CAFE does not Work

[Gawain 0]

A couple months ago, Csaba Csere (Editor-in-Chief of Car & Driver) wrote an interesting column a couple months ago. I won't cut and paste the whole thing, I am going to post his "10 reasons why CAFE standards make no sense". It's long-ish, but it is on the mark. I agree with his assessment.

Quote

1. CAFE laws do absolutely nothing to reduce fuel consumption in the short term. Because increased CAFE standards only affect the fuel efficiency of vehicles yet to be made, they have no effect on the fuel used by America’s existing fleet of 247 million vehicles.

2. By making driving less expensive, higher CAFE levels actually encourage more driving. Bump an SUV’s fuel economy from 20 mpg to 40 mpg, and you reduce the cost of gasoline (at $2.40 a gallon) from 12 cents to 6 cents a mile. Uh-huh, that’s really going to encourage less driving.

3. Because CAFE laws make driving cheaper, they do nothing to foster the use of public transportation or encourage housing choices that reduce commuting distances.

4. CAFE laws put the entire burden of fuel and carbon conservation on cars and ignore industry sources, home energy use, airlines, agriculture, trucking, locomotives, etc. Yes, cars and trucks do consume a great deal of energy, but of America’s total energy consumption of about 100 quadrillion BTUs (in 2005), the vehicles affected by CAFE only account for some 18 percent of that total. That’s not much more than the 14 percent of our energy that is generated by nuclear and renewable sources. Doesn’t the CO2 produced by the other 68 percent also cause global warming? Why should SUVs be demonized when Al Gore, in the largest of his three homes, uses 20 times as much electricity as I do in my not-insubstantial house? Meanwhile, other energy-conservation advocates jet around in Gulfstream 5s that burn 17 times as much fuel as an Escalade does getting from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

5. CAFE puts the burden on automakers to produce products that buyers don’t necessarily want. Last year, when gas prices went over $3 a gallon, Americans, for the first time in nearly five years, started buying more cars than trucks—at least for five months. By February of this year, after gas prices dipped in the low $2 range, trucks once again were outselling cars, by 20 percent. Forcing manufacturers to sell fuel-efficient vehicles in America without the encouragement of high fuel prices is like trying to make steakhouses sell tofu-fillet sandwiches for the same price as a chateaubriand.

6. CAFE laws imply that Americans can continue to drive the vehicles they want, if only the stingy automakers would spend a few more pennies on efficient technologies to improve vehicle mileage. Not only is this nonsense, but it also denies the reality that major reductions in energy consumption will require changes in the habits and lifestyles of most Americans.

7. Because CAFE increases keep gasoline costs low, buyers have no reason to invest in energy-saving technologies, such as lightweight materials, that would actually improve efficiency.

8. CAFE puts the burden on car manufacturers to reduce consumption rather than on the drivers who actually burn the fuel for their own benefit. It’s like those lawsuits that sought to blame McDonald’s because the food its customers bought and ate of their own free will made some of them fat.

9. CAFE laws create unanticipated distortions in the market, such as the rise of SUVs to replace station wagons, the EPA labeling of cars such as the Dodge Magnum and Subaru Outback sedan as trucks, and the enlargement of trucks to get them out of the CAFE pool. Selling more vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 8500 pounds sure saves fuel.

10. Finally, CAFE will accomplish nothing because its glacially slow effects are offset by the growth of trucks in the U.S. vehicle fleet. For example, if the Feinstein bill to raise both car and truck CAFE to 35 mpg by 2019 were enacted, fuel use by America’s vehicles would not decrease at all, as the CAFE gains would be more than offset by the inexorably increasing number of cars and trucks (about four million vehicles annually) and the increasing proportion of trucks on the road.

The bottom line is that CAFE doesn’t save any fuel because it fails to motivate drivers to worry about fuel economy. Anyone who professes to be worried about conservation and thinks the solution can be found in some version of CAFE law is too simple to understand the problem, too cowardly to ask voters to make some sacrifices, or sufficiently cynical to promote a law that accomplishes nothing other than capturing self-aggrandizing headlines.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

Right. A huge TAX on hydrocarbon fuels is the only thing that will make a difference.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Well, his whole argument was blown right out of the water when he said "By making driving less expensive, higher CAFE levels actually encourage more driving." Most people drive the same amount regardless of fuel economy or gas prices.

And I bet the editor of "Sneaker and Walker" would have a completly different view of the issue.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[quade 4]

After reading #1, I don't think I need go any further. That's just a flat out, stupid comment.

Essentially he's says, "Fuck it. There's no point in improving the breed."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Most people drive the same amount regardless of fuel economy or gas prices.

I think that is too broad of a claim. The miles driven (or more importantly, the gas consumed per person) certainly does reduce as gas prices go higher, they just don't go down very fast for an incremental increase in prices. Some, or even most of the driving people do is not optional, but some is. Combine that with an incremental increase in carpooling and people choosing to purchase more efficient cars, and you'll have some reduction in the amount of gas used on average.

I heard someone say that the best way to reduce your fuel consumption is to keep a very small amount of gas in you tank at all times, that way you're more likely to refuse to do optional driving.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,107]

>1. CAFE laws do absolutely nothing to reduce fuel consumption in the
> short term.

Incorrect. They HAVE reduced fuel consumption.

>2. By making driving less expensive, higher CAFE levels actually
>encourage more driving.

Right. They also reduce total fuel usage. More driving, less fuel usage - very few people can find issue with that.

>3. Because CAFE laws make driving cheaper, they do nothing to foster
>the use of public transportation or encourage housing choices that
>reduce commuting distances.

Corrrect. Other laws do that. All CAFE does is reduce vehicular fuel usage.

>4. CAFE laws put the entire burden of fuel and carbon conservation on
>cars and ignore industry sources, home energy use, airlines,
>agriculture, trucking, locomotives, etc.

Incorrect. CAFE laws do not attempt to solve the entire problem of fuel conservation and carbon emissions. They merely help solve one part of it.

>5. CAFE puts the burden on automakers to produce products that
>buyers don’t necessarily want.

Incorrect. Buyers can still buy any product they like; automakers can still produce any product they want to. They just have to AVERAGE a certain fuel economy. They can do that by making Hummers get 40mpg by using ultra-strong, lightweight carbon fiber chassis, hybrid drivetrains, reconfigurable aerodynamic body panels etc - or they can do it by making a lot of Toyota Yarises. Their choice.

>:6. CAFE laws imply that Americans can continue to drive the vehicles
>they want, if only the stingy automakers would spend a few more
>pennies on efficient technologies to improve vehicle mileage.

What fools think should have no bearing on what laws are passed.

>7. Because CAFE increases keep gasoline costs low, buyers have no
>reason to invest in energy-saving technologies, such as lightweight
> materials, that would actually improve efficiency.

100% incorrect. Buyers will more often purchase vehicles that use such materials due to CAFE.

>8. CAFE puts the burden on car manufacturers to reduce consumption
>rather than on the drivers who actually burn the fuel for their own
>benefit.

It places the burden on both.

>9. CAFE laws create unanticipated distortions in the market, such as the
>rise of SUVs to replace station wagons . ..

This is definitely true. Solution: close the SUV loophole. All private vehicles meet CAFE requirements, period.

>10. Finally, CAFE will accomplish nothing because its glacially slow
>effects are offset by the growth of trucks in the U.S. vehicle fleet.

Close the SUV loophole. Problem solved.

>The bottom line is that CAFE doesn’t save any fuel because it fails to
> motivate drivers to worry about fuel economy.

The bottom line, which really sucks for car manufacturers, is that CAFE laws HAVE saved fuel, and did not bankrupt them.

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Right. A huge TAX on hydrocarbon fuels is the only thing that will make a difference.

Of course, this should be a progressive tax...those in the low income brackets pay $4 a gallon and you pay $10 ($20 for your 100LL).

Fallrate

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Right. A huge TAX on hydrocarbon fuels is the only thing that will make a difference.

Of course, this should be a progressive tax...those in the low income brackets pay $4 a gallon and you pay $10 ($20 for your 100LL).

Fallrate

Whatever it takes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.