if Americans today were driving cars of the same size and power that were typical in 1980, the country’s fleet of autos would have jumped from an average of about 23 miles per gallon (mpg) to roughly 37 mpg, well above the current average of around 27 mpg. Instead, Knittel says, 'Most of that technological progress has gone into [compensating for] weight and horsepower.' ... Indeed, Knittel asserts, given consumer preferences in autos, larger changes in fleet-wide gas mileage will occur only when policies change, too. 'It’s the policymakers’ responsibility to create a structure that leads to these technologies being put toward fuel economy,' he says. Among environmental policy analysts, the notion of a surcharge on fuel is widely supported. 'I think 98 percent of economists would say that we need higher gas taxes,' Knittel says."
If we save fuel all across the board...
The oil companys might not make more money next year than they did this year. Repeated forever into the future.
And we can't have that now can we?
I live in Ontario Canada. Gas here is anywhere between $4.30-4.75 a US GALLON, in CANADIAN DOLLARS (worth less than US Dollars).
Meanwhile, when I'm in the USA, I can get gas for anywhere in the $3.xx a gallon range.
It physically hurts to see people line up here for $4.10/US GAL gasoline. It hasn't increased public transit usage - after all, this IS North America, not Europe.
Raising prices (via tax) to give to the people (politicians) who can't spend the money properly is a BAD IDEA anyway.
It's like giving drugs to a drug addict. They'll just abuse it.
Why don't you give incentives to the private sector -- Tax breaks on new cars where MPG meets a certain requirement? Gas guzzling cars would soon be off the market entirely as car makers would opt to make more efficient cars, as a profit margin on them would be greater due to lower taxes.
Actually, it did have an effect - when gas started to get to about $4 per gallon, there were several studies that determined that people responded by driving less. This makes sense, because driving less is an adjustment that's usually much faster and easier to make than buying a new car.
However, I for one would be interested to find out what the true cost of a gallon of gasoline is. Not just the price I pay at the pump, but the price I pay in taxes to support the wars where oil is secured, the price I pay in taxes to support the Medicare and Medicaid costs of those harmed by the pollution, the higher prices I pay for anything coming from anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico because the rig exploded, etc. Yes, in theory all those prices should get factored into what I see at the gas pump, but in practice that simply doesn't happen.
I am officially gone from
SUVs are a complete waste of resources (metal, petroleum, etc.) and enormous polluters. Why use a 3-ton vehicle to drag one fat ass around town? The problem as I see it is that folks are choosing what economy they want which means that self-indulgent rich dicks want land barges that pollute *my* environment and their petro dollars go to such enlightened states as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria, all of whom seem to hate Western society which means we have to spend still more dollars propping up one petty dictator after another and then knocking them down. If our fuel economy was twice as good, our geopolitical interest in those dodgy areas would probably cost us a lot less money.
I can appreciate not wanting one's taxes raised. How about we reduce federal income tax and shift the tax burden to a petroleum tax?
The poor having SUVs hurts the poor. Government policy has little to nothing to do with it. A gas tax hike and something cash for clunkers would probably do a lot more for the poor than just hoping the price of gas stays low.
You're basically saying let's not enact a policy because we know there will be pain in the short-term. Lets instead wait and see if it becomes a horrible problem that is nearly impossible to solve. We could have war with Iran, and completely screw diplomatic relations with the Saudis and see gas prices quadruple in a couple months. So really the problem gets back to the fact that people are being irresponsible and buying gas guzzlers. And the market wants to sell them to them because they have huge profit margins. This is exactly like the housing bubble. The government can chose to act now, or they can wait until it blows up in their face and voters are demanding the government give them a credit to buy a new car. A slow rise in the gas tax over a decade could very easily slow the pain and change people's choices in a reasonable manner.
And SUVs are only great in adverse marketing conditions. Most truck chassis based SUVs I've encountered have trouble getting over a speed bump.
If consumers should be able to choose what vehicles they want to drive, then they should be able to choose to deal with $7/gallon gas in a car that gets less than 15mpg. I chose to drive a (standard gasoline) car that gets 30mpg because I want to minimize the variability of gas prices on my wallet. I could afford an SUV, but I'm making a choice. As are SUV drivers.
People obviously value things like car power, size, etc over fuel efficiency. They can already buy more efficient cars, and they choose not to do so. When scarcity drives the price up, people may shift their priorities, but why force them to do artificially through taxes?
Because it's the government's job to strive for the betterment of the country as a whole, not just the individual. Individual actions may indeed serve the person better than actions that benefits the whole, but that's not the governments job. Indeed there are arguments to be made on where the line should be drawn for placing society above the individual or the individual above society, but when all is said and done the government (when functioning properly) should be striving the better the lives of its citizens through the betterment of the country as a whole.
If they really worried about the poor, they would tax the hell out of gas and use the proceeds to fund mass transit. The only reason why the poor drive is because there aren't reasonable alternatives. I remember a few years back needing to be downtown early on sundays for work and having absolutely and completely options other than, taxi, private car or bike. The fact that there are times during the week when you have no transit options and that those times of day are more likely to have low income people commuting speaks volumes about the priorities of society.
Nice rant. Now how active were you in your last state or federal elections? I thought so.
You're on Slashdot. I'm going to assume you have IT skills that most candidates would love to have at their disposal. At the next election pick the candidate you like, get in touch with their campaign and lend some high tech assistance. (Feel free to tell them you can only give them 20 hours. Or 30 hours. Or whatever you decide.) Not all elections are landslides - sometimes convincing a couple thousand voters can change the outcome.
It's your world. Change it.
You misunderstand my point, which was about artificially lowering the price of gasoline based on externalizing costs.
For instance, if BP is pumping oil out of an oil field in Iraq, right now they are benefiting from the security provided by Xe contractors paid for by tax dollars. If they had to pay for that security, that would cost them, say, $100 million, then the cost of the, say, 2 million barrels of oil they get from that is actually $50 lower than it should be, which translates to a few dollars per gallon of gasoline.
I am officially gone from
Just because some of us drive larger vehicles doesn't mean we should be the only ones to pay higher taxes. We already suffer when we fill the tank up. In my case I have no choice but to drive a large family vehicle because they don't make fuel efficient vehicles for large families, therefore my family suffers more at the pump than you.
Why should society grant you special tax breaks just because you've decided to have a large family? You're already getting a break on your federal taxes, now you want a break on your fuel tax?
It costs you more to move your big family because you have a big family - big families are expensive.
You're not being singled out for this tax - everyone that uses a gas/diesel fueled vehicle will pay it. It's just that you'll pay more because you use more.
You don't say how large your family is, but check out the Mazda5 - 22/27 mpg is pretty good for a 7 passenger vehicle. It gets better gas mileage than my 10 year old 4 passenger car. (if I drove more I'd get something more fuel efficient, but I don't drive much so there's no point in taking on a $400/month car payment to save $10/month in gas)
Again, tax exemptions to make sure the wrong people aren't hurt are already very common. As someone has already pointed out, farmers don't pay the same gas taxes for their agricultural equipment that the rest of us do for our hoopties.
I don't know if you've ever spent any time around economists or economics departments of major universities. I have and Economics is an even softer science than psychology. When it comes to intellectual rigor, even Womens' Studies professors think economists are lightweights. Most of what passes for "Economics" is pop economics like "Freakonomics" that makes its bones by appealing to small-minded people. You can find dumb-shit economists pulling down nice salaries at "conservative" "think tanks" who will tell you with a straight face that supply-side, "trickle-down" economics has worked wonderfully and would be good for everyone if we only gave the people who pay their salaries all the money and then clapped louder.
When you say I'm "not thinking like an economist" I take it as high praise indeed.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Gound clearance:
Ford Explorer - 7.6"
Toyota Highlander - 8.1"
Jeep Grand Cherokee - 8.6"
Subaru Outback - 8.7"
Nissan Pathfinder - 9.0"
Nissan Xterra - 9.1"
I just picked most of these (except the Xterra - I picked that because it's mentioned further down) at random because they're what I see in the parking lot at work. Yes, the Nissans have more ground clearance but I don't think that half an inch is going to be the difference between yay and boo.
There are a few higher end electrics that are cool, but for some reason the lower end ones are just totally plain or awkward looking. Can't we get some nice car design going? Do all electrics have to look like expanded eastern european leftovers?
While we're at it why not fund a federal project to put light rail everywhere there is an interstate highway. A new New Deal.
-Xen
Well if you have a couple of trillion to build a mass transit system for the entire rural south or wouldn't mind taxes going up to say...ohh about 70% then i'm sure we could get rid of those nasty old fossil fuels tomorrow. The problem is all those foods you take for granted on your shelves? grown in places like AR and LA where its lots of two lane roads and pretty much zipola when it comes to mass transit. I can tell you that in AR you have a very old bus system that covers maybe half the state capital and...well that's it. and believe me the places it covers are NOT places you want to actually live, not unless you like gunfire for a lullaby.
Just remember the USA isn't the EU, with everyone packed together in little clumps, you are talking a HUGE area with people spread out all over the place. to make the cities safe enough you could actually move those people into them would cost trillions for the cops and high-rises alone, not even counting the transportation and infrastructure that would have to be built. So we better hope someone comes up with a source of energy that works as well as gas because you want to watch the USA fall apart just keep raising the gas prices.
As for TFA well duh the cars were lighter, 1980s cars were the worst of everything! You had plastic everything but hardly any knowledge of how to make any of it safe so that when one of those 80s cars go into a wreck it was just a nasty mangled mess. Cars are heavier now because safety weighs folks, steel bands and crumple zones all add weight. Sure we could make a car that weighed like an early 80s B210 that would get great gas mileage and if anybody hit you they could use the car as a coffin because good luck cutting you out of that mess! Maybe in another decade we'll have composites down good enough you can build a truly lightweight car that is as safe as a modern SUV or family car but as of right now I simply haven't seen anything close, noth that wouldn't make the car so expensive nobody but the uber rich could afford the thing.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
First, who are you to say they shouldn't have those cars?
Maybe he's a military servicemember who gets sent to go oppress middle easterners so those selfish assholes can have cheap gas for their SUVs, and he's sick of risking his life for their vanity and selfishness.
It's funny you mention AR. I grew up in Little Rock and went to Central High School (smack dab in one of those less-than-awesome neighborhoods). I think I rode CAT once. Maybe. And yes mass transit doesn't work well in sparsely populated areas like AR.
However, that doesn't mean everyone needs a giant car. If we all follow the i-need-a-bigger-car-because-bigger-cars-protect-me-better-in-collisions-with-other-vehicles mentality to its logical conclusion, we'll all be driving eighteen wheelers before too long. As I understand it, large and small cars with proper safety features fare about the same in a barrier collision (i.e., with an immovable object) but in car-vs-car collisions, the heavier car fares much better against a smaller car because they have more inertia and therefore decelerate less. If cars were generally smaller overall....blah blah blah.