56 MPG mandate by 2025 = SCRAPPED BY current EPA

lulz at you guys making light of a serious situation. If this SAME issue was presented on anything besides FOX news, this thread would be up in arms about the issue. Ya'll need to stop worrying about the medium, and pay more attention to the message.
 
Originally Posted by finnns2003

I really hope this doesn't get pushed.


Performance cars>
just wait till obama starts taking them away from them slowly....they'll learn
laugh.gif



lulz at you guys making light of a serious situation. If this SAME issue was presented on anything besides FOX news, this thread would be up in arms about the issue. Ya'll need to stop worrying about the medium, and pay more attention to the message.
basically but how much can you ask of certain folk that make threads such as "putting link laces on foamposites" and "going to a jumpoffs funeral"
laugh.gif
tired.gif


dude hating gays.
so not agreeing with a lifestyle = hating gays...gotcha

its ok....at da end of da day....






i know what land i stand on....ya let these crooks out in washington sell you dreams about about a green future...i know what side im on
pimp.gif


oh and by da way...


The UAW, which is concerned about how automaker profits, jobs and wages could be impacted by higher fuel economy standards, met with Detroit automakers Tuesday to discuss regulations proposed by the Obama administration.

Among those meeting with the union were Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president for government relations, and executives from General Motors and Chrysler, according to people familiar with the session.

UAW officials could not be reached for comment.

The automakers, UAW and the National Automobile Dealers Association have argued that the proposed corporate average fuel economy standard of 56.2 m.p.g. would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and eliminate jobs assembling larger and heavier vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs.

While the Detroit Three have made progress with their small cars, a large percentage of sales and profits still comes from trucks and larger SUVs.

The UAW is concerned about the potential impact the higher CAFE standard would have on profitability, jobs and wages, Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, said last week.

Currently, automakers are working to meet a 35.5 m.p.g. standard to take effect in 2016.

The Obama administration's push for higher fuel economy standards by 2025 comes on the eve of national contract talks between the UAW and the Detroit automakers, which formally begin later this month.

The union and automakers are negotiating a new four-year contract to replace a pact that expires Sept. 4. After years of job cuts and plant closures, the UAW is hoping to win back some concessions and secure more job commitments from the Detroit Three, who have been increasingly profitable.

For the first three months of the year GM earned $3.2 billion, Ford earned $2.6 billion and Chrysler earned $116 million. Second-quarter earnings will be reported by the companies in the coming weeks.

Free Press staff writer Chrissie Thompson contributed to this report.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110713/BUSINESS01/107130341/M-p-g-push-concerns-UAW




 
Originally Posted by finnns2003

I really hope this doesn't get pushed.


Performance cars>
just wait till obama starts taking them away from them slowly....they'll learn
laugh.gif



lulz at you guys making light of a serious situation. If this SAME issue was presented on anything besides FOX news, this thread would be up in arms about the issue. Ya'll need to stop worrying about the medium, and pay more attention to the message.
basically but how much can you ask of certain folk that make threads such as "putting link laces on foamposites" and "going to a jumpoffs funeral"
laugh.gif
tired.gif


dude hating gays.
so not agreeing with a lifestyle = hating gays...gotcha

its ok....at da end of da day....






i know what land i stand on....ya let these crooks out in washington sell you dreams about about a green future...i know what side im on
pimp.gif


oh and by da way...


The UAW, which is concerned about how automaker profits, jobs and wages could be impacted by higher fuel economy standards, met with Detroit automakers Tuesday to discuss regulations proposed by the Obama administration.

Among those meeting with the union were Pete Lawson, Ford's vice president for government relations, and executives from General Motors and Chrysler, according to people familiar with the session.

UAW officials could not be reached for comment.

The automakers, UAW and the National Automobile Dealers Association have argued that the proposed corporate average fuel economy standard of 56.2 m.p.g. would add thousands of dollars to the cost of vehicles and eliminate jobs assembling larger and heavier vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs.

While the Detroit Three have made progress with their small cars, a large percentage of sales and profits still comes from trucks and larger SUVs.

The UAW is concerned about the potential impact the higher CAFE standard would have on profitability, jobs and wages, Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, said last week.

Currently, automakers are working to meet a 35.5 m.p.g. standard to take effect in 2016.

The Obama administration's push for higher fuel economy standards by 2025 comes on the eve of national contract talks between the UAW and the Detroit automakers, which formally begin later this month.

The union and automakers are negotiating a new four-year contract to replace a pact that expires Sept. 4. After years of job cuts and plant closures, the UAW is hoping to win back some concessions and secure more job commitments from the Detroit Three, who have been increasingly profitable.

For the first three months of the year GM earned $3.2 billion, Ford earned $2.6 billion and Chrysler earned $116 million. Second-quarter earnings will be reported by the companies in the coming weeks.

Free Press staff writer Chrissie Thompson contributed to this report.

http://www.freep.com/article/20110713/BUSINESS01/107130341/M-p-g-push-concerns-UAW




 
[h1]Where Does The UAW Stand On Fuel Economy?[/h1]

By Edward Niedermeyer on July 13, 2011

bagley-550x374.jpg


Cartoon by Pat Bagley at Cagle Cartoons.

The United Auto Workers have proven that they’ll come out in support of greenhouse gas regulation when they think it’s in their interests, but what happens now that the union-built green-car future isn’t turning out to be the jobs-loaded utopia they predicted? With CAFE standards of 56.2 MPG by 2025 being proposed, the union has a choice to make: back the government that saved it or the automakers it’s currently negotiating with for jobs? Unless, of course, there’s some kind of principle here…

During the bailout the union was happy to play up its “commitment to green jobs,â€
 
[h1]Where Does The UAW Stand On Fuel Economy?[/h1]

By Edward Niedermeyer on July 13, 2011

bagley-550x374.jpg


Cartoon by Pat Bagley at Cagle Cartoons.

The United Auto Workers have proven that they’ll come out in support of greenhouse gas regulation when they think it’s in their interests, but what happens now that the union-built green-car future isn’t turning out to be the jobs-loaded utopia they predicted? With CAFE standards of 56.2 MPG by 2025 being proposed, the union has a choice to make: back the government that saved it or the automakers it’s currently negotiating with for jobs? Unless, of course, there’s some kind of principle here…

During the bailout the union was happy to play up its “commitment to green jobs,â€
 
this is a great thing. i love how we are up in arms over efficient vehicles that help us cope with the very SIMPLE truth, which is fossil fuels are FINITE! BTW we are, and WILL always be a NANNY STATE. you have zero clue what the term means since you use it so obnoxiously, and loosely. this falls under a protection mandate, and as always it revolves around money. car manufacturers are changing with the times, and this is only the beginning.
 
this is a great thing. i love how we are up in arms over efficient vehicles that help us cope with the very SIMPLE truth, which is fossil fuels are FINITE! BTW we are, and WILL always be a NANNY STATE. you have zero clue what the term means since you use it so obnoxiously, and loosely. this falls under a protection mandate, and as always it revolves around money. car manufacturers are changing with the times, and this is only the beginning.
 
**** I don't really follow politics, so pardon my potential stupidness******
If we have the technology, why don't we push for more automobiles(not just cars, but trucks, SUVs) that rely on electricity, instead on continually relying on gas?
 
**** I don't really follow politics, so pardon my potential stupidness******
If we have the technology, why don't we push for more automobiles(not just cars, but trucks, SUVs) that rely on electricity, instead on continually relying on gas?
 
Originally Posted by CosmicCanon

**** I don't really follow politics, so pardon my potential stupidness******
If we have the technology, why don't we push for more automobiles(not just cars, but trucks, SUVs) that rely on electricity, instead on continually relying on gas?
thats da thing, we DONT have da technology to heavily rely on cars using nothing but electric...i mean all you have to do is look at our fuel infrastructure....and cars relying on batteries only are still WAAAY away from da type of

length that anyone who drives all da time is comfortable dealing with.

forcing it down our throats isn't gonna make it move any faster...its just gonna kill future jobs with over regulation...and ya talk about more fuel effecient cars made of aluminum? yea we had those in da 80's and those things were crushed like soda cans da minute you

are tangled in a accident...if cars become too light they become dangerous in a collision. government knows this too.
 Just about no one agrees with this fool yet he insists on being right.
ummm...obama JUST rescinded da mark for trucks and SUVs for fears of a job cuts...so yea, i am right
tongue.gif
wink.gif


dont be mad i know what im talking about
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted by CosmicCanon

**** I don't really follow politics, so pardon my potential stupidness******
If we have the technology, why don't we push for more automobiles(not just cars, but trucks, SUVs) that rely on electricity, instead on continually relying on gas?
thats da thing, we DONT have da technology to heavily rely on cars using nothing but electric...i mean all you have to do is look at our fuel infrastructure....and cars relying on batteries only are still WAAAY away from da type of

length that anyone who drives all da time is comfortable dealing with.

forcing it down our throats isn't gonna make it move any faster...its just gonna kill future jobs with over regulation...and ya talk about more fuel effecient cars made of aluminum? yea we had those in da 80's and those things were crushed like soda cans da minute you

are tangled in a accident...if cars become too light they become dangerous in a collision. government knows this too.
 Just about no one agrees with this fool yet he insists on being right.
ummm...obama JUST rescinded da mark for trucks and SUVs for fears of a job cuts...so yea, i am right
tongue.gif
wink.gif


dont be mad i know what im talking about
laugh.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom