MnetTV          Digital Library

Search Manufacturing.net Search Manufacturing.net


Resources
Association Links
Bookstore
Career Center
Digital Library
Events Calendar
What’s New
White Papers


News
Featured Articles
Financial News
Global Manufacturing
Government News
Mergers & Acquisitions
News Archive
People in the News

MNet Career Center

Market Sectors
Aerospace
Automotive/Transportation
Chemical/Petroleum
Food/Beverage
Medical
Metals
Pharmaceuticals/Biotech
Plastics/Rubber
Other Manufacturing

Industry Focus
Design & Development
Electrical & Electronics
Energy
Environmental
Facilities & Operations
Labor Relations
Manufacturing Technology
Materials
Quality
Safety
Supply Chain

Amazon

About Us
Editorial Contacts
Advertise with Us

Our Partner Sites
Chem.Info
ECN
Food Manufacturing
IMPO (Industrial Maintenance & Plant Operation)
Medical Design Technology
Pharmaceutical Processing
Product Design & Development
R & D Magazine
Wireless Design & Development
Wireless Week



White House Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
By Julie Pace and Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writers
Manufacturing.Net - September 15, 2009

Printer Friendly     E-mail to a Colleague


WASHINGTON (AP) -- With global talks on climate change looming, the Obama administration sought to gain momentum Tuesday by unveiling its plan to require better gas mileage for cars and trucks and tougher rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson released the proposed regulations at the White House, the follow-up to President Barack Obama's announcement in May that the government regulations would link emissions and fuel economy standards.

"This action will give our auto companies some long-overdue clarity, stability and predictability," Obama said Tuesday during a visit to a General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio.

"This marks a significant advance in our work to protect health and the environment and move our nation to a sustainable economy in the future," Jackson said.

The new standards call for the auto industry's fleet of new vehicles to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

The proposal will cover vehicle model years 2012 through 2016, allowing auto companies to comply at once with all federal requirements as well as standards pushed by California and about a dozen other states.

The administration estimated the requirements would cost up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 -- but that it would take just three years to pay off that investment and that the standards would save more than $3,000 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage.

Jackson said the new standards will have the effect of taking 42 million cars off the road.

The proposal is expected to increase vehicle fuel efficiency by about 5 percent annually and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons. The plan would also conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil, Jackson said.

Administration officials noted that the new standards are four years ahead of a 2007 law that would have required the auto industry to meet a 35 mpg average in 2020.

The proposed rules are expected to provide automakers some flexibility in meeting the requirements in exchange for building advanced vehicles. Some luxury automakers and foreign manufacturers who sell a limited number of vehicles in the United States could meet a less-stringent standard in the early years of the regulations.

The agencies must finalize the proposal by March 30 to give automakers enough planning time for the regulations to take effect in the 2012 model year.

Tuesday's announcement could provide the Obama administration momentum on climate change in advance of a series of high-level talks on a new international agreement to curb heat-trapping gases and a speech by the President next week on global warming at a special U.N. summit.

The administration's lead climate negotiator just last week acknowledged that negotiations have so far failed to bridge the divide between developed and developing nations, saying that action on the part of the U.S. by passing legislation to limit greenhouse gases was urgently needed. But with the bill delayed in the Senate by the health care debate, the chances that Congress will act before 180 nations gather in Copenhagen, Denmark in early December to work on a new treaty are growing dimmer.

The new fuel economy standards, in the meantime, could serve as a placeholder -- a concrete step that the Obama administration is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

LaHood, meanwhile, said the administration had paid out $2.5 billion as of today for the Cash-for-Clunkers program under which auto dealers sold more than 700,000 vehicles in 30 days. LaHood said the remainder of federal payments to dealers under the program would be paid by the end of the month, taking government payments to a total of $3 billion.

Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.


Printer Friendly     E-mail to a Colleague



Talkback!
Manufacturing.net is pleased to provide you an opportunity to share your opinions on any of the news stories or articles on our site. We reserve the right to edit/remove comments.
Viewing 60 User Comments
Add a Comment
So much for choice  9/15/2009 4:44:00 PM
The intellectuals have decided what is right for us. Nice. I'd like to start with the greenhouse emissions emanating from the halls of Congress and the White House. Legislation limiting greenhouse gases is urgently needed? Oh, puleeeeeeeze. Yeah, yeah, I'm one of the flat earthers too. And a right wing potential terrorist, blah, blah, blah. If I want to drive an econobox, that should be my choice. If I'd rather spend my money pulling a travel trailer with a Suburban, that should be my choice as well. But watch out, the nanny government will continue to strip you of freedom of choice. Fast foods are next to "solve" our obesity crisis. We need emergency legislation to take away an obese person's choice of diet because their medical care is going to cost the public health care program too much money. This legislation will be for the public good. Oh, it's a vicious cycle of government intrustion and once started, the do-gooders will have no limits.
Why???  9/15/2009 4:51:00 PM
When did consumers become too stupid to decide FOR THEMSELVES what they want in a car - size, color (re - California trying to ban black cars because they are harder to cool!), horsepower and fuel economy?
About time!  9/15/2009 4:51:00 PM
Okay, so I know I'm gonna get "Green Bashed" by many but whatever. I feel that the auto industry has lagged behind for years in technological improvments with the last major improvment on the internal combustion engine being fuel injection. Meanwhile the electronic control systems, voice recognition, blue tooth, on star and such have been advancing by leaps and bounds. Now days manufactures have to be energy complient in many ways with low wattage, low power everything from appliances to TV's why not automobiles? My challange to the US automakers is this; give us viable, practical, energy efficent vehicles which most of your forgein competition already offers at more affordable pricing. I would rather have a car or truck that gets 35mpg+ than a car that gets 18mpg and plays dvd's and talks to me.
Re: About time  9/15/2009 5:04:00 PM
These cars are now available. I have a Ford Focus that gets 32-33 mpg around town and 40 on a trip, and that's fine. But I also have a Chevy Silverado that gets only 18 mpg but can pull my trailer with ease. Why should I give it up when there is nothing else available that can do the job AND get better mileage? I can decide what the right vehicle is for me, thank you!
Choices  9/15/2009 5:09:00 PM
You can buy a car now that gets 35+ MPG. Please allow me to choose a car that matches my needs. If everyone demanded fuel economy over all else you can bet their would be more available.
New Fuel Economy Rules Article  9/15/2009 5:19:00 PM
I was very interested in reading the article on how the New Fuel Economy rules will save us 1.8 billion barrels of oil. Is this annually (which makes no sense as it is about 50% or our annual consumption) or amortized over some period of years (5,10,25,50?). If there are 250 million cars on the road, I don't see how a 5% increase in fuel will "take off" 42,000,000 cars from the road. As usual the White House figures don't tell the whole story.
Re Re: About time  9/15/2009 5:20:00 PM
I too have a Ford Focus which is not the point here by the way, a handful of cars with the majority driving SUV's and Trucks is not the answer. Why not give me a Silverado that gets 35mpg with either gas or gas/electric with the same towing capacity. They have made hybrid bulldozers that have no loss of power so why not an SUV? It's about pushing people to do better! You can't grow and be stonger if your not challanged to do so which the auto industry has not been. It's simple really, give someone a challange and then let them work it out it's just like teaching a child to tie his/her shoes. Give them velcro and they never learn, give them laces and watch them work to do it on thier own.
Tax Use, Tax Gas, Let us Decide  9/15/2009 5:21:00 PM
Tax the use by taxing gas at $1.00/gal and drop all the fleet milage requirments. I can choose to buy a large car and drive less or a small car and drive more on my finite share of money.
Is it really saving?  9/15/2009 5:29:00 PM
Found on the internet, the US currently uses approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day. 71% goes to transportation. That means we uses approximately 14 million barrels of oil per day for transportation (not sure of the exact split). Jackson said that this plan would conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil. 1.8 billion divided by 14 million per day is 129 days. In the scheme of things 129 days is not much. Don't get me wrong, I am for going greener and conserving our natural resources, but the numbers don't seem to add to a huge savings of oil. Maybe I have done some math wrong.
More BS  9/15/2009 5:36:00 PM
More brilliance from Obama & his hoard. Gearing up for the cap & tax and a blank check to the UN
Obama in the Box  9/15/2009 5:37:00 PM
Like with health care reform and the economic bailout, there is precious little original thought in the Fed. For the fuel economy rules, essentially the Fed is making trucks extremely profitable for automakers-- and the costs will be passed to consumers who have to buy the services of workers who need the trucks. Two suggested responses to help alleviate some problems are to insure drivers, not vehicles, and to exempt any vehicle that requires a CDL from the mileage rules (and drop the limit of where a CDL is required). Really, I can't see soccer mom going for a random pee test just to keep her SUV....
Re: About time  9/15/2009 5:37:00 PM
Why do we keep using Gas? Why not switch to Diesel? I had a Vanagon Diesel that got 28 mpg where the gas version only got 17. I now have a much heaver Dodge Sprinter with a Diesel that get up to 30 mpg. I think that it can pull about the same as the Chevy Silverado. Think what could be done with a Diesel Hybrid car.
nonsense and more nonsense abounds.  9/15/2009 5:42:00 PM
it really appears that the fed gov gives a hoot on efficient cars and emmissions. want to save gas then leave people alone to pick their your own choice of vehicle to drive. when gas was 4.00 a gallon then folks take less trips, joy ride less and make smarter choices on errands so in effect drive less miles. the new electric cars aka alternate fuel vehicles would save a ton of fuel. how about these points to save fuel. no teenagers driving before 18 years old in their own car thats two years per kid times the number of kids driving would save gas..... hum not popular. how about car pooling. mass transit. 4 day work week instead of 5, that's a 20% decrease in utility driving but most folks would be out driving on the 3 day weekend and spending all kinds of money they don't have and inflation would go thru the roof again and that would mean a recession so i'm thinking the gov would all do us a big favor and stop managing the people and start leading us down a more prosperous path instead of playing politics day in and day out. maybe we wouldn't be so far in natl debt if they did what they preach. amen
legislation of physics and industry  9/15/2009 5:42:00 PM
Why not 100mpg or 1000. Let the market and technology dictate. That's when the resources best match demand.
greenhouse gases  9/15/2009 5:49:00 PM
What are these gases? Why do I see "minor" used with cO2?
It's an AVERAGE  9/15/2009 5:50:00 PM
It is an AVERAGE fuel economy, people. You can still have a truck if you want one.
No problemo amigos  9/15/2009 5:59:00 PM
The car manufacturers will just have to switch to titanium and aluminum instead of steel for all the components. This should double the cost of a vehicle without a problem. Then we'll need a "cash for old steel" program next.
MPG  9/15/2009 6:16:00 PM
The last poster hit it on the head. "why should I give it up when there is nothing else available that can do the job AND get better gas mileage?". Well this might actually get the automakers to spend a little of their R&D dollars on improving fuel economy so that maybe we can get something that can pull a boat and get 50 MPG.
Still have choices  9/15/2009 6:19:00 PM
There is nothing in the article or the legislation that says the car companies can't produce trucks and SUVs. It simply says that average fuel ecomony FOR THE ENTIRE PRODUCT LINE must be increased and average greenhouse gas emissions FOR THE ENTIRE PRODUCT LINE must be decreased. As far as I see, as long as the car companies offer enough cars that get better gas mileage to offset the trucks and SUVs that don't, they will comply with the new regulations. If you don't think the car companies can produce a fuel efficient car the the Japanese and Germans, that's your problem. Personally, I believe that they can and will.
CLEAN DIESELS  9/15/2009 6:59:00 PM
Routinely travel to Europe where more then 50% of the cars are fueled with Diesels and they achieve 30-40% improvement in fuel economy over gas engines. Our existing diesel emissions standards are significantly more stringent then Europe's. Hybrid's are great for those looking to impress at cocktail parties to show how "Green" you are, but when you factor in the true life cycle of manufacuturing a hybrid battery which needs to be disposed in 8-10 years, Diesel is a much more viable option, albeit not PC....This move will all but wipe out the crippled US Auto Manufacuters, they will not be able to compete.
What about the presidential motorcade  9/15/2009 7:07:00 PM
Wow, with all of the fuel requirements, I guess that Obiwan will have to take up riding a bicycle. NONE of the vehicles used in the presidential motorcade come even close to the proposed mileage standards.
GAS MILLAGE  9/15/2009 7:49:00 PM
HURRAY !!!! WONDER FULL !! By 2016 everyone is going to catch up to my 1995 SATURN !!!!! I can hardly wait !!!!!
About time???  9/15/2009 7:58:00 PM
You make a common mistake. Trying to compare advances in electronics to combustion technology is a no-go. Engines are already removing 98-99% of pollutants, removing that last 1-2% requires more financial investment that the first 98%. Also, now that the enviros got CO2 classed as a pollutant, there is no cure. Fossil fuel is 75% Carbon, no Carbon, no fuel value. This will simply make illegal a car or truck that you need. Got a boat? Bourgeoise! Can't fit your family in a Prius? Should have aborted them! Buy a sardine can if you wish, but run your own like. Also I like the way the writer of the article failed to point out that China and India have already told Hillary and Obama (twice!) to jam our global warming crap up our tailpipe, as they have no intention of wrecking their economies too.
Read the article again  9/15/2009 8:13:00 PM
The government is not saying you cannot build a car that gets less then 35 MPG. It is mandating the "fleet" mileage be an average of 35. So if there are some 40 MPG there can be some 25 or 20 MPG. That is what they are saying. I agree the government should stay out of this, just tax the gas $2.00 per gallon and everyone who wants can still drive their gas hogs, but I bet there will be only a few. That program will lower green house gases, pay off some of the debt we now have, and people will gladly buy high milage cars. Looks like a win win to me? Europe does it in almost every country over there.
sorry  9/15/2009 8:29:00 PM
And the Chinese can continue to pollute the world because they are in their so called industrial revelation. They should have begun one long before the US when they invented gun powder. Give me a break! This administration is so full of wimps it is sad.
Consider this........  9/15/2009 11:37:00 PM
Simple; let the automakers decide what they can sell profitably. Tax gasoline at 50% collected at the pump, something similar for diesel. Rebate taxpayers with a registered vehicle annually thru to federal tax system a figure of 20 gallons/wk times the taxes for the average cost of gasoline for each of those weeks; decreasing each year by 3/4 gallon. The revenue goes to developing current and future transportation (mass, freight & personal) systems using renewable energy sources. The wasters will pay; the conscientious miserly progressive will profit; automakers will respond and the weaning can begin.
White House Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules  9/16/2009 4:41:00 AM
6 Years ago I rode from Munich, to Dresden Germany. we drove 100 mph and the BMW we were driving was a special new diesel, not available here in the U.S. We AVERAGED over 40 MPG. Meeting 35.5 MPG is no challange at all, check out APTERA
Saving Money in 3 Years?  9/16/2009 7:02:00 AM
Interesting comment that government officials keep saying over and over to justify the higher costs of cars: “The administration estimated the requirements would cost up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 -- but that it would take just three years to pay off that investment”. I guess then that gasoline prices will not increase as industry will not simply cut gasoline production to increase prices in order to keep their same profit levels as before these higher mileage cars were built. Unbelievable that the higher purchase cost will ever be recaptured by the consumer but they keep telling us so it must be true.
use less oil  9/16/2009 7:14:00 AM
Ideally we all want to be able to drive our f-350s, suburbans, etc. But the reality is that we import the majority of our oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuala. These are the governments that hate us. Do you remember that 17 of the 19 terrorist highjackers were from Saudi Arabia. As long as we buy oil from these countries, we indirectly fund their terrorist networks. They are now holding us hostage! This is a simple concept. Use less oil, import less oil, give them less money. If America can't change this dependency on oil through free market enterprise, (and they can't), then unfortunately we do need some government intervention. OPEC could double the price of oil tomorrow and you couldn't do a thing to stop it. Your congressmen would probably demand an investigation and find blame and do all those useless things. One thing is going to fix this. USE LESS OIL!
About Time?  9/16/2009 7:18:00 AM
Let the "Green Bashing" begin: There have been other technological advances in automotive engines: Variable valve timing, Electronic engine control, Multi-valve heads, etc. Furthermore, electronics are advancing at a rapid rate in an effort to satisfy customers. This is known as "supply & demand". It works quite well if allowed to operate without "help" from the government.
Consider it a challenge  9/16/2009 7:20:00 AM
Why all the negativity? We are innovative. We need to stop complaining and hire some bright engineers to explore possibilities and come up with new solutions. When JFK made it a goal to put a man on the moon in less than ten years, the American people took it to heart and made it happen. We can surely achieve this less lofty goal. If you are out of work; here is an opportunity. If you own a company and your sales are down; here's an opportunity. The question you should be asking is how much market share could I get if I could make a full size, full feature pickup that gets 35MPG.
Re: About Time  9/16/2009 8:02:00 AM
What about families with more than 2 kids? Need a minavan or xover. Also enjoy pulling small camper Maybe the gov. will put a limit # of kids too, no campers, no boats, etc. State moto in New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die" This is starting to make sense to me now
Nobody is saying you have to give anythng up  9/16/2009 8:04:00 AM
All this does is provide the auto companies a concrete guidline that everyone must follow. Nobody is saying there will be no more High horsepower specialty cars, or pick-ups to tow the toys and work. The end result will be the manufacturing of more smaller cars and smaller more advanced motors in the big cars. You will always be able to buy a Suburban, it just has to be more efficient in doing it's job.
Re:About time  9/16/2009 8:17:00 AM
You are oblivious as to the costs of driving a "green" vehicle. Look at front end collision data and you'll find that your loved ones have a greatly increased chance of serious injury/death in one of those vs. a Hummer, 3/4 ton pickup/Tahoe/Lincoln/etc. I will say that the Prius does make for a stylish coffin.
Re:About time  9/16/2009 8:20:00 AM
The "technological lag" you talk about was and is driven by the market. The auto industry was just giving the people what they wanted. They wanted the big "safe" SUVs with 18 cup holders, DVD and video game systems so the kids would be occupied while driving to the store. They wanted all kinds of storage for sports equipment, 6 different climate control zones, and built in GPS positioning systems to tell them where they are and if traffic is bad, can re-route them so they get home in time to watch American Idol or Dancing w/ the Stars. Oh wait, they can just don't call their cable box and record it. Nevermind.
White House Rules  9/16/2009 8:34:00 AM
The elitists in the current adminstration should set the example and only use cars that meet their proposed standards now. I know that that is unrealistic though, they will never give up their Suburbans, Town Cars and Cadillacs.
rich vs the rest of us  9/16/2009 8:35:00 AM
I like how the "luxury" automakers don't have to meet the new requirements as quickly as our domestic producters have to. Biff can still by his Lamoborgini but Joe cannot buy his Silverado.
New Fuel Economy Rules  9/16/2009 8:48:00 AM
How about making you live closer to your jobs and not driving 20-40 miles one way. Did you ever try to get five adults in one car to go some- where, you will now be using two cars.
Intellectuals Rule  9/16/2009 9:01:00 AM
It is obvious in reading several of these posts that we intellectuals do need to pull and push industry for the good of the many because so many of the few cannot or will not see beyond themselves no matter how great the overall benefit.
The regulations are needed  9/16/2009 9:32:00 AM
Since it is political suicide to have a minimum price for fuel (high fuel taxes) in the US, the only alternative is to regulate what the car manufacturers can sell. We saw how effective the cost of fuel can be last year, but that cost is back down now. A lot of people changed driving habits and what they drove when the price was over $3.50 per gallon. I worked in engineering for two of the big three between 1985 and 2009. My former employers fought every attempt (and always failed) to raise fuel economy standards. They also dragged their feet when it came to making larger vehicles lighter. One challenge they had was the added weight of multiple air bags and crush zones. The new Ford Mustang is over 200 lb lighter than the new Chevy Camaro, so there are choices that could be made to make cars lighter. The money they spent trying to lobby against regulation could have been used on R&D. We all say we want less dependence on sources of oil. Most of us say it can’t hurt to reduce effects of green house gasses. All Americans say they want fuel economy, but if you look at what a lot of people buy, it is clear they would rather have a larger vehicle with poor mileage if they cannot find a suitable large vehicle with high mileage. Most consumers are smart enough to figure out if higher mileage is more expensive than lower mileage based on the price of the car. That is why most folks are not buying diesels or hybrids. The new technology does not pay for itself in the life of most cars. Hybrids have been available for about a decade and make up 1% of the market – most of those are Priuses. Clearly we need to make our larger vehicles lighter, more aerodynamic, and include some kind of regenerative braking and energy storage to recover energy during braking. Diesels can also be part of the picture if cost makes sense. The regulations will make us make the most economical choices.
One, two, three ...  9/16/2009 9:39:00 AM
Bailout, cash for clunkers, new fuel efficiency standard. Just another government plan to subsidize auto industry. This time the long term one.
Blinded by the right  9/16/2009 9:42:00 AM
Once again the commentors on this site are missing the point, blinded by ignorance and political bias. The standard is for an average of 35.5 mpg across the company's fleet of vehicles. As usual, trucks and other utility vehicles will be held to some other standard. To quote George Costanza, "we're living in a society here". Your right to drive a gas guzzler is driving up my fuel costs and polluting my environment. Improving fuel economy has no downside. If it were an unobtainable goal, that would be one thing, but as so many of you have stated, there are cars that get 35 mpg now. Why not apply that technology to more vehicles? VW makes a high performance diesel that gets over 50 mpg, and it's not a tiny compact. I rented a lowly Chevy Impala that got 32.5 mpg on the highway, and that was a full sized "boat".
Finally more suggestions than trash talk.  9/16/2009 9:46:00 AM
A gas tax with equal gas tax rebates to everyone is a great idea. People pay to play and get paid to conserve. You can keep your truck/SUV but will probably have an econobox for commuting, etc. Taxing gas worked in Europe but I can imagine the screaming by the right if you tried to do it here. Insurance following the driver would also make it affordable to have your truck/SUV for play and an econbox for commuting. The insurance lobby will scream. CDL's for trucks that are used for work would be a great idea. They could get a bigger gas tax rebates with a CDL. There are a lot of way's that we can live free with out dying from pollution. We just have to accept some change.
Joe Average  9/16/2009 10:39:00 AM
The average bar keeps rising up, and along with it the freedom of the average Joe..But these are the same people that keep voting these idiots in..You want freedom, then vote for freedom..We have a shadow gov't group of CZARS that getting ready to take away more of your freedom every day, so if you are concerned, go out and protest, fight for your freedom. or quit whining...
Re: Intellectuals rule???  9/16/2009 10:44:00 AM
This must have been written by someone within the government - either party! Paraphrased, "You little people are too dumb to figure it out, so we'll just tell you what to think. Oh, and keep sending in those big tax checks. And, by the way, we're going to raise the gas tax to force you to think our way. Have a nice day." What idiots WE are for putting them into office.
gas tax or war tax - same thing  9/16/2009 12:08:00 PM
We went to war in Iraq over oil/gas access. We should be paying for it up front. As soon as we invaded Iraq there should have been a tax on gas large enough to pay as you go for the war. That way we would all feel the pain but only pay with our wallets not our blood.
Better fuel economy = national securtiy  9/16/2009 12:15:00 PM
I hope that everyone fighting better fuel economy is happy they are helping to fund Bin Laudin.
diesel  9/16/2009 12:30:00 PM
Over 10 yrs ago, Detroit Diesel developed the DELTA (diesel engine light truck application) engine. The prototype was a hit at the auto show installed in a Durango. This Durango in field tests averaged over 40 mpg, and provided enough torque to pull my house off its foundation. It also ran quietly and didnt stink like what is on the road today. DDC tried to sell this 4.0 diesel to Ford for the F150. Ford said No thank you. DDC was subsequently sold to Daimler by Penske Transportation, which owned DDC at the time. Daimler had just "merged" with Chrysler. Unfortunately Daimler has their own Diesels and proceeded to kill the DELTA engine. Think about that 4.0 DELTA in Dodge trucks and SUV's. Not to mention all of those Jeeps out there. Even if they had had to do some rework to meet emissions, the fuel economy and power were already there. Instead the grossly overpaid senior managedment at several companies dropped the ball. 10 years later a diesel in a light truck still costs 10 grand more than a gas engine, and they still stink and make all kinds of noise.
Consumers have chosen horsepower over fuel economy  9/16/2009 1:34:00 PM
The consumer decides what to buy. The carmakers need to make what they can sell. It should be acknowledged that while average fuel economy has been flat for 20+ years, average horsepower has more than doubled. The consumers made the choice for more horsepower over better fuel economy. Now government is going to make the choice for you. The SUV driver is not evil or supporting the terrorists. That is a simplistic argument. What if I only drive my 17 mpg SUV 8000 miles a year and you drive your 34 mpg car 20000 miles a year. Who is sending more money to Saudi Arabia? We saw last year that the market takes care of itself. When gas prices shot up to $4 a gallon, consumers began to purchase more fuel effiecient vehicles and driving habits were altered. Demand went down. Government, let me choose.
Hybrid Bulldozers  9/16/2009 1:40:00 PM
"Hybrid" generically infers a melding of characteristics, not necessarily "Prius" technology. The much ballyhood "hybrid" bulldozer is a diesel electric, like a locomotive. No battery for power storage. Need more power, rev up the diesel, which runs a generator, which runs electric motor(s), which turn the wheel (or track). For those who find this hard to believe, why not check it out? For those who find this to be news, I suggest you apply a bit of healthy scepticism to what your read. i.e., perform a reality check on the information you get.
Re: Consumers have chosen HP   9/16/2009 2:53:00 PM
We are all supporting terrorist in the Middle East with our gas purchases. Those who use the most gas support them the most regardless of what they drive. Those who drive Hummers when a Tahoe would do or a Suburban when a minivan would do should pay the true cost of fuel they are using. The current cost of fuel doesn’t include the cost of national security that is running up our national deficit more the bailouts. The market doesn't pay the billion $ a day for the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Taxes do. Everyone is screaming about freedom but freedom doesn't come cheap. The time to pay is now.
Round and Round  9/16/2009 5:17:00 PM
No matter how many different ways people say it we just have to accept the fact that we all will never agree. People who want to embrace this change will and those who do not want too won't. People for Green will always want cleaner, leaner technology while others will disagree in the name of choice and yet some will feel it's the governments form of dictatorship. Whatever the case it's every persons right to feel the way they do. While I do not like the idea of government telling me what I can and can not do, I also feel that WE as a whole have really made a mess of things. WE being consumers, lenders, business etc. Somethings need to be changed and yes regulated in order to get things under control. Right or wrong no one else is stepping up to clean things up and everyone is looking to the government to bail them out so we really shouldn't be too surprised when the government wants to put new standards on things. We elect these people, we have the choice to believe what they say blindly or make up our own minds. WE as a people have the power to make change, not a president or a government. So, if your like me; read, research, get informed and stand up for what you think is right. Your helping to pay your local, state, national government workers salary so why not let him/her know what you think.
Consider the entire country on national policy  9/16/2009 8:37:00 PM
Remember it isn't just you who is affected by national policy. It is necessity to have a structurally solid (ie truck) vehicle or one with 4WD in some areas. A large family will need room for more passengers. A city dweller probably rides in a taxi now and then and that taxi must have 4 doors. Diesel power doesn't work well in cold climates. Diesel exhaust has actually been recognized as a problem in urban areas and has caused some local legislation on how long a Diesel engine can idle (making them illegal in that city's traffic jams). Hybrid technology is great in urban areas but doesn't make that much difference on open roads. $3.50 / gallon gas in one person's part of the country is $5.00 / gallon in another part of the country or $4.60 where I am and the necessity of driving to work wins over discretionary spending. Sometimes high fuel prices cause people to go without medical care or new clothing. I have a small car and a mid size truck. Keep in mind while you say trucks are bad that it is a second vehicle and sometimes I need it. They are both American made so the fuel economy of an ocean going ship is out of the equation. People like to blame technology for environmental problems but imagine what the environment would be like if today's population rode horses and burned wood. How about some population control laws?
The tech is already there  9/16/2009 10:17:00 PM
Razor Tech has a prototype H3 that get 100 miles to the gallon. Remove the obstacles and do it. We don't need regulation to force it.
diesel 9/16/2009 12:30:00 PM   9/17/2009 3:22:00 PM
If the true facts on the DDC Delta diesel are correct, shame on GM, Ford and Chrysler (misMANAGEMENT for having their heads where the sun doesn't shine. They were risk averse and sadly following the NIH(not invented here) syndrome that has plagued the world for too long. However first the Japanese and now the Chinese are killing us with copies of our own technology that have no research cost to recapture in their pricing requirements. As a nation we need to wake up and demand better from the people who want to sell us something that we are in any way less than pleased.
Regulations are Needed on congress  9/18/2009 8:48:00 AM
Congress can't even manage the $2Trillion a year they get. Congress needs to be regulated to spend less than 94% of what they take in so 3% can be used to pay off the debt. Congress is now wasting over a billion a day in interest.
Again, not a word about CNG  9/20/2009 8:50:00 PM
Congress and all the rest can dictate all the want. I'll just keeping refueling my car and pickup truck, at home, with CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). Oh, and by the way, it's currently 65 cents/gallon.
Algore and the Envirowackos from Hell  9/22/2009 11:38:00 AM
Somebody is going to look pretty foolish, as the planet slips into the next ice age... We are having the coolest summer in almost 50 years, because of Global Warming. The sea level has subsided almost three inches because of the mythical Global Warming. There is significantly more snowfall in the southern hemisphere, due to the mythical Global Warming. The Algore is foaming at the mouth and spewing venom and hate, because of the myth of Global Warming... Give it a rest people.
IGNORANCE rules ...  9/22/2009 1:04:00 PM
Dear fellow commentators - I am amazed about the enormous amount of ignorance you do display with your comments. I always knew that the rest of the world is smarter ... rarely has it been demonstrated as well as in this list of comments! Most of you guys sound like little three year olds, crying that a wheel on their tricycle came off ... Mythical ? The only myth I do see ended on this page is the myth of Republicans having a brain.
RE: About Time ??  9/22/2009 7:14:00 PM
You say China and India are ignoring green tewchnology? India will come around, but China and Korea have already decide to pursue green technology for automobiles, energy production, appiances, etc. Why? Because they decided this is a new market with hugh potential, even in their own countries, so they are moving on it. If We do not move on it then We will once again lose out on a potential new manufacturing opportunity. Also, once they begin their green initiatives, who do you think will be willing to buy our old technology that is less efficient and costs more?


Add a Comment...

E-Mail:
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Subject:
Comment:

 

     



   





Flatbed trucking, flatbed shipping, flatbed carriers



Automotive/Transportation

Toyota To Recall 50,000 Prius Hybrids In Europe

State Farm Warned Of Toyota Problem In 2007

Investigators Say Not All Toyota Problems Resolved


Chemicals/Petroleum

Oregon Groups Seek To Ban BPA From Baby Products

Maryland May Ban BPA Products

Emerging Markets Boost Dow Chemical Profit

Metals

Rio Tinto Sells Ghana Bauxite Stake To Chinese Firm

Cadmium Found In Adult Jewelry

Alcoa Realigns Business Units, Adds COOs
News Video