Automotive Repair Library, Auto Parts, Accessories, Tools & Equipment, Manuals & Books, Car BLOG, Links, Index
By Larry Carley January 27, 2009
President Barak Obama hasn't been on the job as President for a week, and already he has made his first big mistake. He decided to allow individual states to establish their own emission standards. California as well as New Hampshire and a number of other northeastern states have been trying to get around federal emission standards with stricter standards of their own.On the surface, it seems like a good idea. After all, who isn't for clean air? Lower emissions is good for the environment and helps us all breathe easier. So if the federal government has been dragging its feet on tightening up emission standards even more, why not let the states charge ahead with rules of their own?
I'll tell you why not. Cars are as clean as they need to be. In fact, they've been more than clean enough for the past decade. Any further incremental decreases in emissions are a waste of money and counterproductive to the goal of improving fuel economy (which will help reduce total emissions as well as our dependence on domestic and foreign oil).
Allowing individual states to set their own emission standards will also create a patchwork of conflicting regulations that will make it even more difficult for auto makers to build vehicles that can satisfy individual state requirements. Testing to meet one common federal standard is very timing-consuming and expensive. Now we're going to tell the auto makers they have to test cars to meet who knows how many different emission standards? This is NOT a good idea, especially in light of the auto makers financial troubles. Piling on more paperwork and expense is counterproductive to helping them survive -- though it will likely create a few more jobs for engineers and testers and paper shufflers who will have to oversee this effort within the auto companies.
The problem with giving individual states a free hand in setting their own emissions agendas is that there's no oversight or bounds on what they might come up with. The environmental zealots in California, New Hampshire and elsewhere could demand all cars be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), and set unrealistic dates for compliance.
The Press hasn't recognized Obama's mistake, nor will it because the talking heads on television don't go beyond simple sound bites. If they would examine the possible consequences of Obama's decision on this matter, I think they have to agree that it is NOT a good idea.
Having ONE federal emission standard makes a lot more sense than a patchwork of individual state standards. After all, aren't we supposed to be the UNITED States?
The reason the federal government has been slow to force even stricter emission requirements on the auto makers is because such standards are NOT necessary. Nor are the current emission standards that have effectively killed passenger car diesel engines as a viable option in this country. Forcing diesels to meet unrealistically low nitrous oxide (NOx) and soot emissions makes them too expensive and too complicated for the U.S. market. In Europe where the standards are actually much more lax for diesels, over half of all new cars are diesel-powered. The Europeans like diesels because they are up to 40% more fuel efficient than gasoline engines. They pay much more for fuel than we do (mostly because of taxes), so it makes sense to drive vehicles that are much more fuel efficient than ours. So why can't we drive the same kind of vehicles here? Because the latest diesel emission standards won't allow it -- or at least not without imposing a severe technical disadvantage with add-on EGR systems, soot traps and exhaust aftertreatment systems, not to mention more expensive ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.
My advice to President Obama would be to take another look at his decision to allow individual states to set their own emission agendas. A better solution is to tackle the bigger issue of why we are so over-dependent on the automobile in the first place. The problem is URBAN SPRAWL! If we had strict land use policies that prevented cities from sprawling further and further out, we wouldn't have to drive so far to commute between our homes and our jobs or anyplace else we need to go. Build in, not out. Revitalize the urban centers and spend money on mass transit and public transportation. Spend less on roads that stretch further and further out into the hinterlands. That's my advice, Mr. President.
The Obama administration announced it wants higher federal emission limits and fuel economy standards for all new cars. The new plan would settle the dispute between automakers and state governments over emission standards by establishing a new national standard to take precedence over individual state rules. This will eliminate the need to build cars that can meet different emissions requirements in different states. It will also give the auto makers a predictable timetable for meeting the new national standards.
Obama's plan also calls for better fuel economy. It will raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards about five percent a year, from the current 23 mpg for trucks to 30 mpg, and from 27.5 mpg for cars to 39 mpg. This will raise the overall CAFE average to 35.5 mpg.
The higher fuel economy standard will save an estimated 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016, and will be the environmental equivalent to removing 177 million cars from the road.
The plan will require auto makers to build and sell more small cars and to use more fuel-efficient powertrains. So we will likely see more gasoline engines with direct fuel injection and cylinder deactivation under light load, more flex-fuel vehicles (that receive high mileage credits), more hybrids, plug-in hybrids and turbo diesels for passenger cars.
The plan must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department before it becomes official. General Motors and Chrysler both say they support the plan.
Related Articles: 