I need info on the pros and cons of US governmental mandating of fuel efficiency.

Hello.

Pros

(1) Increased fuel efficiency will reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, thus improving national security and keeping us out of trouble in
places like the Middle East.
(2) Increased fuel efficiency will reduce our need to drill for oil in
places like Alaska, thus keeping that environment pristine.
(3)  Increased fuel efficiency will save consumers billions of
dollars.  The less gasoline they have to buy, the more money they will
be able to save and/or spend on things other than gasoline.
(4) Reducing the amount of gasoline burned will reduce carbon dioxide
emissions.  Reduced carbon dioxide emissions will be a step in the
right direction concerning the problem of global warming.
(5) New jobs would be created if automakers had to invest in research
& development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.


sources: 

Union of Concerned Scientists: Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=221
Protectingcreation.org 
http://www.protectingcreation.org/driven/FactSheet.asp
"fuel efficiency can save money, clean up environment"
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/1997-11/msg00003.html
Sierra Club
http://lists.sierraclub.org/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A2=ind0106&L=ce-scnews-releases&D=1&T=0&H=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=1282


-------

Cons

(1) Safety.  One of the ways that automakers make cars more fuel
efficient is by reducing their weight and size. Occupant death rates
are higher is smaller, lighter vehicles.
(2) Cost. Forcing automakers to adopt more fuel efficient technologies
makes new vehicles less affordable to American consumers.
(3) Environment.  As indicated in (2), fuel efficiency requirements
make vehicles more expensive. The high cost of new vehicles encourages
consumers to keep driving older, dirtier vehicles. Ironically, fuel
efficiency requirements will actually have a negative effect on the
environment.
(4) Fuel efficiency requirements tend to favor Japanese & European
automakers over the U.S. auto industry.  Foreign automakers tend to
build smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles because of high gasoline
prices in their home countries.  Thus, the foreign automakers will
have an automatic advantage over the U.S. auto industry, ultimately
having a negative effect on Americans' jobs.
(5) Consumer choice. If consumers wanted more fuel efficient vehicles,
they'd buy them.  Forcing automakers to build vehicles that consumers
don't want helps nobody. Fuel efficiency requirements amount to the
government meddling in the economy.


sources:

American Iron & Steel Institute
http://www.steel.org/policy/other/cafe.asp
"Death By Caution: Fuel Economy Standards Cost Lives "
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02357.cfm
"Auto Cafe Standards: Unsafe and Unwise at Any Level"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG825.cfm


search terms:
fuel efficient efficiency safety "american cars" "global warming" 

I hope this helps.

well written and concise.

Sometimes what happens is government mandates make newer equipment
equipment costlier and less desirable, and some consumers will stick
with older, more polluting equipment.  In other words, if the
government suddenly decided Suburbans and Humvees were too inefficient
so you couldn't make any more, people who would otherwise buy new
Suburbans would instead keep their old Suburbans on the road.  These
older Suburbans may have poor emissions, safety, and reliability.

Dansd:
Thank you for the tip.
-juggler

Wow!  Those cons are really something!  Too bad not a one is true. 

1- big cars are only safer for the people in the big cars, when they
hit small cars.  They are not safer overall, and in fact their
presence, leads to more death and injury overall.  Large vehicles,
especially SUVs, have a higher incidence of accidents, mainly due to
poorer handling and visibility.  Notably, the current head of NHTSA,
Dr. Runge, has stated that he wouldn't allow his children in an SUV.

Please understand, physics dictates that big cars are not any
different from small cars when they hit solid objects, like trees or
walls.  So there is no difference of any kind when they are in one car
accidents.  Lack of handling, especially rollovers, are a major cause
of one car accidents.

2.- During the 1990s the auto makers made that argument, and President
Clinton did the unthinkable.  He took that argument away by having the
Gov't pay for it.  Billions of dollars were paid by you and me to get
efficient technologies into auto under the PNGV program.  At the end,
once again the auto manufacturers played that card, which
unfortunately met a new president who adopted once again a
anti-environment stand, in the guise of being pro-environment.  Hence
we look out another 10 years for hydrogen based cars.

