The Price of Gas and Fuel Consumption

Paul Krugman saw the "Five Myths?" about gas consumption and conservation and sends along this graph. It's from his favorite textbook. He says:

Mark

Saw your "five myths" post. The thing is that the big issue isn't how much you drive, but mileage. And there's a strong effect of prices on consumption, mainly through that channel.

Oh, you do have to be careful, though: Europe uses a lot more diesel, so you don't want to just look at gasoline.

Here's the figure for use in the 2nd edition of the Krugman/Wells text showing that higher fuel prices are associated with lower fuel consumption:

Comments

[Arne (not anne)]

I question whether the charts can really demonstrate any causality from price to consumption. Canada and the US are both more spread out than Eurpoean countries. One could argure that taxpayers in the US and Canada are less willing to accept high taxes on fuel because they drive more.

[dissent]

Well, because gas is cheap people can afford to move far from their jobs. We've dug a hole for ourselves, because so much housing is far flung. How to shift incentives over time? Or will we wait for a calamity(of some sort).

[Bernard Yomtov]

Canada and the US are both more spread out than Eurpoean countries.

The cities are farther apart, true. But whether the population is more concentrated is a different question. Paris(2,152,000), for example, is the only French city over one million, and Marseille(808,000) is the only other one over 500,000.

Population densities overstate differences in the relevant degree of concentration.

[elvis]

I question whether the charts can really demonstrate any causality from price to consumption. Canada and the US are both more spread out than European countries.
This argument often comes up [i.e. we have a big country so we must drive more], but does it really hold any water?

Looking at older cities on the East Coast, they seemed to have begun their development with similar European density levels. And this changed with the introduction of technology.

I think what we have in the US is:
opportunity (a lot of land) + ability (automobiles) = spread out development & lots of miles driven.

If you remove [or make expensive] automobiles, then development would adapt. Unfortunately, the housing boom only reinforced this generation's living arrangement.

One could argue that taxpayers in the US and Canada are less willing to accept high taxes on fuel because they drive more.
And here is the reason higher taxes on fuels work. It costs more so you think twice before...driving your kids to school...cruising downtown...driving across the state to visit your family...

We tax tobacco products to reduce usage.

[Movie Guy]

I agree with Paul Krugman's general point about mileage.

One question, though: Why do we compare the USA to individual countries in Europe? Why not compare the USA to the EU-25, for example?

says...

Bernard - when comparing cities please compare Metro Areas.

Dr. Thoma - concerning the diesel - the graph is for motor fuel - is diesel included?

[Ken]

I've never heard the idea that higher gasoline prices would cause people to drive less (unless it was so high no one could afford it). I'm wondering how it is that these people, especially in suburban America, get around when they use less gas...

[cm]

Ken: I can assure you that when you have to live on a budget (which I had to in a past life) you will quickly discover a whole different way of evaluating and calculating price differences and spending alternatives.

I agree that when fuel doesn't burn a hole in your pocket, factors such as convenience, time, parking, drinking plans, etc. will take precedence over cost when making driving decisions.

[Movie Guy]

If looking at all of Europe and not a handful of countries, why not compare vehicle emission standards and safety crash standards as well.

There is no question that tighter emission standards along with higher safety crash standards (higher vehicle weight by class vehicle) impact mpg output.

I am not saying that this justifies the higher horsepower trends and larger vehicle platform preferences in many vehicles in the USA, but I am saying that the emission and safety crash standards do have an impact on mpg capability.

As for fuel taxation, note the differences in uses of such taxes throughout Europe as opposed to the USA.

This question, though, deserves a few answers:

Which nation has the higher emission standards and higher safety crash standards?

[dWj]

Ken --

Shortly after the price jumps unexpectedly, carpooling increases, and errand runs are consolidated. Over longer periods of time -- car-replacement--cycle lengths of time -- people shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles. (A lot of the abatement in core inflation rates that started this past summer was due to drops in prices of "light trucks" as high fuel prices persisted.) It's only over longer periods of time that people whose preference for living in the suburbs was otherwise marginal start moving back to more highly populated areas from which their commutes and other driving obligations are less.

[Movie Guy]

For those who believe that the European automobile manufacturers have more efficient engines, note the CAFE emission problems that some of the European manufacturers have had in meeting U.S. emission standards.

These are some staggering fines:

Summary of Manufacturer CAFE Fines Collected, 1983-2005, USDOT

[elvis]

MG,
The highest fine I could find on that list was:
2001. bmw. $27,985,925.00
It's large in terms of my own account, but in terms of BMW's US sales, I guess it's small potatoes.

Are you saying that CAFE is better than a fuel tax towards the goal of reducing consumption?

my own humble opinion is that it (CAFE) increases individual car mileage but doesn't do much to reduce consumption. to whit: automobile companies don't like it, but oil companies don't make much of a fuss about it.

[elvis]

Dr. Thoma - concerning the diesel - the graph is for motor fuel - is diesel included?
I would also like to know.

Moving away from the Euro-centric graph... I live in Japan and gas prices are high. Yet, I don't think I've ever seen a car here that ran on diesel. Do the major Jap. auto makers produce diesel vehicles for the consumer market in Europe?

[greymane]

European's have many options including clean diesel. All the major auto manufacturers build clean diesels for the EU market, and get fuel efficiency (40-60 mpg) to hybrids. They also ride many more 2 wheelers (motorcycles and scooters) that get upwards of 100 mpg and can park anywhere.

[Cyrille]

How to get around with less gas ?

Well, for a start, you can walk for any distance less than a mile. Make it half a mile if you're lazy.
For longer distances, I suggest a bicycle. Works a treat, even for most shopping (if you have a backpack and/or basket), for anything under 5 miles. That also means there will be no need to drive to the gym in order to keep fit... For more than 5 miles, well, what about riding your bike to the train station?
Cook, rather than go to the restaurant or get something from a shop.
Carpool anytime you can.

So, that's quite a bit already covered. Now, when you DO need a bit more (for a certain meaning of need -I do not have a car, full stop), such as in a torrential rain ... how many people really NEED a 4 wheels drive, for want of a better word, truck?
What about a compact car with a small engine, just powerful enough to reach the speed limit?

That should mean less gas. And a cheaper car (or better, no car at all) to boot.

[Real Person from the Real World]

I work in IT staffing, and there are many times you hear people refuse a job if they have to drive too far, usually because of the traffic congestion and time, or "quality of life." Many of these people are in the $80k up salary range. On the other hand, I know of people making a whole lot less, that drive from another state or over an hour, just to get to a job. They drive based on the quality of the job, or just because it is their job.

It's nice to say that raising the price of gas will cause concervation, but for who? What we really need is electric cars, public transportation, and Gov't to encourage these, not screw drivers.

Another thing: Most of us grew up driving, and that has also affected the choice of car over other things. We need to have quality public transportation for where it makes more sense. People will not change easily, unless they have a reason, especially those with money who prefer to drive in splendid isolation and can afford it.

[chuck roast]

Bernard Yomtov has it right.
Similar to correcting prices for inflation over time, you must correct for density.
Try dwelling units per acre which may lead to the vehicles per household - another good surrogate. Or try correlating vehicle-miles-traveled to DUs/acre to develop a correction factor.

[cm]

Cyrille: In an accomodating environment/situation, individuals can adjust on an individual basis. However many (esp. sub or ex urban) environments are not of that sort. You often cannot walk to stores, unless the corner 7/11 or gas station can provide your "groceries", and even those are often in a remote business district. I live close to a busy intersection with business and can walk, but pay with hearing police/ambulance sirens the whole day and at night (which is not that bothersome as one gets used to it quickly), and being exposed to more non-residential traffic.

Some significant portion of places where people live have been zoned and built around the car paradigm. Without cars they would be practically unlivable or at least extremely limiting. That's not to say that can't change, but not (exclusively) by way of rather minor individual adjustment.

[cm]

Real Person: I know enough situations where people went substantial commutes for jobs they consider closer to their career goals, or out of necessity for any job. Not so much of that in the category of moving from same to same. OTOH, perhaps except where the commute seriously impacts life, triggers for a job change appear to be work or pay related. Still, that seems to be pretty much in line with what you are seeing.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Dear nameless,

The link I had gave data for European cities. It provided data for "urban areas" for France only, and I am not sure how this compares with our metro areas, "combined areas" etc.

However, for France at least the numbers scale up reasonably. The Paris metro area is about 10.5 million, and the next three are in the 1-1.5 range. So about 1/6 of the population of France lives in a large urban center.

By comparison, about 40 million people live in the NY, LA, and Chicago metro areas, and another 15 million in Philadelphia, Dallas, and Miami. So that doesn't seem wildly different.

If you can provide better data I will be glad to look at it.

[Charles Young]

Answer to Movie Guy: While fatalities per mile driven vary widely among European countries, the UK has a lower incidence of fatalities per mile driven than the US, as well as much higher fuel economy. The idea that you need a big inefficient car to be safe is spurious.

Answer to Elvis: Yes, Japanese manufacturers produce excellent clean diesels which do well in the European market. But Japanese emissions regulation is more adverse to diesel than either US or European regulations.

[Movie Guy]

elvis - "MG, The highest fine I could find on that list was: 2001. bmw. $27,985,925.00 It's large in terms of my own account, but in terms of BMW's US sales, I guess it's small potatoes. Are you saying that CAFE is better than a fuel tax towards the goal of reducing consumption? my own humble opinion is that it (CAFE) increases individual car mileage but doesn't do much to reduce consumption. to whit: automobile companies don't like it, but oil companies don't make much of a fuss about it."

Elvis, I am saying two things regarding U.S. CAFE and emission standards. Both standards are difficult for European manufacturers to meet, including VW with its diesel problems.

European automobile manufacturers have had the greatest difficulty in getting horsepower from their engines while attempting to meet U.S. emission and mpg standards by vehicle class. With the exception of Panoz (small output builder in Georgia), all of the manufacturers on the CAFE fine list are from Europe. Asians have had the same problem with attempts to field vehicles for larger platforms using larger displacement engines (particularly V8s) and being able to meet emission requirements while providing high levels of horsepower. Asian manufacturers have been able to meet the emissions requirements in general, but their mpg capabilities have suffered. This consideration includes Toyota, by the way. Toyota tried unsuccessfully to buy V8 technology from GM and Ford, as both are ahead of Toyota on this engine group.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/opinion/30tue1.html?ex=1327813200&en=8ce9427303df9372&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 30, 2007

A Faith-Based Fuel Initiative

In 1975, after the oil embargo, Congress approved the most successful energy-saving measure this country has ever seen: the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system, known as CAFE, which set minimum mileage standards for cars. Within 10 years, automobile efficiency had virtually doubled, to 27.5 miles per gallon in 1985 from just over 14 miles per gallon in 1976.

The mileage standards are still 27.5 m.p.g. Except for minor tweaks, Congress has refused to raise fuel efficiency requirements or close a gaping loophole that lets S.U.V.'s and pickups be measured by a more lenient standard.

Americans who heard President Bush's State of the Union address, including his pledge to reduce America's gasoline consumption, can be forgiven for thinking he was finally ready to change that. But all Mr. Bush really asked for was the authority to set mileage standards in a different way. Rather than requiring companies to meet an average fuel-efficiency standard, balancing gas savers against gas guzzlers, he would assign targets model by model, based on factors like size and weight.

As for what those new targets might be, Mr. Bush would leave it to his secretary of transportation to decide. And he asked the country to take it on faith that this new measurement system, combined with technological advances, would lead to annual mileage improvements of 4 percent a year....

says...

Charles Young - "Answer to Movie Guy: While fatalities per mile driven vary widely among European countries, the UK has a lower incidence of fatalities per mile driven than the US, as well as much higher fuel economy. The idea that you need a big inefficient car to be safe is spurious."

I am familiar with the fatality statistics.

There are a number of factors that go into crash and fatality analysis. If the U.S. had lower safety standards, the fatality rates would increase.

You didn't answer my question: "Which nation has the higher emission standards and higher safety crash standards?"

If you are trying to claim that the UK has higher emission standards and higher safety crash standards, please show your evidence.

What I stated originally was that there is no question that tighter emission standards along with higher safety crash standards (resulting in higher vehicle weight by class vehicle) impact mpg output. I didn't limit the consideration to large vehicle platforms as implied in your response.

Nor am I saying that this justifies the higher horsepower trends and larger vehicle platform preferences in many vehicles in the USA. But the fact is many subcompact and compact vehicles are sold and driven in the USA in addition to midsize and large models. Among the subcompact and compact vehicle classes are many with small liter displacement engines and low horsepower ratings. But these vehicle still have to meet emission and safety standards established by the United States.

The emission and safety standards for vehicles designed for the U.S. market are determined by the nation and there is no question that the requirements of these standards impact the curb weights of vehicles in all vehicle classes and affect mpg output. On the issue of U.S. safety compliance requirements, this is additional weight that is not included in many European vehicle models sold in Europe.

Sure, the U.S. could lower its vehicle engine emission standards and lower its safey standards. Both initiatives should readily improve fuel economy, as would reductions in horsepower output for some engines (not all engines depending on the design). If the U.S. wanted lower emission and safety standards for its vehicle fleet by vehicle class, it would do it. But that is not the position of the U.S. and inefficiencies in emissions and safety are two set of criteria where the U.S. does place a higher priority than many nations.

It is incorrect to imply that the UK has higher vehicle emission and safety standards unless you have proof. Absent tighter emission and safety standards, plus lower horsepower ratings and smaller liter engine size for many vehicles resulting in lighter vehicles by vehicle class, the UK's vehicles should have better fuel economy. No surprise there.

[Movie Guy]

Jan 30, 2007 1:10:33 PM post was made by Movie Guy.

[Movie Guy]

NYTimes, January 30, 2007 (cited above) - "But all Mr. Bush really asked for was the authority to set mileage standards in a different way. Rather than requiring companies to meet an average fuel-efficiency standard, balancing gas savers against gas guzzlers, he would assign targets model by model, based on factors like size and weight.

As for what those new targets might be, Mr. Bush would leave it to his secretary of transportation to decide. And he asked the country to take it on faith that this new measurement system, combined with technological advances, would lead to annual mileage improvements of 4 percent a year...."

This is typical spin from the NYTimes. The changes in CAFE standards applied to light trucks was already reported to the Congress back in August 2006 and in the final rule for the CAFE standards for light trucks. Moreover, the Congress never set new standards for light trucks, but the Administration did act (due to Congress' failure to set standards for light trucks).

I suggest a careful read of the following documents before you bite down on the negative hook from the NYTimes. Congress has its eyes fully open on this one, and it is the Congress that is being asked to step up and increase the CAFE standards for passenger cars. If Congress elects to set different criteria other than the new "footprint" approach by USDOT, fine. But, the Congress needs to act if it wants to see improvements in passenger vehicle fuel economy performances.

Fuel Economy Standards

Final rule
Average Fuel Economy Standards for Light Trucks
Model Years 2008-2011
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* An excellent read for understating the decision process involved in CAFE standards.

Study of Feasibility and Effects of Reducing Use of Fuel for Automobiles
The Energy Policy Act of 2005
Report to Congress
August 2006
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
U.S. Department Of Transportation

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/opinion/30tue1.html?ex=1327813200&en=8ce9427303df9372&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

But all Mr. Bush really asked for was the authority to set mileage standards in a different way. Rather than requiring companies to meet an average fuel-efficiency standard, balancing gas savers against gas guzzlers, he would assign targets model by model, based on factors like size and weight.

As for what those new targets might be, Mr. Bush would leave it to his secretary of transportation to decide. And he asked the country to take it on faith that this new measurement system, combined with technological advances, would lead to annual mileage improvements of 4 percent a year....

"This is typical spin from the NYTimes."
"This is typical spin from the NYTimes."
"This is typical spin from the NYTimes."

Notice the spinning spun from an Administration that would of course tell the truth if there were anyone in the Administration capable of ever telling the truth, short of that they spin which is fun in a ride on the boardwalk but much otheriwse. Spin away. Spin away.

[Meh]

Movie Guy.

We shouldn't compare the US with the EU-25 because it wouldn't be very useful. That's because 10 of the EU-25 are post-communist countries with a very different history of economic development etc. If we did, the US would look incredibly wasteful because half of Eastern Europe is far behind in car ownership and usage.

[Movie Guy]

Meh,

You raise an interesting point.

I believe that on matters of vehicle engine emissions and vehicle safety requirements, U.S. standards easily exceed those of Eastern Europe based on my readings and personal experience. On balance, the U.S. comes out that much further ahead, not behind, on these two points.

I have no problem with using the EU-15 as the standard of comparison for most economic, social, and geopolitical issues until such time as the other EU nations catch up.

So, yes, let's use the EU-15.

[Charles Young]

"Movie Guy", safety standards have many dimensions - I am not sure what it would mean to say that one set of standards is absolutely higher than another. But outcomes are what matter, and they can be meaningfully compared. As I said, the comparison will show both lower fatalities and lower fuel consumption per mile driven in the UK compared with the US.

It is thus clearly a mistake to suppose that increasing fuel economy must necessarily imply lowering safety.

[piglet]

"I've never heard the idea that higher gasoline prices would cause people to drive less"

Interesting how far ignorance goes. I don't want to pick on this poster, but would he claim there is no relation between price and demand if we were talking about any other economic sector? Seems that the car economy is part of religion rather than economics.

B Yomtov is right of course. As I stated earlier, the US is abut as urbanized as Europe. Most of driving occurs bewteen home, work and shopping, not between different cities.

[piglet]

Since somebody asked for the Diesel data, here is a statistics (I posted that elsewhere) including both Diesel and gasoline:

Road sector energy consumption in kg of oil equivalent per capita:

Year 2003 2000 1990
Canada 1,297 1,284 1,195
France 721 726 651
Germany 646 695 647
Switzerland 747 762 711
United Kingdom 671 675 653
United States 1,782 1,733 1,536

I took this from earthtrends, an excellent resource where you can find many related data. I selected a few countries, because they are among the richest and most easily comparable to the US, but you can find the data for all countries. If you include Eastern Europe, the gap between those countries and the USA is much larger.

[piglet]

"If looking at all of Europe and not a handful of countries, why not compare vehicle emission standards and safety crash standards as well."

You are free to do that, but that is not the concern of this blog entry. Krugman's point is that there is a relation between fuel price and consumption, and that is very obviously true. It is also what both common sense and economic theory would predict. The strange thing is that there are people claiming the contrary.

Ok, I think I see now what Mg is up to. If you include more countries in Krugman's plot, then they probably won't lie on a straight line. Sure, poorer countries won't lie on the same regression line than rich countries because what counts is not absolute fuel price but the price relative to purchasing power. Still, if you do that plot (please do it!), the tendency will be as predicted.

[vorpal]

I've never heard the idea that higher gasoline prices would cause people to drive less (unless it was so high no one could afford it).

Well said, ken. How long have you been chief financial analyst for Goldman-Sachs?

