The administration unveiled its ‘sweeping’ changes to fuel efficiency standards:
The Bush administration’s long-awaited plan to overhaul fuel economy regulations was released yesterday, promising to save gasoline by requiring modest improvements in the performance of sport utility vehicles and other trucks.
But the proposal was swiftly condemned by environmental groups and other critics, who said it would do little to slow the nation’s swelling oil consumption.
Top administration officials said their plan would save 10 billion gallons of gasoline over nearly two decades, or roughly 25 days’ worth of gas under current consumption trends. It is the first sweeping change of fuel regulations covering light-duty trucks, a category that includes sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans.
But it also included a broadside against the authority of California and other states, including New York, to move forward with plans to regulate automotive emissions of global warming gases. Efforts by several states on the East and West Coasts to regulate emissions would save significantly more gasoline in those states than the Bush administration’s proposal.
The administration said its plan would increase the average mileage of light trucks to 24 miles a gallon for 2011 models, compared with 21.2 miles a gallon in today’s models.
Suffice it to say a 3 mpg increase in standards over 30 years in hardly a ‘sweeping’ change. Plus, it seems the new rules are exceedingly complex:
If nothing else, the 169-page plan is complex. Today, corporate average fuel economy regulations – known in the industry as CAFE standards – divide each automaker’s annual new vehicle production into two categories: passenger cars and light-duty trucks. New cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks 20.7 miles a gallon in 2004 models. Rules for cars are not being changed.
The administration previously increased the standard for light trucks to 22.2 miles a gallon by the 2007 model year. The new plan would raise it to 23.5 miles a gallon by 2010.
More important, it would create a system in which each automaker’s new light trucks would be divided into six size classes. Larger size classes would have less demanding fuel economy targets. From 2008 to 2010 models, automakers would have a choice between the current system and the new size-based system. By 2011 models, only the new system would remain.
Not only do the rules trample state initiatives, do little to increase the standards, and provide all sorts of wiggle room for manufacturers to game the system, the rules also ignore some of the bigger problems:
The proposal does not extend fuel regulations to the largest and least fuel-efficient S.U.V.’s and pickup trucks – those like the Hummer H2 that are more than 8,500 pounds when loaded. The administration said it would seek further comment on whether larger S.U.V.’s alone should be inserted into the final rule.
Again- either we get rid of these standards altogether, or we make them make sense. These rule changes seem to have failed miserably at the second option.
The Chargiung RINO says this is nothing more than a version of the two-step.
More here from Tom Maguire.
Marcus Wellby
Well, if the objective is to do something, making sense would be a good thing. If the object is to only appear that you are doing something, sense does not matter.
Why don’t they just annouce there is a new Department of Alchemy working on making gas from water? If you are going to bullshit people, do it with some style and aim BIG.
JBD
Exactly right, John. As I wrote yesterday, this is little more than a “two-step” – looks like they’re doing something, but the loopholes are so big you can drive a Hummer H2 through them (that is, if you can afford the gas to fill the tank).
Jay C
Yep, these are “sweeping” changes in fuel-economy standards, all right: and well in line with the current Adminstrations policies. “Sweeping”, as in sweeping real and present problems right under the rug (leaving them for future Administrations to deal with) with industry-friendly “reforms”, while engaging in a big PR blitz to convince the public that they are “doing something” about a problem.
Feh.
BinkyBoy
Guberment is only one way to change public buying habits to a more fuel conservative mentality. My favorite way is to prescribe to the FUH2 method of perception control.
If everyone would only give a big FUH2 to all those driving the Excursions, Suburbans and of course the H2’s driving along, I believe the public humiliation will drive these twits into selling their genital-perception modifiers for 50% of what they paid for them and buy something thats a bit more reasonable.
that and its fun to watch them pretend to look the other way.
StupidityRules
I’m guessing sometimes it’s important to change what isn’t broken yet but will probably be sometime in the future, i.e. Social Security. Other things doesn’t need a fixing despite how gloom the future looks.
DougJ
Until there is sound science showing that we are truly in danger of running out of oil or of having severe global warming, I see no reason to take steps that might harm our automakers and slow our economy. These so-called problems — running out of oil and global warming — may very well be imaginary. But the challenges faced by our automakers are very real. How do you explain to man that he lost his job because of a bogus scientific theory?
Jim Caputo
So on average, we’ll save 1.25 days of gas every year for 20 years. Now there’s a plan with teeth!!! They deserve to be hammered for bullshit this weak.
And their true intentions peek through. This administration has no desire to actually decrease gas and oil consumption because that would hurt the profits of the corporations that are going to insure that they live nice chushy lives once they’re out of office. Clearly, the intention is to only APPEAR to be doing something, while in reality they’re doing nothing at all.
StupidityRules
DougJ, who do you explain to the million men and women who’ll lose their jobs during the depression that will follow the oil shortage that they lost their jobs because we say the signs but decided to do nothing about it?
Besides, I didn’t know that automakers only can make cars that run on gas.
DougJ
That would be fine reasoning if there was any real evidence of a looming gas shortage. But there isn’t. It’s just another THEORY cooked up left-wing scientists with agendas.
StupidityRules
DougJ, I agree with you, it’s like the theory of gravity. Just a theory. But that’s not the way you should debunk it.
You should argue that God has given us enough resources to last until the second coming of Christ. I wonder if we can jumpstart amarageddon with “WWIII – The war for resources”?
Pug
That would be fine reasoning if there was any real evidence of a looming gas shortage. But there isn’t. It’s just another THEORY cooked up left-wing scientists with agendas.
I’m not sure where you got this notion that scientists are a bunch of left-wingers with an agenda. Is Rush or somebody pushing this? Sure is whacky, though. Just wondering, DougJ, what qualifies you to pass judgement on the validity scientific theories? Just asking?
If scientists are a bunch of left-wingers with an agenda, I suggest we turn everything over to them. Science has done a pretty good job over the last few centuries of contributing to the progress of mankind. More, I’d have to say, than psychologists, attorneys, economists and preachers combined. Now those are people with an agenda.
Here’s proof, scientific proof, of a shortage of oil and gasoline… $65 a barrel, $2.70 a gallon. Saw it myself. It’s an observation that is repeatable by others, too. I use the scientific method.
Ironically, that is also what will raise the fuel efficiency of vehicles, not the gumint. They’ll still be sitting around bragging about their “sweeping” reforms of requiring a 3% increase in gas mileage over 30 years while the good ol’ free enterprise system will raise mileage by a third or more on its own within five years.
Wrye
Ignoring Mr. Dark Ages, can someone tell me this: does any of this actually *prevent* California from imposing tougher standards?
StupidityRules
Wrye, from the NY Times article:
tzs
DougJ has to be a snarkist. Nobody can be that stupid.
Guess who is going to make out big in the next decade? The Europeans and the Japanese, with gas-sipping technology rather than U.S. gas-guzzling technology.
After having worked in Japan for ten years and screaming like Cassandra about bloody stupid US auto companies with lousy gas efficiency and what was going to happen….I now shrug my shoulders and say: feh. If the US is too stupid to have a decent energy policy then it deserves to have its economy run into the ground. Stupidity should hurt. Badly.
Mr Furious
I’m not surprised by any of this. It is exactly what one should expect from this Administration. I’m only shocked they didn’t tag it with some clever, yet misleading, “Clear Skies/Healthy Forests” misnomer…
DougJ – I can’t even tell if you’re for real anymore. Your comments are too stupid to be read, never mind retorted.
BinkyBoy – I can only assume you’ve visited FUH2.com, but for those that haven’t…
DougJ
You call me stupid, call me a put-on, but last time I checked, 53% of the population agreed with me. Maybe in your librul circles, anything that questions the sanctity of what you call science is considered dumb, but out here we don’t go for that kind of dogma.
BinkyBoy
I’m still irritated they stopped updating FUH2.com. I’d have plenty of pictures of the playboy cowboys here in Idaho in their big toys for little boys.
tzs
DougJ, did you ever hear of Lysenkoism? And how it totally trashed Soviet biology for years?
Then there was the other time where the Soviets decided what the critical mass of nuclear waste was supposed to be. And all the scientists went NOOOO! And the authorities said: “Nonsense! This is as revealed in the writings of Marx and Lenin!”
…shortly after that a part of the Urals went radioactive…
Me, I know where I’m placing my bets. Mother Nature wins. EVERY TIME.
SeesThroughIt
DougJ, do you even know what oil is? Seriously.
DougJ
That doesn’t to have stopped some on the left from embracing Marx and Lenin. Hilary, Michael Moore, take your bows.
tBone
If 53% of the population agreed with you, there wouldn’t be enough collective neurons firing in this country to write the script to a Deuce Bigelow movie.
Speaking of movies, I’m beginning to think DougJ is actually a time traveller from the future.
JoeTx
Please qualify the “last time you checked”, my guess is it wasn’t in 2005. The last time I checked, which was TODAY, shows some more people have wised up this week!
Back to the subject matter, which DougJ keeps rudely changing. I find this provision completely at odds with a REAL Republicans views of states rights…
To support this administration, you either have your head up your ass, or your getting paid to shill for them.
DougJ
Actually, tBone, whatever I might think of the other 47%, I am very confident that even without the benefit of our 53% of the neurons, you would have no problem writing the script for the next Deuce Bigelow movie, which I heard has been give the working title “Deuce Bigelow: Revolutions.”
Trevor
I’m continually amazed that significant portions of the population believe that congress can enact technical achievement. Add that to the notion that the same congress can do a better job of managing a commodity than the free market. Actually it doesn’t amaze me, it depresses me.
Jay C
And judging by the intellectual quality of your posts, dougj, YOU may very well qualify as “imaginary” as well!
JFTR, what exactly what is it that “53% of the population” agrees with you about?
DougJ
Do the words 2004 election mean anything to you?
Bob
I guess we’ll have to rely on the free market to get people to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Heh heh heh.
tBone
They voted for the same person DougJ did, anyway. In his world, that means they must agree with him that:
-science is a liberal plot;
-Christians are a persecuted minority;
-our Constitution could use some sharia-like elements; and
-everything is going just swimmingly in Iraq,
to name just a few of the beliefs DougJ has espoused over the last couple of days.
tBone
Whoops. No idea what happened to the formatting there. I didn’t touch the Strike button, I swear.
DougJ
I believe you.Fledermaus
No no Doug, Iraq WMDs were an imaginary threat. Global Warming is quite real. But to be nice, there may be some dispute about how much of it is caused by human actions, but some of it certanly is. So we either screwed and can do nothing about it, or in the second case we screwed but there is something we can do about it. Or we can all just live it up until Jesus comes back. Because, you know, this science stuff is too hard to figure out.
ppGaz
There is no more proof that we will run out of oil than there is proof that you won’t live forever, Doug.
Kirk Spencer
DougJ,
1) President Bush got 51%, not 53%. And he got that proportion of the total votes. Not of the total registered voters, and certainly not of the total population. George W Bush received 59,834,866 votes at a time when the US population was 293,655,404 (both numbers from the Census Department, the latter is an estimate). So President Bush had a bit over 20% of the population.
2) Evidence of a looming gas shortage that’s not from a left-wing source. OK, how about Exxon’s “The Outlook for Energy: The 2030 View” which predicts a peak in 2011. Or is your definition of left-wing source “anything that doesn’t give the answer I want to hear?”
Jim Caputo
Actually, about 34% of that 53% has decided they made a terrible mistake and no longer agree with you. At least according to numbers more recent than November ’04.
goonie bird
If a person wants a SUV its up to them and not the usial bunch of idiots wanting to force us all to own what they feel we should
Posse Incitatus
Oh, so now it’s global warming? Gosh, according the the scientists just 30 years ago we were about to run out of metals, oil and were on the brink of a new ice age.
By 2000 the world was going to be a bleak wasteland and we’d be living on Soylent Green (mmmm, Solent Green).
Spare us the doomsday prediction of the moment.
I also like the notion of WMD being imaginary. Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians who died from them.