Democratic leaders in the U.S. House reached a deal late Friday night to raise fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- a 40 percent increase from today's standard of 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and pickups. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who's been pushing for an increase, came to agreement with House Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.), a longtime defender of automakers in his state. Dingell called the new standards "both aggressive and attainable." He made sure they included a provision that lets automakers continue getting credit toward mileage goals for selling flex-fuel cars that can run on a blend of gasoline and ethanol. The mileage measure is part of a larger energy bill that the House is expected to vote on and approve on Wednesday. The fuel-economy provision also has the support of key senators. Pelosi called the mileage compromise "an historic advancement in our efforts in the Congress to address our energy security and laying strong groundwork for climate legislation next year."
source: Associated Press, The New York Times
Henry Waxman’s decade-long fight to improve the Clean Air Act
Will Senate leadership crack the whip on the climate bill?
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 2:58 am
01 Dec 2007
The Chevy Volt gets 150 mpg.
If Congress took all the funds wasted on "mass transit" and subsidized the replacement of the automobile infrastructure ( also know as "our cars" ) with modern plugin and fuel cell vehicles, it would be a big environmental boost.
Permalink
cyclendo Posted 1:41 am
02 Dec 2007
Permalink
randino Posted 1:53 am
02 Dec 2007
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
tamangel Posted 3:50 am
02 Dec 2007
Mike
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:05 am
02 Dec 2007
Besides, I think that increasingly high fuel prices will probably keep many car companies (and most models) ahead of the curve on this one.
Permalink
KELLIB Posted 11:48 am
02 Dec 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:23 pm
02 Dec 2007
Actually it's worse than nothing.
Since nothing would allow for more serious action to be taken.
It's a lot harder to change policy than it is to create new policy.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:48 pm
02 Dec 2007
Permalink
racc Posted 3:38 pm
02 Dec 2007
Don't forget the huge environmental footprint of vehicle and battery production. With massive growth in China, we are reaching peak cheap everything, so don't expect the average person will be able to afforded a car for much longer over here.
Also, it is simply too expensive to build the roadspace required for increased automobile. Mass transit, cycling and high-speed rail are the future, not electric cars.
Check out the latest Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation ...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:07 am
03 Dec 2007
Since nothing would allow for more serious action to be taken.
It's a lot harder to change policy than it is to create new policy.
And how much time would be wasted and how much more serious would the problem become before they are finally pushed to create a new policy?
Even if we get a new president who supports it, and a house and senate majority to back it, that's over a year away. And we have no assurances that would happen. We may end up with a house/senate/president that would be less willin' to endorse a bill than we do now. Then it'd be several more years at least.
All the while, the problem of climate change and pollution would continue to grow unabated by any new federal energy regulations whatsoever.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:22 am
03 Dec 2007
But then again this bill doesn't really even come into affect for one and a half decades.
THAT is time wasted.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:50 am
03 Dec 2007
It's not time wasted, and it's not like flippin' on a switch. For that entire decade and a half, the RES (and CAFE) standards would slowly be built upwards, until they reached their final goal. At which point (hopefully) a new bill would be passed with even higher standards, and it too would be phased in over a number of years.
But to stand by and hope for somethin' better, all the while with the "old" standards in place, really could be time wasted.
Permalink
rosweed Posted 12:28 pm
03 Dec 2007
Permalink
vball Posted 2:14 am
04 Dec 2007
Permalink
msvoner Posted 4:37 am
04 Dec 2007
Permalink
jpap100 Posted 8:29 pm
04 Dec 2007
Mr Dingell does the auto workers in our country a disservice. If Detroit does not quickly market products that are a lot more efficient, we will cede the industry(& the jobs) forever to foreign competitors, who have consistently beaten us on mileage.
The benefits of strong progressive leadership on energy independence are enormous to the environment, to good paying jobs in the auto industry as well as building and retrofitting our factories and commercial buildings, and ending wars for oil fueled by rapacious corporate greed.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:23 pm
05 Dec 2007
One of the reasons to eliminate that old-fashioned "infernal combustion" engine is the secondary effect it would have in slowing down civilization in general to a more moderate, healthful and peaceful pace in which living well is more important than living fast.
Permalink