Trump To Sit Down With Major Automakers On Fuel Rules

U.S. President Donald Trump will meet 10 major automakers at the White House on Friday to discuss the fate of landmark fuel efficiency standards and a looming confrontation with California and other major states. A draft proposal circulated by the U.S. Transportation Department would freeze requirements at 2020 levels through 2026, but the administration is not expected to formally unveil the proposal until later this month or in June.Major automakers reiterated this week they do not support freezing requirements but say they want new flexibilities and rule changes to address lower gasoline prices and the shift in U.S. consumer preferences to bigger, less fuel-efficient vehicles. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the automakers able to voluntarily comply with California standards? If so, what is the issue? Or do they only do the right thing if compelled to by law? Good luck with that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always policy is at the center of conflict.  A political confrontation between Washington and Sacramento. This is interesting. California dictates auto policy. Have to wonder what else they influence? Perhaps political elites...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automakers will  try to persuade Trump to ease up on the fight with California over mileage rules. They wanted relief, not war, they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you screw up deregulation? Aside from doing it, that is :)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As consumers, we have to let the auto industry know that you want clean cars for our health and climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, damirUSBiH said:

As consumers, we have to let the auto industry know that you want clean cars for our health and climate.

But is that REALLY what people want? I mean, wanting to stave off impending doom as relates to the climate is nice--but are consumers really ready to pay for that? I think not. I would love a diamond tennis bracelet. I suppose I could even afford one if I wanted it badly enough. I could sell my fossil fuel guzzling suburban if I wanted to, in order to pay for it. But the reality is, I don't want it badly enough. Consumers want greener cars, but few are actually willing to pay for it (either with dollars or with inconvenience). 

I think what consumers really want are cars that are better for the climate, but without paying more, and without the hassle of charging. For now, that is merely wishful thinking. Someday, sure. Today, nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as an aside, I love it when people push for smaller vehicles. I have like, a bazillion kids. Smaller is not an option. Maybe I'll opt for a smaller ride and leave half the kids home wherever I go. Would that appease California? Or I could just drive separately from my husband with half the kids in his car and half in mine? Are two smaller cars more efficient than one big one?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can he not just call them and say that he scrapped all regs? the US is not adhering to the Paris accord anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see a meeting with these 10 auto makers, and Elon Musk, for more than one reason!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodent, this is where the Ethanol People have a case to make. Ethanol can clean up our gasoline and provide cleaner fuels, with lower harmful emissions, lower carbon, higher octane, and better efficiency at a reduced price to gasoline. The Renewable Fuel Standard recognized this and was implemented to drive more ethanol inclusion in our gasoline fuels. Very Sadly, EPA has decided to side with the oil industry, who prefers to keep their market share instead of providing cleaner fuels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jpZelabal said:

How do you screw up deregulation? Aside from doing it, that is :)
 

Heh heh, deregulation needs ... more regulation ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay..So I got an A in Environmental Science in college and I think that President Trump should ask the auto-industry to take the same class because they're way is way too uneducated for little, simple, mother earth lover me.  Ethanol has its dangers too and I wonder if that's what the EPA was worried abou it. They'll have to have many trade regulations to on it too. After those are in place more Ethenol seems like a fair compromise for the President of the United States of America and the auto industry and consumer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethanol does not particularly help the environment.  I grew up on a farm in the Midwest USA.  (Is there an echo in here?  I seem to be repeating myself in my comments today...)

Corn was one of the cash crops for our family farm.  (Ah yes, this is a different rant; my earlier rant was about soybeans.)

Anyway, to keep this short, when corn is used for fuel rather than for food, it tends to make the global population hungrier.  Seeing as how corn is a major grain for food in the Americas (USA, Canada, South America.)

Growing corn to be an additive to gasoline actively takes food away from certain countries that rely on cheap grains.

Oil and gas still have the biggest "bang for the buck" as far as energy sources.  Methanol isn't even close.  Please keep food for eating, not for driving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Ethanol does not particularly help the environment.  I grew up on a farm in the Midwest USA.  (Is there an echo in here?  I seem to be repeating myself in my comments today...)

Corn was one of the cash crops for our family farm.  (Ah yes, this is a different rant; my earlier rant was about soybeans.)

Anyway, to keep this short, when corn is used for fuel rather than for food, it tends to make the global population hungrier.  Seeing as how corn is a major grain for food in the Americas (USA, Canada, South America.)

Growing corn to be an additive to gasoline actively takes food away from certain countries that rely on cheap grains.

Oil and gas still have the biggest "bang for the buck" as far as energy sources.  Methanol isn't even close.  Please keep food for eating, not for driving.

bad news for brazil and india then.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Kirkman, Ethanol takes the starch out of the corn to make ethanol, all the protein is left behind as a food source. So growing corn for ethanol actually increases the amount of protein available to feed sources. The ethanol industry ships its distillers grain all over the world as a feed product to support food production. Ethanol does not reduce food supply, it actually increases it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tom Blazek said:

Tom Kirkman, Ethanol takes the starch out of the corn to make ethanol, all the protein is left behind as a food source. So growing corn for ethanol actually increases the amount of protein available to feed sources. The ethanol industry ships its distillers grain all over the world as a feed product to support food production. Ethanol does not reduce food supply, it actually increases it.

Thanks Tom Blazek, I wasn't aware of that.  Looks like I need to rethink methanol, and do a bit of digging on methanol production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the U.S. had a Fuel Rule, i.e. the Clean Air Act which requires that auto manufacturers install pollution control devices in order to reduce hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions. Some countries have also devised stringent specifications on the level of sulfur in oil products. some industries are user of hydrogen , especially at ammonia and methanol plants, but it is expected to see hydrogen play an increasingly role as a fuel for power industry and for transport in a near future.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we sure we want increases in anything. Are we beyond the carrying capacity of the earth now. Oil for example optimisticly may have 70-80 years left assuming geopolitics will let producers even drill in many areas.

California and 12 states usually stick together when it comes to car emissions. Having two standards seems to be to expensive according to auto manufacturing. Basically California+ has the leverage.

Interestingly though California ignores overpopulation which by all accounts for the biggest cause of pollution/Co2, but seems willing to pay higher prices when it comes to transportation emissions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites