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 11:23:37 AM , Rating: -1
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/11...

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."


It sounds like Obama is just the tiniest bit more reasonable there, for example talking about a fossil fuel like natural gas in non "it's evil" terms is encouraging. As I understand it, natural gas electricity does emit some CO2, not as much as coal but some.

Still energy is only one part of the equation imo, even if the Liberals decided to let us use Natural Gas and Nuclear to solve our electricity/energy issue (issue meaning liberals are banning coal so we have to switch to something), which is actually realistic unlike wind and solar which absolutely cannot do it, it doesnt address the issue of factories themselves releasing Co2. So if you say ok, we'll allow some CO2 for energy but none for factories, that's still pretty negative imo. You're still going to end up with a pretty castrated economy, but at least it's something I guess.

But Obama is still just an extreme leftist, still talking about "we must address this issue now we must not wait" when the issue (global warming) doesnt exist, it was invented by bullying liberals.

And you've still got the problem of the left wing states out their like California trying to enact their own tyranical, life destroying, child killing environmental standards. The way to beat this though, is to beat the enviro nuts nationally, then states can do what they want. Because in a competitive environment, the enviros will be destroyed. If you have Cali saying "no Co2" and Texas saying "Co2 okay" then all the jobs will move to Texas, Cali will see that and be forced, forced, to renege.

Which I always find funny because one of the lies of environmentalists has been that CO2 caps are good for the economy. Yet when the USA rejected Kyoto, I would read these articles online complaining that the EU didn't want to implement CO2 caps because the USA didnt, providing the USA with an advantage. And I was like wait, I dont understand, if caps are GOOD for the economy, how the hell can no caps be an advantage? It's the same with Cali vs Texas, if caps were good, the Cali economy would be improving and Texas getting worse. It will be and has been the opposite. But it's just funny how liberals say one thing in one setting "caps are good for an economy" and another next "we cant compete because the USA wont do caps".

But yeah, allowing liberal states to kill themselves with caps is fine with me. I've always had no problem with putting liberals on an Island and letting them kill themselves, just stop trying to kill the rest of us. Of course, their entire purpose is to kill the rest of us. There's no liberals that actually believe in global warming, global warming was invented to kill the USA. If you put all liberals on an Island, they would immediately renounce global warming. Just like how the left wing EU and Canada have less CO2 restrictions than America. For example, Canada has no Co2 restrictions at all. Canada is far more left wing than America, yet had no CO2 restrictions (they signed Kyoto, yet later admitted they had no intention of fulfilling it to this day). That exposes the lefts lies.


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
"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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