CAFE Contradiction--Fuel Efficiency And Cheap Gas
Ronald Bailey | August 8, 2006, 10:23am
The recent boost in gas prices has provoked a truly odd argument from some Congressional leaders about American fuel use. They want to raise the federal CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, 4 percent a year for the next 20 years.
One of the supporters of the Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) paradoxically decries high gas prices: "I now look at the impact on the economy, impact on jobs, on the high price of oil, the devastating impact it's having in so many corners of our economy on so many people," says Coleman. "So I'm one of the converted on this, and I think a number of my colleagues are as well." Apparently, the idea of increasing CAFE standards is to encourage Americans to buy more fuel efficient cars so that the price of gasoline will fall. Huh?
In fact, what CAFE standards did do was persuade Americans to buy gas guzzling SUVs and light trucks that were not subject to mileage restrictions. In the current issue of Regulation, Paul Godek, vice president at Competition Associates, outlines the contradiction at the heart of CAFE:
Does CAFE have anything to do with gasoline consumption? Of course not. To paraphrase Rockefeller, the price of gas will fluctuate; and people will react accordingly. U.S. energy policy is schizophrenic anyway. If gas should be less available and more expensive, then tax it. Well, they already do. Federal and state taxes amount to about 40 cents per gallon. But the authorities do not want gas to be less available (more expensive), they want it to be more available (less expensive). So why do they want to compel "conservation" when they also want gas to be more available? Go figure.
Go figure indeed. If our Congressional overlords and environmental activists really think we should drive less and buy more efficient automobiles, then they should ditch the CAFE shell game and have the courage to recommend taxing gasoline at $5 per gallon.
Kent | August 8, 2006, 2:25pm | #
APL,
You are correct about the crumple zones vs. mass if you assume collisions with fixed objects. However, let's take the case of a head-on crash between an SUV and a smaller car. The smaller car may reduce G-forces due to the crumple zones. On the other hand, the larger mass of the SUV will result in higher momentum, which will be transferred to the car. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume both cars are traveling at the same speed in opposite directions when they collide. If the car is too much lighter than the SUV, it will end up heading in the opposite direction very quickly, resulting in greater G-forces than for the SUV, which will continue in the same direction it was going when the collision occurred. Thus, the occupants of the SUV will probably experience lower G-forces than the occupants of the car. (This reminds me of a former head - under Carter - of the NHTSA who said that the car makers could make cars that get 100 mpg and just bounce off each other in collisions - as if that were a good thing. Proof positive that it is not only Republicans who ignore science. On the other hand, if it were so easy and desirable, I wonder why she did not start a company to produce such cars and fill the demand she sensed.)
CAFE DOES apply to trucks and SUVs, but the standard is understandably lower than for cars. CAFE caused full-sized station wagons to become uneconomical to produce, so they were almost entirely replaced by SUVs and vans. One problem with that is that it increased the number of collisions between trucks, vans, and SUVs and cars. The hard points on trucks, SUVs, and full-sized vans are higher than the hard points on cars. Thus, collisions between trucks and cars tend to result in the hard points of the trucks hitting softer parts of cars - not at all good for passengers in cars.
I'm not going to try to defend the Big Three, but CAFE hastened their demise. Japanese manufacturers almost exclusively produced small cars when CAFE was enacted, giving them a head start. The Big Three began selling smaller cars at a loss to meet the CAFE requirements. Japanese manufacturers, on the other hand, were able to store credits for exceeding the CAFE requirements that allowed them to start manufacturing larger cars in more recent years with less concern about meeting the CAFE standards. What is wrong with manufacturers' specializing in larger or smaller cars? CAFE makes it necessary for every manufacturer to produce small cars or pay huge fines for not meeting the standards.
As with virtually any government mandate, there have been significant unintended consequences from CAFE. For all the costs associated with it, it is not clear that we reduced fuel consumption from what it would have been without CAFE.
John,
Fortunately, the supply of petroleum (and substitutes) is elastic - in the long-term. Unfortunately, the same people who brought us CAFE standards also brought us regulations that ensure the long-term is longer than it has to be.
About eight years ago, I was involved in bringing a refinery back on line after it was shut down for 10-15 years. The reason it was shut down was that it was a safety and environmental hazard, with fires occurring on a regular basis (A fire actually occurred before we brought it back on-line.). Thanks to draconian environmental regulations, it is MUCH easier to take an unsafe and dirty - but previously operating - refinery (or just about any other industrial facility) online than to get permission to build a more efficient, safer, and cleaner new refinery.
MUTT | August 8, 2006, 8:46pm | #
someone asked if EPA emissions requirements impact MPG....as I posted on another thread, Im a mechanic, both bikes & auto/truck. Used to be my living, but then I quit gettin cars w/ tailfins.....whats the point. But to the subject: The EPA arbitrarily mandates what comes out of tailpipes. Thats the only concern.
I got a 81 Ford van, 300 in. 6, here in Ca. where emissions tests are done every 2 yrs. When I got the truck, it barely ran, got 10-13 mpg, & would not pull its overdrive (economising/mpg) gear. It passed emissions. After I got the emissions cert, I put on an illegal Offy intake, an illegal 35 yr old big ass 2bbl carb, illegal headers, binned the cat, & put on a straight thru exhaust. 17-21 mpg, pulls OD, its quiet, runs great. Im a rolling criminal. A terrorist, no doubt.
Now ask yourself, lil birkenjerker: is it more efficient to get 10-13mpg on a vehicle that has to be floored to get up a hill, or better to get 17-21mpg (25 MPG, hauling 2 bikes, in a tailwind, once) in a vehicle that actually does the job at partial throttle. thats the SUV "loophole"- trucks have to actually WORK, the nitwit strangling devices put on cars, which drastically lower thier power output, wont fly on a serious truck. Not that them sissy rigs are serious trucks, mind you, any more than the nitwits who own them are serious drivers.
The nail in the coffin is this: Ca law (soon to be yours) mandates not that the engine emit "x" emmisions, but that it HAS THE MANDATED rube goldberg emissions crap on it, too. In other words, if my truck passed the tailpipe test as it stands now, it would STILL FAIL as the Congressionally mandated rube goldberg (believe this old wrench: they are) gadjits arent in place. On top of that, the Emisions testing computers are plugged directly to the Dept of Motor Vehicles computers.
this has nothing to do with emissions, everything to do with grasping State authority.......and concomitant incompetance. I could go on.......
