Good Car-ma

House Democrats agree to raise auto fuel economy to 35 mpg

Posted at 9:31 AM on 01 Dec 2007

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."

sources: Associated Press, The New York Times

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (17 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Call and Raise

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.

by jabailo at 9:58 AM on 01 Dec 2007

is this it?

Are you kidding? 2020!? I recognize this is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. How about raising emissions to 35mpg by 2010. That would be progress.

by cyclendo at 8:41 AM on 02 Dec 2007

Chump change

We in the environmental movement are like deprived children or abused dogs. We will kiss the feet and hands of anyone who does not slap us. Throw us a few shiny pennies or a milk bone, and we are yours forever.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

by randino at 8:53 AM on 02 Dec 2007

not as it seems...

While 35 MPG by 2020 may sound good, isn't this a 'fleet average'? This would mean that say within the GM fleet of all cars and trucks they make, the average would have to be 35 MPG. So, they could continue to make Hummers and Escalades as long as they made a equal number of super hybrids or ? that got 50 + MPG.. Hybrid makes 55 MPG..Hummer makes 15 MPG. Fleet average is 35 MPG..!..Which qualifies under the new ruling. A real teeth proposal would be that all vehicles within a manufacturers fleet, individually get at least 35 MPG.. On a side note, the PT Cruiser is classified as an SUV so therefore its mileage balances out the other low mileage SUV's in the Daimler/Chrysler.. Real the small print...

Mike

by tamangel at 10:50 AM on 02 Dec 2007

Better than nothing...

Well, it's certainly better than nothin'.

Besides, I think that increasingly high fuel prices will probably keep many car companies (and most models) ahead of the curve on this one.

by Tasermons Partner at 11:05 AM on 02 Dec 2007

Dingell needs to act...

As mentioned in the article, Dingell tends to favor the automotive industry. We also have to recognize that Dingell receives the majority of his campaign money from the energy industry and that is one of the reasons why he voted against the August legislation containing new RES (Renewable Energy Standards). Is Dingell just pulling our chain this time too? Yes, CAFE standards are important. But those alone will not decrease our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, as advised by the UN's recent report on global warming/climate change. All the legislators involved in the new bill are being praised for their efforts but this is not completely deserved. I think we should hold off praise until Congress realizes that the climate is not going to fix itself, and they are the only ones with the power to make industries change their levels of pollution. The time is now Dingell!

by KELLIB at 6:48 PM on 02 Dec 2007

No, not better than nothing.

Well, it's certainly better than nothin'.

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.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 7:23 PM on 02 Dec 2007

Good Car-Ma

Wishful thinking, but the ideal solution would be to eliminate the internal combustion engine and replace its power with electricity produced by nuclear reaction, distributed by grid (service stations currently handling fossil fuel could be converted) and stored by quick re-charge in nanobatteries. Instead of auto companies spending huge sums on determining which colour would appeal most to the public every year along with annual changes to the silhouette to look more stream-lined, research money would put electric vehicles on the road before the smog could dissipate.

Des Emery

by Des Emery at 9:48 PM on 02 Dec 2007

Mass Transit and Cycling are the Future

Unfortunately fuel efficiency gains are typically negated by increases in vehicle size and distance driven.

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 ...

by racc at 10:38 PM on 02 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Time wasted...

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.

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.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:07 PM on 03 Dec 2007

You're talking about time

"Time"

But then again this bill doesn't really even come into affect for one and a half decades.

THAT is time wasted.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 6:22 PM on 03 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

It doesn't reach it's full effect...

...until one and a half decades. Any reasonable bill of this magnitude would haveta be phased in over several years. To require much more than 15% RES over a shorter period of time would really be pushin' it (though it'd be great if it did happen).

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.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:50 PM on 03 Dec 2007

This is a joke, right?

If it isn't then it just illustrates how far the the Democrats have sunk in their desire to be just like the big dogs, the Republicans. This is not progress. This not even compromise. This is rolling over and letting the big dog give you a little tummy rubbie. Please. Don't waste our time and our future with meaningless bullshit like this.

by rosweed at 7:28 PM on 03 Dec 2007

AMFA

Grist! Please cover the retention of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act rules for so-called fuel economy averaging! As long as this rule is maintained, companies can drastically alter their averages for the better merely by minimally altering their fleets to burn ethanol. There are several devils in the details.

by vball at 9:14 AM on 04 Dec 2007

2020

That's what I was going to say! Thirteen years is too long!

Safe Haven Mark

by msvoner at 11:37 AM on 04 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Baby Steps

While certainly a step in the right direction, we need 35MPG NOW not in 2020. Soccer-Mom SUV's should be held to the CAFE standards of passenger vehicles NOT commercial trucks.
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.

by jpap100 at 3:29 AM on 05 Dec 2007

Good Car-ma

Of course mass transit and cycling should be promoted, and heavily, along with changes in city and rural living habits.

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.

Des Emery

by Des Emery at 9:23 PM on 05 Dec 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?