Fuel Economy Regulations are Crushing the Economy In 1975, the United States’ government passed the first round of regulations on fuel economy for private passenger vehicles. The corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards were intended to gradually increase the average fuel economy of consumer vehicles in an attempt to reduce the release of the global warming gas carbon dioxide, as well as reduce the United States dependence on foreign oil reserves. This action originally seemed to be very effective at slowly improving the efficiency of cars and light trucks, but the bill’s period of usefulness has since expired. When President of the United States, Barack Obama raised the fuel economy mandates via executive order to 54.5 miles per gallon …show more content…
Research shows that improving fuel economy at the projected rates will result in $126 billion of “non-fuel-cost benefits” to the environment (Yang). These claimed benefits include a reduction of pollution and increased human health due to lowered pollution levels. One cannot necessarily argue against these benefits, but this position shows only half the story. Not taken into consideration is the fact that making vehicles lighter requires new materials like aluminum that have many adverse effects on the environment. The process of producing one ton of aluminum requires the extraction of seven tons of bauxite (Australian Atlas of Mineral Resources, Mines, and Processing Centres). This oar is generally strip mined, a process that is extremely destructive to habitats and can lead to groundwater pollution. The production of aluminum also requires massive amounts of electricity, 14,000 to 16,000 kilowatt hours per ton (Australian Mine Atlas). Because of the massive power requirements, power to produce aluminum generally comes from the cheapest option, a heavily polluting coal fired power plant. This couples with the fact that the aluminum smelting process itself releases perfluorocarbons(PFCs), a harmful pollutant, with a global warming potential(GWP) between 6,000 and 25,000 …show more content…
The sale of many cars that help companies comply with efficiency standards have remained very minimal, because consumers do not want these less functional or comfortable products. In January of 2015, the General Motors Company sold only 542 all electric Chevy Volts, out of 1.5 million total sales (Matthews). As vehicles are forced to achieve higher fuel standards, many cars are forced to get smaller, which sacrifices areas such as comfort and utility in many of America's cars, and consumers simply are not buying this. This lack of desire for fuel efficient vehicles shows that the government, with its fuel efficiency mandates, working against the majority opinion of the people. Also, over the years since CAFE standards were first put in place, the sales of large cars and SUVs has risen dramatically, reaching 2.9 million of 4.9 million total car sales in 2011 (Gardner). These large, heavy, high fuel consumption vehicles make it much more difficult for auto companies to comply with the minimum fuel economy. Even though this increase in the sale of low efficiency vehicles, average fuel economy has gone dramatically up, and has, for all years, been somewhat higher than CAFE minimums (ANWYL). This shows that there is still consumer desire to have fuel efficient vehicles, but it is not a top concern
Second, if auto manufacturers focus on producing compact, fuel-efficient vehicles to meet the increase in CAFE Standards then they may be producing vehicles that consumers do not want. One of the biggest challenges that auto manufacturers face is building vehicles that are desired by consumers. The current trend is in crossover sports utility vehicle (SUV)’s, full-size SUV’s, and trucks all of which fit into the light truck category under the CAFE standards. If manufacturers want to maintain an average mpg that meets CAFE standards, then auto manufacturers must find a way to build the cars that are in high demand in a more fuel efficient way. The NHTSA acknowledged that one of the biggest challenges with this is that consumers consider many factors when purchasing a vehicle, “Consumers may prefer cars that use technology improvements to achieve better performance (e.g. engines with high horsepower) or more room, not just higher MPG” (Nichols & Datla, 2012, pp. 12, para. 1). If all of the manufacturers are
Sivak factually shows vehicle emissions are a current problem by stating that “each year in the United States, 214 million drivers’ drive 2.7 trillion miles, emitting about 2.4 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, based on the current fleet average of 21.4 m.p.g”. This fact, which is not common knowledge for a majority of the audience, makes the author seem scholarly and credible to the reader. Of course, there are numerous other producers of carbon dioxide emissions that contribution to climate change. To account for this, Sivak takes statistics from other large producers of harmful emissions to show that “none would come close to doing as much as driving a fuel-efficient vehicle”. He is successful in proving to readers that this is true by using the fact that “if vehicles averaged 31 miles per gallon, according to our research, the United States could reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 5 percent”, while other “typical American lifestyle changes could only reduce emissions by 0.2
