cars

Dead

… killed by lawmakers in Albany.

Contrary to what you might have heard

A new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds:

Increasing the average fuel economy of America’s new autos to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018 would save consumers $61 billion at the gas pump and increase U.S. employment by 241,000 jobs in the year 2020, including 23,900 in the auto industry ...

The study is available here.

According to the analysis, nearly $24 billion of the gasoline savings would become new revenue for automakers in 2020–paying for the improved technologies plus some profit ...

[P]utting fuel economy technology to work would also cut our oil addiction by 1.6 million barrels per day and reduce global warming pollution by more than 260 million metric tons, akin to taking nearly 40 million of today’s average cars and trucks off the road in 2020.

Ichiro! Ichiro!

I watched the end of the MLB All-Star Game last night. I missed Ichiro Suzuki’s inside-the-park home run, alas, but did see the post-game when he was declared MVP and presented with a Chevy SUV hybrid. It’s a step. Maybe next year, the All-Star MVP will be presented with free solar panels for his house. […]

Car company on national tour to pimp hybrids

If you want to learn more about hybrids, or uh, at least Toyota’s take on hybrids, the company is on a “Highway to the Future” national tour to hook some more folks on their line of hybrid cars, talk about alternative fuels, and offer some ideas about reducing your carbon footprint. And as we learned […]

Do higher MPG cars mean fewer jobs?

The Chicago Tribune has an article in today's paper entitled "MPG bill could cost UAW jobs; Workers fear SUV plant's fate sealed," although the article itself isn't as shrill as the title suggests.

At first glance, the article looks like the classic "those environmentalists are going to take away your jobs" piece, but the author presents data for the other side, that is, that the problems of the auto industry are the problems of the managers of the auto industry:

Higher fuel standards would affect all automakers but would hit the domestics harder because they sell a greater percentage of trucks than foreign rivals. Trucks account for 56 percent of GM's sales, two-thirds of Ford's and three-fourths of the Chrysler Group's.

Youch! Who's fault is it that they bet the farm on SUVs? The car companies could have analyzed the data on peaking oil, foreign imports of oil, even global warming. Because of their short-term outlook, made much worse by Wall Street's emphasis on the next quarter, not the next quarter of a century, they refused to go down a path that should have been obvious by the end of the 1970s.

What next? Socialized medicine?

A new report (PDF) claims that more Americans are likely to opt for diesel vehicles over hybrids in the near future in the quest for fuel economy: total sales of hybrids and diesels will hit 2.7 million annually by 2012, and diesels will account for more than half (1.5 million) of those sales.

"A new diesel's cost burden is lower than hybrid's for similar fuel economy -- even with the 'clean' technologies needed to meet tough U.S. emissions regulations (including California)," the report claims.

Good or bad, there's little doubt that more diesel vehicles are on the horizon.

Just what India needs!

Really cheap cars. And so, hope continues to recede into the distance. Vroom vroom!

Reps to discuss dropping the tax break on massive SUVs

For the “wow, about time” files: the tax write-off for Hummers might be a thing of yesteryear, if one legislator gets his way. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) has introduced legislation to remove the $25,000-or-so tax break that people who drive massive SUVs and Hummers have been getting for years. The break was intended to help […]

We can have both

A new study entitled "Sipping Fuel and Saving Lives: Increasing Fuel Economy without Sacrificing Safety" notes:

The public, automakers, and policymakers have long worried about trade-offs between increased fuel economy in motor vehicles and reduced safety. The conclusion of a broad group of experts on safety and fuel economy in the auto sector is that no trade-off is required. There are a wide variety of technologies and approaches available to advance vehicle fuel economy that have no effect on vehicle safety [and vice versa].

The study by the International Council on Clean Transportation concludes that "Technologies exist today that can improve light-duty vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent ... with no impact on safety."

The study has two noteworthy figures. The first shows that higher-fuel-economy vehicles [green] are some of the safest while low-fuel-economy vehicles [red] are some of the least safe vehicles driven today -- large, heavy trucks and SUVs. Click to enlarge.

The second figure lists technologies available today that can improve fuel economy with no impact on safety and lists technologies that can improve vehicle safety with little or no effect on fuel economy. Click to enlarge.

The study is conservative in the sense that it doesn't even consider plug-in hybrids, which can significantly increase fuel economy with no impact on safety at all. It is well worth a read.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.