Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Congress pushes up fuel economy standards.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. Congress pushes up fuel economy standards.

    Finally some meaningful action on both global warming and our dependence on foreign oil.

    Congress wants to increase CAFE standards by 40% which seems like a lot but in reality it is only 15% higher then the fuel economy standards we actually achieved in 1987. Still, it is a great thing for America and the world.

    Congress Agrees to Increase Fuel Standard to 35 MPG (Update4)

    By Gopal Ratnam and Ryan Flinn

    Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Congress agreed to raise fuel-economy standards by 40 percent for cars and light trucks by 2020 in a move described by lawmakers as a historic step toward cutting U.S. oil consumption and curbing global warming.

    The new rules would require the U.S. to set mileage standards for each type of vehicle to meet a national average of 35 miles per gallon. In exchange for a higher benchmark than automakers had wanted, the industry would continue to get credit for making vehicles that run on alternate fuels such as gasoline blended with ethanol.

    ``This landmark energy legislation will offer the automobile industry the certainty it needs, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring we keep American manufacturing jobs and continued domestic production of smaller vehicles,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.

    The deal ends almost six months of opposition by the industry and marks the first overhaul of fuel-economy rules in three decades. Automakers argued that complying with a 40 percent increase would cost them billions of dollars that would be passed on to consumers. Environmental groups waged a multimillion-dollar campaign against the industry and urged lawmakers to act.

    The proposal, worked out by House and Senate negotiators late yesterday, is part of a larger energy bill scheduled to be voted on in both houses of Congress this month and will include new goals for renewable sources of energy. The bill must be signed by President Bush before it becomes law.

    Awaiting Details

    The White House withheld comment until aides review specifics. ``No one has seen its details,'' spokesman Trey Bohn said in an e-mail.

    Pelosi, a California Democrat, held out for a tougher fuel- economy position against the industry, which was backed by Michigan Democrat John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Dingell, on a conference call today, said he will strongly support the bill. ``We have a pretty good compromise here, but not everyone is satisfied with everything,'' he said.

    ``This tough, national fuel-economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security,'' said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp. and seven other U.S. and overseas-based automakers. ``We support its passage.''

    GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said the rules pose ``a significant technical and economic challenge to the industry.''

    GM's Plan

    The Detroit automaker will attempt to reach the goals ``with an array of engineering, research and development resources. We will continue our aggressive pursuit of advance technologies that will deliver more products with more energy solutions to our customers,'' Wagoner said in a statement.

    GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said in June that meeting higher mileage standards would cost $6,000 per vehicle and force the automaker to add gasoline-electric hybrid systems to most new models.

    Environmental groups that campaigned for the tougher standards hailed the compromise.

    ``If the House and Senate finally approve this deal and the president signs it, they will all have done more for consumers at the pump than any Congress or Administration since the 1970s,'' Phyllis Cuttino, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts Campaign for Fuel Efficiency, said in a statement.

    Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and lead author of the Senate's 35-mpg proposal approved in June, called the deal ``historic.''

    Separate Categories

    Under the measure, the need for each automaker to meet a fleet mileage standard for cars and light trucks would be eliminated. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would set rules for each type of vehicle in an automaker's fleet based on size, weight and other characteristics.

    The current standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 22.2 for light trucks.

    Automakers would continue to get mileage credit for making vehicles that run on alternate fuels such as E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and gasoline. The credit would be phased out starting in 2014 and be eliminated by 2020.

    Dual Fleets

    Some automakers including Nissan Motor Co. wanted to eliminate the distinction between domestic and foreign-made fleets that would have allowed them to freely import fuel efficient vehicles to meet the new mileage standard.

    The legislation, instead, would preserve the distinction, a key demand of the United Auto Workers union. Eliminating the so- called dual-fleet rule would allow automakers to shift small-car production outside the U.S. and lead to domestic job losses, the union said.

    The compromise would also eliminate loopholes, or so-called off-ramps, that would have allowed NHTSA to recommend a lower standard if it didn't see the 35-mpg goal as cost effective, Feinstein said.

    Automakers selling fewer than 64,000 vehicles annually would no longer be exempt from the standards.

    The negotiations followed a surge in the price of gasoline past $3 a gallon and a push by a coalition of states, environmental groups and consumers for lawmakers to cut oil imports and curb pollution.

    Congress established the so-called CAFE standards in 1975 in response to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo that caused shortages at U.S. gasoline stations. New car-fleet economy, set at 12.9 mpg in 1974 according to the Congressional Research Service, was ordered to reach 18 mpg by 1978. Light trucks were required to achieve 17.2 mpg by 1979.

    NHTSA set truck standards for subsequent years and imposed fines for noncompliance. Attempts by legislators to raise mileage goals from the early 1990s through 2006 were defeated.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam@bloomberg.net
    Last Updated: December 1, 2007 15:58 EST
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

  • #2
    Basically it would mean in 13 years the US would catch up to the standards the rest of the world already achieve today. If anything its a bit to modest but still a large improvement.

    Let's hope Bush doesn't once again attempt to block progress.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

    Comment


    • #3
      we already know he will, so I'm not getting my hopes up.

      You'd think he'd want to reduce dependence on foreign oil for strategic reasons. If someone had the capability of blocking our oil imports during a war (or OPEC embargo)... wouldn't be pretty.

      We should strive to rid ourself of dependence on foreign oil like France is trying to do. Yes France is doing something good (besides good cheese)

      Comment


      • #4
        The reality is this is the single most intelligent thing we can do right now. Reducing our consumption of foreign oil decreases global warming, improves America's balance of trade, improves our national security, and most importantly means we won't be giving as much money to foreign dictatorships some of whom want to kill us. It's a no brainer with nothing but positive effects for both our nation and the world.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Better fuel consumption can only be a good thing.

          I seem to recall back in the 70's, when there was an oil crisis, hearing how cars in the US quaffed the juice at about 8mpg. Was it really that low?

          Comment


          • #6
            Doubt it. More like 12-15.

            Still, it makes the point that the automotive industry never bothers to make progress on fuel economy or emissions unless the government forces them. It's about time for America to get a pro-active government in place so we can start dealing with the back log of problems Bush & Co have allowed to pile up.
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dis
              we already know he will, so I'm not getting my hopes up.

              You'd think he'd want to reduce dependence on foreign oil for strategic reasons. If someone had the capability of blocking our oil imports during a war (or OPEC embargo)... wouldn't be pretty.

              We should strive to rid ourself of dependence on foreign oil like France is trying to do. Yes France is doing something good (besides good cheese)
              Most Middle East oil ends up in Asia/Japan and Europe.

              The US gets as much oil from Canada as the Middle East, and the largest supplier is South America. The US is pretty diverse in its foreign suppliers.
              One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's a fungible commodity. Reducing American consuption effects prices every where so it will have an impact on middle eastern producers.
                Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In exchange for a higher benchmark than automakers had wanted, the industry would continue to get credit for making vehicles that run on alternate fuels such as gasoline blended with ethanol.


                  I wish we could leave this madness behind.
                  "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
                  "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Oerdin
                    It's a fungible commodity. Reducing American consuption effects prices every where so it will have an impact on middle eastern producers.
                    I am talking purely from the point of strategic oil supplies.

                    If the price increases you'd soon find that alternative energy sources would be used more - so there is still no great concern from a strategic point of view to swap now. Additionaly oil suppliers don't want high oil prices as they would lose out in the long term as people move to cheaper alternatives.
                    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hydrogen fuel cells are ready now. If anybody had any real desire to do so, we could be off gasoline as a fuel very easily in the next 13 years.
                      "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PLATO
                        Hydrogen fuel cells are ready now. If anybody had any real desire to do so, we could be off gasoline as a fuel very easily in the next 13 years.
                        hydrogen fuel cells are still horribly expensive, and the hydrogen still needs to come from hydrocarbons....

                        What we could do right now is have completely viable electric cars to replace most of the internal combustion fleet of passenger vehicles (work vehicles and trucks being the main exception). Yes, the additional electricity needs to come from somewhere, so you still get burning fossil fuels, but it would cut inner city smog. Not going to happen because electric cars need less parts, overall less maintenance, and the whole fuel delivery system (fuel pumps and stations and such) would disappear, but still, electric is a far better alternative to fuel cells.
                        If you don't like reality, change it! me
                        "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                        "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                        "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No doubt they are expensive. Hopefully economies of scale would make them reasonable if they went to mass production.

                          As far as the production of Hydrogen is concerned, I really don't much about it. There is this quote from Wiki that seems to show that there are alternatives...although hydrocarbons does seem to be cheapest:

                          Hydrogen production is commonly completed from hydrocarbon fossil fuels via a chemical path. Hydrogen may also be extracted from water via biological production in an algae bioreactor, or using electricity (by electrolysis) or heat (by thermolysis); these methods are presently not cost effective for bulk generation in comparison to chemical paths derived from hydrocarbons. Cheap bulk production of hydrogen is a requirement for a healthy hydrogen economy.


                          I would tend to favor an electrolysis approach and more nuclear power.

                          If we could get to a nuclear/hydrogen economy then our air pollution would fall to incredibly low levels.
                          "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Isn't there some concern about hydrogen cells making global warming *worse* because of the fact that they release a very potent global warming exhaust - water vapor?
                            <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                            I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              We can get rid of water wapor, how do you get rid of CO2?
                              Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                              The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                              The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X