at a post-election
press conference at the White House on Wednesday, U.S.
President Barack Obama called on his political rivals the Republican
Party (also know as the GOP, short for Grand Old Party) to join him
in supporting electric vehicles. He said that while the pair
sparred on many issues, that he hoped electric vehicles would be
something that the two parties would see eye to eye on.The
President will need GOP cooperation if he hopes to push further
grants for the EV industry. While the Democratic Party hung on
to control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans seized a majority in the
U.S. House of Representatives.Obama is trying to sell
Republicans on his
plan to push one million electric vehicles onto U.S. streets
by 2015.Automakers have been partially supportive of Obama's
plan. They've lauded the $5B
USD in special battery and EV technology loans and grants
that he's lavished them with. The legislation to fund these
grants did enjoy a degree of bipartisan support, with some
Republicans jumping on board.However, $10B
USD more in proposed EV loans and grants for the EV industry
was torpedoed during President Obama's first two years in office.
Opposition came primarily from the Republican party, but also from
some fiscally conservative Democrats.Obama tried to drum up
support for more EV grants among both parties at the conference,
stating, "There's a lot of agreement around the need to make
sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that
we don't fall behind other countries. That gives opportunities
for Democrats and Republicans to come together."Many of
the big Japanese and U.S. automakers are preparing to release
electric vehicles this year or next. Nissan will release
EV and General Motors Company will release
the Chevy Volt. Next year the Ford
Focus Electric and the Toyota
Prius Plug-in will launch.Automakers have asserted
that grants will be greatly helpful in ensuring that the expensive
research needed to develop electric vehicles -- a radically different
internal architecture -- moves head at a sufficient pace. But
while they have praised the "carrot" side of Obama's EV
approach, they have noisily
criticized the "stick" side of his plans -- a proposal
to mandate a 62 mpg average light vehicle efficiency by 2025.
Automakers were forced to begrudgingly accept a 34.1
mpg mandatory fuel efficiency increase that must be reached
by 2016.Perhaps acknowledging that he faces an uphill battle
to pass more electric vehicle legislation, Obama took an apologetic
tone about the broader bailout, stating, "[Some voters] started
looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much
more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed. We
thought it was necessary, but I'm sympathetic to folks who looked at
it and said this is looking like potential overreach."Very
significantly, the President also essentially agreed to drop plans
"cap and trade" legislation which would
(if not trillions) in taxpayer money to set a hard limit on
the amount of greenhouse gases companies can emit, in a bid to fight
the supposed "global warming" crisis, which some
researchers claim mankind is causing.The President
acknowledged that the bill wouldn't pass the House due to Republican
opposition and argued that he only tried to push it because of the
Supreme Court decision that found greenhouse gases a danger to public
health. That decision mandates the EPA to adopt some sort of
action to fight GHG emissions in the U.S.Obama said that
there's plenty of alternatives to cap and trade, though -- including
promoting lower-emission EVs (centrally produced power, even with
transmission losses is typically lower emissions than small internal
combustion engines). He states, "Cap and trade was just
one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means,
not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address
quote: 1 in 300 - assuming the children may also buy cars.
quote: But there is a price hike and you have to find 1 in 300 willing to go for it.
quote: But that's my whole point, there are a lot of people WILLING but unable/won't because of the price hike.
quote: Plus, EV will be best suited to city dwellers who do less mileage but get stuck in more traffic (which is where petrol cars are even less efficient than on the open road)
quote: while there is a price hike, there is a long term price reduction thanks to nearly no fuel-cost.
quote: Yeah people talk about the "religious Right" being scary. But I'm more scared of a President who thinks he's god.
quote: I don't want to hear it, ok? I'm just telling you how it is.
quote: Obama and the Green's believe you can point your fingers and magically make it so. So far the only man I know who can do that is Jean Luc Picard. And he's no politician.
quote: it's feasible for a lot of people right now. not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).
quote: not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).
quote: While the number of seats that went Republican was high, the percentages would not call it a landslide. A 45% to 55% loss may be a loss of a seat, but that isn't a huge win when that is a difference of only 6000 votes or less between candidates. There were many more 48 to 52 type of Democratic losses than there were BIG wins.
quote: Hear that at MSNBC? I know the race to downplay the scope of the Democratic defeat is on, but you have got to be kidding me. This was a landslide, no way around it. The biggest landslide in 60 something years! Not just in Congressional seats, but 20 State legislatures that were controlled by Democrats flipped Republican. The Democrats lose control of 20 states overnight and a truckload of Congressional seats, LOSE the Speaker of the House, and you say it's not a landslide? You can play the percentage game all you want, it's laughable. No matter who wins, in a sport or politics or business, there is always one bitter guy bringing up massaged statistics as to why the other side didn't really "win". Congratulations, you're that guy.
quote: Funny how you refer to the other guy as bitter.
quote: Hear that at Fox News? This is nowhere near the shift the occurred in the early 90s.
quote: Hear that at Fox News? This is nowhere near the shift the occurred in the early 90s. I am not sure if you are new to politics or not, but this happens every election cycle.
quote: On a more serious note, did anyone check whether 1 million americans actually want to buy an EV?
quote: would you live within an eyesight of one
quote: America will stand still, technology and efficiency wise it wont move. And the US will lose more jobs, government need to bailout the 2 (3) big again after nobody but americans buy their cars.
quote: Obama is trying to sell Republicans on his plan to push one million electric vehicles onto U.S. streets by 2015.
quote: The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler’s posed an excellent question at Wednesday’s news conference by President Obama. From the transcript: You said earlier that it was clear that Congress was rejecting the idea of a cap-and-trade program, and that you wouldn’t be able to move forward with that. Looking ahead, do you feel the same way about EPA regulating carbon emissions? Would you be open to them doing essentially the same thing through an administrative action, or is that off the table, as well? The President’s answer included a claim that is just not true: The EPA is under a court order that says greenhouse gases are a pollutant that fall under their jurisdiction. And I think one of the things that’s very important for me is not to have us ignore the science, but rather to find ways that we can solve these problems that don’t hurt the economy, that encourage the development of clean energy in this country, that, in fact, may give us opportunities to create entire new industries and create jobs that — and that put us in a competitive posture around the world.
quote: Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute refutes the President’s contention in a post at the American Spectator’s blog: The 5-4 majority in Massachusetts v. EPA — and we know how the Left feel about 5-4 majorities effectively making decisions assigned to the political branches or process (coughBushvGorecough) — held that EPA could determine greenhouse gases are ‘pollutants’ if it chooses to but must ground any such decision in the statute. In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843-844 (1984) . We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. (Justice Stevens writing for the majority). This plainly exposes the president’s claim today as factually incorrect. The majority made this decision by determining that “all airborne compounds of any stripe” that are ‘emitted’ can be called a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. To which Justice Scalia replied in his dissent in a footnote “It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant’. This reading of the statute defies common sense.” (emphasis in original but, give them no ideas, please
quote: The EPA absolutely must be stopped. They are literally destroying America's economy.
quote: The president also appeared to nuance his stance on a "cap-and-trade" bill to control greenhouse gas emissions through a trading market. Several analyses showed more than two dozen members of Congress who voted for the Waxman-Markey bill lost their elections. And he hinted at a more conciliatory tone between Congress and the EPA, which reportedly will be a target of GOP House committees. "Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem. And I think the EPA wants help from the legislature on this. I don't think that, you know, the desire is to somehow be protective of their powers here. I think what they want to do is make sure that the issue's being dealt with." Obama twice brought up the nation's reserves of natural gas and mentioned a revived nuclear power industry as an avenue of enhancing energy independence. "We've got, I think, broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country. Are we doing everything we can to develop those? ...There's been discussion about how we can restart our nuclear industry as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases. Is that an area where we can move forward? ...So, you know, I think when it comes to something like energy, what we're probably going to have to do is say, here are some areas where there's just too much disagreement between Democrats and Republicans. We can't get this done right now. But let's not wait."
quote: supposed "global warming" crisis, which some researchers claim mankind is causing.
quote: How about almost virtually all scientists!
quote: If you cant explain some stuff in a single snappy page then to the mass (stupid people) it does not exist
quote: It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.
quote: A study by Thomas F. Stocker of the Physics Institute at the University of Bern, in Switzerland, and colleagues describes Dome C core data that reveal the relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the period 390,000 to 650,000 years before present (Science 2005, 310, 1313). The data indicate that the current concentration of CO2, at 380 ppm, is 27% higher than the preindustrial level and higher than any level attained during the past 650,000 years.
quote: We introduce the CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and this output is controllable by us.
quote: Get this through your head, CO2 is NOT harmful. Something we exhale, and that every living thing on the planet depends on, can't be a poison.
quote: If you're really convinced CO2 is not harmful, tape a plastic bag around your head and see how long you continue to hold that position.
quote: In the era when it was 10 times higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there were no land plant life
quote: ClimatePrediction.net , which uses BOINC to distribute the workload to test some of these models have amassed over 90 million years worth of CPU time so far. Some of the worlds most powerful supercomputers are used in testing climate models.
quote: CO2 levels are steadily rising ever since reliable recording of it started in 1960. It's higher than any historical CO2 levels observable through analysing air packs trapped in ice.
quote: Estimating past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for periods older than those sampled by ice cores is difficult and is the subject of continuing research. Most estimates agree that there was a significant decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere from more than1000 ppm at 50 million years ago (during the Eocene) to the range recorded in the ice cores of the past 800,000 years22.
quote: Marine and continental records1 show an abrupt negative shift in carbon isotope values at ~55.8?Myr ago. This carbon isotope excursion (CIE) is consistent with the release of a massive amount of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and was associated with a dramatic rise in global temperatures termed the Palaeocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Greenhouse gases released during the CIE, probably including methane, have often been considered the main cause of PETM warming. However, some evidence from the marine record suggests that warming directly preceded the CIE2, 3, 4, raising the possibility that the CIE and PETM may have been linked to earlier warming with different origins. Yet pre-CIE warming is still uncertain. Disentangling the sequence of events before and during the CIE and PETM is important for understanding the causes of, and Earth system responses to, abrupt climate change. Here we show that continental warming of about 5?°C preceded the CIE in the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming. Our evidence, based on oxygen isotopes in mammal teeth (which reflect temperature-sensitive fractionation processes) and other proxies, reveals a marked temperature increase directly below the CIE, and again in the CIE. Pre-CIE warming is also supported by a negative amplification of d13C values in soil carbonates below the CIE. Our results suggest that at least two sources of warming—the earlier of which is unlikely to have been methane—contributed to the PETM.
quote: We put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate will warm. Models and predictions only disagree by how much at this point
quote: One doesn't have to be sensationalist about this.
quote: We can take steps to reduce CO2 and other harmful emissions. It is in our best interest to do so. It doesn't mean the economy has to be gutted, but not recognising the issue, and not taking _any_ steps is irresponsible at best.