Will New Fuel Rules for SUVs Cut U.S. Oil Use?

[jpak]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0330_060330_oil_SUV_2.html

The Bush Administration on Wednesday announced new fuel economy standards for light trucks that it says will save 10.7 billion gallons (40.5 billion liters) of fuel over the lifetime of vehicles sold between 2008 and 2011.

For the first time, the standards will apply to some of the largest sport utility vehicles (SUVs) on the road, such as the Hummer H2 and the Ford Explorer.

"Just by including these large sport utility vehicles, we have increased fuel savings by 10 percent, more than 250 million gallons <945 million liters> a year," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta at Wednesday's announcement in Baltimore, Maryland.

<snip>

Environmental groups and advocates for more efficient vehicles say the changes will do little to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil, a goal outlined by President Bush this January in his State of the Union address.

<more>

[phantom power]

1. By 2011, I doubt many people will be buying SUVs.

CAFE is nearly irrelevent at this point, unless oil suddenly becomes cheap again. I'm not holding my breath.

[OhioNerd]

2. Any author that puts the H2 and the Explorer in the same weight category..

Anyone that puts the H2 and the Explorer in the same weight category has an immediate credibility issue with me. (Norman Pineta in this case.)

There is a lot of "knee-jerking" in the discussion of SUVs that is often pretty far from any reality based world view.

I'm not sure that these new measures will have any meaningful effect. People who are happy that the new rules will include vehicles that are 8500-10000lbs are more than a little misinformed about just how heavy 8,500lbs or 10,000lbs really is. For example, the Ford Explorer XLT weighs about 4,900lbs. That means that TWO of them are still less than 10,000lbs.

Furthermore, this is a self-regulating problem. When someone buys a vehicle their decision is based on multiple factors, including but not limited to it's fuel economy. That same Explorer that I just mentioned gets an EPA rating of 15/20. Anyone looking at that vehicle is definitely going to take that into account.

By way of further illustration, let me talk about me for a moment.

I currently have a Subaru Forester that I use for all my daily driving activities. Between the extra weight of the stuff I carry in the back (Job related) and my driving style (A not insignificant percentage of "C". ;)) I get about 19mpg. With less weight in the car, high tire pressures and a conservative driving style I might get 24mpg in extended highway driving.

Those figures are acceptable to me. I wish they were better, but that's what I have to work with.

My second vehicle is a toy and doesn't really count. I get about 10mpg in that vehicle, but if I put 5000 miles on in a year that's a lot.

If I bought a third vehicle, I think I might buy a Jeep Liberty CRD. That's a mid-sized SUV with a turbocharged 4-cyl diesel and a towing capacity of 5,000lbs. It gets an MPG in the low to mid 20's and the towing capacity is a big issue for me. I could buy other vehicles, including a Chevy Tahoe (which I really like.), and since it would also be a low usage vehicle I wouldn't be too worried about the fuel economy with it.
Still, I would choose the Liberty, in large part because of it's more fuel efficient engine.

My basic point here is that this is something that is self-regulating. We do NOT have to worry about it. Nor do we really need to worry about running out of oil, because there WILL be a replacement fuel.

Seriously... Does anyone think that Detroit will just give up?
"Sorry guys, no more oil. It's been nice, but we'll be going now. Have a nice day."

Of course not.

I'm far more worried about the transition period during which oil prices will skyrocket while we wait for a substitute to come fully online.

[megatherium]

3. You should read up a bit on global warming.

It's a lot more ominous than they were thinking even one or two years ago. If the substitute for conventional liquid petroleum turns out to involve coal, tar sands or oil shale, we are done, and I mean done.

Currently, I drive a car that gets 28/34. I'm hoping to buy a vehicle that gets at least 40 mpg -- I certainly don't need anything bigger. A lot of people who "need" a light truck don't, really. Their SUV never sees an off-road situation; their pickup never carries a large load.

[OhioNerd]

4. I should read up on global warming?

What makes you think I haven't?
But even assuming that the current warming trend is entirely man-made, increasing the fuel economy of motor vehicles isn't going to fix the problem. In a fantasy situation where you could remove all the vehicles from the road completely, that would be a major dent. Unfortunately, in the real world you can't do that. We'd have far better luck looking at it from the power generation side, and of course we also need to involve China, India, Pakistan and a major chunk of the Pacific Rim. We need to get away from combustion altogether, whether it's coal, oil or gas. In one of the more bizarre twists of fate that mankind has seen, it turns out that the most environmentally friendly alternative for large scale power production is nuclear. The other alternatives are best suited for personal scale, such as Solar hot water, which I had growing up. 80 gallon "normal" tank plus a 120 gallon storage tank for the solar heated water meant we had 200 gallons of 100+ hot water on the coldest winter day WITHOUT burning a single cubic foot of natural gas.

By the way, while you have a right to your opinion; it really isn't your place (or mine for that matter) to tell people what they "need". The justification for a pickup truck isn't to be found in maximum capacity loads and the justification for an SUV isn't to be found in muddy off-road trails.
It's all based on whether a vehicle serves a purpose that the owner needs served.


By the way... If I needed a commuter car, I'd get a Volkswagon Beetle Turbodiesel with it's real world mileage figures in the 40's and even 50's, depending on conditions. However, if I felt that I needed a full sized 4wd 1-ton pickup truck with dual rear wheels, I would buy it and not lose a moment of sleep over it. I'd be annoyed every time I filled up, but since I would have bought the vehicle because it fit my needs, I would cope with it.

[megatherium]

5. Of course, I wouldn't know what you've read about global warming

nor is it my place to say what vehicle you need to drive. But 50% of the vehicles on the road are light trucks and SUVs, and I think most of these drivers don't really need vehicles that big. We do, however, have a compelling need to limit our consumption of petroleum; and we had better pray that if nuclear power is revived in this country, it's not used to produce tar sands, oil shale or gassified coal -- because global warming is a grave threat to our planet already. (If you disagree with this premise, please explain why.)

[OhioNerd]

6. But how do you know?

I'm refering to your statement that; "I think most of these drivers don't really need vehicles that big."
Leaving aside the accuracy of your 50% figure and not even getting into the breakdown of those vehicles (How many are big, how many are small, etc), you cannot know what need a particular person is or is not filling with a particular vehicle.
For instance, you may see a woman driving an otherwise empty Chevy Suburban to the supermarket. But do you see the kids that she has to shuttle around? The weekend ski trips with the whole family? The trailer that it pulls during family vacations or to get the boat to the water so Dad and Son can go fishing on Saturday mornings?

Please understand that I am not trying to claim that people don't buy vehicles they don't really need. After all... does anyone REALLY need a Corvette or Mustang?


By the way, on the Global Warming issue...
The planet is NOT in grave danger. The planet will be fine.
WE might be inconvenienced, but the planet will be A-OK.

Jokes aside; when I advocate Nuclear Power it is to REPLACE the burning of various substances to produce power.

[megatherium]

7. Currently, sales of light trucks (including SUVs) are just over 50% of the

car market. More than 40% of the vehicles on the road are now small trucks and SUVs. Try Google; you'll see. In the olden days, people drove station wagons. But now they drive trucks -- Detroit aggressively markets trucks because the safety and fuel economy standards on these are weaker than for ordinary cars, and their profit margins on these vehicles have until lately been large (in the range of $10,000 per vehicle).

As far as the planet not being in grave danger from global warming, I think you're wrong. Recent news is that polar bears are expected to become extinct by 2060, when the Arctic ice pack is gone. One-third of the coral in the Caribbean was found to have been bleached (killed) this year -- as would be expected considering the current high temperatures of the waters there (and this will get worse, and feed more cat 4-5 hurricanes). The current models say that global warming will be in the range of 2.6 to 4.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century: the effects already observed are the result of less than 1 degree Celsius warming. There is real fear that we are reaching a "tipping point" where effects such as the thawing of permafrost (already underway) with release of methane, or the decrease in high-latitude albedo caused by the melting of ice, will cause the climate to permanently change. The extreme rapidity of these changes (two centuries) is ripping apart vast ecosystems because this is far too quick for ecosystems to shift locations or adapt.

By the way, you've mentioned your "toy" that gets 10 mpg, and which doesn't see 5000 miles per year. Let's say you drive it 4000 miles per year. At 10 mpg, you're putting 400 gallons of fuel into the beast every year. Meanwhile, I drive my 1997 Mazda Protege less than 12,000 miles per year, and which gets about 28 mpg for most of my driving (34 on the open road, but I do few long trips). I therefore put less than 430 gallons in my car, a not particularly efficient vehicle. So you're using practically as much gas in your leisure driving as I do for all my driving.
.
Sorry to give you a hard time, but I am hoping you'll understand that these issues are much more ominous than you (and many) believe.

[OhioNerd]

8. Let me try to address each of your points.

1. If I accept your figures for the percentage of vehicles that are Trucks or SUVs, that leave us with the problem that you still haven't addressed the question of what the mix is. Breakdown by make and model. That may seem trivial or an attempt to distract from the central issue, but it does matter. "SUV" covers a lot of territory and a very large range of vehicles & efficiencies.

2. As I said, 'The Planet' will be fine. WE may be inconvenienced. Species may die off that would not have otherwise. But the PLANET will be fine. Furthermore, and I know how controversial this question is; How do we know that all the consequences of global warming will be bad? Heck, we don't even know what all the consequences ARE, so how COULD we know what a sub-set of those consequences are? I'm not trying to make light of the issue. I am simply pointing out that there is a lot we don't know. You know what I found out when I first began looking onto Global Warming? That a shockingly large amount of the material available is devoted to trying to convince the reader that the other side is wrong instead of trying to convince him that their own side is right.

3. As regards my toy, and I say this with all the sincerity I can muster; What's your point? :D
It's a race car. Quit buggin' me. :p


Seriously, I understand that you see it as ominous. I just don't.
I've seen a lot of bad shit in my life and I'm pretty sure that whatever happens, we'll find a way to muddle through.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Some suggestions:

Point 1: I recently had a rant against another poster for underutilisation of the cerebrum: If the figures are out there, you're as likely to find them as megatherium. My daughter, at 18 months, sometimes needs spoon-feeding: I'm guessing you're older than that, and don't.

Point 2: Yes, the planet will continue to orbit the sun. Life on the planet, however, may be fucked: I suggest looking at the recent temperature changes, recent CO2 changes, and looking for a past event that matches the pattern. Hint: 251mya.

Point 3: Your race car may be a "toy", but the atmosphere my daughter will have to cope with for the next 60 years is not. If we managed to get rid of all the "toy" snowmobiles, SUVs, Jetskis, and the entire "high-performance" & "off-road" car industries, we'd be a good bit better off.

As for "Quit bugging me", I take it you don't have kids. I hope you never do, since it would be terrible to brought up by a parent who cares so little about their future.

[OhioNerd]

10. I'm sorry Chicken Little...

I'm sorry Chicken Little, but I do NOT believe that life on this planet is going to be "fucked".

By the way, you're correct. It IS easy to find information on the internet. Especially if you already know what you want to believe. Otherwise, looking for information on the 'net is like trying to get a drink from a fire hydrant.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. You can belive whatever you like

For all I care, you can believe the Earth is flat and carried on a giant turtle. This does not make it true, however.

[OhioNerd]

17. That cuts both ways. n/t

.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. touche. nt

[megatherium]

11. If you're arguing that the jury is still out as to whether global warming

is a grave problem, or if you believe that global warming is primarily a political matter, I think you've fallen prey to the "tobacco strategy" that has been employed by ExxonMobil and the other energy companies. They've been sponsoring "tobacco institutes" that promote the message that there is still a controversy as to whether warming is human-caused. But the great majority of climate scientists now have arrived at a strong consensus that global warming is human-caused and is a grave and gathering danger to life on Earth. There are notable examples of climate scientists who were public skeptics on anthropogenic global warming but who now believe it is human caused.

A good web site to visit is www.realclimate.org, which is run by actual climate scientists to counter energy industry misinfo. This web site is interesting because it contains links and discussions to the primary, scientific literature on this issue. It has great background articles. For example, they have a lengthy, technical discussion about the fate of the glacier on Mt. Kilamanjaro. It is well-known that at current rates of melting, this glacier will be gone by 2015. (The glacier is 12,000 years old.) Global warming skeptics claim that this glacier is shrinking because precipitation has decreased in that part of Africa, down from the unusually high levels of precip that occured early in the 20th century. But the truth of the matter is this: Precipitation there is similar to levels recorded in the late 1800s when the glacier was fine. Also, the fact that precip patterns have shifted is itself a predicted effect of global warming.

[OhioNerd]

13. So if my opinions on the issues involved here...

So if my opinions on the issues involved here aren't what you think they should be, it's because I'm not sophisticated enough to avoid falling prey to energy industry disinformation?

[Dead_Parrot]

14. It's not a matter of opinion,

It's a matter of fact: Being sophisticated really won't help if you're not very well informed.

[OhioNerd]

16. No, it IS a matter of opinion.

No, it IS a matter of opinion. MY opinion.

Let me tell you two things about my opinion:

1) I have a right to have it, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

2) Although you (and others) probably think you know what my opinion IS, let me assure you that you do NOT. That's not actually your fault, because I haven't actually gone into any real depth regarding what my opinions on this subject actually are. It IS however, your fault if you make assumptions or jump to conclusions based on the tiny amount of insight into my opionion that my posts have allowed.

Frankly, I'm amazed that nobody has accused me of being a freeper.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I even WANT to get into a serious discussion on this issue, at least not here. There are a few people here who have practically turned this issue into a religion and I really don't need that much static. WAY too heavy.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. At which point do you think it's a matter of opinion?

That we've doubled the CO2 in the air? That CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid? That acid kills coral and it's ecosystems? These are not subject to debate, any more than the earth being billions of years old. Sure, you can hop over to www.answersingenesis.org and find a collection of fruitbats who think the earth is 6000 years old and evolution doesn't happen (it seems to have missed them, certainly) but that does not make it fact, or even open to serious discussion. There are areas subject to opinion - should nuclear power play a key role in energy, is hydropower any good, and is hydrogen actually good for anything... They're the questions we don't have definitive answers to.

But maybe I am being to quick to jump down your throat. Spell out you thoughts (if you want to) and we'll go on from there. And you couldn't be a freeper - you're too lucid, plus you can spell. :)

[OhioNerd]

21. I don't think I can have that kind of discussion here.

I think that if I try to, I'll be attacked for not conforming to the dogma of global warming. And I don't mean questioned, I mean ATTACKED.
Look at the post directly below this one. I've BARELY said anything about global warming and I'm already being misquoted and warned that I am under suspicion of being a disruptor.
I'm old and tired. I don't need that much hassle.

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Fair enough...

PM me if you want to take it out of sight. Resistance is futile.
:D

[OhioNerd]

25. Well, I don't have PM ability yet.

I also can't start a thread yet, which is bumming me out because I have a NASA thread that I want to start in the science forum.

I'll say this much: I don't find climate change to be the big scary boogieman that some folks do.
That feeling is based more on my faith in the resiliency of the species than in any delusion that the climate is unchanging. Beyond that, I think I'll keep my feelings to myself.

[megatherium]

23. I tried PMing you with an apology but for some reason you cannot

receive private messages yet.

I regret the personal tone of my posts, particularly my last post to you. It didn't help the debate, and it was not appropriate.

[megatherium]

20. Yes, frankly; because you haven't provided us with any

support (evidence) for your position that global warming is not a grave danger to life on Earth. You have honestly given me no reason whatsoever to believe that you really have read in detail on this issue, beyond your own claim that you have done so. And you have given me reason to suspect that you are misinformed (when you posited that global warming might be entirely human caused, in your earlier post).

No one here has accused you of being a disrupter or a freeper because such accusations aren't allowed on this board. (The remedy here for disrupters is to report them to the moderator, who deletes posts and accounts.) Given that you have only made a few dozen posts, and you have chosen to post global warming skeptical posts in Energy/Environment, the thought that you might be disrupter had crossed my mind. But I would very much like to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please supply us with actual arguments/evidence (not just vague assertions) for your position that global warming isn't a grave threat, if you would like me to continue this discussion with you. Would you have good web links for your position?

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. If Cars improved as much as trucks, 125mpg would be common

1979 Full Size Pickup was around 8mpg
1979 Diesel Rabbit was around 50mpg

By comparison it makes the Prius look like a fuel guzzler.

The questions we should ask is why qare people choosing to drive certain vehicals? And do they need to always drive the vehical intended for the worst case condition? SUV's and Light Trucks wouldn't be such an issue if they were only driven when an alternative was insufficient to do the job.

[eliphaiku]

24. That hints at the central issue

Are people allowed to satisfy there own petty desires and wants, or are they obligated to recognise the needs of society, state and world?

If "individualism" makes a few rich, but kills us, it is irrational.

[OhioNerd]

26. If individualism was actually killing us, then I'd agree.

Look, undoubtedly people have a responsibility to the rest of the human race to not behave in a gratuitously selfish manner. At the same time, society has a responsibility to know when to mind it's own f**king business.

Analogy: Homeowners Associations.

HA's were created to insure that certain community standards were enforced for the mutual benefit of all. Inevitably, the only people who wanted to be on the steering committee (or whatever you call it.) were the ones who enjoyed butting their noses into other people's business. As a result, HA's developed a bad reputation and instead of helping to maintain a sense of community and protect property values it ended up breeding hostility & resentment, and suppressing property values; because people don't want to live under the sort of petty dictators that gravitate to those sorts of situations.

[eliphaiku]

27. That's all fine until

You try to do something constructive for working people, then you find that the modern front in the class struggle is a protection of privilege under the umbrella of individual rights. Of course, the poor very conspicuously lack the privilege to exercise many "individual" economic privileges.

The whole ethic that you can do whatever you like because you (or more likely your father and grandfather) rigged the system is the problem.

[OhioNerd]

28. LOL, I wish my forefathers HAD rigged the system for me.

Unfortunately, my grandfather was a cabby and my father was a jackass.
The closest I came to prep school was military school, which I was kicked out of for being a discipline problem.