EPA and DOT to focus on CO2/Mi instead of MPG

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
PRESS RELEASE:

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson Propose National Program to Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce Greenhouse Gases

New Interagency Program to Address Climate Change and Energy Security

WASHINGTON ? U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson today jointly proposed a rule establishing an historic national program that would improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases. Their proposal builds upon core principles President Obama announced with automakers, the United Auto Workers, leaders in the environmental community, governors and state officials in May, and would provide coordinated national vehicle fuel efficiency and emissions standards. The proposed program would also conserve billions of barrels of oil, save consumers money at the pump, increase fuel economy, and reduce millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

"American drivers will keep more money in their pockets, put less pollution into the air, and help reduce a dependence on oil that sends billions of dollars out of our economy every year," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "By bringing together a broad coalition of stakeholders ? including an unprecedented partnership with American automakers ? we have crafted a path forward that is win-win for our health, our environment, and our economy. Through that partnership, we've taken the historic step of proposing the nation's first ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, and moved substantially closer to an efficient, clean energy future."

"The increases in fuel economy and the reductions in greenhouse gases we are proposing today would bring about a new era in automotive history," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. "These proposed standards would help consumers save money at the gas pump, help the environment, and decrease our dependence on oil ? all while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices."

Under the proposed program, which covers model years 2012 through 2016, automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as the standards of California and other states. The proposed program includes miles per gallon requirements under NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) program and the first-ever national emissions standards under EPA's greenhouse gas program. The collaboration of federal agencies for this proposal also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard).

Specifically, the program would:

* Increase fuel economy by approximately five percent every year
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons
* Save the average car buyer more than $3,000 in fuel costs
* Conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil

Increase Fuel Economy and Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions:
The proposed national program would require model year 2016 vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. Under the proposed program, the overall light-duty vehicle fleet would reach 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in model year 2016, if all reductions were made through fuel economy improvements. If this occurs, Congress' fuel economy goal of 35.0 mpg by 2020 will be met four years ahead of schedule. This would surpass the CAFE law passed by Congress in 2007, which required an average fuel economy of 35 mpg in 2020.
Reduce Greenhouse Gases:
Climate change poses a significant long-term threat to America 's environment. The vehicles subject to the proposed rules announced today are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions. These will be the nation's first ever national greenhouse gas standards. The proposed standards would require model year 2016 vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile under EPA's greenhouse gas program. The combined EPA and NHTSA standards would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the light-duty vehicle fleet by about 21 percent in 2030 over the level that would occur in the absence of any new greenhouse gas or fuel economy standards. The greenhouse gas emission reductions this program would bring about are equivalent to the emissions of 42 million cars.

Save Consumers Money:
NHTSA and EPA estimate that U.S. consumers who purchase their vehicle outright would save enough in lower fuel costs over the first three years to offset the increases in vehicle costs. Consumers would save more than $3,000 due to fuel savings over the lifetime of a model year 2016 vehicle.

Conserve Oil and Increase Energy Security:
The light-duty vehicles subject to this proposed National Program account for about 40 percent of all U.S. oil consumption. The program will provide important energy security benefits by conserving 1.8 billion barrels of oil, which is twice the amount of oil (crude oil and products) imported in 2008 from the Persian Gulf countries, according to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration Office. These standards also provide important energy security benefits as light-duty vehicles account for about 60 percent of transportation oil use.

Within the Auto Industry's Reach:
EPA and NHTSA have worked closely to develop this coordinated joint proposal and have met with many stakeholders including automakers to insure the standards proposed today are both aggressive and achievable given the current financial state of the auto industry.

NHTSA and EPA expect automobile manufacturers would meet these proposed standards by improving engine efficiency, transmissions and tires, as well as increasing the use of start-stop technology and improvements in air conditioning systems. EPA and NHTSA also anticipate that these standards would promote the more widespread use of advanced fuel-saving technologies like hybrid vehicles and clean diesel engines.

