Disclaimer: Not everyone who is against increased government mandates is a raving lunatic.
I think we are getting confused by the role of government. The main role of government is to set sensible rules that are in the National Interest for all citizens, and the overall competiveness and economic health of the country. Don’t ever let the government build cars! Examples of this are the Moskvitch (Russia), Lada(Russia), Trabant & Wartburg (East Germany), old Skoda (Chechoslovakia), Justicialista (Peron’s Argentina),the Cheery (China), all stae car companies, and the list goes on. Government’s role is to set safety standards, fuel mileage and emission standards,and not much else. There are many countries that are as capitalistic as the US, where government plays a major role in shaping products and services; Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, to name a few. All these countries invest heavily in Research and Development, and rely on export markets for the sale of most of their sophisticated products. As a result, they are World Competitive. Volvo is recognized as the world laeder in automotive safety; they did this with strong support of the Swedish government. What other country would specify a “moose collision Standard”?
When stiff energy efficiency standards are applied, US manufacturers can rise to the occasion. Last year I was in France and looked at home appliances in a department store. They had imported US fridges side by side with French and German ones. Guess what? In the larger sizes (only large US fridges are exported), the US fridges were more energy-efficient than the European ones! This was a direct result of the US government program to improve appliance efficiency (Energy Star) which is now old hat.
Ideally the market should be the deciding factor. However since the market does not reflect the true cost of fuel (including the environmental and political, including wars) it is not an situation where we can expect people to make reasonable decisions.
Short of the ideal market, we should find some way of addressing the problems. One would be to add a substantial and certain tax on fuel, but it is apparently not a politically possible solution. [i] why can we fund a war and can't fund a serious solution to pollution. [/i] So let's go with mileage and pollution requirements. At least we then will be leveling the playing field a little."So let’s go with mileage and pollution requirements. At least we then will be leveling the playing field a little. "
The problem is that, in practice these rules never actually accomplish what the are trying to do (or they have significant unintended consequences). Increasing the average fuel mileage on cars would probably result in lower fuel costs, which is not really a desirable outcome in the long term. Many people will simply drive more, negating much of the benefit. Also, any new mandates will increase vehicle cost which will keep more older vehicles on the road longer, again negating the benefits. The reality is that with very cheap fuel most of use can afford to drive as much as we want in whatever vehicle we choose to own. If you really want to affect behavior, double the cost of fuel over the next five years.
If the oil market was not an international one, lower US fuel consumption would indeed result in lower prices at the pump, at least for a short time. Unfortunately, even though the US consumes 20% of the world’s petroleum, US consumption, whether going up or down will not influence world oil prices, since foreign consumers are increasing their consumption at a fast rate. China will be the world’s largest user of petroleum in the next 5-8 years. Lower US demand may slow the rate of increase somewhat. Lower refining costs and lower road taxes are out of the question, as far as gasoline prices go, the only way is up, but not necessarily in a straight line. In a previous post I speculated that if you budget for an new car in the US you should use $4-$5/gallon as a realistic fuel price over the projected life of the vehicle. Saudi Arabia has just announced major production plans for the Rhub Alkali (Empty Quarter) in the SE of the country. This is expensive oil, difficult to produce, so they have contracted foreign companies to help them out. This is their first admission that there is no cheap new oil to be found in Saudi Arabia, which tranditionnaly was the world’d lowest cost producer at about $2/barrel.
Even without additonal fuel taxes in the US, gasoline prices will keep increasing erratically, but not fast enough to get car buyers to seriously trade down power- and size-wise.
“Even without additonal fuel taxes in the US, gasoline prices will keep increasing erratically, but not fast enough to get car buyers to seriously trade down power- and size-wise.”
I agree, that is the problem. The only way to reduce consumption in the U.S. (if that is really what you want to do) is push prices up faster than they will normally rise. As long as the price just floats around and slowly increases on average, behavior will not change very quickly. I do think that one country which consumes 20% of the oil will have some influence on the international market (at least for a little while longer). I agree that china/india are likely to be driving the market in a couple of decades.
You are right, trottier. Capitalism (which isn’t spelled with a K) did so well for us leading up to the Great Depression that we should never tamper with it. We saw with Enron that we can trust private busienss to govern itself. Teddy Roosevelt had it all wrong when he broke up the trusts. Who needs the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation? Banks can be trusted to never fail and never loose your money.
Some conservatives want you to believe that government can’t do anything. Then they get in power, increase the size of the government, and do things so poorly that they prove themselves right. The solution to bad government isn’t no government, it is good government.
Are you saying that todays cars wouldn’t have been totaled by a telephone pole? But a '69 Buick would be? I am a bit tired of being called a liar by someone who is willing to disengage himself from reality to avoid admitting he’s wrong. All examples I have given are true. I can present documentation if required and have presented article to try to show you that I am presenting legitimate information and still you name try to belittle what I present. As for comparing 2 different cars - DUHHH! The point that in a collision the heavier car will usually hold up better.
But don’t be confused by reality.
To those who suggest increasing gasoline tax by $1.00 or more per gallon I hope you realize the skyrocketing prices of all consumables that will condemn us to. EVERYTHING you buy is transported by fuel burning means. So the additional cost of fuel will be passed on to the consumer.
Less than 20% of the oil fields available to the U.S. are permitted to be drilled by the govt. The Gulf of Mexico region alone has nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Mexico and China are beginning to drill there with a lot less caution than American companies but it’s our shores that will be polluted by their spills, yet we are not permitted to drill there. Brazil has discovered one of the largest fields in the world. And the country that exports the most oil to the U.S. is Canada and guess where they are drilling. That’s right, just across the border from Alaska where the U.S. has oil but is not permitted to drill. Once again the U.S. Congress proves it’s stupidity. Every other country that has oil is drilling. But we complain about our dependence while sitting on as much if not more than anybody else.
As for tax dollars, the taxes that are paid on a gallon of gas now should be spent on building new refineries to handle the flow of fuel that will come in due to the govt. getting out of the way of American oil companies drilling.
Another thing that will reduce gasoline prices and greatly increase availability is removing the requirements for specialty mixtures for different states and regions. That will free up so much space in the refineries it would reduce the need to build new ones.
An annual tax(penalty) on large vehicles would drastically reduce the resale value of the gas guzzlers far greater than high fuel prices and make them nearly worthless unless they had some value beyond ‘conspicuous consumption symbols.’ The original buyers would pay dearly for them and they would fade from the market, replaced with more practical vehicles, hopefully. Is there a market for used Rolls Royces on used car lots in London?
Tom and Ray,
Should variable valve timing be on your list of things that improve MPG?
Thanks, Jim of Kansas City, KansasI think you are missing the point, energy costs (not just oil) in the U.S, are much too low and consumption is much too high. The last thing “the government” wants to do is lower prices and increase consumption. The oil producers and refiners certainly do not want to lower prices by installing too much capacity. No one wants the U.S. government in the oil business, and no one wants them using tax money to fund excess refinery capacity. The “alternate energy” folks also need high prices to make their products viable.
The only one who wants low prices is “joe six-pack” who wants to fill up his pickup truck without cutting into his beer money. Of course, the cost will be passed on to the consumer; that’s what happens when you raise prices. I understand that raising prices to quickly could be inflationary, it should be done gradually enough to maintain a reasonable rate of growth without prices (or, more importantly, wages) growing to quickly. Also remember tht the current crude prices are partially due to the weak dollar, and that condition will not (hopefully) continue indefinitely.
Honestly, I don’t think $1 per gallon at the pump will be sufficient. I really believe we need to get fuel to the $5-7 range within about 5 years if we want to significantly affect consumption.
The reason that the Hybrid Camry gets 10 less MPG is the fact that it was not originaly designed to be a hybrid. The Camry does not have as good of a drag coefficient as the Prius (.27 vs .26) and weighs almost 750 pounds more.