[Peter Schaeffer]

I appreciate that this is not the conventional wisdom. However, on a PPP dollar basis the U.S. economy is not particularly energy intensive. Any number of sources give energy consumption by country (Energy Information Agency, International Energy Agency, BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2006 , etc.). Other sources, such as the CIA World Factbook give PPP GDP statistics. If you plot this data you will find that U.S. energy consumption is basically inline with the rest of the world. Note that Canada is consistently more energy intensive than the U.S. Also note that China is not highly energy intensive (the converse is frequently claimed).

Check out PPP Total MMBTUs, PPP Oil MMBTUs, PPP Oil Barrels, and PPP Electricity Consumption for some charts.

[Movie Guy]

Charles Young - ""Movie Guy", safety standards have many dimensions - I am not sure what it would mean to say that one set of standards is absolutely higher than another. But outcomes are what matter, and they can be meaningfully compared. As I said, the comparison will show both lower fatalities and lower fuel consumption per mile driven in the UK compared with the US. It is thus clearly a mistake to suppose that increasing fuel economy must necessarily imply lowering safety."

Well, I am sure of what the different safety standards mean. And the laboratory environments that crash such vehicles certainly know...all too well.

It is most certainly not a mistake to know that fuel economy is affected by safety and emission requirements. You are quite mistaken on these two automotive points. Weight is weight and engine emissions are damaging emissions which need to be eliminated or minimized. The United States' standards on these criteria are well established as worthy benchmarks.

[Movie Guy]

piglet,

Krugman didn't address the matter of vehicle engine emissions and safety requirements. Both impact fuel economy, including the subcompact and compact vehicle classes.

That's the point I raised.

I agree as well that engine displacement size, engine weight, and available horsepower can further harm mpg output. Horsepower is not always a problem depending upon how the engine is designed, but it is a consideration.

Making a miles per gallon comparison without factoring the curb weight differences for similar vehicles based on interior cubic feet (or footprint) and disallowing any considerations of the impacts of emission requirements and additional weight due to safety infrastructure requirements is a significant error. Now, this wasn't Krugman point of comparison, but it is mine as well as other considerations.

The U.S. can strip away some of its engine emission requirements and vehicle safety infrastructure in order to improve vehicle fuel use efficiency. That would be easy to do, but the United States will not likely undertake such actions. And for good cause.

[Movie Guy]

Peter Schaeffer,

I agree with your observations.

[piglet]

Peter Schaeffer's plots (you have to remove the first part from the links; the plots show energy use per capita against PPP per capita GDP) confirm that rich European countries and Japan are way more energy efficient than the US even when measured on GDP rather than per capita. Canada, Australia and the USA are by far the most energy devouring countries both per capita and per GDP. Based on Schaeffer's plot, the US uses at least 50% more energy per GDP than France, Germany, UK and Japan.

Now, measuring energy per GDP instead of per capita is an old trick to greenwash the rich countries. I contend it is both not meaningful and not legitimate to use energy per GDP as a measure of efficiency. Ethically, there is no reason why rich people should be entitled to wastefulness. They are wasting irreplaceable resources that should belong to all humandkind, including future generations. There is no justification for that. They are aggravating the greenhouse effect with potentially catastrophic consequences for the whole planet that will disproportionately affect the poor. The rich countries' overstraining of global resources creates international tensions that again affect mostly the poor. Schaeffer is effectively saying "right, we are using more than our share, we are hurting other less fortunate people with our ruthless greedy materialism, but heck, we are also having a good party". It's not exactly the kind of ethics that most of us would openly admit to, although most of us are living by it.

Next question: Are we having a good party? To put it differently, how good an indicator of general living standard is GDP? It's not a good one. The claim that Americans, on average, are enjoying a higher living standard than Germans or French, is laughable. So why does GDP per capita appear to be so much higher? That's a long story, I will just mention one aspect.

Since you mentioned the CIA fact book, I had a look and there found the following statement about the US: "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. In other words, 80% of households have not seen their living standard improve. (Amazingly, economists are still heatedly debating whether this inequality issue is real,knows everything, has resolved the question long ago ;-)

Now we end up here: "right, we are depleting the world's resources, we are probably wrecking the planet by climate warming, but heck, our top 20% are having a hell of a party, so who cares about energy inefficiency?"

Is that what you are saying?

[piglet]

"The U.S. can strip away some of its engine emission requirements and vehicle safety infrastructure in order to improve vehicle fuel use efficiency."

Movie, that insinuation is ridiculous. Americans aren't driving SUVs because of emission standards. They aren't consuming about three times more fuel than Western Europeans per capita because of emission standards. Totally laughable, and totally illogic (energy inefficiency -> pollution).

I remember, in the 1980s, the US was ahead of Europe in introducing the catalytic converter. Today the EU has the highest standards world wide (maybe except for California), and since you asked, those standards are the same in all EU member countries. They are legislated by Brussels. Plus, in several countries (Germany, Austria, I am not sure about the others), old cars are periodically subject to emissions test. You better check your facts before embarassing yourself.

says...

Bernard - the data I would like to see would be comparing fuel consumption for similar sized cities in Europe., the US and Asia and seeing what factors contibute to differences - things like density, price, parking andclimate to name a few.

Urban density is a very difficult calculation for comparison purposes - different cities calculate things differently and when you start moving into larger areas it gets even more complex - footnotes are a must.

The interesting comparisons would be cities in the 1 to 2 million range for metro areas. Another poster on another thread provided a link to a book but the local library does not have it so if you know of any statisitcs for fuel use for metro areas please advise.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Piglet,

I am not much inclined to apologize for America’s prosperity and economic success. Indeed, every country on earth seems to have similar hopes and aspirations. Perhaps you should try to convince the Chinese to stop pursuing their version of the American Dream. Good luck.

As anyone who follows my posts, I am a persistent critic of the globalization policies (Open Borders and “free” trade) that have exacerbated income inequality in the U.S. (and elsewhere). However, this has little to do with energy consumption. Indeed, the actual linkage is inverted. The marginal propensity to consume energy declines with income (the poor pay a higher fraction of incomes for energy). If U.S. incomes were more equal, energy consumption would increase, not decline.

As for comparisons between countries, American homes would sell for near infinite amounts in Europe. Check out Artificial restriction on land supply puts Ireland and UK at bottom of property league in Developed World. US homes are twice as large as those on the continent.

Since I am not exactly a global warming skeptic, I would be the first to argue that GHG emissions must be reduced. However, until the developing nations accept that they too must play a role, there is little the U.S. can do along these lines

[Noni Mausa]

cm: "You often cannot walk to stores, unless the corner 7/11 or gas station can provide your "groceries", and even those are often in a remote business district."

Hear, hear! I lived as a "poor college student" in the early 00s (now I've moved up to being a "poor employed person") and didn't have a car. I did, however, carry a backpack everywhere, for books, groceries, etc. Once you've put a few canned goods and a sack of potatoes in your backpack, that's it. You cannot get a week's groceries for a family into a backpack, nor get the dog to the vet, nor take an elderly friend home.

Ironically, many of the cheapest stores (Textured Nutrient Warehouse, the Mattress King, or Spatula City, for instance) are on distant streets, far from bus stops. So are many low paying jobs. They are accessible to someone who has a car, but a car costs most people $5k to $10k a year.

So what does your average poor person decide? They get the cheapest wreck they can put on the road, or put themselves into debt, and then pray. Been there, done that, got the MacPherson struts.

Noni

[Charles Young]

Since Movie Guy believes (erroneously) that fuel economy can be increased only by sacrificing safety standards, can I ask him to explain to me why he thinks that a given vehicle with a modern clean diesel engine is less safe than an identical vehicle with a gasoline engine?

[cm]

Noni: When I was a student on a budget (not technically poor), I had a lot of time on my hands, and went quite far for any purchase (making use of my subsidized monthly transit pass allowing me to make any number of rides at a fixed cost). When I started working, affordability of transportation was no problem either, but it put an end to the time part. Using public transit to go shopping became pretty much a no-no, but I had walkable stores in the neighborhood.

[Real Person from the Real World]

Hey Noni.... you're right, most things are not within walking distance or you need a car to haul food or kids or pets. Everyone may brush aside the idea, but gas rationing or raising the price of gas does not affect car usage for most people, especially those of us not making it financially. Again, as with Health Care, those with the big bucks are the ones least impacted. If you got the money coming in, you can afford anything, if not, you get penalized by the wrong headed types that think raising the price or limiting everyone access in some way, will achieve conservation goals.

[anne]

Piglet:

"[That] is effectively saying 'right, we are using more than our share, we are hurting other less fortunate people with our ruthless greedy materialism, but heck, we are also having a good party.' It's not exactly the kind of ethics that most of us would openly admit to, although most of us are living by it.

"Next question: Are we having a good party? To put it differently, how good an indicator of general living standard is GDP? It's not a good one. The claim that Americans, on average, are enjoying a higher living standard than Germans or French, is laughable...."

Piglet:

"Americans aren't driving SUVs because of emission standards. They aren't consuming about three times more fuel than Western Europeans per capita because of emission standards. Totally laughable, and totally illogic (energy inefficiency -> pollution)."

[Cyrille]

I never said it was trivially easy to reduce gas consumption in all situations. I just gave a list of things that could be done -note that your objections only covered one, which was the not having a car at all possibility.
That said, it's more doable than you say. My wife spent a year studying in the USA and never had a car. You CAN buy groceries for 2 people for a week with a backpack -also, shopping twice a week is a possibility. For 3 unless you're really strong you'd need a bigger bag so cycling is impossible, but if there is a bus it's no problem. Also, if you are a family, well, you can be 2 shopping (or more), so you can have several backpacks...
If that's not enough, well, remember carpooling?
It is true that the USA is built on the assumption that people have a car, I realise that. But then cars are used SO MUCH that there is quite a lot of room for using it less, even if you can't go all the way to not at all.

