- It will raise the prices of cars, and make them less safe
- It will reduce our carbon emissions, but not by as much as advertised, because more fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it. This "rebound" effect robs about 25% of gains, and also means more congestion, and more wear-and-tear on roads
- This will either help the Big Three compete, or seal their doom as the Japanese manufacturers continue to eat into their market share. If I had to bet, I'd wager this means big ongoing subsidies for our favorite three public charities.
- If you want to cut down on the pollution from driving, this is about the worst possible way to do it. On the other hand, it may be the only politically feasible way to do it. If you take global warming seriously, as I do, it may be the best of a bad set of policy choices.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
If Americans stopped driving altogether and everyone telecommuted and never took a vacation the total effect on world greenhouse gas emissions would be trivial. So increasings costs and/or reducing safety to make a small change in greenhouse gas emissions is a complete waste of time and does nothing but assuage guilt and punish Americans for their part in AGW, which we don't even understand well enough to quantify what that part is.
So here's to meaningless gestures that increase our costs and decrease our safety!
Making up factoids isn't necessary.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html
2007 energy consumption USA:
86.2 quadrillion BTU of carbon-based energy consumption.
27.86 quadrillion BTU of oil spent on transportation.
Transportation used 32.3% of all our carbon BTU's.
Since carbon BTU's should match fairly well to greenhouse gas emission, US GHG emissions would drop by a bit less than a third if Americans simply stopped driving.
This is quite significant because the USA produces 20-25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Our transportation all by itself produces 5%-8% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Even assuming your figures are accurate (which I don't), you speak as if there's no other side to the equation. The way you present it, it's as if all this locomotion is done to no good purpose. And that, clearly, is not the case: the economy -- both of the US and the rest of the world -- depends upon it. Unless you can present a better way to achieve the same results with less net expenditure of energy, complaining doesn't amount to much.
And before anyone rhapsodizes about solar, geothermal, or whatever other pixie-dust "solution" is currently in vogue, look here before you commit.
No, I'm pointing out that the assertion "it wouldn't matter if all Americans stopped driving tomorrow" is wrong.
If you don't like my figures, why don't you check them?
Now, if fuel efficiency doubled, it should have about the same effect as half of Americans stopping driving, somewhat less due to some Americans driving more.
Thus, a reduction of maybe 2% or so in global greenhouse gases.
This is also a good thing for combating global warming.
Now, if fuel efficiency doubled, it should have about the same effect as half of Americans stopping driving, somewhat less due to some Americans driving more.
It's kind of cute that you think Bammer can just wave his sceptre and cause this magical efficiency-gain to happen. Say whatever you like, optimism is a virtue even when it's not grounded in reality.
I will agree that, all things being equal, that better mileage per unit of fuel is a good thing. But all things are clearly not equal, and to project some kind of straight-line improvement off of (highly suspect) current estimations goes rather far beyond "optimistic" and into the "ludicrous" realm. It's kind of like people who simply assume that cheap fission will become available -- it might, but then again it might not. Just because a problem exists does not imply that a solution to that problem exists as well.
The most notable defect in Bammer's cunning plan, of course, is how any of this is going to keep China and India from going their merry way -- they are on track to far outstrip the US's production of greenhouse gases in the next fifty years. Bammer's plan would have the effect of both retarding the American economy and doing absolutely nothing to solve the (probably notional) "global warming" problem.
Is reducing 2% of global greenhouse gases really that significant, especially under the knowledge that in order to get there the fuel efficiency standards would have to double - an already-tall order?
I, too, think finding more environmentally sound cars is a good thing, but getting there by ham-fisted stricter fuel efficiency standards won't work to reach its intended goal, and will develop more unintentional consequences both short and long term.
We're seeing a fuel efficiency push already in the market, but for mostly the reason that make environmentalists wince: the price of gas. Thus, hyrbids are outselling once-popular SUV's now and Toyota/Nissan/Honda are taking over as dominant automakers while gas-guzzling cars made by American car companies are going under (save for Ford, who was probably saved by the high-selling Ford Focus, which sold strongly internationally as well as domestically).
It doesn't work that way.
A substantial portion of the energy content of oil is the hydrogen it contains. However, most of the non-oil carbon-based energy the US consumes is from coal, which is essentially pure carbon. Transportation's share of the US carbon emissions are likely to be closer to 20%.
-dk
It will raise the prices of cars, and make them less safe
Can you explain how it will make cars less safe? Is it just because people will drive more? Or is there some other reason?
On the other hand, it may be the only politically feasible way to do it. If you take global warming seriously, as I do, it may be the best of a bad set of policy choices.
You can thank DINO's like Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson for this. Being corporate whores is more important to them than serving their constituents.
Can you explain how it will make cars less safe?
Fuel efficient = light weight
light weight = less protection on impact
Of course it is possible to be both light _and_ strong, (like space frame chassis used in race cars), but not cheap.
Wouldn't light weight be less expensive rather than more expensive????
Steel = Cheap
Lightwieght super high-tech carbon composite compounds = Expensive
I'm pretty sure my Kia isn't made of super high-tech carbon composite compounds and would pass the new fuel economy standards. It was also less expensive that almost every other new car available at the time I bought it.
Blah, I fail. My car doesn't get 39 MPG. I foresee an increase in light truck production as their numbers are easier to reach.
Crash Test Standards are done by vehicle type. A 5 star rating for a 6,000 pound SUV is not the same as a 5 star rating for a 3,000 pound Smart Car. The tests use barriers, which allow them to calculate results "against a vehicle of similar weight."
Thus when a Hummer hits that Mini, smart money goes to the Hummer every time.
Moreover, there's the issue of bumper height. A Honda Fit is going to impact a Ford F-350 pretty low on the Ford's bumper. Not good.
The fact that you didn't know these things - and that's fine, I'm not being critical - is pretty indicative that the people making these laws don't either. And if we still believe that they will "consult and deliberate" with experts, just recall how the "stimulus" went through.
These are complicated issues being addressed with blunt instruments, and the results will be seen in Detroit.
I'm not sure if even Ford can survive this fiasco.
@Nelson,
Quite right, your Kia isn't made of super high tech carbon composites. It's made of plastic. Plastic isn't protective in crashes.
The reason they'll be more expensive isn't materials costs though, it's a supply constraint.
Lets say I start a car company and make two cars, a big honkin 10mpg SUV and a 2 door hatchback subcompact at 40 mpg.
To average 35 mpg, I need to sell 5 subcompacts for each SUV. Let's say the market in fact only wants 3 subcompacts for every SUV. The prices on my SUVs then will be bid up, or on subcompacts bid down, until the 5:1 ratio exists, or I go bankrupt (well, get a government bailout and arm twist my creditors while selling myself to my employees' grandparents).
To clarify, I mean light weight assuming not stronger.
Yes, we can build crappier cars for less money. We can save even more money by not using UAW labor.
The 1990 Geo Metro got some 55mpg on the highway. How? Well, it had a 3-cylinder engine, and no airbags (now federally mandated), and no side-impact door beams (now federally mandated), and no crumple zones, and no air conditioning, and no power windows or locks or basically anything but seats and a steering wheel.
Small cars of similar size today can't even come near that level of fuel economy, because they are much heavier as a result of meeting newer safety standards, and including certain features that today's drivers refuse to do without.
Calvin:
In order to get better MPG cars have to be made lighter. Lighter cars are not as strong, and have a greater chance of injuring their passengers, materials being equal. Stronger, lighter materials can be used, but they are more expensive. The reality will be some compromise between the two.
Also, a lighter car of the same frame strength (made from unobtanium for the sake of the conversation) will provide equal protection against an immovable object, but will provide less protection against another vehicle, since the energy transferred is proportional to the ratio of the mass of the two vehicles in a collision.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that it will do nothing except making cars more expensive. Even if 1,000 mpg minimum were legislated, it would do nothing to make cars more efficient, so manufacturers will simply pay the fine that will be passed on to the consumers.
In case of GM/Chrysler the fine will be paid by taxpayer money.
In order to get better MPG cars have to be made lighter.
Maybe in the case of SUV's, but is it true for sedans as well? Are you telling me that other avenues for meeting the goals are not reachable? Or that you just believe the car companies spin?
Its not spin, its simple physics. It takes more energy to accelerate a heavier object to a given speed than it does a light one. There is a reason why motorcycles get better MPG figures than sedans, and it has little to do with PR spin.
Sure there are other ways of improving MPG figures that don't involve making the cars lighter. You could mix platinum with the fuel, which is a great catalyst, and improve the combustion process. This is expensive, since you are burning precious metals. You can go the hybrid route and try to preserve wasted energy, which is also expensive. You could limit the cars power, and affect its performance. You could use slicker tires, and limit its handling.
Reducing weight is the best approach engineering wise, because, if done correctly, it allows one to use a less powerful engine and still achieve the same performance. The less powerful motor would weight less, and would require a smaller transition, smaller brakes, etc. One could get a descent decrease in weight by simply taking out all the sound insulating material.
In short, in order to consume less gas, you can make the cars less safe, more expensive, or perform worse, given the current state of technology. There is no free lunch.
carbon fiber; light and strong. Folks working on the technology to fabricate it in an assembly-line production style now. Not yet, but some day. (Question: is this a viable method for sequestering carbon?)
On another note: I can't help but notice the difference between car sales in Europe vs. US. Safety regs here have been manipulated, I guess, to promote the sale of larger vehicles.
And the libetarian notion that if cars are cheaper to run, people will drive more flips on the safety issue: if cars are less safe, people might just drive better. While this seems unlikely based on logic, I can't help noticing that it's typically 4-wheel drive SUV's with out-of-state plates off the road when it snows here in ME.
Carbon fiber is great, but it is not without faults.
For one, it is incredibly labor intensive. It takes seconds to stamp a body panel, by unskilled operator, while it takes hours of skilled labor to mold a carbon fiber part.
Carbon fiber defects are also much harder to detect, and require x ray inspection, which is also expensive.
It is more difficult to join. You cannot weld carbon fiber sheets, and its more difficult to bolt them together, as they require metal inserts to spread the load of the fastener to a large area.
Carbon fiber is very difficult to repair.
The basic materials for carbon fiber panels (both the cloth and resin) are more expensive than steel or aluminum sheets. On the flip side, tooling it cheaper.
Carbon fiber production require many nasty chemicals.
Carbon fiber panels are not fireproof. The ignite easily, burn well, and release very poisonous smoke when they burn.
Finally, carbon fiber shatters when damaged. It absorbs less energy than metal, and produce nasty pointy shards which stab occupants, then catch fire and burn the stabbed victims while simultaneously, poison them and the rescue personnel.
Did I mention its more expensive?
Great stuff for aircraft and race vehicles, not good enough for consumer market yet.
Well, considering when these standards take effect, we need the technology now. The development process for these vehicles in 2016 begins right about now on paper. Politicians have just put raised the bar significantly for companies that do not have the money to spend on such technological advances.
Can you explain how it will make cars less safe? Is it just because people will drive more? Or is there some other reason?
Because, I assume, it will force a decrease in the weight of a vehicle.
The best way for us to curb our use of fossil fuels from vehicles is to implement a larger fuel tax. It will force the consumer to either drive less or to drive smaller vehicles. Otherwise, they pay out of their ass. Unfortunately, this seems to be the least palatable political solution. Thus, we get CAFE standards legislation which is essentially a guess to what level of fuel consumption is acceptable, does not take into account newer technologies, and does nothing to create a fair distribution of the social costs of pollution.
The effect on the environment will be minimal (as the real polluters are in the developing world anyway) but this could have the potential to reduce our demand for foreign oil if coupled with a gas tax. Truth is though, the gas tax alone would do more towards increasing vehicle fuel efficiency than any government mandate, as pocketbooks are the only thing that will get Americans to change their behavior.
But an increase in the CAFE standards is easier to get than an increase in the gas tax, even if the gas tax makes more sense, because increasing the gas tax is one of those dreaded tax increases. And anything is preferable to raising any taxes, for any reason.
On the plus side, CAFE effectively increases the fuel supply and results in lower operating costs. This acts as economic stimulus offsetting some of the economic cost of lost car sales.
RobM1981, I don't have anything against the Herald Sun, but let's agree that it's not exactly an authority in the matter of global warming. Here's a 2009 Lancet article detailing the likely effects of global warming.
One of the reasons people are skeptical of global warming is that the yearly average temperatures are highly variable. Nate Silver wrote a post in February doing a quick summary and analysis of temperature data.
He should be aware that the ocean causes a time lag between gas emissions and rising temperature, due to its huge heat capacity. Stephen Chu said in an interview that, if we stopped all emissions today, global temperatures would still rise 1 degree because of the lag effect. With the current rate of emissions, it can rise 5 degrees celsius (9 fahrenheit) in the next decades.
Apparently, the mean temperature of the last ice age was just 5 degrees less than what is today. So five degrees is a lot.
I think what is often forgotten is that clean environment, like clean clothes, is a luxury. It can only be affordable is the population is wealthy enough, making people poorer (whether by taxing them, making their vehicle more expensive, or whatever) will only make the environment dirtier, since people would concentrate their more limited resources on necessities.
For example, if cars were more expensive, people would buy less of them, by making their older, less fuel efficient cars last longer.
If you want a cleaner environment, grow the economy. Most people would buy an environmentally friendly products if the price difference is negligible.
Meaning if you couldn't afford to pay the maid, you would have a dirty house?
If I couldn't afford to buy broom, mop, soap, and a vacuum cleaner, I would have a dirty house.
If I could afford all those, but no maid, but not the time it would take me to clean, I would have a dirty house.
Early in the last century, heating oil would sometimes get too expensive for people. They resorted to burning their trash to warm up their house. Burning trash produces more pollutants than burning oil.
Does anyone still seriously want to maintain that SUV's are 'safer' than regular cars?
Did anyone maintain that in the first place? What everyone was saying was that "heavy cars are safer than lighter cars" which is actually supported by your quotes.
Comparing tall unstable vehicles to low stable vehicles is confusing the point.
This "rebound" effect is also know as economic stimulus.
Isn't the dust stirred up by cars more harmful than their emissions?
Um, no?
Not at all. Most roads aren't that dusty, and the ones that are don't get enough traffic to be a major concern.
