When governments do their job.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Look what happens.

 

Remember that governments don't belong in business but that they can and often should regulate it.  This is an example of a good thing done by one state, California.  Everyone jumped on that bandwagon and startled the auto companies out of their comfortable pew.  The regulation itself didn't cost much to pass into law, nor very much to monitor.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well I've always believed that in an ideal world government would be the only business... So I guess I'm your polar opposite opinion on that one. 

 

Regulation... in any form seems to create more problems than it solves. I think standardisation is a good thing however, such as the metric system and uniform rail guages.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Moved to Current Events, since this seems like the discussion of a more or less current news item.  Enjoy!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think it belongs in off-topic because it is more general and philosophical.  However ...

 

The contention that the government be the only business is a take on Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.  In that novel, John Savage showed that he'd rather live on a desert island than in such a society.  Some people just need to obtain more experience before opting for any kind of dystopia.

[hym 358]

It is my opinion that the author's analysis is largely either short-sighted or incorrect.  A few points:

 

• No, CAFE standards are not impossible to achieve, and it would be unfair to not give them credit for the fact that they have achieved increases in vehicle fuel efficiency.  However, automakers do not employ teams of wizards in glass castles that are magically figuring out how to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.  The rules of physics are still in place, and they are not achieving those increases without sacrifices.  If you've bought a car in the last two or three years, you may have noticed the lack of a spare tire.  In an effort to lower the vehicle's mass, and thus improve fuel efficiency, automakers are shedding weight everywhere that they can, sometimes without regard for how problematic that can be for the customer.  (GM has decided that new cars get a can of fix-a-flat in lieu of the spare tire.  Other auto companies aren't even giving you that.)
• Despite the claims of CAFE proponents that higher fuel standards would lead to reductions in America's dependence on foreign oil, it has largely failed to achieve that.  US fuel use has gone down some as a result of Americans driving more efficient vehicles that came about as a result of the CAFE standard, but the biggest driver of fuel consumption reductions has been the introduction of the ethanol blending rules.  (The fact that CAFE, in its drive for greater fuel efficiency, encourages the adoption of lower efficiency vehicles also don't help the issue.)  The foreign fuel dependency issue is further complicated by the growing oil trading relationship between the US and Canada (which raises the legitimate question of whether we really should care about dependence on foreign fuel so long as we are sourcing it from friendly countries).  Finally, the other major driver of reductions to US dependency on foreign oil is everyone's favorite friend: hydraulic fracturing.
• You can do quite a bit to improve the efficiency of SUVs and with justified cause, but trying to play the same game with the truck market is foolish.  In general, SUV's are often purchased to function exclusively as people movers (and thus the owner could have probably lived with a car just as easily).  There is a growing trend towards this in the truck market too.  However, the truck market has already begun a split in two different directions.  Light duty pickup trucks are moving towards higher fuel efficiency, while the heavier trucks are moving towards more power.  Whether we want to admit it or not, at some point, we have to admit that there are individuals and businesses that legitimately need heavy duty trucks where the low fuel efficiency is a necessary evil to deliver the other aspects that the truck needs to support.  And just to make the matter more fun, the government and industry do not necessarily have a clear distinction between these vehicles and their lighter duty brethren, so any regulation that attempts to recognize the need of the heavy duty users will have to tread very lightly around the entire vehicle segment.
• There has been considerable contention over the true environmental cost of hybrid vehicles like the Prius, to the point that it has been argued that the Hummer H2 is actually more environmentally friendly than the Prius.  Whether this is or is not true, in terms of the global picture, CAFE's argument that it is reducing greenhouse gas emissions is questionable.  Even if it is true, a lot of the rare earth metals that are required for making hybrids and electric vehicles are sourced from China.  China is showing increasing interest in keeping those metals for itself.  The next major source of rare earth metals is believed to be Afghanistan (which presents some rather interesting problems).  FYI, China is also interested in sucking up those resources for itself too, so maybe we want to consider "Afghanistan Nation Building 2.0"?  Perhaps the cry of the 21st century shall be America's dependence on foreign rare earth metals?

 

At the end of the day, CAFE is nothing special.  It is another government regulation created in response to individuals who complained loudly enough and long enough that something needed to be done.  It is another case of the government attempting to solve a problem, while remaining blind to the new problems that it is creating in the process.

[flatron 83]

The best way to increase fuel efficiency is raising the prices for gaz and diesel. Paired with good public transportation(provided by the state/city) this makes the car companies build smaller and more efficient vehicles.

I would always prefer a small, compact and efficient bmw 1er over any car built in the US, as american cars are simply crap, period.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This is not the only thing that governments can regulate.  The CAFE standard was, perhaps, not completely thought through.  Like many laws and regulations (which are also laws), it falls under the umbrella of 'it seemed like a good idea at the time'.

 

Some unaware physician in the 1920s told the then Duke of York that smoking was good for him.  Subsequent studies and the death of the subject from lung cancer was one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th Century.  Both KG V and KG VI smoked themselves to death.  In spite of these horrible examples, it took about another fifty years for the truth to come out, then it turns out that the tobacco companies were aware of it all along.  Tobacco sales is such a cash cow that it is impossible to regulate it effectively.  Governments would be in real trouble without this tax.  The same thing applies to petroleum fuels.

 

When a government regulates something, they have to be oh so careful.  Often the necessary studies to understand the impact of such things happen ex post facto.  Hym points out some of the holes in the CAFE standard implementation and its impact.  Of course the automotive companies have not really done much of a job, probably because after the 2008 debacle they don't (can't) allocate enough money to pure research.  This research should be conducted away from the corporate purview in the universities though proper funding, no strings attached.  Perhaps a cash prize should be offered for whatever advance the companies are seeking.

 

One of the greatest problems we have is transparency.  Too many patents, too many trade secrets, too many shameful secrets.

[Duke87 1,070]

The whole lack of a spare tire thing is nutty. My car from 2009 has a spare, but apparently it was optional equipment rather than standard (I guess this lets them take partial credit for the lost weight).

 

The million dollar question then is... it a car does not even come with an "option" for a spare tire (i.e., there's no well in the trunk for it), what are the odds the dealer will be willing to sell you a spare wheel and leave you to figure out where to put it? I would insist upon this and take my business elsewhere if refused (or threaten to, and see if that changes their mind ), but I don't imagine it'd be a problem since dealers are used to selling spare parts and I don't see why they'd say no to selling you a fifth of something you already have four of.

 

 

Although, what's disheartening to me is to read that apparently more than half of drivers who have spare tires don't know how to use them (they just call roadside assistance if they get a flat). Who the hell are these people and how are they even allowed to have drivers licenses without knowing how to change a tire?   That is such a basic and simple thing to do.

[Easy Bakes 253]

The whole lack of a spare tire thing is nutty. My car from 2009 has a spare, but apparently it was optional equipment rather than standard (I guess this lets them take partial credit for the lost weight).

 

The million dollar question then is... it a car does not even come with an "option" for a spare tire (i.e., there's no well in the trunk for it), what are the odds the dealer will be willing to sell you a spare wheel and leave you to figure out where to put it? I would insist upon this and take my business elsewhere if refused (or threaten to, and see if that changes their mind ), but I don't imagine it'd be a problem since dealers are used to selling spare parts and I don't see why they'd say no to selling you a fifth of something you already have four of.

 

 

Although, what's disheartening to me is to read that apparently more than half of drivers who have spare tires don't know how to use them (they just call roadside assistance if they get a flat). Who the hell are these people and how are they even allowed to have drivers licenses without knowing how to change a tire?   That is such a basic and simple thing to do.

lazyness. i would never buy a car that didnt have a spare

what if you out some place with no cell service?

 

if there is no place to put a spare they would not sell you one.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It is my opinion that the author's analysis is largely either short-sighted or incorrect.  A few points:

 

• No, CAFE standards are not impossible to achieve, and it would be unfair to not give them credit for the fact that they have achieved increases in vehicle fuel efficiency.  However, automakers do not employ teams of wizards in glass castles that are magically figuring out how to increase vehicle fuel efficiency.  The rules of physics are still in place, and they are not achieving those increases without sacrifices.  If you've bought a car in the last two or three years, you may have noticed the lack of a spare tire.  In an effort to lower the vehicle's mass, and thus improve fuel efficiency, automakers are shedding weight everywhere that they can, sometimes without regard for how problematic that can be for the customer.  (GM has decided that new cars get a can of fix-a-flat in lieu of the spare tire.  Other auto companies aren't even giving you that.)

