|
MotownSingleGuy -> RE: Why Gas Prices May Jump Even Higher Soon (4/9/2010 5:28:41 PM)
|
Ah, the low-information voter speaks.
Whether you regulate fuel economy or CO2 emission, the result is exactly the same. More fuel consumption equals more CO2 emission, and vice versa. In fact, fuel consumption is measured by measuring the amount of carbon in the exhaust gas because it's easier and more accurate than directly measuring the amount of liquid fuel consumed.
CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) are a well-established precedent. They were enacted in 1973. So they changed from "miles per gallon" to "grams of CO2 per mile". That doesn't change what an automaker has to do; it just changes the way it's defined, and in doing so, all emissions limits are stated the same way, and the EPA and NHTSA tests have been commonized. There's also less difference between American and European standards, which will make it easier to import and export vehicles.
And CO2 is hardly the only emission being regulated.
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/
But nowhere in the new rule will you find anything about dictating what kind of vehicles to build. It's strictly about fuel consumption and emissions. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE-GHG_MY_2012-2016_Final_Rule.pdf
Among other things, there's a new "footprint" rule. If you build a bigger car, you get a pass on meeting the new fuel economy/CO2 emission standard. If you build engines which can use E85, (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) only the gasoline component is considered when calculating CAFE compliance, so that reported mileage on E85 is six times better than it actually is. If you build a car big enough, (8,501 pounds GVWR or more) you get a free pass on fuel economy entirely - vehicles at that weight are completely exempt from CAFE.
And if that's not enough loopholes, you can still build any old damn thing you want and pay a gas guzzler tax, which is all of $5.50 per 1 mi/gal - not exactly standing in the way of selling 11 mi/gal Bentleys and 12 mi/gal Maseratis.
When CAFE law was enacted in 1973, the average fuel economy of American cars was about 12 mi/gal. Fuel injection was almost non-existent, mechanical ignition with contact points was the norm and it was not unusual to see a 5,000-6,000 pound family car with a 7-liter V8 engine and a three-speed automatic non-lockup transmission. For the next ten or fifteen years, CAFE performance improved, peaking in the late 1980s. Since then, it's been downhill, with bigger cars and bigger engines being the norm. It is a fact that today's fleet of new cars & light trucks consumes more fuel than that of 20-25 years ago.
Lincoln is a special case - their fuel consumption is a little less than it was 20 years ago - 19 vs. 18 mi/gal. It hasn't gotten any bigger since the 1980s, (unless you consider the 16 mi/gal Navigator) but it really doesn't need to.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
As for gasoline futures, I'm pretty sure "the government" didn't create them.
Why do we "allow" the government to set standards for motor vehicles? Because it's in our own best interests. CO kills people directly, NOx causes acid rain, killing crops and forests, NMHCs make smog and particulates cause lung cancer. As for CAFE standards, what's the upside of burning and importing more petroleum?
quote:
ORIGINAL: popeye1250
The market should dictate what type of vehicles that automakers build not "the govt."
And as for those "emission standards" did the people in the govt not get the message about "global warming" being nothing but a gigantic scam? ("Greenhouse gas emissions?" HA, HA!)
As for cars "not" getting much better [mileage] than cars built 20 years ago that's a bunch of crap. My Lincoln gets about 21 around town and 27 on the highway.
Twenty years ago a Lincoln would get 12-14 mpg around town and maybe 18-20 on the highway.
And as far as "gasoline futures" there shouldn't be any.
Why are we allowing "govt" to get involved in these types of things in the first place? I don't think Obama will be re-elected in 2012 and we need to get rid of a lot of this kind of thing in the next election cycle.
[image]local://upfiles/310012/C5839DB8498F476481C9F0654707267F.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
