From the Wall Street Journal:

DINGELL WARNS BIG THREE TO IMPROVE VEHICLES' FUEL ECONOMY

One of the U.S. auto industry's most powerful supporters on Capitol Hill, Rep. John D. Dingell (D., Mich.) warned U.S. auto makers to take "bold, serious and visionary" steps to improve the fuel economy of its cars and trucks or prepare to suffer a "spectacular" political hit at the hands of environmentalists.

As the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Dingell has for years helped the Big Three auto makers fend off calls for a significant toughening of the nation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. His efforts have won him praise from the Big Three and scorn from environmental activists.

In a speech delivered to the Detroit Economic Club Monday and in an interview afterward, Rep. Dingell made clear he thinks the most realistic way for the Big Three to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles is to boost production in the U.S. of diesel vehicles.

Diesel cars have captured a big chunk of the auto market in Europe, where gasoline costs as much as $5 a gallon, both because they are powerful and a lot cleaner and quieter than they were decades ago. But they still aren't clean enough to meet upcoming U.S. clean-air laws, which are tougher than Europe's laws are.

Several auto makers have announced plans to roll out small numbers of diesel vehicles in the next couple years in the U.S. to gauge the demand for the technology among U.S. consumers.

In the interview, Rep. Dingell reiterated a call he has made before for the federal government to pressure oil refiners to further reduce the amount of sulfur in their fuel, since sulfur clogs equipment on vehicles that is designed to reduce the amount of air pollution they cough out. He also repeated his call for the government to provide oil companies with tax breaks to defray the cost of retrofitting their refineries to produce lower-sulfur fuel.

Despite talk among some auto makers about their interest in using hydrogen- powered fuel-cell cars to improve the environment and reduce U.S. oil dependence, Rep. Dingell said in the interview that is "too far in the future."

In the meantime, he said, the industry must take stronger action to persuade consumers that it is making a real effort to improve its vehicles' fuel economy because the industry is " dependent to a great degree on public good will."

In his speech to the Detroit Economic Club, Rep. Dingell told an audience full of auto executives that he won't be able to provide them political cover forever in the fuel-economy debate.

Bush Wants To Toughen Rules

The Bush administration, responding to intensifying political pressure to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, has announced it is toughening fuel-economy rules incrementally over the next few years and soliciting public comment on potential ways to rewrite the standards more significantly.

One big issue is how to address what environmentalists call the standard's " SUV loophole," which allows light trucks -- the sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans that account for an outsized portion of the Big Three's profits -- to get worse gas mileage than passenger cars.

"There are always the prospects of CAFE changes and that's a pot that I intend to watch closely and a watched pot never boils," said Rep. Dingell, according to a prepared text of his speech released by his office.

Although Rep. Dingell intends to continue as chairman of the House committee that oversees automotive fuel economy, he said, "I won't always be here to watch that simmering pot. That leaves you two options -- you can let the pot boil over and deal with the resulting mess, which I assure you will be spectacular, or take steps now to reduce the heat. These steps should be bold, serious and visionary.

"The challenge our industry faces," the prepared text of Rep. Dingell's speech continued, "is to come up with a policy which meets our concerns, that breaks our cycle of dependency on foreign oil and does it in a way that both preserves our competitive ability and serves the broader public interest."

In his speech, he took aim at the auto industry's environmentalist critics. Rep. Dingell said polls from environmental groups that show Americans want more fuel-efficient vehicles demonstrate "that everybody wants to limit somebody's freedom of choice."

 

I suspect as the article indicates that the light truck category will take the largest hit. What is the standard? 20 mpg? Pathetic, my overweight, overpowered gas hog of a Formula still got 18mpg average city/highway.

While I fear that new regulations will put a hiatus on the current horsepower wars, I see nothing but good coming from harsher standards in the long run. Automakers have overcome this before and I see no reason why they cannot do it again. Being a father, I am indeed concerned about the future of the environment.

 

Overall I think it's good to hear this since we clearly need to push for cleaner burning, more efficient vehicles and [eventually] get away from oil as our fuel source (not electric fuel cell cars - they only trade one form of energy use for another). I hope import automakers will recieve the same kind of scrutiny.

Putting aside the loopholes that have allowed trucks and SUVS to get **** poor gas milage for so long, what bugs me most is that whilst cars have gotten much cleaner - other major sources of pollution have been allowed to go about their business quietly. What about all the pollution due to power generation, mining, drilling and other heavy industries that dump toxic materials into our air, our soil and our lakes and sterams and ultimately into all of us? These guys seem to get off relatively light. The modern automobile *is* the environmental scapegoat that gets the spotlight and all the attention but is part of a bigger puzzle.

A more comprehensive accross the board solution to polution and reducing energy consumption is going to do far more than demanding that CAFE averages improve by 5 mpg [or whatever] it is that this new round of demands amounts to.

 

I was also very glad to read that and I thik it extremely important that it came from one of the big 3's biggest supporters.

I'm also glad and kinda surprised by the other replies so far.

Sometimes it feels like the "it was better when we had carburators and open exhaust' crowd in here.

 

So lets replace clean burning vehicles with dirty burning vehicles?

Isn't there a new PZEV Focus coming out soon? Whats wrong with this new direction?

Anyway....I'm glad to hear that maybe soon they'll be tightening down on small trucks/SUVs. Some of these things are getting rediculously low gas milage and rediculously high emissions.

And like Marcus said....we need to concentrate more across the board, not just cars and trucks. The sad thing is, if the gov't cracks down on businesses getting cleaner, we'll be paying with our pockets so that businesses can stay competitive. But thats our price for what we've become...

 

Emissions aren't a problem. No modern gasoline vehicles with properly functioning control systems, cats, etc. pollutes much. The pollution happens during the first minute or so when the cat is not at its operating temp, but after that the pollutants round down to zero.

CO2 isn't in the same category. It isn't a "pollutant", because it is the natural result of perfect combustion, human breathing, etc. It is directly tied to fuel economy.

Of course, fuel economy IS a problem for trucks and some cars, and the numbers should go up. BUT, CAFE IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT. CAFE artificially screws with the supply side, with no change to the demand side. So there are Cavaliers and Aveos, 4 cylinder S10s, etc. sold at +/- no profit to subsidize (in fuel economy) the sales of vehicles that people DO want (pickups, suburbans, etc.). If people are serious about wanting better fuel economy, then they should put their money where there mouth is. What does the public buy? Big, powerful trucks and suvs.

If people/enviros/gov't want the Big 3 (not to mention Honda, TOYOTA, NISSAN) to make improvements in fuel economy averages, they should give the buying public an incentive to do so, because it obviously isn't a huge priority for many of them. So, do you force the automakers to foist products on people that they don't want, losing money, jobs, etc in the process? Or, do you cause the people to change what they want?

About the only way to do that is through their pocketbooks. Put a zero-revenue big tax increase (gradually phased in) on gasoline. Zero revenue meaning that each taxpayer/driver gets a refund each year based on the average the taxes go up. So, say the gas tax will cost the average driver an additional 1000 bucks a year. Since we sure as HELL don't want anymore money to go to the government, everyone gets a refund of 1500 bucks right up front (I'm making the numbers up, obviously). Then people have the choice of driving their big trucks and ending up paying the 1500 bucks back in taxes, leaving them where they are now, or slightly worse. OR, they can make fuel economy a priority and get something with twice the mileage. That way they get to keep a good chunk of the 1500 bucks, and they come out financially ahead.

To me, if this is indeed a public issue, then the public needs to decide (through its Representatives/Senators/Pres) that they want to change the demand side. That will force the automakers to offer more fuel efficient models in order to keep selling vehicles. You change the demand, and the supply will follow. Changing the supply side to things no one demands will just hurt the companies attempting to supply...

Dang, that was long, and I typed it quickly. I hope the main idea is clear at least...

 

I have a problem with politicians using emission/fuel economy as a political issue. Well, they use everything as a political issue but that's beside the point. That is a generalization though, because I have to applaud Dingell for a reasoned, intelligent discussion rather than dogmatic rhetoric.

Everybody wants better fuel economy, but the market dictates it to a degree. If consumers want better economy, automakers will respond. As long as gas is cheap its not going to be as big of a deal.

I could go along with a gradual increase in standards of a set period of years, this would allow automakers to develop and implement new technologies without dumping massive amounts of capital into the programs, thus neglecting other areas which eventually could hamper their ability to be competitive in the market.

It is the panicked, alarmist call for action NOW that I fear the most. But it gets votes of the enviro-crowd. My favorite is watching Michigan Democrats squirm, because on the one hand they have to play to the environmentalists, but on the other hand they can't tick off the autoworkers unions either.

Huge new taxes on fuel are the wrong way to coerce change. Think of all the low income americans who MUST use a car to get to work you'd automatically price out of the workforce because they can't fill their tank up and feed their kids at the same time.

