The difference between CA AB1493 trucks projection and Bush SOTU trucks may be due to different classification schemes. Even then, Bush SOTU car figures are not as aggressive as they can be vs CA AB1493, considering proposed 2010 and 2011 numbers are practically on top of one another.

So the Auto companies get Rick Boucher, from south-west Virginia, who?, to sponsor their bill to cut off California and other states' attempts to increase fuel mileage over what our president agreed to. God bless him and I do hope the people of Virginia remember he was the one who did it; remember Ricky at the next election.

The auto companies could meet this standards if they spent the money on R & D instead of lobbyists, lawyers and PR ads.

I would like to see our citizens keep driving their present cars and not buy a new one until the auto companies address the fuel and GHG concerns.

This is a perfect example of why fuel taxes/carbon tax is a better approach to reducing CO2 emmisions.

While I don't think there is anything wrong with having CAFE standards, their impact will be too slow and take too long to have much impact given the size of the existing fleet. Regardless, the standard should apply across the board and not be segmented between SUVs and cars. If there is a separae standard for SUVs, there is very little incentive to try to encourage people to move away from SUV into more efficient cars.

Further, none of these proposals are sufficient to reduce energy consumption from automobiles in line with the necessary percentage carbon reductions.

In addition to or in liue of CAFE standards, feebates should be instituted whereby increasingly high fees are applied to cars that fail to meet a certain standard and rebates are provided to those who buy fuel efficient cars. Further, a similar system should be used for registration fees so that existing vehicles are covered.

Gas taxes should also be raised to discourage miles driven by existing vehicles. A floor of at least five dollars per gallon on gas should be maintained so that people will realize that high gas prices are not a temporary phenomenon.

Our politicians are just going through the motions and appear to have no intention of actually doing something that will truly address the problems of peak oil and global warming. By the time these standards have any significant impact, we will already be past the tipping point.

The problem with gas taxes is that after a point they stop having the desired effect. Up here we pay over a dollar a litre, routinely. Just last night I payed Tom's $5 per gallon and it hasn't cause me to drive less. Why not? Well because I've already cut my driving down to the barest minimum - I did that back when I was only paying $2 per gallon.

Tom, if you're looking for $5/g gas to be imposed, you undoubtedly are going to be quite disappointed. That's not due to lack of action by politicians, that's simply because a vast majority of the public would not go for it at this point. Even here in a liberal state, you would have to look long and hard to find a handful of supporters of that idea.

There would be many ripple effects in the economy as well... higher food prices, lots of lost tourism dollars, etc. That would mean lots of pressure from various business sectors against such an idea.

We need 40 mpg CAFE pronto. China and Europe are pretty close to that today, and US car companies do profitable business in those geographies today.

Sure the existing fleet will be unchanged, but in 7-12 years, the high CAFE cars will be the existing fleet. Any other technique can not ensure the average is improved enough. Higher gas taxes only affect some drivers. Higher CAFE affects all drivers.

Of course, we can go further to reduce GHG. We can mandate that new cars be flex-biofuel-capable. It only costs a couple hundred dollars to make a car E85 compatible. Running on B80 is a cheap tweak, too. I'm not sure if running on biobutanol even requires tweaks. The point is, by mandating this, we create a huge market for biofuels, which hastens their market maturity and availability.

I'd also like to see a floor on oil prices of $70/barrel, (current price + N must be greater than or equal to $70, where N is a variable tax). I think the market forces will "miraculously" never let the price below $70 again, but either way, the price of oil will remain high enough to bring stability to the alternative energy market.

Higher CAFE will force a autocompanies to change their business model. Instead of pushing upgrade packages that have higher horsepower, they will have to push upgrade packages that emphasize other cool extras...or they will have to charge a lot more for the low mileage option to offset the penalties they will pay.

The best carbon tax would be revenue neutral for the government. Collect the tax and a per capita rebate. A carbon tax would not have to be an abupt tax as long as the consumer sees the tax on the horizon when he purchases a new car.

IMHO, new vehicle purchase is the consumer behavior easiest to modify (as opposed to using public tranport, walking, carpooling, cycling or moving closer to work.)

At this point with the price of gas, does it really matter. The market is taking care of the miles per gallon. The cafe standards do need to be increase just for conservation and CO2.

Do you ever really wonder who is running this country?

I think that you can go a lot farther changing buying patterns. If a large upfront fee was required and increased annual fees for large SUVs, it would increase mileage without laws and loopholes.

Richard,
The National Academy of Sciences says 4% is achievable with off the shelf technology.

ChillPill,
Would that it were that simple. If you put in a polluter tax, but you don't mandate better fuel economy (or very low GHG/mile, which is the same thing), the car companies will try to use the existing platforms and assembly lines for as long as possible and just pass along the costs to wealthier or power-hungry consumers.

To be maximally effective your policy has to tie as tightly as possible to the behavior you are trying to change, with no real way around it. Aggressively raising CAFE does that.

I with you guys on the goals, your means are less achievable than long shots. You want to tax poor people, or SUV drivers for your sense of greenness. Not going to happen. What ever you drive Prius, civic, Escape you are polluting big time too just not as much. Try getting off your high horse and propose something better than a 1 in 1,000 chance of passing.