PDA

View Full Version : Environment Obama announces new fuel standards


BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 08:48 AM
President Obama announced new national auto fuel-efficiency and emissions standards that he said would help reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, cut pollution, and ultimately save people money.

Under the new rules -- which would replace a patchwork of different standards set by two government agencies and several states -- carmakers would have to produce vehicles with a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than the CAFE law requires. The program begins in model year 2012, and would increase fuel efficiency by an average of 5% a year between 2012 and 2016.

The chief executives of 10 auto companies joined the president on stage for the announcement, along with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger. Several of Obama's cabinet secretaries were also on hand for the event, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Govs. Jennifer Granholm (MI), Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), and Deval Patrick (MA).

"For the first time in history, we have set in motion a national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new trucks and cars sold in the United States of America," Obama told the crowd assembled in the Rose Garden.
"Everyone wins: Consumers pay less for fuel, which means less money going overseas and more money to save or spend here at home," he continued. "The economy as a whole runs more efficiently by using less oil and producing less pollution, and companies like those here today have new incentives to create the technologies and the jobs that will provide smarter ways to power our vehicles."

The administration estimates the new vehicles would cost consumers an extra $1,300, but says that increase will be offset by future savings on gasoline amounting to some $2,800 over the life of the vehicle. According to the fact sheet provided by the White House, the program was projected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 900 million metric tons.
Obama said that the new rules would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. "Just to give you a sense of magnitude, that's more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria combined," he said.

As a candidate, Obama often spoke of the connection between oil and national security, saying it was important to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, in large part because it resulted in the transfer of so much wealth to unfriendly governments.

The White House repeatedly stressed the fact that carmakers, unions, and governors were coming together to agree on an increase in standards -- something many companies have long fought because of cost concerns.
Among the CE
Os present for the announcement were the heads of Chrysler and GM, both of which are receiving government aid. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs pushed back at the suggestion that the aid forced the companies to agree to the new standards.

"You might have a point if they were the only two companies that were standing behind him, but Ford's not received any assistance," he told a reporter during the afternoon briefing. "If you think about the 10 companies that are represented here today, two right now are in the midst of temporary government assistance, but I think the notion that you have collectively -- an industry speaking with one voice -- and then this time speaking with a voice for reform, I think that's -- that honestly says all you need to hear."

BucEyedPea
05-20-2009, 08:49 AM
I think I'm a better judge of what will save me money. It's laughable that a man who is a spendaholic is telling people how to save money. LOL!

Command and control economics. Obama the magic planner.

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 08:57 AM
I think I'm a better judge of what will save me money. It's laughable that a man who is a spendaholic is telling people how to save money. LOL!

Command and control economics. Obama the magic planner.
We save money on fueling the new cars.

We help end our dependence on buying oil from people who hate us.

We help the enviornment by taking the equivilent of 177 million cars off the road by 2016.

You have the enviormentalists, auto companys, Republicans and Democrats on the same page for the first time ever.

Not one single new $ of tax money is committed to make this happen.

Seems like a win-win for everyone.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 09:05 AM
Fleet average? This is a joke. It's what they have now and they auto-manufactures rig that game.

Baby Lee
05-20-2009, 09:07 AM
In related news, the Obama administration announced a comprehensive plan to ease the laws regarding gravity, friction, entropy and enthalpy.

BucEyedPea
05-20-2009, 09:08 AM
We save money on fueling the new cars.

We help end our dependence on buying oil from people who hate us.

We help the enviornment by taking the equivilent of 177 million cars off the road by 2016.

You have the enviormentalists, auto companys, Republicans and Democrats on the same page for the first time ever. [So]

Not one single new $ of tax money is committed to make this happen.

Seems like a win-win for everyone.

We, we, we....collectivism.
I don't care if the moderately socialist Rs are on board ( remember Bush?)....I can decide how to save my own money better.
No one decides what is a win for me.

BucEyedPea
05-20-2009, 09:11 AM
In related news, the Obama administration announced a comprehensive plan to ease the laws regarding gravity, friction, entropy and enthalpy.

He's going to regulate bubbles too now. As well as busts! Will we be as level as the former Soviet Union or Cuba? Sounds boring too.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21393.html


Take away all our freedom including to get rich, when all he has to do is audit the fed and make it transparent or get rid of it.

Silock
05-20-2009, 09:11 AM
CAFE standards are crap. Fuel economy has been going up regardless of standards.

BucEyedPea
05-20-2009, 09:19 AM
Your next car whether you want it or not!

