Senate rejects tough new auto fuel economy measure

Senate rejects tough new auto fuel economy measure; approves industry-supported alternative

H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Tuesday, July 29, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Senate rejected a proposal to require a sharp increase in automobile fuel economy Tuesday after concerns were raised that it would lead to a loss of auto industry jobs and limit consumer's ability to buy larger cars and SUVs.

By a 65-32 vote, the Senate turned back a proposal offered by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., that would have required automakers to produce a fleet average of 40 miles per gallon by 2015, a dramatic increase from the current 27.5 mpg now required.

Instead, senators approved by a 66-30 vote an industry-supported measure that turned the issue over to the Transportation Department, which will be required to take into consideration an array of issues -- from job losses and highway safety to economic impact on U.S. auto manufacturers -- before any rule change can be made.

This would "create unnecessary hurdles to any significant increases" in fuel economy by the transportation agency, argued Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and open any future fuel economy decisions to an increasing number of court challenges.

"We are going backwards," said Bingaman.

The measure, offered by Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., prescribes no specific, mandated increase in corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE.


Durbin, D-Ill., said the technology is available to make cars and even sport-utility vehicles use substantially less gasoline, but he said opponents are content "to wave a white flag and say we can't do it" and let foreign automakers develop the technology.

"The technology is there," he insisted.

<SNIP>

A less ambitious proposal, expected to be introduced later Tuesday, would require SUVs, pickups and passenger vans to meet the same fuel economy requirements as passenger cars, not the current 20.7 mpg. Like the Durbin amendment, that measure, to be offered by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, has been opposed by the auto industry as well as unions. Its prospects were uncertain.

Most Republicans and a scattering of Democrats from states with large auto manufacturing plants supported the Bond-Levin amendment.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/07/29/national1741EDT0723.DTL

He holds up a European can and says are we going to be expected to drive this? Is he advocating gluttony (non-christian) or was that a slam against the non-patriot Europeans.

My dh works in future development for one of the Big Three, he thinks that requiring stricter standards would actually create MORE jobs. He also thinks that exploring fuel alternatives would create MORE jobs. No one has ever been able to explain realistically why these things would cost jobs?? It makes no sense.

What the hell are we planning to do when the oil runs out, when we've got no alternative plan for the future? Are we just going to guzzle and guzzle until it's gone?? Criminy.

(Up early, aren't you James??) ;-)

I am on the other end of the clock, I go to bed after the paper arrives.

I think what would cost the jobs would be the re-tooling of the factories and the temporary slow down in the works till that was done.

I know this much, the next car I buy will be at least a hybrid.

I forget that you're on shift. I'm forced by my young'un to get up at ungodly morning hours, and I'm a night person by nature... ack!

I agree that the factories would have to be retooled, but why not get started NOW, and you could have BOTH fuel system types being created side by side during the transition, see what I mean? At our current rate, just guzzling relatively cheap gasoline, status quo, then NO ONE in Detroit will have a job when there is no gasoline to run the cars and no backup alternative. I guess then we all just start riding bikes?

I can't stand this lack of planning!

Everyone asks my dh how a Democrat like him can work a white collar job for the auto industry, and his response is that he likes to think that he can make a difference and get these alternatives out there. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to try to work within the system to change it.

And hell, he's more of a conservative Dem anyway!!

If the legislators are so worried about job losses due to the transition period, why don't they just write it into the law that nobody who had a job in one of these factories before the legislation was proposed can be laid off until at least six months after retooling is complete?

Or is that just a little too communist for the US corporate fatcat's tastes?

that often the entire system is the enemy. This Country needs an enema!

I agree with you on that one. If you read the entire article they bring up that the technology is there, it just has to be used. The auto industry is fighting it.

Due to high taxes on fuel, European (and Japanese) car makers have already developed car engines that are very low on consumption. I assume they are more advanced on these techniques than U.S. car makers. In the lists of low-consumption cars already on the market I've detected none made by an U.S. manufacturer.

Average consumption in Germany in 2000 was 8.5 l/100 km (27.672 miles/gallon), with new cars running by an average 30.547 miles/gallon.

A recent Shell study proposes that new cars in 2020 will run on an average 54.7 to 63.6 gallons.

http://www.innovationsreport.de/html/berichte/verkehr_logistik/bericht-4863.html

Not that I expected Senator Durbin’s ambitious plan to gain support from the majority in the Senate, it still highlighted the two most absurd arguments in this debate: Both easily refuted.

1) Choice- Arguments suggest this would limit choice. However, CARS (non-trucks, SUVS) are subject to CAFÉ regulations yet the marketplace seems to be swimming with all kinds of different cars. Basically “car” buyers can opt to get a luxury, less economical car, a high speed sport car or go economy. SUV and truck drivers don’t have this choice. I drive a 4-cylinder Dodge Pickup and its gas mileage is terrible (sub 20). I rented a Toyota Camery when I went away on business and not only was the car a roomy car, but it was an automatic (my truck is stick), and I ran the AC all the time…The gas mileage was markedly better than the truck. Basically, I don’t “get choice” in the truck and SUV market. If I want one of these vehicles there is no chance I will get a meager 26 miles to the gallon.
2) Safety- This argument is the most dubious. Of course, when you are in a full-sized SUV and you crash by yourself into a tree your chances are better than if you crash while driving a VW Bug. However, what about wrecks with other cars? What about the NON-SUV driver’s safety? The 14% increase in SUV rollover deaths notwithstanding, this argument is the epitome of selfishness and arrogance.

Essentially, the interests of the car manufacturers, the oil companies and the folks who like/drive SUVs is taken care of by the power elite. The interest of those of us who choose to live in a sustainable fashion are trampled over.

So now when those of us who drive small cars (I will soon be getting a hybrid so I can use the HOV lanes in DC in peak times) have to “worry” about OUR safety and OUR children’s safety while Suburbans and Hummers come barreling down the road.

And when we ask to a modest increase in fuel standards we are called selfish environmentalists.

Unless we all have an Abrahms tank we will get hurt in a collision. I think the "bigger is better" is just an argument for the gas companies, especially if you consider things like the HUMMERs'

Typical Republican philosophy concerning the safety aspect of SUVS. That philosophy is FUKEM...as long as I got mine baby.

Another thing mentioned on DU that I have noticed…When following an SUV you are not able to see the traffic ahead of you. Part of good, defensive (SAFE) driving is being able to see traffic up ahead so that you can react (if you see brake lights through the car in front of you, then you can slow down).

With the SUV you are beholden completely to that vehicles tail-lights, which is far from the optimal situation.

A complete, objective and impartial, even apolitical study will indicate that SUVs are causing more than their proportional share of the traffic accidents on the road, BUT…as long as SUV drivers are unharmed then who gives a crap, hey?

On a lighter note…Back when my wife bought her mini-van she wanted a large SUV. I would not allow it. It was against everything I stood for and I saw no reason to have one. We were in the car lot basically yelling at each other. She mentioned size and safety and I said we should go purchase a tank or bus.

Admittedly, I have a young daughter and have thought at least once of buying a monster SUV just to keep her safe from the other SUV drivers.

These pricks really have people between a rock and a hard place on their “choices” made concerning vehicles.

the Bush administration has earlier in the month cut federal fundingfor things like bike paths. Yes the bike path was targeted earlir this month by him. It is needed to help make the economy stronger, such waste can not be had in these fiscally prudent times. Oh yes he also increased the write off for your business car to $70k or something like that. He is pushing an SUV environment. I wonder if he is in the oil business, he sure is helping them out with his legislation.