I believe mandating fuel efficiency standards for cars is silly.

[T_SQUARE]

With record high gas prices and lots of talk about climate change of late, I have heard lots of claims that the government should tighten fuel efficiency standards for auto makers.

If the goal of the policy makers is to reduce CO2 emissions and/or reduce fuel demand, mandated fuel efficiency standards are the wrong way to go about it. Gasoline taxes would work quicker, be easier to implement, and accomplish the underlying goal more effectively.

First, a tax could be implemented immediately and reduce gasoline demand right away. Fuel efficiency talk has at least a lead time of several years. And a tax is easily adjustable.

Second, it has been proven that actors will seek efficiency when it is in their economic interest. Thin as hospital soup margins in the airline industry has caused airlines to demand more efficient planes. The engine and plane industries responded to deliver much more efficient aircraft without any government meddling. A tax on gasoline, if high enough, would cause car consumers to demand the same thing. There seems to be a big interest in efficient vehicles due to high fuel prices these days, not because of government regulation.

Third, a tax would not directly constrain the automotive products available to consumers. People could decide for themselves how efficient of a car they really wanted. Sure, rich people would probably drive less efficient cars than the poor, but poor people weren't going to buy many Hummers and Lamborghinis any way. The total fuel demand is what's important.

Fourth, standards encourage auto makers to do the bare minimum. In the long run, I believe this stifles innovation. Predicting future technology is notoriously difficult.

Fifth, more efficiency doesn't necessarily mean less demand. A car is much more efficient than a horse, for example. When cars replaced horses, people didn't just use the new cars to make the same trips they once did on horseback. They found lots of other fun places to go.

Do you agree with me? If so, why do you believe so many policy types love standards so much? If you disagree, why?

[Shagnasty]

I agree with you in many ways. This ties into some other debates we had that most people don't think about. The gasoline we have readily available in world supply is going to be used one way or another whether it is here in the U.S. or in even larger emerging markets like China and India. One theory is that individual countries, even the U.S., can't do much to control gasoline demand worldwide even in the near term. It may be better to let our demand find its place naturally and our high use may keep the price high enough to discourage emerging economies from being too dependent on it like way are.

[Der Trihs]

You have good points; I think the biggest problem is the American tendency to equate taxes with evil, at least among many of the more politically active Americans.

[LilShieste]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

You have good points; I think the biggest problem is the American tendency to equate taxes with evil, at least among many of the more politically active Americans.

I agree with Der Trihs. It would be much harder (i.e., much more resistance) implementing a gas tax hike, than it would better fuel efficiency standards.

OTOH, increasing the gas taxes could be seen as "sticking it to the people" rather than "sticking it to the car manufacturers". I realize that the former should drive the latter - but do you think that could actually happen?


LilShieste

[ParentalAdvisory]

Originally Posted by T_SQUARE

First, a tax could be implemented immediately and reduce gasoline demand right away. Fuel efficiency talk has at least a lead time of several years. And a tax is easily adjustable.

The problem I see with this is that although you may reduce fuel demand, it may reduce the demand in other markets. Sure, this method may force people to consider what kind of trips to take, but on the whole, most people use their vehicles to commute to work or run their business. And nobody is going to quit work because fuel costs go up, people still need income. If they have to pay more to travel to work, they may have to adjust their budgets for other things that help fuel the economy in other ways. Yeah yeah, in Europe they pay 3 or 4 times as we do for a gallon of fuel, but their distances to work may not be as high as it is here. There's the suburban sprawl issue here where many travel 1+ hours one way to work... but what do people expect, everyone from the suburbs to live together as one in a big city? The crowds would be a bit much. You may also expect everyone to buy a Prius, but many that have bought their vehicles in the last few years and now, expect to keep them for some time. Doesn't really make much sense to spring for a $20,000+ vehicle to offset fuel prices after having already bought a recent vehicle.

So yeah, there are issues to face.

[ParentalAdvisory]

On second thought, you know what would really help the cost of fuel? Allow more people to work from home. Less real estate for business to manage, less fuel consumption. Win win? In this technological age, I don't see why not. You couldn't do this for some business. But at places like where I work, I could easily do this from home, as well as the other 60,000+ employees I work with as well.

[RTFirefly]

Economists agree that gasoline taxes are the best approach to improving automotive fuel efficiency. Politicians agree that nontrivial increases in gas taxes are hazardous to their careers. So that pretty much settles that.

Fleet fuel economy standards are the next best thing in terms of promoting fuel efficiency. They've been quite successful in the past. And they're politically feasible.

What's 'silly' about the best solution you can get? What's silly is saying that because there's a pony out there that would be better if only we could have that pony, the realistic solution is silly, when there's no way we're going to get the damned pony.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Economists agree that gasoline taxes are the best approach to improving automotive fuel efficiency. Politicians agree that nontrivial increases in gas taxes are hazardous to their careers. So that pretty much settles that.

I'm not so sure. Increasing gas taxes will be a great increase in the tax on the lower working classes, this could and might very well cause a recession, which would slow down the buying of new more fuel efficient cars.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

I'm not so sure. Increasing gas taxes will be a great increase in the tax on the lower working classes, this could and might very well cause a recession, which would slow down the buying of new more fuel efficient cars.

Right, so you have to make it revenue-neutral. Raise $X billion in petrol tax,and either reduce income tax on low income earners, or increase social security / welfare payments by $X billion.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Giles

Right, so you have to make it revenue-neutral. Raise $X billion in petrol tax,and either reduce income tax on low income earners, or increase social security / welfare payments by $X billion.

WELFARE STATE!!!!!!! NANNY STATE!!!!!!!! You want to take my money and give it to people who didn't have the sense to avoid being a teacher?

(just preparing you for the upcoming responses)

-Joe

[ralph124c]

The real problem is: we (in the USA) have brought about a major crisis by our own inaction. If we had higher fuel taxes from the 1970's on, we would have developed high MPG cars. But because gasoline was so cheap, detroit responded by giving us the "SUV". Now we have millions of these things, which consume huge amounts of fuel-and Detroit is in trouble.
So I would have to agree-as gasoline heads for $5.00, we are going to see major troubles-and the sad fact is, it could have been avoided. I wonder how much the insurance companies will take (when all of those huge SUVs are reported "stolen"), before they raise insurance rates drastically!

[Sock of Doom]

One of the problems with an increase in gasoline taxes would be the effect on the price of food, clothing, and other consumer goods. Things need to be shipped, which is often accomplished using gasoline. If prices of necessities rose in response to the tax, it would more directly hurt people with lower incomes.

[E-Sabbath]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

The real problem is: we (in the USA) have brought about a major crisis by our own inaction. If we had higher fuel taxes from the 1970's on, we would have developed high MPG cars. But because gasoline was so cheap, detroit responded by giving us the "SUV".

Ironically, Ralph is exactly wrong here. The SUV came about because of a CAFE loophole: it qualified as a light truck rather than a car, and therefore could get along with lower MPG ratings.

[XT]

Originally Posted by T_SQUARE

Do you agree with me? If so, why do you believe so many policy types love standards so much? If you disagree, why?

Well, I both agree with you and disagree at the same time. Yes, a hefty tax on gasoline would probably bring about an increased demand for more fuel efficient cars in the medium and long term. Short term it would simply put more burden on people who have less efficient cars, as buying a new car is a pretty big capital investment. The rich, of course, can afford to go out and buy a new, more efficient car (or to NOT buy one and just take the hit on the fuel bill)...while the middle class and the poor would have to wait until they could afford to trade up for a new vehicle. In addition, transport costs would go up for things like food and other shipped goods...which, again, would put the burden on the middle and lower classes. In addition, you have the points raised by RTFirefly about politicians and the probability of said pond scum (er, sorry...politicians I mean) actually implimenting them.


Personally I don't think mandating fuel efficiency standards is any better of a solution either. What you will have to end up with is grandfathering all the existing cars on the road to exclude them from the standard, then attempt to make an educated guess as to WHAT fuel efficiency is practical to demand from a cost benifits stand point for the auto manufacturers...i.e. what they are actually capbable of mass producing in the time frames specified. This may work out very well...or it might divert R&D and manufacturing resources that could be better used researching alternatives...its hard to say. Whenever the gubberment puts its nose in and tries to force things its a crap shoot as to how effective it will be. You'll have special interest groups pulling the standard one way or the other (depending on their agenda), politicians trading favors or otherwise inserting their uninformed (and often wrong or stupid) opinions into the law, and will end up with some kind of compromise that will probably be...less than optimal. And perhaps downright useless.

So, whats the answer? Well... I'm all about setting up broad government guidelines and then letting the market decide. I think that, even at $3.25/gallon (what I paid for gas this morning) we are going to see a much higher demand for more fuel efficiency, and people will stop using those gas guzzlers as frequently (I know 4 couples who either don't drive their SUV anymore, got rid of it, or only use it for special trips now).

-XT

[The Hamster King]

Gasoline taxes, like most sales taxes, are regressive. The heaviest burden of such a new tax would fall on the working poor.

Mandated fuel standards apply only to new cars. That means that the primary burden falls on the people who buy new cars -- the middle and upper classes.

If you can figure out a way to set up a gas tax that doesn't stick it to the little guy, you might have a winner ... .

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Well, I both agree with you and disagree at the same time. Yes, a hefty tax on gasoline would probably bring about an increased demand for more fuel efficient cars in the medium and long term. Short term it would simply put more burden on people who have less efficient cars, as buying a new car is a pretty big capital investment. The rich, of course, can afford to go out and buy a new, more efficient car (or to NOT buy one and just take the hit on the fuel bill)...while the middle class and the poor would have to wait until they could afford to trade up for a new vehicle. In addition, transport costs would go up for things like food and other shipped goods...which, again, would put the burden on the middle and lower classes. In addition, you have the points raised by RTFirefly about politicians and the probability of said pond scum (er, sorry...politicians I mean) actually implimenting them.


Personally I don't think mandating fuel efficiency standards is any better of a solution either. What you will have to end up with is grandfathering all the existing cars on the road to exclude them from the standard, then attempt to make an educated guess as to WHAT fuel efficiency is practical to demand from a cost benifits stand point for the auto manufacturers...i.e. what they are actually capbable of mass producing in the time frames specified. This may work out very well...or it might divert R&D and manufacturing resources that could be better used researching alternatives...its hard to say. Whenever the gubberment puts its nose in and tries to force things its a crap shoot as to how effective it will be. You'll have special interest groups pulling the standard one way or the other (depending on their agenda), politicians trading favors or otherwise inserting their uninformed (and often wrong or stupid) opinions into the law, and will end up with some kind of compromise that will probably be...less than optimal. And perhaps downright useless.

So, whats the answer? Well... I'm all about setting up broad government guidelines and then letting the market decide. I think that, even at $3.25/gallon (what I paid for gas this morning) we are going to see a much higher demand for more fuel efficiency, and people will stop using those gas guzzlers as frequently (I know 4 couples who either don't drive their SUV anymore, got rid of it, or only use it for special trips now).

-XT

The peverse thing is; as people abandon their SUVs, the market value of these vehicles will drop like a rock. When they are sufficiently cheap, the poor will buy them-because (despite their fuel wastefulness, they are cheap). So we will wind up with large numbers of dangerous vehicles-while people are driving priuse-like vehicles. Who will survive ina a headon collision (SUV and Prius)? It won't be the occupants of the prius!

[XT]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

The peverse thing is; as people abandon their SUVs, the market value of these vehicles will drop like a rock.

They might...but the cost to operate them is going to continue to rise. So, you will be back to only folks with real money will be able to afford one...not the capital cost, but the cost of operation will be the limiting factor.

Originally Posted by ralph124c

When they are sufficiently cheap, the poor will buy them-because (despite their fuel wastefulness, they are cheap).

I doubt they will drop that far...and I doubt that the truely poor will be able to afford to operate them on any large scale. If gas is $5 or $6 a gallon, and your monster SUV takes 50 gallons to fill $250-$300), and burns through that gas every week...well, you are talking about a substantial amount of money for someone who has low income.

In addition, as more fuel efficient cars come out (and more alternatives like plug in hybrids and such), most of the older, less efficient cars will ALSO come on the market. Folks will trade up their current car that gets 20 miles per gallon for one that gets 40 or 50 miles per gallon...and it would be those 20 mile per gallon cars who's price would drop and who would be snapped up (mostly) by the poor.

Originally Posted by ralph124c

So we will wind up with large numbers of dangerous vehicles-while people are driving priuse-like vehicles. Who will survive ina a headon collision (SUV and Prius)? It won't be the occupants of the prius!

This is like folks who worry about flying in an airplane while driving to work every day...or about how white their teeth are when they smoke 3 packs a day. I doubt its going to be a serious worry (statistically), Ralph. Relax.

-XT

[What Exit?]

I like the idea of raising fuel efficiency standards and emission controls, but even more I would like to see a graduated tax. Where vehicles that get over 40 mpg would not get an extra tax, vehicles in the 20-40 range would get an increase and vehicles below 20 mpg would see twice the increase.

The combination of both the tax and the standards would help to clean up our skies and decrease our dependency of foreign oil.

Jim {I currently drive a car that is in the 20-40 range}

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

Ironically, Ralph is exactly wrong here. The SUV came about because of a CAFE loophole: it qualified as a light truck rather than a car, and therefore could get along with lower MPG ratings.

Actually, I'd say Ralph was 100% right, you are just adding the CAFE detail which explains why our guzzlers are SUVs. Low gas prices and CAFE loopholes caused us to replace the guzzling family sedan/station wagon with an SUV that is even worse on gas. If we had gone the higher tax route instead of the CAFE route, we would not have nearly the number of SUVs on the road, and overall mileage would be better. Instead, the cars on the road look way too much like the cars of the early 70's, only with SUVs instead of huge sedans.

You can raise CAFE standards, but people will buy the cars they want to buy. The surest way to reduce demand for gasoline is to raise the price permanently. I'd prefer a long term solution that mandates small yearly or quarterly increases in the gasoline tax over a 10 year period. The price of gas slowly goes up, we all know it's going up, so we have the opportunity and incentive to take it into account when choosing our next car.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Personally I don't think mandating fuel efficiency standards is any better of a solution either. What you will have to end up with is grandfathering all the existing cars on the road to exclude them from the standard, then attempt to make an educated guess as to WHAT fuel efficiency is practical to demand from a cost benifits stand point for the auto manufacturers...i.e. what they are actually capbable of mass producing in the time frames specified.

I don't see this as being much of a problem. The rest of the world already drives much more fuel-efficient cars than we do, so they're already being mass-produced; the only question is which ones meet our safety standards, and that can easily be tested. So unless we want to set higher standards than European, Japanese, Korean, etc. vehicles already meet, we aren't exactly making WAGs here; we've got hard data on what's do-able.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

The real problem is: we (in the USA) have brought about a major crisis by our own inaction. If we had higher fuel taxes from the 1970's on, we would have developed high MPG cars. But because gasoline was so cheap, detroit responded by giving us the "SUV". Now we have millions of these things, which consume huge amounts of fuel-and Detroit is in trouble.

Or if we'd closed the 'light truck' loophole when it first reared its ugly head in the late 1980s, and kept increasing the CAFE standards, we would have also avoided that crisis.

[Dag Otto]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

If we had higher fuel taxes from the 1970's on, we would have developed high MPG cars.

What could have been done with those taxes is also important. While fuel taxes are used to build and maintain roads (and rightly so), any excess tax as suggested by ralph could have been used to provide better public transportation - trains, subways, bus service, etc. so that when fuel prices rise the public has an alternative to driving. For many people today, there really is no alternative to driving because no investment was made in public transportation. If that had been policy from the oil crisis of the 1970's, I suspect that much of the country today would enjoy decent alternatives to driving. As others have pointed out, spending tens of thousands of dollars for a hybrid or fuel efficient car right now isn't exactly a reasonable alternative.

Higher gas taxes in 2007 to curb demand that was forseeable in the 1970's seems to be too little too late, but I could support it provided that the proceeds from that tax go towards providing alternatives to driving. Even then, we are looking at years to see any benefits from that. A tax as little as 5 to 10 cents per gallon over the last 30 years, specifically earmarked to build public transportation, would have been a far better solution. But hey, all taxes are bad, right?

[Tastes of Chocolate]

Rather then a graduated gas tax, how about a graduated license tab tax. Any vehicle getting less then 20mpg has $200 added to the tabs. Any vehicle getting less then 10mpg gets $400 added. Base that on the MPG reported when it was new.

Any vehicle over 5 years old is exempt from this additional charge (to both make it simpler to keep track of all the models, and to cut a break to anyone driving an old car.)

All money collected from this tax goes to mass transit in the state it's collected in.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by Tastes of Chocolate

Rather then a graduated gas tax, how about a graduated license tab tax. Any vehicle getting less then 20mpg has $200 added to the tabs. Any vehicle getting less then 10mpg gets $400 added. Base that on the MPG reported when it was new.

Any vehicle over 5 years old is exempt from this additional charge (to both make it simpler to keep track of all the models, and to cut a break to anyone driving an old car.)

All money collected from this tax goes to mass transit in the state it's collected in.

Your numbers are too low in both amount and mpg cutoffs. $400 is not very much spread out over a year and few vehicles get under 10 mpg.

Maybe go:

> 40 mpg = 0 tax
30-40 = $200
20-30 = $400
10-20 = $800
< 10 mpg = $1200

I would rather see it based on usage however. A flat fee seems unfair to me.
Make it a few categories that are easy to handle at the pump and make it enough that it gives buyers an incentive to look for better MPG as a bigger part of their purchasing decision.

Jim

[XT]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I don't see this as being much of a problem. The rest of the world already drives much more fuel-efficient cars than we do, so they're already being mass-produced; the only question is which ones meet our safety standards, and that can easily be tested. So unless we want to set higher standards than European, Japanese, Korean, etc. vehicles already meet, we aren't exactly making WAGs here; we've got hard data on what's do-able.

Devil is in the details. I agree, in theory (at least this part of it) wouldn't be and insurmountable problem...except maybe for our domestic auto manufacturers I suppose.

With all the exceptions and grandfathering you'd have to do though, this would only effect new cars...and at a guess, there would still be loopholes in the language of the law as well. I just don't think this is the best way to achieve what you are trying to here...but thats just my own opinion. Admittedly, this is probably the course the government will eventually take...so we can get back to this subject in a few years and see how it worked out. My bet is on...not very well.

-XT

[MichaelQReilly]

The only way to really solve this problem is to change our built environment. As long as a large percentage of our population is dependent on cars for even the simplest tasks, we are going to be held hostage by the price of gas. If free market was allowed to operate so that we bore the true cost of driving, there would be plenty of support for changing our built environment.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by MichaelQReilly

The only way to really solve this problem is to change our built environment. As long as a large percentage of our population is dependent on cars for even the simplest tasks, we are going to be held hostage by the price of gas. If free market was allowed to operate so that we bore the true cost of driving, there would be plenty of support for changing our built environment.

In order to accomplish what you are suggesting would mean the end of the suburbs. I don't believe that such a thing could be done in less than a 50 year time span. There is no infrastructure of public transportation that can support the suburbs, as we know them now.

I am assuming that you are speaking of the real cost of maintaining our roads and highways. These are vital not just for cars but also for our freight system. What works in densely packed countries like those in Europe and Japan will not work well in the spread out countries of North America or the Soviet Union.

In the meantime, we can work towards better-designed cities and strongly encourage more efficient cars and trucks while we need to maintain a large fleet of both.

Jim

[XT]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

In the meantime, we can work towards better-designed cities and strongly encourage more efficient cars and trucks while we need to maintain a large fleet of both.

Going from memory here...but according to a show I watched a few weeks ago, Walmart (the Mecca of all Evil!) plans to increase the efficiency of its logistics fleet by something like 1/3rd to 1/2 in the next few years. Thats a HUGE amount for such a large (and evil) company. (They are also looking at several pilot stores to test increasing store efficiency from a power generation standpoint...again, IIRC they want to make their stores use half to 2/3rd as much energy as they currently use).

You are right though...the US is not Europe, and mass transit is simply too expensive to impliment on a wide scale except in the cities. They are almost always economic losers in the US, again IIRC.

A better way for the US is going to be to step up research and development of whatever is going to be the next generation of personal transport...as well as increased development of some stop gap technologies like plug in hybrids and such. I don't think that mandating fuel efficiency is the answer to either of those.

-XT

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by xtisme

They might...but the cost to operate them is going to continue to rise. So, you will be back to only folks with real money will be able to afford one...not the capital cost, but the cost of operation will be the limiting factor.

I hear this a lot, but I don't buy it.

Let's say this used SUV gets 15 MPG, and prices have plummeted so I can buy it for $5,000.

With demand up for fuel-efficient cars, the 30 MPG five-passenger vehicle is $10,000.

My commute is 10 miles round trip. That's 50 miles a week, or 2,500 miles per year (assuming two weeks of vacation). There's no mass transportation around here, and I'm not about to ride a bicycle on a state highway, so I'm pretty well stuck buying a car.

With the SUV, 2,500 miles uses 167 gallons of gas. At $5.00/gallon, that's $835 per year.

With the fuel-efficient car, 2,500 miles uses 83 gallons. At $5.00/gallon, that's $415 per year.

If I were really struggling for money, would I spend an extra $5,000 on a car to save $420 per year in gasoline? I doubt it, especially if I had to finance the $5,000 at used-car-loan interest rates.

That wouldn't even make sense for someone with double or triple my commute.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by ParentalAdvisory

On second thought, you know what would really help the cost of fuel? Allow more people to work from home. Less real estate for business to manage, less fuel consumption. Win win? In this technological age, I don't see why not. You couldn't do this for some business. But at places like where I work, I could easily do this from home, as well as the other 60,000+ employees I work with as well.

How about a 4x10 work week. Only 4 days of rush hour traffic. It wouldn't reduce pollutants by 20% but I'm sure it would be significant

[XT]

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

Let's say this used SUV gets 15 MPG, and prices have plummeted so I can buy it for $5,000.

Most of my friends claim their SUV's get something like 10-13 MPG. I'm guessing that the ones that will plummet to $5000 are going to NOT be the ones that get 15+ MPG...but the older ones. My father, for instance, has a Suburban (1990 something) that gets a wooping 8 MPG...highway. Gods know what it gets in the city (luckily he drives the thing VERY rarely).

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

My commute is 10 miles round trip. That's 50 miles a week, or 2,500 miles per year (assuming two weeks of vacation). There's no mass transportation around here, and I'm not about to ride a bicycle on a state highway, so I'm pretty well stuck buying a car.

Sure...but how many people have a 10 mile round trip commute, and never drive their vehicle otherwise? I don't. My commute (when I lived on the East coast) was something like 40 miles each way...and I know a LOT of folks doing that same commute (Southern Maryland to DC/Northern VA/Baltimore). And of course thats not all I use my vehicle for.

For YOU it might be cost effective...but you must realize that not everyone has the same situation you do...right? Hell, for that matter, if you are 5 miles from work, why do you need a vehicle at all except on poor weather days? Ride a friggin bike.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

With the SUV, 2,500 miles uses 167 gallons of gas. At $5.00/gallon, that's $835 per year.

With the fuel-efficient car, 2,500 miles uses 83 gallons. At $5.00/gallon, that's $415 per year.

Well, by now I'm sure you realize I could play with the numbers as well and get...well, lets see:

Say an average drive of 40 miles a day (I think thats a conservative average btw...I'm guessing people on average drive more than that, taking into account trips to the store, mall, to see friends, family, vacations, etc): 14600 miles per year. At 10 miles per gallon, thats 1460 gallons of gas a year. At $5.00/gallon thats $7300.00 per year.

For the fuel efficient car, lets say 40 miles a day at 40 miles per gallon: Thats 365 gallons a year. At $5.00 a gallon thats, um, $1825.00 per year. A substantial savings.

Even assuming you could get a relatively modern SUV for $5000 ( ), you are still losing out money wise in the first year if your commute is more than the walk to work you have. Also, as I said earlier, if SUV's are going to be coming on the market in large numbers, so will OTHER cars, as folks trade them in for more efficient models. For instance, I plan on buying a hybrid this fall and trading in my current vehicle. It gets 25 miles per gallon. I'm guessing I can get maybe $4000 at trade in for it...and someone may buy it from a dealer for around $5000. It seats 5 comfortable and 6 in a pinch. Why would someone on a tight or even fixed budge buy an gas guzzling SUV when they could get something like that...which even at your estimate gets 10 miles per gallon more?

None of this factors in maintenence and upkeep of course.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

That wouldn't even make sense for someone with double or triple my commute.

Well yeah...it would. See above. Even if we do the math at 15 miles per gallon you will end up losing in the end (somewhere in the second year off the top of my head...I can run the numbers for you if you like, but you can do it yourself to see). And I think your numbers are wildly optimistic both on how much a newer SUV is going to go for, on the fuel mileage of a used SUV, on average miles driven per day...on basically everything.

-XT

[ForumBot]

I agree with you that mandating fuel efficiency standards is silly. But so is manipulating the marketplace for a fungible commodity. Why not let the market respond naturally to increasing gas prices? Why inflate them artificially?

[henrijohns]

Fuel efficiency got better for sedans when they instituted the gas stickers.
The problem was that the auto industry got a waiver added for pickup trucks because they "were such a small part of the corporate fleet". Well, that was their lucky day, because they suddenly decided to literally drive a new fleet of "work vehicles" through that loophole.
Why do they force soccer moms to by a huge expensive van instead of an affordable but regulated station wagon? Because the wagon counts toward the fleet total so they stopped making them.

[lowbrass]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

The real problem is: we (in the USA) have brought about a major crisis by our own inaction. If we had higher fuel taxes from the 1970's on, we would have developed high MPG cars. But because gasoline was so cheap, detroit responded by giving us the "SUV". Now we have millions of these things, which consume huge amounts of fuel-and Detroit is in trouble.

Actually, fuel-efficiency standards worked quite well. From the 1950s to the 1970s, we had HUGE gains in fuel efficiency for cars. We already have extremely high gas taxes; I don't see any evidence that it forces automakers to build more efficient cars. Regulations are what did that. The reason for the glut of SUVs now is that we failed to make the regulations apply to SUVs. They are classified as trucks, even though they are not used as trucks, and are exempt from the efficiency standards that apply to cars. Since the standards apply as an aggregate of all cars by each maker, they can produce as many gas-guzzling SUVs as they like without lowering the aggregate fuel efficiency for their cars. In effect, we virtually forced automakers to overproduce SUVs and then run massive advertising campaigns to convince consumers that they "need" an SUV.

Automakers are notoriously slow to respond to consumer demand. The most fuel-efficient cars are extremely hard to get, sometimes requiring waiting lists and paying thousands of dollars more than the list price. I went to a dealer to buy one of their most fuel-efficient models, and was told it was in "limited production" and that they were charging an extra $2,000 due to the demand for this car. Meanwhile, car lots are full of gas-guzzling SUVs that they can hardly give away. Given car companies' poor track record of providing what people actually want, using consumer taxation as an indirect means to persuade car companies to make more fuel-efficient vehicles strikes me as a decidedly inefficient way to go about it.

[Oops, I didn't see that RT already made the same point - sorry]

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by ForumBot

I agree with you that mandating fuel efficiency standards is silly. But so is manipulating the marketplace for a fungible commodity. Why not let the market respond naturally to increasing gas prices? Why inflate them artificially?

Because we are trying to solve at least two major problems with many ripple effects. Our current fleet of cars and trucks contribute to Global Warming and Smog problems and to our reliance on foreign oil. The market by itself will not and has not resolved this problem. Not all problems can be solved by Libertarian means.

Jim

[ForumBot]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

Our current fleet of cars and trucks contribute to Global Warming and Smog problems and to our reliance on foreign oil. The market by itself will not and has not resolved this problem. Not all problems can be solved by Libertarian means.

I'm not entirely convinced the second is a very good reason (that's a different thread), but environmental concerns might be enough to artificially ramp up progress. I'll accept that.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by xtisme

My father, for instance, has a Suburban (1990 something) that gets a wooping 8 MPG...highway. Gods know what it gets in the city (luckily he drives the thing VERY rarely).

Eight? My half-ton V10 truck gets better than that when I'm pulling a trailer full of horses!

Originally Posted by xtisme

Hell, for that matter, if you are 5 miles from work, why do you need a vehicle at all except on poor weather days? Ride a friggin bike.

I can see you carefully read my post before replying. Even during the season when riding a bike is a reasonable thing to do in Montana, I'm not going to ride it on a highway with no shoulders and cars whizzing by at 70 mph. That's the only way into town.

Originally Posted by xtisme

Say an average drive of 40 miles a day (I think thats a conservative average btw...I'm guessing people on average drive more than that, taking into account trips to the store, mall, to see friends, family, vacations, etc)

We were talking specifically about low-income families. I think they're more likely to shop close to home and to try to find housing near work.

Originally Posted by xtisme

For the fuel efficient car, lets say 40 miles a day at 40 miles per gallon

Pardon me, but would you please pull out the newspaper and show me all of the 40mpg used cars?

Originally Posted by xtisme

Even assuming you could get a relatively modern SUV for $5000 ( ),

Today, you can buy them easily for under $10K. You were the one that said prices would "plummet."

Originally Posted by xtisme

Well yeah...it would. See above. Even if we do the math at 15 miles per gallon you will end up losing in the end (somewhere in the second year off the top of my head...I can run the numbers for you if you like, but you can do it yourself to see). And I think your numbers are wildly optimistic both on how much a newer SUV is going to go for, on the fuel mileage of a used SUV, on average miles driven per day...on basically everything.

I was using myself as an average, hence the miles per day. Looking at today's paper, you can get a 10-year-old used SUV for $10K now, so after prices "plummet" I think $5K would be reasonable. I certainly hope $5.00/gallon isn't "wildly optomistic." I based the gas mileage of the used SUV on what my wife's 7-year-old SUV gets.

Triple the miles per day and it still takes almost four years to break even.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by ForumBot

I'm not entirely convinced the second is a very good reason (that's a different thread), but environmental concerns might be enough to artificially ramp up progress. I'll accept that.

Well honestly, I am trying to appeal to both the Greens and the Liberals and the Hawks/Defense minded. If you are trying to sell legislation that is going to affect most voters, you better make an appeal that will bring in different voters.

As a green and a hawk, I believe both a good reasons. We have a shortage of hawks among the posters, so on this board the second argument is weak, but it is how I typically explain the situation to people.

The Smog problem is a very visible and measurable one, so many inner city kids suffer from asthma and the cause and effect is very well documented. So smog becomes a very liberal issue among those that are looking out for the poor/minorities. The smog and global warming concerns are very big to greens and my primary concerns. The reliance of foreign oil weakens us in case of a long major war.

Jim

[gonzomax]

If you buy a small car do you have to smash into a SUV. ? I have had lots of small cars in my time and never hit anything.
A tax rebate would be how you work around the gas increase.

[XT]

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

Eight? My half-ton V10 truck gets better than that when I'm pulling a trailer full of horses!

Well, what can I say? Lucky you.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

I can see you carefully read my post before replying. Even during the season when riding a bike is a reasonable thing to do in Montana, I'm not going to ride it on a highway with no shoulders and cars whizzing by at 70 mph. That's the only way into town.

I read your post...I was saying that if (a generic) someone has basically a 5 mile commute to work, they should ride a bike. It was a joke. Most people I know don't have such a small commute...and I know plenty of folks who are in the 'low income' bracket. even if they DO, its 5 miles of city driving...which usually means it takes them 30 or 40 minutes in heavy traffic to drive that 5 miles.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

We were talking specifically about low-income families. I think they're more likely to shop close to home and to try to find housing near work.

Thats an assumption you are making that I don't believe reflects the real world. Low income people have to commute like other people. A lot of times (good) stores (and certainly malls) aren't convinently located in their neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

Pardon me, but would you please pull out the newspaper and show me all of the 40mpg used cars?

You are of course excused. On the other hand, I was talking about NEW cars with the 40 MPG thingy. I.E. people are going to trade up their older cars (and SUV's) for new ones that get better gas mileage.

I see however that I missed your own point earlier...you were talking about a used SUV vs a used car that gets slightly better gas mileage. Of couse, per my own example you can get a car today that gets 10-15 miles a gallon more than your theoretical SUV at the same price...so why wouldn't you?

I still think the point stands that in realistic driving a good used car (such as my own example which gets 25-30 miles per gallon for $4-5,000) is going to be better than a used SUV getting 10-15 MPG...unless you get the SUV for free.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

Today, you can buy them easily for under $10K. You were the one that said prices would "plummet."

I haven't seen any SUV's that aren't at least 5 years old or older that you can get at that price...not here anyway. Maybe where you are from its different.

Of course, the older one's get worse gas mileage than the new ones do, generally speaking.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

I was using myself as an average, hence the miles per day. Looking at today's paper, you can get a 10-year-old used SUV for $10K now, so after prices "plummet" I think $5K would be reasonable. I certainly hope $5.00/gallon isn't "wildly optomistic." I based the gas mileage of the used SUV on what my wife's 7-year-old SUV gets.

$5 per gallon will probably be realistic...for the next 2 years (thats my guess). I seriously doubt SUV prices will drop much in that time (certainly not half the price they are today). And as you say, its for a 10 year old SUV...whats the mileage on that? I mean the city mileage, not the highway? As I said, my dad's SUV is like 10-15 years old at this point...and it literally gets 8 miles per gallon on the road...and something less in the city.

Out of curiosity, what kind of SUV does your wife have? What kind of driving does she do? Is it mostly suburban/highway type driving, or the stop and go driving in a big city?

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

Triple the miles per day and it still takes almost four years to break even.

Only if everyone does the same type of driving you do. Triple the city miles and its even worse. Unless we are talknig about the rural poor, you also have factors like finding a parking place for those monsters.

I seriously don't think that most poor people are going to rush out and buy an SUV when they can simply buy a car.

-XT

[Chief Pedant]

Improving fuel efficiency is not very green.
To understand why this is so, simply imagine that an inexpensive vehicle could be brought to market which gets unlimited mileage and does not pollute.

What happens? More people have cars and drive them more. A lot more. More roads. More pavement. More consumption of resources manufacturing cars. There is a lot of developing world that can't wait to pave over their wetlands and forests so they can drive these new fuel efficient vehicles.

I do not personally take much of a position on all of this, but I'm underwhelmed by the idea that fuel efficiency is going to solve anything. Since we don't yet have perfectly efficient non-polluting vehicles, making the current fleet more efficient will simply expand the car culture...

Economically, oil prices right now (60-70 dollars a barrel) are enough to make other sources of oil financially viable. Those sources will be developed if prices maintain their current level.

In the long run gasoline prices are not going to go much higher, even though they may in the short run. We are going to have to decide if we want to encourage driving or not by some means other than the natural price of gas. To a substantial extent more efficient cars simply lower the effective price of gasoline and do nothing except make even more cars available to more people.

[Dag Otto]

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

Eight? My half-ton V10 truck gets better than that when I'm pulling a trailer full of horses!

You would do better if you just rode the damn horses. There they are, perfectly good stock animals to do your bidding, and you're chauffeuring them around town.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat

I can see you carefully read my post before replying. Even during the season when riding a bike is a reasonable thing to do in Montana, I'm not going to ride it on a highway with no shoulders and cars whizzing by at 70 mph. That's the only way into town.

Well, that's because gas taxes to date are used mainly to make more roads for cars. If some of that money were used to make bike paths or even reasonable bike lanes along the roads, then you would have an alternative to driving. Instead of doing something reasonable with the tax money over the last few decades, you are now stuck paying higher gas prices now with no reasonable alternative.

[Sam Stone]

What is the problem you're trying to solve here? Global Warming? If so, you can forget it. Sure, you could increase fuel efficiency in the U.S. by mandating more efficient cars. Which will do nothing for Global Warming, because oil is a fungible commodity, and a restriction on demand in the U.S. will just cause the price to fall and stimulate demand for the stuff everywhere else in the world. Unless you can get a global agreement that includes China and India, there's nothing you can do to keep all that oil from coming out of the ground, and to keep on coming out of the ground until it is no longer cost-effective to do so.

That's the bottom line. You can't stop oil from being burned - all you can do is change the distribution patterns of consumption around the world.

But assuming there is some other reason to make vehicles more efficient, a gasoline tax is the only way to go. The tax is closest to the thing you actually want to tax - the amount of pollutant a person puts into the air - rather than being at best a poor intermediary. For example, if you simply put a new CAFE standard on cars, you make the cars cheaper to drive per mile but more expensive to purchase - this has the effect of increasing the number of miles people will drive with their vehicles. In addition, if high CAFE standards result in cars that are less desirable than the ones people own now, your unintended consequence is that more people will tend to keep their older, even thirstier vehicles who might have otherwise traded up for something modestly more efficient while retaining appeal. Finally, CAFE standard changes take years to have an effect - the auto fleet is about 10-11 years old on average, so new Cafe standards passed today would only be in place in half the cars or less in the next decade.

What you really want to do is punish people for burning petroleum. The easiest and most economically efficient way to do that is to simply tax petroleum.

But maybe the smarter thing to do is to let petroleum find its own price, let it get burned, and spend the time, energy, and money working on alternative fuel sources to attempt to price petroleum out of the market, and to work on technologies for sequestering carbon and/or counteracting its effects in other ways (iron seeding in the ocean, etc).

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

[A] restriction on demand in the U.S. will just cause the price to fall and stimulate demand for the stuff everywhere else in the world.

Eventually, yes. But it might slow the process down somewhat. Yes, a thirsty China and India rapidly increasing their oil consumption will eventually extract whatever there is to extract, even if the US goes on a strict low-petroleum diet. But it will probably happen even faster if the US continues its full-throttle gas guzzling. (I'm skeptical that the higher gas prices from unlimited US consumption would have enough of a braking effect on Chinese and Indian consumption to offset the extra US consumption in full-throttle guzzle mode as opposed to low-petroleum diet mode.)

Of course, the time we might buy ourselves by postponing some of our global greenhouse-gas emissions in this way might not be enough to make a significant difference in coping with global warming. On the other hand, it might. It seems to be worth investing in some conservation and emissions-reduction strategies in addition to boosting R&D for new-technology solutions.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Eventually, yes. But it might slow the process down somewhat. Yes, a thirsty China and India rapidly increasing their oil consumption will eventually extract whatever there is to extract, even if the US goes on a strict low-petroleum diet. But it will probably happen even faster if the US continues its full-throttle gas guzzling. (I'm skeptical that the higher gas prices from unlimited US consumption would have enough of a braking effect on Chinese and Indian consumption to offset the extra US consumption in full-throttle guzzle mode as opposed to low-petroleum diet mode.)

Of course, the time we might buy ourselves by postponing some of our global greenhouse-gas emissions in this way might not be enough to make a significant difference in coping with global warming. On the other hand, it might. It seems to be worth investing in some conservation and emissions-reduction strategies in addition to boosting R&D for new-technology solutions.

The problem is that it costs a lot of money to reduce demand - basically, the U.S. will wind up paying higher energy prices, and the lowered demand for petroleum will give U.S. competitors lower energy prices.

What's worse, by restricting demand you also keep prices lower, which reduces investment in alternative fuels and the desire to conserve in other ways. It's certainly not clear to me that wholesale meddling in the energy markets is going to A) cause a delay in the onset of warming, B) have enough of an effect to make a measurable difference, and C) not be counter-productive by essentially artificially holding the price of petroleum down, making competitors to petroleum less profitable.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

What is the problem you're trying to solve here?

Automobile fuel inefficiency sits at the nexus of several problems.

1) Pollution generally. Cars pollute, and the extent to which they pollute is related to the amount of fuel they consume.
2) Energy dependence. There's no way to make the U.S. completely independent of a certain unstable and semi-hostile region halfway around the world, but we can at least reduce that dependence.
3) Global warming. Like it or not, all we can do is control the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere, and hope that others do the same. Hey, maybe we should work up and sign some international treaties to that end.
4) The strictures caused by dealing with global warming or peak oil, whichever gets here first. Getting started on squeezing more benefit of whatever sort - heating, cooling, transportation, etc. - out of the same barrel of oil, gallon of gas, ton of coal, kilowatt of electricity, whatever - is and will continue to be advantageous to us. I don't know about you, but in the course of saving the world, I would prefer to improve rather than diminish my lifestyle. Devising means of getting more lifestyle benefits from less in the way of raw material inputs is the route to that goal.

But assuming there is some other reason to make vehicles more efficient, a gasoline tax is the only way to go.

Then you figure out how to get one through Congress.

Like it or not, comparing CAFE standards with the pony you can't have is a worthless exercise, unless you can show how you can produce the pony.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by Dag Otto

You would do better if you just rode the damn horses. There they are, perfectly good stock animals to do your bidding, and you're chauffeuring them around town.

Believe me, if I could just build a corral in the alley behind my bookstore, I'd do it.

Originally Posted by Dag Otto

Well, that's because gas taxes to date are used mainly to make more roads for cars. If some of that money were used to make bike paths or even reasonable bike lanes along the roads, then you would have an alternative to driving.

Hear, hear! Sing it, brother!

Originally Posted by xtisme

I haven't seen any SUV's that aren't at least 5 years old or older that you can get at that price...not here anyway. Maybe where you are from its different.

Well, of course it would be at least five years old. You're not used to buying used cars on a budget, are you?

Originally Posted by xtisme

Out of curiosity, what kind of SUV does your wife have? What kind of driving does she do? Is it mostly suburban/highway type driving, or the stop and go driving in a big city?

Dodge Durango. There's no such thing as city driving around here. It's all small towns separated by miles of 60-75mph rural highway.

Originally Posted by xtisme

Unless we are talknig about the rural poor...

Well, that is who I was talking about. Poor folks in the cities don't have quite the same problems. First of all, they don't need a car as much, because there's mass transportation, and you're much more likely to have a grocery store within walking distance. Secondly, low-income people in a big city aren't as likely to have a place to park a car anyway.

Originally Posted by xtisme

...you also have factors like finding a parking place for those monsters.

Another pet peeve of mine. Do I really have to buy another vehicle just for city visits so it will fit into teeny little "compact" parking spaces? And if I do, what will it be? With my 6'4" frame, at least 3/4 of compact cars are too small to sit in comfortably, and if I'm driving into the city, I need a vehicle big enough to carry the whole family plus whatever I'm buying (groceries, 50-pound sacks of dog food, and other potentially large and bulky items). On the rare occasions that I drive an hour to go shopping in my wife's car, that Durango is full coming home. If I was driving a little compact car, I'd have to rent a trailer or something.

[RTFirefly]

Following up on xtisme's posts upthread, my wife and I drive our primary car about 20,000 miles a year. (We're really a 1.2 car family, with the .2 car being a 12 year old Saturn that doesn't get much use.)

At 30 miles a gallon, that's 667 gallons/year. At 15 miles a gallon, we'd double that consumption. At $3.25/gallon, which is what it costs locally, that's a differential of $2167/year, with the likelihood of increasing in the short term. Just to make the numbers easier, let's assume that fuel prices only increase enough to keep unchanged the present value of the future differential. So someone in our situation buying a used car with a 5-year expected remaining reliable lifetime could afford to pay $10,833 more for the energy-efficient used car, minus the additional financing costs. So paying an extra $5000 for that used Toyota Echo rather than the used Ford Expedition would be a bargain.

I think gas prices will have to go through the roof before people pay that much of a premium for the 5 year old Toyota Echo over the 5 year old Ford Expedition, but I could be wrong. I don't see the latter being cheaper than the former at all at even $5/gallon. But we'll see.

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by T_SQUARE

With record high gas prices and lots of talk about climate change of late, I have heard lots of claims that the government should tighten fuel efficiency standards for auto makers.

If the goal of the policy makers is to reduce CO2 emissions and/or reduce fuel demand, mandated fuel efficiency standards are the wrong way to go about it. Gasoline taxes would work quicker, be easier to implement, and accomplish the underlying goal more effectively.

First, a tax could be implemented immediately and reduce gasoline demand right away. Fuel efficiency talk has at least a lead time of several years. And a tax is easily adjustable.

Well, prices have jumped considerably in the last six months and demand hasn't slacked off. The price jump is just the same as adding a 50 cent/gallon tax.

Second, it has been proven that actors will seek efficiency when it is in their economic interest. Thin as hospital soup margins in the airline industry has caused airlines to demand more efficient planes. The engine and plane industries responded to deliver much more efficient aircraft without any government meddling.

The aircraft manufacturers' customers are large and sophisticated economic entities who are well organized. The automakers' costomers are an amorphous mass of unsophisticted, and unorganized individuals.

A tax on gasoline, if high enough, would cause car consumers to demand the same thing. There seems to be a big interest in efficient vehicles due to high fuel prices these days, not because of government regulation.

We'll see. There was a lot of interest in smaller and more efficient vehicles during the fuel shortages of the Carter administration. However, as soon as that was over the public went back to reading ads about how fast the car would go from zero to 60.

Third, a tax would not directly constrain the automotive products available to consumers. People could decide for themselves how efficient of a car they really wanted. Sure, rich people would probably drive less efficient cars than the poor, but poor people weren't going to buy many Hummers and Lamborghinis any way. The total fuel demand is what's important.

It appears to me that poor and middle income people, if they have a car at all, buy it on the basis of whether they can make the payments.

Fourth, standards encourage auto makers to do the bare minimum. In the long run, I believe this stifles innovation. Predicting future technology is notoriously difficult.

Maybe. It does seem to me that the free-enterprise system encourages producers to do the bare minimum anyway.

Fifth, more efficiency doesn't necessarily mean less demand. A car is much more efficient than a horse, for example. When cars replaced horses, people didn't just use the new cars to make the same trips they once did on horseback. They found lots of other fun places to go.

Yes, gasoline taxes would reduce people's standard of living, but high prices for any reason would do the same. One advantage of taxes would be that the money would go to the government instead of oil producers' profits. I guess maybe that would be desirable.

Do you agree with me? If so, why do you believe so many policy types love standards so much? If you disagree, why?

Maybe policy makers would rather have a continuous pressure on auto producers to improve gas mileage, since greenhouses gasses are a serious problem, rather than rely on the vagaries of the market which are a result of many other things besides environmental effects.

[ralph124c]

Some have suggested that a wholesale switch to diesel-engined cars would solve the situation-this is not clear to me. since diesel fuel contains about 30% more energy (than an equivilent quantity of gasoline), it seems to me, that switching the refineries from gasoline to diesel would create shortages. And, the same amount of crude oil would be required. So long-term, we must bite the bullet and move to smaller cars-12 MPG SUVs just won't be useable.
What I've often wondered; if the American drive could accept lousy acceleration, you could run a large car with a fairly small engine-a 2500 lb. car can cruise at 55 MPH (no hills) witha about a 45 HP engine. if you could have a boost device (to help with acceleration-some kind of energy storage device), we could drive cars with much smaller engines-those big V-8s would not be necessary.