Talk:Corporate average fuel economy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SaiwenZ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

update figure?[edit]

Hey, I would like to update the figure I posted near the top of the arciele File:CAFEStandard.png but I can not find more recent data. does anyone know if there is more recent data or why the NHTSA website "annual" reports do not continue past 2003? PDBailey (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final rule note 2011 standards[edit]

For the regular editors, the The U.S. Department of Transportation has released new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks for the 2011 model year here (in pdf format), just in case someone want to update the article. This is the final notice, only pending publication of the official version in a forthcoming Federal Register publication or on GPO's Web Site--Mariordo (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==CAFE image==اشبتثحيء # Insert non-formatted text here * Bulleted list item ===== {| class="wikitable" |- ! Header text !! Header text !! Header text |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |- | Example || Example || Example |} <gallery> <gallery> File:Example.jpg|Caption1 File:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery> <gallery> <gallery> File:Example.jpg|Caption1 File:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery> <gallery> <gallery> File:Example.jpg|Caption1 File:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery> <gallery> <gallery> File:Example.jpg|Caption1 File:Example.jpg|Caption2 </gallery> <gallery> ==== File:Example.jpg|Caption1 File:Example.jpg|Caption2 ==== * Bulleted list item # Numbered list item :Indented line :Indented line :Indented line :Indented line :Indented line :Indented line # Numbered list item # Numbered list item # Numbered list item # Numbered list item # Numbered list item # Numbered list item # Numbered list item </gallery> </gallery> </gallery> </gallery> </gallery> ===== The new cafe image is nicer because it contains light truck numbers and I think it should stay because of that. However, the source is listed as, "Own work." And this does not cut it. It would also be nice to have a table of values used. 018 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the description to clarify that the plot is based on US Government data published by NHTSA, EIA, and US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI. See NHTSA "Fuel Economy" and read the recent standards documents. EIA see "Gasoline". US Bureau of Labor Statistics see: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ EIA normed to 2000, I took the CPI ratio of 2008/2000 to renorm to 2008 because most people can still remember how much they paid in 2008. 2008 yearly gas price is the average of EIA weekly gas prices. Jimad (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimad, Can you please put this information with links in the image under "source". 018 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimad, where did you get the price prior to 1983? 018 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I updated it and added references to the figure itself. The figure also has the code to generate it again if anyone wants to update or improve it. 018 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPG is calculated differently for window stickers[edit]

"CAFE MPG" is based on the EPA mileage tests which are done in a laboratory under controlled conditions, using professional drivers and with the heater and air conditioing shut off. It's not the same as the combined city/highway MPG on the window stickers of new cars. The numbers on the window stickers are also based on the test results, but the numbers are adjusted downward to account for factors such as cold weather, air conditioning use, etc. See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06069.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GHamper (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increased oil and automobile usage[edit]

"However, associated costs, such as increased deaths, may be more than offset by savings on a global scale, because increased CAFE standards reduce reliance on increasingly expensive and unreliable sources of imported petroleum[50] and lower the probability of global climate change by reducing US emissions of carbon dioxide.

Does it really say that? Someone would actually justify loss of life with reduction in global warming? Seriously? So polar bears are more important than humans now? The Phool (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think global warming is about polar bears, or is that just a rhetorical trick? Ninahexan (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that one of the most vocal arguments against global warming has been the effect on polar wildlife, it seems that certain groups have decided that the lives of animals is more important than those of people. As for other arguments against global warming, have they even gone under any sort of objective critical scrutiny? Considering that scientists put their careers at risk by even suggesting a dissenting opinion, I doubt that anyone has even considered potential benefits of global warming, for example, millions of square miles of Canada, Alaska, and Russia would become usable farm land, potentially eliminating hunger. Once again, the potential risk to penguins, polar bears and baby seals somehow trumps this, even though there is no certainty that polar species would disappear if the ice caps were to melt. In fact, they have melted before, long before humans were even around to drive cars.The Phool (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So large areas will soon be arable... though you are confident that all the currently existing arable land will remain so after weather patterns change? You do not seem to have much familiarity with the processes of science if you think that climate change hypotheses have not undergone intense scrutiny. Sometimes it seems that climate change deniers are motivated by a strange David vs Goliath complex born out of the fact that they are made insecure by the intimidating notion that scientists are intelligent and that people listen to them. Have you considered the financial impact that will result from weather patterns shifting? From land lost to encroaching seas and oceans? The migration patterns caused by these shifts, and how these factors will influence the geopolitical world? To be under the impression that scientists are motivated by their desire to save animals is either ignorant or... well, deceit. Ninahexan (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some scientists are tainted by corporate and political interests. Corporations and governments that fund universities and research institutions sometimes get a say in interpretations and theoretical models of the data they produce, and then use that information to sway policymakers to advance an agenda. It's sad, but true. The animal argument is but one of many used to convince everyone that global warming is the worst catastrophe that could possibly happen. And of course, anyone who dares think critically about it is attacked or discredited. Did you know the oil companies are among the largest investors in "green" CO2 reducing technologies? If that doesn't raise a red flag, then nothing will. In any event, isn't manipulating climate change one or way or another a phenomenally bad idea anyway? However bad global warming might be, accidentally setting off an ice age would be far worse. And I'm actually quite familiar with the way science works. It's actually somewhat political as conclusions are reached by consensus; its not unlike Wikipedia, albeit far more formalized and complex. The Phool (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not familiar with the machinations of scientific research, you seem only to have your own opinion based on conspiracy theories and a sensationalist media (which ironically you decry as well). Scientists who are bound by their paycheques never get their work accepted in the scientific community unless they prove their independence and unbiased nature of their methodology. For you to suggest that there is something suspicious in oil companies investing in green technology displays pretty limited thought. What are they going to do when oil runs out? When other energies are becoming more cost effective? They are positioning themselves so that when oil runs out they can switch their markets to other areas... such as green technology. Really, haven't you thought about that? And suggesting that manipulating climate change is a bad idea is the same as you suggesting that manipulating a falling egg by catching it is a bad idea. Ninahexan (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As fuel efficiency rises, people drive their cars more"- Jevons paradox[edit]

This can not be supported. The Jevons paradox that this premise rests upon refers mostly to production and manufacturing. If a technology consumes a certain amount of energy manufacturing a steel alloy, for example, and the efficiency of this technology is advanced then the same amount of energy will be put in to produce a larger output, making that process more cost effective, therebyincreasing its use and ultimately this will lead to more consumption of the resource (energy). This is not the same as people driving their cars. Are they going to start aimlessly driving just because it is more efficient? This doesn't even approach the whole concept that the cost of the energy is increasing all the time. If there are both advances in technology that increase efficiency, coupled with a rise in the cost of the energy that technology consumes, then an increase in use would end up in an increase in energy consumption , which would end up costing more! To give an example, if a machine eats $100 worth of energy to produce $150 worth of goods in one hour, and the cost of that energy increases to $150 for an hour, then the efficiency must be increased to allow for $225 (to retain the profit margin) of goods to be produced in one hour. This example is for industry, whereas for automobile use there won't be any use in increasing the distance travelled just because it is more efficient, it will only really result in the journey costing less, with less carbon emitted. Applying Jevons paradox doesn't seem to be valid, though someone might have a convincing argument. Ninahexan (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I deleted this New Loophole Created by 110th Congress[edit]

It claimed "Title I, Subtitle A, Section 104 expands the fuel economy credit trading provisions." There was not a credit trading program in the original EPCA, and the EIPA only allows the secretary of transportation to establish a credit trading system if he/she wishes. Section stated "Under the original CAFE statute enacted in the 1970s, the UAW was concerned that manufacturers would move small car production overseas to take advantage of the lower labor costs. The union fought for and won a provision that required separate calculations for domestically produced and imported passenger cars. Section 104 undoes this provision contained in the original statute." This is not true. See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:8:./temp/~c110MCkZJ5:e24625: just before paragraph (b) Article stated: "According to calculations using the proposed standards contained in the President Obama's recent proposal and extending these proposed standards, 75% of the benefit from these two new CAFE credit trading provisions, cross fleet trading and 5-year carry-forward, falls to foreign manufacturers" Which Obama proposal is he referring to? Can't be EIPA that was under Bush. Assertions and statistics not cited. "Ninety-eight percent of the benefit derived from cross fleet trading flows to Toyota" 98% is so ridiculously high as to be laghable, again not cited. The rest of the section contains uncited and poorly explained statistics.--Kailer2 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kailer2:
You may not like the calculations or understand how to duplicate them but that does not change the fact that the calculations are accurate. The methodology for performing a CAFE calculation is well documented. I have added the citations to the NHTSA data used to perform the calculations and the NNPRM that proposed new standards for 2012 through 2016. Estimates of CAFE performance for future model years was taken from NHTSA assumptions in the last two NPRMs (car and truck). Sales were from the same sources. People often mock what they do not understand. Your link to Thomas was not active so I do not know your source for stating that the UAW was not involved in the domestic/import fleet debate; I was there and I know this is accurate. If you doubt this call Alan Reuter at the UAW. While it is true EISA (not EIPA) was enacted under Bush, it was sponsored by Senator Feinstein, and Senator Reid proposed the amendment adding this section and then Senator Obama along with most of the Democrats in the 110th Congress voted for the amendment and final passage of the statute. You can verify this on Thomas.
As for the comment that there was no crediting program in the original CAFE, the correct term of art should have been "banking" and not "trading". Three year banking was a part of CAFE from its inception. Not many people understand the difference between banking and trading. You are correct, I should have used the term banking at that point in the text.
A simple way to grasp the enormity of the credit loophole is to look at the difference in CAFE performance vis-a-vis the standards for each manufacturer. Today, all these unused excess "credits" - actual fuel economy minus the standard times the sales volume - expire to the good of the environment. Under the provisions authorized by the 110th Congress, automobile companies are allowed to use these credits to off-set shortfalls in their other fleets subject to certain restrictions. EPA has stated in the preamble to the proposal that it expects automobile companies to avail themselves of these new flexibilities. In order to get to the actual benefit from the new "flexibilities" as NHTSA calls them. As for the reference to President Obama, he announced the fuel economy changes May 19, 2009. You can verify this on whitehouse.gov.
The dollar value is predicated on the net credits times the NHTSA estimate of the cost of one mpg increase in CAFE.
EnCM (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EnCM:
Respecfully, it is not enough to do the calculations yourself, you must cite a published source where these numbers come from. Furthermore, I suspect that you hav POV issues as you are very clearly involved with the UAW. I'll be happy to allow some collaboration between us to get an objective section about the secrataries discretionary powers to establish a credit trading scheme, but I suspect we may end up in arbitration.
1. ``Loophole" is too pejorative I suggest renaming it Credit Trading Provision.
2. None of your numbers have citation. The numbers themselves, not the method used to create them, must come from a published source. You have not provided them so I have removed these statistics. There is no chance that 98% of the benefit of a credit trading scheme will fall to toytota. That number is way too high, laughably so.
3. The trading program envisioned is that contained in updated final rule for 2011 (march 09)It explicitly states that manufacturers may not used transfered or traded credits to meet the minimum passenger standard, but may use them to meet the attribute based standard, this should be mentioned.
4. Such a trading scheme will not take effect until 2011, thus any mention of the trading provision should be either under the section on effect of EISA, or under the "Future" section, it does not merit it's own section, however I will wait until we have agreed on what should be said before I suggest we move it.--Kailer2 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kailer2:
The UAW reference occurs earlier in the text on CAFE, I repeat it in the new section because it is relevent. It is not a point of view. And NO I am not involved with the UAW. I do however understand CAFE and have spent over 30 years the studying CAFE and its impact on automotive companies. All of my numbers have citations. The calculations using officially supplied numbers are what you do not understand. The base numbers (sales and CAFE estimates) come from NHTSA and you can get them from their web page; anyone with an understanding of CAFE calculation methodology can duplicate them. I conceed that there are only a handfull of people who truly understand CAFE and an almost infinite number who have opinions on CAFE. But the information I added is not opinion but or a POV but fact based on the official US government information.
As for doing the calculations myself, there are numberous citiations including graphs tables and calculations that come from contributors within the WIKI community.
And yes, I agree that the benefit to Toyota is incredibly high. It is not a fault of the calculation that Toyota gets such a large break but an inherent problem with the enabeling legislation and regulations. Your rationale for deleting the section is merely your POV that the numbers are laughingly high. You can confirm the calculation easily instead of just laughing at it using the methodology cited and the official government data which is also cited. You keep trying to shoot the messenger. I did not authorize the legislation, nor did I have anything to do with it. I am just trying to explain in plain English what the legislation did.
Looking at NHTSAs projections for Toyota contained in the public docket, Toyota will not likely use their new credits in their passenger car fleet to meet the minimum standards but in their light truck fleet. Thus your suggestion that the default minimum passenger car standards contained in the regulation somehow limit the usefulness of the credits does not appply to any manufacturer. You can verify this by following the methodology to its logical conclusion.
It is a fact that the foreign companies worked with the environmental community and Senator Feinstein to develop the legislation. If you don't believe this just do a search of Michael Stanton supporting fuel economy increases and specifically this legislation. (Mike heads the trade association representing foreign automakers) There were numberous articles written during the period leading up to passage that confirmed that foreign companies supported the legislation and worked with the key legislators to achieve its passage. And yes, I agree that this provision was insiduously clever. A fact confirmed by your inability to grasp the magnitude of the opening created. This provision in the legislation harms the ennvirnment and allows companies to circumvent the spirt of the legislation.
The WIKI definition of a loophole is:
"A loophole is a weakness or exception that allows a system, such as a law or security, to be circumvented or otherwise avoided. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security."
I did not create the term, but it clearly applies in this instance.
As for the location of the comment, it is under EISA which I thought was an appropriate place.
EnCM (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a third party to weigh in on this. I contend that since these statistics are not from a published source they are inadmissible. Further, I contend that this information does not warrant its own section.--Kailer2 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

Rico -- who's edited Wikipedia since 2004, and is more familiar with its policies, guidelines and major essays than the average Wikipedian -- wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a sentence or two below.

I have read through this entire thread.
Please be civil and engage in absolutely no personal attacks.
That would rule out describing an editor's edits as "laughable", ad hominem arguments (e.g., "you are very clearly involved with the UAW"), and assertions about the other editor that cannot be substantiated without mind-reading ability (e.g., "you may not like the calculations or understand," or "a fact confirmed by your inability to grasp").
Opinions that contradict, diminish, downplay or trivialize Wikipedia's policies and guidelines -- which are the results of consensus -- would probably be unhelpful.
Furthermore, do both parties agree to be civil and act in good faith?
Also, please confirm the dispute involves only two editors.
Finally, if there's anything that both editors can agree on, it might be really beneficial to include that -- like, "get an objective section about the secretary's discretionary powers to establish a credit trading scheme." -- Rico 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by RicoCorinth
....

Two Future sections?[edit]

Why do we have two "future" sections? Shouldn't we merge them together? FstrthnU (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is quite outdated[edit]

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

Re Polar Bears vs. Human Lives[edit]

70,000 humans are estimated to have died in Europe during the 2003 heat waves. So this is not an issue of "Polar Bears vs. Human Lives." It is an issue of "Polar Bears AND Human Lives." Scientific Consensus view of American Climate Scientists on these kinds of issues can be found at [1] Jimad (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re update figure[edit]

I find newer data for this figure at [2] Jimad (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the analysts take into account Jevon's Paradox? (Increased efficiency leads to increased consumption...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.9.250 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emissions[edit]

