"Feebates" For Fuel Economy?



Back Issue Index
 
  MAGAZINE
Purpose  
Digital Magazines  
Sample Articles  
Magazine Index  
Buyer's Guide  
Technical FAQ  
Dodge/Cummins History  
Dodge RAM TSB's 
Subscribe/Renew  
Request Free Issue  
Gift Subscription  
Buy Back Issues  
Buy TDR Logo Items  
Advertising  
TDR Advertisers  
Membership Drive  
 
  ARTICLE CATEGORIES
TDR - Back Issues
TDR - Calendar
TDR - Chapter Events
TDR - Distinguished Recognition
TDR - Magazine
TDR - Vendor Spotlight
Events - General Diesel
Miscellaneous Rants and Insights
Press Releases
Technical Information
 
News Archive
 
Search  


Advanced Search 		 
 
Already a member?

Login here:
Username:
Password:
 

 
 »  Home  »  Blogs  »  "Feebates" For Fuel Economy?
Ken Freund

I’ve always been crazy about anything with an engine.

After years of pestering my father, he finally let me drive a car - at nine years of age. At 14 I taught myself to drive stick shifts and then how to ride motorcycles. Later, I also learned to fly and have had my pilot’s license for 22 years. Working on, riding, driving, restoring, photographing and writing about all these wonderful machines has always been my passion. I've been an auto vo-tech and smog test instructor, certified master technician, vehicle inspector, shop foreman, service manager, service director, and shop owner. Over the years I’ve owned about 35 bikes and 50 cars and trucks, a lot of which I wish I had never sold!

 

View all blogs by Ken Freund...
"Feebates" For Fuel Economy?
By Ken Freund | Published  12/21/2007

The cost of fuel has become a significant consideration for many of us to the extent it affects where we drive, commuting and even where we go on vacation or whether we tow an RV trailer. Not long ago, ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva gave a wide-ranging speech before the Detroit Economic Club in which he said that our nation must reduce its demand for transportation fuels. Mulva added that new technology and reducing the number of miles traveled would help cut fuel use. He also said we should consider a surcharge on less fuel-efficient vehicles and a rebate on more fuel-efficient models. This is known as a "feebate." The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing many major automakers, opposes the idea of feebates, calling them an unfair tax on consumers who want or need larger vehicles.

Higher fuel prices have spurred the development of alternative fuels and energy sources. I think we can all agree that it would be nice if we could reduce our use of petroleum and our dependence on imported fuels.

However, what do you think should be done to curb our energy consumption, or find alternate sources? Should it be market based, legislated, or what?
Post a comment about this blog
1 2 3 4 5
Poor Excellent
Add comment
Comments

  • Comment #1 (Posted by Mike Kenison)

    The government should give tax credits for high mileage cars. Electric cars are going to be the future. The Technology will develope and i hope electric cars will become common. High oil prices will drive the development of electrics, but we should have never had high oil, because we should have had the EV1 years ago. And when oil drops, after concervation and alternative methods take hold, we need to continue the effort to move to renewables. We should not forget the way we forgot about the oil embargo in the 70's.
     
  • Comment #2 (Posted by Nate)

    The solution is simple, place a CAP on the CEO,s salary.
     
  • Comment #3 (Posted by Bob)

    I'm quite sure when the "oil companies" become an "energy company" then instead of paying high prices for gas/diesel (oil products), we'll be paying higher prices for replacement battieries, or whatever the "replacement" is.

    Our nation is growing population-wise as is the world, we will be using more energy, not less.

    It needs to be affordable for the masses.

    I'd rather ride a horse than a crowded bus!
     
  • Comment #4 (Posted by Bob)

    We should encourage alternate fuels not controlled by Oil Companies. Lower some of the oil industry obscene profits!
     
  • Comment #5 (Posted by Paul Lohr)

    Bob (comment #2) is correct about the need for more energy related to a growing population.

    Buses, light rail systems, subways, and other means of public transportation are far less cost-effective when compared with automobiles and roads. If one mode of transportation is less cost effective than another you can safely assume it takes more energy to run the less cost effective means. But it is about the left's good intentions - not the results of their actions.

    Once we get the politicians out of our way to allow the private sector to explore, drill for, extract, and refine crude oil we will be one step closer to stabilizing energy prices. Part of the shortage is the fault of the constituents (American citizens, myself included) since we have allowed politicians to make energy producing activities difficult if not illegal. Another part of the shortage, as we know, is other nations starting to use more energy. This would not have elevated prices so much if we had more of our own supply.

    Our Founding Fathers warned us how an unconcerned constituency will allow politicians to gain overwhelming amounts of power.
     
  • Comment #6 (Posted by Nate Novak)

    One of the main issues with fuel miliage in the larger vehicles is EMMISIONs the gov rates emmision per gal vs per Miles. Say a 5.9 Cummins gets 18MPG and puts out 5 parts per million per gallon of bad emmisions. That is fine but a 5.9 Cummins that gets 25 MPG but puts out 5.5 parts per millino per gallon of bad emmisions isn't allowed by gove specs. Now it doesn't take much math to figure out what motor is putting out less emmisions on a 500 mile run. But for auto industry to keep up with emmisions and still put out the power the consumer wants and needs the motors are getting bigger, Bigger motors more fuel use. The EPA needs to look at bigger pictures than the per gallon.
    (numbers were made up to show example)
     
  • Comment #7 (Posted by Patrick)

    All of this discussion is really very short-sighted. To reduce our consumption of oil requires more than changing our personal transportation habits. Consider our society's expectation of fresh produce year-round. The energy necessary to deliver that produce to your neighborhood grocery store is tremendous and unnecessary. If people went back to eating locally grown produce in its season we could dramatically reduce our drain upon the global oil resources. While driving less thirsty vehicles less miles would consume less fuel, we really need to look at the larger view of our lifestyle.
     
    • Submit Comment