It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to unveil big increase in required mpg

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Obama to unveil big increase in required mpg


www.msnbc.msn.com

New rule will set 42 mpg for cars starting in 2016, sources say

The Obama administration is set to announce tough standards for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide from new automobiles, establishing the first ever nationwide regulation for greenhouse gases.

It will also establish high fuel efficiency targets for new vehicles that would set a 35.5 mile per gallon average for new passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2016, four years earlier than the 2007 CAFE rules required.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.washingtonpost.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Anti-Industrial Coup: Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree
OMB Criticizes EPA Finding
From a Theory to a Consensus on Emissions



[edit on 18-5-2009 by jdub297]




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Obama to unveil big increase in required mpg
New rule will set 42 mpg for cars starting in 2016, sources say

What you can't legislate, dictate. Obama's governenance of the environment by Executive decree begins tomorrow, following his EPA's ruling on harmful gases last month.

This has been under negotiation since the first days of the Obama administration, including the White House, California, and the auto industry. The single national standard approximates California's targets.

The government will establish two sets of standards pegging them to the attributes of vehicles, such as size and engine type. California planned to use just two broad categories of vehicles.

The NHTSA will set the new fuel economy standards.

The EPA, using its power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, will propose a tailpipe emissions standard of 250 grams per mile for vehicles sold in 2016, roughly the equivalent of the mileage standard. Vehicles sold in 2009 are expected to emit about 380 grams per mile, industry sources said. The EPA would need to go through a rulemaking process to allow responses before the standards would go into effect and it was not clear whether it would announce those specific targets tomorrow.

The EPA is also expected to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions resulting from leaks of air conditioning coolant in vehicles. The automakers would be able to use some credits for complying with those regulations to offset a small part of fuel efficiency requirements, sources familiar with the talks said.


jw


www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Since the NYT disclosure of Obama's decision to impose California standards on the entire country, estimates of the cost are now coming in.

Reports are that these rules will add at least $1,300 to $1,500 to the cost of a vehicle, plus unknown costs on the manufacturers and importers who must meet the standards fleet-wise.

Of course, this new 'carbon-tax' comes from the Executive branch, so no need for debate or legislation.

That 'car buyer's' rebate? Ha ha ha! That 'gas-guzzler' trade-in allowance? Ha ha ha.

Welcome to the environmental dictatorship.

Look what you've done to my Country!

jw



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
For some reason I am remembering during the election Obama and Biden seemed to really have their boxers in bunch over the powers that Bush, and even more so Chaney, had given themselves. Funny how I've never heard of either Obama or Biden renouncing said additional powers, I've only heard of ways they have been or trying to put them to use.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 

Not just use them, but add to them!

Obama has decided that he doesn't need Congress to act, or a law to authorize his directives, as long as people are willing to comply and those able to challenge him lookk away under the threat of executive actions against them for speaking out.

How do you explain Chrysler's secured creditors giving up their stockholders' Constitutionally-guaranteed positions in the re-organization?

How do you explain GM's Wagoner's firing by Obama (even though he's still on the payroll because Geithner's Treasury doesn't know how to enforce Obama's decision)?

What authority does Obama have to impose California's emissions, mileage and fuel standards on the entire Country? Or their budget debt?

Party's over. Time to pay the bill(s).

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Reports are that these rules will add at least $1,300 to $1,500 to the cost of a vehicle, plus unknown costs on the manufacturers and importers who must meet the standards fleet-wise.

Of course, this new 'carbon-tax' comes from the Executive branch, so no need for debate or legislation.

That 'car buyer's' rebate? Ha ha ha! That 'gas-guzzler' trade-in allowance? Ha ha ha.

Welcome to the environmental dictatorship.

Look what you've done to my Country!

jw


What about the money motorists will save in fuel? A lot of this technology already exists in Europe, most cars easily achieve 35mpg, with many diesel cars acheiving as much as 60mpg.

Think of the reduction in oil imports. America might not have to invade other countries for its oil in the future, think of the money and lives saved!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman
 


I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I distictly remember last summer when Americans were very upset with $4 a gallon gas, that many Europeans were telling them (specifically me) to get over it bc $7 or $8 per gallon was not uncommon in Europe and we need to suck it up. So how will that save me money in long run?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


We're taxed heavily on gas, that's why. America doesn't have a policy of punishing drivers like we do, so your increase in MPG can only be a good thing, especially when the cost of your gas inevitably rises as you have to import more.

I commute 300 miles a week at a cost of £180 a month, approx $278. My car does 35mpg.

There's no way I could afford to commute in an American car!

I just don't get why the OP sees this as a negative issue.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Thebudweiserstuntman]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I can cut my muffler off.

Not that big of a deal.

Anything to say SCREW YOU

Bush was bad, but this is just getting ridiculous . . . and the sheeple will not give a crap.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
What about the money motorists will save in fuel? A lot of this technology already exists in Europe, most cars easily achieve 35mpg, with many diesel cars acheiving as much as 60mpg.


If fuel prices were static, that would be valid. They are not. Obama wants to see them increase by at least 50 to 100%. And diesel? Diesel gives Chu "nightmares!" No one in this administration is pushing for diesel. What are you reading?

"Obama Energy Czar want European Prices"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obama, Chu and Browner all agree that Americans should already be paying European prices for fuel AND electricity. Dems also believe we should pay for the miles we drive. How can you compare American and European driving standards with a straight face?

See this:"Top Lawmaker Wants Mileage Tax"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are not 'invading' anything but American pocketbooks, and 'violating' common sense and science with these propositions.

(How much oil revenue have we "stolen" and murdered for since 3/2003? Give me facts, and a number, not propaganda. How many barrels, dollars, gallons? )
jw



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
I commute 300 miles a week at a cost of £180 a month, approx $278. My car does 35mpg.


We already have cars that get 30+ m.p.g. What will this bill do for those who commute as much or more than you?

Your experience cannot translate to American roads, highways, jobs and taxation. Every country has its own favorite subsidized programs that make "cost" deceiving and invalid as comparison.

Your "60+ m.p.g. diesel" auto makers have sold how many to U.S. highway commuters? City drivers?

It's very easy to spout generalizations. Make real-world comparisons and we'll see how your experience advises American policy.

Or does it?

jw



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It is weird how California has some of the toughest emissions requirements in the country and still can't get rid of all that smog. I have no problem with better gas millage but I would expect that consumer demand alone would force automakers to do this. As everyone can see, the US automakers failed to listen to what the consumers are asking for and those companies are paying dearly for it now. I see this as just more money for the government when they institute fees to go along with the program.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Unfortunately,this won't help the average Joe any way whatsoever.

What it WILL mean is that the Oil companies can make further fuel price increases and profits.

If they gave us cars that could achieve 200 mpg,all that would happen is,they'd charge five times more,giving them higher profits for even less product.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

California's recent fuel standards just drove 300 mom and pop retailers out of business for inability to comply with $10,000 per pump revisions they mandated earlier this year. For a questionable 'remedy' to a made-up problem.

How did that help?

How does the higher standard motivate auto makers and dealers? They move, or quit selling to that market.

Remeber that California bank jingle the Carpenters sold? "We've only just begun" the draining of our pockets and bank accounts.


jw



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Yeah, let's see Chrysler get out of bankruptcy now and GM stay out of Chapter 11 or heck even chapter 7. Chrysler at this point NEEDS Fiat to tell them how to build a car that's worth a damn since everything they build (maybe with the exception of their pickup trucks) has serious reliability problems. It why Chrysler has always ranked at the bottom of Consumer Reports and Car & Driver's reliability ratings lists.

GM doesn't fare much better, but at least they have a couple of models that are somewhat reliable and are best sellers. But they way they've let the UAW bully them into bankruptcy they will have absolutely no money to dedicate toward these pie-in-the-sky fuel standards.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman
 


My car does 30 and its not a hybrid or anything. I wouldn't even have a problem with heavy taxes if it went to something, ie healthcare, the schools, ANYTHING. But it doesn't it goes to oil companies, state governments, and federal government and I never see the fruits of the taxes. I live in Chicago, and as I have mentioned before (since it makes me so angry) citizens were literally filling the potholes on the public streets because it had become such a hazard, where were the taxes I pay to the City of Chicago, Cook County, the State of Illinois, anything? Nowhere.

I am interested to find out if older cars will be grandfathered in with seperate emissions requirements, my car is a 2008 and I will most likely have it another 8 years, or if we will have to either improve our cars, somehow, or buy a new one.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by searching4truth]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
American cars suck and so do rightwhingers and whiners.

European cars routinely get around 120 g/km of CO2 in the subcompact car market. The Peugeot 206 with the 1.4 hdi (8 valve, turbodiesel commonrail) engine, for example:



The new Megane Coupe, with the 1.9 dci (16 valve, turbodiesel commonrail - 130 PS DIN - at the crank) engine puts out 134 g/km. 0~100 km/h in 9.5 seconds.



And my personal favorite, Fiat Bravo:





1.9 Multijet 150 PS, 225 lb/ft, 116 g/km highway. 0~100 in 9 seconds. Will do 50 MPG (US) on the highway.

Many more others as performing as the above. Of course, virtually all cars sold and operated in Europe are stickshifts, including the ones above.

This would naturally inconvenience inept, whining Americans.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by SonyAD]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman

What about the money motorists will save in fuel? A lot of this technology already exists in Europe, most cars easily achieve 35mpg, with many diesel cars acheiving as much as 60mpg.

Think of the reduction in oil imports. America might not have to invade other countries for its oil in the future, think of the money and lives saved!


Sorry, but it won't end up working out that way. Cars will cost much more to pay the the mileage improvements, offsetting any money saved on fuel.

And as soon as fuel purchases start to drop because of the extra mileage, the oil companies will raise their prices in an attempt stabilize their revenues.

All these increased costs will then trickle down through everything - food, housing, etc.

No, consumers will end up paying far more under the Obama dictatorship for just about everything.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SonyAD
 




Major chip on your European shoulder?

There are huge difference in driving in the U.S vs. europe. Granted, the cities are closer to being the same except people actually obey traffic signs and signals in the U.S. But the U.S is also full of wide open spaces that you'd need to see a chiropractor or something if you tried to drive across them in one of the toy cars you mentioned. Americans also value personal space and for the most part do not enjoy being packed like sardines as you seem to have resigned yourself to put up with. We have the room and you don't. Learn to understand the differences before again attempting to impose your feelings on us.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Humm, I do have to wonder how exactly they plan on doing this if, as the article I posted today states, GPS systems could very well begin failing starting next year.

Is the government going to use some new GPS system to track how many miles people are travelling?.

BTW, i think this is nothing more than another money-grabbing scheme from the regular citizens.

The government wants everything to be controlled, they even want us to pay for our right to keep our rights intact, such as our right to own nad bear arms, which government officials are saying only those people who can afford it should be able to, and only those who pass their psychiatric tests. which at the end is only part of their goal to take away most, if not all of our rights.

This world, and even the U.S. is turning more, and more into a true dictatorship with all these plans, programs and taxes the government wants to implement.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join