I have removed the assertion However, the US and Canada have the toughest emissions requirements (in terms of parts per million of pollutants). Some higher-mileage vehicles in Europe would not meet US (and California) emissions standards. The assertion is not apposite to the topic of this article, which is fuel economy regulation. Moreover, the statement is not accurate. In fact there is a very significant window of overlap between the EU and US emissions standards, but because the test protocols are radically different, there are noncompliances in both directions. That is, there are vehicles that pass the US certification tests but fail the EU approval tests, and there are vehicles that pass the EU approval tests but fail the US certification tests, which overall emit about the same amounts of the various pollutants. For the most part, this does not indicate that EU vehicles are permitted to emit more of any particular pollutant, or more pollution in general, than US vehicles. It is simply down to significant differences in test protocol. The obvious next question, of course, is why test protocol differences should prevent automakers from producing vehicles clean enough to pass both tests. The answer is that the calibrations and configurations needed to meet one specific test protocol often run a vehicle afoul of the other test protocol. Emission certification (US) or approval (EU) tests cannot possibly cover every last combination of engine speed, load, vehicle speed, atmospheric pressure, etc., so the protocols consist of test conditions representative of common operational modes. This is where the differences come in: What is considered "representative" and what is considered "common" depends largely on who is writing the test protocol, and the regulatory philosophy behind it. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to compare US vs. EU emissions standards and arrive at an assertion with any veracity that one or the other standard is significantly more or less stringent.

But even if we were to assume for the purpose of debate that the two test protocols were identical and the EU and US standards differed from each other only in that the EU standards permitted a higher level of pollution to issue from each vehicle's tailpipe, a confounding issue would still prevent a decisive statement on emissions, for the EU average road vehicle fuel economy is roughly double that of the US. This means they burn roughly half the fuel per distance unit travelled. Even if the US tailpipe emission standard were twice as stringent as the EU standard (which is nowhere near realistic even for our hypothetical thought exercise here), the questions remain: Is it better or worse to have the pollution come from the process of extracting, transporting, refining, and distributing oil rather than from a vehicle tailpipe? And, is a slightly more permissive tailpipe emission standard acceptable or perhaps even desirable if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions? Regulatory philosophy is not so simple as it seems on first glance. Unless we are prepared to decide that it's is a subtopic appropriate for this article, the statement I removed ought to stay out. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on traffic safety[edit]