Obviously the real effect of this change will be to finally force the evil car execs to reveal the existence of the 100 mpg carberator that they have been holding out on us for decades now.
I'm not sure why Obama couldn't just demand the release of it now that he directly controls the car companies, but he clearly understands politics better than I do so I defer to his seemingly roundabout way of spurring the release of this panacea.
I join our blog hostess in welcoming these changes as our best chance of staving off the inevitable apocalypse brought on by climate change. I do wish she would stop calling it 'global warming', as any environmentalist will tell you that it is unhelpful to keep refering to 'global warming' in the midst of what is predicted to be a 2-decade cooling spell.
People think you're just being shrill if you keep bleating about 'global warming' as record global cooling persists year after year. Real environmentalists know that the correct and proper thing to do is refer to climate change, since the climate is very rarely exactly stable so it's a good catch all. Keeps the rubes thinking the right way.
As for whether this helps the American or the foreign car companies, I can't really say. Obviously, in the very near future Americans are going to have to abandon their large families and stand-alone single-family homes that necessitate such wasteful transportation options as "cars". I think the Big-3 will be far better poised to take advantage of this seminal change in American culture, as Obama will have skillfully managed them into a perfect position to flourish in the new utopia his administration is ushering in.
And then we'll see what all the naysayers who felt having the government run car-companies for 'union-benefit' would prove disasterous have to say!
I'd suggest you go look at fuel standards for vehicles made in China.
And I'd also suggest you do a bit more research on that "record cooling," because it's a fairy tale. From what I can see, based on average global temperature, 2008 was cooler than 2000, but 2000-2008 are the warmest years on record.
Well, what's the "proper" temperature, then? You seem to be sure that it's too warm now; how many degrees cooler should it be before it's "just right"? How do we maintain that temp? And you are quite sure that the measurement methods for measuring baseline temperatures in a uniform way over the entirety of the globe are beyond reproach? (I.e., placing measuring equipment next to large blackbody radiators or artificial sources of heat, for example?)
mrmanley, my spouse's uncle is one of the leading researchers on global weather, and a global warming skeptic, too. His career has been dedicated to building satellite-based temperature modeling globally to iron out those very issues you raise. And yes, he says the temperature is increasing. I fully understand change is the norm, when it comes to climate. Where I live was covered with a mile or more of ice a mere 10,000 years ago. It's very easy to the the scars it left on the crust of the earth looking at the window beside me. (It's a very beautiful view.)
But there is ample evidence of how climate has changed, particularly locked in ice and tree rings, and there's no doubt human impact is changing the composition of both the atmosphere and oceans faster than ecosystem have had to adapt previously, paraticularly on a global basis, with very few exceptions. It's the rate of change that's alarming.
Why would you need to be "quite sure," meaning, I presume, certain something bad is going to happen when it's obvious that our current habits are not prudent? "Reasonably sure" that we're causing greater harm then we'll know how to deal with seems reason enough to take sensible steps toward conserving our global ecology, since it's both conservative and responsible.
And when it comes to oil, I'm really sick of seeing young men and women I know -- friends of my children and sons and daughters of my cousins -- coming home from Iraq dead or totally fucked up. The human costs of these wars is enormous. I'd like to stop fighting over oil; and the best way to achieve that is alternative energy sources, minimizing our need for oil since it seems to cause both political and climate trouble.
But there is ample evidence of how climate has changed, particularly locked in ice and tree rings, and there's no doubt human impact is changing the composition of both the atmosphere and oceans faster than ecosystem have had to adapt previously, paraticularly on a global basis, with very few exceptions. It's the rate of change that's alarming.
Well...fine. Change is alarming. But it's still not clear to me how (or even if) this change is our fault; that even if it is our fault, that there's anything we can do about it; and that even if we can do anything about it, that what we do will improve the problem rather than making it worse. (As an aside: I love how the "global warming" alarmists have shifted to using "climate change" instead, given how often Goracle ends up giving his end-of-days speeches in sub-zero cold.) You know what we call "climate change" where I grew up? Weather.
And when it comes to oil, I'm really sick of seeing young men and women I know -- friends of my children and sons and daughters of my cousins -- coming home from Iraq dead or totally fucked up. The human costs of these wars is enormous. I'd like to stop fighting over oil; and the best way to achieve that is alternative energy sources, minimizing our need for oil since it seems to cause both political and climate trouble.
Annnnd...here we go. "War for oil." That's what's really driving you, isn't it? It's not any real concern for the planet. It's your belief that you're right and everyone else is wrong. It's your belief that your own thoughts and needs and desires trump everyone else's. You really don't care that the world's poor rise out of poverty, because that means (whether you want to admit it or not) industrializing and using more fossil fuels. You and your ilk are driven by a religious belief, not an engineering or scientific premise. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I do wish you'd just own up to it.
People like you are why millions of people the world over have died of malaria. DDT controls the mosquitos that spread the disease, but Rachel Carson announced in tremulous tones that it was harmful to Mother Gaia, the lefties hyperventilated, and thus were millions doomed to disease and early death. I consider this "global warming" hysteria to be cut from the same bolt of cloth, and it will have the same deleterioius effects, just as sure as darkness follows dusk. Poor people in countries far away may die by the bushelful, but hey, at least the liberals get to feel good about themselves. And since the poor people starve, die of easily-preventable or curable diseases, or are killed in wars not waged by America, it's not our problem, is it?
(I will apologize to Megan for turning this into yet another right/left jeremiad, but dear God this lefty gnashing of teeth wears on me.)
And righty denial wears on me.
Are three favorite charities? Do you mean Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of American?
too funny.
And yes, this is the end of the Big Three as self-sustaining entities, but that has been true for a while now, even without a stricter CAFE. There will now be renewed attempts to force out the foreign competition as a means to stem the government's red ink on their car subsidies.
Look, the way oil is going, higher fuel efficiency is the only game in town. All other issues being equal. As for global warming, well we don't even have enough economic hydrocarbons available to get the CO2 to 420PPM, so it's a non issue. The non hydrocarbon era is coming up fast. I mean aren't you all a bit impressed that we are in the worst recession in living memory and a barrel of oil is $58.00 USD?
Think about that today.
Well the good news is by the time these standards take effect we may be able to import cars from Cuba!
We wish to thank the government for these new fuel economy standards. In addition to helping with the fight against global warming, they will provide our member businesses with a strong boost in these troubled times.
Signed,
The American Cemetery Association
The new fuel economy standard seems to be derived from the same magical pixie dust that is increasingly defining the administration's economic policies: Make up fun numbers, and find a way to expand government power in the implementation process.
We have already seen what it will take to initiate a wholesale change in American vehicle consumption habits: Gasoline in the range of $3-4/gallon. People clearly prioritize the short-term, variable expense over the long-term, fixed expense, therefore, an efficiency change that introduces an incremental expense in the cost of a vehicle is meaningless for affecting consumption behavior so long as that expense can be divided out into 36 or 60 monthly payments.
Seeing as Obama is not proposing a gas tax, he's not too serious on the issue, and I can assume the power expansion is the only real goal.
On a related note -- and no offense intended in saying this -- but I'm not a journalist, so I'm not following the news in 15 minute increments evert day when I click into your blog. Thus, one of these little guys is always helpful in a post:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/18/autos/new_fuel_economy_standards/index.htm
Some more non-obvious effects:
1. Manufacturers will work to get more of their vehicles into the 'light truck' category to take advantage of the much lower light truck CAFE standards (or, alternately, people will buy more vehicles already in that category). Light trucks already include various kinds of passenger vehicles -- even the PT Cruiser, for example, is a light truck because the rear seats fold down into a flat floor.
2. People will hold onto older vehicles longer (further depressing the auto industry).
3. Companies specializing in older car restoration and after market performance enhancements will do well.
People will hold onto older vehicles longer (further depressing the auto industry).
You seem to forget earlier this decade. Rememeber the 0% loans car companies gave out after 9/11? They lasted for years. It served, in effect, to ramp up demand then at the expense of later(which is now). We've seen how that worked out.
If you take global warming seriously, as I do, it may be the best of a bad set of policy choices.
I can't believe you're falling for the BS of all t hose corrupt, Al Gore-worshiping "scientists," Megan.
So true.
From The Corner
Wouldn't one way to offset "less safe" be to re-impose lower speed limits? Given that this too is paternalistic, but if people had to drive slower, they'd be getting into less violent accidents, and they might be incrementally more prone to taking mass transit.
1. If people followed the slower speed limits, transportation would be a greater burden on society, since more time would be wasted on it
2. I doubt people would follow them. Unregulated highways average the same speeds as regulated ones, because people drive at a speed that they consider safe. Speed limits are a great make work project for police dept's and a source of revenue for municipalities.
No. Slow is safe is a mythe.
People who agitate for a move back to the 55MPH speed limit have obviously never had to drive through Nebraska, Wyoming, or West Texas.
Seriously, the only time I've been in an accident is when cars are stopped or traveling well below the limit. Incidentally, my small car stopped fast enough to not hit anyone (lighter=safer in this instance), but that didn't keep me from being rear ended. When everyone is going 20 over the speed limit, I feel perfectly safe.
One thing I have noted over the years of driving on a somewhat congested highway (I-84 in Connecticut), accidents happen when the flow is stop and go (from 60 mph to 30 and back again), and one of the most reliable ways to generate one of these sudden slow downs- cops setting speed traps. Even people below the speed limit slow their speed when they spot the troopers, creating a propagating wave behind them.
Again: no. An arbitrarily low speed limit reduces driver attenttiveness while bunching traffic up more tightly, which are ideal conditions for creating more accidents.
Accidents generally reduce in frequency with speed as the driver tends to be more alert and focused. However, deceleration from a higher speed is a harsher mistress, and high-speed accidents are more likely to be fatal than low-speed accidents. The combined result is, at worst, a wash. At best, higher speeds are actually safer up to the reasonable limits the road conditions allow.
When "speed" is given as the proximate cause of the accident, it means the driver was going too fast for conditions (weather, visibility, type of road surface, traffic density, etc.).
Force = mass x velocity. Given two cars traveling at roughly equal speeds, the lighter car will always come off worst in a crash. As other posters have already noted, this is simple physics. Also, electric cars have very heavy battery packs, and making them of very light composites gives them really lousy rollover and rear-end slew characteristics.
CAFE standards will do absolutely zippedy-doo-dah for the environment, but will impose yet more costs onto an already-uncompetitive industry. As Megan points out, this just means more welfare for our favorite Detroit charities.
P.S.: If you think "global warming" is a danger, and that the earth is too warm, then what is the correct temperature? If you're not sure, how will we know when we get there? It's been both much warmer and much cooler in our history; how do we know what the "sweet spot" is? How do we maintain that temperature over the long term, absent any control over that big ball of flaming gas at the center of our Solar System?
Force = mass x velocity
Actually, no. Momentum = mass x velocity.
Force is the time derivative of momentum.
Gah, yeah, you're right. Force = mass X (velocity / time). In other words, the fall doesn't kill you; it's the sudden stop.
no, velocity/time is distance, and there is no way that force is mass X distance
force=mass X acceleration.
However the original point regarding collisions is valid.
Ken,
Just to nitpick:
v/t = acceleration (1 m/s / s = 1 m/s^2 )
v*t = distance (1 m/s * 1 s = 1 m)
F = ma = m(v/t)
Skullberg, just to nitpick
dv/dt = acceleration
int(v*dt) = distance
F = ma = m(dv/dt)
So, by accepting this deal, not only to the automakers get a single national standard, they also get a certain schedule — and for large corporations that like long lead-times on their products, like the automakers, this is worth quite a bit. ...
That's one way to look at it -- another is that two thirds of the domestic automakers are government controlled and supported (and Ford is pretty likely to be in that situation, too, within a year). So they no longer have the independence to oppose such policies and they really no longer have any reason to, either -- if the result is lower sales and bigger losses, well that just means Obama will have to send more billions in subsidies, doesn't it?
So, by accepting this deal, not only to the automakers get a single national standard, they also get a certain schedule
This is exactly the deal the toilet-makers wanted when the 1.6 gal/flush standard was being debated, and now I have three non-flushing Clinton toilets and a wife who yells at me to hold it in until I get to work. Can't wait to see what they do to cars.
I would hope they would put the larger one in the proposed 2016 Pelosi from Chrysler.
The fuel efficiency standards will end up being a huge benefit to all when oil gets back to $150/barrel.
Both manufacturers and customers will be prepared for the new world which demands very high fuel efficiency.
"If you want to cut down on the pollution from driving, this is about the worst possible way to do it. On the other hand, it may be the only politically feasible way to do it. If you take global warming seriously, as I do, it may be the best of a bad set of policy choices."
I'm surprised at all of this. The major problem that you miss is that decreasing consumption in the US means increasing it in other places. Europe tried this in the 1970s (without an eye on GW)- they cut back on certain fuel types with taxes and what it did was give the US cheap gas for 30 years. If we do this now we will be giving cheap gas to the Chinese and Indians for the next few decades- encouraging them to build more FF infrastructure and leading their economies down a different path that would happen with higher gas prices. We will be dying in car accidents for no gain while other economies benefit.
No matter how many times it's said, apparently, it just doesn't sink in: automobiles are safer than SUV's. And it's very easy to find this information:
Due to their high center of gravity, SUVs are more than twice as likely to tip and roll over as cars.
This is all well-known, btw. I've even posted this type of material here before, so Megan at least should know better.
The fact that you didn't know these things - and that's fine, I'm not being critical - is pretty indicative that maybe you should do some research before actually posting. Certainly before using that sort of tone in a post that is incorrect.
You may be correct about SUV safety, but the link you provided doesn't actually provide any bacon in that regard. It just asserts that SUVs are more dangerous. Regardless of car versus SUV, it is still the case that a large car is generally safer than a small car.
High center of gravity is a problem. But lumping all SUVs and all cars together obscures the actual relationship between size and safety:
Large SUVs are not as safe as large cars and minivans, but they're safer than midsize and small cars -- the weight advantage more than outweighs the center-of-gravity disadvantage.
And if the goal is to get more people into cars instead of SUVs, the huge discrepancy between the proposed CAFE standards for cars vs truck certainly isn't going to do the trick (instead, it will tend to have the opposite effect).
