Another viewpoint from Grand Rapids, MI on the Obama emission standards:
West Michigan auto suppliers, environmentalists have mixed reaction to Obama order on emissions
by Kyla King | The Grand Rapids Press Monday January 26, 2009, 5:48 PM
President Barack Obama ordered the government Monday to re-examine whether California and other states should be allowed to have tougher auto emission standards to combat a build up of greenhouse gases.
West Michigan auto part suppliers and environmentalists had mixed reactions to news that President Barack Obama ordered the government to review the Bush administration's refusal to allow states to set tougher tailpipe emission standards and to get moving on new fuel-efficiency guidelines for the auto industry.
RELATED CONTENT •
Obama pushing stronger fuel-efficiency standard
"We can't continue to have these high rate of emissions," said Rachel Hood, executive director of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council.
Hood hopes the move eventually means Michigan would revisit efforts to open emission testing sites, similar to a controversial 1995 initiative that was scuttled at the last minute by then Gov. John Engler.
"It would be my concern that Michigan and other big traditional auto states would fail to take aggressive action to protect our environmental and human health," Hood said.
But auto industry supplier Jim Zawacki, owner of Grand Rapids Spring and Stamping, said the issue should remain at the federal level so there would be a single national standard -- a position backed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
Zawacki said requiring automakers to build cars that get more miles to the gallon is a lofty goal, but would further hurt the crippled auto industry.
"(Car makers) have got it tough enough already," Zawacki said. "Give them a little breathing room until we come out of this recession."
Zawacki said Obama could focus on more immediate remedies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, such as offering cash incentives to get older cars off the road and for buying fuel-efficient cars. Such a move would increase demand for newer cars and help the sputtering auto industry.
"If you took every car five years or older off the road, you could eliminate the greenhouse gas effect related to automobiles by 25 percent in this country," Zawacki said.
In 2007, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency denied California's request for a federal waiver to set tougher standards. Obama's order does not yet overturn anything, but states wanting their own power considered it a victory.
California's proposed restrictions -- which have been adopted by 13 other states -- would force automakers to boost fuel efficiency in new vehicles to about 36.8 miles per gallon in new cars and light trucks by 2016.
A law passed by Congress in 2007 requires that by 2020, new cars and trucks meet a standard of 35 miles per gallon, a 40 percent increase over the status quo. On Monday, Obama ordered new guidelines in place to start affecting cars sold in 2011.
The move was met with skepticism by Granholm and Michigan lawmakers, including U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, and Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow.
All said the country -- and the struggling auto industry -- needs a strong single national standard instead of a confusing "patchwork" set of rules.
"We all want a cleaner environment and more fuel efficient vehicles, but not at the expense of eliminating jobs and further burdening a major U.S. industry," Hoekstra said. "The auto industry needs certainty and stability in the marketplace."
-- The Associated Press contributed to this story.
West Michigan auto suppliers, environmentalists have mixed reaction to Obama order on emissions - Grand Rapids News - The Latest News, Blogs, Photos & Videos – MLive.com
Also, quoting from the article in the link (bold italics mine) contained in the body of the above (Obama pushing stronger fuel efficiency standard):
"Industry officials have also said they would face billions of dollars in new costs to meet the rules at a time when General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have received billions in federal loans to stay afloat.
The Bush administration estimated the federal fuel economy rules would cost the industry more than $100 billion to implement the changes by 2020."
For argument's sake let's suppose these costs are overstated by 50%. Do we still want to impose that kind of new burden on this industry during the current economic conditions? Just some food for thought.
