Automakers offer an option out of CAFE regs
US Senator Carl Levin, D- the State of Cars, will be offering an amendment to the proposed new fuel economy regulations next month that would provide a way out for carmakers. Under the new proposal, carmakers that commit to power using alternative fuels or new powertrains on all their cars by 2020 would be exempted from the new rules. In principle it's an interesting idea but as always the devil is in the details. Rather than leaving the car companies completely free of the new requirements perhaps they should have a slightly lower requirement. The other big question is what happens if the companies make the commitment and then don't follow through? What kind of penalties will be put in place? We'll have to wait and see the actual proposals when they're released.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
small-wee-wee 8:49AM (5/19/2007)
Umm, HELL NO! CAFE is to assist in cutting pollution not just getting better MPG. I cannot believe Levin has his hands that deep into the pockets of the American Auto Industry.
Time to call his office, again!
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/contact/index.cfm
Reply
Scatter 10:23AM (5/19/2007)
So there's every chance that come 2020 cars will be using different fuels but consuming just as much energy as today? Crazy.
Reply
PeakVT 10:19AM (5/19/2007)
The idea that car makers - especially American car makers, who have fought every safety and pollution regulation that is currently in effect - can be trusted to invest in the future and not seize the short-term profits (hoping that last minute lobbying will change things in 2020) is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week.
The only thing CAFE should be traded for is a gas tax that increases by $0.02 per month for the next 20 years.
Reply
JC 3:09PM (5/19/2007)
That would amount to a $4.80 gas tax per gallon, with inflation we're talking about a $10 plus gallon of gas... you've got to be kidding me! Honestly...a gas tax(smaller than what you've proposed) makes a lot of sense if the majority of the public could just go buy a new fuel efficient car in the next two or three years, but the reality is the majority of the poor are still driving cars from the eighties. A gas tax would screw over anyone that has to buy an older used car.
Reply
PeakVT 4:19PM (5/19/2007)
"but the reality is the majority of the poor are still driving cars from the eighties. A gas tax would screw over anyone that has to buy an older used car."
Nonsense. First, I live in a poorer neighborhood and many people around here are driving small to midsize cars from the late 1990s, many are driving 'late-model' cars, and only few are driving Caprice Classics or other big old American Iron. This makes sense given that the median age of the US light vehicle fleet is around 8.3 years. Second, the fleet's average fuel economy hasn't changed much since the 1980s, so the argument of the age of the cars that poor people are driving is moot anyway. The whole point of new CAFE legislation is to raise the fleet's average for the first time in a while. Third, in 2027 poor people won't be buying cars from the eighties or nineties, they will be buying cars from the 2010s or 2020s, which will (hopefully) be much more efficient. Fourth, the whole 'gas tax hurts the poor' line is bogus because the gas tax is certainly not the only tax that hits the poor. For instance, if the gas tax went up to $1.00/gal, the first $5000 of wage income could be exempted from the payroll tax. Easy enough to do if we really care about the poor. Fifth, oil is going to be very expensive by 2027 anyway if we don't impose a gas tax or raise CAFE standards significantly now. The point of a constantly increasing gas tax is to get people accustomed to the idea of rising gas prices and to adjust their behaviors in a gradual fashion. If the adjustment is abrupt the poor will certainly be hurt the most - they always are (think of Katrina).
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 10:43AM (5/20/2007)
You mean to say, they can offer E85 on every vehicle, but still make NO PROGRESS on Efficiency? That doesn't help Global Warming, or Energy Independence one bit. This only preserves the current status quo with NO PROGRESS.
Again, the real GOAL of the auto industry is to BURN GAS and nothing else. There MUST be some form of Compensation from the Oil Industry to the US Auto Industry. This is the only reason you'd Sell Out America, if I you were Personally Benefiting.
Funny, how the oil industry can't "Believe" in Scientific Reports of Global Warming, and at the same time use Science to Explore for Oil.
After all, with thier DISDANE for Science, you'd think they'd be using DIVINING RODS to find oil. But, no, they do use Science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divining_rod
And in the News: Southern Oceans losing ability ot absorb Co2.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/southern_ocean_.html#more
Reply
Joseph 5:46PM (5/19/2007)
This sounds like a good idea, but it must be approched very carefully.
Regulations must be made that the these new alternative fuel vehicles are not only an alternative, but also more fuel-efficient, and overall better for the environment.
There should also be a large penalty for the car makers that break their "promise."
P.S. Which car makers apply to the mpg increase?
Reply