davefordemocracy’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  We can't ever accept the argument that smaller cars are less safe.

  While SUVs may lead to fewer injuries among their drivers in the event of an accident, they are far more dangerous to others on the road than are smaller cars. Volvos, Subarus, Mercedes, and yes, even Hondas, have long been intellingent choices for safety-minded car buyers.

  On The Daily Show on fuel efficiency standards posted 6 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  All we hear about is mileage standards, but where are we talking about emissions?

  The California rule was about emissions, not mileage, and though it's true that the upshot is the same, the implementation is different. Every two years, Californians go to private stations to get smog tests. Will this be set up nationwide? Or will each automaker's fleet be spot checked before they hit the showrooms? There are a lot of ins and outs here, a lot of what-have-yous. Are mileage and emissions to be self-reported by the car companies?

  Why did the administration decide to regulate both? Who benefits from one or the other?

  On The scoop on Obama's new fuel-economy rules posted 6 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Of course Democrats could play along by coming out railing against tax-and-spend Republicans and claim the mantle of market solutions. Dare Jeff Flake to defend his tax hike in a way that can be used against him in 2010.

  On Should the Republican carbon tax bill be taken seriously? posted 6 months, 1 week ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What's been foggy in this whole process until now is the percentage of pollution permits that are to be given away for free. That number, it would seem, is the crux of the biscuit.

  What concerns me is that we're only past the first of many rounds of negotiations and we're already giving away more than half the permits (35% to energy distributors + 15% to industry + 3% to Dingell's Detroit = 53%). And we haven't even got to the natural gas refiners and Lord knows who else. A perfect bill would auction 100% of the permits and we've known all along there would be some room for negotiation, but how much is too much?

  I picture a very steep slope here.

  One of the acknowledged flaws of the European system is that they gave away too many permits to start, and that weakened the market and slowed the progress toward cutting carbon. Is there an economic sweet spot between 0% and 100% that we can aim for? Is there any strategy going on here?

  The administration could still weigh in wielding the cudgel of EPA regulation. Is there any other way to scale back the number of freebies?

  On Revamped House climate and energy bill has the votes to pass, says Waxman posted 6 months, 1 week ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Great work. And the quote as text really didn't do justice to Pence's uncomfortable shifting and reversing. You have to see the video. This was supposed to be his event, right? Thanks for raining on the party.

  On House Republicans blow off biz leaders who want climate action posted 6 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses