Edmunds CarPool

I have no problem with improving energy efficiency when the option presents itself (ie a lightbulb burns out), but the current government message seems to be "Let's starting dumping major money into going green regardless of having no money to spend."

The entire problem is that too many politicians and environmental advocates keep pushing the myth that all this can be done with no cost or pain or inconvenience. This was evident when Obama approved the review of CA's ridiculous proposal to reduce CO2 and force automakers to have a fleet that averages 43mpg. This is supposedly a pain free way to save the environment and it suggets that we could all be driving 43mpg cars if only the auto industry got off their butts and starting working hard on such cars. No additional costs, no sacrifices to size or performance. Its all "free" and all we need to make it happen is a signing of a bill.

Karl,

The government hasnt had money to spend for years. Its just now deficit spending is going towards projects and programs that fit the agenda of the current administration. There was no money to spend for the last 7 years and yet we seen no signs of cutting back on military operations or anything else that was favored by the last administration.

As I've said before, Global Warming/Climate Change has become a RELIGION. The ACLU should be all over this issue like a cheap suit claiming violation of Separation of Church and State (and yet they're mysteriously silent on this one...)

How has it become a religion? Simple - when all the dust has settled, it's all about getting your MONEY, and the environmetalists (televangelists)getting the POWER. As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore and the like have no more credibility than Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker ever did. And, like them, Gore has managed to dupe ALOT of people in the same way - the parallels are virtually identical.

And while we're on the subject of Al Gore, why no one has ever asked this simple question of him is baffling, but I will: If the earth is in SUCH peril as he claims, why did he do virtually NOTHING about it while he was in power for 8 years? Sure he did write a book about it and perhaps go on a few talk shows and TALK about it, but you would think that would be the perfect opportunity to enact (or a least attempt to) the stuff he's trying to get done now. Did the earth get into such trouble only AFTER he left office? Seems a little backwards he's trying to do all of this AFTER he's out of power.

1487, to take your observation further, legislators should simply write a bill requiring all automotive engineers to report to a gulag until they design the kind of green cars we can imagine. Also, our paper money should be purple, so there is no conflict with the green movement.

The latest word that mainstream environmentalists have been using to describe our movement is sustainability - i.e., the goal is to reduce environmental damage or usage so that the current state can be maintained indefinitely or improved. It's conceptually the same as being sure not to get deeper and deeper into debt, or to saving a big chunk of your paycheck for retirement. Maybe you're old enough that you think you'll be free from any consequences, but the most successful people and groups of people have always been those who think in the long term.

"No additional costs, no sacrifices to size or performance. Its all "free" and all we need to make it happen is a signing of a bill."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Its just now deficit spending is going towards projects and programs that fit the agenda of the current administration."

While you are correct that we have had deficit spending for the past eight years, revenue has been on the upswing since 2003. So the deficit we will be seeing in the future will be beyond anything we have seen in the past.

The deficits over the last few years were not at the point of threatening inflationary factors, that will all be different now.

Back to Karl's point. Politicians don't make decisions based on economic factors for either the benefit of A or B in the agregate. Most of the time they are too busy doling out money to solidify power. Further they are too STUPID to consider the agregate effect. Our economy will now be run by 230 members in the House and 59 in the Senate. Do you really think these people have what it takes to understand the complexity of our economy. Lord knows they have the arrogance to think they do.

"The deficits over the last few years were not at the point of threatening inflationary factors, that will all be different now. "

How convenient. Up until now all the people of your ilk have been saying we should only measure deficits as a % of GDP and that any deficits we are facing these days are hardly significant by historical measures. Now that Dems are running deficits its all gloom and doom and runaway inflation. funny how that works. Its very similar to all the newly appeared deficit hawks we have in congress who didn't do much when their guy was in charge to reduce deficits.

The reason those who back the green movement dont mention sacrifice is that they are afraid of scaring people away from the movement. Americans (at least for the last 20-30 years) dont believe in giving up anything and thus most people only support "green living" if it involves simple, cheap, symbolic changes. Start talking about gas or cars or electric bills going up significantly and support for "being green" wanes big time.

I miss the Talk Back Tuesdays that were about cars!

pat1usmc, this is actually about cars!

Karl, you have a great point. Overall, going green will cost money that we may never be able to recoup and it appears many supporters of the Green movement don't realise this.

But I do and I think now is the time despite the rough economy. When the economy was better, manufacturers, some politicians (the GOP in particular) always opposed going green because they felt it was either not necessary, would unfairly impact local manufacturers, or the proposed fuel efficiency standards were unrealistics. The point is that there was always some reason to not go green!

But if not now, when? The environmental degradation caused by automobiles and other sources won't wait for our economy to be fixed. The sending of money to governments who may not like us still goes on. The need for alternative and cleaner solutions cannot wait!

Obviously, since there are hard economic times, some things (like development of EVs or hybrids) might slow down. But that doesn't mean the current technology cannot be refined to be more efficient/environmentally friendly.
There are always well-thought out things that can be done in going green that won't necessarily break the bank!

As for the increased cost, well, customers will bear it just like always. We've had numerous safety features integrated into cars over the years and cars have still been affordable.....while being better and safer overall. So we can have more greening of cars and they would still remain affordable (albeit increasingly expensive).

So yeah, it takes green to go green and that is not a bad thing at all!

This month's car sales should make every environmentalist happy. Less cars sold means less pollution overall.

"As for the increased cost, well, customers will bear it just like always. We've had numerous safety features integrated into cars over the years and cars have still been affordable.....while being better and safer overall. So we can have more greening of cars and they would still remain affordable (albeit increasingly expensive)."

Cars are more expensive than ever relative to income. Back in the day car loans were 3 or 4 years. Now cars are so expensive thant 5 years is the norm with some loans strecting up to 7 years. Believe me, that isnt happening because cars are getting more affordable. Dealers and automakers know that the monthly payment is all many people care about so they have increased loan terms to keep monthly payments reasonable.

1487, I guess I've underestimated the rate at which car prices have increased. But my point still remains valid: making cars greener (especially by improving existing technology) is not going to make cars much more expensive than they already are.

The main reason why car prices have increased is the higher demand (percieved or real) for more luxury, power, interior room and refinement. If prices rise to the point where customers can no longer afford, they'll make fewer demands to keep prices reasonable. This is just basic economics.

I say actions speak louder than words. Most people want "greener" cars, but look at hybrid sales for 2008. Down 12 percent, EVEN WITH A SPATE OF $4-A-GALLON GAS. Why? Because the economy tanked in the last part of the year and when money got tight people chucked their hybrid purchase intentions and went with traditional (and cheaper) economy cars.

Think of it this way -- if you're already waffling on whether or not you can afford a car purchase and the dealer says, "Here's a greener car but it cost's another $1,000" you're probably not going to go for that vehicle.

Well, the current direction of things suggest we're going to FORCE that $1,000 more expensive "green" model on people -- and a lot of car buyers are already waffling on how much car they can afford right now. The latest sales figures suggest this is not the time period to make them walk out of the dealership because cars are too expensive.

Look more closely at all of these suggestions to spend money on green projects despite the flagging economy - what they're really suggesting is spending someone else's money.

Federal politicians talk about mandates for the states. State and local politicians talk about mandates for the federal government. Advocacy groups talk about mandates for both. They all talk about mandates for corporations.

And there's not a word about actually paying for this, because the reality of it is business and government at at all levels are drowning in red ink and can't pay for their current projects let alone ideologically based new ones.

A "green" car does necessarily mean a Prius. It could mean a Fit or an Aveo. Going green doesn't have to mean buying the new fad. Much like how you can exercise without buying a Wii Fit. "You mean I can do yoga without a Wii!?"

If there were such a thing, I'd recommend looking at the average fuel economy of the nation. Such an index would show a massive transition toward better economy.

The problem with America is that we try to buy our way toward progress. But instead of buying that brand new energy efficient central heater/AC, why not just throw on a sweater?

Why even fix the economy? With fuel consumption down, along with vehicle purchases, that has to be a boon for the environment. In fact, if things deteriorated further into a sparsely populated "Mad Max" world, think how quickly global warming could be reversed. Paradise!

Business should make decisions about their products and process based on a cost-benefit analysis. I.e., "Reformulating the reaction in process X will cost $Y, but we'll save $Z in effluent chemicals that we no longer need to store or mitigate."

Individuals should do the same--and as you mentioned Karl hybrid cars don't yet meet the cost-benefit analysis. (In fact that's why I bought a regular Civic instead of a hybrid.)

Now the government does have a role, and that is to occasionally step in and regulate things that businesses consider "externalities" -- things that don't make it in the cost-benefit equation (without the government putting a price on it), but that do negatively impact the citizens.

Take water quality -- companies didn't take on responsibility or costs of cleaning their effluent until the Clean Water Act -- which has had a great impact on cleaning up our rivers. Remember that until the CWA, there were many incidents in the US where rivers cought on fire because of high petroleum and debris content -- the most notorious of course being the 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga.

