Archive for Department of transport

On a previous post I explained a government proposal for the automotive industry to provide a ‘grade’ for all new vehicles based upon their fuel efficiency and carbon emissions so that consumers could make better informed environmental decisions when purchasing a new car. Dozens of House lawmakers are campaigning against the EPA and Department of Transport because they say it would hurt the sale of SUV’s and trucks.

truck-fuel-efficiencyYes! That’s exactly what it should do and if the US is ever likely to increase its net fuel efficiency rating per vehicle by 30% in the next decade (as has been targeted) a move away from gas guzzlers is entirely what will be needed. Once again the politics of lobbying and market share look set to overshadow what is a sensible and progressive approach to consumer education and letting the public have better information to hand. They also complained that the rating system steers buyers towards electric vehicles. Once again – of course it does.

Fifty-three House members submitted a letter to the EPA and the Department of Transport seeking to overrule the ratings stickers as it would not be possible for certain vehicle types to acquire a high rating. The letter was signed by 17 Democrats and 36 Republicans.  Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich added:

“Changing this system to a letter grade would cause consumer confusion and tip the scales unfairly against many fuel efficient SUVs and trucks, relegating them to a C or C+ grade,”

I don’t buy that whatsoever, how can there be confusion as the result of knowing the miles per gallon, range, annual running costs and emissions reports on a sticker in a car dealership? How can confusion result when trying to determine if your environmental footprint matters enough to seek a more fuel efficient vehicle? Its a red herring at best and shows that the auto industry need to continue to improve the vehicles that they make. The current fuel efficiency process of labeling has not been updated in three decades and needs to be revised. People will still purchase trucks and SUVs but hopefully in ever decreasing numbers, technology and priorities have changed greatly since 1980 and new vehicle stickers should reflect that. Whether the sticker system would change the profile of the new vehicle market by 5% or 25% remains to be seen but surely the choice should rest with the consumers and not politicians. People who genuinely need larger and heavier vehicles will still purchase them to conduct business etc. and that of course makes sense, but moving the overall market toward better fuel efficiency is equally logical. We happily label other products that are bad for our health, why shouldn’t the same standards apply for vehicles?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Although its position as the largest single car and truck market in the world may well change over the next decade, the US still holds that position as it has done ever since cars were mass-produced. Very pertinent then that the Obama administration is poised to shortly announce the newest details of changes for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks. In conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency the US Transportation Department is now working on plans that will set the guidelines for vehicles constructed in model years 2017 to 2025. While that seems a long way in the future the regulations laid out soon will dictate the direction the automakers will need to take to secure their piece of the market. More importantly the approved regulations will result in a substantial reduction in oil consumption, it’s just a pity the part of the regulations don’t mandate that a certain amount of vehicles are electric or hybrids.

This will represent a rapidly constructed series of standards as the administration only recently released the standards for 2012-2016 in May of this year. The official targets have yet to be published but an internal presidential memo in May stated that the new review must achieve:

“substantial annual progress in reducing transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption, strengthen the industry and enhance job creation in the United States.”

fuel-gaugeThe sad reality is because the lessons of the fuel shortage in the 1970s were never learned, both governments and the industry are playing catch-up at a rate which will be difficult to achieve. What environmental groups are urging versus what the industry feels it can achieve are very different indeed. The most recent standards look to raise the countries average fuel economy to just over 35 mpg by the year 2016. Environmental groups are lobbying to raise efficiency standards to at least 60 mpg by 2025. Considering the industry has struggled to add an extra 12 miles per gallon in the last 30 years I can’t see how they will manage to add 30 more in the next 15. However, it is what is necessary and it is what should be done. I think as we get nearer to these deadlines the reality that conventional gasoline vehicles which are not hybrids (at the very least) are coming to the end of their existence. Environmental concerns one would hope would propel these changes alone although in all likelihood a return to a five dollar gallons with no reduction in sight will impact consumers and automakers more rapidly than all the best intentions within the halls of government.

The debate will rage on all fronts in the years to come, automakers will cite technology and cost being the roadblocks that can’t be overcome. Lobbyists and a changing consumer profile will insist that we can’t inch along to fuel efficiency rates that are so far advanced from where we are now. Governments all over the world not just the US will legislate the point in the middle where the industry must go, concessions will be made along the way but playing catch-up is never easy especially when the standards were far too slack for far too long.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Car and Fuel, Go Green
Comments (0)

Following on from yesterday’s story about the proposed environmental grading stickers that may be added to new vehicles in 2012, the first complaints from the automobile industry are already being registered. As I wrote yesterday the proposal is for a grading system based upon emissions, vehicle range, fuel economy and annual cost of operations. At this point the idea remains a joint proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transport, although not confirmed dealers have been quick to respond in a negative fashion. The grading system would simply bring the US auto industry in line with what is already happening in Japan and Europe and yet the response to the proposed change has caused some immediate panic from car dealerships .

The knee-jerk reaction appears to be driven by the fact that only a few cars (typically electric or hybrid vehicles) would receive a grade above a ‘B’ with the A+ designation reserved exclusively for electric vehicles. A dealer in Massachusetts feels the information will cause confusion and lost sales for his dealership:

“Anything that’s not an A is bad, right? It’s misleading to the consumer. I could be so customer a D (rated vehicle) but if you are driving mostly on the highway it could be an A”

A second dealer agreed and suggested that the car industry should receive support from the government in terms of stimulating sales as opposed to devising new environmental labels:

“I think it’s foolish and more government intervention where it doesn’t need to be, people aren’t idiots”

eco-labels-epaWhile I do understand car dealers may not be very responsive to change, I think the key message is being entirely missed. The idea and value of the labeling (which admittedly is very large and bold) is to heighten public awareness about fuel economy and environmental impact, the playing field will be level in terms of evaluation for each individual vehicle and the final decision naturally will rest with the consumer. What I feel is probably causing the reaction is the perceived stringency of the grading system, where previously miles per gallon or kilometers per litre were the only shared information in an immediate fashion now a consumer will see an overall environmental rating based upon emissions, vehicle range and running costs. If anything it will move the understanding of vehicle impact to a better place in the public forum, consumers will still shop for specific vehicles based upon their needs but when the final comparison is made between cars the relative eco-friendly aspects will be considered in the buyer’s equation. Surely that is a good thing?

Perhaps car dealers should be looking internally as to how the manufacturers themselves can develop vehicles which receive higher grades rather than immediately crying foul and saying sales will be impacted. If sales are indeed impacted it will primarily be for vehicles that perhaps need a full redesign.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes