Obama takes next step in fuel efficiency drive
Updated 2:10 p.m. ET, 2/18/2014
Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama took the next step on Tuesday in his administration's effort to cut emissions and reduce oil use through better fuel economy on the nation's highways.
Speaking at a Safeway distribution center in Maryland, Obama instructed environmental and transportation agencies to get to work on the next round of gas mileage requirements for big trucks.
"Five years ago, we set out to break our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said. "Today, America is closer to energy independence and we have been in decades.
"For the first time in nearly 20 years, America produces more oil here at home than we buy from other countries. Our levels of dangerous carbon pollution, that contributes to climate change, have actually gone down even as our production has gone up," he said.
Obama's plan builds on a 2011 regulation that set the first-ever fuel standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014-18. It aims to save some 530 million barrels of oil and cut emissions by roughly 270 million metric tons.
Now, the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency - as planned - must develop the next phase of targets for those vehicles for post-2018 model years.
Obama wants them in place by March 2015.
"What we were clear about what was, if you set a rule, a clear goal, we would give our companies the certainty that they needed to innovate and out-build the rest of the world," he said. "They could figure out if they had a goal that they were trying to reach, and thanks to their ingenuity and our work, we're going to meet that goal."
The effort does not require congressional approval.
Obama has facilitated aggressive increases in auto and truck fuel efficiency since taking office. Industry in most cases has responded with cleaner-burning engines, lighter and more aerodynamic designs and models that appeal to consumers hungry for fuel savings.
Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, praised the latest announcement.
"Strong heavy truck efficiency standards will not only cut carbon pollution that fuels climate change, but also save consumers money every time they go to a store and save truckers money at the pump," Beinecke said.
Trucking industry leaders supported the latest proposal as well.
Congressional Republicans called the announcement old news, and urged Obama to join them in working on legislation that would create jobs.
"Surely in the past 20 days, the President could have found time to pick up his pen and respond to Congress," said Rory Cooper, communications director for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. "It's abundantly clear that President Obama is not interested in working with Congress to solve the problems facing working middle class families."
In his State of the Union address, Obama promised that 2014 would be a "Year of Action" and he would take steps through executive action in various policy areas that do not need congressional backing.
In Maryland, he touted actions he's taken since that speech in January, including raising the minimum wage for federal contractors, ordering a review of job training programs and creating a new way for low-wage workers to save for retirement.
Heavy-duty vehicles, including trucks, buses and vans, rank behind cars in the production of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, according to the Transportation Department.
Obama chose to make the latest announcement at Safeway because the company "has been a leader in improving trucking efficiency," a White House official said, adding that it has invested in "cleaner" technologies, improved aerodynamics, more efficient tires and larger capacity trailers.
From CNN Politics
- Biden administration threatens veto on House GOP-led energy bill
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- Former Fugees member faces federal trial as potential jurors are questioned about star-studded witness list
- Biden's student loan forgiveness program faces a new threat from Senate Republicans
- Why Israel's instability matters to the US
- Untitled
@Sniffit
"The same is true for stopping the ridiculous, unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil and turning it around into research to create that kind of progress. No argument. None....unless you're heavily invested in Big Oil."
===
Are you so naïve as not to think that we're not all heavily invested in big oil. I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies but you do realize that only means that the consumer will pay more to make up for the lost income, right?
If you really want to know what Obama's end game is just Google "Obama electricity costs sky rocket". It will tell you everything you need to know about Obama and what he wants you to pay for energy.
President Obama laid out his new plan to tackle global warming Tuesday. In 2008, he made comments about “bankrupting” coal plant owners and making energy prices “skyrocket.”
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board.
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad,” he added. “Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
kev
Obama, sparing NO EXPENSE to (try to) make the US a 'green utopia" for your grandchildren, by making EVERYTHING more expensive for the next 20 years. Just ANOTHER hit to the wallet of the low and middle class, you know, the ones that BUY the things delivered by the TRUCKS you just TAXED AGAIN.
_________________
Go visit the tax code and check into new equipment.
Aren't there more important things???
"In other words, you have no facts. Not surprising. OK, here's a real-world FACT. Assume a truck gets 5 miles per gallon, mandated to increse to six miles per gallon. At 5 miles per gallon, it it takes 6 gallons to travel 30 miles, whereas as 5 miles per gallon, it takes 6 gallons to travel the same 30 miles. If the tax is 10 cents per gallon, the net tax is 60 cents at 5 miles per gallon, whereas it's 50 cents at 6 miles per gallon. How is the difference made up?"
You have some typos I think, but the easy point is this: you will be using less gas. In fact, the change, to use your example, is from 5mpg "efficiency" to 6mpg "efficiency", then you've increased output by 20% because you now go 1 more mile (1/5th)...6 miles...instead of 5 miles for every gallon. You've also decreased cost by 16.67%, because this means you're now buying 5/6ths of a gallon to travel the 5 miles that 1 gallon would previously get you. If gas costs $4.00 per gallon, your new "efficiency" essentially means you're now paying $3.33 to go every 5 miles instead of $4.00, a savings of $0.67. Fuel efficiency is not an insignificant money saver.
TOM I
Did you notice the artical is about Obama?
tom l
@Sniffit
"The same is true for stopping the ridiculous, unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil and turning it around into research to create that kind of progress. No argument. None....unless you're heavily invested in Big Oil."
===
Are you so naïve as not to think that we're not all heavily invested in big oil. I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies but you do realize that only means that the consumer will pay more to make up for the lost income, right?
_________________
Sorry, Tom. Believing oil subsidies (when the industry is making record profits) effects gas prices in any way is like believing the rich make jobs in exchange for tax cuts. There is no proof of that.
After looking at the air pollution in China it seems to be a prudent move.
-Tommy G
The Real Tom Paine
No it reflects the fact that we produce oil, whereas most of the countries you describe do not.
-
So now we even have the lefties in here denying the FACT, aka lying, that fuel prices in Europe are high because the socialist governments over there place taxes of $2-3 a gallon on them. Wake up America. This is the very same future the far left socialist Democrat Party has in store for you. Oil is evil and must be taxed out of existence.
****************************
Unless you are an expert on teh tax polices of the EU countries, I would suggest you keep that impulsive thought o yurself. It reflects the cost of doing business and the transporation costs associated with it. Most companies partner with governments to get the oil to consumers because its the most efficient way for them to do so. Not so in the US. This is not a paranoid fantasy, its a fact. There is no need to tax gas at $2-$3 a gallon because we have production going on right here. Since I doubt you work in the bidness, and I work with it every day, Your comments only show that you have a limited skill in taking other people's comments, and try to twist them because you don't have a leg to stand on.
Sure, everyone wants better fuel milage. But, this is just Obama taking your eyes off the failing Obamacare.
This is how it will work....
Outlaw coal, drive the price of electricity through the roof, tax gasoline and oil at $2-3 a gallon as they do in Europe. People scream and start revolting as they cannot afford their cars, heat their homes, etc. Answer? Tax the rich and give government subsidies to people as well as create new government energy entitlement programs for further government dependence.
This is the very same future the far left socialist Democrat Party has in store for you. Oil is evil and must be taxed out of existence.
_________________________
Insanity- yet the GOP supports the oil & gas industry with "socialist" subsidies. Care to explain that?
@ tom l
You read comments like "Congress has no interest in assisting our wonderful, forward focus, long-run thinking President..." and you can glean from that there is no critical thought. Just admiration
-------------------------------------------------
Oh tom l you're so easy to screw with.
The "wonderful" ws put there on purpose to light your fuse and the fuse of the other usual suspects. It is also something that Wake up People and I like to toss about just to see folks like you go off the deep end.
You do realize tom l that when you throw around little cheapshot analogies like "a dog to it's master" you automatically disqualify yourself from being the "tone setter" on this thread, or demanding to be treated with respect.
You also need to shut up once and for all about those on the left (or the middle) not criticizing the President. He gets enough criticism from little folks like you. And we all notice that little folks like you NEVER speak up when he is being unfairly criticized by other little folks like you.
So you can jump on your little curb and play all the games you want little tom, but you won't be playing them with me.
Have a blessed day dear.
At "rs"
Warren Breaux
I always wondered why they don't build tractor trucks like they do Diesel electrics Locomotives.
Locomotives are made they way they are for low end grunt not for fuel efficiency. At 0 RPM an electric motor has better than 90% of its max torque available. Guess what that value is for a diesel (or any engine for that matter).
At Dominican mama 4 Obama
Its not a question of politics, its a question of common sense. Lets look at lighting. Do you really think that CFL lights are the solution? You do understand that they contain powered mercury correct. Do you honestly believe that 100% of these lights will be recycled? Are any of these lights manufactured in the USA? If not, and none are, then where do the efficiency claimed by these CFLs account for the factory in China where they were made, the transportation energy to the sea port where they are loaded onto a container ship, and the toxic waste spewed by the container ship. Again, better efficiencies are great, I just don't believe it when a politician tells me is great. But by all means, keep drinking the Koolaid.
Sniffit
"In other words, you have no facts. Not surprising. OK, here's a real-world FACT. Assume a truck gets 5 miles per gallon, mandated to increse to six miles per gallon. At 5 miles per gallon, it it takes 6 gallons to travel 30 miles, whereas as 5 miles per gallon, it takes 6 gallons to travel the same 30 miles. If the tax is 10 cents per gallon, the net tax is 60 cents at 5 miles per gallon, whereas it's 50 cents at 6 miles per gallon. How is the difference made up?"
You have some typos I think, but the easy point is this: you will be using less gas. In fact, the change, to use your example, is from 5mpg "efficiency" to 6mpg "efficiency", then you've increased output by 20% because you now go 1 more mile (1/5th)...6 miles...instead of 5 miles for every gallon. You've also decreased cost by 16.67%, because this means you're now buying 5/6ths of a gallon to travel the 5 miles that 1 gallon would previously get you. If gas costs $4.00 per gallon, your new "efficiency" essentially means you're now paying $3.33 to go every 5 miles instead of $4.00, a savings of $0.67. Fuel efficiency is not an insignificant money saver.
-------
Sniffit, I'm not talking about net cost per mile. My example is net tax revenue per mile travelled. My example is a simple illustration of how much tax is collected on a 30 mile trip with the control being tax per gallon with the variable being miles per gallon. It's a standard scientific experiment, is it not?
How, exactly, will this help generate jobs or immigration?
I think I'll keep our over-sized pick-up. We need the power (and frame) both in weight hauling and towing capacities for our farm.
Our mechanic calls our truck an old power wagon with a pick-up body. He tells us to "never give up our truck because we won't replace it"......sounds like good advice under the circumstances.
I'S
Both the GOP and the LIBS are big oils pocket, don't kid yourself.
M0re Obama slash an burn america . when will the PPl cry uncle ? I dont know ! this is going to be like sitting trough a 8 hour bad movie ! dims always Default back to globle warming .oil .cars trucks healthcare .Gayness .an killing babys and lieing ! sad dirty bunch . Go get that Mo Pad like china . made in China . man man man
A few comments address the decrease in tax revenue from better fuel efficiency. The state of Oregon is addressing that already with a trial program where you are taxed based on miles driven. Program needs a lot of work. If you drive a fuel efficient car, you pay more than with the gas tax. If you drive a guzzler, you save. That seems backwards, especially for Oregon. One might expect that in Georgia.
i would pay a few cents more in gas tax in Georgia, or at the Federal level, if they would fix the roads. With cars more fuel efficient, we are paying much less tax per mile driven, and the roads are falling apart. More potholes. More traffic. Less money to fix the problem.
"Are you so naïve as not to think that we're not all heavily invested in big oil. I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies but you do realize that only means that the consumer will pay more to make up for the lost income, right?"
So your argument, oh great libertarian free market true-believer, is that we should pay blood money to an industry that reported climbing record profits all throughout the Great Recession, an industry that's price structuring is so complicated and opaque as to really prevent any argument of a direct "pass through" of costs, all out of fear that they'll jack up their prices to compensate for the lack of blood money? And here I thought the prices will be what they will be and should be determined without interference in a free market, no? Fact is, because oil production rates are tied to so many other, far more influential factors, fuel experts agree that doing things like ending subsidies and special tax breaks won't really effect price that much at all...to the extent that one expert estimated people would spend an average $2.00 more PER YEAR. The "conventional wisdom" and "trickle down" excuses made by the GOP/Teatrolls for defending the blood money payments are ideological smokescreens.
-The REAL Obama Agenda exposed
This is how it will work....
Outlaw coal, drive the price of electricity through the roof, tax gasoline and oil at $2-3 a gallon as they do in Europe. People scream and start revolting as they cannot afford their cars, heat their homes, etc. Answer? Tax the rich and give government subsidies to people as well as create new government energy entitlement programs for further government dependence.
**********************
So, relying on coal is somehow the way to the future? Even West VA is starting to rethink its relationship to coal after the chemical spill in the Elk River. Besides, their region si sitting on huge Natural Gas Deposits that can tapped with far greater efficency and safety than coal. No need to tax the rich if we are willing to switch to Natural Gas like Obama suggested. Its amazing the Apocolyptic view of the world you have, and what little you are willing to do to change.
This is ALL about taking your eyes off the obamacare failure. We the people are tired of the lies.
Um,
Have you heard of the guy that invented a carburetor that got 500 miles per gallon but was bought by the oil companies so they could sell more gasoline!
tick tock, tick tock. The clock is ticking, and each and every day our freedoms are being slowly eroded.