The New York Times reports that
California, New York and eight other states plan to file a suit to force the Bush administration to impose tougher CAFE
rules on SUVs, trucks and minivans. The suit claims the federal government's analysis of the environmental impact of the
new fuel economy regulations was not sufficiently rigorous. The states also assert that the government did not take into
account the impact of gasoline consumption on climate change when formulating the new CAFE standards.Meanwhile, President Bush is pushing a proposal to raise U.S. fuel economy standards, in a bid to address widespread consumer concern about rising fuel prices.
[Source: New York Times - registration required]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
iQuack @ May 2nd 2006 4:43PM
Just more proof that bad economics is good politics.
If gas prices rise there will be no need to impose CAFE rules because car buyers will voluntarily choose more economical cars. It's happening already. Diddling with the markets is a loser; CAFE never made sense and still doesn't.
Putting more pressure on GM and Ford is a bad idea, too.
Brian @ May 2nd 2006 5:13PM
"At a time when we are all facing a gas crisis, the Bush administration is pushing for fuel economy standards that appear to be authored by the oil and auto industries."
Um, yeah, probably because they were ...
We are like spoiled children who've been indulged our whole lives. It's about time that we grow up and become more responsible about our consumption. The fact is that unless we are forced to face the music, we never will.
psych101 @ May 2nd 2006 5:16PM
Hasn't it been said that CAFE causes automakers to produce 1 or 2 high efficiency cars to raise the average and meet the fleet economy standards? That the automakers don't really abide by the spirit of the CAFE, only the regulation? Instead of keeping the current model lineup and making all of them, or at least the worst offenders, more fuel-efficient, they just come up with a high MPG small car. It doesn't even matter whether they sell many of the small cars or not, just that they offer it. An automaker could throw away the profit margin on the small car sacrificial lamb and ramp up production on their guzzlers. Methinks in reality the CAFE standard is a very brief bump in the road for most automakers.
The government could fix this by averaging the companies based on total SALES of automobiles, not PRODUCTION OFFERINGS of model lines. So if Honda sells 100 Insights and 3000 Pilots, the combined MPG is divided by 3100. Not this current nonsense that Average = 1 Insight + 1 Pilot = combined MPG divided by 2. Geez, it's like the electoral college here.
Bob Miller @ May 2nd 2006 5:16PM
Further proof that California is nuts.
I love California, it's a beautiful place and I've met some real quality people who live there. But, the politicians from there, in an effort to win over their constituency tend to tick me off to no end, making the rest of the country pay for their insane policies and goofy environmental laws.
If politicians from California feel that CAFE laws are too lax, then take it up with your state's representatives that are in Washington already. Give people financial incentives in your state to buy more fuel efficient cars. But don't sue the federal government, that's just silly.
UH2L @ May 2nd 2006 5:34PM
#3 psych101 - CAFE is based on sales, not model offerings. That's why GM offered outrageously cheap deals on 4 cylinder S-10 pickups in the late 90's, (to improve the truck fleet average). This is the complaint manufacturers have against CAFE. They can make efficient vehicles, but if they don't sell, then the carmakers get in trouble.
I think the only solution is sliding tax rebates depending on how much more efficient your vehicle is compared to the required average. If you're under, you pay extra tax. If you're over, you get money back. It shouldn't matter whether you drive a gas engined car, a hybrid, or a diesel.
Brian @ May 2nd 2006 5:36PM
I'm afraid I have to take exception to your post, Bob.
My state carries the rest of the country, period. 5th largest economy in the world if it was a separate country (and arguably it should be). Yet the rest of the country just *loves* to label us in all sorts of supremely mis-informed ways.
To those who whine about us Californians and our methods of pushing for less polluting cars (eg, the CA Emission Standards) or greater fuel efficiency, need I remind you have tooled you'd be without us? Not to mention the fact that we are SELF SUFFICIENT in oil production (not many other states can claim that).
Sometimes I think we should just bail on the rest of you slackers. Maybe we'll take Alaska, Hawaii and Baja with us. Don't worry, we'll give you a bro deal on our excess petroleum; in fact, we may not even join OPEC ;-)
Anonymous Coward @ May 2nd 2006 5:44PM
Sorry, Brian, but Bob is right. I too am from California, and think what you want, but we need the rest of the country as much as it needs us. I'll avoid using immigration as an argument (tho it is related) since it's a bit of a touchy subject, but let's just talk about the traffic that comes from south of the border. Why spend so much money making honda civics get better mileage when I semi from south of the border can wipe out all of those savings? Why not pass stricter rules for THEM instead? Sure, it would driev up the prices of those goods, but that would only be a good thing for producers int he US...
California is obscene. They pass laws limiting how many dirt bikes you can ride ON YOR OWN PROPERTY. We make laws that SEEM to be great for the environment, but all but ban the efficient diesels that are better for the environment than the gas guzzlers we still alllow. We have rules that encourage huge trucks but great little cars can't meet smog because of stricter rules (how does a Ram with a Viper V10 meet smog but not an MR2 turbo??)... It's all effed up.
Bob Miller @ May 2nd 2006 5:52PM
#6
We'll just use wind and solar here in Texas when Texas becomes it's own country, *again*. hahahaha. Also, Mr. California is sooooo cool, without Texas would the United States be able to lay claim to ZZ Top, the rock band that has guys with the coolest looking beards in music? I think not! :}
Hey, I'm all for being progressive, and State's Rights too. Afterall, States know what's best for themselves, right? I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems like California likes to set a precedent that is sometimes too high or too costly for industry to meet, ultimately making the end product expensive for everyone. I dunno, there's probably tons of examples within and outside the automotive industry that can be found, and I'm sure for every example, there's a Californian standing right behind it to defend their state.
There's tons of great things that have come from California and perhaps a sustainable economy is a huge benefit to y'all in the long run, but I think cesession from the United States would be utterly foolish.
Hey, btw, I'd move to California in a heartbeat if it wasn't so freakin' expensive! My friend in Sacramento just went through an insanely stressful house purchasing fiasco that I couldn't imagine having to deal with here in Texas.
Cervus @ May 2nd 2006 6:01PM
Bob: There are only 13 refineries nationwide that make California-grade gasoline. Ever wonder why our prices are so high? That's why. We have given them a captive market. And that's entirely our own fault.
Brian @ May 2nd 2006 6:04PM
AC: No, we do not need them. We can feed ourselves, we can gas our own cars, we make some of the best wine in the world (certainly in the US), we have a net trade surplus. To say that we need them as much as they need us is BS. As to the trucks from Mexico, you can thank Federal policy for that one; that was not a CA state decision - it had more to do with NAFTA.
Yeah, it sounds bat sh*t crazy, I know. Really, when I bring up the idea I'm half kidding, but the other half is starting to gain traction. Nothing drive me crazier than some Eastern transplant b@stard who comes out here and does nothing but bitch about *my* state. My reply is usually something like: "Then F*@KING LEAVE, and take somebody with you!"
California w/o the rest = Higher standard of living
The rest w/o California = screwed former superpower
tim @ May 2nd 2006 6:23PM
I still haven't heard a good argument against increasing CAFE standards. In fact, every time CAFE standards have been addressed in Washington, the Big 3 whine and cry about how much money will have to be invested in research, how they probably won't be able to meet the requirements, how the price of cars will increase, how we'll all be driving death traps...
Yet every time CAFE standards or emission standards are raised, the manufacturers find a way to cope... witness ULEV cars and cyllinder deactivation.
The standards need to be increased. If anything, it will give the manufacturers a reason to innovate.
Cervus @ May 2nd 2006 6:30PM
Brian:
We have a trade surplus? We're self sufficient in oil? Can you cite a source? I doubt our oil production is actually increasing these days.
Cervus @ May 2nd 2006 6:41PM
Brian:
Guess what? California is not self-sufficient in oil production.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/index.html
In fact, according to the above site, we only produce 40% of what we need. 20% is from Alaska, 40% imported. State production peaked in the 80s, and we're about 23% below where we were ten years ago.
