4
Obama OKs new look at emissions rules
President Obama, with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, signs a series of executive orders on car emissions and fuel efficiency standards in the White House in Washington, D.C.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: As with all things regulatory, none of the changes President Obama talked about today are going to happen right away. But they are going to happen a lot faster than Detroit would like. The president ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to have another look at whether states have the right to set their own auto emission standards. And by "another look" you can infer that he'd like a different answer than the one the Bush administration came up with -- that was that states cannot set those standards.
From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Sam Eaton reports.
SAM EATON: President Obama says boosting car mileage "is one the most important steps to reduce dependence on foreign oil." And when California and at least a dozen other states tried to do just that, he says "Washington stood in their way." And that's about to change.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them.
But auto analysts say the economic facts can be tricky. California's bid to regulate auto emissions would force carmakers to achieve fleet-wide averages of 35 miles per gallon by 2016. That's four years ahead of the federal plan.
David Cole with the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan says that's impossible given an auto industry on the brink of collapse.
DAVID COLE: When you're looking at a hundred-plus billion dollars of capital investment, if the industry does not have some reasonably convincing arguments that the consumer's going to be there, they're just not going to make that investment. They're going to find another business to be in.
So far, the federal government has committed some $42 billion to helping the industry. But that doesn't rule out a protracted court battle over the state rules. Automakers' appeals are still pending in Vermont and California. But there's a way around that. The administration could push federal mileage standards that match, or even surpass, the tougher state proposals.
DAVID YARNOLD: The auto industry is already on the way to achieving this.
That's Environmental Defense Fund Director David Yarnold.
YARNOLD: There's no doubt that they can do it.
He says the technology exists. It's the will that's been in short supply.
I'm Sam Eaton for Marketplace.
I'd just like to point out that the crux of this news is actually on fuel economy standards (how many miles per gallon a car gets) and NOT on emissions. States have long been able to regulate the minimum emissions requirements (see the California Air Resource Board and the regulations they've imposed on diesels in particular). States to date have NOT, however, been able to regulate greater vehicle fuel economy. Shame on Marketplace for confusing the two.
"California's bid to regulate auto emissions would force carmakers to achieve fleet-wide averages of 35 miles per gallon by 2016."
The two (fuel economy and emissions) have very little to do with each other. A large clean vehicle may have little emissions but terrible fuel economy. Similarly, a very lightweight car may have great fuel economy but be lazy on curtailing exhaust.
The huge investments that the auto industry claims would be required to improve mileage are probably true IF the same mix of vehicles are sold and all that changes is they become more efficient. But isn't there an alternative, and more likely, scenario where the automakers will have to limit the number of less fuel efficient vehicles built in order for their fleets to hit the tougher averages? Wouldn't this have the effect of lowering prices of more fuel efficient vehicles and raising the prices of less fuel efficient ones (laws of supply and demand at work)? And in the long run, isn't that a good thing?
The last time there were two standards for cars, California was such a large consumer market, automakers did indeed build "California" and "49 state" cars.
Ironically, the LAPD and other agencies would use "49 state" cars for pursuit and some other needs.
We can pay for fewer emissions now, while the companies need our tax dollars, or we can pay for the damage done by the emissions later...when it will cost more.
As for the idea the consumer isn't on board--how long ago was it you couldn't convince people to drive big boats? It took Madison Avenue to convince people that bigger was better. True, in some parts of the country, large vehicles are necessary, but in small cities on the coast, they just don't fit into parking spaces.
Madison Avenue, I'm sure, can come to the rescue again, and TV characters can be used as well to show that "small makes cents".
In your report on emissions today, the following was said
DAVID COLE: When you're looking at a hundred-plus billion dollars of capital investment, if the industry does not have some reasonably convincing arguments that the consumer's going to be there, they're just not going to make that investment. They're going to find another business to be in.
Does he not realize that the consumers are already there and that is contributing to the fall of the american automakers? Toyota, honda and others are already working in that direction. My 2006 non hybrid civic gets 35mpg in normal everyday city driving and 40mpg on the Interstate. Why do they insist on not taking responsability for their business practices.
