| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Obama announces fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. trucks, buses |
| 2011-08-10 |
(KUNA) - President Barack B.O.Obama met with industry officials on Tuesday to discuss the first-of-their-kind fuel efficiency and greenhouse-gas pollution standards for work trucks, buses and other heavy-duty vehicles. These are designed, of course, to make us more competetive. A stimulus like this to industry should create thousands of jobs... The White House meeting marked the administration's announcement of the standards, which will save American businesses that operate and own these commercial vehicles approximately 50 billion dollars in fuel costs over the life of the program, according to the White House. The "life of the program" stretches from today to infinity. When the Archangel Gabriel shows up to honk the Last Trumpet it will be in a government-approved, fuel-efficient chariot. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the standards in close coordination with the companies that met with Obama, as well as other stakeholders, following requests from companies to develop the program. "What companies?" "Diff'rent companies!" The cost savings for American businesses are on top of the 1.7 trillion dollars that American families will save at the pump from the fuel-efficiency standards announced by the administration for cars and light-duty trucks, including the model year 2017-2025 agreement announced by the President last month, the White House announcement said. Right. The fuel's gonna cost a lot more, but cars'll go further on it. You're sure to get somewhere around 300 miles out of a tank... "While we were working to improve the efficiency of cars and light-duty trucks, something interesting happened," Obama said. "We started getting letters asking that we do the same for medium and heavy-duty trucks. They were from the people who build, buy and drive these trucks. And today, I am proud to have the support of these companies as we announce the first-ever national policy to increase fuel efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas pollution from medium-and heavy-duty trucks." Under the comprehensive new national program, trucks and buses built in 2014 through 2018 will reduce oil consumption by a projected 530 million barrels and greenhouse gas pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons. The program - which relies heavily on off-the-shelf technologies - was developed in coordination with truck and engine manufacturers, fleet owners, the state of Caliphornia, environmental groups and other stakeholders. The DOT/EPA program will include a range of targets specific to the diverse vehicle types and purposes. Vehicles are divided into three major categories: combination tractors (semi-trucks), heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles (like transit buses and refuse trucks). Within each of those categories, even more specific targets are laid out based on the design and purpose of the vehicle. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #34 Grammar police on patrol: "I shutter to think" That should be "shudder to think". Remedial classes for you! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2011-08-10 23:22 |
| #33 Regarding trucks, I imagine you'll see a massive movement of the entire trucking industry to the Mexican side of the border where the standards are a bit more lax. NAFTA will allow those same trucks to go anywhere they need to go. Yeah Mexico is a warzone but the trucks only need to be registered there, they don't actually need to spend much time there. To me that's yet another reason to ditch NAFTA. AND put in place tariffs. If the bastards are going to legislate poverty for those of us who actually DO stuff by exporting Yet Another Goddamn Industry, let's close all the free trade loopholes that let them keep THEIR wealth, and we can all eat fucking dirt TOGETHER, EQUALLY. Let's see if they're still in the mood to eat dirt for the precious environment if THEIR children will have to do it too. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-08-10 22:17 |
| #32 Regarding trucks, I imagine you'll see a massive movement of the entire trucking industry to the Mexican side of the border where the standards are a bit more lax. NAFTA will allow those same trucks to go anywhere they need to go. Yeah Mexico is a warzone but the trucks only need to be registered there, they don't actually need to spend much time there. Regarding cars, you remove all the safety requirements forced into the cars in the last thirty years you can make the new fuel-standards fairly easily. If not, well they are going to have to use lighter, stronger metals for their frames. Smart Car is a giant roll-cage surrounding a toy. Its actually supposed to be safe. Do that and you can probably make the rest of the car out of tin foil or something else (Mylar?) : http://broadbandsports.com/node/28635 Buses, well a lot are electric or propane anyway. School buses should all go biodiesel and reuse the cooking oil from the cafeteria and cooking class or something. Perhaps give McDonald's some kind of incentive to donate their cooking oil. Really don't know about busses. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-08-10 20:00 |
| #31 19 mpg in a 2010 Ford Explorer, but I avoid the lead foot on the brakes and the gas. 20 mpg on a recent road trip, at 75 mph+, most of the way. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-08-10 19:08 |
| #30 If we are going to legislate fixes by just making up numbers, why don't we simply change the laws of thermodynamics? That's the *real* problem. I blame the Carnot Cycle. And George Bush. And of course, the Juice. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2011-08-10 18:56 |
| #29 Funny, this piece of shit asshole troll wants to blame US for the inefficiencies of domestic vehicles when it's the EPA that's more or less kept _functional_ fuel efficient vehicles off the market by creating regulations that mean anything with high enough combustion temperatures to be sufficiently fuel-efficient are basically illegal here. The last two generations of European economy diesel cars were never marketed in the US because they couldn't be sold in CA, and the Zero Administration decided to make CA's smog abatement rules nationwide. He seems to enjoy blaming the people who actually have to do physical work for everything that goes wrong and credits the writers of laws for everything that goes right. It's just bullshit. I expect all this shit to never really get implemented because the US is going to go into receivership anyway. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-08-10 16:11 |
| #28 I drive a Smart Car to work and back. I get about 44mpg and on windy days I have to keep both hands on the steering wheel to keep in in one lane. The jury is still out on how it will do in snow but it held up very well against a deer. It won't, however, pull my two horses over the mountain to the 4-lane highway. It won't even pull them out of the barnyard. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-08-10 14:52 |
| #27 Day after day there is more scientific evidence that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is a fraud, and that CO2 is not causing a rise in temperature. Day after day the OBumble administration keeps shoving "green" (I.E., Watermelon) laws down our throats. There WILL be a day of reckoning, and when that day comes, a lot of "greens" will be hanged, shot, run down, or driven into the ground by the rest of us that are tired of their sh$$. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2011-08-10 14:50 |
| #26 If they want to sell vehicles outside the US, they could build a line without needing a law. You cannot put a heavy load onto a lightweight underpowered truck/tractor, not only would it be dangerous to decelerate but will lift the front axle smokey. Ever use a light car on snow/ice? Ever needed a bit of oommph to escape that poor merge situation? So, waivers for those who can petition for them. Big Auto gets money from the gov to develop the next generation of volts. IIUC all the auto has to do is bring the average fuel efficiency of their available product line up to this minimum so we get some busy work for unions, which will increase the payroll of the company, which will overprice those vechicles they would export overseas....or just have them built overseas and keep the money over there. The cost is labor and if the employer cannot tailor the workforce as necessary the business begins to lose money by paying multiple people for a single seat, and in this case at premium wages and benifits. People overseas love American cars, seen them, sometimes they have troubles fitting in the road, but the drivers always have big ol shiteating grins on their faces. Problem is they are a luxury good because by the time it is built (US COGS + % profit) and transported, then taxed by the receiving company, what was alread expensive compared with the citron or moped or taxi/PT becomes fucking rediculous. What we should have is the choice to select what is appropriate. A commuter in SoCal may want that lightweight fuel efficient car. A commuter on I-70 may find that light weight not just a hassle but boucoup dangerous in a typical 40 mph gusting crosswind. A cowboy hauling a horse trailor is going to want that extra weight and power. Universities will want those quiet efficient buses which need only to trolly little students from campus to coffee dive. If all that makes sense, then why the law, the arguement makes itself without a government jockey with a whip stick. Furthermore, the current stock of these lightweight vehicles are more dangerous not only because of their lack of weight, but because the lightweight alloys they are using a quickly becoming too difficult for rescue workers to cut especially as they are becoming more and more surrounded with air bag bombs. As said, this is just salesmanship. You got sold fool. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-08-10 14:19 |
| #25 ...but more to the point that your competitors (Euro and Asia) are making more efficient (and, frankly, higher quality) vehicles than you You do know that Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissens are also built in the United States? And that some of those rubbish 'American' cars are actually built in Windsor Ont. Well at least they've been classified as American built for some reason that only a properly bought and sold politician could write into the laws and regulations. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-10 13:51 |
| #24 Well, it seems to me that if there is such a thing as a sleek, fuel efficient EUROTRAM that can compete in a real world market on the basis of miles-per-dollar then Americans would be buying them and using them. It's called competition in the free market...as opposed to central government planning of the entire economy as practiced with such devastating results in the USSR and so admired by certain Canadian and American liberal loonies. With the price of fuel what it is, the companies that can build the most fuel efficient, capable and dependable vehicles will sell them as has Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, etc. Companies that produce rickety, diesel guzzling vehicles will fall by the wayside...er, that is, unless the government bails them and their union workers out. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-08-10 13:20 |
| #23 ...and 0bummer wonders why businesses aren't hiring. Here's just one more reason! |
| Posted by: Mikey Hunt 2011-08-10 13:10 |
| #22 Congrats! We'll be thinking of you when gas is 8 bucks a gallon... |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-10 12:37 |
| #21 Yes, but only through government legislation (e.g. The Clean Air Act). The point is not that there hasn't been improvements in fuel efficiencies in American vehicles, but more to the point that your competitors (Euro and Asia) are making more efficient (and, frankly, higher quality) vehicles than you. Do you not want to sell your shit outside the US?? I guess Obama does, but you dinos don't...Enjoy your 10 Trillion and counting... |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-10 12:36 |
| #20 I can beat that. 13 MPG from a 2011 F150 Raptor. Take that! |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2011-08-10 12:32 |
| #19 My car (Tyota) Gets 37 MPG, excep for a short Lived(10Years)hybrid, BEAT THAT? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-08-10 11:22 |
