Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
#1
03-20-2007, 12:33 PM
Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
President Bush used the backdrop of visits to struggling U.S. automakers on Tuesday to pitch his energy agenda, promoting passenger vehicles that use less or no gasoline as a way to reduce oil consumption.Bush toured a General Motors Corp. plant in Kansas and was to visit a Ford Motor Co. facility later in Missouri, symbolic stops that also served to ease strained relations with distressed companies that were once mainstays of the economy.
GM, Ford and Chrysler Group. lost a combined $16 billion last year and have embraced part of Bush's energy plan to help boost sagging sales. They also want to improve their image with consumers who have turned in greater numbers to more fuel efficient vehicles made by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.
GM, Ford and Chrysler Group. lost a combined $16 billion last year and have embraced part of Bush's energy plan to help boost sagging sales. They also want to improve their image with consumers who have turned in greater numbers to more fuel efficient vehicles made by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.
#2
03-20-2007, 04:42 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
I am too tired of this guy to be angry with him. You might as well be angry with a child who pulls the wings off of butterflies without realizing what he is doing. But Al Gore was right and one of GW's earliest decisions was to kill the high mileage vehicle program for the hydrogen fraud.
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 03-21-2007 at 02:32 PM.
#3
03-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Can we say 'no credibility?' On this issue, W is just far too little and too late to make any time or burnish any image here. All his ridiculous posturing... it makes me tired- It is my understanding that he has the authority to raise CAFE standards for passenger cars right now without Congressional authority if he actually WANTS to, but he doesn't DO it. He was going on last year about how he needed the authority to change standards for trucks (and SUVs? I think), too. What he really meant was to WEAKEN them, because he could have strengthened the passenger car standards already but he had some big plan for changing the way you calculate fleet standards that actually would have lowered the FE minimum requirements on SUVs. I should go find a cite for these assertions, I suppose, and I think I read about it in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, but I feel sure that I remember the details fairly well, because it seemed so astonishing at the time.
#4
03-21-2007, 12:01 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Meanwhile, his friend PM Stephen Harper is promoting a big gas guzzler tax/green rebate in Canada?
#5
03-21-2007, 12:04 PM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Per a bumper sticker I saw yesterday----Buck Fush
Last edited by malibucarl; 03-21-2007 at 12:18 PM. Reason: additional info
#6
03-21-2007, 06:20 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Finger Lakes Region NY
Posts: 264
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
When the GOP sent me a request for a donation, with a survey attached, I filled it out and added a paragraph. I told the Republicans they had better change their position on fuel economy because our over-consumption is hurting us badly due to our dependence on oil from unsavory types around the world, and because of global warming/climate change.
I'm not the only conservative who feels this way, and that is why Bush is changing his tune.
Harry
I'm not the only conservative who feels this way, and that is why Bush is changing his tune.
Harry
#7
03-22-2007, 06:40 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
I am too tired of this guy to be angry with him. You might as well be angry with a child who pulls the wings off of butterflies without realizing what he is doing. But Al Gore was right and one of GW's earliest decisions was to kill the high mileage vehicle program for the hydrogen fraud.
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson
I looked this up earlier in response to another poster somewhere who incorrectly hammered Bush for killing that program. It was actually CONGRESS which killed the program.
Read this page:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/e...ies/index.html
Here is an important quote in the page:
They have criticized the program because it does not require the auto industry to actually manufacture a high mileage vehicle. It only calls on them to develop prototypes. They cite a General Accounting Office report that casts doubt on whether the cars will ever be mass produced.
And let's all face reality: Politicians support programs which benefit the people who put them in power. It did not start with Bush and it will not stop when he's gone.
Last edited by lars-ss; 03-22-2007 at 06:48 AM.
#8
03-22-2007, 09:04 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Hi,
You really should read your own reference to make sure what you state is not contradicted by the contents of your source:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/e...ies/index.html
It turns out that there was another vote that not only restored but increased funding:
http://greenscissors.org/energy/pngv.htm
The actual killing of the PNGV was a White House initiative:
http://www.issues.org/18.3/sperling.html
GW took the budget that had been funding the PNGV to create the Freedom Car and subsequent hydrogen fuel fraud. He took a program that led to prototypes by all three US car manufacturers, including the GM "Precept" the prototype of the Volt, and led to the current sad state of affairs of March of 2007:
Bob Wilson
Bob, you do know that high mileage vehicle program was just "clean" on the surface, right? And that it did not force automakers to really do ANYTHING of substance?
I looked this up earlier in response to another poster somewhere who incorrectly hammered Bush for killing that program. It was actually CONGRESS which killed the program. . .
I looked this up earlier in response to another poster somewhere who incorrectly hammered Bush for killing that program. It was actually CONGRESS which killed the program. . .
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LOCAL/e...ies/index.html
Originally Posted by CNN_archive
. . .
Automakers, and their allies in Congress, reacted in horror and vowed to undo the damage and press for a revote on the issue Thursday.
"We're working to fix this mischief," said U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn. "This cuts a big chunk of money. It hurts."
The money was part of a routine spending bill under consideration in the House. The effort to restore the money will take place when the U.S. House votes on the entire spending bill Thursday. The bill then goes to the Senate for approval.
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG have all showcased test cars they've developed through the program.
Automakers, and their allies in Congress, reacted in horror and vowed to undo the damage and press for a revote on the issue Thursday.
"We're working to fix this mischief," said U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn. "This cuts a big chunk of money. It hurts."
The money was part of a routine spending bill under consideration in the House. The effort to restore the money will take place when the U.S. House votes on the entire spending bill Thursday. The bill then goes to the Senate for approval.
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG have all showcased test cars they've developed through the program.
http://greenscissors.org/energy/pngv.htm
Originally Posted by Greenscissors
On June 14, 2000, Representatives John Sununu (R-NH) and Robert Andrews (D-NJ) offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations bill (H.R. 4578) to cut PNGV by $126.5 million. The amendment passed 214 to 211. Funding for the program was later restored and increased to $146 million during conference negotiations. . . .
http://www.issues.org/18.3/sperling.html
Originally Posted by National_Academy_of_Sciences
On January 9, 2002, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Spencer Abraham announced a new public-private cooperative research program with the three major domestic automakers. According to a press release, the program would " promote the development of hydrogen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks, as part of our effort to reduce American dependence on foreign oil ... [and] ... fund research into advanced, efficient fuel cell technology, which uses hydrogen to power automobiles." Called FreedomCAR (with CAR standing for cooperative automotive research), the program replaces the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which was launched by the Clinton administration with great fanfare in 1993.
The reaction to FreedomCAR, as reflected in press headlines, was largely skeptical. "Fuelish Decision," said the Boston Globe. "Fuel Cell Fantasy," stated the San Francisco Chronicle. A Wall Street Journal editorial asserted that fuel cells were expensive baubles that wouldn't be plausible without vast subsidies. Automotive News, the main automotive trade magazine, expressed caution, stating that, "FreedomCAR needs firm milestones... Otherwise it will be little more than a transparent political sham."
DOE has since released a tentative set of proposed performance goals for vehicle subsystems and components, which were immediately endorsed by the three automakers. Nonetheless, skepticism about the program continues, which is not surprising given the Bush administration's ambivalence toward energy conservation and tighter fuel economy standards. Yet viewed strictly as an updating of PNGV, FreedomCAR is a fruitful redirection of federal R&D policy and a positive, albeit first step toward the hydrogen economy. However, for FreedomCAR to become an effective partnership and succeed in accelerating the commercialization of socially beneficial advanced technology, additional steps will need to be taken.
The reaction to FreedomCAR, as reflected in press headlines, was largely skeptical. "Fuelish Decision," said the Boston Globe. "Fuel Cell Fantasy," stated the San Francisco Chronicle. A Wall Street Journal editorial asserted that fuel cells were expensive baubles that wouldn't be plausible without vast subsidies. Automotive News, the main automotive trade magazine, expressed caution, stating that, "FreedomCAR needs firm milestones... Otherwise it will be little more than a transparent political sham."
DOE has since released a tentative set of proposed performance goals for vehicle subsystems and components, which were immediately endorsed by the three automakers. Nonetheless, skepticism about the program continues, which is not surprising given the Bush administration's ambivalence toward energy conservation and tighter fuel economy standards. Yet viewed strictly as an updating of PNGV, FreedomCAR is a fruitful redirection of federal R&D policy and a positive, albeit first step toward the hydrogen economy. However, for FreedomCAR to become an effective partnership and succeed in accelerating the commercialization of socially beneficial advanced technology, additional steps will need to be taken.
- GM hybrids use a tiny, belt driven, 'hybrid' with a 48 V. battery
- Chyrsler has not hybrid
- Ford at least has one hybrid with characteristics similar to Toyota
- Toyota has at least three distinct hybrid models for sale
- Honda has at least two distinct hybrid models for sale
- Nissan has as many hybrid models for sale as Ford
- Nobody has a hydrogen fueled vehicle for sale
Bob Wilson
#9
03-22-2007, 09:57 AM
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Well, the nail was put into the coffin by Bush - but my article proved that Congress (even before Bush) was doubting the benefit of the PNGV.
Like I showed, that program was a SHAM. It was just a research project that would not likely have ever produced any REAL production vehicles. It was NOT a good program - Republican or Democratic alliances thrown to the wind.
Maybe the hydrogen program won't either - but both programs are just a pork project for the people who are backing it.
Bush deserves no criticism for replacing one SUPPOSED "clean car" program with another. Just because the greenies were all fawning over PNGV does not make it the best thing since sliced Tofu-flavored bread.
Like I showed, that program was a SHAM. It was just a research project that would not likely have ever produced any REAL production vehicles. It was NOT a good program - Republican or Democratic alliances thrown to the wind.
Maybe the hydrogen program won't either - but both programs are just a pork project for the people who are backing it.
Bush deserves no criticism for replacing one SUPPOSED "clean car" program with another. Just because the greenies were all fawning over PNGV does not make it the best thing since sliced Tofu-flavored bread.
#10
03-22-2007, 10:59 AM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
Re: Bush pitching alternatives to automakers
Well I hope this isn't going to turn into another Rep or Dem bash fight. We all have our opinions and by now aren't likely to budge from our ideology.
My own opinion is that nothing is going to change unless (unfortunately) gas takes another sudden, dramatic but sustained price increase- or some kind of government mandate.
Take CARB for example- as soon as the automotive lobby killed the mandate all non-polluting vehicles were sweeped from public roads.
A speech from any politician is meaningless.
My own opinion is that nothing is going to change unless (unfortunately) gas takes another sudden, dramatic but sustained price increase- or some kind of government mandate.
Take CARB for example- as soon as the automotive lobby killed the mandate all non-polluting vehicles were sweeped from public roads.
A speech from any politician is meaningless.