Andrew Simms, a policy director and head of the Climate Change Program for the New Economics Foundation in England, presents his argument about the impact SUV’s have on our roadways, and the air we breathe. “Would You Buy a Car That Looked like This? “. The title alone gives great insight on what the article is going to be about, (vehicles). “They clog the streets and litter the pages of weekend colour *supplements. Sport utility vehicles or SUV’s have become badges of middle class aspiration” (Simms 542). Simms opening statement not only gives his opinion on how SUV’s are the new trend, but he also paints a picture of what we see every day driving down our roadways. Simms also compares the tobacco industry’s gap between image and reality
Electric cars impose a serious risk on the oil and gas industry. The extent by which this market succeeds reciprocally defines the extent by which the oil and gas industry deteriorates. As with all forms of technology, there comes a point in time where one form of technology no longer appears to be useful in comparison with an applicable alternative. The current inhibitors of electric car adoption are the price of batteries and vehicle performance. With that being said, battery prices dropped over 30% just last year and are expected to continue dropping. Projections estimate that 35% of cars will have a plug by 20401. However, even in the next few years, companies such as Tesla, Chevrolet, and Nissan plan to offer electric cars on the market at an affordable price. The question then becomes: when the oil and gas market will be displaced by the electric market? If both markets produce a vehicle of similar price and quality, then it is reasonable to assume that a customer will choose the option that is more eco-friendly. The moral issue still remains: should the vehicles of tomorrow be fueled by gasoline or are viable options readily available and acceptable?
Pursuant to energy efficiency policies, controversy swirls as climate changes are experienced in the U.S. and around the globe. When energy efficiency steps are put into place, economic outlooks turn positive. Obama’s policymaking in this arena makes “critical investments in advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, public transit, and high speed rail” (United Press International). With new fuel efficiency standards that will improve fuel economy by 2025, and other initiatives that he enacted, “12 billion barrels of oil will be saved and American consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump, and greenhouse gas emission standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for are projected to save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs” (United Press
As a result of EPA regulations, today’s diesel engines are more efficient than ever before seen in large and midsized trucks. Certain regulations restrict truck owners from using certain truck models, because of excess diesel emission. Increasing drastically as technology improves, cars and trucks produce less and less diesel exhausts and emissions. “But because diesel engines can operate for 30 years or more, millions of older, dirtier engines are still in use,” (Epa.Gov). Reducing exposure to diesel exhaust from these engines is especially important for the preservation of human health and the environment. According to the EPA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
According to Charles Amann who was retiree of General Motor (GM), weak performing vehicle does not sell to consumers because of its choice of engines. I believe that that this argument is weak because consumers as of today are prioritize fuel economy vehicles because of gas prices gone up and advance technology is becoming more powerful. For example, good fuel economy engine is yet still powerful as regular old standard engine. Technology has change more advance than ever. I think they don’t realize that people will start buying cars that meets CAFE standards once they start to develop more fuel economy engines. There is one persuasive argument and I believe is more convincing. The more higher efficiency a car the more expensive the car will be is not so convincing, however, decreasing the cost of oil change and decreasing the cost of maintain is convincing to buyers because that will help them save money for long term and newer cars are becoming more advance for less
The unrealistic C.A.F.E. standard of 2025 is not beneficial and ignores more realistic, alternative solutions. In 2012, President Obama signed into law a drastic Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C.A.F.E.) standard whereas all new passenger cars and trucks must increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2025. This new law touts that it will save American consumers more than $8,000 in gas over the life of the vehicle, reduce oil consumption by 2 million barrels of oil per day, and cut harmful greenhouse gases by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the program (The White House). On the surface, these statistics appear to benefit both the consumer, and the earth. However, when one looks at the bigger picture and statistics, it does
What is courage? Is courage saving a man from an avalanche? Is it standing against the crowd? Falling in love? Courage can be defined as many things. It could be as simple as wearing unusual, risking the chance of being judged by those around you. Harper Lee forthrightly establishes how gallantry can be displayed by many different types of people in the compelling book To Kill a Mockingbird. Despite many characters, such as Mayella and Scout showing courage, Atticus Finch is by far the most dauntless.