I'd prefer them to just leave it alone and allow the market to self regulate. Any time the government mucks with the free market system is screws it up. Besides, there is plenty of oil in known reserves and who knows how much in unproven reserves we have yet to find. If we indeed did run out of oil in 10 years ethanol could be phased in quickly enough to hedge the system in time to avert disaster. With fuel cell technologies coming online in 10-20 years I think this is really a non-issue anymore.

I would ultimately agree to a point with the Tree Hugers though, that the SUV's need to be in a different classification for CAFE. Most of them get worse economy than pickups due to their weight.. Perhaps we need a specific SUV class with a MPG requirement somewhere between cars and light trucks.

But the whole issue of emissions and fuel consumption is sort of like global warming, despite a proven global climate increase of 1 degree over the entirety of the 20th century, we're all in a panic over melting icecaps and the like. Not saying no warming is going on but it is still farrrr from proven that it is in fact happening or that we are even the cause of it.

 

One question, how is Dingell, and Democrat, the chairman of the committee given the GOP controls the house?

 

I hate CAFE. I hate the govt telling what we should drive. I hate the govt telling how much gas we should burn. I bet most of those tree hugging politians drive big SUV's!!

 

I would like for just one person to show any kind of link between auto emissions and the environment. If CO2 emissions equals pollution, the we are all guilty of polluting just by sitting here at our keyboards and breathing. If people are so concerned about fuel economy, then why isn't everyone driving around in compact cars?

As for foreign oil, we probably have plenty here in the U.S.A. which we would be able to drill for it if it wasn't for all the pansey-assed enviromentalists out there.

 

We need a tax on vehicles over 5000 lbs with the exception of commercial trucks purchased by construction or delivery businesses or farms.

If you want a 5600 lb Escalade or 6400 pound Hummer H2 in your driveway instead of a 4400 lb Trailblazer or a 4800 lb Lincoln Aviator, then you should need it or be willing to pay extra for it. This will still give the option to anyone to buy an SUV if they want one, and restore sanity to those people who feel they NEED a vehicle that weighs almost as much as a Kenworth because they deserve it.

Zero revenue taxes make no sense whatsoever (we'll tax you.....but then we'll give you the money back? :confuse: ). Any type of optional consumption tax (especially towards anyone that is already getting tax breaks...nearly equalling freebee status... for buying Hummers & Escalades that I don't get for buying a GTO) is always better than mandates for the rest of us. Anyone driving something that weighs nearly twice the weight of my Z28 should be hit with a surcharge.

The extra revenue can go towards plugging that gapping budget hole those 2 large scale tax cuts to the members of the top 5% club got over the past couple of years.

 

Great post. I especially liked that last sentence. The Waltons make as much money in a day that many of us will make in a lifetime...they don't need anymore tax breaks

 

We don't have that much here, it's been discussed elsewhere to death. Even Alaska doesn't have that much.

As far as linking emissions to the enviroment, how about the rise in respiratory ailments over the past 10-15 years? Or that the skyline of L.A. is clearer now than it was 15 years ago?

I think guionm has the rigt idea, a new sort of gas guzzler or luxury (vanity) tax.

Wholisticly speaking there are other areas to reduce foriegn oil dependance as well (home heating oil alternatives, better plastic recycling programs, etc.)

 

That is why I said a ZERO revenue tax. Obviously the details would be a little more involved than my example, but I still think it is hokey to impose standards on the automakers rather than the people who are consuming all this fuel they supposedly want to save.

You are right, though, that government involvement tends to muck stuff up in general.

 

Another way to go. The point is to hit the demand side, not the supply side. Also, making "zero revenue" doesn't literally mean the gov't will get no money from it. The people who keep driving the guzzlers will still pay (and it isn't just heavy vehicles that guzzle), just as they would if you put a tax on the heavier, fuel thirsty vehicles. Taxing the heavier vehicles could be a simpler way to implement it, though. Again, my point was that the incentive needs to be there for the consumers, and taxes can be a good incentive, but RAISING taxes (giving more money to an already ridiculously bloated government) is not something we need. Think how much money the government makes off of cigarettes, etc.

Anyway, I'm not pretending to be an economist. Once again, the main idea is that it should be the consumers, not the automakers, who decide what the consumers buy, and therefore any desired social change falls in the hands of the consumer. If, as is currently the case, fuel economy is not enough of a priority to force them to buy smaller, then you have to give them an incentive to move in that direction. Taxes are one way to do that...