Finally... Tighter Car Fuel Economy Standards

No, not here in the US--in China. One of the reasons that BushCo continually provides for not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol (the international treaty binding nations across the globe to agreements on reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are contributing to the warming of the planet) is that China is considered a second tier nation (Annex B), which does not bind it to the requirements of the main signatories (Annex 1). Yet, China is starting to create some tougher regulations--far more than the BushCo administration are considering. The following is via Treehugger (which uses this article from Center for American Progress as its base):

the Chinese have devised an oil strategy in 2002 to try to mitigate and delay potential problems as much as possible. Part of it is strict fuel economy regulations, the first phase of which has come into force this year. 38 miles per gallon (mpg) for lighter cars and 19 mpg for the heavier trucks. In 2008, these standards will rise to 43 mpg and 21 mpg respectively. I can't remember how long it took for fuel economy standards to rise by 5 mpg in the US; I suspect it's because I haven't been born for long enough. Another advantage of the Chinese regulations is that the fuel economy standards apply to each individual vehicle and not to fleet averages, which makes it harder for automakers to create a few poor-selling fuel efficient cars while they sell gas-guzzlers by the truckload. Because the Chinese standards apply to each individual vehicle, rather than a vehicle class average as in the United States, American automakers may struggle to sell their vehicles, especially oil thirsty trucks, in the Chinese market. China is not stopping with efficiency requirements. They are also purchasing hybrids from abroad for immediate use and developing their own hybrid and fuel cell designs and manufacturing capabilities for the future. Already one of the largest markets for alternative fuel vehicles, they are the third largest ethanol producer in the world and are committed to expanding their fleet of natural gas- and biofuel-powered vehicles.

Here's some more from the CAP article:

In the electricity sector, the Chinese government has pursued energy efficiency standards since 1989 and late last year announced ten programs to improve energy efficiency in buildings and industries. They have identified three major ways to reduce the burning of coal for electricity - improve the efficiency of coal plants, put otherwise wasted heat to work in combined heat and power systems and construct new buildings that cut energy consumption in half. Concerned about global warming and recognizing the potential of the clean energy market, the Chinese government has recently committed to increasing its renewable energy use from the current level (less than one percent) to 10 percent by 2020 and has signed an agreement with the World Bank to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 years.

This is one of the most perplexing things I find about opposition to the climate change/global warming (CC/GW) issue. While I can understand, to some degree, why big business is very entrenched in preserving their old-school ways, I would also think that Republicans (who--and this is a grand stereotype, so take it with at least one grain of salt--seem more business oriented) would see this as a great market opportunity and try to grab onto it. And that may be the case with smaller entrepreneurs, but it's slow to dawn on big business.

Nevertheless, with this administration continually shunning of even addressing debate (or crushing any dissentign views) about CC/GW, we're losing out not only on making any progress of halting the changes in climate, but also homegrown technical innovations that could be marketed both here and abroad.