The Department of Transportation says the proposal will save 19 billion gallons of fuel and cut carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions by 178 million metric tons for cars made during those model years. For trucks, the savings would be 36 billion gallons of fuel and 343 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. In a speech Tuesday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said the proposal is "ambitious, but achievable." Not so, according to Claybrook. "It's more accurate to call this proposal modest and already achieved everywhere but the U.S.," she said in a statement. What Do Bush's New Fuel Standards Mean? - Forbes.com
Probably not mean a damn thing, lobbiests will have a field day, and nothing much will come of it, at this point the market is going to be what drives the American Auto Manufactures to get their act together. If we had listened to Jimmy Carter when he warned us and tried to do something, we would be better off right now, well that and never elected GWB.
The market's already fixing the problem. The issue is that the market is reactive and we need to be proactive. Should listened to Jimmy. But our focus has always been on the short term and through that lens these sorts of things don't make any sense.
I think the Bush administration should go learn some lessons from Toyota. Why the hell should it take 12 more years to get 35mpg? The Prius did better than that years ago. I suspect it will do even better with the next gen (plug-in maybe)! My last vehicle purchase was a Ford. Before that it was a Jeep. I'm done with "domestic" automakers. They just don't get the big picture... seemingly neither does Bush and his crowd.... Personally I'd rather see gas prices rise than having the gov't step in and mandate fuel economy. High gas prices would help people think for themselves and make the right decisions.
I did not really grasp that article. No idea how they got those estimated savings. I may be off base, but my take on the CAFE standards is that the flex-fuel loophole will drive auto makers to produce flex-fuel (E85-capable) vehicles. That's it. Any other changes, they're driven by the market. Briefly, under the CAFE standards, flex-fuel vehicles are counted as if they used E85 half the time, and ... only the gasoline counts in the mileage calculation. At least, that's how I understand it. So, convert a vehicle to flex-fuel, double the CAFE-counted mileage, more or less. Those 16 MPG Tahoes you see out there, if they're flex fuel, they count as if they got ... calculating ... 28 MPG. Really. That's how the regs read. That's why you see these silly-nice person flex-fuel badges where there's no E85 available. Which, BTW, that article doesn't mention at all. But I guess it would be impolitic to discuss that in a business magazine. So, I think it's all smoke and mirrors. If every automaker spent the $200 or so per vehicle required to allow vehicles to use E85, and if consumers were OK with the reduced actual mileage (because in fact they're going to burn gasoline), US automakers would already exceed the new standards. Or nearly. So, regulation has been effectively gutted. Any improvement you see, it'll be driven by the market.
Which is why it will be painful. Our representatives don't have the bottle to do what's right or what makes the most sense for the long term. They'll continue to have a short term mentality and the market will punish us for it.
The question, "What Do Bush's New Fuel Standards Mean?" suggests he has standards. We know better than that.
