Even proponents of sustainability know that the desire for change cannot trump technological capability. Systems like compressed air power storage, algae-based jet fuel or wave power generation have moved passed discovery and would be great additions to society but simply have not reached a level of commercial viability. When interests lie on the bleeding edge this is simply part of the game. However, there are few things more troublesome and disenchanting than a technology that exists to improve the level of function and efficiency of products and is simply not executed. I came across an article on Matter Network that highlighted the fact that a Ford Focus model for Europe is set to achieve 62 MPG, yet the Focus for Americans achieves only 35. This means that the technology for increased fuel economy is here, but not utilized. Things like this are amazingly frustrating.
Technology to Buyers Abroad
Apparently Ford will release its Focus “Econetic” model that will be available to European consumers in four months. The article notes that Ford’s 40 MPG Fiesta model will not even be available to Americans until 2011. The first and logical question is why can Ford not make more efficient cars available in the U.S.? The frustrating part is not that there are not reasons, but that the reasons are actually true.
For starters, European countries have made vehicle efficiency, and its link to emissions, a legislative priority. European citizens have elected officials that are willing to endorse stricter codes on how standards will be set for automobiles. Where here in America, California’s voluntary efforts to raise emissions standards for cars were challenged by the federal government, across the Atlantic such goals are embraced. European politicians may admittedly care less if fewer, better cars are sold each year given that the result may be American job losses rather than local ones.
When comparing the prices of the Ford Econetic and its standard American counterpart, the difference is significant. A standard, 3-Door, Ford Focus can has an MSRP of anywhere from $15,500 to $18,300 here in the states while the anticipated Ford Econetic equivalent will carry an MSRP of £18,055 (around $29,790.) Americans very well may not pay $10,000 more for a similar car even if it gets nearly twice the mileage. So why will Europeans?
The Money is in Gasoline
The price of gas is no small part of the equation. If we use London as an example, the current price of regular unleaded “petrol” is around 113p per liter which equates to $7.05 per gallon—over two and a half times our paltry average of $2.63 here in the U.S. This means that the difference between getting 35 MPG and 62 MPG is much larger for a Londoner than an American. If we use the our E.P.A. estimate of passenger cars traveling 12,000 miles per year and the 13.5 gallon tank in a Ford Focus it is easy to extrapolate the cost spent per year on gas for different gas mileages.
At current prices, raising the mileage of an American car from 35 to 60 mpg can save the average consumer $376 per year on gas, but the same conversion to a London resident saves an impressive $1,007. With an estimated life of 10 years (which is ambitious for many Americans) the savings could knock over $10,000 from the Econetic’s price tag and that is without a rise in the price of oil.
From all of this we can glean that the tens of billions of dollars we spend subsidizing the oil industry is only hurting our own advancements towards efficiency. Though perhaps not advocated by the conservative lobby, the example also illustrates the effectiveness of using legislation to curb societal norms and while we all may be in favor of letting a growing market awareness make that decision for us, sometimes natural capitalistic forces simply take too long to make the right decision.
Some experts blame similar occurrences of technological lethargy for why countries like Spain and Germany have surpassed America in solar and wind power generation. Our lack of effort to promote and improve these technologies when we had the chance allowed foreign minds to become industry leaders. The makers of the popular documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” paints a similar picture of electric vehicle technology that was progressively researched years ago by GM until government and oil interests unraveled the project. In the meantime, Japanese car companies have cornered the market on fuel-efficiency in vehicles.
The fact that there is tested technology that is being constructed and sold to consumers outside of America but not available here is a problem. I am open to different solutions on how to fix it (raising gas prices, removing oil subsidies, new emissions or CAFE legislation) but the problem needs to be fixed.
Photo Credit: Channel4.com
December 5, 2009 at 12:53 am
thanks for the information, your blog is very good and interesting
January 3, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I didn’t realise that the cars we have here from American manufacturers aren’t available to American consumers; it does seem rather odd. I wonder how long European “gas” prices would last over there without riots…
January 3, 2010 at 9:56 pm
The use of LED (light emitting diode) lighting can save up to 75% in energy costs as compared to conventional incandescent lighting. LED lighting is even 40-50% more efficient than fluorescent lighting. Though replacement lamps for all types of fixtures are not yet available, the market is expanding very rapidly, and LED bulbs/lamps are already selling in most home supply and hardware stores (as well as online). Everything from Christmas lights to night lights to indoor and outdoor accent lighting are readily available, with standard bulbs becoming more available everyday. In addition, LED lights generally have a life expectancy of 100,000 hours (11 years of continuous use), and generate very little heat (due to their high efficiency), which will reduce your air conditioning costs in the summer. Last but not least, LED lights are far more durable than either incandescent or fluorescent lamps. Not only are they not made of glass, but dropping and LED on the floor will not damage it. The bottom line is that there is no comparison in any aspect. The best part is that you can feel good about reducing your “carbon footprint”, and suffer no ill effects. Sounds like a win, win, win situation. Good for you, good for the environment, and good for the economy.