backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on Jul 27 at 3:56 PM


Concession would make fuel economy standards easier for large trucks  (Source: Dodge)
Concession would reduce the yearly increase rate for new standards for large trucks and SUVs to 3.5% per year

The Obama administration wants to significantly increase the CAFE standards that govern fleet wide fuel economy for automakers. The problem is that there is a huge amount of backlash from those in the automotive industry. The backlash is so far keeping the Obama administration and automakers from coming to an agreement on proposed fuel economy standards moving into the future.

The Obama administration has put a concession forward in an effort to woo the Big 3 automakers to agree to the economy standards. The concession would see the makers of big trucks and SUVs forced to move to the higher fuel economy standards at a much slower rate than makers of cars and light SUVs. Hopes are high that the agreement between the Obama administration and the Big 3 will be made by early next week. 

Washington wants the CAFE requirements to be set at 56 mpg by 2025. The concession would allow the Big 3 to adopt the CAFE standards for the larger, gas guzzling vehicles, at a rate of 3.5% per year rather than the 5% annual improvement rate that the Obama administration wants for light trucks, cars, and light SUVs.

CAFE standards are currently targeting 35.5 mpg fleet wide by 2016 and that number will grow to 56 mpg by 2025 under the proposed regulations. The final rules are hoped to be ready by September.

However, automakers outside the Big 3 are not happy at all about the proposed concession. Carmakers that do not produce large SUVs and trucks see the concessions as giving the Big 3 an unfair advantage. The companies feel that the concession would encourage consumers to buy less efficient vehicles. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By nolisi on 7/15/2011 2:50:46 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
It's not the Governments job to tell automakers what they can provide to the consumer. End of story.


Such a shortsighted view.

Part of the job of government is to protect the people. One way is to keep the economy functioning. If fuel prices spiral out of control and supply becomes limited because of overuse as a result of high consumption vehicles, that hurts the economy which subsequently hurts business (including car manufacturers, if gas gets too expensive, they will sell fewere cars) AND the people.

Allowing automakers to sell high fuel consumption, less efficient vehicles only benefit the automakers and oil companies, and that benefit exists so long as gas exists, is readily available, and stays cheap. If you can think of someone else allowing open fuel standards benefits (besides speculators, which are just oil companies in disguise).

However, having the automakers sell higher efficiency vehicles benefits everyone. It gives the automakers time to research alternative fuel types before petroleum becomes too expensive/scarce/economically impractical to run existing vehicles on. It gives the individual players of the economy (both business and people) time to transition to vehicles that use new fuel types without destroying businesses. It prolongs the supply of oil as well as (if we stop getting into conflicts with oil producing nations) the low cost of fuel that our entire economy is accustomed to. Oil companies will still make money, and automakers will survive longer if they have time to evolve and develop with the market. I promise you, oil companies will still make money, and they will survive as they have time to invest/develop alternative energy to keep their businesses alive and relevant. This benefits EVERYONE.

The only thing lost is winfall profits to oil companies as the cost of a scarce good skyrockets and the low cost of building a vehicle.

Securing and stabilizing the country's energy needs is and should be a job of the government to ensure that the market doesn't destroy itself.

Sure, you may want that large vehicle, but if you want to keep driving it long term and make it affordable (affordability is something that everyone, including businesses want), conservation of petroleum to keep the price low is the only way to make it happen.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By kraeper on 7/15/2011 3:07:06 PM , Rating: 5
If gas prices go up, people buy more efficient cars. No legislation is required. If people buy more efficient cars, automakers make more efficient cars to compete with eachother. Again, no legislation required.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By nolisi on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Great idea, let's not prepare businesses who rely on heavy, expensive, inefficient vehicles to run operations. Let's pretend like they can all afford to replace their fleets all at once.


Markets are customer driven. If customers demand something, supply will meet the demand. When the oil crisis hit in the 1970's, automakers initially had no fuel efficient vehicles. Within a very short period of time they were making small, fuel efficient vehicles because the market demanded it. With the cost of fuel so high, the manufacturer who could make the most fuel efficient cars made the most profit. Eventually, the fuel shortage ended and gas became cheap again. Suddenly, customers demanded larger vehicles. The small efficient vehicles were still available but they no longer sold well because customers wanted something else.

That's how business works.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Samus on 7/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Mr772 on 7/16/2011 9:34:25 AM , Rating: 1
We agree with you too. We have the population enslaved with debt and we now run/own the governments too and pretty much the world. The currency depreciation, I wouldn't worry about that either if I were you - it's not like you can do anything about it.

Thanks for your support,

~The Bankers~


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By knutjb on 7/17/2011 9:21:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Otherwise we'd all still be driving death traps without catalytic convertors that get 10mpg. But they'd also only cost $4000... You weigh the benifits and I'm sure you'll reconsider. Having a $20,000 safe car that is quiet, doesn't pollute much and gets 40mpg is far better than the $4000 alternative.
In the mid 1920s Henry Ford saw many friends lose their lives in car accidents. The 1927 Model A Ford had safety glass, an all metal body and wheels.
In the mid-fifties Ford had a padded dash and, hold on, seat belts as an option but few bought them.

Perfect vehicles, no but the manufacturer did it long before the nanny state dictated contradictory single-minded regulations. That is force very high MPG & safety standards before all material development and costs allow for any profit margin, gotta stay in business too.

Your "only the government can do it" ideology is mostly misplaced. When most people are shown the reason for such products, i.e. crash footage with and without safety devices few willingly go without. Oversight on manufacturer claims, yes. Dictating the market place, really?...

BTW If you ever had the chance to go into a junkyard in the 70s-80s you would not have found many burnt Pintos but you would have found many burnt Datsuns and Toyotas. I saw them there.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By tastyratz on 7/19/2011 9:19:25 AM , Rating: 1
Dare I play devils advocate and mildly agree with you even though it will get me rated to oblivion for the opposing view?
The issue argued is that the market dictates consumer need by demand. This is true unfortunately this is not ahead of the curve. Look at how pathetic we let cafe standards remain for how many years then all of a sudden this is a hot button to ramp things up once consumers demanded it. Had this been a government concern and a very slow reasonable gradual requirement till now we might have found ourselves there.

At this point the government is pushing too hard for too much too soon too late. We should have been looking at these thins YEARS ago and seem to think we can legislate them out of thin air. I do not support the recent hard cut cafe standards and I think American standards are keeping us from getting MANY of the great vehicles perfectly good for the rest of the world, but I do believe some regulation is needed to continue the trend, just a lighter hand. People live in the now, but manufacturers take YEARS to develop. The issue is with the size of the market, and OP is right. We would probably still drive unsafe polluting cheap cars and have no choice about it because it would be manufacturer dictated.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Philippine Mango on 7/16/2011 1:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
You would hope, but I think the issue people have is that they fail at economics and their priorities are all screwed up. I mean when you have people paying $0.20, $0.30, $0.50 per kilowatt hour and you tell them straight up that if they replace this bulb here, refrigerator here or their swimming pool pump with something more efficient, that it will PAY FOR ITSELF in a years time or less and still won't do it, you know there is something wrong. Instead, they will only replace the items when it actually breaks, and not at the point when it is no longer cost effective.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By mindless1 on 7/16/2011 5:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
It's because they aren't dumb. There's always a tradeoff of some sort whether it be inferior lighting, higher up front cost, vanishing profit once you account for the interest on the money spent, general longevity of the replacement goods, repairability of replacement goods, etc, etc.

Further, it is wasteful to throw away something that still works. There was energy, time, natural resources spent on the replacement product.

I don't know about you but I'm not paying remotely close to $0.30, let alone $0.50 per KWH. I'd buy a natural gas generator if electrical prices were so steep. In the end we need to quit thinking greedily and look at the bigger picture. Our energy needs ARE GOING UP, the only sane solution is to ramp up nuclear plant production.

Once we do that, we can gracefully transition to new products that conserve energy once they have matured into being as reliable as those they are replacing.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By jimhsu on 7/27/2011 3:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
A wise man once said that all societal problems - fossil fuels, poverty, war, hunger, etc -- can ultimately be reduced to a problem of energy. Energy production, energy distribution, ...you name it. Ironically energy conservation also falls into that same category.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By ClownPuncher on 7/15/2011 3:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Part of the job of government is to protect the people from their own freedom of choice


Sure, it may suck that some choices we make now will have negative effects on the future, but how far are you willing to let the government go, THX 1138?


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By nolisi on 7/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 4:51:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is why we vote and have discourse in this country, to determine how far we all are to let the government go in determining how we as a people should handle anything in our lives.


People don't get to vote on CAFE or EPA regulations, so sorry, it's not up to the people. This is one of the drawbacks of our modern "compartmentalized" government. Much of the day to day decisions the government makes are out of our hands.

quote:
How far are you willing to let others freedom of choice go in affecting your life?


I'm sorry but only a Liberal would try to make the argument that what car we drive infringes on someone's rights' and freedoms.

quote:
Let's take your suggestion and go to the extreme of abolishing all penalties for murder, theft, and rape.


So wait, you are equating a free market solution to rape and murder? I'm pretty sure that is not taking "his suggestions", not even close. Nobody is "suggesting" Anarchy!


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By idiot77 on 7/16/11, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2011 1:52:14 PM , Rating: 3
MPG=/=Pollution

This discussion isn't about emissions standards, it's about efficiency standards. Which aren't the same. As far as a cars impact on the environment, hybrids and electric cars are the worst. The batteries will NOT all be recycled. More chemicals WILL end up seeping into groundwater. They cause more air pollution initially being manufactured.

quote:
Environmentalism = National Security. Yeah, I know that's sooooo liberal or whatever


No, actually it's just really retarded. The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. In fact environmentalism is what's largely been responsible for getting us as involved with the Middle East as we are today, which has hurt our national security.

quote:
This wasn't done a whim, it was done because idiots like you thought it was okay that corporations should be able to pollute water, land, and air. It turns out that wasn't such a good idea.


