Obama Administration Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules

How about a fuel economy rule for Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s Gulf Stream Jet.

About time…why 2016? I wish they would do it immediately…but it’s great that this president is actually doing something. We need cars that are fuel efficient…not gas guzzlers that are all over the road, making the price rise.

The cars I have been driving for the last 5 years already get that.
Funny, give someone better Gas Mileage, what do they do?? They drive more. :)
Give someone better efficiency Florescence light bulbs to replace their Incandescent less efficient ones, what do they do? They use more lights because now, they CAN NOT SEE! :)

Obama is again expanding federal intrusion into everybody’s lives. He is becoming a King. It is time for people to get control of Congress next year and stop this massive expansion of federal power.

I’m really starting to believe Obama is intentionally trying to tank the economy just to swoop in and save everyone with socialism. Seriously, I believe his mentality is that he’s got nothing to lose by doing this.

Bush had an oppertunity to this this years ago but thought it wasn’t the governments role. He could have pushed the american car industry in the right direction but he let them make gas guzzling SUVs and now we are 5 years behind. This is governments role to push our market in the right direction otherwise we would all be using horse carriages if our government didnt push the market towards the model -t. Just because you have no vision for americas future dont condem the rest of us to live in a cave with you.

It’s about time we stop bowing to the oil gods and do something for the good of the country and the planet. The President is taking this action right after eliminating millions of old inefficient clunkers from the highways. Now we’re thinking GREEN.

Quit the complaining…at least this president has the guts to do something about the mess we are in. If he didn’t do anything, you would be complaining.

“is governments role to push our market in the right direction otherwise we would all be using horse carriages if our government didnt push the market towards the model -t.”
Hmmm…I thought private citizen Henry Ford of the Ford Motor Company pushed opened up the market for the Model-T. Is this the history the libs are teaching in public schools these days?

“Obama is again expanding federal intrusion into everybody’s lives.”
Um, Brian, the Federal Government has been setting fuel economy standards for decades now. This is not new to the current administration. The fact is that the automakers would not have implemented any of the economy and safety features of modern automobiles if the government hadn’t forced them into it – seat belts, air bags, crush zones, shatterproof glass, higher fuel efficiency. Every now and then it is appropriate for the government to set standards.

This coming for the guy who burned 9000 gallons of AVGas on Earth Day.

“Um, Brian, the Federal Government has been setting fuel economy standards for decades now. This is not new to the current administration.”
Yes, but that doesn’t make it right.
“The fact is that the automakers would not have implemented any of the economy and safety features of modern automobiles if the government hadn’t forced them into it – seat belts, air bags, crush zones, shatterproof glass, higher fuel efficiency.”
Not true. Did Volvo target safety-conscious market segment with additional safety features due to govt. regulation? Did Honda target fuel-efficient sensitive market segment due to govt. regulation?
The answer to each of these is “no” – The MARKET determined what products and features (including fuel efficiency) based on wants/needs.

There are few wise posts here but the most are ignorant. Had it not been for the government, the car you drive today would not have seat belts.
A President who hides from the people and not go out regularly to convey his message; leaves everyone wondering is Bush is still in office. My car gets about 26 to 29 MPG and I am not happy.
Time to get rid of the gas guzzlers AND the people that “just drives around” for no good reason. Place a limit on driving for average consumers and every mile over limit gets a surcharge; just like leasing a car and pay over mileage.
10,000 miles per year is a good start with the exception of people who must drive for their work. A sales person gets a break but must prove the mileage as one would on taxes.

“I guess it’s a palateable notion to conservatives now to remain as hooked as possible on foreign oil…while leaving auto efficiency (consumption, folks) up to auto makers that whine at cafe standards and have avoided making their fleets more efficient when they weren’t being prodded?”
You don’t get it. CAFE standards remove CHOICES from the market. I’m all in favor of reducing oil consumption, dependence on foreign-oil, etc. I’m not about the govt. in a de facto manner dictating my options.
Believe it or not, I would be in favor of increasing the national gas tax. If I want to drive a big gas guzzler (and pay tons o’ cash in gas) that is my choice. If I want to minimize my expenditures on gasoline, I’ll buy a sub-compact. My choice.
Politicians do not have the spine to enact increase fuel taxes, so they instead use CAFE standards to promote their liberal agenda.

WOW!! — Do you realize how hard it will be to get an AVERAGE gas mile rating of 35.5??? — In 2007, the EPA’s new CAFE tests resulted in fuel-economy ratings dropping about 12% for city driving and about 8% for highway driving. — So now add 7% MORE mileage, our cars and trucks will have to average 15-16 PERCENT BETTER!!! — Tall order for car-makers! Is Obama intentionally killing SUV’s and big trucks??? — Or is he really just trying to cripple the economy!!!! LUNACY!!!

“Politicians do not have the spine to enact increase fuel taxes, so they instead use CAFE standards to promote their liberal agenda.”
I agree with the first part of your sentence but not the last. In what way is attempting to reduce our suicidal dependence on foreign sources of oil part of a “liberal agenda”. I would think that conservatives would be all in favor of removing this hugh national security exposure. Unless, of course, you own shares of oil company stock….

Marie — It is a falacy that our nation can ever “conserve” our way out of foreign dependency! — And this is at the expense of our auto industry, which can’t be tacking on a thousand dollars to each car right now!! — It’s either that, or drop your big vehicles!

I guess we will be having to wind up the rubber band every morning in our new VW’s. How are construction people ever going to build you a house with toy trucks? Never fear, I am sure before Obama is done with you will have to live in toy houses as well.

I hope you can get a family of four in that electric golf cart, while Obama and his administration ride in stretch limo’s.

That is fine for autos that are used to take people from point A to point B but what about work trucks? It takes trucks with X amount of HP to buils buildings, how is that going to happen with toy truck. Has Obamas thought process gone that far???

Honda and other Japanese makers learned to build cars for the Japanese market first – where fuel is and long has been VERY expensive and parking space is at an extreme premium. When the first Japanese cars hit the American market in the 1960′s, they were tiny by American standards and caught on at first as “niche” products. Then Americans began to realize how much better built, more innovative and cheaper to run they actually were.
Much the same goes for Volvo: safety became a big issue for that company because of Swedish values and the well-publicized fact that the wife of a key exec worked in healthcare treating trauma cases. In a nation with 100% government funded health care, auto safety became a SERIOUS public issue very quickly, and the result which turned up in the American market was DECADES ahead of Detroit’s “catch-up” effort.
Most American makers, meanwhile, have been resting on their laurels and their Golden Parachutes, sleeping with the petroleum industry and pressuring Congress to pass tax incentives favoring huge, gas-guzzling behemoths. It is time that our federal government should cut these guys off at the pockets and tell them to shape up by building smaller, more efficient, safer vehicles.

“Why is it that so many people are willing to believe that lawyers and govt. bureaucrats in DC and state capitols can make better decisions than those we can make on our own?”
In principle I agree with you. However, the “invisible hand” of the market does not always function for the good of the most people. I wish I had broader choice in my vehicle purchases. I’d love to buy one of the cars that Ford distributes in Europe but Ford won’t introduce it here for some reason. Since I own a farm I still need a truck for “heavy lifting” but would like to buy a fuel-efficient diesel for around town. I’m not holding my breath for hybrid or electric vehicles. I don’t think they will cut it in the long run. Also don’t think that hydrogen will be the answer either but it’s worth investing in the technology.

tw — Come on, you gotta admit Obama wants his fingerprints on everything!! — I can picture Obama sitting in a big swivel-chair, petting his hairless cat and dreaming of controlling the world!! — very “Dr. Evil-esque”!!

“I would think that conservatives would be all in favor of removing this hugh national security exposure.”
Agreed. So why not drill off the U.S. shore? Instead we send $2 billion in loan guarantees to Petrobras (Brazilian oil company) to drill off-shore (BTW, Petrobras is one of George Soros’ largest holdings – Coincidence?).
“Unless, of course, you own shares of oil company stock….”
I do own some oil-related stocks. But keep in mind, the U.S. isn’t the only country that uses oil. And, it is a hedge against fluctuating oil prices (I may pay more/less for gas but will be offset by higher/lower stock price).

TW — YOU said “Conservatives have become slaves to an ideology driven by corporate greed and the notion that corporations know what is best for Americans.” — I think it’s “Liberals see themselves as omnipresent and THEY know what is best for Americans, forget about freedom and liberty”!!!!

” It is time that our federal government should cut these guys off at the pockets and tell them to shape up by building smaller, more efficient, safer vehicles.”
Why not just raise national fuel taxes instead of dictating to private industry (well, excluding GM and Chrysler) what to build? This would give consumers choices.
(come to think of it, some parallels can be drawn between govt. involvement in the auto industry and what Obama wants to do to healthcare: eliminate/minimize choices…feels a bit totalitarian)

Let’s see…in 8 years, Bush and Co. got us into a war, then they did…got us into a war, then…got us into a war, gee, that seems to be the only thing I can remember Bush did that really had an effect on all of us. The rest of the time was spent on making the fat cats fatter, deregulating everything, awarding very lucrative no bid contracts to companies they had a financial stake in, “lost” 13 billion dollars in cash in Iraq,…yeah, it sure was lost, probably never even got there, and read “My Pet Goat” when told America was under attack. 8 years and this is what America got from that administration. Here’s a guy that wants to do health care reform, wants to do things for the average man, woman, and child that would make life better for them, and all you do is complain. Get over it, Bush and Chaney are gone counting all the money they made from your hides. They ain’t coming back.

#1 Republican — You must have me confused with soemone else — Read my posts again — I am NOT an Obama supporter.

35mpg by 2016? I don’t think it’s enough but at least it’s a step in the right direction. Foreign companies will be at 100mpg by then. Hopefully, our institutions will do this on their own without having to be told, get your act together. We had too many years of CAFE standards being dumbed down and look at the results.
As for the rest of you; great fuel economy does not automatically mean, build a smaller car. Why do you guys repeat this weak propaganda. There are engineers working now who can do this with no problem. We can build cars and trucks NOW that will get 35mpg.
How does the GOP get you guys to fight against you’re own interest? How many times do we have to fail to the point of total collapse? Stop impeding progress and let the rest of us, who want this country to be great again, take the reigns. Short term profit ALWAYS lead to destruction. It’s time we start solving the problem.
Unbelievable!

“How is it that American business is simultaneously ingeneous enough to meet all of our market whims, but not ingeneous enough to engineer cars that get marginally better mileage tahn was possible in 1960?”
Is this a serious question? You are aware that engines are available in many shapes and sizes, right? (BTW, this availability/choice didn’t come about by govt. dictation/regulation)

The truth about oil is it will continue to get more expensive from here on — We are near the peak production, and nowhere near our peak consumption (thanks China and India)— So, we need to use our heads to come up with the “next” great fuel, and “conservation” will not help much!!!

“The question I would ask is “why not?”. Govt. protectionism, perhaps? Govt. regulation (cover for protectionism)? ”
In this case I don’t think so. This is Ford’s decision for the time being. I believe that the American market is resistant to diesel technology due to the experiment in the 1970s with diesel – sooty, smelly, etc. Of course, 21st century diesel is nothing like that. It would be relatively easy to introduce diesel since the fuel distribution network is already in place – unlike hydrogen and even electric.

“Which is why I can’t believe 52% of Americans who voted in November put into power a man whose resume is limited to entries such as “community organizer”, “law school professor”, “politician”, and “lawyer”.”
As opposed to “oil rig worker” “politician” and “baseball team owner”?

“As opposed to “oil rig worker” “politician” and “baseball team owner”???????????????????
How about GOVERNOR??? Where is your head? Don’t answer that… we already know.

“I believe that the American market is resistant to diesel technology due to the experiment in the 1970s with diesel – sooty, smelly, etc.”
Perhaps you are right. I remember our VW in the 80s (as well as that annoying “glow-plug ignitor” we’d have to wait on before we could start engine). We’ll see what happens – Still a believer that if it is a good product that has market demand it will come.

As opposed to “oil rig worker” “politician” and “baseball team owner”?
I’m not a Bush defender, but his life experiences (including experience as Gov. of Texas) lent themselves to be MUCH more prepared than Obama upon entering office. Obama did some organizin’ on the South Side, taught some law, was a state legislator, and was barely in Senate before he began campaigning for president.

, “drill baby drill” is really a short-term solution. Unless the world at large develops a stable, alternate supply of cheap energy in the coming decades our modern civilization is going to be in a world of hurt.”
You won’t get strong disagreement from me on this. What is Obama doing to find that “cheap energy”? Installing some solar panels? Putting up a few windmills? These sources certainly help, but are not scaleable to be a game-changer. If Obama was talking nuclear he might get my attention. Otherwise, empty/incomplete promises and solutions.

tjp…he sure was prepared, to be the worst President history will record. And being the Governor of Texas…well, not the most forward and progressive state in the nation says alot about the man and those that voted him as Governor. Yeah, that made him real qualify to screw this country six ways to Sunday. And you would actually think this much of this man to say that this man was competent?

Jared — I was not speaking of TODAY, but the future use for oil!! — China and India’s INCREASE in fuel consumption is outpacing ours and WILL cause consumption to increase (if it can)for many decades — I agree with the administration that we need “alternative” energy, but it is silly to believe wind and solar power will ever take the place of oil!! — Whatever will be the “next” world fuel is not available yet!!

Jake — OF COURSE Texas is NOT one of the most “progressive state in the nation” — We’ll leave the “progressive movement” to the Blue States!! — Texans values their individual freedoms more than that — (NO, I am NOT from Texas)

” And being the Governor of Texas…well, not the most forward and progressive state in the nation”
Jake, when was the last time you visited Austin, Dallas, or San Antonio? BTW, Texas leads the nation in the generation of electricity from wind turbines. We passed California some time ago.

Chris | Sep 15, 2009 4:07:27 PM— I agree on nuclear. What most people don’t realize is that 1: Nuclear waste /plants CANNOT be made is fission weapons. the worst you can get from either is a dirty bomb. Most plants =/= most access to these materials. and 2. nuclear energy production has perhaps the cleanest safety record of ANY energy production using fuel. there have been 2 large scale nuclear plant issue, BOTH caused by human error, and only ONE caused any deaths, and that ONE was in the USSR. If we recycled spent fuel instead of injecting it into the ground, current uranium reserves could supply the united states with all the energy it needs for the next 75-100 years.

“current uranium reserves could supply the united states with all the energy it needs for the next 75-100 years.”
And it can do so without emitting an ounce of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and would allow the retirement of existing coal, oil, and gas-fired plants that currently pump millions of tons of stuff into the air every year. Certainly we’re smart enough to solve the waste storage problems.

Chris | Sep 15, 2009 4:23:47 PM
—- Even the amount of waste would be very minimal, if we would follow (*gulp*) FRANCE’s lead and recycle spent fuel, and then ‘pump’ it right back into the reactor.

kurosekiryu | Sep 15, 2009 4:26:23 PM
I consider myself to be an environmentalist but in this instance the “environmental community” is wrong. Nuclear is the only near term solution that can supply a stable source of energy and attack global warming at the same time. It may not be a perfect solution – nothing is. Even some in the environmental community are complaining about the impact of wind farms on bird migrations and covering the desert with solar panels (all valid concerns, BTW). Nuclear provides the largest source of energy with the lowest, manageable environmental impact.

Looking back, increasing the mileage on cars should have been done years ago, but the oil industry’s strong connection to the White House at the time prevented this. I’m glad it is finally happening. Let’s hope our American car companies catch on to what the Japanese have known for years, people will want efficient cars as gas prices inevitably go up as oil is a finite resource.
Now can they stop classifying SUV’s as trucks and put them in the passenger car category so they will shrink down or go extinct? I am always amazed by the people who will buy a huge SUV so they can tow a camper or boat a few times a year, but then complain about their high gasoline bill. Rent a truck for those few times you need it, and buy an efficient car for year round driving if you have a lick of sense!
They are way more fun to drive (and park) as a bonus!

If America was serious about cutting funds to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, it’s citizens would strongly get behind oil conservation. The EU hasn’t increased oil imports since the 1980s yet are gaining on us economically. The average savings of $3000 is an exaggeration, but we would save 100 gallons of gas per average vehicle per year.

“100~ plants provide 20% of US energy demand.”
“so in order to generate a total of 65% of the countries electrical means, we need another 325 nuclear power plants.”
Kurosekiryu: Actually (while not a nuclear expert), I’m wondering if the total would be less – I would expect that through technological advances that the efficiencies of today’s nuclear plants would be higher than those built 30+ years ago (assumes that existing plants not completely upgraded to existing technology).

Unfortunately, the $3000 savings the consumer SHOULD get, greedy car companies will build into the price. It’s the old, “you can afford now so why not charge you”, play. The consumer WILL get more milegae but will pay for it up front. And of course the President will be blamed for it instead of the rightful owners of the deception, the car manufacturers. The President is ACTUALLY trying to get the consumer some savings, its the car manufacturers who have to play ball now. I don’t see them playing ball.
What we really need to think about is stop sending the middle east terrorist funds because that is what U.S. oil money is funding, terrorist!!!!

” Reducing these regulation would reduce the cost of building SIGNIFICATLY, ”
That plus design standardization. Currently most US plants are of a unique design. If we standardize the new plant design (like they did in *gasp* France, Canada, and Japan) we will dramatically reduce the construction, operations, and maintenance costs of the plants.

“Hey, we’re still better than any European country vis a vis friendly business environments.”
Actually, for the first time, the U.S. fell to #2 behind Switzerland in the World Economic Forum’s “Global Competitive Index”. Still pretty good, but we’ve lost a little footing.

It wouldn’t be hard to get a nice steady stream of young 25-year olds to maintain nuclear facilities, either. I know one GREAT pipeline that creates quite a few.

While I applaud the stricter rules, I think it didn’t go anywhere near far enough. I had a car 13 years ago that would get 30MPG. American auto makers, with the technologies we have today, should be able to easily put out vehicles that can get well over 50MPG. Why do they set their sights so low?

“Texas!!!! Home of big oil!!!!!”
I’m from Texas and we only produces 200,000 barrels of oil a day which is but a nit on the oil industry’s rear end. We are the home of Exxon, however… Nonetheless, I don’t think this country is capable of coming to a consensus on energy – not as long as our “leaders” (of BOTH parties) use energy as a wedge issue to split the electorate. I remember reading a book in 1973 called “The Failure of US Energy Policy”. Not much has changed in 30 years and I don’t expect anything will change soon.

Wow, an effort to save thousands, but will cost millions, if not billions. Refresh my memory on why this is a good idea. The reality of the matter is that trying to force such strict fuel economy regulations is going to result in lower fuel consumption simply because people will no longer be able to afford to buy the cars. Any costs incurred while developing cars that get that kind of mileage will certainly be passed on to the consumer, who is already strapped for cash. I could go on, but suffice it to say, the priorities here are seriously messed up.

Posted by: Bob | Sep 15, 2009 3:42:06 PM
“How does the GOP get you guys to fight against you’re own interest?”
That’s one heck of a good question there Bob!

There was a comment about recycling nuclear waste. This is the answer. Unfortunately, the process is still too expensive. I’m for nuclear if they would commit themselves to fixing the waste problem. I’m not too keen on storage. Eventually space runs out. I definitely don’t think the administration understands the science here. Nuclear has gotten a bad wrap.
See, I like when people come to the conversation with thoughtful comments. Stop parroting GOP cynicism and think about the greater good of us all.
They (GOP) were the ones that allowed the automotive lobby to keep CAFE standards marginally unchanged, all in the name of short term gain. Again, short term gain usually leads to destruction. I’m sure all of those gains have already been wiped out.
Lets bring in a smarter future. The ideological war is dead. it’s not about more or less government. It’s about smart, balanced governance.

What I am truly intrested in is the application of a super-high density capacitor in a large vehicle application…
From start to finish, if the EEStor’s (a texas company, BTW) EESU is all it’s claimed, we may see a complete replacement of gasoline cars in the next 15 years. Trucks and the like would still be run on diesel/gas, most liekly though.

When do we realize that increases in fuel mileage will add decades to the hydrocarbon age and continue our struggle with carbon emissions? The correct approach is to dump everything into jump starting the hydrogen age.

“OIL is used primarily to make GASOLINE. The relationship between “oil cartels” and nuclear is extremely loose at best.”
Perhaps CitizenAJ was addressing the fact that relatively cheap electricity could be used to power electric vehicles, thereby displacing some of the need for oil to power them. Of course, this assumes a large penetration of plug-in electric vehicles. But I don’t want to put words in AJ’s mouth….

Kurosekiryu | Sep 15, 2009 5:22:52 PM
Good point. The average backyard mechanic would not be able to work on those puppies. Maybe spawn a new workforce of skilled turbine mechanics?

On the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 24th, 2009 , was a short column entitled “Replacing Michelle” in the National Review “The Week” column. I found this interesting, so here it is, word for word, as it appeared:
Some employees are simply irreplaceable. Take Michelle Obama: The University of Chicago Medical center hired her in 2002 to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment,staff diversity and minority contracting” .
In 2005 the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000 -nearly twice what her husband made as a Senator.
Oh did we mention that her husband had just become a US Senator? He
sure had, and requested a $1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center, in fact.
Way to network Michelle!
But now that Mrs. Obama has resigned, the hospital says her position will remain unfilled. How can that be, if the work she did was vital enoughto be worth $317,000?
Let me add that Michelle’s position was a part time, 20 hour a week job.
And to think they were critical of Blagoyovich’ s wife for taking $100,000
in a fuzzy real estate commission.
My thoughts: How did this bit of quid pro quo corruption escape the
sharp reporters that dug through Sarah Palin’s garbage and kindergarten files?
Unbelievable!

Sure, I can walk the 20 miles to work each day, no problem.

ALL human activity on the planet, including domestic animals, accounts for only 4% of global CO2 emissions. The other 96% comes from the ground. Look it up.
We’re about to retool our entire economy to supposedly reduce CO2, and the end result will be nada. Save $3,000 on gas? If it costs $4 a gallon, maybe, but how much more will we be paying for cars? Keep in mind, these are cars virtually NOBODY wants to buy now. I have three kids in car seats. What am I supposed to drive? My Tahoe is supposed to be so evil, morons in California are firebombing dealerships. Do you really think US automakers can catch up with euro and Japanese small car specialists in less than 6 years?? Only if Obama is picking up the tab, and he will, by doubling the price of gas through taxation.

My daughter’s car gets about 20mpg. She drives about 20,000 miles a year which is about 1,000 gallons of gas and the associated pollution. A couple I know of will likely insist that their kids drive “green” cars. Some may get 50 mpg. 2 ½ times the milage of my daughter’s car! If they drive the same distance their cars will only use about 400 gallons per car. They’re expecting their 19th kid so multiply 400 x 19 = 7,600 gallons of gas those kids will use when they’re driving. 7,600 vs 1,000. Now lets add the electricity they use, natural gas, sewage, water consumed etc.
There is no way to reduce consumption of resources or lower pollution levels as long as human population continues to increase. Simply can’t be done. Our politicians know it, they just don’t have the guts to say it. Obama’s regulations won’t do anything in the long run.

I drive a reasonably effecient car. I calculate my mileage, and it wavries from 23mpg when i’m driving city only, up to nearly 30 over road trips. I’ve owned the car for 2 years, and have not driven it more than 8 months out of the year each year, and yet I still have averaged 20k miles/year. I would honestly prefer to have a nice all-electric for work/city use(to hell with super-efecient design, which only has the purpose of increaing range. I’d be driving it 15 miles a day tops) and keep my current car for road trips.