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 ClownPuncher on 7/15/2011 3:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
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
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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
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
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?

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki