Just What Auto Industry Needs. Obama Emissions Tax

[Suburban]

The dealerships will be thrilled that carbuyers will have to pony up another $1300 towards new vehicles.

Obama to tap consumers for emission, mpg standards

President Barack Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 -- all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said Monday night.

The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting a single national standard and more time to make the changes.

The plan still must clear regulatory hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. The administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the formal announcement by Obama was scheduled for Tuesday.

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel efficient by the end of the program, according to officials familiar with the administration's discussions. The officials also spoke on condition of anonymity because the formal announcement had not been made.

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700 for mileage standards that had already been approved. The comprehensive Obama plan would add another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said.

The extra miles would come at roughly a 5 percent increase each year. By the time the plan takes full effect, at the end of 2016, new vehicles would cost an extra $1,300.

The cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers who choose a standard 60-month car loan if gas prices follow government projections, according to one official.

In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 -- the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond.

The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment.

A 2007 energy law requires carmakers to meet at least 35 mpg by 2020, a 40 percent increase over the current standard of about 25 mpg. Passenger car requirements have remained unchanged at 27.5 mpg since 1985, drawing complaints from environmental groups that the government has been slow to push automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.

But industry officials -- many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars -- said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.

"For us, that clarity, not having to address a patchwork of conflicting laws and regulations across our country, is a significant win," said David McCurdy, a former Oklahoma congressman who leads the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group which represents 11 vehicle manufacturers.

Auto executives, including General Motors Corps. CEO Fritz Henderson, and executives from Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Daimler AG and others planned to attend the White House event. United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger also planned to attend.

Henderson said the automaker, which faces a June 1 deadline by which it may be forced to file bankruptcy, was "fully committed" to the administration's approach. His company and Chrysler LLC have received billions in government loans during a dramatic downturn in car sales and weakened economy.

Toyota Motor Sales USA President James Lentz also issued a statement in support of the single benchmark.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, praised the move, which allows him to declare victory on policy and dodge a tricky budget question on how to pay for it.

"Today, we're seeing what happens when California leads on energy and the environment and doesn't waiver, doesn't get bogged down, doesn't let obstacles get in the way," Schwarzenegger said.

It also provides a reason for Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat who is being considered for the Supreme Court vacancy, to visit the White House. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Granholm's visit was primarily for the autos event but wouldn't comment if she would meet with Obama about the soon-to-be-vacant court position.

A March 2008 decision prevents states from setting their own limits on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, but Obama has ordered the EPA to reconsider the ruling.

The EPA was already working toward establishing federal greenhouse gas emissions standards for new motor vehicles when it made a preliminary determination in April that six greenhouse gases -- four of which are released from automobiles -- endanger human health and welfare.

Before the new Obama proposals would even have a chance at being implemented, the EPA would have to approve those findings. Hearings began on Monday.

I can't wait to get my new people's-car/clown-car. At least I'll know that I'm helping prevent "global warming."

[zoom]

35.5 MPG? That's pretty optimistic, especially for trucks.

So if this does pass we can look forward to slow, hideous looking cars that are a awful to drive. But what if you want something different like a sports car? The really high priced toys already have a gas guzzler tax of up to $7700. Would this regulate them out of existence?

http://suvs.about.com/od/fueleconomy...gasguzzler.htm

[Morel42]

Meh.. Anything to that reduces oil need i'm all for..

With some exemptions given to things such as high torque utility trucks. People just have to get over the "I want 300 Horsepower for my daily commuter" mentality.

Hell, I get 32-35 MPG highway with my 2003 Turbo 4 Door Sedan 220hp car that weighs 4200lbs.. Of course thats with a manual which only 1 in 10 people even know how to use anymore( How'd THAT happen!?)
It's not impossible.. You'll start seeing more cars with small turbos to make up HP loss from smaller displacement engines..

[cigarmanpa]

Meh.. Anything to that reduces oil need i'm all for..

With some exemptions given to things such as high torque utility trucks. People just have to get over the "I want 300 Horsepower for my daily commuter" mentality.

Hell, I get 32-35 MPG highway with my 2003 Turbo 4 Door Sedan 220hp car that weighs 4200lbs.. Of course thats with a manual which only 1 in 10 people even know how to use anymore( How'd THAT happen!?)
It's not impossible.. You'll start seeing more cars with small turbos to make up HP loss from smaller displacement engines..

while I do not agree with your thoughts on this issue I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

and on that note, I'll be back in a bit, I need to go rip the cats off my car

[PocketProtector]

Can't wait for the unveiling of that first GMC YUGO !! and the Chrysler YUGO !!

[Legion_Prime]

Meh.. Anything to that reduces oil need i'm all for..

With some exemptions given to things such as high torque utility trucks. People just have to get over the "I want 300 Horsepower for my daily commuter" mentality.

Hell, I get 32-35 MPG highway with my 2003 Turbo 4 Door Sedan 220hp car that weighs 4200lbs.. Of course thats with a manual which only 1 in 10 people even know how to use anymore( How'd THAT happen!?)
It's not impossible.. You'll start seeing more cars with small turbos to make up HP loss from smaller displacement engines..

Hey, I have no problem with wanting to save a few bucks on a tank of gas. What I don't like is the government stepping in and telling me what I cannot own. Them telling me I cannot mount chainsaws on my hubcaps and cover my bumpers and fenders in Rambo knives is one thing, telling me that it needs to meet some ridiculous standard based upon controversial speculation with little to no scientific basis for their claims is something completely different. Reducing oil consumption is another fallacy, here in the lower 48 we have over 8 times the oil of Saudi Arabia (and these are conservative estimates indeed) means that we are in no danger whatsoever of running out of oil anytime in the near future.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
For example, I bought a 78 Ford. This is far more economical and easier on the environment than a Prius. The Prius is made of large amounts of plastics (bad for the environment right?) not to mention all the chemicals in the batteries (Even I don't want to deal with the shit they make batteries with) whereas mine was built over 30 years ago and probably has less plastic than the interior of a Prius in total, the rest is metal (for the most part) recycling not really needed, just feed it into the smelter like you would any other form of metal. I actually save money by not buying a Prius, even though I get worse fuel milage. I get 18MPG more or less, the Prius gets 30MPG. lets budget $25 for a tank of gas and say I need to fill up weekly and the Prius biweekly (Prius milage suffers on the highway). I paid about a grand for my car, the prius, even a couple years old is between 20 and 30 grand, lets go with 20K. I am up 19K right off the bat. Insurance for me is negligible, about $30 a month (comprehensive with towing and rental coverage), for a new Prius I'm guessing about 5x that, 150 a month or so. Lets see where we are in 10 years.
Ford- 13000 for gas 15600 for insurance
Prius- 6500 for gas 78000 for insurance
Looks like I am up over 55K, on top of the 19K I saved initially. And this is not including repairs and maintenance. I guarantee that I will make out like a bandit there as well on merely routine maintenance costs without even getting into the numerous problem associated with the Prius.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/autom...ota_prius.html
And I don't even want to look up what it will cost if any of the batteries ever needs to be replaced, better have a spare kidney hanging around.
I'll take my old dirty gas guzzling Ford over a pretty pretty prius any day.

[ALS]

Hell, I get 32-35 MPG highway with my 2003 Turbo 4 Door Sedan 220hp car that weighs 4200lbs.. Of course that's with a manual which only 1 in 10 people even know how to use anymore( How'd THAT happen!?)
It's not impossible.. You'll start seeing more cars with small turbos to make up HP loss from smaller displacement engines..

Yep? Do you know what a Prius or Honda Hybrid gets on average running on E10 Gas? About 41-42 mpg.

Yes your car gets 32-35 on the highway but what does it get running in and urban environment? Remember it isn't what it gets on the highway it is what it gets in a combined mode.

Yes my Volvo 960 2.9L 24V 181 HP gets 29.5 mph on the highway. BUT it only gets about 15-16 running around Pittsburgh minus any highway use.
Combined mileage according to the EPA is 19 mpg.

Think about this one while you are applauding the great O one.

A Chevrolet Cobalt 4 cylinder with an automatic has a EPA rating of 27 mpg combined. A Ford Focus 4 cylinder with an automatic also has a combined rating of 27 mpg.

A Malibu with 4 cylinder and an automatic is rated at 25 mpg.
and a Ford Fusion with a 4 cylinder and an automatic is rated at 23 mpg.