Scheinwerfermann, John Nevard, Could you please explain how traffic-related death rate is not relevant/apposite for CAFE article? Effect on traffic safety is the biggest argument against CAFE in the debate. For example see Forbes just two day old article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/16/new-auto-fuel-economy-standards-will-regulate-us-to-death/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yegort (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much what you're saying, but how you're saying it. There's nothing the matter with your concept, but your implementation is problematic—your approach is more akin to a shotgun than to a fountain pen. In the first place, "Effect on traffic safety is the biggest argument against CAFE in the debate" is not adequate justification for throwing any ol' statement about vehicle safety into this article. By that sort of shotgun logic, any statement about anything could be put into any article. Fortunately, this being an encyclopædia, there's an article for whatever which specific aspect of whatever which idea you care to name, and if you happen to name one for which there's no article, you can start one with just a few mouse clicks. In this case, we've got articles like NHTSA and Automobile safety and Road traffic safety and Gas Guzzler Tax which, individually and together, cover the significant facts you have in mind. I agree with you that these facts are germane to this present article, but concisely rather than at great length (we need to stay on topic), integrated into the text as a whole rather than as standalone lumps of text, and not as assertions with no specific reliable support. Using edit summaries or a discussion here on the talk page to point at nearby support for other assertions isn't adequate. Questionable assertions must be verifiable, and the way we do that is with references to reliable sources. I've incorporated your points into the text and added appropriate refs and links to relevant articles, so I don't imagine there's grist for disagreement here, what do you think?
Of much greater concern is this edit you made (since undone) which consists entirely of original research, questionable-at-best synthesis, advocacy, and personal essay apparently written from your own point of view. There's not a citation to be found in the whole thing, and I daresay it would probably be difficult to come up with adequate support for many of the assertions. This is not acceptable material for an encyclopædia. It's simply not what we do here. We are writing an encyclopædia, not a blog post or an opinion piece or a position paper or anything else. Your passion and knowledge on the topic of CAFE is very definitely welcome and the improvements you are bringing to the article are real and are valued, but please try to make your contributions in accord with basic principles of Wikipedia. And while we are on the topic, sign your comments properly on talk pages. It's rude not to. It's easy, just type four tildes in a row ~~~~ and Wikipedia will automagically convert that into a proper signature. Please and thank you and you're welcome. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that one piece that you mention is an original research although it was not my intent. I do not agree with your statement that it did not have "support for many of the assertions" - it did contain 5 references to Wikipedia articles that supported my facts but I now I see and do agree that the conclusion was my original research. All my other edits were on topic and not an original research and all contained references. What got me really upset that you simply undo them. :( If you do not like the style - rewrite it (I am fine with how you edited them at the end). But simply to undo them is not acceptable - it is rude. Please do not do it anymore. You either say it is not on the topic / rewrite it or leave it - undoing the text that is on topic is just rude. The same goes to my last edit - I added the reference - it is on topic - you simply undid it again. If the reference written not properly but on topic - change it but do not undo it. Thank you for your cooperation. Yegort (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yegort, thanks for participating in this discussion. We are writing an encyclopædia here. We're doing it coöperatively. Uncoöperative contributions, even those made with the best of intent, make extra work for others, which is never appreciated. That is probably why you are feeling unappreciated. Please take the time to study up on the differences between links (to other Wikipedia articles) and references (to external reliable sources). We do not use other Wikipedia articles as "references" -- that's not what they are. If there's material in another article that's relevant to an article you're working on, link appropriately to that article — either in the body text or as a "See Also" or "Main Article" link at the top of a section, or as an entry in a "See Also" or "Further Reading" list at the bottom of the article. If there are referenced sources in another article that support assertions in the article you're working on, the right thing is to grab those references and place them as references in the article you're working on, just the same as they're used in whichever article you find them in. Of course you have to check and make sure the ref you're duplicating actually supports whatever assertion you're making in the article you're working on. If the assertion is similar or identical to the assertion supported by the ref in question in the other article, you're probably on firm ground.
As for the paragraph you added: You assert it "contained 5 references", but take another look; it actually contains no references at all. Links to other Wikipedia articles, no matter how they are formatted, are not references. It was in fact pure synthesis, advancing your apparently original claim that CAFE was responsible for an improvement in traffic safety. That is the thesis I think you would have a great deal of difficulty supporting adequately. It is easily and robustly supported that traffic safety has improved since the mid-1970s, but you give every appearance of believing (and asserting) that this improvement is due to CAFE. That assertion of correlation is the difficult-to-support bit. Fact is, there are lots of factors that have contributed to the improvement in traffic safety since the mid-1970s. The stringency of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards has progressively increased as has the state of the art in vehicle safety engineering and construction. Seatbelt usage rates have been climbing. Drunken-driving tolerance has been tightened legally and socially. Tires are better. Brakes are better. Headlights are better. Roads and road signs are better. Moreover, as we agree, the improvement in traffic safety has been greater in countries other than the U.S., therefore with no influence from CAFE. So it is probably fatuous to claim that CAFE, per se, is responsible for an improvement in traffic safety. Do you understand now the basic trouble with the paragraph you added? —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scheinwerfermann, thanks for your comment. I am trying to learn how to contribute in a better way so not to create a work for others. A good example would be helpful, not "undo". I already agreed that the conclusion of the paragraph in question was my original. But I still do believe that introduction of CAFE indirectly lead to the rapid improvements in car safety. Before and of 70s car safety moved very slowly - air bags were introduced in 1971 but got a wide use only in the late 80s when car safety become all important to everyone. Cars become smaller in the late 70s in the response to CAFE and car mortality started to climb apparently. Car safety has become all important and car safety started to advance rapidly to the point that the cars today are twice as safe as in mid 70s. It was US who first introduced the crash test ratings in 1979 so US had the lead in car safety. Europe initially just followed. Europe car safety right now is much better than US for one reason only Fuel Economy regulations - most European cars are 1000 kg - 1500 kg with majority 1200 kg, US cars are 1000 kg - 2000 kg with equal distribution in the 1000 - 2000 kg range. It is more probably that people will die in 2000 kg against 1000 kg collision than 1200 kg against 1200 kg. So there are more moralities from multiple vehicles collisions in US.Yegort (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "I still do believe that introduction of CAFE (…) [led] to the rapid improvements in car safety" is a fine illustration of the problem. In this encyclopædia, the standard for inclusion of an assertion is not what we believe or prefer or think or know (or think we know), it's what we can prove by reference to reliable sources. You will simply have to come up with at least one good, solid reliable source saying that CAFE led to improved vehicle safety or it cannot be included here, full stop. Correlation does not imply causation. Your beliefs regarding why European car safety is better than that of the U.S., likewise, may be your own belief, your own opinion, your own conclusion, but unless and until you can robustly support it, it cannot be asserted here. Your point about the effect of vehicle mass differential on crash results is a good one, as far as it goes, and you might be able to find some good support for a narrower range of vehicle weight having an effect on roadway safety, but it wouldn't belong in this article.

