Time to gear up for battle on CAFE with the Senate considering serious legislation. The U.S. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) has “launched radio advertisements in 10 states that contain false claims and factually inaccurate information,” as the National Environmental Trust notes on their website.
NET is a great source of hard facts for those who want to take on the auto industry’s disinformation. For instance, did you know that polling reveals, “pickup owners overwhelmingly support requiring the auto industry to increase fuel efficiency standards.”
I actually joined a conference call with NET for reporters in Arkansas on fuel economy — audio is available here.
NET’s debunking of the industry ads is reprinted below:
The first AAM ad claims that Congress wants to set the same fuel economy standard for pick-up trucks and cars. This is false. In reality, not one of the nine bills pending in Congress sets out a requirement or preference that trucks be held to the same fuel economy standards as cars. Each bill authorizes an “attribute-based” system that allows the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set standards based on type of vehicle.
In its second ad, the AAM states that an increase in fuel economy standards will force automakers to build smaller and, as they imply, less safe vehicles. In fact, none of the bills in pending in Congress contains size requirements for cars. Moreover, there is no factual basis for the claim that new requirements will “force” reductions in size. In a 2002 report to Congress, the National Academy of Sciences stated that, with modern technology, an improvement in fuel economy will not force consumers to sacrifice vehicle weight or size and, consequently, safety. Furthermore, on February 9, 2005, the Vice President of the AAM himself testified before Congress and acknowledged that higher efficiency standards need not compromise safety.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
While I also hope that advanced and emerging technologies and development of alternative fuels infrastructure will assist the OEMs in providing a range of useful and exciting new products that meet consumer needs for initial cost, economy, performance, luxury, reliability and utility, NO KNOWN TECHNICAL INNOVATION CAN REPEAL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!
Vehicle weight and, to a lesser extent, aerodynamics will continue to set the outer limits of potential fuel economy gains. And vehicle weight will continue to be a significant factor in safety.
While certainly it is technically possible to build larger vehicles out of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials and to add a full measure of fuel-saving powertrain technologies, the costs of such fantasy vehicles to the consumer would be astronomical.
I do not know too many people who can purchase a $100,000.00+ Ford Mustang or a $400,000.00 SUV! Moreover, the costs to insure, maintain and repair such exotica is well beyond what the present system will bear.
Therefore, reductions in vehicle size, powertrain weight (reducing engine size, component durability, horsepower and torque, and noise, harshness and vibration performance) and, consequently, vehicle utility and performance are inherent in some of the politically-motivated fleet average targets now being floated in Washington D.C.
One can just about double fuel economy with existing technologies, such as continuously variable transmission and hybrid engines. The fuel savings would pay for such extra cost in a few years. The laws of physics do not decree that we all have to drive cars with an efficiency of about 17%. The most efficient no compromise car on the road today, the Toyota Prius, has an overall efficiency of about double that.
Read this late, my reply to speedzer is nonsense. Technology exists now to increase fuel mileage, higher rear gears,synthetic oil,diesel and many others.
One the culprits are full time all wheel drive, really, how often it used, I know ,I live in the northeast. While weight and aero are important they aren’t the only factors in mileage. As far as safety and mass go, racecars are all about weight and most are the safest vehicles around. Vehicle utility, what is that all about? A 6000 lb truck with four wheel drive that never carries anything, or tows, or in my area plows. While I guess everyone has the right to own what they want we need to be realistic. Most trucks and all wheel drive vehicles are vanity vehicles, let’s not kid anyone. My main objection was and still is, the demand for these things had driven prices for real trucks through the roof. Regardless, what happened to the American spirit of there isn’t anything we can’t solve. We need better emissions, safety,mileage and all the rest, if for no other reason than it’s the right thing to do. Instead of whining about it let’s solve it, we can do it and not end up with million dollar mustangs
Obviously, if consumers wanted to pay extra for “existing technologies” in mainstream models (and not just in freakish, marginal loss leaders such as the sainted Prius), someone in the hyper-competitive automotive market would already offer such vehicles.
The bottom line is that for all the lip service that “green” consumers pay to “existing technologies,” the vast majority are not willing to pony up the extra money necessary for them up front.
To be honest, CAFE increases are about forcing everyone to pay more for new vehicles (spreading the costs of “existing technologies” across the market) and about restricting vehicle size, power and features. In other words, it’s about restricting personal freedom (i.e. the “freedom” to own a “6,000 lb. 4wd truck that never hauls anything”) and forcing consumers to be “green,” even if they don’t want to be “environmentally conscious.”
Anyone who suggests that “existing technologies” can double the fuel economy of the current fleet without increases in cost and measurable decreases in vehicular size, choice and performance is either intellectually dishonest or child-like in their understanding of markets and automotive technology.
The plain truth is that those who advocate for drastically higher CAFE standards are unwilling to tell the COMPLETE truth about what the regulations they seek will yield.
BTW, anyone who has ever attempted to haul a big-screen TV in a Prius, or tried to wedge in a fifth adult passenger in one, or been marooned at the end of a too-short freeway on-ramp in one, or even flung one in a quasi-sporting fashion around a simple roundabout can testify that the “miracle” Prius is packed with “compromise.”
Never had the onramp problem. Electric motors have awesome acceleration. I don’t need to fun 5 people — if I did, I’d buy a different car. Yes, it costs more. But it pays for itself in a few years. And yes, sometimes the govt needs to impose standards to avoid catastrophe.