Talk:Corporate average fuel economy

message: 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)
thread_title: update figure?

message: "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)
thread_title: MPG is calculated differently for window stickers

message: "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)
thread_title: Increased oil and automobile usage

message: 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)
replies: text: I would add that the "Jevons Paradox", seen from outside  US, looks as quite an example of wishful thinking. I used to live in an unfortunate region of Italy called Lombardy ("New Jersey, but on hormones" in the words of a NY aquaintance of mines). There, gasoline was four times more expensive than in US (1 euro per litre - it's heavily taxed since the '70s - now it's 1.30 ), you are almost guarantee to stay locked in a queue 18/24 (I used to joke about my quarter mile free ride - the distance between the my house and the first queue; well, admittedly, betweeen 2am and 7am there is nobody on the road ) and people still use the car all the time, to go wherever, because in many case they HAVE to... diffusion of malls killed small shops, so now they have to drive to buy their milk, all soccer mamas ferry the child back and forth school (thirty years ago I went by by miself and, statistics a hand, it was a way more dangerous world I lived in - homicides were at an all time peak, back then, now at an all time low - but nobody dares to leave their offsprong stroll around anymore), half the jobs are in "industrial areas", not served by buses, cleraly conceived for the road going population... And, from what I know, most of Europe is pretty much ollowing the same "development" curve... there are many social forces that drive the expansion of mileage by the general population, of which the automotive industry is but a minor player (and not such a good one at lobbying anymore, I add). To seriously sustain the idea of the "Jevons Paradox", it would be needed a serious comparative study on the use of cars in places where the "improvements" in efficiency by the cars where kept in check by raise of taxes on gasoline (I believe that it may apply to some countries of Europe, and Japan), and in the US and other countries with similar policies. Probably, such a study will conclude that if people has to go somewhere, they either have an efficient public transport at hands, or they'll keep using a car ,no matter how many gallons per yard it burns...79.152.128.250 (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "As fuel efficiency rises, people drive their cars more"- Jevons paradox

message: 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)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Why do we have two "future" sections? Shouldn't we merge them together? FstrthnU (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Future sections? 

message: Since mid 2010 EPA and NHTSA ruled on the new 2012-2016 CAFE standards (see here the complete final ruling). Also, EPA is introducing mandated max CO2 emissions which will go together with NTHTSA fuel economy CAFE standards, and the standards have been made compatible with California standards. The new rule now covers EVs and PHEVs. There are plenty of reliable sources covering this content, for a summary see this recent piece in the New York Times. The article needs some major work to remove a lot of outdated material, merge the content in the two future section, and add the content of the new 2012-2016 standards.--Mariordo (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is quite outdated

message: 70,000 humans are estimated to have died in Europe during the 2003 heat waves.  So this is not an issue of "Polar Bears vs. Human Lives."  It is an issue of "Polar Bears AND Human Lives."  Scientific Consensus view of American Climate Scientists on these kinds of issues can be found at  Jimad (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Polar Bears vs. Human Lives 

message: I find newer data for this figure at  Jimad (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re update figure

message: I have removed the assertion However, the US and Canada have the toughest emissions requirements (in terms of parts per million of pollutants). Some higher-mileage vehicles in Europe would not meet US (and California) emissions standards. The assertion is not apposite to the topic of this article, which is fuel economy regulation. Moreover, the statement is not accurate. In fact 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, which overall emit about the same amounts of the various pollutants. 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. Unless we are prepared to decide that it's is a subtopic appropriate for this article, the statement I removed ought to stay out. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emissions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927011606/http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/april04/features/recafe/recafe.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/april04/features/recafe/recafe.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090724144532/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Updated_Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150605194324/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/nprm2012-16.pdf to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/nprm2012-16.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Pardo Martinez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Pardo Martinez has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Clara Ines Pardo Martinez, 2010. "Energy efficiency in the automotive industry evidence from Germany and Colombia," SERIE DE DOCUMENTOS EN ECONOMIA Y VIOLENCIA 007582, CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES EN VIOLENCIA, INSTITUCIONES Y DESARROLLO ECONOMICO (VIDE).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Pardo Martinez's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205030159/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127162428/http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429200833/http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/gasoline_and_diesel/ucs-vanguard-2009.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/gasoline_and_diesel/ucs-vanguard-2009.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910051524/http://www.sais-jhu.edu/centers/fpi/ieep/pdf/Greene.pdf to http://www.sais-jhu.edu/centers/fpi/ieep/pdf/Greene.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925233937/http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4102.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4102.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106012947/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/49C329.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/49C329.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925233937/http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4102.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4102.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf102/480389_web.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150917033618/http://catalog.data.gov/dataset/summary-of-corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-fines-collected-summary-of-cafe-fines to https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/summary-of-corporate-average-fuel-economy-cafe-fines-collected-summary-of-cafe-fines
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003154125/http://www.volkswagengroupamerica.com/newsroom/2011/07/29_vwag_proposed_cafe_standards.htm to http://www.volkswagengroupamerica.com/newsroom/2011/07/29_vwag_proposed_cafe_standards.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410190831/http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/cr_gas_prices.html to http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/cr_gas_prices.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925233926/http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4110.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4110.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925233914/http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4005.pdf to http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4005.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1341
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701000031/http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/alg/index.html to http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/alg/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410055707/http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/pdf/mellman-survey.pdf to http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/pdf/mellman-survey.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310231506/http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071116_842776.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071116_842776.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621004319/http://www.chrysler.com/en/pt_cruiser/index.html to http://www.chrysler.com/en/pt_cruiser/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410183707/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/2007_erp.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2007/2007_erp.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120707025850/http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2007/09/cafe-fines-no-deterent-to-some-luxury-brands.html to http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2007/09/cafe-fines-no-deterent-to-some-luxury-brands.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quote
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[64] and lower the probability of global climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide.
Unquote
Deaths offset by savings?  How much is a life worth?
Lower the probability of global climate change? Delay global climate change might be more appropriate.
I don't like vague savings to be compared to something like a death.  If you are going to compare we should decide how much is a child, husband, wife worth in dollars? How much in kilograms of CO2?  24.138.60.176 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased automobile usage 

message: Surely the EU (and Japanese, and other) fleet CO2 emissions legislation should be considered equivalent to CAFE?
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en
https://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/improving-conversions-between-passenger-vehicle-efficiency-standards
"Most governments of countries (or, in the case of the European Union, regions) with large auto markets regulate passenger vehicle fuel efficiency or CO2 emissions (essentially the same thing, since CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.149.220 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a European emission standards article and even the Emission standard article needs to be improved.Besselfunctions (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAFE outside the United States 

message: Might want to update the article to reflect this. I'd do it myself, but my source Associated Press: New vehicles must average 40 mpg by 2026, up from 28 mpg doesn't explicitly mention CAFE. I'd like someone more knowledgeable to look it over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like Trump's 2020 changes might have gotten rolled back