This CAFE sucks III: Replies to a few comments

I'm really pleased with the feedback to my post about CAFE standards back in February. I've had more replies to that post than anything else I've written, and they were smart, thoughtful and on point. Whoa!

Well, I want to address a couple things people said, and I don't just want to bury my reply down at the end of the comments where it will never get read. (Hey, it's my blog, folks -- one of the perks!) So here are a few comments (in no particular order) and my responses. It might be helpful to follow the link and read the post first.

In a thoughtful comment, Darren J wrote: "Both measurement systems you describe are just as linear. The advantage of the new system you describe is that the numbers might be easier to relate to every day life. Seems like a good thing."

Well, no. MPG is a linear measurement of distance you can go on a gallon of gas. But it is an inverse exponential measurement of gasoline used. Every doubling of MPG uses half the gasoline of the previous doubling. Therefore, every tick up the MPG scale is NOT equal, and there is a harsh diminishing of returns as you push past 20, 30 or 40 MPG. As my example shows, 1 MPG at the top end of the range represents a tiny fraction of the fuel used by 1 MPG at the bottom of the range. In short, I believe it is a PR stunt and a way of deceiving you as a consumer.

Darren J wrote: "The measly 0.8 gallons is really huge in terms of percentage!"

Well, it might be a significant percentage of YOUR fuel use. But as a matter of public policy, it is NOT a significant part of our national useage. What struck me was the fact that one person upgrading from a 10 MPG vehicle to a 20 MPG vehicle saves as much gasoline as SIX people upgrading from 30 MPG to 40 MPG. So if you're a policy-maker trying to cut oil useage and carbon emissions, what do you target?

Darren J: "In Canada, people drive vehicles only slightly more efficient than Americans, probably because Canadian gas prices are slightly higher."

Well, sure, but Canada isn't the only data point. Europeans, I'm told, measure efficiency in liters/100km or some such. And of course, they drive much more efficient vehicles all around (and gas is twice as expensive). I guess my perspective is that markets require transparency and good information, and if customers were armed with accurate information rather than cooked numbers, they'd make "greener" choices even if we didn't change gas prices one cent.

Several people pointed out the need for a paradigm shift away from personal vehicles to more sustainable city models. While I agree wholeheartedly, we aren't about to abandon our homes and subdivisions overnight, or even in a generation. Even if we changed our transportation policy, our zoning codes and such, these take effect quite slowly. So in the middle term -- 5 to 10 years -- we really need a new awareness about our vehicle options and choices.

Adam: "In the mean time I'm going to ride my bike over twice the miles it would take me to drive because I'd get a ticket (or die) if I rode my bike on the roads that lead directly to anywhere."

Cyclists in our cities should get vocal about dedicated bicycle-only roads or paths which actually GO somewhere. Argue to have them built alongside rail links. Without a safe infrastructure, I'm afraid Adam will have very little company.

Finally, in all of this, I think it's lost of many of my readers that having personal vehicles isn't merely a SIGN of wealth, it's part of the REASON we are a wealthy country. The transportation infrastructure really does allow people and goods to move from Point A to Point B quickly, and serve every address. Convenience has a value -- not just the experience of convenience, but economic value. There is value in being able to carry goods home from the store, run errands, etc. And our economy, for all the waste from an environmental perspective, employs us. If everyone gave up their cars, it might help the environment, but the resulting Depression would make FDR's task look like a cake walk. Really.