CAFE corporate average fuel economy ... works?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JDaly

Redpoint, yes it seems that the current policy just "gets in front of a parade that is already moving" / mpg improvement. But note that when Reagan and his team jettisoned CAFE from 1982 forward, mpg that had been improving faltered and reversed (see below). Just sayin policy matters.

Please, educate me. Where on this graph did Reagan make fossil fuel consumption increase? Or, where on this graph did a blue-tie-wearing POTUS curb fossil fuel consumption?



It appears that financial disasters and pandemics have a bigger say than "policy".

I repeat my statement that it takes great courage to demand and coerce people into doing what they're already doing. As if I needed a know-nothing mouthpiece to assert their will, because not wasting my money needlessly wasn't incentive enough to not waste my money needlessly. I'm sure presidents are super knowledgeable about physics, economics, chemistry, organic chemistry, mechanics, and technology in general when they proclaim arbitrary MPG figures that must be met.

Why not just proclaim cars must get a bazillion MPG? That solves all problems instantly, because proclamations alter the fabric of reality and conform it to its will. We just need to find such a genius bureaucrat that is willing to assert such a thing, and surrender all liberty in sacrifice of said fictitious benevolent and omniscient god-person.

Heck, we could build a religion around this that's better than the rest! Move over Christianity, in 2,000 years nobody will know what the bible is, but we'll all realize the truth of CAFE. Imposing arbitrary metrics is certainly a religion that will stand the test of time.

[JDaly]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

because not wasting my money needlessly wasn't incentive enough to not waste my money needlessly. .

Ok. Point taken.
US policy did not seem to make a dent whatsoever in fossil fuel consumption over the last 100 plus years.

I guess the point you are making is show some "faith in the wisdom of the consumer" -i.e. one can assume they will want to save money / increase MPG; but they don't. One can assume that they will curb carbon emissions because they can see that eventually the Green house effect will kill most life on the planet. But they don't.
One can assume that Adam Smith's famous invisible hand will suddenly save us all from this descent to life destruction. But it hasn't and it won't.

So the wisdom of the market should proceed unconstrained even if it poisons us all!?

I think we diverge into different political world views here as I think markets need constraining policy and vice versa. ...and we can just agree to see things differently and avoid weary-ing our dear ecomodder readers with more policy arguments.
I get your points. I respect your knowledge, wisdom and views. But I for one will continue to seek both market education and policy that makes the market AND the politic smarter.
Respectfully,
JDaly

[freebeard]

I think we diverge into different political world views here....

Everywhere and all the time. Robt. Anton Wilson called them 'reality tunnels'. Sometimes they run parallel, other times they are at cross purposes.

Adam Smith's famous invisible hand ... hasn't and it won't.

True capitalism, like true communism, has never been tried. [/jk]

The sheeple buy what they are told.

[me and my metro]

You do realize that CAFE stands for corporate average fuel economy. While making improvements they also limit sales on low fuel mileage models until they sell enough Metros each year. They also mandate that fleets purchase a percentage of hybrid vehicles each year, whether that improves economy or not.

[JDaly]

Originally Posted by freebeard

...Robt. Anton Wilson called them 'reality tunnels'.

Thanks for the reference to Robert Anton Wilson. His works truly get to and under our cognitive distortions. One of my favorite quotes of his:

"Is", "is." "is"—the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment."

— Robert Anton Wilson, The Historical Illuminatus Chronicles, as spoken by the character Sigismundo Celine.

[freebeard]

"I seem to be a verb" -- Richard Buckminster Fuller 1970

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Had CAFE worked, neither GM or Ford would've quit making traditional cars. OK, the Chevrolet Malibu is still around, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it to last much longer in the USDM. Not to mention in South Korea it's available with a 1.35L 3-cyl engine (turbocharged, naturally).

[Ecky]

I won't pretend to be an expert on the auto market here in NZ (yet), but it seems to me that, once imports of vehicles (newer than a certain date) that did not have traction control were banned, all new vehicles sold past that point had traction control.

If the aim was to have traction control on all vehicles, it worked.

When I looked at the difference in registration costs between motorcycles / diesels / gasoline cars, I pretty much ruled out the first two. The motorcycle registration cost is apparently pegged to the relative increase in cost to the public healthcare system. I can only assume the same is true for diesels due to emissions differences.

As for fuel economy, the price of fuel largely seems to take care of that. If the US really wanted to improve fleet fuel economy, it could try removing some of the subsidies that keep fossil fuels artificially cheap. It's amazing how quickly people dump their guzzlers when fuel prices jump by $1.00.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I won't pretend to be an expert on the auto market here in NZ (yet), but it seems to me that, once imports of vehicles (newer than a certain date) that did not have traction control were banned, all new vehicles sold past that point had traction control.

If the aim was to have traction control on all vehicles, it worked.

When I looked at the difference in registration costs between motorcycles / diesels / gasoline cars, I pretty much ruled out the first two. The motorcycle registration cost is apparently pegged to the relative increase in cost to the public healthcare system. I can only assume the same is true for diesels due to emissions differences.

As for fuel economy, the price of fuel largely seems to take care of that. If the US really wanted to improve fleet fuel economy, it could try removing some of the subsidies that keep fossil fuels artificially cheap. It's amazing how quickly people dump their guzzlers when fuel prices jump by $1.00.

Instead the US does exactly the opposite to consumers
Penalizing fuel efficient vehicles with extra registration charges.

In areas with Cities kei car law and taxes on 4wd automatics would motivate

additional “fuel taxes” with reduced/increased registration fees on what you want don’t want would help morph things also.
Major changes to car insurance could also be made into a motivator toward smaller more efficient vehicles.

But none of that is popular using carrots and sticks.

Always got to leave an out for the poor (which we also do the opposite)

[redpoint5]

We don't penalize fuel efficient vehicles, we subsidize them. In California, between the state and federal gasoline tax, it amounts to $0.72/ gallon. Guzzlers are penalized. When gasoline is $2.16 / gallon, 1/3rd of it is taxes.

Show me anywhere where a fuel efficient vehicle is paying more per mile in "taxes" and we'll have a discussion.