Home Transportation Car industry

Obama’s Proposal to Raise Fuel Economy Creates 570,000 U.S. Jobs


The Obama Administration’s recent proposal to reduce fuel use is expected to create 570,000 jobs in the U.S. by 2030. Of this figure, 50,000 new jobs will be in light-duty vehicle manufacturing and assembly alone.

The proposal calls for the implementation of a vehicle fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles built from 2017 to 2025. The proposed new fuel mileage is 54.5 miles per gallon with a carbon dioxide emission of 163 grams per mile.

Based on a recent report, this move will not only create jobs, it is also projected to open new markets abroad for U.S. auto-manufacturers, increase consumer’s savings from reduced gasoline consumption, and increase wages for middle-class workers.

David Foster, the Executive Director of BlueGreen Alliance, hailed this development as a leap forward in reducing U.S. reliance on oil, as well as having significant economic and environmental benefits.

The U.S. spends around $1 billion dollars a day on foreign oil. The BlueGreen Alliance forecasts that by 2030, the implemented fuel standards will save owners of light vehicles around $61 billion dollars per year on gasoline bills.

Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra Club, also called this move as the single biggest step any U.S. President had ever done to cut U.S. dependence on oil, minimize greenhouse gas pollution and get the economy in gear.

How exactly will this proposal be accomplished? It is by retooling, expanding and advancing engines and components to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Bob King, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), is confident the automotive sector can meet the challenges of the Obama proposal. He said vehicles will require more quality components and his group is working to ensure these will be locally manufactured by union members.

By making fuel-efficient vehicles, the U.S. automotive industry is poised to play a leading role in the future of car manufacturing.

[via phys.org]

(Visited 68 times, 1 visits today)


  1. Trying to stimulate jobs through regulation is a poor method by any standard. The possible creation of green jobs is a myth. The whole advantage of tapping into renewable energy sources are that once the installation is complete you just have to maintain the system. Think about it….once you have installed a field full of solar panels what does it take to maintain it. Maybe a guy with a sponge to clean the panels once every two weeks? The problem in generating “green jobs” is that we dont manufacture anything in this country. Just look at Solyndra the product they were trying to produce was said to have cost $11.00 a watt to manufacture where there are tons of other manufacturers doing it for far less. A deeper look into the situation will disclose that the whole endevor was a ruse and was never ment to succeed. However putting that aside the regulations and government requirements to participate in the loan program would have dictated the use of organized labor as well as what they will be paid and many other requirements that would make it impossibe to turn a profit within our current system. The only way to make a profit while working with the government is to game the government. The system is broken. We as a nation do not want energy independence or we would have it. We have more sources of renewable energy laying about and readily available than the rest of the world. We protect enviroments in the guise of preservation under the heading of EPA but I say we need a new department with the heading of HSPA or Human Species Protection Agency. The function of this department would be to challenge the EPA on the viability of decisions made that impead the progress of the human race. The point is who are you saving the planet for if the human race falters and disolves, so what exactly is the point. Look at it this way we have enough small water ways as well as medium water ways and large water ways that the hydro electric potential in this country is enormus. So why cant we utilize this resource? EPA says no. However who is to say that one eco system is better than another? Who is to say a free flowing river is better than a lake or resivoir that controls the flow for a benefit. The futile struggle to maintain the status quo in the enviroment is a pipe dream. You either believe we as a species are apart of the natural order of this world or you think we are from Mars or something. Now dont get me wrong I believe in low impact and working with our enviroment to make things happen but I do not believe in elevating another species over the human race. So can we regulate ourselves into achieveing our survival….not really.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.