Follow this blog:
RSS

Obama’s fuel rules to halve greenhouse emissions, dramatically reduce oil imports

By | August 28, 2012, 7:19 PM PDT

Republican Mitt Romney vows to overturn the rules, which he favored increasing just years ago, if elected.

Republican Mitt Romney vows to overturn the rules, which he favored increasing just years ago, if elected.

The Obama administration is expected to implement an aggressive fuel standards policy that would cut in half greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks by 2025, also substantially reducing oil consumption.

Multiple press reports today revealed that the EPA has finalized its strict 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, rules to be met by 2025. The new standard will incrementally raise standards to 34.5 mpg onward from 2016, and represents a significant increase in CAFE.

The target for 2025 was just 30 mpg before President Obama took office. Better fuel economy was a focus of the administration’s auto bailouts that successfully permitted Chrysler and General Motors to remain in business. Republican critics say that the rules are intended to favor domestic automakers over foreign competitors. The Obama administration negotiated the standards with manufacturers.

President Obama’s competitor, soon-to-be Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said that he would repeal the standards, and is now opposed to the government regulating emissions whatsoever. Romney’s energy plan favors fossil fuel production or conservation or renewable energy sources.

Governor Romney was channeling Al Gore before he decided to run for President (again). In 2007, he said:

“I’m hopeful that with $3 gas being charged by Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad and Putin and others, that you’re going to see Americans slowly but surely move to vehicles that are far more fuel efficient and you’ll see our manufacturers start competing on the basis of fuel efficiency.”

2007 Romney would be happy to know that the CAFE rule’s net effect would put the U.S on track to halve its oil consumption within 20 years, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said in a statement today. Global warming pollution levels for 2025 models would be 50% less than today, it added.

USC noted that CAFE would reduce oil use by up to 3.1 million barrels per day by 2030. That’s more oil than the U.S. currently imports from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela combined, it said. The standards would also save drivers US$8,000 over the life of a 2025 model; 570 million metric tons of pollutants would be saved in 2030 if the rules are not overturned by a Romney Presidency.

“This is truly a watershed moment. Twenty years from now we’ll be looking back on this as the day we chose innovation over stagnation,” said Michelle Robinson, director of UCS’s Clean Vehicles program. “These standards will protect consumers from high gas prices, curb global warming pollution, cut our oil use, and create new jobs in the American auto industry and around the nation.”

UCS was founded in in 1969 by a group of scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to promote the use of science for public interest. It is strongly opposed to any political interference in scientific research.

(Image credit: Wikipedia)

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of ScaleOut Software.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
16
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Not before time
Absolutely not before time - much of this work has already been done in Europe and Japan/Korea, where they are street's ahead.

For most normal road cars a 2 litre 4 cylinder petrol engine is more than sufficient, and for SUV's 3L V6 petrol/turbo-diesel is also as much as you will almost ever need.

- Energy independence
- Oil conserved for the long term, inc chemical feedstocks
- Cuts costs of running automobiles
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
29th Aug
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Not Before Time
That's fine for there...you have no place to go. I can drive from London to John O'Groats in less time than it takes to drive from border to border in the state I live in (Colorado). Heck, the "M's" are so plugged in the greater London area, no need to go over 35 mph - although I must admit I enjoy the speed and courtesy of the "M's" when out of the city areas. The two geographic areas and transportation needs are so dissimilar that there is no comparison. Obviously you've spent no time here. I don't mind small and slow there because that's all that's needed - especially on the single tracks I spend a great deal of time on. It's a completely different story here. Lockstep blind idealism vs. practicality and reality are so far apart this case. I must admit though, if we were allowed to have the diesel technologies here that you have there (the environazis won't allow it) - I'd love it. I'd take the power and economy of a 4 door turbodiesel Ford Ranger pickup or most any of the turbodiesel automobiles anytime! But....we're not allowed.
Posted by GregGold
29th Aug
+1 Vote
+ -
Just in time
Wow! Good thing I bought my turbodiesel powered car in May before environazis wouldn't let me. Especially since I live in CA where all my liberal friends say good things about it. Maybe they're just environmentalists without being Nazis. Or Nazis without being environmentalists.
Posted by theotherwill
29th Aug
0 Votes
+ -
RE: RE: Just in time
Obviously you have absolutely no idea what's available in the UK and Europe. The offerings here are pitiful in comparison - and they're not available here because of the amazingly strict exhaust standards here.
Posted by GregGold
30th Aug
+2 Votes
+ -
amazingly strict exhaust standards
And they want to make them tougher.

I guess we will never see some of those models.
Posted by Hates Idiots
30th Aug
+1 Vote
+ -
Why not legislate for Transporter Beams?
What a pathetic line of reasoning. The CAFE standards have already increased the cost and complexity of autos beyond what was anticipated. Who ARE these people to dictate what is "all we need"? And this is just one example of "Mother Government" telling us what to buy, what to eat, how to live. Next comes who to hate, who to die.
Posted by day@...
Updated - 29th Aug
+1 Vote
+ -
need?
Where do any of you people get off thinking you should be able to decide what someone else needs? Do you really want your government to decide what you need???
Posted by hdc77494@...
29th Aug
+2 Votes
+ -
More pre-election nonsense. This almost reads like a campaign memo.
Get ready for some crappy cars and other unintended consequences. Remember, the rise of the SUV was a direct result of the CAFE standards imposed beginning in the '70s.

Have you noticed that many new cars don't even have "donut" spares anymore? Soon, the spare tire will be a relic of the past, and when you get a flat, you are at the mercy of local help.

Also of interest is that the new standards will be enforced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It will be interesting to see how they balance compromises in safety from the further lightening of auto structures.

Also a fantasy is the static analysis of how much fuel we will really save by increasing mileage. Cheaper driving means more driving, not necessarily less fuel consumption. A better, more efficient solution is to allow fuel prices to rise naturally; something politicians, even ones purporting to be "green" are loath to do.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
29th Aug
-3 Votes
+ -
OH Well
OK so now we have some changes for BIG business. This was expected from a business man. Get ready middle class you are gonna dig beeper into your pockets to pay for rMONEY and his rich friends!
Posted by geofer50
29th Aug
+3 Votes
+ -
Romney? he had nothing to do with this fiasco
I can just see Obama riding around in a Fiat. He's exempt, and will ride in a bulletproof...suburban.
Posted by hdc77494@...
29th Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Why only 4 cylinders?
People wonder why Ford's 2013 Fusion won't offer a 6-cylinder engine option. Gee, maybe it has something to do with the government's push for higher CAFE standards. I'm personally okay with pushing for higher mileage standards. We guzzle way too much fossil fuel in the U.S. compared with other countries. People don't need a Chevy Suburban to haul their two kids to school every day, for crying out loud.
Posted by wally_altoona
29th Aug
+3 Votes
+ -
Whe appointed you the choice czar?
I have five kids adopted from child protective services. You think I can pile them into a volt??? And who appointed you czar to determine what ANYBODY should drive??
Posted by hdc77494@...
29th Aug
+3 Votes
+ -
What will this plan REALLY do
This plan will increase traffic deaths by a large margin, drive up the number of used trucks and cars (and their emissions). Drive up used car prices hurting the working poor. Reduce fuel tax revenue, forcing government entities to create more new taxes. Increase the cost of new cars, and for what? So Obama can say he's the greenest president in history.
Posted by hdc77494@...
29th Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Improving Fuel Economy of Vehicles
Improving Fuel Economy of Vehicles is of value to the economy and also to the environment. However a lot of fuel is wasted in traffic snarls. There is a need to find a solution to the traffic snarls. A paradigm shift in thinking and a quantum leap in technology is needed. What is happening now is searching for a better version of the same old thing. Electric cars, hybrid cars, fuel efficient cars, transit vehicles, high speed rail, new laws & rules, will give a marginal improvement and will not address multiple issues confronting mobility. The new need is for Special Purpose Vehicles which are designed from new basic concepts. The US will have to invite global participation to create an invention which will eradicate all the problems faced with mobility. One such technology is being developed in India which involves concepts which addresses issues like accidents, pollution, environment, traffic snarls, grid lock, installation cost, installation time, operating cost, land acquisition, forest cover, animal habitat, loss of farmland, loss of livelihood, fuel imports, fuel economy, parking issues, travel autonomy, all in one invention, Special Purpose Vehicle. Mobility issues need to be tackled at a new level of thinking and from a new point of view of technology.
Posted by ilajnaaneem
29th Aug
+3 Votes
+ -
Lower the greenhouse gases for whom?
CAFE sounds great in theory BUT, in practice we'll be sending our cleaner air over to Europe and we'll be getting China's contaminated air from their coal fired plants and mega emmissions vehicles. Gee, I guess they forgot to consider the prevailing winds that circle the earth. However, if the whole world adopts these standards, it will work, but a bit too late. By that time CNG vehicles will have accomplished all the goals with technology already available. Sounds to me like another government boondoggle to minimize risk for the Big Three while keeping Big Labor happy with job security. Keep the government out of it and free market commpetition will succeed, can anyone say, "hybrid vehicles"?
Posted by TomJoeDan
30th Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Wow
By the stroke of a pen Obama has ensured that all cars will *average* 54mpg. Amazing.
Posted by bb_apptix
6th Sep
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!