New MPG Standards Vs. Consumer Preference Incites Reader Debate
May 29, 2009

An AutoObserver story last week suggesting the federal government's proposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards may clash with Americans' taste in vehicles sparked a sometimes heated round of comments.

Using data from Edmunds.com comparing currently available models that can meet the 2016 CAFE mandate with the sales "popularity" of those vehicles demonstrated that in today's market, those vehicles have sporadic sales success.

Seeking to end years of conflict between federal fuel-economy and emissions mandates and the initiatives of many states typically led by California, President Obama announced federal CAFE standards of 39 miles per gallon for passenger cars and 30 mpg for light trucks.

The new regulations circumvent a divisive proposal from California to begin regulating carbon-dioxide emissions, which effectively set a new fuel-economy standard for that state and others that have adopted California's emissions regulations.

Readers responded with a flurry of comments about the government's CAFE action. Most debated the effectiveness of CAFE as an efficiency-enhancing measure, as well as the efficacy of an often-proposed alternative: higher gasoline taxes.

"This is still trying to legislate demand by determining what is built," said reader "pushrod."

"The Europeans do it the other way around, by legislating the demand based on actual usage: taxes on the fuel," the reader continued. "Let's face it, the manufacturers can't control demand, and the government can't dictate it outright: people will buy what they want (whether they need it or not)."

Reader "fulcrumb" suggested an incentive -- rather than increased taxes -- in the form of a tax credit on a scale that rewards the highest-efficiency vehicles with the largest tax credits.

Reader "joycedean" posed an intriguing perspective, saying, "Taxes and fines don't reduce emissions, it just generates temporary income for municipalities. How well have those fines and taxes worked on manufacturing plants/distribution? Who says that tinkering with safe and reliable cars, taking away our options, does anything more than generate taxes?"

And commenter kdhspyder offered an elegant summation:

"If it weren't for the 30 years of intransigence on the part of the D3 (Detroit Three) in fighting and bad-mouthing CAFE we would see it for the simple and elegant solution that it is. The vehicles in 2016 will use less fuel than the vehicles in 2009 for the most part. Who in the U.S. is against using less fuel?

"Our system allows us to buy whichever vehicle we want from small econoboxes to huge luxobarge SUVs," kdhspyder continued. "With current technology both vehicles meet or could meet the new standards today.

"The obvious next issue is cost-effectiveness of the new technologies for fuel efficiencies. That's a specific manufacturer by manufacturer discussion."

Posted by Michelle Krebs at 7:54 AM under Commentary , Companies | Comments (3) | digg this | Seed Newsvine

Technorati Tags: bigthreeautomakers, cafe, corporateaveragefueleconomy, detroitthreeautomakers, fueleconomy, presidentobama