It's also relevent what percentage of accidents and damages are due to roll-over.
According to SoV's link, the real danger is the additional damage that SUV do to other vehicles, the high cost of repair due to the big price tags on SUVs, and high rate of theft are what drives up insurance cost for SUVs, not an increased likelihood of accident.
Due to their high center of gravity, SUVs are more than twice as likely to tip and roll over as cars.
That is not entirely true. That is only true when SUVs are driven in places that make them likely to be tipped over.
I live in LA, and I don't think I have seen a single SUV or pickup tipped over in freeway driving. I have, however, seen the difference between a pickup that has been rear-ended and a honda civic that has been rear-ended.
No contest.
For where I live and commute, yes, I do want to maintain that they are safer.
No matter how many times it's said, apparently, it just doesn't sink in: automobiles are safer than SUV's. And it's very easy to find this information:
This is all well-known, btw. I've even posted this type of material here before, so Megan at least should know better.
The fact that you didn't know these things - and that's fine, I'm not being critical - is pretty indicative that maybe you should do some research before actually posting. Certainly before using that sort of tone in a post that is incorrect.
Oddly enough, most of the factors cited in your link are either driver-error events or involve risk to the other vehicle, the latter of which rather reinforces the claim rather than refuting it. The insurance company is generally interested in what their total payout will be to all parties smacked by the initiating vehicle and driver, not just the isolated risk of the vehicle they are insuring. Hence the higher rates and the "more dangerous" designation.
No matter how many times it's said, apparently, it just doesn't sink in: automobiles are safer than SUV's. And it's very easy to find this information:
First, SUV's are automobiles.
Second, ian mentioned nothing about SUV versus smaller classes of vehicle. He is only stating that smaller mass in a vehicle will decrease safety or increase cost. And he is absolutely correct in saying so. To what level will safety be reduced? Hard to say. But the most effective way to increase overall efficiency of a vehicle is to decrease the mass by using lighter composite material or eliminating material.
This is all well-known, btw. I've even posted this type of material here before, so Megan at least should know better.
Where did Megan mention anything about SUVs?
Megan-
Why do you take global warming seriously? Are you aware of any evidence that current temperatures are unnaturally warm? If any such evidence exists, why is it never cited? All there seems to be in support of AGW are computer models, and models are not evidence of anything except the programmer's beliefs.
At the risk of a future charge of apostasy for questioning the power of "Teh One", may I offer some comments on the operational requirements decreed for the future Government Motors "King Canute-mobile"?
First, it is to get an average of 42 mpg.
Second, it is to be vastly less polluting.
Third, [assumed] it is still to meet all other Federal safety mandates.
Fourth, it is apparently only to cost an extra $1,300.00 per vehicle. I think this is in constant dollars today and not the inflated variety we are about to get.
Design is a series of trade offs.
You can get better mileage one of two ways; either a major innovation in engine technology, or lightening the vehicle and reducing its size and passenger/cargo load.
You can get less pollution by either a new engine technology or by adding on expensive and heavy anti-pollution equipment.
There are mandated safety and impact standards. You can increase safety and survivability in a crash by either using very expensive materials that are stronger for a given weight or by increasing the mass. Automobiles operate for all practical purposes in the realm of Newtonian physics. Mass is an important part of the equation in a collision. I remember being hit by a FIAT in the early 1970's, at about 5 mph. It destroyed the FIAT's left front quarter. I literally could not find evidence of the impact on my AMC.
Both mileage and pollution improvements depend on either innovation and new technology or on downsizing the vehicle drastically.
Who is going to be running the Big Three? [I assume that Ford will fall to the regime as soon as they have their first contract negotiations because the UAW is now backed by the full weight of the Treasury and is outside the rule of law.] It is going to be the Federal bureaucracy and the unions. Neither is known for competence in innovation, and the Federal component will likely change directions at random with the political winds. Innovations require both conception and execution. New concepts are not what you are going to get from this pair, and execution of an innovation means that those doing it have to change the way they are doing things. Not exactly the kind of thing the UAW is known for. They will refuse to move an obstacle in their way, if they are an electrician and not a laborer. Their specific work rules would fill a Canute-mobile.
That leaves downsizing. There are limits to that, in that unlike Europe, we have children in addition to domestic partners. People will not buy a one or two passenger car. Further there are impact standards. Physics again. And there are additional standards if children are carried. You can make a car stronger by using high tech materials. But you will increase the cost per vehicle by orders of magnitude, AND require the unions to change fabrication methods. They don't do change well.
The only way to make this work, given the pieces on the board now; is to a) blatantly exempt American cars from safety standards, explicitly trading the lives of Americans for piddling reductions in pollution, b) the establishment of a permanent subsidy for favored American cars, c) creation of economic and legal barriers to the sale of non-Big Three cars in this country, and d) the forcing of the equivalent of the Lada [with a Zil option for the Nomenklatura] as the only automotive options allowed for the public. And you still would not reach the goals he has set.
The fable of King Canute trying to command the sea was originally a tale of his rebuking his courtiers who claimed his decrees were absolute. Hussein Pasha believes his decrees are.
Subotai Bahadur
The net effect of SUVs is to increase overall mortality.
They do better in crashes, especially against other smaller cars, but they do worse in rollovers, so having an SUV is a wash - for the driver of the SUV.
Considering that SUV's kill more people in the *other car* (because they are heavier) and the overall effect is negative.
Driving an SUV puts other people at increased risk, without reducing actual risk for the driver of the SUV, but gives a feeling of better security.
Wow, it's so ... American! Ha ha.
>>It will raise the prices of cars, and make them less safe
Perhaps. Over the course of a few years the mix of vehicles in the national fleet will change such that you may not have such a mismatch in vehicle weight. Hummers and Suburbans are less likely to be found on the road - if you have a head-on it will more likely be with a vehicle of similar weight.
>>...because more fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it.
Will we? It seems likely to me that gas will eventually be climbing back into the >$3/gallon range. People may just find themselves driving the same since the greater cost isn't totally offset by the greater mileage.
>>If you want to cut down on the pollution from driving, this is about the worst possible way to do it.
Can someone elaborate on what Megan claims here. It seems that if you are burning less energy while doing your daily commute that will only lessen emissions. Perhaps not to a sufficiently large degree given the scope of the problem but I don't remotely see how this could be the "worst possible way to do it".
Given our national gluttony for oil and our love of cars it seems to me that we have to start doing something. I would vote for higher CAFE standards and an extra dollar tax on a gallon of gas. To me the national security implications of our continuing oil gluttony alone would dictate the need for radical change in our consumption nevermind the climate stuff.
I guess this will be just another issue that we will wait for it to blow up in our face rather than start planning/responding to in a rational proactive manner yes?
But Megan's right - a nice big gas tax would be far superior.
You could even vary the tax to offset short-term highs and lows in gas prices.
Oh,my... again.
How to proceed without seeming rude ?
Ma'am, you do not have to be a Climatologist
to know that the AGW crowd cannot be trusted;
They are condemned out of their own mouths:
1) They asserted a nonexistent unanimous certainty
on the predictability of a Complex System, one which
was, is, and may remain, beyond human comprehension.
2) Now that the real scientists have accumulated
enough data to falsify the AGW Theory, they are
in full Ad Hominem, Demonizing, Denial Mode;
See Dr. Helen for an analysis.
So they were wrong. So what ? This is what:
The _data_ above supports these related observations:
(Things which have been seen, not theories.)
1) The long-term Global temperature trend is falling.
2) The trend will reach a tipping point, then fall
much faster than was previously thought possible.
3) A relatively trivial event, such as a prolonged
sunspot minimum, or even human intervention,
can push the system past the tipping point.
The AGW True Believers want to do everything
humanly possible to make the planet _colder_ .
"This way to the Egress" the sign said.
Those who followed the arrow found themselves
standing out in the cold, freezing to death,
with no way to get back inside.
How about we force everyone to drive super safe heavy cars, like hummers, and force the car companies to make sure they only get 1 mile to the gallon. Then, we add a huge gas tax so that gas is like $20 a gallon.
Then, no one would drive, but those that did, well gosh-darn it, they'd be safe.
Or we could force everyone to live in caves and hunt their food. Poverty should thin out our numbers greatly, reducing GHG's.
There is no such thing as AGW.
Please stop trying to make us all poorer so that you can feel better about yourself. If the current administration was serious about AGW, they would be proposing a massive, emergency nuclear energy building program AND stringent mandatory limits on global emmissions of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" from the rest of the countries of the world.
Until you see these two things, you may rest assured that AGW is a hoax and that the left wing wealth redistributors are following their usual playbook - "never let a good crisis (real or manufactured) go to waste."
Oooops! Unintended consequence before the thing is even a law!
Ethanol has significantly less energy per gallon than gasoline. If we make MPG's the yardstick that we use to measure carbon (what a joke) emissions, we make ethanol a much less attractive fuel than good'ol dinosaur juice.
I'm sure this will be fixed before this thing becomes law.
Just in time for the next "oops!" to arrive...
What's the problem with making ethanol less attractive than gasoline? The main goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. Ethanol doesn't do that.
American Academy for the Advancement of Science position on Global Climate Change (PDF warning.) If any of you ostriches care to challenge your notions.
Here's one that's a bit more recent than your 3 year old reference...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html
RobM1981, I picked science resources, you picked conservative editorial disguised as a news story.
And my second link was 2 hours old.
So if you're keeping score, things are still getting heating up out there.
(FYI, some places will benefit from climate change. Like where I live in New England is likely to get warmer, more snow in the winter but not as cold, earlier spring, later fall. Haven't bothered to look at the particulars for Australia. But things don't look so good in Juneau, Alaska, where the ground is literally lifting and shifting from the released weight of glacier melt, and I wouldn't want to live on Bali.
RobM1981, I don't have anything against the Herald Sun, but let's agree that it's not exactly an authority in the matter of global warming. Here's a 2009 Lancet article detailing the likely effects of global warming.
One of the reasons people are skeptical of global warming is that the yearly average temperatures are highly variable. Nate Silver wrote a post in February doing a quick summary and analysis of temperature data.
He should be aware that the ocean causes a time lag between gas emissions and rising temperature, due to its huge heat capacity. Stephen Chu said in an interview that, if we stopped all emissions today, global temperatures would still rise 1 degree because of the lag effect. With the current rate of emissions, it can rise 5 degrees celsius (9 fahrenheit) in the next decades.
Apparently, the mean temperature of the last ice age was just 5 degrees less than what is today. So five degrees is a lot.
From Science Daily, 2 hours ago:
(snip)"detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes"
Does this not set you BS filter off? How do you simulate global economic activity? My industry spends considerable effort to simulate a few electrons in a vacuum, and the results are always very far from certain, while here we have someone who claims to simulate the work of the entire human race! Perhaps this god-machine can tell us when the current recession is going to be over, or who will win the next Superbowl. I mention the recession, because it seems like it has a great effect on industrial activity.
Programmer are familiar with the concept of garbage in, garbage out. Its easy to make some assumptions, then express them mathematically in such a way as to intimidate most people with lots of graphs, lines, and squiggly symbols. But its just a fancy way of making things up, while earning grants in the process.
When a single one of those simulations comes close to predicting the past and present, then I'll pay attention to what they have to say about the future. Until then, its just educated drivel.
Yup. It's all B.S., a liberal conspiracy to drive us back to the dark ages. (Want to see an echo chamber? Google "AGW.")
Go back to what you were previously doing, nothing going on to worry yourself about. You have no responsibility to future generations. Just put your head back in the sand or simulate electrons in a vacuum (I thought they replaced CRT screens with LCD screens long ago.)
Whatever you do, don't consider the economic opportunities of new technologies; don't consider the loss mass extinctions, and most especially, don't take seriously any science that might dampen you profit-motives.
Put me down for the "When a single one of those simulations comes close to predicting the past and present, then I'll pay attention to what they have to say about the future" case, too. All the models in 2000 predicted high of current trends; they should be rejected at the 95% confidence level. None of the today models can reproduce the past century with any accuracy. I don't care that the models get hot until the models manage to predict climate.
(replying to John2)
Perhaps you're confusing weather and climate; and there are admitted flaws in temp., an example: for years it was collected at at airports, first concrete than asphalt. The asphalt is a better heat sink, so it showed increases that made early models highly flawed in their predictions of changing global temps.
But the misunderstanding of many people is the difference of modeling weather, which is also local, and mean global temp of the oceans and atmosphere. An increase of global temp will produce shifts in local weather patterns.
There are other changes which we can guess at, but which are as hard to predict as local weather. For instance, there's the potential for more seismic activity because of increased ocean weight and decreased weight on land masses at the poles. (Junea is rapidly rising.)
But don't be foolish enough to think that just because the models are still works in progress that it means they are not good indicators. And don't be so ignorant that you confuse local weather with global temperature.
(replying to zic)
"But don't be foolish enough to think that just because the models are still works in progress that it means they are not good indicators."
No, but if they can't make any accurate predictions then they are not good indicators. Richard Feynman said that any theory, in order to be useful, should predict the data you have, plus at least one more thing you didn't know about before. All these models have done a really awful job for the last five years, ever since everyone got all excited. Doesn't mean the theory is all wrong, perhaps it can be fixed up. It does mean that we're not ready to make recommendations.
The sensible thing to do right now is study the subject intensively with no preconceptions for a decade, or whatever it takes, until we have models that work. Till then, any corrective action might be in the wrong direction (sunspots are way down...) or an expensive attempt to solve the wrong problem.
Of course there's always this as a possible unintended side-effect -- the rules may give a boost to current cars sales as people rush to beat the mandated downsizing and de-powering of the auto fleets. Obama -- crazy like a fox?
If that's his real goal and he actually pulls if off, we can officially confer the Bush III crown upon him.
the rules may give a boost to current cars sales
The guy is already Gun and Ammo Salesman of the Century, why not bring some of that mojo to cars?
I chose that because it was an insurance company, not one of those weenie scientific studies that certain people like to sneer at. But this information is readily available:
or this:
This study also claims that "Quality of vehicle design appears a better predictor of risk than weight", and that there is a "Stronger Correlation between Risk and Price than Risk and Weight. All pretty standard, easily researched stuff, actually, including the fact that SUV's are 'safer' to the extent that in vehicle-on-vehicle accidents, the SUV is by far more likely to be the heavier car . . . and that this means that SUV's kill other drivers. In fact, SUV's are by far higher risks to other drivers than other automobiles; for example, a Jetta and a Cherokee pose the same level of risk to the people driving them, but the Cherokee is twice as likely to pose a risk to other drivers.
There is also the fact that SUV's just tend to get into more accidents (possibly because they don't handle very well, or because their drivers can't handle something that size very well):
Does anyone still seriously want to maintain that SUV's are 'safer' than regular cars?
Does anyone still seriously want to maintain that SUV's are 'safer' than regular cars?
Again, it depends on where you are and where you drive. In some places, yes, they are safer.
I drive 100+ miles *a day* on freeways in LA. The vast majority of accidents I see (and I have seen a lot in the 20+ years I have lived here) are either being rear ended, or plowing into the car in front of you. Comparatively few side impacts and almost no rollovers.
You have an uphill climb convincing me that a subcompact is as safe as a pickup or SUV under those circumstances.
The problem with your statistics is that they don't differentiate between driving on different kinds of roads.
Arguing that stronger fuel standards make for less safe cars doesn't seem to hold true historically.
Here's Wikipedia's lists of auto fatalities from 1975 to 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Accidents are down numerically and are substantially down when you account for the number of vehicles on the road today versus the 1970s.
And yet, in that same time, fuel economy standards have increased from 18 mpg in 1978 to 27.5 now and will go to 30.2 in 2011. I can't see any evidence for correlation between higher fuel economy standards and less safe cars.
And you have an uphill climb in convincing me that anything you say is in good faith. Note that the original claim was that SUV's were safer; the burden of proof is on those technically on those who made this claim, not on me to refute it. Since you're obviously into these oppositional 'if you can't make me say I'm wrong I win' head games, I think it best that you not respond to me in the future.
It's stupid to legislate the average as being higher than the best non-hybrid cars do today. If you're going to make a standard, make it so that the average is what the best non-hybrid cars do today. Let the market lead, then back it up with legislation later if you want a floor.
It will reduce our carbon emissions, but not by as much as advertised, because more fuel efficient cars make driving cheaper, so people will do more of it. This "rebound" effect robs about 25% of gains, and also means more congestion, and more wear-and-tear on roads
Here's another way to say the same thing. Mandatory increases in fuel efficiency enable us to drive more and still use less fuel and emit less CO2. Much as mandatorily increasing refrigerators' efficiency over the years has allowed us to have bigger fridges and still use less electricity.
Also, note that increasing congestion works to reduce the amount people want to drive, placing a limit on the rebound effect. That may be one reason why the rebound effect decreased dramatically between 1966 and 2001. Further thoughts here: http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/making-cars-more-fuel-efficient-does-in-fact-save-fuel/
Or now that I think of it, another way to say the same thing: a carbon tax will reduce driving, but not by as much as advertised, because more expensive fuel means people will buy more fuel-efficient cars so they don't have to cut back their driving so much. We might call this the "rebound" effect of gasoline price increases.
Congestion is a seperate issue. It's mostly due to inadequate building and maintenance and mis-management of traffic. Congestion pricing is a good way to deal with it.
And congestion is generally a problem in hyper-dense high-income areas, where fuel price isn't really a factor in the decision to drive. Most of the induced demand should be on the margins, where there generally isn't congestion.
Nice post, by the way.
It amazes me that Americans (big generalisation, I know) don't see the personal benefits of more fuel-efficient cars. The greater the fuel economy of the car, i.e. the more MPG it does, the less you spend on running your car.
As for dangerous, if that were the case don't you think that Europe would have decreed cars be less fuel efficient for Health and Safety reasons? Plus the minimum fuel efficiency being implementes in the US is pretty rubbish by our standards!
Remember, change is normally progress, meaning a better life for you - not just a way to annoy you.
jcmccallion, UK
That's because our fuel prices in the US have been so cheap for so long. In Europe or the UK, the government taxes fuel, power, displacement, or some amalgam of those parameters. But definitely fuel. The consumer had good reason to believe that fuel efficiency/downsizing was in his/her best interest. We've had CAFE standards for almost 40 years now and we haven't produced the same effect.
Isn't it time to admit that CAFE standards are a failed policy and that a fuel tax is a much more effective means of achieving those ends?
Well . . . I'm sure they do. But there are also costs as well. Gas being as cheap as it is, I'd say that the benefits of a less fuel-efficient auto outweigh the costs.
I heard something on NPR yesterday that resonates: one spokesman for the auto industry said that a problem with these fuel efficient models is that they won't sell unless the price of gas goes up, and that according to their own price modelling, while it will go up, it will also go down. In fact, the prediction is that the price of gas will go up over the long term($3.58 on average by 2016), but it will do so by fluctuating wildly from season to season - down to under $2/gal some months, only to go over $3/gal a few months later and then maybe to over $4/gal a few months after that, only to sink to $2.10/gal a bit later. So a manufacturer would have no choice but to introduce a wide range of products to fit the fickle conditions of the economy and the desires of the customer. This need to carry a wide range of brands in turn incurs large operating costs and makes the firm less profitable, or so the spokesman claimed.
A moving gas tax would fix that uncertainty. Bear in mind that this type of uncertainty, unlike actuary odds, is unpredictable uncertainty. An insurance agent can be reasonably certain that over the long run, 20% of his customers over the age of 84 will be dead a year later. An auto exec has no such guarantee on the odds. By using a gas tax to make the price of fuel predictable, cars could then be reliably manufactured to meet certain price points, which would in turn vastly improve the bottom line of the industry as a whole. Well, it sounds plausible.
According to the IPCC report and other models, even a 10% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions would not be enough to prevent the catastrophic global warming that may or may not happen. Also, Americans driving to and fro is only a fraction of the total "transportation" fuel use. Transportation includes trains, airplanes, 18-wheelers, and other commmercial transport. But anyway, the point is that the maximum reduction possible is a total elimination of transportation and even that is only about 10%. Realistically, doubling the gas mileage of passenger cars will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by much, much less and will result in actualy costs. Someone actually did run the numbers and figured out how many deaths the higher mileage requiremes would cause.
Keep in mind that the benefits of doubling the CAFE requirement for passenger cars will be realized slowly as people buy new cars. And people who drive old beaters that pollute 500x as much as a new car are probably least likely to buy new cars. So to maximize the benefit, we'd need to ensure that people driving old, high-polluting cars were replacing them with new cars. New, more expensive cars. So poor people end up having to buy new cars or we subsidize them.
Add the increase in vehicle price to the increases in energy from cap and trade and the increased costs of credit and the tax increases needed to pay for health care "reform" and the proposed increased in cigarettes, booze, and even soda and you get "reduced taxes for everyone making under $250,000 (except for all of the indirect taxes and other taxes)."
Meanwhile, companies will begin moving their operations to China and India and other countries with stupid energy polices (but stupid in the other direction) resulting in even MORE pollution and less safety. Yay!
Maybe next Obama will end the grandfathering of chemical plants and make them all meet all current EPA rules right now! He could destroy another whole industry!
In 2004, China adopted stricter fuel standards than the US has. I think they reset to even stricter standards within the next few years.
Meaning we won't be able to sell cars in China if we don't improve our standards.
So I'm wondering if you really know what you're talking about when it comes to energy policies.
First, if by "we" you mean US auto companies, then they will be able to sell cars that meet the Chinese standards. They do so in Europe now, particularly Ford.
Secondly, China conforms to an emissions standard equivalent to EuroII standards, which is a 1996ish European standard that does not (IIRC) even legislate against NOx emissions. This allows the powertrain to be far more efficient in terms of specific fuel consumption. This makes their standard more easily met.
I also believe that their safety standards are less strict which could also make the target more easily reached.
Oh, and I still hate the nested comments... so hard to find new comments in a given thread. END ALL COMMENT NESTING!
Meanwhile, China is building cheap, dirty coal fired power plants as fast as they can. They have recently surpassed the US in total CO2 emissions and are increasing faster than predicted.
Google "china co2 emissions" and you'll find lots and lots of pages discussing China's growth in CO2 emissions.
So, yes, China's increasing CO2 emissions make our trivial change due to CAFE increases seem kind of pointless.
Raise the price of cars and make them unsafe? Oh please.
The 2010 Ford Fusion hybrid has an EPA rating of 41 MPG city, 36 MPG highway, and I believe 39 MPG combined. That meets the 2016 CAFE standard now. Just imagine what a Focus hybrid would rate. Is the Focus a deathmobile?
The Fusion hybrid is full hybrid, mid sized car. Not a microcar.
Ford already had a planned 2012 Escape plugin hybrid (PHEV), it's 34 city/31 highway/32 combined EPA rating should jump up significantly. Some of the Escape PHEV prototypes out there are hitting 100 MPG averages.
Exactly how the EPA will rate plugins remains to be seen. I'd like to hope they'll do conversions and use a kWh per mile rating.
In the next few years, the new CAFE standard is merely going to force the hybridization of cars--something the car makers were already doing and knew they had to do in order to survive.
The car makers will also build at least some of their hybrids as plugins--again something that was already happening.
Absent the CAFE change, $4 a gallon gas would achieve the same end. If anything, the new CAFE mandate doesn't raise the bar far enough.
kWh per mile would be good. It'd be nice if we also looked at price of kWh in the area and looked also at $/mi.
In the next few years, the new CAFE standard is merely going to force the hybridization of cars
I think that this is the main point that we should all take away from this legislation.
Looking at Toyota, the hybrids look like they cost about $10,000 more than similar non-hybrids. That's quite a premium. A base model Camry costs less than a base model Prius.
So these CAFE standards will hurt poor people by driving up the cost of new cars and, therefore, the cost of used cars. They will also hurt people with big families by driving up the cost of larger vehicles even more.
And again, all to seem to be doing something about a problem that may or may not be a big one.
We should be focusing on trucks, not cars.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm1.cfm
In 2007, the 2.2 million combination trucks consumed almost 30 billion(!) gallons of fuel. On the other hand, the 136 million cars consumed 74 billion gallons. Trucks consumed on average 23 times as much fuel as passenger cars. Even light trucks and SUVs consumed about as much fuel, on average, as cars. It would be much cheaper to improve the gas mileate of the trucks out there than it would be the cars. My guess is that cars probably stick around longer (or at least their engines do, trucks probably get new engines fairly often compared to new cars) so the turnover is higher in trucks.
One thing we should do is switch from semis to trains. Trains may only get 8 gallons per mile, but they haul a heck of a lot more than a truck. But the teamsters union wouldn't like it if we reduced the number of truck drivers, so that probably won't happen...
The problem with being an engineer is that I focus on solving the problem. Politicians focus on appearing to care about the problem.
Just for good measure, can we reiterate the obvious?
Thanks to the new coming standards, THE DAYS OF BUYING A CAR IN THE HOPES IT WILL HELP GET YOU SOME ARE NUMBERED.
Sorry, this Ryan Avent zero growth advocacy set me off. I must rant.
Please exuse me while I vent.
I think the effective increase in liquid energy supply will be beneficial to our economy in the medium term (for CAFE changes prior to the Obama's) and won’t affect our long term shift toward more efficient and cleaner alternatives.
However, I think a much cheaper and effective way to increase our efficiency and potential productivity would be an informational campaign to combat efforts to slow traffic and the popular misinformation on efficient driving habits.
We'd save much more fuel by improving the efficiency of our existing fleet than we will by attrition. And do it faster too.
Our population is getting old, slow, and lazy. What people need to remember is that slow does not equal efficient. (Fast can also be inefficient; when it’s sloppy and reckless.)
What Zero Growth Advocates don't want you to know:
Faster acceleration is not significantly less efficient than slow acceleration. In fact, it's generally more efficient, even before considering that it prevents, and speeds the clearing of, congestion and bottlenecks. (research Brake Specific Fuel Consumption)
A car engine typically produces power most efficiently at about 3200RPM. It most efficiently delivers power to the road at about 2100RPM. But, more importantly, increasing the power delivered doesn't decrease efficiency much until higher RPM, closer to 4000RPM. Gas consumption is actually lower at higher load and engine speed than at the low engine load and slow engine speed of gradual acceleration.
Engines deliver power best at two spots. At low RPM and very light loads, such as for maintaining speed, and at higher RPM delivering larger loads, such as for more rapid acceleration.
And higher cruising speeds are actually more efficient up until aerodynamic factors dominate at about 55MPH . (see EPA Fuel Economy guide and MetroMPG.com post Speed kills: testing MPH vs. MPG in top gear )
Some observations that should put things into perspective: Driving increased pretty steadily until leveling off in about 2005. It peaked in Oct 2007, before prices spiked in spring 08. Despite the flat trend in driving, our fuel consumption continued to increase. You read that right. Fuel economy declined starting around 2005, despite our improving fleet fuel economy rating and no big increase in the amount cars on the roads (prior to then, fuel economy improved despite the great popularity of trucks and SUVs). Fuel economy didn’t rebound until the gas price spike in 08 drove poor, stupid and slow drivers off the roads (Sorry about the pun. I didn’t mean for it. Though I must admit, I like puns.)
So long as people believe slow is efficient, high gas prices will decrease our fuel efficiency and waste our time. (Except when lack of an economy leave our roads empty and free flowing.)
What I’m suggesting is not aggressive driving. Aggressive driving is defined as rapid acceleration and braking. What I’m suggesting is that people should drive with ambition, with purpose and attention. By looking a head, drivers can make adjustments to speed using the accelerator pedal rather than the brake. With electronically controlled fuel injection, when cars are moving they can keep the engine turning with little or no fuel. It's actually the braking that wastes fuel, not the rate of acceleration.
It's not our desire for more power that has kept fuel economy from improving. It's demanding more power, but failing to make use of it.
People need to act with purpose. It's when we're constrained from acting meanifully that ambition turns into agression or we turn to dangerous distractions like phone calls, texting, drinking, and day-dreaming.
Fat, slow, poor, and stupid is no way to go through life, it’s now way to run an economy, and it’s no way to prevent global warming. It’s certainly no way to lessen the cost of global warming's negative externalities.
Thank you.