“NHTSA uses 2060 as the end point for the analysis [of fuel consumption] because it is the time at which 98 percent or more of the operating fleet would be made up of MY 2011-2015 or newer vehicles, thus achieving the maximum fuel savings under this rule.”

It says “MY 2011-2015 OR NEWER” vehicles. Those newer vehicles have to meet the higher standards, too. So there is no “reversion” to the baseline.

The broader question is what constitutes a fair interpretation of the effects of some policy. “Anything is better than now” is one test, but I think we have to do better. Assuming that your policy gets adopted worldwide is also thinking pretty wishfully. Cost/benefit analysis keeps on rearing its ugly head as the reasonable way to look at stuff like this. So what is the cost of the new CAFE? We don’t know. What is the benefit in economic terms? We don’t know.

CAFE is the dumbest of the three now under discussion (vs Cap/Trade or carbon tax). It’s a pretty sad commentary that it’s the one (and apparently the only one) that we’re going with.

One informational question: Can anybody explain the “footprint” bit? That’s the notion that vehicles that cover the same area viewed from directly above (who comes up with this stuff!) will be grouped in some way. Apparently the mfgs don’t get to count “mix” shifts as an improvement. Huh?

We need good battery technology – much better than we have today. Batteries are the missing link for the switch to electrics. There are so many other advantages to electrics (no tuneups! no smog checks!) that we would have changed years ago if only the batteries were adequate.

That is why global temperatures for the past ten years have not followed model predictions. Even over the past 100 years, climate model predictions do not match actual temperatures with a precision approaching the standard statistical significance.

We are trying to craft policies in a sea of climatological ignorance. The uncertainties outweigh the certainties. I would say the major uncertainty that I have uncovered in my research so far is how cloud cover will respond to rising global temperature. (This assumes global temperature will continue to rise. With the sun’s magnetic field, solar wind, and sunspots declining, the sputtering of our sun may have more impact on global cooling than yet realized.)

But don’t take my word for it. Check out this analysis on the Nature website:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0707/full/climate.2007.22.html

And this BBC report offers a good counterpoint — there is no consensus on the IPCC’s level of ignorance:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

The big questions are, what do we do with the unconventionals (tar sands, oil shale) and the coal? If the answer is “burn them”, then we’re going to change the climate rather significantly. A better answer is, “leave them in the ground, and find new ways to generate electricity and power our transportation”.

Within that framework, I see higher CAFE standards as a good thing. They will drive innovation towards lighter, more efficient vehicles that can run on fewer BTUs, and thus are ready to replace their ICEs with modest-sized electric motors when the time comes. Meanwhile, oil prices will be kept somewhat lower, reducing the incentive to innovate “better” ways to turn unconventionals and coal into liquid transportation fuel.

I doubt the effect of my suggestion would be to deny US consumers anything. Exporters to the US would come on board rather than lose their most lucrative market. That is after all the purpose of the proposal.