Increasing Fuel Economy Standards Would Be a Giant Leap Forward

The Obama administration’s proposed fuel economy standards for 2017 to 2025 passenger vehicles are a “giant step forward,” according to Luke Tonachel, a senior analyst in the Energy and Transportation program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Tonachel testified about the proposed standards, which would require passenger vehicles for 2017 to 2025 to achieve 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg), during a public hearing in Detroit on January 17, the first of three hearings on the standards held this month. The proposed standards are expected to be put in place by next summer.

“Without the standards, we will unnecessarily send $350 billion overseas to OPEC and other oil producing countries. We will also pad the revenues of the oil industry by another $150 billion,” Tonachel pointed out. The proposed standards means that the $500 billion will be invested “back into our economy and create almost 500,000 new jobs while cutting carbon pollution by the equivalent of 76 coal power plants.”

Hillary Sinnamon of the EDF testified at the Detroit hearing that increasing passenger vehicle standards “is one of the most effective things we can do to reduce our dependence on oil, and will likely be one of President Obama’s greatest climate and energy security legacies.”

UAW President Bob King said at the hearing, “Adopting the proposed rules will give an additional boost to the revival of the auto industry.”

The proposed standards, combined with the standards for 2012 to 2016 model year (35.4 mpg) vehicles finalized in 2010, would reduce oil consumption by an estimated 12 billion barrels, reduce carbon emissions by more than six billion metric tons, and provide $1.7 trillion in national fuel savings, and would save consumers more than $4,000 over the life of their vehicle, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

A joint report by the NRDC, United Auto Workers (UAW) and the National Wildlife Federation released last August stated that the proposed standards would reduce oil dependence in the U.S. and create jobs.

Why “Drill Baby Drill” Advocates Are So Wrong

Umbrellas in the Sky? When and Why Geo-Engineering’s Crazy

Read more: detroit, fuel economy standards, hearing, obama

Photo credits: Flickr user, M 93

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Debbie C.

3:45AM PST on Feb 5, 2012

I need to tell my husband about this. He is looking for a new car NOW. I'm not sure he will wait until 2017.

send a green star

Chad A.

8:43PM PST on Jan 21, 2012

We needed these standards in the '90s, with much better by now and the US would be a world-leader in the automobile industry again. I must say that I contiue to be pleased with the return to visionary leadership at the UAW with Bob King, but we still have a long way to go.

thomas m.

3:59PM PST on Jan 20, 2012

Yes it would.

Joe V.

1:30PM PST on Jan 20, 2012

As long as lobbyists are allowed in Washington and they can toss votes to the greedy politicians things will not change. Buying off a politician via lobby groups is a big thing in D.C. Otherwise our illustrious Congress would eliminate lobbying. So, that's the story...

Warren F.

12:18PM PST on Jan 20, 2012

In 2008 I drove from LA to Chicago including a few days driving around a number of cities and towns and averaged 60mpg in a Japanese hybrid vehicle so expecting cars to achieve 54.5 miles per gallon from 2017 is not really "a giant leap forward". Many European and Asian cars already have those sort of consumption figures. Aiming for 100mpg would be a good thing, aiming for zero fossil fuel consumption would be "a giant leap"!

Eddie O.

11:30AM PST on Jan 20, 2012

I agree with you Larry, that the time line is way toooooooooo long! And, still, this will meet with great opposition, I'm sure.

doug s.

9:46AM PST on Jan 20, 2012

a few thoughts.
- power generating factories account for over 70% of all greenhouse gas emissions. where do electric cars get their energy from?
- you have to do a complete life cycle analysis on the cost of mfr of electric cars - including disposal - then you will see how little electric cars help the enwironment.
- speaking of life cycle analysis - if there were a complete moratorium on car mfr'ing for 10 years, pollution rates would plummet, even w/o any fuel efficiency gains - making a car uses as much or more energy than the car itself uses.
- forcing mfr's to make fuel efficient cars when gas is relatively cheap does not work - as long as gas is relatively cheap, car buyers want cars that are not efficient. if gas was $4/gallon 30 years ago, like it was in europe, cars would be more fuel efficient because buyers would want those cars. (and the money would have gone to repair infrastructure, because it would have been tax dollars, instead of going to oil company profits.) gas prices, in europe, btw, are now ~$8/gallon...

- the best way to increase fuel efficiency is to increase gas taxes. period. nothing else will motivate the customers to want fuel efficient cars. nothing else will motivate the manufacturers better than customers demanding products consumers want.

Elizabeth J.

9:30AM PST on Jan 20, 2012

We as people as well as the government have to stand up to the big oil companies and not let them control this. It is too important to our wildlife, our environment and our children's future!

guiri t.

8:31AM PST on Jan 20, 2012

Now if the morons running our country would fix one of the biggest reasons for wasting gas, things would improve a lot. What about all the time spent at stop lights around the country?

We can send people to the moon but not synchronize the lights on one freakin' main road so that we don't have to stop at every damn light? Where I live, going TWO towns over, I spend almost as much time waiting as I do driving. There's a damn light on almost every street corner and VERY often, I hit a red light, no matter what speed I drive at!

Don H.

8:13AM PST on Jan 20, 2012

"Standardizing" automobile mpg to 54.5 is NOT a giant leap.
When "they" produce full-size autos to get 1000 mpg, THAT could be considered a "giant leap".
Until that time, motorists will get only that which the oil companies/auto manufacturers will allow. As long as dependence on fossil fuels exists, there will be no "leaping"....just little "kitty steps". We will always be bound to "the company store".
On the other hand, ANY saving is good, and at this time in history, saving 100 pennies is like saving 18 cents.