EPA: US GHG Up 1.4% in 2007 from 2006; Light-duty Vehicle Emissions Down 0.74%
US EPA to Award Up to $20M for Diesel Emission Reduction Projects

Report: Obama Administration Devising New National Fuel Economy Standard

Detroit Free Press. The Obama administration reportedly is at work on a new, more stringent fuel economy standard that will likely supplant California’s efforts to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.

The moves would allow the president to fulfill a campaign promise to let the California limits take effect while addressing the chorus of concerns from a financially beleaguered US auto industry about meeting a so-called patchwork of state-level greenhouse gas controls, in addition to federal fuel economy rules.

The administration has raised the idea for a national limit as part of its talks with Detroit automakers and suppliers for additional aid, an administration official said Wednesday.

“The president believes that one national policy for autos would provide the industry with certainty while achieving our environmental and energy independence goals,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Obama administration will soon issue a new fuel economy standard for MY 2011 only (earlier post), and is working on a new standard for subsequent years.


The Goracle


Wow... Obama has the economy booming so it's time to focus on tertiary issues, huh. (No, he can't do more than one ting at a time well.) That unemployment keeps skyrocketing under Obama - well, look the other way. That the stock markets take MAJOR dives every time Obama and/or his minions speak - well, you shouldn't have been in the market anyway.



Goracle your are just plain stupid

Why don't you accuse Obama to be solely responsible of the current mess that the bush era left behind ?

So I am glad that Obama promotes more stringent fuel economy standards since america has no choice but to reduce its foreign oil dependency like it or not. Tough I am not convinced that CAFE standard are the right solution, there is always exceptiosn (like flex-fuel) pick up, penalties are not sufficienctly dissuasive in case of non compliance. Gaz tax works and it has been proven in many countries. But as it is as likely that a gas tax will be ever endorsed as the chance that I sleep to morrow with Megane Fox, let's go for it...


@Tree, it is Megan Fox.
You could ask, which is better, mandating fuel economy or letting the market do it with high oil prices or a high gas tax.

I think it has to be a mandate, or tax - waiting for the market won't work - look at the last 5 years, the proce rose steeply and very high, then crashed even faster.

This is an impossible situation for car companies as it takes multi-generational development (and marketing) to create low fuel consumption cars.

You need a steady pressure, such as fuel standards or high taxation. The US had huge improvements until 1987, then it slumped.
Price pressure (from taxation of various forms) kept fuel economy reasonable in Europe and Japan.

I would do both if I was Obama - mandate fuel economy standards which are more aggressive and have fewer loopholes than now AND increase gas taxes by say 10c/year for 5 or 10 years.
The prices would still be well below Europe, and if people owned more efficient cars, they wouldn't notice the cost of fuel (as much).



I appreciate your comment, nothing is more productive than exeprience applied with moderation.

Well in fact a gas tax would be a nice way to stabilize the price of gas, if you use a floating tax that you adjust timely to track the fluctuation of the crude oil you will maintain a constant price at the pump and people will know what to expect.

In the same time you can't expect that america will reduces its dependance to foreign oil (that is growing every day) if people don't feel the pinch at the pump, that would be a lie.

The problem is that these CAFE standards push the automakers to make cars that people don't want to buy, if the price of oil is not sufficiently high people don't feel the need to invest in a hybrid. Even Mullaly the CEO of Ford said that he prefers a Gas Tax rather than these CAFE standards. He is not a dumb guy, and he can think out the box because he is not from the auto industry so he doesn't have these narrow minded thinking like other managers in the auto industry.



CEO Rick Wagoner has spent his entire career at GM. He made a comment a while back that without a higher gas tax consumers wouldn't want the cars the government is forcing them to make. [They need the government bailout money so they can be forced to do what they've resisted for decades.]

He also said he'd rather see a higher gas tax but no CAFE limits. I think he's right. Keep raising the fuel tax until the sales mix reaches a goal in terms of millions of barrels of oil, or tons of CO2 if you prefer.



Then the autoindustry should speak loud and clear : we want a gas tax not CAFE standard. They will probably help the gvt take action.


The auto industry can’t win. They are the about the only big industry that has not been undercut and destroyed by Asian manufacturers. That must mean they are not too narrow minded. Particularly since most other American industries (that are now gone) did not have the UAW on their backs.

Higher CAFÉ or higher gas taxes; why would they care; they’re dead either way.
They cannot hope to compete with the Asian auto makers when CAFÉ or gas taxes drive Americans to small cars. And the loss of the truck market is next.

Why are they not being held accountable for the demanded restructuring each time they get more billions? - Because the auto industry is being kept alive for the unions – (we never hear a word about the greedy capitalistic shareholders).
The new administration and congress only pretends to believe that GM can say please and the UAW will match the wages Toyota and Honda pay American workers.
The unions know the congress and president owe them; they nothing to fear - no need to compromise.

GM might continue to be big in the domestic truck market and even hang on to significant car sales if the UAW monkey is eliminated.
That will not happen. What’s another trillion or so to nationalize the auto industry so that they can keep over-paying the union workers.

Andrey Levin

Toppa, you are seriously disguised about American industry. US is major producer and exporter of all agricultural commodities, coal, lumber and paper, long list of high-tech staff, and machinery like produced by Caterpillar and Boeing (with 100% unionized blue collar workforce). US still produce most of it steel, and export high-quality steels worldwide, despite popular among right-wing blogs urban legend about collapse of US steel industry.

As for car industry, it was saved by Reagan when he “persuaded” cheap import car manufacturers (almost exclusively Japanese at the time) to “voluntary” limit their import to the quantity equal to their vehicles produced in US, beginning over some time interval.

Now, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, DB, BMW, Hyundai plants in America are killing Detroit, due to numerous reasons. First and foremost, these companies do not have huge pull of retirees. Second, most of their plants are not in UAW zone. And third, their business model is to produce “best long-lasting quality and technical sophistication cars which are not prohibitory expensive”. Big Three business model is “to produce the cheapest cars American dealerships will buy”. The difference in business ideology is killing Detroit by thousand cuts.

I would bet a farm that there is (or not, due to clinical stupidity of your current government) negotiations with foreign car companies which are trying to “persuade” them to freeze number of cars they produce in US. It is the simplest way to inflate car prices to the level when Big Three will be able to produce cars with profit. Naturally, American consumer will pay for it, and foreign companies will benefit windfall profits (they will be forced to re-invest their profits in US, no doubts; my take is that they will buy independent US car component manufacturers).



"Clinical stupidity of your current governement" is pale in comparison to the insult to any decent educated intelligence that the previous governement was.

Don't masturbate to much with the high quality steel of US even the automakers ask to lift the ban on import of steel from europe that the Bush administration put in place under the pressure of the US steel lobby. Without it US steel industry would already be dead..


Agricultural commodities, coal, lumber and paper are resources, not manufactured goods.
The list of high-tech staff, and machinery like produced by Caterpillar and Boeing is not a long list; and is getting shorter all the time. It no longer includes TVs, VCRs, Clothing, Furniture, Steel, toys, motorcycles, small cars etc.

At one time, U. S. Steel was the largest steel producer and largest corporation in the world. At the end of the 20th century, the [United States Steel] corporation found itself deriving much of its revenue and net income from its energy operations, so U. S. Steel eventually spun off Marathon and most other non-steel assets in October, 2001.

Yes, the voluntary restraint agreement certainly helped the US car industry.
But if the US auto industry must take $2000 of value out of a car to “pay” the huge pull of retirees and wages from the “UAW zone”, you get less value. It is irrational to assume their goal was “to produce the cheapest cars American dealerships will buy”.

If there were a way, I have no doubt whatsoever that the US would restrict auto imports.
Are restraints a good policy? Not usually, and they no longer work due to Japanese factories in America.
Are endless billions in bailouts a good policy? No.
Would we pay more for autos with restraints?
Of course; the same people who will be paying for these mindless bailouts.

The previous administration set a new standard ignorance and arrogance.
However already, the present administration is making huge changes; just compare pre inaugural positions with post inaugural actions - huge change that we can believe in.

The comments to this entry are closed.