John McElroy: All CAFE does is kill us slower
You may have noticed that Autoblog has added a new writer to their staff. John McElroy is the host of Autoline Detroit which you may have seen on television. In his latest posting, McElroy, speaking of CAFE standards says, "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."
This is not the first time that this argument has come up, and it probably won't be the last. While our readership on AutoblogGreen might appreciate the cleaner and more fuel efficient cars that CAFE standards may force, what does the average automotive enthusiast think? Read through some of the comments on McElroy's post, and you might be surprised by what some are saying.
In conclusion, CAFE standards are not the best way to reduce our consumption of oil. They do, however, serve the purpose of raising the fuel mileage of our fleet of cars. So, until real game-changing technology is implemented, the consumer might just be forced to work with what we have, and the automotive manufacturers might be forced to work with the laws that they are given.
[Source: John McElroy \ Autoblog]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jcwinnie 12:38PM (10/12/2007)
He is right for the wrong reason. I surmise that his reason is to stop a rise in CAFE, like the Dingell gambit. That is wrong.
The car makers need notice served, enough! Clean up your act. Enough voluntary lip service while you fight every effort to reduce emissions every way possible - legal, political, etc.
What he states is correct. Mileage alone is an insufficient measure. It works because more efficient engines produce less emissions, just as different fuel could.
But engines running on ethanol get less "mileage." We should be measuring the kilometers we go for the mega-joules of energy we use, grams of carbon dioxide we produce and euros we spend. It is a more intelligent measure of mileage, Homer Sapiens.
Reply
emdee 1:14PM (10/12/2007)
McElroy certainly has a point. And I certainly agree CAFE is not the answer. I don't think all hope is lost with regards to favouring fuel efficient vehicles. Instead of CAFE standards, we should simply enforce a new absolute fuel consumption value.
This combined with agressive investment (say, oh about a trillion dollars in the next ten years, pretty much what we'll probably end up spending on the Iraq war) in public transportation infrastructure should start lowering the number of cars AND force people who would still drive in to smaller, more fuel efficient cars.
Reply
UH2L 2:24PM (10/12/2007)
Emdee,
You're on the right track. The money spent on the war could pay for the development of 50+ mpg vehicle vehicles and pay to buy one for every U.S. driver! It would also allow the domestic auto manufacturers to kick butt globally. But apparently, killing people for oil, (and wasting oil while doing it), is a better idea.
Atul
Reply
UH2L 2:25PM (10/12/2007)
Emdee,
You're on the right track. The money spent on the war could pay for the development of 50+ mpg vehicle vehicles and pay to buy one for every U.S. driver! It would also allow the domestic auto manufacturers to kick butt globally. But apparently, killing people for oil, (and wasting oil while doing it), is a better idea.
Atul
Reply
Ron Fischer 6:03PM (10/12/2007)
The writer's "solution" focuses on fuels, and doesn't even name them. Rather than push something reasonably abstract like efficiency, by making CAFE work (again), does he suggest CAFE be eliminated and we produce more corn ethanol and hydrogen? That article is a handwave, not a solution (WHAT fuel) and is more concrete about eliminating CAFE than presenting any other real solution. Whose agenda does that most closely match? Will this writer really add anything to ABG?
Reply
jcwinnie 3:07PM (10/12/2007)
But, would it buy health care for kids?
Reply
rgseidl 4:19PM (10/12/2007)
It's not a choice between efficiency and renewable fuels, you have to do both.
At present rates of consumption, even the most advanced biofuels won't be able to quench a significant fraction of the global thirst for transportation fuels. And with car ownership in China, India, Brazil, Easter Europe, Russia, Turkey, the Middle East and other places growing rapidly, the situation is only going to get worse.
Only if you simultaneously reduce consumption per vehicle do renewable fuels have any chance of making a difference once the second generation can be applied at industrial scales.
Reply
Lucien Takar 9:33PM (10/16/2007)
Using CAFE to force the automakers to making more fuel efficient cars is a good way to make them do something instead of nothing.
Ultimatly the answer lies in fuel efficiency AND a cleaner alternative. But while we spend millions in research for cellulosic ethanol, algae ethanol, hydrogen, and solar stricter CAFE standards will slow the problem down while we do the research for the cleaner fuels.
CAFE standards are only a temporary "band-aide" until we can really fix the car pollution problem. But they are still a good idea nonetheless.
Reply
Paul 11:17AM (10/15/2007)
It is important that his point of view is continued to be raised. Right now I feel like most of Congress is trying hike up CAFE standards not because they feel they will work, but because it is an easy way to say they are doing something. CAFE is politically easy because the manufacturers and not consumers pay for it. Thats nice for people who are worried about getting reelected, but its not going to have a positive impact. I do some work with the Auto Alliance, and consumers are not buying the higher mileage cars - they're still buying cars and SUVs so this approach really doesn't make sense. Consumer demand must be taken into account and just jacking up CAFE is not the solution.
Reply
GreyFlcn 7:12PM (10/19/2007)
=="We don't need fuel efficiency, we just need to switch to alternative oil, and everything will be fine!"==
What a load of Bullshit!
BioFuels aren't going to make an impact.
At maximum, we're talking a 1.24% conversion of sunlight into torque.
(Thats assuming the theoretical maximum photosynthesis can put out, and a diesel engine)
More realistically that comes down to a 0.4-0.2% conversion of sunlight into torque.
_
Hydrogen certainly isn't going to make an impact at all. It's purely a diversion put out by the hydrocarbon/automotive industry.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
_
Electricity will make an impact (38.25% conversion of sunlight into torque), but not because it's "Green" electricity. But simply because an electric engine is over 4x more efficient at turning it's energy into torque.
(20% eff gasoline engine, 40% efficient diesel engine, 90% electric engine w/ regeneration)
_
This kind of rhetoric makes me sick.
Right now we are still running on CAFE standards equivalent to the 1970s.
It's absolutely inexcusably pathetic that they would say they "Can't" do any better than we did 4 decades ago.
_
It's stuff like this is EXACTLY why you should assume anyone telling your biofuels is a way forward is bullshitting you.
Reply