![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 (Feb 2004—June 2008) |
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)
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)
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)
==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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why do we have two "future" sections? Shouldn't we merge them together? FstrthnU ( talk) 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I find newer data for this figure at [2] Jimad ( talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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· C 04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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· C 22:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article link with parentheses wrapped around it is kinda schlock, don't you think? — Scheinwerfermann T· C 22:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 15:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf102/480389_web.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1341When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
"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)
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)