Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Environment

Report: How Fuel Economy Standards May Be Missing Some Very Important Info.

Mar. 13, 2013 7:27am Liz Klimas

University of Michigan Report Finds Improved Fuel Economy But Increased Overall Consumption

(Photo: Shutterstock.com)

A new report from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute has found that although fuel economy of vehicles has improved by 40 percent over the last four decades, fewer occupants per car and increased distance actually resulted in more fuel being used overall.

The research by Michael Sivak evaluated data from the U.S. Department of Transportation since 1970. Sivak found that fuel economy from light duty vehicles improved from 4.6 gallons per 100 miles to 7.7 gallons per 100 miles. Vehicle distance traveled conversely increased 155 percent and vehicle load dropped 27 percent (from 1.9 to 1.38 persons), resulting in an 84 percent rise in the distance occupants traveled.

Taken together then, this resulted in occupant fuel economy improving by just 17 percent.

“As a consequence of the changes in vehicle fuel economy, vehicle distance traveled and vehicle load, the total amount of fuel used increased by 53 percent,” Sivak said in a statement.

Sivak explained further in the university’s press release that there is a rebound effect when it comes to reducing fuel economy of vehicles. He said about 10 percent of the gain in fuel economy would be lost due to an increased amount of travel.

“Importantly, however, changes in fuel economy of new vehicles take a long time to substantially influence the fuel economy of the entire fleet,” Sivak said in a statement. “This is the case because it takes a long time to turn over the fleet. Consequently, an 18 percent reduction in fuel used by vehicles purchased in a given year—due to a 20 percent improvement in their fuel economy—would result in only about a 1 percent reduction of the fuel used by the entire fleet.”

This is why, Sivak explained, some policies seeking a more immediate reduction in fuel consumption have focused on reducing the distance vehicles travel by increasing taxes on gasoline.

Read Sivak’s report here.

–

Related:

Featured image via Shutterstock.com.

(H/T: Slashgear)

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (13)

steelpanther
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 2:33pm
They fail to take in account how many lives have been lost due to demanding more fuel eco. to. Making cars lighter means your making the alloy weaker, meaning that when your hit, or hit something, there’s more chance that parts of your car are now going to occupy the same space as you. This is aided by a law forcing people to use a device called a seat belt that keeps you in one place should such a thing occur.

There’s only so much you can get out of an engine, even less when you start adding emissions crap that throws your exhaust into your piston chambers to be “burned twice”. We could easily see high 30-low 41 MPG out of most cars if we dump the emissions standards that just make the emissions we put out more not less in number, but more easily accepted into the air.

Don’t even get me started on how bad anti-lock brakes are, or air bags. Have family that owned a body shop and I used to work small errands for them. Being told by parts delivery guy from Bob Brown about air bags going off the shelf like a stick of dynamite does not make me feel safer.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
I am 'We the People
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 1:17pm
“Sivak found that fuel economy from light duty vehicles improved from 4.6 gallons per 100 miles to 7.7 gallons per 100 miles.”

Either that sentence has be written wrong or it’s a deception.
4.6 Gal/100miles = 21.74 MPG
7.7 Gal/100miles = 12.99 MPG

Going from 22 MPG to 13 MPG is a reduction not an improvement.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
txswalker
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:30am
Dang you got me started….goverment standards dont dictate what fuel is to be used when determining MPG of cafe standards so manufactures use the very best fuel with no ethonal and only perform on days with perfect conditions to get the best test results. All ethonal based fuel has less energy than straight gas so we actually burn more fuel and polute more by adding this stuff to our tank with no benefit whatso ever. Please help get rid of ethonal

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 10:04am
It’s none of the government’s business how much fuel we use, we pay for it?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
barber2
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:33am
40% . Now where have I heard that figure before ? Oh, Democrats and guns ! 40% seems to be the Democrats’ scripted MSM figure of the month . How about 40% of all Democrats are missing some very important information. How about 40% of what Democrats say are Big Lies. How about 40% of these studies are a government / university work creation and a scam on the taxpayer ? Actually that 40% figure is way too low for those three items.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BackToTheWall
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:02am
Every few years I have to move farther away from work to get away from bad democrackhead policies. They cause the problem then complain about it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Al J Zira
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:47am
Sorry for being the consummate skeptic but I read this and the first thing that comes to mind is my local community’s version of Agenda21. Called the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, their goal is mass redistribution of wealth. One of their favorite methods of redistribution is through mass transit. Claiming Environment Justice, evil forces has caused unequal transportation opportunities throughout the entire Delaware Valley including Philadelphia, all of Southern New Jersey, parts of Delaware and Pennsylvania. Here is a link to one of many of their issued diatribe on how we need to reallocate funds to provide transportation opportunities to minorities. More to come later.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DZ-015
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:46am
“Sivak found that fuel economy from light duty vehicles improved from 4.6 gallons per 100 miles to 7.7 gallons per 100 miles.” That’s going from 21.74 mpg to 12.99 mpg. Did someone reverse the figures, or what?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SamIamTwo
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 9:06am
  It improved. LMAO
  
  Report this comment
- jimay
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 3:16pm
  It improved, but once again the BLAZE’s EDITORS didn’t read this article before posting it.
  AND
  If they’d read the actual paper and looked at the bibliography supplied this wouldn’t be posted as a story.
  
  Report this comment
dublinthewagons
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:45am
Obama has solved the economic problem for air force 1.
Properly inflated tires & more long distance speeches.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on March 13, 2013 at 8:34am
  Someone needs to buy Obama a Go To Meeting account.
  
  Report this comment
dublinthewagons
Posted on March 13, 2013 at 7:37am
How much taxpayer money was given for this crap survey?
Redistribution = theft

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.