Follow this blog:
RSS

Rust Belt residents want 60 mpg standard by 2025, survey says

By | May 31, 2011, 9:15 AM PDT

The vast majority of Michigan and Ohio residents say they want to see a mandate for automakers to meet a 60 mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency standard by 2025, according to a new survey.

A poll of eight hundred voters each from Michigan and Ohio indicated that most people believe the standard — which would require automakers to produce vehicles that, across their entire product portfolio, average to 60 miles per gallon — would create jobs and spur innovation.

That’s according to a poll conducted by the Mellman Group for environmentally-minded nonprofit organization Ceres.

The figures:

  • 79% of Ohio voters and 78% of Michigan voters support a 60 mpg standard. 60% and 58%, respectively, “strongly” support it.
  • 80% of Ohio voters and 76% of Michigan voters believe a national 60 mpg standard will “encourage American car makers to innovate, boosting sales and protecting American auto jobs.”
  • 59% of Ohio voters and 56% of Michigan voters believe costs related to increasing vehicle fuel efficiency will be outweighed by benefits.

Both states are in the Midwest, the hub of the American manufacturing industry.

The interesting highlight from these statistics is not the figures themselves — anyone paying $4 per gallon of gasoline would agree — but the way the questions were phrased. Instead of focusing on gas savings, the poll instead framed the standard through a lens of economy and policy — and still, participants supported it.

With energy security, economic success and environmental issues converging, have we reached a tipping point on the energy issue — at least as it pertains to the auto industry? These responses suggest so.

Photo: Chrysler Group/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-3 Votes
+ -
Here we go again
What these poor rust-belt people don't know is that we're already embarked on our THIRD horsepower-size automobile cycle (1st to 1973, 2nd to 2008). Republicans will be elected. Their Ford-GM-Chrysler puppet masters will have them rescind all economy regulations and kill the electric car once again. In 2020 a massive sink hole will form in the Gulf of Mexico and suck all the oil down to the center of the Earth. Ford-GM-Chrysler will go bankrupt and be bailed out by the US government. Cars will then run on ethanol alone. The Sahara Desert will be made a gigantic corn field. The cycle begins again.
Posted by dangnad
31st May 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Polls are completely meaningless.
For decades, polls have also told us that people want less sex and violence in movies and on TV and healthier food in markets and restaurants.

But it's what people open their wallets to spend their own money on that demonstrates what they really want. The real "tipping point" will only take place when people start changing their behavior with with their own dollars than what they say when asked by some pollster when there's isn't anything personal at stake.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
31st May 2011
+7 Votes
+ -
I want a car..
that gets a billion miles per gallon. For $5. And lots of legroom. And a free pony.

That doesn't mean I expect the design to be possible.

I'd much rather see a poll of what automotive engineers think is possible by 2025.
Posted by jtdavies
31st May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Give up 2200 lbs of metal - you can get 60 MPG now
If you look at the average weight of a passenger car from 30 years ago - around 2800 lbs - to what you have now 4400 lbs - and add in all those safety features that have been mandated over those same years and get rid of them - you save around 2400 lbs of weight.

For every 100 lbs of weight you lose 1 MPG.

Thus get rid of all the safety gear, put the cars back to 7' wide by 12' long max (thus also saving weight) - and you instantly have 60 MPG from the existing engines and car body technologies in use today.

The government can do this like it does in other fields by mandates - set the maximum size of any car to 7x12 and make people build to that max size and in 2 years every passenger vehicle would meet the MPG goal.

Of course most of the vehicles would be useless for lots of tasks now being done with them -- but that is NOT "our problem" sayeth the enviromental groups.
Posted by TAPhilo
31st May 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
What Rust Belt residents want!
How many folks did this poll survey? Three, maybe 5. People in Ohio & Michigan want jobs. Manufacturing jobs that pay real salaries. 60 MPG vehicles are most likely the furthest thing from the minds of the people who live in these states. Please save this kind of crap so the good folks of Ohio & Michigan can spread it on their fields where it belongs.
Posted by RCBeltz
31st May 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: 60 mpg cars
In an unrelated surevy, 60% of Michigan voters and 67% of Ohio voters are brainwashed.
Posted by bb_apptix
8th Jun 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!