President Barack Obama walks to shake hands with the audience at an event announcing new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks, on Tuesday, May 19, 2009. Along with auto industry leaders, Obama greeted, from left, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
(Charles Dharapak/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
New auto standards: the start of Obama’s green revolution
The new regulations on fuel economy and tailpipe emissions announced Tuesday are 'part of a far larger effort,' he said.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer/ May 19, 2009 edition
President Obama’s announcement on tailpipe emissions Tuesday reaffirmed a commitment that goes beyond regulation of the auto industry. The move is part of a broader White House strategy to confront the risk of global warming while making green-collar jobs a centerpiece of the economy.
For ordinary Americans, the resulting changes could be far-reaching. Lighter-weight vehicles appear likely to become more popular. More tax dollars are being tabbed for clean-energy technology. And for years to come, college students might find that some of the hottest job opportunities lie in helping to keep the planet cool.
“The agreement we have announced today is part of a far larger effort,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday as he unveiled plans to tighten carbon emissions from US cars for the first time. As a part of the plan, average fuel economy must reach 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. He also called for additional “historic investments in a clean-energy economy.”
The strategy is an ambitious one for a nation in recession, a government running record budget deficits, and a president who is also pursuing reform of America’s costly healthcare system.
But Obama contends that the best way out of an economic funk is to look forward to the technologies that might potentially drive the economy in years ahead.
He became salesman-in-chief Tuesday, saying that savings on fuel costs will allow consumers to recoup the costs of the emissions upgrade within three years of a new car purchase.
The potential rewards for the environment and energy security are significant, too. The auto industry accounts for 17 percent of man-made carbon dioxide emissions in the US. Obama said his plan will reduce US oil consumption by an amount equal to a year’s imports from four major oil-supplying nations, including Saudi Arabia.
Still, that forecast also illustrates how far the US has to go if it is going to lead the world toward a reduced-carbon future. The auto policy is just a first step.
Congress is also considering “cap and trade” legislation to limit carbon emissions economy-wide. It would set up a system for trading emission allowances so that the private marketplace can use available fossil fuels most efficiently.
Supporters say that the environmental benefits of cap and trade and automotive-emissions standards far outweigh the cost. Critics such as congressional Republicans say the plan could damage economic growth at a time when the nation is struggling through a recession. While Obama highlights the potential creation of green jobs, critics cite studies forecasting a net loss of jobs due to cap and trade.
One analysis forecasts a bright future for green jobs. The number of jobs tied to renewable energy or energy efficiency could surge in the next two decades to more than four times the 8.5 million jobs supported by those sectors in 2006, according to projections by the American Solar Energy Society. These numbers include indirect jobs such as accountants and truck drivers employed by clean-energy ventures.
John Challenger, an employment expert at the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas in Chicago, endorses such projections. The demand could hinge on oil prices as well as federal policies, but green-collar jobs “could present the best career opportunities for a generation of college graduates,” Mr. Challenger says.
Whether or not Obama’s plans for a green partnership between the government and private firms work in the long run, he and his team have built early momentum.
He gestured to governors, environmentalists, auto executives, and labor union leaders who flanked him in the White House Rose Garden, saying, “some of the groups here have been embroiled in lawsuits against one another” or have been at odds for decades.
Now, he said, “these leaders from across the country are willing to set aside the past for the sake of the future.”
The diverse group supports the new fuel-economy target for different reasons. For environmentalists, the regulations are a clear victory. But car companies also gain a simpler and more predictable regimen at a time when they are streamlining their product lineups and downsizing. Before the announcement, California and 13 other states had been seeking to establish their own standard. Now, Obama’s plan will make that standard a national benchmark.
The scene in the Rose Garden Tuesday echoed Obama’s appearance with healthcare industry officials on May 11, at which he celebrated their commitment to reduce the future pace of price hikes for medical care – for a savings to the nation worth $2 trillion in the next decade, they said.
The public tone of both accords is a collegial affirmation of Obama’s “Yes, we can” mantra. In both cases, there is the prospect of large benefits – for the environment or for consumers. Yet in both cases, questions remain about how to actually hit the target.
A group representing automakers, for example, praised Obama’s plan, but said more work is needed to bring it to fruition.
“We have the broad outlines of an agreement, but we will need to work closely with [federal agencies] and California in the rulemaking process to resolve multiple issues,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in a statement. “And we are going to need Americans to buy our clean, fuel-efficient autos in large numbers in order to meet this climate change commitment.”
Comments
2. Tom | 05.19.09
Unfortunately I think he will find the opposite will happen.
We will spend trillions more tax payer money on trains, automobiles so that we can spend as much money on gas, driving far greater distances than we have in the past.
So we’ll use at least as much Oil as before and with the driving distance you can get with the newer cars, which will be the death of those high speed trains.
We’ll just waste money on trying to make cars and build trains no one wants to ride in.
3. Kelley Bragg | 05.19.09
I have mixed emotions on some of the changes, however the “green revolution” is inevitable, I think a majority of what is going on in the industry is way over due as I have been in the industry for 30years. This will be a good thing, once we get through the transistions. I am frustratesd with the fact that, Florida does NOT have state inspection. Seeing what I do in our service departments every day, there are a very large percentage of automobiles in Florida that would never pass a safety inspection forget emmissions. This amazes me this day in age that this is optional from state to state.
4. dom youngross | 05.19.09
Tell the whole hypocritical fascist story:
“The Environmental Protection Agency would regulate and reduce tailpipe emissions for the first time under the standards.”
“The U.S. Congress does not have to approve the standards, which will be implemented through rules developed by the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency, which could take more than a year to complete.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1937441520090520
First no bipartisanship on something as important and long-lasting as quadrupling last year’s deficit. Now, a total by-pass of any criticism. That’ll teach Senate democrats to thwart Obama’s closing of the Gitmo detention center, even though Obama doesn’t have a clue of what to do with the detainees.
“… savings on fuel costs will allow consumers to recoup the costs of the emissions upgrade within three years of a new car purchase.”
And down the road when dealer-only repair is needed for the more-complex and more-integrated exhaust/emission systems, you’ll more than hand it all back. On top of that extra $1,600 in new car cost, set aside $3,000 bucks with your new vehicle purchase to CYA if you plan to own it more than 100K miles.
“Supporters say that the environmental benefits of cap and trade and automotive-emissions standards far outweigh the cost. Critics such as congressional Republicans…”
Nice attempt to pigeon-hole critics of Obama. You scored a 10 on the slick meter with that. Could a CSM reporter be any more obvious with his political leanings?
“… the best way out of an economic funk is to look forward to the technologies that might potentially drive the economy in years ahead.”
“Might?” “Might potentially?” “Might potentially drive the economy?” Get back to me when you’re sure. The long-standing and current real-world test case for this ‘m-m-m-might’ business — California — isn’t working out too well.
“And we are going to need Americans to buy our clean, fuel-efficient autos in large numbers in order to meet this climate change commitment.”
This is the most insightful sentence in the whole article. What if ‘we’ don’t? Will ‘we’ lose ‘our’ standard deduction and/or personal exemption?
If President Obama hadn’t hit me up for $10 every time I got an e-mail from his campaign last year, if he hadn’t stood back and twiddled his thumbs while Congress loaded up the 787 for takeoff, if his mouthpiece Rohm Emanuel hadn’t dismissed earmarks in the 410 as ‘last year’s business,’ and most importantly, if President Obama wasn’t authorizing the continuous burn of hundreds of millions of gallons of diesel and pounds of jet fuel 24/7 in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next umpteenth years, I ‘might’ take him seriously.
Support for all things Obama falls into the wanting-to-believe category.
5. Thea Bella | 05.20.09
“We need to do more than decrease new CO2, more than even stopping CO2 additions. We need to actively draw down atmospheric CO2, or be prepared to weather (sorry) some changes that will be effectively permanent.”
- TPM Cafe
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/tom_wright/2009/01/stopping-co2-rise-is-not-enoug.php
Normally I might say the Obama administration’s proposed fuel mileage improvements a step in the right direction, but at this juncture believe them counter-productive. This in allowing the perception that necessary steps are being taken towards climate change, when in fact far too little, too late.
Please consider this for a moment. Even with no further CO2 emissions at all this world will continue to warm for some time. Politicians seek praise for proposed long-term, incremental decreases in CO2 from various sources, while total CO2 increases exponentially:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/paper_144105.htm
Simply put, mankind must dramatically decrease CO2 emissions to zero as soon as possible, and then below that level for some time to counter balance that already done.
6. Doug Lawrence | 05.20.09
Does anyone have any (unbiased as possible) info about how feasible this all is? What do the US current “average fuel economy” look like? How does it compare to Germany, France, Spain, Japan? My limited understanding (I am a mechanical engineer with previous auto industry experience) is that a 35.5 mpg car is very hard to do while still meeting safety standards and consumer requirements. I’m not aware of anything over 30 mpg with a decent payload / towing capacity that many people need (construction, service, agriculture). I’m not going to go on the conservative rant (the atmosphere is by definition community property, therefore the government is unfortunately the most fair means to manage it). However, I would like to see realistic projections for what vehicles look like in 2016. I’m worried that this well intentioned action will have more unintended consequences than real envioronmental benifit.
7. Davido Hermoso | 05.20.09
Jeff in Orlando says
“Now that we have already given GM and Chrysler billions….”
A common misconception encouraged by most of the press and Jeff to grind in own axe at the expense of the truth. The government didn’t give them billions, they loaned them billions. Although it might end up being a gift if things don’t improve.
8. Janis Jotland | 05.20.09
It’s part of HIS greater plan to control the auto industry by government and destroy more of our personal liberties. When will all you whiny liberals give up the global warming bull Al Gore’s family made the bulk of their monies from strip mining most of Tennessee, but you don’t see that in the liberal media. Tell the people of the Northeast and the Midwest that the climate is getting warmer after paying record high prices this winter. Record snowfalls and record cold, the worst in recorded history this last winter could maybe hint of a world not exactly affected by a global warming trend!!
9. Zebra | 05.20.09
I can’t hardly wait for fuel to match what Europe’s drivers are paying! The ‘gimmee’ generation needs their ‘needs’ cut back by 90% !
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. Jeff in Orlando | 05.19.09
We could become like Cuba in a few years; we could have thousands of SUVs and large sedans patched together so they can keep running. It could be possible these cars could go up in value because people with money will want them. We are entering a bizzaro Obama world where those who have lived for 50 years or more are not going to recognize America. Now that we have already given GM and Chrysler billions, the 50 billion previously legislated is going to kick in. What happens if all of this fails? Will there be an outrage or will we use the convenient, “it is Bush’s fault.” I can’t wait to see the car of the future designed by Congress. One thing is for sure, the members will not buy it, but we will be made to.