You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama began reversing the climate policies of the Bush administration on Monday, clearing the way for new rules to force auto makers to produce more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars.
The president told the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider immediately a request by California to impose its own strict limits on vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for contributing to global warming.
The Democratic Obama took over last Tuesday from former President George W. Bush, whose Republican administration had denied the request, prompting California and other states to sue.
"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said at the White House, taking a stab at his predecessor's policies.
"California has shown bold and bipartisan leadership through its effort to 21st century standards. And over a dozen states have followed its lead."
Obama's directive, which is likely to result in a formal change in coming months, could prompt as many as 18 states to follow California's lead by putting into effect tailpipe emissions standards that are tougher than federal requirements.
The president directed the Department of Transportation to move forward with setting vehicle fuel efficiency standards for model year 2011 by March, giving automakers an 18-month period to prepare.
The rules piled pressure on an ailing car industry struggling to survive in a deepening recession with the help of federal bailouts.
General Motors Corp said it is "working aggressively" to develop better hybrids and electric cars to reduce emissions and improve mileage, but policymakers must weigh in economic factors when making their decision.
"We're ready to engage the Obama administration and Congress on policies that support meaningful and workable solutions and targets," the company said in a statement.
Their future may be more troubled as the U.S. recession deepens. Economists polled by Reuters in advance of Friday's Gross Domestic Product report think GDP contracted at a 5.4 percent rate on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter, which would be the worst performance since 1982.
SIGNALS ON ENVIRONMENT
The Obama directive pleased environmentalists, who supported his election but could annoy labor unions, another key constituency, whose members are embittered about the loss of auto jobs.
Obama said the policy shift would help carmakers in the long run.
"Our goal is not to further burden an already struggling industry, it is to help America's automakers prepare for the future," he said.
California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged the Obama administration last week to review the pollution emissions decision.
"It is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House," he said in a statement, welcoming the move on Monday.
"Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars."
Democratic lawmakers in Washington hailed the measure as a step toward energy independence and clean air, but some Republicans accused him of setting back the struggling U.S. auto industry.
The moves signaled Obama's desire to move forward quickly with his campaign promises to fight climate change and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Obama laid out broad principles that he said his administration would follow. It was time for the United States to lead on climate change, he said, and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
"It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil," he said, adding previous administrations had made similar goals.
"We need more than the same old empty promises. We need to show that this time it will be different," he said.
The U.S. State Department is expected to name Todd Stern, a senior White House official under former President Bill Clinton, as its climate change envoy, two people familiar with the decision said on Monday.
Stern coordinated the Clinton administration's Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999 and acted as the senior White House negotiator in the Kyoto negotiations on climate change.
So this allows forces EPA to consider what the states have to say. This is a great win of power decentralization(from dc) for the states.
State Rights > Federal Rights - or at least should be.
I worry more about the Kyoto treaty and what that'll do to America. We spend billions on programs that aren't worthwhile and this one isn't going to help. It also begs the question - how costly regulation is going to help in an economic downturn?
So this allows forces EPA to consider what the states have to say. This is a great win of power decentralization(from dc) for the states.
Yes, decentralization is a good thing. Of course, don't complain about all the job losses sure to come from the regulation of automotive manufacturers, not just the big three. CA is the worst in terms of its regulations of what you can and cannot do; essentially the leader of all nanny states. And you can also see how well that has fared with its current IOU issuance of tax refunds and an unbalanced budget. Leading the way FTW.
But I do agree, it is CA's decision. And if more states follow suit, then we will see a forced revamping of the automotive industry where it is already hard pressed to turn profitability. Expect Japan to start closing down additional plants in the U.S. once this comes to pass.
So this allows forces EPA to consider what the states have to say. This is a great win of power decentralization(from dc) for the states.
I'm not really sure about this.
Would a state be allowed to have emmisions less than the EPA standard? I seriously doubt it. Until the states actually have say OVER the federal government, I can't really consider it a win for the states.
__________________
Our forefathers made one mistake. What they should have fought for was representation without taxation. Fletcher Knebel
I'm in favor of the plan - damned if I want to be paying a fortune for gas in 10 years time. Give car makers a kick up the proverbial so they stop producing engines based on ancient tech. Cars also need to be made much lighter - there's no reason for cars to be so heavy, particularly SUVs etc.
__________________
2007 Obsidian Black G35X, 1995 S14 in the UK, 1978 Chevy K10 for mudding, sold 05 Z roadster
No......car companies will just have to build more efficient cars.
If EPA said "You can only produce cars that get 100mpg" miraculously......there would be no new cars...
Fixed.
Even the MOST fuel efficient cars are only getting 50 or so MPG, and those are slow and small. Just the car everyone wants to drive.
These increased regulations will force people to drive slow (and I mean reallllly slow) cars, or switch to uber-expensive alternative fuel or electric vehicles that are not yet ready for market.
People think that the technology to make super-clean and fuel efficient cars is out there and free. Well, it's not. (some technology is out there, but it's expensive.) Who's going to pay for it?
__________________
In hiding from teh interwebz gestapo.
Unfortunately Obama is no more interested in states rights than he is in giving Bill Gates a tax cut. What Obama is doing with this policy is forcing outlandish requirements on automakers because he knows they can't make 50 different versions of each car to comply with 50 different sets of emissions standards.....so whichever tree hugging enviro-wacko state enacts the toughest standards will be that which all cars will have to adhere to.
The last thing we need right now is this global warming alarmist activism digging deeper into the pockets of a country in recession.....
Get your head out of the oil-well. You would have us climb of of a recession right back into the same situation we were in before yes? You can stop with your hyperbole about the damaging effects of environmentally responsible policies because no educated population actually believes that crap.
Anyway, what is sooo wrong about having more efficient cars? You don't want your money to go further? You don't want to see the US leading the world in innovation and exporting it's technologies? A global recession is EXACTLY the time to be investing in new approaches and technology, and competition between the car makers will drive that. You'd be better suited to living in China and it's mid-20th century environment, technology and economy.
Lastly, show me the last time "global warming alarmist activism" was digging a $17 billion hole into the tax payers pockets.
__________________
2007 Obsidian Black G35X, 1995 S14 in the UK, 1978 Chevy K10 for mudding, sold 05 Z roadster
Even the MOST fuel efficient cars are only getting 50 or so MPG, and those are slow and small. Just the car everyone wants to drive.
[/b]
You've obviously never driven a decent European turbo diesel like a Beemer/VW/Merc. Even my old Citroen TD could whup any petrol car of equivalent cubic capacity and get twice the mileage.
That's more backwards, insular American thinking for ya
__________________
2007 Obsidian Black G35X, 1995 S14 in the UK, 1978 Chevy K10 for mudding, sold 05 Z roadster
I'm in favor of the plan - damned if I want to be paying a fortune for gas in 10 years time. Give car makers a kick up the proverbial so they stop producing engines based on ancient tech. Cars also need to be made much lighter - there's no reason for cars to be so heavy, particularly SUVs etc.
Well, okay, your new, carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium Tahoe is ready. Oh, and the DOHC Variable valve timing motor is in it now, and now the Tahoe is the same speed as it was before, but gets 25/30mpg.
That will be $147,995. Kthnxbai.
Lightweight materials are EXPENSIVE, and WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
__________________
In hiding from teh interwebz gestapo.
Well, okay, your new, carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium Tahoe is ready. Oh, and the DOHC Variable valve timing motor is in it now, and now the Tahoe is the same speed as it was before, but gets 25/30mpg.
That will be $147,995. Kthnxbai.
Lightweight materials are EXPENSIVE, and WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
You've obviously never driven a decent European turbo diesel like a Beemer/VW/Merc. Even my old Citroen TD could whup any petrol car of equivalent cubic capacity and get twice the mileage.
That's more backwards, insular American thinking for ya
The VW fox TDI (via the german VW website)which is VWs smallest car gets
39 mpg city and 56 mpg hwy. It is smaller than a golf and goes 0-60 in 14.7 seconds.
Lets see, About 50 mpg, slow and tiny. That seems to be exactly what I said.
Obviously my backwards american thinking is completely off base. I apolopgize for being correct, and owning you.
Oh, and I used to own a Mercedes 300D. AKA "the slowest car on the planet"
__________________
In hiding from teh interwebz gestapo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by splby
BrickyardZ shows no mercy. just fyi...
Last edited by 03BrickyardZ; 01-27-2009 at 11:45 AM.
Obama reversing Bush climate policies, tougher emission standards are coming!!
