Bush: Give me authority to set fuel standards
- Thread starter BDawg
- Start date
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,074
- 5,438
- 136
It's a great idea, just a few years too late. This will do nothing to immediately help out with the outrageous price of gas. They simply refuse to face up to the oil companies and say
A) the tax deal is over
B) your royalty free drilling in federal lands is history
Deal with it.
And before genx, zenny or any other apologist wants to slam this, I do know that the royalty issue was a Clinton era idea. It didn't make it right then and it's something that can go the hell away.
A) the tax deal is over
B) your royalty free drilling in federal lands is history
Deal with it.
And before genx, zenny or any other apologist wants to slam this, I do know that the royalty issue was a Clinton era idea. It didn't make it right then and it's something that can go the hell away.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Fuel efficiency standards will take 3-5 years to impliment.
Then there is another 5-7 years for that impact to actually be felt in terms of the newer vehicles that are required to meet such standards.
So anything that happens now will have a final measurable impact in the 5-10 years mark.
Then there is another 5-7 years for that impact to actually be felt in terms of the newer vehicles that are required to meet such standards.
So anything that happens now will have a final measurable impact in the 5-10 years mark.
I have a better idea, lets piss and moan about the gas prices, not drill in the artic, not push forward higher MPG standards, not work on alternative sources of fuel for cars, did I mention we should sit on our ass and complain about gas prices again? Because we all know the more you piss and moan the less gas costs!
issues2000 . . . seems like yesterday
---
According to documents in O'Neill's files, along with those obtained in various disclosure actions filed against the Cheney task force, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham met with corporations and trade groups, including Chevron, the National Mining Association, and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, each of which delivered policy recommendations in detailed reports. Cheney met with Enron chairman Kenneth Lay and received detailed policy recommendations from one industry group whose central concern was not allowing carbon dioxide to be regulated as a pollutant, as well as from another--called the Coal-Based Generation Stakeholders. If process drives outcomes--this combination of confidentiality and influence by powerful interested parties would define the task force's analysis of energy issues. "It meant," O'Neill says, "that environmental concerns went virtually unrepresented."
Source: The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p.146-7 Jan 13, 2004
---
I once made the mistake of suggesting to Bush that he use the phrase cheap energy to describe the aims of his energy policy. He gave me a sharp, squinting look. Cheap energy, he answered, was how we got into this mess. Every year from the early 1970s until the mid-1990s, American cars burned less and less oil per mile traveled. Then in about 1995 that progress stopped. Why? He answered his own question: Because of the gas-guzzling SUV. And what had made the SUV craze possible? This time I answered, "Um, cheap energy?" He nodded at me. Dismissed.
But if Bush was no energy free-marketeer, neither did he share the crusading zeal of the environmental Left. For Bush, the point of energy conservation was not for Americans to USE less, but for Americans to IMPORT less. For him, energy was first and foremost a national security issue. He had warned in 2000, "As a result of our foreign oil imports skyrocketing, America is at the mercy more than ever of foreign governments and cartels."
Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p. 65-66 Jun 1, 2003 Curious that Bush had that much insight in 2001 . . . yet his agenda for reducing consumption didn't appear until this week.
If Frum is to be believed, Bush has no problem with the energy speculators' "gas tax." He just didn't want to be on the hook for raising taxes himself.
No I have a better idea then that. How about actually addressing the topic? Don't we have 3 branches of goverment for a reason or are you just such a toll that whatever Bush says is beyond any sort of compromise/critisism?
But let's look at the Bush record:
1) If you check my previous post, Bush was in FAVOR of higher gas prices. Granted, I agree but the lil' weasel should have enoug cajones to say it in public.
2) Drilling in ANWR is a solution to nothing. But if it will keep the know-nothings but dredging it up . . . so be it. Drill to your hearts' content . . . it's not like that ecosystem isn't going to go first anyway.
3) Reagan and Congressional Democrats opposed higher fuel economy stds in the 80s. Democrats (from predictable states) opposed fuel economy stds in the early 90s, it then became bipartisan stupidity when the Republicans assumed control. Bush has been a great misleader or at best MIA on this issue.
4) Hydrogen . . . Bush will be dead by the time hydrogen becomes a significant factor. It's true the work should be WELL-FUNDED now but Bush largely pushed hydrogen as an alternative to hybrids which is stupid.
5) Did I mention Bush/GOPies wanted (and is currently) subsidized oil industry (making record profits), subsidize coal (making healthy profits), subsidize the WORST method for producing ethanol, provide FAR smaller subsidies for alternative sources, amd provide very limited subsidies for fuel efficient cars?
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Point by inane point rebuttal:
What's wrong with pissing and moaning about gas prices? It gets our elected representitives to take action. Like when Clinton released some of the strategic reserve. Suddenly oil prices dropped. Presidents actually do have some control over oil costs.
Drilling in the arctic is, at the best estimates, is going to produce so little oil on the world market it will essentially have no impact on price.
Alternative sources of fuel for cars has been a Democratic idea for years. They put real money into it. Republicans and especially Bush have pushed for hydrogen cars which are years and years away.
Republicans (and some Dems) are pushing for the LEAST effective source of alternative fuel now available, ethanol from corn.
Higher mpg standards? Bush has FOUGHT against them. In fact he was pushing, right up til a couple of days ago, his idea to regulate mpg by vehicle weight. The problem with that is that it gives incentives to automakers to make HEAVIER cars. Therefore decreasing fuel economy.
Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.
FS
Isn't this the same clown who refused to even listen to any talk about conservation while he was trying to give away ANWAR to his oil industry buddies?
Must be an election year. :roll:
What a flip-flopper.
Must be an election year. :roll:
What a flip-flopper.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Here's how the Bush plan works.
He would eliminate CAFE (corporate average fuel economy).
He would subsitute a system where cars would have to meet a mpg per pound standard.
Example: a 2500 to 2800 pound car would have to get 20 mpg hiway. A 3000 to 3200 car would have to get 18 mpg.
If an automaker makes a car that misses the mark in their weight range than all they need to do is add some more metal to increase the weight til it reaches the weight level where it could pass the mpg standard.
While adding weight DOES decrease mpg somewhat, it turns out that adding a couple of hundred pounds of metal to the car barely decreases the mpg. So it becomes cost effective to leave out more expensive mpg engine improvements and just add cheap metal.
As I recall the estimates were that the Bush standards would LOWER the average mpg of a car by 3 mpg.
No, you find funny comments like that stupid.
DICKtator. Or DICKtater (a fallic symbol carved from a potato). Either way, bush fits the description perfectly.
bush is a limp fallic symbol living in a sexually repressed fantasy world where his need to overcome his obvious physical and mental limitations requires his use of force preemptively to hide his shortcomings.
Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.
Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.
Incentives are based on what people want to buy. Right now, people want to buy cars that get great mileage. Tell me how that isn't an incentive for automakers to make smaller and lighter cars.
You have the nerve to talk about "liberals" and their "Big Brother" government ideals while your so-called "conservative" idol is listening in on your phone conversations, viewing your e-mails, following your surfing habits, and sending people off to secret prisons around the world???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You're too damn funny for words.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Gee, back in the 1960's many people wanted to buy cars with seat belts. Only the "free market" somehow decided it should be a 1,000 dollar option (and thats in the 1960's).
So the government mandated seat belts. And....you guessed it, when actually implemented it cost the manufacturers about 50 dollars.
So shut up about the "free market"
The "free market" actually demands you make a product shoddy at times, or fight innovation, or NOT offer what the public wants.
The oil companies are making 9 cents profit per gallon.
The federal government alone makes double that, not counting state tax.
Who's the real big enemy here?
The federal government alone makes double that, not counting state tax.
Who's the real big enemy here?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter