Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?
507 messages, Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:49 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: 95civic (Jul 21, 2007 9:04 am) But we have had European cars before and they are hardly a booming success in most cases because our driving style and the distances we drive seem to be harder on them than the countries they come from. But the real point it that Europe and Asia managed to increase fuel economy far more than the US without CAFE. This fact alone should make one question the value of a government system that doesn't work as well as the free market system in countries not known for free market but government controls.
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jul 21, 2007 10:14 am) That is the reason they have so many cars running around getting 44 MPG and we have a couple complex hybrids. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Jul 21, 2007 10:14 am) And the new standard is 120 g/km (about 44 mpg), which they are saying it looks like the automakers will not be able to meet by next year when it is supposed to be in force, so they are going to be discussing this in the near future. This, per the latest issue of R&T. There are even stricter fuel economy requirements scheduled for the future. If the most "draconian" CAFE proposed by our Congress made it into law, we would still be behind the Europeans and the Asians in our FE standards by 2020. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Aug 30, 2007 6:34 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 04, 2007 10:55 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 04, 2007 11:09 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 04, 2007 11:09 am) http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=3363 But saying you will meet the standards by 2009 and doing so are questions that have to be seen to be believed. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Aug 30, 2007 6:34 am) That is a proposed standard which was to be met by 2012. It probably won't make it into law because, as you stated, there is a lot of opposition from the auto manufacturers. The current proposed standard that exists is 140 g/km by 2008 and it represents a voluntary agreement between the automakers and the EU, not a mandate. 75% of the automakers selling vehicles in Europe are not on track to meet this voluntary target. One other thing to keep in mind. This is not quite the inverse of our mile per gallon scheme of measuring efficiency. The difference is that diesel fuel has about 13% more carbon per gallon, which means that under this g/km CO2 measuring system a diesel vehicle needs to get about 13% better mpg to meet the same CO2 emission level of a gasoline burning vehicle. For instance if they were to meet this voluntary 140 g/km level then gasoline vehicles would have to get 39.2 mpg and diesels would have to get 44.4 mpg. My point is that Europe has a voluntary form of CAFE that the auto manufacturers are not in compliance with yet the European fleet is significantly more efficient than the US fleet. So as far as CAFE goes the European model is not an example of its effectiveness. There must be something else going on that is motivating drivers.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Sep 05, 2007 9:41 am) Imagine this scenario. What if instead of a tax deduction for children and dependents there was a tax penalty for not having kids? The tax rates could be adjusted so that everyone's tax burden would end up being the same with this method but the psychology would be very different. The people without kids would be wondering why they are being penalized for this. So its easier to sell a tax break even though these breaks end up in higher tax rates for those that don't take advantage of them. So what if everyone took advantage of these tax breaks, wouldn't everyone benefit? Again, I don't see how that's possible. I wouldn't oppose tax incentives and credits for adopting fuel efficient vehicles but they need to be paid for. Since the goal is to reduce fuel consumption what would be the most logical way to pay for these tax breaks? It seems to me that they should be paid for by a fuel consumption tax. That would represent the carrot and stick approach.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
