EPA Says Car Makers May Face 75mpg Rules By 2030s!

EPA Says Car Makers May Face 75mpg Rules By 2030s!
The nation's passenger cars and light trucks may have to average 75 miles per gallon by the 2030s, a top federal environmental official said at the SAE International World Congress.

Margo Oge, director of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said Monday at the SAE International 2008 World Congress in Detroit that's the level of fuel economy needed to meet a widely backed scientific-community proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 80 percent by 2050 from 2000 levels.

Congress has mandated automobiles and light trucks average an industry fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020, a 40 percent increase over current requirements.

To meet the low end of the 2050 proposal, automakers would have to average 75 mpg in the 2030s, Oge.


Read Article

EnnNorakEnnNorak - 4/15/2008 5:33:29 PM
+3 Boost
I dunno what they are smoking but, if world population growth is not stopped real soon, we will all be riding motorized bicycles that get 175 m.p.g.


0to600to60 - 4/15/2008 12:23:35 PM
-1 Boost
Well hopefully by that time, what ever source we use for fuel will be inexpensive and plentiful without the reliance on external (out of the US) sources.


randy33randy33 - 4/18/2008 10:22:36 AM
+1 Boost
Unfortunately the people pushing for higher CAFE standards to "fight global warming" are the very same radical left-wing fruitbags (obama voters) who don't want us to drill for or refine our own oil.


SteedPubSteedPub - 4/15/2008 12:31:15 PM
+3 Boost
These self empowered whacks at the EPA are going to have to be reeled in at some point, or they will ruin our country.


MadibaPMadibaP - 4/15/2008 4:50:17 PM
+2 Boost
You don't think the banning of the constitution in current law, or the legal presidential right to split up families and relocate them into work camps is a tad more worrying than the EPA?


EnnNorakEnnNorak - 4/15/2008 5:44:06 PM
+2 Boost
MadibaP, I don't think that SteedPub is trying to abolish the American way of life or anything -- he is simply critical of the bureaucracy at the EPA. The problem is that politicians want to be seen to be doing something about major issues and they don't care if the solution to the problem is really worth the effort or not -- it just has to look good.


SteedPubSteedPub - 4/15/2008 7:43:18 PM
+2 Boost
MadibaP, all those things you are alleging don't affect my economy. Whacky self imposed knee capping of our way of life on the part of people who dont have a clue what they are running from does.


randy33randy33 - 4/18/2008 10:33:39 AM
+1 Boost
Amen, Streetpub.


NItePhireNItePhire - 4/15/2008 12:34:37 PM
+4 Boost
This seems like it would require a major leap in propulsion tech. Also a great deal of development dollars. OMG I will be in my 60's.


toolatetoracetoolatetorace - 4/16/2008 10:18:43 PM
+2 Boost
and hopefully I'll be in a better place at that time


WhelanWhelan - 4/15/2008 12:47:32 PM
-1 Boost
Why are they putting pressure on the auto industry. They already have the technology to produce Hydrogen, electric, etc. types of vehicles. The problem is the infrastructure for such sources. So why not impose on the oil companies to get involved in alternative fuel instead of putting more pressure on the AI. Government is so f'ed up I can't wait for Bush to leave so we can get someone who doesn't wear a picnic blanket on his head on weekends is in office and will stand up to these ridiculous OPEC asses and the sepculators who shouldn't even exist. Let's see I think the price will go to $4 a gallon this summer, and because I think it will happen and you should follow my word, give me 3 million dollars. I got a better idea, here is my @$$, have fun eating it.


SteedPubSteedPub - 4/15/2008 7:46:31 PM
+1 Boost
I dont get why it is the oil industry's responsibility to come up with alternative energy. They are oil companies, that is what they do. If there was truly a desire and need for alternative energies in the marketplace, there would be more than enough people providing it.

But forcing the oil companies to also provide alternatives is like going to Coors and forcing them to make diet cola.


SteedPubSteedPub - 4/16/2008 2:39:01 PM
0 Boost
1995e34, we only get 11% of our oil from the Middle East, so the notion that sleeping with the Saudis has anything to do with our energy use is thin as a sheet of Kleenex. Most of our foreign oil comes from Canada and Mexico - our allies.

That said, oil IS expensive. BUT, the alternatives are MORE expensive and LESS efficient to date.

By-in-large, the demonization of oil and its use in our way of life is a political issue, not a physcial or moral one. This notion that we need to get off of oil is a created and engineered falacy by those who want to see America's power and influence downgraded for their own power gains.

Most people understand that, and they understand that oil will not be replaced by alternatives any time soon. People are smarter than most of these far left Demogogs think.


randy33randy33 - 4/18/2008 10:25:23 AM
0 Boost
Obama is indeed part Muslim, but Whelan even I think it's a bit disparaging to chastise him for wearing a picnic blanket on his head.


KZ258KZ258 - 4/15/2008 1:36:25 PM
+4 Boost
this article is retarded. no one can even come close to predicting whats gonna be happening in 2030. damn


Auto_expertAuto_expert - 4/15/2008 2:11:48 PM
0 Boost
A hybrid car with an infinite number of MPG can be built right now. Essentially, you build a vehicle that is powered 99% by electricity and 1% by gas. Wah lah! Suddenly, you have a 1000 MPG car. How meaningful is that?

What matters then is pollution that's created by producing the batteries and disposing of them (as well as cost/source of energy consumed with plug-in type electrics) vs. gas/diesel counterparts.


randy33randy33 - 4/18/2008 10:29:53 AM
0 Boost
"99% by electricity, 1% by gas"

Doesn't work that way, Mr. Scientist.


MadibaPMadibaP - 4/15/2008 4:46:03 PM
+1 Boost
Actually we need far stricter rules than we have right now, far sooner than planned! There really is a shortage and it is only going to get worse...



randy33randy33 - 4/18/2008 10:27:28 AM
0 Boost
A shortage of WHAT?



olscuulolscuul - 4/15/2008 8:37:48 PM
+1 Boost
growing population equals more drivers equals more fuel use and emissions.


PlanBPlanB - 4/16/2008 11:41:57 AM
+2 Boost
There's gonna have to be some serious technological and automotive breakthrough's in the next 20 years for that to happen. My guess is it'll be with fuel cells.


toolatetoracetoolatetorace - 4/16/2008 10:26:42 PM
-1 Boost
All this panic button pushing reminds me when back in the 70's when we were running out of oil . Now fast forward some 30 years later and we are still running out of oil . Must be because the reserve tank on our oil supply has a bigger capacity than what we started out with when the oil was put in the ground . I know this makes no scence but ,, niether does any of the nonscence that seems to be fired from the hip by all the other people that claim to be experts .


randy33randy33 - 4/18/2008 10:26:26 AM
0 Boost
Ooops, but we're not "running out of oil", idiot. It's just more expensive than it used to be. Supply and demand. Get used to it.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC