Obama's CAFE rules are worthless
CAFE mileage completely outdated35.5 mpg by 2016. Child's play I've already called it. Unfortunately, it's even worse than child's play. According to Edmunds, because of CAFE's outdated methodology for deriving auto fuel economy, 35.5 mpg actually means 26 mpg. Thus, according to Edmunds, 29 car models and 36 truck models already qualify.
I had hoped these new CAFE rules were going to include an update to CAFE's methodology. I'll keep hoping its in the works, otherwise this new CAFE rule is much ado about nothing.
Labels: CAFE
posted by Dahcredyns at
1:05 PM
5 Comments:
Is CAFE any different from current EPA estimates?
Ah, I see. CAFE uses the original EPA mpg methodology, and EPA has been improved twice.
So, it does suck that CAFE won't really give use 35.5 mpg, however, it is also true that the current 27 mpg CAFE standard is even worse than we thought. And, it is also true that the % increase, which is all that really matters, is even better than advertised. And that the positive effects of the mpg increase are as good as touted by the environmental groups, which are certainly more credible than Edmunds on this question.
So, Edmunds confuses the issue by pointing out half ass analysis. What else is news?
Granted a bigger gas tax would be even better than a CAFE standard. A gas tax would actually reduce miles driven, while a CAFE increase would make it cheaper to drive more miles.
"And, it is also true that the % increase, which is all that really matters, is even better than advertised. And that the positive effects of the mpg increase are as good as touted by the environmental groups, which are certainly more credible than Edmunds on this question."
I don't follow. I honestly don't care about percentages. Some percent less pathetic isn't a noble criteria for me.
Also, why not make the methodology more effective before changing the rules? Moreover, doesn't this lack of quality methodology just demonstrate the inefficiency of such legislation, of legislation in general?
Contrast that to the effectiveness of European gas taxes - taxes that are much simpler and transparent.
I agree with you on the gas tax, but let me explain my % argument.
I am making a simple arithmetic argument. CAFE inflates mpg relative to EPA. Agreed. But the delta of inflated numbers is the same as the delta of real numbers.
Assuming that raising CAFE 1 mpg = raising EPA 1 mpg, raising CAFE 8 mpg is an honest 8 mpg improvement, even with the inflation of CAFE numbers. The final mpg is 26 not 35, but we are saving the same 8 mpg all the same. The % is greater because:
CAFE was 27 now 35 = 29.6% increase
EPA was 19 now 26 = 36.8% increase
So, the real story is that the current CAFE standard is really only 19 mpg (EPA), and we are improving that by 8 mpg to 26 mpg (EPA), which is a 36% increase.
We're still saving the 1.8 billion barrels of oil that Obama talked about, regardless of which beginning and final mpg numbers are used. Using EPA numbers instead of CAFE numbers just means we would use the equivalent EPA numbers, not miraculously demand that cars get 35 mpg EPA. I say miraculously because do you really think cars could meet 35 mpg EPA?
In terms of a gas tax, the interesting question would be what kind of gas tax would be needed to save the same 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016. I agree that a gas tax is far better. It is a market incentive that supports higher mpg vehicles, prices and profits on those vehicles, and provides funds for investment.
In the end, I think it is fair to judge CAFE based upon how much oil it is saving, even if the method is not ideal. The Edmunds piece doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Now about your other point on the legislative process. What is really interesting is that this new CAFE rule is really the best case scenario of a legislative solution. You have my only trusted bodies, California and the EPA designing the effort with no compromises to speak of. It was based upon a 2002 California law, not AB 32 as I mistakenly wrote earlier, to regulate CO2 emissions from cars. In the end the new rules was designed to demand whatever CAFE mpg was necessary to achieve the 2002 CA standard, which turns out to be the equivalent of 26 mpg EPA. That in itself is interesting.
So how well did a legislative mandate work in this best case scenario? Not as good as a gas tax, of course, and frankly not as good as I would have expected. I'm actually surprised that the CA 2002 law turned out to be so unambitious.
A better legislative mandate is for CA to increase their original zero pollution car mandate that turned into a hybrid car mandate. CA can study what kind of technology is desired and feasible but lacking support by auto makers and mandate that 10% of the cars sold in CA meet those requirements. Something like that would be a kind of R&D support that would eventually lead to mass market technology, like with hybrids. Now a gas tax would work more quickly, but only by reducing miles driven and use of SUVs. It wouldn't necessarily lead to quick development of new cars. How long have European gas taxes been in place to lead to the cars they have now? And quick development of new cars is probably exactly what we need. A discontinuous jump in technology that will transform our transportation. Still gas taxes are key medium term.
So, when it comes to gas taxes and legislative mandates, for me it is both/and not either/or.
No doubt CAFE is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe a step will work today. We need a leap.
My feeling is, is that its a step that simply enables the Big 3 to keep pumping out lots of gas guzzlers for longer than they should.
Already the government is going to need to pump an immediate $50 billion into GM, and I'll bet that ultimately, the government will end up spending far more than that.
For what? What is really being accomplished?
In my opinion, if taxpayers are to be asked to make such an investment, we should make it part of a major goal.
Even the President has talked about how this can be our moonshot. Unfortunately, none of the President's dots so far get us even close to completing this picture.
Inevitably, we're still complacent. We're still acting as if we have decades to change as we fall further behind the curve and let emerging companies from China and India catch up.
If I had to bet, I'd bet we're going to spend 100s of billions on the US auto industry, yet most of the Big 3 is going to continue to wither away. In a sense, I believe this is becoming just one big welfare program.
Again, however, I could live with that, but let's tie it to an aggressive change, to a real revolution that would make America safer and cleaner. And, perhaps, it might actually save the US auto industry.
Today's path, however, appears to me to be an expensive path to almost certain failure.
Post a Comment
<< Home