So I'm trying to understand your logic. Higher MPG requirements stops "corporations" from polluting water, land, and air? And supporting free market solutions means I'm for said pollution of the Earth? An arbitrary efficiency standards means corporations won't "pollute" as much now?

Because, crazy me, CAFE has nothing to do with EPA regulations on businesses. It's not about what corporations can do or pollute, it's about what we can choose to buy as consumers.

I think you're a very confused individual or just need some education or life experience. These matters are far above your mental range.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 5:02:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It prevents chaos, such as people murdering eachother, or determining boundaries of ownership. Because a completely "free market" has no incentive to solve these problems.


This is dead wrong. Even without a functional government there would still be pressure to stop criminals. The majority of people don't like crime, so people would just take matters into their own hands. If a criminal was on the loose, they'd be captured or killed by a mob of people acting as their own police force.


By ClownPuncher on 7/15/2011 5:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
People have this assumption that if there were no laws, everyone would be a rapist.

You're absolutely right about a community fighting back against personal harm, it has been this way throughout history.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 5:05:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is why we vote and have discourse in this country, to determine how far we all are to let the government go in determining how we as a people should handle anything in our lives.


The point you were making before ran contrary to what you just said here. Before you said that the government should force certain rules on people and protect people from their own freedom of choice. The people said that they want SUVs, you said that the government should make laws mandating smaller vehicles, ignoring what the people wanted and limiting their freedom of choice.

What happens when you don't like your freedom of choice being limited and you decide to vote these politicians out? Maybe that's another choice that the government should limit? Surely we can't have the people thinking for themselves, can we?


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Part of the job of government is to protect the people.


Can you find it in the Constitution where their "job" is to protect the people from, as you call it, purchasing too much of something?

Their job is to provide for the general welfare and defense. NOT to micromanage every aspect of our lives. You're wrong.

quote:
Allowing automakers to sell high fuel consumption


Allowing? Did you just say allowing? No, you are wrong. They have always been "allowed". This isn't allowing, this is FORCING. Do you understand how the semi-free market economy we have works?

quote:
Such a shortsighted view.


Only on DailyTech would that kind of Collectivist nanny state bullshit get a 5. Shortsighted? I think we've seen just where your point of view has taken us. We're drowning in it as we speak.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 5:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only on DailyTech would that kind of Collectivist nanny state bullshit get a 5. Shortsighted? I think we've seen just where your point of view has taken us. We're drowning in it as we speak.


This is what happens when you have emotional thinkers trying to run the show. They know what they want but don't know how to form a workable plan. So they try to enforce their emotional, unworkable plan with heavy-handed laws which, not surprisingly, doesn't work.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 4:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Allowing automakers to sell high fuel consumption, less efficient vehicles only benefit the automakers and oil companies, and that benefit exists so long as gas exists, is readily available, and stays cheap.


Most of your argument is really tenuous. Business starts with customer demand. If customers want SUVs, then how are you helping the customers by denying what they want? Why don't you let the market take care of this? Companies can offer a selection to the customer, and then the customer can decide what he wants to buy?


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By wallijonn on 7/18/2011 12:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Business starts with customer demand.


Initially. But business usually starts by first creating a demand, then fulfilling it. That's how marketing & advertising work.

Does everyone in America really need an SUV? Does everyone in America need a cell phone or Internet access? That's what marketing wants you to buy.

The reason why auto marketing sold us on SUVs is because there was a higher profit margin.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By 91TTZ on 7/15/2011 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Securing and stabilizing the country's energy needs is and should be a job of the government to ensure that the market doesn't destroy itself. Sure, you may want that large vehicle, but if you want to keep driving it long term and make it affordable (affordability is something that everyone, including businesses want), conservation of petroleum to keep the price low is the only way to make it happen.


Oil is a commodity that's traded in a global market. If the US uses less oil, that oil doesn't get stored for our future use. Instead, it just drives the market price down and then the consumers in other countries will demand larger, less efficient vehicles since gas will be cheap. In the end, you didn't conserve anything. Even if we found a huge amount of oil right here in the US, that doesn't mean that it helps our energy independence. As I mentioned before, it's a global commodity and that fuel would be worth a lot of money. So if we somehow found a huge reserve of oil in Kansas, that oil would simply be sold for the normal market rate. If there was a huge global oil shortage, that oil from Kansas would still be sold on the open market, the price would just be higher.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2011 8:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
LOL great point 91TTZ, you are my hero of the day.

It's like he really believes if higher CARB passes, OPEC will be like "OKAY guys, the U.S. has more fuel efficient cars now, damnit, stop drilling the oil now."

It's not about oil for him anyway. It's just another excuse to do more social engineering and get this utopian society going.


RE: I see SUVs selling very well
By shin0bi272 on 7/17/2011 8:19:20 AM , Rating: 1
point to the line in the constitution that allows the government to dictate how a product is made and used. Oh yeah you cant.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki