I frequently read about perceived (or alleged) disagreements between the environmental community and the auto industry. A few of them are real disagreements over policy, many are practical disagreements over how best to achieve common goals, but many perceived disagreements are not, in fact, disagreements at all.
For instance, some people believe the auto industry stands in the way of higher average fuel efficiency in the U.S. That's just not the case, which I'll explain in a moment. First, an area of agreement: in his New York Times column, Paul Krugman writes about fuel efficiency and our automotive future:
Europeans who have achieved a high standard of living in spite of very high energy prices -- gas in Germany costs more than $8 a gallon -- have a lot to teach us about how to deal with that world. If Europe's example is any guide, here are the two secrets of coping with expensive oil: own fuel-efficient cars, and don't drive them too much. Notice that I said that cars should be fuel-efficient -- not that people should do without cars altogether. In Germany, as in the United States, the vast majority of families own cars (although German households are less likely than their U.S. counterparts to be multiple-car owners).
But the average German car uses about a quarter less gas per mile than the average American car. By and large, the Germans don't drive itsy-bitsy toy cars, but they do drive modest-sized passenger vehicles rather than S.U.V.'s and pickup trucks. In the near future I expect we'll see Americans moving down the same path.
This may come as a surprise to some people, but ... we agree. In fact, this is what we in the auto industry have been saying all along. Automakers don't simply watch the latest sales figures and crank out whatever cars consumers wanted last month. For years now, we've been developing new designs and new technologies. However, the key is not what the auto industry is willing to make -- we make more than 70 models of alternative fuel automobiles available, and more than 100 models that have fuel economy ratings of more than 30 mpg on the highway -- but what consumers will buy. The fact is that from May 2002 to March 2008, we have only had one month where passenger cars outsold light trucks. Why? Because, despite a few spikes, gas was relatively inexpensive.
But with gas prices climbing -- and staying high, rather than fluctuating back and forth -- consumers are actually changing their habits, changing driving patterns, and buying more fuel efficient cars. They're doing it because the market works. People respond to incentives. Gasoline at almost $4.00/gallon is doing more, faster, for fuel efficiency than any government regulations.
This sustained increase in the price of gas is what we have been saying is needed to drive a significant increase in the fuel efficiency of the cars American choose to drive.
The only complaint I would have with Krugman's piece is the oversimplification of the difference between Germany (EU) and the U.S. There are glaring differences in diesel penetration, transmissions, and cylinder counts, all illustrated in the following chart:
Contrary to Krugman's assertion, the vehicles sold in Europe are much different than the U.S. Those differences have an impact and that fact that should be recognized. In fact, this is a point the Wall Street Journal brought up last year, pointing out:
A main reason Europeans buy smaller, diesel-powered vehicles is that fuel taxes are heavier on gasoline than diesel, and diesel vehicles enjoy other tax breaks. In the U.S., diesel fuel has at times cost more than gasoline. Add stern clean-air regulations, and diesels claim less than a 1% market share in the U.S., according to Ward's Automotive Group.
The auto industry really does want to be part of the solution, and we've been developing the green technologies and car designs for many years so that we will be ready for this emerging shift in consumer demand. However, to do what needs to be done -- enhance energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ultimately lower the price at the pump -- we need a comprehensive policy that addresses not only vehicle fuel efficiency but also alternative fuels, refueling infrastructure, and consumers, too.
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Threaded
GreenEngineer Posted 3:28 am
20 May 2008
The fact that Krugman felt it necessary to make this distinction points our a serious failure of activists to effectively communicate the necessary changes. The thing that we must achieve is NOT the elimination of the personal automobile, but the change of the automobile from the primary mode of transportation to one of several modes that people can choose from. This implies major changes in urban design, transit investment, and consumer culture, but it is not the same as getting rid of the car altogether. For large areas of low population density, the personal automobile really is the best and most feasible (and probably most efficient) transportation solution. For urban areas, other solutions are both possible and necessary. It's a matter of using the right tool for the job.
It is unfortunate that, with this as with so many environmental issues, the entire discussion is defined by the extremes of the scale: it's as if we either have to maintain a culture in which the car is king, or we have to give it up entirely. Some part of this blame falls to the environmentalist community for falling into knee-jerk extremism, part with the media because extreme positions are easier to explain than nuanced ones, and part with the industry itself, which realizes that, as long as the issue is framed in those terms, Americans will continue to hold tightly to their cars and their "American way of life" until the very end.
Permalink
Nell Posted 3:31 am
20 May 2008
Additionally, while opposing views should always be encouraged on a blog forum, inviting a pr flack for the auto lobby to pollute one of the best environmental blogs on the web is poor form.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:34 am
20 May 2008
Still, what is most convincing is action, not words.
Also, it would be good to have an honest reappraisal of the role of the auto industry. Yes, there were consumer preferences which it was profitable to respond to (e.g. pick-ups and SUVs), but the U.S. industry was not been overeager or forward looking when it came to efficiency. I think part of this is inertia, part culture.
The Japanese manufacturers were selling to the same consumers and have managed to come up with some profitable high-efficiency designs.
But let it pass. The main thing is what happens in the future.
One thing to look out for -- the price of oil will probably continue rising in the long run. I hope the auto industry has some think tanks and white papers with plans for when oil is $200 or $300 a barrel.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Alex 77 Posted 4:12 am
20 May 2008
Please realize that your readership is more educated and discerning than to let this piece stand.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 4:22 am
20 May 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:40 am
20 May 2008
I'm confused how the two parts of this sentence fit together.
Please realize that your readership is more educated and discerning than to let this piece stand.
Then don't let it stand. You have an open forum.
grist.org
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:51 am
20 May 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:53 am
20 May 2008
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:35 am
20 May 2008
OK, so what you're telling me is that the American auto industry has their own version of a Prius, but they are just "waiting until the time is right" to bring this car to the market? With the Prius posting record sales for at least a year now, what are American car manufacturers waiting for? And if you have the green technologies and fuel efficiency to solve the problem, why is the sales gimmick du jour subsidizing consumer gas payments in order to sell gas-guzzling vehicles? If automakers "want to be part of the solution" why, less than a year ago, was the Alliance running ads to fight against the increase in CAFE standards?
Let's face it: you dropped the ball and you've been scrambling to preserve the status quo until you can figure out what the hell to do in this new economy. Fighting legislation aimed at increasing the fuel-efficiency of the American car fleet is not "part of the solution." Continuing to make fuel-inefficient cars & trucks because "that's what consumers want" is like only feeding your kid jellybeans, because "when I offer him jellybeans or carrots, he always picks jellybeans."
I find this attitude insincere at best and condescending at worst. I would have much more respect if you simply came out and said "Look, we underestimated the severity and speed with which the impacts of global warming & peak oil would affect our business. We are now forced to play catch-up, but here are the strategies we are aggressively pursuing - here is how the American auto industry can put itself back on top of the market and save the planet at the same time."
Permalink
racc Posted 7:29 am
20 May 2008
Permalink
bigTom Posted 7:33 am
20 May 2008
This is really a structural problem, based upon the current system of executive incentives, which encourage a focus of short term profitability (i.e. being able to cash in stock options so that the executive need not care about long term viability).
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:38 am
20 May 2008
Europeans also have much higher population densities. Things are smaller, and much closer together.
I'm really surprised that Grist Ecologists worry their heads about how much fuel a car uses, but then completely ignores the size of peoples' "houseprint" on the planet. Is that because it would soil relationships with their rich Hollywood sponsors? I mean, you've got Ed Begley Jr promenading around in a 3-wheeled electro-buggy, but then parking it in a 20 room mansion. As Arsenio said, things that make you go "hmmmm...."
Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:44 am
20 May 2008
jabailo, ya act like you've only been on this site a few days. Really now, I can't even count the number of articles and discussions we've had on this site 'bout McMansions and inefficient housing.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:46 am
20 May 2008
http://www.grist.org/topic/green_living
There's at least several dozens articles in that section alone that refer to city size and housing footprints and related stuff.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:51 am
20 May 2008
Sure, sure...but I'm talking about day to day type stuff. It seems that Grist often stereotypes the suburban dweller as this wasteful guy, although I'm suburban and live in a one-bedroom apartment. Meanwhile they idealize Hollywood types and Greeners in Vermont who live in gigantic houses.
How about some scrutiny?
How about setting up an EPA standard for housing energy costs per person? How about having a label on everyone's house and land that says how much energy per person is being used?
Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:11 am
20 May 2008
Ever hear of LEED? Doesn't really work on a per-person basis, but works great in terms of comparitive energy consumption. 'Specially when building size categories are taken into account.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:26 am
20 May 2008
Nor does mileage for cars...
Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))
Permalink
Quinn Posted 1:19 pm
20 May 2008
Here's my list of blamable parties (some overlap):
-Auto Industry
-Consumer Culture
-Adam Smith and David Hume
-Consumerism
-Capitalism
-Oil and Gas Industry
-Government
-Lobbyists
And here's my logical reasoning.
I blame the auto industry for irresponsibly offering to the public vehicles of blatant excessiveness.
I blame consumer culture for demanding vehicles of blatant excessiveness.
I blame consumerism for establishing excessiveness as a status symbol and a sign of wealth.
I blame capitalism for spawning consumerism.
I blame Adam Smith and David Hume for capitalism. ;-)
I blame government for not having the balls to enforce reasonable mpg standards (cough, cough, cafe, cafe)
I blame lobbyists for castrating the government.
I blame both the auto industry and the oil and gas industry for their lobbyists.
I blame capitalism for the aforementioned industries' motives.
I once again blame Adam Smith and David Hume for capitalism.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:38 pm
20 May 2008
Pretty typical of the irresponsible boy racer sh*t auto marketing of the last couple of decades. So much for just selling what people want to buy.
Vroom vroom. See you in hell.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
hapa Posted 2:20 pm
20 May 2008
begging for enviros not to block a government bailout of domestic auto production?
car company person, your industry's about to shrink mightily, and you'll be lucky if your grandkids don't hate you and us and everybody adult right now for bringing down long misery on their heads.
i'd get into the wind turbine business, the bus business, the train business -- if i were you.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:33 pm
20 May 2008
Consumers were buying the Prius faster than Toyota could to make them long before this gas price spike. Detroit CEOs have had their collective heads up their collective asses. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Alternative fuel vehicle = Flex Fuel corn ethanol debacle, food shortages, Gulf of Mexico dead zone, and carbon sink usurpation.
we need a comprehensive policy that addresses not only vehicle fuel efficiency but also alternative fuels, refueling infrastructure, and consumers, too.
Refueling infrastructure? You don't need gas pumps for ethanol. Assuming it isn't worse for the environment than fossil fuels, you could just blend more of it into our gas supply.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wgartist Posted 2:08 am
21 May 2008
This is where people like Krugman (and many others) really don't get it. Cars are a hegemonic technology. They don't co-exist with other methods of transportation, they drive it out. If you don't believe this, just try walking along any 4 or 6 lane road in your vicinity. Or biking along it. Or waiting for the bus along it. Cars take up space, they degrade the environment severely. They're dangerous and threatening. They allow the rich to push aside the poor.
One of the major efforts of environmentalists should be to break the hegemony of the car completely. Do away with them completely and never let them return.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:42 am
21 May 2008
I strongly agree, but our fixes would be different. I am in the middle of advising on the new Transportation Master Plan here in Kent as a member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. One member of the board is strongly in favor of mixed use roads, more bike lanes, sharerows, road "diets" (ceding lanes to bike use).
I am of the opinion you express, that cars are completely incompatible with pedestrians and bicycles and attempts to "integrate" will only result in more fatalities and accidents.
My bent, however, is not to elimiate the automobile, but to provide more and further segregation. Get the cars away from the sidewalks and bike lanes as fast as the driver hits the road...take them to segregated highways, and let them re-emerge as close to their destination as possible.
They're dangerous and threatening. They allow the rich to push aside the poor.
True, but for the opposite reason. Why is it the countries that have a large middle class also have more cars. Cars put power into the hands of the Average Joe. Think of royalty. They stay up on their horses to trod the Commonfolk. The car is the horse.
With a car, Joe is no longer dependent on the state run transit systems. He can live in more places and have more choices of home. This is why the current situation wants to curtail him...because it's the notion of American Independence that is at stake!
Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:24 am
21 May 2008
Permalink
wgartist Posted 3:52 am
21 May 2008
Railroads, at least in the U.S. are privately owned. So are (or were) many bus and streetcar companies. It's the car that deprives the people of freedom and allows the state to control transportation. Pedestrians aren't required to show their papers, drivers are. Cars are constrained to go only in certain places, at certain speeds, and are required to arbitrarily stop and go. And you've got to pay every time you use one.
Cars are not only hegemonic, they're dictatorial. traffic lights train you to be an easily controlled moron.
Permalink