obama's new fuel limit by 2016? Options

[FORSAKENR320]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/22650;_yl...4gHA6KToJ_Zn414

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The national emissions policy for autos, which will ramp up to a new standard of about 35 miles per gallon in 2016, will harmonize the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard and the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse-gas standard.

That way, officials explain, industry will not have to worry that the administration will regulate those on separate tracks.

“If media reports are true, after years of oil price inflation, policy stagnation and automotive industry litigation, President Obama has solved the energy and economic policy equivalent of a Rubik’s Cube,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who was a principal author of the 35 mpg standard that passed Congress in 2007.

The administration will bill the tailpipe-emissions announcement as historic because it avoids a patchwork of standards and has won agreement from so many stakeholders, including automakers, state governments, the Department of Transportation and the EPA.

California had been seeking permission to establish its own greenhouse-gas reduction standard for tailpipe emissions but now can be expected to ultimately accept the federal standard.

In secret conversations, the Obama administration has lined up support from many state governments and a huge array of domestic and foreign automakers, including GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW and many more.

Auto executives are flying into Washington from around the world for the White House announcement.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is expected to attend, the sources said.

The CAFE standard was established by Congress in 1975 in response to the Arab Oil embargo.

On Obama’s seventh day in office, he directed his Transportation Department to establish higher fuel-efficiency standards for carmakers' 2011 model year “so that we use less oil and families have access to cleaner, more-efficient cars and trucks.”

“This rule will be a down payment on a broader and sustained effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” he said. “Going forward, my administration will work on a bipartisan basis in Washington and with industry partners across the country to forge a comprehensive approach that makes our economy stronger and our nation more secure.”

This announcement implements a uniform standard for a later date.

whats everyone's opinion of this?

[impala454]

Not sure why politicians think they can legislate invention. Why doesn't he mandate that fusion electricity be in full production by 2011?

[The Fanatic]

Not sure why politicians think they can legislate invention. Why doesn't he mandate that fusion electricity be in full production by 2011?

Invention as in what? Doesn't the technology exist for cars to get this many mpg? Or are you referring to this technology in vehicles such as trucks?

[Spectatrix]

If they have widespread support from auto-makers like this article claims, I don't see any problem with it.

[THECHICKEN]

Nothing like big government to tell us what is good for us and govern things they don't really have any business (or authority) to govern.

[The Fanatic]

I think it's a good idea. That's how American auto makers can compete in this global market by introducing an affordable fuel efficient car. I think the legislation is a good idea because it gives auto makers a goal and unites them in a common purpose across the board, keeping the auto makers accountable. It will be interesting to see several things after this legislation is introduced tomorrow. For example, how will legislators in Washington D.C. plan to implement this legislation? Will there be rewards for setting goals quickly and heavy fines for failure to comply?


Chuck, I realize now what you were talking about when you mentioned invention, but not in the literal sense as I had interpreted when I first read your post. It will definitely take some innovation to introduce and develop affordable vehicles that get 36 mpg. I think it's definitely a step in the right direction but I would like to see more affordable vehicles with even higher mpg, sooner then later.

This post has been edited by The Fanatic: May 18 2009, 08:31 PM

[Dogmeat]

I am going to laugh my ass off when all the democrats have left are whack job greenie liberals because they've pissed off the unions, both of whom are coal and auto.

[impala454]

I think it's a good idea. That's how American auto makers can compete in this global market by introducing an affordable fuel efficient car. I think the legislation is a good idea because it gives auto makers a goal and unites them in a common purpose across the board, keeping the auto makers accountable. It will be interesting to see several things after this legislation is introduced tomorrow. For example, how will legislators in Washington D.C. plan to implement this legislation? Will there be rewards for setting goals quickly and heavy fines for failure to comply?


Chuck, I realize now what you were talking about when you mentioned invention, but not in the literal sense as I had interpreted when I first read your post. It will definitely take some innovation to introduce and develop affordable vehicles that get 36 mpg. I think it's definitely a step in the right direction but I would like to see more affordable vehicles with even higher mpg, sooner then later.

Right but mandating something that's not yet fiscally reasonable doesn't help anyone. Theoretically I could put up enough solar panels and windmills to run my whole house, but if it costs me $100,000 it becomes a burden not a solution. Suddenly mandating these requirements on automakers which are already having problems, just to save a few mpg on a resource which is in huge excess at the moment, is silly IMHO.

Also (though I'm not sure of the details) I don't think it makes sense to set some industry wide mpg requirement. Why on earth should a 8000 lb 1-ton diesel pickup be required to meet the same mileage requirements as a 2500 lb what is essentially a golf-cart? Or sports cars built for performance? Are we not allowed to have fun anymore?

[FORSAKENR320]

i personally am more worried about the amount of control that the government is trying to wield as a whole. sure, it's cars and vehicles attempting to control a dwindling resource, and sounds legit. what will this do to the variety of the automobile market? i can't see them coming up with a very large number of models that vary enough to matter.


thats the control i worry about. and if the government is allowed to step in and dictate what we can, and cannot have as far as vehicle performance, where will their next step be?

[The Fanatic]

Ahh socialism

[woody]

let car companies compete in the global market instead of having the gov't tell them how to compete by introducing laws.

let car companies go bankrupt if they can't compete, that only opens the door for someone else who is willing to compete

[Dogmeat]

As usual though this is complete political bullshit.

They pulled the EXACT SAME THING in 1976.

They did this shit to the US auto makers. Did it help? Not in the slightest.

What else did they do? Exempted hundreds of coal-fired power plants from the Clean Air Act of 1976.

Guess what they're doing now? THE SAME FUCKING THING.

WOOHOOOOOOOO WE'RE SAVING THE WORLD!!!!!!

[dauss]

As usual though this is complete political bullshit.

They pulled the EXACT SAME THING in 1976.

They did this shit to the US auto makers. Did it help? Not in the slightest.

So I guess the average mpg of a light duty vehicle in 1975 was 13.1 mpg. In 1987 the average mpg of a light duty vehicle was 22mpg. So a 68% in fuel economy isn't helpful?
source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm

[Dogmeat]

So I guess the average mpg of a light duty vehicle in 1975 was 13.1 mpg. In 1987 the average mpg of a light duty vehicle was 22mpg. So a 68% in fuel economy isn't helpful?
source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm

I guess as long as they don't define anything with over an 8,600 GVWR as "light duty", then do whatever the fuck you want to to the fuel economy standards.

[impala454]

I still think it's even silly to require some tiny golf car sized car to have the same mpg as a 4200 lb sedan. still two completely different vehicles. if you want to be relative, then the little golf cart sized car should get like 60 mpg