Dude, Where’s My Truck? It’s Been Hijacked by Obama’s New Emission Standards
Posted May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm in Energy and Environment 
Print This Post
From ABCNews:
President Obama will issue the toughest emission and mileage standards in history for new cars sold in the United States on Tuesday, in a move environmentalists hail as the first step ever by the U.S. government to curb global warming.
President Obama will tomorrow announce a “historic” new policy involving new greenhouse gas emission standards and new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles sold in the US, sources tell ABC News.
Sources familiar with the changes tell ABC News the new national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard will require an average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by the year 2016 — four years ahead of schedule.”
Mandating new standards for cars and trucks gets at the issue of consumer choice. Consumers have a wide variety of choices when it comes to purchasing a vehicle; clearly, a number of smaller, fuel-efficient cars exist on the market today – including a growing number of hybrid vehicles. Americans use larger vehicles for practical reasons: to take their kids to soccer practice, to tow their boat to the shore, or on small farms to haul equipment or produce. At first glance, more miles-per-gallon may sound like a good thing, but not when it obliges consumers to make sacrifices elsewhere.
And for a struggling auto industry, it will cost more to retool plants and meet new efficiency requirements, which could be an invitation to more taxpayer-funded bailouts:
The companies will have to redesign their vehicles faster than planned to meet the 2016 target, ‘and that makes for a lot of expense because you can’t recoup the cost for whatever you’ve invested,’ said K.G. Duleep, managing director of consulting firm Energy & Environmental Analysis Inc. in Arlington, Virginia.”
Energy efficiency is a good thing, but it rarely works when the government forces standards on businesses. Although touted as a measure to curb global warming, fuel efficiency standards have very little environmental impact. Newer vehicles with better efficiency standards may emit less carbon dioxide per mile, but increased fuel efficiency often leads to more driving and new cars “constitute a miniscule source of overall carbon dioxide emissions.”
CAFE standards raise the price of the vehicle while making cars and trucks lighter, and ultimately, less safe. Heritage senior policy analyst Ben Lieberman writes,
In theory, consumers can save at the pump by being made to switch to more efficient vehicles, and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil imports. But doing so will raise sticker prices, and the costs could more than negate the energy savings.
Beyond costs, in order to meet the tough new CAFE standard, cars and trucks will need to be lighter, which makes them less safe in collisions. A National Academy of Sciences study concluded that vehicle downsizing costs 1,300 to 2,600 lives per year.”
New fuel efficiency standards come with a number of unintended consequences, and they will have very little, if any, effect on its actual intended consequence – to reduce global warming.
Author: 
16 Responses to “Dude, Where’s My Truck? It’s Been Hijacked by Obama’s New Emission Standards”
Fred Moolten, Pennsylvania on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Put in perspective, the new mileage standards should probably be seen as a small step forward, but by themselves will reduce CO2 emissions less than needed for a comprehensive CO2-mitigation program. However, an encouraging additional development is the announcement of planned major upgrades in the nation’s electricity grid, which will expedite the use of electric power for automobiles. Electricity is a far more efficient power source than the internal combustion engine, and the combination of an improved grid with the substitution of wind and solar energy for coal in generating most future electricity will go further than mileage standards alone to control carbon emissions at a level that contains future climate change and its consequences within tolerable limits.
The issue of costs is not irrelevant, but the Administration has appropriately decided that energy independence and climate change mitigation deserve priority. Higher automobile purchase costs are anticipated, but will be offset by lower fuel expenses. It’s also important to note that the new standards are averages, and do not preclude the purchase of cars, SUVs, or trucks that deviate from the average in the case of individuals or families who require such vehicles.
Larry, in the Republic of TEXAS on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Fuel efficient automobiles are not neccessariliy a BAD thing. They are however not the answer to the alledged “CRISIS” of global warming,IF there is ANY crisis at all! ANY, and I mean ANY, automotive technician, shade tree mechanic, or mechanical engineer will straight out TELL you that when an internal combustion engine is allowed to run at an even and constant speed, it operates more efficiently/cleaner.Whenever a “gas/fuel” fired engine operates in a “closed loop” cycle it’s volumetric efficiency increases to the point that an exhaust pipe would barely be needed!Meaning, that the engine would burn nearly ALL of the fuel that it consumes, leaving nothing to “emit” into the atmosphere. This bades the question of why WE hire foreign nationals to design and PIMP the structural and architectural blunders they call Freeways/Highways the general public attempts to use every day! When TRAFFIC starts moving at a constant and acceptable speed the “BROWN CLOUDS” over our metropolitan areas will lessen. A case in point would be the highways and roadways in the great “brown” state of California, and subsequently the enormous amount of pollutants that WE are forced to deal with on their behalf! They alledgedly do all they can to make vehicles “RUN CLEANER” by implementing stricter emissions standards than the REST of the Country! What they “ACTUALLY” acomplish is making the exhaust exit the tailpipes at higher temperatures. Talk about a warming EFFECT! The problem is obviously with the cart being in front of the horse, and they can’t see it throught the flies. I guess the next CRISIS the Californians will want us to”accept”, then to deal with, will be the “GREEN HOUSE” gases emitted by livestock grown for consumption! After all, grass and trees “clean” the air and all livestock does is EAT hte grass trees, then as nature would have it-”EXHAUST” happens!Both gaseous and solids. Maybe that’ll be the “next” REALLY intelligent legislation passed by the Liberals. They can start up another “Oversight Commtittee”, chaired by their very own “appointees”,who need a bully pulpit to cram their idiotic desires down our throats. Can’t you just hear the water cooler talk in the morning? “What do Ya think Earl? Did Ya see the mess on the way in this morning? That dang red Angus cow got all backed up behind her catalytic converter and finally blew it out on the West bound trail! Caused a real “pile up” for everyone else to get through! I made up my mind real quick that I wasn’t going through that mess.Yep, but that curly black haired Charlois punk wouldn’t let me over, so here I am, all up in it!! How ’boutcha Earl? Did Ya git through IT allright?” Maybe 4 years will be enough, if there’s any thing left to work with!
Worldbfree4me on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
I live in state of Texas where the sight of a 4×4 Power stroke Diesel with Dual Wheels being driven by a 5 foot over compensating runt is a common sight. These trucks do serve a purpose, but that runt and others are tearing the roads up and burning unnecessary fuel just to look cool! Hey, I have the money, by all means purchase what you want. But you have to pay the cost to be the boss. So an extra 2-3k should not be problem If you really need a truck for business or recreation and get another C.P.A.if you can’t figure out how offset the added cost coming by 2016. I digress, this excessive consumption causes me and fellow neighbors to pay more at the pump and adds more wear and tear to our cars by driving on these harsh roads.I propose a tax on all vehicles weighing in excess of 2 tons to help mitigate road work and other related cost.
Thomas, Anchorage, AK on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Fred, electric vehicles are not the future for the automobile. LNG vehicles are the near future. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are the distant future. Wind and solar electricity to power vehicles? Laughable. Beyond the fact that the charging of even a modest electric vehicle takes several hours, wind and solar sources simply can’t provide enough power for enough time for enough people.
Hydrogen is our future.
Todd, California on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Sadly, you are either misleading people on purpose, or just stupid.
The CAFE standard applies on a national average based upon sales. Thus, we granola eating liberals in California and buy electric smart cars (when they make them) and folks in Pennsylvania and Denver can still drive their trucks.
Sad that you don’t even do your homework before you post something like this. But perhaps you are not intending to inform, but rather simply inflame. (Even sadder.)
Barb -mn on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
It should be freedom of choice of business and the freedom of choice of the consumer.
Not Obama mandated! He has no right taking the threat of the environmentalists man-made global warming hoax to a detriment when it isn’t.
Mark on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Isn’t it great? Obama now is going to tax the little guy he said he wasn’t going to tax by 1300 dollars a vehicle. Take a look at my blog to see what your next vehicle might look like.
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2009/05/lets-just-finish-off-auto-industry-once.html
Nan on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Obama wants us to sacrifice and suffer and feel ashamed for wanting a good life. The way that he speaks, I am surprised that he hasn’t utter the statement that driving is a luxury, not a privledge! Do you think that the city bus will let me on with my two dogs, 20 bags of landscaping mulch, 5 new shrubs, 10 bags of groceries, and my dry cleaning? I surely can’t get it in one of these little toy cars!
I can’t wait until we are forced into driving these putt putt cars. It will take 3 of them to go on a family vacation. I guess we can use the cell phone to converse with each other along the way.
I guess it’s time to realize that when we drop down to a third world country status we may be saved from our sins of being a culture of achievers, and dreamers.
The socialist’s are targeting everything that makes our country the greatest country on the planet. We as citizens have to start asking for the proof of global warming, and we should not let them use their own paid scientists that they instruct to find some evidence that fits their agenda. This is a favorite trick of politicians that has been going on for a long time. The real story is that global warming is not a tied up, done deal. No one at this time should be talking about taxing more, spending more, and restricting more. We have to stop being so naive!
Ken Grubb, Puyallup, WA on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
The 2010 Ford Fusion hybrid has an EPA rating of 41 MPG city, 36 MPG highway, and I believe 39 MPG combined. It meets the 2016 CAFE standard now, and it’s a mid sized car–not a micro car.
All this does is force the car makers into doing something they were already doing in order to survive when the price of gas was $4 a gallon.
They’re going to build more hybrids and make plugin hybrids from some models.
The current standard of 27.5 MPG has been there since 1990. We’re long overdue for this change.
Thomas, Anchorage, AK on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Todd, please elaborate on what is misleading.
If you haven’t seen it, here is the derivation of the CAFE equation:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm
I am glad that California stands to lose its asinine and presumptuous control over fuel economy. The automakers must meet federal standards for safety and that should hold true for fuel economy.
Something I would like to see is a recognition of the lie that is E85. When compared mile for mile, E85 emits more oxides of nitrogen and other emissions. This is not only due to chemical design, but to the fact that the engine must use more of the fuel because it is less volatile than gasoline.
AgossyTeKToob on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Nothing interesting, buy thank you. azvpo124
Seth from Washington on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
I don’t think hybrid cars are going to be a worthwhile solution. They’re expensive to make and have a lot more parts that are difficult to recycle. In 10 years or so, there will be millions of dead hybrid batteries to deal with, and I doubt we’ll have dealt with the problem until then. Hydrogen really does seem like the only viable long term solution.
I also don’t think it’s necessarily a right to drive any car you want. Sure if you have the money nothing’s stopping you from buying a Hummer, but is it a responsible thing to do? And no, driving your kid’s to soccer practice doesn’t justify getting an SUV. I’m sure all the Go-gurt, chocolate milk and folding chairs could fit in a regular sized car.
Bruce Hall, Michigan on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
I wrote about the unreasonable and unattainable 30 mpg light truck mandate by the EPA. Using the example of the 2010 GMC Sierra hybrid light truck that gets about 20.5 mpg overall, it is obvious that the 30 mpg standard cannot be met by existing technology unless a lot of very small vehicles are classified light trucks to offset the shortfall from the full-sized light trucks… the volume leaders in that segment.
I also wrote that if the EPA gave each non-petroleum fueled vehicle an arbitrary rating of 150 mpg that the standard might be met with a full push toward compressed natural gas powered vehicles (CNG). There is precedent within the existing regulations. One solution:
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/05/natural-gas-fuel-alternative-for-trucks.html
IQ-Kanone on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
I cannot believe this is true!
buy_vigrxplus on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
The best information i have found exactly here. Keep going Thank you
ElenaLisvato on May 19th, 2009 at 12:52pm said:
Nice post! GA is also my biggest earning. However, it’s not a much.