Luke Tonachel's Blog
As gas prices continue to skyrocket, Administration should stop dragging its feet on fuel economy standards
July 1, 2008
Posted by Luke Tonachel in Moving Beyond Oil
As millions of Americans prepare to travel for the 4th of July holiday and as millions more stay home because they can’t afford skyrocketing gas prices, the Bush Administration is dragging its feet on increasing fuel economy standards while consumers pay the price.
Today is the deadline for public comments on the government’s proposed new rules to increase fuel economy standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is required to implement the fuel economy standards that Congress passed last year at the maximum feasible levels. Yet instead, they are undervaluing the price of oil and lowballing the American people.
The agency is forecasting that fuel will cost $2.42 a gallon by 2016, which most consumers would find laughable when considering the average of $4.09 a gallon they pay today. The agency is trying to justify weaker fuel economy standards, by severely underestimating the price of fuel.
Strong fuel economy standards are critical to helping consumers lower fuel costs, reducing our dependence on oil and curbing global warming pollution. Not only is it possible, but necessary to raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2015. Automakers have the technology, they just need to put it to use. By reaching the minimum standard of 35 miles per gallon fleetwide by 2015, NRDC estimates that the U.S. would conserve 3 billion barrels of oil.
Cumulative Oil Savings in 2020
This 4th of July, the President should help make America more energy independent and save consumers money by taking high gas prices into account and raising fuel economy standards even higher.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Luke Tonachel
- Vehicles Analyst
- New York City
- When I was 9 years old, my parents loaded me and my siblings into the...
- more→
Comments
Dan Troutman — Jul 2 2008 04:01 PM
Unfortunately it's impossible to legislate the laws of physics or consumer demand.
Auto makers may have the technology, but can consumers AFFORD it? Who's going to pay $75,000 for a non-crashworthy, ultra-high MPG vehicle that doesn't have a useful load or realistic range?? Sorry, but lawmakers can't pass laws overturning the laws of physics - no matter how hard they try! :)
Who's going to legislate the PURCHASE of these new vehicles if consumers don't buy them?
When fuel was inexpensive, the American families purchased large vehicles for payload capacity and safety. I don't know too many people that are going to trade in their "large" vehicles that are paid off and go into debt just to buy a new vehicle that will take 10+ years to break even.
A lot of middle class families are stuck with their current vehicles. Mandating extremely EXPENSIVE, HIGH-TECHNOLOGY vehicles isn't even an option for them.
Free market consumer demand will ultimately decide what the future American auto looks like. Any attempt by Congress to legislate an impractical solution will ultimately fail.
Nice try though.....
Julian M — Jul 2 2008 05:57 PM
Sure the consumers can afford safe cars that get higher MPGs. I am not sure why a higher mileage vehicle would cost $75,000 or be unsafe? Also where are you finding that Americans have large vehicles that are paid off and why would purchasing another vehicle take 10+ years to break even?
Mandating better fuel economy standards is not a difficult concept and wont break the bank of anybody, not even the automakers (considering that most automakers sell their vehicles in other countries which have higher standards than we do). Europe is pushing for 55mpg(although their standards are already high) and China has 35mpg for their standards.
To be honest, a two door Honda Civic manual is a safe vehicle that if driven nicely can average in the mid 40s as far as miles per gallon. I personally drive a 1995 VW Golf 5spd 2.0liter four cylinder and I average anywhere from 35-40mpgs (that is with 206,000+ on the odometer).
Despite this little bit of anecdotal information, auto manufactures are already capable with a myriad of existing technologies and materials to make vehicles more efficient. Unfortunately governments and large private companies (particularly the American automakers) do not innovate or move until forced to do so (such as by the recent drop in sales of big gas consuming vehicles). Interestingly enough in the past two decades engines have become more efficient but that efficiency was canceled out by weight increase, with the average vehicle gaining 1,000lbs. Mercedes (although high end) is implementing to have all or most of their vehicles off of petroleum based fuels by 2014. If there was not existing technology or capabilities how could Mercedes plan to do such a thing? Whether they follow through or not is yet to be determined but they have spent several million in developing a strategy to do so and are planning to invest $7 billion over the next couple of years.
The U.S. government can and should force automakers to increase fuel economy standards. If there is a slight cost increase (and be realistic no automaker would mass produce a vehicle at 75K for the average person) it would be well worth it considering all the other cost associated with doing nothing at all.
Dan Troutman — Jul 4 2008 01:13 AM
As a Texas rancher I need a vehicle that will pull a 15,000lb trailer so that I can haul cattle / grain to market to feed America.
You asked for an example:
Current 1 ton dually pickup, paid off, 454V8 gets 12mpg.
New 1 ton diesel pickup retails for $52,000 and might average 16mpg. A 10 year loan at 6% (no there's no specials on these trucks) gives a monthly payment of $577. (My total cost for the new truck at the end of 120 months is $69277.)
Let's assume I drive about 20,000 miles/year. My current "gas hog" will consume 1667 gallons a year. The new truck will burn 1250 gallons a year. For the sake of argument, assume fuel at $5/gallon.
10 years of driving my "gas hog" will cost me $83350. 10 years of driving the new truck will cost $62500.
Payments and fuel for a new vehicle is $131,777 vs $83350 for my paid off "gas hog."
10 years and I still haven't broken even on a higher efficiency, large payload vehicle. Even if you increase the price of fuel every year, it doesn't change the picture significantly.
That's why here in Texas, farmers aren't buying newer vehicles.
You actually made my point for me with your Mercedes example. You can't legislate the consumer to buy something.
What's wrong with letting the free market decide what the right mix of price, capability, range, speed, etc?
Shaving precious pounds from a vehicle will most likely involve the use of costly materials such as titanium or carbon composites to maintain required strength and safety. Using conventional materials results in extremely small/slow vehicles. Take a look at the problems Canada is having with some of it's new low speed electric vehicles.
Please remember that until food arrives via teleportation, there are still a lot of us out here in rural America that need "gas hogs" to help feed America and the world's exploding population! :)