• Dec 7, 2007
Despite being passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by a 235 to 181 margin, the new energy bill reached the Senate floor this morning and failed to muster enough votes to move on to the White House, where the President has threatened a veto of it in its current state. The Senate vote was 53 to 42, a majority but still seven votes shy of the 60 it needed. This means that the Senate will now spend the weekend reworking the bill, after which it will have to go back to the House for approval yet again. The funny thing is, the automotive industry actually supports the bill in its current state, despite the fact that it calls for a jump in CAFE requirements to a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020. Even with the support of the industry, politicians seem intent on keeping this bill running around in circles.
[Source: Automotive News]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 45 Comments
      • 7 Years Ago
      Just by looking at the things Bush has decided to veto, I would have to conclude that he is a pretty heartless bastard. S-CHIP vetoed. Stem-cell research vetoed. Higher fuel requirements to be vetoed. This from the man who said we are a nation addicted to oil. Compassionate conservatism... my ass.

      I personally don't think higher CAFE requirements are the best way to reduce oil consumption and green house gases but the alternative (a federal gas tax hike) has almost zero chance of making it out of either the House or Senate.
        • 7 Years Ago
        First, Bush is a heartless bastard. Then you say he's deranged, a liar, and a hypocrite. You call me stupid and insinuate that the "f" in dalemf stands for "f***wit". You jump to the conclusion that you're probably in a higher tax bracket than Willem (based on what I don't know), you brag about what just has to be your own superior education (why, you've taken macro economics 101 -- so impressive), and then you tell Willem to STFU.
        What a typical liberal you are. You call people names (gives you a feeling of superiority), brag about your income (ditto), claim that you're more educated (because all liberals think they're smarter than everyone else), and in the end, if you disagree with me, just shut up. You have no idea how much money Willem or anyone else makes, or how educated they might be. But it doesn't matter. You're a liberal and conclusion-jumping is a common trait.
        So, in your mind, having taxpayers pay for health care for children in families who make enough money to pay for it themselves, and to cover children up to 25 years of age, that's OK. Pouring tax dollars into a segment of research that has shown no results, and in tests quite often causes even more problems for the test subject, that's OK because...why? Oh that's right, it's just the people's money and as a liberal you know how to spend it better. And when scientists go against the religious followers of Al Gore, why, let's just say they ALL work for oil companies. You can't trust them, but you can trust all the other scientists, right? If they agree with global warming, they're experts with no hidden agendas. If they disagree, they're hacks, has-beens, oil company shills, and as Gore himself said, not legitimate scientists. "Stop the debate already", he says, "it's over. There is no serious scientist in the world who disagrees." Gore even complained that the media has to stop showing the "other side" because it's slowing down the process. You're willing to fall for that, with no concern? And Al Gore can lie in his movie, make claims that are not factually true, have his movie banned from being used in British classrooms by a British Court because of its false claims, fly around in his private jet and live in a energy sucking mansion, but to you, he's not a liar or a hypocrite.
        Typical liberal.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Bush is deranged? Gosh, what an amazing comment. Careful study of current events would indicate President Bush has a good handle on reality and what needs to be done. It is not his fault we have about 50% of our country living in a fantasy world consisting of liberal alternate universe problems and solutions.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Later on you say try to correct Willem by saying you didn't call Bush "deranged", but here you say he's a heartless bastard. And why? Because he doesn't believe an S-CHIP bill originally created to help poor children shouldn't be expanded to include middle class families or "children" up to 25 years of age? (of course, you probably don't know that's what the bill would have done, do you) Because he thinks tax payers shouldn't foot the bill for destroying human embryos for research that hasn't produced any results, but does favor supporting adult stem cell research where dozens of cures are already being produced? He's heartless because he doesn't want to destroy a human life while at the same time he supports funding programs that are actually helping people right now? Is that what liberals define as being heartless? Or is it heartless to choose not to bow at the altar of Al Gore and his scientifically-questionable (questioned and debunked by 100s and 100s of actual scientists and climatologists, by the way, but you probably don't know that, either) idea of man-made global warming and the earth's imminent destruction? If it is, then I'm proud to say I'm a heartless bastard, too. In fact, considering Bush's wavering on the global warming issue, I'm even more heartless!
        • 7 Years Ago
        @willem
        Yes, I agree Bush is deranged. Thanks for pointing that out ,but I thought was already obvious.

        @em
        Too bad tax breaks for oil companies are causing this impasse. It's not as though the oil companies need tax breaks to show a profit.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Bush is not the one that is deranged, it is the left's unbridled hatred for the man that manifests itself in the all-out lies that are perpetrated by his detractors. Bush is far from deranged and is the very picture of gentlemanliness. Like Reagan, it's always the unhinged leftists that produce mere spittle and foam at the mouth when either man is mentioned in polite conversation.

        So, is it the global war on terror? His unwillingness to concede defeat to Islamofascism? His unwavering stance on Judeo-Christian values? His conferring with the private sector to best secure charity? What is it that you absolutely despise the man to the degree that you do? I don't see any viable alternatives being produced by the left, therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the opposition HAS NO IDEAS.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Mr. Duran,

        Obviously, "compassionate" to you is measured in how many of other people's dollars you can cough up for a cause. You're merely a cheerleader for big-government, not for results. I can't think of anything more defeatist in the war on poverty than to call on government to inefficiently dole out money, only to make it nearly impossible to wean the poor off it. I suppose you would have to advocate such measures, it's the only reason why Democrats exist: perpetual poverty.
        • 7 Years Ago
        the energy bill contains a lot more provisions that just revising the CAFE standard. last time i checked CNN, both the democrats and republicans are more or less in agreement with the new CAFE revision. what's causing contention is that the democrats wanted to remove the roughly $13 billion tax exemptions being given to the big oil companies and this is preventing the energy bill from being approved in its current form (hence the Senate ultimately rejecting it and will subject it to 'revisions').
        • 7 Years Ago
        @dalemf (I assume the f stands for f***wit)

        1) S-CHIP was supported by a majority in both houses of congress which included many Republicans. As with just about any government program, there might be a few scammers (just look at military spending if you want to see scamming) but overall it would have extended health care to people who might not otherwise have it. Proper access to health care actually would very likely save money in the long run since people who don't have health insurance tend to leave routine care undone and end up in an ER for things that are much more serious and much more expensive. The $7B/year S-CHIP would have cost would likely have had positive ROI in the long run because there would be fewer write-offs for uninsured emergency health care. So not only is it heartless it just isn't very smart.

        2) Stem-cell research would take place on embryos that would be THROWN IN THE GARBAGE anyway. So by your argument, it is preferable to throw those embryos away than to potentially treat life-threatening illness? By the way, there are many scientists who say that not having adequate supply of embryos has slowed research. So if it hasn't resulted in any cures, we have the presidential veto and his f***wit constituency to blame for that, not the science.

        3) And there are literally thousands of scientists who say global warming is real and is affected by human activity. I'll take the thousands of scientists who don't have large oil companies funding their research over the 100s who work for Exxon/Mobil or Shell.

        So dlamef, you are both heartless and stupid. A poor combination in my book.

        @Willem
        "Obviously, "compassionate" to you is measured in how many of other people's dollars you can cough up for a cause."
        STFU. I pay plenty of taxes. (I'm very likely in a higher tax bracket than you) and plenty of my tax dollars go to fund a war in Iraq which I opposed from the beginning. If congress can find $196Billion/year for Iraq, surely we can find $7Billion/year for children's health care. If it were up to me, all my tax money would go to fund domestic programs instead of propping up Iraq.
        • 7 Years Ago
        It never fails, but Bush-Derangement Syndrome rears its ugly head in the most unlikely places, especially when it concerns the Senate or Congress.
        • 7 Years Ago
        I think bill and willem (probably the same person) need to go back to school and practice reading comprehension. My original post did not use the word "deranged" just pointing out that Bush is a hypocrite to call himself a compassionate conservative and then veto bills that deny health care or research dollars to those who might need it. (Remember for those of you that flunked civics class, a veto is only necessary when a bill has passed BOTH houses of congress) See my earlier comment regarding his vetoes.

        Second, he is just a liar in that he says in a SotU speech that we are addicted to oil but stands in the way of legislation that actually would encourage oil conservation. So I will just say he is a liar and a hypocrite. His 30% approval rating is a direct result of his low credibility factor.

        And a more recent lie ... "I only heard about the latest NIE last week". Poor Dana Perino has to find ever more creative ways to cover his ass since he can't take the hard questions himself.

        Bill, Willem. Argue facts or STFU.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I am always amazed by the control freaks who pop out in these discussions and want to force everyone else to do what they think is right.

      As the price of gasoline rises, people will conserve fuel out of self interest, no need for all you guys to force us to do things by using an oppressive government passing laws.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Yeah but the truth is that there are a lot of idiots who are going to buy a car that they can only afford to drive if gas doesn't go up, then find themselves unable to make their car payments when gas goes to $6/gallon.

        And the price goes up as other people consume more gasoline anyway, so by limiting the maximum average you'd at least lower fuel demand somewhat (although with all the new cars in China and India, demand is still going to go up).

        Anyways, yeah eventually this would just mean those idiots default on their payments and lose their cars, and the cars would get dumped onto the market and tank resale values, and eventually the manufacturers would make much more efficient cars. Problem with this plan is that there'd now be these idiots who don't have cars anymore, who can't get to work. And those same idiots who spent all their money on gas probably also defaulted on a mortgage (see subprime meltdown).

        And all that crap isn't particularly great for the economy. The free market might work stuff out eventually, but it's not like it doesn't cause a hell of a lot of damage along the way-if it wasn't for that mortgage rate freeze Bush just ordered you'd have seen a LOT of defaults next year. Or do you think it'd be better just to let the free market work it out and tank our entire economy?

        The free market would work the subprime meltdown out EVENTUALLY, except that'd be after it screwed our economy up, then screwed everyone else's economy up (since our economy is linked to other economies-if we're screwed they're screwed).

        I don't know where people get this stupid idea that the free market will work stuff out without totally screwing the world over first. The great depression is an example of the free market too-people did what they figured was in their best interest and just pulled money out of banks they thought were going to go bankrupt. Except that actually drove the banks bankrupt, and sent the economy down into a craphole that took millions and millions of jobs with it.

        Seriously, why do people always just think the free market is like some kinda magical thing that'll always make the right choice? It just does whatever people want to do-and unfortunately people are greedy morons who'll loan money to people who obviously can't afford a loan, just to get their commission-it's not their problem if it ends up tanking the global economy, right?
        • 7 Years Ago
        "force everyone else to do what they think is right."

        ...yet often don't do themselves.
      • 7 Years Ago
      so automakers are fine with it. must be the oil companies. Is the 35mpg average determined by the average of all the models available, or the average of all the cars sold?
        • 7 Years Ago
        Right, it will force more models on the market getting above 35mpg because that is the only way to get them there - because of their own free will, Americans have shown every time we sign the paperwork for a new car that we DON'T WANT TINY SARDINE CANS.

        And you ***holes want to put me in one at what amounts to gunpoint.

        • 7 Years Ago
        your argument doesn't make sense. You've actually proved one of the benefits of CAFE: it will force more cars to be above the 35mpg threshold.

        You don't have to be a complete tree-hugger to admit that cars should be more fuel-efficient. Everything's a trade-off. It doesn't make you a hypocrite to say that you won't sacrifice performance or utility just to gain a few mpg's. People who floor their Priuses/Prii (?) are bigger hypocrites.

        So does no one know whether it's a weighted average based on sales or a straight lineup average?
        • 7 Years Ago
        It has never been about automakers or oil companies. It's about consumer choice.

        If you don't drive a car that gets over 35mpg EPA (That list includes exactly two US vehicles, the Prius and hybrid Civic) and support this issue you're a hypocrite.

        If you do drive one of those cars, why are you reading a car enthusiast website?

      • 7 Years Ago
      The bill that left the Congress was mostly supported by the automakers, but last minute, Pelosi was able to add a few items such as a massive tax increase on energy companies, an undoable requirement for utility companies to use a large percentage of "alternative" energy, which experts say in many states are impossible to achieve, and a few other typically liberal items. Even people in her own party, including the Rep who was taking the lead in pushing it through, were upset with what she did because they said it would doom the bill in the Senate. They're ticked-off by what she did.
      So, quit the knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Bush ("heartless bastard"???) and start "thinking". S-CHIP was a joke, in which the libs were trying to force through a massive increase in a program that was designed to help poor children -- which Bush supported. They wanted to expand it to middle class families -- which Bush does not support and should not support. Government funding of embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary and immoral, especially as all the promising research -- including the recently announced "big breakthrough" -- is coming from adult stem cells, which have no moral consequences. This is exactly what Bush and conservatives said -- put the money where the real science is happening and where the real cures will come from, but the libs -- as usual -- had to play politics and non-thinkers fell for it. They're told that Bush vetoes such things because he doesn't care about children, the poor, the sick, etc., and they fall for it. And don't even get me started about the global warming scam, and anyone who believes the scientific debate is over or that it's real and man-made are once again non-thinkers who are easily persuaded.
      Sorry for the rant, but until the people on the left start thinking and stop following the media's lead like mindless robots, this country is in big trouble.
        • 7 Years Ago
        It's impossible for leftists to not engage in group-think, that is the very definition of the liberal, feel-good ethos. The truly heartless are those that continually side with Islamofascism and anything anti-American. Speaking of heartless, it's always the Demoncrats that oppose and obstruct funding for our soldiers while this country is engaged in the global war on terror. A pennywise, but a dollar short (but always making up the difference from the tax-payer pocket) is the left's modus operandi.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I don't think CAFE is the way to go but I'd like to see it passed, nonetheless.

      I think the only way to curb the usage is to increase the price of gas (easily economics 101). However, cars seem to be the least of our concern (not that we don't need to help in every way possible) when it comes to greenhouse gases. Caps need to be implemented for industry; trucks and ships need to be better regulated; people need to use more train shipments which use the least amount of fossil fuels per ton/mile.
      • 7 Years Ago
      All I have to say is all of the tree hugging wackos need to take a trip out of this country to places like China and India. Those places will open your eyes. This bill will do NOTHING for the enviorment. I MEAN NOTHING. Read what John McElroy wrote a few weeks back. He is dead on. The only thing this bill will do is keep fun cars off the road and make everything we drive cost a lot more.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Maybe you should take a trip to Japan where their fuel average fuel consumption is well into the 40's, and they still manage to have plenty of cars that are fun to drive.

        And cars don't really cost more in Japan either (as opposed to Europe where they really do cost more).

        And China and India will deal with their own problems or end up choking on pollution-actually, China already has a CAFE average of 35MPG.

        Just because other countries are going to use gasoline too doesn't mean that we shouldn't set limits on how much we consume-otherwise all those cars will just be unusably expensive to operate one day-fuel already makes up like 25% of the cost of driving a lot of cars.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Excellent. This will now not force the American public to waste more money.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Remember guys, like the S-CHIP bill and the Stem-cell bill, there is more attached to this bills than just the title. I know the S-Chip bill had some serious "pork-barrel spending" items that mad the overall bill terrible.

      I have heard and seen some serious issues with the CAFE bill that has nothing to do with emissions or fuel mileage.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Regardless of the amount of impact, the issue should not be ignored. A little bit of something is better than a whole lot of nothing.

      (I keep telling my wife the same thing...) ; )
      • 7 Years Ago
      Oh get serious! These people need to get their heads out of their a**es and pass the thing already. It is only a small step forward in a race that so many countries are already far ahead. Guess what global warming is not a myth and reducing green house gasses by imposing better mileage is at least one thing that the government has the power to do!
        • 7 Years Ago
        'errr lemmie see. One 747 on a round from NY to Tokyo will burn more fuel than all of the C6 Z06s ever made.

        Also, how many different airlines London bound, are leaving JFK within the hour with half empty jets?

        There are no easy answers folks, but my "gas guzzling" ________ is not the problem. The real "gas guzzlers" are crisscrossing the "friendly skies" by the thousands as we speak.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Gas turbines by nature are the thirstiest & most powerful engines there are. When you say efficient, you you mean compared to how bad they used to be.

        My arguement is not for or against the effiency of Jets. My arguement is that on a daily basis, the world's fleet of jets, both military and civilian are responsible the lion's share of of the world's daily consumption of petroleum products.

        P.S. Almost all new (80s) on non-nuclear US Navy ships are powered by gas turbines.

        Perry Class Frigates
        Kidd Class Destroyers
        Ticonderoga Class Cruisers
        Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers

        No, I am not suggesting that we go back to the stone age, just sick of idiots that blames the automobile for the worlds problems.

        Heavy Industries, aviation and mechanised oceanic traveltransportation is where the bulk of the fuel goes.

        A patient arrives at the ER with two injuries:

        1). Amputated right arm.
        2). Paper cut on right index finger.

        Which one should the doctor tend to first?.

        Environmentally, the automobile is the papercut on the index finger.
        • 7 Years Ago
        US passenger vehicles contribute about 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

        That could be cut in half tomorrow and wouldn't make a damn bit of difference other than forcing Americans in tiny cars we hate and making effeminate liberals like you feel good about themselves.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Can we move that papercut to the left index finger. (Ha! Ha!).
        • 7 Years Ago
        I was on an ATA Flight just last year where I had the entire 3 seats to myself. Many of the rows were just completely empty. Best flight I ever took. Totally quiet with crisp air and plenty of room, it was like a private flight.

        But don't blame planes for making more pollution than cars. If people need to travel thousands of miles, what alternative is there? And apparently there are worse methods of transport on a mile per gallon per passenger basis. And planes are getting more efficient. Read up on the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350.
        • 7 Years Ago
        THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH ermax ITS ALL ABOUT THE PUSH TO LIMIT YOUR TRANSPORTATION AND A CARBON TAX
        • 7 Years Ago
        No one said global warming was a myth. "Man Made" global warming is the myth.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I love School House Rock.
      • 7 Years Ago
      All I have to say is all of the tree hugging wackos need to take a trip out of this country to places like China and India. Those places will open your eyes. This bill will do NOTHING for the enviorment. I MEAN NOTHING. Read what John McElroy wrote a few weeks back. He is dead on. The only thing this bill will do is keep fun cars off the road and make everything we drive cost a lot more.
    • Load More Comments