Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy
Rep. Markey backs down on 35mpg CAFE rule
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass has been pushing a particularly aggressive set of fuel economy regulations that would require automakers to meet a 35mpg fleet average by 2019 three years sooner than the bill that has already passed the US Senate. The House of Representatives is due to consider an energy bill this week before leaving for their August recess. Markey had been considering attaching his proposal to that energy bill and indicated that he felt he had sufficient support of the rules. However, intensive lobbying by the auto industry, including Toyota, has persuaded Markey to wait until September when the House takes up John Dingell's D-MI global warming package. The Markey proposal will now face a challenge from an alternative put forward by Reps. Baron Hill, D-Ind., and Lee Terry, R-Neb and supported that would mandate 32-35mpg by 2022.
Unfortunately, so far no one in congress seems to have any real interest in actually doing to politically more difficult but necessary thing of restructuring fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of fuel.
[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
regguy 1:51PM (8/02/2007)
We would all like to encourage better efficiency, environmental responsibility, and energy independence from imported oil.
But if the goal of higher CAFE is to reduce overall oil consumption, consider this:
- 35 mpg vehicles are already available for purchase
- more mpg for John/Jane Doe's car is effectively a lower price per gallon
- to sell more goods, lower the price.
So will an effectively lower price per gallon lead to net conservation? CAFE hasn't had that effect yet.
If, rather than CAFE, an "alternative energy surcharge" was implemented on gas hogs, and 100% of the money was carefully directed to hydrogen and battery powered vehicles and infrastructure, it might be a better solution.
Reply
GoodCheer 6:17PM (8/02/2007)
Regguy:
What you say would be true IF it were currently the case that the price of fuel were limiting the amount people drive. If there is thought to commute distance in choices about where to work or where to live, I think it is only about time wasted sitting in a car, not about how much money is being spent on gasoline. Would you drive 50% more if you had a car that got 50% better mileage?
While I agree that mileage-dependent registration fees or annual taxes might make sense, I think you have oversimplified your analysis of CAFE.
I would also suggest that the most direct way to promote efficiency would be by raising the tax on gas -taxes which could be used to support public transportation or the EV infrastructure you suggested. That way no matter what you drive (burning gasoline) you have an incentive to drive it less.
The only problem with higher gas taxes is the argument that they disproportionately burden the lower socio-economic classes, who in general have more limited housing options, so tend to have further to commute.
Reply
bioburner 6:25PM (8/02/2007)
Yes there are a lot of 35 mpg cars out there and equally true there are a handful of say 50 mpg cars readly available for sale. The american public is not buying them as fast as they are buying their SUVs and pickup trucks. I beleive that increasing the CAFE numbers will force the auto makers to limit production of these gas hogs but will not stop their sales. And I also beleive the price of gasoline/diesel will have to be increased with taxes before there is any meaniful drop in gas sales.
Reply
Fuzzy 9:13PM (8/02/2007)
Wow....once again we get sold out. The 'people's party'? Can't decide what is worse...Bush's facisism or the Dem's lack of will.
Reply
brian 8:41AM (8/03/2007)
Wonder who lined his pocket?
Reply
regguy 10:33AM (8/03/2007)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_21/b3784039.htm
Goodcheer,
The above article is from 2002, but is still relevant. CAFE has not proven effective in reducing fuel usage.
A tax targeted to gas hogs would be directed at the right group and exclude good performers.
Europe and Japan have no CAFE but the price of fuel significantly affects what consumers buy, hence, what manufacturers produce, and the engines are smaller, etc. Also, if the gasoline in the US had the same low sulfur requirements as in Europe, fuel economy could increase up to 17%.
Reply