The message box on the page allows a free form letter. I think treehuggers should get on there and use the form to urge congress to pass the higher fuel economy standards.

Also, the arguments on there are ridiculous. If there really is demand for vehicles that can carry 7 people and all their crap, then those vehicles will be made regardless of fuel economy standards.

"Automakers contend the proposal would threaten jobs and reduce the numbers of vehicles that consumers can choose."

American automakers have time and again shown that they are very much against improved mpg features. I think that the US auto companies are not meeting the needs of the American people by taking this attitude and, in the long run, are bound to lose customers to foreign automakers who do have public interests at heart. With each gas guzzler they manufacture, they are just pounding an extra nail into their own coffin.

Actions of our auto industry today will be the source of future jokes.

adrianakau@aol.com

My God! Yes, we need to take this over and fill in our own messages. I just sent the following through their form:

Dear Senator,

This organization and its goals present a danger to the future stability of this country. I needn't tell you that the US must take hard and fast action to lessen our dependence on foreign fossil fuels as well as fossil fuels in general.

The idea that raising fuel economy standards will somehow hurt those who wish to buy large, 7+ passenger vehicles with huge towing and hauling capacity is absurd. Any price increase in these vehicles caused by the implementation of technology to raise their mileage will be more than offset by the amount of fuel saved. This ROI will be very fast for those who truly use these vehicles for what they were designed for. Those who do not will simply pay more for the privilege and freedom to drive what they want.

Please vote to enact the new mileage standards and bring our great country closer to the ultimate goal of energy independence.

The rest of you should go and do the same NOW!

The only problem with CAFE increases is the amount of time it will take before any real change will be seen in the fuel usage of the American vehicle fleet. Let me explain for those that think CAFE is a great Idea:

1) The median age of a passenger vehicle in the US is almost 9 years. So a new car today may well be used for 18 years, more considering that cars are better built now than in the early 90's which would be some of the oldest cars in the current "fleet". That 35 MPG CAFE doesn't kick in for over a decade. So we won't get the 35 MPG average in the vehicle fleet for about another 25-30 years years or more. Consumer demand for higher MPG would bring this about much quicker.

2) Fuel in the US has been cheap for a long time. That has lead people into making what we consider poor vehicle choices and driving habits. Long commutes, driving everywhere etc. Sure people complain about the current fuel prices but they've seen them go back down and assume they will again. That is all built into the vehicle buying decision.

My point is that higher fuel taxes like those in Europe will bring about change faster. Of course politicians don't have the guts to do what's needed to change peoples behaviour. If people knew that fuel will not drop in price and perhaps ramp up in price over a few years to $5-6 a gallon they will be lining up to buy hybrids and other fuel efficent vehicles. This demand would force the automakers to give the people what they want.

=== author's response follows ===
Agree.

Only a bad hurricane season will open the feedback loop fast enough to get people out of denial.

Amory Lovins plotted CAFE standards against fleet average mileage and tested for correlation...there was no relationship. What did correlate was the permeation of Japanese made high quality, hihg mileage cars into the market. One plausible scenario would be for this to be repeated with hybrids, as fuel prices continuously escalate.

The median age of a passenger vehicle in the US is almost 9 years.

No, the median age of a passenger car is almost 9 years. The median age of light vehicles is under 8.

So a new car today may well be used for 18 years

It also may be used for 2 years. Since the median age of light vehicles is around 16 years, you're overstating things here as well.

more considering that cars are better built now than in the early 90's which would be some of the oldest cars in the current "fleet".

No way to say whether that will happen or not.

That 35 MPG CAFE doesn't kick in for over a decade. So we won't get the 35 MPG average in the vehicle fleet for about another 25-30 years years or more.

The standards won't just leap to 35 mpg overnight, so you'll see a gradual ratcheting up of average fuel economy for the US fleet.

My point is that higher fuel taxes like those in Europe will bring about change faster. Of course politicians don't have the guts to do what's needed to change peoples behaviour.

Then why bring it up? Isn't it better to cheer on change that is possible instead of complaining that the "impossible" will never occur? Perhaps you could suggest a solution which is workable.

One more thing, but you need to acknowledge as well that the older vehicles get, the less they get driven, so that things like median age and median lifetime will skew your assumptions about how quickly fuel economy changes for new vehicles will filter into the total fleet average.

For example, passenger cars 7 years and younger make up 48% of the passenger car fleet but 60% of the vehicle miles. It's even more skewed for light trucks.

Tim Russell says that he has problems with CAFE because it will take so long to have an effect.

The problem with raising fuel taxes to cause quicker change is that it will never happen. Political 'necessity' will prevent anyone from doing it till straights are indeed dire.

So CAFE improvements in 20-30 years? Or tax incentives never? I like CAFE.