I do agree that many people should use smaller vehicles. But if you constantly need to put a carrier on your car you are constantly going to worse fuel mileage because you are putting something on the roof that drastically increases the drag coefficient. So it may be a better idea to get a larger, slightly less fuel efficient car in this case.
Yes, your Prius may be able to carry many objects that will not fit in some trucks (a bit of a stretch), but you have to fold down almost all of your seats, you are limited in the hight of the object, and this object has to be solid and clean. Whereas with a pickup you can carry taller items, not loose seating capacity, not have to worry about scratching the interior, and you can carry piles of dirt, leaves, or rocks without having to spend hours cleaning out the interior (simply hose out the bed).
“The marketplace should be the decision maker.”
Yep, and looking at what people choose to drive suggests that gas doesn’t cost nearly as much as it should!
Variable valve timing, direct injection (allowing very high compression)and some other tricks allow a gas engine to be almost as efficient as a diesel. All these cost a little more, but willbe incorporated as time goes on.
Well stated Craig58! The next US government will be faced with selling higher fuel prices and gas guzzler taxes. I think Americans will go for this if they know where that extra money is going; for example, more reseach into alternatives and different fuel cycles, as well as lower income taxes for the bottom half of the income group. As Jimmy Carter once said; this has to be the moral equivalent of war! Europe with $7.50/gallon gas and prohibitive taxes on large engines is focusing the market in the right dirction. Whereas a VW Golf sell for less in Europe than here, a Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 costs just over $100,000 in Holland. Some of that is import duties, but the bulk is the gas guzzler tax. European cars are rated at grams/miles C02 emissions, and the Jeep emits way more than the 125 grams/mile standard.
Tom and Ray,
There is a bigger picture that says the country needs a true energy policy, with clear objectives for at least 10-20 years in the future, with milestones along the way. The MPG discussion is just one within the larger one of energy usage, making us “energy independent” and reducing our carbon foot print overall. Every single industry and citizen will need to step up to these objectives to allow us to deal with all of the issues surrounding energy usage.
All vehicles should be measured on their total carbon footprint - from manufacture, usage/repair, to disposal/recycling. Any discussion of mpg without acknowledging that all vehicles operate within a much bigger energy cost and impact will make it difficult to get us where we need to go. Once objectives are set, with incentives and penalties, the market will quickly sort out the best way to get there and still make a profit.
Paul Christiansen
ah-HA! well… i put my money where my mouth is. i drive a 2004 Toyota Prius, that averages 50+ mpg. i think we can all work together on this with good old American ingenuity. in all liklihood, the majority won’t change their habits until a crisis hits them in a personal way…so prob’ly it will take some intervention. i think. you think?
Excellent letter Guys.
As an engineer who spent most of his career in manufacturing, it is certainly true that the auto sector usually chases the money rather than doing the right thing. They are bureaucratic and risk averse just like government and we are being poorly served by both.
The Japanese look at their enterprises to minimize the cost to society. If that thinking was the basis for our important national decisions we would not have to beat up other people on the planet to maintain elements of our absurd standard of living.
Yes this whole matter is very much about national security. Even Mr. Greenspan said Iraq is about oil.
Great job and keep it coming.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has for several years had a life cycle model for analyzing cost, energy consumed and CO2 genration. About 85% of the life cycle emission is the fuel used by an average car. The members, who are mostly employees of the manufacturers are too timid to publicly discuss some of these figures, for fear of losing their jobs or promotions. The industry KNOWS EXACTLY what to do to reduce the life cycle energy use and carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the Big Three do not make money on small cars, whereas the Japanese and Korean manufacturers rely on these vehicles worldwide for their major source of profits. No amount of moralizing will get us on the right path. A cohesive long term energy policy with teeth, taxes and penalties will work. That means consumers have to be told as well what is in the country’s long term interest.