Europe and Japan both make excellent, high efficiency cars.  For the
most part they are not sold here.  I'm not referring to the Prius and
the other hybrids, although they are the first offerings of the next
generation of automobiles, but of high efficiency diesels and gas cars
that get 30 - 50 mpg.  Why?  Because their gas prices are not kept
artificially low AND their gov'ts require it.

It is a complete fallacy to argue that high efficiency cars would be a
burden on the consumer that is sticking DVD players, GPS nav systems,
or commuting in 7000lb Suburbans.

3- That is just ludicrous.  There is no requirement that the gov't HAS
to be stupid.  Requiring automakers to add seatbelts didn't cause more
death because people wouldn't buy them.  Why would that be the case
now?  The source you list is a right wing PAC that doesn't have a
scientific basis for what they state.  There is no historic
justification for this argument.  When the CAFE standards went into
effect in the first place, death rates in auto crashes did not even
hiccup in their downward trend.  The main thing that happened is that
the US auto industry spent more time and effort lobbying for a repeal
instead of designing better cars.  As a result, the Japanese auto
industry greatly increased their market share.

Fortunately, the main reason that this con will not happen is that
American cars by and large just don't last long enough for that to
have a major effect.  Even if someone were to keep their car an extra
year, in the long term, the environmental effect is clear.  The
biggest damage caused to the environment these days by cars is global
in nature.  Reducing hydrocarbon emissions is far and away the most
important reason for increasing fuel economy.  Arguing that increasing
fuel economy will have the opposite effect is another black is white
trick put forth by people who have an interest in keeping the status
quo.

4- So, you are saying that the fact that American auto manufacturers
make the wrong vehicle will cause jobs?  Again, wrong.  Most foreign
car manufacturers now manufacture a major portion of their vehicles
here.  What you will have is a loss of American car companies.  Or,
eventually, they will get it.  Until the US auto industry is convinced
that they will not will reprieve after reprieve they will continue to
ignore the need to just make a better car rather than attempt to buy
their way out of competing with foreign producers.

5- Okay...so did I mention that the price of gas is kept artificially
low in this country?  All that we need do is have the cost of gas
accurately reflect the total cost.  We have the cost of our military,
designed mainly to protect our access to oil (not saying reduce the
military, nor that it is wrong, just that it's cost be payed for the
the gas it protects).  We have the cost of the environmental damage
caused.  We have the increased cost of maintaining roads by heavier
vehicles.

We do that, gas goes to what it costs in EVERY other oil importing
country in the world (~$4/gal) and I guarantee people will choose more
efficient cars.

I think it is terrible for a google researcher to present garbage as
legitimate "con".

To snsh-ga - What would you do then?  Other than through your hands up
and say "Oh well"  suggest something else.  I see no example of what
you

Leoj:

You write:
'I think it is terrible for a google researcher to present garbage as
legitimate "con".'

If you visited the sites that I cited as sources, you would see that
the pros and cons provided are the main arguments proffered by those
who support and oppose federally-mandated fuel standards. Of course,
you're free to view any of those arguments as "garbage," but I feel
that my job as a researcher on this question was to present the
arguments that are actually cited in the real world, not necessarily
to filter out viewpoints that folks on your side of the debate will
find meritless or objectionable.

Suppose you were preparing to debate this topic, don't you think you'd
like to  be aware of the main arguments that opponents of fuel
efficiency actually make so that you'd be able to attack and discredit
them?

To juggler-ga,

First, an apology to you personally.  I obviously got carried away,
and regretted posting that, just about the second I hit the Post
Comment button.

I should have simply stated that the sources you cite are not to be
considered credible given their inherent bias.  My emotional reaction
to political organizations being used as references in a question
which to me appeared to ask for a factual response was out of line.  I
would strongly urge you to in the future make apparent the bias of the
sources you cite.  I suppose one could argue that a reasonable man
would see that instantly, but it does damage GA's and your own to a
degree to cite any possible source without comment.

If your aim was to present the cons as without merit, I would think it
would have been better to say so.  As a person who feels strongly that
disinformation is a powerful tool of those whose interests are counter
to the general public's, disinformation being the antithesis of what
GA is about, I let what I consider worthwhile intent grossly impact my
comment to your, mine and GA's harm.

Again, I was completely out of line with the tone of my comment and
you have my heartfelt apology.

Sincerely, 

leoj-ga