| #18 The bureaucracy operates as shadow government that forces huge costs on the States and the public with little oversight. They usurp the power of the other branches of government. Congress is FULLY complicit in this 'usurpation.' A simple modification to the Clean Air act saying the EPA may not regulate CO2 emissions would more than suffice. It won't happen. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-10 11:13 |
| #17 I thought he said a checking your "tire pressure" was all that was needed. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-08-10 11:00 |
| #16 Just add to the crap from the last 3 years that must be repealed when adults are again at the levers of power. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-08-10 10:32 |
| #15 have an honest |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-08-10 09:21 |
| #14 President Barack B.O. Obama met with industry officials on Tuesday to discuss the first-of-their-kind fuel efficiency and greenhouse-gas pollution standards for work trucks, buses and other heavy-duty vehicles. The standards will be accompanied by an increase in the resumption of oil operations in the Gulf, exploration in the U.S., and the drilling for new oil and gas in the U.S. to make us energy independent and increase jobs. Scratch the last paragraph. Sorry, I was just engaging in a fantasy this a.m. Cannot we not have honest impact statement required for the EPA (just as they require for the public) and other Federal agencies before they are allowed to regulate anything? The bureaucracy operates as shadow government that forces huge costs on the States and the public with little oversight. They usurp the power of the other branches of government. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-08-10 09:21 |
| #13 This is classic rent-seeking by the big truck companies so that they can put the independents out of business, dressed up as 'environmental policy'. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-08-10 09:15 |
| #12 and less safe |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-08-10 08:45 |
| #11 We will use less fuel, pay more for it, and pay more for the vehicles with less payload. You cannot legislate the laws of physics. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-08-10 08:31 |
| #10 Tell me something, what dillusionary planet our you people living on? Proof that the left lives in an alternate universe. In 1970 there were 200 million Americans, today there are 300 million and the air and water are cleaner than they were in 1970. The standards were met and exceeded only to have the bureaucrats continuously jack up the standards to justify their existence. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-10 08:10 |
| #9 Ops Of. This just in "9,450 fewer restaurants in the U.S. than there were last year". This is just restaurants. I shutter to think how bad its been for others. Some chains but mostly independents. I'll bet you they held out as long as they could. It's their "baby". So they are dead broke in most cases.Bankruptcy protection so suppliers or creditors have loss a bundle. |
| Posted by: Dale 2011-08-10 07:28 |
| #8 "was developed in coordination with truck and engine manufacturers, fleet owners, the state of California, environmental groups and other stakeholders". Another con job. I don't believe a word of it. Always claims savings but we will never see it. South of the boarder chaps will just drive on by exempt. Just mentioning California tells the story. Fire trucks, military, this is so invasive. Many will retire, quit as independents. Only large fleets will make it with government wavers and bailouts. DOT and EPA will be the ones who will get all the jobs. When has this administration been accurate on anything. More job losses I guarantee. Companies and people are being bled dry now. Who will have the resources to replace equipment because everything will cost so much more. Government is coming at us from every direction. Pay per mile, tolls, registration fees, insurance, fuel taxes, payroll taxes and fines galore. I just got out business because I saw this coming but it wasn't the main reason. Many are just walking away. The government is killing enterprise. |
| Posted by: Dale 2011-08-10 06:53 |
| #7 Yep. No question about it. As a Canadian, I'd rather have our local bus company overpay for rickety, diesel-guzzling A-MER-I-CAN buses than the nice, sleek, fuel-efficient Euro-trams. Tell me something, what dillusionary planet our you people living on? |
| Posted by: Shakey Steve 2011-08-10 06:46 |
| #6 More community organizing. |
| Posted by: gr(o)mgoru 2011-08-10 03:37 |
| #5 IN RUSSIAN, MORIARITY, FTLG + MILA KUNIS IN THE QUEEN'S RUSSIAN!!! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-08-10 02:25 |
| #4 IIRC FREEREPUBLIC > OBAMA CALLS FOR MORE STIMULUS SPENDING. QE3 = To Infinity-n-Beyond ...??? D *** NG IT, CAN'T WE JUST WRITE OFF THE DEBT = PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST, LIKE NORMAL AMERIKAN SOVIETS WID NORMAL SOVIET COM/GOSPLANS! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-08-10 02:24 |
| #3 @9mil motor gasoline per day gasoline? 530 Mil Barrels over 4 (5?) years? Did my math go stupid, or is this a massive bill to be passed down, on gov rules, to those who pay for services? Does it save, fuel or pollution-wise, to ship a flat of hay bales 1/3 across the country in one trip on a rig with Horsepower, or 3 rigs of the same capacity? And I'm gonna stop right there. Who is going to make the parts, I understand Assembled in America, but Made in America? EPA don't want no talk talk talk All it want Bang bang bang. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-08-10 00:54 |
| #2 "Archangel Gabriel" > Uh, uh, MADONNA'S "LIKE A PRAYER" VIDEO ['cept no Wings]??? gut nuthin. D **** NGED ARCHANGELS = EX-POTUS GEORGE "HERBIE" BUSH 1 [Gulf War] = ALWAYS DRAWING "LINES IN THE SAND"! Said it then, will say it now in 2011 = LESS SAND, MORE MADONNA IN SKIVVIES! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-08-10 00:27 |
| #1 On the surfac a GOOD bill, subsurface aother story alltogether, New trucks will be legislated OFF the highway, FORCING replacement. All together a BAD BILL.Designed to create sales through Legislation, not need. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-08-10 00:20 |