• Jul 12th 2007 at 11:37AM
  • 4

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists is claiming that increasing fuel economy of the US vehicle fleet to 35mpg by 2018 would have huge economic benefits for the United States. The study claims that consumers will save $61 billion on fuel expenses and 241,000 new jobs will be created. The job gains come from the assumption that the money saved will be spent on new, more efficient vehicles and on other goods and services.

The study was based on a model that includes data from a number of different industries. Industrial states like Michigan, California, Texas and others that use the most energy would have the most to gain from the savings. The savings are based on a gas price assumption of $2.55 a gallon. It's not entirely clear from the report how the price of gas is adjusted over time to come up with the savings numbers. Undoubtedly, raising fuel economy would be beneficial but how much money would be saved is highly dependent on where the price of fuels used in the latter half of the next decade go.

[Source: Union of Concerned Scientists]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 8 Years Ago
      Even my organization at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is willing to work hard to achieve greater fuel efficiency but 35mpg by 2018? That's a dream and will do more harm to the economy than good. Taking on global warming will be no small feet but automakers are committed to doing their part...putting more alternative fuel vehicles on the roads every day. We support realistic fuel economy increases, that is based on technology. There is more info at http://www.drivecongress.com.
      • 8 Years Ago
      I've never thought the idea of 'creation of jobs' was a vary valid long term prediction. After all ten years from now the employment impact of such saving would be so small compared to many other conditions.

      I'm really starting to really distrust UCS, after I found that around 2000 they did a study that stated that if Ford adopted a mild-hybrid system from the Explorer it would cost about $500 and add 6 mpg. Now that we have reference data from the GM-BAS system we know that their predictions were well off on both accounts.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Ya it does kind of make scence. Spend less on gasoline and spend more on something else. Most people spend what they make or more so what ever they don't spend on gas will be spent on something else.
      • 8 Years Ago
      An interesting study and worthy enough yet looking at the picture from an opposite angle, just consider the economic damage of a sudden cut-off of gas and diesel fuel supply. Shudder!

      Far more concrete to say the number of jobs lost is hard wired to the number of private and commercial vehicles still able to keep the economy going on alternate fuels and energy cells.

      Municipalities, [many employ engineers], understand this petroleum dependency weakness and are fully switched over to bio-fuels and battery pack vehicles. The Phoenix EV/SUT is a good example.

      This is even true for us here on Canada*s left coast, Vancouver Island back-woods town of Courtenay. B.C.

      When is the fun-loving general public going to awaken and switch to Bio-fuel, battery or compressed air automotion?

      Even hybrid owners are going to be extremely steamed when their part battery vehicle is stuck in the driveway during a gas shortage.

      The hybrid is an economizer but not really a decent problem solver. = TG
    Share This Photo X