Gojirra99

Survey: 3 Out of 4 Americans Want Detroit and Washington to Impose 40 MPG Fuel-Efficiency Standard


Poll Finds 90 Percent Expect Much Higher Gas Prices Soon, Almost Half Now
More Likely to Buy Hybrid or Other Fuel-Efficient Vehicle; Americans Want
Washington to Help Big 3, But Don't Let Carmakers Off the Hook for Past
Mistakes

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Will the Big 3 automakers blow it
for a second time by misreading an American public that is expecting
gasoline prices to start soaring again soon? As President Bush and Congress
continue to huddle with Detroit vehicle manufacturers, a strong and
bipartisan 78 percent of Americans want Washington to impose a 40 mile per
gallon (MPG) fuel-efficiency standard for American vehicles, according to a
new Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) national opinion survey to be
released on November 21, 2006 by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil
Society Institute (CSI).

Other key findings of the ORC survey include the following:

* Nine out of 10 Americans expect gas prices to go up "in the near
future," with nearly half (46 percent) "definitely" expecting a
resumption of higher fuel prices.

* 70 percent of Americans are not turning their back on fuel-efficiency
concerns and say that they are factoring "expected future gasoline price
increases into consideration in thinking about buying a new vehicle."

* Temporarily lower gasoline prices are not sending large numbers of
Americans rushing back to gas-guzzling SUV and trucks. In fact, nearly
half (45 percent) of Americans are now more likely to buy a "hybrid or
other fuel-efficient vehicle" than they were six months ago, compared to
30 percent who are unchanged in their plans and fewer than one in four
(24 percent) who are less likely to make such a vehicle purchase.

Civil Society Institute President and Founder Pam Solo said: "These
findings should be a real wake-up call to any auto executive in Detroit who
is hoping against hope that Americans will fall back in love with gas-hog
vehicles. What Americans are saying to American carmakers is that they are
ready for change. We know the technology exists for higher fuel efficiency
that will save money, reduce this nation's dependence on foreign oil and
diminish the pollution linked to global warming. What Detroit needs to
realize is that low gas prices have not -- and will not -- lead to the
demise of the now very strong and continuing demand for more fuel-efficient
vehicles. If American carmakers make that wrong-headed gamble for a second
time, it may just be the last losing bet they can afford to make."

Opinion Research Corporation Vice President Wayne Russum said: "It's
official: Reducing America's dependence on foreign oil through tougher fuel
efficiency standards is a bona fide national security issue that cuts right
across political party lines. Respondents were asked: 'Given America's
dependence on foreign oil, do you agree or disagree that greater fuel
efficiency for cars, SUVs and trucks is in our national security
interests?' Four out of five respondents agreed, including half who did so
strongly. Interestingly, the national security issued resonated even more
with Republicans (82 percent) than it did with Independents (77 percent)
and Democrats (79 percent)."

DETAILED SURVEY FINDINGS
Other key results of the Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted
for the Civil Society Institute include the following:
* Most Americans think Detroit is to blame for its current woes.
Respondents were asked: "Do you agree or disagree that U.S. automakers
have generally been blind to U.S. consumer needs and tastes by focusing
so heavily on fuel-inefficient SUVs and trucks while European and
Japanese automakers have focused their efforts on vehicle design and/or
improved fuel efficiency?" More than three out of four (76 percent)
agreed with the statement, compared to just 22 percent who disagreed.

* Nearly all Americans want President Bush to pressure U.S. automakers to
focus more on the latest in fuel-efficiency technology. White House
pressure for Detroit to take up such innovations reducing "energy
consumption and related global-warming pollution" is backed by 85
percent of Americans, including 58 percent who would strongly support
such pressure by President Bush. Political support for White House
action on this front is strongly bipartisan: Republicans (82 percent);
Independents (81 percent); and Democrats (91 percent).

* Most Americans think "President Bush and Congress could help U.S.
automakers be more competitive by increasing the federal fuel-efficiency
standard to 40 miles per gallon." Such a move is supported by 78
percent of Americans, including 45 percent who back it strongly.
Support for a 40 mpg fuel-efficiency standard cuts across party lines:
Republicans (70 percent); Independents (78 percent); and Democrats (84
percent).

* Most Americans agree that "President Bush and Congress should provide
incentives -- such as helping to lower health care costs for
autoworkers -- in exchange for increased investments by Detroit car
makers in fuel-efficient technologies to reduce energy consumption and
related global-warming pollution." Two thirds of Americans support this
step, compared to less than a third (31 percent) opposing. Strong
majorities of Republicans (60 percent), Independents (60 percent) and
Democrats (75 percent) would back such an inducement.

* A majority of Americans see Japanese automakers ahead of U.S. car
manufacturers. Respondents were asked: "Would you say that U.S. or
Japanese automakers are in the lead when it comes to hybrid technology
and other more highly fuel-efficient technologies to reduce energy
consumption and related global-warming pollution?" Half said Japan was
in the lead, compared to only 6 percent who put the U.S. in the pole
position. Slightly more than a third (36 percent) see the U.S. and
Japan as being roughly neck and neck. Men were more likely than woman
to see Japan ahead of the U.S. by a margin of 57 percent to 44 percent,
respectively.

* Almost all Americans want Detroit to start selling here at home the
highly fuel-efficient vehicles that they make or sell overseas -- but
not in the U.S. The survey notes that "American automakers produce or
sell dozens of car models that achieve over 35 miles per gallon but are
not made available to consumers here in the United States. Do you think
Detroit carmakers should be encouraged to make available here at home
the more fuel-efficient cars they are currently only selling abroad?"
An overwhelming 90 percent of respondents said "yes," including 60
percent who said "definitely yes." Almost no difference was seen on
this question across party lines: Republicans (88 percent);
Independents (86 percent); and Democrats (93 percent).

* Most Americans would support federal gasoline taxes devoted to renewable
energy/clean tech R&D. Respondents were asked: Do you think President Bush and the Congress should dedicate a portion of existing or increased energy and related clean technologies?" Nearly three out of four (74 percent) said yes, compared to just 24 percent who said no. Support
was little changed on the basis of party affiliation, with Republicans
(70 percent), Independents (73 percent) and Democrats (78 percent) in
agreement on such a tax policy.

For full survey findings, go to http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org on
the Web.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted among a sample of
1,016 adults (509 men and 507 women) age 18 and over, living in private
households, in the continental United States. Interviewing by ORC was
completed during the period of November 9-12, 2006. Completed interviews of
the 1,016 adults were weighted by four variables: age, sex, geographic
region, and race, to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the
total adult population. The margin of error at a 95 percent confidence
level is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the sample of 1,016 adults.
Smaller sub-groups will have larger error margins.

ABOUT CSI
The nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute
(http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org) is a think tank that serves as a
catalyst for change by creating problem-solving interactions among people,
and between communities, government and business that can help to improve
society. CSI has conducted more than a dozen major surveys since 2003 on
energy issues, including vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, global warming
and renewables. CSI is the parent organization of 40mpg.org


SOURCE Civil Society Institute, Newton, MA

ff_

Survey: 3 Out of 4 Americans Want Detroit and Washington to Impose 40 MPG Fuel-Efficiency Standard... as they stood in line to buy a 3-ton, fuel-sucking SUV.



Next thing you know, people will start blaming the Big3 for making them buy the SUV.

Americans are clueless idiots.

AudiMan

^^ agreed...we can not have the gov't to step in to adjust for people's stupidity. Its nice for the stupid people but not nice for the smart people who actually live their life with foresight. I 3 of 4 Americans really wanted cars that did 40 MPG they would buy those cars. Fact is, the poll doesn't mean **** if it doesn't indicate consumer behavior.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

lol. i see so many moms that drives chevy tahoes around by themselves. And they wonder why they have to spend so much on gas

Of course everybody wants better mpg. Who doesn't, well maybe those who work in the gasoline industry lol?

AudiMan

people are really dumb enough to think that the gov't can actually make the automakers produce large SUVs with toyota corolla like MPG

SteVTEC

The government should not impose unnecessary standards on the industry and should not be dictating consumer choice for them. "You don't know what's good for you, WE know what's good for you." That violates the free market principle, and goes directly against what this country is about. There are plenty of ways to encourage or nudge the market in the direction they want via tax and other policies, and then let the market adjust itself accordingly and on its own, without intrusive goverment regulation.

To all of you slamming all those "clueless idiot stupid Americans" who continue to drive big SUVs, not everybody instantly trades in their vehicles the moment market conditions change. A lot of people drive these things 5-10 years, they still have plenty of life left, and it's more economical in the long run to keep their current inefficient car than it would be to trade it in and get something else NOW. I'd love to get something that gets 35-40mpg hwy, but keeping my current 27mpg car is FREE as my monthly payments are a big fat ZERO, whereas a brand spankin new car ISN'T. Lots of SUV owners are in this same boat right now taking it on the chin until it's time to get another car, and many of them will be making changes to the type of vehicle they drive also.

Yes, dependence on foreign fuel is a national security issue, yes a lot of people WILL BE buying much more efficient vehicles in the future already. YES, the gov't doing what it can to nudge the market in that direction is probably the right thing, but NO I don't think imposing standards like these are the way to do it. Most of this will happen on its own without much if any gov't intervention, but huge shifts in the market do NOT happen overnight, or within the attention span of most people on these forums. It will take YEARS to happen, like 5-10 minimum to see big changes in the mix of vehicles on the road. Every manufacturer out there knows where the market is going, knows the issues, and knows how people feel. The SMART ones will anticipate that and plan their future models accordingly. Those with their heads stuck in the sand or whom ignore that and groupthink themselves to other conclusions will go out of business if they can't deliver.

