President Obama Takes Biggest Single Step to Move America Beyond Oil

[ProSense]

President Obama Takes Biggest Single Step to Move America Beyond Oil

by Ann Mesnikoff

Today, the Obama administration took a step that will result in significant savings at the pump for American families, reduce life-threatening carbon pollution, and provide Americans with better and more fuel efficient vehicle choices moving forward.

The administration officially proposed strengthening fuel efficiency and pollution standards for passenger cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The newly proposed standards also reduce carbon emissions to 163 grams per mile in 2025.

<...>

And 108 House Representatives also support the new standards, having all signed a letter to the President saying as much:

<...>

Two important points, though, as we applaud these standards from the Obama administration:

1. Loopholes and Industry Giveaways Matter
The strength of the final standards will determine whether we get all of the benefits promised. Loopholes, credits and flexibilities can undermine the stringency of vehicle standards. For example, we strongly support electric vehicles, but treating too many EVs as having no emissions (ignoring the carbon pollution from electricity) can erode pollution reductions. It is critical that these standards maintain their integrity in order to deliver consumer savings and cut our addiction to oil.

2. 54.5 MPG Isn't Actually What Consumers Will See On Dealer Lots in 2025
Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) use an arcane set of 1970s test procedures to set standards and measure compliance. These tests assume drivers will average 48 mph on the highway, drive in perfect 75 degree weather, and never turn on their A/C. Therefore, the cars that consumers buy at the dealership in 2025 will actually average between 37-40 mpg, which is still nearly double today's window sticker average of 22.5 mpg.

more

Graphic linked to in original.

[msongs]

1. "...proposed..." lol nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. The irony is that

if the administration had "proposed" something folks were vehemently opposed to,
folks would be lined up and all up in arms, making themselves heard in every single thread
on the subject, as though what was proposed was already a done deal.

But since this is a positive step for most on a Democratic Board,
some folks will dishonestly discount it precisely because it is a proposal,
instead of a done-deal.

That's what makes those with "comments laced with snark" on this Democratic Forum lack credibility....
because in a long run, they have already exhibited an obvious consistent "concern" ONLY
if it makes this administration be looked upon negatively, and nothing else.
That smells of an agenda with a priority that is not constructive,
but rather, deconstructive aka destructive.

Republicans often discount Barack Obama's positive steps as being nothing, because it takes
something away from their own agenda of replacing him, if they were to acknowledge any positivity.
In fact, when Cain referred to his "Points" (in that interview where he oops on Libya...)
I failed to see why that even mattered, as the GOP POV is to always, always be negative
towards this one man no matter what he says, writes, proposes, directs, pushes, promotes or otherwise. So I find this common link in the GOP approach and some folks here to be insightful, to say the least.

[CakeGrrl]

6. Chalk it up to

Chronic, reflexive goalpost-shifting.

It's become as predictable as...Congressional Repulican response to anything the President does.

:rofl:

[bvar22]

2. "Proposed"

LOL.

Your titled is more than a little misleading.
In fact, it is downright false.

He "proposed" taking a step.
President Obama has "proposed" many things,
even a Public Option.

But I have noticed that "proposing" something is good enough to make The List,
so lets start the Mission Accomplished Parade.
:party:





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their proposals.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ProSense]

3. I

"'Proposed' LOL."

...must be missing the joke: Is there another way something comes about without first being proposed?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

12. Actually,

"You are a joke."

...the joke is every idiot who thinks snark and word parsing is reality.

It's a proposal that evironmental activists have been pushing for. Tell them their efforts are a joke.

It's this kind of dumb shit why the "joke" of a climate change bill didn't pass.

[Ikonoklast]

13. You have no clue as to how the Federal Government adopts new rules.

Every new rule starts as a 'proposal'. It's how the rule-making process works.

You can even go to the specific agency's website and comment on proposed new rulemaking, I do it all the time on rules affecting my industry, public comments are invited.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Please note.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=817340&mesg_id=817381

[catgirl]

7. Is this bad news to you?

Your reaction is a bit over the top considering that this proposal is a step in the right direction. ??

[catgirl]

8. K&R

And anyone who disses this, is messed up.

[Maven]

9. And...how exactly does this move us beyond oil?

Because he proposed higher MPG standards for gas cars?

Seems to me that only helps prolong our dependency on oil.

And 2025? Any idea what a barrel of oil is likely to cost then? Any idea where the climate will be?

This is his "single biggest step?" Meanwhile he has moved his decision on the XL pipeline until after the election.

[bvar22]

10. bvar22 Takes Biggest Single Step EVER to Move America Beyond Hunger!!!

Today, bvar22 proposed that we grow enough food to Feed The World!

Hey!
This is EASY!
Mission Accomplished!
:patriot:



You will know them by their WORKS.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ProSense]

14. Now,

"bvar22 Takes Biggest Single Step EVER to Move America Beyond Hunger!!!"

NRDC: "Obama Takes Big Step toward Cleaner, Fuel-Sipping Cars"

...which statement is foolish?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

15. 2025? Uh, sure. It could happen.

We'll probably all be dead from toxic air asphyxiation by then, so we'll never get to see start time for implementation of these standards get moved to the year 2050.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

17. What should be a cause for despair for every one of us...

is that they are planning to still be producing gasoline-fueled automobiles in 2025 - instead of planning to have phased out all gasoline-fueled vehicles by then! We will never change, we will never learn, and we (and millions of other species on this planet) will be dying en masse by the time these standards are enacted.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. Cars should be getting close to a hundered miles a gallon by now..

but that is in a dream I had of an America that had its shit together.

[frazzled]

19. This is not a "proposal" in the sense that Congress has to approve it: it's an agency regulation

Let's get a clearer source, so that the "proposed, yuk, yuk" naysayers can put their tails back under their seats and wipe the red of their seats. Maybe they just don't understand how regulations are put into effect by federal agencies.

The plan grew out an uneasy agreement last spring between the administration, automakers and environmental groups to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports and cut tailpipe emissions.

Regulators hope to finalize the proposal by summer following a 60-day public comment period. The administration wants to give industry five years to further develop fuel-saving technologies and plan products before the rule would start taking effect in 2017.

This is a regulatory issue, not a law being proposed to Congress. Yes, the Republicans are trying to find a way to stop it by saying the EPA can't regulate gas mileage and emissions:

But the role of federal environmental regulators and the state of California -- a leader in efforts to reduce emissions -- in developing auto standards has rankled the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Republican members of the Oversight Committee, who are scrutinizing Obama's "green economy" agenda, have challenged administration assumptions on who can regulate gas mileage and emissions under federal law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/fuel-economy-standards-obama_n_1097750.html

Again, these are REGULATIONS the administration is proposing to enact on its own, not something to be bargained away with Congress. Let's let the LA Times convince you:

The Obama administration has proposed landmark fuel economy standards that would almost double the average gas mileage for each automaker's passenger vehicle fleet to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

The rules proposed Wednesday mark the latest step in a lengthy campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. They would build on the administration's ambitious standards that raise the average to 35.5 mpg over five years ending with the 2016 model year.

The latest standards would be phased in starting with the 2017 model year. ...

The new fuel economy regulations are being jointly proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department.

Environmentalists praised the proposed new rules.


"These standards are the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight global warming," said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign at the Center for Auto Safety. "You will see most 2025 cars and light trucks getting the mileage of today's Prius and Ford Escape hybrid. Most of the changes will be under the hood." ...

The new standards will be open for public comment for 60 days after being published in the Federal Register. The administration said the EPA and the Transportation Department also would hold public hearings around the country.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fuel-economy-20111117,0,5670531.story

[Politicalboi]

20. I would hope

By 2025 we no longer use gasoline to run vehicles. We actually have the power to do it NOW!

[juajen]

21. Yes, we need to go to a green standard. However, perhaps

you could propose how in hell we could do that now with the opposition of the oil-controlled republicans? Sometimes you have to do what you can do that helps even if it is not a pony. Progress is progress, and I, for one, believe the President deserves better from us. Everyone knows who I supported as it is clear from my avatar; however it appears to me that the President is trying to build a tall brick building, and every time he lays a brick someone tried to take it out. He cannot do this job alone, and we need to start giving him better support. After all, perhaps we can help him lay the bricks fast enough that the pugs will find it more and more difficult to destroy. We have a new dialog in this country because a small amount of brave people are trying to turn this country around. They can't do it all at one time. It's enough that they are willing to begin and fight for what's right, one brick at a time. Hillary Clinton is making one hell of a Secretary of State. She is building, not tearing down. We all need to take a look at ourselves, and start helping, for God's sake.

[paulk]

22. why not make it 2050?

that would be just as meaningless

[bhikkhu]

23. Ah yes...the futility of planning for the future.

What kind of person worries about that sort of nonsense?

[paulk]

24. do you really think 2025 is any kind of realistic plan?

it's yet another "kick the can down the road" from the Obama administration.

we need tougher fuel standards NOW - not 14 years from now.

[bhikkhu]

25. If you look historically how long it has taken to bring improvements to market

the time allowed for the improvement asked for is reasonable and pragmatic. To reach those goals requires incremental progress and improvement spread over 14 years, and it is likely to happen and to make a difference in the future.

I'd say, from another perspective, we don't need tougher fuel standards - we need to stop driving cars, we need to stop burning coal, we need to stop NG extraction, etc; there are plenty of things we need to do that just aren't going to happen. Asking the unreasonable doesn't lead to improvements, it leads to nothing.

[paulk]

26. is it really "asking the unreasonable"?

yeah, I understand the need to be pragmatic and reasonable, etc, in the face of our dinosaur government. It's just that I no longer think we have the time to play by the rules anymore.

incremental change is going to lead - IS leading to catastrophic climate change... I no longer think we're going to have a "future".

[bhikkhu]

27. I do know what you mean...

but in a political context, which is where we're at, the best that can be expected (I think) is that things are moved and planned for in a good direction. Probably we'll have big problems anyway.

Any person can radically change their life, to the extent that if everyone did the same most of the problems we face would be solved. On a personal level, I try to live in that way. On the level of a community, you'll always have to deal with the averaging out of efforts - not everyone is able, not everyone is willing, and not everyone is even willing to listen. Talking to anyone about it is hit and miss, and the overall possibility of beneficial change is decreased significantly.

The same averaging-type process gets worse as you increase the numbers involved, and on the level of national politics, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone even willing to admit there is a problem. Of those that do admit there is a problem, the majority will support only token measures which don't accomplish much- largely because they represent a mix of willing/not willing/not listening people. They'll also support things like "generic economic growth for its own sake", which tends to erase any good that is done on the other end.

...so, I guess it is low expectations that makes me satisfied with the president's new stricter regulations. There are definite limits to power in a democratic system, where most people just want to drive their cars.