Print 106 comment(s) - last by kyleb2112.. on Nov 8 at 7:11 AM

Obama called on Republicans to back EV efforts at a post-election press conference.  (Source: YouTube/The White House)

In his speech Obama essentially agreed to drop plans to legislate cap and trade, an "anti-global warming" scheme that would have cost over $1T USD and cut American farmers profits by as much as 57 percent by 2035.  (Source: FreePeople Blog)

He hopes that in exchange for cooperation on warming, Republicans will contribute financial support to EV makers like GM, who launches the Chevy Volt EV this year.  (Source: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
President essentially agrees to drop warming cap and trade carbon legislation in exchange

Speaking 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 its LEAF 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 to pass "cap and trade" legislation which would spend billions (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 this problems."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2010 10:20:14 AM , Rating: 4
Dear Mr. President,
While I appreciate your concern for us adopting electric vehicles, and applaud your future efforts to drop cap and trade, I do have a couple of worries that I would like to share with you. First and foremost, I do not feel the United States has a sufficient power grid to provide enough electricity to recharge a country full of electric vehicles. Your encouragement of "clean coal" in the past to me, at least, seems that you will not provide enough push in the areas that can actually provide us the power that we need.

Mr. President, you have said that you want to help us build a nuclear future--a future which will help us provide clean, renewable power for centuries to come, yet, I see only slow rumblings in the infrastructure indicating still, far off change to make this viable once more. I urge you, Mr. President, to turn aside your ears to any tones of dissent towards nuclear power and pass legislation making it far easier for companies to begin construction and even complete that construction of nuclear facilities. Furthermore, I encourage you as well to pass legislation to allow these facilities, which, per U.S. engineering philosophy, have measures to provide for decreasing output if "Homer" falls asleep at the wheel, to allow them to ramp up production rapidly after completing construction rather than forcing them to sit idle due to red tape.

Wind Power is nice, so is tidal power, even solar power for that matter, but we all know in order to reach the output goals we desire, Nuclear can be rapidly proliferated throughout our nation without negatively impacting local communities. If you want to help out education in our Nation, do so in the sciences and engineering so more of us will become knowledgeable of the reality of things rather than letting superstition drive our actions.

RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 10:36:59 AM , Rating: 4
To summarize:
Spend tax money on things that will add value to the nation, not on stuff that will make us feel good because it's "green".

By The Raven on 11/4/2010 11:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hear, hear!

Even Al Gore-oss thinks that clean coal is a pipedream. Let's stick with what we know while we seek out new tech. And not make policy decisions based on vaporware.

RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By davepermen on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 2:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
To me, it seems that most "green" things that politicians push are more to appease the peasents/spread FUD/smear the competition/etc. than any actual effort to improve the environment.
If my tax dollars are going to be thrown away, I'd at least like to get an awesome new jet fighter or something :)

RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By Targon on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 11/5/2010 8:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
So we need multiple engines! Genius!


RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By Chudilo on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By kattanna on 11/4/2010 11:46:58 AM , Rating: 5
would you live within an eyesight of one

sure would. having a nice clean & quiet neighbor, who wouldnt?

oh yeah, those who have irrational fears of something they dont understand, like you.

RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By rcc on 11/4/2010 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sign me up.

By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:18:09 PM , Rating: 3
You idiots keep saying this.

And we keep saying yes. I personally would in fact live as close to one as is allowed (which is not right up against it). It's not like they build these things in the middle of a neighborhood. Like all power plants they're a few miles outside of the main part of town.

Shit I went to a college with an abandoned nuclear research reactor in the basement of one of our science buildings. You could walk down the stairs to the entry way which had since been filled in with concrete and see where the water they had filled the room with had seeped through.

How about you stop asking the same damn question because you don't have any other argument as to why nuclear power shouldn't be adopted.

By Masospaghetti on 11/4/2010 12:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I would.

It might make me feel better about humanity to see one of the greatest technological marvels, every day.

By MrBungle123 on 11/4/2010 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
Stick one in my town we could use the jobs!

By Anoxanmore on 11/4/2010 1:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
I to would love to live next to one. No more annoy neighbors like yourself. :)

RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By nafhan on 11/4/2010 2:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
What a moronic argument. So what if I don't want to live within eyesight of a nuke plant?
Here's a list of other things I don't want to live within eyesight of:
- a solar plant
- a field of wind turbines
- a huge dam
- a sewage recycling center
- an airport
- those people across the street who play loud music at night

That said, I know of a lot of people who are pretty happy owning houses on the lake used as a resevoir for the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station.

RE: Lets play... Lets make a deal!
By gregpet on 11/4/2010 3:40:09 PM , Rating: 1
If I had to choose between living next to a coal fired plant or a nuke plant I'd choose the nuke plant every time! I will admit that I'd rather not live next to either one...

By Fenixgoon on 11/4/2010 7:04:08 PM , Rating: 1
i live 10 miles from one (calvert cliffs nuclear plant). can't wait until they put in a 3rd reactor.

By kyleb2112 on 11/8/2010 7:11:55 AM , Rating: 3
Let's make a REAL deal. Everyone within eyesight of a nuke plant gets free electricity. There would be a land rush to live by them.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki