Despite being passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by a 235 to 181 margin, the new energy bill reached the Senate floor this morning and failed to muster enough votes to move on to the White House, where the President has threatened a veto of it in its current state. The Senate vote was 53 to 42, a majority but still seven votes shy of the 60 it needed. This means that the Senate will now spend the weekend reworking the bill, after which it will have to go back to the House for approval yet again. The funny thing is, the automotive industry actually supports the bill in its current state, despite the fact that it calls for a jump in CAFE requirements to a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020. Even with the support of the industry, politicians seem intent on keeping this bill running around in circles. [Source: Automotive News]
Paris Preview: Officially Official, Honda's new hybrid is the Insight!
Mazda Kiyora city car concept, MX-5 facelift head to Paris
Leaked: Official updated Mazda MX-5 image
Reader Spy: Chevy Volt caught on set of Transformers 2
Spy Shot: Production interior of Chevy Volt (maybe)
By the Numbers - August 2008: New Digs Edition
In the Autoblog Garage: KITT Shelby GT500 KR
First Drive: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Nissan Murano
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Dodge Journey R/T
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
seoultrain @ Dec 7th 2007 11:27AM
so automakers are fine with it. must be the oil companies. Is the 35mpg average determined by the average of all the models available, or the average of all the cars sold?
dan @ Dec 7th 2007 12:15PM
It has never been about automakers or oil companies. It's about consumer choice.
If you don't drive a car that gets over 35mpg EPA (That list includes exactly two US vehicles, the Prius and hybrid Civic) and support this issue you're a hypocrite.
If you do drive one of those cars, why are you reading a car enthusiast website?
seoultrain @ Dec 7th 2007 1:30PM
your argument doesn't make sense. You've actually proved one of the benefits of CAFE: it will force more cars to be above the 35mpg threshold.
You don't have to be a complete tree-hugger to admit that cars should be more fuel-efficient. Everything's a trade-off. It doesn't make you a hypocrite to say that you won't sacrifice performance or utility just to gain a few mpg's. People who floor their Priuses/Prii (?) are bigger hypocrites.
So does no one know whether it's a weighted average based on sales or a straight lineup average?
dan @ Dec 7th 2007 3:37PM
Right, it will force more models on the market getting above 35mpg because that is the only way to get them there - because of their own free will, Americans have shown every time we sign the paperwork for a new car that we DON'T WANT TINY SARDINE CANS.
And you ***holes want to put me in one at what amounts to gunpoint.
Stiletto @ Dec 7th 2007 11:27AM
Oh get serious! These people need to get their heads out of their a**es and pass the thing already. It is only a small step forward in a race that so many countries are already far ahead. Guess what global warming is not a myth and reducing green house gasses by imposing better mileage is at least one thing that the government has the power to do!
ermax18 @ Dec 7th 2007 12:14PM
No one said global warming was a myth. "Man Made" global warming is the myth.
dan @ Dec 7th 2007 12:15PM
US passenger vehicles contribute about 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
That could be cut in half tomorrow and wouldn't make a damn bit of difference other than forcing Americans in tiny cars we hate and making effeminate liberals like you feel good about themselves.
Tyo @ Dec 7th 2007 12:25PM
THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH ermax ITS ALL ABOUT THE PUSH TO LIMIT YOUR TRANSPORTATION AND A CARBON TAX
Mr. Oak @ Dec 7th 2007 1:08PM
'errr lemmie see. One 747 on a round from NY to Tokyo will burn more fuel than all of the C6 Z06s ever made.
Also, how many different airlines London bound, are leaving JFK within the hour with half empty jets?
There are no easy answers folks, but my "gas guzzling" ________ is not the problem. The real "gas guzzlers" are crisscrossing the "friendly skies" by the thousands as we speak.
Guenther @ Dec 7th 2007 1:34PM
Mr Oak- when was the last time you were on a plane with more than a dozen empty seats??????
seoultrain @ Dec 7th 2007 2:00PM
I was on an ATA Flight just last year where I had the entire 3 seats to myself. Many of the rows were just completely empty. Best flight I ever took. Totally quiet with crisp air and plenty of room, it was like a private flight.
But don't blame planes for making more pollution than cars. If people need to travel thousands of miles, what alternative is there? And apparently there are worse methods of transport on a mile per gallon per passenger basis. And planes are getting more efficient. Read up on the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350.
Mr. Oak @ Dec 7th 2007 3:50PM
Gas turbines by nature are the thirstiest & most powerful engines there are. When you say efficient, you you mean compared to how bad they used to be.
My arguement is not for or against the effiency of Jets. My arguement is that on a daily basis, the world's fleet of jets, both military and civilian are responsible the lion's share of of the world's daily consumption of petroleum products.
P.S. Almost all new (80s) on non-nuclear US Navy ships are powered by gas turbines.
Perry Class Frigates
Kidd Class Destroyers
Ticonderoga Class Cruisers
Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers
No, I am not suggesting that we go back to the stone age, just sick of idiots that blames the automobile for the worlds problems.
Heavy Industries, aviation and mechanised oceanic travel\transportation is where the bulk of the fuel goes.
A patient arrives at the ER with two injuries:
1). Amputated right arm.
2). Paper cut on right index finger.
Which one should the doctor tend to first?.
Environmentally, the automobile is the papercut on the index finger.
Mr. Oak @ Dec 7th 2007 3:54PM
Can we move that papercut to the left index finger. (Ha! Ha!).
Louis Duran @ Dec 7th 2007 11:30AM
Just by looking at the things Bush has decided to veto, I would have to conclude that he is a pretty heartless bastard. S-CHIP vetoed. Stem-cell research vetoed. Higher fuel requirements to be vetoed. This from the man who said we are a nation addicted to oil. Compassionate conservatism... my ass.
I personally don't think higher CAFE requirements are the best way to reduce oil consumption and green house gases but the alternative (a federal gas tax hike) has almost zero chance of making it out of either the House or Senate.
willem @ Dec 7th 2007 12:04PM
It never fails, but Bush-Derangement Syndrome rears its ugly head in the most unlikely places, especially when it concerns the Senate or Congress.
em @ Dec 7th 2007 12:17PM
the energy bill contains a lot more provisions that just revising the CAFE standard. last time i checked CNN, both the democrats and republicans are more or less in agreement with the new CAFE revision. what's causing contention is that the democrats wanted to remove the roughly $13 billion tax exemptions being given to the big oil companies and this is preventing the energy bill from being approved in its current form (hence the Senate ultimately rejecting it and will subject it to 'revisions').
Louis Duran @ Dec 7th 2007 12:22PM
@willem
Yes, I agree Bush is deranged. Thanks for pointing that out ,but I thought was already obvious.
@em
Too bad tax breaks for oil companies are causing this impasse. It's not as though the oil companies need tax breaks to show a profit.
bill @ Dec 7th 2007 12:58PM
Bush is deranged? Gosh, what an amazing comment. Careful study of current events would indicate President Bush has a good handle on reality and what needs to be done. It is not his fault we have about 50% of our country living in a fantasy world consisting of liberal alternate universe problems and solutions.
willem @ Dec 7th 2007 12:59PM
Bush is not the one that is deranged, it is the left's unbridled hatred for the man that manifests itself in the all-out lies that are perpetrated by his detractors. Bush is far from deranged and is the very picture of gentlemanliness. Like Reagan, it's always the unhinged leftists that produce mere spittle and foam at the mouth when either man is mentioned in polite conversation.
So, is it the global war on terror? His unwillingness to concede defeat to Islamofascism? His unwavering stance on Judeo-Christian values? His conferring with the private sector to best secure charity? What is it that you absolutely despise the man to the degree that you do? I don't see any viable alternatives being produced by the left, therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the opposition HAS NO IDEAS.
Louis Duran @ Dec 7th 2007 1:09PM
I think bill and willem (probably the same person) need to go back to school and practice reading comprehension. My original post did not use the word "deranged" just pointing out that Bush is a hypocrite to call himself a compassionate conservative and then veto bills that deny health care or research dollars to those who might need it. (Remember for those of you that flunked civics class, a veto is only necessary when a bill has passed BOTH houses of congress) See my earlier comment regarding his vetoes.
Second, he is just a liar in that he says in a SotU speech that we are addicted to oil but stands in the way of legislation that actually would encourage oil conservation. So I will just say he is a liar and a hypocrite. His 30% approval rating is a direct result of his low credibility factor.
And a more recent lie ... "I only heard about the latest NIE last week". Poor Dana Perino has to find ever more creative ways to cover his ass since he can't take the hard questions himself.
Bill, Willem. Argue facts or STFU.