Seeking Alpha

New U.S. fuel standards unveiled today would require automaker fleets to average 54.5 mpg by...

New U.S. fuel standards unveiled today would require automaker fleets to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Pres. Obama says the new rules would lower U.S. oil use by 2.2M barrels/day over the next 15 years, and cut 6B metric tons of carbon pollution. Current standards require automakers to achieve 35.5 mpg by 2016.
Comments (20)
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1901) | Send Message
     
    Too bad we now know officially there is no global warming and that these standards are ridiculous and unnecessary. Sadly, because there are carbon credits to be traded and new subsidies to be stolen, it doesn't matter apparently.

     

    news.yahoo.com/nasa-da...

     

    www.mdpi.com/2072-4292...
    29 Jul 2011, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4215) | Send Message
     
    Ah, you have unilaterally decided that air quality standards in densely populated cities don't affect you and therefore cars should be allowed to spew pretty much anything. I also like how you have unilaterally decided that consumers don't mind vehicles that get 10mpg and generally hate stuff like Priuses.

     

    I enjoyed this sentence near the top of the article: "The plan, which is the result of months of negotiations between the Obama administration and auto makers," ""This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we've ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,""
    29 Jul 2011, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6373) | Send Message
     
    buyitcheap stole my thunder.

     

    I've been burning incandescent bulbs and taking the shower head off to get more water not out of a selfish desire to enjoy light and a decent water flow but in order to save the planet--I was trying to offset the efforts of someone attempting to cool the planet because I think it's already too cold. Now I find out I was right and I'm going to have to drive my old pickup getting 7 miles to the gallon in order to offset someone getting 52 miles to the gallon.

     

    Oh well, I'll do it to save the planet and raise the sea levels.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I'm concerned about climate change, but, it really doesn't matter to me.

     

    What matters to me is our reliance on foreign oil and air polution and what it it doing to us as a nation. Anything we do to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and reduce air polution will have a positive effect on climate change. If climate change isn't occurring, then that's okay with me.

     

    We send 600-800 billion dollars a year to other countries for oil. We send our kids to wars to ensure our supply. And by the way, they get their asses blown up and shot off. If your kid was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm sure you'd be willing to walk to the grocery store if it would get him/her back.

     

    How about let's not lose them in the first place and become energy independent.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4215) | Send Message
     
    Monngie, I agree with some of what you said and add that, that money is a direct transfer of wealth out of the US to other folks. And since our consumption reduces global supply and contributes to global price, we don't have to buy it from Iran for Iran to get the benefit of the price.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (126) | Send Message
     
    @buyitcheap

     

    So you'd rather have us more reliant on oil than moving towards alternatives? It amazes me that just because it's Obama making changes, it's always a bad thing. Talk about unfair bias.

     

    How can anything negative come of cutting our oil consumption in the future?
    29 Jul 2011, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1901) | Send Message
     
    I said all that? man I'm good.

     

    If you want less pollution in cities, remove the cars, or tax the hell out of them. A tax will pretty much kill anything productive which ironically is what the global warming initiatives do to our economy.
    29 Jul 2011, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1901) | Send Message
     
    I just want a toilet that will flush properly, is that so wrong?

     

    :-)
    29 Jul 2011, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1901) | Send Message
     
    We're all reasonable people here, so let me clarify, first by saying I wish I didn't have to type all this shit.

     

    I LOVE efficiency, I do. I believe that ultracapacitor based systems will be the answer to a lot of the prius pollution that we'll encounter with the massive poisonous batteries that frankly are, at least for now, horribly inefficient.

     

    I guess my issue is the idea that a government policy is going to fix it, when what government needs to do is get the hell out of the way. That is the essence of my problem with the whole thing, especially when it's based on bad policy, bad science and will result in a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the corporatists (again.) hence my comment on carbon trading.

     

    Innovation fixed our problems, broad government policy has created more than they have EVER fixed, and innovators have done it at far lower expense.

     

    Rothy, I'm in agreement with you, but why do it at the high cost associated with the CAFA initiatives, why not just say, "convert all fleets to natural gas by 2018." You get the same result and it costs FAR FAR less. We have trillions of cubic feet of nat gas, and plenty of our own oil, we just can't drill any of it. Cuba can drill theirs (which is actually ours off the coast of Florida).

     

    You think this is an Obama thing? Hell Obama is a second derivative replica of Bush, and Bush was a disaster. Obama is even WORSE. (how is that possible!) Doubling down on virtually EVERY significant policy the Bush ever came up with:

     

    Iraq: Libya;
    Medicare D: Obamacare;
    huge deficit spending: outrageous deficit spending.

     

    Seriously, what the hell's the difference? Neither of them can speak English with or without a teleprompter!

     

    I could care less about the president of the moment, I care about the policy, why? because I'll be dealing with the impact far after either party's President Dipshit of the Moment has left 1600 Penn Ave.
    29 Jul 2011, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4215) | Send Message
     
    I don't necessarily agree with all of what you said but I found the total lack of bullsh*t refreshing and enjoyable to read.
    29 Jul 2011, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1901) | Send Message
     
    @kmi :-) Right back at you. I enjoy the exchange of ideas!!
    30 Jul 2011, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (460) | Send Message
     
    Are you kiding me. The politicians can't look farther then the next election. What do you think will happen to a rule that takes effectin 2025. ROTFLMAO
    29 Jul 2011, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • vboring
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    The rule excludes "work trucks."

     

    Expect every new car sold in 2025 to be a "work truck", just like the PT Cruiser, Caliber, and HHR are all officially trucks for fleet mpg requirements.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4215) | Send Message
     
    Escalade.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • buyitcheap
    , contributor
    Comments (1901) | Send Message
     
    Yup! 100% first year expensing for work trucks. Seems like the Obama administration (like Bush) sure wants to keep those inefficient gas guzzlers on the road, don't they.
    29 Jul 2011, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • pacalvotan
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    This from a guy who has never done anything except suck off of the public trough. A wave of the magic Marxist wand however will automaticall make it so.

     

    Wait until the public wakes up to the realities of the Health Care Bill. Oh boy it will be fun to watch if it isn't so incredibly sad.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    What marxist about making our country energy independent?

     

    What matters to me is our reliance on foreign oil. We send 600-800 billion dollars a year to other countries for oil. We send our kids to wars to ensure our supply. And by the way, they get their asses blown up and shot off. If your kid was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'm sure you'd be willing to buy a high mileage automobile if it would get him/her back.

     

    How about let's not lose them in the first place, or make them suffer terrible injury for the sake of securing our oil supply, and become energy independent.

     

    If that's Marxist, sign me up!!!!!
    29 Jul 2011, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4215) | Send Message
     
    Welcome Monngie to The Return of McCarthyism.

     

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    29 Jul 2011, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3393) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, California tried to get overly ambitious on air quality standards only to walk it back when it became readily apparent legislators had no clue of reality. If need be, the federal government would do the same thing.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    Lets see lighter cars..worse accidents...my truck kills your kids....less liberals...more lawsuits...great law
    29 Jul 2011, 02:33 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs