Automakers Respond to New Nationwide Fuel Economy Proposal
Remember how the automakers fought against the 35 mpg by 2020 CAFE increase late last year? They are also fighting against possible state-by-state emissions and fuel economy regulations issues that are going through the courts. Following the news today of the NHTSA's call for cars to reach a 35.7 mpg average (and light trucks reach a 28.6 mpg average) by 2015, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers seems to be OK with it. The Auto Alliance issued a statement today (pasted after the jump) wherein Dave McCurdy, the Alliance's president and CEO says "This proposal represents an important mile marker on the road to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020." The Alliance - which speaks for BMW Group, Chrysler LLLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes Benz Usa, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota And Volkswagen - said the automakers "believe this tough, nationwide, proposed fuel economy increase will be good for both consumers and energy security. While these increases will present a challenge, it is critical that automakers and consumers have the certainty that this nationwide, 50-state fuel economy rule provides." Looks like the potential patchwork policies were more of a stick in the jaw than higher MPG rules.
Press Release:
Automakers Respond to New Nationwide Fuel Economy Proposal
"Congress has set an aggressive, single, nationwide standard and automakers are prepared to meet that challenge. This proposal represents an important mile marker on the road to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020." --Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
· In supporting the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) the Alliance and its member companies acknowledge that we have a responsibility to increase fuel economy and limit greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles.
· This proposed rule would require the industry to achieve fleetwide fuel economy standards of 35.7 mpg for cars and 28.6 mpg for trucks, vans and SUVs by 2015.
· When fully implemented EISA will result in a minimum 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards and a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through 2020.
· Achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from automotive sector will require a comprehensive approach involving the vehicles, fuels, and drivers.
· Automakers believe this tough, nationwide, proposed fuel economy increase will be good for both consumers and energy security. While these increases will present a challenge, it is critical that automakers and consumers have the certainty that this nationwide, 50-state fuel economy rule provides.
· Automakers are committed to enhancing energy security and reducing carbon dioxide emissions through the use of alternative fuel autos. Our goal as manufacturers is to offer fuel-efficient vehicle options, with a wide range of attributes, at an affordable price. Last year, more than 1.8 million hybrid-electric, ethanol capable flexible fuel vehicles and clean diesel vehicles were sold in the U.S. That was a 15 percent increase over 2006. This year, more than 70 models of alternative fuel autos are available on dealer lots throughout the country.
[Source: Auto Alliance]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ug 7:26PM (4/22/2008)
Reading between the lines:
"We're stuck with this law so the last thing we want to do is openly criticize it."
Reply
Cervus 7:33PM (4/22/2008)
Doesn't this put CO2 emissions on par with what California was demanding by that year?
Reply
texmln 10:41PM (4/22/2008)
Of course they aren't critical of the law, what do they care? The automakers are going to make you pay to hit that goal. You'll pay through the nose for hybrids (that cost more per mile to drive than their gas counterparts) and then they'll hit the rest of us who haven't been sucked into the phony 'global warming' story and the even phonier 'we're running out of oil' story since we'll want evil 'normal' vehicles.
Reply
mike 3:49AM (4/23/2008)
Yes, texmin,
you keep to that story, while OUR EYES tell us otherwise. Sheesh, google "Arctic Melt".
Yes, GM will be price gouging, but for how long. The Science channel now forcasts a gas shortage in 2016.
Then there's http://www.peakoil.com to really learn what's going on.
Reply
Tim 9:07AM (4/23/2008)
Since the automobile was first introduced, each step in technology that has produced more engine efficiency was used to build faster, larger more powerful cars & trucks instead of producing more efficient vehicles.
Why? It’s all about marketing (programming). EVERYTHING you see in print, on TV or in the movies is there specifically to plant ideas into the minds of feeble minded narcissistic egomaniacs and then separate them from their money (labor) or liberties. For over 50 years giant corporations have sold luxury over economy because that was the fastest was to strip us from the fruits of our labors. It was simple manipulation (ego stroking) and then filling the created demand.
Did it work? Look at your debt. How much do you have in savings? Are both parents working for their stuff? Are there even 2 parents in the household? YEP, works great!
This is still taking place however the giant corporations through their media and corrupt politicians are now programming “green” as the popular trend because “global warming” is a global issue and only a world socialist government can “save” us from certain impending doom. Their ultimate goal is for a One World Socialist Government of, by and for the wealthy elite. The Martins have landed and our arms are open wide in welcome.
Reply
MarkR 11:23AM (4/23/2008)
Tim,
You've summed it up well. I'm sure a lot of people thank that comment is crazy, but I think it's so true.
Reply
Whopper 2:18PM (4/23/2008)
Throughout its history the automobile has been influenced by the public's demands. When performance was the goal big horsepower flourshed. When fuel economy became important economy cars were born. Technology, Tim, responded to the consumer's demand, not the other way around.
In light of your comments, Tim, you need counseling! Paranoia is not a pleasant thing!
Reply