Filed under: Government/Legal, Green
Worse or Worser: Automakers consider new mpg standard to prevent Senate bill
In the Wild West, the order would have been "Cut them off at the pass!" For carmakers today battling with wildly fluctuating forecasts for mpg, CO2, and CAFE standards, the mission is to cut them off at the Capital. Taking matters upon themselves, some manufacturers are considering a proposal that would require 36 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks.
That proposal is being offered in an attempt to derail the fuel economy measure being taken up by the Senate in a couple of weeks. That's the one that calls for a CAFE standard of 35 mpg fleetwide by 2020 and a 4% increase every year for ten years, to which the automakers have unanimously replied, 'never gonna happen.' Environmentalists are trying to make that bill even stronger, seeing that is has a provision allowing the government to reduce the standard if it is found to be too technologically or financially difficult for automakers to achieve. Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who's a friend of the industry, is proposing an alternative that mandates 36 mpg for cars by 2022, and a 30 mpg for trucks by 2025. Let's see -- that would give a 33 mpg average for cars and trucks in a maker's fleet by 2025, which is 2 mpg and 5 years shy of the CAFE standard requested in the bill the carmakers don't like. Is it us, or is this really just about timing?
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
david damn 7:17PM (5/31/2007)
If this passes, the Nancy Pelosi senate is going to put the big three out of buisness by 2025. My prediction: just as the last flame of the great american automotive industry is snuffed out, the dems will find some way to blame republicans for it, and we'll officially be in a period of global cooling.
Reply
paul34 9:10PM (5/31/2007)
Heh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
But shh, don't question global warming. People will silence you, because, you know, going against the majority is a big no-no in our world.
AndrewQ 7:29PM (5/31/2007)
The Current CAFE is 27mpg. Why is 33 MPG so hard to accept in 15 years?
3 or 4 hybrids in your portfolio and you can achieve it. Comon Ford and others stop bitching.
Reply
Jaymez 7:32PM (5/31/2007)
I'm all for upping the fuel economy. If that results in putting some companies out of business, that's just too bad. I'd much rather buy American over Jap or European, but, I'm more interested in my wallet than anything else.
Upping the standards for small trucks would be awesome. I'd much rather drive a truck over some boring sedan or coupe. It hurts too much to drive a truck for non-commercial use right now.
I am hoping, however, that come 2020 or 2025, 36MPG is considered to be just as fuel ineffeciant as 14MPG is today.
Reply
scappy 7:53PM (5/31/2007)
The government should not be in the business of legislating consumer demand.
Reply
phil 7:54PM (5/31/2007)
"Comon Ford and others stop bitching."
Laughable. None of the car companies want the mileage increase... Just yell at ford because they're the closest scapegoat you have.
Reply
David 8:00PM (5/31/2007)
So, what's new? The automakers told us they couldn't reach the clean air standards, the crash standards, the original fuel mileage standards, the passive safety (airbag) standards or anything else they've been required to do. I imagine they would have said the same thing if they had been required to shorten stopping distances or meet minimum acceleration standards too (Zero to sixty in less than six seconds? Never happen Senator!)
Every regulation promulgated in the last forty years was supposed to be either impossible to meet technologically or cost so much that no one would ever buy another new car, leading to the destruction of the auto industry.
So regardless of whether or not we agree with a particular regulation, why at this point should we EVER believe an industry that has always turned out to be wrong when they claim that something can't be done?
Reply
frondeur 8:12PM (5/31/2007)
I don't understand why everyday are scared of this. If the US government mandates minimum EPA figures its good for the consumer...you will pay less for fuel.
What are you all afraid of? Rising costs? Automakers won't raise prices, or they will lose their consumers. Lower Power? The automakers will find ways to increase economy while improving, or at the very least maintaining performance (Tesla or HT-HS anyone?) , like they have been for the past 40 years.
The industry will adapt, the consumer will benefit...I don't see a down side.
Reply
scappy 8:26PM (5/31/2007)
I agree, but the government should not be selecting my options my walet should. If i can afford to drive a viper everday I should be able too. The government should not be concerned with what I CHOOSE to spend on gas.
buster01 10:51AM (6/01/2007)
uh "scrappy" maybe it's not all about what you can afford at the pump. Maybe it's about cutting our dependence on oil from countries that hate us, maybe it's about saving some for future generations, maybe it's about cutting greenhouse gases, maybe it's about keeping gas prices low for the general overall health of the economy, maybe it's about not having to go into another war for oil.
What's wrong with forcing the car companies to get off their butts and make more fuel efficient cars? Do you really like getting 10-15 mpg? Wouldn't you rather have the same power and better fuel economy? It's sad that America used to be the most innovative country in the world and now we are playing catch-up.
I can't believe how ignorant and selfish most people are. Do you really think that it is your god-given right to suck-up all of the natural resorces? No wonder all of the world hates us.
David 8:34PM (5/31/2007)
"The government should not be in the business of legislating consumer demand."
Cool, but follow your own logic here. If you want a completely free market, fine. Get the government out of all the areas in which it directly or indirectly legislates consumer demand. Just don't complain if the food you buy is toxic because it comes from uninspected producers or stays on the shelf after what should have been it's expiration date. I'm sure the store will give you a discount on it. Bank anywhere you want but don't expect deposit insurance. Buy any medicines you want, maybe they'll work, maybe not, maybe they'll kill you, but that pesky Food and Drug Administration won't stand in your way of your fun.
Want to live in a house that isn't up to code on its wiring, plumbing, or sewage disposal? Cool. Want your house up to code but don't want to live next to a neighbor whose raw sewage (or outhouse) smells up the neighborhood and pollutes your yard? MOVE! Screw flammability standards, especially on children's clothing. All they do is drive up the price.
And can we please stop requiring that people have car insurance? Can't we please have consumer choice in that area too? Please? And why must my car's headlights work? Maybe I want the choice of whether or not I replace them when they burn out. Wipers too. Car seats!? What if my kid doesn't like sitting in the car seat? He's a consumer too!
Look the government's business is legislating for the public good. We've all got regulations that limit consumer demand that we don't like (drug laws anyone?) and ones we accept, take for granted and never think about, like headlights. Any existing or proposed regulation can be debated, but blanket statements like "The government should not be in the business of legislating consumer demand" are MAKE NO SENSE.
Reply
paul34 9:05PM (5/31/2007)
Sorry, David, but your examples don't address consumer demand.
They simply reflect the necessity of ensuring that everyone's personal freedoms are preserved. That has nothing to do with consumer demand. Consumer demands are generated only by the market.
A government's function is to ONLY ensure that the personal liberties of its citizens are preserved - and that everyone has a fair chance. NOTHING more. That *is* what the American government was meant to be. Of course, the current government (rather, for the past several decades) is hardly American... but I digress.
David 2:02AM (6/01/2007)
Excuse me? The government demands that we buy what we have to buy in order to comply with any number of government regulations. I cited several of those things as examples. Let's take car insurance as an obvious one. The government says we have to have it whether we want it or not. We are penalized if we don't have it. The fact that we as consumers purchase it because the government makes us, generates demand for the product. The market responds by offering us a variety of policies from a wide range of companies and we make choices as to which companies we give our business to. SO, tell me again why my examples "don't address consumer demand." And try employing some basic logic when you do.
paul34 1:45PM (6/01/2007)
I'm sorry you feel so personally attacked by this - that's unfortunate.
Regardless, people want automobile insurance because it helps protect them from theirs and others' mistakes. The government said "you must have it" to make sure it was a fair playing field for everyone.
Perhaps it does increase demand a bit... but even if they repealed the auto insurance law today, I really doubt many people would go around canceling their auto insurance policy.
I mean, despite the law... think about how many people are going around without auto insurance. Consumer demand is consumer demand.
I urge *you* to use "logic" in your arguments. No offense, but things aren't so "black and white" like you seem to want to make it.
Again, the government doesn't "demands that we buy what we have to buy in order to comply with any number of government regulations" per se; rather, it does so in order to protect its citizens. These the rare instances where the American government actually does its job - that is, it creates a fair playing field for things that are beyond one's control (like someone crashing into you)... so that you are free to fail/succeed with things that ARE in your control.
smartmlp 9:30PM (5/31/2007)
I also wanted to point out that automakers are already screwed with the change of the EPA testing measures. This basically means that standards have already been increased because its a lot harder to get a 27MPG rating.
Reply
doug 9:38PM (5/31/2007)
These mandatory MPG numbers will have the effect of limiting our choice in autos. It would be much better - if politically untenable - to tax engine size like they do in Europe and Japan, and let the market decide what cars to buy. Yes tis type of tax would dictate for many Americans what they buy, but it would be THEIR choice, not the manufacturer's..
Reply
simone 10:01PM (5/31/2007)
I really don't understand why the manufacturers are so resistant. All they have to do is bring their overseas offerings to the US, and they would instantly meet the new CAFE goals. There is already plenty of consumer demand for those models anyway. They would just sell themselves. Or heck, just introduce a couple diesel options and call it a day. In fact, that would increase consumer options, not limit them.
CAFE is "corporate AVERAGE fuel economy." It doesn't mean every model they make has to achieve 35 mpg. It just means that if you want to sell a gas guzzler, make sure you also offer a fuel sipper to balance things out.
Reply
whofan 10:02PM (5/31/2007)
If government wants to do something wolrth while. Do something about our spiraling health care system.
Keep the freedom of choice alive. The market will dictate what the auto companys should do.
Reply
David 2:14AM (6/01/2007)
So, whofan; you want freedom of choice kept alive in the car market but you want the government to fix health care where we already have market forces dictating what the industry does. Is it fair to say that you believe in markets and freedom of choice except when you don't?
AMGoff 10:33PM (5/31/2007)
The Nancy Pelosi senate? How about the Harry Reid senate. Please do not debate politics if you cannot discern each House's respective leaders.
With that aside, the mileage numbers proposed by this bill are not unrealistic. How poor is the state of American innovation if the automakers cannot reach a portfolio average of 36mpg within 13 years?
The fact is the price of gas will continue to rise. If the auto industry as it is today has any desire to stay in business, they need to reach at least these proposed levels, if not much, much higher levels of fuel efficiency, government mandated or not.
Reply