Normally I am a big fan of limited government, but this put a smile on my face today. The Obama administration announced new automobile fuel efficiency standards: 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. I don’t want to start another Barry spat, but this is absolutely one area where we need somebody else, the government, to protect us from our own laziness. Frankly I’m actually a bit disappointed the standards aren’t even higher. If we could send Neil Armstrong to the moon and back in 1969, why can’t we figure out ways to profitably build cars that are way more fuel efficient than they are today?
The U.S. is a nation known for its automobiles. We have the longest highway network in the world. With the exception of Monaco (which, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t really count for this exercise), we have more vehicles per 1000 people than any other country in the world. If we’re going to be the car country, can’t we at the very least make the best cars in the world?
Fuel-efficient cars don’t necessarily have to be low-emission
If Ford developed a 200MPG car that pumped out more pollution than any car ever before, there would still be hordes of people lining up to get it. Why? Because it gets 200 miles per gallon! You could get from New York to Los Angeles with a single 15 gallon tank of gas! Perhaps we should first focus on fuel efficiency and later on the carbon emission business.
Cars can be both lightweight and safe
Boeing has developed an entire airliner, the 787, from composite materials. Surely this same technology can be used to build a Ford Focus. Enough said.
Fuel efficiency should be a point of national pride
Where is the pride in driving a gas-guzzler? I understand its one’s freedom to do so, but nevertheless it’s just plain stupid. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Aside from the current brute force method of the government mandating fuel standards, how can we 1) properly incentivize car manufacturers to make high efficiency cars and 2) properly incentivize people to buy them?
With Obama mandating car companies to have higher fuel standards, they are essentially make their cars more costly to produce. The car makers will then do the same thing any company does that produces good, it will past on the cost to the consumer.
It all sounds good and well, but the reason car manufactures do not up fuel standards without the government is because it costs money! How is that Chevy Volt doing that Obama pushed so hard? Its a disaster.
You end by asking how we can incentivize car makers to up fuel standards and people to buy them. Have you ever taken an econ class? Markets incentivize. As Gas prices go up, the consumer demands cars with higher fuel standards. As cosumers demand this, manufactures make the product. As gas went over $100, people stopped buying SUVS. That simple.
When the government or anyone else tries to force action onto the market place, it does not work..and it imposes higher costs on the maker and the consumer. This is nothing radical, but rather common sense.
This is silly. You know what increases the demand for fuel efficiency? Rising prices of gas. Go check out Geo Metro used car prices.
Chevy Volt just shut down production. I wonder if this is another push for electric cars. Thanks Obama for increasing the cost of cars for people and using mom and dad government to force a natural change.
So happy to know that Obama is holding down the fort and all. I mean forget the economy, we got fuel efficiency standards to focus on!
"You didn't build that"
Exactly. I do not understand how EVERYONE does not see it like this. Econ 101
Yup.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-06-02/the-geo-metro-rides-agai…
Geo Metro is in hot demand and increased priced of oil and gas have been driving this, not the government. Furthermore, people are moving to the city and taking advantage of mass transportation. All from the free market.
I honestly support Obama with this one. The sheep cry out for it and they pay for it. Government keeps pushing things the public doesn't want. Chevy Volt is case in point. Even with a tax payer funded rebate they still do not make economic sense.
You have to also think that the average consumer does not necessarily factor in long term costs in purchasing vehicles. As people have been known to time-discount money way too much (ie. paying for gas in the future isn't the issue, a fast camaro is), it might not be a horrible thing to be a little normative in policy decisions.
Thankfully someone has remembered something other than Econ 101. Market failures happen all the time...........this is just one example.
Thankfully someone has remembered something other than Econ 101. Market failures happen all the time...........this is just one example.
I think the sneer factor outweighs any savings the environment might get. That is the essence of big government. Someone knows better on how someone else should live their life and will steal (tax) others to fund this egotistical mindset.
Tax energy. Simple. Tax energy sources higher if they are worse for the environment. Make it a global effort so our dynamics with other countries as far as energy don't change.
It's not too politically popular because the public's always feeling the 'pain at the pump,' and I'm sure many special interests (gas companies) are against it. But it's also an really obvious solution, that any really strong politically leader should do.
eco 101
Except that cars are designed to be able to protect their occupants from collisions with other vehicles and objects whereas planes are not, at all.
Not to mention the astronomical costs of the composite materials itself in the Boeing aircraft. One of the biggest issues is the repair costs of composite materials. The Boeing aircraft isin't subject to numerous accidents and fender benders in its lifetime like many cars.
I'm also sure that once the Chinese develop and/or copy the technology, they would be more than happy to see 5th grade social studies teachers driving a composite soybean-powered Chang An instead of a Ford.
Sure, but higher mpg cars also increase demand for American jobs. We need to be the most resource-efficient producer.
Claiming that the US shouldn't try to cut resource expenses because the market will fix things is like arguing we shouldn't try to make a product better because consumers are still dumb enough to buy a shoddy product.
You can still buy an SUV if you want to. It will just either (A) get better mileage or (B) be more expensive. Heck, at $3/gallon and 10 mpg, what's an extra $1000? And the US has been imposing these standards for 35 years, and technological advances have MORE than outpaced the regulatory advance.
I bet engineers would take exception to the notion that fuel efficiency in production cars aren't up to your standards due to laziness.
I don't agree the country is just one public policy away from curing perceived problems or that your idea of national pride should forcibly apply to everyone.
If people value increased fuel efficiency they will push for more economical cars. Obviously they don't at this level of gas prices. This is simply a push by Obama to do more "environmentally friendly" stuff under the guise of helping consumers. If my new base car cost x% more than it did prior to this law it better damn well save at least that much money in gas. But it probably won't. No one wants to pay for higher fuel efficiency yet, so why make American manufacturers even more unmarketable to world consumers? Well, I guess they can just produce the non-compliant vehicles overseas. Yea...great idea Obama.
are we forgetting something? from an engineering standpoint, we have reached the limit of the internal combustion gasoline/diesel engine. the MOST efficient engines in the world are only converting about 25 to 30% of the chemical potential energy in a gallon of gasoline to torque at the drive wheels (or running the peripherals like air conditioning compressor, etc.). the other 75% is lost in mostly heat, and also light, noise, friction, and the myriad places in the drivetrain where all of these things happen as well, not just in the engine internals.
well over a century of running gasoline engines as the primary method of transportation and the smartest people in the world can only make it 30% efficient.
it doesn't matter what the market demands or what obama wants or what liberals want or what conservatives want, all that matters is reality and reality is that the future does not lie in oil based vehicles. the "market has demanded" a cure for cancer forever but it hasn't happened. electric cars will slowly replace gas and the haters now are saying exactly what (ironically) proponents of electric cars said back in the 1910s when electric cars were briefly as popular (or more popular) than gasoline cars--it's not viable, the infrastructure isn't there, the mileage is terrible, you really want to install millions of "fueling stations" across the country where people fill their cars with smelly flammable liquid, and they will be safe, and you can enforce standards where any station can fill any vehicle, etc.
50some MPG is nearly impossible, i don't know the ins and outs of the legislation but 30 is pretty good for ANY car and that is a 66% increase. we haven't seen that EVER in a 10 year period, and very very smart people have been trying to squeeze mileage out of these engines for the past 10 years constantly so what makes you think it can happen now?
we put neil armstrong on the moon because it was within the laws of physics. it is actually harder to squeeze extra efficiency out of an inherently inefficient system than to shoot a rocket out of orbit that is 80% fuel weight.
Not disagreeing, but electric cars are hindered by battery capacity which isn't where it needs to be right now. And do we really need cars that drive 100 mpg?
What if we have cars top out at 50 mpg, have more people move into urban environments (happening) and can use mass transportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_Consumption_by_Sector_2007…
Seems to me that you use more nat gas, mix in nuclear, solar and wind and you can bring down the electric power side of the pie. Transportation will decline as more fuel efficient vehicles come on market.
IMO, the suburbanization and hour long commutes are the true culprit. Just look at it. You live in the boonies, you have a small group of places to work, a factory or two leave town and you have no job and your housing price drops. People are spending hours of their day in cars, in traffic, with all those costs (roads, police, wasted gas, time, etc). People buy homes and don't use the majority of the space.
Living in the city makes sense for the majority of people. Apartments allow for an easily customizable living space (less or more depending on your needs). You have more employment opportunities, mass transit, etc.
I mean I got the push for electric cars, but they still largely suck and are expensive even with government help. We keep pushing them and they keep failing. Hybrids are popular, but smaller cars with smaller engines are often times a better and more cost effective measure.
First you are right on about suburban living and how wasteful it is. Mass transit is the way to go but finding the happy medium between efficiency and convenience is very difficult. Investment in public transportation infrastructure seems to be the only way to solve this. And arent more and more suburbanites moving closer to cities?
About electric cars, I think we are just in a phase where the technology isn't ready yet. We have been waiting for hyper efficient gas vehicles since the arab oil crisis (and before) and they haven't come and (spoiler) they aren't coming. 10 years ago a laptop with a 1.5Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM cost $1800. Now you can get 4GB of RAM and a 2.6GHz for $500. The mass research and production infrastructure isn't there yet for electrc cars which is why they are expensive and not very good right now; be patient. Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are good first steps. The drivetrain is there, the electric motor is there, only problem is battery technology. I strongly think it will happen.
Natgas is also an option, especially because it is clean and very plentiful...I would think high demand, if it makes it to mainstream transportation, would only drive more exploration and drive the price down further.
50MPG is easily obtained; just research hypermiling. The issue is not solely that engines are inefficient, low MPG ratings are due to the way that we operate our vehicles.
If I want to blow $75 a week refilling my tank on my 18 miles to the gallon sport car I should be allowed to. Simple as that for me.
This doesnt work. Aston Martin made an Aston mini just so the average MPG of their line of vehicles met the average MPG requirement. It doesn't make car companies do anything but create one stupid prius like piece of shit to lower the mean.
...to add, with this ridiculous policy putting car manufacturers on a timeline, shortcuts will be taken with size and materials that will make cars smaller and lighter which in turn makes them more dangerous. We're going to have these tiny cars made out of aluminum foil that will crumble into a paper clip if they so much as scrape a curb so that ANOTHER regulation is met.
There are some interesting incentives going along with Obama's proposal and his rhetoric. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to end our "addiction to foreign oil," yet he imposed a moratorium on domestic oil drilling. Having cars with higher MPG probably would help with that, but theres no way it could outpace an increase in domestic energy production. And the reason why American car companies have line-ups with lower MPG's is because most of their revenue comes from the sales of SUVs and pickups, which obviously have very low MPG. Are we supposed to bail them out when they can no longer produce those vehicles up to Obama's standards?
Et dolorem consectetur voluptatem. Laborum adipisci expedita velit iure ducimus et vero.
Molestiae officia ut rerum alias unde doloribus iure voluptatem. Voluptate sint rerum animi rerum eum repellendus. Occaecati vero doloremque similique. Voluptas accusamus ipsam mollitia nihil dolorem sint.
Dolores quasi deleniti dolores qui. Voluptate architecto nemo animi minus consequatur. Illo repudiandae maiores inventore recusandae possimus et consequuntur quasi. Sed magni architecto hic incidunt. Quo illum consectetur necessitatibus nulla. Veritatis nostrum et laborum itaque.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Nihil officiis voluptatem et delectus magni. Est ullam inventore dolor dicta excepturi dicta. Dolore voluptate minus rerum. Ipsa quo numquam sunt repellendus consequatur recusandae non. Voluptatem labore eius sint quos est ipsa. Molestiae est veritatis et tempore eum suscipit.
Occaecati rerum est maxime aut ex porro consequatur. Cupiditate harum et voluptas et. Illo occaecati qui hic consequatur rerum. Similique corrupti qui sit omnis ullam iure.
Mollitia et aliquam ducimus eaque. Quia eaque veniam maxime veniam dolorum.
Quia molestiae et consequatur dolores. Saepe quia provident ex qui officia repudiandae.