DCX's Chrysler unit is in the most danger right now. Lots of SUVs, HEMI engines, brick shaped heavy cars with poor aerodynamics and poor efficiency. The stupid CALIBER does not do better than 32 mpg hwy with the smallest and weakest engine, which is a very poor showing for an economy car IMHO. GM and Ford both have plenty of efficient models, and more on the way. Hello DCX?? Are you reading??

LexFather

I am NOT for any more government control. This is self-inflicted. Hell I just bout another V-8 GS, I sure as hell coulda bought a Prius or Camry hybrid instead.

People would LIKE cars and SUVS to be more fuel efficent but clearly it DOES NOT dictate the market. People continue to buy what they like.

That is why I really like the Lexus hyrbid philosophy of giving more performance and taking less from the world, kinda the best of both worlds until we find a better alternative.

LexFather

Oh and Americans ARE NOT clueless idiots, clearly with all our faults we are the GREATEST NATION on the planet...

We just don't like our own cars!

SteVTEC

I just read through the survey questions...

P1: Given America’s dependence on foreign oil, do you agree or disagree that greater fuel efficiency for cars, SUVs and trucks is in our national security
interests? Would you say you…?

P2: Would you say that the U.S or Japanese automakers are in the lead when it comes to hybrid technology and other more highly fuel efficient technologies
to reduce energy consumption and related global-warming pollution? Would you say…?

P3: Do you agree that President Bush – in meeting with major U.S. automakers – should urge them to focus more on hybrid technology and other more highly fuel-efficient technologies such as “clean diesel” to reduce energy consumption and related global-warming pollution? Would you say…”

P4: Do you agree that President Bush and Congress could help U.S. automakers be more competitive by increasing the federal fuel-efficiency standard to 40 miles per gallon? Would you say you…?


This is sorta leading people to a desired conclusion, and not exactly an unbiased survey, especially if CSI is the "parent organization" of 40mpg.org or whatever. How else do you explain even a majority of Republicans being in favor of huge government intrusion on the free market, LOL. You could also ask the same question this way: "Do you think more government regulation and control of the market via more stringent standards would help U.S. automakers?" You'd probably get different answers.

Lil4X

It goes to show that anyone can conduct a survey - and produce practically any desired result by the preface for each question is laid, the way the questions are formed, or the demographic interviewed. For that reason, surveys are practically worthless because either the questions or the analysis can be manipulated. Asked a leading question, everybody wants to save the environment, use less hydrocarbon, reduce dependence on foreign oil . . . but they are going to give up their Suburbans and Excursions ONLY when the government pries them out of their cold, dead hands.

Maybe the federal government should mandate 40 mpg cars . . . and let the public drive nothing but little tin buzzboxes or motorscooters. Of course the government would then need to bail out the automakers after their sales go over a cliff.

I wonder who'd be picking up the tab for that?

rai

Very stupid poll (IMO).

People can buy cars with good fuel economy if they want.

IF THEY WANT

the Civic/Fit get 30/39 mpg and in fact both are selling well, but not the best selling vehicle. People are still buying F150s, CHevy and Titan trucks (etc.) for daily drivng etc.

I was just in the market for a cheaper car. I could have got a Fit, but heck I don't want to be the odd man out in an accident with a 2700 lb car. I got a 3300 lb Legacy for safety. Not to say the Fit is bad or dangerous, but I feel safer in a 3300 lb car. So I get 25/30 mpg (not 30/38 like a Fit) I can live with that.

OTOH, I could have easily have got a car that got WORSE mileage than what I got, so I don't feel bad. I'm getting 26-27 mpg or so and that's not the end of the world, 400 miles per tank.

I think people need to put their money where their mouth is. If they love hybrids so much let them buy, if they love 35-40 mpg cars buy a Fit/Yaris/Civic/Corrolla etc..

I for one don't see the point of a hybrid, not when a Civic (non-hybrid) gets 35 (average) and so spending $22K++ for a Prius that is slower and will take 10 years to re-coupe the cost difference doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

JessePS

Standard for 2007 should be 60 mpg and for 2020 should be 200 mpg.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

a lot of the larger americans just cant fit in something like a civic even a camry, they have to get a larger vehicle like a truck/SUV

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

What is this based on? How many vehicles get 60mpg today? Can you say NONE?

Just making a 'standard' doesn't make it so.

A Prius of Civic Hybrid is probably closest, and could probably get 60mpg by taking out the 6 or 8 airbags, going with even skinnier (LESS SAFE) tires, eliminating sound insulation, eliminating a sun roof, and some other 'frills'.

Maybe the government could mandate that all hills are down hill.

ff_

Or they could just lose weight. Or take the bus. :-)