Grab our RSS Feed
Follow us on:
   AND    

    

What’s All this Tom Friedman, Automakers, and CAFE Fuss?

October 4th, 2007 | Posted in: PHEV, Politics, Public Opinion

3logs.jpg

Anyone who reads auto blogs and newspapers by now has heard a lot about Tom Friedmans Op-ed in the New York Times yesterday. In it he bashed Toyota for joining with the Big 3 automakers in encouraging the defeat of a Senate bill to move CAFE gas mileage standards to a corporate average of 35 mpg by 2020. He suggests Toyota is deceitful, for on one hand it pushes itself as environmentally-minded, but on the other, it’s just as interested in making dough from gas-guzzling pick-up trucks. Increasing mpgs will make it harder to build and sell trucks.

(NY TIMES Article)

Next, Irv Miller, VP from Toyota replied. He fired back from the Toyota corporate blog, using a track and field metaphor, that Toyota is the leader in fuel efficiency but doesn’t want the bar raised too high, so that no one could win the competition. He noted that Americans want their trucks and Toyota needs to make them to compete.

(Toyota Blog)

After that, we heard from GM on their corporate blog. Their author, Tom Wilkinson, noted that all the automakers need to build trucks, as they account for 40% of all sales, and thus GMs response is to improve mpg of trucks as well (i.e. 2-mode hybrids). His point is that the CAFE bill (Senate version) is “bad policy” because it lumps both cars and truck to the same standard. He also states that Friedman’s comments about European cars getting better mileage proves it could happen in the U.S. is only true because the U.S. refuses to levy gas and carbon taxes.

(GM Blog)

Todd Lasso of MotorTrend also comes out in defense of the automakers. He points out that Oil companies and OPEC resist the U.S. imposing taxes with threats of higher pricing, also to be the case if E85, for example, is used. He also bashes states for imposing strict noxious gas management standards that make diesel in the U.S. very expensive (BTW diesel exhaust has been shown recently to be linked to coronary artery disease). He comes out in support of the alternative Dingell proposal of coal, petroleum, and natural gas production tax, gasoline tax, and making people living in >3000 sq ft houses lose the mortgage interest deduction.

How does the Chevy Volt fit into this?

Since the CAFE standard will require an average mpg across the corporation, how would the Volt affect GMs portfolio?

How may mpg does it get?

Well, for the first 40 miles…infinity.

If you multiply any number by infinity, it equals infinity. Surely that’s greater than 35…

Posted by: Lyle

19 Responses to “What’s All this Tom Friedman, Automakers, and CAFE Fuss?”


  1. Van
    Vote -1 Vote +1Van     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    Yes, hybrids help the fleet average meet higher fuel economy standards. But the CAFE regulatory scheme has been demonstrated to be a joke. For the last 17 years, fuel economy has been decreasing under the regulation. Vehicles within the fleet weigh almost 1000 lbs more than in the 1980’s. This alone has caused fuel economy to decrease by more than 10%. Next the horsepower to weight ratio has been increasing, as demonstrated by Camrys and Accords with more than 260 horsepower. More weight, more power, and more size, has actually decreased the safety of those driving sensible cars. And the fix everyone knows but no one advocates, creating a gasoline price structure so that the more you use, the more you pay per gallon. This is the way we conserve water, and electricity. Such a price structure would not punish those who drive Volts, for our fuel consumption would be way down. But it would punish those driving SUV’s and pick-ups that get 13 or 14 MPG.  

    (Quote)


  2. cce
    Vote -1 Vote +1cce     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    The Sentate bill does not apply the same standard to cars and trucks. That would be impossible. Each class of vehicle has to improve according to its own standard, with the end target being 35 mpg for the combined US fleet (cars would be higher, trucks would be lower). That’s the way past CAFE bills should have been written, which would have treated all automakers fairly instead of favoring those who had the largest mix of small cars.  

    (Quote)


  3. Drake
    Vote -1 Vote +1Drake     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    FTA: “He points out that Oil companies and OPEC resist the U.S. imposing taxes with threats of higher pricing…”

    This argument is pure crap. In the late 70s and early 80s after the oil crisis, there was a massive push toward fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. The price of gas was still high and these new ideas were looking very promising. Then, OPEC got really scared and they flooded the market with oil to allow the price to plummet, and in doing so kill the demand for alternatives.

    OPEC and the oil companies are very fearful right now. The price of oil remains high and there is no relief in sight. If they push the price even higher, it will only mean their doom at a faster rate.

    Actually, only OPEC would be doomed. If the oil companies were smart, they would latch on to battery technology and develop, manufacture and promote it. They would come out with a PR victory and also extend their existence by a good 100 years past peek oil.  

    (Quote)


  4. Rashiid Amul
    Vote -1 Vote +1Rashiid Amul     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Good comments everyone. Now I’ll add mine. Most likely the dumbest of them all. I oppose moving the CAFE gas mileage standards to a corporate average of 35 mpg by 2020. I oppose moving them period. But not because I am anti environment. I’m just afraid that if the automakers have to concentrate on meeting CAFE, they will forget about developing PHEVs. I agree that cheap gas/oil has put us in the predicament that we are in now, but I have a question. Europe has been paying high prices per gallon for gasoline for many years. Back in 1991 when I was there, I remember paying over $4.00 for approx 1 gallon (They measure in liters). Europe is just has technologically advanced as us. Why the heck are they not way ahead of the rest of the world in PHEVs or simply battery technology? We are pushing it now because gas is so expensive. Well the Europeans have been paying through the nose for years. Why didn’t they invent it?  

    (Quote)


  5. Marty McFly
    Vote -1 Vote +1Marty McFly     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    I would guess the Volt MPG rating would be based on how many miles it can travel on a full tank of fuel (640/12 = 53 mpg).

    If Exxon/Chevron/Shell/BP were smart, they’d start buying up all the power companies (just in case this Hydrogen scam doesn’t pan out)…  

    (Quote)


  6. Matt986
    Vote -1 Vote +1Matt986     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    The problem with taxing people with houses greater than 3000sq ft… I know a guy that moved from a ~2000sq ft house that was rather old, into a relatively new house that is just larger than 3000sq ft…. but the new house uses HALF of the power the old one did due to new more efficient equipment and insulation. Taxing on size is NOT a good idea.

    I do think that CAFE standards maybe should be for each class of vehicle… yet pickups and trucks have long been exempted, and should be held to some sort of standard.  

    (Quote)


  7. Dave G
    Vote -1 Vote +1Dave G     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    I agree with Matt986. Don’t increase income taxes for houses over 3000 square feet. A 1500 sq ft house can use more energy. It all depends on who lives there.

    A better way is to tie increased taxes directly to energy usage. To begin with, I support an immediate increase in the gas tax. This would:

    – increase funds for road and bridge construction and maintenence.

    – increase funds for advanced battery research and optimized manufacturing.

    – provide tangable incentivies for consumers to move away from gas guzzeling vehicles.

    Look at it this way, with a gas tax, at least you have some control over how much taxes you pay. If they raise the income tax again, what can you do – make less money?

    And yes, after PHEVs go mainstream, an electric tax would make sense as well. But right now we should go the other way, increase tax breaks for PHEVs.  

    (Quote)


  8. John FK
    Vote -1 Vote +1John FK     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    Doubters of the Chevy Volt need to take note: the Democrats are already plotting to change the tax system to tax drivers per mile driven rather than per gallon bought…they just can’t seem to find enough gas tax money to divert to their own private enterprises…

    And as far as tax go: their should be NO taxes on one’s primary residence up to 1000 sq. ft. per occupant. No taxes on food either (except processed foods with corn syrup, MSG, and other poisons). These are the life and death requirements of people that NO government should be messing with to pad their pockets.  

    (Quote)


  9. Andy
    Vote -1 Vote +1Andy     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

    Man what happened to the good ole GM-volt days when we would argue whether there should be one or two power outlets? I come to this website to escape politics… sigh.

    (I still think the answer is two)  

    (Quote)


  10. Mark
    Vote -1 Vote +1Mark     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    # Marty McFly Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
    “If Exxon/Chevron/Shell/BP were smart, they’d start buying up all the power companies (just in case this Hydrogen scam doesn’t pan out)…”

    I don’t think any Oil company should be allowed to buy any energy or battery company. They will just bury the technology to keep us on oil until we use up every last drop of it.  

    (Quote)


  11. Marty McFly
    Vote -1 Vote +1Marty McFly     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    Big Oil is on it’s way to becoming “Big Energy”. Remember, you have to keep America hooked.

    And the CAFE is a joke. For every high profit, gas guzzling truck the bow tie manufactures, they just import a Hyundai to offset the emissions balance sheet.  

    (Quote)


  12. Matt986
    Vote -1 Vote +1Matt986     Says:
    October 4th, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Andy, sadly, politics will play into it somehow… If not the battery development, then the taxes…  

    (Quote)


  13. Dave B
    Vote -1 Vote +1Dave B     Says:
    October 5th, 2007 at 7:32 am

    Andy,

    I’m with you. The technical discussions and speculation are much more interesting. It’s funny that I keep hearing more criticisms that America’s focus has shifted from science and math from the Apollo days to something else.

    GM’s request for government dollars is almost like an excuse should the Volt not arrive as promised: well, the government didn’t help with battery development the way the Japanese government did.  

    (Quote)


  14. wow
    Vote -1 Vote +1wow     Says:
    October 5th, 2007 at 8:14 am

    Hey, how do the government’s CAFE standards compare to the mpg’s of the government fleet? That would be interesting data indeed… anyone have a link?

    If you ask me, one of the best ways to get this tech kick-started would be for the federal government to sign up as a potential customer (based on performance of the final product so the government doesn’t get screwed). That reduces risk to the automakers and battery manufacturers and gives the government incredibly low service-cost vehicles.

    A huge federal government committment to purchase “X” % of these types of vehicles to make up their fleet as long as they meet whatever requirements, spread evenly among all US makers that meet the requirements. Sounds like a plan with winners on all sides to me. Then the prices fall and trickle down into everybody’s range.  

    (Quote)


  15. omegaman66
    Vote -1 Vote +1omegaman66     Says:
    October 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Here is a comment that I mostly agree with! “I oppose moving them period. But not because I am anti environment. I’m just afraid that if the automakers have to concentrate on meeting CAFE, they will forget about developing PHEVs”

    I think the focus should be to forget about cafe and lets just move as fast as we can towards serial hybrids. Investing money in improving a 100 year old technology can only give small gains as most of the easy gains have already been made.

    People people people. The oil companies make more than just gas and to think that they fear electric cars is rediculous when they price of a barrel of oil is at all time highs. Demand for oil is out the roof and shows no signs of letting up. Understand this: the oil companies know that as long as there is oil there will be demand for it, regardless of phev. Just look around. Virtually everything you see is made in part from oil. It’s not just the gasoline.  

    (Quote)


  16. Shawn
    Vote -1 Vote +1Shawn     Says:
    October 5th, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Unless one can slide a 4′x8′ sheet of plywood in the box and close the tailgate the vehicle should be considered a passenger vehicle and thus subject to the outdated CAFE standards. This goes for vans too.  

    (Quote)


  17. Van
    Vote -1 Vote +1Van     Says:
    October 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am

    The first 60 gallons a person uses in a month should be priced at market price. If a person uses more than 60 gallons in the last 30 days, they should pay market price plus a 25% surcharge for high gasoline consumption. Therefore the taxes would not punish those who conserve, but would fall on those who squander fuel. A person could still drive a SUV for short trips and not exceed the 60 gallons/month level, or a person could drive long distances in a Prius or Volt. There would be no exceptions for commerical vehicles, thus the businesses that use hybrid vehicles would enjoy a lower operating cost. This would be good for our security, and good for this island earth.  

    (Quote)


  18. Questions
    Vote -1 Vote +1Questions     Says:
    October 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    It is astonishing the number of people who SIMULTANEOUSLY believe that:

    1. Oil companies and OPEC are part of a crafty, diabolical, Grand Plan to make us use m,roe and more oil while hiking up the price more and more.

    2. Oil companies are too stupid to invest in other kinds of energy.

    Which is true?
    Are they smart or stupid?

    (It’s sort of like the people–the same people in most instances–who believe that although George Bush is the dumbest person in the nation; he is the Chief Implementor of a Grand Plan to take over the middle East and the world).

    CAFE fails because it forces people to buy cars they do not want and prices they cannot afford. Get it?
    I’ll only say that once because if you don’t get it after that, you are unlikely to.

    “Fleet mileage” (whatever the HELL that is) may have declined “in the past 10 years” (or whatever the flavor of the month is); but consumers have ALWAYS outdone CAFE in the choice of vehicles they buy (as shown by Csaba Csere). Here are some other things he has to say:

    —–
    “5. CAFE puts the burden on automakers to produce products that buyers don’t necessarily want. Last year, when gas prices went over $3 a gallon, Americans, for the first time in nearly five years, started buying more cars than trucks—at least for five months. By February of this year, after gas prices dipped in the low $2 range, trucks once again were outselling cars, by 20 percent. Forcing manufacturers to sell fuel-efficient vehicles in America without the encouragement of high fuel prices is like trying to make steakhouses sell tofu-fillet sandwiches for the same price as a chateaubriand.”

    and:

    “6. CAFE laws imply that Americans can continue to drive the vehicles they want, if only the stingy automakers would spend a few more pennies on efficient technologies to improve vehicle mileage. Not only is this nonsense, but it also denies the reality that major reductions in energy consumption will require changes in the habits and lifestyles of most Americans.”

    and:

    “The bottom line is that CAFE doesn’t save any fuel because it fails to motivate drivers to worry about fuel economy. Anyone who professes to be worried about conservation and thinks the solution can be found in some version of CAFE law is too simple to understand the problem, too cowardly to ask voters to make some sacrifices, or sufficiently cynical to promote a law that accomplishes nothing other than capturing self-aggrandizing headlines.”
    ———–

    http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/12936/top-10-reasons-why-the-corporate-average-fuel-economy-law-is-d-u-m-b.html?al=128

    People who believe in conspiracy theories are usually not very smart at all. The internet has now given them a voice (regrettably).  

    (Quote)


  19. Jeff M
    Vote -1 Vote +1Jeff M     Says:
    October 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Public protest of Toyota’s opposition to higher CAFE standards…

    Where: Toyota Santa Monica 801 Santa Monica Blvd Santa Monica, CA (on corner of Santa Monica Blvd and Lincoln Blvd) When: Monday Oct 22 –12:00 p.m. (noon)

    See http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=16452  

    (Quote)

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

RSS Recent Posts

RSS Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts