ryan1234

by Jerry Taylor


This article appeared in the USA Today on May 20, 2009

The plan to require new passenger vehicles sold in 2016 to get an average of 39 miles per gallon or better (30 mpg or more for SUVs, pickups and minivans) is likely to be all cost and no benefit.

If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only two cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg) and the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg) — would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).

There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty.

What do we gain by this? Very little.

We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America.

Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.

Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want.

Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.

Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.

Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends.

Pilotpip

Get rid of ethanol and you'll see much of that increase instantly. Of course the farmers and ethanol producers will cry that the government gives them lots of money for their corn...

But that's totally different than welfare.

250 or point 65

i hate to say it but my 98 civic gets 30 to the gallon. It makes me sick when i hear Chevy say "super fuel efficient" and then "31 mpg". There has been virtually zero progress in 10 years...actually more like 20.

A huge jump in fleet mpg standards would do exactly what the article says, but we do stand to gain from incrementally raising fleet standards. The car companies would even have a huge head start considering how people are buying more fuel efficient cars already. Up it .5-1 mpg each year until you get to 40 mpg. That is certainly not out of the question. Most of the technology is already out there and would not be super expensive to produce.

This is the main key that the environmentalists will have to concede on for a while. Do not change the emmisions standards at all for a while. Let them lag behind while we focus on mpg. I think that'd be a plan that most would support.