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.

 

Who needs 'Cap & Trade?' New Standard Links Auto Mileage and Gas Emissions

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

New Standard Links Auto Mileage and Gas Emissions




The Obama administration issued proposed rules on Tuesday that impose the first nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and that require American cars and light truck fleet to meet a fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016.


www.nytimes.com...

This is the way gov't will impose its environmental agenda - not through legislation and public debate, but through executive fiat.

Too bad that the program will increase the price of vehicles and alter their design to meet more "euro-friendly" economies.

If you like the shoeboxes on the street of London, Madrid and Paris, you'll love the GM 2012s.

This wouldn't be a bad idea if fuel efficiency was the aim, but it is not. Environmental remediation/global warming is the thrust behind this.

It might look as if it makes good economic sense, but the increased cost of production, together with higher fuel prices, will eat at consumers and business more than enough to offset any potential benefit.

Expect more "back door" legislation as the agenda moves forward, with or without Congress and public approval.

You were warned:

"Obama sets strict rules for emissions standards"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this is just the first step of the coming stampede toward an environmental dictatorship:
"Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can't say you weren't warned.

jw




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Automobiles are not the big polluters that they once were. Emission standards, thanks to strict Californian laws, have been raised over the past decade to where almost all Auto Manufacturers have near 0 Emissions on their newer cars that they sell in California...it doesn't really require manufacturers to do anything different to their vehicles sold outside of California other than remove the CA Emissions Package as an Option and make it Standard. That actually will probably SAVE the auto manufacturers money! Besides, Coal Power Plants which is the predominant form of Power Plants in the United States, cause far more pollution than all the Automobiles in the United States combined.

This plan seems more interested in federally matching Californian Mileage Standards, which has already successfully reduced their Gas Consumption to 1970 levels in the past two years. So long as we remain dependent upon Foreign Oil, this is a good idea. And again, rather than manufacture two sets of vehicles, one for sale in California, and one for sale everywhere else, it allows the manufacturers to standardize their fleet, which again makes it cheaper for the Auto Manufacturers.

The protests involved have to do with the US Auto Manufacturers bed-fellows...Big Oil. The US Auto Manufacturers are basically the Lobbyists and Partners for Big Oil. This is indeed bad news for Big Oil, but if the Japanese and Korean Auto Manufacturers are not crying foul about this new plan, and it is just the US Auto Manufacturers saying it's a bad thing, then you have question their motives.

As for this proposal costing the End Consumer more per year, I highly question that as I know that both the Japanese and Korean Auto Manufacturers are both already in compliance of these proposed rules, and it hasn't raised their prices any. Can the US Auto Manufacturers who are already hurting and losing sales hand-over-fist really afford to shaft the Consumer and not compete price-wise with the Japanese and Koreans?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


I know that both the Japanese and Korean Auto Manufacturers are both already in compliance of these proposed rules


Except, only one car on the market — the 2010 Toyota Prius — already achieves these ratings according to the EPA. For example, the Toyota Corolla has a CAFE rating of 40 mpg, but a combined EPA rating of 30 mpg. CAFE mileage statistics aren't actually representative of what a given manufacturer is likely to achieve, as they are adjusted for all sorts of reasons.

blogs.cars.com...

Many automakers already deliver vehicles that beat 35.5 mpg such as the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Mercury Milan Hybrid, Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, and the Mercedes Smart Fortwo. You can buy these gas misers today. But to achieve "fleet average," it will take some effort.

To meet fleet average requirements, cars will need to average higher than 35.5; light-trucks and SUVs lower.

I'm sure it CAN be done, but it will cost more money and result in a trade off from American body styles and propulsion, to a more "European" (smaller, lighter, turb-diesel) style.

The proposed "fleet average" has not been met by anyone yet.

jw



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


If THAT doesn't convince you of the addede costs, how about the recent revelations of the costs of Cap & Tade and other environmental regulation the Obama administration has hidden for about a year?

"Cap and Trade Will Cost Families $1,761 per Year"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."


I really think this is going to cost us a little extra.

Especially since these estimates come from the administration (which has either hidden them or lied about it).

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jdub297]



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join