Companies, ESPECIALLY large manufacturing companies do have a bunch of wizards holed up in a glass tower. Its called the R&D department. 

 

But really, fuel efficiency standards are just like every other standard that the government imposes on companies. It presents a challenge for a company, sure, but that is why they invest in hiring smart people that can find a solution to the challenge. Enforcing innovation is not a bad thing. 

 

As for the spare tire thing, its a non argument. Do you really believe that by simply removing the spare tire in cars, they all of a sudden become fuel efficient enough to meet those standards? Yeah, didn't think so. 

[hym 358]

Companies, ESPECIALLY large manufacturing companies do have a bunch of wizards holed up in a glass tower. Its called the R&D department. 

 

But really, fuel efficiency standards are just like every other standard that the government imposes on companies. It presents a challenge for a company, sure, but that is why they invest in hiring smart people that can find a solution to the challenge. Enforcing innovation is not a bad thing. 

 

As for the spare tire thing, its a non argument. Do you really believe that by simply removing the spare tire in cars, they all of a sudden become fuel efficient enough to meet those standards? Yeah, didn't think so. 

 

Assuming the company has an R&D department and that it is staffed with individuals who are up to the challenges upon the, and neither of these can be assumed to be true or even likely, it doesn't change the fact that these people are still bound to the physical constraints of the universe.  There are very definite limits in what they are able to do physically, and those are even further constrained by economics.  Generally, the most economic method of increasing efficiency carries the day, and the most economic method of improving vehicle efficiency is usually reducing the vehicle's mass.  Towards this end, auto manufacturers have decreased engine size, decreased the size of fuel tanks, increased the use of polycarbonates in place of metal, begun phasing out spare tires, switched to lighter weight foam to reduce the weight of the seats, and so forth.  Removing the spare tire doesn't appreciably improve fuel efficiency, but it does shed a few dozen pounds.  A few dozen pounds here and a few dozen pounds there eventually adds up to a few hundred pounds, which does change vehicle fuel efficiency ratings.  Some cars currently on the market have achieved their necessary fuel efficiency targets by fractions of a mile per gallon, so every little bit of vehicle weight shedding matters.

 

If one is going to argue that CAFE has made a serious difference in greenhouse gas emissions, or that it has made an appreciable difference in America's effort to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, they are going to be very tough arguments to make.  The recent upticks in CAFE standards have had little positive effect except to convince some squeaky wheels to contribute more campaign money.  In fact, the failure of CAFE to encourage Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles coupled with the weird trend where it actually encourages adopting SUVs has led some to argue that CAFE needs to be amended to include a provision to financially penalize automakers when a car buyer purchases an SUV when a higher efficiency car would have been sufficient.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Assuming the company has an R&D department and that it is staffed with individuals who are up to the challenges upon the, and neither of these can be assumed to be true or even likely, it doesn't change the fact that these people are still bound to the physical constraints of the universe.  There are very definite limits in what they are able to do physically, and those are even further constrained by economics.  

They are car manufacturers, of course they have R&D departments. How else do you think they have managed to make more efficient and more powerful engines over the years. Just having the people on the assembly line screw around a bit and see if it turns into a better car? And who else do you think designs the new cars? 

 

And sure, they are bound by physics. But that doesn't mean you can't research into ways on how to improve your car's performance. Really if the contemporary understanding of physics would represent an absolute barrier for invention and innovation, we would have never had planes either. Physics is not an argument, its merely a hurdle, an obstacle, and its smart peoples job to find ways to overcome the obstacle. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The spare tire thing is an invidious response to lightening the vehicle while keeping frivolities.  A car without a spare is limited as to where it may go.  It may not be sold in places where service is far between or not available.  I see it as a ploy by the manufacturer to put pressure on the regulator, and nothing more.  It is, of course, at the expense of the consumer who is rightly allowed to be good and upset. 

 

It is called don't purchase that model.