Bush implements hard targets with energy bill


The road aheadAgainst expectations US President George Bush has signed a bill mandating a 35mpg fleet average for the American auto industry to be achieved by 2020 amongst other measures aimed at reducing US Co2 emissions.

Yesterday we claimed that this was unlikely, but we are happy to be wrong. Such a move encourages innovation in an industry which has been lacking true innovative focus in efficiency for some time. It has been noted that increased US economy standards could bring annual fuel savings of between $700 to $1,000 to consumers.

The introduction of the 35mpg standard (which has been extensively debated in the TalkClimateChange forums) will also bring the ailing US auto industry closer towards efficiency benchmarks long set by European and Japanese automakers, as well as providing more level competition for European manufacturers who will likely have to meet stringent average Co2 emissions targets within the next 4 years.

The 35mpg standard has until now been hotly debated.

Also included in the energy bill are statutory targets for the use of energy efficient light bulbs, energy efficient appliances and federal building efficiency.

However, it is with some disappointment that we note that the legislation envisages a six-fold increase in ethanol production to 36bn gallons per year. Although a large percentage of production will be based on non food substances such as wood-chips and prairie gasses we remain deeply concerned by increasing bio-fuel usage. We believe that bio-fuels are the classic example of environmental policies designed to achieve political targets without consideration of the knock-on effects.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
December 20th, 2007
7 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Commentary
News
Politics

Other Posts
Climate extremists – please keep it real
EU encourages aviation, but gets heavy on cars

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
DFM
Posted on:
December 20, 2007 at 10:52 pm

“It has been noted that increased US economy standards could bring annual fuel savings of between $700 to $1,000 to consumers”

Who did this fuzzy math? When you consider the added cost of fuel with higher ethanol content, along with the lesser efficiency (less mpg), how will this save anyone money? When they calculate mpg, are they going to use regular gasoline, or the higher ethanol blend? And the added cost of food; it’s already gone up about 8% without the higher mandate.

And then there’s the mandated renewable energy. There go the electric bills. Again, who did this fuzzy math?

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Mark
Posted on:
December 20, 2007 at 10:59 pm

These figures were quoted the the Democrats in their support of the bill. I believe that these figures were derived purely by calculating the savings made by improvements to MPG.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
DFM
Posted on:
December 21, 2007 at 12:34 am

I’ve read the AP article and they list as the source the “Union of Concerned Scientists”.

Calculating savings based solely on MPG is sort of silly, don’t you think? Mind you, I’m not complaining about the new CAFE standards; I think they’re overdue. I just dislike the spin that it’s going to save us money. Ya right!

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Mark
Posted on:
December 21, 2007 at 9:59 am

I’ve seen various quotes on the source, most of which are similar to this: „The Democrats said the legislation will reduce US demand for oil by 4m barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the present daily imports from the Gulf. They said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in costs.“

On your second point, my experience has been that cash savings through MPG can be very significant. I never gave it much thought until I brought a new car last year which gives 50+MPG (the previous car gave around 30 MPG). Until then I had never really considered the fuel costs, but after realising that I previously spent 250 euros per month on fuel and suddenly the new car was using around 40% less I was saving quite a bit of money. Of course, fuel is much much more expensive in Europe.

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
DFM
Posted on:
December 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Mark, you can save money with better fuel economy, no question.

Almost 2 years ago I went from a 20mpg SUV to a 32mpg vehicle. When I had my SUV, gas was $2.50/g. It’s now gone up to $3.25/g. Now it costs me almost as much to drive as it did before, and it keeps going up. And, I have to pay for a new car on top of that, when my older one was paid for. With no end in sight, us little guys are between a rock and a hard place.

The states are already talking about raising gas taxes because they’re losing money from gas sales. They’ve been experimenting with all kinds of new ways to tax us.

My biggest problem is the government never seems to do the right thing for the right reasons, but always does the wrong thing for the wrong reason. There are much better and cost effective alternatives that they won’t touch, preffering to go with the one that will hurt all of us the most.

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
Europe Gets Tougher On Heavy Co2 Emitters : EcoWorldly
Posted on:
February 5, 2008 at 9:34 pm

[…] & further reading: The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, BBC News, TCC – Bush Implements Hard Targets with Energy Bill How useful is this post? 0(0 […]

Comment Number:
7
Written by:
Speed Limit 80kmh - Pollution Ahead : EcoWorldly
Posted on:
February 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm

[…] The City of London has faced stern opposition over its new congestion charges (even being threatened with legal action from Porsche), the Germans refuse to bow to pressure from environmental groups to put speed limits of their unrestricted autobahns, speed cameras are branded as a universal menace, and Detroit automakers have been vigorously opposed to a national fleet average fuel consumption figure of 35mpg. […]