New Fuel Economy Standards are Not Counterproductive
Listening to NPR’s Morning Edition yesterday, there was a segment in which some environmentalists lamented Obama’s new fuel economy standards as being a small drop in the bucket for what needs to be done to solve our climate problems.
While this is true, two comments made by Harvard University Professor, Robert Stavins, during that segment struck me as weird and based in something less than reality — a kind of academic fantasy if you will. At the time, I was driving and the comments slid out of my mind. But last night an old friend from college brought it up again in a Facebook thread and it got me thinking more in depth about it.
- » See also: CARB Unveils DriveClean, a New Web Tool to Help Consumers Pick Green Cars
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Firstly, Stavins suggested that the fact that these new fuel efficient cars will cost an extra $1,300 over and above current less fuel efficient cars means that people will hold on to their older less fuel efficient cars for longer. In Stavins’ mind this is bad thing because, “Those older cars tend to be of lower fuel efficiency and significantly more polluting, so there’s a counterproductive effect.”
Secondly, Stavins went so far as to claim that the new standards will lead to more driving because, “by increasing fuel efficiency, it actually provides an incentive to use the car more because it lowers the operating cost.”
Okay. Wait, what? These two statements represent the kind of academic eggheadedness that drives me nuts. Just because some economist makes a model and generates predictions based on that model doesn’t make him or her an expert worth listening to. Based on our current economic predicament, we all know how good economists are at predicting how things are going to turn out.
So I call BS.
Holding on to your old car longer is good for the environment
Saying that holding on to your old car longer is counterproductive is exactly the kind of uber-consumerist attitude that’s gotten us into our predicament in the first place. While it’s true that your old car may have a lower fuel efficiency, the longer you drive it before buying a new one the more time you have to pay back the initial carbon cost of building that car in the first place.
In terms of total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, buying less stuff and holding onto your old stuff longer is about the best thing you can do, even if it emits a bit more. The act of building something like a car involves an incredible amount of energy and materials shipped from all over the world — all of which equals a large amount of emissions that new car is responsible for even before you start driving it.
Sure, a car with lower tailpipe emissions will take a shorter amount of time to payback those emissions costs, but if increased initial purchase costs mean people will buy fewer new cars then GREAT! That’s exactly what we’re looking for. Hold on to your old shit people and use it ’till it falls apart.
People will not drive more just because they have higher fuel economy
Stavins’ weakness here is that he assumes people have more miles to drive but don’t simply because of their fuel efficiency. This is patently false and even without supporting data just doesn’t make any sense. Nonetheless, we do have supporting data.
According to recent reports, the amount of miles that people drive as a whole in the U.S. has leveled out in the last 10 years and has remained steady regardless of fuel prices (a surrogate for fuel efficiency). This is due to several factors including:
- The number of women entering the workforce has plateaued (so the amount of new commuters has plateaued), and;
- People have a maximum number of miles they’re willing to drive in any given timespan before they go crazy and that number has been reached.
There are other factors, but those are the two most important. So regardless of some egghead economist’s calculations, people will not be driving more just ’cause their fuel efficiency goes up. Sure, people will drive less when fuel prices go up because that’s an actual option. But if fuel prices go down (or fuel efficiency goes up) there is no corresponding increase in driving.
Image Credit: Striatic’s Flickr photostream used under a Creative Commons License
Martin. I wished what you were saying were true! But unfortunately completely false. Let me give you some real examples.
My 1986 VW Golf GTI. 2110 pounds, 100HP 4cyl engine, 0-60 9.0 seconds, if you were good on the clutch. Observed mileage after driving it over 300,000 miles, 24city, 32hwy.
My 2006 VW GTI, 2950 pounds, 200HP turbo 4cyl, 0-60 6 seconds, auto transmission. Observed mileage after 45,000 miles, 22-24city, 32+hwy.
My new car is 840 pounds heavier than my 23 year old one. it is significantly faster, more comforable, tons of modern gadgets, and safety features, airbags, ABS, you name it, double the power. And it still gets as good as mileage as my old 1.8liter non turbo 100HP much lighter car.
Who would have thought that you could double the horsepower, add almost a half a ton of weight to a compact car and not significantly reduce the mpg?
With modern automotive technology, the major savings in consumption is in a few important factors, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and drive train efficiency and losses. You could make a 8000 pound car get 50mpg if you wanted to. But you would have to sacrifice acceleration and performance. Once a car is underway at speed, the air and rolling resistance is pretty much all that matters. That is why they say if you don’t drive as aggressively you can see good gains in economy.
With the MASSIVE amount of automotive improvements, many of them legislated, e.g. safety related, the automakers cannot reduce the weight of vehicles at the expense of these other factors(safety), and they really don’t want to either. So the changes will come in the materials they use to make the cars, more Al and Ti and Mg instead of Fe. Lighter plastics, better engineering. However these things will only allow the cars to maintain their performance and still get good mileage. The real improvements are in the electrics/hybrids that store wasted energy, and deliver it when needed, for acceleration. Start/stop technology, to not burn fuel when the car isn’t actually moving, and many other creative ways to simply not waste fuel.
A side note, where the laws aren’t nearly so tough in the safety category, Europe/Germany, VW makes the Lupo, a tiny lightweight cheesebox car, has 12″ high pressure wheels, tin can body, 1.3liter 3-cyl turbo diesel engine, and it gets about 95mpg! So if you really want outrageous mileage and are willing to sacrifice safety for it, you can have it. But that car isn’t really designed to be driven on the autobahn at top speed, more of a city car.
A similar flawed argument is that if healthcare was free somehow we’d decide to spend our free time in doctor’s waiting rooms.
But, like driving; sitting in doctors waiting rooms has limited appeal, with so many demands on our time.
As someone who grew up in a land of free healthcare, let me tell you, that free availability becomes routine. Excessive use doesn’t happen. It is just a service that is there when you need it.
I suspect your intuition is right, Nick.
There is more than one way to build a crash safe car. Currently we have heavy, large, and beefy cars that cause a lot of damage when they hit something, or someone. It would cost more, but it would be possible to build much lighter cars with the interior room of a compact and the exterior size of a mid-size. Or it could be a full size car that is the size of a 1960s full size and the weight of a current compact. The difference could be made up of crushable styrofoam, as is used in crash helmets, and the car itself could be the crash absorber. A benefit of this construction would be an increase in the torsional resistance of the car and an improvement in the roadholding capabilty. Proper design could replace the exterior, which is now repaired, with simple replacement parts. Don’t fix a fender, replace it.
All that we have to do is open our minds. If the cost goes up, that might be the incentive needed to have people avoid the crash in the first place.
I believe that what ever any one thinks or predicts will happen is based on old habbits and technologies and is basicly flawed. With the new electric vehicle that are in fact on their way it will not matter how much any one may or may not choose to drive. As to what ever number one wants ti use for added costs one only need to look back at the computer or digital technologies and how pricy they were and look now. The bottom line now is they are quite reasonable and there production cost savings is gigantic. Going down the road we are now traveling on has already given rise to many companies that are even now producing the first great advances in green tecnologies. Magnacoaster Motor Company, Raser Technologies, Hydrogen Technology Applications Inc. and there are many more these are real companies doing what some believe to be bull crap. It’s coming and by the way they are already discussing charging you based on miles driven. My opion green is going to happen a lot quicker than some may believe possible and when the real green explosion occurs I will be very thankfull no matter what the initial costs. As to goverment and their taxes well they will always have their hand on your wallet and take what ever they want the real answer to that is play their game have two wallets. Here is another good informatioal sourse http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/03/26/454807.html
Several key points are missing here:
3. Obama’s CAFE standards are misguided because as we consume less gas the price goes down and people will once again demand larger cars. The better way to regulate this is to use taxes to keep prices high. If oil stayed at $150+ for the long term, all kinds of good things happen. People would voluntarily switch to fuel efficient cars. They would insulate their houses. And our tech geniuses would find all kinds of ways to exploit renewables. No policing, no bureaucracy, just good clean market forces.
I would argue the entire problem with fossil fuels is the price is so low that we waste it.
2. Miles driven is down the last 2 years mainly because of the recession. Many people in large cities, myself included, have seen a noticeable drop in highway traffic.
3. This is also the reason why the price of every fossil fuel is down. There is such a glut of natural gas right now, there is nowhere left to store it. I can cite this, but you have a search button too.
“Holding on to your old car longer is good for the environment”
Not always.
http://www.statgrad.com/abou/commentary.php#new-car-costs
Sometimes it is smarter to use new and more efficient technology instead of making old products last (and pollute) as long as possible. Would you not want to shut down high-pollution coal plants that are already built in favor of renewable energy sources? Sure, if the improvements are very minor then make the older goods last longer. But in many cases, scrapping old cars or old technology in favor of new goods is a wise move and does in fact reduce emissions.
Economists? Obviously a bunch of morons.
Climate scientists? Utter geniuses. Infallable. (At least as long as they’re predicting warming.)
[...] » See also: New Fuel Economy Standards are Not Counterproductive [...]
[...] the HST, or the Highly Sophisticated Transporter, and this is no hyperbole: Quite apart from being the most fuel-efficient way to haul goods on the highway, this highly computerized EV would turn the drivers job into a white collar job more akin to [...]