President Obama To Nationalize California Emission Standard & Stengthen CAFE
05-18-2009, 03:21 PM
#1
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
President Obama To Nationalize California Emission Standard & Stengthen CAFE U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles
JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 18, 2009
WASHINGTON —The Obama administration will issue new national emissions and mileage requirements for cars and light trucks to resolve a long-running conflict among the states, the federal government and auto manufacturers, industry officials said Monday.
President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California’s tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
Yet Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard.
Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Industry officials spoke on condition of anonymity about the program because they said they did not want to comment publicly in advance of the White House announcement.
The current standards are 27.5 miles a gallon for cars and about 24 miles a gallon for trucks. The new mileage and emissions rules will gradually tighten, beginning with 2011 models, until they reach the 2016 standards.
The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.
The administration has been under a self-imposed June 30 deadline to decide whether to grant California’s application to impose new emissions rules. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he is also trying to find a way to rescue the American automobile companies from their financial crisis.
One top industry official said the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors makes a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of the month.
The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.
Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency in January to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. The president also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to supplement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020.
The Bush administration failed to write any regulations to enforce the 2007 law.
Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expires.
He also said that the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a "harmonization" of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.
He said the standards were being written so that the car companies would already be on track to meet the standards set in the first few years of the program. The cars and trucks that will be sold in that period are already in the design phase. But starting in 2013 and 2014, the new rules will begin to bite, Mr. Weiss said.
"The rubber really meets the road in 2014," he said.
Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. In 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, he co-sponsored a bill to raise fuel economy standards and another to encourage the use of alternative fuels.
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and to improve the vehicles’ fuel efficiency.
"The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out," Mr. Obama said.
That inaction was one factor that brought General Motors and Chrysler to their current dire state, requiring billions in federal bailouts and Chrysler’s forced marriage to Fiat to survive.
JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 18, 2009
WASHINGTON —The Obama administration will issue new national emissions and mileage requirements for cars and light trucks to resolve a long-running conflict among the states, the federal government and auto manufacturers, industry officials said Monday.
President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California’s tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
Yet Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard.
Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Industry officials spoke on condition of anonymity about the program because they said they did not want to comment publicly in advance of the White House announcement.
The current standards are 27.5 miles a gallon for cars and about 24 miles a gallon for trucks. The new mileage and emissions rules will gradually tighten, beginning with 2011 models, until they reach the 2016 standards.
The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.
The administration has been under a self-imposed June 30 deadline to decide whether to grant California’s application to impose new emissions rules. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he is also trying to find a way to rescue the American automobile companies from their financial crisis.
One top industry official said the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors makes a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of the month.
The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.
Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency in January to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. The president also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to supplement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020.
The Bush administration failed to write any regulations to enforce the 2007 law.
Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expires.
He also said that the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a "harmonization" of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.
He said the standards were being written so that the car companies would already be on track to meet the standards set in the first few years of the program. The cars and trucks that will be sold in that period are already in the design phase. But starting in 2013 and 2014, the new rules will begin to bite, Mr. Weiss said.
"The rubber really meets the road in 2014," he said.
Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. In 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, he co-sponsored a bill to raise fuel economy standards and another to encourage the use of alternative fuels.
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and to improve the vehicles’ fuel efficiency.
"The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out," Mr. Obama said.
That inaction was one factor that brought General Motors and Chrysler to their current dire state, requiring billions in federal bailouts and Chrysler’s forced marriage to Fiat to survive.
05-18-2009, 03:22 PM
#2
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
President Obama Joins America’s CAFE Society
By Robert Farago
May 18, 2009
Politics is the art of the possible. In other words, it’s the art of manipulating expectations, not facing reality. In other other words, Barack Obama didn’t achieve the highest office in the land by doing things. He became president by promising to do things. And now that he’s actually got to do stuff, Obama must resort to the politician’s best weapon in their endless fight to reconcile expectations and reality (i.e. special interestes): loopholes. Those exquisite exceptions that allow those supposedly affected by a piece of legislation to avoid the law’s intent—to the point where you wonder why anyone bothered to write it in the first place. Only the answer to that question is obvious: so that the politicians who crafted the law could be seen to be doing something that meets with public approval. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the new CAFE standards.
Let me cut to the chase: the feds could mandate a 100 mpg fleet-wide corporate average fleet economy (CAFE) standard and the carmakers would meet it. All they’d have to do is do whatever they have to do to not do it while appearing like they’ve either done it or gave it a damn good try, then pay the damn fine (if necessary), pass on the cost to their consumers and get on with it. Again.
Which means that today’s pre-announcement announcement that the federal government will eventually adopt California’s CAFE standards—42mpg for cars, 26.2mpg for trucks by 2016—is meaningless. You know, in the real world. In the political sphere, it will be a major victory for environmentalists, supporters of the president, Chrysler and GM.
Yes, there is that. The president will soon have new CAFE standards AND control of two car companies that can build the vehicles that conform to those standards. I mean, they’ll have to do that, right? Otherwise, we could be in the strange situation where a taxpayer-funded automaker has to pay a large penalty to the taxpayers, from the taxpayer’s money, for failing to meet a standard set by the government who owns them.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not one of those people who worries that Chrysler and GM will be forced to build Nancy Pelosi-mobiles. I’m one of those who knows it.
Ah ha! But you just said the automakers won’t meet the standards! They’ll only pretend to. Yes, and to pretend to do it, they’ll build the Volt, an electric minivan or suchlike and pretend that they’re building the vehicles that will right the turtled ship, meet or exceed all federal regulations, save the planet and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Meanwhile, they’ll sell other things.
Or not. I mean, what difference does it make? Both car companies are practically 501c3 non-profit charities as it is. Any business that owes its existence to subsidies, noblesse oblige and tax credits is not going to spend too much time worrying about little things like return on investment and long-term profitability. Why should they?
Sorry. I got distracted. The meat of the matter: the new CAFE standards go hand-in-glove with the $100b or so doled-out (literally) to Chrysler and GM; a “fresh start” for a “clean future” with “green jobs” using “American ingenuity” and “innovative technology.”
It wasn’t planned that way. It just happened. Like I said, the art of the possible: drawing from the temper of the times and a farrago of common hopes to create a palatable policy platform for those who need to stay on message. And for those who need to build cars? “Flexibility.” Automotive News [sub]:
The proposal to run from 2012-2016 would maintain a single national standard for fuel economy and give automakers flexibility for meeting it, people with knowledge of the plan said.
The same would apply to anyone with knowledge of any government plan. This is not pure cynicism. This is cynicism based on historical precedent. Lest we forget, the last SUV boom was fueled by CAFE standards that allowed Chrysler to classify the PT Cruiser as a truck.
There is no reason to believe that the new CAFE regs will be any more stringently applied than existing laws, or if they are, that manufacturers will be any less likely to game the system to allow them to build the more profitable vehicles that people want to buy.
That said, again, this time ’round we’ll have two automobile manufacturers who will no longer care [that much] about building the vehicles that people want to buy. So they might NOT cheat. Which will screw it up for everyone else, Ford included.
Either that or they’ll force all automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles that will save the planet and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Oh, and be just as safe as current cars and trucks. After all, there are no limits to human ingenuity.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edi...-cafe-society/
By Robert Farago
May 18, 2009
Politics is the art of the possible. In other words, it’s the art of manipulating expectations, not facing reality. In other other words, Barack Obama didn’t achieve the highest office in the land by doing things. He became president by promising to do things. And now that he’s actually got to do stuff, Obama must resort to the politician’s best weapon in their endless fight to reconcile expectations and reality (i.e. special interestes): loopholes. Those exquisite exceptions that allow those supposedly affected by a piece of legislation to avoid the law’s intent—to the point where you wonder why anyone bothered to write it in the first place. Only the answer to that question is obvious: so that the politicians who crafted the law could be seen to be doing something that meets with public approval. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the new CAFE standards.
Let me cut to the chase: the feds could mandate a 100 mpg fleet-wide corporate average fleet economy (CAFE) standard and the carmakers would meet it. All they’d have to do is do whatever they have to do to not do it while appearing like they’ve either done it or gave it a damn good try, then pay the damn fine (if necessary), pass on the cost to their consumers and get on with it. Again.
Which means that today’s pre-announcement announcement that the federal government will eventually adopt California’s CAFE standards—42mpg for cars, 26.2mpg for trucks by 2016—is meaningless. You know, in the real world. In the political sphere, it will be a major victory for environmentalists, supporters of the president, Chrysler and GM.
Yes, there is that. The president will soon have new CAFE standards AND control of two car companies that can build the vehicles that conform to those standards. I mean, they’ll have to do that, right? Otherwise, we could be in the strange situation where a taxpayer-funded automaker has to pay a large penalty to the taxpayers, from the taxpayer’s money, for failing to meet a standard set by the government who owns them.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not one of those people who worries that Chrysler and GM will be forced to build Nancy Pelosi-mobiles. I’m one of those who knows it.
Ah ha! But you just said the automakers won’t meet the standards! They’ll only pretend to. Yes, and to pretend to do it, they’ll build the Volt, an electric minivan or suchlike and pretend that they’re building the vehicles that will right the turtled ship, meet or exceed all federal regulations, save the planet and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Meanwhile, they’ll sell other things.
Or not. I mean, what difference does it make? Both car companies are practically 501c3 non-profit charities as it is. Any business that owes its existence to subsidies, noblesse oblige and tax credits is not going to spend too much time worrying about little things like return on investment and long-term profitability. Why should they?
Sorry. I got distracted. The meat of the matter: the new CAFE standards go hand-in-glove with the $100b or so doled-out (literally) to Chrysler and GM; a “fresh start” for a “clean future” with “green jobs” using “American ingenuity” and “innovative technology.”
It wasn’t planned that way. It just happened. Like I said, the art of the possible: drawing from the temper of the times and a farrago of common hopes to create a palatable policy platform for those who need to stay on message. And for those who need to build cars? “Flexibility.” Automotive News [sub]:
The proposal to run from 2012-2016 would maintain a single national standard for fuel economy and give automakers flexibility for meeting it, people with knowledge of the plan said.
The same would apply to anyone with knowledge of any government plan. This is not pure cynicism. This is cynicism based on historical precedent. Lest we forget, the last SUV boom was fueled by CAFE standards that allowed Chrysler to classify the PT Cruiser as a truck.
There is no reason to believe that the new CAFE regs will be any more stringently applied than existing laws, or if they are, that manufacturers will be any less likely to game the system to allow them to build the more profitable vehicles that people want to buy.
That said, again, this time ’round we’ll have two automobile manufacturers who will no longer care [that much] about building the vehicles that people want to buy. So they might NOT cheat. Which will screw it up for everyone else, Ford included.
Either that or they’ll force all automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles that will save the planet and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Oh, and be just as safe as current cars and trucks. After all, there are no limits to human ingenuity.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/edi...-cafe-society/
05-18-2009, 04:44 PM
#5
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Miami, Fl. - Hurricane Highway
Posts: 2,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the f*ck if I wanted to live under so many rules and people telling me what to drive I'd be in California. The government should not be allowed to nationalize sh*t like this. I choose what I want to drive, and I have no problem that it gets horrible gas mileage and makes tree huggers cry to sleep. This is a complete joke, I seriously hate Barrack H. Obama.
-Joel
-Joel
05-18-2009, 05:10 PM
#7
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Charlotte,NC
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the f*ck if I wanted to live under so many rules and people telling me what to drive I'd be in California. The government should not be allowed to nationalize sh*t like this. I choose what I want to drive, and I have no problem that it gets horrible gas mileage and makes tree huggers cry to sleep. This is a complete joke, I seriously hate Barrack H. Obama.
-Joel
-Joel
Trending Topics
05-18-2009, 06:05 PM
#9
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that. You know I voted for Obama(flame on, I wasn't a huge fan but McCain/Palin ticket was looking worst at the time). I want my ******* vote back I swear to god he does nothing he said he's going to do(all politicians do this but complete 180s isn't normal). A borderline useless war, an economy in the toilet and about to get flushed and all those ******* hippies can think about is wasting time on emissions/gas mileage bull ****.
couldn't have said it better!
05-18-2009, 06:25 PM
#10
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Miami, Fl. - Hurricane Highway
Posts: 2,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you on this one.
This kind of sh*t should be vote ok by the peo....oh why bother the sheep look at this guy like the second coming of Christ. I cannot understand why they want states to follow the guidelines of California. I'm assuming they won't be doing emissions on older vehicles? If my car gets within a mile of the sniffer I'll fail. Even then I still won't be in any hear to change it to follow Cali law.
-Joel
This kind of sh*t should be vote ok by the peo....oh why bother the sheep look at this guy like the second coming of Christ. I cannot understand why they want states to follow the guidelines of California. I'm assuming they won't be doing emissions on older vehicles? If my car gets within a mile of the sniffer I'll fail. Even then I still won't be in any hear to change it to follow Cali law.
