<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com</link>
<description>Autoblog</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Worse or Worser: Automakers consider new mpg standard to prevent Senate bill]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/worse-or-worser-automakers-consider-new-mpg-standard-to-prevent/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/worse-or-worser-automakers-consider-new-mpg-standard-to-prevent/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/worse-or-worser-automakers-consider-new-mpg-standard-to-prevent/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/green/" rel="tag">Green</a></p><p><a href="http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070530/REG/70530013/1170&amp;refsect="><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/05/capital_36mpg_cars.jpg" /></a>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.</p>
<p>That proposal is being offered in an attempt to derail the <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/">fuel economy measure</a> 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?</p>
<p>[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/worse-or-worser-automakers-consider-new-mpg-standard-to-prevent/">Worse or Worser: Automakers consider new mpg standard to prevent Senate bill</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Thu, 31 May 2007 19:02:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070530/REG/70530013/1170&amp;refsect=>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/worse-or-worser-automakers-consider-new-mpg-standard-to-prevent/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/907715/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/31/worse-or-worser-automakers-consider-new-mpg-standard-to-prevent/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bill</category><category>cafe</category><category>capital</category><category>carl</category><category>levin</category><category>senate</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 19:02:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Senate panel approves plan for 35mpg by 2020]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><p><a href="http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/08/beefed-up-cafe-standards-35-mpg-by-2020-approved-by-senate-p/"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/05/cafe_standard_35.jpg" /></a>A Senate panel has approved a plan to increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg by 2020, with a 4% increase every year until 2030. That's almost 40% higher than today's standard for cars, which is 27.5 mpg . Currently, vans and trucks must get at least 22.2 mpg.</p>
<p>This bill, however, has a long, long, long way to go before any of its components are agreed upon. With this bill, work trucks and semis would have to meet CAFE standards for the first time -- but requirements can't be changed for those vehicles without first conducting a federal study. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said he'll filibuster this kind of legislation since it's unfair to the Big Three. Senators Ted Stevens (AK) and Trent Lott (MS) wonder if it's fair and how it will affect trucking. Senator Bill Nelson (FL) wants the 2020 standard to be 40 mpg. John Kerry (MA) wants 31 mpg by 2015 and 35 by 2020. The Big Three and Toyota don't like it because they think it's unattainable. The UAW doesn't like it because they say it will cause closures and job losses -- even though those have been rampant with the standards we already have. Environmentalists don't like it because it's weaker than President Bush's proposal and there aren't more alternative energy provisions. David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists likens the bill to Swiss cheese because of its loopholes, while Senator Daniel Inouye (HI) thinks it's fair as is.</p>
<p>The bill will go before the full Senate in June. Democrats expect it to pass. Our Magic 8-ball seems to think otherwise. . . .</p>
<p>[Source: Autoblog Green via AP]</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/">Senate panel approves plan for 35mpg by 2020</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 09 May 2007 11:31:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/891922/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/05/09/senate-panel-approves-plan-for-35mpg-by-2020/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bill</category><category>cafe</category><category>economy</category><category>fuel</category><category>gas</category><category>senate</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathon Ramsey]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 11:31:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[California to ban smoking in cars with kids]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/california-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/california-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/california-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a></p><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15384365.htm"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/08/1-child-in-car-smoke.jpg" id="vimage_1" alt="" /></a>Senators in California are close to passing a bill that would prohibit smoking in vehicles carrying children who are required by law to ride in a child seat. The bill proposed by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) recently received a 23-14 vote that sent it back to the Assembly, and with our underdeveloped comprehension of state politics we can't really tell you how close that means the bill is to landing on the Governator's desk, but we think it's pretty close. And to think I was freaked out when I last visited California because I couldn't light up in a bowling alley. A bowling alley!<br /><br />Proponents argue that the bill is an attempt to "protect the health of children who cannot protect themselves." We'll let that one go because we're sure you'll pick it up in the comments, but we will point out something else from the linked article, which is that on the same day the smoking ban was approved the California Senate shot down an alternative fuel bill. This bill would require that at least half of the vehicles sold in California be classified as clean-running alternative vehicles by 2020. <br /><br />Why bring up both bills? Well, because it seems like the smoking ban bill is something that can be easily passed and forgotten about until election time, whereas the alternative fuel bill, which would join a host of other strict California emissions laws, would be a logistical nightmare. It would no doubt infuriate the auto industry to no end, which does still have some political clout in this country, as we're sure it's getting tired of the Golden State single-handedly setting this nation's environmental policy when it comes to autos. <br /><br />Thanks for tip, James!<br /><br />[Source: Mercury News]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/california-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/">California to ban smoking in cars with kids</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:02:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15384365.htm>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/california-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/660772/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/california-to-ban-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>assembly</category><category>baby</category><category>ban</category><category>bill</category><category>california</category><category>child</category><category>child seat</category><category>ChildSeat</category><category>law</category><category>senate</category><category>smoking</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[John Neff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:02:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>