Talk:Corporate average fuel economy

More is necessary to explain how the procedure works, also I understand that ligth trucks are not included???? and I'm sure that SUV are not included !!Milton 15:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. Totally wrong. I thought you were an expert in these things? —Morven 15:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Two cited needed

I've added two cite needed to a couple of claims that need backed up. Joncnunn 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suit against CAFE

[1] summarizes a lawsuit by 10 states and the Sierra Club saying that the new SUV CAFE limits are too high. Simesa 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAFE by year chart way too small

It's competely non-readable in the current size. Needs increased 2 to 4X in size. Jon 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

impact

I just changed the impact section. please put criticism here 70.18.242.118 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claim in the impact section that the mid 80s saw an increase in SUV and light truck purchase so I put a fact tag there. Any discussion about that can occur here. Pdbailey 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, 1980's did not see a migration away from passenger cars, except for the increased popularity of compact pickup trucks (usually imported - Nissan, Toyota, etc). However, the graph covers the 1990's as well, so mentioning the move in this context might be appropriate. Fallout11 12:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just paired down the analysis section because I thought it was reaching. It is certainly acceptable to extend it with references. Pdbailey 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that section presently. Give me a bit with it, as it takes time to dig up and cite sources correctly in the newer WP format. Fallout11

That is about it for for now. Primarily, I worked on citations (either adding or updating) and related format or reconciling previous contributions into a more NPOV (or BPOV) format. Feel free to smoke it over.Fallout11 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PdBailey, I reverted a couple of your recent edits, but wanted to explain why so it did not seem like it was done without regard.

1) The first, regarding the apparent lag time between lower fuel prices returning in the 1980's and the switch in popularity to lower fuel economy vehicles in the 1990s, is easily explained. When prices rise, consumer response is almost immediate, but when prices of a commodity fall, especially a very (historically) price volatile commodity like fuel, there is a much slower response to this price signal. Drivers in the 1980's still remembered the gas lines and high prices of the oil crisis of 1973 and 1979. Fear (one the two principle emotions that govern free market decisions) of a return to higher prices, as had occurred several times already in the last decade, kept would-be purchasers from running right out the next day and buying gas guzzlers. A gas guzzler tax also remained on the books. So yes, purchasers were slow to return to low fuel economy vehicles. This slowness does not invalid the principle hypothesis suggested.

2) Simple economics alone can account for a direct causal relationship between fuel prices and customer decisions regarding fuel economy in their vehicle purchases. Classic textbook return on investment at work. Customers purchase higher fuel economy vehicles (investment) when fuel prices are high because they wish to save money (return on investment) on fuel purchases, which can easily be the largest component of the total cost of ownership. Likewise, if fuel prices are low, there is little economic incentive to make purchasing decisions (investment) based on fuel economy, as the savings realized (return on investment) versus a lower fuel economy vehicle (that may be more desirable in other ways) will be nominal at best, reducing the importance of this criteria substantially. Fallout11 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout11, I prefer, "A simplistic economic analysis" because the analysis is simplistic (cause -> effect) there is no second-order effects included (i.e. total cost of ownership rises so propensity to own a car goes down among the marginal car owner leading to more expensive--read heavy and fast--cars being the norm which leads to lower fuel economy.) If you can cite a journal article or news paper article saying the same, go for it. (2) regarding the lag time, I'm fine with prices being sticky, but I think your ignoring a lot more detailed analysis of geopolitics at the time, again, cite it and it can stay. I'm adding cite tags just to be clear where we need them. Pdbailey 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdbailey. I was able to dig up some citations to fill the cite tags you added.

As a general rule, it is difficult to locate usable citations for positional arguments (i.e. the absolutist claims introduced, 'it's all CAFE standards!' vs 'no, it's all pure economics!') as these tend not to meet WP:VER (blogs, radicalized websites with definitive bias, etc), but I was able to locate some moderate/MSM citations to largely back the positions put forth. The paper here (http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-03-44.pdf) from a few years back does a good job of analyzing both points, incorporating more of the complexities and externalities associated with CAFE standards, fuel economy, and automotive technology in general, so I added it as an external link. Most wiki readers are after a simple, encyclopedic summarization, but if they wish to delve more into the detailed analysis they generally do it elsewhere.

