Print 118 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jun 17 at 11:09 PM

Automakers claim new fuel economy ratings will put hundreds of thousands out of work  (Source: Business Week)
Supporters of increased efficiency standards claim the numbers are inflated

The battle between the auto industry and the federal government over changes to fuel economy regulations is exploding. Lawmakers in Washington want to impose much more efficient standards on future vehicles that could see a fleet wide fuel economy average of 62 mpg in effect by 2025.

Some in the automotive industry argue that the costs to reach the lofty 62 mpg fleet wide average will be much higher than the cost of burning more fuel in less efficient vehicles for consumers. Automakers have previously claimed that the costs would have a dire impact on the industry.

new study by the Center for Automotive Research has been published and the study claims that the rise in efficiency standards by 2025 to 62 mpg could add up to $9,790 to the cost of a new vehicle and will reduce sales by 5.5 million units. The report also claims that the resultant price increase would force a reduction of 260,000 automotive industry jobs due to reduced demand for vehicles by consumers.

On the other side of the battle, those pushing for the increased efficiency standards claim that the tech needed to meet the efficiency standards would only add $770 to $3,500 to the price of a new vehicle.

David Friedman, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles program and supporter of the new efficiency mandate, said, "The Obama administration should ignore this industry-advocate propaganda piece and focus on setting the strongest vehicle efficiency and global warming pollution standards based on credible scientific analysis."

President and CEO of the Union, Jay Baron, says that the main difference in cost between the industry and government studies depends on how much the price of the technology will come down over the next 15 years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: So what
By Smilin on 6/15/2011 3:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you oversimplify things I say to the point where they have little meaning then they won't be hard to debate. Good tactic so long as you don't get called on it.

The market is focused on the now and has no regard for the future. It will *begin* to generate more fuel efficient vehicles *after* there is a demand for them. If it takes 10 years to develop suitable technology then the consumer will just have to deal with without it for that long.

RE: So what
By GuinnessKMF on 6/15/2011 3:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
I like to make fun of big companies too, but you honestly think they aren't already developing new systems with fuel efficiency in mind?

They just won't bring them to market until they're economically a net gain, so the OP arguing that it will make economic sense to have fuel efficient vehicles by then is not a pro or a con on regulating standards.

RE: So what
By Smilin on 6/15/2011 3:36:04 PM , Rating: 3
They are thinking of what will sell, not fuel efficiency. When the two align then progress gets made.

*More* progress gets made when you point a gun at them.

Checkout progress on MPG over the last 60 years. Efficiency will wallow with no improvement unless one of two things happens: The govornment regulates or an oil crisis of some sort happens.

The problem: When a crisis happens there is a delay in relief while the market turns like a big boat to the new direction. Our auto industry knows peak oil will happen but their customers aren't thinking that far into the future so there isn't a demand do do anything.

History shows the automakers suck at predicting crisis-based demand. Honda and Toyota (that came from where the market demanded more efficiency) came in and kicked the big 3 in the balls during the 80s. Flash forward 30 years and did they learn a lesson? Lot after lot full of marked down Hummers during $4/gal gas... nope, they didn't.

Regulation or crisis. One is proactive, one is reactive. The first one sucks. The second one sucks worse.

The only thing that wouldn't suck is just having cheap gas forever.. and unicorns.

RE: So what
By Smilin on 6/15/2011 3:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
PS: I don't like having to "point a gun at them". Really I don't.

You don't always like what's good for you though.

My daughter hates taking an allergy med so I have to armtwist every !#$ morning to make it happen. It sucks. She hates it; I hate it. But... come noontime if she hasn't then she'll come running to me asking for it then be miserable while she waits for it to kick in.

I'm not a huge analogy fan but I hope that helps explain my view some.

RE: So what
By Spuke on 6/16/2011 12:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not a huge analogy fan but I hope that helps explain my view some.
Your first explanation was good.

RE: So what
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/11, Rating: -1
"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki