Automakers are already on the attack against President Barack Obama's proposed 56 mpg corporate average fuel economy standards by 2025. The Detroit Free Press is reporting that automakers have launched a radio ad campaign against the proposed targets in seven states, including Michigan. The ads say that requiring the auto industry to meet the steep fuel economy increases will cause higher vehicle prices, fewer vehicle options and, worst of all, job losses. Advocates of the 56 mpg standard claim just the opposite, saying that any increases in vehicle price will be offset by fuel savings over time.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers says that it hopes to start discussions on "the importance of the consumer" with these ads. The White House maintains that it hopes to work with all interested parties on setting up fair fuel economy standards for the future. The President has already mentioned the possibility of separate standards for large SUVs and pickup trucks.

Photos Copyright 2010 Zach Bowman / AOL

[Source: Detroit Free Press]


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
  • 26 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      Everyone is just waiting for Obama's reign of terror to be over. GM and Chrysler will finally go through their bankruptcies and reorganization once they burn through the rest of the government cash. They are in just as bad shape as they were before they were bailed out if not worse. But even after the inevitable reorganization they still won't have money for re-tooling to make cars out of cardboard and TP so they can meet the 56 mpg requirement. Everyone knows these standards will not be met but we have to pretend otherwise and waste lots of money in the interim to humor Obama until someone sane gets back in office. Frankly I think Obama mpg standard to 1 mpg per state. He seems to like 56-57/ BTW, Alano the main reason we don't have high mileage diesels here is that government regulations don't allow them. We put some pretty stringent standards in place for the sorts of emissions that diesels produce and killed the diesel car industry in the US. You would be better off directing your ire in that direction than cursing the market. No one is beating down the doors to buy European cars nor will they be. That is thelast thing we have to fear.
      Ride Recon
      • 3 Years Ago
      http://www.riderecon.net Links to automotive news sources. Updated daily. Drudge Report inspired. Get Informed!
      • 3 Years Ago
      You forgot to mention all the additional unnecessary deaths caused by CAFE standards. Harvard / Brookings, National Academy of Sciences, NHTSA and many others have all found increased CAFE standards to be directly associated with dramatically higher death rates than if coercive government-mandated higher MPG standards were not forced upon us. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html
        skierpage
        • 1 Day Ago
        You forgot to mention the additional unnecessary deaths caused by USA dependence on foreign oil. Support the troops, reduce America's addiction to foreign oil, as every Republican president since Nixon has exhorted the US citizenry.
      uncle_sam
      • 3 Years Ago
      The low quality cars and the low fuel efficiency lead to the success of foreign brands. They still did not understand. It also lead to the fall of old GM and the fall of chrysler. look at the early attempts so make efficient cars to compete the japanese and europeans. just crap. The company ignorance leads to job losses. imagine all the battery tech gone to japan. the patents chevron is sitting on.
      Ford Future
      • 3 Years Ago
      They were just saying they could raise ICE engine efficiency to 40%. Now, they can't do it? Or, Won't do it. Oil Monopoly Destroys America.
      superduckz
      • 3 Years Ago
      This just in. There is a very large segment of drivers who put fuel economy either first or second on their list of priorities and are more than willing to pay a premium for that. then there are folks like me who tow boats, carry equipment and generally just like larger vehicles. If we can have our cake and eat it to then fine but if there's going to be a serious dent on performance and safety (from lighter vehicles) along with a punitive premium in price then please take you 2025 standards ans shoe them.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Ironically Milton Friedman loved free markets for one reason, efficiency. He would say that these companies should not be forced to increase their mileage/efficiency. The other companies will force them to change. Some European cities pay more than $6/ liter NOW!!! So why would someone buy american cars in 5 years if they have the same efficiency they do now? Simply put, they wont. Bankrupt US car companies, again, if they dont change. Somewhat amusing having that Volvo V60 Diesel-Electric Plug-in Hybrid getting about 125mpg in 2012. Maybe a bit more expensive today but no one here can imagine the batteries that will exist in 2020. Stop thinking in conspiracy theories and make some money!! I heard & everyone hears GM cry the loudest about these impossible efficiency standards a short while after coming out of bankruptcy. Short the stock like I did back when it was $35, its now sitting at $29. I hope they keep crying, preferably louder.
        Ford Future
        • 1 Day Ago
        "Milton Friedman" should re-read the Chapter on Monopoly, from his Econ 101 book.
        paulwesterberg
        • 1 Day Ago
        How does the magic market convince manufactures to sell their efficient European models in the US?
      • 3 Years Ago
      Let me get this straight- left to their own devices the automakers end up in 2007/8 with a bad and unmarketable product mix, they go bankrupt, the US taxpayers bail them out and now the little ***** want to bitch in the court of public opinion? Now the jobs that were saved are being held hostage by the management?- fire all the management and bring in competent foreign managers.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Was my comment deleted?
      krona2k
      • 3 Years Ago
      We don't want no stinking efficiency!
      Michael
      • 3 Years Ago
      all the hell the auto makers do is cry like bitches. make more efficient vehicles across the board there are already vehicles making a lot better milage in europe than we have here mind you that some of the figures are 50 mpg imperial gallon but give me a vehicle 50 mpg diesel ford fiesta if you can get the tree huggers out of the picture.if you want to have a v8 sports car hit it with a gas guzzler tax and let them go on there merry way .it would be better for us as a whole if we could get better efficient cars
        Smith Jim
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Michael
        Before I make my comment do not misunderstand me. I'm not a right wing climate change denier who loves oil companies. Having said that I have to put in my two cents. CAFE standards are not an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. We need carbon tax. The reason the average car is not more fuel efficient has more to do with consumers than auto manufacturers. Here's one example that I believe will prove my point. The first generation Honda Insight was the most fuel efficient vehicle sold in the US. It was cancelled in 2006 due to slow sales. Meanwhile, Americans were buying huge SUV's by the millions, quite literally. When gas prices spiked upward consumer suddenly changed their buying habits. The reason Japanese and European auto companies build and sell more fuel efficient vehicles is because gasoline is more expensive there. Gasoline is presently about $6.95 per gallon in Japan. The second generation Honda Insight, which is selling poorly in the US is the best selling car in Japan. A car company will have a extremely difficult time meeting CAFE standards if consumers continue to favor SUVs and shun more efficient platforms. As I've said previously, I believe a carbon tax will be the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions but politicians will not propose such a thing because voters will cry like little bitches.
          lne937s
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Smith Jim
          If you want to be effective, it isn't an either/or proposition. Europe and Japan have incentives/disincentives to increase efficiency and decrease oil consumption at the manufracturer level, the vehicle registration level and the fuel level. They also have robust public transportation. Japan and Europe didn't get to their efficiency levels through gas taxes alone. It is unwise for us to assume that tax increases on carbon emissions/hydrocarbon consumption alone will get us there either. Limiting mobility reduces economic output. If you just put in a gas/carbon tax, it is likely to restrict mobility. People who can't afford new cars will have few options available. If you put in place measures to ensure more efficient means of transportation are becomming available as carbon prices go up, mobility is maintained while oil consumption goes down.
          joceclam
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Smith Jim
          The ultimate goal is to lower GHG emissions. And the most effective way to do that is by introducing a carbon tax. And, in countries like Denmark (ahhh! Socialisms!!!!!), the tax has been an important part of the solution, without "killing jobs".
          superduckz
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Smith Jim
          You're right. You're no right winger. A carbon tax makes less sense for jobs than these standards.
      Nate22
      • 3 Years Ago
      Separate standards for SUVs and small trucks...what a crock! Same as it ever was....same as it.....
    • Load More Comments