WHY CAFE WON'T WORK
By John McElroy
I have to weigh in on all of this debate about raising fuel economy standards. That's because there is a very important fact that's been completely overlooked by both sides in this debate.The anti-industry crowd accuses the automakers of dragging their feet and deliberately ignoring simple, low-cost technology that could dramatically improve fuel economy. The automakers plead that there is no such quick fix and that they cannot possibly achieve the targets in the time frame they're being given.
But what both sides are ignoring is the fact that the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy laws are not going to reduce oil consumption or CO2 emissions at all. Not by one drop of oil, nor by one gram of CO2.
The problem is that the total number of cars and trucks in the United States is growing at a rate never seen before in history. Today there are 250 million vehicles in the nation's fleet. And we're now adding about 6 million vehicles a year to that total. Think about it. If we maintain this rate of increase, in 10 years time we'll add 60 million more vehicle's to the nation's roads. That's more vehicles than there are in all of Germany today.
So even if we adopt the most stringent fuel economy laws being considered, we're still going to end up burning more oil, and putting out more CO2, than ever before. The sheer number of additional vehicles will easily swamp any improvements made in fuel economy.
You can argue that the situation would be worse without the new CAFE law, but please don't try to tell me that that it's going to get us to reduce our dependence on oil.
No, if we really want to address the problem we have to go after the fuels that we use. If the problem comes from importing oil from countries that don't like us, then we should not import from them. If the problem comes from burning fossil fuels, then we should not burn them.
This whole debate has focused on how many miles per gallon our cars get. That's the wrong approach. It does not solve the problem. All CAFE does is kill us slower. What we really need to focus on is getting the kind of fuels that will really solve the problem, not trying to force the auto industry to come out with cars that burn this poison more efficiently.
###
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television
Synopsis of next week's show - "The Best In Trucks...so far"
Fresh from our look at the best cars from the first half of 2007 is this week's show spotlighting the top trucks released so far this year. From the "white hot" crossover segment to the latest SUVs to heavy duty trucks, consumers will have nearly twice the number of new trucks over cars to consider when they visit dealer lots the next few months.
John is joined once again by fellow NACTOY (North American Car and Truck of the Year) jurors Natalie Neff from AutoWeek and Gary Witzenburg from autoMedia.com to evaluate the 2008 crop so far. Some of the vehicles they look at include GM's trio of CUVs -- Acadia, Enclave & Outlook -- some of the new South Korean SUVs like the Kia Rondo and the Hyundai Veracruz along with some of the big boys of the truck world, Ford's Super Duty, GM's Silverado/Sierra HD & the new Toyota Tundra.
Last week's show - "The Best In Cars...so far"
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Sydney 2007: Aussie-only 281 HP Mazda3 MPS Extreme
Sydney 2007: Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X - LIVE PICS
Sydney 2007: FPV crosses over, unveils F6 X
Sydney 2007: Holden debuts VE Commodore Sportwagon
Sydney 2007: Holden HSV Maloo R8 a "coupe with a damn big boot!"
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In The Autoblog Garage: 2007 Subaru Forester Sports 2.5X
Walkaround: 2008 Pontiac G8 GT
By the Numbers: September 2007
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Pete @ Oct 11th 2007 3:18PM
I agree with all you said, but I must add the fact that automobiles only account for a relatively small percentage of the emissions we pump out into our atmosphere. We really need to take the emphasis off the auto industry and focus on how we go about powering our homes and businesses.
Not to mention that plugging your car into an electrical source every night won't make it green.
Jay @ Oct 11th 2007 3:41PM
Agreed. I read an article that stated of all the industrial buildings emitting pollutants in Britain, the top 5 offenders put out more pollutants than all of the cars in that nation. Cars put out drastically fewer emissions than they did 40 years ago...some say by as much as 90% fewer. They contribute to things, but not nearly as much as what is purported. We certainly need to continue to make our cars cleaner and seek out alternative fuels, but there are things out there that contribute to pollution much much more that aren't getting the attention the auto industry has lately.
The Other Bob @ Oct 11th 2007 3:25PM
No offense to the current Autoblog writers, you are great, but the addition of McElroy's articles really brings Autoblog to a new level. I will look forward to reading them every week.
This article is right on the money.
Add the fact that U.S. market autso contribute only about 1.5% of the world CO2 emissions and the fact that better mileage seems to just encourage people to drive more miles, one must realize that CAFE is too great of a price to pay for little or no benefit.
CAFE will only force automakers - both foreign and domestic - to utilize limited R&D; funds to hastily improve the mileage in existing internal combustion engine technology. Instead, we must invest longer term to replace the ICE to solve the environmental problems associated with cars.
tim mcleod @ Oct 11th 2007 3:29PM
John, while I agree with your main points, I would add these comments.
I see more fuel wasted every day on my short commute (probably by the same folks bemoaning pump prices) as they irritatedly zoom by me, unwilling to anticipate the obviously red light just a few seconds in front of them, than will ever be saved by increasing CAFE standards. It's unrealistic to expect these same "instant gratification takes too long" people to anticipate by years the corner that we're continuing to paint ourselves into.
Cars don't kill people (or economies or species or planets) - people kill, with their own bullheaded, selfish, shortsightedness. For what other industry would/should we mandate production of what we think they should buy, rather than what they're going to buy?
If you don't like the panoply of any selection of any product types at retail (cleavage magazines, junk food, whatever), don't blame the manufacturers, look in the mirror. This is the crap we, as a whole, prefer to buy. The only way I've found voting effective is when I vote with my wallet. If enough were willing to buy what's good for us, it would be efficiently and competitively manufactured by the "greedy corporate monsters" trying to make "evil" profit.
We seem to want mommy government to solve all our problems - when in history has that ever worked? Sorry, enough ranting, time for another's point of view. Salvo back and let's get a good conversation going here.
rem83 @ Oct 11th 2007 3:44PM
I completely agree with what you're saying about people not managing their driving styles appropriately. I think more responsible driving habits and better traffic management infrastructure could significantly improve actual realized fuel consumption.
Mondo @ Oct 11th 2007 4:47PM
Have to disagree with you Tim. There is an economic concept called "negative externalities". Pollution is the perfect example. An externality is something that, while it does not monetarily affect the producer of a good, does influence the standard of living of society as a whole. People who drive polluting cars do not have to pay for the pollution they produce but society as a whole suffers.
Externalities cause inefficiencies in the market. This means your idea of letting the market "vote with (their) wallet(s)" will not consistently work because it is does not make economic sense for people or manufacturers to buy or make clean cars if they do not pay for pollution. In this kind of break down of the market the classic economics literature says government SHOULD step in to "internalize" the externality (btw, free market economics usually opposes gov't intervention). In other words, make people pay for the pollution they produce or manufacturers pay for making cars that pollute.
In some ways CAFE is internalizing the negative externality of car pollution, I just don't think it is doing it in the most efficient way possible.
naggs @ Oct 11th 2007 5:28PM
"We seem to want mommy government to solve all our problems - when in history has that ever worked?"
the british, slavery, class inequality, the great depression, nazis, equal rights, communism...
that is a tiny fraction of the problems solved by "mommy government" that would be absolutly impossible to solve with any market based solution. i would also argue that there are countless problems that we have never had to encounter because of evil "mommey gov" and that had there been closer regulation, the current housing bubble would never have happened.
totally rediculous to claim that the government has never solved a problem
naggs @ Oct 11th 2007 5:33PM
oh and one more thing
if it wernt for evil government and its inefficient public education, you would not be able to read and post you opinion about how horrible the government is at solving sociatal problems
unless your parents were rich of course
AlexP @ Oct 11th 2007 3:40PM
I don't know about you, but I was more prone to driving for fun in my old Mazda that provided me with poor mileage for its size than I am in my Pontiac Wave that isn't as boring or awkward as the Echo, but isn't anywhere comparable to the Mazda in terms of "fun at the wheel"...
