Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group, has warned that the 62-mpg CAFE standard could cut car sales by 25 percent, costing the industry 220,000 jobs. [...]

Analyst Sean McAlinden estimates that a 62 mpg bogey will require extensive use of pricey technology such as hybrids. [...]

The debate is about how aggressive the rules should be. The 62-mpg rule requires a 6 percent annual improvement. An alternate proposal, requiring a 3 percent annual increase, would mandate a CAFE of 47 mpg for 2025. A compromise between the two positions is also possible.

Backers of stronger rules dispute industry cost estimates for hitting 62 mpg. The federal notice of intent to create rules, done jointly by the EPA and NHTSA, estimates price increases ranging from $2,800 to $3,500 per vehicle. [...]

The EPA/NHTSA statement adds that with a 62-mpg CAFE, 2025-model vehicles would save $5,700 to $7,400 in lifetime fuel costs. David Friedman, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean vehicle program, said monthly fuel savings could outweigh increased monthly car payments for buyers. [...]

The two sides also debate the feasibility of getting to 62 mpg with current technology. Sandy Stojkovski, president of AVL Strategic Analytic Services, a technology consulting firm in suburban Detroit, said automakers could meet the less aggressive 3 percent target — for 47-mpg CAFE — with advanced internal combustion engines. [...]

Environmental groups counter that hybrids aren’t the sole option. Drew Kodjak, executive director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, said a Lotus Engineering study found that automakers could use weight reduction more extensively.

According to the study, automakers could cut vehicle mass, excluding powertrain, by 38 percent for only a 3 percent cost increase. In many cases, the study proposes replacing steel with magnesium, plastic, aluminum and other composites. [...]“

from ’62 mpg: CAFE debate will reshape industry’.

Yeah, I guess you could have everyone live on top of each other. I guess there will be more NYC’s, LA’s, Chicago’s etc. How will you grow your own food if you’re only living in cities or high urban areas?

Just throwing those rebuttals out there….

MrEnergyCzar

@ Myenergyczar,

Your solution doesn’t solve the problem. It only hurts the middle and lower class even more because now they have more of their income devoted to fuel. Most can’t afford to just go out and buy a new car, especially a hybrid car. Sure you can buy a diesel if you travel mostly on the highway. The problem is the people that trade oil like it doesn’t affect anyone else. Think about it. In 2008 oil spiked to $147 and gas prices rose to $4.50 around by me. In 2011 oil spiked to $113 and gas prices rose to $4.45. There seems to be a disconnect between the price of oil and price of gas.

Punish or limit those that trade oil as well as develop and improve technologies that will raise the fuel efficiency of vehicles.

Honestly when someone blurts out, “Raise gas taxes!!” hasn’t really thought out the consequences of such a knee jerk reaction. Think about how it not only affects people at the pump, but the people at the grocery store and the higher prices that are passed on to the consumer. There’s a whole list of companies and customers that will be severely affected. Not all of us make over $100k like you might.

But won’t gas prices fall a lot on May 22nd the day after the 1.4 billion Christians are “taken up”?

Well thought. I concur with you. It’s time to get unnecessarily heavy cars out of the road. I don’t want to travel next to battle tanks.

And effectively with cars that consume less fuel, there is no effective increase of tax, assuming one gets more efficient vehicles – people do that today, replace SUV with smaller sedan – money spent on gas goes down per year even with higher gas prices. True not everyone can afford a new car right away, however more efficient cars will enter the used market this way over time, and this is a program that is introduced over time.

Furthermore planned for the next ten years should be increase in incentives to require vehicles getting lighter. This should start with reducing the weight of the heaviest cars out there. Part of the problem to get super efficient vehicles out is that despite advances in safety technology it will be difficult to ensure similar performance between 1000lbs cars and 3000lb cars.

1000lb cars are surely safe or safer than heavier cars in standalone accidents or with other light vehicles, but will always have challenges with heavier cars. So start now and take out the heavy cars.

Rich people who want big cars can help fund next generation of cars that are much lighter and big still. Thus enabling a few things then, eliminating the heaviest cars, funding how to make cars even lighter, and keeping the lighter cars just as safe in the mix of cars out there.