• Jun 27th 2011 at 8:05AM
  • 28
The Obama Administration has reportedly disclosed its CAFE target for 2025, and it's not the 62 miles per gallon that's been discussed in Washington, D.C. for some time now.

According to The Washington Post, the White House is shooting for passenger vehicles and light trucks in the U.S. to average 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025, a level that will slash the nation's oil consumption substantially and increase the cost of each vehicle by an estimated $2,375. The Washington Post says that the White House's ambitious target was first revealed during discussions between automakers and policymakers late last week.

Setting the CAFE standard at 56.2 mpg by 2025 would roughly equate to an annual improvement of five percent over today's guidelines. However, most U.S. automakers were pushing for 47 mpg by 2025, an annual bump of around three percent.

In response to a request for verification, White House spokesman Clark Stevens told The Washington Post that:
We continue to work closely with a broad range of stakeholders to develop an important standard that will save families money and keep the jobs of the future here. A final decision has not been made, and as we have made clear we plan to propose that standard in September.
Official or not, we're intrigued by this report and eagerly wait for your comments.

[Source: The Washington Post | Image: Beige Alert – C.C. License 2.0]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 28 Comments
      Smith Jim
      • 8 Months Ago
      Having said all that, I don't think higher CAFE standards, alone, are going to be enough. If we quadruple the efficiency of our automobiles, appliances, lighting and HVAC it still will not be enough. Am I an alarmist? Do I sound cynical or downright pessimistic? By the burning of fossil fuels we are putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere roughly 10,000 times faster than the CO2 was taken out of the air by the plants that eventually turned into the fossil fuels we are now burning. You might be thinking, we've got to do something and higher CAFE standards are part of the solution. I'm not against increased efficiency but it's not going to be enough to spare future generations a great deal of pain. Please read the following article and let it sink in. http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-15-if-efficiency-hasnt-cut-energy-use-then-what
      Captain Spadaro
      • 4 Years Ago
      Once again, Washington proves that it knows NOTHING about how cars work.
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 4 Years Ago
      peak oil has a different idea. multiple financial crashes for hundreds of years. it is lame in the extreme. chubama is so pathetic.
      upstategreenie
      • 8 Months Ago
      Are we even at 25 mpg avg.. yet? well we were at 30 when ford perfected auto assembly line 100 yrs ago. then we decided we control the world, can just bom* the sh*( out of any middle eastern country whenever they get uppity and decided every american needs a land yacht for sh*(s and giggles because it is 'patriotic' and then it went way way down (like our economy over the last decade).
      sirvixisvexed
      • 4 Years Ago
      How can they predict accurately how much added cost there is to a vehicle that gets 56.2 mpg, in 2025? What about when all of those components are as mass produced as mufflers?
        bscmth
        • 8 Months Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        You are correct about the battery and the electric motors. However, don't forget every plant that currently produces an internal combustion engine and all of the thousands of plants that feed into its production would need to be completely retooled. You cannot use the same factory equipment and tooling to produce an electric motor, as you would an internal combustion engine. We are talking figures into the hundreds of billions. Consumers also won't likely buy a fully electric vehicle in mass, due to infrastructure limitations. Therefore, it would require hybrids and extended range electric vehicles (plug-in hybrids). These vehicles are much more complex than the vehicle many purchase today. More complexity adds more cost... price goes up.
      erhcanadian
      • 4 Years Ago
      Good that it includes "light trucks"! Automakers classify many passenger vehicles, like the PT Cruiser, as light trucks to avoid regulations. If "light trucks" were not included, automakers would just make more cars into CUVs and crossovers so they would be exempt.
        uncle_sam
        • 8 Months Ago
        @erhcanadian
        WHF? A PT Cruiser is classified as light truck? No joke? Oh I googled a Q5 guzzler is a truck too now I got it. that is the reason for audi to make planning thr Q1 , Q3 and Q4 and making Q5 and Q7 those all light trucks! as is doing bmw x1, x3, x5 and planned x7. Well if those are trucks, my prius is a super duty.
      tantareanujellob
      • 4 Years Ago
      Jesus is not amused.
      Eliot Lemoncelli
      • 4 Years Ago
      If I'm driving a full electric vehicle in 2025 then If I'm using no gas at all, how do they calculate that into the CAFE Average?
        JakeY
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Eliot Lemoncelli
        They just use the energy content in the electricity to come up with an MPG figure. That's how they come up with the 99MPGe on the Leaf sticker. There's also a bonus multiplier for alternatively fueled vehicles (even flex-fuel vehicles get a multiplier), and in general CAFE is more lenient than sticker efficiency numbers, so the actual sticker average won't be as high as 56.2 mpg.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Eliot Lemoncelli
        Political magic.
      spw
      • 4 Years Ago
      Hows 56.2 MPG "not even remotely close to 62 MPG"?
        Naturenut99
        • 8 Months Ago
        @spw
        My thought exactly! Unless this moron thinks it's 56* vs. 62* on a map. This is a huge jump from where we currently are. Are we even at 25 mpg avg.. yet?
      upstategreenie
      • 8 Months Ago
      yes they should include all light trucks as stated below...every american auto CEO recently stated US needs to raise gas taxes by at least a dollar to incentivize purchase of all elec. vehicles instead of gas prices going up or down and making costs harder to change assembly lines based on whims of fickle american consumers.
      Peter
      • 4 Years Ago
      Remarkably non ambitious, and, if promulgated, remains the slackest in the developed world. The number is misleading considering it is inflated with E85 capable vehicles by multiplying their economy by 6.666 (even though most of them run on gas) and is also calculated with the "old" EPA method, hence is already inflated significantly above real world economy.
      cooker263
      • 4 Years Ago
      Meanwhile, some dissatisfied with the President's lackluster goal are crafting legislation for cars to run on magic by 2020. On a more serious note, don't any of us believe in freedom? Do you really have the right to force your neighbor to get a more fuel-efficient car? I think you'll have a much more stable & healthy society if we rather try to convince or neighbors to do something rather than pass law after law. If you concede that laws can be passed in this manner, then you're opening up a can of worms in which the state can regulate all sorts of behaviors. I think one of the reasons there is a lot of animosity toward greens is because they try to use the force of law to make everyone else live a certain way.
        EJ
        • 8 Months Ago
        @cooker263
        "Do you really have the right to force your neighbor to get a more fuel-efficient car?" As long as my neighbor's choice of car affects my health and the national security of the country, absolutely. History has unequivocally shown the average person to be selfishly myopic to the point of self destruction. Sorry, but I don't think someone who thinks gas is an infinite resource, and that the president 'should handle the gas price problem', has the capacity to grasp the true enviro-socio-geo-political cost of oil. And I don't think that person will ever be willing make a personal compromise, or any sort of change, unless forced by availability, cost, or legislation. I am all about freedom, and think you should be able to think, do, and say whatever you chose to, whenever, however, and how often you'd like to. Right up to the point where that choice negatively affects someone else.
          cooker263
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EJ
          I bet you were really proud of how cool this sounded when you wrote it: "History has unequivocally shown the average person to be selfishly myopic to the point of self destruction." Is that why our individualistic country became the way it did while all of the collectivist nations of old Europe & China "thrived"? If the average person is selfishly myopic to the point of self destruction, then I guess you and your friends at autoblog green are exempt from that? You think our wise leaders are born with selfless interests? You really need to think about what you're saying here. Also, don't you realize that there is a cost with anything - and there is also a cost of implementing such strict standards for cars. This will essentially be a regressive tax - hurting the poor the most. When they go to buy their next car, maybe they won't be able to afford the cost of making cars so efficient that they'll start driving old cars that don't have any of the emissions equipment at all. I know your retort will be that our national security will be threatened, your lungs will be full of tar, the Earth will be covered by a black gooey substance, and your neighbor will still be allowed to drive his Escalade. I don't have all the answers, but I'm certainly scared of living under a society run by people like you who think you do.
          EJ
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EJ
          "If it's truly a health risk and national security risk, I think you would have more of a market response to that threat." Only if people understand the problem, and then care. When 63% of the US population are 'unhappy with Obama's handling of gas prices', that shows that a large percentage of people (63%) have no grasp on the world oil market, and no understanding of the problem. He's a 'simple' question for you. 98% of the US's transportation relies on oil. US agriculture is 100% dependent on oil for materials, production and distribution. Practically everything you own either uses oil as a raw material, or relies on oil for it's production and distribution. 60% of US oil is imported. China has surpassed the US as the world's largest oil consumer with the rest of Asia coming up fast. With 60% of the US's fabric of existence reliant on foreign sources, please present any scenario where this isn't a national security issue. And if you're interested, the web has no shortage of information on petroleum's adverse health effects.
          cooker263
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EJ
          Listen, I come to this website because I like fuel-efficient cars and new technology. I think it's great. The difference is that I just don't feel it's justified to impose my vision of what people should drive onto others. I know you're concerned about externalities, but I just don't think there's nearly enough justification. If it's truly a health risk and national security risk, I think you would have more of a market response to that threat. Could I be wrong? Sure - but either way things are naturally becoming more efficient and technology is consistently making advancements. I guess I'm just more into an organic approach to solving these problems than passing laws. I tend not to argue on the internet, but nonetheless, please have a splendid day.
          EJ
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EJ
          "Is that why our individualistic country became the way it did while all of the collectivist nations of old Europe & China "thrived"?" Actually, yeah, it's exactly why it did. Selfish behavior doesn't preclude thriving success. Domestic oil production was wildly successful. Detroit was wildly successful. Mortgage brokers were wildly successful. Blind short selling was wildly successful. Offshoring was wildly successful. The games not over yet, and as for Europe and China, if you know the current value of the dollar and the level of debt the US owes China, they're not doing so bad. " then I guess you and your friends at autoblog green are exempt from that?" I can't speak for others, but I'm not exempt. I just try to be conscious of my self destructive behaviors. "You think our wise leaders are born with selfless interests?" Not even close. In fact I'm leaning much more toward thinking anybody who wants the job probably isn't qualified to have it. "This will essentially be a regressive tax - hurting the poor the most." How is this any different from what's going on now? Better mileage, emissions and safety features trickle down as old cars get recycled. The current CAFE standards elicited the same FUD when they were proposed. And more to my point, had they not been enacted, the poor would still be driving cars that got 8mpg, which would have meant they couldn't afford the gas for the only car they could afford. "I don't have all the answers, but I'm certainly scared of living under a society run by people like you who think you do." Me disagreeing with something you said doesn't mean I think I know everything. But just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I can't recognize a wrong one.
          stumpy
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EJ
          EJ i agree completely cooker263 you're a troll
        bscmth
        • 8 Months Ago
        @cooker263
        Hi Cooker263, The vitriol that comes from folks with an agenda always amazes me. Folks with an agenda generally don't believe they infringing upon the freedom of their neighbor. There agenda, whether it be an evironmental one, abortion, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, gun laws, or any one of the agendas that the human mind can conjure up infringes upon our freedoms. Its so easy to do and most don't even realize that they are doing it, because somehow their agenda is "correct" and worthy of imposing on others. Many treat the car as the only source of petroleum demand, but it isn't. If every car in the U.S. were taken off the road tomorrow, we would still need oil. The key board that I am typing with is made of oil. We all live in houses that are made of petroleum and eat a dinner that was produced in large part by petroleum and made of petroleum. Has anyone ever seen vinyl siding? shingles? or the trucks that haul the supplies. How do those bundles of materials get to a job site. I often like to think of the extremes to make a point. The real reason behind increasing CO2 emissions is the fact that our global population continues to grow exponentially. There are simply more people. More people that consume, food, water, require shelter, clothing, cars, transportation, just to name a few. We can raise CAFE, but it will literally have an insignificant impact on CO2, as population. So lets ask the question as to whether or not a globally government mandated human sterilization program would infringe upon our basic rights? BTW... I would never call Stumpy a troll.
        Chris M
        • 8 Months Ago
        @cooker263
        There is nothing in this law that "forces" anyone go buy a more fuel efficient car, or any car. It won't outlaw used cars, or even new gas guzzlers, as Corporate Average Fuel Economy is an average, automakers can still produce big SUVs and trucks. as long as they also make very high fuel efficiency cars to compensate. That's part of the reason for the intense interest in plug-ins. In many ways, this is one of the least intrusive and least restrictive way of achieving the desired results. Raising fuel taxes to punitive levels would be more effective, but would also be a lot more intrusive.
        Smith Jim
        • 8 Months Ago
        @cooker263
        I used to be skeptical of climate change also. I'm not a climate scientist but I am an engineer and I have a firm grasp of science and math. This might sound arrogant but I feel like I can cut through the noise of this "debate" better than the average person. I used to be skeptical of climate change. Since I've retired, I have lots of free time on my hands. I decided to dig deeply into both sides of this "debate". (I'll explain later why I put quotes around the word debate) I spent literally hundreds of hours reading books and articles and viewing documentaries. I have cut through the BS and arrived at a conclusion. The average temperature of the Earth is rising at least 10 times faster than the natural cycles of the past 650,000 years. This unnaturally rapid rise in temperature is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The credible peer reviewed evidence is overwhelming. The evidence against climate change is not peer reviewed and most of it is laughable. That's why I put quotes around the word, debate. I'll give just one example of this laughable evidence. I've heard people say that volcanoes put out more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is THE world authority on volcanoes. According to the USGS all the volcanoes of the world combined put out between 1/270 and 1/80 as much CO2 as the burning of fossil fuels. In other words, In a year where volcanoes have been especially active the burning of fossil fuels emits 80 times more CO2 than the volcanoes. In a year where volcanoes are not so active the burning of fossil fuels put 270 times more CO2 than volcanoes. The notion that volcanoes put out more CO2 must have been pulled out of someone's arse. If you read the book, "Merchants of Doubt" you will learn about these people who are paid by big oil to pull information straight out of their arses. http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/06/exxonmobil-soon-climate-change-denier In addition to the volcano argument I've heard all the other counter arguments of the "debate" and they are all ridiculous. If you care to read the info about volcanoes directly from the USGS it is here: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X