Posted on 07/22/2011 4:24:48 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
Automakers are pushing back against an Obama administration proposal that would almost double vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, launching a new ad campaign warning of hundreds of thousands of job losses across the country.
The White House has long been negotiating with automakers and environmentalists over the enormous increase in fuel efficiency standards. But the automakers, who say the standards would stagger the auto industry, appear to be losing faith in the possibility of a compromise.
President Obama was hoping to get automakers to sign off on a nearly 100 percent increase in mileage standards by 2025, aiming for another Rose Garden announcement like the one in May 2009 when he announced they would raise it to 29.5 miles-per-gallon for model year 2012, on their way to 34 miles-per-gallon for 2016.
But now the White House has a much bigger goal in mind.
"They're floating ideas to increase this fuel efficiency standard to 56 miles per gallon fleet-wide by the year 2025, which would be a significant ramp-up, even from the fuel efficiency standards that we have set in place to 2016," said Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank.
But supporters of the increase, like Jack Gillis of the Consumer Federation of America, insist it's doable.
"Fifty six (miles-per-gallon) is a sweet spot that is both achievable, reasonable, highly beneficial in terms of as economic standpoint, and will meet the president's goals of dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil,”....
But the automakers are balking, noting a federal agency called the Energy Information Administration predicted the increased standard would result in a 14 percent drop in sales.
***
One auto industry official put it this way: the new standards “are like dealing with the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell only small sizes."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Useless Kenyan Bastard, has never done anything in his,Pinko Life!
A “German” car...
Ooh. We can’t have diesel — its stinky. :)
Jettas are GREAT cars, but also too expensive for the average Joe. And they’re sick tech. Squeezing another 15% of mpg is not doable without an alternate power source (ie, electricity). Which will make them cost even more...
Sorry, I meant 20%...
I feel safer on my motorcycle than in a Smart car. At least the ambulance can pick me up off the side of the road instead of cutting me out in pieces with the jaws of life or in this case probably death.
Me too. Plus my iron pony doesn’t have nickel metal hydride batteries that will melt my flesh off if they catch on fire...
The consumer crowd don’t discuss, in public at least, one of the costs of meeting increased fuel standards: increase fatalities due to lighter cars. The Feds always avoid that issue, like they are avoiding it in the healthcare debate. It’s a no-no. You don’t see it factored into the fuel economy decisions, and the “consumer advocate” groups don’t touch it because it might damage their allies.
The full costs should be part of the equation. What’s the cost of killing (statistically) a man or woman in the prime of life? It’s a lot of bucks that should be added to the bucks required to produce a fuel-efficient car.
That’s disgusting!
This”man” is so girly.
Anyways, gotta ask the UAW: hows that hope and change thing working?
Unions like that and the coal miners who blindy backed this fool should be forced to decline unemployment benefits.
eeyeahh, boyee!
Damn laws of physics!
“If you work in research (at least for GM) there is no union. “
Not necessarily. Who moves the clay models? Who hooks up the motors and drive trains to the dyno machines? etc.
You’d be surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.