Office of the Press Secretary May 14, 2007 "We discussed one of the most serious challenges facing our country: our nation's addiction to oil and its harmful impact on our environment. The problem is particularly acute in the transportation sector. Oil is the primary component of gasoline and diesel, and cars and trucks that run on these fuels emit air pollution and greenhouse gases. " "Our dependence on oil creates a risk for our economy, because a supply disruption anywhere in the world could drive up American gas prices to even more painful levels. Our dependence on oil creates a threat to America's national security, because it leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists who could attack oil infrastructure." "We now have reached a pivotal moment where advances in technology are creating new ways to improve energy security, strengthen national security, and protect the environment." "Developing these regulations will require coordination across many different areas of expertise. Today, I signed an executive order directing all our agencies represented here today to work together on this proposal. I've also asked them to listen to public input, to carefully consider safety, science, and available technologies..." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070514-4.html
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ May 17 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]444503[/snapback]</div> OH THAT EVIL CONSERVATIVE OIL TYCOON BASTAR..... oh... wait.... *scratches head* BigMahma P.S. Al Gore is a hypocrite - Bush is more of a tree hugger than most bleeding heart idiots.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 17 2007, 07:37 PM) [snapback]444527[/snapback]</div> I've already decreased my fuel consumption nearly 50%, just by buying a hybrid.
Well, they said it; they finally had to say it. The status quo will finally be changing. Maybe this will put a stop to the Auto industry law suits against states adopting California emissions standards if the government is enlisted. There is a brutal battle going on now in Vermont, the first state the Auto industry is going up against, to prevent them from enforcing California emissions standards. California would be next on their docket.
Talk is cheap. al's SHOWING you what is going on, doing research, collecting data. there's no WAY bush is even coming close. he's trying to manipulate data, force scientists to show no harm being done, etc. Wow, people still believe bush? That alone shows why we are in deep poo.
Actually Bush is quite crafty on this. His mandates will cause effort, expense, and headaches to the NEXT president, yet he gets to take the credit for initiating it, without actually doing anything.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ May 18 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]444870[/snapback]</div> The mear fact you still believe in Gores "do as I say, not as I do" GW campain. When its been proven Gore talks the talk and only some what walks the walk. I go green for the mear fact that I drive a hybrid & save what little money I make working in the field Im in on gas..
This is a huge shift in direction that carries some clout. Time not to get too hung up on political debate. The Hybrid movement has definitely had some impact by showing it can be done. Whitehouse Goal "20-in-10" - cut America's gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years Executive Order-Cooperation Among Agencies: "Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. So today, I'm directing the EPA and the Department of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using my 20-in-10 plan as a starting point."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ May 18 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]444900[/snapback]</div> Indeed. The fact that this stuff is coming out of the mouth of a Republican oilman from Texas is actually profound in and of itself. I found it interesting that he actually used the phrase "and its harmful impact on our environment". He could have left that out and still made people happy (the other part was the national security angle). I doubt that he'll actually do anything of real substance but the words alone, given who they came from, are going to have an impact. I agree with Tom Friedman that Bush could have had a "Nixon goes to China" moment with energy issues. It seems unlikely that that's going to happen, but the world spins madly on with or without him.
We have all been calling for and working towards this acknowledgement by the administration of the need for fuel economy, cooperation among agencies, and most importantly, legislation. We all saw what happened when government was against these concepts of fuel economy and environment, stonewalled at every turn. Coming from the U.S. government, this will have a positive global impact, and we can as a country, and as part of the global community, really "move forward" as was stated.
Why so little so late? It seems that we could be reducing our oil consumption more immediately that having to wait 10 years to recognize the benefit. Also, does this mean that we wait for reductions at the 10 year mark and that we'll just continue consuming at the status quo until that time? Or is this a tiered plan where we're cutting a certain percentage annually? I'm guessing the former. Why aren't the tax credit for hybrids being reinstated? Why doesn't this plan mention funds appropriation for solar and wind R&D or implementation? Why doesn't he implement a tax credit for residential purchases of same (If he did this, I'd have panels on my house in a flash)? We're giving vast amounts of money away for oil subsidies and he mentions nothing of alternative energy sources, except for alternative fuels. I don't know. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I'm not impressed.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ May 18 2007, 01:49 PM) [snapback]445136[/snapback]</div> The 20 in 10 is a 4% increase in FE year on year. So yes, it's incremental. Not every impressive by any means, but it's something attainable. JAMA is complaining about the EU's trasnporation sector carbon reduction goals, so this isn't just a Big 3 issue. Solar and Wind are tangentially related in that they offset NG consumption (and you can argue that they could be displacing oil use through EV/PHEVs) but the US doesn't use much oil for the production of electricity (the exception to this being Puerto Rico, which relies on oil for about 80% of its electricity needs). You can argue that without the subsidies we'd have to import even more foreign oil, because the remaining oil within US borders is usually more expensive to produce than oil in other parts of the world (not just because of wages but because the production costs are higher). I agree that the fed (and in particular the executive branch) are doing enough to solve these issues, but that said, these are really complex issues. There are a lot of important, competing pieces and things have to be balanced correctly or we run into problems.
