Hello! I just wanted to drop by Gristmill to give all of you an update on the energy bill. To no one's surprise, the Republicans are throwing sand in the gears and trying to block any meaningful progress.
The energy bill, as it stands, is not nearly strong enough, so there are a number of amendments that must be adopted to give us a bill that actually gets us started on that path of dealing with our energy crisis and our climate crisis.
But when we tried to bring up the Bingaman amendment that requires the use of alternative energy sources, the Republicans in the Senate simply refused to vote up or down on it, essentially demanding that these amendments get 60 votes to even be considered. The procedural details of what they're doing and our responses get pretty arcane pretty quickly, but as I type this in the midmorning we're currently locked in a battle to move all of this forward.
It's amazing to me that some people still refuse to see the gravity of the situation staring us in the face, with the best science telling us we may only have a decade to act before the climate crisis reaches a dangerous tipping point. But there are the same interests throwing up the same roadblocks. Take CAFE standards -- I and many others are demanding that the standards be raised to 35 mpg by the end of the next decade, with light trucks and SUVs included in that and other mandatory requirements for medium and heavy trucks. And we want to close the loopholes that allow automakers to miss even those targets. But the Bush administration has written to Congress that they are opposed to any numerical requirement in the statute.
Think about that for a moment. They say they want fuel economy to get better, but they don't want to put any numeric requirements about what that means. And they want medium and heavy trucks exempted from even that!
Another area where I'm pushing is to require that at least 20 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020. This has been a part of my energy plan since 2002, and I mentioned this over and over (and over) during the campaign in 2004. There has been significant support for this change now in Congress, but there are still powerful interests arrayed against it.
Dogmatic refusal to consider new approaches to this crisis can have such enormous consequences, it boggles the mind how people can do it.
I noticed the article that was flagged by David Roberts here a couple of days ago that indicated the big fights were going to be over some of the same tired issues of the past -- but that's not entirely true. Sure, there is once again a proposal to drill in ANWR, and we once again will strongly fight that. But overall, there are significant steps being taken, and now there's a leadership in the Congress that wants action on this. In addition to the CAFE standards, I'm fighting to get more conservation and efficiency throughout the economy, and we have a bill pending to make the Capitol complex green, so that the federal government can be a model of how to make workplaces environmentally friendly, not a glaring example of "do as I say not as I do" politics.
While I strongly oppose any bills promoting coal-to-liquid technology, I'm also fighting to make our most widely used electrical-generating fuel, which is coal, cleaner with carbon capture and sequestration pilot projects and research funding. And I'm working to ban the building of any new coal-fired plants without that technology.
All of these proposals have significant support in Congress, and, unlike in the last couple of Congresses, the leadership is behind my efforts to get real votes on these issues and force some change.
But I've learned, starting way back when I was working as an activist on the first Earth Day, that environmental change doesn't happen without a lot of activism from Americans. There are too many monied interests defending the status quo because they think it makes them more money. They don't want to upset their old balance sheets by embracing the new economy and the prosperity that will flow from abundant clean energy.
There are lots of business people who do recognize that, and many sectors of our economy are already leaping ahead of the federal government on these questions. Fred Smith of Fed Ex testifies today in front of my committee about the importance of raising fuel economy standards.
But the entrenched interests (especially Big Oil) still hold sway with many in Congress. So the activism of ordinary Americans is desperately needed to tip the scales decisively in favor of a new direction. Call your senators today and tell them that you want a new direction. Tell them that you want CAFE standards raised, that you want at least 20 percent of our energy to be from renewable resources, that you want significant action on energy policy.
Thanks for your time. Being in the thick of all of the floor fights, I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond to any comments today, but I'll try, and I'll at least read through them all at the end of the day.
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits
Comments
View as Threaded
GreyFlcn Posted 5:41 am
14 Jun 2007
We have plenty of green energy to go around.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:03 am
14 Jun 2007
AeroVironment, AltairNano, and Phoenix Motors have shown the ability to charge their Electric SUV to drive 120 miles in 10 minutes time to California's Air Resources Board.
However more profound,
In AltairNano's whitepaper, they mention the ability to charge up to 80% capacity inside 1 minute of charging.
Even if we drive electric cars on Coal it would be like driving a Prius in emmisions.
There's enough nighttime charging capacity to charge up 84% of the US Vehicle fleet with Zero changes to the existing powerplants
A wide selection of practical full performance electric cars are already coming.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:14 am
14 Jun 2007
I warmly applaud your several decades of staunch efforts on behalf of moving society toward a sustainable way of life.
Yet maybe it needs saying that there is much that doesn't get said because experts feel it is "too complex" for Joe Public to get his head round.
One such item is the culpable lie pushed by GOP + Bush that Kyoto "Ain't global and it won't work" when in reality the US had previously signed the UNFCCC Berlin Mandate that industrialised nations should cut GHGs significantly below 1990 levels before developing nations would be requested to accept GHG limits.
Given the huge swell of current interest in GW, maybe it's now time for you to set the record straight on this issue ?
Your present task of getting 20% RE by 2020 sound like an uphill battle, but one which simply has to be won. Again there are factors of which the public is unaware, and the longer they are left in ignorance, the harder the likely backlash - but this time against the Dems, not the GOP.
I refer to the almost totally unrecognised fact, which is patently obvious once it's considered, that a supply of renewable energy does not save any fossil fuel usage; it simply makes that fossil fuel affordable for a poorer person to buy and use in some other part of the world.
RE supply may offer some small confidence-building effect for negotiators of a Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons, but it will not lower global fossil fuel consumption. Only the requisite treaty is capable of ensuring that goal is met. Again, maybe it is time that this reality was given the publicity it deserves ?
Finally, in case it may be news to you, the Indian govt's ex-Environment Sec.y /now Advisor on GW, gave an interview to the UK Telegraph in which he makes plain that India is, de facto, adamantly committed to the global climate policy framework of Contraction & Convergence, with GHG reductions being measured in per capita terms.
He posed this challenge to the West:
"You do your best and we'll match it." I.e.: our per capita GHG output will not rise above the per capita level you cut yours down to.
In case it may be of interest the full article can be read here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/06/12/eaindia12.xml
Given the seminal importance of a power of India's scale making this declaration, is it not time for a debate in the Senate that demonstrates how Contraction & Convergence amply fulfils the demands of the Byrd-Hagel Act ?
And given the fact that the public are going to be facing the constraints of the requisite treaty, isn't it time they were told something about the equity and efficiency of Contraction & Convergence ?
As if you didn't have enough to do !
With best wishes,
Billhook
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:33 am
14 Jun 2007
I think you have to be creative. For instance, the City of New York faced opposition from cabbies to expanding the number of medallions, something was desperately needed to provide adequate taxi service. The answer was to stop fighting the drivers and companies, and instead work with them. The City gave every medallion owner another medallion, which they could use, or sell. This expanded the taxi supply, while converting the existing drivers into enthusiastic participants.
Similarly, if you want to address NIMBYism, find a way to match local costs with local benefits.
If you want to get Detroit to support a higher CAFE, why not help them out? Detroit has a structural cost advantage in trucks, just as Asia/Europe have an advantage in smaller cars. We'll kill Detroit if we don't recognize that an increased CAFE hits them disproportionately. It's mighty cost-effective to give them some countervailing benefit, and it's even fair and economically rational, as Asian car manufacturer's have not had to pay for healthcare, their tax burden is lower due to the US military umbrella, and currency valuations have long been unfairly weighted against US manufacturers. Pay for their healthcare, or give purchase tax credits, or give R&D money like the recent battery R&D proposal.
It's simple, if we're creative.
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 7:38 am
14 Jun 2007
And, the ONLY way anyone should be even broaching the subject about turning coal into liquid fuels is if the process is treated like a combination refinery/electricity generation plant. The refinery would have to be sited at the mine's mouth; electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel could be processed on site, ash and slag could be recycled to the construction industry and the rest of the solid waste put back into the mine. If all were doing is turning coal into a liquid fuel, without extracting all the possible value, then the plants will be wastes of money anyway because the price of gas will eventually go down (whether because of geopolitical reasons, market forces, or whatever) and liquified coal will be too expense and will need subsidies and price supports to keep them viable in the market--and that's the last thing we need.
If Americans want to reduce their dependence on coal in the future, then we need to consider the strategic use of energy storage to make intermittent renewables (wind, solar) more responsive to the market and more attractive for investment. So far, I haven't heard anyone in Congress talking about storage. But, I'm eagerly waiting and listening...
Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi
Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 7:49 am
14 Jun 2007
Alexander also pointed out that the Buffalo Mountain wind farm represented a significant environmental intrusion. The 36 towers are located high on a beautiful Tennessee mountainside, and represent an ugly intrusion into what is otherwise a beautiful Cumberland mountain setting.
Charles Barton
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 8:02 am
14 Jun 2007
"Yet maybe it needs saying that there is much that doesn't get said because experts feel it is "too complex" for Joe Public to get his head round."
Electricity, especially, needs to come out from behind the wall socket and into the public sphere. That's why I recently published my third book on electricity--this one written specifically for the general public and emphasizing the need for "Joe Public" to become informed and active in shaping the conversation over our electricity future. The book is titled Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, The Global Economy, and What It Means To You (Wiley, 2007) and it just hit the bookstores last week.
The premise is that electricity is the bedrock of our economy and our modern way of life and that if we want to continue to provide economic opportunities to future generations, we've got to get electricity production right. We've got to fix the grid, address global warming, and make sure that electricity is not subject to the same geopolitical pressures as oil. (So, just say no to LNG.) All these things need to be addressed now. It's that important.
Like any balanced book, there are things you might like and things you might hate, but as Barry Worthington, Executive Director of the United States Energy Association said:
"This new work is provocative, factual and will make you think about the situation we face. It is a must-read for anyone even slightly interested in the adequacy of the U.S. power sector and what the future may hold. The book clarifies where we are today, how we got here and paints a plausible if not scary scenario of the future. Industry, regulatory and political leaders need to read this to see the possible end results of their decisions."
We believe so strongly in the importance of and educated public -- and an educated Congress -- participating in this conversation that we are sending complimentary copies of the book to the Chairmen and Ranking members of all the energy-related subcommittees in both the House and the Senate.
Pearl Street/Jason and Kristina Makansi
Learn more and order Lights Out at http://www.jasonmakansi.com/lightsout_endorsements.html
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:09 am
14 Jun 2007
Electrical Grid Storage and Buffer Capacity.
Upgrade the interstate grid system to handle the increased electrical traffic.
The rest would solve itself since Renewables like Wind, Thermal-Solar, and GeoThermal are already cost-competative with conventional electricity.
(Wind in particular is cheaper)
_
Grist covered an article mentioning that a mere 50 square miles of closed-loop pumped hydropower would be enough backup storage to operate the entire US grid off of Renewable Electricity.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/212637/60
_
While an RPS would be nice.
Ample Storage, with exclusive Renewable access, would make Renewables suddenly a no-brainer for utilities.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:11 am
14 Jun 2007
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 9:04 am
14 Jun 2007
Is there anything in the energy bill meant to incentivize renewable energy systems in private homes and businesses? If not, this is something of a missed opportunity. Every home and business can be a renewable power plant to some degree. The more of us that are making and using some of our own power the better: it could add up to a lot and even offset the need for new power plants at some point, if it made better economic sense to do so.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:44 am
14 Jun 2007
New energy does not shut down coal. Our corrupt government enables coal. We will burn all the oil and gas and then we will burn the coal and cause mass extinctions and the end of civilization.
If you still have a face and a voice of morality then use the press and tell a simple concrete story with emotion and unexpected creativity. Talk about the global emergency that threatens the future of humanity.
Get on your knees and beg people to carpool, use clotheslines, and build homes that do not heating nor cooling. Plead with capital sources to find the innovators. Restore the budgets that Bush zeroed-out.
Ram it home.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:10 am
14 Jun 2007
In general the comic in this article is pretty apt.
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2263
People don't like sacrifice.
The change that requires the least change, while causing the most positive change, is the best change. :P
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:45 am
14 Jun 2007
While it is shamefull that the auto industry has not improved vehicle efficiency, it is the consumer who is to blame. Why would the industry re-tool when demand is high for big old tanks?
Instead, please consider 'feebates'- make the consumer who doesn't care about fuel efficiency pay a fee for his guzzler, and give a rebate to the consumer who buys the efficient car. The consumer will be motivated to change, and the industry will be forced to satisfy shifting demand, even glad to do so, if they know the market exists.
P.S. I still daydream about how different things might have been...
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:55 am
14 Jun 2007
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 12:04 pm
14 Jun 2007
Most Americans (including politicians) are still unable to grasp the gravity of the climate crisis. Its easier to tune out and worry about the social injustice surrounding Paris Hilton than it is to fight to save the planet and the human race.
Al Gore has made great strides, however, there is still massive indifference among the general public about fixing the problem. I see it everyday, and I live in the liberal SF Bay Area! Where there is indifference and apathy with the masses, so shall there be with our government.
I don't profess to have a solution, this is just an observation.
I am enjoying your book. Thank you for all you do.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:28 pm
14 Jun 2007
I am an American in Paris who is following the energy-policy and farm-policy debates in Congress very closely. What I pay particular attention to is how much the various proposals will cost, and what might be their unintended consequences.
You have taken a brave stance opposing any bills promoting coal-to-liquid technology, and working to ban the building of any new coal-fired plants without that technology. Good luck
You have also promoted biofuels in the past, which may have seemed a bold stance at the time but is no longer. Au contraire: support for biofuel mandates and subsidies is now, depressingly, virtually an automatic reflex among politicians from parties of all stripes. The result is that the industry has been able to call for more and more and more, with little opposition. The industry is so confident of continued subsidy-fueled growth that earlier this year Robert Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, brushed aside ethanol's critics by saying "even the mightiest eagle cannot soar without resistance from the wind."
Yet criticism and scrutiny is exactly what is sorely needed in the U.S. debate on energy at this crucial juncture in the nation's history. Congress already gave a seven-year priority to fuel over food with the mandate it set for so-called "renewable fuels" (7.5 billion gallons by 2012) in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Now it is considering substantially increasing that mandate to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Yet collateral damage from the existing mandate and subsidies is already apparent in the form of higher feed and food prices, decreased crop rotation and increased application of fertilizers, more pressure on water resources, and the diversion of soybean production to the Amazon.
You have no doubt heard some of your fellow Senators (not to mention prominent investors like Vinod Khosla) claim that biofuel subsidies have more than paid for themselves by reducing agricultural subsidies. Their comparison is invariably made with FY 2005 -- an abberant year, thanks to the disruptive effects of Hurricane Katrina. The Congressional Research Service has forecast that farm payments in FY 2007 will be $12.4 billion, exactly the same as in FY 2002 -- i.e., back to "normal". But if one adds in the cost to the U.S. Treasury of the biodiesel and ethanol excise tax credits, the combined costs of farm payments and biofuel tax credits will be almost $ 3 billion higher in FY 2007 than in FY 2002. More to the point, because subsidies to biofuels increase in lock-step with growth in their use, we can expect that combined farm and biofuel subsidies will already be back to FY 2005 levels by FY 2014. And that is not even including the cost of any new subsidies, such as those being proposed in the Thune-Nelson bill (S. 36).
From then on, the sky's the limit for subsidies to biofuels -- unless a sufficient number of politicians come to their senses and oppose extension of the biodiesel and ethanol excise tax credits beyond their current expiration dates, respectively, at the end of 2008 and 2010.
Those subsidies, by the way, do NOTHING to confront car-owners with the true costs of their driving. Indeed, the whole panoply of measures supporting biofuels has been sold to the public not only as a way to wean the nation off of imported oil, but also as a way to keep their driving costs stable. "Don't worry about rising fuel costs", seems to be the subtext, "we'll solve that problem with home-grown biofuels!"
You express a concern about opposition to raising corporate average fuel-economy (CAFE) standards. If the opposition proves too strong, Senator, why beat your head against that brick wall? Do an end-run around it!
