Obama moves to limit US vehicle emissions | Car Advice

Car Advice
  • Home
  • »  Obama moves to limit US vehicle emissions

Obama moves to limit US vehicle emissions

By Matt Brogan |

US President Obama has directed federal regulators to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict limits on greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

He also ordered the Transportation Department to begin drawing up rules imposing higher fuel efficiency standards on cars and light trucks. His orders were intended “to ensure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here in America.”

President Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While he stopped short of flatly ordering the reversal of the Bush decision, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

The president also directed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to implement a 2007 law requiring a 40 per cent improvement in fuel economy for cars and light trucks by the year 2020. The Bush administration failed to write any regulations to enforce the new law.

Once the agencies act, car manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that are cleaner and get more kilometres per tank on an accelerated schedule. The car companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and have even challenged them in court.

To avoid losing another year on emissions and fuel efficiency, President Obama will order temporary regulations to be completed by March so that carmakers will have enough time to retool for vehicles to be sold in 2011.

Final standards for later years will be determined by a separate process that, under President Obama’s order, must take into consideration legal, scientific and technological factors.


 
  • milobob

    a good move.. it is about time

  • Frenchie

    Thats if there is any US consumers still around by then. Most will have no job to buy such a vehicle. The US will end up looking like a scenes in the movie, “The Last Chase”. All public transport and the elite/law enforcement with electric vehicles.

  • FRUGAL_ONE

    I agree with this in principal, BUT now is not the ideal time to put the heat on car makers as they are swimming in debt and just trying to survive.

    Anyway, Chrysler will be ok, FIAT has the *greenest* fleet in the world, lowest average pollution # of any, so easy for them as long as they sell rebadged FIAT’s which i think is coming

    Cheers,

    F-0

  • Andrew M

    F-O
    or they culd use Fiat to lower the average of the chrysler fleet.
    the lower targets apply as an average of the entire fleet.

    if the purchase fiat, then perhaps they can spread some of the higher guzzling chrysler models consumption over the more frugal fiats

  • Andrew M

    I also agree that now isnt the best time to force such changes.

    some of the manufacturers only have enough loot left for one more re-tool and hope they get it right.

  • Richo

    Car makers are already onto all of this, its not something you need to force them into doing.

    It’s called consumer demand. All the US government has to do is put additional taxes on fuel and consumer demand will be pushed into more fuel efficient cars which will have the desired effect on car makers.

    Putting in place rules and regulations at a time of crisis for the global auto industry and in particular the US auto industry of which hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied up in just smacks of keeping political promises winning out over correct policy decisions.

    Obama, not a good start

  • Andrew M

    Richo,
    consumer demand????

    is that the same consumer demand that has seen the fuel consuming F truck as number 1 seller for many many years???

  • JasonP

    Frenchie,

    Thanks!
    I’ve been racking my brain trying to remember the title of that movie.
    I recall he escaped the city boundaries in a Porsche racing car, I believe.

  • Richo

    Andrew M – its also the same consumer demand that has seen sales of large trucks in Nth America tank last year and has GM, Ford and Chrysler in all sorts due to their fleet that relies heavily on thirsty SUV’s and trucks.

    so yes, THAT consumer demand

  • simon

    Obama! Obama!
    These actions are overdue and should have been implemented by the Bush administration. Now is the perfect time to pressure the auto giants into more efficient vehicles considering they are taking billions of tax-payer dollars to keep them afloat.
    It’s so good to see an administration with the nuts to make the hard calls. The decisions that are essential for the future of the planet. The most respected authorities on oil reserves are indicating peak oil is here. There will be less to go around and it will get dearer. More efficient vehicles are absolutely vital. Bring on the electrics!

  • Richo

    Simon – simply not true, scientists cannot accurately predict just how much oil is left. Just last year they discovered off the coast of south america the second and fourth largest oil reserves ever found.

  • Zorro

    Great idea and not before time too. Don’t be sucked in by the claims of the US big three that they can’t afford change to comply with new legislation. When the big three get in line with the rest of the world then and only then will they move back into the black.

  • Zorro

    And Richo, it’s not just the supply of oil, it’s about emissions as well. Plug in electrics is what we’ll all be driving in the near future, and with solar panels on your roof, all you need do is replace your tyres every couple of years!

  • Richo

    Zorro – Solar panels capable of powering a car further then 1km at a time are a VERY long way off being a production reality. In the mean time, most of the worlds electricity production is MORE environmentally damaging then a normal motor car.

    Things which sounds all green and buzzy like “electric car” are often not as good as they sound when you actually sit down and analyse the facts, not the “wouldn’t it be great if’s….”

  • Frontman

    Okay, I’ll play devils advocate here…
    Firstly Richo the ony Pickup that tanked more than the rest of the market was the Toyota Tundra. THe F series tanked at exactly the same level as the total US market. (still a huge drop, (900,000 down to 500,000).
    But back on topic, it is very easy for Obama to put in legislation for to aim for twenty twenty, he WON’T be inpower then when that legislation fails.
    Q1/ when he says he wants a 40% improvement, does that mean the 54mpg Prius & 52 mpg Fusion Hybrids need to be returning 75mpg?? Or just that the whole fleet needs to improve like the current CAFE lwas require?
    If it is the whole fleet then Ford (just released Fusion {petrol & Hybrid}, Taurus and coming Fiesta & Focus) are safe, and GM is getting there. Toyota (being honest) would need to drop a quarter of it’s fleet whilst Chrysler would NEED to go to bed with Fiat.
    Q2/ What are they really going to do to these companies if they DO NOT achieve these figures??

  • Joober

    I agree with Richo, increase the taxes on fuel, in an economy in bad shape this is not the best thing to do. Increasing the tax, will have a two way fold, one decrease emissions as people will drive less or opt for fuel effecient cars, and secondly and revenue loss due to less spending on the pump will be offset to a point by the extra tax.

    Although – “simply not true, scientists cannot accurately predict just how much oil is left” – Though its fact that demand is increasing by how many fold over the the discovery of supplies, and looking at the volatility of countries being the main oil suppliers, i believe moving from oil the sooner the better.

  • SamR

    This is a great move. Remember this is the USA ANY move to reduce fuel consumption in that market is a good thing and will have a big effect on world oil usage.

    Now it is time for Rudd747 to do something. We have novated lease regulations here that encourage people to drive cars 25,000km a year. The more you drive the BIGGER tax deduction. wastfull, stupid.

  • Andrew M

    increasing fuel taxes is not the answer.

    fuel goes up, so too does good and services.
    Not everyone can ride a bike or train to work.

  • Andrew M

    SamR,
    the annual fuel bill hardly registers come time to claim on those fuel receipts in comparison to the other costs of running the vehicle for 12 months

  • SamR

    Andrew M, I disagree raising fuel costs is part of the answer.

    Low fuel costs encourages truck freight instead of rail. It encourages air freight of items which should go by ship or not be sold internationally at all like food.

    It also encourages diesel electric trains instead of electric.

    Cut the crap about CO2 and just encourage people to drive fuel efficient cars or use public transport. There are lots of small cars fun to drive.

  • geni

    What annoys me about initiatives like this is why the sole focus on car manufacturers? Where’s the tax on the near thousands of coal powerplants that produce many more times CO2 compared to the entire vehicle fleet in the US? People all squeal when they’re told the cost of producing green energy will increase their electricity bill 20%, but cheer when car manufacturers, hardly the most profitable companies in the world, are forced to increase efficiency by 40%. That accuse car manufacturers of environmental murder for producing the cars that CONSUMERS asked for, like huge SUV’s, and then when they can’t retool fast enough to compensate for an oil price that quadrupled in a year, say they are out of touch and start picketing factories.

    I’m all for cleaning up our emissions as a society, however lets drop this torch and pitchforks lynching we are currently doing to car manufacturers because we need a scapegoat to hide our inability to face the fact that WE wanted huge SUVs and V8 powered everything. That demand triggered car manufacturers to produce those vehicles, and with the multi-year time period it takes to go from design to retooling to manufacture, car manufacturers simply can’t respond to the sort of oil prices rises we saw last year.

    To those who say plug-in electric cars are the answer, answer this. How environmentally friendly will it be to produce the battery packs for the near 60 million cars sold each year across the world? Small town runabouts like the volt have a 182kg battery pack, the tesla has a 500kg one. 60 million * 250kg average = 15 million tonnes of batteries each year for vehicles alone. Batteries aren’t exactly daisies and butterflys to the environment, lithium ion batteries are very toxic. Electric cars are a part of the solution, but aren’t THE solution. Never mind our antiquated suburban electricty grid infrastructure which was designed shortly after WW2 and struggles to handle the power draw of all our airconditioners and plasma tv’s at the moment (just ask Victorian industry about the regular brownouts each summer). How well do you think they’ll hold up when we start charging up a couple of million electric cars each day?

    All I’m saying is that if you really give a shit about CO2 emissions and the environment, get less rapped up in these symbolic but largely useless initiatives and start demanding changes that will actually make a real difference. Real clean power, real lifestyle change to reduce energy consumption. Stop buying bottled water, insulate your roof, seal windowsills, install a solar hot water cylinder, recycle more. That’ll do far more to help the environment than buying a new slightly more fuel efficient car every few years, when all that happens is the energy consumption of manufacture eats away the fuel and emission savings.

    But hey, thats too hard. Much easier to stone the car manufacturers and convince ourselves we’re doing something, when really, we’re just running away from the true problem, our consumption centric selves.

  • SamR

    Geni, Cars are easy to attack to reduce foreign oil usage, balance of payments blowouts and even CO2.

    Why?

    Because cars big fancy cars are a WANT not a NEED. Some Bozo will come out and say I need an SUV to transport my HUGE boat or dancing stallions or to circumnavigate the globe. All those thing are not important to the well-being of the world, country or even personally. They are extravagant 20th century pleasures previously only the domain of Royalty.

    Get over it, you do not need a turbo six litre sedan.

  • geni

    Doesn’t make it right though SamR, all it does is distract people from what we really need to do for the next few decades, until one day we’ll all be driving electric vehicles with their inherent compromises and realise ‘hey, the environment is still getting screwed’. And I don’t buy the ‘car is an useless luxury’ argument, once it was, but society as we have it today wouldn’t be possible without it. Sure, public transport in cities should be good enough to replace the need for a car for a lot of people (it isn’t though, and won’t ever be whilst we continue to have state governments that can only look as far as the next election). I am a car enthusiast (which may seem hypocritical) however my main point is why are we wasting so much time trying to pick the high up small fruit when we have nice big ones in close reach? I’m not a communist that thinks we should only drive cars that have 1L engines and are as exciting as sanding floorboards. If someone really wants a powerful car and changes other aspects of his/her lifestyle to compensate, then good on them, if they can continue to afford petrol. If someone drives a prius but insists on having their house set at 32C during the wintertime, then same thing. But forcing car manufacturers to dramatically increase fuel efficiency as our only answer to reducing our environmental footprint is ridiculous and counter productive, because if people are satisfied with that as an answer, then we’re stuffed, basically.

    Seems that at the moment, CO2 and global warming have overshadowed the original goal of sustainability. CO2 is but a small part, and we are not even looking at the whole of that small part at the moment.

  • Joober

    Hmm, I think what SamR was saying is that people buy extravagant ‘big fancy’ cars over a cheap realiable one, not just cars in general.

    and Geni – regarding electric cars, note this, how efficient were Petrol cars 50yrs ago?, now picture an electric car in the same trend, give it time and we’ll get to a point where electric or any other alternative fuels become as efficient and effective if not better. And yes it is a definate solution, oil is a finite resource so going electric or alternative is a must, maybe not today or tomorrow but eventually…

  • geni

    Joober, a lot of people say that, however batteries aren’t some new technology on the beginning of the development curve. They are an older technology than petrol engines, and while they have improved many fold in the last century, they are very mature technology. Its not like we’ve only just started using batteries and electric motors after all, its only we’ve just re-discovered their use for electric cars. Industry has created the necessary demand for high capacity, low weight batteries and high power electric motors for the last century to ensure companies have thrown a lot of money into their development.

    As a result, they simply won’t follow the same development curve that the combustion motor has done over the last 50 years. I’m not boo-hooing electric cars, I’m boo-hooing plugin electrics that rely heavily or entirely on a big battery pack as ‘the final solution’ to diminishing oil availability. It can’t be, because the car became so popular because it evolved to suit the lifestyles of everyone. Thus any future solution must do the same, hence why we still need hybrids, we still need fuel cell powered cars, and a few plugin electrics.

    But as i said, even if we all get electric cars, thats just the small shriveled fruit on the top of the tree called sustainability which is what we are aiming for. It doesn’t make sense to be putting so much effort into getting that, whilst ignoring the big, juicy easy to reach fruit that for some reason we just leave dangling.

  • simon

    Ahh here we go again Richo. Authority on oil reserves now hey? You are quick to state “simply not true” so please provide some credible facts to support your statement. You yourself state “scientists cannot accurately predict just how much oil is left” so by your own argument you are suggesting perhaps there isn’t much left because we don’t know. A bit ironic don’t you think?
    I welcome your opinions but if you want to argue then you need to back them up with facts.
    As to Zorro’s statement about solar panels on your roof, did you ever consider he may have meant on your house roof?
    This is certainly what I would be thinking. I could power my car from my own solar power system.
    All I’m suggesting is you change your language so you don’t treat people like idiots.

    Geni, electric cars will probably never be a fix all as they don’t have the range and fast charge required for everyone. The do offer a good solution for most people who will not travel far on a daily basis. With concerns for batteries, they will be forced to recycle them. This will create new industry too so while it’s not a perfect system, it can be made more efficient. As Joober said the technology should improve given a few years. Car companies put big research dollars into making their product better than their competitors. Another thing that excites me is new companies will enter the electric car market. More choice and more competition will in time make these cars more affordable.
    Again I congratulate Obama for his initiatives in embracing the future and reducing oil consumption.

  • Zorro

    Yes, just to clarify, I was infact refering to solar panel’s on the roof of your home.