And the thing is, it is used more that needed, not just in the USA. I see people who, if they are invited by friends, will always take their car, even for 500m. I see people who state that never ever will they take public transport, even when driving is longer. Would they really not reduce their consumption with prices going higher? Here too I hear a lot of people claiming that it's impossible to get by without a car, at any rate as soon as you have a child. Well, there were three in the household when I was one, and no car.

Then, you hear that unless you are rich, your house is far away from everything and you must drive a lot. The key word is "house". Is it really compulsory to have 200 square meters or more at your disposal? We are among the 5% highest earners in France I guess, yet we have 61 square meters. And that's plenty for two! -I'd just like to be able to leave the bikes outsied. I am baffled to see a mansion considered as a must-be.

So, I'm not saying consumption can be brought down to 0 if prices increase. Yes, there comes a time when even the minimum consumption can become unaffordable. But here, gasoline is 1.5$ a liter, and it is a serious problem for only a tiny fraction of the population.

[Movie Guy]

piglet | Jan 30, 2007 7:11:40 PM -

MG: ""The U.S. can strip away some of its engine emission requirements and vehicle safety infrastructure in order to improve vehicle fuel use efficiency."

Piglet: Movie, that insinuation is ridiculous. Americans aren't driving SUVs because of emission standards. They aren't consuming about three times more fuel than Western Europeans per capita because of emission standards. Totally laughable, and totally illogic (energy inefficiency -> pollution)."

Piglet, now you are cherrypicking. You only cited one thing that I said on the matter of fuel economy in relation to emission standards and safety infrastructure in U.S. vehicles.

What I stated is accurate. What you stated has nothing to do with the broader point that I made.

I don't have the opinion that energy usage and emissions are fields that you have a lot of knowledge of based on your statement - "Totally laughable, and totally illogic (energy inefficiency -> pollution)." It is the case quite often that energy inefficiency is related directly to greater levels of pollution. This consideration can be applied to vehicle drivetrains, industrial usage, and household usage. That you don't appear to understand this relationship regarding energy inefficiencies is not surprising as many do not have such working knowledge, but you are quite incorrect in saying that energy inefficiency can not result in greater quantities of pollution. It happens frequently. Clean burn is the primary issue.

[Movie Guy]

piglet | Jan 30, 2007 7:11:40 PM - "I remember, in the 1980s, the US was ahead of Europe in introducing the catalytic converter. Today the EU has the highest standards world wide (maybe except for California), and since you asked, those standards are the same in all EU member countries. They are legislated by Brussels. Plus, in several countries (Germany, Austria, I am not sure about the others), old cars are periodically subject to emissions test. You better check your facts before embarassing yourself."

This is not correct in my opinion. Let's not confuse industrial pollution standards with automotive emission standards. The highest standards for many measurements of vehicle engine emissions are most likely from Japan, not Europe. And the general group of measurements and caps for emissions by the United States, particularly CARB, are higher than those of Europe based on my last review of the emission standards. European manufacturers have struggled to meet emission and mpg requirements for the U.S. market. And they are still struggling in some areas. It was only last year that VW was considering withdrawing all of its diesel product line automobiles from the USA because they could not meet the forthcoming new emission standards.

The Asian manufacturers have similar problems with larger displacement engines. They have had a difficult time improving their fuel economies for these engines vs. the curb weight of their midsize and large vehicles, particularly their large SUVs which offer the worst mpg of any available other than a couple of European models.

As for catalytic converters, the U.S. used them for over almost a decade before the Europeans began their testing. As late as 1988, the German auto manufacturers were still conducting tests regarding the switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline. I know because I lived there during that period and personally observed some of the prototype vehicles that Mercedes Benz was testing; I was invited to review some of the testing at one of the plants. At no time during the 1980s did I find unleaded fuel in West Germany or any other nations in Europe for either of my vehicles, which is why I was required to remove the catalytic converters as was anyone else with a vehicle equipped in such fashion. And, yes, during that period, vehicle testing was required of residents but the focus was on safety, primarily the brakes as well as body integrity and checking for leakage.

If Europe, the EU, now has higher vehicle emission standards than any other nation in the world, I will like to review the individual emission standards. Kindly provide a link if you have it. Frankly, I don't believe it based on my discussions with automotive engineers designing some of the next generation vehicles and drivetrains. None have made that claim.

Let me add that if Europe has the highest emission standards for diesel engines, then VW should have had no problem satisfying the new U.S. diesel engine emission standards. Instead, VW struggled badly with the new U.S. emission standards and it not clear that they have solved all of the problems for those engine powerplants. VW went so far as to request waivers from EPA.

[anne]

All of which goes to show why I drive a Prius; not to worry though Ford will make one one day so I am told or is it that they bave a better idea?

[Movie Guy]

Charles Young - "Since Movie Guy believes (erroneously) that fuel economy can be increased only by sacrificing safety standards, can I ask him to explain to me why he thinks that a given vehicle with a modern clean diesel engine is less safe than an identical vehicle with a gasoline engine?"

I never made the statement that you claim I made.

I said that reductions in emission standards and safety standards (reduction in vehicle curb weight) can improve fuel economy. And this statement is factual.

Your second statement above, regarding diesel vs. gasoline engines, is not something that I have addressed. It sounds like you are fishing to prove an unrelated point.

The situation is rather simple for diesel engines. If the use of a diesel engine results in greater vehicle weight, the vehicle's suspension has to be reengineered and in some cases, the platform has to be strengthened as is accomplished with some truck platforms. Diesel engines in passenger cars are different story for the most part, as those are now normally steel-sleeved aluminum engines, so the engines are somewhat heavier than their gasoline counterparts but not nearly as heavy as iron cast block diesel engines or gasoline engines constructed similarly. The overall engine design of a diesel engine requires higher material integrity to handle the additional combustion requirements of diesel combustion, so the engine is stronger and heavier than an equivalent power producing gasoline engine. If the diesel engine is heavier in a passenger car than its gasoline counterpart, the suspension will be recalibrated to accomodate the additional weight. If the unibody (most passenger cars) can handle the additional weight within safety tolerances, it will not have to be redesigned. Otherwise, it will be beefed up. Would the diesel engine equipped passenger car be less safe than the same vehilce platform model (less any modifications) equipped with a gasoline engine? That depends on the comparable weight, and the distribution of that weight in the vehicle. From an accident collision perspective, the diesel-equipped model less any additional weight considerations should be safer due to its less volatile fuel. But fuel volatility isn't the only safety consideration as differences in weight and weight distribution require separate prototype crash testing in the USA.

Normally, the small or tiny diesel engines used in some small passenger cars do not present major problems from a safety perspective.

[Movie Guy]

Ford and GM will be introducing a number of additional hybrids beginning next year. Some of the GM technology will also be employed by BMW and other foreign manufacturers.

[anne]

My oh my, I am all tingly, waiting.

[piglet]

Peter Schaeffer: "However, until the developing nations accept that they too must play a role, there is little the U.S. can do along these lines (about Global Warming)"

Your own plots call you a liar. I encourage everybody to study those plots, thanks you Peter Schaeffer for providing them. They show very clearly how dishonest this statement is, by somebody who knows the figures.

[Adam]

The most direct way to lower gasoline use is to tax it and yes the US is more spread out because of years of low gas prices amoung other things and yes it would hurt people who have stretched things too thin. Any change will hurt those people. Thats why the taxes need to be phased in gradually and we should all know the schedule. Just like they should do about cutting farm subsidies.

[piglet]

Movie Guy: "At no time during the 1980s did I find unleaded fuel in West Germany or any other nations in Europe for either of my vehicles, which is why I was required to remove the catalytic converters as was anyone else with a vehicle equipped in such fashion. And, yes, during that period, vehicle testing was required of residents but the focus was on safety, primarily the brakes as well as body integrity and checking for leakage."

Actually, unleaded fuel was introduced in Germany in 1984, and leaded regular fuel was outlawed in 1988. (Source: wikipedia). My dad was driving a Nissan Sunny, which was equipped with a catalytic converter, in the 1980s, I don't remember the exact date. It run at 35 mpg (and was running nicely until recently). As I said, the US was ahead of Europe at the time but quickly, catalytic converters became mandatory and emission standards became ever stricter. The current standard will be tightened again in 2008. I couldn't find a direct comparison of current standards in US, EU and Japan. What I am pretty sure about is that the actual fleet in the US is more polluting than in Germany because German cars are actually emissions tested every two years (this test, the ASU, is not identival with the TUeV, the vehicle safety test). Diesel pollution is a concern since Diesel cars are rather widespread in Europe. There was some dispute about mandating soot filters for all Diesel engines, the German manufacturers opposed this (they said they could reduce pollution with other means). In any case, the standards will be tightened, also the standards for motorcycles and scooters have been tightened recently.

If anybody has more systematic comparative data about emission standards, please let us know. However, this discussion is almost orthogonal to the issue of fuel consumption. I can't tell for sure what the emission standards for SUVs are in the EU *but I can tell for sure that there are many fewer SUVs.* I can tell for sure that Europeans are driving less, and that they are driving more compact, more efficient cars than Americans on average. I can also tell for sure that Japanese cars sold in the US are more efficient than US cars sold in the US.

I picked at your post, Movie, because you seemed to imply that Americans' high fuel consumption was a consequence of tighter emission standards. Such a claim is clearly false.

[vorpal]

To transparently see the fallacious reasoning by Peter Schaeffer, merely follow this train of thought.

1) GDP is a function of oil consumption. That is, a nations GDP depends on how much oil it consumes.

2) Imagine plotting GDP vs. Oil consumption. With no oil consumption our GDP would be tiny compared to now. With full oil consumption, we have our current GDP.

3) So we have two points on our graph, 0% consumption and 100% consumption....what does the graph look like inbetween? Peter Shaeffer does not know. In fact, nobody knows. It could be that, if we only get 90% tomorrow of today's consumtion, then our economy could collapse and we would only get 10% of our current GDP.

Although the plot monotonically increases, there is no reason to believe it is a straight line.

One more point, frequently we hear people say that oil is only like 5% of GDP. Are we to conclude that if we had no oil, we would still have 95% of our current GDP? This is primae facie ridiculous.

In fact, energy inensty means that we are more dependent on oil.
A more accurate depiction of efficiency would be production of tradeable commodities per barrel. This is why China is doing so well, it PPP of tradeable commodities is very high compared to its oil use. They are more efficient and that is why they are getting all of the jobs!

[vorpal]

Just to make my point clear:

US 2004
Exports: $807 billion
Imported Crude Oil: $131 billion

China 2004
Exports: $593 billion (around $2 trillion by PPP)
Imported Crude Oil: $34 billion

All the above stats are from US or International sources.

So the US is selling back 6-7 times the value of its imported oil in manyfactured products.
China is selling 55-65 times the value of its imported crude in manufactured products?

Who is making better use of their oil? Who would you sell your oil to?

[Real Person from the Real World]

Adam, spreading out the taxes on gas over time does little to assuage the effect on poor people? How many poorer people own a home? certainly some. Are they going to move to a house closer to work? Rents are not always easy to find in some locations either. All your tax scheme would do is raise real estate prices in some areas. The only driving that can be cut is leisure driving, but that is what a car is about. As for oil, some of these mideast countries do nothing with the money but subsidize their citizens and build big places all over the world for their ruling class. If they stopped pumping oil, their lives would collapse, and they know it, which is why they get together to conserve THEIR resources at our expense. On the other hand we build business with transportation that requires travel and fuel. Answer? 1st hybrid cars, then better mass transportation systems and where they are needed to encourge people to use them instead of cars.

[piglet]

"Adam, spreading out the taxes on gas over time does little to assuage the effect on poor people?... The only driving that can be cut is leisure driving, but that is what a car is about."

That's bullshit. I see students driving bizarre pick-up trucks to college every day, for distances that they could easily cover by bike or even walk. It just doesn't appear to them that this costs money they could spend more usefully. And the reason for this is, gas prices are not high enough to make a difference for them. How many American drivers know to some good approximation how much they actually spend on fuel, and on their car in general, over the course of a month or a year? How many can at least tell the gas mileage of their car? Not many, in my experience.

I don't want to pick on college students or anybody else, I just point out that yes, driving habits are a matter of personal choice *as well as driven by structural factors beyond the control of the individual*. You wannabee "defenders of the poor" are making patronizing arguments as if individuals had abolutely no choice. They do have some choice. It is amazing how Americans will argue that almost everything is in the individual's responsibility - poverty, education, heatlh, you name it. But when it comes to driving, suddenly people have no responsibility any more for their actions. Strange.

[piglet]

Back to the fuel tax question. True, hiking up fuel tax will hurt some poor people. But you are forgetting other important factors.

1. Fuel prices will likely continue to rise. Doing nothing won't help the poor.

2. You forget that many poor even don't have a car. They are the worst off in this car-dominated society. Where are the Robin Hoods standing up for this group of people? Actually, the cost of public transport during the last decades has risen far above general inflation. The cost of fuel, otoh, has not kept pace with inflation. Using the proceeds of a fuel tax to heavily invest in urban public transport will help many poor, as well as helping the planet and reducing oil dependency.

3. If the fuel tax reduces driving and leads to investment in public transport and other energy efficient technology, the oil prices will rise more slowly. I predict that in a couple of years, you will wish you had had higher fuel taxes, because then crude prices will really hurt you.

4. And what you pay for crude is money thrown out the window, whereas the tax part stays in the country. You could use this tax money for urgently needed infrastructure investments, and also for supporting the poor. Europeans are paying far less, per capita, for the oil import than Americans do. They do pay more at the pump but only a fraction of this goes to Saudi-Arabia, the rest is used e.g. to support Social Security.

The poor don't need cheap fuel. They need affordable transport. And this is a big difference.

[Real Person from the Real World]

Piglet:
I have a job, and I do not have a choice on whether to drive or not. There is NO public transportation, and I work in a small office where I am often the ONLY person there. My immigrant boss lives in an affludent area in the opposite direction. Most people who do not drive are severely handicapped as to where they can live and work. If you work in a corp with lots of colleagues, you might be able to car pool. Raising taxes on items like gasoline impacts those who do not make enough money to live decently. If you are a multimillionaire, you pay the same tax easily. If you are making $10/hr you also pay the tax, and give up something you might need to do it. Originally cars gave people the freedom to move to the country, but now everything is spread out, and you almost need a car to buy food and work, if you live well outside an urban area, where many of us, including those less well paid, do now live. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest the answer is less about "conserving" gas, than about finding different ways to do the same thing. You either stay in the box and deal with what's there, or move outside the box, and actually look at alternatives, or things you might not have thought of previously. A gas tax doesn't eliminate gas fees to the middle eastern sheikhs. Why should we worry about preserving their income? We need to look out for our own people, and penalizing those who can least afford it is couter productive.

[Movie Guy]

piglet (and others),

I am going to provide a series of posts in response to your post at Jan 31, 2007 1:33:49 PM. Much of the focus will be on Europe's vehicle emission controls with particular attention on its diesel engine emissions.

First, though, I will answer one of your claims...

[Movie Guy]

piglet - "I picked at your post, Movie, because you seemed to imply that Americans' high fuel consumption was a consequence of tighter emission standards. Such a claim is clearly false."

Please...

The pattern of implementing vehicle emissions restrictions from the early 1960s or early 1970s forward caused a significant reduction in the fuel economy efficiencies of gasoline engines that automobile manufacturers had to overcome. U.S. diesel engine programs are undergoing similar fuel efficiency problems at this time due to the significant emissions constraints placed on automotive diesel engine manufacturers. The fuel economy losses on large diesel engines (Class 8 tractor/trailer movers) in the past eight years are in the range of up to 28% due to requirements of emissions standards for new engine builds. The most recent large diesel engine emissions standards have caused roughly a 5% further reduction in fuel economy efficiencies.

As explained by Ford’s Dr. Gerhard Schmidt, reduction in engine emissions will likely result in further reductions in fuel economies, particularly with light duty diesel engines:

"Typically, reducing regulated emissions decreases fuel economy, which increases CO2 emissions. We're not talking small effects here either. An LNT system on a diesel vehicle currently consumes about 15% to 30% of the fuel economy advantage that diesel engines have over stoichiometric gasoline engines. This means that further reductions for passenger car emission standards in Europe need to be scientifically based, fully justified, cost effective, and not technology specific."

It is the case with gasoline engines that the use of catalytic converters solved many of the common emissions problems, but it was not until fuel injection, onboard diagnostic computer systems, and tighter engine tolerances in the valvetrains were implemented across the vehicle fleet that emissions controls worked very well. And with those concerted efforts and new design concepts came improved fuel economy efficiencies that allowed the manufacturers to reestablish higher horsepower levels which have improved power to weight ratios of the vehicles while still meeting emissions requirements.

Fuel efficiency improvements in gasoline engines can be achieved by using aftermarket catalytic converters which satisfy legal emission requirements but allow for increased exhaust flow without eliminating all backpressure (you need some backpressure to create more power; you also want to scavenge the cylinders). Automobile manufacturers install 3-way catalytic converters designed to last longer, covering the life expectancy (or much of it) of the vehicle. And there are ways to recalibrate the onboard computers to improve horsepower and torque outputs, but there is the matter of increasing emissions unless you really know your stuff on engine tuning. The tuner goal is to improve the power to weight ratio, and not much consideration among private tuners is paid to emissions output unless that adversely affects power. It's easy enough to recalibrate the engine prior to any required vehicle emission inspections. Performing some calibrations and making a few other changes can also improve the fuel economy of the engine. It's not unusual to gain 2-4 mpg if that is the tuner goal.

Once Europe adopts the lower nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emission standards for its diesel engines as presently in force in the United States, the fuel economy of its light duty and heavy duty diesel engine fleets will be reduced...perhaps significantly. The EU Euro V and Euro VI emission standards that will bring control of NOx and PM emissions up to the level of U.S. emission standards for diesel engines will not be fully implemented until 2012-2016. Europe is projected to be well behind the United States on implementing those particular emission standards, standards which will adversely affect fuel economy.

Meanwhile in the USA, the trend toward heavier and larger passenger vehicles has adversely impacted vehicle fleet fuel economy on a sales-weighted basis and among individual vehicle classes, though recent improvements in fleet fuel economy have been achieved. Again, part of the fuel economy problem is tied directly to safety standards for vehicles (the weight issue), and part is tied to higher horsepower engines presently in use as well as some buyer preference for larger platform vehicles. The advent of alternate drivetrain technologies (hybrids or full substitutes) will improve fuel economy and reduce engine emissions as will lower horsepower engines, though there is a limit to using lower horsepower engines without affecting safety both for the vehicle operator and other vehicle operators.

If vehicle engines were not subject to emissions restriction requirements, the vehicle power to weight ratios could be improved which could also result in improved fuel economy if carefully calibrating the setup. No question.

[Movie Guy]

The Future: Diesel or Gasoline Engines?

Should nations and automobile manufacturers shift more or all vehicles to diesel engines?

That's a complicated question, depending on which considerations are taken into account. Some of the environmental problems of shifting to diesel engines are explained here by Mark Z. Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University.

