Traffic moves along the Santa Monica Freeway in Los Angeles in this July 3, 2008 photo. The Bush administration blocked California from imposing its own regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. Now, the Obama administration is using California's template as a national standard.
(Kevork Djansezian/AP/File)Photos (1 of 1)
Obama to launch landmark auto emissions standards
The plan will establish nationwide benchmarks for carbon emissions and fuel efficiency.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer/ May 18, 2009 edition
President Obama is moving to regulate, for the first time, one of the world’s biggest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions: the cars and trucks on US roads.
That plan, as outlined in news reports Monday, would represent a major regulatory shift affecting the environment, a struggling industry, and millions of American consumers.
Mr. Obama is expected to announce the details Tuesday, calling for both a reduction in carbon emissions and a stepped up timetable for improving traditional fuel economy. US fleets will have to average 35 miles per gallon by 2016, four years faster than currently planned. The current average is 27.5 miles per gallon.
The president’s plan is also designed to bring the whole country under a single standard, moving away from a patchwork system that could become increasingly difficult for car manufacturers. California and 12 other states had already attempted to set up their own regulatory standard for greenhouse-gas emissions.
Together, the moves highlight the importance of two priorities for the Obama administration: improving US energy efficiency and acting to control climate change.
At the same time, the effort poses challenges for another key White House goal: reviving the economy. It promises to add to sticker prices at car dealerships at a time when car sales – an important part of the US retail economy – have plunged 40 percent in the past year. And the move will demand new investments by carmakers, even as those firms are shedding tens of thousands of workers and fighting for survival.
“One positive is that they are looking at a federal rule, as opposed to a state-by-state patchwork,” says Rebecca Lindland, an auto industry analyst at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Mass.
That should simplify planning for the struggling manufacturers, although the cost of the new regulations could mitigate that benefit.
Obama has long argued that the goals of having a greener economy and a thriving one are not contradictory.
In the car industry, he hopes that federal aid will help the automakers fund new technologies, and that federal tax incentives will help consumers buy cleaner cars. In a speech last month in Iowa, he pointed to a new tax credit of up to $7,500 to encourage Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.
“We have to create the incentives for companies to develop the next generation of clean-energy vehicles – and for Americans to drive them, particularly as the US auto industry moves forward on a historic restructuring that can position it for a more prosperous future,” Obama said.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California hailed the plan and her home state’s leading role.
“I am very pleased by the reports that the Obama administration has brought together the federal government, the State of California, and the auto industry behind new national automobile-emissions standards that follow California’s lead,” Senator Boxer said in a statement Monday. “This is good news for all of us who have fought long and hard to reduce global warming pollution, create clean energy jobs, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.”
Comments
2. Allen | 05.18.09
I suppose improving the fuel efficiency of automobiles will help. There are other issues to look at as well. Timing the traffic lights on major thoroughfares would be a good start (post signage “lights timed for xx MPH”). Might cut down on wrecks too.
3. Dennis | 05.18.09
Reports say that the automobile industry is going to team up with “Nerf” to make lighter and safer vehicles. 
5. Sharon Mohler | 05.18.09
I do not understand why the car manufacturers are not chalenged on this point. I have a 2000 Toyota Echo. It has 63,000 miles on it . I bought it because it got 41 MPH, it still does. It is a dandy little car that easily accomodates 5 pasengers. In the 80s VW Rabbits got 53 MPG. There are still some of them on the road.
I found the Echo because I was going from dealer to see for myselfe what was available.Three people that I know bought an Echo because they liked mine so much. 2000 was the same year that they came out w/ the Prius. It got 45 MPG and cost $5000.00 more.
I had the Toyota a whole year before I seen an ad for it .They only made the Echo for a coupple of years.
Ask any driver over the age of 45 and they will have other cars to tell you about that got 40 or more MPG. How do they get away w / saying that it can’t be done ,when it HAS been done.
6. Todd | 05.18.09
My car is a 1993 mazda 323 and I still get an average of 38 MPG. I’ll bet this law just forces me to by a new car.
7. Mikes Logical tip | 05.18.09
Cars of the mid to late 1980″s could get 50 and 60 MPG with 1 Liter 3 cylinder engines. The Porsh a sports car in 88 got 25 in the city and 50 on the highway with its 5 speed manual transmission, it had a powerful engine which moved it to speeds of around 2oo MPH. All a car needs is a large overdrive in there transmission to great milage on the highway like the porch.
8. foo | 05.18.09
Go Obama! Tricky time to be pushing these things through but with the tax credit for buying green I think the idea that higher prices will scare away consumers is a straw man invented by auto industry that still doesn’t want to get with the times. An equivalent car that gets 35 instead of 25 mpg does not cost $7500 more.
11. Delapaix | 05.18.09
Don’t airlines produce more pollution in one day than the cars do in one year?
Every little bit helps though.
12. Bud Besch | 05.18.09
The California politicians are jumping with joy for the increase auto mileage regulation being proposed by the White House. That’s fne but why don’t they attacked Mr Chu, the head energy honcho, who ‘killed’ the Hydrogen Fuel Cell industry. These will be the only true green autos.
13. Obamafan | 05.18.09
It is a good rule from this new government. It is also good to improve mass transportation and engourage the riders by charging less. This is the only permanent solution to stop pollution and congestion in future. Each individual is burning out a large amount of gas every day. some how we are able to get the gas for lesser price compared to other countries. Think about our major city roads after 50 years. Is there any extra space to build new roads except deserts? Build new rail roads atleast in major cities please.
14. Akihiko Kenji | 05.18.09
The real problem with this type of mandated fuel economy standards is that the physics of the motor vehicle say gasoline can produce x amount of horsepower per gallon when combustion occurs. To achieve the mileage standards means one thing and one thing only - hacking weight from the vehicles. This solution, and its unspoken consequences - increased highway fatalities every year. And this is a poor trade off for any savings. And what’s worse, these smaller vehicles must be made out of plastics which, require worse emissions, and more fuel consumption from the factories which produce them! Most vehicle plastics are also less recoverable than most metals and contain chemicals which leach into the environment.
Whenever government interferes with the private sector we see this sort of false economy and like the mercury laden fluorescent ‘green’ bulbs now poisoning the landfills in ever increasing record quantities each month, we see the green push is, ironically, a far more toxic and far more deadly push than remaining with the status quo.
But people don’t like hearing these things. And politicians simply like to accumulate power by appropriating private sector affairs into their own realm. Such programs are hyped, no matter how many people will die in crashes and how many children will be poisoned with mercury, or how such green legislation is exactly the opposite - and dirtier, more expensive and more toxic to mankind an the environment.
15. Sopmod | 05.18.09
The Federal Government has no business regulating vehicle emissions, it is not within their scope of power.
16. Ed | 05.18.09
Maybe Obama could coax the major oil companies, with their obscene profits, to help fund this effort? Oh, I forgot, this runs counter to their philosophy of greed and consumer be damned attitude.
17. jack bell | 05.18.09
it is well known that increasing fuel economy does not deter gasoline usage, it just makes it ‘less expensive’ to drive a set number of miles
unfortunately, the setting of excessively high mileage standards will necessitate the use of weight savings which will mean vehicles thare are less durable in collisions and therefore more deadly
it would be more productive for this administration if it would simply promote drilling for oil and natural gas on our lands, it would bring nearly immediate gains in employment that would increase over the next decade
and, at the same time, it would be wise to increase permitting for oil refining to reduce how much refined gasoline we import, this would help us be more self sufficient, much more so that increased fuel economy (as has been demonstrated over the past 30 years of setting high standards)
18. Lilith | 05.18.09
Who is going to adddress the added cost to the environment of producing new automobiles? An analysis of the true costs vs the benefits would be very helpful.
19. Norris Hall | 05.18.09
For years American carmaker resisted any attempts to increase their overall mieage.
Let the market decide what fuel standards we should ahere to.
Thus when gas hit 4 dollars a gallon US car manufacturers were caught totally by surprised and watched helplessly as consumers abandoned gas guzzling American car for more fuel efficient Japanese cars.
So while Japanese car manufacturers were all able to weather the economic crisis, American car manufacturers had to turn to Uncle Sam with hat in hand begging for welfare assistance to survive.
American CEO’s thirst for quick profits over long term planning is what drove the American car industry to the brink of extinction.
They have no one to blame but themselves,
Now goverment is stepping in to do the job those CEO’s should have done ten years ago…build more fuel efficient cars
20. thum | 05.19.09
I read something about how much carbon was emitted from sea going haulers.
Whats to be done to reign in thier emissions?
I know they burn some of the leftovers from refining.
21. Jeff Roper | 05.19.09
I guess the government is going to require everyone to buy new cars, too. I just bought one last year, but not by choice. Someone hit my car from behind and totalled it. I hoped to use it 10 years, but it only gets 31 mpg
22. European | 05.19.09
So less weight means less security? What an old chestnut to come up with? If some Americans started to look beyond their continent they might be surprised that there are already different solutions in place and that other countries do not sill live in the Middle-Ages - despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands small cars in use. Big surprise. 
The technology to build much more energy-efficient cars has been around for long - why does it take so long to implement it? Especially as it brings the advantage of costing less? Why do we always invest so much Energy in finding funny “reasons” that speak against progress - instead of just doing it?
23. Alan Russell | 05.19.09
We are not even approcahing 33% efficiency in ICE engines. While reducing weight will help meet these standards, increasing the efficiency of our engines will go even further.
Heck, with some simple extra light hybrid technology (the ability for the AC to run at a stop light without the engine, the ability for the engine to smoothly cut in and out on downhill grades) would make a big difference.
24. California Dreaming | 05.19.09
Folks this sort of thing has not worked in California. There have been no savings. California is the biggest energy pig state in the U.S.A. Another T.O.D. (typical Obama deal). If it already doesn’t work then let’s do it again.
25. dom youngross | 05.19.09
Always know beforehand what you’re getting into, then decide.
As a result of the new Obama Papal decree, eight years from now a common ICE exhaust/emission system dealer-only repair (parts, labor, and sales tax) could end up costing 15-25% of the original sales price of the car when new, as a result of ‘improved’ but more-complex and inter-related exhaust and emissions technology — and Obama-induced inflation, and Obama-related increased sales taxes.
I found out in 2001 — almost eight years ago — that my 2002 model-year ULEV Civic had an integrated exhaust manifold/catalytic converter. The two components were integrated to improve thermal efficiency. If one goes bad the whole unit has to be replaced. I took one look at it and thought, no way would I attempt to replace it myself down the road. For kicks I got a parts-and-labor estimate for replacing that integrated unit. $880, plus sales tax — in 2001. By 2017, that $880, plus sales tax, could easily turn into $2,000 — plus sales tax.
And a ULEV gas cap? Mine failed a pressurized gas-cap test in 2004. So $45 for just a simple thing as a new gas cap back then. By 2017 that dealer-only gas cap could cost $95.
Also, eight years from now new car theft rates could skyrocket. You could have a sedate grocery-getter that’s not high now on any thief’s list, but if the cost of a common exhaust/emission system repair reaches $2,000, or more — gone for parts in 60 seconds. Accompanying that of course would be higher insurance rates, even for drivers with spotless records.
Think that’s far-fetched? When the cost of gasoline alone hit a ‘measly’ $4/gallon, inventive thieves were actually stealing gas by drilling holes in gas tanks at night to drain them. Organized crime right now is probably contingency planning to retool chop shops to quickly strip soon-to-be outrageously expensive exhaust/emission systems, no matter how complex their disassembly from the car might be.
If it gets too expensive to maintain a car, the time period between new car purchases will decrease — which is the exact opposite of the current, environmentally-friendly trend. Great for automakers, bad for the environment and consumers.
Of course now all the green dweebs are going, “Wayh, wayh, wayh; you’re only concerned about the money!” No, the pseudo-green hypocrisy of it all gets me. Hey Obama and green dweebs, question: How many hundreds of millions of gallons of diesel and lbs. of jet fuel is OBAMA, not Bush, OBAMA, going to continue to burn Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines to get to and operate 24/7 in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Pakistan in the next four years???
The promised green land Obama wants to take us all already exists: California. If Obama/Boxer-style green was so profitable and beneficial, the California economy should be at the forefront of an unprecedented economic boom by now, and Ed Begley Jr. should be governor. As is though, they’re now trying to rob the future even more than the federal government is. That’s where Obama wants to take the whole country.
California-style pseudo-green is just like 1950s communism. It can’t exist unless the whole rest of the world is converted to it — by force.
What’s going on here should be obvious: Obama wants to make owning and operating a non-hybrid, non-electric ICE car prohibitively expensive, and in turn make the economics of hybrids and electrics more favorable — artificially, and with unforeseen consequences to the environment and economy.
26. Common Sense - Orlando | 05.20.09
< <>>
Allen finally hit it. If the Government would work on traffic light timing in every city, we could save more than 7.5 MPG and not take another 7 years.
In Orlando, you will STOP at 7 of 10 RED lights. A lot of them for side streets with nothing coming while holding up major roads with 30-50 cars at the red light wasting fuel.
It’s very simple. Time the lights on major roads to allow traffic to continue at the speed limit and require side road traffic to wait or turn right on red. Would you then go the speed limit to get through 8 out of 10 GREEN lights and slower through neighborhoods knowing you would make up time on main roads?
They already have the software to do this and it would save tremendous amounts of fuel per year.
They’re making too much on the gas taxes collected and tickets written for those that speed to make up time. Not to mention forcing you to use the toll roads if you want to get anywhere. Now Florida is putting up RED LIGHT cameras. Talk about taxation without representation!?!
27. unparalled60 | 08.06.09
for our own sake, I’m glad Obama’s emission standards has been set to exist.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Kathy | 05.18.09
Wonderful timing on Obama’s part. It makes me wonder if he is in fact going out of his way to totally the American economy.