40 MPG By 2016, 35 mpg By 2012


#1

Today, all parties involved signed off on a dramatic increase in mileage standards for cars and trucks. Looks like the automotive world returns to its beginnings. 4 cylinders. If you feel you NEED a heavy truck, you will pay dearly for it…I think it’s a good plan. We don’t have much choice really…


#2

Yes, I think it is good. For most people who don’t need big gas guzzlers, they will buy smaller cars.


#3

Not impossible, but the news report I heard was that it’ll cost an additional $1300 per vehicle to do so. That’s 325 more gallons of fuel, at $4/gallon, that $1300 could buy. Does that mean they’ll charge us a “gas sipper” fee along with a “gas guzzler” fee?


#4

Obama needs to be put back into his place. It is not the job of the President to impose emissions regulations on auto makers. I bet Obama will keep on riding around in a Suburban, surrounded by ten other Suburbans on his way to his personal 747…What a hypocrite. Remember Obama’s first trip on Air Force One? It was from DC to a small town in Virginia! I guess he doesn’t believe that what is good for the goose is good for the Royal Gander.


#5

So he’s taking the role of Al Gore now? :stuck_out_tongue:


#6

“Obama needs to be put back into his place. It is not the job of the President to impose emissions regulations on auto makers.”

Actually, it’s the legislature’s job. Obama did his job by suggesting a change. Whether any of us agrees with it or not, they did their respective jobs. The President will ride in a super-secure Cadillac limousine. The Secret Service agents ride in the phalanx of Suburbans. BTW, any town in Virginia is small. But the trip would have been justified if he went to Bristol! Drag races are preferred, but NASCAR is OK, too.


#7

Obama had to do this because Bush et al didn’t have the stones to buck the wishes of his old big oil buddies. These kinds of standards needed to be enacted years ago, better late than never.

Remember the industrial revolution changed the world. We are now coming to the end of the “oil revolution”. The world is changing, extinction is what happens to any species that can’t adapt. The time has come for us to realize we have to adapt IF America is to maintain its leadership position in the world.


#8

I was listening to the end of the debate and the vote during drive time this afternoon. Apparently there is a clause that provides between $3500 to $4500 to trade a gas guzzler for a gas sipper. Unfortunately, the drive train has to be ground up as part of the deal. That means the recipient only gets this money or some sort of credit. The Ways and Means Committee will decide how the money is dispersed. Fortunately, the newer car can be used. It seems restrictive to me, and very few people will take advantage of it because it hardly seems advantageous at all. How many people have a car the gets less than 18 MPG (he cutoff), is worth less than $4500, and can afford to buy another car that gets 28 MPG or better?


#9

So far Obama’s “change” has amounted to nothing short of Socialism. I’m not a fan. I don’t need the government deciding what I should drive.


#10

Well your friend Obama is going to raise the price of the average car by at least $1300, according to the Messiah himself. Why should these standards have been enacted years ago? What does oil have to do with extinction of humans? How does forcing industry into building unprofitable products help America maintain its leadership? How does forcing Americans into buying cars they don’t naturally desire help America? Since when is the government the source of inspiration and ingenuity in America?

I wish Obama had “the stones” to buck the wishes of his old big enviro-nazi buddies, like David Bookbinder who is the Sierra Clubs chief climate lawyer.


#11

“Whether any of us agrees with it or not, they did their respective jobs.”

What? So what you’re saying is that it is the governments job to beat us into submission because they know best?


#12

Two problems here. One is tailpipe emissions. The other is fuel consumption. Fuel consumption is by far the more pressing. The US is running out of oil. Nobody who knows much about US geology thinks much more oil will be found in the US – certainly not enough to cover our seven billion barrel a year petroleum habit. The problem is that we have to buy petroleum abroad and we don’t remotely sell enough grain, commercial aircraft, computer software, etc to cover the costs. Bad things happen to people who spend more than the make. Countries also.

The world probably will start to run out of also – quite possibly before cars being built today are scrapped. It’d probably be a really good idea not to be using a lot of it when that happens.


#13

I think it is a good idea which should have been put in place long ago.

I love that estimate of $1,300 increase in price for cars that comply. My car already does well over the 2016 standard.


#14

It’s been tempting to print up the perfect bumper sticker for liberals. It would say "SAVE THE PLANET!…but don’t make ME drive a tiny slow car.

There is the problem, if the public really wanted to drive little putt-putt cars, they would already be doing so.


#15

If you pay ~$1,300 extra for a vehicle, but wind up paying at least $1,300 less in gasoline costs over the next few years after you buy that vehicle, it would be very difficult to argue that this regulatory change will actually cost more money for consumers in the long run. The bottom line is that using less gasoline will enable us to stretch the dwindling petroleum supply by years or–hopefully–by decades. And, when vehicles burn less gasoline, they also emit fewer pollutants.

To anyone other than an oil company executive, this sounds like a win-win to me, and I say that as the owner of a large number of shares of Chevron, Exxon, and Marathon. Sometimes you have to look beyond your own self-interests in order to see that the overall effect is for the greater good.


#16

I agree. If you want to drive a boring econobox and do your part to save the planet, then go right ahead it’s your choice. However if someone does not want to drive such a vehicle it’s their prerogative. We already have fair system in place with fuel taxes so that the more fuel your vehicle uses the more you pay at the pump. Saving the planet and being “green” should be a personal preference not a federally mandated one.

Like B.L.E. said, people don’t want to drive small boring cars. If they did then that’s all that would see on the road.

In just a few months we have seen the banking industry effectively nationalized; now auto industry is one step away from being nationalized. I shudder at the thought of what is going to happen next. Like I said in my previous post Obama’s “Change” is basically Socialism.


#17

A too little too late to revive the automobile industry…
Is that fleet mileage or EVERY car/light truck made must conform ?

I would like to see California’s late 80’s mandate of a % of auto production nation wide, MUST be “0” emissions instead and create the necessary infrastructure to make electricity the true ultimate fungible power source and support LOCAL production of electricity for light load transportation. Then, get the “hell” out of the way and do everything possible to allow small businesses the freedom to compete. Small business can’t build hybrids (which is what in part 35+mpg is all about) cheaply…but they can electric cars and batteries.

Oil is too valuable to be used for personal transportation and electricity alone provides the ultimate freedom of person movement at minimal cost. The tides, solar, wind and yes, nukes should replace oil for personal transportation through the production of electricity for EVs. Let GM, Chrysler and Ford make HD trucks, jet engines, heavy equipment, GENERATION equipment, boutique vehicles (Hybrid Hummers for tow and the like) and military vehicles for national defense.

That said…we’re moving in that direction, regardless of any new mpg mandates. The future volatility of oil price on the free market will see to that. This is all just political “feel good”.

Hope to offend both liberals and conservatives by this rant.


#18

Obama didn’t invent emission and fuel standards. They have been around a long time, it was time to change them.

There is a finite supply of oil in the ground the faster we use it up the faster we have to develop options for other fuels. Oil is important to making all kinds of products especially plastics. Someday it will be too precious to waste by burning up in a car.

The cars American mfgs are making aren’t selling and aren’t profitable. If they were then the auto companies wouldn’t need government bailout money.

If you have the money you will still be able to buy a big truck and SUV. You may have less choices, but they will still be on the market.

There is nothing wrong with driving a small economical car. My '03 Civic is actually fun to drive and gets 40mpg on interstate trips.

Fact is your “guys” were in political office and had the power in America for years and they screwed it up. I know you’ll argue with all the points and tune into Rush Limbaugh for more reasons to beat up on “Liberals”. I am liberal and am not ashamed of it. I’m not buying into any of your conservative, paranoid, BS either.


#19

What do propose we do with millions upon millions of batteries that will result with your plan? They are exactly environmentally friendly to make or dispose off. Then there’s the issue of securing the materials to make them in the first place. If you look at the production timeline of a Prius, you can see that materials needed for high end batteries are largely located overseas. If there was a world wide demand run up for these materials it could very well lead to yet another conflict over natural resources.


#20

Unfortunately I don’t have time in my day to listen to Limbaugh. But I’m glad yo hear you’re listening, there is hope. And conservative, paranoid BS is free you don’t have to buy it. On the other hand you are buying, with your tax dollars, the liberal, paranoid BS on NPR.