I am providing good examples of how to include references and links -- study them. Your objection seems to be that I remove your contribution before I fix it. You would have a valid gripe if I were removing your contributions and just leaving them out for weeks or days or even hours, but that's not what's happening, so please have a little flexibility and assume good faith. Please read this page. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explanation :) Yegort (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I do not understand. In my opinion "List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate" link is very appropriate in "the US traffic fatality rate and its trends over time are worse than that of other first world nations" sentence as it shows the current statistics for most of the countries. I inserted it as a Wikipedia link in the body of the text. Why did you remove it?Yegort (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article link with parentheses wrapped around it is kinda schlock, don't you think? —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used parentheses because it was an additional link that clarified the statement ("Use parentheses to enclose words or figures that clarify" http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp) but I am fine with your edition - thank you! :) Yegort (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Pardo Martinez's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Pardo Martinez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


This document is adequate in energy field


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Pardo Martinez has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Clara Ines Pardo Martinez, 2010. "Energy efficiency in the automotive industry evidence from Germany and Colombia," SERIE DE DOCUMENTOS EN ECONOMIA Y VIOLENCIA 007582, CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES EN VIOLENCIA, INSTITUCIONES Y DESARROLLO ECONOMICO (VIDE).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Increased automobile usage[edit]

Quote

However, associated costs, such as increased deaths, may be more than offset by savings on a global scale, because increased CAFE standards reduce reliance on increasingly expensive and unreliable sources of imported petroleum[64] and lower the probability of global climate change by reducing U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide.

Unquote

Deaths offset by savings? How much is a life worth?

Lower the probability of global climate change? Delay global climate change might be more appropriate.

I don't like vague savings to be compared to something like a death. If you are going to compare we should decide how much is a child, husband, wife worth in dollars? How much in kilograms of CO2? 24.138.60.176 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CAFE outside the United States[edit]

Surely the EU (and Japanese, and other) fleet CO2 emissions legislation should be considered equivalent to CAFE?

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en

https://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/improving-conversions-between-passenger-vehicle-efficiency-standards

"Most governments of countries (or, in the case of the European Union, regions) with large auto markets regulate passenger vehicle fuel efficiency or CO2 emissions (essentially the same thing, since CO2 emissions are directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.149.220 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a European emission standards article and even the Emission standard article needs to be improved.Besselfunctions (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Trump's 2020 changes might have gotten rolled back[edit]

Might want to update the article to reflect this. I'd do it myself, but my source Associated Press: New vehicles must average 40 mpg by 2026, up from 28 mpg doesn't explicitly mention CAFE. I'd like someone more knowledgeable to look it over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporate_average_fuel_economy&oldid=1206796563"