this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
138 points (97.3% liked)

News

23296 readers
4667 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation said the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal was unreasonable and requested significant revisions.

The industry group argued the plan would boost average vehicle prices by $3,000 by 2032 because of penalties automakers would face for not being in compliance, adding the figure "exceeds reason and will increase costs to the American consumer with absolutely no environmental or fuel savings benefits."

NHTSA in July proposed boosting requirements by 2% per year for passenger cars and 4% per year for pickup trucks and SUVs from 2027 through 2032, resulting in a fleet-wide average fuel efficiency of 58 miles (93 km) per gallon.

The American Automotive Policy Council, a group representing the Detroit Three automakers, separately on Monday urged NHTSA to halve its proposed fuel economy increases to 2% annually for trucks, saying the proposal "would disproportionately impact the truck fleet."

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 87 points 1 year ago

Alternative headline -- Automakers whine they must increase gas mileage; will likely wipe out their super lucrative truck/SUV sales

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago

Then: Seat belts are needlessly expensive. Later: look at the new safety feature we added!

Now: These new rules are needlessly expensive. After new model release: look at what great mileage it gets!

I'm tired of this.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“exceeds reason and will increase costs to the American consumer with absolutely no environmental or fuel savings benefits.”

Press X to doubt

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I would love to see how they justify those claims.

[–] Dangdoggo@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From what I understand they are saying that they will not be complying with the regulations and so the cost of the fees for failing to comply will be pushed onto the consumer with no environmental or fuel saving benefits.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which in comparison, will make EVs more affordable.

It's almost like the intention of the bill is to price gas vehicles out, and encourage the legacy auto industry to, well, innovate.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

It’s almost like the intention of the bill is to price gas vehicles out,

Or possibly stop the auto industry from privatizing the profits of selling gas vehicles and socializing the losses of climate and health concerns to everyone else.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

If prices could be increased by 3k, they already would have been increased by 3k. Companies aren't just waiting around for the government to tell them to increase prices.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Saving humanity from destroying itself exceeds reason!

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (anti-innovation division) said...

Gotta love the newspeak way these lobbying groups name themselves.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The industry group argued the plan would boost average vehicle prices by $3,000 by 2032 because of penalties automakers would face for not being in compliance.

Isn’t the whole idea of penalizing noncompliance to prevent it from becoming business as usual?

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They'll have affordable Chinese EV competitors by then.

So, the idea they're pushing that they have the option of raising prices is essentially a lie.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The industry group argued the plan would boost average vehicle prices by $3,000 by 2032 because of penalties automakers would face for not being in compliance

So what they are saying is the penalties need to be higher because they are still small enough that the companies think they should eat them rather than improve efficiency.

From my perspective, these don't even go far enough, but improving efficiency is more important than the survival of the automakers.

[–] Acters@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Not only are the penalties small enough to eat, but it's small enough to kick it down to the consumers.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt 5 points 1 year ago

That boost in price is minimal compared to how much they raised prices in the last 2 years.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'd prefer to keep the numbers the same, but change the rules so that a light truck/suv is only different from a car if it is used as a truck. Use as a truck means that that the value is based on mechanical condition and engine hours only. Cosmetic damage does not count, and an independent mechanical is needed to evaluate mechanical condition. This won't stop sales of Trucks/SUVs, but it will end leasing and renting - if you lease/rent a truck, fill it with boulders (which will put dents in the bed as they roll around) they cannot charge you damages, and on lease return are required to sell it for the same price as a truck that was used only for driving unloaded (or if discount it, the sales tax is as if it was in mint condition). Or drive it off road and dent the fenders sliding into trees and scratch the paint else where - no extra cost when you return it at the end of the lease/rental. Want to tow, that is normal for a truck so they can't say anything about you drilling holes for a hitch (so long as they don't affect the mechanical ability - if the truck comes with standard holes they can say don't drill, otherwise drilling is required and assumed okay)

Suddenly you could buy a truck as a truck, or a passenger car that looks like a truck. The truck will go for a lower price, but you will have to buy it (possibly under different credit terms as they less want to reposes it given you may do cosmetic damage). The car will be more expensive because they have to pay CAFE fines. Insurance on the truck will be cheaper: they won't fix hail damage, and if in an accident they will fix the lights but leave all the other dents. (if the other guys fault their insurance will not fix dents). People who actually need a truck for work purposes won't care, and they are also likely doing things that can't really be done in a more fuel efficient vehicle. People who just want a car will find cars a better option again.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The CAFE standards really screwed over the compact pickup truck segment. 2dr 6ft bed trucks need to return and eat up the full size's market share.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

8 foot bed please . I need to haul stuff.

[–] CyanFen@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

We should just stop treating vehicles as luxury items that need to look pretty and instead treat them like the utility that they are. Who cares if the magic box that takes you from point a to point b has a dent? It still functions exactly the same.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Threatening us with unaffordable cars, sounds like its time to make cars less necessary like other developed countries do.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I like that there is a separate, and higher percentage improvement needed for pickup trucks and SUV's, because Im pretty sure fuel economy standards and the dodging thereof are part of the reason for all the SUV's and other large vehicles.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

No thanks. I agree that cars cause a lot of problems and it would be better if there was a high speed train system and more bike lanes in the U.S., but too much of !fuckcars is people talking about something they know nothing about and blaming Americans for the world's problems.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I recognized that reference!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

So they're saying they could have produced more fuel efficient cars all along, they just didn't want to.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

The 2012 rule was aimed at 5% increase a year. The Trump 2020 time was for 1.5% increase per year. This 2023 assume for 4% per year. Though the above splits passenger cars from trucks/SUVs.

My other numbers from https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/politics/trump-fuel-efficiency-standards/index.html

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Something tells me it will just result in more pedestrian deaths 🤔

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

the people at the NHTSA are scientists and engineers.. they didn't get those jobs by being "unreasonable", you teenage drama queens..