Talk:Corporate Average Fuel Economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy	(Rated C-Class, Low-importance)	EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Energy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Automobiles	(Rated C-Class, Low-importance)	AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Cars portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 (Feb 2004—June 2008)

Contents 1 update figure? 2 Final rule note 2011 standards 3 CAFE image 4 MPG is calculated differently for window stickers 5 Increased oil and automobile usage 6 "As fuel efficiency rises, people drive their cars more"- Jevons paradox 7 I deleted this New Loophole Created by 110th Congress 7.1 Third Opinion

[edit] update figure?

Hey, I would like to update the figure I posted near the top of the arciele File:CAFEStandard.png but I can not find more recent data. does anyone know if there is more recent data or why the NHTSA website "annual" reports do not continue past 2003? PDBailey (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Final rule note 2011 standards

For the regular editors, the The U.S. Department of Transportation has released new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the 2011 model year here (in pdf format), just in case someone want to update the article. This is the final notice, only pending publication of the official version in a forthcoming Federal Register publication or on GPO's Web Site--Mariordo (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CAFE image

The new cafe image is nicer because it contains light truck numbers and I think it should stay because of that. However, the source is listed as, "Own work." And this does not cut it. It would also be nice to have a table of values used. PDBailey (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added to the description to clarify that the plot is based on US Government data published by NHTSA, EIA, and US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI. See NHTSA "Fuel Economy" and read the recent standards documents. EIA see "Gasoline". US Bureau of Labor Statistics see: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ EIA normed to 2000, I took the CPI ratio of 2008/2000 to renorm to 2008 because most people can still remember how much they paid in 2008. 2008 yearly gas price is the average of EIA weekly gas prices. Jimad (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Jimad, Can you please put this information with links in the image under "source". PDBailey (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MPG is calculated differently for window stickers

"CAFE MPG" is based on the EPA mileage tests which are done in a laboratory under controlled conditions, using professional drivers and with the heater and air conditioing shut off. It's not the same as the combined city/highway MPG on the window stickers of new cars. The numbers on the window stickers are also based on the test results, but the numbers are adjusted downward to account for factors such as cold weather, air conditioning use, etc. See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06069.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHamper (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Increased oil and automobile usage

"However, associated costs, such as increased deaths, may be more than offset by savings on a global scale, because increased CAFE standards reduce reliance on increasingly expensive and unreliable sources of imported petroleum[50] and lower the probability of global climate change by reducing US emissions of carbon dioxide.

Does it really say that? Someone would actually justify loss of life with reduction in global warming? Seriously? So polar bears are more important than humans now? The Phool (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think global warming is about polar bears, or is that just a rhetorical trick? Ninahexan (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering that one of the most vocal arguments against global warming has been the effect on polar wildlife, it seems that certain groups have decided that the lives of animals is more important than those of people. As for other arguments against global warming, have they even gone under any sort of objective critical scrutiny? Considering that scientists put their careers at risk by even suggesting a dissenting opinion, I doubt that anyone has even considered potential benefits of global warming, for example, millions of square miles of Canada, Alaska, and Russia would become usable farm land, potentially eliminating hunger. Once again, the potential risk to penguins, polar bears and baby seals somehow trumps this, even though there is no certainty that polar species would disappear if the ice caps were to melt. In fact, they have melted before, long before humans were even around to drive cars.The Phool (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So large areas will soon be arable... though you are confident that all the currently existing arable land will remain so after weather patterns change? You do not seem to have much familiarity with the processes of science if you think that climate change hypotheses have not undergone intense scrutiny. Sometimes it seems that climate change deniers are motivated by a strange David vs Goliath complex born out of the fact that they are made insecure by the intimidating notion that scientists are intelligent and that people listen to them. Have you considered the financial impact that will result from weather patterns shifting? From land lost to encroaching seas and oceans? The migration patterns caused by these shifts, and how these factors will influence the geopolitical world? To be under the impression that scientists are motivated by their desire to save animals is either ignorant or... well, deceit. Ninahexan (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, some scientists are tainted by corporate and political interests. Corporations and governments that fund universities and research institutions sometimes get a say in interpretations and theoretical models of the data they produce, and then use that information to sway policymakers to advance an agenda. It's sad, but true. The animal argument is but one of many used to convince everyone that global warming is the worst catastrophe that could possibly happen. And of course, anyone who dares think critically about it is attacked or discredited. Did you know the oil companies are among the largest investors in "green" CO2 reducing technologies? If that doesn't raise a red flag, then nothing will. In any event, isn't manipulating climate change one or way or another a phenomenally bad idea anyway? However bad global warming might be, accidentally setting off an ice age would be far worse. And I'm actually quite familiar with the way science works. It's actually somewhat political as conclusions are reached by consensus; its not unlike Wikipedia, albeit far more formalized and complex. The Phool (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not familiar with the machinations of scientific research, you seem only to have your own opinion based on conspiracy theories and a sensationalist media (which ironically you decry as well). Scientists who are bound by their paycheques never get their work accepted in the scientific community unless they prove their independence and unbiased nature of their methodology. For you to suggest that there is something suspicious in oil companies investing in green technology displays pretty limited thought. What are they going to do when oil runs out? When other energies are becoming more cost effective? They are positioning themselves so that when oil runs out they can switch their markets to other areas... such as green technology. Really, haven't you thought about that? And suggesting that manipulating climate change is a bad idea is the same as you suggesting that manipulating a falling egg by catching it is a bad idea. Ninahexan (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "As fuel efficiency rises, people drive their cars more"- Jevons paradox

This can not be supported. The Jevons paradox that this premise rests upon refers mostly to production and manufacturing. If a technology consumes a certain amount of energy manufacturing a steel alloy, for example, and the efficiency of this technology is advanced then the same amount of energy will be put in to produce a larger output, making that process more cost effective, therebyincreasing its use and ultimately this will lead to more consumption of the resource (energy). This is not the same as people driving their cars. Are they going to start aimlessly driving just because it is more efficient? This doesn't even approach the whole concept that the cost of the energy is increasing all the time. If there are both advances in technology that increase efficiency, coupled with a rise in the cost of the energy that technology consumes, then an increase in use would end up in an increase in energy consumption , which would end up costing more! To give an example, if a machine eats $100 worth of energy to produce $150 worth of goods in one hour, and the cost of that energy increases to $150 for an hour, then the efficiency must be increased to allow for $225 (to retain the profit margin) of goods to be produced in one hour. This example is for industry, whereas for automobile use there won't be any use in increasing the distance travelled just because it is more efficient, it will only really result in the journey costing less, with less carbon emitted. Applying Jevons paradox doesn't seem to be valid, though someone might have a convincing argument. Ninahexan (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I deleted this New Loophole Created by 110th Congress

It claimed "Title I, Subtitle A, Section 104 expands the fuel economy credit trading provisions." There was not a credit trading program in the original EPCA, and the EIPA only allows the secretary of transportation to establish a credit trading system if he/she wishes. Section stated "Under the original CAFE statute enacted in the 1970s, the UAW was concerned that manufacturers would move small car production overseas to take advantage of the lower labor costs. The union fought for and won a provision that required separate calculations for domestically produced and imported passenger cars. Section 104 undoes this provision contained in the original statute." This is not true. See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:8:./temp/~c110MCkZJ5:e24625: just before paragraph (b) Article stated: "According to calculations using the proposed standards contained in the President Obama's recent proposal and extending these proposed standards, 75% of the benefit from these two new CAFE credit trading provisions, cross fleet trading and 5-year carry-forward, falls to foreign manufacturers" Which Obama proposal is he referring to? Can't be EIPA that was under Bush. Assertions and statistics not cited. "Ninety-eight percent of the benefit derived from cross fleet trading flows to Toyota" 98% is so ridiculously high as to be laghable, again not cited. The rest of the section contains uncited and poorly explained statistics.--Kailer2 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kailer2:

You may not like the calculations or understand how to duplicate them but that does not change the fact that the calculations are accurate. The methodology for performing a CAFE calculation is well documented. I have added the citations to the NHTSA data used to perform the calculations and the NNPRM that proposed new standards for 2012 through 2016. Estimates of CAFE performance for future model years was taken from NHTSA assumptions in the last two NPRMs (car and truck). Sales were from the same sources. People often mock what they do not understand. Your link to Thomas was not active so I do not know your source for stating that the UAW was not involved in the domestic/import fleet debate; I was there and I know this is accurate. If you doubt this call Alan Reuter at the UAW. While it is true EISA (not EIPA) was enacted under Bush, it was sponsored by Senator Feinstein, and Senator Reid proposed the amendment adding this section and then Senator Obama along with most of the Democrats in the 110th Congress voted for the amendment and final passage of the statute. You can verify this on Thomas.

As for the comment that there was no crediting program in the original CAFE, the correct term of art should have been "banking" and not "trading". Three year banking was a part of CAFE from its inception. Not many people understand the difference between banking and trading. You are correct, I should have used the term banking at that point in the text.

A simple way to grasp the enormity of the credit loophole is to look at the difference in CAFE performance vis-a-vis the standards for each manufacturer. Today, all these unused excess "credits" - actual fuel economy minus the standard times the sales volume - expire to the good of the environment. Under the provisions authorized by the 110th Congress, automobile companies are allowed to use these credits to off-set shortfalls in their other fleets subject to certain restrictions. EPA has stated in the preamble to the proposal that it expects automobile companies to avail themselves of these new flexibilities. In order to get to the actual benefit from the new "flexibilities" as NHTSA calls them. As for the reference to President Obama, he announced the fuel economy changes May 19, 2009. You can verify this on whitehouse.gov.

The dollar value is predicated on the net credits times the NHTSA estimate of the cost of one mpg increase in CAFE.

EnCM (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

EnCM:

Respecfully, it is not enough to do the calculations yourself, you must cite a published source where these numbers come from. Furthermore, I suspect that you hav POV issues as you are very clearly involved with the UAW. I'll be happy to allow some collaboration between us to get an objective section about the secrataries discretionary powers to establish a credit trading scheme, but I suspect we may end up in arbitration.

1. ``Loophole" is too pejorative I suggest renaming it Credit Trading Provision.

2. None of your numbers have citation. The numbers themselves, not the method used to create them, must come from a published source. You have not provided them so I have removed these statistics. There is no chance that 98% of the benefit of a credit trading scheme will fall to toytota. That number is way too high, laughably so.

3. The trading program envisioned is that contained in updated final rule for 2011 (march 09)It explicitly states that manufacturers may not used transfered or traded credits to meet the minimum passenger standard, but may use them to meet the attribute based standard, this should be mentioned.

4. Such a trading scheme will not take effect until 2011, thus any mention of the trading provision should be either under the section on effect of EISA, or under the "Future" section, it does not merit it's own section, however I will wait until we have agreed on what should be said before I suggest we move it.--Kailer2 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Kailer2:

The UAW reference occurs earlier in the text on CAFE, I repeat it in the new section because it is relevent. It is not a point of view. And NO I am not involved with the UAW. I do however understand CAFE and have spent over 30 years the studying CAFE and its impact on automotive companies. All of my numbers have citations. The calculations using officially supplied numbers are what you do not understand. The base numbers (sales and CAFE estimates) come from NHTSA and you can get them from their web page; anyone with an understanding of CAFE calculation methodology can duplicate them. I conceed that there are only a handfull of people who truly understand CAFE and an almost infinite number who have opinions on CAFE. But the information I added is not opinion but or a POV but fact based on the official US government information.

As for doing the calculations myself, there are numberous citiations including graphs tables and calculations that come from contributors within the WIKI community.

And yes, I agree that the benefit to Toyota is incredibly high. It is not a fault of the calculation that Toyota gets such a large break but an inherent problem with the enabeling legislation and regulations. Your rationale for deleting the section is merely your POV that the numbers are laughingly high. You can confirm the calculation easily instead of just laughing at it using the methodology cited and the official government data which is also cited. You keep trying to shoot the messenger. I did not authorize the legislation, nor did I have anything to do with it. I am just trying to explain in plain English what the legislation did.

Looking at NHTSAs projections for Toyota contained in the public docket, Toyota will not likely use their new credits in their passenger car fleet to meet the minimum standards but in their light truck fleet. Thus your suggestion that the default minimum passenger car standards contained in the regulation somehow limit the usefulness of the credits does not appply to any manufacturer. You can verify this by following the methodology to its logical conclusion.

It is a fact that the foreign companies worked with the environmental community and Senator Feinstein to develop the legislation. If you don't believe this just do a search of Michael Stanton supporting fuel economy increases and specifically this legislation. (Mike heads the trade association representing foreign automakers) There were numberous articles written during the period leading up to passage that confirmed that foreign companies supported the legislation and worked with the key legislators to achieve its passage. And yes, I agree that this provision was insiduously clever. A fact confirmed by your inability to grasp the magnitude of the opening created. This provision in the legislation harms the ennvirnment and allows companies to circumvent the spirt of the legislation.

The WIKI definition of a loophole is:

"A loophole is a weakness or exception that allows a system, such as a law or security, to be circumvented or otherwise avoided. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security."

I did not create the term, but it clearly applies in this instance.

As for the location of the comment, it is under EISA which I thought was an appropriate place.

EnCM (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a third party to weigh in on this. I contend that since these statistics are not from a published source they are inadmissible. Further, I contend that this information does not warrant its own section.--Kailer2 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

Rico -- who's edited Wikipedia since 2004, and is more familiar with its policies, guidelines and major essays than the average Wikipedian -- wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a sentence or two below.

I have read through this entire thread.
Please be civil and engage in absolutely no personal attacks.
That would rule out describing an editor's edits as "laughable", ad hominem arguments (e.g., "you are very clearly involved with the UAW"), and assertions about the other editor that cannot be substantiated without mind-reading ability (e.g., "you may not like the calculations or understand," or "a fact confirmed by your inability to grasp").
Opinions that contradict, diminish, downplay or trivialize Wikipedia's policies and guidelines -- which are the results of consensus -- would probably be unhelpful.
Furthermore, do both parties agree to be civil and act in good faith?
Also, please confirm the dispute involves only two editors.
Finally, if there's anything that both editors can agree on, it might be really beneficial to include that -- like, "get an objective section about the secretary's discretionary powers to establish a credit trading scheme." -- Rico 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by RicoCorinth

....