EPA Abandons Obama's 54.5 mpg CAFE Standard - Blames Consumers And Low Gas Costs

I'm all for abandoning CAFE and letting the market decide. Emission standards will tend to drive economy and MPG will still be important to a lot of buyers. I don't think the law should prevent lower MPG choices and that manufacturers should be free to sell as many as the market will buy. People should be free to buy what they want so long as they do not have a fit if their choice produces low mpg.

It sounds to me that yet again, the EPA dog is being wagged by the car manufacturers' tail.

Article: “...Car makers and suppliers have developed far more innovative technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions than anticipated just a few years ago...”

And we know that from our in-lab-only emissions tests, which the past year has definitely proven are completely useless for determining real-world emissions. By the way, it was the auto-industry that wrote up those emission targets and how to measure them, and their lobbyists who influenced governments to pass them into law. In essence, the auto-industry wrote their own test, which they knew how to easily pass (well, except for Volkswagen who blatantly cheated).


If you want to reduce real-world vehicle emissions, then you have to set real-world emission targets (not in-lab-only targets), and you have to measure real-world emissions (not in-lab-only emissions) to see how you measure up! FWIW, I'm also aware that the world's 5 largest ships create more emissions than all the world's cars combined, so we're not even focusing on the biggest problem in terms of vehicle emissions.

There is no global warming nor is there a gas shortage. These CAFE Stds are unnecessary other than do-gooders trying to make themselves feel good and telling others what to do.

There seems to be a misconception between GHG (greenhouse gases CO2 and water vapor) emissions in all combustion processes and pollution emissions (NOx, particulates, ...). While most of the pollution emissions can be effectively captured/destroyed by the catalytic converter and filter, the CO2 and H2O are released to the atmosphere. The amount of GHG emissions is proportional to the amount of fuel used, so the higher the MPG the lower the GHG emissions for the same number of miles driven.

Global warming is not a myth. CO2's greenhouse effects have been studied very well, and environmental records show a huge increase of CO2 in the last 150 years due to man's actions.

DeMoncrat alert!

Actually - while indeed Global Warming has happened - and indeed the industrial revolution has resulted in Emissions being put into the atmosphere - the problem is - connecting the two cannot be a sure thing. We simply do not have enough long term data - to decide if the warming is something that happens - or was partially caused by humans - or totally. The earths atmospheric changes are not measured in centuries - they are measured in tens of thousands of year. Our earth regularly cycles between warm weather and ice ages - and has done so for all of its life. I had a professor in college who would have LAUGHED at anyone who would have suggested that 150 years is enough time to make such predictions. Example - in some areas of the country where there are few cars - it was discovered that the amounts of Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere were quite high - caused by - EVERGREEN TREES.

Based on far longer data - while it seems we are warm now - we are actually heading into an ice age that likely will greatly reduce the population of animals on earth. This does not mean that I am against the efforts of man to reduce the smog - it is needed for us to live comfortably. But we do not know if or how the earth will respond by itself to this.

@TomM:

The common argument against global warming is the cyclic change in earth's climate. While true, the cycle is thousands of years long whereas man made change in CO2 level in the atmosphere is very significant over the last 150 years. Some accounts put it at 40% increase. If 150 years is not long enough, how many more years do we need ?

The earth and its atmosphere is much smaller than you think. I am citing Elementary School science here: earth's atmosphere (breathable part) is a little more than 10km (6 miles), its ratio to earth's diameter is ~10/12000, 8x thinner than the egg shell compared to the egg. The earth, when viewed from your DirecTV satellite is about the same size as the egg viewed from 8 inches away. That's how small the earth is, and it's as fragile as that egg too.

You are misinformed in using the example of Evergreen trees producing CO2. While trees will emit some small amount of CO2 when there is no light for photosynthesis, they are net sequester of CO2 and are very efficient at that. They absorb CO2 and convert it into organic compound as food and release oxygen in the process. The green color of their leaves comes from chlorophyll, the main actor of the photosynthesis process. So if you see a green tree, bet your house that it absorbs a lot more CO2 than it releases.

Since you are in the automotive business, you probably know why Freon was banned in the mid-80s after a short 50 years of use due to its destruction of the ozone layer. It took 30 years and we still have not completely phased out its use.

For CO2 emission, it will be many orders of magnitude harder to reduce but it's important to start now. It is unconscionable to continue what we do without thinking of our consequence and trying to mitigate it. After all collectively we are the smartest species on earth, we should act like one.

@MD: while I resent both the entrenched DeMoncrats and RepubliCan'ts, Trump and his blind followers would take the cake regardless of his political platform. Trump is twice as annoying as the punk Kim Jong-un from North Korea.

@HenryN I'm voting Putin/Palin

EPA has been manipulated before, example of how flex-fuel capable meant counting imaginary ethanol use to reduce projected gasoline usage. GM, Ford, and Chrysler used this extensively to meet their CAFE.

DeMoncrat alert!