CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › What move is Bush planning this time?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What move is Bush planning this time?

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
This story confuses me:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/...h_fuel_economy

Quote:
WASHINGTON - President Bush signed into law Wednesday legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.

The legislation signed by Bush at a ceremony at the Energy Department requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It also ramps up production of ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.

Bush said the new requirements will help "address our vulnerabilities and dependency" on foreign oil by reducing demand for gasoline and diversifying the nation's fuel supply.

"We make a major step ... toward reducing our dependence on oil, fighting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations ... a nation that is stronger cleaner and more secure," said the president.

Bush was flanked by Democrat and Republican members of Congress who had ushered the legislation through.

The House passed the energy bill Tuesday by a 314-100 vote after the Senate cleared it last week following lengthy negotiations and sometimes testy confrontations. Bush had vowed to veto the original legislation passed by the House because it included $21 billion in taxes.

The tax provisions were dropped to get the bill approved.

Congress delivered the legislation to the White House late Tuesday in a gas-hybrid sedan.

Bush noted that earlier this year he had proposed a plan to cut gasoline use by 20 percent over the next 10 years. But the president has long opposed arbitrary numerical standards for vehicle fuel economy.

The legislation increases the federal standard automakers must meet to an industry wide 35 mpg for passengers cars, SUVs and small trucks. The standard for cars today is 27.5 mpg and for trucks and SUVs 22.2 mpg.

It requires refineries to increase the use of ethanol from about 6 billion gallons a year this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022 and mandates that by then at least 21 billion gallons are to come from feedstocks other than corn.

Bush praised that provision which would spur the development of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks such as prairie grass and wood chips.

"We understand the hog growers are getting nervous. The price of corn is up," said the president.

Flanking Bush were Senate Majority Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California as well as Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry. Dingell played a key role in working out a compromise on the vehicle fuel economy measure.

Democrats have hailed the legislation as a turn to a new direction in U.S. energy policy.

"I firmly believe this country needs to have a comprehensive energy strategy," said Bush before signing the bill. He referred to the need for more nuclear energy and domestic oil production — issues that the new energy bill ignores.

Instead, the bill focuses largely on conservation, calling for more energy efficiency in "light bulbs to light trucks" as Dingell observed during the House debate on the legislation.

"This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow" on energy policy, Pelosi said Tuesday shortly before the House passed the bill, sending it to the White House.

The bill also calls for improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs. It also calls for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and construction of commercial buildings.

The new lighting standards alone are projected to lower consumers' annual electricity bills by $13 billion in 2020, remove the need for 60 mid-size power plants and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, by 100 million tons a year, said the advocacy group Alliance to Save Energy.

Democrats said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs and reduce oil demand by 1.1 million barrels a day when the fuel-stingy vehicles are widely on the road.

The overall bill including more ethanol use and various efficiency requirements and incentives, will cut U.S. oil demand by 4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the current daily imports from the volatile Persian Gulf, Democrats said.
I feel conflicted. On the one hand, I'm elated, but on the other, I'm just trying to find the angles of this situation; how does this benefit the elite? Someone a bit more savvy on these things want to help?
post #2 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin
This story confuses me:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071219/...h_fuel_economy



I feel conflicted. On the one hand, I'm elated, but on the other, I'm just trying to find the angles of this situation; how does this benefit the elite? Someone a bit more savvy on these things want to help?
The "alternative" fuel source Bush champions the most is the hydrogen fuel cell. Unsurprisingly, the process of making hydrogen isn't energy efficient: the amount of petroleum that is used during the process of making the fuel is actually greater than the amount of fuel produced. So, Bush's take on "alternative" energy actually does help the oil industry while it also panders to the ignorant anti-oil people and allows him to pay lip service to "independence" from oil to them.
post #3 of 11
Ethanol isn't the answer, as Martin mentions. There's not enough cropland in the US to grow enough corn to produce enough Ethanol to even come close to fueling the amount of vehicles in the country. It might be a start, but it's not the answer that a lot of people want it to be.

And phasing out incandescent bulbs...you might as well try to phase out windows on a house. Incandescent bulbs are used EVERYWHERE. I replaced 95% of the bulbs in my house with fluorescent bulbs, but there's no way I can do it 100% because the size of the replacement bulbs (even LEDs) is prohibitive from replacing the incandescent in some things--refrigerator, over the stove, chandelier, etc. I went through 3 different bulb types before I could find one that fit my garage door properly. I'm more interested in using LED bulbs, but those aren't as prevalent as the fluorescents yet, and in some cases they're not as bright. And when everyone changes over to the fluorescents, then you have a new problem: Mercury in the bulbs. When people start throwing away all these bulbs, there's going to be a huge increase in the amount of Mercury leakage in landfills. So it's doubly important to try and recycle these bulbs instead of just throwing them away when they die. As with Ethanol, it's not the final solution, but it's a start.

Bush is most likely trying to do small things now that will generate good will towards the GOP. He has no stake in these changes--they won't affect him at all. If anything, he might have investments in corn futures (which have been on the rise the last year or so after staying virtually unchanged the last 50 years or so--coincidentally rising with the pushing of Ethanol). I don't think Bush really gives a shit about fuel efficiency, the environment, etc. He probably doesn't even understand what the bill is about. He just saw "corn" and said, "I like corn. Anything that endorses corn is good by me. I'll sign it."
post #4 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
There's not enough cropland in the US to grow enough corn to produce enough Ethanol to even come close to fueling the amount of vehicles in the country.
Until we figure that out, though, colossal agribusiness outfits like Archer Daniels Midland stand to make a shitload of money on the prospect. Read the first section of Omnivore's Dilemma for an eye-opening expose on corn cultivation.
post #5 of 11
Throughout his two terms, Bush has signed only legislation that benefits corporations and industry, not regular individual people. Everyone knows ethanol is a dog that don't hunt, but it is more corporate welfare to the industry that brought you that ubiquitous, obesity-causing wonder, high fructose corn syrup, and therefore Bush-friendly. 35 MPG by 2020 is too little too late and essentially just more pandering to Big Oil and the automakers. Europe already has higher MPG on average than that without any legislation.

Gone from this bill is the roll-back of the tax cuts to Big Oil that would have benefited all of us and stemmed the hemorrhaging of our tax dollars into the coffers of the most profitable corporations of all time. But that's Bush.

There won't be any meaningful legislation on energy and climate change until a president with a conscience and actual human values occupies the white house.
post #6 of 11
Nobody named Bush has ever done a single good thing for this country, and I see no reason that this corrupt pawn would start now. That rat bastard greasy used-car salesman of a president, he's defiled his office and his country, and he'll totally get away with it because we're too pussified as a country to do anything about it that would involve getting our hands dirty or mussing our hair.
post #7 of 11
To be fair, the legislation passed both the House & Senate by "veto-proof" margins, so Prez. Bush really didn't have much of a choice about this one. Huzzah!
post #8 of 11
There is no silver bullet solution. But the public, probably mankind as a whole, WANTS to believe in them. So here is yet another ineffective (and probably inconsequential at large) bone thrown to the eco-dogs to shut them up and have them squabble among each other.

Replacing oil is a huge venture, one that isnt a matter of passing a bill in a first-world country somewhere. Hemp, btw, is indeed one of the best, if not THE best current known version of the silver bullet, but its not enough either.
Bottomline is, we got too many cars
post #9 of 11
You chaps needs some colossus solar towers.

http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm
post #10 of 11
The EPA shot down California's bid to impose tighter standards than the federal govt requires because Bush sided with automakers. Now Waxman's investigating and asked the EPA to preserve all documents related to the decision.

Story here.
post #11 of 11
What a joke of an agency. Go Waxman!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › What move is Bush planning this time?