Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Vehicle fuel economy standards

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 20:52, 21 October 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
← Previous diff
Current revision (15:44, 29 October 2010) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +<seo title="Debate on Vehicle fuel economy standards" metak="fuel economy standards, fighting global warming, CAFE, miles per gallon, regulation on fuel economy" metad="Fuel economy standards are regulations on the efficiency of vehicle engines. It is typically measured by the distance a vehicle can travel on a gallon of gasoline (kilometers per gallon or miles per gallon). This debate generally surrounds whether it is a good idea to regulate or raise the regulations on fuel economy. In 2007, the United States, for instance, saw a major debate surrounding raising its Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), and whether to raise them from 27.5 mpg in 2007 to 35 mpg by the year 2020. The US Congress voted in favor of increasing CAFE standards, but not without substantial debate and continuing resistance from many groups. A similar debate exists in other places around the world as well.
 +The debate centers on some of the following questions. Do vehicle fuel economy standards help reduce emissions and fight global warming? Or, do consumers react to fuel economy standards by driving more, offsetting any cuts in emissions? What is the history of fuel economy standards in this regard? Have they helped reduce emissions in Europe and Japan, for example? Are the markets a superior way to reduce emissions? Can high gasoline prices sufficiently incentivize automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles? Is fuel efficiency an important ingredient for auto-makers to stay competitive? How much gas money is saved by increasing fuel economy? Does this make up for any higher manufacturing costs? Will fuel economy standards help improve the energy independence of a nation? Are fuel economy standards safe, or does it force the creation of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles? How do fuel economy standards compare with the other approaches to reducing emissions, such as a carbon tax? Should fuel economy standards be prioritized as a solution?" />
 +
{|style="font-size:100%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0" {|style="font-size:100%; border:1px solid #BAC5FD; " cellpadding="0"
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style=""|
=== Are vehicle fuel economy standards a good strategy in fighting global warming? === === Are vehicle fuel economy standards a good strategy in fighting global warming? ===
-|} 
- 
-{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center" 
-|__TOC__ 
|} |}
Line 12: Line 11:
|- |-
|bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"| |bgcolor="#F7F7F7" colspan="2" style= "border:1px solid #BAC5FD"|
-===Background and Context of Debate:===+===Background and context ===
 + 
 +Fuel economy standards are regulations on the efficiency of vehicle engines. It is typically measured by the distance a vehicle can travel on a gallon of gasoline (kilometers per gallon or miles per gallon). [[Image:Auto manufacturing.jpg|right|200px]][[Image:Gas pump.jpg|left|200px]] This debate generally surrounds whether it is a good idea to regulate or raise the regulations on fuel economy. In 2007, the United States, for instance, saw a major debate surrounding raising its Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), and whether to raise them from 27.5 mpg in 2007 to 35 mpg by the year 2020. The US Congress voted in favor of increasing CAFE standards, but not without substantial debate and continuing resistance from many groups. A similar debate exists in other places around the world as well. The debate centers on some of the following questions. Do vehicle fuel economy standards help reduce emissions and fight global warming? Or, do consumers react to fuel economy standards by driving more, offsetting any cuts in emissions? What is the history of fuel economy standards in this regard? Have they helped reduce emissions in Europe and Japan, for example? Are the markets a superior way to reduce emissions? Can high gasoline prices sufficiently incentivize automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles? Is fuel efficiency an important ingredient for auto-makers to stay competitive? How much gas money is saved by increasing fuel economy? Does this make up for any higher manufacturing costs? Will fuel economy standards help improve the energy independence of a nation? Are fuel economy standards safe, or does it force the creation of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles? How do fuel economy standards compare with the other approaches to reducing emissions, such as a carbon tax? Should fuel economy standards be prioritized as a solution?
|} |}
 +
 +{| style="width:100%; height:100px" border="0" align="center"
 +|__TOC__
 +|}
 +
{| {|
|- |-
Line 21: Line 27:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
===Emissions: Do fuel economy standards help reduce emissions, combat global warming? === ===Emissions: Do fuel economy standards help reduce emissions, combat global warming? ===
Line 30: Line 35:
*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, fight global warming| Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, fight global warming]]''' The most basic function of fuel economy standards is that they help the average car burn less gasoline, so emit less C02 into the atmosphere. The net effect is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, which lowers the net human contribution to global warming. *'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, fight global warming| Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, fight global warming]]''' The most basic function of fuel economy standards is that they help the average car burn less gasoline, so emit less C02 into the atmosphere. The net effect is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, which lowers the net human contribution to global warming.
