Filed under: Etc., Government/Legal, Green
Sixty-four House Reps ask President to favor softer fuel economy bill
A group of Congressmen and women wrote a letter to the principal -- President Bush -- and told him not to pay attention to what the other students are saying. The sixty-four representatives requested that President Bush choose the house version of the fuel economy bill still being debated in Congress, not the Senate version.
The Senate bill was passed this summer that mandated 35 mpg by 2020 for both cars and trucks (the current CAFE standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.5 mpg for trucks). That bill didn't include the 4% annual increases in CAFE standards after 2020 that senators wanted. The bill being presented in the House is the Terry-Hill bill, which would raise CAFE standards to between 32 and 35 miles per gallon, but keep standards separate for cars and trucks.
The Representatives wrote to Bush because the bill is not following the usual course, so they want to prevent any extra-Congressional agreement between the Senate bill supporters and the President. The Terry-Hill bill has the support of automakers and the UAW. With Senator Carl Levin working in the Senate to get his Big Three constituents taken care of, the final fate of the bill is far from decided.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alex 10:11AM (10/22/2007)
I do think the Congressional bill makes a bit more sense in separating the cars from the trucks. Those who buy a truck for its true intended purpose should have an engine that is designed to be able to reliably pull heavy loads well in excess of 150,000 miles. Unfortunately you can't get that without exerting a lot of energy; i.e. big engines with large displacement. Electrical motors have the ability to produce enormous amounts of torque right off the floor but the battery systems need to last longer before that becomes a viable alternative to large ICEs.
Yes, it sucks that soccer moms and wana-be tough-guys buy SUVs and trucks for no practical purpose, but you shouldn't punish those who actually need the power just because some asshat thinks they look cool commuting 60 miles to their desk job in an Escalade.
IMHO the gradual and steady increase in efficiency in the Senate bill should be in the Congressional bill.
Reply
Jeff Johnson 10:29AM (10/22/2007)
While I do think cleaner emissions are great there is a limit to what can be accomplished in a certain amount of time. Quick economic lesson - outside interference in a market is NEVER efficient, and by making federal laws this steep this fast you will drive lots of auto business out of the state/country.
The only way things are going to move towards cleaner more efficient vehicles is if we ween our dependency on petroleum. We are not in a time yet when that is economically viable, I personally think if you want to light a fire under people's ass to move towards greener/more efficient stuff you will have to 1) wait for the market to do it naturally or 2) tax the hell out of petroleum. I still stand by the fact that taxes/laws are not efficient in getting the desired result. Taxing petroleum
The prius is a good concept but its not the solution. Why ? It's not economically sound. I would say progress on next generation fuels has to take more of a "cheaper, faster, better" approach before it catches on to people that *dont* like to sniff their own farts and suffer from "Smug" (South Park Reference) :-p
Reply
Dan Parmelee 12:07PM (10/22/2007)
I never understood this whole debate. Everyone talks about reducing or even removing our dependency on foreign oil, yet every time a step in the right direction is about to be made, we don't follow through. Is this country committed to being more independent or not? I await your reply, Mr. Bush.
Reply
diane wright 1:06PM (10/22/2007)
We actually could follow through this time by supporting the higher CAFE standards set out by the Senate bill. I think a look at American car driving habits over the years show that people won't make changes unless there is a strong financial incentive. I just spent 5 months in Africa where it cost my friends and I $90 to fill up our tank. Believe me, we thought twice before we went cruising around town and we took the gas sipping scooter whenever possible. Since our gas prices continue to be low (compared to the rest of the world) there needs to be other action taken.
I don't think there is a simple or single way to solve this petroleum use problem. And commercial needs will always be different than what the average citizen needs - as mentioned by Alex - but supporting requirements for better gas mileage is a good advance. I am actually working with a coalition that supports the 35 mpg standards and you can too by signing a petition at www.energybill2007.org.
Jeff Johnson 1:23PM (10/22/2007)
I agree, everyone always talks about reducing dependency on oil but the thing is, its not economically viable. Our whole infrastructure and way of life has been setup such that petroleum is the cheapest and most economical/efficient way to power our country. The reason all the programs to reduce the dependency fail is because as soon as we enact something, people get pissed off and vote whoever out of office.
At this point in time we as a society on the large don't really give a crap about oil dependency. The only way things are going to change is if oil REALLY skyrockets in price. In my opinion we will have to see $200 dollars per barrel before things really change. The demand for gasoline is largely inelastic, price changes on the whole will not effect how much we buy because we "need it". Prices will have to get insanely high before we stop buying it and find a more economical solution. Gas could jump to $5/gallon for regular tomorrow and I'd still buy it? Why? because its still more economical for me to keep my car pay for the gas then going out and buying a hybrid.
bill 1:49PM (10/22/2007)
Actually Mr. Bush was committed to becoming independent of foreign oil by opening ANWR to exploration for and production of oil. Unfortunately he was apposed by a large number of enviro idiots and gutless elected representatives of the "pipple". So I guess the "pipple" are getting just what they are asking for - a crap energy policy filled with dreams and BS.
howard 7:37PM (10/22/2007)
Dan; don't hold your breath, Bush has never answered a question truthfully, he always finds some way to beat around the bush. Did you hear why world travelers stopped coming to the USA for vacations? After he invaded Iraq the number of guest dropped by 12 million and hasn't recovered so, again, i say don't hold your breath Dan!
John Cressy 10:24PM (10/22/2007)
We had our first oil crunch in 1973-74. Thirty-four years ago. Obviously we didn't learn anything from WWII, Thirty years before. During WWII we found a way to get by with limited oil supplies. Petroleum products don't just power our cars. Petroleum is the basic ingredient in plastics. We heat 10% of our homes with home heating oil. Any machine needs lubrication. This countries population (not counting the 28 million that may be here illegally) has more than doubled since WWII and plastic was unheard of (that's one shortage factor). If it wasn't for emerging economy's in China, India, and Indonesia oil would still be dirt cheap and there would still be no reason to wean off it. As far as $200 a barrel oil. If I was China or India I wouldn't pay for it. I would just go take it. It won't change over night because there is no distribution system in place for anything else. If there was, there is no product in the pipeline to use it. That's why ethanol plants are laying people off.
Reply
Level 12:27AM (10/23/2007)
I am pro dependent of foreing oil and will be intill they run dry...If you don't want to be? even better thats more oil for me!....
All you people are alll talk blah blah blah then turn around and wipe your @ss with trees and consume bottle water instead of tap water etc etc.....
One last thing I will drive my god damn Hummer as long as far as I want too....why because I can, becasue I want to and because its my god damn right to drive whatever I so damn please whether I need to or not.....
Reply
Lorna Li 1:49AM (10/23/2007)
Now is a critical time to lobby Congress to adopt a strong clean energy bill that has the potential to save Americans $25 billion in gas costs, save 1.2 million barrels of oil per day through greater efficiency by 2020, and prevent 200 million tons of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere.
The onus should not be on ordinary citizens to drive less - many of us don't have a choice. Government needs to set higher standards so that industry can comply.
Here's a petition that you can sign and send to Congress:
http://www.energybill2007.org
Lorna Li | Green 2.0
http://lornali.com
Reply
dean 12:30AM (10/24/2007)
This other bill in the Senate is truly too radical. I mean, the only way to meet that is too kill off large trucks and SUV's, introduce a bunch of new small car models. Its only 13 years to 2020, maybe GM could do it, but I don't know about Chrysler or Ford.
Maybe by 2035. Hey, how would you average in electric vehicle?
Reply
diane wright 10:00PM (10/24/2007)
Actually, car manufacturers do not have to kill off larger vehicles to get better gas mileage. I think this is a common misconception, one that I had too until I started reading a little more about it.
There is a good article (http://tinyurl.com/29l97p) in the October issue of Scientific America (SA) about vehicles and fuel-economy standards. The article draws interesting connections bewteen safety issues (how the disparity in the size of vehicles on the road today creates more loss of life when accidents happen), vehicle size, and better fuel-economy in vehicles.
The auto industry today argues to Congress that better fuel-standards will shrink the size of vehicles and therefore compromise safety. But SA points out that large vehicles, such as SUVs can be made more fuel efficient without the loss of size or safety.
New technologies for both engines and transmissions make it possible to build a vehicle with better fuel efficiency without cutting down on the weight. Under the proposed Senate bill vehicles will still be broken down into classes and the 35 mpg standard will be achieved by an average between the various classes.
One transportation expert says that car makers should be discouraged from reaching better fuel efficiency simply by making cars smaller. The best solution would be to use materials in car frames that do make them lighter, also without reduction in size.
What they are essentially telling us is that we can have big vehicles, better fuel economy, and safer conditions on the road...all at an affordable cost to the industry and consumer. See, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Reply
Lorna Li 12:24AM (10/26/2007)
Great article Diane!
You know what I find so disappointing - the money that the big 3 automakers are spending - like $ millions on an advertising campaign to sway public opinion into believing CAFE isn't necessary and that it hurts the American people. Imagine spending that money, on, duh, innovation and staying competitive with more efficient foreign automakers.
Really, it seems to me that the motive behind the lack of will in investing in greater fuel efficiency now is the desire of corporate shareholders and execs to buy time so that they can suck as much short-term profit as they can now and let the entire industry go down the tubes later, when no one wants to buy inefficient American cars.
So disappointing!
If you want to meet other folks who are raising a ruckus about fuel efficiency now, join us on Facebook!
Energy Bill 2007 Group on Facebook
Cheers,
Lorna
Lorna Li 12:26AM (10/26/2007)
Hmmm, trouble making the url look pretty. Here it goes again! Enjoy and lovely meeting you all!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5343587356
Reply