Environmental Action today kicked off a campaign to get the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard doubled. The CAFE standard just stipulates that the fuel economy of an automakers entire fleet must average out to a certain number (it's been stuck in the 20s since the '80s). You can put four models of SUVs on the market that get 10 miles per gallon, for instance, as along as you have equal numbers of hybrids getting, say, 35 miles per gallon. (See my article from last fall, "Better Mileage on Ice: Why refrigerators are more efficient than cars.")
The auto industry has fought CAFE standards hard, complaining that it's just too expensive to made fuel-efficient cars. But it's one of the reasons Detroit is suffering while Japan is not: U.S. fuel-efficiency standards are half what they are in Japan. Even China has us beat.
So, says Dan Stafford of EA, "Our first step in the campaign is to offer the big 3 auto makers that we'll pay the difference of the cost of doubling the mileage standard." In other words, EA wants consumers to sign a pledge saying they'll pay the difference in price for more fuel efficient cars (around $2,000).
The only quibble I have here is: Have we proved that producing fuel-efficient cars costs auto companies more than making guzzlers? A University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute says something to the contrary:
Detroit automakers, who have long depended on the least fuel efficient vehicles to provide most of their profits (and some of who have argued that fuel economy did not matter very much to their customers) are seeing their sales and profits evaporate, as new vehicle buyers switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
In fact, Congress would likely be doing automakers a favor by forcing their fuel economy up. They would level the global car market playing field, and re-invigorate the industry, as well as reduce carbon dioxide emissions and wean us all off oil. I can't see a downside worth paying $2,000 extra for. But if that's what it takes, I'm for it.
Check out EA's "Oil Counter," too.
Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.laweekly.com/mt-tb.cgi/35633
Comments
There are 2 comments posted for this article.
Yes, economically it makes so much sense for the big 3 to switch over - with Ford announcing a layoff or buyout of their ENTIRE hourly workforce (blamed on Ford not providing fuel efficient cars by experts), I honestly can't understand why they're not just doing it.
That's the heart of the campaign - letting them know that if they do it, we'll buy it.
Thanks for covering this!
Posted on September 22, 2006 11:09 AM by Dan Stafford
I contacted the big three about a life saving emergency brake that would stop a vehicle much faster than what is out there to day, not patented they don't want it yet 200,000 people die each year in the USA from auto accidents, I contacted California EPA about the USS Montebello sitting in 900 feet of water one mile off of Monterey Bay with 79,000 barrels of crude oil in her corroding tanks sunk in 1941, I have an innovation that can seal this ship where she lays forever, not patented, no response. I have another innovation to reduce green house gas emissions for all vehicles that is very simple again not patented no response.
Never mind the big three, Caliafornia's government should help inventors as everything we have has been invented, like the man above, " I honestly can't understand what they're not just doing it.
Posted on October 10, 2006 4:10 PM by Greg Cragg