California pushing new administration for its own stricter emissions standards
Welcome, President Obama. The Governator and the California Air Resources Board would like you to immediately allow California, and its toady hangers-on like Massachusetts, to set their own emissions standards. The Bush Administration denied the waiver that would have allowed CARB to set a goal of a 30 percent reduction in tailpipe emissions by 2016, along with requiring an average of 43.7 miles per gallon for cars and 26.6 for trucks by the same year. Now that there's a new administration winding up, the move is on once again to push the waiver through. Lisa Jackson, nominee for EPA administrator, has promised to aggressively review the 2007 decision should she be confirmed.
Automakers argue that the measure would force them to sell vastly different configurations for different states to meet those varied standards. While the "easy" (if cost-intensive) solution may be to make all models meet California emissions, the bigger issue is the mileage requirement. There's already a tough new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard coming up which is likely to be a challenge to meet in the allotted time, let alone containing what it will cost without sending MSRPs skyward.
While environmental responsibility is admirable and serious measures should be attempted, critics of the plan argue that cranking up a CAFE number willy-nilly equates to an unfunded mandate and misdirects efforts at brand-new vehicles – instead of spreading the word about how environmentally and economically friendly it is to keep an old car going in a good state of tune.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Sea Urchin 1:01PM (1/22/2009)
We need the strictest emissions possible. Automakers had last 30+ years to prepare. Toyota better make sure that Land Cruiser gets 35+ MPG.
I and most Americans want to have clean air and we do not want to fight wars over oil.
Reply
notYou 1:12PM (1/22/2009)
We wouldn't have to fight wars if we would tap our own resources, but you won't let us.
Not sure what you mean about the "clean air" thing - every energy exchange has byproducts*, even if the result was nothing but extra heat you'd affect the environment and weather. Hey, you're already doing that as a human being, y'know there's a fix for that.
(* "hydrogen only produces water" - tell me where the Clean! hydrogen comes from smarty).
notYou 1:21PM (1/22/2009)
(darn, dumb comments reply code...)
We wouldn't have to fight wars if we would tap our own resources, but you won't let us.
Not sure what you mean about the "clean air" thing - every energy exchange has byproducts*, even if the result was nothing but extra heat you'd affect the environment and weather. Hey, you're already doing that as a human being, y'know there's a fix for that.
(* "hydrogen only produces water" - tell me where the Clean! hydrogen comes from smarty).
Sea Urchin 1:29PM (1/22/2009)
I am all for drilling. Having said that many Americans oppose drilling. As you can see those people just elected a President who said it clearly that he opposes drilling, while opposer (McCain) said he fully supports it. People made a chose, theres nothing we can do about this now.
We just had a President that wanted nothing but to drill, people said they want change, so let's now try Arnold's way.
Tool 1:38PM (1/22/2009)
CARB should mandate SULEV on every vehicle sold in California. That would be actually pretty easy to do.
Wikipedia: Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) is a conventionally powered or gas-electric hybrid vehicle designed to produce minimal air pollution at their point of use, typically 90% less than that of an equivalent ordinary full gasoline vehicle.
The technology is there already. Honda does it with the V6 Accord. Even the ancient GM 3800 Series III V6 carried the SULEV rating.
So if it can be done with these vehicles, it can be done with any vehicle. This is a no-brainer.
Randy 2:25PM (1/22/2009)
Ya know.... I agree with higher fuel efficiency standards but I think everyone should all shut up for about a year until we know we have jobs, an economy, food sources, peace and a country for God's sake!
Until then, Boycott Arnold Movies and Califronia as a whole!
Sorry little raisin guys, I love yall but I just can't support you right now! ;)
And yes, I'm intentionally erratic! :)
notYou 4:06PM (1/22/2009)
Randy: While I agree with you, haven't you seen the latest? Obama has only four years to solve Man Made Global Warming or we will have passed the point of no return!...again!
Why, that four-year do-or-die horizon coincides with his expected length of time in office...funny, that.
IowaSuby 4:51PM (1/22/2009)
Obama was behind in the polls until the economy took center stage and nose dived. Please don't try to use the argument that people are all excited over clean air and voted in "hope and change". I think that's the last thing on everyone's mind right now.
The real issue is states rights. Why do we let 15 states push the rest of us around? You don't need an 11 mpg land cruiser in California? Great, but some of us live in areas where we need Land Cruisers, Pickup Trucks, SUVs etc... When 4 feet of snow are dumped in my driveway, my 32mpg A3 isn't going anywhere. That's when I get out my Outlander and use 4wd. Need to haul 7 people, well...my A3 won't do that either, but wow my Outlander will.
Also, if you want people to drive less, then why can't California tax gasoline and diesel higher? Why must you force auto makers to ridiculous standards which they have to use for all 50 states? ALL of the recent data has proven that people drive less when gas reaches $4-5/gallon so up your state tax to make gasoline cost $7/gallon and leave the rest of us alone. This is yet another case of 1 state and 14 followers pushing their ideas on the rest of us. California is a bully, plain and simple.
firstplace 7:54PM (1/22/2009)
good that way California and its cronies can have no fun cars and actually have to live in there socialist society. I hope a double standard happens.
dmitri.k.willeumier 10:00PM (1/22/2009)
Here's a thought... blame California for not providing an infastructure that can sustain it's population driving their vehicles at speeds that achieve optimal fuel economy.
A car traveling 0 mph is getting 0 mpg.
See, it's really California's fault, and not any of the automakers!
Big Rocket 10:06PM (1/22/2009)
For all those who claim CAFE will kill off fun, gas-guzzling vehicles, and we are better off with a gas tax to discourage the purchase and use of such vehicles:
CAFE stands for Corporate *Average* Fuel Economy. Automakers can still make fun cars with poor gas mileage, as long as they also make boring cars with great gas mileage, so it's not like fun cars will become illegal because of CAFE. And if an automaker (like Porsche) decides to focus on expensive and profitable sports cars, completely foregoing fuel-efficient econoboxes, that's not being stopped either, and the automaker only has to pay a fine, which is then passed onto the car buyers. Which, if you think about it, is a lot like the gas tax being championed around here: Increase the cost of ownership of gas-guzzlers. If you look past the partisan bickering, CAFE is accomplishing what the detractors say should be done.
Randy 12:29PM (1/24/2009)
@notYou
Right? LOL
@IowaSuby
One man's motivations are not anothers!
Well....Unless two men are sitting in front of a bowl that has only one dorito in it! That's a game changer!
@dmitri.k.willeumier
You know friend, humor aside, you're on the right track with your statement!
@Big Rocket
Though i agree you! A gas tax does little on the lines of slowing a fanatic from buying his or her "gas guzzlers". By imposing said taxes one (a company) could argue that their product is the target of unfair treatment. I think the gas taxes and all of the other ideas outside of an alternative fuel source are simply delaying the innevitable. Which is; we need an alternatve fuel. In 20 years we'll be saying "We dont' have any fuel and the oil is all gone, we should have spent that half a billion dollars on a new fuel source".
I think what President Obama has stated is part of our country's plan (regrid, retool and change our fuels) is a plan with greate forsite. Think of this; in 1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt got the highway system going. If it was done only 20 years later it would be a much different country! Think of your commute! The time you spend sitting at idle, time wasted in current traffic! Now take a couple of lanes off each highway and reponder! It would be incredible to say the least!
I think of two stories that I had the privelage to hear long ago. It was about bridges! I had been working in a store and a customer came in, I had to help him and while I was helping him I said "What do you do for work" (as I asked every customer ugh I hated that job). He told be "I build bridges, do you want to buy one?"... So he said that there was a bridge accident on Storrow Drive in Boston (that road should be in a video game, it's that fun to drive)... Anyway, he said that two things happened! When they tarred the road, they never untarred first so it kept raising the level of the road. This caused the space between the ground and the bottom of the bridge above to get shorter. So, when the sign read "clearance 13' 6"" the unexpecting semi tractor trailer driver thought he had clearance but he didn't. The trailer hit the underside of the bridge at full speed. Can you imagine "Boston Traffic" on "Storrow Drive" stopped by a tractor trailer? If you're not from around Boston it's the equivilent of cutting off one of your limbs before a marathon.
The second story is that the bridges that got repaired coast about (numbers are way off) half their original cost to repair every 10 years. But if you build a new bridge you wouldn't need to touch it for 40 years and the cost is less than double the 10 year fix price!
So the moral of the stories are that with proper planning and accounting one would realize that the cost to the tax payers to front the money for a new bridge ends up costing less money! And the cost of not untarring (or whatever you call it) is much more enourmous than skipping the detail!
So with that I infer that President Obamas plan is one of which takes careful considerations to the future. Thought it might no be realized immediately, it will be essential to the greater good of our country!
Kinda like a deal that says "Buy 10 oil changes today for $100" or "Buy 1 oil change everytime you need with with a net cost for 10 oil changes at $20 each to be 200 bucks"
When all is considered, the math is pretty basic!
notYou 1:07PM (1/22/2009)
"...instead of spreading the word about how environmentally and economically friendly it is to keep an old car going in a good state of tune."
You're missing the point: those cars burn fossil fuels, which is 100% unacceptable to environmentalists (at least, for the energy-gluttonous citizens of US).
The goal is to _eliminate_ fossil fuels - everywhere - not just reduce them.
Reply
JAL 1:14PM (1/22/2009)
as an "energy-gluttonous citizens of US" I TOTALLY AGREE. By that I mean that I will throw you a big old red white and blue middle finger as Im passing you in my Trailblazer SS getting 11 mpg AND LOVING IT!!!!
GOD_BLESS_THE_USA LOVE IT OR GET THE F**K OUT !!!!!
YEAH C'MON
notYou 1:21PM (1/22/2009)
JAL: I love ya, but I think you missed my point. I was pointing out what the Environmentalists want, not what I want.
Autoblog (and others) are just starting to wake up to the fact that, for environmentalists, NO MPG RATING IS EVER GOING TO BE GOOD ENOUGH.
Too bad most of them have already blindly embraced Change!, now we just have to wait for the consequences.
"Welcome to the New America!" -The Late, Great USA.
Sea Urchin 1:31PM (1/22/2009)
JAL, why don't you show that finger to Iraqi terrorists, oh i am sorry, i forgot that you do not have to fight wars and that you are hiding somewhere in suburban America. And the most fighting you ever done was at Costco, over who gets the last jumbo muffin.
JAL 1:55PM (1/22/2009)
Sea Urchin, Thanks but I feel I should point out that I DID serve my counrty for 8 years, more than half of the time WAS spent in the sandbox!!! AND I shop at Sams club, Costco is too far away.....good store though.
Sea Urchin 1:57PM (1/22/2009)
My apologies. Having said that, we as a country should not fight wars simply because we want to drive what we want to drive.
MGS4TW 3:00PM (1/22/2009)
Okay, here's my two cents in relation to the "keeping older cars going" comment -
I have a 2000 (yes, I realize this is not THAT old, but still is an old-ish car) Pontiac Firebird, with a 3800 Series II v6. (that's 3.8L, folks) Now, with that comes around 210hp (bolt on air intake, stock is 200hp), 225+ lb*ft of torque, and 30mpg highway.
Yes. 30 MPG HIGHWAY. mid to low 20's in town, even.
So... my eternal question is... Why is everyone (Toyota, Honda, Nissan) bragging about 30mpg highway cars? My car is 9 years old now, and still runs like a dream, it is still fun to drive, eye catching, and still bests the new "fuel efficient" offerings from these manufacturers.
Why can't we (the big 3, the world) do better things with our technology? If a 9 year old car is just as good as the new ones, what incentive does that give to buyers to get a new car? It just doesn't make sense in my opinion that in order to achieve better mileage we have to sacrifice performance. (Granted, the v6 f-bodies aren't true sports car performance, they're still fun cars.)
I guess to put this in another way - Make them like you used to, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. You had good things back then... just take an old platform, revive it, update it (maybe better interior quality, lighter, keep pretty much everything else the same) and you'd have a killer. (Yes, I realize there is the new Camaro, and this is exactly what they all need to do - the new Camaro in v6 flavor is 298hp with 26mpg highway... not quite as high as 30+, but still not bad.)
I just wish the "environmentalists" would get it in their heads that you don't have to sacrifice performance or kill the performance cars to achieve decent MPG ratings.
notYou 10:27PM (1/22/2009)
MGS4TW: I just wish the "environmentalists" would get it in their heads that you don't have to sacrifice performance or kill the performance cars to achieve decent MPG ratings.
Hmmmm, do you think there's a reason why they don't?
Maybe it's because achieving "decent MPG" is a _smokescreen_. See Kyoto and it's exemptions.
Start pedaling or riding a rickshaw, the third-world lifestyle is coming to a United State near you faster than you think.