Kiss the rest of the American automobile industry good bye by 2016 if they can't increase fleet gas mileage in the next six years by a minimum of 75% to 100% over 2009 fuel mileage.

[adymond]

Meh.. Anything to that reduces oil need i'm all for..

With some exemptions given to things such as high torque utility trucks. People just have to get over the "I want 300 Horsepower for my daily commuter" mentality.

Hell, I get 32-35 MPG highway with my 2003 Turbo 4 Door Sedan 220hp car that weighs 4200lbs.. Of course thats with a manual which only 1 in 10 people even know how to use anymore( How'd THAT happen!?)
It's not impossible.. You'll start seeing more cars with small turbos to make up HP loss from smaller displacement engines..

I am also all for reducing our dependence on oil, but I am completely opposed to the idea that the government has the authority to impose their will on what ideals I am allowed to hold. If I want a vehicle with 500 freaking hp and 350 ft/lbs of torque the government has not authority to force me to give that up.

If you want a car with gas mileage like that great. Go find one. Don't force me to find one too though. I will give up 10 mpg for more power any day of the week.

I can't find it now, but MSN had a story yesterday about how terrible the crash tests were for the ultra compact cars. [Tinfoil hat application]Gee I wonder if it's just a coincidence that I can't find it today when they are announcing that we will all be driving one of them in the next 10 years.[/tinfoil hat application]

[••SpraynPray••]

Hey, I have no problem with wanting to save a few bucks on a tank of gas. What I don't like is the government stepping in and telling me what I cannot own. Them telling me I cannot mount chainsaws on my hubcaps and cover my bumpers and fenders in Rambo knives is one thing, telling me that it needs to meet some ridiculous standard based upon controversial speculation with little to no scientific basis for their claims is something completely different. Reducing oil consumption is another fallacy, here in the lower 48 we have over 8 times the oil of Saudi Arabia (and these are conservative estimates indeed) means that we are in no danger whatsoever of running out of oil anytime in the near future.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
For example, I bought a 78 Ford. This is far more economical and easier on the environment than a Prius. The Prius is made of large amounts of plastics (bad for the environment right?) not to mention all the chemicals in the batteries (Even I don't want to deal with the shit they make batteries with) whereas mine was built over 30 years ago and probably has less plastic than the interior of a Prius in total, the rest is metal (for the most part) recycling not really needed, just feed it into the smelter like you would any other form of metal. I actually save money by not buying a Prius, even though I get worse fuel milage. I get 18MPG more or less, the Prius gets 30MPG. lets budget $25 for a tank of gas and say I need to fill up weekly and the Prius biweekly (Prius milage suffers on the highway). I paid about a grand for my car, the prius, even a couple years old is between 20 and 30 grand, lets go with 20K. I am up 19K right off the bat. Insurance for me is negligible, about $30 a month (comprehensive with towing and rental coverage), for a new Prius I'm guessing about 5x that, 150 a month or so. Lets see where we are in 10 years.
Ford- 13000 for gas 15600 for insurance
Prius- 6500 for gas 78000 for insurance
Looks like I am up over 55K, on top of the 19K I saved initially. And this is not including repairs and maintenance. I guarantee that I will make out like a bandit there as well on merely routine maintenance costs without even getting into the numerous problem associated with the Prius.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/autom...ota_prius.html
And I don't even want to look up what it will cost if any of the batteries ever needs to be replaced, better have a spare kidney hanging around.
I'll take my old dirty gas guzzling Ford over a pretty pretty prius any day.

w00t, I like your logic and I agree 1 kabillion % !

[Eugene V. Debs]

I am also all for reducing our dependence on oil, but I am completely opposed to the idea that the government has the authority to impose their will on what ideals I am allowed to hold. If I want a vehicle with 500 freaking hp and 350 ft/lbs of torque the government has not authority to force me to give that up.

If you want a car with gas mileage like that great. Go find one. Don't force me to find one too though. I will give up 10 mpg for more power any day of the week.

I can't find it now, but MSN had a story yesterday about how terrible the crash tests were for the ultra compact cars. [Tinfoil hat application]Gee I wonder if it's just a coincidence that I can't find it today when they are announcing that we will all be driving one of them in the next 10 years.[/tinfoil hat application]

So do you believe, then, that operation of a motor vehicle is a right and not a privilege? If so, we should probably chuck drivers' licenses while we're at it.