Thanks for adding some cites. I'm not sure I agree that there is so much controversy about this, but I think it's good enough for my level of caring now.Pdbailey 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation

Has anybody considered putting a section in that critiques the use of a "distance per unit fuel" metric instead of the "fuel per unit distance" metric (such as the liters per 100km metric that Canada uses)? The problem with using a fleet average miles per gallon, is that upping the average is most economically done (from the automakers point of view) by producing a small proportion of vehicles that is very fuel efficient, instead of improving the overall fleet efficiency. For example, the new 35 mpg CAFE standards set to take effect by 2020 in the US can be met by a fleet that is 75% gas guzzling SUVs that get 15 mpg, and 25% super-high-efficiency hybrids, getting 100 mpg. If you look at gallons per mile instead, the 35 mpg goal translates to 0.028 gallons per mile. But the 75/25 SUV/HEV fleet I described with a CAFE of better than 35 mpg, uses 0.052 gallons per mile on average. The problem is that the mean fuel economy can be affected by a small proportion of high efficiency outliers, while the total gas consumed and greenhouse gases emitted remains relatively unchanged. Another example: improving the gas mileage of a vehicle from 13 to 17 mpg saves more fuel (for the same amount of driving) than going from 50 to 500 mpg. I don't know if this qualifies as "criticism from the left". It seems more like "criticism from the quantitatively minded". Zaneselvans (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaneselvans, you might want to look again at the CAFE standard calculation, it currently works the way you wish it did. Pdbailey (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that! Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't catch the line linking to harmonic mean. Is there a good reason not to include a simple example calculation (like the one that the NHTA has on their CAFE overview page) in the "calculation" section? The harmonic mean and the mean can yield significantly different results, and I think it would be informative to point that out, with a line explaining why the harmonic mean is the right metric to use. Zaneselvans (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that what you propose would be a good and valuable contribution to the article. Please be bold and add it! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pdbailey, I agree with a lot of the clarification of the paragraph after the harmonic/arithmetic mean that Scheinwerfermann made. I don't completely understand why you say it contradicted the paragraph preceeding the calculation. Is it because it said that "The CAFE standard, if implemented in terms of gallons per mile, would be the arithmetic mean (simple average) of the fuel economies of the vehicles in the fleet."? That's actually saying the same thing as in the first paragraph, but maybe it's not necessary. (the arithmetic mean of a bunch of 1/x quantities is the same as the harmonic mean of a bunch of x quantities). More important, for someone who isn't familiar with the different behaviors of these different averages... I think it's a good idea to say something about why one would want to use this particular metric of the fleet's efficiency/economy - i.e. because it cannot be changed without significantly reducing the amount of fuel the fleet consumes.

criticism section missing cristicism from the left

Currently this section only has criticsm from the right (e.g. those saying the standards are too high or there shouldn't be one.) It is missing the criticism from the left (e.g. those saying the standards are too low). It shouldn't be difficult at all to find a sourced criticism from the left. Jon 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary the problem is that there is so much criticism both from the right and from the left that it is hard to figure out how to summerize it all. Even the citation from right that are given are not the original complainers on these issues but rather hanger-ons. Jimad 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we use the NAS study's criticism. Pdbailey 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NAS study

The National Academies of Science has done a report on this [2] I intend to include portions of their findings in the impact section. I think their conclusions hold more weight than any of the comments currently in there. I intend to use their findings and recommendations (pp 14-17 by acrobat reckoning, pp 3-6 by NAS reckoning). I think they hit almost every point in the current impact section. Pdbailey 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative vs. Liberal Viewpoint editing problem?

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but not to CAFE and NHTSA issues. Over the last couple of days someone with a conservative viewpoint has edited out a bunch of "conservative vs. liberal" viewpoint comparisons re CAFE that were backed up with references from the last couple of years, and replaced them with reference to a 10-year-old USA Today article only showing a conservative point of view. Obviously I think an article that cites both recent liberal and conservative viewpoints is more interesting and informative than a 10-year-old USA Today article. What, if anything, does one do in these situations? Jimad 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not to sure what to do about it but PBailey edit 03:07, 27 June 2007 seems intended to replace a discussion of liberal vs. conservative balanced references to the subject with a purely conservative position. Also, NAS is not the only sole well-reputed "experts" on this subject, NHTSA and IIHS are also well-reputed "experts" on the subject. [not to imply that I agree with NHTSA] Jimad 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "USA Today" author cannot be considered a "well-reputed" source on the subject, his article is mainly just random unsubstantiated positions. Jimad 04:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimad, I would start by saying that which side gets more play, or who is conservative or liberal is irrelevant to this article. The article is supposed to comply with the Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines in general. In light of that, if the USA today piece is just jotted off, axe it.

