Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Obama will require overall fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon
AP on Yahoo ^ | 5/18/09 | Ken Thomas and Philip Elliott

Posted on 05/18/2009 1:09:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

President Barack Obama will issue new vehicle emission standards and pair them with a broader goal of reducing pollution, marking the first time limits on greenhouse gases will be linked to federal standards for cars and trucks.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration will raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than federal law requires.

Officials familiar with the administration's discussions say Obama will unveil the new standards on Tuesday. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the official announcement had not been made.

California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016.

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fueleconomy; gallon; greenhousegases; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: Never on my watch

LOL,,I like that.


41 posted on 05/18/2009 1:31:23 PM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

“Who will buy the cars of Government Motors?”

Most of America. Choices will be either GM or Chicom because Korea, Japan and Europe will have tariffs so high people will have to finance them for 8 years.


42 posted on 05/18/2009 1:32:08 PM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
overall fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon

No problem, Mr. O. Just need you to sign this Official Presidential Directive, Mr. O.

  Official Presidential Directive #53122
  The term "mile" is now defined as exactly 3000 feet.
  That is all.

  signed
  _____________________
  Official President.
It's good to be king.
43 posted on 05/18/2009 1:32:20 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I suspect the consequences are very much intended.


44 posted on 05/18/2009 1:33:18 PM PDT by thecabal (Hey Obama, when you gonna start sharin' the sacrifice?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman

I’m trying to understand this news item; If they’re setting a CAFE standard, wouldn’t that mean, more or less, business as usual, in that, they produce some oversized golf cart that gets 50 mph to offset the trucks getting 12 to 25 MPH?

I’m thinking that if that’s the case then.....this is window dressing.


45 posted on 05/18/2009 1:33:32 PM PDT by glide625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: henkster

THAT is his intention..


46 posted on 05/18/2009 1:35:23 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: glide625

Yep, and more lower-income people who can’t afford the larger cars and gas get killed on the highway—but don’t both Obama with such details!


47 posted on 05/18/2009 1:36:15 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
overall fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon

This is perfectly doable. Does not say the size of the fleet, so, as in statistics, just have to chose the proper value of "N" (or number of samples) to make it work. A value of 100 [car] would do. Who might be the lucky purchaser of these cars? However, we can do MUCH better. With an "n" of 1, could make the fleet average 1000 mpg. Heck, with a value of "n", the fleet average would be ∞ mpg.

48 posted on 05/18/2009 1:39:45 PM PDT by C210N (A patriot for a Conservative Renaissance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

For my next car I’m going to buy a used city bus. I’ll then be able to run red lights, drive in the carpool lanes, and break traffic laws, and never get a ticket. Have you ever seen a public city bus pulled over for the crap they pull? And talk about comfort, I’ll fix it up inside, put in a jacuzzi, barbecue grill, kitchen, bedroom, smokers lounge, and run a bowling lane down the middle. In accidents a city bus beats a SUV. A bus is really the ultimate SUV, not just for poor people anymore.


49 posted on 05/18/2009 1:40:15 PM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: R0CK3T
This is because auto producers will be forced to make cars at much lowers weights which in turn will lead to more deaths as the lower mass cars will not be able to provide needed protection to their occupants.

Get ready for 55mph or less national speed limit....again. Make a solution to fix a problem they have created. Pretty simple eh?

50 posted on 05/18/2009 1:40:47 PM PDT by beltfed308 (Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

These idiots have no clue! Are they now going to provide me a vehicle that can do that, and haul water for me? How about make it to where I live up the hill? No? Well piss off then!


51 posted on 05/18/2009 1:41:00 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The Real King Of America Has Spoken


52 posted on 05/18/2009 1:42:49 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Suppose you were a clueless idiot, and suppose you were Barack Obama; but I repeat myself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
That crown is getting to feel pretty comfortable...


53 posted on 05/18/2009 1:43:08 PM PDT by Gritty (This is our moment. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America.-B Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Obama’s idea is to order that technological advances be made- presumably on time and on budget.

It doesn’t work, but it does provide a convenient scapegoat when the engineers charged with completing the technological advances fail.

If I were advising a young person who was choosing a career under this scenario- I’d tell him to avoid getting involved in the hard sciences and instead choose the law or perhaps community organizing instead.


54 posted on 05/18/2009 1:44:02 PM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

CAFE laws are laws that lawmakers pass to show the voters that they’re “doing something”. Such a directive will be unenforcable and will have only minimal compliance from automakers.

Automakers will provide “show” vehicles that nobody buys that get 55 mpg. Everyone else will buy the 22 mpg models.

One unintended consequence will be that people will keep their old cars and create more pollution. Older cars emit real pollution (carbon MONOxide, sulfur, NOx) in greater amounts than new cars.


55 posted on 05/18/2009 1:44:56 PM PDT by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

“No, this is all about destroying the middle class “

His end game is to get as many as possible from rural and suburban locations to live in the city, so mass transit can be used and ‘improve’ the energy efficiency by stopping the use of personal transportation.

Cities are where people can be controled much easier, in ways other than transportation, too.


56 posted on 05/18/2009 1:44:56 PM PDT by bestintxas (It's great in Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

So, we are all going to become like California?!


57 posted on 05/18/2009 1:46:05 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

That’s what I was thinking, but.....the article is so poorly written it leaves a bunch of stuff out so I can’t really determine with assurance if this is a tweak of the old CAFE standard or whether it’s something entirely new.


58 posted on 05/18/2009 1:47:15 PM PDT by glide625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: I_Like_Spam
It doesn’t work, but it does provide a convenient scapegoat when the engineers charged with completing the technological advances fail.

Wrecking (Russian: вредительство or vreditel'stvo, lit. "inflicting damage"), was a crime specified in the criminal code of the Soviet Union in the Stalin era. It is often translated as "sabotage"; however "wrecking" and "diversionist acts" and "counter-revolutionary sabotage" were distinct sub-articles of Article 58 (RSFSR Penal Code) (58-7, 58-9, and 58-14 respectively), and the meaning of "wrecking" is closer to "undermining".

59 posted on 05/18/2009 1:49:43 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
run a bowling lane down the middle.

ROFL!

60 posted on 05/18/2009 1:50:17 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("President Obama, your agenda is not new, it's not change, and it's not hope" - Rush Limbaugh 02/28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson