This week the Obama Administration delineated its plan for the new 54.5 mpg fleet fuel economy standard by 2025, and though automotive industry professionals widely rejoiced, those who claim highway deaths will increase as a result spoke out against the measure.
If the rule is implemented, cars in 2025 will go twice as far on a gallon of gas as they do today. Of course, some of that calculation is based on the fact that more cars won't be running on gasoline at all. An influx of electric and natural gas fueled cars will be off-setting vehicles that will still be running on gas. And cars running on gas today will be getting more and more fuel efficient as automakers make better, higher performing three and four cylinder engines and create lighter-weight vehicles.
The aim, of course, is to spew less carbon dioxide into to the atmosphere, and to become less dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general.
The advocates
Auto-dealers, who have struggled in a down economy to sell low-mpg cars, rejoiced.
"As a third-generation auto dealer, all I can say is-It's about time!" said Adam Lee, Chairman of Lee Auto Malls in Portland, Maine.
Low fuel-economy cars have become the bane of an auto-dealer's existence.
"In 2008, when gas prices skyrocketed to historic highs, I couldn't give away some of the gas-guzzling vehicles on my lots," Lee said. He said this standard will help the industry avoid that "gut punch."
The auto industry is now in lock-step with what consumers demand.
Of course the geo-political angle of weaning America off oil is part and parcel of the standards. "Gas-guzzling is not an American value," said Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board, a panel of top retired admirals and generals.
"Cutting our oil use, increasing efficiency and diversifying our energy resources will protect our economy and our ability to move around the country freely."
"Delivering much cleaner, more-efficient cars to the market can guarantee the best possible outcome for American workers, our communities, the economy, and the environment," said David Foster, the executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance.
If implemented in the right fashion, the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards plan could create as many as 190,000 jobs through 2020 and save some 12 billion barrels of oil--the equivalent of the fuel to power about four years of light vehicles, according to the BlueGreen Alliance.
The detractors
But not everyone is enthused by the fuel economy hikes.
Yesterday in response to the announcement, The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) vented its concerns that this measure could price more Americans out of car purchases.
"We are concerned that adding about $3,000 to the average cost of a car will price millions of Americans out of the market, which could reduce fleet turnover and delay environmental gains," NADA said in its statement. "We need fuel economy policies that encourage the sales of fuel efficient vehicles, instead of risky mandates that frustrate consumer demand."
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) also issued a statement for similar cost-to-consumer reasons and cited White House estimations that this rule would cost $157 billion to bring to fruition. He also saw this implementation as heavy-handed.
"Beyond jobs that would be lost as a result of this rule, there are concerns that these new regulations were crafted in a manner inconsistent with laws and basic standards of transparency that had the effect of hiding special interest agendas," Issa said.
Some opponents to the 54.5 mpg CAFE standard have more aggressive dislike for small cars they view as unsafe.
"In a free society, government shouldn't force families of four to travel in the equivalent of hybrid Yugos merely to reduce consumption of an abundant commodity such as oil," said James M. Taylor, Senior Fellow, Environment Policy at The Heartland Institute. "If the federal government is worried about oil supply, it should take the shackles off domestic oil production...rather than dramatically raising the production costs of standard-sized vehicles or forcing Americans into unsafe clown cars."
The consumers
While they may not be advocates or detractors just yet, consumers are the ones that stand to be affected the most by the standards. Mark Cooper, Research Director at the Consumer Federation of America, says this is a big win for them.
Though adding more to the cost of the vehicle at purchase, Cooper says the fuel economy standard will end up being cash flow positive after 2 or 3 years, factoring in the savings in fuel costs consumers will experience over the life of the vehicle.
"People spend an average of $2,900 per year on gas," Cooper told AOL Autos. "Higher MPG vehicles will allow people to budget much more easily, as they won't be paying for gas nearly as much."
Big fluctuations in gas prices are very bad for the economy as a whole, he said. When people have to forfeit a larger percentage of their take home income to gasoline purchases, they are less inclined to go out and spend elsewhere, hurting all kinds of other business, from restaurants and coffee shops to sports teams and shopping malls.
The standard will also make fuel efficient cars more visible and readily available, which the current system does not do.
"When people go to the car dealer, they just buy what's there, and often what's there are big, gas guzzling vehicles," Cooper said. "They aren't aware that they have other [fuel-efficient] options because often they are desperate for a car and the salesman wants to make a sale right then."
This translates into a higher cost of ownership in the long term and can severely impact their personal or household budget. The new mandate, he said, will mean many more fuel efficient cars on dealer lots and, thus, many more in consumers' garages.
Uncle Sam Has Spoken: The Death of The Gas Guzzler Economy
Higher fuel eonomy standards spell death of the thirsty family car, though some niche cars will survive
The 54.5 mpg CAFE standard has been divisive even as it becomes more concrete (Flickr: Matthew Oliphant)
More Auto News
Add a Comment
I dont want a Volt...its butt ugly!
OK, out of this thread before my BP blows a gasket!
I am not worried about any of Obama's stupid mandates. He's not going to be around much longer. His days are numbered and a new administration can override all the f -up's Obama has dont!
November 19 2011 at 7:35 PM Report abuse Permalink -1 rate up rate down ReplyVery very dumb for the U.S. to mandate such ridiculous plan. America is supposed to be a free country. This is another socialistic crap from the Obama team. Dems need to go. America is all about the SUVs and Trucks. I wouldn't care if I lived in California or Florida, but I live in Michigan. I need 4wd in the winters. I am not sticking my family into a tiny Hybrid. We are not Japan. The only thing keeping the U.S. automakers alive is there trucks and SUVs. When is the democrats going to learn this. America loves the trucks, SUVs and the big HP cars. It's really gettting harder and harder to buy American. You take the 4wd vehicles away and it's going to be a doomsday for American economics. You know how much money it will cost for the government to setup electronic stations and natural gas stations throughout the U.S.? It will take years for the money to be made back. I already see how difficult the emissions is in California to pass. The consumer gets back handed in the face and once again the middle class gets screwed. Obama needs to go. I am tired of all these mandates. You think this fool is helping, but it's just wasting more money we don't have.
November 19 2011 at 4:40 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThing is. Obama wants up all to drive these Hybrids and electric cars that will sell for 50K up. Excuse me, but 99% of the American people CAN'T afford a 20K car, so how are we supposed to buy these cars. Expecially when we have NO job...NO home...NOTHING.
This President is not in touch with reality! He is a bafoon sitting in a corner playing with himself thinking up stupid ideas to impose on the American people and destroy our country.
IMPEACH this idiot and send him back to Africa!!!!!!
And you maybe a fat white rhino.
November 19 2011 at 10:52 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
JFK
We couldn't nor wouldn't take on and accomplish this task now. There would be detractors coming up with senseless and dimwitted conspiracy theories on why this is being forced down our throats and such. Instead of the much larger picture of how it would benefit America as a country, No thought of how being innovators and leading the world in new technology would put the USA at the forefront once again. This is going to happen on a global scale, so why not have America be the world leaders of this new technology instead of trying to play catch up?
hay hows that 50 thousand dollar volt going for you with that 75 mile range and then recharge...
just plug it it and wait .... gonna be fun
You really shouldn't make comments about things you know nothing about. The Volt has about a 35-40 mile electric range. But here is the thing that makes you look like a horse's ass. The Volt does not plug in like a pure electric car. The Volt has a small gasoline engine that kicks on to recharge the batteries. It has a total range of about 300 miles.
November 19 2011 at 11:33 PM Report abuse Permalink +4 rate up rate down Replygee another great present from our glorious leader...
what next is in store for us from our muslim president..
maybe more mosque in american built by our tax dollars..
Some are blaming the auto for the global warming. I say B.S.! The world hit a record the other day, 7 billion people. That is 7 billion people that excrete CO2 24/7. Don't forget the methane that also is a by-product. We all know where that comes from. Odd, why have we not looked at population control? We are headed for another ice age whether we as a species are here or not. Look at the earth's tilt and ice age time cycle. It's coming. "IF" CO2 warms the planet, we better get more up there, though I do not believe it is a factor for one minute.
CO2 is heavier than the atmospher(sp?) and sinks and is absorbed by the oceans and plant life. By the way, when plant life dies and decays, the by-product is CO2. We need to get a grip on whats fact, not on speculation.
Sorry, I got off the subject of fuel economy.
Recharging electric cars comes from power plants generating with fossil fuel. By 2025 gas prices could be double so there will be no cost saving to the consumer. The added cost and the fact that lightening car weight and size will add to casualties are items the govt never looks at. Eventually alternative energy sources will be developed but for now drill for oil. Anyway its easy for some bureaucrat to come up with a MPG number with no idea how it will be achieved.
November 19 2011 at 7:57 AM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyTo all the negative comments here, "my efficent car wont be safe" or "how will I pull my boat" and "as mpg goes up so will gas prices". For the love of god do you friggin homework. If you want to see the future of the automobile just go to teslamotors.com. The first all electric car built in America was the Tesla Roadster. 0-60 in 3.4 seconds and a 200+ mile range (price is kind of steep at 116,000). Now they are going to release the S-Type Sedan. Seats up to 7 and the top model will have a range of 300 miles (70,000 for now). The future of America lies in all electric vehicles for the day to day commute. When you want to visit grandma just dust off the Chevy Nova and get to cruzin. 85% of Americans drive less than 100 miles a day (easy for a good electric car). If we cut our fuel usage by that amount Exxon would have to have bake sales to make a profit. Oh and as for the whole "where will the energy come from to charge all these cars". Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are about to come out big time. Power companies are starting to realize that a good wind turbine becomes profitable (pays for its self) in less than 5 years and has a working life of over 50 years. Dont be suprised to see these things poping up all over the country (45 years of profit is just to good to pass up). Dont believe everything you read here. I have a feeling that most of the negative comments here are made by people working in the basement of Exxon and BP :)
November 19 2011 at 7:57 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyAll electric cars are a pile of JOKES that will end their short lives in a junk yard, and as a used vehicle, who would want to buy a used electric car that leaves you stranded when the battery dies ? Until we find a way to make them run at least 200 miles on a charge. Even so, for me the next question is 'Then Waht? I drive regularily form Atlanta to Orlando, a distance of 500 miles one way, sometime I go on to Fort Lauderdale abot 275 miles more. Even the $50,000 GM Volt wouldn't be any use as the battery would be dead on the outskirta of Atlanta, so I may as well use a 'regular' car with a 20 or 24 gallons like my present old Buick that gets 26 MPG on the highway. The difference in price would buy a WHOLE LOT of gas that wouldn't justify the additional cost. The Nissan Leaf is an example of STUPID DESIGN. Once your battery dies on you, call a tow truck and pay the $120 to carry thelittle toy home. I wouldn't accept a LEAF if I got it FREE. The answer is Natural Gas. I'd say about 80-90% of Industrial Forklifts that work in food plants and warehouses use natural gas because of the're relatively clean emissions. The conversion cost would be soon amortized that is unless the oil robbers get their foot in the door. If we switch to natural gas, we need to build a completely NEW chains of 'gas stations, NOT related to oil IN ANY WAY, or our cost will be be under their corrupt control with the usual fake shortages, and any other scheme they are so good at dreaming up. It should NOT be considered or made a 'commidity' that the thieving 'investors' can f** with, that has oil priced at $40 a barrel higher than it should be right now.. Obama is so out of touch he won't care which way we go as long as he receives his 'cut'. Doesn't matter which way you look at it, America's 'g;ass' is 'Half Empty' and the 'Pep Talks' and flag waving we get are meaningless.
November 19 2011 at 11:21 AM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyYo' Vinny!
The list price for the Volt is $39,145, not $50,000 like you said. Next. The Volt is a hybrid not a pure electric car. Once fully charged the car goes about 35-40 miles on battery power alone. If you can't charge the batteries, a GASOLINE engine kicks in to recharge the batteries. The car has a useful range of about 300 miles.
You could set computers on the car so it would only run 55. But that would save to many lives and to much gas and cost the government to much tax money.
November 19 2011 at 7:43 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyOMG...don't even mention going back to 55 MPH speed limit. It's great for 'revenue' fot the states but some cars with 6 0r 8 speed transmissions would never shift into the their full range of speeds. Ray LaHood is USELESS and like 99% of all politicians, totally out of touch. Obama has a bad habit of nominationg people with ZERO real life experience to importanyt positions. As fot the worse than useless Tea Bag Party, they haven't a CLUE about ANYTHING but working in a futile attempt to cover theor asses for their idiotic suggestions that favor only the wealty and corporations exclusively.
November 19 2011 at 11:34 AM Report abuse Permalink -1 rate up rate down ReplyOh Vinny, you need to wake up. Everytime something else is used to make up for the gas that price then goes up. It's a vicious circle. Like E85. It's not cheaper. It gets less MPG, so all it does is equal itself out and increases the cost of corn. Yuo can continue to love Obama and all his socialistic tactics, but it is unconstitutional. If it is such a great idea then go ahead and make these cars, but don't take away the other cars. Donate more money for this type of research so it takes 20 years to ever see a return on it. Everything has a cause and effect. Cash fro clunkers? Good one Obama. You just made the used cars worth more money. It didn't stimulate new car purchasing by any means. Come out with your foreclosures laws that helped people forclose on their homes at a higher rate. All this did was help wealthy people buy another home double the size and foreclosure on their 1st home because they owed $200K more on it than it is not currently worth. Not a single thing that Obama's team has done has proved beneficial. Most became worse. Make all these banks have these new rules and new fees go to things that used to be free. All to benefit people that could not pay their bills. I can go on and on. This will cost our government and us tax payers more money than you can imagine. Lastly poor people will never be able to afford cars. Your basically making a car more expensive overall. Which is why Hybrids currently are only purchased by people who are wealthy. A replacement battery is $2K. Which is why the Dems are mandating it. To FORCE us to have to buy it. It's called Socialism.
November 19 2011 at 4:56 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate downSpotlight
Latest Auto News
- Official: Holden vows to stay the course in Australia despite Ford exit
- Report: Nissan's NY taxi deal faces court obstacles
- Video: 2013 Nissan GT-R and 2013 Alpina B6 mix it up on track and street
- Auctions: eBay Find of the Day: Viper Defender from '90s TV show
- Report: Strong auto sales predicted for Memorial Day weekend [w/poll]
- Report: Automakers donating money, vehicles and supplies to Oklahoma tornado relief effort
- Official: Need For Speed Rivals announced for Xbox One and Playstation 4 [w/video]



583 Comments