Fight on gas mileage revs up

[Doondoo]

As Congress revs its debate on global warming, the auto industry will face growing momentum for fuel economy standards far stricter than what the Bush administration has pitched.

Mandating more efficient cars and trucks may be one of the few ideas with a broad consensus on Capitol Hill, appealing to global warming and energy security concerns. That momentum may overwhelm any initial objections from Detroit automakers about how higher standards could raise their costs even as they lose money and shed jobs in North America.

While President George W. Bush sent his plan to Congress last week, others are on their way. U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., will introduce an updated fuel economy proposal in the next couple of weeks. In the last Congress, Markey cosponsored a bill to require cars and trucks to achieve an average of 33 miles per gallon by 2016.

.......

Markey, who likely will run a special committee on global warming when it is launched by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman last week whether the administration would accept a mandatory fuel economy increase from Congress. Bodman said the administration "would be happy to work with you on that," but declined to give a yes or no answer.

"The big problem I have is that the people of the United States don't trust the Department of Transportation anymore," Markey said. "We need to have a mandate that they actually apply."

Markey added that while the scope of annual increases was open to debate, "we can't discuss whether or not it's optional."



http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070212/BUSINESS01/702120326

[phantom power]

1. Although I support increased CAFE,

I also think it's on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Economic forces, including but not limited to peak oil, will force people to use less fuel, one way or another. Probably by making it unaffordable. Agressive CAFE would have been relevant as a preventative measure 20 years ago. I think the horses are more or less out of the barn now.

[freethought]

3. You're probably right.

But I am willing to bet money that Detroit will pull our every stopper, bribe every possible congress person, hire every possible lobbyist, and enlist the services of every corporate/free market think tank it can afford to keep CAFE standards out of the picture.

Ford posted its biggest quarterly loss in its entire history recently. What was it? $12 billion +!!
They'll still resist it. You watch!!

[phantom power]

4. I agree, their resistance to CAFE is a reflex they can't control.

It's part of American tribal politics. Like Republicans being skeptical of climate change. It's got nothing to do with science or data, it's a tribal thing for them. New information need not apply.

[freethought]

2. There is no reason why we can't have CAFE standards

Ed Markey is right, CAFE standards are NOT OPTIONAL. If the US automakers can't adapt to them then too bad. This sounds cruel, and I am the son of a once UAW union member who worked for GM, but I have little sympathy for Big-Three management. I am convinced that Ford, GM and Daimler Chrysler don't want to compete or innovate, they want to rig policy and markets in their favor.