Symbolism used in the artifact, is not immediately apparent, as you are taking by the colorfulness of the artifact, however, as you begin to take in the artifact, you notice little
Transportation is the number one thing we consumers do that harms the environment. Transportation causes the highest amount of environmental damage overall - nearly half of the toxic air pollution and more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases traceable to household consumption. Over time, however, sales of trucks, vans and SUV's went from 16% market share to over 50%. One big auto manufacturer even shelved their work of the last three years, spent updating their most popular selling economy car, so they could spend the money getting SUVs to market faster.
As the United States unite in the global effort to monitor the use and waste of energy, fuel efficient or hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius has dominated the market over the SUV’s who once adored every American driveway. With much doubt, in 2004, the Prius has become the leading selling vehicle in America. The sleek design has caught the eye and pockets of many Americans who prefer the “gas sipper” over the “gas guzzler.” (Kotler & Armstrong, Principles of Marketing, 2010)
The second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is related to transportation, the burning of oil to produce energy in a combustion motor. The combustion process inside of engines is what produces the carbon matter that is emitted into the air through the exhaust system on gas-powered vehicles. Gas-powered transportation is accountable for 24 percent of the global carbon emissions; this should not come as much of a surprise given the amount of urban sprawl that is being seen in the United States and across the globe. In the past decade, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States government, and major car manufacturers have been working in conjunction to find ways to provide a “greener” form of transportation (EPA, 2011). This has included testing the use of hydropower, ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel, and electricity as a means of powering vehicles, which has led to the introduction of hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles run on electricity and gasoline, the byproduct of oil that is generally used in the engine combustion process of vehicles (U.S. Department of
Imagine never being locked out of your disgusting gas-guzzling vehicle in sub-zero temperatures pumping your car full of toxic chemicals and then later emptying your bank account to pay for the environment killer ever again. This reality is near and approaching faster than ever before. Although, it is not completely beneficial. It is evident that at an international level, electric cars are needed. But, this is only one side of the story, despite common belief, electric vehicles are not always good for the environment. It is true that they will benefit bank accounts, however, the only way for electric cars to improve the environment is if they are powered by clean renewable energy.
Shakespeare wrote a play name, Macbeth. It was a Tragedy Macbeth was the main character. First performed in 1606 it dramatizes the damaging physical and psychological effect of political ambition on those who seek power for its own sake. It was first published in the Folio of 1623 it is Shakespeare’s shortest tragedy Macbeth a brave Scottish general. Wuthering Heights is written by Emily Bronte it is her only novel written between October 1845 and June 1846 published in 1847 Bronte died the following year aged 30. Macbeth faces difficulty when he is trying to kill his friend Duncan his wife urges him to do it. Duncan is a good character the death of Duncan would hurt many people this makes it hard for him to kill his friend, his wife tells him she will leave him. “ From this time such I account thy love. Art Thou afeard’’. ( 1.7.39) Lady Macbeth said this to insult his manhood and his love for her. She wanted him to kill Duncan so she would use whatever she could to get him to doubt himself. He finally decides to deal with it in the afterlife. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth both were very ambitious and eager to be King and Queen. Macbeth was skeptical about following Lady Macbeth, he said.”If we shall fail?’’ (1.7) She was going to kill him, but when she saw him sleeping he reminded her of her father and couldn’t do it. That was the first sign of her humanity. “ Lady Macbeth relative success is through her associations with demonic forces and the faithful powers of the notorious