-Joel
05-18-2009, 07:07 PM
#12
WANNABE GENIUS
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Coal Valley, IL
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are all slowly implemented things and I dont think its all that bad of an idea. Yeah it sux but I dont think its as horrible as we all think. Unless what we are saying is that there are no fast cars in Califonia or anywhere else that there are higher fuel standards
05-18-2009, 07:22 PM
#13
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Miami, Fl. - Hurricane Highway
Posts: 2,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok it's great what's there now but when 2016 comes around I'm sure cars like the Ss, ZR1, Viper, will be thing of the past. For automakers to stick with the fleet mpg set they can't afford running high horsepower V8s. The government ain't instituting their standard, they are using that of California. I'm not feeling a law from another state to be nationalized then affects me. Let that crap be the californian problem, they chose their own politicians.
-Joel
-Joel
05-18-2009, 08:25 PM
#14
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok it's great what's there now but when 2016 comes around I'm sure cars like the Ss, ZR1, Viper, will be thing of the past. For automakers to stick with the fleet mpg set they can't afford running high horsepower V8s. The government ain't instituting their standard, they are using that of California. I'm not feeling a law from another state to be nationalized then affects me. Let that crap be the californian problem, they chose their own politicians.
-Joel
-Joel
05-18-2009, 09:04 PM
#15
Um I want to know when I can vote against this? I've never voted on a thing in my life but I would def. vote no thanks on something like this. CA sucks ***.
I have the feeling if something like this passed it would affect new cars only I hope. FL residents would be pissed, anyone know the official reason why emissions were dropped down here? You can't just make a nationwide change like this any not expect a couple million pissed off people if they have to suddenly smog there older automobiles.
I have the feeling if something like this passed it would affect new cars only I hope. FL residents would be pissed, anyone know the official reason why emissions were dropped down here? You can't just make a nationwide change like this any not expect a couple million pissed off people if they have to suddenly smog there older automobiles.
05-18-2009, 09:06 PM
#16
TECH Resident
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F' this new idea. The more the feds push, the more the states will push back. Montana, Alaska and Texas are already pushing back, more states will join them. The federal government isn't there to tell the states what to do, the federal government is there to help protect the country as a whole. When is enough enough?
Anyone with half a brain knows that global warming is a farce. Trying to tie this with global warming should be like a big slap in the face to all of you.
I never trusted BO because I am one of those people that asked 'how' and 'what' when he talked about change. I'm amazed at how many people said that they wish they could take their votes back now.
Anyone with half a brain knows that global warming is a farce. Trying to tie this with global warming should be like a big slap in the face to all of you.
I never trusted BO because I am one of those people that asked 'how' and 'what' when he talked about change. I'm amazed at how many people said that they wish they could take their votes back now.
05-18-2009, 09:16 PM
#17
TECH Addict
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Miami, Fl. - Hurricane Highway
Posts: 2,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is even if they put things to a vote it will still pass. All obamas got to say is that it's part of change, and people will pretty much give up their freedoms. I honestly believe this is going to far with the entire "fleet thing". I think it should just be 2 or 3 cars from their fleet must meet the mpg requirements. That way your not forcing the citizens to by a car "you" (u.s. government) believe they should buy. This sh*t is just another way for them to pretty much tell you what to do.
-Joel
-Joel
05-18-2009, 09:57 PM
#18
some of you guys might find some comfort in this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bbr...layer_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bbr...layer_embedded
05-18-2009, 10:03 PM
#19
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somewhere Between Mild Insanity and Complete Psychosis
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad our new emperor has taken a liking to his power.
Wiping his butt with the law when it suits him (Chrysler bond holders), and on the other hand creating new laws to destroy more and more civil liberty when it suits his irrational religious belief in man-made global warming.
Wiping his butt with the law when it suits him (Chrysler bond holders), and on the other hand creating new laws to destroy more and more civil liberty when it suits his irrational religious belief in man-made global warming.
05-18-2009, 10:31 PM
#20
I hope all current production is completely exempt from the MPG requirement and annual inspections.
They are just making life more expensive for everyone in a time period where the econ is doing bad. Smooth move!
My state had inspections but stopped because they did nothing other than cost people more money while not improving safety.
They are just making life more expensive for everyone in a time period where the econ is doing bad. Smooth move!
My state had inspections but stopped because they did nothing other than cost people more money while not improving safety.