http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/wa...iufnDQ6qZ/Qv7w

 

Well the 'fats in the fire' now. No doubt, it will be vetoed but it will be interesting in the meanwhile. I'll enjoy the irony of the chief fuel cell advocate calling this measure impractical.

Bob Wilson

 

Now let's look at the ingredients of this "sausage". (per the NT Times article)

1) Unclear, but it eludes to separate classifications for trucks.*
2) Ethanol provisions. Not green at all...
3) Ethanol MPG credits. This is how a Tahoe gets 35MPG or so for CAFE credits... Ugh!

* It is my opinion that the current CAFE standards (specifically the truck classification) is responsible for the SUV craze.

By classifying cars to a higher standard, large ("family") cars are penalized. But since trucks are held to a lower standard, SUVs are not penalized.

 

The Tahoe actually doesn't get 35 MPG for CAFE credits, even if Wikipedia says so. E85-capability gives a much smaller 1.2 MPG credit.

 

http://sev.prnewswire.com/auto/20071...1122007-1.html

Bob Wilson

 

I hate to say this, but anything is better than nothing at this point. The longer we take to act, the more drastic that action will need to be. At this point, I think the American people are starting to get the message on climate change, and they aren't going to be satisfied with half-measures. These proposals, though they do not come particularly near the eventual goal of adressing the issue head on, are certainly steps in the right direction. They are half-measures, yes... but once this energy bill is passed, and a Democrat takes over the Presidency, then more comprehensive reform will come.

As long as there is agitation out there for real leadership on climate change, we're going to see more legislation, better policy taking root, better ideas gaining traction. This will not be the end of the issue, even if it does pass in a less-than-ideal form now. In the meantime, though, we'll have a few things that we need, like the tighter auto fuel efficiency standards. Better that than nothing. I know we prefer ideals, but this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition right now. Rangel is in a pretty good bargaining position (not to mention the other Detroit legislators) and it's even tougher to get around him with a Presidential veto threat hanging out there.

Of course I want a better bill than this one---- the ethanol/corn issue is a problem, and maintaining the SUV/light truck classification is rotten, we should switch to the Chinese-style FE standards on a per-vehicle basis----- but CAFE standards have been stagnant for so long. We need change and we need it NOW. I have confidence that better days are coming (in a little more than a year, when Bush leaves office!), and greener energy bills are going to be possible.

 

[quote=leahbeatle;152558]I hate to say this, a Democrat takes over the Presidency.
quote]

As an ex-Chicago resident, this would be terrible unless Daley moves into the White House.

 

"but was bitterly opposed by the auto companies, who argued they did not have the technology or the financial resources to reach that goal."

Are these Detroit's f-b-3? Or are the European and Japanese?
I would understand that Detroit's former big three would oppose such a measure.

 

It doesn't matter since GW Bush will veto it anyway.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob, I think you're right. Vetoed no doubt for undue "hardship" on our oil companies and on the Saudis.