Obama Insists Cars Improve Fuel Efficiency by 40% 30 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Ucilia Wang
Automakers, start retooling your factories to make more fuel-efficient cars.
That was the message from President Obama, who on Monday directed the federal Department of Transportation to tighten fuel-efficiency standards.
The transportation department will devise rules to carry out a 2007 law that mandates a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for cars and light trucks by 2020. Under the new law, cars would be required to have a fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon, up from 25 miles per gallon today.
Although former President Bush signed the 2007 law, the transportation department never got around to writing the regulations to enforce it.
Automakers will have to act quickly, because the new rules are expected to take effect starting with the 2011 models. Obama's action should come as no surprise, given he has built his economic plan on promoting renewable energy generation and other greentech businesses.
Even before Obama took office, Congress had already set aside $25 billion in loans last September for carmakers to make more fuel-efficient cars. Tesla Motors, a startup electric carmaker in San Carlos, Calif., has applied to the program (see Tesla CEO Denies Bankruptcy Rumors, Seeks $20M).
Congress also approved an additional $17.4 billion in loans to bail out General Motors and Chrysler, and the help came with stipulations that the two companies must build more fuel-efficient vehicles (see U.S. Automakers Get Federal Bailout).
Although carmakers are devoting more resources to make less polluting vehicles, they also have lobbied heavily against regulations that set higher fuel economy standards.
On Monday, Obama also signed a memo ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to review a previous decision, made under the Bush administration, to deny California and 13 other states to set tail-pipe emissions limits that would be stricter than the national ones (see Obama to Seek to Allow California, Other States, to Impose Emission Standards).
The EPA denied the waiver request from California in 2007, prompting some fighting words from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has fashioned himself a big greentech proponent (see EPA Rejects California Vehicle-Emissions Standards).
Temporary regulations to carry out his two orders today are expected to be in place by March, so that carmakers can start working on the 2011 models to comply with the new regulations.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 30 comments:
Sure they'll add a few hybrid SUV's to boost the numbers there from 17MPG to 19 MPG, but that is not real change. Where are the cars that get 45+ (you know the ones they already sell in Europe)?
Like it or not, they are producing the vehicle people want. What was the #1 vehicle in the US last year? The Silverado/Sierra, a 20 mpg pickup truck.
Obama wants 35 mpg? Have the guts to put in a $3 a gallon gas tax and quit whining about the bad old car companies.
On Jan 27 08:55 AM mahony wrote:
> 35 MPG? That's a fleet average. Detroit will come out with nothing
> new; they'll just roll out more cars at 36 MPG to offset the other
> crap that still gets 28 MPG (same strategy it has had since the 70's).
>
>
> Sure they'll add a few hybrid SUV's to boost the numbers there from
> 17MPG to 19 MPG, but that is not real change. Where are the cars
> that get 45+ (you know the ones they already sell in Europe)?
How about getting the various units of government (local, state and federal) to start buying only high mileage cars, all made in the USA, by American workers. Now that's where the President can really lead by example.
my trailer to the desert for me. i only live 9 miles from work, so buying
a car just for work would never pay for itself no matter how much gas costs.
let people choose to drive what they need to drive. gas prices high or low.
I fear the answer is that this direct tax will make the voters unhappy. Using the big bad auto companies, who hide 100 mpg carburetors under their desks, to collect taxes if much mor epolitically expedient.
Note that if the goal is reduction of fossile fuel a gas tax will also:
reduce length of trips, affect existing cars as well as new ones, increase car-poolng, affect other uses of fossile fuel like home heat, and millions of other market driven solutions. With the modifed price of fossile fuel all of this will be achieved with market / pricing efficiency.
CAFE has the affect of disproportionate impact on US based auto companies who make commercial pickup trucks. (why doesn't Mack truck have to meet CAFE?). The California law has an exception for small companies, all of which are foreign, which is no surprise since this crowd hates all things American, except Obama, for now.
Gas tax yes. CAFE no!
so, what will happen? People don't want these cars in the current gas price environment and won't buy them. If the cars they want are not available they will keep their old ones (fix em up) and the Big3 continue to crater.
Dependence on foreign oil? Well - try drilling for our OWN oil. But no, they want to block offshore drilling and ANWR. Trying to conserve our way out of this is stupid.
Electric cars? Perfect. Now, just build some new NUKE plants to supply the energy.
But we have lost the arguments about why reduce fossile fuel use. So now that politicians have decided that we are going to reduce use to a much lower level then the market would dictate, the question is how.
If the goal is to reduce said fossile fuel it is infinitely more effective to accomplish this by a small, tactical modification of the marketplace. Simply change the current fed gasoline tax to a much higher level. (or better still a fossile fuel tax). This does not require a single new bureacrat and is the most fair across the automakers. Where these high taxes have been used for decades in Europe Ford and GM are very competitive.
And again, the tax has a much bigger impact on the goal of reduced fossile fuel use because it affects existing vehicles as well as new ones, which take at least 10 years to effectively replace. It also affects many lifestyle options as was shown this summer where high gas prices caused people to drive less, plan trips, carpool, use mass transit, and infinite other market driven options to reduce fuel use and save money.
Even we who argue the premise like here_in_Akron should be saying, OK, if you must reduce, then use a tax so you don't wreck the US economy in the process.
Now that gas prices have dropped under $2.00 per gallon, the high mileage car sales are going down again. Hybrid car sales dropped 10% by the end of 2008.
CAFE will only force companies to make vehicles that nobody wants. High gas prices will force customers to want high mileage vehicles.
On Jan 27 09:08 AM John Polomny wrote:
> Why is the Federal government mandating any fuel standard? Why not
> let consumers determine what type of vehicles they want and then
> let the car companies make products to satisfy consumers. Where in
> Obama's resume did his auto experience come from? More socialism,
> more government, less productivity. Viva la Statism!
By the way, he just said the EPA should "study" it which in the world of politics is just show business.
By all means, increase the mpg.
Since private industry was soo "dump" and focused only on cars people wanted to buy, they were taken to the wall when the price of gas hit a national average of $4.11 (CA hit $4.5).
Then they taken off the wall and knocked unconscious by the present recession, perhaps depression, and now find themselves with no means by which to change strategy, even if the government was not forcing them to.
I mean, does everybody believe the current deep recession (depression?) will last forever and gas prices will remain at $2 per gallon ad infinitum?
No way, as soon as the economy recovers we'll hit $3 then $4 then who knows how much higher per gallon especially with the coming possible hyperinflation scenario as a result of "helicopter" Ben Bernanke printing $trillions of new dollars to bail out the corrupt financial aristocrats whose $trillions in derivative games brought the global economy to the edge of a cliff... And we might still fall of it so...
By all "means", bring on the increased mpg. "means".
Don't forget the gallon in Europe is 25% larger than here in USA
ao IF a slug of a car with no space and no guts got 45 MPG over here it would get 36 MPG
just my 2 cents........
On Jan 27 08:55 AM mahony wrote:
> 35 MPG? That's a fleet average. Detroit will come out with nothing
> new; they'll just roll out more cars at 36 MPG to offset the other
> crap that still gets 28 MPG (same strategy it has had since the 70's).
>
>
> Sure they'll add a few hybrid SUV's to boost the numbers there from
> 17MPG to 19 MPG, but that is not real change. Where are the cars
> that get 45+ (you know the ones they already sell in Europe)?
The only oil shortage there is, is created by the enviromental wacko's and the liberials.
And, good lord, just because the Europeans do it is hardly justification that we should do it. Have you ever driven in Europe? Most people drive shorter distances and on very skinny roads. With the dense pack over there - they were able to put in public transport that people can actually use. That is a lost cause here - mostly because of the big distances involved here.
You say the battle is lost on using less gas - perhaps. But, even if that is a goal - let's not pursue it stupidly.
And to the guy who says that the car companies are hiding the 100 mile carb. Ok - Elvis has it in his pocket, and he and the aliens are laughing about it.
If it existed - it would be worth a BILLION dollars. It don't exist - cuz you can't buy it. Find another conspiricy.
On Jan 27 11:50 AM Mike Inmich wrote:
> good points here_in_Akron.
>
> But we have lost the arguments about why reduce fossile fuel use.
> So now that politicians have decided that we are going to reduce
> use to a much lower level then the market would dictate, the question
> is how.
>
> If the goal is to reduce said fossile fuel it is infinitely more
> effective to accomplish this by a small, tactical modification of
> the marketplace. Simply change the current fed gasoline tax to a
> much higher level. (or better still a fossile fuel tax). This does
> not require a single new bureacrat and is the most fair across the
> automakers. Where these high taxes have been used for decades in
> Europe Ford and GM are very competitive.
>
> And again, the tax has a much bigger impact on the goal of reduced
> fossile fuel use because it affects existing vehicles as well as
> new ones, which take at least 10 years to effectively replace. It
> also affects many lifestyle options as was shown this summer where
> high gas prices caused people to drive less, plan trips, carpool,
> use mass transit, and infinite other market driven options to reduce
> fuel use and save money.
>
> Even we who argue the premise like here_in_Akron should be saying,
> OK, if you must reduce, then use a tax so you don't wreck the US
> economy in the process.
On Jan 27 10:56 AM Mike Inmich wrote:
> Will the advocates of CAFE and the California plan please answer
> the question: why not us ea gas tax like Europe, Japan, and many
> other questions have done for decades?
>
> I fear the answer is that this direct tax will make the voters unhappy.
> Using the big bad auto companies, who hide 100 mpg carburetors under
> their desks, to collect taxes if much mor epolitically expedient.
>
>
> Note that if the goal is reduction of fossile fuel a gas tax will
> also:
> reduce length of trips, affect existing cars as well as new ones,
> increase car-poolng, affect other uses of fossile fuel like home
> heat, and millions of other market driven solutions. With the modifed
> price of fossile fuel all of this will be achieved with market /
> pricing efficiency.
>
> CAFE has the affect of disproportionate impact on US based auto companies
> who make commercial pickup trucks. (why doesn't Mack truck have to
> meet CAFE?). The California law has an exception for small companies,
> all of which are foreign, which is no surprise since this crowd hates
> all things American, except Obama, for now.
>
> Gas tax yes. CAFE no!
On Jan 27 04:24 PM GoCart wrote:
> A $3 gas tax will kill the economy, many people in rural America
> have to drive 20 to 50 mile one way to work and are living pay check
> to pay check. Why should they be punished for going to work.The government
> just needs to get out of our lives and let us drive what we want.
>
> The only oil shortage there is, is created by the enviromental wacko's
> and the liberials.
On Jan 27 10:37 AM P. A. Daniel wrote:
> The high mileage cars already exist. (see the EPA 2009 mileage chart
> at (www.fueleconomy.gov/). Only a few consumers buy them now.
> Until we get more people buying the high MPG models, it makes no
> sense for the automakers to build more of them. The automakers don't
> buy the cars on the road; Individuals Americans and governmental
> units buy them.
>
> How about getting the various units of government (local, state and
> federal) to start buying only high mileage cars, all made in the
> USA, by American workers. Now that's where the President can really
> lead by example.
It is very difficult to compare anything European to us.
On Jan 28 11:25 PM ariel1935 wrote:
> Europeans live on much less of almost every material thing than Americans.
> Their countries are the size of our states. They drive short distances
> and their auto companies did not buy up and shutdown their public
> transportation. They have stick shift diesel cars that get 40 mpg.
> They walk and bicycle a lot which makes them healthier so they save
> a lot on medical care and get less of it because they have a government
> run health system. They live in cooler smaller houses and take better
> care of what they have, most of which is not disposable. Their auto
> unions are by and large not a group which makes substantially more
> than the public who buys their cars. But their socialist governments
> add enough taxes to make them more expensive than our cars. They
> save more of what they earn so thay can afford their higher prices
> when they NEED something.
>
> It is very difficult to compare anything European to us.
On Jan 27 08:55 AM mahony wrote:
> 35 MPG? That's a fleet average. Detroit will come out with nothing
> new; they'll just roll out more cars at 36 MPG to offset the other
> crap that still gets 28 MPG (same strategy it has had since the 70's).
>
>
> Sure they'll add a few hybrid SUV's to boost the numbers there from
> 17MPG to 19 MPG, but that is not real change. Where are the cars
> that get 45+ (you know the ones they already sell in Europe)?
Detroit can build cars that get good gas mileage, the problem is that not many in America want them. Until that changes, CAFE is just antoerh ineffective policy put in place by politicians that want to look like they are doing something, but are afraid to do what really needs to be done because fo voter backlash (they would loose their lifetime medical benefits and defined benefit pension plans...the Detroit Three are not the only ones that have gold plated benefits). Lack of guts by our politicians, corruption and the green agenda are behind CAFE. They don't want to deal with the real problem here, just like they don't want to with Medicare and other Gov't entitlements.
On Jan 27 04:24 PM GoCart wrote:
> A $3 gas tax will kill the economy, many people in rural America
> have to drive 20 to 50 mile one way to work and are living pay check
> to pay check. Why should they be punished for going to work.The government
> just needs to get out of our lives and let us drive what we want.
>
> The only oil shortage there is, is created by the enviromental wacko's
> and the liberials.