MP @ May 2nd 2006 6:48PM
The real issue - "The states also assert that the government did not take into account theimpact of gasoline consumption on climate change" Is climate change the hidden agenda? Probably. Maybe they should sue that big orange object in the sky?
the chad @ May 2nd 2006 7:16PM
Brian,
Sorry dude, but Ca would not at all be able to be self sufficient as a country, or in oil production.
And the Ca laws, as AC points out, are absolutley nuts. We get screwed over every time our legislature goes into session. As beautiful as it is here, the politics are all wrong. You should really actually think before you say a bunch of stupid crap.
Back to the subject, though, there is something to keep in mind.
1) "The states also assert that the government did not take into account theimpact of gasoline consumption on climate change"
Umm, 'global warming' and all that other crap is all resting on very shaky evidence. These evil SUVs are not changing the temperature at all. Did they have SUVs to help us out of the Ice Age? The earth changes orientation and the orbit slightly varies, at time drawing closer to the sun. To blame 'global warming' or climate changes on SUVs is asinine. Only the most ignorant sheep believe that.
Brian @ May 2nd 2006 7:21PM
Ok, I misspoke (or mis-keyed), sort of. We've dropped to producing just 50% of what we use, you're right about that. However, how much of that comes from new production? How easy would it be for us to turn up the tap - just be opening up more offshore production near Santa Barbara?
These questions miss the point entirely, though. The real issue is increasing efficiency, not necessarily production. A better question is what would happen to oil prices if we halved our fuel use/miles driven ratio? This will not happen in a vacuum - government must force industry’s hand.
Increased consumption by China and India couple with some rather effed-up geopolitics should be and are forcing the issue. All the talk about "we need an alternative fuel Manhattan Project" is pretty much right on the money. Our dog's been wagged by Middle Eastern tails for long enough, we gotta get the monkey off our collective backs.
We're a lot like a drug addict when you think about it. When the source of our addiction is threatened, we get all belligerent and do things like invading the wrong country (hey, we only missed it by one letter). We empower our enablers, too. But their days are likely numbered. It would not surprise me in the least if the Saudi royal family ends up swinging from the lamp posts in Riyadh before the decade is out. Then what? We gotta do something drastic now.
Brian @ May 2nd 2006 7:31PM
Chad, yeah in practical terms you're right, we're not self-sufficient in oil, but in theory we could be. As far as self-sufficient enough to be a country, I beg to differ. We are far better off than most large economies in that regard. Agriculturally speaking, we're set. Is water your issue? How about desalinization plants? Industrial capacity? Not where we once were, but that could change in a long weekend.
Eric L. @ May 2nd 2006 8:01PM
The Bush administration's refusal to raise CAFE standards is one of the reasons GM and possibly Ford are going under. Why? Not raising the standards allowed GM and Ford to keep milking their cash-cow SUVs. But as a result, now that gas prices are up and SUV sales down, GM and Ford are unprepared for an efficiency-conscious market, and at least one of them is likely going bankrupt.
Higher CAFE standards would also help consumers by keeping fuel demand down, and thereby lowering gas rices in the face of tight supplies. By not raising CAFE standards sooner, the Bush Admininstrations both helped to kill the U.S. auto industry and at the same time indirectly raised fuel prices for all of us.
Hooray for California and the other states who are trying to help save the U.S. auto industry and the U.S. economy.
Ryan @ May 2nd 2006 8:29PM
I live here in Las Vegas, Nevada and can comfortably tell you guys without California, Las Vegas, NV and Phoenix,AZ would not be shit. To bad when I lived there it was during the entire "PG&E" utility mess, which did make California look bad. I miss your Mr. Davis.
I did love when the state of Oregon put signs up that read: "Californians, come to visit, but go home" that was always kind of funny.
Look at the state of Washington, they have adopted CALIFORNIA Emissions requirements, it's going to go forward not backwards.
Bob_Ericson @ May 2nd 2006 10:14PM
Many stations ran dry in TX (of all places) because of the Church of Eco make a "oops" with MTBE? This is the same bunch that declared the diesel sacrilidge.
Now grandstanders like Spitzer in NY pull this one of their butt.
We get the government they deserve.