Chinese Fuel Economy Laws
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada 
on 07.25.05
Lately, the economy of China has been growing at a rate usually reserved for credit card debt. Their energy consumption has also been going through the roof, and since oil is getting more expensive and harder to find all the time, the Chinese have devised an oil strategy in 2002 to try to mitigate and delay potential problems as much as possible. Part of it is strict fuel economy regulations, the first phase of which has come into force this year. 38 miles per gallon (mpg) for lighter cars and 19 mpg for the heavier trucks. In 2008, these standards will rise to 43 mpg and 21 mpg respectively. I can't remember how long it took for fuel economy standards to rise by 5 mpg in the US; I suspect it's because I haven't been born for long enough. Another advantage of the Chinese regulations is that the fuel economy standards apply to each individual vehicle and not to fleet averages, which makes it harder for automakers to create a few poor-selling fuel efficient cars while they sell gas-guzzlers by the truckload.
Because the Chinese standards apply to each individual vehicle, rather than a vehicle class average as in the United States, American automakers may struggle to sell their vehicles, especially oil thirsty trucks, in the Chinese market. China is not stopping with efficiency requirements. They are also purchasing hybrids from abroad for immediate use and developing their own hybrid and fuel cell designs and manufacturing capabilities for the future. Already one of the largest markets for alternative fuel vehicles, they are the third largest ethanol producer in the world and are committed to expanding their fleet of natural gas- and biofuel-powered vehicles.
Lets hope that pressure coming from the emerging Chinese automakers will be enough, along with the pressure already coming from the Japanese, to make American carmakers and government move faster in the direction of energy conservation and efficiency. Where are the plug-in hybrid prototypes?
::China's Energy Strategy: A Lesson for the United States? , via ::Is Our Auto Industry Learning?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
- Stop the Consumption of Tiger Parts and Save the Bengal Tiger Now
- Feed 8 Friends for Under $100 with this Green Frugal Feast: Sustainable Fish Fry
- Got Guts? Stand Up to Summer Heat Without Air Conditioning
- 7 Easy Vegan Recipes to Get You Through Your First Week of Veganism
- Green Your Bikini Waxing Routine with Soy, Pine Sap and Organic Bikini Wax
38mpg is still pathetically inefficient. There are many many cars here in Europe that will achieve 50-60mpg on diesel. And now with new diesel fuels coming from bio sources - see your article :: Green Diesel: Plant Carbohydrate-Based Fuel. Surely this is where we should be heading until hydrogen fuel cell technology and fuel delivery networks are in place.
38 mpg seems to be a *minimum* for China. I'm sure they also have cars that do a lot more than that and as well as these European cars you talk about.
As much as you may want to believe that the Chinese Fuel Economy standards are this aggressive, the facts are somewhat different. Working in the auto industy in China, I am quite familar with the fuel consumption legislation here. The Chinese Phase one standard which took effect in 2005 (standard GB19578-2004) requires fuel consumption of 7.2L/100km (equivalent to 33mpg) for cars with masses under 600kg, but such cars are very rare in China. Larger cars are permitted to use more fuel, and for a typical compact car (like a Corolla) the requirement is 9.5L/100km (or 25mpg). The newer standards starting 2008, are slightly more strict - about 27mpg for a compact car. I have no idea where the numbers you used in thie story come from, but they are very far from the truth.
Mike - just realized that you are in Canada, so that you are used to Imperial gallons. My conversions from L/100km to mpg assumed U.S. gallons so you'd need to correct for that. In China, of course, the rules are in SI units. This still leaves a huge gap between the numbers you quote and the actual regulations.