PDA

View Full Version : The New Energy Bill


Moby
11-30-2007, 11:56 PM
Is the new energy bill good or bad?

I like the idea of pushing automakers to make some improvements. Most vehicles are about as efficient as they were a generation ago. I think it's time we started pushing for our leadership role in technology again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071201/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy_8
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats reached a compromise late Friday to boost automobile fuel economy by 40 percent, clearing the way for a House vote probably next week on an energy bill that Democratic leaders would like to send to President Bush before Christmas.

The agreement came after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reached an accord with Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry that dominates his home state, to ease the impact of the new fuel economy requirements.

"A compromise has been reached on automobile fuel efficiency standards," Dingell announced in a statement.

Automakers would be required to meet an industrywide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years.

With oil prices hovering near $90 a barrel and gasoline above $3 a gallon, Democrats have been eager to sent Bush a package of new energy measures.

But Democratic leaders were stymied over disagreement on the auto fuel efficiency issues as Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, insisted on some provisions to ease the transition for automakers.

Under the agreement, the ability of carmakers to use production of so-called flex-fuel vehicles that run on 85 percent ethanol, would be extended to 2020 and more flexibility would be given in improving fuel efficiency for SUVs and pickup trucks, although overall the industry must achieve 35 mpg average counting all vehicles.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that the auto efficiency increases — similar to what already has passed the Senate — "will serve as the cornerstone" of the energy bill she intends to bring up for a vote next week.

She said the bill also will include a ramp up in the use of ethanol and other biofuels and a requirement for nonpublic electric utilities to use a minimum amount of renewable energy such as wind and solar to produce their power.

While details of those provisions were still being worked out, aides said the ethanol provision was expected to mirror Senate requirements for use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over today's productions.

Power companies would have to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy, aides close to the discussions said.

Both the Senate and House approved separate energy bills last summer, but Democratic leaders have struggled for weeks to try to work out a compromise acceptable to both chambers — and garner the 60 votes needed to survive a sure filibuster in the Senate.

House Republicans have called the legislation a "non-energy bill" because, they said, it ignores any measures to promote domestic production of oil, natural gas or increased use of coal.

But Pelosi has said its aim is to turn away from fossil fuels toward development of renewable fuels and place greater emphasis on spurring energy efficiency and conservation.

She said the auto fuel economy provisions represent a "landmark ... that will offer the automobile industry the certainty it needs, while offering flexibility to automakers and ensuring we keep American manufacturing jobs and continued domestic production of smaller vehicles."

The agreement on vehicle fuel economy came after days of tense discussions between Pelosi and Dingell, a staunch defender of the auto industry, who had pressed for concessions to help the industry. Pelosi agreed to a number of Dingell's demands but stood firm on the overall requirement of 35 mpg, phased in over the next 13 years.

"The agreement reached today prescribes standards that are both aggressive and attainable," said Dingell. "We have achieved consensus on several provisions that provide critical environmental safeguards without jeopardizing American jobs."

Manufacturers currently have to meet a fleet average of 27.5 mpg for cars — a level that has not increased since 1989 — and 22 mpg for SUVs, passenger vans and pickups.

Meanwhile it became increasingly likely — though not yet certain — that Democratic leaders will abandon attempts to repeal nearly $16 billion in tax breaks to the oil industry as had been approved by the House earlier this year.

It remained unclear Friday whether some, more limited tax provisions aimed at ensuring extensions of tax credits and incentives for renewable fuels development would be included.

disrupter
12-01-2007, 12:40 AM
Legislation is an ugly process.

If we had representatives that weren't beholding to big money corporate interests like the auto & oil industries we might even have a nation that served voting Americans rather than a few criminal elite.

I think CAFE standards must be raised, & a lot on SUV's & so-called 'light trucks'.

As to giving subsidies to Oil companies who are making record profits, that is just obscene. Corporate Welfare at its most egregious. They are already not paying the royalties they owe the US taxpayers for drilling on federal lands.

Ethanol is a non-green technology. At best it pretends to aid national security, but it drives up food prices here in the US and around the globe.
The whole thing is a fraudulent give-away to ADM & other large agriculture product corporations.

Research should be done to see if there is a genuine efficiently convertible to fuel plant source. Either through bio-engineering new vegetation or through enzyme, bacterial or chemical processes.

As for pushing the auto industry, if they are going to have vehicles that will be salable world wide they will HAVE to get better fuel economy. As peak oil hits full stride they will have to have alternative energy engines.
By pushing them out in front of the curve, we put them ahead of the game, even against their own ignorant wishes.
When they do they will find they have markets they didn't realize around the globe. Smaller, more efficient, makes a bigger, more profitable market.

As for the Oil industry, that is just an engine of death. Death to the planet & a slow grinding death as an industry. Already fraught with corruption it will only get worse as it slides into decline.

Of course if they don't get serious about CAFE type standards the other alternative is to put on a 50 cent or dollar gas tax & consumers will be demanding more fuel efficient vehicles from these dinosaur automakers.

This is only a marginal improvement over Cheney dealing with the criminal Ken Lay to determine US energy policy.

moonman
12-01-2007, 01:37 AM
Not sure if this is urban legend or not. A fairly reliable source claimed that more pollutants are discharged in one jet take off and landing that if you ran your car 24/7 for one year.

Moby
12-01-2007, 02:22 AM
Not sure if this is urban legend or not. A fairly reliable source claimed that more pollutants are discharged in one jet take off and landing that if you ran your car 24/7 for one year.
Isn't it an urban legend that burning fossil fuels harms the environment in any way?