There's someone against the stricter CAFE standards
According to Sterling Burnett, a member of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), the new CAFE standards should not be approved because "they will reduce consumer choices and put drivers at greater risk for injury or death in the event of an accident".Mr. Burnett affirms that the new CAFE standards aren't possible because what consumers find important (like air conditioning, extra safety features, comfort and engine power) is incompatible with these standards. This will imply that consumers will also have less "freedom of choice" among models and will "put their lives at risk" when driving.
But there's more: He also affirms that, because cars with higher mpg are cheaper to run, people will use them more and will end up using more gasoline - As proof of this argument, he states that despite the increase of vehicle efficiency, gasoline consumption has increased twofold since the '70s.
Finally: "Not one Senator has ever designed a car or sold it for profit in a competitive marketplace," said Burnett. "They seem to believe they can impose any standard they want and everything will be peachy. The reality is, not only are the 'improvements' pie-the-sky ideals, but higher CAFE standards will result in people's deaths."
Related:
- Not just an issue for the Big 3- Imports and CAFE
- House Democrats say they'll push for new CAFE laws "soon"
- Bush might bring out the veto pen to strike 35 mpg dead
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris 4:55PM (7/02/2007)
Unlikely. This will just speed up technological development that might otherwise languish in the face of profit.
Besides, we elected all these politicians. They are our mouthpiece. If we all hate new CAFE standards and want out "freedom of choice" back, then we'll elect new politicians. I doubt that will happen. I also think we'll have plenty of choice, especially since the government hasn't said how to meet the standards, like every company has to use turbocharged 1.5L diesels.
Reply
PeakVT 5:14PM (7/02/2007)
NCPA is a right-wing think tank. No wonder they are spouting this nonsense.
Reply
frank78 5:17PM (7/02/2007)
The CAFE standards were probably not going to accomplish much in the long run anyhow. The tipping point to get the majority of people to buy efficient cars hasn't been hit yet. $3 isn't enough. $4 may be the catalyst to get things changing in people's preferences, but probably not. $5, which it will be even without political instability by 2015 (conservative estimate, probably more like 2012-13) will hit a chord with people's choice of cars.
The safety argument is a bit of bullshit however. Even small cars are extremely safe. Crumple zones, airbags, etc. take the impact so you don't have to. In all cars. I think unfortunately people associate small cars with crappy little Hondas and Chevettes from the early 80s. Smaller cars today are nothing like those, but the stereotype remains.
Mass produced diesel can't get here fast enough.
Reply
Mike Z 5:45PM (7/02/2007)
Actually I'm a right-winger and anti-CAFE
The reason is simple, CAFE is an attempt to hide from plain sight the costs that are needed to decrease fuel consumption. CAFE is basically a politico way of saying, "We could tax gasoline, but that's too honest, so lets hide the true cost from consumers"
The government has no business telling automakers how they should build their fleets. If they want us to reduce our oil consumption they should rely on their constitutional power to levy a tax.
Reply
ug 7:04PM (7/02/2007)
"The government has no business telling automakers how they should build their fleets."
In WWII they forced all sorts of rationing. The government can do whatever it needs to do in the case of emergencies to protect the greater good.
Reply
Chris 9:38PM (7/02/2007)
Yeah it's OUR government, I voted Democrat, and I'm glad they're doing what they're doing! And a gas tax may be best, but it's politically impossible and CAFE will still help.
Reply
Mike Z 10:12PM (7/02/2007)
What is CAFE doing? After all you can purchase >40 mpg cars today, Its basically someone admitting that they can't make their own best decisions.
Reply
jimb 3:29AM (7/03/2007)
Mike Z,
I totally agree that politicians like CAFE standards because they hide the costs, but you've got to be kidding when you suggest a gas tax. As low as I think of politicians, it's a sign of intelligence that they don't commit political suicide by trying to do that.
CAFE standards aren't really about a clean, principled argument about proper government. The question is are you concerned enough about the environmental and national security impacts of our dependence on oil to live with a dubious CAFE system in order get something done about the bigger problem.
We live in a imperfect world and personally I care more about how we fund nuclear weapons and terrorists in Iran through high oil prices than whether CAFE means the government is telling automobile makers what kinds of cars they must make.
Reply
jimb 4:05AM (7/03/2007)
For anyone interested in more info on the pros and cons of CAFE standards or how achievable higher standards would be I recommend checking out this report:
Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards (2002)
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309076013/html/
I found it to be a good, unbiased scientific review. There actually is some science behind this guy Burnett's alarmist claim about safety concerns. To offset heavier, less fuel efficient vehicles, auto makers have some incentive to sell small, lightweight vehicles that may not have full safety features (to save weight). In the report, they actually develop a weight-based "Enhanced-CAFE" standard that would greatly address this safety concern and makes more engineering sense.
They also discuss other alternative systems for improving efficiency including my favorite which would be a straightforward rebate/fee-bate(ie. guzzler tax) at time of sale. Government has a justifiable role of presenting the external environmental and national security costs to the buyer. Manufacturers would have a strong encouragement to implement lower cost efficiency improvements (improvements that would cost less than the proportionate increase in tax).
Reply
alex 8:04PM (9/09/2007)
@frank78
you're wrong about the safety thing. mass always wins! it's simple physics. it doesn't matter how many safety features your car has when it gets hit by a much more massive object.
small cars may get good crash test ratings but that's misleading. they crash cars into stationary walls. equal and opposite forces (newton's law)... that means when they test a yaris hiting a wall, it's like a yaris hitting another yaris. it might get 5 stars for that, but what happens if it gets hit by a tahoe? it gets freakin owned.
Reply
Owen 8:53AM (7/03/2007)
Call me a right winger too. I think the CAFE regs are flat out stupid. I think there should be a gas tax personally, and I think that money should be used to improve infrastructure and mass transit (not just more highways and school taxes) and to fund research into alternative fuels and power generation projects. If people are still willing to keep paying it, keep raising the tax. Personally, I don’t think $4 gasoline will stop people from buying gas guzzlers, in fact, I’m not so sure $6 gas will. Fact is, we will run out of gas someday, we need to get off of it period. If you lived in a house on a 400’ cliff and everyday pieces of the cliff fell down into the rocks below, would you move?
I hate traditional truck based SUV's and think half our problem is the mentality that bigger is better and safer. Sadly, bigger is safer in some cases. We can spout the equations all day but the fact of the matter is that people are safer in a big car when colliding with a smaller car. However, most accidents are single car accidents, in which case, I'd rather be in a MINI than an F150 when hitting the barrier. Most Americans barely squeaked by their drivers test even the third time around, at which point they are then put behind the wheel of a 5000lb deadly weapon. Perhaps we should take a look at educating our children about putting the lives of others on equal footing as our own instead of the “I’m the most important person on the planet” narcissistic attitude we instill in them now. I drive with the mentality that the better my car handles, the better my chances of avoiding those types of folks and small cars handle better than large ones.
I’m a family guy and happen to love wagons (and hatchbacks like the Fit) but it seems the only way to sell a wagon in the US is to raise the HD suspension 3 inches, give it AWD, put some big tires on it and call it a crossover, effectively killing the fun of the vehicle and increasing weight another 1000lbs. Sure you can make cars that get 40mpg, but that doesn't mean people will buy them. How do I know, because we have them today and people still buy something bigger. I can go to down the street to my local Toyota dealership and I see a new RAV-4 parked next to a Prius, they’re roughly the same price, but I can get AWD and 7 passenger seating in the RAV. The 2008 window sticker on the RAV says; 21/27 The Prius; 48/45. Which one is your typical American family going to buy?... It’ll still be the RAV, I guarantee, even with those mileage numbers. Because people buy cars based off of the exception not the rule.
I mean look at your choices;
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm go there and select >30mpg.
I would be one HAPPY camper if these were the only vehicles I saw on the road today, but we know that will never happen. The only way to get these CAFÉ regs to happen is to make today’s cars into Corollas and Fits. There is no secret Alien technology that the auto manufacturers are hiding which will make these CAFÉ numbers magically work. The cars will have to get smaller and lighter and shed equipment, OR they will have to substitute one polluting driveline for another. Hybrids and pure electrics are cool and probably where we will all go but batteries will destroy the environment too with dead batteries vs. with CO2, and then, all that power has to come from somewhere and it won’t be wind or solar because something has to make up for the other 50% of the time that the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow... What will be next? Maybe by then we’ll have figured out ethanol, or some other alt fuel and then we’ll be back to internal combustion because of the national emergency to stop dumping battery acid all over the planet.
Reply
Chris M 4:19PM (7/04/2007)
The myth of the "safe SUV" keeps popping up, promoted, no doubt, by automakers looking to sell high profit SUVS. Look, there are many factors involved in safety, and "mass" is one of the least significant.
In some ways, additional mass can actually hinder safety, as it has adverse effects on braking and manuvering, and makes skidding and rollovers more likely. Ability to avoid accidents is a very significant safety advantage!
SUVs have a high center of gravity and are prone to rollover accidents, and rollovers have by far the highest fatality rate. The high mass, poor manuverability and tendendcy to skid all increase the rollover (and fatality) risk in SUVs.
Don't believe me? Check out the actual accident and fatality statistics, you'll find that SUVs tend to have higher accident rates and a higher percentage of fatalities in accidents.
Braking, ABS, skid resistance, rollover resistance, stability control, manuverability, crumple zones, cabin strength, air bags, seatbelts, headrests, are all more important for safety than mass. Even for the risk of head-on collision.
Reply