In other words, I'm getting better mileage in my Wave, but would I drive it for the sake of driving? Heck no, but I'd sure do it with the Mazda.
Depending on where you live, plug-in cars can be environmentally friendly. If your state is mostly dependent on fossil energy sources to make electricity, then sure, it won't help. But if you live in a place that's nearly 100% powered by wind and/or hydroelectricity...
You can speculate what impact CAFE standards would have (if any) on the American populace, but in reality? We don't know. I personally think the only way to make you people stay out of vehicles you don't need is by hurting your wallet (higher gasoline taxes). If you're wondering why we mostly drive small cars in Canada, it's because vehicles are generally overpriced and our fuel's considerably taxed, surely not anywhere close to some (if not all) European nations, but it still favors the purchase of compacts and subcompacts over SUV-type vehicles.
By the way, I just checked out the Honda CR-V (they're stacking them up here - I admit I've seen plenty on the roads already, though) and I fail to see the overall appeal of the vehicle. I felt cramped up in the back, even the Civic felt roomier. The new Accord ain't that bad in person, though.
naggs @ Oct 11th 2007 3:47PM
hybrid cars = killing us slowly
eflex type electric cars = gradually weaning us off oil
tim mcleod @ Oct 11th 2007 7:51PM
naggs, all i can say is you are right; there are plenty of legitimate domains for govt, those you name, to which i would add the general progress we've made in reducing industrial pollution (only when govt, not the mkt, forced the issue). But i also believe there are domains that belong soley in the free mkt. It's the grey are in between that's hard to rule on. For me the grey area includes such ideas as regulating smoking or drinking at home, or what fattening foods i can buy. I think it goes back, at least in part, to the point that i think mondo was trying to make, when the neg consequences aren't personal or immediate, free markets can lead to undesirable outcomes. Again, I appreciate the various and strongly held opinions i encounter here. If the exchange works, we each learn to improve our thinking and our actions.
willyjsimmons @ Oct 11th 2007 3:47PM
I don't get the point of this article...
It would seem that CAFE DOES work...if its purpose is to increase mileage. That's exactly what it does? No?
If Mr. McElroy's argument is that CAFE standards alone aren't sufficient in reducing emmissions/dependence over the long term...fine.
But declaring that 'CAFE WON'T WORK' seems to miss the point of the legislation.
'not trying to force the auto industry to come out with cars that burn this poison more efficiently.'
CAFE standards certainly aren't stopping automakers from taking the initiative themselves, and moving forward with alternative fuels on their own. But it would appear that the auto industry would be perfectly happy selling 9 MPG SUVs so long as it was profitable for them to do so.
If someone wants to help Mr. McElroy make his point, please feel free.
compy386 @ Oct 11th 2007 4:25PM
The logic that CAFE doesn't work is that it makes driving an extra mile cheaper. That presents a problem because why should an automaker or anyone introduce alternative fuels when gas is cheap. All you're doing is delaying the introduction of alternatives by making the bad thing more attractive. It's like the cigarette companies making light and low tar ciagrettes. People just started smoking more of them. What happens when you increase CAFE? People drive more and are less likely to buy alternative fuel vehicles.
The Other Bob @ Oct 11th 2007 4:35PM
"CAFE standards certainly aren't stopping automakers from taking the initiative themselves, and moving forward with alternative fuels on their own."
Yes, CAFE will stop automakers from taking other initiatives. To respond to the current CAFE proposal, automakers will essentially overnight have to find ways to make their existing technologies compatable with the new standards. This will cost money. A lot on money that does not grow on trees.
In the mean time cars like the Volt or other radically new technologies will get zero R&D; money.
Guenther @ Oct 11th 2007 3:48PM
McElroy's articles are really fun to read if you add his inflection :-D
John M is right in stating that CAFE will not fix anything. I'll gladly admit that if I had truck that got 30% better fuel economy, I'd drive 35% more. While cars are a small percentage of global pollution, in North America, they are a significant consumer of imported oil. The alternatives aren't great today:
Hydrogen is only about 10% energy efficient, compared to the amount required to manufacture and compress it. That's a lot of wasted electricity.
Ethanol (from corn) only has 10% energy gains. Better than nothing, but in the process it messes with the entire food industry.
Biodiesel- If the EPA doesn't succeed in killing diesels, this will be a good contributor. Soybeans alone cannot make a dent in the demand, however, and there's much work to be done to find better sources.
Plug-in power. That comes largely from coal.... clean electricity needs to happen first, batteries that are more environmentally friendly are next.
Reversing America's sprawl- if people didn't commute so damn far...again, sell me car that gets better milage, and I'll move further out into the country.
Just wondering- any relation between John and Natalie Neff?
m @ Oct 11th 2007 4:09PM
It'd be interesting to find out how much of the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles comes from all the cars I see idling in the Wal-Mart parking lot or in drive-throughs or trucks sitting at stops or cars sitting in a traffic jam facing down a hill. It's amazing to me how rarely people will turn off their engines.
My guess is that they think the suffering they'd go through to give up 1 minute of air conditioning or the effort it'd take to push the clutch in one more time to start the car back up is worth more than the impact they're having on the rest of us.
That One Person @ Oct 11th 2007 5:05PM
Turning your car on and off in a traffic jam or even a drive thru is just plain stupid. That puts a bit of wear and tear on your car's drivetrain.
I agree with the idling in parking lots. Truck stops is a different story. If it's the middle of winter and it's below zero, truck drivers HAVE to idle their trucks. And have you ever been in some type of vehicle in the middle of summer when it's 95 degrees out? Yeah, you try sleeping in that after you have been dealing with a-holes cutting you off or trying to row gears through the mountains with a full trailer hooked up to your rig for 10 hours.
m @ Oct 11th 2007 5:19PM
Extra wear and tear from starting and stopping the engine? Extra wear and tear on which parts exactly? What about the cars that do it automatically from the factory? Do you think they have a shorter life because of it?
Yes, I have trucking experience. Yes, I've slept in a truck in the middle of the summer with no air conditioning. Keeping the truck running for heat is much more understandable, though I think there are smarter ways around that too.
That One Person @ Oct 11th 2007 5:51PM
m...the systems from the factory (you are thinking hybrids) is a totally different setup. When I talk about wear and tear, I am thinking about things like the starter, fuel pump, etc. Regular old cars aren't made for this type of duty.
Also, a good amount of fuel is wasted when starting up a car.
As for the truck stops, there is a new thing that has come out. I think the name is IdleAire. It's basically a system in which a driver hooks up a huge tube to the window of his truck and it provides A/C, heat, TV, internet, etc. It sounds expensive but I believe the fuel savings are somewhere around 2 billion gallons a year. Even in the long run, this system saves drivers something like $20 a day.
m @ Oct 11th 2007 7:23PM
Systems like those at truckstops are exactly what I mean about ways around idling.
Your fuel pump is just happy to turn off and cool down for a while. It doesn't have any issue with starting and stopping. Your starter does see a little more use by turning the car off occasionally. But the number of restarts that happen because of shutting the car off in these rare circumstances is minuscule compared to the number it sees over a lifetime anyway, and a restart with a hot engine is the easiest restart it will ever have to do.
There's disappointingly little good data publicly available on how much fuel is lost during startup, but you may be surprised just how little it is. "Our research showed a V6 restart takes about the same fuel as 5 seconds of idling." This isn't the best source in the world, but it's something: http://www.sections.asme.org/florida/ASME%20Fla%20Section%20Virtual%20Mythbusters.html
Hybrids aren't the only ones that turn the engine off when it's not needed.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/bmw-to-add-stop-start-system-in-2007/
And that's not a totally different setup. It's a normal car with the normal components.