After I wrote The Problem with CAFE a couple of years ago, a lot of people concluded that I am against higher CAFE standards. That’s not exactly the case. In a nutshell, my problem with CAFE is that I feel like it addresses the problem from the wrong side of the equation. In light of the new announcements on stricter CAFE standards, this might be a good time to review the issue. First, the new policy:
Stricter mpg rules may be boon for automakers
By issuing rules aimed at sharply boosting vehicle gasoline mileage and slashing greenhouse gas emissions, experts say the Obama plan is just what carmakers need given the prospect of higher gas prices and worries about global warming.
Automakers, in fact, reversed decades of opposition to stricter mileage standards by supporting the administration’s new rules — likely spurred in part by the industry’s heavy reliance on bailout money from U.S. taxpayers. Auto executives, for their part, said they like the plan’s unified approach to rulemaking.
The plan’s 30 percent boost in fuel economy would translate into a 35.5 mile per gallon average for cars and light trucks in 2016, four years earlier than the existing law called for. New passenger cars sold here would need to average 39 mpg, up from the current 27.5 mpg. Light trucks, which include pickups and sport-utility vehicles, would need to average 30 mpg, up from 23.
So what could possibly be wrong with that? The problem I have with it is that it mandates that automakers build vehicles that people are not demanding. There are very fuel efficient cars available right now. In fact, that’s about all you see in Europe, and you can certainly get them in the U.S. Why is the demand high in Europe? High fuel prices. People demand fuel efficient cars when fuel prices are high, as we saw last summer when SUV sales plummeted and hybrids were flying off of the car lots. Europe doesn’t have to mandate that they are built; the demand is there. This was the thrust of my argument in 2007, and CNN has picked up on that theme as well:
Gas prices: The key to fuel economy
The Obama administration estimates these rules will add about $600 to the cost of a car. That’s on top of an estimated $700 added by changes to fuel economy rules that have already been enacted. All this may keep consumers from buying a new car, some say.
Also with fuel prices still low, consumers may want larger vehicles, but these will never be as efficient as small cars. Without soaring gas prices pushing drivers to conserve, it will be difficult for makers of larger vehicles to meet the administration’s efficiency goals.
“You could achieve the standards today with ultralight, really small cars,” said Jeremy Anwl, chief executive of the automotive Web site Edmunds.com, “but how many people are really going to buy those?”
“They’re continuing to focus on the wrong program,” said Todd Turner, an analyst with Car Concepts Automotive Research.
Bingo. The problem with this is that the end result may very well result in better fuel efficiency, but it will be an inefficient process. By making cars that aren’t in demand, you may increase the price of the larger cars (e.g. SUVs) that are in demand. This may shift demand to smaller cars. But this could be accomplished by my proposal to exchange higher fuel taxes for reduced income taxes.
I think that’s reality. But in the alternate reality where technology is magically mandated to fix problems, we get thinkers like this:
America finally has a smart leader, not a good old boy from Texas and his sidekick who were in the hip pockets of the Saudis and oil interests at home and abroad. Yesterday’s announcement of dramatically enhanced fuel efficiency standards on vehicles recognizes that environmental, economic, trade and foreign policies converge and can be addressed all at once.
I think these sorts of stories are incredibly naive. I suspect everyone is for higher fuel efficiency. What these sorts of proposals suggest is that it is a painless fix. Detroit will bear the costs, while consumers can continue to drive their Lincoln Navigator, only now it will get 30 miles per gallon instead of 14. Somehow, this magic wave of the wand is going to do this, and Obama is a genius for recognizing it.
Heck, if it is that easy, I don’t understand why he didn’t mandate that all vehicles achieve 100 mpg. For that matter, I still can’t understand why we don’t mandate a cure for cancer.
I have to agree. I just don’t see how democracy is going to survive complexity.
As usual though, I find myself not agreeing with either side. There are innate, instinctive psychological reasons why a person chooses to drive a Navigator. It has nothing to do with physical comfort, or handling, or roominess.
Our cars are a primary means of status display, like a peacock’s feathers.
SUVs are little more than station wagons with oversize tires. We covet them because of the wildly successful “sport utility” marketing strategy. These things are virtually never used for either.
There are a lot of small cars out there that have a lot of status. We need a new marketing campaign as successful as the former, for highly efficient cars. It’s all in our heads. We are social primates.
Here is a good start with Leno hawking a car that I personally think is ridiculous, but I’m also not a fashion trend setter.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/jay+leno/http://www.biodiversivist.com
Bingo, Robert! I call it the “flying pigs” approach. You call it 30mpg Navigators. I’m just shocked he’s not doing both CAFE and gas tax. But hold your breath…the tax is coming.
Revenue neutral will be difficult. However, for Obama, it’s not necessary. He can make the tax politically palatable by creating refundable gas tax credit that phases out for higher incomes. That way only people already paying no income tax actually get cash payments for driving gas hogs. Obama gets a new tool for wealth transfer and to punish the rich.
I wonder…low income people seem just as susceptible to Russ Finley’s SUV-envy as people who can afford them. Maybe that’s the real mechanism to kill the SUV. Subsidize the poor’s gas consumption so they can afford to drive an SUV. SUV-envy might go away when people start to recognize that the only people driving them are welfare queens and redneck trailer trash.
One problem with the argument is that while a gas tax would be more effective, it won’t get thru congress. So we’re talking about the politics of the possible.
So assuming you can’t put a tax on gas, then you can wait for spikes in prices to push buyers towards more efficiency vehicles. Wouldn’t that eventually bring demand for gasoline down, thus depressing prices and allowing everyone to justify buying big vehicles again? At best, you have spikes of demand…
So maybe a regulatory approach is the only way to go…
Robert, mandates work because they restrict competition. If I’m Ford, I’m willing to invest in upgrading my factories to make more complex drivetrains because I’m assured that Chrysler and GM are going to have to do the same thing or pay a fine on every car. No company can gain a competitive advantage by failing to produce higher MPG cars.
I am disappointed with both Bush and now Obama. Both had chances to say, “You want the real deal? We have to raise gasoline taxes, and balance the federal budget (in good economic years). The money we save in imported oil will boost the domestic economy. You will feel some pain at the pump for a few years, until you adjust and get a higher mpg vehicle.”
Instead, we have a total and complete lack of statesmanship.
Back when the Republicans controlled the Congress and White House after World War II (Eisenhower was President), they kept the top tax rate at 90 oercent on income of more than 200k. They felt an obligation to pay down the federal deficit. And they did.
Today? Whining, and sniveling, that all we get, and larger and larger deficits, and no gasoline taxes.
There may be well run countries out there, perhaps an Austria or Singapore or Sweden.
The Banana States of America? Not sure about us anymore.
Ben – we are on our way to banana republic status when we steal from bondholders and appoint judges to the Supreme Court based on “empathy”.
If there is a problem – it is BECAUSE of government interference in the marketplace. To which the solution, in Obama’s world is MORE government interference.
Perversely, CAFE standards actually made mileage worse through the “two fleet rule”. US automakers got to count trucks and SUV’s differently than passenger cars. In exchange for promising to make small cars (at a loss or modest profit) with UAW labor, Detroit got an import quota on higher margin trucks and SUVs.
This combination killed off station wagons and large family sedans. It also led import truck makers like Toyota to supersize their truck lines to compete with the Ford F-150.
We had a 1987 Toyota Camry station wagon that we loved. It had the 5 speed manual 2.0 l engine that got about 33-35 MPG combined city/hwy. Toyota dropped the wagon and made the Camry into a mid-sized sedan, greatly reducing mileage.
And another thing. I thought that Waxman-Markey cap & tax was supposed to fix all this?
If W-M is the be all and end all, why does it need a renewable fuel standard, a renewable electric portfolio standard, and fiddling with the CAFE standards.
Shouldn't cap & tax alone drive up energy costs enough to make consumers buy more fuel efficient vehicles?
King-
Bondholders agreed to the Chrysler deal–and well they might, without taxpayer money in the deal, they might have zero. Which, you are right, is what they deserved. They took a risk in the marketplace. It didn’t work out. So Uncle Sam to the rescue. (The ratings agencies should be put in prison, but that is another story).
You know banks? If bondholders converted their debt to equity, the banks wouldn’t need any taxpayer money.
Instead we ladle trillions onto banks, so bondholders won’t lose money.
Our government seems to be working for bondholders, not the taxpayers.
I still believe in gasoline taxes, maybe the only tax I do. The CAFE standards represent horribly inbred thinking.
Banana States of America. We borrow money, and solve it by borrowing more money. In good times or bad, we run huge deficits.
The Reagans, The Bushes — they have bankrupted us. Where is the Eisenhower or Clinton, who proposed a balanced budget, or even a surplus?
You might want to consider where your kids will live, 20 years from now. Switzerland, Austria, Singapore, maybe even Thailand.
Jeez, in the 1990s, it seemed like the USA would rule the world. In eight short years we have gone from confident to putrid.
I hate to think where we will be eight years from now.
Frankly I find the discussion here somewhat disappointing compared to the normal high caliber.
Firstly, virtually anyone who has spent any time looking at this issue will tell you that that fuel taxes are a very ineffective way of influencing consumer choice for vehicles. It is well known that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic over the short term and prices need to be very, very high over a sustained period before you’ll see any substantial change. Good luck getting any politician to push for a $2/gallon tax.
Second, as many here are from the peak oil crowd, I’d have thought that it would be well understood that there are dangers in relying on consumer choice, aka the market, to find an optimal level of fuel efficiency. There are enormous costs and risks associated with energy dependence and when the next peak comes everyone will be better off if our fleet is more efficient.
Put another way, the public is ill-equipped to make informed decisions about fuel efficiency in their purchases because they don’t adequately understand the energy supply situation going forward. Hence the need for regulations.
Third, the new regulations are based on vehicle footprint, not the old car/truck approach, so vehicle downsizing isn’t a viable compliance strategy.
Engine downsizing definitely will be a strategy. Now does anyone care to argue that they are worse off because their zero-to-sixty has increased by 2 seconds?
KingofKaty – Waxman-Markey will achieve exactly what RR is pushing for. Oil companies will pass on the costs of permits to their customers.
So this really isn’t a case of one or the other; a fuel tax vs. mandated standards. The issue is being tackled from both ends.
“Firstly, virtually anyone who has spent any time looking at this issue will tell you that that fuel taxes are a very ineffective way of influencing consumer choice for vehicles.”
Yet just last summer we saw demand for inefficient vehicles plummet when gasoline passed $4.00. I believe had people thought that prices would stay above $4.00 and weren’t holding out hope that prices would come back down, demand for fuel efficiency would have been even higher.
RR
“ Heck, if it is that easy, I don’t understand why he didn’t mandate that all vehicles achieve 100 mpg. For that matter, I still can’t understand why we don’t mandate a cure for cancer.“
That looks like a straw man. The reason why he chose the 30% increase in fuel efficiency instead of 100 mpg is precisely because 100 mpg would be like mandating a cure for cancer, while a 30% increase in fuel efficiency is already technologically possible without any magic or miracles. Apparently what it will take is on average $700 or $1300 more per vehicle, (which allegedly can be recouped in 3 years of fuel savings) based on the Volpe Model “that, for any given model year, applies technologies to a manufacturer’s fleet until the manufacturer reaches compliance with the standard under consideration. The process recognizes the relevance of costs in achieving benefits“
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/nhtsa-introduce.html
They’ve already met the 30/39 mpg standard in Europe and Japan, years ago.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/icct-releases-n.html
You even allude to that when you said “There are very fuel efficient cars available right now. In fact, that’s about all you see in Europe, and you can certainly get them in the U.S. ”
I disagree with that you can easily get them in the U.S. Two years ago 40mpg.org announced “FUEL-EFFICIENT CAR GAP” GROWING AS U.S. FALLS TO TWO 40MPG+ VEHICLES, WHILE NUMBER OF GAS-SIPPING CARS UNAVAILABLE IN U.S. RISES TO WELL OVER 100. Survey: Over 2.5 Million Americans Want Fuel-Efficient Vehicles … But Have Been Frustrated; Four Out of Five Want Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Now Off Limits to Themhttp://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm
When you only have 4 models to choose from, (Prius, Insight, Civic hybrid, Jetta TDI) you’re less likely to find a model that suits your lifestyle than if you had 100 models to choose from.
Ditto RR. We saw an almost immediate drop of 1 million barrels per day (5%) in gasoline demand from high prices.
One of the strangest impacts was the renewed interest for the lowly 3 cylinder Geo Metro . Chevrolet practically couldn’t give it away in the 1990s. At $4 gas people were selling them in 2008 for more than they paid new. If gasoline pricing had no impact why would people resurect this crappy car.
