Obama's New Emi$$ion $tandard$

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just thought I'd spin this subject matter off from the Caterpillar post in the other forum. Consider the potential burden this will place on an already struggling automotive industry as well as transportation. Also, be sure to check out the links for "Related Content"articles.

Obama pushing stronger fuel-efficiency standard

by Ben Feller | The Associated Press Monday January 26, 2009, 11:22 AM



WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama ordered the government Monday to re-examine whether California and other states should be allowed to have tougher auto emission standards to combat a build up of greenhouse gases, a clean break from Bush administration policy.
Obama also directed his administration to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry in time to cover 2011 model-year cars.
"For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in his first formal event in the ornate East Room of the White House.
"It will be the policy of my administration," he said, "to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."
California and at least a dozen other states have tried to come up with tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government, but Obama said that "Washington stood in their way." The president wants the Environmental Protection Agency to take a second look at a decision denying California -- and the other states that want to follow its model -- permission to set tougher tailpipe emission standards.

RELATED CONTENT • Michigan attorney general: States shouldn't regulate auto emissions
Judge: Automakers cannot block RI emission rules (Nov. 25, 2008)

More broadly, Obama sought to show he was not waiting to put his stamp on energy policy, which has both near-term implications on the sagging economy and long-range effects on pollution, climate change and national security.
"Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said. "Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results -- and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump."
The Clean Air Act gives California special authority to regulate vehicle pollution because the state began regulating such pollution before the federal government got into the act. But a federal waiver is still required; if the waiver is granted, other states can choose to adopt California's standards or the federal ones.
In 2007 the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency denied California's waiver request, gaining praise from the auto industry but touching off a storm of investigations and lawsuits from Democrats and environmental groups who contended the denial was based on political instead of scientific reasons.
Obama on Monday directed the EPA to re-examine the decision. That does not yet overturn anything. But still, the states' wanting their own power considered it a victory.
"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said. He added: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts; we will be guided by them."
California's proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016.
At least 13 other states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- have already adopted California's standards, and they have been under consideration elsewhere, too.
Under California's approach, car makers would need to boost fuel efficiency in new vehicles to about 36.8 miles per gallon in the states that chose to adopt the California standards.
Automakers, which sued to block the state regulations, argued that it could require dealerships in some states to limit sales of large trucks in order to meet the standards. They have pushed for a single national standard.
Requiring automakers to build cars that get more miles to the gallon will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of vehicles.
A law passed by Congress in 2007 requires that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over the status quo. But the Bush administration did not set regulations in support of that law.
On Monday, Obama ordered new guidelines in place to start affecting cars sold in 2011.
He also promised a broader, bipartisan review with the auto industry.
Industry officials have also said they would face billions of dollars in new costs to meet the rules at a time when General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have received billions in federal loans to stay afloat.
The Bush administration estimated the federal fuel economy rules would cost the industry more than $100 billion to implement the changes by 2020.
"Let me be clear: Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry," Obama said. "It is to help America's automakers prepare for the future."
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday will appoint a special envoy for climate change as the Obama administration moves to restore America's credentials in environmental policy, said U.S. officials familiar with her decision.


Obama pushing stronger fuel-efficiency standard - Michigan News, Updates, Photos & Video | Detroit, Lansing - MLive.com
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
This is nothing more then pandering to the tree huggers. Screw emission stds and close down the EPA, i'll continue to use my 1979 f-250 4x4 pu with a 429 v8 to pull my boat.....oh it gets 9 mpg....
 

spudhead911

Seasoned Expediter
You would think that Obama would at least let the auto industry get back on their feet before he pulled a stunt like this. We gave the auto industry those billions of dollars to help them, then Mr. President goes and pulls the rug out from under them, and us, after all it was our money he gave them.

He should focus more on the economy right now. We bailed out the financial institutions, and what did they do, why they either kept the money that was given to them, or bought failing banks. The financial institutions were supposed to use the money to help people in trouble with thier mortgages and to help loosen up credit. Neither was done. Now Freedi Mac says it needs $20 billion more and Fanny Mae wants $16 billion more.

The banks still are not lending money, nor are they helping people facing foreclosure. The banks took the money and stuck it in their pockets for safe keeping. The influx of money has not helped the average Joe, it only helped the already wealthy.

We keep throwing good money after bad like it was candy, and big business says thank you very much, and oh by the way, we need more, and they get it.

Greenhouse gasses are an important issue, but we need to jumpstart our economy first. The Leader of this country had better open his eyes and take off the rose colored glasses. The first priorities should be the war in Iraq and Afganistan, bringing jobs from overseas back to the USA, and getting this country on it's feet before we become a third world country. Throwing money at everything is not the answer. And this stupid move Obama just made with the emission standards only helps to dig the grave of the auto industry deeper, and with it the possible loss of thousands more jobs.

The next thing you know Prestdent Obama and his hand picked band of cohorts will want to take away our 2nd ammendment rights, wait a minute, he already wants to do that. Within the next few months, if not sooner you will see a big push for more a new gun ban, I think they call it "reasonable restrictions". Right, and there is a tooth fairy too.
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Here's another good article with more insight to the consequences of BHO's executive orders. Quoting from the article:

"The consumer needs to understand that they will see significant increases in the cost of vehicles," said Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst for the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Her firm estimated the upgrades could add $2,000 to $10,000 to the price of a vehicle..."

"...David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., said he doesn't believe the EPA will approve all the waivers asked for by the states. To do so would be economically unworkable.
"If the industry is in total shambles, you can have any regulation you want - it's not doable," he said..."

I think that last quote kind of sums everything up.

CNSNews.com - New Fuel-Efficiency Standards Could Add Up to $10,000 to Price of Cars
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And one more article that documents the facts about the improvement in auto emissions since 1980. The auto makers haven't exactly been sitting around doing nothing about the problem. Quoting from the article:
  • Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) declined 40 percent.
  • Peak 8-hour ozone (O3) levels declined 20 percent, and days per year exceeding the 8-hour ozone standard fell 79 percent.
  • The improvement was even greater for the older, less stringent 1-hour ozone standard; peak levels dropped 28 percent and exceedances days dropped 94 percent.
  • Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations in air dropped 37 percent while sulfur dioxide (SO2) decreased 63 percent; carbon monoxide (CO) levels dropped 74 percent; and lead declined 96 percent.
Behind the Myth: Widespread Misinformation


While air pollution levels have declined, polls show most Americans think air pollution has stayed the same or even increased and will continue to increase in the future.17 The reason: Most information on air pollution from environmentalists, regulators and journalists - the public's main sources for information on the environment - is false. Here are just a few examples:
  • In November 2001, the Sierra Club wrote that "smog is out of control in almost all of our major cities" - after two years of the lowest recorded levels of ozone and fine particulates (PM2.5) nationwide.18
  • In 2002, the Public Interest Research Group published Darkening Skies, which claimed PM2.5 was increasing - near the end of a fourth consecutive record-low year for PM2.5.19
  • In April 2004, the Washington Post lamented, "Ozone pollution has declined slightly over the past 30 years" (emphasis added) - although, nationwide, the total number of times the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards were exceeded had declined 95 percent and 65 percent, respectively, since the mid-1970s.20
  • A recent USA Today article claimed Americans now drive "vehicles that give off more pollution than the cars they drove in the '80s" - despite spectacular improvements in automobile emissions performance during the last few decades.21
Here's the link to the entire article:

NCPA | Study #294, Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
OVN said: there has to be someone watching the hen house....besides the wolf! *L*

Oh great, a politician going to watch out for me, unless he's to bored then he will get a bureaucrat from the EPA to watch.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Maybe, if politions did not talk out of the mouths and butts at the same time we would believe them. I don't of course believe almost ANYTHING they say. Case in point, they want to raise MPG of the fleet, SO, they tax car diesel at a higher rate than gasoline. A Chevy Cobat in Europe gets almost 60MPG in the diesel version. SO, if we want a 36MPG average all we would need to do is put all diesel engines in cars and light trucks and that would do it. It is NOT about the environment or "dependence on forgien oil" What it IS about is destroying our industrial base so we are no longer a military power and controlling everything that you own. It is only about thier power. Layoutshooter
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I agree, but the tax is still in the way. By the way, why not give a $7200 tax credit for diesel cars? The So-called emission free electric cars get one. All the polution from those nasty batteries and still many other kinds of polution. There are, are you ready for this one,
No Free Rides!!!! HEHEHEHE. EVERYTHING polutes. Get used to it and over it. Just stop making gas engines for the most part, give 'em zillions is tax breaks and the goofy "Mericans will figure out that diesel is cool. Then make all the diesel fuel out of coal. Layoutshooter
 

always confused

Seasoned Expediter
i don't know much about air pollution, but before i started driving a truck i worked for a company that sells carbon dioxide. they aren't the only one, not even the biggest, but they sell hundreds of tons a day. now according to the greenies carbon dioxide is a real baddie for global warming... yet we willingly produce and purposely use a bunch of the stuff daily. on another tact.. i had to get a 'licence' to service refrigeration equipment because cfc gasses were being 'replaced' by newer gasses. the reason was they contained chlorine. when released into the atmosphere the chlorine 'destroyed' the ozone. again i admit i don't have the credentials of the science gurus, but i know the thousands of tons of chlorine used in our water supply end up in the atmosphere. but we still use it.... it seems only selected bad things are bad. just my two cents worth.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No need to be confused "always confused". Global Warming is just another tactic to take away your freedom. Layoutshooter
 

FIS53

Veteran Expediter
One thing to look at is the Japanese mfrs. They have several models already doing the 35mpg level. How??? They use 4 cyl engines and the right gearing as well as using exhaust systems that make them comply with pollution standards. The american mfrs have to get away from the v6 and v8 engines, more aerodynamic designs and less weight in their vehicles. This is not a big step from where they are right now. They have the technology and the engineering to do this so why not? Pickups do not need a 6L engine unless towing a honkin big trailer so why not put in a v6 for the most part.
Yes diesel technology would help a lot but here we would have to reengineer the refineries to produce more diesel than current levels.
I do support one standard for the country but I also support input from different sources so that the standards can be tailored to be met in a timely fashion and come close to the most desired levels of pollution and fuel economy.
So people have to buy the smaller engine buggies and use them wisely as well as learn to drive efficiently rather than the "get there as fast as possible" attitude we commonly see out there. Europe has a different attitude when it comes to vehicles and their usage.
Rob
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes, Europe has a different attitude than North America. It is not quite that simple. Many Canadian Provences and U.S. States are bigger than many COUNTRIES in Europe. We often have to drive much further distances to do everyday things compared to Europe. North Americans also "DO THINGS" that require larger buggies. Like, hunt, fish, boat, snowmobile, 4 wheeling, camping etc. The biggest participation sport in England when I lived there, 1976-1981, was kite flying. Europe in general does not enjoy the varity of fun stuff that we do. I am not willing to give up my fun for silly regs based on junk science. A few good moves like, switching to diesel would reduce emissions and cut back on oil imports. Global warming is a theory, not proven at all. I agree we should always try to do things smarter and cleaner but there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Everything is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago. The air, the water a just leaps and bounds cleaner. As to global warming, this warming period started about 11-12,000 years ago. The earths temp has gone up over 25 degrees over that time frame. The glaciers have been melting that entire time. When you can PROVE to me that this has NEVER happened before in the entire history of the planet I might agree that man made global warming is a reality. Just as we use "light years" when describing the vast size of space, geoligists use a term called "G Time" when looking at the billions of years that this planet has been around. Man only lives about 70 years. It is not possible for even two or three generations to see trends and cycles that take place over tens of thousands or even millions of years. Shoot, we don't even have a complete picture of what has gone on in just the few millions of years that the continents have been in thier present locations. They move around quite a bit. I just can't get upset over a 100 year, if that is even true, trend. That short amount of time would not even show up on a timeline if you were to draw one up. Layoutshooter
 

inkasnana

Expert Expediter
More and more the facts are "debunking" the global warming theory. For example:

...since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002.

In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late 20thcentury warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.

In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude "we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years".

Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative). Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided "the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result".

Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century. Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown.

The above information comes from:
Facts debunk global warming alarmism : The Australian

Does "global warming" actually exist? I agree that we all need to adapt more "green" ideologies such as recycling, preserving the worlds forests and such, but is there really the need for the continued panic that has arisen from a theory that may or may not come to pass? Just my opinion, but I believe that many groups are continuing to incite this panic as a way of insuring the availability of continued funds for "further research" and to promote their cause.

Just my opinion mind you. :D
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Does "global warming" actually exist?
:D

Not any more! Global warming has been proven to be a crock so don't worry about it. But do be concerned about Climate Change. Scientists are finding more and more evidence of climate change. Not just evidence of seasonal change, but long term change. Research shows that at one time much of the northern hemisphere was covered by ice. Cool man!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There have been several ice ages since the contenents "arrived" in thier present position. There will be more. We can't start or stop them. I don't like the "Climate Change" thing either. The climate is always changing. It just does what it wants to. Layoutshooter
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Of course it is possible to affect the environment. We have to be smart about what we do and how we do it. I just don't like the silly "Panic" over what some call Global warming. That is just a crock. We have done a lot to hurt and help things over the years. The air and water in the U.S. is leaps and bounds cleaner than it was 30 years ago. I am concerned that the water will start to go "down hill" again due to all this global warming garbage. As we increase the amount of crops planted to make fuel we increase the use of fertilizers. When those fertilizers get into the water is causes an increase in algae blooms. That lowers the oxygen content of the body of water. We also have an increase of pesticides and hericides. There is just no form of energy that is polution free. We have to choose what polution we can live with. Layoutshooter
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
On a clear day on the prairies as you approach Regina Sask. you can see the city is in a "bubble" of polluted air.

Regina is in Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan is in Canada. You Canadians are a polluting wasteful bunch what with all of those hockey puck factories belching forth black smoke and your insistence on inserting extra vowels that are unnecessary. You won't find that kind of pollution or waste of ink in the good old U.S.of A.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
No, the warming trend was caused by the "farts" of the massive herds of wolly mammoths. Just as "cow farts" are causing it today. Layoutshooter
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
As I have said before, if we are going to have another global war we have to send only women to fight. Every good wildlife manager knows that you have to cut down on the number of "does" if you want to thin the herd. In the spirit of todays politics we would have to send only women. That is the only way to "pay reperations" to men for fighting all the wars. It is only fair. Layoutshooter
 
Top