Obama orders more EPA regulations for more fuel-efficient “super trucks”

posted at 5:21 pm on February 18, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

In keeping with his trending pattern of throwing bureaucratic bones to environmentalist groups whilst doing everything he can think of to “act where Congress won’t” (like his administration’s decision last week to initiate a $1 billion “climate resilience fund” that will combat problems of the Obama administration’s own making the effects of weather around the country), President Obama announced today the latest round of fuel-efficiency regulations to be handed down on high from the ever wise and abstemious Environmental Protection Agency:

Speaking at a Safeway distribution center in Maryland, Obama instructed environmental and transportation agencies to get to work on the next round of gas mileage requirements for big trucks. …

“For the first time in nearly 20 years, America produces more oil here at home than we buy from other countries. Our levels of dangerous carbon pollution, that contributes to climate change, have actually gone down even as our production has gone up,” he said.

Obama’s plan builds on a 2011 regulation that set the first-ever fuel standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014-18. It aims to save some 530 million barrels of oil and cut emissions by roughly 270 million metric tons.

Now, the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency – as planned – must develop the next phase of targets for those vehicles for post-2018 model years.

Obama wants them in place by March 2015.

Every mile that we gain in fuel efficiency is worth thousands of dollars of savings every year. So that’s why we’re investing in research to get more fuel economy gains. And thanks to a partnership between industry and my administration, the truck behind me was able to achieve a 75 percent improvement in fuel economy over the last year. 75 percent. That’s why I call this “super truck.” … You can see how they’ve redesigned the truck in order for us to save fuel economy, and improving gas mileage for these trucks are going to drive down our oil imports even further. That reduces carbon pollution even more…

Just creating a mandate that automatically begets better fuel efficiency certainly sounds like a lovely idea, and indeed, improved fuel efficiency has been a factor in our lately reduced carbon emissions — but I can’t help but feel that President Obama just might be omitting some of the tradeoffs that are really involved here.

After all, via the regular ol’ profit motive (I know, it’s so gauche compared to progressive government directive), the incentive for automakers to manufacture vehicles with the optimum level of fuel efficiency is already there in spades. If pushing automakers, as President Obama promises, will really create jobs and wealth and other miraculous benefits, then why aren’t they already getting to work on these more fuel-efficient trucks themselves?

A lot of the news stories covering O’s speech note that most automakers are on board with the pending regulations — of which I’ve no doubt, since it’s very easy to get in line when the federal government comes knocking and starts dangling who knows what kinds of regulatory and financial goodies in front of your face, ahem

The president will also propose a new $200 million tax credit for companies that invest in advanced vehicles and infrastructure, as well as an extension of tax credits for companies developing new biofuels.

But as Kevin Williamson at NRO aptly put it, President Obama is singularly practiced in the “occult art of single-entry bookkeeping”:

Consider his speech today, in which he praised the fuel economy of a new “super truck,” making the point that, since most U.S. freight moves in trucks, lower operating costs for freight operators should in theory mean lower costs for consumers. And he would have a point — if that fuel-economy technology were free. It is not. It costs money to develop. It costs money to deploy. Where it adds to the price of a vehicle, it also adds to ownership costs such as insurance and taxation.

And here’s another demonstrative bit from O’s speech:

Every time someone says you can’t grow the economy while bringing down pollution, it turns out they’ve been wrong.

…I have no idea who it is he thinks he’s talking about there. I think it’s another piece of rhetorical drivel meant to imply that conservatives are always decrying his climate-oriented initiatives out of stubborn spite and that this latest initiative will be a boon to the economy, but in fact, conservatives have been touting that economic growth is an imperative for bringing down pollution, all along (and if they haven’t been saying it explicitly, they should be). Cars and trucks have been getting steadily safer, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient since their invention with no other motivator than the free market, and Obama is just blithely assuming that his latest set of mandates — that in practice might stick us with politically favored technologies before they’re actually cost-effective — will help to grow the economy (yeah, because all of his other regulations have been so brilliantly successful in that regard). Too bad he’s leaving out a serious part of what formulas really equate with true net economic growth.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How much longer do we have to suffer this insufferable ignoramus?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I hear Obama wants to repeal the Laws of physics so we all can get better fuel mileage.

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Trains – the original super-truck. If you just allow larger and longer trucks on the highways you get the same thing. Triple trailer some 45 footers and you’ve got instant gains in tonnage per gallon.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Super Truckers should check the air pressure on their tyres.

Billions in fuel cost savings!

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Super Truckers should check the air pressure on their tyres.

Billions in fuel cost savings!

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:25 PM

What is a “tyre”?

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Abolish the EPA ASAP!!

Conservative4Ever on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM

How about we let the market and existing feasible/economical/marketable technology determine what kind of trucks they make?

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM

What is a “tyre”?

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:28 PM

An island city Alexander the Great once besieged..

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM

What is a “tyre”?

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Round rubber things they put on cars in Europe.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Every time someone says you can’t grow the economy while bringing down pollution, it turns out they’ve been wrong.

That’s some professional grade Orwell Newsspeak right there. Unless he really is taking a slap at the left… which says those things.

WitchDoctor on February 18, 2014 at 5:30 PM

As an employee of a maker of class 8 trucks I’m well aware of what these regulations will do. While they will keep me employed for a long time, they’ll also jack up the cost to the customer which will eat into a lot of the savings Obama is trying to promise. Also, there’s a limit to how much fuel you can save. Drop weight out of the tractor and/or trailer and the freight haulers will just add more freight (duh!). So weight savings won’t get you any better fuel economy. Aerodynamics can get you a fair chunk better effeciency, but the changes that would do the most to improve that won’t be very viable for the freight haulers. Improvements to the engines are possible, but there’s a point of diminishing returns that will be quickly reached, if it hasn’t already been. To save fuel based on the powertrain there’s only 2 ways to do that. Improve thermal effeciency to make the same power from less fuel (which doesn’t require govt regulations as customers are screaming for this anyway), or just make less power.

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Walmart is about to shock the world with a new 18 Wheeler.

jake-the-goose on February 18, 2014 at 5:27 PM

How much would a 53′ reefer cost? couple million?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

How about we let the market and existing feasible/economical/marketable technology determine what kind of trucks they make?

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM

That’s what will happen behind the scenes, but Barack the illegitimate will engender all manner of kudos from the Low Info Bunch for wanting to save them money.

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

How much would a 53′ reefer cost? couple million?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Depends on how tight you roll the joint. This is actually something Obama is qualified to answer.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM

How much longer do we have to suffer this insufferable ignoramus?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Pretty much as long as he lives. Even after he leaves office, assuming he does, he’ll be a sure “go to” former prez on which the LSM will forever dote to get his comments and criticism the current president’s administration, domestic and international affairs, for no future president could ever rise to his level of intelligence, wisdom and pure awesomeness, or at least I pray not.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Obama orders more EPA regulations for more fuel-efficient “super trucks”

Lessee, wind and solar powered semis…..1.8 wheelers. That’s the “super” Bammy has in mind.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Questions. I have questions …

If it was that easy to improve fuel economy, don’t you think the truck/engine manufacturers would have already done so, and the freight companies that use them would have demanded so, instead of waiting for a savior such as Obama to come along?

Lance Corvette on February 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Depends on how tight you roll the joint.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Damn – you best me to it.

I was going to say: ‘With or without a filter?’

jake-the-goose on February 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM

How about we let the market and existing feasible/economical/marketable technology determine what kind of trucks they make?

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Yeah, that is going happen with a filthy rat-eared socialist in the White House. You might as we’ll be talking about Mooch being concerned just how many millions we are all paying so the whore stays amused.

Happy Nomad on February 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM

As an employee of a maker of class 8 trucks I’m well aware of what these regulations will do. While they will keep me employed for a long time, they’ll also jack up the cost to the customer which will eat into a lot of the savings Obama is trying to promise. Also, there’s a limit to how much fuel you can save. Drop weight out of the tractor and/or trailer and the freight haulers will just add more freight (duh!). So weight savings won’t get you any better fuel economy. Aerodynamics can get you a fair chunk better effeciency, but the changes that would do the most to improve that won’t be very viable for the freight haulers. Improvements to the engines are possible, but there’s a point of diminishing returns that will be quickly reached, if it hasn’t already been. To save fuel based on the powertrain there’s only 2 ways to do that. Improve thermal effeciency to make the same power from less fuel (which doesn’t require govt regulations as customers are screaming for this anyway), or just make less power.

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

So let’s just repeal the Laws of Physics to make it possible to have a truck of any weight drive across the country on a few drops of fuel wrung from unicorn dung.

It would everyone a lot of money and make everyone happy, so why not do that?

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM

I should have said 53′ carbon fibre trailer. How much would that concept truck cost to manufacture?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Uhh, we’ve paved the roads.
And uh, now the bureaucracy is going to make miracle demands of industry.
That’s how it works right?

/Obama

gwelf on February 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM

These regulatory agencies that write law need to be abolished. How in the hell have these dictatorial arms of the executive branch been able to stand up to constitutional muster for so long?

jawkneemusic on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

How much longer do we have to suffer this insufferable ignoramus?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM

1066 more days, and a few hours. Unless we get really lucky.

The countdown clock

Adjoran on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

You’ll be all set as soon as 0barky repeals the laws of physics – or rewrites them.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Questions. I have questions …

If it was that easy to improve fuel economy, don’t you think the truck/engine manufacturers would have already done so, and the freight companies that use them would have demanded so, instead of waiting for a savior such as Obama to come along?

Lance Corvette on February 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Yes. The carriers and Independents would buy more fuel efficient stuff if it existed.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Yeah, that is going happen with a filthy rat-eared socialist in the White House. You might as we’ll be talking about Mooch being concerned just how many millions we are all paying so the whore stays amused.

Happy Nomad on February 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Well, they’ve got their utopian dreams, and I’ve got mine…..

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:43 PM

I should have said 53′ carbon fibre trailer. How much would that concept truck cost to manufacture?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM

I thought you were a down-home southern hick, and now you’re using words like “tyre” and “fibre”. What’s up with that? Next you Talk about those big 14 wheelers you saw when you were growing up…

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?

Soetoro is an amazing man. /

aquaviva on February 18, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Pol Pot ordered water to flow up hill.

Pres. BO is not far off.

Wander on February 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Funny how the motor vehicle industry as a whole, from the very beginning kept improving on power, cost, safety, features, and fuel efficiency, as the market demanded and technology allowed – all prior to the gubmint ever ORDERING them to do so.
Gotta wonder what we’d be driving now if the gubmint had just stayed out of it. Jetson’s perhaps….

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Modern semi trucks clean the air. The air entering the grill is dirtier than what exits the stack. This added 50% to the cost of a semi truck and 5% to the ongoing costs.

and companies are struggling, and California is drunk on envirnutti-ism and you want to triple down?

There is a point to much.

OregonPolitician on February 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM

How much longer do we have to suffer this insufferable ignoramus?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Answer: 1065 days.

Sigh.

Missilengr on February 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Would an EPA-specified truck work as well as a HSUS-specified web site?

Socratease on February 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Obama should use his bully pulpit to force the oil companies to get that 100+mph carburetor out of their vault.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

You’ll be all set as soon as 0barky repeals the laws of physics – or rewrites them.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Until then, HEY – Job security!!!

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

PACCAR?

Jeff Weimer on February 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Yeah…because hobbling the trucking industry (already operating with razor thin margins) via more of “green” boondoggle bullsh!it is the answer. HOW is increasing the cost of trucking via mandated/legislated (read MORE EXPENSIVE) trucks and cutting profit margins going to help anyone???…how I loathe this fool.

NY Conservative on February 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Every time someone says you can’t grow the economy while bringing down pollution, it turns out they’ve been wrong.

I hear voices out there..

I I I I…. should reject those voices…

Lanceman on February 18, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Obama should use his bully pulpit to force the oil companies to get that 100+mph carburetor out of their vault.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

The long lost “fisher” carburetor? Trucks don’t use those. But at least my old van could get me to elk camp on one gallon instead of six.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:53 PM

I should have said 53′ carbon fibre trailer. How much would that concept truck cost to manufacture?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM

A large percentage of consumption…assuming you’re hauling Styrofoam.

celt on February 18, 2014 at 5:53 PM

How much would a 53′ reefer cost? couple million?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Wanted to answer – this prototype WalMart is producing in incredible.

Watch WalMart is part of their $250b USA initiative

No word on cost yet – long way to go – but it is coming.

jake-the-goose on February 18, 2014 at 5:53 PM

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

You’ll be all set as soon as 0barky repeals the laws of physics – or rewrites them.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Yes, but those obstructionist Repubs will stand in his way of everyone saving super tonnes of money not having to buy gas! /Low Info Bunch

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:53 PM

I’ve got it!

Concrete tires (or tyres for the Euros) and RUBBER ROADS.

Missilengr on February 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Barack Obama

6h
President touts revival of US auto industry as rebuff

to anyone

‘who bet against America’

- @WestWingReport
end of alert
=============

Barack Obama
6h
Live video: President Obama delivers remarks on fuel-efficiency in Maryland – @NBCNews
read more on nbcnews.com
=========================

Barack Obama
8h
President Obama to order his agencies to tighten the fuel-efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles – @politico
read more on politico.com

canopfor on February 18, 2014 at 5:56 PM

So ti will cost $50,000 more per truck to gain a yearly savings of $4000 with an expected service life of 8 years.

WINNING!!

jukin3 on February 18, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Obama should use his bully pulpit to force the oil companies to get that 100+mph carburetor out of their vault.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

I think he should just get rid of that pesky Law of Gravity [Newton!] and let everyone float wherever they want.

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 6:00 PM

You can significantly increase the fuel mileage of trucks by limiting their top speed! Let’s limit the top speed of trucks to 30 mph and have TRULY AWESOME traffic jams EVERYDAY ALL ACROSS the USA!

bigmike on February 18, 2014 at 6:01 PM

I hear PIPELINES save a lot on transportation costs. Of course, that’s inconvenient politically for the left, because it creates jobs, grows the economy, and brings more oil to the market, potentially lowering prices.

We can’t have any of THAT!

xNavigator on February 18, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Every time they announce something like this I get the feeling this is just something someone things is a cool ides, like carbon caps, but nobody in the White House really knows anything about. A lot like high speed trains. When something really good comes along, we will adopt them without the help of Barack Obama. I’ve seen too many environmentalist demands that blew back in their faces to trust them any more.

flataffect on February 18, 2014 at 6:02 PM

1066 more days, and a few hours. Unless we get really lucky.

The countdown clock

Adjoran on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Well, that does assume Bammy stays within Constitutional parameters and doesn’t find a compelling reason to sign an EO allowing him to continue on in the WH as long as he desires, or has overwhelming support from the 52%ers to urge him to ignore the Constitution and stay because ObamawonKenyanbe is their only hope!

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 6:03 PM

How much longer do we have to suffer this insufferable ignoramus?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Technically, 35 months of the present carnage and then another maybe 35 years of World Historic Awesomeness Memoir Cash-in/Secrets-Vending Golf and Party Time. But no one is really listening much to him anymore already, and he will be totally ignored after the Iowa caucuses in 23 months. And the lead up to those starts August 8, 2015 with the Iowa “straw poll”: in just a little more than 17 months! So, take heart, counting from the first appearance of the nauseating “Hope” poster in February, 2008 to the Iowa straw poll in August 2015 (90 months), we are now in final 18% of our sentence under the rule of the Narcissist. Yes, there will be pardons, but I don’t care. Just get out.

cosifantutte on February 18, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Next from Obama…bicycles must be more fuel efficient…fewer calories needed to power bicycles…

Less calories means less food needs to be produced, thus cutting pollution…

albill on February 18, 2014 at 6:03 PM

And no, I don’t think we get really lucky.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Does anyone know if this “super-truck” hauled the same load over the same run? A truck doing delivery downtown isn’t going to get the same mileage as a truck doing delivery with less stops and more highway speed type driving.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 6:05 PM

This POTUS intends to single-handedly destroy this nation.

sadatoni on February 18, 2014 at 6:08 PM

1066 more days, and a few hours. Unless we get really lucky.

The countdown clock

Adjoran on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Well, that does assume Bammy stays within Constitutional parameters and doesn’t find a compelling reason to sign an EO allowing him to continue on in the WH as long as he desires, or has overwhelming support from the 52%ers to urge him to ignore the Constitution and stay because ObamawonKenyanbe is their only hope!

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Obama: 1st amendment, hah!

2nd amendment? never heard of it.

4th amendment….. yeah sure..

22nd? Heh!

Expect those on the national socialist left to start parroting the phrase ‘you don’t change horses midstream’ … especially during a serious economic crisis….

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Moonpony engineering from a guy who is a TOTAL idiot WRT anything in the real world.

Truckers KILL for a 4% increase in mileage.

The “Super Truck” is a load of fascist economic tripe, thrown togather by PACCAR (Peterbilt and Kenworth), Cummins, and Uncle Mandate.

There is nothing new or swell about “Super Truck”. They are already on the road, with the exceptions of very light weight construction (which has durability questions all over it).

The market will innovate.

BIG GOVERNMENT will ruin.

Ragspierre on February 18, 2014 at 6:09 PM

This POTUS intends to single-handedly destroy this nation.

sadatoni on February 18, 2014 at 6:08 PM

We deserve it! /national socialist left

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 6:11 PM

As an employee of a maker of class 8 trucks I’m well aware of what these regulations will do. While they will keep me employed for a long time, they’ll also jack up the cost to the customer which will eat into a lot of the savings Obama is trying to promise. Also, there’s a limit to how much fuel you can save. Drop weight out of the tractor and/or trailer and the freight haulers will just add more freight (duh!). So weight savings won’t get you any better fuel economy. Aerodynamics can get you a fair chunk better effeciency, but the changes that would do the most to improve that won’t be very viable for the freight haulers. Improvements to the engines are possible, but there’s a point of diminishing returns that will be quickly reached, if it hasn’t already been. To save fuel based on the powertrain there’s only 2 ways to do that. Improve thermal effeciency to make the same power from less fuel (which doesn’t require govt regulations as customers are screaming for this anyway), or just make less power.

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Bingo. Fuel is the #1 expense for a trucker. If a company could figure out a way to get more fuel economy without sacrificing power, there’d no need for gov’t regs. The line to buy the truck would stretch from here to eternity.

307wolverine on February 18, 2014 at 6:14 PM

jake-the-goose on February 18, 2014 at 5:27 PM

I like it! While laid up the last few I have had a chance to watch programs. The Maersk newer ships are a marvel. I watched the long full versions. Very informative. I loaded this one because run time was about the same as yours. Keep in mind jake, I have no tv so for me it has been a big bonus to watch these.

Bmore on February 18, 2014 at 6:14 PM

OregonPolitician on February 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Yep, as a forest products based business who relies heavily on trucks the CARB regulation has done nothing but increase costs and create shortages on trucks. Add the federal regulations on behind the wheel hours and efficiency has been hurt as well. As per usual BHO is full of sh!t.

antipc on February 18, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Truckers spend more on fuel than they put in their pocket so obviously Obama needs to come to the rescue. As if there wasn’t a market incentive to produce trucks that save freight haulers thousands and millions. He thinks Americans are idiots, and he’s right.

Buddahpundit on February 18, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Guess they didn’t hear that Obama solved the energy crisis:

China Sold Second-Largest Amount Ever Of US Treasurys In December: And Guess Who Comes To The Rescue

in a nutshell, Chinese Treasury holdings plunged by the most in two years, after China offloaded some $48 billion in paper, bringing its total to only $1268.9 billion, down from $1316.7 billion, and back to a level last seen in March 2013!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-18/china-sells-second-largest-amount-us-treasurys-december-and-guess-who-comes-rescue

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Obama should use his bully pulpit to force the oil companies to get that 100+mph carburetor out of their vault.

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

BTW – I assume you actually meant to say 100+ mpG.
We have lots of carbs that will get you up to 100 mph.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 6:23 PM

You can significantly increase the fuel mileage of trucks by limiting their top speed! Let’s limit the top speed of trucks to 30 mph and have TRULY AWESOME traffic jams EVERYDAY ALL ACROSS the USA!

bigmike on February 18, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You’re looking at it all wrong, if high speed rail can save the planet maybe high speed trucks could save the universe.

antipc on February 18, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I think that Ogabe, or ” He who has all power ” should just issue an executive order that all vehicles must get 1 trillion miles per gallon. Minimum wage must also be raised to one trillion dollars per hour.

We no longer talk in billions, so let’s go big or stay home.

Exninja on February 18, 2014 at 6:29 PM

This POTUS intends to single-handedly destroy this nation.

sadatoni on February 18, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Nah, not single handed. He couldn’t do it even if he had a copy of “Destroying Nations for Idiots” handbook and read it. Way too much work. Bammy’s got people to tell him what to do.

In the end he didn’t do it by himself.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Expect those on the national socialist left to start parroting the phrase ‘you don’t change horses midstream’ … especially during a serious economic crisis….

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Yeah, a few have already hinted at that.

hawkeye54 on February 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM

It has been spoken, so it shall be done.

HATE this man & his minions !

pambi on February 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM

This guy really is not very smart. Does King Amateur not realize that Tractor Trailers run on diesel? So his expert opinion is to convert these vehicles to gasoline. Does he not realize they will get less than 5 miles per gallon on gas? Why doesn’t he have them converted to electric? They can run on 4000 batteries, and make a 60 mile round trip each day. You think the food prices are high now. Wow! And all because of a junk science. When will these weather de-Nye-ers get a new tune?

Brock Robamney on February 18, 2014 at 6:57 PM

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

PACCAR?

Jeff Weimer on February 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM

You don’t seriously expect me to tell you who I work for??

sumpnz on February 18, 2014 at 7:01 PM

You’ll be all set as soon as 0barky repeals the laws of physics – or rewrites them.

dentarthurdent on February 18, 2014 at 5:41 PM

He’s got a pen…and a phone.

Solaratov on February 18, 2014 at 7:04 PM

I hear Obama wants to repeal the Laws of physics so we all can get better fuel mileage.

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Obama never studied law. At least I doubt he ever showed up for class anyway.

ConstantineXI on February 18, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Every time someone says you can’t grow the economy while bringing down pollution, it turns out they’ve been wrong.

Really? So that catalytic converter in my truck was FREE?

The plant that manufactured it was built for FREE? The raw materials that came in were FREE? The people employed there, worked for FREE? The end product was shipped to car makers for FREE?

GarandFan on February 18, 2014 at 7:16 PM

GarandFan on February 18, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Just be happy you don’t have to retrofit your guns with catalytic converters.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 7:20 PM

So ti will cost $50,000 more per truck to gain a yearly savings of $4000 with an expected service life of 8 years.

WINNING!!

jukin3 on February 18, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Kinda like the Chevy Volt … just supersized.

31giddyup on February 18, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Traded my 2005 F350 dually diesel in last year for a 2012 gas F350. It is a lot lighter than the 2005 and gets a little less mileage. How is this going to save me $8000 a year in fuel costs above the regular cost savings by switching from diesel to gas? Our dear leader like to throw big figures out there for an applause line just like saving $2500 in insurance premiums. Guess how much a can of beans is going to cost after truckers get the shaft from the epa.

Kissmygrits on February 18, 2014 at 7:26 PM

What a tool. I think he should just declare that climate has changed enough and ride outta town in a clown car.

vnvet on February 18, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Isn’t that 1 billion dollars supposed to stop the weather from changing for the whole world, or is it for the whole solar system?

Brock Robamney on February 18, 2014 at 7:32 PM

How much would a 53′ reefer cost? couple million?

Murphy9 on February 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Depends on how tight you roll the joint. This is actually something Obama is qualified to answer.

oldroy on February 18, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Thread Winner!

Who is John Galt on February 18, 2014 at 8:19 PM

A new regulation!! How do you like him now? He can announce one of these every day until doomsday.

flataffect on February 19, 2014 at 12:15 AM

So let’s just repeal the Laws of Physics to make it possible to have a truck of any weight drive across the country on a few drops of fuel wrung from unicorn dung.

It would everyone a lot of money and make everyone happy, so why not do that?

DinaRehn on February 18, 2014 at 5:40 PM

There’s no need to repeal them…

remember… he’s got a pen…

– Smoov

Smoovious on February 19, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Every time they announce something like this I get the feeling this is just something someone things is a cool ides, like carbon caps, but nobody in the White House really knows anything about.

Oh sure, for years and years and years they keep railing about carbon footprint, and carbon this and carbon that… make us use additives to reduce carbon emissions, carbon is going to kill the environment and the planet (nevermind that all life on this planet is made of carbon, and depends on carbon for existence), and now after all that, they want to make our trucks out of it!!?

Well… if that’s what we’re gonna have to do, we’re gonna have to get busy creating more carbon! (throws away the additive)

– Smoov

Smoovious on February 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM

So we’re going to have much larger trucks hauling more goods with longer trailers weighing more.

And cars hauling families and kids with better “efficiency” by removing metal and weight and having them weigh less…

Anyone up for some crash tests? What happens when your car weighs half as much, and the semi weighs twice as much regarding traffic fatalities?

Let me guess:

“Our view is that zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of raising the minimum wage on employment the safety impact of making cars lighter and trucks larger and heavier.”

gekkobear on February 19, 2014 at 3:56 PM