Obama, automakers reach deal on new fuel standards

[jpak]

Source: Portlan Press Herald

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration and major auto manufacturers have reached a deal to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks between 2017 and 2025, resolving a contentious negotiation over how to cut vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions.

The agreement would require U.S. vehicle fleets to average 54.5 miles per gallon or 163 grams per mile of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2025, which represents a 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases and a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption compared with today's vehicles, according to sources briefed on the matter.

While the proposal falls short of the 62-mpg standard that environmental and public health groups had lobbied for, it represents a significant step in federal curbs on tailpipe pollution.

It would require a 5 percent annual improvement rate for cars between 2017 and 2025. Light trucks would be required to have a 3.5 percent yearly efficiency improvement between 2017 and 2021, rising to 5 percent between 2022 and 2025, according to the sources, who asked not to be named because the details have not been announced publicly.

<more>


Read more: http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/Obama-automakers-reach-deal-on-new-fuel-standards_2011-07-28.html

[hedgehog]

1. I want cars to stop using petrochemicals for fuel by then -

and no cheating by switching to batteries re-charged with electricity from cola fired stations, either!

[Indydem]

2. Then how would you have them run?

Magic beans are not yet a viable fuel source.

[hedgehog]

7. We put a man on the moon in 9 years with slide rules.

We could develop renewable energy infrastructures if we set our minds ( and money) to it.

Or, we could "nation build" some more lucky brown people!

[madokie]

22. Thats about the size of it

Said about as good as it can be said

[James48]

11. but ethanol is.

and is renewable.

Sure- you'll all start bashing me for various reasons, most of which simply are not true, but the fact remains that I have not used gasoline petroleum for the last three years, except for the 15% in E85. The remainder of my liquid fuel needs have been met with clean, renewable ethanol.

And before you all flame me, please read a few facts:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html

thank you.

[formercia]

25. Make vehicles smaller

How many people need a Mega SUV to go to the grocery store?

[Indydem]

26. The OP said nothing about more fuel efficient or smaller.

They said they didn't want them running on petrochemicals.

Two VERY different discussions.

[Broderick]

3. how

[neoralme]

4. If I have to pay for my mother's medical when she loses Medicare,

I sure as shit won't be buying a car now.

[Deep13]

5. A modest step in the right direction...

...and at least a decade overdue.

[Maccagirl]

6. GRRRR, that secret Muslim, Commie, Despot Obama

is at it again!!! :sarcasm:

[Pirate Smile]

10. Even in a thread on this topic, it's all blah, blah, gloom, doom, blah.

It reminds me of how Republicans can't give President Obama credit for anything.

[madokie]

23. Same shit here

at DU, same bullshit day in and day out. It's all about the color of the mans skin and nothing more, Oh, that thing about the D behind his name, that too.:-)

[sulphurdunn]

8. The real problem isn't fuel efficiency.

It's 200 million people driving 11 billion miles a day in cars that average 4,000 pounds are inefficient and spend vast amounts of time burning fuel while going nowhere in rush hour traffic. Of course, when the Republicans take over government again you can kiss fuel efficiency standards good-bye.

[AndyTiedye]

20. Hybrids & Electrics Don't Burn Fuel While Going Nowhere in Rush Hour Traffic

The fuel efficiency standards will mean more hybrids and more electric cars.
Those shut off when the car isn't moving, and use regenerative braking to
capture braking energy in stop-and-go traffic.

[sulphurdunn]

21. I'm a big fan of all this.

But, it won't be good enough by half to even begin to slow down climate change. That will require moving more people using a mere fraction of the energy we now use (something along the lines 1/10) and an end to the burning of coal as a primary source to generate electricity. That will require the removal of most structures from the electrical grid except as a backup and the use of smaller coal burning facilities to generate just enough power for the transportation grid. That might work for awhile.

[AmericaIsGreat]

9. It's a step

Needs to be combined with sweeping energy policy to get us off of oil (not just foreign).

[Cool Logic]

12. It sounds like this agreement will be good for truck dealers...

[SteveM]

14. Trucks have always lagged in safety/emission standards.

[pleah]

13. K&R

[AlbertCat]

15. 2017???

Why are we waiting until 2017?

We waited for health care
We waited for DADT

We wait for years to do anything....to START doing anything. Why is that? Just do it already!

[jpak]

16. This is the biggest increase in CAFE standards in a generation

yet the naysaying

<sigh>

[Nihil]

24. Agreed - long overdue but good news ...

... as long as it materialises ...

The intervening 6 years provides a large opportunity for the car makers
to screw up even this compromise.

:shrug:

(But it is *still* a good move!)

[Vattel]

17. This is progress!

[Dover]

18. Charlie Rose & Tavis Smiley have just done some interviews with the auto CEO's about this

and the future of the industry that some here might find very interesting. The former CEO of GM was ragging on the Japanese automakers, making excuses and STILL doesn't seem to get it (about how they - American car companies - fell out of favor with the public).
On the other hand, Ford is at least giving lip service to what the public has been demanding for a long time - fuel efficiency, saftety and overall quality. He said that this has actually become not only what is wanted in the U.S. but even in a very diverse global market. So this frees the manufacturers up to concentrate on these features and limit the numbers of platforms and parts.
He thinks Ford will run off of only 5 platforms in the future and will just change out primarily the cosmetics and packages available. It's moving far too slow for my taste and I don't know why these changes weren't done many years ago. They act like it's news to them that people wanted fuel efficiency? Puleeeeze! They were shoving gas guzzlers down our throats and were probably in cahoots somehow with the oil/gas industry. I recall about 12 years ago that one of the Fords made a big announcement about how they were moving into the green market, and then he came out a short time later and recanted. So what happened to change his message?

The Ford CEO also said he sees the internal combustion engine sticking around for a long time because there is a lot of room still for growth and development of this engine. He sees large trucks running on gas (not as easy, apparently for smaller vehicles), and emphasis on hybrids.
They aren't doing any work, themselves, on batteries, but expect that as it develops, along with the supporting infrastructure that supports it, we will see a lot more all-electric as well.
And he said there would be more clean diesels coming online soon.

Anyway, if this subject interests you, you might watch the interviews online:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11814 (FORD CEO)

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/former-gm-exec-bob-lutz/ (GM CEO)

[killbotfactory]

19. So he didn't get the 62-mpg standard, what a sellout corporate pig

:sarcasm: