Senator proposes boost in fuel standard (DICK Durbin)

AP ^ | 7-27-03 | Brandon Loomis

[Dan from Michigan]

Senator proposes boost in fuel standard

By BRANDON LOOMIS
The Associated Press
7/27/2003, 6:16 p.m. ET

(AP) — CHICAGO — Sen. Dick Durbin said Sunday he will propose legislation toughening fuel efficiency standards for American automakers, though he acknowledges he'll face strong opposition in the Senate this week.

Durbin said he will propose this week a standard of 40 miles per gallon by the year 2015 as an amendment to a national energy bill, including sport-utility vehicles. Currently U.S. automakers are required to have an average fleet efficiency of 27.5 miles per gallon, with SUVs exempted as light trucks.

The Illinois Democrat said he expects fierce opposition from the auto industry, with claims of inordinate costs similar to those made in 1975 when Congress mandated the current average by 1985.

In 1975 the average fuel efficiency was 14 miles per gallon, Durbin said.

"That's where we got started and if we aren't careful we're going to slide back to that number," Durbin said at a Chicago news conference. "We're moving in the wrong direction."

Spokesmen for the three U.S. automakers in Detroit did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press on Sunday. Durbin said he expects their lobbying and opposition from the Bush administration will make the measure difficult to pass.

Still, Durbin said the effort is important because he considers it "an embarrassment" that foreign manufacturers consistently are first to offer efficiency improvements such as hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles.

"We're building larger and larger vehicles that get less and less good gas mileage," Durbin said.

The senator said the nation should reduce its reliance on foreign oil and reduce pollution.

Besides pushing cars and SUVs to an average of 40 miles per gallon, Durbin's amendment would boost the mandated average for non-passenger vehicles by 60 percent, to 27.5 miles per gallon. It would require a study of the accuracy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tests for fuel efficiency as well.

The first incremental improvement for efficiency would be required with the 2006 model year.

Citizen Action Illinois co-director William McNary joined Durbin at the news conference to support the measure, as did several activists from the Sierra Club.

"We will give American consumers more and better choices (in vehicles)," McNary said. "We must break this false choice between either clean air or jobs."

[Dan from Michigan]

Durbin...@#$Y^ you.

[Cold Heat]

The guy is on a roll apparently!

A rat roll. (that is)

[RWR8189]

Im ashamed that this man is my senator, and on the one occasion that I met him, lets just say I let him have it.

[Frank_2001]

Better idea...open up the ANWR and tell those Arabs if they make any trouble, their oil fields will become OURS!

[Dan from Michigan]

I have Carl Lenin...his twin.

[E=MC²]

Why stop there...if fuel efficiency can just be legislated, why not make 100 mpg the requirement? or 1,000 mpg? or 1,000,000 mpg???

[RonF]

Well, you guys are going to jump all over me, but I happen to think that this is a good idea. We are getting jacked around left and right by various third-world nutjobs because of our dependence on foreign oil, and we could open up all our known reserves and not be able to get by on domestic productions. I also think it's ridiculous that SUV's are classified as "light trucks" when they are used primarily as passenger vehicles. And I'm not particularly impressed with the crying from the automakers; they're always crying. So, go ahead and pillory me, but I think that this would help us in the long run.

[mdittmar]

40 miles per gallon by the year 2015

I get 22.5 with a 270hp 94 Eldorado,11 years,who knows.

It's the goverment mandate I don't like.

[umgud]

The Europeans have better ave fuel economy because they use so many diesel engines in their cars and light trucks. The small suv Jeep Libery will soon have a diesel option. Expect to see many more very soon.

[Dan from Michigan]

""" but I happen to think that this is a good idea""" I have a problem with federal mandates. Period.

I also think it's ridiculous that SUV's are classified as "light trucks" when they are used primarily as passenger vehicles

They are built on truck models. That's why they are classified that way. the old Ford Bronco was a knockoff of the F-150 frame.

And I'm not particularly impressed with the crying from the automakers; they're always crying. So, go ahead and pillory me, but I think that this would help us in the long run.

Jobs are too important right now. That's the problem. Our economy is in bad enough shape as it is.

