bi-partisan bill requires more miles per gallon

[welshTerrier2]

well, this is better than nothing ... it still fails to alert the American public to the devastating effects we face from global warming ... it still doesn't warn Americans about "peak oil" ... it still doesn't do anything to educate us about the risks of global war we face fighting over the dwindling supplies of worldwide oil ... but, at least they got the policy right ...

one of the bill's sponsors, New York Republican Sherwood Boehlert, did point out that reducing US dependence on imported oil is a national security issue ...

i wonder if high gas prices will be sufficient justification to get this through our pro-corporate, pro-Big-Oil government ...

source: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-14T180004Z_01_BAU464214_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-KATRINA-ENERGY-MILEAGE-DC.XML

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would require automakers to boost the fuel efficiency of new vehicles to an average 33 miles per gallon over the coming decade from the current 25 mpg.

Hurricane Katrina's effect on U.S. gasoline supplies is a wake-up call for the nation to begin trying to slow oil demand growth, the lawmakers said. The United States is the world's biggest consumer of oil, and most of it is used for transportation. <skip>

Last week, the Republican head of the Senate Energy Committee made a surprising plea for lawmakers to take a closer look at mileage requirements, also known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Sen. Pete Domenici said stricter standards may be needed as one of several ways to ease rising gasoline costs for consumers. <skip>

"This bill, more so than any provision in the recently-enacted energy bill, will lessen that dependence," Boehlert said.

[no name no slogan]

1. The mpg requirements were higher in 1987 than they are now

This is truly a bi-partisan issue, and both sides need to make serious efforts to raise these. If European cars can get better mpg ratings, why can't ours?

Of course, Big Oil will do its damndest to block this, and buy out every politician (D or R) it can.

[papau]

2. TOO SLOW - all 2008 models must be hybrid and 10% of those must be

plug in hybrid, except for farm equipment and construction equipment, and except for Luxury cars where the buyer must fork over a 50% oil independence national defense sales tax to the Federal Government.

Then define a luxury car as any car that gets less than 40 mpg as an EPA rating for city driving (plug-in hybrids will have higher gas mileage for city driving than they will have for highway as the gain from the plug in charge will be gone after 75 miles or so)

[welshTerrier2]

3. interesting ...

do you have a source for the "all 2008 models must be hybrid"?? ... i hadn't heard about that ...

what effect will hybrids have on the average MPG?? i assume it will help but by how much??

[papau]

6. I freely give all the rights to the idea that all 08 models must be hybrid

Since Toyota has announced a date certain for its fleet to be all hybrid, I suspect this type of bill might even pass our "afraid of Ford/GM" Congress.

Meanwhile the boost will be perhaps 40% in power which can either be 40% better mileage, or 40% more power.

Unless ordered by Congress we know damn well that the faster start, rather than better mileage, is the way our US auto makers will go.

The plug in hybrid is ideal for city commute/driving. First 75 miles each day is powered by the very efficient electrical power plant down the road, via the grid, rather than an inefficient gas motor.

The result is the equivalent of 225 to 300 miles per gal per the State of California's testing.

The result of such a law of course would be an immediate drop in oil prices as the Saudi's tried to make the economics of the change a harder sell. But I've run the numbers - they can not drop the price low enough to stop the idea from being a huge success.

[TwilightZone]

5. This is about as likely to happen as Bush quitting his job tomorrow

night!

There's way too much money flowing into Washington from the auto industry for significant changes to actually happen any time soon. The only way they'll switch completely to hybrids is if there's more money to be made there.

[papau]

7. Toyota has announce ALL - the total fleet - will be hybrid by date certain

If we want to retain an auto industry in this country, we have to force GM/FORD to do what they should do any way for simple business reasons.

[TwilightZone]

9. Actually, they did not give a specific date.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/automobiles/14toyota.html

In the future, the cars you see from Toyota will be 100 percent hybrid," Kazuo Okamoto, executive vice president, told reporters in Frankfurt Monday, without giving a specific timetable.

Another source said that they hope to lower the price premium of hybrid vehicles (currently $3,000 - $5,000) by half by 2010. They want to sell a million a year by then, so the 100% target is probably at least a decade away, probably more.

And, no offense, but we're not going to "force" GM/Ford to do anything they don't want to do. Until all automakers, including Toyota, can make hybrid vehicles competitive price-wise, there will continue to be serious resistance.

[papau]

14. true - just 1 million hybrid cars by 2010 is a goal - but Japan, unlike

the US - can switch a non-hybrid factory to a making hybrids in a matter of days, if not hours.

My best guess is that the date certain is 2010.

Toyota has now seven vehicle models that run on hybrid systems (including a sedan "Prius", plus gasoline-electric models of the Lexus RX 330 and Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicles and plans next year to debut a hybrid Lexus GS sedan and Toyota Camry). Toyota's Fujio Cho, Mr. Watanabe's predecessor, previously set a goal of selling 300,000 hybrids annually worldwide by the end of 2005, and last year he pushed back the date to 2006 - and only a shortage of batteries and other parts wis holding back production today (2005) to the 250,000 level.ould probably hold back production.


Honda has a hybrid version of its Accord sedan and a two-seat Insight model, and is putting a hybrid Civic compact car on display this week to sell this fall. Also at Frankfurt, Honda showed a redesigned Civic, which goes on sale in the fall.

Nissan is expected next year to begin selling a hybrid Altima.

BMW AG last Wednesday said it will join General Motors, the world's biggest carmaker, and DaimlerChrysler AG to develop gasoline-electric systems for release in models as soon as 2007. Volkswagen AG and Porsche AG said they plan to jointly develop gas-electric versions of Volkswagen's Toureg, Audi Q7 SUV, and Porsche Cayenne sport utility vehicles (the Cayenne to get 15 percent better fuel economy) , which are all built at Volkswagen's factory in Bratislava, Slovakia (the version of the Cayenne SUV will be developed jointly with Volkswagen to go on sale within five years).
Mercedes-Benz has unveiled two hybrid-powered experimental versions of its flagship S-Class sedan, one with a gasoline engine and the other with a diesel.

J.D. Power forecast Americans buying 600,000 hybrids a year by 2012, if gas stays no higher than $3.50 in 2012. More will be sold if gas prices increase.


Meanwhile Ford Motor Co. offers hybrid Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner SUVs and has promised, for the 2008 model year, hybrid versions of its Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr midsize sedans. And General Motors is teaming with DaimlerChrysler and BMW in hybrid development, with the resulting components destined for full-size GM SUVs starting in 2007, the Dodge Durango SUV shortly thereafter and full-size GM pickups beginning in 2008.


Meanwhile Ford bought Toyota hybrid technology from Toyota so as to release this year a gas-electric version of its Escape sport-utility vehicle.

So why would US Car Makers resist a law that forced a production change over to hybrids in the next few years?

[TwilightZone]

16. If the cost differential between hybrids and non-hybrids is still $1500

to $2500 by 2010, I guarantee that Toyota won't be selling hybrids only. Neither will anyone else.

Toyota sells more than 8 million cars a year worldwide. If their goal is to sell 1 million hybrids a year by 2010, they obviously won't be anywhere near their 100% hybrid goal by that same date. I think that's at least 5 years off and probably more.

The Big 3 alone sells about 20 million cars in the US per year. If JD Power is forecasting 600,000 US hybrid sales by 2012, that's still just a drop in the bucket and little incentive to switch significant mass production to hybrids.

In addition, the manufacturer is taking a hit on most hybrid sales. Many analysts believe that Toyota is selling the Prius at cost or less and the same goes for the current Honda hybrids, which are still pricier than their gas counterparts. Ford makes up the difference by charging about $5,000 more for the hybrid version of the Escape.

Until that changes (and that will not be anytime soon), there isn't enough incentive for manufacturers to switch mass production to hybrids.

US automakers, particularly, have plenty of financial incentive NOT to switch. They'll keep producing the much more expensive, very limited production hybrids they currently have, but don't anticipate them throwing significant resources in that direction anytime soon.

[papau]

25. With those facts we are back to needing a law to force the change to hybri

indeed as soon as possible.

For National Security reasons.

:-)

[TwilightZone]

26. Yes, but that's the problem here. The auto industry lobbying orgs are

huge and extremely well-funded.

That, combined with a very pro-business Bush administration and Congress, ensures that we won't see any laws that cut into automaker profits anytime soon.

We may "need" a law, but we're not going to get one.

As far as national security, I think that Katrina proved that national security is pretty low on the Bush agenda. Profits, profits, profits!!

[Fescue4u]

18. "hybrid" cars is really a misnomer.

With todays "hybrids", 100% of the energy required to move the vehicle comes in the form of gasoline. Theres nothing really hybrid about it.

While its true that "hybrids" do utilize an electric motor, that motor is powered by batterys which are charged by the cars gasoline engine, or by forward momentum which was produced by the same gasoline engine. The end result is simply that it is SLIGHTLY more fuel efficient..certainly nothing revolutionary.

I think alot of folks have gotten in their heads that hybrids are answer, but they are really really are nothing more the half steps and rolling research electric projects at this point.


A true hybrid would be as you suggest as a "plug in hybrid", although the technology is only suitable for short trips at this point.

Because of that, I think that "hybrids" greatest value today is simply what they do for research and development into electric vehicles.

[sui generis]

4. this is a vienna sausage in the dike

an old soggy miniature vienna sausage

This is also a great way of ensuring that the auto manufacturing and aftermarket industry get their profits back on line as these standards are re-implemented.

We need tremendous focus on renewable resources nationally and on public transportation everywhere that population density is above a given level. It's just crazy that we only allocate a tiny fraction of R & D to new energy and the rest to finding new oil fields or invading countries that already have oil.

Anything else is just the most extraordinary form of denial. The most recent whopper we heard was, "don't worry, we'll just evacuate if it looks like it's gonna be bad"

mmmm hmmm.

[papau]

8. New energy can be added to the electrical grid cheaply and with

a better result for our nation than using new energy sources via new fuel and motor combinations and/or the cost of a new hydrogen infrastructure.

[sui generis]

10. but transportation is eventually going to run into fuel shortages

if you don't have a renewable transportation fuel resource.

It's not really about "better" so much as we need to be working on all of it right now. Eventually, IF hydrogen proves cheap and reliable, we are going to have to build that infrastructure, and it's not going to happen overnight.

There will absolutely without a doubt come a day when the oil tap will be as good as dry for us, or our children.

We knew that there would absolutely without a doubt be a day when a Cat 5 storm would hit New Orleans too, and that the levees could be as good as 100% relied upon to fail in that event. Everyone stuck their head in the sand and said they hoped it wouldn't be too bad when it happened.

My point is that we have to stop being in denial about the inevitable and mitigate it in a meaningful way. If we don't have money to figure it out now while transportation isn't really being squeezed, we sure as heck won't be able to figure it out later after our transportation economy begins to collapse.

[papau]

15. I agree, But first we must buy an additional 50 years with plug in hybrids

:toast:

:-)

[Sgent]

11. I don't like CAFE

at all. I'd rather see the free market deal with it.

For instance, set a number to be budget neutral or positive, say 40mpg in the city.

For every 1mpg lower, its a $1,000 tax. For every one higher, its a $1000 credit. No exceptions, no changes.

Even adding 35k to the cost of a tractor trailer is not going to kill the market, and it will be canceled out if the trucker gets a almost free hybrid. It will also encourage truck makers and industrial vehicle manufactorers to increase effeciency.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. so how has the hand of the market place been working

recently?

I thought so

I respectfully disagree, free market will mean 12 MPG across the fleet

[welshTerrier2]

13. free market ??

here's how it really works ...

Big Oil, in collusion with the US government, has kept oil (and gas) prices in the US way below market ... there is no free market ...

now why would they do this? for more than 100 years now, the US government has been using its military to procure land and other resources to directly benefit Big Oil ... we have overthrown democratically elected governments all over the world but almost all of them involved oil deposits ... remember Mossadeq and the Shah of Iran? Torrijos in Ecuador? threats against Chavez in Venezuela? even Darfur in the Sudan?

the "free market" you long for is anything but free ... it's free only to mega-corporations that seek to be "free" from acting in the best interests of American citizens ... they will act only in their greedy self-interests until we take power away from them ... our cheap oil and gas prices are only maintained to stifle any opposition to their global imperialism ... as Americans continue to die in Iraq and hundreds of billions of dollars are spent from our Treasury, Big Oil is enjoying record profits ... is this the "free market" you advocate?

the US taxpayer and the American military are footing the bill for Big Oil ... there's absolutely nothing free about that ...

i have no problem with your idea of using a system of taxes or fees to bring about desired behavior (i.e. providing incentives to consumers to buy more efficient cars) ... btw, many would not consider this to be a "free market" arrangement ... still, i'm not totally comfortable with systems that allow the wealthy to buy their way out of choosing energy efficient alternatives ... everyone, regardless of what monetary contribution they might be required to make, should do all they can to reduce their use of fossil fuels ... paying more in taxes or fees should NOT be an exception ...

[Fescue4u]

20. penalizing semi trucks is silly

You simply are NOT going to get 40mpg on a vehicle designed to carry 60,000 lbs at 55mph. Todays tracters get about 4 MPG on a full load and they are more efficient than ever....and thats highway mileage.

And how exactly, does paying an extra $35k tax give one a free hybrid?

btw, you suggest a $1k tax for every mpg below the unobtainable goal of 40mpg in the city for trucks. I would submit that truckers today pay FAR more then $1k per 40-mpg in fuel in annual fuel costs and fuel taxes. thats been going on for years. If the market and technology could have responsded here, it would have years ago.

[hatrack]

17. Yes, with GM and Ford plummeting through the junkosphere . . .

And with nationwide car sales off 12% during the month of August alone; and with GM and Daimler Chrysler proudly announcing their plans (as of last month) to jointly develop hybrid drive trains )Ooh! Good idea, guys!!! and then placing these bold and innovative ideas in the GMC Tahoe and Suburban and the Dodge Durango;

And with Toyota announcing plans yesterday to halve the hybrid premium on its cars and announcing plans today to have a 100% hybrid fleet within about ten years and with hundreds of white-collar layoffs at Ford just in the last six weeks;

And with Pemex, Mexico's national oil company announcing this spring that Cantarell, which produces 60% of that nation's oil (and which was the last oil field found anywhere in the world which was capable of producing more than 1 million barrels per day when it was discovered WAY back in 1975) would begin its permanent decline this year;

And with the Bank of Montreal projecting that Saudi oil production has already peaked, and with the Saudis themselves stating in early August that they "saw no need" to further increase their crude oil production and with Goldman Sachs now projecting $70 per barrel as the new permanent floor for oil prices;

I'd say that "closing the barn door after the cows got out" hardly begins to describe this pathetic, farcical gesture which even now has barely a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress.

Pathetic. Absolutely fucking PATHETIC.

[paineinthearse]

19. 55MPH?

Remember under Carter the highway speed limit was reduced to 55MPH. It's simple, it works. Why not?

[Fescue4u]

21. It works?

All it really did was make speed traps more lucrative.

Nobody slowed down.

[welshTerrier2]

22. not a big fan of 55 ...

i suppose it's an option but it wouldn't be my first choice ...

first, i would say no trucks in the left lane on major highways ... and that would include SUV's which are classified as trucks ...

second, and of course this would take a decade or two, we need to get serious about mass transit ...

third, traffic, and its associated wasted fuel, has become a nightmare in most cities ... i would like to see government mandated alternative work schedules ... maybe offer tax incentives to companies that schedule some percentage of their workers to work a non-traditional shift ... and huge benefits to companies that encourage a work-at-home program ...

fourth, maybe some kind of incentive for company carpools or a company van for commuting ...

i would go along with 55 but i would prefer to see programs that create stronger incentives for people to make better energy conscious choices ... 55 clearly works and could have an immediate impact but it fails to differentiate between people driving around in their low mpg Humvees versus those driving around in high mpg hybrids ... i'd prefer a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior ...

[paineinthearse]

23. i'd prefer a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior .

How about a 55MPH with progressive fines as a function of the vehicle's gas mileage.

Fine = (actual speed - 55MPH) + 5*(40MPG - vehicles MPG).

Hybrid getting 40MPH going 70MPH: (70 - 55) + 5*(40 - 40) = $25

Gas hog getting 10MPG going 70MPH: (70 - 55) + 5*(40 - 10) = $165

You get the idea.

[Sgent]

24. 55 would waste gas

since vehicle's have changed in the last 30 years, so has the most effecient speed. 55 is not it in most cases.

[TwilightZone]

27. Actually, that was signed into law by Nixon in 1974.

Not too long before he resigned.

[welshTerrier2]

28. well, that's logical ...

you have to sign before you can resign ...

[TwilightZone]

29. Maybe it was a big "F you" to the rest of us on his way out.

"Make me resign, you bastards. I'll show you!"

:)