Ideally, both the marketplace and the govt. can work together. The govt. can incentivise the consumer market, and then let the free market flurish. It works better. Consumers with rebates for higher milage low polution cars and tax penalties for gas guzzlers. NOTHING response faster than a business trying to make a profit.
I built a passive solar addition in the 70's for 40 cents on the dollar with tax incentives. If those insentives (and others) were continued today, we would be a lot further along in polution control and energy independences. Unfortunately, short term corp. interest and lack of long term forsight got in the way.
By the way, the electric car with zero pollution is a viable alternative, that unfortunately will have to wait for "Gates" and Apples "i car" to take hold...go NASDAC.
By the way, electric (or hydrogen fuel cell) cars are NOT zero pollution. They just shift the pollution to some other place where it may be easier (or harder) to clean up. Truly renewable electrical generation with zero environmental impact is still very rare. And I don't want Billy Gates anywhere near my car. He's a monopolist who crushes all competition, and we will pay through the nose for the privilege of driving his car (if he can come up with one that doesn't have to be rebooted every 5 miles).
Part of the solution is to get rid of all those "Monday holidays". Holidays used to be held on a date that meant something (e.g., November 11 for Armistice Day/Veterans Day). In the late '60s, wishing to increase gasoline sales, the oil companies "prevailed upon" (bribed) Congress to move most of our holidays to Mondays so that people would travel more and yes, burn more gas. There actually was a time when the oil companies were worried that we weren't using up the stuff fast enough! Now most of our holidays are meaningless, just occasions to travel and shop. Move them back to where they belong, and reduce travel and gas use.
The electric car can indeed be a true zero pollution alternative, but not if energy companies and car companies have anything to say about it. Factories are "gearing" up as we speak to produce "cheap" consumer useful photo electric sheets that can produce electricity at "home" for charging purposes at 1/10 th the cost of silicon base photo electric cells. It's the electronic industry that is leading the charge.....not Exxon. Doubters will eat their words this time next year !
Yea, we've heard all this before. It's just another conspiracy theory. Right now I'd need ten acres of photovoltaics to power my little electric car but Exxon is stopping the production of the "new PVs". We're so tired of this line. It's just pathetic. Go tell your all neighbors that all they need is a PV panel the size of their car roof and they wouldn't have to buy gas again.
I guess we'll all be eating our words next year! But not if Exxon gets their way. Right!!
A few conspiracy theories are true. Most are crackpot ideas, but you're both too extreme. Electric cars aren't zero emission and you need nowhere near 10 acres of photovoltaics (maybe .01 ac). While it's true the free market is why we can't get a new car with under 100hp (I drove a 55 hp car as a kid), most EVs (from the 90's) were recalled and crushed. I know a guy who still has his with over 200,000 miles and his biggest repair has been a blinker bulb. How can a car company (or it's union) make money on a car that lasts forever? Of course, car companies always want to sell more expensive cars (Ie SUVs) so they'll never come out with a $10-15k basic electric (which is all we need for a commuter car).
Business & Gov't should have a check & balance relationship. Business being driven by short term financial performance (which they are good at) and balanced by a longer term overall best direction point of view which should be by our legislators. This is a leadership issue which I believe is their job, but I don't think they think so.
"The marketplace should be the decision maker."
Yep, and looking at what people choose to drive suggests that gas doesn't cost nearly as much as it should!
I agree, but in this case the stakeholders are not just the manufacturers and the one purchasing the car. We all share the same air (and pollution, and the same fuel supplies. The decisions made by each of us affects others and there is no, or little economic feedback into the decision process. Without that economic feedback the marketplace is not a good decision maker.
The auto manufacturers and many auto buyers, for whatever reasons have year after year failed to make choices that would conserve fuel and reduce emissions. It is the duty of government to help out here.
I therefore believe that higher mileage standards and additional fuel tax (offset by other tax reductions or a pay down of national debt) is long overdue.
That would be true if the domestic market was 100% competitive. But when an entire industry bands together to prevent improvements that would benefit the consumer (and the common good), then the market fails to function as it should. Our role as citizens is to pressure government to act for the common good. The government's role is to regulate markets that not only foster competition, but serve the common good. By improving fuel efficiency standards, auto makers will be forced to compete with each other to meet those standards. In the spirit of the free market - let the best company win!
P.S. In the end, if nothing is done to raise the bar in the domestic market, the world market will decide. We'll see Chinese imports gobbling up market share in a few years.
The market place has NEVER ruled in these things. MPG and polution have NEVER been influenced by the market. Mainly because if the automanufacturers don't offer a choice then we'll never know it exists.
The greatest increases in MPG was when it was mandated by the government. Funny how the auto-industry was able to all of a sudden make cars that are heavier, faster yet get MUCH BETTER gas mileage then they did 30 years ago.
The same thing for polution. The automanufacturers would have spent $0 in R&D to make less poluting cars if it wasn't mandated. Back in the 60's they were given tax incentives to come up with ways to make a car polute less. After 2 years and MILLIONS of dollars in tax incentives...the big 4 went to congress with a report saying that cars can NOT be made to polute less. Funny how things have changed since they wer MANDATED to come up with ways to make cars polute less. Funny how every car manufacturer can somehow make a car that meets California's standards...yet sell a completely different car that polutes 1000% more to countries in South America where there is no standard.
You are either too young, or have too short a memory. The free market certainly affected car fuel mileage in the late 70s and early 80s. The price of gas went up and people started buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars. The fuel crisis of the 70s pretty much put Honda and Toyota on the map in the US. Part of the reason GM and Ford are having trouble right now is due to recent fuel price increases killing the sales of big SUVs. The market *does* have an effect on MPG ratings. Not so much on pollution, perhaps.
If the price of fuel started going up rapidly enough, the same thing would happen again. Right now, although in actual dollars fuel is higher priced than in the 1970s and 80s, in inflation adjusted terms it's not that bad. I suspect in the next couple of years small and fuel efficient will get a lot more popular demand.
free market certainly affected car fuel mileage in the late 70s and early 80s.
Probably older then you are Ranck...GM started offering smaller cars as a STOP GAP..but they did $0....REPEAT $0 in research to make their CURRENT vehicles more efficient. That didn't come about until it was MANDATED.
If the market had ANY effect on GM and Ford making more fuel efficient cars then WHY are their fleet numbers no more then .1 of the MANDATED Cafe' numbers. You're telling me that people don't want better fuel efficiency. If there's NO car to buy that meets your needs AND gets good gas mileage...then what are you suppose do....buy a bike???? The market is ONLY influenced by consumers IF AND ONLY IF there is SOMETHING in the market to buy. Very simple way of keeping the public from influencing the market...DON'T OFFER IT.
Personally I believe so. The only alternative I see is to impose a serious pollution tax. BTW I like the tax better. Maybe it can reduce the national debt that the current war is loading onto the backs or our children and grand children.
I don't believe the market place is functional here. You do not have a truly free competitive market. There are too few players and the customers don't bear the cost of pollution nor the cost of things like wars to get and protect oil supplies, rather the suffer those cost but their choice of cars as it is not related to how much of it they pay.
There can never be a "market driven" buyer, since there are so many regulations that dictate what the car companies manufacture. The market doesn't rule -- look at what happened to the electric car in California--there was a market but the industry not only removed the product, they destroyed it.
There is not a free market. The industries of auto and oil are intermixed to the degree that there will not be a general trend to increase MPG, regardless of the facts that it is do-able. Alas, the stick is likely the only way to motivate, that or a general uprising of the buying public, which I don't see happening anytime soon.
Funny, Last week I wrote an article about the same exact thing for college. 100 years ago, the government took a very laissez faire approach to market, and what effort did industry make to do things for 'national interest'? Nothing. It wasn't until the government decided that it's role is to protect it's citizens that quality of life for the average joe really increased.
It's the governments role to really get it going, because it doesn't look like the market is doing it quickly enough.
Tom and Ray say we could meet the 35mpg mark in 5 years if we made it a priority, I would say we can do it in a year.
Anybody ever heard of hydrogen boost systems? This is enriching the vaporized gasoline and oxygen mixture with volatile hydrogen gas for better combustion. Timing can be changed, and the levels of pollution are drastically lower. THis country has ingenuity, let's use it.
FYI: I drive a 2002 Audi A4 3.0 with CVT. EPA mpg estimates are 19 City / 27 Highway. My overall average mpg for this car, combined city/highway driving for the past 16 months, is 32 mpg. I have averaged as high as 37 mpg on a 150 mile stretch. 16 gallons of premium has taken me over 500 miles on a regular basis. This is achieved mostly by driving the speed limit (rather than 10-20 mph over the speed limit like everyone else) and planning ahead (don't tailgate, RARELY brake on the interstate, coasting rather than braking to a stoplight, etc.).
So you're asking if 35mpg can be reached in 5 years? I would be willing to bet we could get there THIS year if enough people would just change the way they drive.
As to whether the market is driving automotive research or the government... Sure you have to have a choice to make a choice, but I think the car manufacturers are looking at their sales numbers as a small part of their "research decisions." Probably the biggest influence on domestic car research is foreign car imports. Right now Toyota is the undisputed leader in hybrid technology, followed by Honda. There is no domestic car maker that even comes close, and some even lease the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive system from Toyota. That is going to change in the next 5 years, and again 5 years later. You think GM, Ford, etc aren't doing anything, but what is really happening is that our domestic companies are looking for SOLUTIONS, not band-aids. This is taking a LOT longer to do. The Chevy Volt will be an ELECTRIC car with a gas generator (gas generator could be replaced by any generator fairly easily, like solar, hydrogen, nuclear, etc). This is the exact opposite of the Toyota design which uses a gas engine to actually drive the car and the electric as a boost and low speed propulsion. Ford is working on Hydrogen powered cars that produce their own electricity, and California (lead by the honorable Arnold Shchowwoecanzennoid...terminator) is working on becoming the first place in the world with a wide spread infrastructure of Hydrogen refueling stations.
The technology information I have referenced has come mostly from shows like "Eco-tech", "Modern Marvels", and other discovery channel, learning channel, history channel, and national geographic channel specials. These shows are replayed on a regular basis and generally air at least one a month.
While I think that some GOVT regulation is necessary, I do not think the 35 MPG standard will work. Hear are some of my reasons
- The market DOES dictate what is sold. The prius is a great example of that, hear we have a car that costs more then a non-hybrid competitor, YET still sells at almost full sticker, because people want the green stamp of approval. However looks at the Accord, Camary, and highlander as a few examples of how Hybrids don’t work as people do not get the same green stamp of approval from there friends and neighbors.
- I don’t believe there is an reason that a car company today would not have a more fuel efficient fleet of vehicle if it was technologically possible. This would be a HUGE competitive advantage, and that is what truly drives the market.
- Despite what some people think, not every one can make do with a compact car, many family’s need suburbans, and mini-vans, etc to get around. Pick up trucks are NECESSARY PART OF MANY PEOPLES LIFES. It would be great if every one drove a Metro or a Civic, or Corolla.. what ever, but this is not practical. Bob Lutz put it best when he said that telling automakers that they MUST make cars/trucks that get 35MPG + is like telling America, your fat so we are going to only make small sized clothes so that you have to loose weight. The argument just does not work.
- I am in favor of a tax at the pumps, if you must drive a vehicle that does not get high MPG this should be your right. But if the price of gas hits $4-5 a gallon you will see many people who are driving these inefficient vehicles because of there "bling", or "status" stop driving them as often.
And the deal with the gas prices, not everyone can afford to buy a new fuel efficient car that's going to be mandated to the 35MPG+. So, should the person who can't afford a new car be punished by spending MORE to keep their current car going? And besides, the Prius is a fugly car.
11/03/2007 11:31:56 AM
