Fuel Efficiency Standards Finalized.... (54.5 mpg U.S. CAFE regs for 2025)

[some_other_dave]

Not to mention the credits and exemptions and so on that fiddle the numbers. There's some huge credit companies get for FFV, for example. They count as if they got something like three or four times their EPA mileage? And that's not the only example.

-soD

[niky]

I think the biggest sore point for me would be FFV... as it sidesteps the requirements neatly without the manufacturer needing to make an actual fuel-efficient vehicle.

[christofoo]

I think that CAFE is a substantially flawed methodology. Revenue-neutral GHG tax is better. Esp. since that would automatically level the playing field between hybrids and ecomodders.

Still, there was another big piece of news today.

Obama announces new fuel standards for heavy vehicles

Closing the gaping loophole on heavy vehicles. I believe this will affect SUV's as well. About freaking time.

[meanjoe75fan]

Originally Posted by christofoo

I think that CAFE is a substantially flawed methodology. Revenue-neutral GHG tax is better.

How would this accommodate EVs?

On a PER-BTU basis, electric power can produce anything from no CO2 to more than petroleum. How do you assign a CO2 score?

[christofoo]

Originally Posted by meanjoe75fan

How would this accommodate EVs?

On a PER-BTU basis, electric power can produce anything from no CO2 to more than petroleum. How do you assign a CO2 score?

Sorry if I misunderstood the question... Revenue-neutral GHG tax means it gets taxed at the provider. If you use a technology that releases a disproportionate amount of CO2 you'll end up paying higher GHG tax.

The whole point of GHG tax is it's not biased toward specific technologies. It's the level-est playing field you can get. Why should regulators care whether you're reducing GHG through EV use or biodiesel or ecomodding?

Still, grid power would probably change over time, since it would penalize coal in proportion to GHG damage. So in the end EVs would probably still have ultra-low operating costs and be even greener than if we stick to CAFE alone.

The real issue is if we stick to CAFE and never implement GHG regs, then farming and industrial sources may go unmodified, which is just plain silly, if environmental protection is the goal.

Even if oil (cost and security) is the goal rather than environmental protection, farming is a very big user, and not regulated by CAFE.

But I digress. And I should probably just post a link to more info, since I'm not totally an expert on the subject.
http://zfacts.com/carbonomics
http://zfacts.com/node/257

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by niky

I think the biggest sore point for me would be FFV... as it sidesteps the requirements neatly without the manufacturer needing to make an actual fuel-efficient vehicle.

All the big vehicles will just have an E85 badge. It will be the CAFE free pass sticker.

[niky]

Like they do now? It's too easy an easy out.

-

Cars are always the low hanging fruit in government policy, simply because they're considered frivolous and unnecessary. Yeah... Like 90% of the rest of what consumers do isn't?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Did the government consult consumers?

Did the government consult any technical sources, or was the number pulled from their ignorance? Politicians need to either put more than one toe into the science (and economics) pool, or stay out of the pseudo-sciences altogether.

55mpg is unachievable and undesirable in that time frame. 12 years ago we had the gen1 Insight. Today we have a worse version of that. In the next 12 years there is zero chance of the average vehicle getting 55mpg.

Someone is in bed with a special interest, and they are both getting rich by fooling us that the policy is "for the good of the earth".

Originally Posted by christofoo

The real issue is if we stick to CAFE and never implement GHG regs, then farming and industrial sources may go unmodified, which is just plain silly, if environmental protection is the goal.

Even if oil (cost and security) is the goal rather than environmental protection, farming is a very big user, and not regulated by CAFE.

There is no way that artificial (gov't) requirements on mpg or carbon emissions will "help" the environment in the long run. These regulations only serve to stifle our economy (U.S.) while giving a boost to those that do not participate in MGW hysteria.

If an alternate technology is to be developed and adopted, it has to do so based on it's own merits, not on unnatural manipulation of the market.

[redpoint5]

Also, why is CARB still around? Why should an entire industry be held hostage by 1/50th of the states? It's a silly waste that an industry might make a 49 state version of a vehicle, and then a CA version. Sometimes a vehicle is withheld from production in the States because it won't pass CARB regs.

/rant

[oil pan 4]

"It's a silly waste"

Its illogical, irrational and just plain stupid waste.
Nothing more than a power trip, california is just trying to expand the reach of their selfish feel good political views to beyond their own states boarders.