And since I'm here to fix the previous post - forgot to link to the article - I'll add another link to the MIT Technology Review. This one titled Why Not a 40-MPG SUV? and talks about technology and fuel economy.
To get a sense of the auto industry's progress in fuel efficiency, look no further than the 2002 Chevy Blazer. The model with automatic transmission, six cylinders, and four-wheel drive gets 18 miles per gallon (mpg), two miles less than a comparably equipped Blazer did in 1985. Indeed, in those 17 years the average fuel economy of the entire fleet of U.S. cars and light trucks declined from 26 mpg to 24 mpg - in part because of the rising proportion of gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles (SUVs). Yet in March, when auto industry lobbyists claimed that building more fuel-efficient cars would be "too difficult," the U.S. Senate once again killed legislation that would raise the country's Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. It was a familiar dance; Congress has not raised the standards even once during those same 17 years.
Meanwhile we're pouring money into countries that mostly hate us. That's a good long-term solution. "We hate you and everything you stand for. Would you like some more oil? Yes please. Here's some money." Stupid. The article continues ...
Indeed, if all new cars and light trucks adopted available and emerging gas-saving technologies, the average fuel economy of U.S. cars would surge to 46 mpg, up from today's 27 mpg. And SUVs could average 40 mpg, up from today's 21 mpg, according to a recent study prepared in part by John DeCicco, a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, a New York City-based environmental group.
We're not talking fancy technology like fuel cells. We're talking technology that's already proven or is development in labs.
Such improvements in gas mileage would have a huge impact on U.S. oil dependence and the environment. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the U.S. fleet's fuel use improved to 40 mpg, the nation would save two million barrels of oil a day - 75 percent of all the oil the United States imports from the Middle East. And it could mean a 30 percent decrease in greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide.
So we get to eliminate 75% of the oil we buy from the Middle East AND we get a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases. This sounds better and better. All we need to do now is stop the auto industry from lobbying. I think I'll send my Senator some money and see if they'll vote the way I want. I wonder how the auto industry would respond ...
Even if tough new efficiency laws are passed, others note, recent history suggests the auto industry won't accede without a fight. "Industry leaders fought catalytic converters. They fought seat belts. They said air bags would bankrupt the industry. But once the requirements are passed they find a way," Hwang notes.
Hmmm. Maybe our elected officials will do what's best for the air breathers (i.e. consumers) rather than auto manufacturers. I'm not sure if this is a liberal streak showing through or what. As near as I can figure ALL the auto manufacturers will have to play by the same rules. I can see the tag line now: Fuel economy - Where Middle East politics and environmentalism meet. You probably don't need to read the article I quoted most of it. All that's left is a description of all the new cool things they have in the works.