Americans demonstrated their dissapointment over middle eastern energy dependence on fossil fuels and rising gas prices with a resounding defeat of Bush’s energy policies. These concerns are inextricably linked to fuel efficient cars and cleaner alternative fuels. The Democrats big win was a major bolster to green cars and alternative fuels.



Fuel efficient standards are emerging as a major political topic. Fuel-efficiency has declined during the past decade for nine of the 13 major manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States, according to a new study by the Consumer Federation of America.

Money losing U.S. automakers say that they can’t compete with fuel efficient imports as they suffer from a more than $1,000-per-vehicle disadvantage of higher costs for health insurance and pensions and therefore require government bailouts. This argument is continuing to lose steam though as profitable companies like Honda now produce more than 80% of their vehicles in the US and Canada.

Democrat Edward Markey has proposed raising combined light truck-car standards to an average of 33 miles per gallon by 2016 models. Democrat Barack Obama proposed increasing the average to 40.5 mpg for passenger vehicles and 32.6 mpg for the light-truck category, which includes SUVs, by 2020. Jerry McNerney, who defeated Pombo in California, says he will "dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles."

Fuel efficiency and energy independence is already taking a foothold in the next presedential election as likely Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona and Democrat/Independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut both wish to address global warming. This will put even more pressure on the current Bush administration to cooperate with the Democrats as the Republicans look to avoid another blowout.

The future of hybrid cars is looking even brighter

Mr Fezziwig, administrator for Green Cars Now, http://www.greencarsnow.com, a website promoting fuel efficient cars and cleaner alternative fuels.

 

Well, agreed for the most part, and not to be argumentative, but remember: the entire USA hybrid revolution up to this point has been under the Bush administration.

The hybrid tax breaks were passed by Repubs. The HOV lane stuff was mostly passed under repub administrations.

So, it's not like now, with the Dems in power in Congress, that hybrid cars will "finally sell" in the USA. They've been doing pretty good the 6-7 years.

 

If consumers wanted the most fuel efficient vehicles available to them most of the automakers have the vehicles needed to beat the proposed changes to CAFE already. Consumers buy what they want, and changing CAFE will likely produce vehicles that people don't want, and they may choose to stick with their older vehicle (which gives them what they want) for a lot longer. I chose a 2wd 2.7L Tacoma, I'm a tiny minority with the vast majority getting the 4wd 4L. In a few years when buyers see that the new truck is slower off the line than my 2.7L they won't be buying a new truck. Manipulating the market may not get the results you want. Manufacturers should resist attempts to force them to make unpopular vehicles.



But Honda doesn't have hundreds of thousands of already retired US and Canadian employees that it must pay pension and health care for. The US companies should NOT receive government bailouts but your argument that Honda has the same pension/insurance issues because they employ in the US is bogus.



These guys all used to be in engine design before they chose civil service and will show the automakers how to achieve these standards right? A light truck that gets 33 miles per gallon won't provide the power that people that buy full sized trucks need. My little tacoma has given me a best of 33.5, but I couldn't tow much, and don't have that need.

Remember, the reason trucks and SUVs are so popular now is because CAFE standards made cars less appealing and trucks more appealing. 4 door trucks have become very popular thanks to CAFE. The CAFE folks didn't see that coming I'd guess.

Here what a recent NHTSA notice states: “The current structure of the cafe program encourages the development of vehicles that are larger and heavier, and which may have higher centers of gravity. Thus, the cafe program may contribute to the two principal vehicle safety problems on the road today: vehicle compatibility and rollover.”

The NHTSA is now proposing closing the light-truck "loophole" with 6 levels of light truck, with different standards for each based on wheel base and width. My guess, longer/wider trucks, no loophole closed.

Human nature isn't so simple, for some reason people with higher FE cars tend to drive more, CAFE standards have increased average miles driven.

 

I have no problem with a difference of opinion but a problem when the facts and data are misrepresented:
In spite of GW Bush and the Republicans considering the high mileage vehicle program, PNGV, was renamed and defunded from hybrids for the hydrogen fraud:
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2002/01doe.php
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2002/01doe.php
So how were these cars working out:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309070945/html/62.html

They basicly sound like a 5-passenger, aluminum body, Insight, with a turbo-diesel, hybrid-electric drive train. ICE power: 74/59/74 hp (pretty close to a Prius!)

I bought used so I've never seen a hybrid tax break. As for the HOV stuff, I've never been a great fan since our hybrids do much better in stop-and-go traffic. But interesting enough, Bill Clinton had proposed the tax credits in 1999 and they were blocked by . . . a Republican Congress:
http://www.house.gov/science/gardiner_041499.htm


I have no problem with a difference of opinion but playing fast and loose with the facts:
The Japanese hybrids have done very well . . . but with the exception of the FEH, the US manufacturers have been pretty weak. The belt-assisted models being the 2006 answer by GM following on the success of the Silverado belt-assisted model.

Bob Wilson

 

please dont confuse the action of the republicans thus far with the action that should have been taken.

The real issue with low effeciency vehicles is that the price you pay doesn't actually reflect the cost to society. If you included all the extraneous costs of using more fuel, heavier vehicles wearing the roads faster etc then the large fuel inefficient vehicles would cost a great deal more and the demand would slow. The fact of the matter is that the gubment is subsidizing these gas guzzlers more substantially than they are subsidizing the newer vehicles that are starting to address the issues, and fund further development.

where did the 60k units shipped limit come from in the current energy bill? I mean the current energy bill is better than what we had, but not anywhere near what we need.

meanwhile a great number of people are holding their breath for hydrogen to mature, even though any reasonable expert will tell you that its not practical to rely on this tech maturing any time soon.

electric or electric hybrid is the way to go. Couple this with incentives for individuals to invest in alternative energy creation and we have made some serious progress. Wind power / photo voltaic / passive solar and hybrid electric plugins are the current investments the energy policy needs to encourage. Additionally waterless toilets, tankless water heaters, gray water irrigation, more permeable soil coverings for walkaways driveways and road ways, drought hardy vegetation etc are also issues that need looked at

don't thank the republicans for the current energy policy, punish them for only going far enough to not look criminally negligent.

....... stepping off soap box . . . whos next?

 

A lot of consumer demand is driven by other consumers! Many SUV buyers are of the "can't beat them so join them" crowd since being in a small sedan squeezed between monster trucks is not fun, and not safe (reduced visibility and threatening bulk mass that is poorly controlled). It is not a "lemming" mentality entirely, but the results are much the same. I do blame the marketing departments of the auto makers for driving the consumer demand to maximize profits. Note that I have no problem with them maximizing profits, but the trade off for less safe, less environmental friendly, less balance of trade friendly profit maximizing is about equivalent to the tobacco companies maximizing profits by lying about health problems.

The auto companies are also to blame, along with a complicit congress, for giving tax breaks, safety equipment exclusions, and emissions waivers over the years that encourage consumers to buy SUVs and full size pickups at an unfair price advantage (under the guise of saving farmers and construction companies from costs associated with equipment that was of little value in those use environments, while at the same time increasing profits that further drove the marketing efforts to the general public).

At least most of the tax breaks and emissions exemptions and safety waivers are no longer available, or are soon to phase out, for these ridiculous (for the majority of which are only used for daily commuting and little else for their entire life) vehicles. Higher gas prices are a great incentive to turn the trend, too.

-- Alan

 

There I was, just reading along, and suddenly the PS! warning light goes off. That must mean pure sarcasm.

I don't know where to find real GM sales figures, but here is an excerpt from a blog I found with google:

http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com...rids_not_.html

"...The IRS has released the official word on the company's sales during the the third quarter of the year: a negligible 812. That brings the Detroit automaker's cumulative number of qualified hybrid vehicles sold to 2,200..."

On Tuesday, the domestic auto makers met with Bush. The run-up story was widely reported for example:

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/health/...s_agenda.shtml

I have a hard time decoding all that political stuff, but it seems to boil down to a wealth transfer in the general direction of domestic auto makers. Any such program should include words like "domestic revitalization" and "energy independence".

And there goes that PS! light again.

DAS

 

Thanks Doug,

Good catch!

The specifications for the high mileage vehicles would have given Toyota and Honda a run for their money. Heck, they still look good today. But "crush 'em EV" Lutz and the rest haven't figured it out. They insist on making the wrong wheels and blaming it on the workers.

Bob Wilson

 

Regardless of how you want to spin it, these are the facts:

1. the USA hybrid revolution has existed mostly since 2000.
2. All the hybrid vehicle tax breaks, regardless of "ORIGINAL PROPOSER" have been paid out during the last 5 years.

Those were my points. On another topic in this forum, I showed why the very weak PNGV was a bad program and the replacement program was much better. Search the forum for the post so I won't have to repeat myself.

I'm a Republican AND an environmental supporter. I am on my second hybrid car, my utility bill is $73 a month, I recycle like a madman, and I ride a very efficient electrical Segway 1700 miles a year in my commute.

I believe that companies and governments SHOULD contribute to cleaner air and water, but not to the detriment of private industries making a good profit for their shareholders and employees. There is a balance to be reached.

Common sense needs to rule. The problem with most Democratic party policies is that they want to put the environment as PRIORITY ONE, even over the profits and success of the businesses involved. That is an incorrect way to proceed. If you legislate environmentalism to the point that companies cannot comply without piling all their profits into cleaning up, then the economy suffers overall.

Balance and common sense people. And sometimes NEITHER party reaches that balance.

 

Anybody have a problem with the fact that we need incentives to buy a hybrid. Something is wrong with that logic.