EPA to reject Obama fuel efficiency standards early next week

[aerohead]

*As of 2014,CAFE was saving USA light vehicle owners $234,250,000,600/year,compared to pre-CAFE.
*And reducing CO2 by a little over a trillion tons/year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*The more stringent standard, which is on the chopping block,would have had us saving an additional $91,269,212,920/year.
*With the 5% Federal Reserve' fractional reserve liquidity metric,if banked,these savings would only pump $1.8-trillion in capital /year into the USA economy,which otherwise now will go 'up in smoke.'
*We must be running a smoke deficiency.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*As of 2014,CAFE was saving USA light vehicle owners $234,250,000,600/year,compared to pre-CAFE.
*And reducing CO2 by a little over a trillion tons/year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*The more stringent standard, which is on the chopping block,would have had us saving an additional $91,269,212,920/year.
*With the 5% Federal Reserve' fractional reserve liquidity metric,if banked,these savings would only pump $1.8-trillion in capital /year into the USA economy,which otherwise now will go 'up in smoke.'
*We must be running a smoke deficiency.

I like the perspective given here, and the attempt at numbers, but they aren't adding up.

Americans consume 145,000,000,000 gallons of fuel per year. At $2.75/gal, that's about $400 billion/yr. How would the more stringent standard reduce fuel consumption by 1/4?

This also assumes that fuel economy would not otherwise improve at all without government mandate. Not only that, but there is cost associated with hybrid systems, and other research and development of fuel saving technology.

I'm not saying CAFE hasn't contributed to higher fuel economy, only that it isn't simple enough to give CAFE all the credit for saving all the money, or to even determine how much money was saved in the first place.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*As of 2014,CAFE was saving USA light vehicle owners $234,250,000,600/year,compared to pre-CAFE.
*And reducing CO2 by a little over a trillion tons/year.

Even though the average Joe might actually enjoy the savings from an enhanced fuel economy, most Americans seem to not really care about CO² or any other environmental regulation.

*The more stringent standard, which is on the chopping block,would have had us saving an additional $91,269,212,920/year.

Even though the more stringent standard could eventually lead to that projected increase in savings, there are cultural factors and cost of technology to be implemented in order to reach them. And honestly I don't see an average redneck getting rid of a short-bed regular cab F-150 or Silverado to pull their ghost-trailers with a Yaris for example, or to throw a greater amount of money into a hybrid truck even if it leads to double the MPG. But it's still quite unpredictable.

[ksa8907]

I was thinking about this topic on my hour+ long commute. Is it actually a bad thing to axe the cafe requirement?

Forcing consumers to drive more efficient vehicles maybe isn'tthe best way to go about it. When gas prices force consumers into alternative vehicles than what they want, automakers will build what the consumer wants that also is more efficient. Free market?

I mean, isn't that why the Prius was wildly successful and is now losing ground to competition?

[niky]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

I was thinking about this topic on my hour+ long commute. Is it actually a bad thing to axe the cafe requirement?

Forcing consumers to drive more efficient vehicles maybe isn'tthe best way to go about it. When gas prices force consumers into alternative vehicles than what they want, automakers will build what the consumer wants that also is more efficient. Free market?

I mean, isn't that why the Prius was wildly successful and is now losing ground to competition?

It took a lot of tax incentives in various markets and an entire generation of Toyota selling them at a loss to make the Prius as well accepted as it is now.

We could have started the EV "revolution" earlier if GM had bit the bullet in the same way, but they would have had to lose even MORE money to get there.

Most every government in the world shapes consumer demand through tax regulations, penalties and incentives revolving around engine size, vehicle size and weight and fuel economy.

Right now, the American fleet is mostly American... you can't sell American trucks and SUVs outside the country. They just don't fit market conditions anywhere else. While you have the odd regulations-created classes like India's sub-4 meter sedan class or Japan's Kei cars... those aren't successful outside their home countries either.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

Is it actually a bad thing to axe the cafe requirement?

