Should Australia introduce C.A.F.E laws

[EgoFG]

I dont have the option to add a poll, maybe someone else can, but until then I spose this is for discussion/opinion only.

Here is the Q.

Should a USA style Corperate Average Fuel Economy be introduced for cars sold new in Australia ?


In the USA there is a rule which factors in the type of car (Truck/commercial ...etc) and if any company excedes the CAFE fiqure then there is a $ penalty applied ($5.50 per 0.1 mpg multiplied by the total annual sales figure).
Here is a link with how it works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

[gmeup]

Considering USA is the number 1 ranked country in the world thatcontributes of the worlds total green houses and Australia is like something so small its not even 1%. I think we already do more than our fair share in looking after the interests of the environment. But hey if you want to pay for it be my guest, most aussies these days are driving fuel efficent cars anyway so the tax would only slug us the enthusiast.:bawl:

[Excellent]

No. But the sooner we have the USA's lemon laws the better.

I wonder if that's a slur on Holden's sales figures for VE/WM as a quarter comprise V8 sales in total.

[nang3]

what?? add more laws and regulations to an already over-regualted country? no thanks!

[EgoFG]

Considering USA is the number 1 ranked country in the world thatcontributes of the worlds total green houses and Australia is like something so small its not even 1%. I think we already do more than our fair share in looking after the interests of the environment. But hey if you want to pay for it be my guest, most aussies these days are driving fuel efficent cars anyway so the tax would only slug us the enthusiast.:bawl:

Yeah, I suppose that is a more likely consequence than the car companies being motivated to improve the economy of the fleet they sell.

[KCB50L]

If Krudd bought in something like cap and trade here, I'll move to China, where they love pollution.

[Jac001]

If you want people to drive more fuel efficient cars, then you just need to increase the price of fuel (ala Europe).

[Marco]

Depends on what you want to achieve. If you just want to reduce the amount of fuel used nationwide, jack the tax up on fuel. People will start using less quick smart.

If you want to do it in a way that doesn't hurt existing car owners, impose a tax on new cars (CAFE, gas guzzler tax, carbon tax etc). People will eventually use less fuel as they trade up to new cars, but it will take more time.

[deltak]

If you want people to drive more fuel efficient cars, then you just need to increase the price of fuel (ala Europe).

Oh so true. the USA has very little "tax" on petrol, Australia has a medium level of tax to control consumption [all for our own good of course!]. Europe has a much higher level of tax to choke the consumption of imported fuels.

In Europe the tax on diesel is less, that is why you will see more small, diesel manuals.

The actual cost of the fuels from the refineries arround the world is comparable, the "sin" tax is the difference.

[EgoFG]

The problem with a tax on fuel is that it does penalise the driver.
The benefit of penalising the manufacturer/importer based on real sales figures is that it is harder for them to simply pass on, and MAY act as a motivation towards more efficient cars.


As an interesting aside - I would like to see 'fuel efficient' defined in kW/l - ie power efficiency, not distance efficiency !

[Excellent]

The problem with a tax on fuel is that it does penalise the driver.
The benefit of penalising the manufacturer/importer based on real sales figures is that it is harder for them to simply pass on, and MAY act as a motivation towards more efficient cars.


As an interesting aside - I would like to see 'fuel efficient' defined in kW/l - ie power efficiency, not distance efficiency !

Why would you wan't to penalise the driver? If the car meets all emissions laws then there are no rules broken in buying a turbo or V8.

I read this morning that a quarter of Holden's sales are V8s. A CAFE type law would mainly penalise Holden as the increased taxes will drive buyers away.

Correct me if I'm wrong but CAFE was introduced because of LA's traffic congestion and smog problem. California is a state of over 50 million people and has a huge pollution problem. Other states of the USA are relatively smog free.

This problem does not apply anywhere near the extent to Australia's major cities. Come to think about it, Australia only has a population of 20 million people.

[EgoFG]

Why would you wan't to penalise the driver?
Agreed 100% - That was my point - fuel tax penalises the driver, CAFE does not - well not directly.



I read this morning that a quarter of Holden's sales are V8s. A CAFE type law would mainly penalise Holden as the increased taxes will drive buyers away.

Well yes and no. holden may loose sales if the non v8 portion of its fleet were not efficient enough to compensate only if no competitor's were in the same situation - but then ... if it was done by power effeciency, then it could apply across all Australian vehicals - Buses, Trucks, motorbikes and cars.

I love driving, and have driven more miles in cars with greater than 5l capacity than most. I dont want anyone denied the opportunity of experiencing driving with an engine.

[crYnOid]

The problem with CAFE is that it is a way for a government to look like it is doing something while doing nothing.

In the US increasing fuel taxes will lead to a very short political life for any politician that votes for increases. They want to be re-elected hence CAFE.

The best description about CAFE laws went something along the lines of 'CAFE is the equivalent of telling everyone that clothing over a certain size is no longer allowed to be produced, if you don't like it too bad'

What is going to happen in the US with these updated CAFE laws is that manufacturers are going to be forced to produce smaller, more efficient cars. This is fine if fuel prices are high, but currently they aren't. So what you end up with is demand for large cars being high but manufacturers can't produce them in sufficient numbers. Meanwhile small cars they are forced to produce sit unwanted and have to be moved with great discounts. Not good for making money that!

The only way for CAFE to work is for fuel prices to be high. Seeing as the prices won’t be going up because of tax, the only way for the price to go up is by high oil costs. SO the only way for CAFE to work is by getting screwed by OPEC! (or speculators) ouch!

Now the US gov. claim by bringing in stricter CAFE laws this will keep the price of fuel down by decreasing consumption, but IMO it will just force the manufacturer to stop producing cars that the market want and force smaller cars on them. Meanwhile the cost of fuel stays low and the US continues to burn through it as usual as it's cheap!

[Excellent]

Agreed 100% - That was my point - fuel tax penalises the driver, CAFE does not - well not directly.



I'm not sure we agree. We pay for the cost of the car to pass emissions testing. The manufacturer would pass that cost onto the consumer. In other words, we already get penalised on the cost of the car. We get penalised in taxes. The consumer is doing nothing illegal.

What you are effectively proposing, although you might be barking up the wrong tree while doing so, is a tax on engine capacity which roughly equates to forcing consumers to choose the path of fuel efficiency, yes?

I see no valid reason for such a radical change in automotive lifestyle. If the proposal is just a knee jerk reaction to the environment and automobiles, the results are still inconclusive, are they not?

One things for certain, CAFE is no answer. It might be good for California, but Australia? :confused:

[EgoFG]

I'm not sure we agree. We pay for the cost of the car to pass emissions testing. The manufacturer would pass that cost onto the consumer. In other words, we already get penalised on the cost of the car. We get penalised in taxes. The consumer is doing nothing illegal.

Emissions (more specifically distance economy) is already being tested - no extra burden there.

The car company does not (necessarily) know that the sale of a given car would put him over for the entire year.

The car company would only pass on the cost if he is able to. Competition would also come into play. A car company would only pass on costs if its competitors could also not meet the rules. Competition should (!) stop the consumer from feeling the pinch.

Remember what the alternatives being put forward are - carbon taxes and carbon trading (et al.).

[Party Pete]

I calclated the tax take per tonne of green house gas emitted the other day. It worked out to be $240 per tonne. So I think that the green house gas emmissions of cars is well and truly taxed now. Cafe rules are dumb because it taxes the theoretical emmissions of the car based on economy only but it doesn't take into account the miles actually driven. What's better for the environment, a v8 commodore doing 5000kms a year or a corolla doing 20000kms?

[Excellent]

What's better for the environment, a v8 commodore doing 5000kms a year or a corolla doing 20000kms?

I don't understand. What part of the car's emissions is actually pollution? Not the H2O, not the CO2 as both compounds are a natural part of the atmosphere, it must then be the NOX emitted.

What's the purpose of the original question as I'm not sure there isn't a political motive behind it as it can't be science driven?

[EgoFG]

Cafe rules are dumb because it taxes the theoretical emmissions of the car based on economy only but it doesn't take into account the miles actually driven. What's better for the environment, a v8 commodore doing 5000kms a year or a corolla doing 20000kms?

Agreed - and even then it is the theoretical distance economy figure - this tends to favour smaller engines - as these suffer in the real world (especially if more than one passenger).

I would love economy figures to be done with two people in each car !!

[Party Pete]

Sadly, the mainstrem view at themoment is that co2 is pollution and the cafe rules are applied in the us on that basis. The point still holds though that the emmissions of a car per annum is affected by miles travelled as well as emmissions per mile. It is just popular at the moment to blame everything on cars and big high performance in particular.

[Marco]

...which, again, is why it makes more sense to tax fuel than to impose CAFE regs if you're looking to cut fuel use. If I drive more km and use more fuel, I pay more fuel tax. Simple.

Of course, as I said before, this is a bit harsh on people who currently own inefficient cars, and very harsh on people who live in places with poor public transport.