-*'''[[Argument: Higher fuel economy standards does not increase driving| Higher fuel economy standards does not increase driving]]''' [http://www.thinkyouth.org/2008/09/23/repealing-cafe-standards-would-bestupid/ "Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008] - "Some have argued that to raise CAFE standards means that people will only drive more. The argument is as stupid is one that says to make our money easier to carry means we will spend more. People aren’t moving their job because their car will get more gas to the gallon."+*'''[[Argument: Higher fuel economy standards do not increase driving| Higher fuel economy standards do not increase driving]]''' [http://www.thinkyouth.org/2008/09/23/repealing-cafe-standards-would-bestupid/ "Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008] - "Some have argued that to raise CAFE standards means that people will only drive more. The argument is as stupid is one that says to make our money easier to carry means we will spend more. People aren’t moving their job because their car will get more gas to the gallon."
:[http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/07_09_14_Automobile_Fuel_Economy_Stds_Parry.aspx Ian Parry. "Should Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Be Increased?". Resources for the Future. 17 Sept. 2007] - "Critics of CAFE standards sometimes point to the perverse effect of higher fuel economy on lowering fuel costs per mile and increasing the incentive to drive, which can increase highway congestion, accidents, and pollution. However, according to a recent study by Kenneth Small and Kurt Van Dender, less than 10 percent of the fuel savings from better fuel economy are offset by increased driving; most likely, the costs of this "rebound effect" are probably fairly modest." :[http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/07_09_14_Automobile_Fuel_Economy_Stds_Parry.aspx Ian Parry. "Should Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Be Increased?". Resources for the Future. 17 Sept. 2007] - "Critics of CAFE standards sometimes point to the perverse effect of higher fuel economy on lowering fuel costs per mile and increasing the incentive to drive, which can increase highway congestion, accidents, and pollution. However, according to a recent study by Kenneth Small and Kurt Van Dender, less than 10 percent of the fuel savings from better fuel economy are offset by increased driving; most likely, the costs of this "rebound effect" are probably fairly modest."
-*'''Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, improve air quality.''' By reducing emissions, it is important to consider how fuel economy standards will improve air quality and public health, particularly in metropolitan areas.+*'''[[Argument: CAFE standards have strong history of reducing US emissions| CAFE standards have strong history of reducing US emissions]]''' The Union of Concerned Scientists said in 2008 about CAFE standards, "No energy legislation has ever done more for America’s security by saving oil and curbing global warming pollution."[http://www.autoexecmag.com/images/conv2008/021108_Sykora.pdf]
- +
-*'''CAFE standards have a strong history of reducing emissions in the US.''' The Union of Concerned Scientists said in 2008 about CAFE standards, "No energy legislation has ever done more for America’s security by saving oil and curbing global warming pollution."[http://www.autoexecmag.com/images/conv2008/021108_Sykora.pdf]+
Line 50: Line 53:
*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards increase driving so do not decrease emissions| Fuel economy standards increase driving so do not decrease emissions]]''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8623 Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren. "Don't Raise CAFE Standards". CATO. 2 Aug. 2007] - "Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That's because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled." *'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards increase driving so do not decrease emissions| Fuel economy standards increase driving so do not decrease emissions]]''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8623 Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren. "Don't Raise CAFE Standards". CATO. 2 Aug. 2007] - "Increasing CAFE standards will not decrease the amount of pollution coming from the U.S. auto fleet. That's because we regulate emissions per mile traveled, not per gallon of gasoline burned. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce the cost of driving and thus increase vehicle miles traveled."
-*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards do not directly reduce emissions| Fuel economy standards do not directly reduce emissions]]''' +*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards do not directly reduce emissions|Fuel economy standards do not directly reduce emissions]]'''.
-*'''Car-makers adjust to fuel economy costs by lowering other standards.''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8623 Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren. "Don't Raise CAFE Standards". CATO. 2 Aug. 2007] - "automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less complying with federal pollution standards with which they currently over-comply.+|-
 +|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
 +===Environment: What are the other environmental pros and cons?===
-:Those two observations explain calculations from Pennsylvania State economist Andrew Kleit showing that a 50 percent increase in CAFE standards would increase total emissions of volatile organic compounds by 2.3 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 3.8 percent, and carbon-monoxide emissions by 5 percent."+|-
 +|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +====Yes====
 +*'''Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, improve air quality.''' By reducing emissions, it is important to consider how fuel economy standards will improve air quality and public health, particularly in metropolitan areas.
 +
 +
 +
 +|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +====No====
 +
 +*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards only shift environmental impacts| Fuel economy standards only shift environmental impacts]]''' A 1992 National Research Council (NRC) report concluded, "Improvements in vehicle fuel economy will have indirect environmental impacts. For example, replacing the cast iron and steel components of vehicles with lighter weight materials (e.g., aluminum, plastics, or composites) may reduce fuel consumption but would generate a different set of environmental impacts, as well as result in different kinds of indirect energy consumption."[http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm]
 +
 +*'''[[Argument: Car-makers adjust to fuel economy costs by lowering other standards| Car-makers adjust to fuel economy costs by lowering other standards]]''' [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8623 Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren. "Don't Raise CAFE Standards". CATO. 2 Aug. 2007] - "automakers have an incentive to offset the costs associated with improving fuel efficiency by spending less complying with federal pollution standards with which they currently over-comply."
|- |-
-|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|+|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
===Economics: What are the economic pros and cons of fuel economy standards?=== ===Economics: What are the economic pros and cons of fuel economy standards?===
Line 67: Line 84:
*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards do not increase the cost of making cars| Fuel economy standards do not increase the cost of making cars]]''' [http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/09/10/gms-weak-arguments-against-increased-fuel-economy Felix Salmon. "GM's Weak Arguments Against Increased Fuel Economy Market Movers." Portfolio. 10 Sep. 2007] - "I, for one, am far from convinced that higher CAFE standards would increase the costs of making a car. In fact, insofar as they encouraged auto makers to make smaller cars and fewer SUVs, higher CAFE standards might even decrease the costs of making a car. Remember that cheaper cars, as a rule, are actually more fuel-efficient, not less." *'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards do not increase the cost of making cars| Fuel economy standards do not increase the cost of making cars]]''' [http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/09/10/gms-weak-arguments-against-increased-fuel-economy Felix Salmon. "GM's Weak Arguments Against Increased Fuel Economy Market Movers." Portfolio. 10 Sep. 2007] - "I, for one, am far from convinced that higher CAFE standards would increase the costs of making a car. In fact, insofar as they encouraged auto makers to make smaller cars and fewer SUVs, higher CAFE standards might even decrease the costs of making a car. Remember that cheaper cars, as a rule, are actually more fuel-efficient, not less."
-*'''Fuel economy standards help car companies stay competitive.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007] - "Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards, even though Detroit’s failure to sell more energy-efficient vehicles has clearly contributed to its brush with bankruptcy, its loss of market share to Toyota and Honda — whose fleets beat all U.S. automakers in fuel economy in 2007 — and its loss of jobs. G.M. today has 73,000 working U.A.W. members, compared with 225,000 a decade ago. Last year, Toyota overtook G.M. as the world’s biggest automaker."+*'''Fuel economy standards reduce money spent by drivers on gas.''' Fuel economy standards help reduce the amount of gasoline consumers use in traveling where they want to go. This means that they spend less on gasoline and have more money to spend on other things.
 + 
 +*'''[[Argument: Gas savings make-up for any higher initial costs of vehicles| Gas savings make-up for any higher initial costs of vehicles]]''' [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080722072030.htm "Possible To Reduce Emissions By 30 Percent By 2025, Model Shows". ScienceDaily. 29 July 2008)] - "For instance, the savings from buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle can offset the added cost of technology in less than a year by using technologies that are already available and manufacturing vehicles that achieve the CAFE standards and even go beyond them."
-*'''Japan/Europe show high fuel economy standards are achievable.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007] - "Here are the facts: Thanks to the Michigan delegation, U.S. mileage standards for passenger car fleets have been frozen at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1985. Light trucks are even worse[...]Japan and Europe already have much better mileage standards for their auto fleets than the U.S. They both have many vehicles that could meet the U.S. goal for 2020 today, and they are committed to increasing their fleet standards toward 40 m.p.g. and above in the coming decade." +*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards help car companies stay competitive| Fuel economy standards help car companies stay competitive]]''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007] - "Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards, even though Detroit’s failure to sell more energy-efficient vehicles has clearly contributed to its brush with bankruptcy, its loss of market share to Toyota and Honda — whose fleets beat all U.S. automakers in fuel economy in 2007 — and its loss of jobs. G.M. today has 73,000 working U.A.W. members, compared with 225,000 a decade ago. Last year, Toyota overtook G.M. as the world’s biggest automaker."
-*'''Fuel economy standards help save consumers money.''' Fuel economy standards help reduce the amount of gasoline consumers use in traveling where they want to go. This means that they spend less on gasoline and have more money to spend on other things.+*'''[[Argument: Japan/Europe show high fuel economy standards achievable| Japan/Europe show high fuel economy standards achievable]]''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007] - "Here are the facts: Thanks to the Michigan delegation, U.S. mileage standards for passenger car fleets have been frozen at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1985. Light trucks are even worse[...]Japan and Europe already have much better mileage standards for their auto fleets than the U.S. They both have many vehicles that could meet the U.S. goal for 2020 today, and they are committed to increasing their fleet standards toward 40 m.p.g. and above in the coming decade."
*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards foster innovation and jobs| Fuel economy standards foster innovation and jobs]]''' Fuel economy standards require regulatory agencies, which can fill jobs. In addition, creating more fuel-efficient vehicles requires innovation by auto-makers, which stimulates action and jobs in the industry. *'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards foster innovation and jobs| Fuel economy standards foster innovation and jobs]]''' Fuel economy standards require regulatory agencies, which can fill jobs. In addition, creating more fuel-efficient vehicles requires innovation by auto-makers, which stimulates action and jobs in the industry.
-*'''Opposition to fuel economy standards is driven by special interests.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007] - "Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards".+*'''[[Argument: Opposition to fuel economy standards driven by special interests| Opposition to fuel economy standards driven by special interests]]''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007] - "Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards".
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
Line 84: Line 103:
*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards increase car manufacturing costs and prices| Fuel economy standards increase car manufacturing costs and prices]]''' [http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4235773.html Mike Allen. "Why the New 35-MPG Fuel Economy Standard Is a Bad Idea". Popular Mechanics. 7 Dec. 2007] - "The car manufacturers are partly right: It’ll cost lots of money to change over their product mix from big cars to more fuel-efficient models, to use lighter-weight materials and to develop new technology." *'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards increase car manufacturing costs and prices| Fuel economy standards increase car manufacturing costs and prices]]''' [http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4235773.html Mike Allen. "Why the New 35-MPG Fuel Economy Standard Is a Bad Idea". Popular Mechanics. 7 Dec. 2007] - "The car manufacturers are partly right: It’ll cost lots of money to change over their product mix from big cars to more fuel-efficient models, to use lighter-weight materials and to develop new technology."
-*'''Fuel standards impair individuals that need high-powered trucks.''' [http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA556_Fuel_Economy_Markey_Platts.html Eric Peters. "No to New Fuel Economy Standards: Consumer Choice, Not Congress, Should Drive Detroit's Decisionmaking". National Policy Analysis. June 2007] - "Of course, it's easy to wag a finger at 'wasteful' pick-ups and SUVs from the halls of Congress -- and the editorial pages of big city newspapers. But the fact is many people (farmers, people with trailers to pull or large families to haul, contractors, etc.) simply need these kinds of vehicles -- and nothing else will do. You can't tow 9,000 pounds with a Camry. Sometimes, miles-per-gallon is not the sole reason for buying a vehicle." +*'''[[Argument: Fuel standards impair individuals needing high-powered trucks| Fuel standards impair individuals needing high-powered trucks]]''' [http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA556_Fuel_Economy_Markey_Platts.html Eric Peters. "No to New Fuel Economy Standards: Consumer Choice, Not Congress, Should Drive Detroit's Decisionmaking". National Policy Analysis. June 2007] - "Of course, it's easy to wag a finger at 'wasteful' pick-ups and SUVs from the halls of Congress -- and the editorial pages of big city newspapers. But the fact is many people (farmers, people with trailers to pull or large families to haul, contractors, etc.) simply need these kinds of vehicles -- and nothing else will do. You can't tow 9,000 pounds with a Camry. Sometimes, miles-per-gallon is not the sole reason for buying a vehicle."
 + 
 +*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards unfairly punish car manufacturers| Fuel economy standards unfairly punish car manufacturers]]''' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21120245/ Dan Carney. "Why U.S. fuel-economy standards don't work". MSNBC. 4 Oct. 2007] - "Recognizing that burning less fuel is beneficial for a multitude of reasons, those countries employ an array of policies designed to encourage frugality. Some countries have a higher sales tax on cars with bigger engines. The fuel itself is taxed, making its purchase sting enough that consumers are willing to sacrifice some interior space. The tax on diesel fuel is lower, encouraging sales of more fuel-efficient diesel-powered models. Friedman seeks to be seen as punishing “Detroit” rather than the little guy. And the little guy is a factor. People with lower income spend a proportionally higher amount of their money on gas, so liberals are reluctant to tax them directly."
 + 
 +*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards are a solution in search of a problem| Fuel economy standards are a solution in search of a problem]]''' [http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM85.cfm Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Barry Felrice, Sam Kazman, and Dr. W. David Montgomery. "Fuel Economy Standards: Do they Work? Do they Kill?". Heritage Foundation. 8 Mar. 2002] - "CAFE is a solution in search of a problem. Is the problem global warming? Is it energy security? Is it traffic congestion and air pollution? Or is it simply the envy of some people who can't afford to buy large SUVs? I think that I can say confidently that except for, perhaps, a subset of that last problem, CAFE is not the right solution to whatever the problem advocated is."
-*'''Fuel economy standards unfairly punish car manufacturers.''' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21120245/ Dan Carney. "Why U.S. fuel-economy standards don't work". MSNBC. 4 Oct. 2007] - "Recognizing that burning less fuel is beneficial for a multitude of reasons, those countries employ an array of policies designed to encourage frugality. Some countries have a higher sales tax on cars with bigger engines. The fuel itself is taxed, making its purchase sting enough that consumers are willing to sacrifice some interior space. The tax on diesel fuel is lower, encouraging sales of more fuel-efficient diesel-powered models. Friedman seeks to be seen as punishing “Detroit” rather than the little guy. And the little guy is a factor. People with lower income spend a proportionally higher amount of their money on gas, so liberals are reluctant to tax them directly." 
|- |-
Line 99: Line 121:
*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards increase energy independence and security| Fuel economy standards increase energy independence and security]]''' [http://www.thinkyouth.org/2008/09/23/repealing-cafe-standards-would-bestupid/ "Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008] - "With the economy reeling from the effects of Wall Street some fools have been attacking what little progress America has made to move the country into a new future and better economic avenues. One of those successes have been stronger CAFE standards and moving America off of dependence on the international oil industry that is draining the economy of $700 billion dollars." *'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards increase energy independence and security| Fuel economy standards increase energy independence and security]]''' [http://www.thinkyouth.org/2008/09/23/repealing-cafe-standards-would-bestupid/ "Repealing CAFE Standards Would Be…Stupid". Think Youth. 23 Sept. 2008] - "With the economy reeling from the effects of Wall Street some fools have been attacking what little progress America has made to move the country into a new future and better economic avenues. One of those successes have been stronger CAFE standards and moving America off of dependence on the international oil industry that is draining the economy of $700 billion dollars."
-*'''Efficiency standards are a good alternative to more oil drilling.''' [http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/the-way-to-energy-independence-hint-it-isnt-drilling/ "The Way to Energy Independence (Hint: It Isn’t Drilling)". New York Times Editorial Board. 18 Aug. 2008] - "Wouldn’t it be great if we could satisfy our national appetite for oil by reducing consumption instead of increasing production — and protect the environment in the bargain?[...]We can — not by punching holes in the ground but simply by getting the numbers right on a piece of paper[...]Here’s how[...]Last December, Congress approved and President Bush signed a landmark energy bill that, among other things, upgraded the nation’s fuel economy standards for the first time in three decades[...]It requires automakers to achieve a fleetwide average for cars and light trucks of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That would be a 40 percent increase over today’s levels, and it could save as much as 1.1 million barrels of oil a day." +*'''[[Argument: Efficiency standards a good alternative to more oil drilling| Efficiency standards a good alternative to more oil drilling]]''' [http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/the-way-to-energy-independence-hint-it-isnt-drilling/ "The Way to Energy Independence (Hint: It Isn’t Drilling)". New York Times Editorial Board. 18 Aug. 2008] - "Wouldn’t it be great if we could satisfy our national appetite for oil by reducing consumption instead of increasing production — and protect the environment in the bargain?[...]We can — not by punching holes in the ground but simply by getting the numbers right on a piece of paper[...]Here’s how[...]Last December, Congress approved and President Bush signed a landmark energy bill that, among other things, upgraded the nation’s fuel economy standards for the first time in three decades[...]It requires automakers to achieve a fleetwide average for cars and light trucks of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That would be a 40 percent increase over today’s levels, and it could save as much as 1.1 million barrels of oil a day."
Line 135: Line 157:
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
 +
 +*'''[[Argument: Fuel economy standards better politically than gas taxes| Fuel economy standards better politically than gas taxes]]''' [http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blog/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2005&base_name=gas_tax_vs_cafe_standards Ezra Klein. "Gas Tax vs. Cafe Standards". The American Prospect. 29 Aug 2005] - "Gas taxes, unlike CAFE increases, are basically impossible to pass. Particularly now. It's one thing to sneak in a gas tax when fuel is cheap, but convincing Americans of it when they're demanding a drop in gas prices is not, I think, a sound recipe for political survival. It just won't happen. On the other hand, 93% of Americans support an increase in CAFE standards. That doesn't make it easy -- the auto industry is a powerful lobby. But they're going to fight a gas tax too, so I'd rather our politicians be battling back with an overwhelmingly popular proposal rather than running into industry opposition while carrying a bill Americans will stone them for passing."
Line 169: Line 193:
*[http://thehill.com/op-eds/improved-fuel-economy-standards-are-critical-to-americas-security-and-prosperity-2007-05-07.html Frederick W. Smith and P.X. Kelley. "Improved fuel economy standards are critical to America’s security and prosperity". The Hill. 5 Jul. 2007] *[http://thehill.com/op-eds/improved-fuel-economy-standards-are-critical-to-americas-security-and-prosperity-2007-05-07.html Frederick W. Smith and P.X. Kelley. "Improved fuel economy standards are critical to America’s security and prosperity". The Hill. 5 Jul. 2007]
*[http://www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/fuelstandards.php "Improved Fuel Economy Standards". Office of the Attorney General of California] *[http://www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/fuelstandards.php "Improved Fuel Economy Standards". Office of the Attorney General of California]
 +*[http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07921.pdf "Vehicle Fuel Economy. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate". US Government Accountability Office. Aug. 2007]
 +*[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080722072030.htm "Possible To Reduce Emissions By 30 Percent By 2025, Model Shows". ScienceDaily. 29 July 2008)]
Line 181: Line 207:
*[http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg676.cfm Gattuso, James L. ; Jeffreys, Kent "The Mounting Dangers of the CAFE Mileage Standards". Heritage Foundation. 13 Oct. 1988] *[http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg676.cfm Gattuso, James L. ; Jeffreys, Kent "The Mounting Dangers of the CAFE Mileage Standards". Heritage Foundation. 13 Oct. 1988]
*[http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm Charli E. Coon, J.D. "Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased". Heritage Foundation. 11 July 2001] *[http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1458.cfm Charli E. Coon, J.D. "Why the Government's CAFE Standards for Fuel Efficiency Should Be Repealed, not Increased". Heritage Foundation. 11 July 2001]
 +*[http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM85.cfm Dr. Robert W. Crandall, Barry Felrice, Sam Kazman, and Dr. W. David Montgomery. "Fuel Economy Standards: Do they Work? Do they Kill?". Heritage Foundation. 8 Mar. 2002]
*[http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR061907.html "CAFE Kills, and Then Some: Six Reasons to Be Skeptical of Fuel Economy Standards". National Center for Public Policy Research. 19 Jun. 2007] *[http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR061907.html "CAFE Kills, and Then Some: Six Reasons to Be Skeptical of Fuel Economy Standards". National Center for Public Policy Research. 19 Jun. 2007]
*[http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRNPA256SUV799.html "Raising SUV Fuel Economy Standards Would Mean More Traffic Fatalities". National Center for Public Policy Research. 30 July 1999] *[http://www.nationalcenter.org/PRNPA256SUV799.html "Raising SUV Fuel Economy Standards Would Mean More Traffic Fatalities". National Center for Public Policy Research. 30 July 1999]
Line 192: Line 219:
== See also == == See also ==
*[[Global climate change debate portal]] *[[Global climate change debate portal]]
-*[[Debate:Carbon tax| Carbon tax]]+*[[Debate: Carbon tax]]
-*[[Debate:Carbon emissions trading| Carbon emissions trading]]+*[[Debate: Carbon emissions trading]]
-== External links ==+*[[Debate: Electric vehicles]]
 +*[[Debate: Plug-in hybrids]]
 +== External links ==
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE Wikipedia: Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE Wikipedia: Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards]
*[http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/fuel_economy.shtml Terry Dinan and David Austin. "Fuel Economy Standards vs. a Gasoline Tax". U.S. Congressional Budget Office. 9 Mar. 2004] *[http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/fuel_economy.shtml Terry Dinan and David Austin. "Fuel Economy Standards vs. a Gasoline Tax". U.S. Congressional Budget Office. 9 Mar. 2004]
Line 202: Line 231:
*[http://www.cfr.org/publication/12488/ Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor. "Vehicle Fuel Economy". Council on Foreign Relations. 19 Dec. 2007] *[http://www.cfr.org/publication/12488/ Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor. "Vehicle Fuel Economy". Council on Foreign Relations. 19 Dec. 2007]
*[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "CAFE Overview - Frequently Asked Questions"] *[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "CAFE Overview - Frequently Asked Questions"]
- 
|} |}
 +
 +
 +[[Category:Energy]]
 +[[Category:Green energy]]
 +[[Category:Climate change]]
 +[[Category:Environment]]
 +[[Category:International politics]]
 +[[Category:Natural resources]]
 +[[Category:International]]
 +[[Category:Technology]]
 +[[Category:Science]]
 +[[Category:Business]]
 +[[Category:Vehicles]]
 +[[Category:Government regulations]]

Current revision

[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Are vehicle fuel economy standards a good strategy in fighting global warming?

Background and context

Fuel economy standards are regulations on the efficiency of vehicle engines. It is typically measured by the distance a vehicle can travel on a gallon of gasoline (kilometers per gallon or miles per gallon).
This debate generally surrounds whether it is a good idea to regulate or raise the regulations on fuel economy. In 2007, the United States, for instance, saw a major debate surrounding raising its Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), and whether to raise them from 27.5 mpg in 2007 to 35 mpg by the year 2020. The US Congress voted in favor of increasing CAFE standards, but not without substantial debate and continuing resistance from many groups. A similar debate exists in other places around the world as well. The debate centers on some of the following questions. Do vehicle fuel economy standards help reduce emissions and fight global warming? Or, do consumers react to fuel economy standards by driving more, offsetting any cuts in emissions? What is the history of fuel economy standards in this regard? Have they helped reduce emissions in Europe and Japan, for example? Are the markets a superior way to reduce emissions? Can high gasoline prices sufficiently incentivize automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles? Is fuel efficiency an important ingredient for auto-makers to stay competitive? How much gas money is saved by increasing fuel economy? Does this make up for any higher manufacturing costs? Will fuel economy standards help improve the energy independence of a nation? Are fuel economy standards safe, or does it force the creation of smaller, more vulnerable vehicles? How do fuel economy standards compare with the other approaches to reducing emissions, such as a carbon tax? Should fuel economy standards be prioritized as a solution?

Contents

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Emissions: Do fuel economy standards help reduce emissions, combat global warming?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, fight global warming The most basic function of fuel economy standards is that they help the average car burn less gasoline, so emit less C02 into the atmosphere. The net effect is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, which lowers the net human contribution to global warming.
Ian Parry. "Should Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Be Increased?". Resources for the Future. 17 Sept. 2007 - "Critics of CAFE standards sometimes point to the perverse effect of higher fuel economy on lowering fuel costs per mile and increasing the incentive to drive, which can increase highway congestion, accidents, and pollution. However, according to a recent study by Kenneth Small and Kurt Van Dender, less than 10 percent of the fuel savings from better fuel economy are offset by increased driving; most likely, the costs of this "rebound effect" are probably fairly modest."



[Add New]

No

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Environment: What are the other environmental pros and cons?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Fuel economy standards reduce emissions, improve air quality. By reducing emissions, it is important to consider how fuel economy standards will improve air quality and public health, particularly in metropolitan areas.


[Add New]

No

  • Fuel economy standards only shift environmental impacts A 1992 National Research Council (NRC) report concluded, "Improvements in vehicle fuel economy will have indirect environmental impacts. For example, replacing the cast iron and steel components of vehicles with lighter weight materials (e.g., aluminum, plastics, or composites) may reduce fuel consumption but would generate a different set of environmental impacts, as well as result in different kinds of indirect energy consumption."[2]
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Economics: What are the economic pros and cons of fuel economy standards?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Fuel economy standards reduce money spent by drivers on gas. Fuel economy standards help reduce the amount of gasoline consumers use in traveling where they want to go. This means that they spend less on gasoline and have more money to spend on other things.
  • Fuel economy standards help car companies stay competitive Thomas Friedman. "Et Tu, Toyota?". New York Times. 3 Oct. 2007 - "Michigan lawmakers year after year shielding Detroit from pressure to innovate on higher mileage standards, even though Detroit’s failure to sell more energy-efficient vehicles has clearly contributed to its brush with bankruptcy, its loss of market share to Toyota and Honda — whose fleets beat all U.S. automakers in fuel economy in 2007 — and its loss of jobs. G.M. today has 73,000 working U.A.W. members, compared with 225,000 a decade ago. Last year, Toyota overtook G.M. as the world’s biggest automaker."
  • Fuel economy standards foster innovation and jobs Fuel economy standards require regulatory agencies, which can fill jobs. In addition, creating more fuel-efficient vehicles requires innovation by auto-makers, which stimulates action and jobs in the industry.
[Add New]

No

  • Fuel economy standards violate consumer choice NADA chairwoman Annette Sykora said in February 2008, "The consumer will decide what works and what doesn't. It's that simple. You can't wave a government wand and make consumers buy a particular type of vehicle. This is not Europe."[3]
  • Fuel economy standards unfairly punish car manufacturers Dan Carney. "Why U.S. fuel-economy standards don't work". MSNBC. 4 Oct. 2007 - "Recognizing that burning less fuel is beneficial for a multitude of reasons, those countries employ an array of policies designed to encourage frugality. Some countries have a higher sales tax on cars with bigger engines. The fuel itself is taxed, making its purchase sting enough that consumers are willing to sacrifice some interior space. The tax on diesel fuel is lower, encouraging sales of more fuel-efficient diesel-powered models. Friedman seeks to be seen as punishing “Detroit” rather than the little guy. And the little guy is a factor. People with lower income spend a proportionally higher amount of their money on gas, so liberals are reluctant to tax them directly."


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Energy independence: Do fuel economy standards increase energy independence?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Efficiency standards a good alternative to more oil drilling "The Way to Energy Independence (Hint: It Isn’t Drilling)". New York Times Editorial Board. 18 Aug. 2008 - "Wouldn’t it be great if we could satisfy our national appetite for oil by reducing consumption instead of increasing production — and protect the environment in the bargain?[...]We can — not by punching holes in the ground but simply by getting the numbers right on a piece of paper[...]Here’s how[...]Last December, Congress approved and President Bush signed a landmark energy bill that, among other things, upgraded the nation’s fuel economy standards for the first time in three decades[...]It requires automakers to achieve a fleetwide average for cars and light trucks of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That would be a 40 percent increase over today’s levels, and it could save as much as 1.1 million barrels of oil a day."


[Add New]

No

  • Fuel economy standards don't help energy independence. Fuel economy standards do not decrease fuel consumption because people simply drive more when their cars are more efficient and driving is less expensive. (see full argument above) This means that fuel economy standards will not help reduce the amount of oil consumed, nor the amount of oil imported from abroad, so it will not strengthen energy independence.



[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Safety: Are safety concerns involved with increasing fuel economy standards?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Fuel economy standards do not put drivers at greater risk Jen Dunnaway. "Latest Loony Argument Against CAFE Standards: High-MPG Cars Kill People". Car Domain Blog. 26 Mar. 2008 - "Republican lobbyist [Grover Norquist] claimed that requiring the automakers to eke up their mpg ratings was tantamount to murdering consumers—by forcing them into smaller cars, putting them at greater risk during collisions. His argument is based on one 2002 study that explored the effects of the diminishing body size of cars in the 70's. In addition to simplistically generalizing the results of that report to the new generation of compact cars, his position also ignores a lot of key realities about crashes, including the illusion of safety experienced by drivers of big vehicles, their greater likelihood of single-vehicle accidents and rollovers, and the tendency of large rides to transfer more energy to the bodies of occupants during a crash, resulting in worse injuries."


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Vs. gas tax: Are fuel economy standards superior to a gas tax?

[Add New]

Yes

  • Fuel economy standards better politically than gas taxes Ezra Klein. "Gas Tax vs. Cafe Standards". The American Prospect. 29 Aug 2005 - "Gas taxes, unlike CAFE increases, are basically impossible to pass. Particularly now. It's one thing to sneak in a gas tax when fuel is cheap, but convincing Americans of it when they're demanding a drop in gas prices is not, I think, a sound recipe for political survival. It just won't happen. On the other hand, 93% of Americans support an increase in CAFE standards. That doesn't make it easy -- the auto industry is a powerful lobby. But they're going to fight a gas tax too, so I'd rather our politicians be battling back with an overwhelmingly popular proposal rather than running into industry opposition while carrying a bill Americans will stone them for passing."


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources

[Add New]

Yes


[Add New]

No


See also

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.