Forcing consumers to drive more efficient vehicles maybe isn'tthe best way to go about it. When gas prices force consumers into alternative vehicles than what they want, automakers will build what the consumer wants that also is more efficient. Free market?

I mean, isn't that why the Prius was wildly successful and is now losing ground to competition?

The government typically chooses the most convoluted, least efficient way to give the illusion they are fixing a problem. They invent rules for fuel efficiency on cars, and then manufacturers build cars on a truck frame (SUV) and classify them as trucks.

An efficient way for the government to reduce fuel consumption would be to slowly increase the tax rate of petrol fuels for passenger vehicles. Let the market figure out how to respond to those increasing costs, which could include driving less, consumers purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, or consumers choosing alternative transportation. This avoids the whole problem of "compliance" vehicles; those cars that cost a fortune to develop, but ultimately suck and are sold in low volumes before being abandoned.

The Prius was successful because Hollywood used it as a way to virtue signal, and the masses mimicked that virtue signaling. That, and historically high fuel prices. (also, it's a pretty good car)

All of this is mostly pointless with regards to global warming. Artificially imposing fuel economy targets will reduce CO2 and thereby delay warming by what, a couple months tops? All of the discussions of CO2 reduction are in terms of delaying temperature rise by a few days to a few months.

[NeilBlanchard]

People buy the Prius because it saves them money. And not choking on smog is pretty nice, too.

Cutting air pollution standards would make us look more like India and China - who thinks that is a good idea?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

I was thinking about this topic on my hour+ long commute. Is it actually a bad thing to axe the cafe requirement?

Forcing consumers to drive more efficient vehicles maybe isn'tthe best way to go about it. When gas prices force consumers into alternative vehicles than what they want, automakers will build what the consumer wants that also is more efficient. Free market?

Considering that the average Joe doesn't seem to look at fuel-efficiency as a valuable asset in a similar proportion to what Europeans, Asians and Latinos do, CAFE alone won't lead to a change in this cultural aspect.

[niky]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

People buy the Prius because it saves them money. And not choking on smog is pretty nice, too.

Cutting air pollution standards would make us look more like India and China - who thinks that is a good idea?

Even worse. China is pouring huge incentives into EVs, and disincentivizing private car ownership in cities through license plate lotteries. Hell, I'm betting they might even go so far as to do a Japanese Kei-style vehicle class in the years ahead.

We might look more like last decade's India. That's a deregulator's wet dream. No crash standards to speak of, poor emissions standards, and the worst road safety record in the world.

[California98Civic]

I live in California. Though I hate the CARB bureaucracy for its arcane and inefficient organization, I am very grateful for the effectiveness of the policy they administer. Cali air was poison and my family would be breathing it now if Californians had not had the sense to act. Californians were frequently warned not to go outside back in the 1970s. Many other metro areas in the US have been spared that experience as they sprawled because their states adopted Cali's standards. It is a significant public policy success. The politics of these efforts often make the seemingly simple choices, like taxing fuel, impossible. Who thinks higher taxes on gasoline will get through the Congress and get a presidential signature in the foreseeable future? So more arcane methods develop.

I am not so sure the Prius saves all that much money, or at least that there are consumers like me for whom it does not. Those who would absolutely be buying a new car, will save money if they choose a Prius over a $25,000 VW GTI with far lower gas milage. But if they buy a 4 door Chevy Cruze with the 6-speed manual for $18,000 they will save six or seven grand out the door, not have an expensive battery repair in the future and pull very similar freeway mileage 45-50 mpg, depending on the driver. I woukd pick the Cruze.

I hope the EPA does not weaken the standard because we need better standards (better than the existing one too). But I do not think any EPA change will stick because the administration is lazy and slipshod in its rule making and loses in court over and over. No matter what they announce, little will likely change except around the margins.