Europe - the EU-10, EU-15, EU-25 - and its market supporting automobile manufacturers (ACEA, JAMA, and KAMA) are shifting to diesel engines at a fast rate of fleet changeover. While this effort will initially result in a reduction of comparable CO2 emissions, Europe is focusing on CO2 emissions reduction without much regard for increased Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. This statement may bring howls from some readers, but the EU is well behind the power curve on reducing NOx and PM emissions. Moreover, the EU's Euro IV emission standards do not appear to be fully implemented (according to some automotive sources) and the EU Commission has on more than one occasion delayed the introduction of the Euro V and Euro VI emission standards. I will cite provide references from Europe later.

What are ACEA, JAMA, and KAMA? European Automobile Manufacturers Association - ACEA, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association - JAMA and Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association - KAMA.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has adopted and implemented much tighter diesel engine emission standards on NOx and PM emissions. As a comparison, a consumer can purchase a low emission Mercedes Benz diesel automobile in the USA now that will not be available in Europe until 2012 or 2015 at the earliest. Think about that. And, yes, this is a fact at the present time. I will provide a source for this point in a later post. Why isn't this model with the U.S. spec diesel engine also available in Europe? Cost, market competition, and lack of regulatory requirement.

What about gasoline engine emission standards? They are very restrictive in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, but gasoline engines by cubic displacement and horsepower/torque output generally produce more CO2 emissions because the engines use less oxygen than diesel engines. One way to reduce the emissions including CO2 is to reduce the cubic displacement or size of the engines. This effort runs into the problem of power to weight ratios and desired operational safety and performance levels of automobile designs. If the vehicle is too underpowered, it may use more fuel and pollute more than if the vehicle had a more powerful engine. If the vehicle has too powerful of an engine (conventional gasoline vehicle, not a hybrid design) for general needs, it is probably polluting too many emissions (if emissions reduction is the overriding goal of the vehicle operator, auto manufacturer, and nation). And, yes, the vehicle safety requirements add weight to the vehicle which in turn normally requires a more powerful engine in order to satisfy vehicle operators. Moreover, a vehicle that can not get up to speed quickly when merging into traffic or overtaking other vehicles creates a highway safety hazard.

So, what is the best answer for vehicle designs? Absent considerations for alternate fuels and vehicle drivetrain technologies, the answer is smaller vehicles requiring smaller engines while still meeting required safety standards. This is the best way to reduce CO2 emissions aside from focusing more attention alternate drivetrains, the 75-25% metro-rural transportation demands, and implementing more effective transit systems in support of general metro population needs.

Should diesel engines take the place of all gasoline engines? No, not based on the problems presently encountered with diesel emission control systems, replacement costs, durability questions, and noted reductions in fuel economy efficiencies in order to satisfy emission requirements for NOx and PM emissions along with other emission reductions in fuel formulations (sulfur reduction costs, etc). Presently, the automobile manufacturers supporting the U.S. vehicle market are expressing concerns about the durability of light duty vehicle diesel engines and the ability of such engines to offer service life in excess of 100,000 miles.

Is Europe wrong with its shift to diesel engines? Good question. Europe is taking a risk by increasing NOx and PM emissions while pursuing vast reductions in CO2 emissions. Until the Euro V and VI emissions standards are implemented successfully, with Euro VI to be implemented sometime between 2012-2015-2016, the impacts of reduced fuel economy with its small and large diesel engine fleets will not be absorbed. At that stage of implementation, we also will see how durable the small diesel engines are and whether consumers can afford the replacement and operating costs.

[Movie Guy]

General Vehicle Emission Control Technology: A few sources

Ford’s Dr. Gerhard Schmidt discusses Emission Control Technology

Effectiveness and lmpact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
Committee on the Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Transportation Research Board
National Research Council
2002
Link

Vehicle Emissions Standards Around the Globe
Nancy L Homeister
Ford Motor Company
27 June 2001
Link

European Automotive Emissions and Emission Controls during the 1980s and early 1990s - piglet, you should read this.

Europe: Implementing the Community Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Cars: Sixth annual Communication on the effectiveness of the strategy
Brussels, 24.8.2006
COM(2006) 463 final
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Paraliament
Link

[Movie Guy]

Parliament says Europe must wait until 2015 for clean diesels; America gets them this week
Oct 18, 2006
European Federation for Transport and Environment
1 Rue de la Pepiniere - 1000 Brussels - Belgium

Text:

Mercedes-Benz has this week launched its E3

20 BlueTec model for sale in America. The car is the first of a new-generation of diesels that meet strict new American emissions standards and would also meet proposed European emissions standards that the European Parliament has said shouldn’t come into force before 2015. Transport and Environment (T&E) is calling on the Parliament and European environment ministers to speed up the introduction of the so-called Euro standards, with cleaner Euro 6 standards coming in no later than 2011 rather than the proposed 2015.

The Parliament will vote on the new standards in their mini-Plenary meeting in Brussels in November. The position of MEPs is close to that of ministers and a final agreement is likely to be reached on the legislation then.

In a vote in September, the European Parliament's environment committee voted to delay implementation of Euro-5 standards until September 2009. The committee has also set Euro-6 standards that will not enter into force before September 2014, with implementation not happening before at least September 2015.

As a result of the vote, EU-registered cars will not be required to reduce their Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions to 70 milligrams per kilometre until 2015. The Mercedes-Benz E320 BlueTec already meets that limit value.

Jos Dings of T&E said, "Apparently Europe’s cleanest, most innovative diesel engine technology is too good for Europeans. We’ll have to carry on breathing dirty air until 2015, while the Yanks can stroll down to their local Mercedes dealer today and pick up a clean diesel car."

[Movie Guy]

CO2 Emissions Analysis - European Automobile Industry
European Federation for Transport and Environment

Vehicles & Fuels
European Federation for Transport and Environment
1 Rue de la Pepiniere - 1000 Brussels - Belgium

---

Euro 5/6 - new vehicle emissions standards
Dec 13, 2006
European Federation for Transport and Environment
1 Rue de la Pepiniere - 1000 Brussels - Belgium

Excerpts:

Jos Dings, director of T&E, Dec 13, 2006: "The European Parliament has thrown away the opportunity to fix many of Europe's severe urban air quality problems using technologies that are already available. Instead, Europeans will have to wait until 2015 to buy a diesel car as clean as those already on sale in America."

Dings said, "We now have the unbelievable situation where an American consumer can buy a super-clean Mercedes diesel today in their local dealer, while a German will have to wait until 2015 to buy something even remotely similar. There is simply no excuse for allowing Europe to lose its leadership in this area."

The European Parliament has voted on new vehicle emissions standards (Euro 5 /6) in a compromise deal with ministers that allows makers of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) an extra three years to comply.

The first set of European emission standards 'Euro 1', was decided in 1991 and entered into force in 1993, and led to widespread introduction of three-way catalytic converters in petrol cars.

In terms of environmental and technological impact, the Euro 5 and 6 standards are most significant for diesel cars. They have to 'catch up ' as the air pollution impact of new petrol cars is currently lower than that of new diesel cars. Euro 6 will partly close that gap, but not completely.

The Euro 5 standards will cut permitted PM (particles) emissions from new diesel cars by 80%, which is very likely to force fleetwide application of diesel particle filters (DPFs).

The Euro 6 standards will cut permitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from diesel cars by roughly 50% compared with Euro 5, which might force application of NOx after treatment technology such as lean NOx traps (LNT) or Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).

The deal between the Parliament and ministers on Euro 5/6 emissions standards has taken the worst elements of the positions of both sides, according to T&E. Ministers had demanded weaker standards for emissions of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) while the Parliament wanted a longer time frame for introduction.

Euro 6 weaker than CURRENT American standards. The American state of California, along with ten other states - New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington - (representing over 30% of US car sales) have a CURRENT NOx standard of approximately 40mg/km. This implies that Euro 6-compliant cars (on the market from 2015) would not qualify to be sold across the United States today. The current Euro 4 standard for diesel cars is 250 mg, Euro 5 would tighten this to 180, and Euro 6 to 80 mg by 2015.

In Europe, new Euro 6-compliant cars will be sold until approximately 2020, and will still be on the road in 2035.

The European Parliament has voted on new vehicle emissions standards (Euro 5 /6) in a compromise deal with ministers that allows makers of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles (SUVs) an extra three years to comply. Ministers had suggested 80 mg/km limit values for Euro 6 NOx emissions, to be introduced by 2013/14, while Parliament wanted 70 mg/km by September 2014/15. The compromise deal is now 80 mg/km by September 2014/15.

A short overview of the major dates and values:

1. introduction of Euro 5: 1 Sept 2009 for new models certified, 16 months later (1 Jan 2011) for all new cars sold, ans also 1 year and 4 months later for vans (1 Jan 2011/12)

2. introduction of Euro 6: 5 years later: 1 Sept 2014 for new models certified, 1 Sept 2015 for all new cars sold. Vans up to 3.5 tonnes laden weight 1 year after that - 1 Sept 2015 / 1 Sept 2016

3. Pm standard (particles - harmful for human health): 5 mg/km for both petrol and diesel cars and vans, for both Euro 5 and 6.

4. NOx emissions standards:

- diesel cars: 180 mg/km for Euro 5, 80 mg/km for Euro 6;

- petrol cars: 60 mg/km for both Euro 5 and 6.

- standards are less strict for vans.

5. exemptions: a couple of 'vehicles to fulfil specific social needs' with a weight over 2 tonnes during the Euro 5 stage need only comply with the - less strict rules for vans. These are vehicles like ambulances etc., but also SUVs (!). The exemptions for SUVs end on 1 Sept 2012. All other exemptions end with introduction of Euro6, in 2014/15.