NHTSA and EPA are providing a 60-day comment period that begins with publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. The proposal and information about how to submit comments are at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm for EPA and http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/porta...0569eea57529cdba046a0/
for NHTSA.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
NHTSA has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed CAFE standards. The Draft EIS compares the environmental impacts of the agency's proposal and reasonable alternatives. NHTSA is providing a 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS. Information on the submission of comments is provided at the above NHTSA Web address.


Statement of Dave McCurdy on National Program for GHG/Fuel Economy Proposal

Washington, D.C. ? "Last May, automakers committed to President Obama to increase the average fuel economy in new vehicles by 40 percent to a combined 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. This historic joint-rulemaking proposal released today by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration creates a coordinated national approach for increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gases and prevents competing regulations at the state and federal level.

The proposal provides manufacturers with a roadmap for meeting significant increases for model years 2012-2016. Final rules are essential to providing manufacturers with the certainty and lead time necessary to plan for the future and cost effectively add new technology. We look forward to working constructively with the Obama administration to provide comments and begin meeting our shared goals of increasing fuel economy, enhancing energy security, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through this single national program."

This is the right step and will be more important than MPGs as we go towards electric vehicles.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/0...eenhouse-gas-plan-co2/
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
So besides VW, and soon Mahindra, offering the only Clean Diesel offerings here in the US, who's going to be next? Will there be at least a freeze in NOx and Particulate standards, or are we going to keep making Clean Diesel here in the US harder than the rest of the world to get?

Chuck
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
From AutoWeek (in the same press release):

U.S. seeks 5% fuel economy annual gains through 2016
09/15/09

The Obama administration today proposed gasoline mileage and greenhouse-gas pollution standards for new vehicles for model years 2012 to 2015, filling in the blanks for manufacturers en route to a 35.5 mpg national target in 2016.

The Transportation Department and EPA proposal calls for fuel economy to increase by about 5 percent each year, starting from an average of 27.3 mpg for the 2011 model year, the agencies said in a statement.


27.3 mpg to a 35.5 mpg national target in 2016 would be an increase of 30% in CAFE standards.



 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: chucky2
So besides VW, and soon Mahindra, offering the only Clean Diesel offerings here in the US, who's going to be next? Will there be at least a freeze in NOx and Particulate standards, or are we going to keep making Clean Diesel here in the US harder than the rest of the world to get?

Chuck

There's no such thing as a clean diesel, it's like clean coal, it's an illusion. We have particulate standards for a reason, the reason being that particulates cause lung disease and cancer. Why would we want to emulate the rest of the polluted world?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,396
8,559
126
Originally posted by: ayabe

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

the worst of them are not allowed near the US and iirc we've gotten canuckistan and the euros on board as well. however, those regulations have focused on the massive pollution rather than co2 emissions.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.../09/shipping-pollution




what needs to be done on the c02 side is that importers need to buy carbon credits in the carbon markets for the products they're importing, covering both the carbon used when making and the carbon used when shipping.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: ayabe

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

Make 'em nuke powered... 10-15 years between refuelings
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

This is the right step and will be more important than MPGs as we go towards electric vehicles.

With respect to conventional internal combustion engines, MPG's and CO2 emissions should track rather well because the more gasoline a car burns, the more CO2 it produces. That assumes the car is well tuned to avoid other pollutants like CO (carbon monoxide) from incomplete combustion, but that's why we also have clean air standards.

Moving to CO2 emissions an improvement in trying to achieve the goal of lowering pollution in an age of alternative propulsion systems because it will be a standard measurement we can use to compare the performance of various alternatives.

An all electric car would produce no CO2 while running, but we still have to consider the pollution generated in producing the electricity to charge the batteries. Where are those solar and wind powered cars when we need them? :p
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
There are bigger fish to fry.

It kind of funny to think about this statement with our level of over fishing and how soon there will be no bigger fish to fry :)

Goodbye my beloved Chilean Seabass :(
rose.gif
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

How do you suggest the world transport billions of tons of commerce then?

 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Am I missing something here, or is the thread title the opposite of what the OP's news article is about?

EPA and DOT to focus on CO2/Mi instead of MPG

vs.

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson Propose National Program to Improve Fuel Economy and Reduce Greenhouse Gases
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: marincounty
There's no such thing as a clean diesel, it's like clean coal, it's an illusion. We have particulate standards for a reason, the reason being that particulates cause lung disease and cancer. Why would we want to emulate the rest of the polluted world?

Europeans use more diesel in their passenger cars than we do and they have strict emission standards too. You obviously don't know enough about science, especially thermodynamics to comment on the benefits of diesel.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Cargo ships are extremely efficient in terms of goods transported. If we built and grew everything locally and stopped trading with anyone else, we wouldn't need cargo ships.

Do some research before you preach uneducated BS about cargo ships being the problem. As long as we have trade, cargo ships will remain the cheapest and most energy efficient way to conduct commerce. You can go back to living in a cave if you want to be truly carbon neutral :roll:
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
All else being equal, CO2/Mi and MPG would be more or less identical.

And a "humongoid cargo ship" is the most efficient form of transportation ever invented.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
If we built and grew everything locally and stopped trading with anyone else, we wouldn't need cargo ships.

Would growing everything locally really help?

Point taken. I agree with the author's analysis provided his math is right, but he sounds like a smart guy. I used to live in California and there was no reason for me to buy Mexico grown avocados simply because they're transported farther, and I'm sure the growing conditions are similar from the CA produced avocados compared to the Mexican ones. I'm not a total believer of free, efficient markets, but people started trading back in the day for a reason...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

How do you suggest the world transport billions of tons of commerce then?

Those transport ships use the lowest grade fuel with little or no emissions equipment. Just requiring cleaner grade would clean things up significantly. However that would require international standards.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,699
6,257
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: ayabe
Good move.

But if we really want to start reducing emissions, we need to be putting more focus on what is really causing the problem. Cars and trucks are in fact, very small contributors in the scheme of things.

A single humongoid cargo ship emits more toxic crap than millions of cars.

But that "humongoid cargo ship" is the reason you're sitting in a chair right now, using a fairly affordable computer.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

My point is that putting so much focus and energy on something that even if reduced to zero today would have little to no impact on climate change is foolish.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.

Emissions related to automobiles, especially congestion, is not something to overlook. I was trying to google some figures but I couldn't find anything. Cars idling get 0 mpg, that's a complete waste of energy. Doesn't matter if it's a PZEV vehicle.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.

Emissions related to automobiles, especially congestion, is not something to overlook. I was trying to google some figures but I couldn't find anything. Cars idling get 0 mpg, that's a complete waste of energy. Doesn't matter if it's a PZEV vehicle.

Your right an idling care is a complete waste of energy, but it would far easier to put cleaner fuel and emissions control in a container ship than to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars to be hybrid or to have automatic stop/start engine(this will be in new cars soon).
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski

Anywhere that Efficiencies can be achieved needs to be pursued. Many Fish need fried, not just one big one.

His point is this would be far easier and cheaper target than the automotive fleet.

Emissions related to automobiles, especially congestion, is not something to overlook. I was trying to google some figures but I couldn't find anything. Cars idling get 0 mpg, that's a complete waste of energy. Doesn't matter if it's a PZEV vehicle.

Your right an idling care is a complete waste of energy, but it would far easier to put cleaner fuel and emissions control in a container ship than to retrofit hundreds of millions of cars to be hybrid or to have automatic stop/start engine(this will be in new cars soon).

Someone said something about international standards for cargo ship emissions, that's something that has to be discussed and worked on. I can't imagine the equipment dropping efficiency by that much or costing that much, for that matter.

I'm more thinking along the lines of encouraging businesses to have alternate work weeks/hours so that people don't have to clog up the freeways at all times. With internet, a lot of businesses probably don't really need employees to all meet at work every day of the week.