Karl, with the whole industry down 30% or for the whole industry, 12% down for hybrids is actually a huge positive!
When you consider the fact that most compacts could be considered as green (or greener-than-usual) cars, 2008 was actually a great year for green cars!

The reality is that, bad economy or not, some well thought out regulations can help us make progress in producing greener cars without necessarily breaking the bank!

LOL, I meant to say "with the whole industry down 30% or so".....

I still think a 12% drop of hybrids in the same year as record high gas prices says something -- people would rather save their money than the planet.

Not that it will be their choice for much longer...

Karl, what if we could put a price on carbon? Not a regulation on what companies can make... but rather monetize the value of carbon that the end-user uses to drive, heat his/her home, whatever?

I'm thinking of my water example from earlier... what ultimately made the difference wasn't telling people what they could or couldn't dump -- it was putting a price on that dumping.

So what if we dumped CAFE, and broke down the gasoline tax and completely restructured it. Take away everything above regular retail sales tax. Then calculate the cost of carbon emitted when gasoline is consumed as fuel -- and add that as a tax at the point of sale. Everyone would end up paying their fair share -- as obviously you buy gasoline to consume it, not to save it.

While it would cost the consumer, they would not be prevented from buying any vehicle they want.. and everyone would be paying the same rate per unit of consumption. Further, companies could base their production decisions solely on consumer demand.

"1487, I guess I've underestimated the rate at which car prices have increased. But my point still remains valid: making cars greener (especially by improving existing technology) is not going to make cars much more expensive than they already are."

what evidence do you have to back this up? There are two ways to increase mileage substantially: add expensive hybrid tech or drastically reduce the size and hp of vehicles. The only way to acheive major efficiency gains without adding costs is to offer consumers vehicles that are smaller, slower and lighter than what they are used to now. I have seen nothing that suggests Americans are ready to jump into Euro style cars.

"Karl, with the whole industry down 30% or for the whole industry, 12% down for hybrids is actually a huge positive!
When you consider the fact that most compacts could be considered as green (or greener-than-usual) cars, 2008 was actually a great year for green cars!"

No it wasnt. You arent the first I've encountered to use that spin. If you look at the last quarter of the year hybrid sales tanked. The reasons hybrids were down ONLY 12% for the year are the increased availability of models and $4 gas in the spring of 2008. The reason the overall industry numbers were far worse is because the SUV/pickup market took a nosedive in the first half of the year. BTW, overall sales were down 18% last year not 30%. Chrysler had a full year drop of 30% and they posted the worst results of any manufacturer.

blackadder,

As another example of how we arent going green in terms of vehicle choices Toyota's hybrid sales were down 39% vs 32% for Toyota overall. We keep hearing all this talk about how people "know" gas is going back up in the near future but we dont see any proof that folks are buying vehicles based on that assumption.

"There are two ways to increase mileage substantially: add expensive hybrid tech or drastically reduce the size and hp of vehicles....."

1487, not necessarily. We can still make significant gains in fuel efficiency by things such as forced induction, 6-speed transmissions, more extensive use of manual transmissions (if they're geared properly), etc. An example is the Audi S4: The old one used a V8 and the new one uses a turbo V6. Both produce around the same power and torque figures (and I think the turbo V6 has a wider torque band), but the turbo V6 is more economical by 4 mpg or so. It was for similar reasons that BMW decided to go turbo with the 335i.

Using existing technology this way can get useful gains in fuel economy without adding hybrid-like cost. That's what I mean.

Karl and 1487, I do agree that (most) people wouldn't choose green cars unless they make economic sense! That's all the more reason why regulations and taxes are needed to make cars greener!

The only point where I differ from you guys in opinion is that, even in times of economic crisis, some useful gains can be made in "greening" cars without breaking the bank. I'm willing to bet that the new S4 is hardly more expensive than the old S4, if at all!

blackadder,

I was speaking only of measures to get SIGNIFICANT gaiins in fuel economy. I agree that turbos and 6 speeds can add a few mpg here and there. Many cars are already using direct injection and 6-8 speeds right now. You would be lucky to gain 3mpg with a combination of those technologies. Diesels and hybrids can offer a nice hike in mileage but we know diesels are nothing more than a niche here and hybrids add substantial costs AND compromise utility.

To boost the efficiency of today's models by 25%-30% its going to take some major downsizing and manjor technology. I just read somewhere that a goup that supports the CARB rules believes it wil only cost automakers $100-$700 to meet CARB rules. How can we take a statement like that seriously?