HonestChieffan
05-20-2009, 09:23 AM
this will amount to zero

BucEyedPea
05-20-2009, 09:36 AM
I said earlier the desire by the Ds in Congress was to grab control of big auto for environmental social engineering. They're getting their wish to tell Americans what they may drive. Fascism, under the greenie banner. Green on the outside deep pink on the inside. Years, from now the govt school history books will say the greed of capitalism was destroying the planet and it had to be done away with. And people will gobble it up. When someone says otherwise they'll be blasted for being a historial revisionist.

banyon
05-20-2009, 09:38 AM
It's a good first step. We're now only several years instead of decades behind the rest of the developed world on this.

Donger
05-20-2009, 10:07 AM
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with this decision.

KC native
05-20-2009, 10:08 AM
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with this decision.

Oh noes yous a socialist too/BEP

Brock
05-20-2009, 10:16 AM
We save money on fueling the new cars.

We help end our dependence on buying oil from people who hate us.

We help the enviornment by taking the equivilent of 177 million cars off the road by 2016.

You have the enviormentalists, auto companys, Republicans and Democrats on the same page for the first time ever.

Not one single new $ of tax money is committed to make this happen.

Seems like a win-win for everyone.

Yes, we know, you get off on being told what to do.

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 10:26 AM
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with this decision.

Increasing the cost of vehicles sold in America by several thousand to save a couple of hundred annually on gas. That sounds like a fair trade off. I wonder why they had to take over the auto-manufacturers before forcing this one on us. :shrug:

jjjayb
05-20-2009, 10:48 AM
It's a good first step. We're now only several years instead of decades behind the rest of the developed world on this.

Or maybe we've been AHEAD of the rest of the developed world in freedom. But I understand if you want government to take care of you when Mommy says you're too old to suck her teat. It's a big scary world out there.

Donger
05-20-2009, 10:52 AM
Increasing the cost of vehicles sold in America by several thousand to save a couple of hundred annually on gas. That sounds like a fair trade off. I wonder why they had to take over the auto-manufacturers before forcing this one on us. :shrug:

I take my view based more (much more) on the decreased amount of oil we will consume.

Baby Lee
05-20-2009, 10:57 AM
YOU get a car!! YOU get a car!!
http://compactization.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/clint20and20tiny20car1.jpg

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 10:59 AM
I take my view based more (much more) on the decreased amount of oil we will consume.
And that dovetails into national security. We can't live without oil and a lot of the places that have oil hate us. We would go to war if needed to get that oil. If we can avoid that, its worth it. but since its not going to increase the cost of driving a car....win-win.

mlyonsd
05-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Until we produce more of our own oil we'll always be dependent on foreign.

I think this is a good step, but not the only one needed.

patteeu
05-20-2009, 11:14 AM
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with this decision.

Why?

patteeu
05-20-2009, 11:22 AM
I take my view based more (much more) on the decreased amount of oil we will consume.

Until we find a way to get off of oil, I'm not sure that using decreased amounts matters much. The oil-rich states will still sell their oil so we won't be cutting off funding for terrorists or anything like that. About all we'll be doing is making more oil available for China, India, and the rest of the developing world at our own expense.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't see it.

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 11:26 AM
I take my view based more (much more) on the decreased amount of oil we will consume.

Iím not necessarily against this, just pointing out the reality for when people shopping for a new vehicle are suffering sticker shock.

Iowanian
05-20-2009, 11:31 AM
DearLeader followed up this announcement by sinking 20 half court shots in a row and then scoring a 35 on 18 holes of golf.

Donger
05-20-2009, 11:49 AM
Until we find a way to get off of oil, I'm not sure that using decreased amounts matters much. The oil-rich states will still sell their oil so we won't be cutting off funding for terrorists or anything like that. About all we'll be doing is making more oil available for China, India, and the rest of the developing world at our own expense.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I don't see it.

Unless I'm wrong (and I'm never wrong), in order to meet these MPG requirements, plug-in hybrids are going to become more standard. I'm all for that. However, yes, other countries will still use what we don't. We can't help that. We can use less.

FishingRod
05-20-2009, 11:55 AM
Un-researched speculation on my part but, won't the change to smaller lighter vehicles cause an increase in traffic fatalities by a few thousand Americans a year? If so this will end up costing more American lives than the Iraq war. Just sayin.

Donger
05-20-2009, 11:57 AM
Un-researched speculation on my part but, won't the change to smaller lighter vehicles cause an increase in traffic fatalities by a few thousand Americans a year? If so this will end up costing more American lives than the Iraq war. Just sayin.

Initially, I'd say yes. However, as smaller cars become more commonplace, I'd think that that would change.

FishingRod
05-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Initially, I'd say yes. However, as smaller cars become more commonplace, I'd think that that would change.


After what 5,10 20,000 dead Americans?

I believe that to be probably true but really I'm just screwing around. Obviously better fuel economy and less harmful emissions is something to strive for but, I do question the Government Mandating the types of vehicles produced by an already struggling industry vs.. them producing what their customers want to buy. How will this affect people that need a truck for work? How will it affect people (me) that occasionally need to pull a boat? It sounds like a fairly expensive bandaide that will in no way stop our dependence on forign oil and I would think would be a pretty small drop in the bucket of polutants pumped into the enviroment.

Velvet_Jones
05-20-2009, 01:02 PM
We save money on fueling the new cars.

We help end our dependence on buying oil from people who hate us.

We help the enviornment by taking the equivilent of 177 million cars off the road by 2016.

You have the enviormentalists, auto companys, Republicans and Democrats on the same page for the first time ever.

Not one single new $ of tax money is committed to make this happen.

Seems like a win-win for everyone.

You seem Stupider today than normal. Word up with that.

Baby Lee
05-20-2009, 01:13 PM
Un-researched speculation on my part but, won't the change to smaller lighter vehicles cause an increase in traffic fatalities by a few thousand Americans a year? If so this will end up costing more American lives than the Iraq war. Just sayin.

Not if everyone on the continent is putting along at 30 mph.

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 01:16 PM
Initially, I'd say yes. However, as smaller cars become more commonplace, I'd think that that would change.

Unless there is something else going on Iím unaware of, NHTSA and DOT have not relaxed their standards for this. The vehicles will still have to pass the same crash tests, still have the same safety features.
That means any fuel savings will have to come from the driveline.

I believe that to be probably true but really I'm just screwing around. Obviously better fuel economy and less harmful emissions is something to strive for but, I do question the Government Mandating the types of vehicles produced by an already struggling industry vs.. them producing what their customers want to buy. How will this affect people that need a truck for work? How will it affect people (me) that occasionally need to pull a boat? It sounds like a fairly expensive bandaide that will in no way stop our dependence on forign oil and I would think would be a pretty small drop in the bucket of polutants pumped into the enviroment.

Iím in the same boat. I need a truck to haul and tow.
At one time GM was working on ďdual mode hybrid trucksĒ that still used an injected V-8 but coupled in a hybrid drive that increased average mileage by quite a bit, for a truck anyway. Plus when needed it would couple the hybrid drive and gas motor at the same time to increase torque to near Diesel numbers for towing.
I donít know if that will survive the government running the company or not. I hope it does, Iíll take one in a crew cab.

alanm
05-20-2009, 01:16 PM
Everybody bend over and spread em. Don't forget the lube.

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Not if everyone on the continent is putting along at 30 mph.

:LOL: I was in Germany when the East Germans started coming over to the west side in their Trabiís.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

There would be a dozen of them packed in that little sucker too.
Theyíd pull into a rest stop and start climbing out like circus clowns.

Donger
05-20-2009, 01:24 PM
Unless there is something else going on Iím unaware of, NHTSA and DOT have not relaxed their standards for this. The vehicles will still have to pass the same crash tests, still have the same safety features.
That means any fuel savings will have to come from the driveline.

I doubt that they'll relax the crash standards. That simply wouldn't look good. As I said, I would imagine the manufacturers will tend toward plug-in hybrids in order to meet these rules. And I have no problem with that.

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 01:27 PM
I doubt that they'll relax the crash standards. That simply wouldn't look good. As I said, I would imagine the manufacturers will tend toward plug-in hybrids in order to meet these rules. And I have no problem with that.

From a fuel efficiency standpoint I agree, from a pollution standpoint this has the possibility of being a much worse, even harder to deal with problem than SMOG was.

Calcountry
05-20-2009, 01:28 PM
In related news, the Obama administration announced a comprehensive plan to ease the laws regarding gravity, friction, entropy and enthalpy.Big Red Chief on/ AWESOMEEE!!1111!1 hehehehhe, I'm so giddy.

Donger
05-20-2009, 01:32 PM
I presume that the new efficiency rules in 2016 are only required for new vehicles? They aren't talking about rounding-up the old guzzlers, or prohibiting the sale and purchase of one, right?

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 01:39 PM
I presume that the new efficiency rules in 2016 are only required for new vehicles? They aren't talking about rounding-up the old guzzlers, or prohibiting the sale and purchase of one, right?

I would assume so.
That means any oil conservation realized from this would come very slowly and depends on the consumers buying new vehicles at a rate similar to what we have in the past.

Calcountry
05-20-2009, 01:39 PM
I presume that the new efficiency rules in 2016 are only required for new vehicles? They aren't talking about rounding-up the old guzzlers, or prohibiting the sale and purchase of one, right?I can't wait until they use california's smog check system to flunk old cars and get them off the road.

This has always been our fear out here. Do they have a smog check system where you live?

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 01:43 PM
I can't wait until they use california's smog check system to flunk old cars and get them off the road.

This has always been our fear out here. Do they have a smog check system where you live?

Sure, lots of states have emissions checks.
But California did more than that. They gave pollution points to manufacturers as part of the cap and trade carbon credits scheme for buying up then crushing old vehicles.
That’s why it’s next to impossible for a builder to find a project car in California, most have been bought up and crushed so some plant could pollute more.

mikey23545
05-20-2009, 02:42 PM
Not one single new $ of tax money is committed to make this happen.

Seems like a win-win for everyone.

Yes, I'm sure all the technological improvements necessary to make this happen will be paid for by "no one".

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 03:24 PM
Yes, I'm sure all the technological improvements necessary to make this happen will be paid for by "no one".
Thats the part of the increased cost of the cars, $1,300 thats off set by the better gas mileage.

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 03:26 PM
You seem Stupider today than normal. Word up with that.
Name calling is the last resort of a limited mind. Just a reminder.

SBK
05-20-2009, 03:27 PM
Use of less gas means less revenue from gas taxes to our dear leader. Where will they raise taxes to make up for this God blessed shortfall?

Hydrae
05-20-2009, 03:27 PM
Thats the part of the increased cost of the cars, $1,300 thats off set by the better gas mileage.

So if we know how much it will cost per car (we must also know how many cars we will be selling I suppose) to implement, where has this technology been the last few years?

Hydrae
05-20-2009, 03:28 PM
Use of less gas means less revenue from gas taxes to our dear leader. Where will they raise taxes to make up for this God blessed shortfall?

Our roads are going to fall apart! :deevee:

Calcountry
05-20-2009, 03:40 PM
Thats the part of the increased cost of the cars, $1,300 thats off set by the better gas mileage.How is government going to make up the lost revenue from fuel taxes?

Calcountry
05-20-2009, 03:41 PM
Use of less gas means less revenue from gas taxes to our dear leader. Where will they raise taxes to make up for this God blessed shortfall?Has he picked out a crown yet?

bogey
05-20-2009, 04:02 PM
I find it interesting how people on here are all badass in their opinions until Donger steps in and disagrees.

Radar Chief
05-20-2009, 04:04 PM
So if we know how much it will cost per car (we must also know how many cars we will be selling I suppose) to implement, where has this technology been the last few years?

On the market not selling.
Hybrids, direct injection, itís all been on the market for a while now, just that the consumer hasnít been able to justify the increase in price so itíll now be forced on us.

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 04:05 PM
How is government going to make up the lost revenue from fuel taxes? tax the rich?;)

Velvet_Jones
05-20-2009, 04:37 PM
Name calling is the last resort of a limited mind. Just a reminder.

I wasn't calling you a name. I was making an observation about your mental state. You all right? Are you drunk or something?

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 10:43 PM
I wasn't calling you a name. I was making an observation about your mental state. You all right? Are you drunk or something?
okay, you got me. Too many jaggerbombs at work. I should have kinown I couldn't get anything past your massively sized brain that somehow manages to contain the intelligence that you share with us.

Iowanian
05-20-2009, 10:51 PM
Its all fun and games until a Peterbuilt uses your clown car for a stunt double for an oppossum.


Its a not-so-smart-car then.

Guru
05-20-2009, 11:05 PM
Just in time for the Summer gas price hikes too. We took a 20 cent jump during a 6 hour range today. Yet, they will always tell you summer has nothing to do with it.

patteeu
05-21-2009, 03:06 AM
I find it interesting how people on here are all badass in their opinions until Donger steps in and disagrees.

I didn't notice that. I, for one, disagree with Donger on this.

Coach
05-21-2009, 08:13 AM
Well, let's see how we all feel when gas prices get closer to $4 sometime in the near future. I have no doubts that people are going to be bitching about the $4 a gallon deal.

Guess what, $4 is the new $1 and 35+ MPG is the new 15 MPG.