Automakers ask Trump to reconsider car emissions standards

[Jose Garcia]

Source: The Hill

The heads of several major automakers are asking President Trump to reconsider greenhouse gas standards for vehicles instituted during the Obama administration.

CEOs from General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Fiat Chrysler and the American arms of several international manufacturers sent Trump a letter last week asking him to change the fuel standards, Reuters reports.

The letter asked Trump to reconsider the standards “without prejudging the outcome,” and said Trump has a “personal focus on steps to strengthen the economy in the United States and your commitment to jobs in our sector.”

It said the rule “threaten[s] future production levels, putting hundreds of thousands and perhaps as many as a million jobs at risk." Automakers also raised the issue during a meeting with Trump in January.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319196-automakers-ask-trump-to-reconsider-car-emissions-standards

[lark]

1. Boo, hiss!

Robber barons ask the king to let them pollute freely, anyone think he'll say no? He is always in favor of the rich and against the environment and workers, in spite of his many lies saying he's on their side.

[elleng]

2. Those pieces of crap!

[global1]

3. Sounds Like An Exaggeratin By The Automakers To Me....

Come on - 'hundreds of thousands and perhaps a million jobs at risk'? They know how to play 45Pee by invoking job loss here. I'm sure the only thing on the mind of the automakers is profit and $'s.

I would venture to say just the opposite is true. That these greenhouse standards would actually provide more jobs - in that it would put people at the drawing boards to come up with creative ways to meet these standards and once they figure that out - put people to work - putting these creative resolutions into practice in designing and manufacturing the parts and cars that would meet these new standards.

[NickB79]

15. It's a setup

As the automakers keep automating their factories, they can keep pointing to "job-killing emission standards" to distract Joe Shmoe from the fact that his job just got handed over to a robot. And then they can maintain the illusion that Joe Shmoe could one day return to his old job if only politicians would get rid of said emission standards.

In the meantime, pay no attention to the crumbling ice caps and rising seas.

[cstanleytech]

18. Isn't it a bit late though for an auto emissions reduction to slow the melting of ice caps

and the rise of the sea levels?
Thats already happening after all and it sounds like its closing the barn door after the entire herd of horses has run off.
Now wanting to reduce the usage of gas and or prevent a smog attack like whats happening in China makes more sense to me as far as emissions go plus it might help entice people to buy electric vehicles more than a gas or diesel one.

[NickB79]

21. At this point, it's about making the future less bad, not saving the ice caps anymore

We all know we lost this war years ago; we aren't going to stop global warming.

The only thing we can do now is limit as much carbon as we can today so the future is less horrific than it could be under Business as Usual scenarios. The difference between 3C of warming and 6C of warming could mean the difference between a degraded, yet still functional, global civilization, or a return to a miserable, medieval, pre-tech way of life. And the difference between 6C of warming and 8C of warming could determine whether the human species goes extinct or not.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

26. Too bad the mass hypnosis ensures John and Jane Schmoe

will continue to unqeustioningly believe and champion the blatant liars whose ultimate goal is to steal every last penny they can from the American public. Fools.

[Phoenix61]

4. Remember when they said a car would never get 30 mpg?

Best thing they ever did.... for Toyota.

[still_one]

5. If the U.S. Automakers want to play that game, at least for me it will be back to Toyota. Funny how

Toyota and Honda never were bothered by the emissions standards, and they always delivered with values that exceeded what was set at a competitive price.

Really disappointing to hear GM and Ford whine about this

[MichMan]

11. Toyota and Honda are also included

If you had bothered to read the link, both Toyota & Honda along with Hyundai & Nissan are also joining the others in asking for the roll backs.

Unfortunately given low fuel prices, customers are shunning small economical cars, hybrids & EV for SUV Crossovers and Trucks. Puts the auto manufacturers in a very difficult position in meeting the standards.

[still_one]

12. I read the OP, I didn't go to the link within the link. Thanks for the full information

[tenorly]

6. Ah, yes. The good old days.

[maxrandb]

7. This is how they "repay" President Obama and the Democratic Party

for bailing their asses out of the fire.

Remember stuff like this the next time Dems are in power.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. The automakers just want what's cheapest so they can make money

'Prejudge'? As if the author, automakers, and everyone in America doesn't
know which side Trump stands on? This is a shining example of the mainstream
press trying to normalize Trump, make him appear mainstream, impartial.

BULL!

RESIST!

[ProudLib72]

9. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

The secondary reason for instituting those standards was competition with foreign car manufacturers. You know what will happen? These guys will make crappy cars, not sell any, and ask for government bailouts.

[Renew Deal]

10. This is the exact reason why regulation is needed

The idea that these companies will regulate themselves is a joke. Of course, the other force in this is the consumer. If consumers refuse to purchase these toxic gas guzzlers then the problem solves itself.

[MichMan]

14. How would you change consumer tastes?

Consumers are responding to low fuel prices. The only way to change that is to raise gas taxes substantially or impose fines for driving such vehicles.

Which one would you support?

[Renew Deal]

17. Or do what is done now

Specify and enforce emissions standards on manufacturers.

[MichMan]

28. in other words, don't sell customers the vehicles they prefer

That doesn't change consumer tastes, it just makes the vehicles they like either prohibitively expensive or unavailable.

[Renew Deal]

29. Thats the governments job

It's the same reason heroine is illegal. It's for the greater good. Some consumers prefer heroine to beer, but we have decided as a society that we are better off with heroine out of the market.

[MichMan]

30. Just like marijuana too ? n/t

[Dawson Leery]

13. And this is why there should be no bailouts.

They are corrupt and need to be regulated.

[NickB79]

16. So, what automakers DIDN'T sign their names to this abomination?

Because I might be in the market for a new car in 3-4 years, and I don't want to give any of those fuckers my money if I can help it.

[Zorro]

19. I'm sure Tesla didn't sign on

[MichMan]

27. Tesla makes a lot of money from the current standards

Tesla makes hundreds of millions selling offsetting carbon credits to the others. Which does nothing to help the environment

[jmowreader]

23. According to Reuters...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-vehicles-idUSKBN15R0U9

GM
Ford
Fiat Chrysler
Toyota
Volkswagen
Honda
Hyundai
Nissan

and "others." Which probably means any automaker that doesn't make trucks.

The problem is CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

The CAFE achieved by a given fleet of vehicles in a given model year is the production-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per USgallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less (but also including medium-duty passenger vehicles, such as large sport-utility vehicles and passenger vans, with GVWR up to 10,000 pounds), produced for sale in the United States. The CAFE standards in a given model year define the CAFE levels that manufacturers' fleets are required to meet in that model year, specific levels depending on the characteristics and mix of vehicles produced by each manufacturer. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the applicable requirement, the manufacturer must either apply sufficient CAFE credits (see below) to cover the shortfall or pay a penalty, currently $5.50 per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. Congress established both of these provisions explicitly in EPCA, as amended in 2007 by EISA. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).

Here's the problem in a nutshell:



In the 1970s when CAFE was invented, this is what a "family car" looked like.



This is what one looks like now.



This is what they SHOULD look like.

Unless the automakers want to get into serious social engineering to convince the American public they don't want pickups after all, in thirteen years they are going to be stuck with having to figure out how to make a full-size pickup get 54.5 mpg. Unless they're planning to electrify everything they make that isn't a pickup, I don't see how they're gonna pull it off. And if they DO manage that...where are we going to get all the electricity to power that many more cars?

[NutmegYankee]

25. No amount of social engineering is going to convince people they don't want pickups.

I love my Jetta for racing around the local country roads, but it won't get my snowblower to the repair shop. I wish we made more light trucks, but the domestic automakers seem to have pulled out of that market for the most part.

[burrowowl]

20. God Damn Them and Those that caused the!

[Calista241]

22. I wonder what he'll get in return for this "concession"

[jmowreader]

24. They should just print up a brochure...

...listing all the things Trump will do for a company, and how many jobs that company will have to promise to not ship overseas to get it.