Bush Calls for Higher Fuel Efficiency
by Sean Fisher, Cincinnati, Ohio on 05.14.07
After calling America's "addiction to oil" one of the most serious challenges in America today, President Bush renewed calls for a higher mandatory alternative fuel standard and higher fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles in an effort to conserve 8.5 billion gallons of gas in the next 10 years (click above for the entire speech). Today's announcement again outlined Bush's "20 in 10" proposal, a plan to reduce American gas consumption by 20% by 2017. Through an executive order, he called for the Congress, US EPA, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture to work with the administration in order to finalize these plans by the end of 2008. Before we start applauding though, lets take a closer look at the "20 in 10" plan.
According to Forbes, the 20% reduction of gas consumption is not a 20% cut in current usage. Rather, it refers to a cut "relative to a projection of future gasoline usage in 2017." Furthermore, the mandatory alternative fuel standard, although increasing the total amount of alternative fuels, would be a change from previous mandatory renewable fuel standards, allowing "alternative fossil fuels" to join the party.
Before passing judgment, we would like to see how Bush's plan attempts to raise efficiency standards (aka CAFE standards). For example, the US Senate is now considering a bill which would require a 4% annual improvement in efficiency starting in 2011, a standard by which we can judge the Bush plan. We would also like to see a plan which addresses current fuel consumption, not the future projection. Finally, we would like to see more carrots than sticks in working with businesses to reduce the carbon emissions of autos. Perhaps immediate incentives for producers and buyers of higher fuel efficiency and the production cleaner, renewable energy sources combined with a plan to improve America's public transit systems (many of which have been losing funding at a rapid pace) would help reduce total fuel consumption today, not in 2017.
By my figuers that's only 3-4 gallons of gas per person per year.
In the 50's, after Eisenhower had a heart attack, his doctor ordered him to ride a bike. It was a big photo-op for the Administration, and there were all kinds of doughy politicos rushing to get filmed riding a bike with the President. Bush should be doing the same thing.
If he actually wanted to do something instead of appearing to want to do something, he'd step in and put price ceilings on wholesale gas, cap sales at a level that will pull down global market prices, and institute a temporary gas tax to keep the price levels where they need to be to give proper incentive to get rid of our wasteful use of gasoline for good.
He can do that now, but instead, as always, he talks about pie-in-the-sky proposals that will never materialize, long after he's left office.
This is just more lip-service from Bush. There are many things that the federal government could be doing to cut down on CO2 emissions, Oil use and other important environmental issues that would not be too extreme for the American public to accept. Instead he offers a future panacea (ethanol will cure all of our future fuel needs!) and a promise to improve on meaningless numbers set far out in the future.
It's a good thing that at least some of us can depend on our state and municipal governments to at least try to address the issue in a reasonable and practical manner.
Nice article, and good to read some opinion too - an article on the BBC's website is also related to this topic: "US seeks G8 climate text changes"..."The US is trying to block sections of a draft agreement on climate change prepared for next month's G8 summit, according to documents seen by the BBC."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6651295.stm
The trouble with any domestic headline grabbing hyperbole from politicians is that it needs follow-through in order to take effect. As you point out, we'll have to wait and see... although perhaps a good treehugging voice could suggest some ways to voice our opinion earlier?
Bush loves cycling, is an avid cyclist.
No, let's NOT wait and see! Let's keep acting without this government. If anyone actually believes that anything positively green is going to happen during this administration, you must be completely naive.
Bush and his administration have proven time and time again that they are not interested in meaningful changes that would get them out of bed with the oil industry and other big-greed players. This is complete green bandwagon jumping, now that is is a really hot topic.
What is important is that this country rediscovers true democracy by getting rid of paid and open corruption (aka lobbyists) through election campaign reform, and then perhaps our president and other elected officials will actually act in the interest of the people and country they represent.
So all you states, local governments and American citizens (and non-citizens) keep working towards a mores sustainable future, because your pathetic president has already managed to pollute tons of it for your grandchildren.
Most significant environmental legislation is set to begin at a much later date. It allows, for example, manufacturers to go through a complete design cycle to implement change. It also allows politicians to distance themselves before anything goes wrong.
A problem with any government action is that the politicians dictate regulation to industry but rarely understand the science or business well enough to create legislation that does not have disasterous unintended consequences. A lot of the current problems with the auto industry are due to a poorly written CAFE standard that devalued fuel effeicient vehicles.
I wonder how much fossil fuels all of his warships, jets, tanks, etc, in the middle east burn per year?
Maybe Air Force One should become a Cessna.
It must take a lot of mowers to manicure the White House lawn.
Physician heal thyself.
I was hoping he'd at least up the CAFE standards. The practice of that isn't perfect, but it's what we have, and it works to a point.
Amry Lovins has presented a well worn chart showing the lack of correlation between mileage standards (CAFE) and fleet average vehicle efficiency. The driving factor after iinitial CAFE enactment was more a matter of Japanese quality and market preference rather than US congressional mandate .... in other words the government was behind the curve. It does not have to be that way; but with the excessive corporate advocacy interventions, which are as satisfied with delay and defer as they might be with societal progress, this is the typical result.
Corporatist influence has been overcome for the common good only during time of crisis (think Clean Water Act enactment after burning rivers shown on TeeVee) or when the meaning of a legislative proposal did not dawn on the lobbyists in time to subvert it (think Toxic Release Inventory), We are entering a similar phase of history with climate change impending. Hail the clueless-ness!
I'm glad to see the writer of tis piece has the sense to recognize the value of carrots over sticks.The weakest part of the environmental movement so far as been the failure to prefer incentives to imperitives.
As for Bush ,and Congresses proposals. Pitiful,paltry ,full of mre delay. We had a better fuel efficiency improvement tabel 30 years ago,if we'd stuck with it the US woud have stopped importing mideast oil 20 years ago.
I wonder how much fossil fuels all of his warships, jets, tanks, etc, in the middle east burn per year?
The military consumes about 8-10% of total consumption for the nation.
"If he actually wanted to do something instead of appearing to want to do something, he'd step in and put price ceilings on wholesale gas, cap sales at a level that will pull down global market prices, and institute a temporary gas tax to keep the price levels where they need to be to give proper incentive to get rid of our wasteful use of gasoline for good."
I suspect that for the majority of people, gas prices have little effect on their consumption. My insurance bill is nearly as much as my gas bill, and I'm a safe driver with low rates!
My cable and DSL bill are far more than my gas bill, so if I got tight on money for gas would scrap the cable since I'm already really close to work and drive a fuel efficient car.
Do people who drive $50k Escalades or Hummers really care if gas is $3/gallon or $5/gallon? I highly doubt it.
"Bush loves cycling, is an avid cyclist."
Alibet a clumsy one.
He rode into a policeman in the UK last year.
Who writes these things for him anyway?
To the poster who wants caps on costs of wholesale gas... this is far from the answer. People will just prolong the switch to an alternative fuel as long as gas is cheap for the consumers... And even if the tax was in place people would revolt against the politician who put it in place - and we know Republicans would NEVER vote for that and Democrats most likely wouldn't have the political spine to vote it in, knowing it is simple fodder for Republicans to trash them with.
Change in our capitalist society is driven by how we choose to spend our dollar and when we see an equal or cheaper option for fuel we will then begin to make a transition to either conserve or adopt a new fuel for our needs.
I personally think $6 is the tipping point for gas prices - at which point there will be enough strain put on our economy on many levels that people will be screaming for an alternative.
Do people who drive $50k Escalades or Hummers really care if gas is $3/gallon or $5/gallon? I highly doubt it.
Precipitous drops in sales of large SUVs over the past few years would indicate that they do care.
At $5/gallon and 10 mpg, the average household would have to spend $7,500-$11,000 on gasoline a year -- or $625-917/mo. Considering that all other ownership costs for an H2 average $761/mo., those sorts of fuel costs are considerable.