The problem hasn’t been that high mileage cars weren’t available to US buyers – US buyers just didn’t want them because the price of fuel was cheap.
For a glimpse of our car driving future under Pappa Doc Obama I give you the following Jeremey Clarkson reviews the new Honda Hybrid
My house in Surrey was about 10 minutes from the Top Gear studios (could never get a ticket to go). It is one of the shows I make a point to watch.
The automakers didn’t “protest” because the newer fuel economy was already, for all practical purposes, a “Done deal.”
Take the Navigator. Ford just reopened its Cleveland engine plant. It’s making the new “Ecoboost” engine. In its 6-cylinder iteration it puts out 355 HP from 3.5 liters. Add in the “Credit” for Flexfuel, and it’s up over 30 mpg, Now (at least, in CAFE accounting, it is.)
Put the 1.6 4-banger ecoboost in the fusion, or one of the smaller cars, and you’re well over the 39 mpg target.
Chevey is on the same track with their new HIIC. You see, what everyone’s overlooking is the “Flexfuel” Credit. They’ve already committed to making 50% of their vehicles flexfuel in 2012, and 80%, or so, in 2015.
This was a “nothing” deal.
“They’ve already met the 30/39 mpg standard in Europe and Japan, years ago.”
Obviously written by someone who has not been in Europe in years.
Yes, the highly-taxed Euro Great Unwashed mostly drive around in small cars. But they also mostly drive those small cars very aggressively — much of the time in low gear, accelerating furiously, then stamping on the brakes at the next traffic light. I wonder if anyone really knows what mpg the Euros actually get?
But since Obama is rapidly driving the US towards societal collapse, his announcements don’t make much difference. The US in 2012 is going to be such a different place that all of this is irrelevant — Nero fiddling while the fires lap at the edges of Rome.
“But they also mostly drive those small cars very aggressively — much of the time in low gear, accelerating furiously, then stamping on the brakes at the next traffic light. I wonder if anyone really knows what mpg the Euros actually get?”I think you’re overstating it. I’ve been getting 40 mpg for the last twenty years in cars that count as “mid size” here in Europe. My next car will have better acceleration and I am expecting 55 mpg.
Just out of friendly interest: if Americans drive so much less aggressively, what exactly do you need the outrageously big engines for?
😉
This Obama economy is sinking like a stone. Gasoline taxes can only sink it more quickly. Government mandates of all types will accelerate the sinking.
Face it, the Obama government is the last entity you want to be in charge of this economic train wreck. And yet, there you are.
It’s zombies all the way down, fellows. Welcome to the depression that never ends.
I think the European experience absolutely validates the need for $4 a gallon gasoline taxes in the USA. BTW, oil consumption has been declining in Europe ever since the first price spike, back in 1973-4.
Oil demand has been falling for decades in Japan, and they appear serious there about hybrids. They may retreat to 1970s levels of demand in the next 10 years.
The Banana States of America? Our demand has been roughly flat for a long time, but now tapering off seriously. Overall oil demand down 8 percent from last year.
Still, had we adopted Euro-style taxes, we would have kept hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars in own economy, instead of sending it overseas. Maybe trillions by now.
Interesting is that the Chinese and Japanese appear very serious about PHEVs and BEVs.
One may wonder where oil demand will come from in the future, if demand is falling in Japan, USA, Europe, and China goes flat. We know the first three is likely, and China? Wait and see.
If the US got semi-serious about cutting gasoline demand, we might set off a glut that lasts for another 20 years.
Obama is short-sighted on this score. Bush was plain blind.
That’s about the range of our choices lately.
The reason why he chose the 30% increase in fuel efficiency instead of 100 mpg is precisely because 100 mpg would be like mandating a cure for cancer, while a 30% increase in fuel efficiency is already technologically possible without any magic or miracles.Of course it is. It has been for years. That’s the point. The demand for the vehicles hasn’t been there in the U.S. It isn’t as if the demand will suddenly appear if we only build fuel efficient vehicles. We have been able to do this for a long time.
When you only have 4 models to choose from, (Prius, Insight, Civic hybrid, Jetta TDI) you’re less likely to find a model that suits your lifestyle than if you had 100 models to choose from.It is back to the demand question. If people demanded fuel efficient cars, they would be built. The problem is that fuel efficient cars are small, so they don’t get built. Mandating high fuel efficiency either means smaller cars will be built – so you are building supply and then presuming the demand will come – or you are playing tricks like they do with the E85 vehicles.
RR
“Still, had we adopted Euro-style taxes, we would have kept hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars in own economy, instead of sending it overseas.”
And what happened to those dollars sent overseas?
Back at the time of the 1970s oil shocks, many of those dollars were used by the Petro-Powers to buy Boeings & Cadillacs and prime US real estate. The money was recycled into the US economy, and the decisions about where to spend it were made by people smarter than the members of our own domestic Polical Class.
Of course, that was then. Afterwards, we saw the rise of the liberal panty-waists, who deliberately organized the de-industrialization of the US. Destroyed a lot of workers jobs in the process.
Now there is not much to trade for Petro-dollars, except for autographed photos of Obama — and those are probably printed in China.
As Bob Dylan once sang, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
I have thought for some time now that CAFE is silly in the sense that it will be rendered utterly irrelevant when peak oil forces gas upwards of $5/gal. We got a preview of this last summer when US drivers temporarily progressed way beyond the regulators. When gas returns to that price range from its current level as it certainly will, people will again buy high-mpg cars and/or drive less regardless of CAFE.
I believe that Obama’s move makes a lot of sense, however, in terms of positioning the domestic auto manufacturers to take advantage of that moment, as opposed to their current reliance on SUVs for all profit which, if continued until that time, will leave them positioned for nothing but even greater disaster (if in fact it’s actually possible for them to lose more money than they already do, of course). It’s also another push in the direction of overall GHG control which is very important.
Obama wants me to get better mileage, fine, I want a Tata Nano. Let me import and drive one as is, and I will be happy. No safety features, no pollution control upgrades. I’m sure I can find 100,000 rupees in the couch cushions.
Hi Robert, I am still trying to find open ears for the Vehicle Efficiency Market idea (pitch line: A Proposal to Cut US Oil Imports in Half and Save $200 billion a year :).
A reporter I spoke to yesterday said that the challenge with efficiency is that it has no advocacy group and frugality is not a very sexy topic. You need someone that is making money from the change to finance the lobbying for change and you need to package it so that it isn’t just seen as a good idea but as something worth actively backing.
My Two Cents.
I am for choice as well.
I chose
* not to spend Billions of dollars in future wars in the Middle East
* not to have my 45 year old reservist neighbors go back to Iraq again
* to create a economy where we do not automatically go in a tailspin when gas goes up 2 dollars a gallon
* not to fund both sides of the Gulf war
* not to send 66% of the Cash we spend on oil out of the country.(even if alot is going to Canada)
* to set in motion, steps where the US is less likely to be affected by Oil Supplies.
Regardless of where you stand politically,can we agree these would be good things?
In the past, the US gov mandated improvements that that brought greater safety and less pollution in our automobiles.
I believe CAFE Standard, that we reduced years ago,should be raised.If they were done years ago we would be in much better shape.
I believe reaching these standards are achievable and cars can me made that are 30% more efficent that people would want to drive.
Lighter materials, improved heat/ energy recovery, improved engine design,new battery technology are coming. Why do we need to drive at roughly the same MPG as the Model T?
Kinu:
Only a portion of the money we send overseas by the trillions to buy oil comes back into US investments, such as stocks and real estate. If it does come back, it comes with political influence attached. Money buys power, and we are shipping money overseas.
Mostly, the money we ship to oil thugs goes to massive building projects in the Mideast, other economies, or to finance terrorism. I know of no one who thinks this is a desirable outcome for us.
There are some Obama bashers on this page. Right now, our President is fighting a three-pronged war on global terrorism, in Iraq, Afghanie and Pakistan. The outcome of the epic struggle will determine to fate of Western civilization and even the world, Pan-Islamic terrorists want to destroy our liberties and property rights. By undermining our President, you are aiding and abetting the enemy, you are un-patriotic and nearly treasonous. Now, we have to rally behind our President while he makes quick fixes on the economy and fights the enemy abroad–an enemy he is fighting there so you do not have to fight him in your front yard.
Actually, I do not believe any of the above paragraph. Now, or durng the previous administration. I just thought I would try it out. Sounds pretty silly, no? A lot of people bought it.
Actually, I encourage dissent, and think people who disagree with Obama should say so. I will point out, it is to the credit of the Obama administration that they do not dismiss critics as traitors–unlike the the previous occupants of the Executive Branch.
While the new standards are a marked improvement, it is worth thinking about them in context. They will not bring the US up to speed with Australia, China, the European Union, or Japan. Indeed, even in 2020, the planned American standards lag behind where the EU and Japan were in 2002. Given the degree to which North American taxpayers now own the big car companies, it may well have been possible to demand more progressive action from them.
“While the new standards are a marked improvement, …. progressive action from them.”
I always wonder what dictionary the magic wand wavers use to define ‘marked’ and ‘progressive’.
The new standards are both insignificant and ineffective. There is nothing progressive about Cafe Standards and repeating the mistakes of the past. What is next Milan, hoop skirts?
It is all about pretending to do something for political gain. If you want to reduce oil imports, increase domestic production. Worked lat time. If you want to reduce ghg, build nukes. There is nothing even close for reducing ghg.
The losers running the energy and environmental committees in congress are anti drilling and anti nukes.
The good news is that AGW is an insignificant problem (undetectable in the natural variation) and the last war the US was involved in the started because of oil was started by Germany and Japan years before I was born. That was my father’s war.
Hi Robert,
As of July 1st, 2008, British Columbia started collecting a “revenue neutral” gas tax much like you’re suggesting with a corresponding reduction in income tax. The tax applies directly to all carbon emission sources, not just gas.
Not that it’s nearly enough, starting at and increasing annually by 2.4 cents/litre (which is ~2.5% of the local cost of gas), but it’s a start! To boot, the conservative party that introduced the tax was recently re-elected, so it’s not an impossible political sell.
Cheers
Anon, thanks for the news on British Columbia. That will be worth a post in the near future (as soon as I clear out a backlog of half-finished posts).
Cheers, RR
Quoth Twit P:
“If you want to reduce oil imports, increase domestic production. Worked lat [sic] time.“
You mean, like the non-existent increase we got after the 1973 oil-price shock? US oil production never again reached 9.6 million bbl/day, despite a 20% increase in producing wells.
Yeah, sure worked. You call for doubling-down on failure, just like GWB. Drilling didn't work then, drilling can't work now; more oil just isn't there. It's time to economize and electrify.
“Mandating high fuel efficiency either means smaller cars will be built – so you are building supply and then presuming the demand will come – or you are playing tricks like they do with the E85 vehicles.“
Yes, there will be some of that, but going smaller isn’t the only way to increase efficiency without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. I expect there will be more diesels and hybrid SUVs in addition to the small cars that are built which might not get the demand either. I expect there will also be more technology penetration of things like cylinder deactivation, turbocharging with engine downsizing, and other engine, transmission, accessory technology improvements listed in
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_2008_PRIA.pdf
(warning 376 page PDF)
Section V. Details starting on page 55. Cost and percent effectiveness summary tables starting on page 88. Those technologies don’t require making the vehicles smaller, but they do increase cost.
Just as the average vehicle size in the US was significantly larger in 2006 compared to 1992 despite having the same fleet fuel efficiency of 25mpg, I expect when the US finally catches up in 2016 or whenever with the fuel economy that the European and Japanese fleets had in 2002, the US vehicles will be significantly larger then the average 2002 vehicle in Europe and Japan. By that time, Europe and Japan will still have smaller cars, but they’ll have reached a fleet average of 47mpg.
On the other hand, when I read what a politician like Schwarzenegger says about the Hummer, I have to raise my eyebrows.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/03/state/n165153D23.DTL
"I think that the Chinese will, within a short period of time, I can guarantee you, make this car that now gets only 15 miles per gallon … go 30 miles, 40 miles per gallon," Schwarzenegger said Wednesday. "And it could very well be, knowing the Chinese, that it will go 100 miles (per gallon) very soon."
The NHTSA has released another analysis on how the car manufacturers are likely to meet the 2016 CAFE standards. The analysis is available from
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/09/nhtsa-modeling-20090921.html
At 500 pages, it's more than I want to read. The greencarcongress article however, has a nice summary of the dozens of existing engine, transmission and other vehicle technologies that will help us reach the target.