Any Other Questions?

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/4/2008 8:12:36 AM


As Gristmill's David Roberts writes: "Hm, efficiency or a crack addict's desperate search for increased supply? Tough choice!" Yeah, real tough. ;)  Luckily, the Center for Economic and Policy Research has figured it out for us:

If, instead of holding them constant, the government had increased mileage standards after 1985 at the rate of 0.4 MPG per year for both cars and light trucks (a much slower pace of increase than in the period from 1980 to 1985), then the standard for cars in 2007 would have been 36.8 MPG and the standard for light trucks would have been 28.3 MPG. The average for the current fleet of cars on the road would be over 32 miles per gallon.

If fuel efficiency had improved at this rate, then the average car on the road would be more than 50 percent more fuel efficient than is currently the case (32 miles per gallon compared with 20.2 miles per gallon). If increased efficiency did not change the number of miles driven each year, then this would imply a reduction of more than one-third in the amount of oil used for the country gasoline needs. This savings would be equal to approximately 3,300,000 barrels per day.

Finally, as if all that's not enough, there's this:

...if Congress had continued to increase fuel efficiency standards over the last 22 years, we would currently have more than sixteen times the savings in oil consumption than what Senator McCain's plan promises to accomplish in 20 years by drilling offshore in protected areas- and a proportionately larger impact on gas prices.

Any other questions?


Comments



And who was in charge? (Bubby - 7/4/2008 10:49:07 AM)
In 1985 America was in the thrall of re-elected President Ronald Reagan - the Great Deregulator.  The solar panels that Jimmy Carter had placed on the Whitehouse roof had long been ripped off in an act of defiance to the idea of limited resource and sustainability.  No natural limitation would stand in the face of Smiling Dutch, and his Reaganomic Order.

Americans had a right to unfettered access to horsepower, bulk, and excess - like God's Chosen People.  "Government is not the solution, Government is the Problem", Reagan said, and his throng cheered.  "Let the Markets be Free".  GM built large-displacement engines, and what is good for GM, is good for America.  America needed big gas-guzzling vehicles to access our cowboy fantasies, and keep us safe.  

Dutch handed the reins to Daddy Bush and rode West. Daddy Bush had little of the charm and more of the greedy cronies. He also had big investments in the Oil Bidness.  There would be no C.A.F.E. improvements.  The Reagan Babies had grown to driving age, and needed their lug-tire SUV to reach the top of the pile. It was their birthright.  Have you heard the latest Jimmy Carter joke?  

When the "free markets" decided to turn the Savings and Loan industry into a government-funded ATM machine, America got the bill and decided it was time for a change (but not C.A.F.E.).  A new sheriff came to town - Bill Clinton, and he renewed Jimmy Carter's goal of ending America's addiction to oil.  The War Against Big Oil. His National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced their intention to study new fuel efficiency technologies for revising CAFE.  

But not so fast.  Reagan had inspired a whole generation of city dudes and conservative Republican intellectuals to stand tall in the face of reality. Into the fray rode Newt Gingrich, with his "Contract With America".  Carved on his tablets, Newt had the Way to Shrink Government.

Empowered by their new majority, the Republican congress declared that the NHTSA would have their revised CAFE regulation de-funded!  America had better things to do like protecting the Health Care lobby, and fighting Communism.  As victory piled on victory, the philandering Newt decided that what WE really needed to do was outlaw Democratic Presidents.  America was treated to a 6 year Republican Jihad against Anything Clinton.  

Meanwhile, in the 30 years since Jimmy Carter told America that our oil addiction was a threat to our way of life, and put us at the mercy of market cartels, America's oil imports have doubled.  In 1980 America consumed 17,056,000 barrels of oil, in 2007 America was consuming 20,697,000 barrels of oil.

So what does our Republican President, and the Republican Party suggest that we do.  Drill for oil, everywhere, now. Kick the oil monkey down the field and wait for a solution to our oil addiction - it will surely come from someplace awesome and unknowable. Won't it?



Well (spotter - 7/4/2008 2:45:53 PM)
I agree but I think the Democrats bear some responsibility as well.  They caved to the unions on this.  And in the long run, it didn't save any jobs.  "American" trucks are now made in Mexico, and "Japanese" cars have taken over the American market.

We've been ignoring this problem since the '70s.  Our political leaders seem incapable of acting in our long-term interest.  Guess what, the future has arrived, and it's not pretty.



Ultimately though.. (ericy - 7/4/2008 11:13:40 AM)

people can lobby for anything they like, but I don't see prices going down in any significant way.  So simple economics means that people will downsize their vehicles, and they will move closer to work.   It is too bad that it had to come to this - some of us have been aware for years that this day would come, but the cheap gas and cheap consumer goods was too alluring.  Now we are going to have to do this the hard way.

The problem though is that if the public demands actions that we know to be ineffective, that we will also end up with ineffective leaders.  That's the danger going forward - I hate to say it but the lesson from the Carter years is that the people don't want tough love - they want pandering instead.



"Now we are going to have to do this the hard way." (Lowell - 7/4/2008 11:55:32 AM)
Sadly, I think you may be right.  The federal government has completely failed in the area of energy policy, as have most states (including this one).  And you're right about "pandering," too; people say they want their politicians to be "straight talkers," but they really don't, at least when it comes to energy and environmental issues.


Senator John Warner asks energy chief to study national speed limit (vatechhokies50 - 7/4/2008 12:28:26 PM)
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...

Check this article out, Lowell.  You all do good work here at RHK.

Matthew



Thanks, I saw that. (Lowell - 7/4/2008 12:43:21 PM)
Honestly, I think a national speed limit is not going to accomplish much of anything.  I mean, sure, it will save a little bit of gasoline, but not enough to make a dent, especially since most people hate going 55 miles per hour on the highway.  Been there, done that...meh.


yeah (vatechhokies50 - 7/4/2008 1:53:38 PM)
Well, at least it's not the philosophy of drill, drill, drill, you know?  I sent this article to Ben at NLS and he got it up immediately... it's his lead story... lol.


At least SOMEBODY is thinking big (Lowell - 7/4/2008 1:51:33 PM)
...and it's a Virginia Republican, Randy Forbes (4th CD):