35 mpg by 2016: Still a bad addict
The 35 mpg+ Ford Fusion hybridTomorrow President Barack Obama will issue new vehicle emissions standards that will include a green house gas emission reduction of about 30 percent, according to early reports. Thus, by 2016 CAFE will be increased to 35 mpg - the number CAFE is now to achieve by 2020.
So, by 2016 America will still be heavily addicted to foreign oil?
Obviously, this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it also demonstrates how dependent America will be upon foreign oil for many, many more years.
Also, I cannot help but wonder, can US automakers make enough profit along the way to such standards?
Labels: CAFE, Foreign Oil Dependency
posted by Dahcredyns at
12:22 PM
14 Comments:
Modulo my last comment in the other post: CAFE standards is not a MUST/MUST standard. A manufacture can break it and pay seemingly small fee.
In other words, that does not mean that every car and/or SUV sold after 2016 will meet CAFE standard!
It seems that the EPA is granting California's waiver to mandate CO2 reductions, and then Obama is telling CAFE to harmonize with California's rule.
Well, that is a great outcome, as good as I hoped, because I have more trust that California rules will have less loopholes than CAFE or even the EPA. That way even if CAFE continues to have the loopholes, the new CO2 regulations will effectively close them.
But I don't know the details of the CO2 regulations, so I hope to read more about that.
This post has been removed by the author.
I spoke too soon. It looks like all the same loopholes will remain:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/18/embargo-5-18-09-9pm-auto-alliance-comes-out-in-favor-of-new-fed/#continued
Did California's CO2 regulation, AB 32, always include those "footprint" loopholes that allow the big vehicles?
According to Wikipedia, there were no vehicle specific details in AB 32, just a statewide cap in CO2 ala the Kyoto Protocol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006
If so, and if AB 32 is given the EPA waiver, I guess CA will live with the vehicle loopholes while at least still being as aggressive as needed with other CO2 pollution sources.
Interesting. So it looks like CO2 will be separate from vehicle mileage which will stay under CAFE. Bummer. At least, maybe we will still see national EPA CO2 rules similar to California's, which I'm surprised to learn contains a possible cap and trade system. Maybe Congress is using AB 32 as a model, what with Waxman leading the effort and being from Los Angeles.
But notice how California is simply mandating CO2 reductions in AB 32. No carbon tax, albeit a cap and trade. Just set the market rule against CO2 and then go through a multi-year, commission led process to figure out how to abide by the rules. What's so hard about that?
OK, ok, I know the implementing regulations are where the devil lies...and businesses love to complain about those rules. I say tough cookies, but maybe that's just me.
Only way we will become indekpendent of foriegn oil is if the price of gas becomes prohibitively expensive. That WILL happen, it's just a matter of when.
BTW, today's CAFE announcement just highlights what incredible damage Detroit and John Dingell have done to our country. I'm talking about Dingell's 20 year fight against raising CAFE. On some levels it is heartbreaking what a disaster that Detroit dinosaur wrought.
Dingell's "Cash for Clunkers" needs to be scrapped and redone so that it only applies to new vehicles that meet the increased CAFE standards. We need a clean break from any Dingell devised idiocy.
well, i think there will be many loopholes in this regulation. it's inevitable.
i know the flex fuel credit is to phase out, but it might still have an affect initially.
plus, how is the mileage being calculated? will it skew more towards highway mileage? i'm certain this won't be based on the epa's city cycle - and even that cycle isn't all that accurate.
inevitably, i think cafe will have a positive effect, but the price of gas will be the only thing that has any kind of dramatic effect, in my opinion.
alcatholic -
i know what you mean about dingell, but there are many centrist democrats and republicans that follow dingell's thinking.
moreover, if this new regulation had been worked through congress, i'd bet there would have been far more loopholes.
my understanding, which is unconfirmed and largely denied by the white house, is that more money is going to become available for the big 3 to retool towards efficiency.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
I've been watching TV interviews by Carol Browner and this deal looks better and better as the details come out. Government rule making at its best as far as I'm concerned.
I'm trying to get more details but it looks like the SUV loopholes are at least partially blocked by this new CAFE standard. It seems that the SUV category has to improve independently. Automakers can't simply rely on credits from the high mileage vehicles. If true that sounds perfect. And it looks like Carol Browner was able to cajole the automakers to take it or leave it on her terms at the risk of something tougher coming later, like, oh, I don't know, granting the CA waiver and setting a precedent for CA to start proposing their own rules. :) That would have been sweet, but I like the idea of a harmonized national standard that CA is buying into, while still retaining CA's authority to regulate CO2 on its own down the road, if necessary.
I totally agree that the deal is far better than what we would have gotten out of Congress and the Dingelberries there. Ha! I feel Congress is industry bought and I personally only trust California and the EPA when it comes to environmental issues.
are there any other major changes to cafe that you've heard about? current CAFE computations are very flawed and very inaccurate compared with the real world, in terms of fuel economy. have you heard anything about a more accurate vehicle testing methodology?
I'll look around, but, no, I haven't read about the calculation methodology.
I don't know the issues around fleet MPG calculations. What changes would you argue for?
Mostly I'd use, minimally, the EPA's city cycle for determining CAFE, or at least skew it more towards the city cycle.
I'd also add removing the flex fuel credit, but I think that's already been scheduled.
Without significantly higher gas prices, I think congestion will remain a serious problem for more and more drivers every year.
Today, CAFE really doesn't account for much, if any, congestion at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home