Over the past few months, Grist has had some great pieces on biofuels, hydrogen power, and plug-in hybrids. Unfortunately, it's as if we've been debating the different types of low-flush toilets while ignoring the agricultural water subsidies that are responsible for 90 percent of the wasted water in America. Essentially, we've been distracted by supply-side opportunities and have dropped the ball on the demand side, which is exactly what the oil and car companies want.
Here are some basic facts.
Americans use approximately 150 billion gallons of gas a year. The current average fuel economy for the U.S. fleet is in the low to mid-20s mpg. Put simply, this is a national disgrace. We can put a man on the moon and rovers on Mars, but somehow we're still stuck with 1920s car technology because of corporate inertia and a lack of leadership. With oil proceeds going to terrorists and their state allies, and global warming increasing, there is no excuse not to significantly raise these standards to at least the low to mid-30s. The technology exists to do this, but we need a government mandate because individuals don't prioritize fuel economy in their purchasing decisions.
If we were to raise standards to the mid-30s we would save approximately 35-40 billion gallons of gasoline a year, which would more than offset any increases in the price of new cars (over the medium-term for sure). To put things in perspective, this savings in gasoline is more than twice the amount of biofuel we could get if we dedicated every last acre of arable land in the U.S. to ethanol production. In addition, we would get cleaner air and help to generate jobs in the industries of the 21st century.
I do not subscribe to the view that the Democrats and Republicans are identical with respect to special interests. I believe that there is a historic opportunity to significantly raise CAFE standards if we the people make it an issue. The national security crowd would be on board, as well as the environmental community. This must begin with each and every one of us calling our representatives and senators. We also need to urge all of the presidential hopefuls to take a stand as well. Conservation isn't sexy and doesn't make headlines, but it's the most important thing we can do to reduce oil consumption.
Excuse me while I start making the first of many calls to Washington.
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 7:21 am
12 Mar 2007
Dingell has long resisted tinkering with the standards, allowing market pressures to drive design changes. But even automaker lobbyists concede their patron has to yield to the pressure this year. "We know we're part of the problem, but we don't want to be the whole solution," says one industry lobbyist. I be some kind of CAFE boost will pass in the next two years. I also bet it will be substantially weaker than the one you (rightly) recommend.
Worth reading that whole article.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:38 am
12 Mar 2007
But actually there are some market options- tradeable emissions credits (which merited a question on my recent midterm) that might be attractive to the Dingell contingency.
This is more reason to call our Congressmen and women and make our voices heard.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
leszekp Posted 7:42 am
12 Mar 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:49 am
12 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:42 am
12 Mar 2007
CAFE would only be effective at achieving electric cars if it was ramped so high that it excluded other intermediate technologies. And that isn't going to happen.
Rather than taking a "We shouldn't pick a winner"
It'd be much faster to say what we want, and go after it.
_
Way I see it:
Tesla Motors makes an array of standard lithium batteries.
AltairNano makes a Nano Lithium battery using a n expensive barium titanate catalyst
A123 Systems makes a Nano Lithium battery using an inexpensive iron catalyst
EEStor makes an "ultracapacitor" that claims to be cheaper than lead acid battery technology out of an aluminum ceramic that outpreforms nano lithium. But it sounds too good to be true. But they claim to have it inside a car from ZENN motors later this year 2007.
Today, I read an article from some research by University of Arizona, which sounds exactly like EEStor's technology.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/digitat ...
If these ultracapacitors are real, the whole bureaucratic mess that is CAFE would be unneccisary.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:54 am
12 Mar 2007
Peak Oil ($/Mile)
Air Toxics (Toxics/Mile)
Energy Independence (Foreign/Mile)
No.
What we should be focusing on is:
4) Climate Change (CO2/Mile)
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:37 pm
12 Mar 2007
This makes the whole system too easily gamed. Detroit had plenty of time to finagle the ethanol-adjustment to CAFE (a 'dual fuel' car is counted as having much higher MPG than it actually does). Detroit would have time to finagle-back requirements that start to look to scary.
I like the gasoline tax, but another fast method, would be to put 'guzzler taxes' back on the window sticker. Then BMW (and Tahoe) buyers would see them, understand their decision, and pay them if they so chose.
I'm not totally enthralled by hybrid credits, etc., but I'd think some moderate plans could be funded out of such guzzler taxes, without furthering general government debt.
Putting the guzzler tax on the vehicle license renewal would speed retirement of inefficient cars, but that might be a harder sell.
Permalink