Is The UAW Making A Good Point By Suggesting The EPA Set New Emissions Rules?

Is The UAW Making A Good Point By Suggesting The EPA Set New Emissions Rules?
The Detroit News reports:

Washington -- The United Auto Workers union urged Congress on Monday to reject efforts to bar the Obama administration from setting the first-ever limits on tailpipe emissions.

Alan Reuther, the union's legislative director, said in a letter Monday that efforts by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., and others to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from declaring greenhouse gases a danger to public health were "misguided."

"The UAW also is deeply concerned that overturning EPA's endangerment finding would unravel the historic agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for light-duty vehicles that was negotiated by the Obama administration last year," Reuther wrote...








Geneva Motor Show Photo Gallery

2011 Hyundai Sonata Launch Photo Gallery

2010 Rolls-Royce Ghost Launch Photo Gallery

2010 Chicago Auto Show Photo Gallery

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries

If you want to see your photos running on our homepage photo ticker, be sure to upload your photos on the go by sending them to Mobile@AutoSpies.com

Share on Facebook



Read Article

SteveSteve - 3/17/2010 8:49:16 AM
+4 Boost
Does anyone smell a rat? If you do, you're right. The proposed legislation is very Pro-American: It uses a cockamamie formula of vehicle dimensions to determine the allowable fuel economy and emissions for a vehicle. And guess what? It just happens to favor US-built vehicles. For example, a Porsche 911 becomes a verboten vehicle because its dimensions classify it as a "small car", meaning it should get fuel economy and emissions that are comparable to a Civic. As you know, the US does not build small sports cars, to the Corvette and Viper comes out shining as larger cars, and are permitted lower fuel economy and worse emissions.

Reworded into much simpler terms, the formula for calculating allowable fuel economy and emissions tells the US auto-makers they don't have to build as efficient cars as foreigners do, because the US guys build bigger cars, and bigger cars are expected to suck more fuel and pollute more. So go ahead and keep doing what you have been doing, guys, rather than trying to measure up to the competition.

The UAW supports this bill because they believe it will protect their jobs, not because it will lower US dependency on oil, or reduce vehicular environmental impact.


veyron1001veyron1001 - 3/17/2010 8:58:07 AM
+3 Boost
agreed


uaw_laxuaw_lax - 3/17/2010 3:08:11 PM
-2 Boost
It's the same formula usesed in Japan lol!


uaw_laxuaw_lax - 3/17/2010 3:09:29 PM
-2 Boost
As far as protecting jobs Toyota is doing that for us.


klipprandklipprand - 3/17/2010 9:28:56 AM
+1 Boost
ditto


MeanVulcanMeanVulcan - 3/17/2010 11:48:47 AM
+2 Boost
Totally agree about the Union. Why can't they go extinct due to global warming?

However, as far as favoring US automakers. We already heavily favor US makers by artificially elevating the price of diesel fuel, which costs less to produce than gasoline. This is done because Europeans are waaaay ahead of us in diesel technology. The result? maybe reduced demand for diesels but that is difficult to ascertain. The fact is diesels are on high demand now. Competition SHOULD be good for america but it has not proven to be the case with the big 3 (or is it 2 now?). They do not compete with the Europeans as much as they do with the Japanese econo and bland cars.
Europeans are ready to come with hybrids and EVs so I do not think this will affect thme much.
Overall, stricter emissions are good for the consumer and the environment. That is what most of us want (except the Union, they just care about keeping their jobs and getting their benefits).


DWolffDWolff - 3/17/2010 4:21:10 PM
+3 Boost
How about the UAW shoves it. All they do is bitch and complain.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC