Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Vehicle fuel economy standards

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 21:23, 21 October 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 21:30, 21 October 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
Next diff →
Line 67: Line 67:
*'''[[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."+*'''[[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."
*'''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." *'''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."

Revision as of 21:30, 21 October 2008

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

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

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

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."
  • 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.
  • 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."[1]



No

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."


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

Yes

  • 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."
  • Japan/Europe show high fuel economy standards are achievable. 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."
  • 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.
  • 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.

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."[2]
  • 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."


Energy independence: Do fuel economy standards increase energy independence?

Yes

  • Efficiency standards are 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."


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.



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

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."


No


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

Yes

No


Pro/con sources

Yes


No


See also

External links


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.