I can't find a diary about it and though it's front page news on
WSJ and the
SFChronicle, it isn't according to the NYT and WaPo, so many readers here may have missed it. Apparently, McFlightsuit & Co. have once again lowered the bar for emissions standards of vehicles. As near as I can tell, the old emissions standards classed all light trucks the same and exempted vehicles over 8500 lbs. (the H1, H2, or Excursion, for instance) from any standards at all. The new rules keep this exemption firmly in place, and divide other "light" trucks into 5 classes. The new rules reduce the emissions requirements for the largest of the five (think Suburban). While this does tighten emissions standards slightly for the other 4 classes, it's not a change in our thinking about energy and oil dependence. But then, what did we expect?
"This is a pessimistic decision," Kerry said Tuesday of the new proposal. "It says that America won't be innovative, won't lead and won't create a better future through better technology like we know we can."
More quotes and what you can do after the fold.
Okay, so the first time I'd heard of the CAFE standards was on the D.C. end of a Senate office phone line, shortly following a massive postcard campaign to further weaken them when they were being revamped in '99-'00. These campaigns basically consist of mass-mailing propaganda postcards to the population that end with "call your Senator and tell them you oppose these changes," resulting in hundreds of phone calls over a few days from confused constituents (sheeple) who can't pronounce the name of the legislation but are vaguely trying to put their names on record as opposing it. As so few people call in about most legislation, this can result in a sizeable skewing of the perception of the number of constituents for or against something (which is, I'm sure, the point). But I'm digressing. Basically, the point is that Kerry's right. Automakers aren't going to change if we never say they have to. Check this out:
The new rules are considered a victory for Detroit automakers, who have argued that the current system penalizes them because many of their top sellers are larger pickup trucks and SUVs. Japanese automakers have had an easier time meeting the fleet-wide standard because they sell more vehicles and produce smaller trucks and SUVs.
I mean, wow - talk about whining. Maybe the Detroit automakers should innovate and start making smaller vehicles too. Pathetic.
Also choice from the Chronicle article is this:
Mineta boasted that the rules would save 10 billion gallons of gas over four years -- which critics pointed out is less than the 11 billion gallons U.S. motorists consume in a month.
This is just pathetic. As far as I can tell, any boasting about these new rules is wantonly ignoring the fact that nothing substantial has changed, and in some ways (cutting gigantic SUVs a break) is now going to be worse.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, and four other senators sent President Bush a letter Tuesday urging him to "close the SUV loophole" by requiring all light trucks to meet the same mileage standard as cars, 27.5 miles per gallon.
Do you think Bush ever actually reads these letters? Is his mailbox just stuffed to overflowing with all the disapproving mail from Senate Democrats yet, or does he just shove it in the junk mail recycling (right. I mean the trash can.) unopened?
Anyway, part of the point of this diary is that the rules are open for public debate. Comments must be received by November 23, 2005. April 1st, 2006 is when the rules go into effect. Address criticism to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration where they have a helpful .pdf telling you how to tell them to get bent. Web form here. They can be reached for more info at 1-888-327-4236, but it's not clear that comments directed to that number will be considered.
Anyway, Happy Wednesday - I apologize for running away right after posting but I've got a meeting at 1. I'll check in later.
Feel free to discuss what these standards SHOULD say in the thread.