Bush, the EPA, MPG and 2017
This week, President Bush gingerly took another step towards reducing some of the U.S.'s oil dependence by 2017. Bush directed his cabinet to get work done by the end of 2008 (so, in 18 months) on the president's plan to cut U.S. gasoline use by 20 percent by 2017. What were some responses from around the green car web? Some groups fawned over the announcement. The Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a project of Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), welcomed the President's announcement, saying it "advances effort to reduce oil dependence." The Diesel Technology Forum, in their response to Bush's call, said that with the many companies bringing diesel vehicles to the U.S. over the next few years (but not as many as we'd like to see), will meet "consumer demand for fuel economy and high performance."
The Auto Alliance, which basically speaks for most major automakers, gave a slightly vague response. Dave McCurdy, Alliance president and CEO, said that, "Automakers support reforming and raising car fuel economy standards, consistent with the need to preserve jobs and consumer choice. Determining the right level for the future will require sound science and engineering, in an open process that involves everyone. Automakers support DOT and NHTSA continuing to set fuel economy standards, and we believe that NHTSA should begin a rulemaking now to implement the President's plan. The Alliance pledges to work constructively with Congress and the administration to help reduce oil consumption and carbon dioxide, while at the same time preserving the diverse range of automobiles that consumers require today."
That "preserving the diverse range" bit sounds to me like they're not looking for the hard hand of the law to come down, even though they say they'll "work constructively" with the lawmakers.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) took a firmer stance. The group said that Bush's instructions to the EPA meant that Congress "must lock specific, mandatory goals in place." David Friedman, UCS Clean Vehicles Program research director, said that, "If the president delivers what he's promised, his proposal would take the nation a long way toward reducing its dependence on oil and cutting global warming pollution. But, given that the Supreme Court had to force the Bush administration to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress is going to have to enact guaranteed fuel economy improvements and low carbon fuel standards."
Good old Grist says clearly that, "funneling a bunch of subsidies to Big Corn and Big Coal does not constitute a 'response' to the Supreme Court ruling, which was about the EPA regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act."
Related:
[Source: Reuters, Diesel Technology Forum, Securing America's Future Energy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Auto Alliance, Grist]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
frank78 9:21PM (5/18/2007)
All auto manufacturers are brining LOTS of diesels andhybrids because their demand is going up with the gas prices, and the average fuel economy will probably be up by 10mpg in 5 years.
Ya gotta love how politicians who are jumping on the bandwagon after the proverbial train has left the station, and will soak in all the improvements, claiming it to be from their laws, when in fact the market was already heading towards much greater efficiency. They'll hog the spotlight when the market will have done a better job by itself.
Reply
Tony Belding 10:44PM (5/18/2007)
And of course, there's no mention of the one best move that our government could make to spur higher fuel economy: raise taxes on gasoline.
In the most recent episode of Autoline Detrot, John McElroy pointed out a real conundrum. If we force the production of more efficient cars, while the price of gasoline remains relatively low (compared with Europe, for example, where it's heavily taxed), then we are reducing the cost of driving and thus encouraging people to drive more. Then we'll get more traffic congestion and little if any reduction on total fuel consumption.
Reply
A.Brien 11:28PM (5/18/2007)
the manufacturers should put on the dash of all new car a dial the read instanly the m.p.g and
the cost per mile driven and the average speed.
Reply
small-wee-wee 8:36AM (5/19/2007)
People interested in this should check out this weeks installment of NOW on PBS. It discusses the foreign auto industry and how the American auto industry has such poor MPH compared to foreign auto makers.
Reply
small-wee-wee 8:38AM (5/19/2007)
Sorry for double post, here is the link
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/320/index.html
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 10:45AM (5/20/2007)
Thanks for the link #5.
Now lets see how long FORD sits on this and Does Nothing.
- direct injection ethonol, increases fuel efficiency 33%.
- increases Torque.
But, rather then wait 3 years, the auto industry could offer solutions Today. De-couple the most expensive models from the Biggest Engines. Upscale drivers want the lux ammenities, but, I doubt every driver really wants to pay the STUPID Tax to ExxonMobile. Most Drivers know they don't need 300 hp, and could easily get by with 200 hp, a drop of 100 hp would easily recover 6 mpg. A change the auto industry could make Today.
Reply
MikeW 6:41PM (5/20/2007)
Hopefully BMW will bring over their twin serial-sequential 3.0 Inline6
diesel, coupled to the new ZF 8 speed auto (the heavier duty version 553-590ft-lbs) and use their tallest axle ratio 2.35:1.fast and great mileage.
and then you can chip it, and not destroy the transmission
http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/e60535d.pdf
Reply
CaptainOFace 9:08AM (5/21/2007)
I almost threw up when I read - "the one best move that our government could make to spur higher fuel economy: raise taxes on gasoline." Are you insane? Never, never, never. Worst idea of all time, how dare you even think it. You should be banned from your computer for one week for suggesting such an insane thing.
-Better Suggestion-
How about we offer -tax deductions- for any auto that gets 40mpg or better! That way we dont adversly effect the logistics industry and force price increases in everything moved by truck to compensate for the fuel tax. Increased fuel tax would result in higher prices for everything moved by a truck. FedEx, UPS, Garbage, Food, Drygoods, Electronics, etc, etc. Do you think companies are not going to pass on the increased tax to consumers? Not to mention the hit small time trucker, owner-operators, will feel from the undue burden on them. Saving the world is important, but lets not destroy the free market in the process.
If you still want to pay a tax, you can elect to not make the deduction or you could send me 5 bucks and Ill plant a tree for you :)
Reply