Filed under: MPG, Legislation and Policy
As Congress bickers, EPA finally working on fuel economy rules
In spite of the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency generates and publishes fuel economy ratings for US market cars and trucks, they aren't responsible for the regulations. The measurement of fuel economy ratings actually came about as a by-product of the emissions testing that the EPA has been responsible for since the original Clean Air Act. However, as various factions in Congress bicker over how much to increase fuel economy requirements and over what time frame, the EPA is finally moving ahead with creating rules on greenhouse gas emissions. By establishing limits on carbon dioxide emissions, they will for the first time be effectively limiting fuel consumption. The EPA is pulling together officials from a variety of agencies to draft the new regulations in accordance with President Bush's mandate earlier this year as well as the Supreme Court ruling that they have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Meanwhile congress will be back in session next week and expects to take up CAFE again.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bioburner 3:37PM (8/27/2007)
Hay maybe green house gas limitations is a better way to go than CAFE. Hummm that takes the issue away from the fighting/crying babies in congress and shifts control to to president, I mean the EPA.
Is this or is it not the way our buddies in the Europen Union are rating their cars?
Reply
GoodCheer 4:40PM (8/27/2007)
CO2 regulation by the EPA could be a very important development and I'm on the edge of my seat to see what they come up with. I'm not sure however that a national standard is the optimal solution.
The more I read about it, the more I like the idea of CO2-dependent variable congestion charges (like in London). They have a lot going for them:
1) They work: Reports around London of decreased demand for big CO2 emitters is exactly the kind of market-driven change that both green lefties and fiscal conservatives can approve of.
2) They make cities cleaner and more pleasant places to live and work. Less traffic in London has made everyone who actually tries to get around in the city happy (from what I've heard). The reduction in the number of idling gridlocked engines alone would be worth it's weight in gold, if it had a weight.
3) They can be (in fact have to be) implemented locally, meaning that they end-run a lot of the bureaucratic red tape (not that the administration of big cities is free from bureaucracy, but presumably there is less than at the state or federal level).
4) They do less to penalize the people who have a legitimate need for big trucks.
-People who have miles of fence to maintain by and large do not live near the big cities where the congestion charges will take effect. Contractors can pass the charges on to clients.
-People who tow boats around all the time (I love that reasoning): Don't tow your boat into the city.
-People with big families, well, having a big family is expensive, this should be the least of your worries, and there are more seats in a minivan or wagon that gets 28mpg than there are in a Hummer.
5) Because small cars are by-and-large inexpensive, congestion charges do less to penalize the poor, who have fewer options about where to live, and thus how far to commute. This in contrast to fuel taxes.
Reply
S Houston 1:20AM (8/31/2007)
My best guess is that the typical domestic (US) light vehicles emit CO2 in the range of 260 to 500+ g/km.
Here are a few links that you might find interesting
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol
and
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/
I have just found that a number of companies including GM will be displaying concept vehicles emitting less than 99 g/km (about 62 mpg) at the Frankfurt Auto Show in September 2007.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/gm-opel-to-pres.html
Reply