Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
That is 54.5 mpg CAFE which is about 36 mpg combined on the window sticker. That also assumed that the mix of cars / trucks would be 67 /33 when it is about opposite of that today. Of course that was just an estimate.
Good thing for the automakers that there no longer is one CAFE standard for all companies. Bush changed things way back in 2007 so that each vehicle sold has it's own CAFE requirement based on footprint (track x wheelbase) and whether it is classified as a car or a light truck. At the end of the year each company has their own CAFE standard calculated based on the actual mix of vehicle they sold in that year. This is why companies can kill off all their cars and still hit CAFE numbers.
To meet the 2025 standard a full size truck only needs to get 23 mpg combined on the EPA window sticker.
- The RAM 1500 gets 23 mpg today.
- Ford is at 22 mpg
- GM is at 21 mpg
- Nissan is at 17 mpg
- Toyota brings up the rear with 16 mpg
So the technology is there today to meet the 2025 standard. The automakers just have to market it instead of continuing the endless cycle of who can haul and tow the most.
Also, Trump does not have the authority to revoke California's waiver. It is in Section 209 of the Clean Air Act and the text has no provision to revoke a waiver that has already been granted. California's most recent waiver was granted in 2013 and the regulations phase in from 2017 to 2025. The most likely outcome is: California sues, the court suspends Trump's attempt to revoke the waiver, lawyers get rich until Trump is out of office. |
This highlights the absurdity of setting MPG requirements on the industry in the first place. What if an automotive company only builds trucks because that is their specialty? There's no reason they should be penalized or worse, not exist due to not being able to achieve arbitrary fleet MPG numbers. There are legitimate use cases for pickups.
As I keep saying, the correct way to limit a pollutant or otherwise conserve a resource is to determine the optimal or maximum consumption level and target that via tax policy.
All other schemes are open to corruption as we witness all the time, and you highlight. I'm not a fan of Trump trying to seize power and authority in what is clearly a state's right. That grows the size of federal government, which is already way too large. At most, the legitimate authority of the federal government would be to limit pollution from states; not to overturn state laws that set stricter requirements.
Why we allow presidential candidates that promise to grow the size of federal government, usurp local authority, and reduce liberty is beyond me. Could a candidate be successful on a platform of shrinking their authority and returning it to local government, and maximizing liberty?