backtop


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

RE: What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/2010 10:57:35 AM , Rating: -1
Further to my point, I found this article

http://shopfloor.org/2010/11/good-question-on-epa-...

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


The EPA absolutely must be stopped. They are literally destroying America's economy.


RE: What a bunch of crap article
By kattanna on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By bill4 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: What a bunch of crap article
By FITCamaro on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki