Print 29 comment(s) - last by boeush.. on Jun 27 at 6:41 PM

The discussion aims to map out the future of advanced autos that will abide by the new fuel efficiency standards

Only weeks before the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is expected to complete the new fuel efficiency standards, the White House will hold a three-hour forum this Wednesday on the future of advanced vehicles.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality will host a forum on Wednesday called "Advanced Vehicles, Driving Growth." The discussion aims to map out the future of advanced autos that will abide by the new fuel efficiency standards.

"The Obama administration is bringing together diverse auto-sector stakeholders at a White House event to celebrate success stories in the remarkable resurgence of the auto industry and spotlight leaders who represent President Obama's vision of out-innovating and out-manufacturing the rest of the world," said Taryn Tuss, White House CEQ spokeswoman.

"In partnership with auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, states and environmental stakeholders, the Administration has developed historic fuel efficiency standards that will nearly double the fuel efficiency of cars and light duty trucks by 2025, save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump, and encourage innovation and investment in technologies that increase our economic competitiveness and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

The forum aims to continue taking suggestions for rule changes, mainly from foreign automakers from countries like Germany who feel the rules have been biased toward U.S. automakers.

Last year, major automakers, the state of California, and the White House agreed on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal for 2017-2025 that would boost fleet wide fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil.

The new fuel efficiency standards for 2017-2025 will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The NHTSA will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Same old.
By MadMan007 on 6/26/2012 1:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
What is an "auto-sector stakeholder"?

That would be a group who holds a stake in the well-being of the industrial sector of automobiles. :)

UAW is included because I believe they received an ownership stake in GM as part of a compromise during the bailouts. Even if that isn't the case, as employees they are obviously directly affected by industry in which they work.

RE: Same old.
By ksherman on 6/26/2012 9:52:42 AM , Rating: 1
UAW is included because I believe they received an ownership stake in GM as part of a compromise during the bailouts. Even if that isn't the case, as employees they are obviously directly affected by industry in which they work.

And maybe they'll get a little excited about a long-term vision and be willing to make some short-term concessions? Wishful thinking, no doubt...

RE: Same old.
By johnsmith9875 on 6/26/2012 5:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah let's just ban unions like in china, then our auto employees will be committing suicide by jumping off buildings like at the Apple iphone factorys.

RE: Same old.
By WalksTheWalk on 6/26/2012 10:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
The UAW can be counted on to do what's in their best interest, regardless of the impact on its members, the company or anyone else.

I work with bargaining units and they will try to hold onto their members. For example, I had a union squash the promotion of an employee to a new classification where they would receive increased pay and some new responsibilities but would make them non-union. Nope, can't have that. The employee ended up leaving the company all together.

Once a job is union, it will be that way until the company goes under or the union does.

RE: Same old.
By MadMan007 on 6/26/2012 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
Employers do what's in their best interest, why shouldn't unions? (generally speaking)

As for the specific case you mentioned...every union and employer is different. It sounds like maybe the company wasn't promoting the employee to a truly different position that already existed, but rather wanted to replace a union position with a non-union position?

RE: Same old.
By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Because in theory the purpose of unions is supposed to be to improve conditions for workers. If a union is bad for workers, and bad for the employer then it's nothing but a leech which unfortunately is too big to be terminated. It sounds like in that case the employee was being promoted to a management position and the union didn't want to lose a dues paying member. Remember, the union wants whats best for the union's own executives, NOT what's best for dues paying members.

The real solution to labor exploitation is to change the supply/demand ratio for labor to be more in favor of workers. Once companies have to compete in order to attract workers they will treat them better because those unsatisfied with their job will know they can find a better one.

RE: Same old.
By NellyFromMA on 6/26/2012 1:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is what they THINK they do. However, in reality, when they harm the automotive industry by making unreasonable demands, they inevitable not only hurt themselves but everyone around them including people who neither work for nor own any part of the big 3.

It's selfishness combined with stupidity.

RE: Same old.
By Ringold on 6/26/2012 2:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
I might be in the minority, but I'll probably be like some WW2 vets I know that refused to ever drive a Mitsubishi. If I can help it, so long as the UAW has its ill-gotten ownership stake in Government Motors (I encourage people to look in to the farcical bankruptcy process they went through, with Obama putting the UAW ahead of secured creditors) then I'll never buy a GM/Chevy/etc. Chrysler was a sham too, but still have Ford as a clean domestic player, and 'domestic' is a fuzzy notion now anyway.

RE: Same old.
By Dorkyman on 6/26/2012 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. Never will a GM vehicle see the inside of my garage.

It's an easy rule to obey--the other companies make better cars, anyway.

RE: Same old.
By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
There are other reasons to never buy a GM vehicle. The way they bong as you if you don't do everything in the proper order when you get in (close door, then seatbelt, then key?) and the way they automatically lock the doors when put into drive and unlock them when put into park. The amount of stuff that GM vehicles attempt to automate that they should not makes me want to get out and crush them into a cube whenever I'm forced to drive them.

It doesn't help that a midrange GM car is still worse to drive than the cheapest Hyundai.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

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