Next, I don't think that Wikipedia should have one side says this, the other side says that as its main text. I'd prefer to stick to the facts rather than the spin. The NAS is not liberal or conservative--it's the clearing house for excellent science. While I would say that since it starts with the premise that scientific inquiry can answer many questions, it would alienate more of the right than the left, but I think that's neither here nor there.

Now, lets get down to the real deal, if you have specific problems, please bring them up here and lets discuss them.Pdbailey 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you think that the author is a well-reputed source is not relevant to the discussion; USA Today apparently does, and they are a reliable and well-reputed source suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors do not engage in original research, but use reliable sources such as USA Today and report what they write about the subject.--Gloriamarie 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a "real problem" with the USAToday article. It is an 1999 article quoted from a SUV fan-site based on 1995 data. The author is inflammatory, and does not support his positions with reference to any verifiable "scientific" facts. There has been a tremendous amount of research done on this issues over the last twelve years that covers the subject better. I don't think Wiki is helped by quoting this kind of trash journalism. Re "Liberal vs. Conservative" -- even within the "scientific community" there is this scism between scientists who firmly believe that mass is *required* to protect passengers and those who firmly believe that mass isn't *required* to protect passengers, on the contrary that mass tends to kill the occupants of the other vehicle. This scism *exists* even in the current "scientific" literature, and I think the best thing that Wiki can do at this point in time is to acknowledge that even amoung scientists there are two sides to this debate. When you edit out reference to recent scientific papers and replace them with the 1999 USAToday article from the SUV fan-site quoting 1995 data, this to me is not helpful to Wiki -- it is replacing our current state of knowledge on the subject with what was written a decade ago about something that happened back in 1975. (unsigned comment by Jimad at 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Where the article is hosted does not matter. We could cite the article even if it wasn't online, but it's nice to include the link to it so that readers can read it for themselves if they so choose. All research on the matter should be included if it improves the article. What are the scientific papers that were edited out?--Gloriamarie 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimad, you just added and article titled, "the Fuel Economy and Safety of New Light-Duty Vehicles." My issue with that paper is that it isn't edited, because it's self published. It also isn't a study in that there were no experiments performed, meaning it's a review. But most of the claims aren't referenced, just the figures. It's fine to have the claim there, but why not have primary research or other secondary research? Pdbailey 13:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LBNL reference is published by the US Government. It is no-more or no-less self-published than Kahane, who is also published by the US government. It is no-more or no-less self-published than the USAToday article. When a statistical researcher publishes a graph and say what data set the graph comes from, the implication is that the graph is a result of their statistical study. I agree that ideally that statistical researcher would publish methodology at the same time, so that independent reviewers can try to duplicate their results. In practice FARS data is not generally usable to the "general public" in that it requires buying expensive database software out of the reach of the general public. So the repeatability of results will depend, as it always has depended, on other experts in the field of statistical safety studies. This only happens, as in all of science, when the scientific validity of some previous work comes into question, at which time other scientists try to recreate the previous work, to see if it is in fact repeatable, or whether they have other arguments about the methodology used. This is what is happening to Kahane now. Certainly the disparity between the US government position, which says "we cannot increase MPG because of safety reasons", and the EU/Japan position, which says "we can and we have increase MPG by 2X and further our vehicles end up being safer than US vehicles" -- well this dicotomy is striking. One cannot say "The US Governemnt is right" or "The EU/Japan are right" at this point in time. One can say that this area is falling increasingly in dispute.Jimad 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another dimension to the EU position-- they do not have the strict emissions standards that the US has, so they use diesel fuel, which produces higher mpgs and more efficient fuel usage. Diesel would not pass emissions inspections in America unless it got a lot cleaner. If this is not mentioned in the article, it should be. The EU and America cannot be compared head-to-head on this issue.--Gloriamarie 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Diesel -- I think that as-of 2008 USA and Europe are converging on this issue. See for example the "Bluetec" engines from a number of European manufacturers. Also Urea injection diesel engines. Agreed in 2007 USA had higher standards than Europe for diesel engines which is why there basically could be no diesel engines sold in USA in 2007. Since this issue seems to be converging I don't think it warrents a diesel discussion about why Europe has higher fuel economy than USA. If you want to include this discussion then it gets into the issue of "is diesel bad or good?" -- I say "good" because it can run biodiesel and I would be happy to accept a localized increase in air pollution for a global reduction in greenhouse gases. Except that diesel doesn't have the problems of localized particulate emissions with the 2008+ diesel engines. Jimad 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gloriamarie and Jimad, the emissions issue is not quite as simple as that. US Federal emissions standards, like US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, are frequently described as «the most stringent in the world», or at least «more stringent» than those of the EU. So reliable is the appearance of this description in a discussion of the issue, whether it be a news article or a literature review or even a study, that it's practically a Homeric epithet. It sounds good, and it gives a warm fuzzy to Americans who would like to consider their regulations and standards the best in the world (and it sounds even better to those who rely on technical standards as non-tariff trade barriers). The problem is it isn't accurate as stated and commonly understood. There is a very significant window of overlap between the EU and US emissions standards, but because the test protocols are radically different, there are noncompliances in both directions. That is, there are vehicles that pass the US certification tests but fail the EU approval tests, and there are vehicles that pass the EU approval tests but fail the US certification tests. For the most part, this does not indicate that EU vehicles are permitted to emit more of any particular pollutant, or more pollution in general, than US vehicles. It is simply down to significant differences in test protocol. The obvious next question, of course, is why test protocol differences should prevent automakers from producing vehicles clean enough to pass both tests. The answer is that the calibrations and configurations needed to meet one specific test protocol often run a vehicle afoul of the other test protocol. Emission certification (US) or approval (EU) tests cannot possibly cover every last combination of engine speed, load, vehicle speed, atmospheric pressure, etc., so the protocols consist of test conditions representative of common operational modes. This is where the differences come in: What is considered "representative" and what is considered "common" depends largely on who is writing the test protocol, and the regulatory philosophy behind it. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to compare US vs. EU emissions standards and arrive at an assertion with any veracity that one or the other standard is significantly more or less stringent.

But even if we were to assume for the purpose of debate that the two test protocols were identical and the EU and US standards differed from each other only in that the EU standards permitted a higher level of pollution to issue from each vehicle's tailpipe, a confounding issue would still prevent a decisive statement on emissions, for the EU average road vehicle fuel economy is roughly double that of the US. This means they burn roughly half the fuel per distance unit travelled. Even if the US tailpipe emission standard were twice as stringent as the EU standard (which is nowhere near realistic even for our hypothetical thought exercise here), the questions remain: Is it better or worse to have the pollution come from the process of extracting, transporting, refining, and distributing oil rather than from a vehicle tailpipe? And, is a slightly more permissive tailpipe emission standard acceptable or perhaps even desirable if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions? Regulatory philosophy is not so simple as it seems on first glance. --Scheinwerfermann 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put back in the conservative "stewardship" argument, because Hu didn't give a rational for deleting it. If anyone wants to argue why or why not this should be in there, let's talk about it. To me, putting in the conservative argument of national defense and not putting in the other conservative reasons looks like bias. 24.16.114.238 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

debate section

I just created an "active debate" section in the "imact" seciton. I'd suggest we remove that and leave it to the bottom section titled, "Criticisms."

cutting speculation

"Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Ma) and other cosponsors has presented H.R.1506 to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2018 for new vehicles [19]" Unless such legislation passes the house and senate and is signed into law, it's just speculation and doesn't belong in this article. Jon 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, on what grounds? HR1506 is, in fact, a bill, and it's existence is not speculative. Pdbailey 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The article seems biased to me. In the "Active debate" section, most text is a criticism of the program, and 5/7 subparagraphs being with a criticism of the program. Superm401 - Talk 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what to do...be bold and add the relevant, encyclopædic text you feel is missing, with documented assertions. You say the article seems biased, but specifically what positive aspects of the CAFE program do you feel have been unfairly neglected? Perhaps there are more negatives than positives to CAFE as conceived and implemented. It is erroneous to think that everything on earth — particularly every government program — has a nice, clean, 50/50 mix of benefits and drawbacks. --Scheinwerfermann 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scheinwerfermann, it is fine for a user to add an NPOV tag and then not fix the article in question--it's a contribution to the article, when the tag is valid. However, (this is to you Superm401) when you add an NPOV tag, you need to clearly state what might be fixed for it to be taken down, and it looks like just balancing the number of paragraphs is the suggestion--I'm not sure that is such a great one. Pdbailey (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article has problems, in that the authors of the article basically fall into two camps: Those who dislike CAFE for going to far, and those who dislike CAFE as not going far enough. Which leads to kind of a "he says she says" style of article. Which is still better than an "he says he says" or a "she says she says" kind of article. If you want to see an article that REALLY has problems, lookup "NHTSA" ! Jimad 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre and Inaccurate Statements

From the first paragraph: "The European Union and Japan have fuel economy standards almost twice as high as the United States." WTF? The cited source does not make this claim. The claim itself is counterintuitive as it implies that Japan and the EU mandate a fantastical 50+ mpg standard. Some editor is either dishonest or has serious reading comprehension problems.Arcas2000 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You're correct that the assertion was not supportable either by the cited reference or by actual fact, but~~ there are more constructive responses than complaining and applying an unnecessarily severe tag to the article. When you find an assertion you ~~know to be~~consider problematic, it's best to be bold and fix it with supporting references. I've ~~gone ahead and fixed the assertion to square with reality, and I've~~ removed the spurious tag. ~~As for how the inaccurate assertion got there, while~~ it's certainly possible an editor wished to promulgate his personal opinion, it's also possible the editor who wrote the statement simply failed to express clearly what he meant. It happens to the best of us, and Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith in the absence of a clear pattern of deliberate misbehaviour. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (Updated by Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Arcas2000, ~~I can see what you were objecting to in the statement you deleted, but it was just overstated, not wrong. I've restored it and fixed it so that~~ not only is it accurate, but it is also supported by the cited reference. Please take a few moments to think carefully about the intent behind the "be bold" policy. It doesn't mean you should summarily delete text you don't like (especially not text supported with valid citations). Rather, it means that if you see something wrong, you should do your best to fix it. If you are not able to do so for whatever reason — you don't know enough about the subject matter, you haven't got time, etc. — the best course of action is to make a request on the article's talk page and/or tag the questionable assertions as needed. Wikipedia is a coöperative effort, not a competitive one. Thanks for being a helpful and productive Wikipedian. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)(talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (Updated by Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I stand by what I originally posted here. The reference on its very first page shows a plot with the EU and Japan in the near term having standards in the 45-50+ MPG range. The US in the same time frame has a CAFE of 25 MPG. This sure sounds like "nearly 2X to me". You guys are editing out factual statments simply because you do not like to have the truth exposed to the light of day. Jimad (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimad, I went back and took a closer look at the ref, and you're right. The ref definitely complies with WP:RS, and says just what you said it says. I've restored your assertion, and I've updated my comments in this subthread. That said, let's all of us — you, me, Arcas2000, all of us — try and tone down the accusations and assumptions a few notches. It doesn't accomplish anything, and it certainly doesn't help improve the article. Let's all try and assume good faith on one another's part, carefully and thoughtfully evaluate the references used to support assertions we may suspect are not true before deciding they aren't, stay cool and avoid inflammatory language (including talk page section titles) and accusations of personal agendas or fear of the truth, etc. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that CAFE created SUVs is patently and provably false. SUVs predate CAFE. For examples, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Suburban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Broncohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_K5_Blazer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Harvester_Scout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee_%28SJ%29 and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle Given these facts, this article stating that automakers created SUVs as a result of CAFE does not belong and thus should be removed. Further the two "supporting" links are to the columnist making the claim without supporting it. THus at best it shoudl say the "Some have claimed..." and then be followed with the facts that the SUV predates CAFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucntcme (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]