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: 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.