The debate over CAFE standards, when viewed from outside the USA, looks arcane at best, especially knowing that the vehicles being manufactured and sold in Europe, Japan and Korea today -- including by subsidiaries of the Detroit Big Three -- already can meet or exceed the standards that you in Congress are busy haggling over to be met ten years in the future. Improving vehicle fuel-economy is not a problem in need of a supply-side solution. American automobile manufacturers have access to the latest technology; they know how to produce clean, safe, fuel-efficient cars. But when the Government is sending a clear messages to them and their potential customers -- that it is prepared to subsidize their research, subsidize their restructuring, and even subsidize the fuel that gets put into their vehicles -- why should they change their strategy?
Market forces could make CAFE standards irrelevant. If people know that transport fuels in the future are only going to get more expensive (e.g., especially if Congress is brave enough to phase in a carbon tax), they will change their buying and driving habits, including -- if the alternatives are available to them -- by walking, bicycling and taking public transport more often. What Governments need to do is to stop pretending that they can micro-manage that transition, betting massive amounts of the public's money to back their favorite winners in the technological race, and instead concentrate on sending coherent messages and supporting broad policies (like a carbon tax that is offset by reductions in other taxes) that would allow people to adjust to the new energy realities in the best way they see fit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:02 pm
14 Jun 2007
I have no doubt that many of us will do what we can, activism-wise.
Drilling in ANWR is by no means a passe' issue. There are serious ethical concerns about endangering the wildlife of that region, and those concerns do not go away with the shifting of political winds. "Energy Independence" is a superficially OK but potentially dangerous cause, and should never be used to justify environmental destruction.
Our friend Ron Steenblik, writing from Paris and Geneva, writes well on the reform of our CAFE standards. It does indeed seem "arcane," why this should be so difficult for Detroit to accomplish. But also, his second point is excellent, that government should be involved in how we re-think our possibilities of transporting ourselves from here to there.
Best regards to Ms. Teresa Heinz-Kerry, for whom I would love to vote some day.
P.S. In August, 2004, during the last presidential campaign, we found ourselves in a fado club in Lisbon, sitting next to a French-speaking couple, who turned out to be from Geneva. I told them -- and they were interested to learn it -- that you speak French very well, having gone to school in Switzerland; but that, given American prejudices and American politics, you did not dare to admit it.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:58 pm
14 Jun 2007
To what end are we driving toward? If we are not looking toward an end that is driven on at most a tenth of the energy we utilize now, then it is probably the wrong end.
If growth continues to be the big driver, we are just screwed. When our leadership in Washington starts questioning growth and GDP, then there might be a little light to raise some hope. But I fear that Washington will never get out of the grip of this totalitarian economic notion that has all of us sucked into its centripetal pull.
Permalink
Hughes Posted 2:47 am
15 Jun 2007
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:25 am
15 Jun 2007
Hmmm...in 1990 I bought a Toyota Camry that got 34 mpg. So, looking ahead to 2022, the US car industry will be getting a little better average mileage than I was able to purchase 32 years ago. You guys are to be so commended!
The highest mileage for any pickup truck on the market in the US is 26 mpg while a good chunk of your fleet gets what? Maybe 15 to 17 mpg? And even less on the flex fuel gizmo loophole that Congress gave you. You know if you guys keep giving away the huge rebates on these gas guzzlers, a lot of fuelish americans will keep thinking they are getting a great deal. And tell me, how is it that you guys can manufacture such demand for these heavy beasts to commute to work and drive around town like a rock? And don't give me that crap about giving the consumer what they demand!
Permalink
GulfAaron Posted 5:14 am
15 Jun 2007
If any measures move forward encouraging expanded ethanol production, they need to be linked to resources for nutrient runoff reduction. The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a huge threat to our marine life, our fishing, and our unique natural resource dependant culture down here.
6 years after a federal action plan to reduce the size of the Dead Zone was released, no action has truly been taken, and the Dead Zone continues to grow.
Gulf Restoration Network United for a Healthy Gulf
Permalink
renfield Posted 5:50 am
15 Jun 2007
Deborah
Permalink
Stephen Beltramini Posted 8:28 am
15 Jun 2007
First I just have to say thanks to you and all your colleagues working so hard on these energy issues. It's really an up hill battle I have to imagine though, getting anything really significant done in Congress or government at all, given the rather sad state of energy and environmental knowledge on the part of my fellow US citizens. I can easily see how those with significant interests in maintaining the status quo in energy markets in the US and world as a whole can use this lack of knowledge to the detriment of people such as yourself trying to effect change. Change really has to begin with individuals, and it IS beginning, but it also requires more patience than somebody such as me would have if put in your position.
That said, there is so much that our countrymen and women really need to learn about the two major aspects of energy use in society today. The first of course, is the environmental impact, especially the global climate change-warming aspect, and, thanks to many scientists, Al Gore, Bill McGibbon, etc., we're finally seeing a critical mass of people take that message to heart. Ordinary peons such as me, gosh, we've been talking and demonstrating alternative life ways to lessen our personal impacts - for ever it seems, but, mass education, that's what's needed. Thank goodness we're finally seeing some. The second aspect of our energy situation, however, is still really in process. It's a murky understanding at best for most folk that I talk to, and what I'm talking about is oil depletion, Peak Oil, call it what you will.
There's so much to learn about oil depletion, what we can expect in terms of price, supply, how it affects our transportation, housing, employment, and especially the agricultural model our civilization employs now. I continue to hear wild stories about oil companies simply cooking up Peak Oil to raise profits, "there's tons of oil left" etc. Your colleague in the House, Rep. Bartlett of Maryland, has really done the country a great favor attempting to educate people, both in and out of Washington, on the developing situation. No doubt you are aware of his efforts.
I'm not against CAFE strictly speaking, but it just seems to me that high price and availability of fuel will have so much more of an impact. We saw CAFE take off in the late 1970s, early 80s when gas prices went through the roof, and yet interest in CAFE declined when the world entered the years of temporary crude gluts. Now we want to bring back CAFE, and that's good, but my guess is that CAFE will be so easy a sell as to be irrelevant when gas is $5, 6, 8 or more dollars per gallon.
Keep up the efforts. A lot of what you are pushing for will come to pass, especially when a larger balance of Americans finally see the absolute connection between their energy choices and its effect on global climate, as well as seeing the inevitability of having to make do with much less oil and natural gas, and higher prices for both. All the rest of us, and government, can do is to have something ready to lessen the blow when things get bad (such as CAFE), and others finally understand the realities of the energy situation and are prepared to help too.
Someday too, my fellow citizens might finally comprehend the incredible con the Neocons have perpetrated on the US regarding the real reason for the Iraq invasion and occupation, specifically how we really invaded for control of the oil to continue our model of global corporatism. Someday, we'll all be able to speak out on all of this, as Ron Paul attempted to do a few weeks back in one of his party's political debates, without being excoriated for it.
Thanks,
Stephen Beltramini
Walpole, MA
Permalink
Brian Whalen Posted 8:40 pm
15 Jun 2007
Although many detractors may find your arguments about CAFE standards politically elusive if not detrimental, I find it to be on only option. If the big three will refuse to accept current and (expensive) battery vehicles a reality, then slamming them with higher MPG standard mandates is great start. Many people here would argue that the technology already exists to supply our roads with 0 emission vehicles, but they are so far from being a mainstream reality that they are left to the twinkle in my eye. There are hundreds of millions of fossil fuel burning vehicles in American possession today, which, I think, should be scrapped, but speaking in terms of feasibility they can only be outdated first by an alliance of higher MGP standards, not cars that cost upwards of eighty thousand dollars, maybe Steve Urkel had it right in his hit show "Family Matters," in which he drove a two seater capable of 100+ MPG's. My overall question to you Mr. Kerry is when will the lawmakers catch up with society?
B. Whalen
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:24 pm
15 Jun 2007
If Americans are truly free to buy fuel-efficient cars from abroad, as well as domestic-made cars -- AND are willing to switch to vehicles that are more in keeping with their actual needs (which they will be if gasoline and diesel prices stay high) -- they could improve their gas mileage dramatically. As Lee Schipper, Director of Research for EMBARQ (the World Resources Institute's Center for Sustainable Transport) shows in his recent paper, "Vehicle Efficiency and CO2 Emissions: Troubling Trends", the real-world average fuel economy of France's and the UK's private vehicles are already 50% higher than the USA's, which at the moment stands at a paltry 21 MPG.
And I'm not talking about "cars that cost upwards of eighty thousand dollars", but ones that cost around $20,000 new. To take an example, a typical small family car in France is the Renault Megane. The turbo-diesel, direct injection version of this car can manage motorway travel at almost 55 mpg (4.3 L/100 km) or 35 mpg in city traffic (6.7 L/100 km). The car may be smaller than what Americans are accustomed to, but it is safe: in the EuroNCAP crash tests it achieved a 5-star safety rating.
Permalink
jamesboyce Posted 11:52 pm
15 Jun 2007
End of story.
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:08 am
16 Jun 2007
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=DataPipes.Vi ...
There is a similar bill in the House HR1331, but the Senate one you endorse is stronger. Please make the final one as strong as the Senate bill. It costs $12000 for us to do conversions, ie here
http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm
you make that what - $3500? - much more affordable, as gas would cost at least that much in a year! This gets us free of gas!
House cosponsor list of HR1331 incentives for plug-in hybrids,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01331:@@@P ...
everyone, if your rep is not cosponsoring HR1331 contact them!
And get your Senator to cosponsor this 100 mpg hybrids act too!
http://www.congress.org
(202)224 3121
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:14 am
16 Jun 2007
Thats why this bill is so clever and sneaky! It will get us to higher MPG, without waking up the autocompanies as to what we are doing!
If you want to see a list of all the EVs we could get with this subsidy, see my diary here:
EVs to Get $6000 Subsidy (update: If You Lobby For It!)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/23/212018/267
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:23 am
16 Jun 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:07 am
16 Jun 2007
What defines "alternative" and when is that good or bad?
How do you legislate mileage?
All these things seem to escape the feeble minds of John Kerry's Democrats.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
ASPO Article 374 Posted 5:31 am
16 Jun 2007
Bob Herbert in Sen. Reid's office has info in hand from Tahoe Valley Lines regarding RR Rehab prototype projects in CA & NV, but sits on it. Likewise, a comprehensive corridor strategy for middle east demiltarized zones and Cities of Refuge. Or, what happens to a few million Iraqis when we leave town??
Politicians tend to sit on the ideas they aren't ready to make public, looking for the right moment, like they may get better with age... In the case of railway rehab and Peaking Oil, sooner is actually better! Terry Mc Naughton in Senator Snow's office also has some details, so you can work on this off page.
We know Peaking Oil is getting front & center because Matt Drudge says so... The problem with everyone knowing a crisis is looming, is you-all in D.C. need to have some sort of a comprehensive plan in hand so as to calm the situation. So far, a "C" grade would be a stretch!
In a nutshell, follow Barry Commoner's suggestion, made in his 1979 Book- "The Politics Of Energy" Commoner mentions railways, vastly expanded in capacity & reach. Sounds like what we have now, in form of abandoned rail corridors, etc. Add renewable electric source. Point is, maintaining SOCIETAL & COMMERCIAL COHESION, building confidence as we go. See Jim Kunstler's remarks on rail rehab & morale building- we are going to soon need the encouragement to keep on as much as the fuel itself!
Fancy technofix then can go on, but not so in middle of a transport fuel emergency, which is where we are aimed now in gas rationing & trucking breakdown.
TVL visits Societal & Commercial Cohesion, briefed in ASPO ARTICLE 374. "Second Dimension Surface Transport Logistics Platform"
Permalink
NoTimeToWaste Posted 6:44 am
17 Jun 2007
A former John Kerry for Senate campaigner, now out in Caliornia, I find it incredible that the press has not captured the gravity of Detroit's rapid descent in the face of this relatively small mini-oil crisis, no where near to the fuel cost rise of the 70's energy crisis.
A coddled industry, that cried out for loopholes against rapid conversion to fuel efficient technologies, is now on the ropes due to it's lack of corporate activism and innovation happening at Toyotta and Honda.
Of course they're on the ropes. These guys have tooled up for monster cars, and focused on shareholder buybacks and CEO monster pay packages.
The real fault here is wall street and they're short term shareholder driven mantra for quick stock price appreciation.
With Detroit, all of corporate America is not far behind. We're not innovating or setting our entrepreneurial energies for the future. And unless we can get at the root of why American capitalism is sooo short sided and quick buck minded, we're just rearranging deck chairs.
John, Glad to see you out there fighting the good fight.
Courtney Miller
(One Californian fighting Arnold's transit cuts)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:06 am
17 Jun 2007
We can do that by shifting subsidies from fossil, nuclear, fuel farming, and gas guzzling..to plugin hybrids, renewable distributed energy generation and storage, and conservation.
Keep it up, we will try to get the support you need from the grassroots. Many people are starting to realize that if they join their local democratic party we can get a huge collective voice into the seat of power for this cause.
Democrats are far from perfect, but they listen to their volunteers. our voices can overwhelm the loudest of lobbyists. Money doesn't talk, it swears.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 12:25 pm
17 Jun 2007
Import these Doblo EV vans from Italy:
http://www.micro-vett.it/italiano/doblo.html
Change the laws that make it illegal for us to import all the clean EVs like these that we need in this country.
I wrote to this company and they meet European crash test rules. How about rewriting the rules just for for EVs so we could import both these Doblos and also the Smart EVs now selling in Switzerland through Infovel:
http://www.infovel.ch/eng/veicoli_lista.asp?prop=ok&p ...
Permalink
triveds90 Posted 2:26 am
18 Jun 2007
First let me just say that as a fellow St. Paul's (soon to be) grad, I applaud everything that you're doing.
I especially wanted to support you on your decision to clean up coal. Many radicals see cause to wipe out the use of coal, but the way I see it, it's one of the US' most abundant resources. Why stop using it, if we have the opportunity to use it cleanly and efficiently? And with Obama in the pocket of the coal industry with his recent vouch of support for coal to liquid technology, I think you should really make your voice heard on this issue. It makes sense, and I hope you can make them see it in Congress.
We miss you at St. Paul's, come visit again soon. Eco-Action would die to hear you talk, so please don't forget us on Pleasant Street. All the best Senator.
Rhiya Trivedi '08
Permalink
jamesboyce Posted 2:32 am
18 Jun 2007
#1 Senator and only Democrat on list.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-14-carmaker ...
Permalink
MtnButterfly Posted 12:35 am
20 Jun 2007
In the spirit of providing complete information, Mr. Barton and Lamar Alexander fail to mention that the practice of strip-mining in Tennessee is becoming more widespread, as it is across Central Appalachia, and leaves a landscape far more "intruded" than do wind turbines. Strip-mining, and more specifically, Mountaintop Removal Mining, destroy the "beautiful Cumberland mountain setting," leaving behind a wasteland of rubble and a poisoned water supply. Anything, including wind turbines, is better than this, and I assure you that most of the folks living in the affected valleys will agree. Dont buy into arguments such as these, they hide the realities of continuing our dependence on coal. I agree that an across-the-board RPS standard may not be fair to some states, but states such as Tennessee can find other ways of producing energy than just wind. Finally, the "carbon-free" energy that Mr. Barton refers to is largely nuclear. Take that as you will.
Thank you for all you do,
Rory McIlmoil
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:19 pm
21 Jun 2007
I'd be curious to know why you voted "Nay" on Senator Judd Gregg's amendment to Senate's energy bill (HR 6), which would have struck the provision extending the "secondary" ($0.54/gallon) import duty on ethanol beyond its current expiry date of 1 January 2009.
For the benefit of readers, the Senate is once again deciding whether to extend the import tariff on ethanol, which mainly affects trade with Brazil. It was previously scheduled to expire this year, but last December Congress extended it once again, to the end of 2008.
Judd Gregg (R-NH) offered the amendment to the energy bill, arguing "the United States should be importing more ethanol from friendly nations such as Brazil, rather than oil from troublesome governments such as Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela."
Interestingly, apart from Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who also voted "Nay", most of the other presidential candidates in the Senate chose not to vote. Here is their record:
Biden, J. (D-DE) .... Not Voting
Clinton, H. (D-NY) .. Nay
Dodd, C. (D-CT) ..... Nay
McCain, J. (R-AZ) ... Not Voting
Obama, B. (D-IL) .... Not Voting
Permalink