Standard Of 2025 Pros And Cons

His administration insists that with these new rules going into an effect will cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other deadly gases by thirty percent between the years 2012-2016 (Baker,2010). Unfortunately Obama’s new policy will only help conserve for the next six years. The following resource plan will not only help do the same but will hopefully have the same if not better results even farther into the future.

The U.S government has been actively involved in overseeing emission standards for years. This corresponds with the statement made by the U.S Department of transportation that, “Transportation is the largest end-use sector emitting CO2”, and also the statement released by the NRCAN in which, “Fuel usage & carbon dioxide emissions have grown steadily over the past two decades.” These factors are only to be associated with your average four door sedan and/or light truck. These do not include your 18 wheelers, heavy trucks, or the gas guzzling vans that emit more carbon dioxide into the air and are also on the road more today than ever have been before. Cars are readily and easily obtainable more so now than ever have been. This creates more fuel to be burned up in which produces more toxins to be constantly released into the atmosphere. In fact, according to Scientific American “cars relate as much as 30 gallons of GHG, while only driving 3 miles.” These miles can be correlated with something just as simple as your average work commute. According to the United States Census Bureau, “Nearly 600,000 full-time workers had "megacommutes" of at least 90 minutes and 50 miles.” Those workers alone would each be releasing up to 500 gallons of GHG. These can be considered some of the bigger factors that the greenhouse gasses have taken a toll on.

For many years, the only way to fuel a car has been through gasoline. Many people believe that it the best form of operation, but recently alternatives to gas have surfaced. Today we opt to purchase hybrid, solar, and electric cars instead of gas fueled. The problem lies in the difference of efficiency of gas fueled cars versus alternative fuel options. Do we need gas fueled cars? Is it worth the extra money for an electric or hybrid car? Do gas fueled cars really affect the environment? Will getting rid of gas fueled cars cause a loss of jobs ? People need to understand that the continuation of gas fueled cars are detrimental to the environment. The replacement of gas fueled vehicles is best for the natural world.

The second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is related to transportation, the burning of oil to produce energy in a combustion motor. The combustion process inside of engines is what produces the carbon matter that is emitted into the air through the exhaust system on gas-powered vehicles. Gas-powered transportation is accountable for 24 percent of the global carbon emissions; this should not come as much of a surprise given the amount of urban sprawl that is being seen in the United States and across the globe. In the past decade, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States government, and major car manufacturers have been working in conjunction to find ways to provide a “greener” form of transportation (EPA, 2011). This has included testing the use of hydropower, ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel, and electricity as a means of powering vehicles, which has led to the introduction of hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles run on electricity and gasoline, the byproduct of oil that is generally used in the engine combustion process of vehicles (U.S. Department of

In 2012, gas reached more than $3.50 per gallon. Today, gas averages have remained around $2.50. What I found most compelling about the pros is with every penny decline, a billion dollars is returned to customers. It is completely astonishing that one cent can have such an enormous impact. Because of the production of oil in America, low fuel cost have allowed Americans to save money and take much-needed vacations. Whether traveling by vehicle or plane, we are all much happier when we get behind the wheels of our vehicles or on a plan due to low fuel costs. On average, households are saving over $700 per year and even more if there are multiple vehicles. Americans were long overdue

Every day, millions of Americans turn on the engines of their cars and drive to school or work. What these people do not realize is that the vehicles they operate greatly pollute the planet. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent website post, “Environmental Impacts from Automobiles”,

Pursuant to energy efficiency policies, controversy swirls as climate changes are experienced in the U.S. and around the globe. When energy efficiency steps are put into place, economic outlooks turn positive. Obama’s policymaking in this arena makes “critical investments in advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, public transit, and high speed rail” (United Press International). With new fuel efficiency standards that will improve fuel economy by 2025, and other initiatives that he enacted, “12 billion barrels of oil will be saved and American consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump, and greenhouse gas emission standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for are projected to save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs” (United Press

. If cars were required to run on 55 miles per gallon, the U.S. would save about five million barrels per day. This alone is about seven times the amount of oil that was imported from Iraq alone last year (Kennedy 11). All major auto companies can already make cars that run on seventy miles per gallon; meaning that Clinton’s goal was nearly reached. However, because funding is being cut by the new plan, these cars will most likely never be available in the large market. We do need to someday totally end our reliance on oil, especially in cars, but why stop funding a plan that would have an immediate effect? Money is simply being wasted due to the fact that millions of dollars were spent on a plan that is being ended because funding is suddenly being spent on new areas of research. We need to continue funding Clinton’s plan even if we do start more research in hydrogen fuel cells.

Cars and truck account for 20% of all U.S. global warming emissions, where more than 24 pounds per gallon of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases come right out of the car’s tailpipe (“Union of Concerned scientists”). This frightening statistic is part of the reason why the federal government has put in place many policies and incentives such as the Clean Air Act, The National Program for greenhouse gas emissions, Catalytic Converter Federal Laws, and incentives of $12,000 in California to get people to upgrade to more fuel-efficient cars. With such programs and incentives put in places, it is also important that car companies such as Toyota and Ford also take action to further cut pollution rates. They have done so by

Because CAFE did not change the fuel efficiency standard until years later, by the early 1980’s most automakers had met the fuel efficiency that was required for their automobiles, so they started to pay more attention to the size and power of their vehicles. Instead of building cars with better gas mileage each year, they built their cars bigger and with more power, while keeping the fuel efficiency just high enough so that it met CAFE standards. Accordingly, the gas mileage of vehicles has not increased significantly since the 1980’s (Bezdek 133).

A study done in 2015 by the Royal Society of Chemistry, a non-profit organization of chemical scientists in the UK, shows that, if the US were to switch to utilize solar and wind energy sources, the air pollution mortality will decrease by at least 62,000 premature deaths yearly. In addition, converting would eliminate up to 3.3 trillion dollars per year in “2050 global warming costs to the world due to US emissions,” and the average person would save $1500 in health costs and $8300 on climate costs yearly. (Jacobson). Opposition to cleaner energy sources comes mainly from the business world, which fears the EPA estimated $1.4 billion in factory modifications; however, “$2.9 billion to $5.9 billion will be saved each year due to fewer missed days of work and school, emergency room visits and premature deaths” (Adams). By changing the methods in which we acquire energy, we can change air and life quality in a positive

So overall the problem with the EPA trying to pass this through is that it would cost so much money that it could cost more than the auto-parts industry itself, It would ruin peoples jobs, and some would say their lives were ruined as well. “There is roughly Thirty-Thousand licensed members of sports car clubs and about Thirty-Five thousand licensed competitors in the National Hot Rod Association, the two biggest bodies in the amateur and semi-pro racing business in America by far. there are about 253 million vehicles on our roads. Even if every one of those racers had a converted race car—and this would never be a 1:1 license-to-car ratio—it would net a roughly 4,000:1 ratio of road cars used almost every day versus race cars. And race cars are not used every day. They're used only on certain weekends and only during the racing

Each gallon of gasoline you burn creates 20 pounds of GHG. That 's about 7 to 10 tons of GHG produced a year for a regular vehicle (“Reduce Climate Change” 1). Getting better gas mileage is a good thing because it means that people can get better miles per gallon without releasing as many carbon emissions. According to Barack Obama’s administration, they have approved regulations that will force automakers to nearly double the average gas mileage of all new cars and trucks they sell in America by 2025 (Krisher 1). This will make it so all automakers will produce vehicles that will be less detrimental to the environment and will help fend off the hazardous effects certain to come with climate change. Fuel efficient cars are considered advantageous because of their “smaller gasoline engine”, which release fewer pollution emissions (“Fuel Efficient Cars...” 1). A car that is considered fuel efficient does not consume a lot of gas and gives the best possible mileage. The less fuel consumed by the car, the less smoke that will come out of the exhaust. As a result, the damage done to the global atmosphere is less ruinous. Gases, like carbon dioxide are harmful to us as well as our environment. They aid in depleting our ozone layer, causing detrimental global climatic changes. Fuel-efficient cars will help in reducing pollution by at least 50% (“Environmental Benefits of

greenhouse gas emission regulations on cars. It is important to act now and help save the

Automobiles are a major producer of greenhouse gas. One gallon of fuel burned puts five pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Let’s say that an average car gets 25 miles to the gallon, and that car has a ten gallon tank. Every time a car gets filled up with gas, another fifty pounds of carbon dioxide have been put back into the atmosphere, and that is just one car. The automobile industry is very important to the world economy, so I am not saying that we should stop making cars, but there are other solutions. The recent trend of hybrid electric cars that get up to fifty miles to the gallon are becoming more popular. Also public transportation is very important. City dwellers that live downtown, do not need to drive their cars to work. Every major city has a form of public transportation that can get anyone around the city, and for that gallon of gas a bus burns the same five pounds reaches the atmosphere, but instead of one