backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by roykahn.. on Jun 28 at 5:08 PM

President also calls for increases on federal spending for CNG vehicles, vehicle research, and EV tax credits

At a speech at Georgetown University in the nation's capitol, President Barack Obama's (D) message to automakers was simple -- "told you so."

I. Obama Crows Over Fuel Economy Victories

He remarked:

The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers.  The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years — with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars.

The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies — we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.

The Obama administration is celebrating a win in which it convinced automakers to adhere to signficant increases to the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard.  


Under President George W. Bush (R) and the 2007 Congress, the CAFE standard -- which covers light trucks and sedans -- was scheduled to hit 35 mpg by 2020.  President Obama first succeeded in bumping that target to 34.1 mpg by 2016 after initially asking for 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Following that success, the President's team pushed for a much higher standard for 2025 -- as high as 62 mpg.  Automakers said that increase would "kill" the auto industry, but eventually begrudgingly caved to a target of 54.5 mpg by 2025.

The result is a mixed bag -- customers will save thousands of dollars at the pump over the lifetime of their vehicles (the exact amount is dependent on the price of fuel), but will pay $2,059 USD more for a new truck and $1,726 USD more for a new car on average (critics contend the true price increase will be at least twice that).  And automakers have to swallow an estimated $200B USD in costs for developing advanced fuel efficiency technologies.

In his speech, the President also plugged General Motors Comp. (GM) -- a bailout recipient -- for making a climate change pledge. The President remarked, "More than 500 businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate Declaration, calling action on climate change 'one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century.'"

GM makes the Chevy Volt plug-in electric vehicle that both President Obama and former President George HW Bush are big fans of.

II. More Regulation Ahead?

Emboldened by the concessions that he has already won from the industry, the President proposed more regulation in his speech -- including a fresh round of CAFE targets for heavy duty trucks.  The heavy-duty truck segment (which includes semis, garbage trucks, buses and three-quarter-ton pickups) was first regulated under President Bush's Energy Act of 2007, which calls for a 20 percent increase in average fuel economy by 2018.

The standard refresh would go into effect by 2018, and force that vehicle segment -- which typically features inherently poor fuel economy -- to continue more yearly bumps in efficiency.  Despite the gains since 2007, heavy-duty vehicles are still the second largest source of emissions in the transportation sector, according to the White House.

Super Duty rear
President Obama was new fuel economy targets for heavy duty trucks.
[Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech]

Other automotive highlights of the speech included a reiteration of the President's call to bump the electric vehicle tax credit to $10,000 USD, a demand for more federal advanced vehicle research funding, and a push to give new tax credits compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.

The President also called for regulations to limit the amount of carbon power plants can emit -- regulations that could force coal and oil burning plants to purchase expensive carbon capture and storage systems.

The speech compared these changes to the introduction of the federally forced introduction of the catalytic converter in 1970 (via the 1970 expansion of the Clean Air Act to cover automobiles), which critics complained would damage the industry.  He remarked:

At the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. Guess what — it didn’t happen. Our air got cleaner.

The President threatened the oil industry that he wouldn't approve the Keystone oil pipeline unless it cooperated with emissions improvements, remarking that the pipeline would be approved "only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

Coal power station
The President wants stricter emissions standards for power plants. [Image Source: Reuters]
 
At least some of the President's demands are unlikely to be fulfilled given the Republican control of the House.  Thus far Republicans in Congress have fought efforts to bump tax credits for EVs/plug-ins and efforts to increase vehicle research funding.

Source: White House on YouTube



Comments     Threshold


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

Emissions are a smokescreen
By superstition on 6/26/2013 2:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, it's not the emissions we should worry about, it's the pipeline bursting.

Cleaning up oil tar/sludge is, from what I've been told, very difficult -- even more difficult than cleaning up oil which, as far as I've been told, mainly a matter of trying to soak it up with paper towels.

Putting a dangerous (from leaks) sludge pipeline across so much farmland so China can have access to it seems like a bad move. But, given the ongoing corn ethanol debacle, the welfare of the nation is seen as less important than "donations" to politicians.




RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2013 3:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah because the Alaska Pipeline has been so disastrous.

Seriously. Do you think before you speak? Or just listen to what some Greenpeace activist?

And why do you think we'd send it to China. Unless of course they complete their dream and run out the oil and gas producers out of America.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By superstition on 6/26/2013 4:22:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Seriously. Do you think before you speak?

Stupid cheap shots like that hardly impress.
quote:
And why do you think we'd send it to China.

Because all the analysis about the pipeline suggests that that's the primary reason for constructing it. Canada doesn't want to have more of its land sullied by the many inevitable leakages, so getting the US to serve as the conduit is a neat trick.

http://americablog.com/2013/06/british-columbia-re...
Gaius Publius:
quote:
1. The oil is bound for Asia: The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, as proposed … would carry tar sands oil by pipeline across the province, to be loaded onto supertankers for transport to Asia.

2. The ‘”sell” by the company is economic, but the bulk of the benefits (the profits) would of course go to the company, or they wouldn’t be doing it: In its written submission to the review panel on Friday, the company emphasized “the enormous economic benefits that the Project would deliver to Canada, British Columbia, Alberta and Aboriginal peoples.”

3. The company touts its excellence in “spill response”: “Northern Gateway would have comprehensive oil spill response plans for all Project components and would substantially improve existing emergency response on Canada’s pacific coast – something unprecedented for a pipeline project.”

4. Yet the BC review noted just the opposite: But the B.C. government’s submission points out that the company’s proposal indicates that “doing nothing is a possible response to a spill.”

HuffPo (Robert Redford):
quote:
Nocera might ask himself how likely this oil is really to go to China from Canada if Keystone XL is not built. He might ask why the oil companies are looking to bring tar sands almost 2000 miles south rather than just send it across British Columbia for export to Asia.

The answer can be found in the deep and fierce opposition to a new tar sands pipeline in Canada -- especially by the First Nations of British Columbia. In fact, those First Nations this week sent letters to President Hu of China and to the Chinese people letting them know their tar sands grievances in advance of Prime Minister Harper's trip this week.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would not make the United States of America safer. Why? It would not make us safer, because the majority of the processed oil was already scheduled for export to foreign countries.

That's' right, this Keystone XL pipeline's Canadian tar sands oil would have no positive impact whatsoever on America's national security. Canada wanted to send the dirtiest oil on the planet through the heart of America so that they could access export routes.

And they proposed getting there by bringing the pipeline right over the Ogallala Aquifer, one of America's most important repositories of fresh water. Along the route, Democrats and Republicans alike opposed it.

Nocera never mentioned that a first pipeline just like the proposed Keystone XL, built by the same foreign company, TransCanada, had over 12 spills in the U.S. (30 if you count Canada) in just its first year of operation. Some of those spills have yet to be cleaned up.

Salon:
quote:
The U.S. State Department has accepted assertions that the production of heavy oil will increase regardless of whether Keystone XL is built, because the Northern Gateway pipeline would bring oil for shipment to China.

Denying permission for Keystone XL would not promote the U.S. national interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the State Department says, because China will use the energy anyway.

Canadians know better. Although the Canadian government supports Northern Gateway, and the government-appointed National Energy Board can be expected to approve, the same cannot be said of the First Nations (i.e. indigenous peoples) living along its path.

The 731-mile long Northern Gateway pipeline would cross several mountain ranges and more than 1,000 rivers and streams, many of which contain sensitive salmon spawning beds.

In December 2010, 61 First Nations from across British Columbia signed a declaration in opposition to Northern Gateway. The First Nations are skeptical about safety assurances provided by Enbridge, the company behind Northern Gateway.

In July 2010, a leak in one of the company’s pipelines in Michigan resulted in 20,000 gallons of crude oil spilling into the Kalamazoo River. A year later, more than 1,500 barrels leaked from another of Enbridge’s pipelines in Canada’s Northwest Territories.

Fully 80 percent of British Columbians oppose Northern Gateway, and that public opinion has translated into political opposition.

Just a small sample of the information that's out there.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By invidious on 6/26/2013 4:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
So your attempt to validating your opinion (which was criticized as being mindlessly regurgitated Greenpeace propaganda) was to quote a bunch of unfounded claims that you found on a blatantly liberal leaning propaganda website.


By superstition on 6/26/2013 10:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really not interested in cheap shots. If you can post some substantive rebutting information, I will be very interested in reading it. Otherwise...


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Dorkyman on 6/26/2013 5:32:21 PM , Rating: 3
You lost me at referencing Huffington Post and then Salon. Next time try to pick objective sites.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By superstition on 6/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Digimonkey on 6/27/2013 8:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
There has been three leaks I know about in the last three years without doing an internet search. One around Alberta Canada, one in Michigan and one in Arkansas. It's rather inevitable for a pipeline not to leak, it happens, so there should always be some concern. Especially for one that travels over a huge aquifer.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By BRB29 on 6/27/2013 9:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it will but it's not a big deal. You're talking like if we use trucks, ships or trains that it won't leak. If anything, using other modes of transport introduces more human errors. Usually those spills will be in places where it will be a big deal.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Digimonkey on 6/27/2013 1:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
A million gallons of oil dumped into the Kalamazoo river is a pretty big deal. That happened in 2010 and just a month ago they were talking about having to dredge the river, so 3 years and still cleaning up the mess.

I'm not really against the pipeline if the risk/reward ratio is substantial, I'm just saying people have the right to be concerned.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By freedom4556 on 6/27/2013 3:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
They cleaned up the one in Arkansas. It's all gone. I drive by it every day. It was a tiny (in perspective) leak. Not that the local liberal media will every admit that.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By superstition on 6/27/2013 4:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
And the Kalamazoo river?


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By freedom4556 on 6/27/2013 4:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Dunno, I don't live there. Was just providing a local perspective.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2013 4:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say "leaks" though, he said "bursting".

Pipeline "bursts" are so rare as to not even be brought up. And when they do happen, the flow is shut off, duh. You know you're dealing with some wacko with an agenda when such an absurd point of view is even shared.

It's like me saying we have to stop developing battery tech, because a cargo ship coming from China might sink in the ocean and create an ecological mess.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Digimonkey on 6/27/2013 6:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
I was replying to your comment, and you said "busting". I'd agree, bursting rarely happens, and I'm for the keystone pipeline being built if it's a boon for the US economy and regulations are followed.


By superstition on 6/28/2013 5:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm for the keystone pipeline being built if it's a boon for the US economy and regulations are followed.


What if the regulations are inadequate? What, exactly, constitutes a boon for the economy that outweighs the risks? If we're going to place an aquifer, for instance, in jeopardy, doesn't it seem wise to know exactly what we're getting into and why?

I've asked those who complained about my sources to provide their own "objective" (substantive) facts, but so far I haven't seen any posted.

If it's true that this is yet another example of unwise corporate welfare like corn ethanol -- where environmental degradation is ignored in favor of certain rich people/politicians getting to skim a profit off of human misery... then I think it's worthwhile to know that. Wishful thinking won't make it a "boon", nor will placid ignorance. But, I do agree that if the overwhelming evidence (including what is reasonably obtainable) is positive then it makes sense to proceed.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By BRB29 on 6/27/2013 8:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
The pipe to NC was damaged and leaked several times. The damage is easily controlled because we can stop the flow. The leaked oil can be controlled with engineering, planning and damage control.

Pipes saves you a ton of money because it doesn't use trucks, ships or trains or transport this oil. It's much better for the environment than the alternatives. It also keeps the prices of gas down significantly. If you look throughout the states, places that use pipelines have lower prices overall.

Now please STFU about pipes. The worst oil spills have always been those shipping tankers at sea.


By superstition on 6/27/2013 3:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Again, we must ask ourselves why we should risk so many miles of pipeline in the first place, carrying that stuff to China.

It makes a lot more geographical sense to move it through British Columbia than it does to bring it through the US.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By FITCamaro on 6/27/2013 5:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason it would be exported is because we don't have the refining capacity here in the US. Why? Because of people like yourself.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By superstition on 6/27/2013 4:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
A likely story. The US certainly can refine whatever it chooses to. We have plenty of land, manpower, and resources.

More believable reason for exporting the stuff to China is because the pipeline will be owned by a corporation that doesn't care that much about the economic welfare of the US in the first place and will do everything it can to maximize profits for itself, including producing a spill plan that includes doing nothing as a solution.

Corn ethanol should clue you into the fact that politicians often support projects not because of their economic quality but because of kickbacks and other forms of corruption. Creating a massive pipeline across an aquifer so that China can get easier access to tar sludge seems pretty nutty, although I freely admit this is not an area I have spent much time looking into.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2013 4:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the United States since 1976. Your comments are shockingly ignorant. We cannot "refine" whatever we choose to if you're outright blocked from doing so.

quote:
although I freely admit this is not an area I have spent much time looking into.


Oh believe me, we can tell.


By superstition on 6/28/2013 5:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There hasn't been a new oil refinery built in the United States since 1976.

There is one under construction in North Dakota. I guess the false dilemma police didn't get to them first.

But, do explain why it makes good sense for America in general to pipeline the sludge from Canada, across many states and an aquifer -- all so the company that owns the pipeline can make a profit selling it to the Chinese. If you are invested in Koch Industries that could explain your viewpoint.


RE: Emissions are a smokescreen
By BRB29 on 6/27/2013 8:45:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The harmonic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car in the fleet for the same number of miles, while the arithmetic mean captures the fuel economy of driving each car using the same amount of gas


Bro, you're posting other people's opinions to verify your own. You should look into real scientific articles or financial data regarding damages with spills. Some harder than blog posts and huffington lol. That's not evidence, that's unverified opinions.


By superstition on 6/27/2013 4:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is stopping you from following your advice. Post some of these superior facts for us.


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














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