[Movie Guy]

Why European climate change for cars is failing, and what can be done about it
May 2005
European Federation for Transport and Environment
1 Rue de la Pepiniere - 1000 Brussels - Belgium

Excerpts:

In 2001 cars and vans emitted 15% of the EU25's greenhouse gas emissions (not including international aviation and shipping, which are excluded from the Kyoto Protocol). More importantly, that share of emissions is rising because every other sector has been cutting emissions (during the period 1990-2002 the average fall was 8%) but those from transport, and particularly cars, are rising.

It is now the end of 2005. With average new car CO2 emissions at around 160 g/km, the EU’s first deadline has been missed by a long way, and the rate of progress makes it clear that even the deadline of 2010 will not be met. Also the target of the voluntary commitment of the car industry, 140 g/km by 2008, will almost certainly be missed. The Commission has informally
postponed its target date for 120 g/km to 2012, yet in recent months it has allowed a chorus to develop, according to which even that is not feasible.

Greenhouse gas emissions from cars are growing.

Today’s cars are, on average, cleaner than they used to be. They are also a bit more fuel-efficient. That’s the good news. But the car industry could have told you that – and they probably have. The bad news is that overall emissions from cars in Europe are rising, and they’re rising fast. Consider the following statistics:

- CO2 emissions from cars have risen by 1% per year since 1990 (vans by 1.5% per year).

- Passenger cars in the EU25 emitted approximately 580 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents in 2001 (plus an extra 40 megatonnes used in the oil refining process).

- Vans were responsible for an estimated 98 megatonnes in 2002 (plus another 6 megatonnes for refining).

- Assuming 1% per year growth in emissions, we can say that in 2005, cars and vans will be responsible for some 750 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents.

There are a number of reasons for this growth. The number of cars on Europe’s roads is increasing every year. And people are driving greater distances – car kilometres in the EU have been growing by around 2.5% per year since 1990. It also seems that people prefer to drive alone – occupancy rates have been falling for years.

At the same time, something else has been happening: cars of all types have been growing in size and weight. And car manufacturers have tended to market bigger and more powerful cars – while optional extras such as air conditioning (which can increase fuel consumption by as much as 15%) have increasingly become standard features.

Current EU policy for the reduction of CO2 emissions from passenger cars is based on a decision taken by European Environment Ministers at a meeting on 25-26 June 1996. The medium-term objective is for the average new car sold in the EU to emit no more than 120g of CO2 per kilometre. As CO2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption, this is equivalent to an average of 5 litres per 100km for petrol cars and 4.5 litres/100km for diesels.

This objective was supposed to be reached in 2005 or by 2010 at the latest. The car makers were asked to find ways of achieving it, but their first step was to reject it. The Commission threatened them with mandatory limits.

For a while the makers did nothing in the hope that the threat was an empty one, but in 1998 they feared the Commission was on the point of insisting on legally binding limits. So the European car makers’ business association Acea signed a ‘voluntary agreement’, under which the average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in the EU should be reduced from 186g/km in 1998 to 140 g/km in 2008. Parallel voluntary agreements were signed with the Japanese (Jama) and Korean (Kama) makers’ federations for similar reductions by 2009, but all three refused to agree to a date for the 120 g/km target.

Between 1995 and 2004, CO2 emissions from newly registered cars fell from 186 g/km to 162 g/km.This corresponds to a 13% reduction. Way short, that is, of the goals that were set in 1996 and when the voluntary agreements were signed in 1998-99.

The automotive industry has for several years said 120 g/km is not feasible, and their words are proving uncannily similar to pronouncements by leading Commission officials.

A number of recent independent technological studies all indicate that the 120g/km target can be met with widely available existing technology. A number of improvements offer the chance to reduce fuel consumption, including:

- Advanced lightweight materials
- Advanced drivetrains, stop/start engines, regenerative braking, etc.
- Hybrid drivetrains with smaller petrol and diesel engines

So technologically it is possible. But technological progress comes at a price, which someone has to pay.

[Movie Guy]

Europe set to clean up fuels but stalls on cars
Percentage of CO2 140g/km target to be reached by Top 20 Car Manufacturers by 2008/2009
January 31, 2007
European Federation for Transport and Environment
1 Rue de la Pepiniere - 1000 Brussels - Belgium

and

How clean is your car brand?
Oct 25, 2006
European Federation for Transport and Environment
1 Rue de la Pepiniere - 1000 Brussels - Belgium

Excerpts:

On 10 January 2007, the European Commission announced plans for a 'unilateral' 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

In Europe, transport is the worst performing sector under ‘Kyoto’ and seriously jeopardizes the achievement of the targets. Transport CO2 emissions in the EU grew by 32% between 1990 and 2004. The share of transport in CO2 emissions was 21% in 1990, but by 2004 this had grown to 28%. Emissions from so-called ‘light duty vehicles’ (passenger cars and vans) are responsible for approximately half of this.

In 1996, the EU’s Member States and the European Parliament approved a ‘Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars’. The strategy’s objective is to reduce the average CO2 emissions of newly sold passenger cars in the EU to 120 grams per kilometre by 2005, or 2010 at the latest.

In 1998 the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) committed to the EU on behalf of its members to reduce the average CO2 emissions from their new car sales in the EU to 140 g/km by 2008. This is a reduction of 25% over 1995 levels, and equivalent to a fuel consumption of 6.0 litres per 100 km for petrol cars and 5.3 litres for diesel cars. The 120 g/km objective was, informally, postponed to 2012.

The long-standing 120 g/km CO2 figure has always been an energy efficiency objective for new cars. The deadline for meeting it has already been postponed earlier from 2005 via 2010 to 2012.

Overall progress of the commitment: The commitment is not on track. Carmakers are not reducing CO2 emissions of their products fast enough to meet the automotive industry 140 g/km target by 2008/2009.

According to the study, 75% of carmakers are failing to cut emissions fast enough. Nissan is the worst performer in Europe followed by Suzuki, Mazda, Audi, Volvo, BMW and Volkswagen. These seven brands all cut emissions at less than half the rate needed to meet their commitment.

Fiat is the best performer in Europe, followed by Citroen, Renault, Ford and Peugeot. All five are on track to meet or exceed the target by 2008.

The study also found that Toyota, maker of the low-emission Prius hybrid, is failing to improve efficiency across its range at the rate needed.

The study concludes that if climate targets are to be met, companies must improve efficiency across their entire range. One or two very efficient models that sell in limited numbers are not enough.

On 19 April 2006, T&E presented the latest evidence of this - the progress of the commitment in 2005. The results are shown below.

Percent of Automotive Industry CO2 140 g/kmTarget Achieved:

YES:
Fiat - 140%
Citroen - 115%
Renault - 100%

ALMOST ON TARGET:
Ford - less than 96%
Peugeot - less than 95%

NO:
Opel/Vauxhaul - less than 82%
Toyota - less than 77%
Kia - less than 73%
Skoda - less than 72%
Seat - less than 64%
Honda - less than 61%
Mercedes-Benz - less than 60%
Hyundai - less than 58%
Volkswagen - less than 49%
BMW - less than 41%
Volvo - less than 40%
Audi - less than 36%
Mazda - less than 28%
Suzuki - less than 23%
Nissan - less than 21%

Source: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), UK and R.L. Polk Marketing Systems GmbH

CO2 g/km Emission Reduction 1997-2005:
Fiat - 30%
Citroen - 28%
Renault - 25%
Ford - 29%
Peugeot - 26%
Opel/Vauxhaul - 24%
Toyota - 26%
Kia - 32%
Skoda - 13%
Seat - 8%
Honda - 18%
Mercedes-Benz - 38%
Hyundai - 19%
Volkswagen - 11%
BMW - 23%
Volvo - 24%
Audi - 13%
Mazda - 9%
Suzuki - 4%
Nissan - 5%

Source: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), UK and R.L. Polk Marketing Systems GmbH

[Movie Guy]

More info here, primarily on the U.S. market.

Advanced heavy duty diesels
Clean Technologies Information Pool

*Note the chart on nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM).

New standards for heavy-duty diesels means more problems
Oct 6th 2006
Autoblog

U.S. Market - Diesel, Dirty No More

[Movie Guy]

Movie Guy: "The pattern of implementing vehicle emissions restrictions from the early 1960s or early 1970s forward caused a significant reduction in the fuel economy efficiencies of gasoline engines that automobile manufacturers had to overcome."

CORRECTION:

This statement should read: "The pattern of implementing vehicle emissions restrictions from the late 1960s or early 1970s forward..."

[piglet]

Movie Guy: "*Note the chart on nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM)."

This chart (thanks for the reference) cites comparable standards for US and EU for 2004/2005 (EU 2005 PM standard is actually 3.5 times stricter than US 2004). From 2007, the US standards are tightened dramatically, while the EU standards are not, which is of course what the Federation for Transport and Environment (a pressure group) is complaining about. This is quite surprising and I have no idea why European authorities chose to lag behind so badly on the Diesel front. What this however has to do with Americans currently consuming three times more fuel than Western Europeans is still a mystery. The new 2007 standards are certainly not to blame for that.

Re the Mercedes BlueTec: it will be introduced in Europe from 2008. Several reports statet hat this car is currently the only Diesel world-wide that conforms to the new US standard, but not to the stricter Californian standard. Does this mean there are currently no Diesel cars sold in the US except for mercedes BlueTec?

[piglet]

Here's an article that says that "Better car safety does not jeopardise emission reduction". From Transport & Environment, Movie Guy's favorite source ;-)
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Article274.html

[piglet]

To add some confusion:

"The big challenge is that the emissions control systems, which filter out nitrogen oxides and particulates, don't work well with today's U.S. diesel fuel, because our diesel fuel has a much higher sulfur content than Europe's. The EPA has mandated diesel fuel to be produced with lower sulfur content, but that change won't take full effect until 2006 and even then the fuel won't be comparable to Europe's fuel."

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/93338/article.html

[piglet]

"Real Person":

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest the answer is less about "conserving" gas, than about finding different ways to do the same thing. You either stay in the box and deal with what's there, or move outside the box, and actually look at alternatives, or things you might not have thought of previously. [Go ahead, look at alternatives!] A gas tax doesn't eliminate gas fees to the middle eastern sheikhs. Why should we worry about preserving their income?

To repeat what I said before, Americans are more busy with preserving the income of "middle eastern sheikhs" than anybody else on earth. It's up to you, folks. Stop whining and complaining and start conserving energy. Don't make fools of yourselves.

[Movie Guy]

piglet - "This is quite surprising and I have no idea why European authorities chose to lag behind so badly on the Diesel front. What this however has to do with Americans currently consuming three times more fuel than Western Europeans is still a mystery.

The new 2007 standards are certainly not to blame for that."

You have raised two different issues.

As I explained, improvements in emissions reduction do normally result in reduced fuel economy and increases in CO2 emissions. As further explained by Ford’s Dr. Gerhard Schmidt, reduction in engine emissions will likely result in further reductions in fuel economies, particularly with light duty diesel engines:

"Typically, reducing regulated emissions decreases fuel economy, which increases CO2 emissions. We're not talking small effects here either. An LNT system on a diesel vehicle currently consumes about 15% to 30% of the fuel economy advantage that diesel engines have over stoichiometric gasoline engines. This means that further reductions for passenger car emission standards in Europe need to be scientifically based, fully justified, cost effective, and not technology specific."

So, yes, improving engine emissions in the USA has on more than one occasion caused a reduction in fuel economy. No question.

Why is fuel economy worse in the USA than Europe? The answer is based on vehicle fleet demographics. Larger displacement engines generally burn more fuel, higher safety standards add more weight to vehicles, heavier vehicles using larger displacement engine burn more fuel, and tighter emissions requirements for other than CO2 emissions cause a further loss in fuel economy.

Of course, U.S. diesel engines will consume more fuel than European diesel engines of comparable engine displacement and load carrying requirements, considering that Europe is lagging behind on NOx and PM emissions. We can expect this trend to continue until Europe catches up. Same story for U.S. gasoline engines if such engines are carrying more load - vehicle curb weight, mass, air resistance, passengers, and cargo.

And, yes, U.S. travel patterns involve more long distance travel than in Europe.

[Movie Guy]

piglet - "Re the Mercedes BlueTec: it will be introduced in Europe from 2008. Several reports statet hat this car is currently the only Diesel world-wide that conforms to the new US standard, but not to the stricter Californian standard. Does this mean there are currently no Diesel cars sold in the US except for mercedes BlueTec?"

Appreciate that info, as I didn't know that. Are you sure that the engine will be a U.S. spec version?

I don't know what will happen with the VW fleet. The last time I followed up, U.S. EPA had denied its request for waiver and, subsequently, VW issued a press release stating that it would be able to satisify U.S. diesel engine emission requirements. I assume that VW is selling some diesel cars within the 2007 model line up. Right?

Yeah, I should know my stuff on this, but I don't.

[Movie Guy]

piglet,

Perhaps some the following information will assist in understanding why Europeans use less fuel with their vehicles.

Smaller vehicles, smaller displacement engines, a much higher percentage of diesel passenger cars in most European nations than in the USA, lighter vehicles by vehicle class, and greater use of bus and train transportation. All of these factors count toward fuel savings.

EUROPEAN MOTOR VEHICLES STATISTICS
2005, Anfac

PASSENGER CAR IN USE BY FUEL TYPE
Pages 31-36

Gasoline - Diesel - Other

Austria - 48.8% - 51.2%
Belgium - 49.0% - 49.5% - 1.5%
Czech Republic - 79.3%-17.8%-3.0%
Denmark - 91.1% - 11.3%
Finland - 87.5% - 12.5%
France - 52.3% - 47.7%
Germany - 77.9% - 21.9%
Great Britain - 80.3% - 19.6% - 0.1%
Greece - 98.9% - 1.1%
Ireland - 84.4% - 15.5%
Italy - 67.9% - 28.3% - 3.8%
Netherlands - 80.7% - 15.9% - 3.4%
Portugal - 81.0% - 19.0% (2003 data)
Spain - 58.3% - 41.7%
Sweden - 94.0% - 5.2% - 0.7%

PASSENGER CARS IN USE BY ENGINE CYLINDER CAPACITY
Pages 38-40

Engine size: 2000 c.c

Austria - 85.5% - 14.5%
Belgium - 89.2% - 10.8%
Germany - 84.5% - 15.5% (2004 data)
Great Britain - 86.3% - 13.7%
Greece - 98.0% - 2.0%
Ireland - 95.3% - 4.7%
Italy - 93.5% - 6.5%
Poland - 95.4% - 4.6%
Portugal - 97.0% - 3.0% (2003 data)
Spain - 90.4% - 9.6%

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN USE BY WEIGHT
Pages 42-47

Curb Weight: Up to 3.5 tons and Over 3.5 tons

Austria - 78.78% - 21.22%
Belgium - 76.86% - 23.14%
Denmark - 89.5% - 10.5%
Finland - 75.92% - 24.08%
France - 89.53% - 10.47%
Germany - 66.11% - 33.89%
Great Britain - 84.84% - 15.16%
Greece - 75.49% - 24.51%
Ireland - 86.94% - 13.06%
Italy - 75.27% - 24.73%
Latvia - 41.17% - 58.83%
Netherlands - 84.32% - 15.68%
Portugal - 88.42% - 11.58%
Spain - 90.66% - 9.34%
Sweden - 83.44% - 16.56%

DOMESTIC PASSENGER ROAD TRANSPORT
Pages 64-65

By passenger car, By coach and bus and By total kilometers

Billion Passenger Kilometers

Austria - 69.5 - 13.2 - 95.3 (2002 data)
Belgium - 109.9 - 13.7 - 124.6 (2004 data)
Denmark - 33.5 - 7.3 - 44.1
Finland - 61.9 - 7.5 - 69.4
France - 727.4 - 44.1
Great Britain - 679 - 48 - 797
Italy - 704 - 99 - 854
Portugal - ? - ? - 29.3
Spain - 109.9 - 332.0 - 397.1 (2003 data)
Sweden - 97.8 - 9.0 - 106.8

[Movie Guy]

Updates:

Smog-hit Milan tests vehicle ban
1 Feb 07

Activists, car firms unhappy with EU emission plans
6 Feb 07

"All the other measures, while we wouldn't say that they're not needed, should have been supplementary. They should have come on top of the 120 target rather than instead of (it)."

But the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), a lobby group, said 130 g/km figure was still too high and not the most cost effective way to curb climate change.

"We're very committed to fighting global warming together with every other participant," said ACEA spokeswoman Sigrid de Vries. "But putting the burden mainly on the car industry is too costly and not cost effective, and it will lead toward loss of jobs and manufacturing in Europe."

Porsche rails at emissions caps that favor Ghosn's smaller cars
6 Feb 06

Europe set to weaken key climate target for new cars
T&E, 7 Feb 07

Limits on vehicle emissions proposed by Europe
7 Feb 07

"A Renault spokesperson said the CO2 proposals would cost carmakers on average an extra €3000 (£2000) per vehicle and it remained to be seen how that extra cost would be dealt with."

[Movie Guy]

Updates:

Proposed CO2 emission targets are arbitrary and too severe
ACEA, 8 Feb 07; and here

"Reality will not just go away by denouncing it", says [ACEA's] Marchionne. "This is not the time for an ideological debate. The automotive sector forms the backbone of the European manufacturing industry, with thousands of smaller companies depending on a dozen major players. At least 12 million EU workers and their families count on a balanced policy on CO2 emissions from cars. The car industry does not want to be part of an experiment. If left unchanged, the Commission proposal would erode the economic strength of Europe."
"The ACEA notes finally that passenger car traffic accounts for 11% of CO2 emissions in the EU. Globally, passenger car traffic emits 5% of all man-made CO2. The European share of this is 1.5%, thanks to advanced European technology."

Car makers opposed to Europe's plan for lower emissions
9 Feb 07

"Australia's car exports have grown from 7 per cent of all cars made in 1990 to 38 per cent in 2005."

"The chief executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Peter Sturrock, described the European plan as "unrealistic and impractical" and said the Australian car industry was already doing enough to cut emissions."

"The draconian limits suggested by the EU are totally impractical from a commercial viewpoint and have been rejected by European car makers because of that," he said. "In Australia we have had significant improvements in fuel consumption and cleaner emission by 18 per cent throughout the decade and it's all through improved technology."

Germany's VDA welcomes relief for premium segment manufacturers in EC’s CO2 reduction plans
9 Feb 07

U.S. administration submits new CAFE standards bill to Congress
9 Feb 07

[Randy Park]

Gasoline prices are very ineleastic, which means that while increasing prices will reduce demand, prices have to go up a LOT to see much decrease. The actual number is -0.1 for the short term, so a 100% increase in price will see only a 10% reduction in demand.
Over the long term, if prices remain high, people will buy more fuel efficienct vehicles. But if prices go up and down they tend to believe that things will get back "to normal" and don't pay as much attention.
In Europe they know prices will be high, so they buy fuel efficient vehicles. Here in North America we are used to cheap gas, and expect prices to drop again - which they often do to some extent.
As to what people will pay, try the Gas Price Calculator at www.EnergyPredicament.com and see what you will pay for the convenience, comfort, and time savings of taking your own car. The median value that people will pay is 8 times current prices.