Government to propose truck fuel efficiency rules

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

Plan is expected to seek about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption

Future tractor-trailers, school buses, delivery vans, garbage trucks and heavy-duty pickup trucks must do better at the pump under first-ever fuel efficiency rules coming from the Obama administration.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are moving ahead with a proposal for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, beginning with those sold in the 2014 model year and into the 2018 model year.

The plan is expected to seek about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from longhaul trucks, according to people familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to speak publicly before the official announcement, expected Monday.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39819230/ns/us_news-environment/

[HillbillyBob]

1. Chapel Hill and Durham are starting to use Hybrid city buses

No big black cloud of diesel fumes when they move off. Those fumes are hard to take.
We should have had fuel use requirements on all vehicles for years.
I remember during the 80s every time they came up gm ford and chrysler would whine about and get it watered down or killed off.

How much better off would we be if the Carter plans had a real f ing chance?

[DCKit]

3. Hydraulic hybrids would cure that.

The resistance to innovation is amazing.

[Lance_Boyle]

27. But they still run D2 (petrodiesel).

The DATA buses anyway (dunno about the Chapel Hill ones) could run at least 20% biodiesel, probably 100%.

Of course their demand would drive up the bio-d pump price around here which would not necessarily be a good thing for me...

[NV Whino]

2. Europe has had hybrid trucks for years

[One_Life_To_Give]

22. At $5+/gal we would too

Vehicles in Europe are more efficient for two reasons. One is the price of fuel. The second being a lack of space for roads (width), parking etc.

[LawnKorn]

4. Heavy-duty pickups should be limited to people who have a demonstrated need for such vehicles

It is a complete waste for a 'big man' to need a 'big truck' to drive to and from his 9 to 5 office job.

Means testing for actual need of over sized vehicles should not be out of the question in protecting the environment.

[Ginto]

5. Your half right :). We need means testing for all vehicles, not simply trucks.

There is no reason that a single woman or a single man working in an office needs a suburban, navigator, or even a jeep. Same applies to cars with V8 engines.

[Throd]

8. What if I just happen to want one?

[Ginto]

9. Then you are free to submit your application with why your desire should trump the environment. nt

[Throd]

10. Please submit all your travel plans too please.

Unnecessary car trips should not trump the environment either. Someone else should decide if you really need to drive to destination X.

[Ginto]

11. Limiting gas guzzlers will make that trip much less costly for the environment.

The idea is not to limit movement, but to make free movement be less harmful. Do you remove the catalytic converter on all your vehicles because you don't want any exhaust restriction?

[Throd]

12. Nobody needs a Corvette, but if they want one, they should be able to buy one.

My car never had a catalytic converter.

[Ginto]

14. If you want to take off your catalytic converter off your new Corvette, you can't.

And that is the way it should be. Less want, more need. I know it's not the "Amurikan" way.

[Throd]

15. Is that what I'm advocating?

[Ginto]

17. So you're okay with restrictions as long as they don't inconvenience you?

We're trying to save the planet here.

[Throd]

18. I'm not okay with having to justify my needs and wants to strangers.

Vacation travel should be banned.
Outdoor barbecues should be banned.
Meat consumption should be banned.
Nobody should have more than one child.

We're trying to save the planet here.

[Ginto]

19. Hyperbole.

Restricting gas guzzlers is <> to banning vacation travel or any of your other comparisons. It's an easy fix that does not harm anyone except those that need a giant vehicle to feel superior.

[Throd]

20. You are assuming what motivates others and then judging their necessities

True, I was being hyperbolic to illustrate that there are a lot of choices we make in our personal lives that negatively impact the environment. I don't care if someone wants to drive a Corvette to compensate for a tiny dick or any other reason. It isn't for me to decide.

[Ginto]

21. You should care.

It's needless destruction of the environment. Like I said though. It's the "Amurikan" way.

[Big_Mike]

13. Needs test, Means test, Trip necessity

Hmm, doesn't sound much like any personal freedom is allowed in this kind of world. I prefer to make my own decisions, and be damned to anyone else's opinion or desires. If I am so stupid to buy a fuel hog, that means I'll pay for it. But if they want to dictate to me my decisions, fuck 'em. Central planning has never been able to effectively accomplish anything, or was there a successful 5 year plan I never heard about? But I digress.

What we need are REAL advances in the technology, not lying piece of shit cover-ups like the Chevy Volt. Anybody remember the Rabbit diesel? Got between 50 and 70 mpg. Great little car. No good for a larger family, but for a single guy or girl, it was great. The diesel engine manufacturers are doing a pretty damn good job at cleaning up those motors. The engines used in the new locomotives are much cleaner than before, and have recently passed the Port of San Pedro/LA air requirements. Look at the turbine/battery hybrid buses running in various cities. Exhaust particulates are down >70%. The tech is getting there, we just need to support it.

Any of you that can, invest in the companies doing fuel cell and extended range battery work. That will help with reducing our needs, and also reduce particulate outputs.

[Ginto]

16. So you are against all environmental laws?

Want to dump your oil in the storm drain then go for it? Want to take off your catalytic converter because you like the sound then so be it? Want to remove the seatbelts from your car then safety be damned? That is a scary world you want to live in.

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. The "scary world" is one in which self righteous busybodies want to impose their will on everyone...

else.

As the above poster said, if he (or anyone) wants to buy a big pickup truck and pay the fuel costs, why is it any skin off your nose? Requiring someone put in an "application" to some government agency to get approval to buy a consumer product is just simply absurd and would NEVER fly in this country and never should. An automobile is not a nuclear power plant.

The internal combustion engine has come a long way and even large vehicles, such as the ones discussed in the OP are MUCH cleaner than they were 20 or even 10 years ago.

So you are against all environmental laws? Want to dump your oil in the storm drain then go for it? Want to take off your catalytic converter because you like the sound then so be it? Want to remove the seatbelts from your car then safety be damned? That is a scary world you want to live in.

How the hell do you get all of that from the post you responded to? That is a fairly big leap you made there.

What you have advocated in this sub-thread is ridiculous.

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. Next Licences to Procreate

Since offspring are the biggest contributor to environmental destruction. Everyone should be required to submit an application to have any offspring.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

24. "We need means testing for all vehicles, not simply trucks."

There is no reason that a single woman or a single man working in an office needs a suburban, navigator, or even a jeep. Same applies to cars with V8 engines.

Let's just put aside your advocacy of discrimination on the basis on marital status for discussion some other time, shall we?

With that out of the way, why don't you tell me a little bit about yourself? As long as you're going to be doing my thinking for me, I'd like to know what your qualifications are.

Thanks.

[Xithras]

26. There's a simpler, and less controversial, way to accomplish the same thing.

First, levy federal registration fees proportionate to the vehicles pollution level. The bigger the engine, the higher the fee.

Then offer waivers for farmers and businesses that can prove a legitimate need for the vehicle.

Those who really need them can use them without penalty. Those who simply want them can still use them, but they'll pay for their environmental impact.

[Mopar151]

25. How about an insurance/.registration "break"

for commuter cars? At the moment, an 'extra" car can cost A couple thou$and buck$ a year, just in insurance - even if it "parks" a bigger, more expensive vehicle.

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. I hear ya

Even for a middle aged guy like me. The cost of insurance on the third car eats into the fuel savings. Not quite a thousand a year extra for insurance. Against a savings of almost 300gal/yr.

[bemildred]

6. Government to Propose Truck Fuel Efficiency Rules

Source: AP

Future tractor-trailers, school buses, delivery vans, garbage trucks and heavy-duty pickup trucks must do better at the pump under first-ever fuel efficiency rules coming from the Obama administration.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are moving ahead with a proposal for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, beginning with those sold in the 2014 model year and into the 2018 model year.

The plan is expected to seek about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from longhaul trucks, according to people familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to speak publicly before the official announcement, expected Monday.

Overall, the proposal is expected to seek reductions of 10 percent to 20 percent in fuel consumption and emissions based on the vehicle's size. Large tractor-trailers tend to be driven up to 150,000 miles a year, making them ripe for improved miles per gallon.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11957899

[azul]

7. A gas tax here and now would hasten the move to alternatives.

A commensurate tax to incentivize business to speedily change to electric and sustainable energies tax gas and diesel would be fair and in the real interests of national security.

Be brave, congress and Mr President, and tell the truth that these wars are being waged to supply gas to run our economy, therefore it is only prudent and fair to fund the wars with gas taxes: pay as you fight and go. Why make oil companies and oil nations rich at the expense of taxpayer blood and money? These are the true costs of burning fossil fuels now, so why not charge at the pump?

The ecological costs of fossil fueling may thus be somewhat side-stepped and perhaps reduced more quickly.