[AF68]

Keep your nose out of my gas tank, Durbin! Don't we have a right to privacy? The Supremes said it's in the transcendental yada yada emanation of the penumbra of the Constitution!

[pierrem15]

Yeah, I especially enjoyed the autobahn with the 87 hp German model station wagon I drove to Poland in 1998.

Europeans have high mileage egg beaters because gas costs $5.00 a gallon (thanks to enormous taxes).

[squidly]

Liberal pipe dreams are usually entertaining, and this is no different.

[Night Hides Not]

Jobs are too important right now. That's the problem. Our economy is in bad enough shape as it is.

How myopic you are!!! Algore would tell you that there are thousands, no, hundreds of thousands, make that millions of new jobs just waiting to be created by new technologies!

Thankfully, George W. Bush is our President, and Al Gore has been consigned to the trash heap of history.

[RonF]

I certainly understand your feelings regarding federal mandates, but I believe this to be an extraordinary circumstance. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As far as SUV's being based on truck models, the question I'd ask is why trucks were granted an exemption. I would propose that it's because of their usage; a light truck is generally either a commerical vehicle, or is being used to haul goods, etc. Few are used exclusively as a passenger vehicle. But, then, I could be wrong about that, and the basis for the exemption could be something else entirely. In any case, if cranking up the fuel efficiency requirement kills off SUV's, I don't think that's any great loss. Hell, if people could they'd buy tanks, and we don't want those running around the streets, either.

[DaveyB]

SUV’s were the free markets‘ reaction to fuel standards. The market wanted bigger and more powerful cars, the government wouldn’t allow it. So people turned to even less efficient SUV’s . Even greater fuel consumption was the unintended consequence of unconstitutional lawmaking.

[MarkL]

Hmmm... 40MPG... Well, I have to shoe-horn my 6'4" frame into my wonderful Toyota Corolla (had it 3 years now, w/ 63K+ miles on it so far... Its predecessor lasted 10 years and 197K!) The best milage I've seen out of this car is 37MPG, which isn't bad at all. But that's not enough for DICK!

I wonder if he'll be willing to give up his limos for the plastic lunchboxes that he wants to make the rest of us ride in?

BTW, I saw something else on this thread about using diesels for economy... Well, we could, but the the environmentalists would be up in arms over the increased particulate emisions. They probably won't be happy until we're all riding bicycles, and then they'll complain the when we exhale we're contributing to "global warming!"

Mark

[Dan from Michigan]

In any case, if cranking up the fuel efficiency requirement kills off SUV's, I don't think that's any great loss. Hell, if people could they'd buy tanks, and we don't want those running around the streets, either.

I'm very biased also for two reasons.
1. I'm from Michigan, and the SUVS are where automakers make 80% of their profits. I'd say 70% of our state's economy is related in some way to the Big 3 either by workers, contracts, car related industries, etc. Some places are car towns. Detroit(and all suburbs), Pontiac, Ypsilanti, Lansing, Milan, Muskegon, Monroe(maybe), Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City all depend on the Big 3. North Michigan relies on tourism, and many tourist are autoworkers. The Big 3 put food on my table as well. My dad and 2 of his brothers worked in the auto factories.

2. I'm an SUV owner. They come in handy during the ice storms here or on back hunting roads in the mud. My SUV's(A V6 Explorer) fuel economy was actually better than the non SUV I owned. A Mercury Cougar with a V8.

[drachenfels]

I'd love to see more european style small fun diesels (see: vw lupo, vw polo, etc.) over here... but the environmental nutcases have already put on the kibosh on that due to the bu!!sh*t that the EPA is pulling with particulates, as well as the oil companies unwillingness to offer low sulfur diesel fuel (costs slightly more to refine from domestic crude; not an issue for the europeans refining their fuel from low-sulphur Saudi crude-!).

If we'd offer a diesel option in vehicles, we'd see a 30% increase in fuel economy overnight... (in those vehicles)... and the way most folks drive, they'd probably enjoy the performance characteristics (lots o' torque) as well...

oh well..

[Mike Darancette]

SUVs exempted as light trucks.

Let's start with Imported SUVs then maybe 2WD SUVs.