too_money2007
Member
+145|6450|Keller, Tx
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24258714/


WASHINGTON - The nation’s fleet of new cars and trucks will be required to achieve 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, the Bush administration said Tuesday.

Transportation Department Secretary Mary Peters outlined the plan on Earth Day, setting a schedule that was more aggressive than initially expected by industry officials.

Peters said the proposal was “an aggressive but achievable standard. I think we’ve got something that is going to significantly save fuel and help clean our air.”

The plan responds to a new energy law pushed by Congress and signed by President Bush that requires the nation’s new cars and trucks, taken as a collective average, to meet 35 mpg by 2020.

New cars and trucks will have to meet a fleetwide average of 31.6 mpg by 2015, or about a 4.5 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2015.

The fleetwide average doesn’t mean that all vehicles have to achieve the target efficiency — larger vehicles will not be as fuel efficient as smaller ones — only that collectively passenger vehicles average that figure.

The plan is expected to save 54.7 billion gallons of oil and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the life of the new vehicles built between 2011-2015. It will add an average cost of $650 per passenger car and $979 per truck by 2015.

The proposal is expected to be finalized by the end of President Bush’s term in office.

Automakers opposed increases to the regulations in previous years, but supported a compromise version of the legislation in Congress amid rising gasoline prices and concerns about global warming.

The regulations would require the industry to implement more than half of the fuel-efficiency requirements by 2015 and push them to build more gas-electric hybrid cars, diesel-powered trucks and SUVs and advances such as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.

“These numbers are very challenging. They will stretch the industry to innovate in ways they haven’t had to do in the past and will continue to set us on a course to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new autos,” said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and others.

Amid rising gasoline prices and concerns of global warming, Congress sought the tougher standards, requiring the nation’s fleet of new vehicles to increase its efficiency by 10 mpg from its current average of 25 mpg, or a 40 percent increase.

The new law represented the first major changes to the auto mileage rules in three decades.

The fleet of new passenger cars is currently required to meet a 27.5 mpg average, while sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans must hit a target of 22.5 mpg.

Members of Congress and environmental groups have pushed for higher standards, arguing that requiring vehicles to become more efficient would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the nation’s dependence upon imported oil.

Democrats have said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs and reduce oil demand by 1.1 million barrels a day when the more fuel-efficient vehicles are in wide use on the road.
Of course, it comes at the end of the Bush presidency, which will trickle over to the new candidate, who in turn, won't honor it. And, again, automakers oppose it because they're in collusion with the oil companies to make everyone on Earth poor.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6743|132 and Bush

Tbh I don't really care who is in office when it happens. I just want better mpg.

I'd drive this Hybrid.

https://i27.tinypic.com/2e5uut3.jpg
https://i31.tinypic.com/aw85jk.jpg
https://i29.tinypic.com/sy6vky.jpg
https://i29.tinypic.com/2q310mu.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
mikkel
Member
+383|6743
It's no surprise that the urgency of improving gas milage is directly proportional to gas prices. I doubt that these goals would be around if gas was at $2/gallon. End of presidency or not.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6272|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:

It's no surprise that the urgency of improving gas milage is directly proportional to gas prices. I doubt that these goals would be around if gas was at $2/gallon. End of presidency or not.
'Necessity is the mother of invention'
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6743|132 and Bush

mikkel wrote:

It's no surprise that the urgency of improving gas milage is directly proportional to gas prices. I doubt that these goals would be around if gas was at $2/gallon. End of presidency or not.
I'd say it's proportional as far as marketing. The technology isn't something that develops overnight on a gas spike though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
mikkel
Member
+383|6743

Kmarion wrote:

mikkel wrote:

It's no surprise that the urgency of improving gas milage is directly proportional to gas prices. I doubt that these goals would be around if gas was at $2/gallon. End of presidency or not.
I'd say it's proportional as far as marketing. The technology isn't something that develops overnight on a gas spike though.
No, I know that. What I'm saying is that obligatory federal goals apparently do.
too_money2007
Member
+145|6450|Keller, Tx
What about just investing in the groud work and implementation of hydrogen vehicles? Obviously, not everyone can afford to pay like $50k for one, so increasing the output might bring down prices.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6633|Northern California
Too little too late.  We've had automobiles for 100+ years now.  The irresponsible auto makers (who accept Bush's "negotiated" bill probably because it gives them more kick back than the original congressional one) have had all that time to make their engines more efficient.  After the 70's when there was more than ample reasoning to believe there could be future gas shortages, there was little done to make a real difference in mileage longevity.  FORD, for example, are making bigger and badder trucks, plummeting their mileage towards the single digits.  I was walking through a few car lots yesteday, including the FORD lot, and it's amazing that they even sell those F250+ trucks when many people are trying to trade in their big trucks for small gas efficient vehicles.  I was looking for a used 4 cylinder ranger or a nissan frontier or toyota tacoma for under $10k that gets at least 20 mpg and it was impossible...but plenty of dodge, ford, gmc, chevy trucks in the 150/1500 style for sale for next to nothing..gathering cobwebs.

On my lunchtime walk today (30 mins ago) I see this at the curb outside my building...
https://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk103/lronchef/f1.jpg

Now I'm guessing it was some dude who got hit and sued and bought a ferrari, or just a regular scumbag from this "affluent and we KNOW it" city who got a handicapped placard so he can park his baby wherever he wants.  Oh if I had an egg...but it's cool, he's getting a third of the mileage I get in my minivan! lol
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6878|Salt Lake City

too_money2007 wrote:

What about just investing in the groud work and implementation of hydrogen vehicles? Obviously, not everyone can afford to pay like $50k for one, so increasing the output might bring down prices.
The problem with hydrogen and pure electric vehicles in infrastructure.  Such vehicles would only be viable in larger cities that invested in the upgrades for these cars to be able to refuel/recharge.  They would be worthless for over the road travel.  Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where it will be hard to get people to buy the vehicles, even if cost effective, due to lack of infrastructure.  In this case the government may actually have to step in and provide the money to make it happen.  You have the proverbial chicken and egg scenario where people won't buy without infrastructure and people won't invest money in infrastructure without the vehicles on there to support it.
too_money2007
Member
+145|6450|Keller, Tx

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

What about just investing in the groud work and implementation of hydrogen vehicles? Obviously, not everyone can afford to pay like $50k for one, so increasing the output might bring down prices.
The problem with hydrogen and pure electric vehicles in infrastructure.  Such vehicles would only be viable in larger cities that invested in the upgrades for these cars to be able to refuel/recharge.  They would be worthless for over the road travel.  Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where it will be hard to get people to buy the vehicles, even if cost effective, due to lack of infrastructure.  In this case the government may actually have to step in and provide the money to make it happen.  You have the proverbial chicken and egg scenario where people won't buy without infrastructure and people won't invest money in infrastructure without the vehicles on there to support it.
Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make, but I didn't really think it out too well. I really hate this world sometimes.
Laika
Member
+75|6086
I don't like the idea of a "fleetwide" average. The average mpg should be based on the actual number of vehicles made, not the average mpg of Car Type 1 through Car Type 10.

Still, it's good to see some legislative progress.
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6633|Northern California

Ataronchronon wrote:

I don't like the idea of a "fleetwide" average. The average mpg should be based on the actual number of vehicles made, not the average mpg of Car Type 1 through Car Type 10.

Still, it's good to see some legislative progress.
I know, fleet average is dumb because all Hummer has to do is make some teenie little golf cart that gets 100mpg and they don't have to touch their other 3 fleet members MPGs.
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6682|byah
Why not just end all American car manufacturers and the standard can be met in 2009.
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6056|...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8

Link to who killed the electric car preview.  If you get a chance you should watch the movie.
...
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6587|The Land of Scott Walker

Ataronchronon wrote:

I don't like the idea of a "fleetwide" average. The average mpg should be based on the actual number of vehicles made, not the average mpg of Car Type 1 through Car Type 10.

Still, it's good to see some legislative progress.
I like fleetwide idea, here's why: vehicles have a variety of purposes.  Let's try to pull something or haul anything larger than a medium size load of groceries in a Prius.  Sorry, won't work.  Let's try to drive through significant snowfall to get from point A to point B in the Midwest without getting stuck in a Prius.  Won't work either.  I'd prefer the market, not the government, dictate what vehicles are made and what their mileage will be.
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6680|Long Island, New York
Hummers getting 31.6 mpg? This is madness!
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6536|The Gem Saloon

Stingray24 wrote:

Ataronchronon wrote:

I don't like the idea of a "fleetwide" average. The average mpg should be based on the actual number of vehicles made, not the average mpg of Car Type 1 through Car Type 10.

Still, it's good to see some legislative progress.
I like fleetwide idea, here's why: vehicles have a variety of purposes.  Let's try to pull something or haul anything larger than a medium size load of groceries in a Prius.  Sorry, won't work.  Let's try to drive through significant snowfall to get from point A to point B in the Midwest without getting stuck in a Prius.  Won't work either.  I'd prefer the market, not the government, dictate what vehicles are made and what their mileage will be.
agreed.

though i would love to see ALL vehicles have the same low amount of emissions, it just wont be feasible until someone can produce the same amount of torque from a battery, rather than from an internal combustion engine.
i mean, i dont need one...i drive a fucking grand am....but there are people in the world that actually NEED a vehicle that has that much power.
i would like to think that the people purchasing the huge trucks, actually have a valid reason for it. not just wanting something big to cruise around in.

but, like Pugs (i think) sig says, the world is not a logical place.....
BVC
Member
+325|6837
Electric cars don't have to be pansy shopping carts...

https://www.veva.bc.ca/images/lightning4.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6914|PNW

Poseidon wrote:

Hummers getting 31.6 mpg? This is madness!
[cue Sparta video]
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6610

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Hummers getting 31.6 mpg? This is madness!
[cue Sparta video]
tuckergustav
...
+1,590|6056|...

<-----laughing so hard I'm crying
...
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6817|Canberra, AUS

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Hummers getting 31.6 mpg? This is madness!
[cue Sparta video]
Oooookay...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6763|London, England

Kmarion wrote:

Tbh I don't really care who is in office when it happens. I just want better mpg.

I'd drive this Hybrid.

http://i27.tinypic.com/2e5uut3.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/aw85jk.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/sy6vky.jpg
http://i29.tinypic.com/2q310mu.jpg
Don't say that, you'll be branded a pansy and gay by the Macho Mafioso!

https://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/17133.jpg
beerface702
Member
+65|6835|las vegas
the tesla electric car owns. 0-60 in under 2.7 seconds. To bad they cost over 100,000 bucks..which actually isnt to bad for a exotic car.

36MPG should have been standard 6 years ago. Most car's should be required to get 50MPG by 5 years, and 36MPG for trucks..if that is possible, maybe with nano tech in the panels and body.
Ender2309
has joined the GOP
+470|6713|USA
umm...what does a new president have to do with honoring this? so long as bush signs it in it's golden.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard