While reporting on the Obama administration’s plan to impose higher fuel standards on cars and trucks on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Obama environmental advisor Carol Browner: "As a former long-time administrator of the EPA, how overdue is this?" Browner replied: "It is long overdue. You know, Congress stood in the way of tougher fuel economy standards for a long time. That finally was fixed."
Smith did question the higher price of cars for consumers that would result from the tougher standards: "With the added price tag cost to these average vehicles, and much higher -- higher gas mileage and fewer emissions, what is my incentive, what is my dollar incent – incentive to buy a car like this?" Browner argued that consumers would save money in the long-run due to better gas mileage: "...whether you want to buy a bigger car or a smaller car, they will all be more efficient, and cleaner. So we're preserving the consumer choice, but giving every consumer the opportunity to save money at the pump." Smith replied: "Will SUVs and pickup trucks go the way of the dinosaur, though?"
Despite Browner’s assurances, Smith fretted that low gas prices would be a disincentive for consumers to want to spend more money on cars themselves: "But we're seeing now with the price of gas going down that people are -- are less apt to buy these lower fuel vehicles -- lower fuel-burning vehicles?" At the end of the interview he asked about a possible solution to that problem: "And do you anticipate a higher national gas tax?" Browner dodged the issue: "What we think the consumer wants are cleaner cars and that's what the President is announcing today."
Prior to Smith’s interview with Browner, correspondent Bill Plante reported on the proposed fuel standards: "These are dramatically higher emissions standards. They are designed to satisfy the auto industry, give them uniform goals, and at the same time, satisfy states like California, which want tougher pollution limits." A clip of David Weiss from the left-wing Center for American Progress offered glowing support of the plan: "This is a win-win-win. We're going to cut pollution, reduce oil use, and build cleaner cars for the world's market."
Plante did acknowledge some criticism: "But critics say there's no evidence that new standards will clean up the environment. And they charge the White House is pushing the move on struggling automakers who can't afford to fight the plan." The toughest "critic" Plante could find was Cliff Winston from the left-leaning Brookings Institution, who simply explained the weak position of American auto companies: "If they were to resist now, that would probably lead to a public outcry, and you know, be the end of any help for subsidies and bailouts that they're going to get."
Plante concluded his report with talking points similar to those of Browner: "Now, the administration says that the new standards will save nearly 2 billion barrels of oil. But they come at a cost, of about $1,300 a car by 2016. Of course, you make some of that up in using less fuel."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
JULIE CHEN: President Obama gets tough with automakers today as he gets set to announce strict new emissions standards for cars and trucks. But will going green lead to sticker shock? We'll head to the White House to find out.
7:05AM SEGMENT:
JULIE CHEN: Later today, President Obama is expected to announce sweeping new plans for the first-ever government control on car and truck emissions. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante joins us with the story. Good morning, Bill.
BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Julie. These are dramatically higher emissions standards. They are designed to satisfy the auto industry, give them uniform goals, and at the same time, satisfy states like California, which want tougher pollution limits. The new national standards combine gas mileage and tail pipe greenhouse gas emissions. By 2016 cars will have to average 42 miles per gallon, light trucks 27, for a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. A big jump from the current 25 miles a gallon.
DANIEL WEISS [CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS]: This is a win-win-win. We're going to cut pollution, reduce oil use, and build cleaner cars for the world's market.
PLANTE: Joining the President today, the governors of Michigan and California, along with many auto executives. But critics say there's no evidence that new standards will clean up the environment. And they charge the White House is pushing the move on struggling automakers who can't afford to fight the plan.
CLIFF WINSTON [BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: If they were to resist now, that would probably lead to a public outcry, and you know, be the end of any help for subsidies and bailouts that they're going to get.
PLANTE: Now, the administration says that the new standards will save nearly 2 billion barrels of oil. But they come at a cost, of about $1,300 a car by 2016. Of course, you make some of that up in using less fuel. Harry.
HARRY SMITH: Bill Plante at the White House this morning. Thank you. Joining us now from Washington, Carol Browner, the President's top adviser on energy and climate matters. Good morning.
CAROL BROWNER: Good morning.
SMITH: You have the cooperation of the auto companies on this, which is maybe some surprise to some folks. But these are huge, significant changes. Are you confident these companies can do it in this short time frame?
BROWNER: We are. We worked very, very closely with all of the car companies, with California, with the environmental groups, to achieve this agreement, and to propose these national standards. This is truly historic. We will give the American people cleaner, more fuel efficient cars, and give the companies the certainty and predictability they need to make those cars.
SMITH: As a former long-time administrator of the EPA, how overdue is this?
BROWNER: It is long overdue. You know, Congress stood in the way of tougher fuel economy standards for a long time. That finally was fixed. But what we've done here today is we've taken both the EPA and the DOT authority. We've recognized California's request for cleaner cars. We've woven it together to give people what they want.
SMITH: Help us understand incentive, though, for buyers. Because right now, the price -- average price of a gallon of gas is about $2.50 around the country. With the added price tag cost to these average vehicles, and much higher -- higher gas mileage and fewer emissions, what is my incentive, what is my dollar incent – incentive to buy a car like this? Why wouldn't I just hang onto my old, heavy pickup truck?
BROWNER: Well, you save money every time you go to the pump. Your car will go further on a gallon of gas-
SMITH: But we're seeing now with the price of gas going down that people are -- are less apt to buy these lower fuel vehicles -- lower fuel-burning vehicles?
BROWNER: Well, historically, the program was a fleet average. And so you off set your bigger cars by making smaller cars. What we're doing here is proposing standards for every category of car. So whether you want to buy a bigger car or a smaller car, they will all be more efficient, and cleaner. So we're preserving the consumer choice, but giving every consumer the opportunity to save money at the pump.
SMITH: Will SUVs and pickup trucks go the way of the dinosaur, though? Will they look anything the way they look now?
BROWNER: What we've done here is set standards for them so they will be cleaner. But for those consumers who want to continue to buy those vehicles, they can do so, they'll just be cleaner and that's better for the environment and better for the consumer.
SMITH: And do you anticipate a higher national gas tax?
BROWNER: What we think the consumer wants are cleaner cars and that's what the President is announcing today.
SMITH: Okay. Alright, thanks so much, Carol Browner, do appreciate it.
BROWNER: Thanks.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Think that any savings will be offset
May 19, 2009 - 11:49 ET by IamTinmanThink that any savings will be offset by higher fuel prices and/or an energy tax increase?
If we cut our gas use, the taxes lost to the governments (both state and local) will have to be replaced by higher taxes on something else.
Note that congress and the state governments have little role in this decision. This is government by regulation, not by congress or the voter.
"higher taxes on something else"
May 19, 2009 - 12:34 ET by SickofLibsWe can make up those lost fuel taxes by $120-per-pack cigarettes, no problem. NJ's Corzine 'The Taxaholic' has just such a plan.
Good thing only the ultra-rich smoke nowadays.
SOL
May 19, 2009 - 12:41 ET by JABThanks to Obambi, I have been smoke free now for two weeks and counting. I refuse to give to his gobermint social health care program for the kids, let their parents take care of 'em, I raised mind already.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
good for you JAB
May 19, 2009 - 14:14 ET by wizardjrI quit back in 1990 after some twenty plus years of smoking. Even back then ya felt like a vampire when you pulled out a pack of smokes - they all looked like they wanted to put a stake through your heart.
Thanks wizard
May 19, 2009 - 14:19 ET by JABAfter multiple attempts over the years and failing it feels as though I will succeed this time. I hate taxes.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Big congrats from me
May 19, 2009 - 23:13 ET by RowaneI'm at just over a month, after 30 years of smoking.
How overdue are fuel standards?
May 19, 2009 - 11:52 ET by mattmNot as overdue as journalistic standards are at CBS.
Gonna RATION energy
May 19, 2009 - 12:00 ET by 10ksnookerRather you want it or not ....
TAX and RATION ...
BTW, if you make cars out of tin-foil you can save even mopre gas.
Typical left-wing "logic":
May 19, 2009 - 12:02 ET by fitzfongTypical left-wing "logic": make your dreams come true by legislating non-existent technology as a future compulsory requirement and cannibalizing current effective technologies out of existence. Meanwhile they haven't a clue how to make non-existent replacement technology existent. This country is being run by the Underpants Gnomes.
Step 1: Set unreasonably high "fuel efficiency standards", tax the hell out of current energy sources and demonize proven energy sources like nuclear.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
I just looked, and guess what folks.
May 19, 2009 - 13:20 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThis proposal is not among the "Enumerated Powers" granted to the federal government.
In short, obammer can't do it LEGALLY.
Do you suppose somebdy should mention it to the US Attorney General as the chief law enforcement officer of the nation?
The cretins in power are denying me my RIGHT to a Constitutionally Limited federal government.
http://gjresult.com
Agree Willis
May 19, 2009 - 14:08 ET by MaximusBraveheartWhen will government be held accountable for stealing our freedoms? This is NOT FREEDOM or LIBERTY!
M-B
total and complete baloney
May 19, 2009 - 14:12 ET by wizardjrTwo independent university studies (not exactly a nest of conservatism) came to the same results and conclusions:
A Prius pollutes more per mile averaged over the life of the vehicle than a Hummer. That's based on TOTAL pollution from creation to disposal. Fact. The batteries in hybrids and electrics alone are major pollution sources.
Second fact: hybrids are more expensive in total cost of ownership (TCO) averaged over the life of the vehicle as well. They have way more parts (two engines actually, plus control units) and are more complex overall. Repairs are not cheap.
The B.S. that you'll recover the extra cash cost of a hybrid is also exposed (at least for sedans). A regular Toyota with the small efficient gasoline engine gets excellent milleage and the cost savings of real world drivers doesn't even come close to the price premium you pay to buy a Prius.
[shock! surprise! .... NOT!]
tampering
May 19, 2009 - 23:35 ET by WesenNobody mentions how the mandates Bush signed into Law factor into this. I'll bet you a tank of gas the cost of implementation will be far more than 1300 a vehicle. If I'm able to buy a new truck with old technology in 2010 I'll work to make it the last one I ever buy.
O-ECO MOVES: SOME PREDICTIONS
May 19, 2009 - 17:05 ET by reelman46OBAMA ECO-MOVES: SOME PREDICTIONS
For
2016 — the final year new the rules will apply — the fleet fuel
efficiency standard for all domestically sold passenger cars will be 39
mpg.
It will be 30 mpg for all domestically sold light trucks and sport
utility vehicles. The average of these two equals a passenger car and
light truck fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 mpg. The current
requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg or trucks. The tighter
standards will first affect the 2011 model year for cars and trucks……
CRAWFISH NOTE: Based upon the many gov-meant inefficient misguided programs I am willing to predict:
1…Vehicles will cost $3,000 more at the minimum for the changes
2…Vehicle modifications will be 2-3x as costly as the gov-meant now
3…Insurance rates will rise
4…Gas will still be near or above $3
5…Democrats will still block domestic drilling
6…Democrats will still live like royalty and not be role models
7…The never happy eco-kooks will be back for changes before 2016 arrives
8…As mpg rises the gas tax will also or roads will suffer so the consumer still takes a hit
9…Democrats will continue to block nuclear power plants
10..The gov-meant will hire more bureaucrats to monitor all this
11..Their will be a new tax in connection with these changes
12..Maintenence of your vehicles will rise due to these changes alone
13..There will emerge unintended negative consequences
(such as in the unwise ethanol scam where you get less mpg and and plastic fuel tanks require a special additive)
14..The gov-meant will blame private industry for any negative costs-effects (no matter how bad it gets)
15..The unions will find a way to add to the cost on top of the mandates (the UAW won’t sell its golf course either)
16..The foreign-owned car companies will take even more market share
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Reelman,
May 19, 2009 - 18:48 ET by UpNorthjust to comment on a few of your points,
#1. The cost of cars will probably, with the union costs and overhead, go up about $3K a year, not$3K total.
#2-14. are all true, can't find anything to dispute there.
#15. So true, the UAW will get single-payer (taxpayer funded) health care, and they'll still be golfing at their place, laughing their a$$ off at the rest of us, but mostly at their members.
Another Administration Scare Tactic.
May 19, 2009 - 18:12 ET by Joe_HuserHi All,
It appears to me that President Obama Made the CAFE Standard changes today to stimulate the production and sales of existing GM and Chrysler Model lines. He knows full well that the majority of the American public LOVE thier automobiles. We will buy the existing "Gas Guzzling" (insert model or class of vehicle here) before they are regulated out of existence by the new standards just set by the Obama Administration. Of course none of these elected officials will ever own or drive one of these newly legislated 35 1/2 Plus MPG wonders..Will they???
R/ Joe Huser
What Me Worry?
Speaking of gubbermint 'mployeeeeezzz.
May 19, 2009 - 22:48 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonCan anybody give me ONE example of any elected official, bureaucrat, or simpleminded hireling that actually NRRDS anything more than a 3 cylinder, standard transmission, manual windows, with no A/C?
Perhaps the DC bunch needs to set the example.
ONLY the Military, Border Patrol and actual law enforcement officers actually have a NEED for anything more.
Bureaucrats and bean counters can make do with a whole lot less.
Less income too, they can make cuts in their lifestyles before the rest of us should have to.
http://gjresult.com
mmmaybe
May 19, 2009 - 23:11 ET by Rowane"Will SUVs and pickup trucks go the way of the dinosaur, though?"
Possibly, but right now, if you are in one of these one-lunged wonders that will pass these standards and get in an accident, you're toast.
In order to meet these standards you'll have to make a smaller motor, probably made from aluminum. This kind of motor won't have the power to be used on freeways and interstates unless you lose a lot of weight.
This means a car made, mostly from plastics and fiberglass. these kinds of building materials aren't strong enough to survive an accident.
Sooo, is it worth the rise in highway fatalities for these foolish "standards?" I don't think so and will not be endangering my family in a flintmobile.
Are any of y'all getting really ticked off about all these libtard fantasies being shoved down our throats?
/rant
LOL, this happens to be one of my pet peeves.