www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You

Order your TDIClub merchandise and help support TDIClub


Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > TDI News/Tech

TDI News/Tech This Forum is for the posting of TDI news related items.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 11th, 2004, 06:37   #1
SooBoy
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Pickering, Ontario
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

June 11, 2004
Much of Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Car Emissions
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, June 10 - California's plan for sharp cuts in automotive emissions of global warming gases could eventually lead much of the coastal United States to turn to vehicles that are substantially cleaner, and by extension more fuel efficient, than those in the rest of the nation.

This year, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut have said they intend to start following California's car rules instead of Washington's. New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine already do so.

Together, these seven states, along with California, account for nearly 26 percent of the nation's auto market, according to R. L. Polk, a company that tracks auto registrations. Other states are also considering joining. One reason is that many states are now out of compliance on federal ozone emission regulations and see car tailpipes as a solution. Canada is also considering a similar approach on global warming.

Automakers from Detroit to Tokyo are concerned that these states, and potentially Canada, could form a potent bloc that has more demanding regulations than the rest of the country.

"It would be a logistical and engineering challenge, and a costly problem," said Dave Barthmuss, a spokesman for General Motors. "It's more cost effective for us to have one set of emissions everywhere."

Many steps remain before all this happens. But this week, the first details of California's plan, which is still in its early stages, were made public. The plan would require automakers to cut global warming emissions from their new vehicles by 29.2 percent over the next decade, phasing in from the 2009 to the 2015 model years.

California regulators are adamant that the plan is not a fuel economy measure because the federal government has authority over that issue.

"This agency is required by law to address air pollution that affects public health," said Jerry Martin, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. "We only adopt emissions regulations," he said, adding that the plan "was never intended" to be a fuel economy regulation.

There is no filter for carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, in the way that catalytic converters can filter smog-forming particles. The only way to cut global warming emissions from cars is to use less fossil fuel.

Thus, the proposed cuts in emissions would have the side effect of requiring automakers to increase fuel economy by a range of mid-30 percent to mid-40 percent, experts say.

The national fuel economy average for new passenger vehicles was 20.7 miles a gallon in the 2003 model year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, down from a peak of 22.1 miles a gallon in 1987. A mid-30 percent improvement would put average fuel economy above 27 miles a gallon, meaning that cars, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, taken together, would have to average the mileage of a Volkswagen Jetta.

Such mileage is already achievable in larger vehicles, though the question is at what cost. Ford's new Escape hybrid S.U.V., coming out in the fall, is projected to get more than 30 miles a gallon.

Automakers say such objectives would be extremely difficult and costly to achieve across their vehicle fleets. Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, cited a recent study that showed fuel economy remained far down on most shoppers' priority lists.

"It's still behind cup holders," he said.

Other surveys, however, show high gas prices are making fuel economy a top-of-the-mind issue. And fuel-efficient hybrid electric cars have become sought after; many areas now have a six-month waiting list for the Toyota Prius.

Environmentalists say automakers would not even need technology as advanced as hybrid cars to meet the proposed California rules but could use combinations of simpler technologies and also curb horsepower. Over the last two decades, the average vehicle has doubled to about 200 horsepower from 100.

"I feel very confident about these kinds of numbers, in terms of technical feasibility," said John DeCicco, an engineer and a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, an environmental group. "It's a matter of optimally designing for efficiency as opposed to yet another round of horsepower wars."

The California Air Resources Board estimates the changes would add $1,047 to the cost of a vehicle by 2015, though additional upfront costs would be mitigated over time at the gas pump.

California's plan faces a long regulatory and legislative review process that will continue through next year.

And two considerable legal hurdles loom.

First, the E.P.A. recently ruled that carbon dioxide is not an air pollutant, which effectively meant that the agency decided it did not have authority to regulate global warming gases. California and other states, along with environmental groups like the Sierra Club, have sued to overturn the decision. The matter will be an important one because the E.P.A.'s decision could undercut California's ability to regulate global warming gases.

Second, the auto industry is expected to sue to block California's regulation from taking effect under the argument that it is pre-empted by the federal government's authority to regulate fuel economy.

There is also a question of whether states that use California car rules would automatically have to adopt the new regulations.

California has the authority to set its own air-quality rules because its rules predate the Clean Air Act. Other states can opt in to California's rules or stick with Washington's. Generally, they are not allowed to modify California's approach because that would create three sets of rules for the industry to deal with.

Legal experts said states that follow California's rules would most likely have to adopt California's new plan eventually or return to federal standards.

One state, New York, has indicated that it will follow California.

"Let's work to reduce greenhouse gases by adopting the carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles which were recently proposed by the State of California," Gov. George E. Pataki said in his state of the state address last year.

This week, Mike Fraser, a spokesman for New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, said, "New York State is still committed to that goal."

Today, automakers generally certify all their light-duty vehicles to meet standards in all 50 states because the separate regulations are not far apart. But they have made cars to different emissions standands for different states in the past.

"It certainly complicates things in terms of planning and distribution and lots of issues," said Michael Love, national regulatory affairs manager for Toyota.

Roland Hwang, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, "Two cars are unfair, but it's unfair because all consumers won't have the opportunity to drive the cleanest vehicle possible."

"If they only want to make one car," he said, "clearly it should be a clean car, and that's the California car."



Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/business/11auto.html
(must signup to view)
SooBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2004, 09:21   #2
Mike_04GolfTDI
Veteran Member
 
Mike_04GolfTDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Richmond, BC, Canada
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel & Biodiesel along with the latest and greatest diesel emmision control technology is the obvious solution isn't it?
Mike_04GolfTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2004, 13:34   #3
RabbitGTI
Veteran Member
 
RabbitGTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Wisconsin
Fuel Economy: Don't know. I just feed it and drive.
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

"Environmentalists say automakers would not even need technology as advanced as hybrid cars to meet the proposed California rules but could use combinations of simpler technologies and also curb horsepower. Over the last two decades, the average vehicle has doubled to about 200 horsepower from 100.

"I feel very confident about these kinds of numbers, in terms of technical feasibility," said John DeCicco, an engineer and a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, an environmental group. "It's a matter of optimally designing for efficiency as opposed to yet another round of horsepower wars."

Do those ****s know you can double the horsepower without too much of an average mileage hit with high compression, turbos, aerodynamics, variable valve timing...etc....Ignorant, self-aggrandizing dicks. God I hate them. People like them know what's good for everyone and they go out of their way to legislate their opinions. Why can't the automakers and the majority of people just tell CARB and the Environmental Defense Fund to go to hell.
RabbitGTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2004, 15:02   #4
RogueTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Uhm. Im with you. Screw CARB.
RogueTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2004, 20:00   #5
RogueTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Quote:

Many steps remain before all this happens. But this week, the first details of California's plan, which is still in its early stages, were made public. The plan would require automakers to cut global warming emissions from their new vehicles by 29.2 percent over the next decade, phasing in from the 2009 to the 2015 model years.

California regulators are adamant that the plan is not a fuel economy measure because the federal government has authority over that issue.
Uh, right.

Quote:
There is no filter for carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, in the way that catalytic converters can filter smog-forming particles. The only way to cut global warming emissions from cars is to use less fossil fuel.
Reducing CO2 emissions means 1 of 2 things - better fuel economy, or revolutionary exhaust CO2 scrubbers.

Speaking of which, why couldnt scrubbers be used? Also, why dont they consider water emissions from the tailpipe to be greenhouse gas emissions? Because, water IS a greenhouse gas - constitutes 98% (or at least better than 95%)of the greenhouse effect.

That is additional water vapor being introduced into our environment, just like the CO2 - they both source from fossil fuel.
RogueTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2004, 09:13   #6
TimboTA
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: (Wish I were anywhere but) MA
Fuel Economy: 47.3
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

I'm not amazed that average economy has dropped; I'm amazed that so many vehicles are so poor. I drove my '96 TransAm every day for 5 years, and my average mileage was 24mpg in mixed driving, and almost 30mpg highway. Pretty good for a heavy, 285hp car. It has not required an emissions test since 2001 because our testing cites it as a "clean car", yet the enviro-****s call it a "gross-polluting gas-guzzler", etc., while my TDI is a "gross-polluter" and then the hybrids are "bad for the environment (because of batteries)", ignoring that most batteries are recycled now, but that of course still uses energy. Apparently the enviros are against any form of energy use, even the metabolization of food.

So I propose to send the enviro****s to live in their dream world - a cave on a secluded island where they can fend for themselves (because even the whole foods market pollutes).
TimboTA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2004, 13:53   #7
RogueTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Quote:
I'm not amazed that average economy has dropped; I'm amazed that so many vehicles are so poor. I drove my '96 TransAm every day for 5 years, and my average mileage was 24mpg in mixed driving, and almost 30mpg highway. Pretty good for a heavy, 285hp car. It has not required an emissions test since 2001 because our testing cites it as a "clean car", yet the enviro-****s call it a "gross-polluting gas-guzzler", etc., while my TDI is a "gross-polluter" and then the hybrids are "bad for the environment (because of batteries)", ignoring that most batteries are recycled now, but that of course still uses energy. Apparently the enviros are against any form of energy use, even the metabolization of food.

So I propose to send the enviro****s to live in their dream world - a cave on a secluded island where they can fend for themselves (because even the whole foods market pollutes).
hahahaha!
Here here!
RogueTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2004, 11:43   #8
VenetaTDI
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Quote:
... ****s ... Ignorant, self-aggrandizing dicks. God I hate them. ... go to hell.
Such friendly words.

Look at what has happened to cars over the last 30 years. New technology was initially applied to increase mileage. When the federal government stopped increasing mileage requirements, all of the technological advances went into making vehicles faster, larger, heavier, and more powerful. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r04001.pdf

You are correct that existing technologies can be used to increase horsepower without decreasing mileage. The article just said those same technologies can be used for a different purpose. Even if you dislike the idea, that's not ignorance. It's a matter of priority.

Regardless of whether those technologies are used for power vs. efficiency, they still cost money and that's what the manufacturers balk at.
VenetaTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2004, 22:16   #9
GiGGer
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Quebec
TDI(s): GTI TDI 130
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Diesel is the best option we can take, it tends to pollute much less than gas engine do (talking about greenhouse effect, which is the most important issue at the moment)

Hydrogen just plainly sucks, producing hydrogen with what? Gas, or other form of energy.

If there is 1 000 000 of hybrid car, those batteries will pollute even more when they will need to be changed, they don't talk about those cost related to hybrid cars, and talk about hybrid in europe, Diesel isn't 40-50% of the market?

People just don't understand all those important issue, the first one to close their eyes on that is Bush, they prefer to serve the interest of big compagnies and ignore kyoto and other 'green' action.
GiGGer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2004, 12:20   #10
McBrew
Veteran Member
 
McBrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Fuel Economy: 54/50/44 (usually running B100)
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Quote:
People like them know what's good for everyone and they go out of their way to legislate their opinions. Why can't the automakers and the majority of people just tell CARB and the Environmental Defense Fund to go to hell.

Although I don't agree with everthing they are doing... I do believe it's important to legislate more stringent emissions control as well as fuel economy.

History has already proven that car manufacturers will not go out of their way to produce clean or efficient cars unless there is a demand. History has also proven that there is very little demand for clean or efficient cars unless fuel prices soar. The average person doesn't give a flying hubcap about the environment, and they complain about fuel prices, but continue to buy inefficient vehicles.

If you give (average) people a choice, they will usually not make a reasonable decision. If no one mandated these types of controls, we'd still be burning leaded gas through our non-catalyst engines and would be pulling in 20 MPG at best. Geez... I forgot... 20 MPG is still the average .

No, we do not have the right to drive whatever we want. That's right, even in America. If so, where's my Sherman tank? Energy usage takes a toll on our entire country. Even if you don't care about the environment, can't you see what's going on in the Middle East? No, I don't think the war was for oil... heck, it'd be the most expensive oil we ever bought! But everyone knows that the whole region is unstable, and they are arming themselves with oil money. It's just not a cool scene. Not to mention that it's not economically sensible to be buying all this crude from other countries.

Again, we have proven that the majority of people in the US cannot be trusted to do what's right... it's time for more legislation in regards to pollution and fuel economy.
McBrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2004, 13:06   #11
RogueTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Quote:
Quote:
People like them know what's good for everyone and they go out of their way to legislate their opinions. Why can't the automakers and the majority of people just tell CARB and the Environmental Defense Fund to go to hell.

Although I don't agree with everthing they are doing... I do believe it's important to legislate more stringent emissions control as well as fuel economy.

History has already proven that car manufacturers will not go out of their way to produce clean or efficient cars unless there is a demand. History has also proven that there is very little demand for clean or efficient cars unless fuel prices soar. The average person doesn't give a flying hubcap about the environment, and they complain about fuel prices, but continue to buy inefficient vehicles.

If you give (average) people a choice, they will usually not make a reasonable decision. If no one mandated these types of controls, we'd still be burning leaded gas through our non-catalyst engines and would be pulling in 20 MPG at best. Geez... I forgot... 20 MPG is still the average .

No, we do not have the right to drive whatever we want. That's right, even in America. If so, where's my Sherman tank? Energy usage takes a toll on our entire country. Even if you don't care about the environment, can't you see what's going on in the Middle East? No, I don't think the war was for oil... heck, it'd be the most expensive oil we ever bought! But everyone knows that the whole region is unstable, and they are arming themselves with oil money. It's just not a cool scene. Not to mention that it's not economically sensible to be buying all this crude from other countries.

Again, we have proven that the majority of people in the US cannot be trusted to do what's right... it's time for more legislation in regards to pollution and fuel economy.
The majority of politicians and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to do what's right either.
RogueTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2004, 15:19   #12
McBrew
Veteran Member
 
McBrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Fuel Economy: 54/50/44 (usually running B100)
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

Quote:
The majority of politicians and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to do what's right either.
I have to agree with you on that one. However, so far it has worked out alright. Just look at the drop in tailpipe emissions over the last 35 years! You're looking at more than a 90% drop in emissions! Yes, we've had to pay for that in extra parts and maintenance... but overall it is a very good thing. With the number of cars and trucks on the roads and the number of miles driven, we have to try our best to keep the pollution to a minimum.

By using existing technology, such as (but not limited to) diesel and gas/electric hybrid, we can lower emissions and our gluttonous energy consumption while maintaining safety... and at a minimal cost. Personally, I can't wait until ULSD is available across North America. Maybe then the CARB states will accept diesels as a cleaner alternative. For now, we have to put up with this crap.
McBrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2004, 02:29   #13
RogueTDI
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego
Default Coastal U.S. May Follow California on Emissions

It is false logic to assume that just because legislative policy cleaned up air in the past, it will have just as positive an effect for the future - its a different cicumstance now. Gassers are excepetionally clean, except for CO. Diesels will soon be so also. After that, attacking the auto industry with even stricter regs becomes nothing but a way for air quality bureacrats to justify their fat paychecks.
RogueTDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 23:21.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.19676 seconds with 10 queries
[Output: 120.80 Kb. compressed to 103.23 Kb. by saving 17.57 Kb. (14.55%)]