OK, I'll start this topic....With a shift to the Democrats, what do you feel the result will be for hybrids? I would state the obvious which is that it will result in more attention to alternative fuels, less favoritism for the oil industry, and promotion of environmental causes including less polluting cars. Hopefully the CLIMATE will be right (left) for advancement of hybrid, electric, and other fuel efficient technology. Ultimately though its success will be driven by the consumer.

It won't make a difference.

My hydroponics experiment
My carputer

You ever notice how hard it is to lip read cartoon characters?

I think it makes more sense to identify specifics, either candidates or committee heads, whose absence will change the tone. For example:

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is a notorious opponent of global warming and would bring anyone out for hearings who would criticize some obscure aspect of global warming. His obvious bias in hearings was not bringing facts and data but rather noise, static, to delay responsible investigators from their work. It also means the scientists at NOAA and NASA will at least have 'open minds' on the committees instead of those who dismissed their work by calling nutcases to testify.

Now this helps 'greenie' hybrid owners but has no impact on 'cheapie' owners like me. Just I prefer Congress dealing with 'facts and data' and not anti-science and anti-engineering advocates.

Bob Wilson

After April 3, use e-mail to contact me:

Interesting to see how the Hybrid tax break issue is affected moving forward.

Do the Dems extend or increase the hybrid tax breaks or kill them?

As the "greener" party will they promote more hybrids by giving more tax benefit?

But then they are also the "tax us" party, so there is a conflict.

Which wins out - green policy or tax policy?

This is going to be a long post, folks. It's interesting to speculate what the election means, but I wanted some actual facts, so I did some research and I'm going to share it with you all. Enjoy!

I heard Senator Obama speaking yesterday. He said that if the Democrats take the Senate (still in doubt as of this posting), he will be able to push ahead with enacting two bills he has cosponsored in the Senate, which until now have been obstructed by Republicans. One was on health care and the other was to promote research in alternative fuels and more efficient energy technology.

I looked up his bills, and found the one that addresses climate change is S.1151. You can read all about it here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.1151: , if you like.

The bill is about all greenhouse gases and carbon emissions, not specifically hybrids, but there would be a big impact on them and flex-fuel vehicles under Section 491 - funding for technology research. It sets aside money to "award funding through the program to stimulate innovation in development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies that have the greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

There are currently a few other bills that have been proposed and ignored in the Republican Congress that would deal with climate change issues, and I would certainly include hybrids in that category. A brief list along with official descriptions:

1. S.342 "A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances." This includes some of the same provisions as Sen. Obama's bill re: carbon trading.

2. S.1203 "A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the investment in greenhouse gas intensity reduction projects, and for other purposes." This mostly involves tax credits for nuclear power and an extension of tax credits for renewable energy production.

3. H.R.759 "To provide for a program of scientific research on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances that will limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, reduce dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and for other purposes." See the text here: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.759:
[This is the one that I think is most likely to be on the table again soon- it had 121 bipartisan sponsors but never so much as got out of committee in the House because of Speaker Hastert's oligarcic policy that a majority of the Republican caucus had to favor a bill before it could so much as get a hearing in the House, regardless of across the aisle support.]


There have also been extensive amendments to the last energy bill proposed by McCain (S.A. 826 to HR 6 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.A.826:) and Kerry (S.A. 844 to HR 6 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.A.844:) which were voted down by the last Senate but which might be resurrected in full or in part now that power has shifted. Too complicated to summarize, but among other things, McCain's included incentives for certain diesel vehicles and fuel research and Kerry's had incentives for bio-based fuels, renewable liquid fuel production and increased the FE standards. Another amendment did pass the Senate but didn't make it past the House, (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.A.866: ); it covered both of those things and went further, enumerating targets of barrels of oil saved per day that must be acheived by a given year, by whatever legal requirements they can come up with. It's fascinating stuff.

One of these bills or another one with a lot of the same stuff in it will get through the House- as for the Senate, we're still waiting to see. Sorry Tom, I disagree- this election does make a difference- a big one.

Absolutely! Finally the floodgate can open formore key environmental legistlations that would never have seen the light of day. Not just for democrats but for all who think environmentally as well. Good post Leah, I'm optimistic.

Nice Post Leah....My thoughts:

All that stuff is nice and good, but will any of it have a REAL environmental effect? That's to be seen. ( Remember: Senator Obama is the man who legislates out of one side of his mouth and lives his own life out of the other side, in reference to our earlier discussion on his preaching clean cars but driving himself around in SUVs saying "myself, I prefer SUVs." He earns my forgiveness when I see him in a hybrid SUV - until then he is on my personal "doesn't walk the walk" list.)

ANYHOO, we should be more interested (on this site) in what it means for the future of hybrid cars in the USA.

I'm concerned that the Toyota hybrid sales numbers are going down in part due to the reduced tax credit.

Are there any facts about or bills pending by the Dems to extend or improve the tax benefit for hybrid buyers? I can support that concept even as a Republican who drives a hybrid and uses a Segway for 1700 miles of commuting per year....

There will probably be a slight movement towards alternative energy and conservation.

I'm still pesimistic. Just because a bill is the right thing to do doesn't mean it will get passed. Those guys will trade votes on bills. Some guy in detroit may have unions that complain that the bill gives too much incentive to buy a japanese car and will cause them to lose jobs. So he may try to talk another legislator out of voting for it in exchange for a vote for or against another bill.

I hope you guys don't hold my cynisism (or spelling) against me. It was reenforced when I heard one of the guys last night say "We are winning because "we (the DSCC and its counterpart)" picked the right candidates to run." Umm. I thought the people picked the candidates.

My hydroponics experiment
My carputer

You ever notice how hard it is to lip read cartoon characters?

All the guy meant was they recruited good candidates to run. The voters can vote for a candidate, but only if he's on the ballot.