Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

How the New Energy Bill Adds Fuel to a Bloomberg Candidacy

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted June 21, 2007.


Those in Congress who are supporting Big Auto over the will of the people and the health of the planet are exactly the folks who Bloomberg is referring to in his idea to "drain the swamp."
Huffington

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Arianna Huffington

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle Is for Losers
Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.
Jul 5, 2008

Right Is Wrong -- How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America
The GOP is now a dark, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh and Coulter. And we're all the worse because of it.
May 22, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Defeat: An Historic Triumph
Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too.
May 20, 2008

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In laying the groundwork this week for a possible independent run for the White House, Michael Bloomberg has been making the case that "Washington is sinking into a swamp of dysfunction."

Exhibit A in his argument should be the debate currently underway in the Senate over raising fuel efficiency standards for the auto industry. It's a perfect example of the fetid D.C. bog at its most dysfunctional.

Raising CAFE standards should be a no-brainer. It's the fastest and most efficient way to reduce our dependence on oil -- especially foreign oil. An increase of just 3 mpg nationwide would save one million barrels of oil per day. But for close to 25 years, the U.S. auto industry and its allies in Congress have repeatedly fought back any and all efforts to raise mileage standards.

That's right, despite all that has happened in the last quarter century in terms of the environment and shifting world politics, the mileage requirement for cars, truck, and SUVs hasn't changed a lick since A Flock of Seagulls was a hot band and Rubik's Cubes wer all the rage. Passenger cars are still required to get just 27.5 miles per gallon, while SUVs and light trucks only have to get 21 mpg.

But due to mounting concern over climate change, our dependence on Middle East oil, and skyrocketing gas prices, the political wind has at long last shifted, and an increase in fuel standards is an idea whose time has finally come -- embraced not just by environmentalists but by groups like SAFE, a coalition of top corporate and military leaders that see this as a foreign policy issue.

Even President Bush -- an oilman who has spent the last six and a half years turning the White House into a full-service fueling station for Big Oil -- has jumped on the CAFE bandwagon and is supporting a proposal that would require both cars and trucks to reach 35 miles a gallon by 2020.

To put this modest increase into perspective, automakers have already managed to comply with much tougher mileage standards all over the world, including 46 mpg in Japan and 44 mpg in Europe. And that is what they are doing today, not 13 years from now.

Nevertheless, Detroit is still fighting progress tooth and nail. Automakers originally were sticking to their guns and pushing for no increase at all but, after finally seeing the writing on the wall, are now desperately trying to water down the already watered down CAFE provision in the energy bill currently under debate. And they are getting help from a group of lawmakers that includes Michigan's two Democratic Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. They are pushing a compromise amendment that would require cars to get 36 mpg by 2022, while allowing trucks and SUVs to continue lagging behind, required only to get 30 mpg by 2025.

It's modern politics at its worst. Instead of embracing a big idea that is long overdue and seizing a moment of national consensus on one of the biggest issues of the day -- energy independence -- Levin, Stabenow, and their cohorts are giving in to the lobbyists and the special interests that have defined Washington for decades now. It should come as no surprise that Levin and Stabenow have been major recipients of auto industry largess -- Levin taking in $104,000 from Big Auto since 2001, and Stabenow pocketing over $115,000 from automakers, auto dealers, and auto worker unions.

According to Stabenow, the proposed mileage increase "doesn't do anything to help us." Which makes me wonder: which "us" is she referring to -- the American people or the auto industry?

Either way, she's dead wrong. It goes without saying that raising fuel standards would be good for the American people. (As Southwest Airlines chairman Herb Kelleher, a member of SAFE, put it: "We concluded that the overall dependence of the United States on oil was a great vulnerability, and by continuing it we were helping the people who opposed us.") But it would also be good for Detroit.

For far too long, Washington has been an enabler of the auto industry's refusal to get with the times. Detroit missed the boat on hybrid technology and so many other innovations because, instead of forcing auto makers into corporate rehab to clean up their act, our leaders in Washington have acted as a dysfunctional parent -- not only turning a blind eye to Detroit's wild ways but actively encouraging it by creating outrageous loopholes like the one that allows buyers of extra-large gas-guzzling SUVs to take extra-large deductions on their taxes. It would be like Lindsay Lohan's mom leaving a vial of crack on her daughter's pillow at night.

Washington needs to adopt a zero tolerance policy for Detroit -- and for business-as-usual political maneuvers like the one Levin and Stabenow are attempting.

It's behavior like this that could fuel a "drain the swamp" candidacy like Bloomberg's.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thoughts about 44 mpg and Detroit
Posted by: 44 mpg by 2010 on Jun 21, 2007 11:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The EU diesels are FAR MORE REFINED than any current "domestic" diesels. They get about 50% to 80% better mpg than any engines provided domestically by the Det3. Do you know of any domestic production diesel that will have a "RED LINE" above 5,000 rpm (that is not the top for many EU diesels)?

Some suggest that the mpg in Europe is achieved by drastic weight reduction ... not true. The EU Ford Mondeo weighs in at 3,300 pounds and is rated at 31 city; 40 combined; 48 highway mpg(US). Now compare those numbers to the Fusion at 3,100 pounds; 20 City; 23 Combined; 29 Hwy mpg(US). http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

Now ... IF you really want to see some high mpg vehicles (I agree some are far smaller than I would want) take a look at the 61-70 mpg(Imperial) combined average [ that is 50 to ~59 mpg(US) combined; highway can be close to 70 mpg(US) ] Vauxhalls (Opal/GM) on this government site in the UK. http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp

NOx is the difficulty with diesel but now that ULSD is becoming generally available that problem can be corrected in the near future.

Regarding CO and CO2, on the average, the 2007 EU vehicles currently produce between 50 and 75% LESS CO2 in g/km than US engines. In the EU, it is required by law that a manufacturer's fleet average must be less than 140 g/km by 2008 (my "Best Guess" is that the Pontiac G6 generates over 240 g/km and it is one of the lower emissions domestics. While the upper end for domestics is probably OVER 500 g/km).

By the way ... an interesting side benefit of this low CO2 emmisions is that the "average" EU vehicle gets better than 43 mpg(US) combined average. INTERESTING ... HUH? And the CO2 limit is being proposed to establish 130 g/km by 2012.

The Det3 always mentioned technology cost, I would rather pay an extra $2-3 k for a refined diesel than an gas/electric hybrid. My personal choice ... I like the idea of bio diesel.

There is a Citroen/Peugeot diesel electric hybrid due late 2008 that should be in the range of 70 combined and 84 highway mpg(US). Maybe GMs' VOLT can compete ... and ... maybe not !

Then there is the question of "free market".

How about waiving ALL IMPORT RESTRICTIONS and TARIFFS ON VEHICLES GETTING MORE THAN 44 mpg(US) combined average and meeting current EU Emissions and Safety standards (or their equivalent) for 36 months?

Then there would be REAL "differientiated" fuel economy choices not just "poor" and "worse" !

This would allow 36 months to bring the follow-on-product into compliance with domestic emissions and safety requirements.

There would be NO need to discuss CAFE. I wonder how Det3 and the consumers would react under these conditions ....

Of course the Det3 are always claiming cost of technology that will increase the prices of vehicles (possibly prohibitively).

Here is a puzzle for you. If I buy a domestic diesel pickup or SUV, don't I pay a "premium" to get that diesel engine technology? If I do, please explain why a refined Euro diesel would significantly increase the "cost" of my vehicle since it is basically a swap of diesel technologies (and probably with a smaller engine that could potentially cost less)?

Just some thoughts to share ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another way to get over 44 mpg combined average
Posted by: 44 mpg by 2010 on Jun 21, 2007 11:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a "consumption excise tax" on the purchase of any/all new vehicles getting less than 33 mpg(US) combined average. Suppose that tax started at $3,000 in 2010 and increased $1,000 per year until 2022 after which time it remains fixed.

This "consumption tax" would be a legitimate business expense for both large an small business. The only personal income tax allowance for the "consumption tax" would be under certified medical necessity.

The collected "consumption tax" funds would be set aside to pay an incentive to those INDIVIDUALS (NOT for businesses large or small) who purchase vehicles getting greater than 43 mpg(US) combined city/highway starting at $8,000 beginning with 2009 and decreasing at the rate of $800 per year until the incentive goes to ZERO in 2020 at which time it is terminated.

Any excess funds after financing the "high mpg personal purchase incentive" should be diverted to "clean energy development and implementation" and mass transit (both inter and intra urban).

Now for the $25,000 "Hummer Tax write-off for small business", it should be allowed to continue until 2020 with the following requirement, it is only allowed for vehicles achieving greater than 35 mpg(US) combined city/highway effective immediately. After 2020 this provision is eliminated and no longer allowed, ie, sunset.

If you still want to add a gasoline tax after considering my proposals ... go for it.

Unfortunately a gas tax will only impact the poor and middle class. The wealthy will not be influenced at all until the fuel tax crosses about $10 per gallon ... and, maybe not even then.

Did you notice we have not discussed CAFE?

Now let's talk about metal hydride battery disposal concerns (relating to any type of EV and hybrid battery packs). Apparently Toyota has about a $200 bounty on their battery packs. I don't think there will be a "ghost of a chance" for one of these packs to make it to a landfill. You can't even get a $75 catalytic converter out of a junk yard these days. Simply put "return for LARGE deposit".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good points, but . . .
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Jun 25, 2007 10:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see how Bloomberg is really essential to this story. I mean, unless this was intended as an early campaign piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here in Michigan...
Posted by: adp3d on Jun 25, 2007 11:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Debbie Stabenaw's reference to "us" means that the economy of Michigan is basically in the tank due to the failings of the automotve industry to stay current. For other reasons besides this(wiping of Habeas Corpus, the bankruptcy/credit card law) I had to hold my nose when I pulled the lever for her. We could give the auto industry incentives to make more fuel efficent cars, it would not be that hard. Here is what I think should be done:
1. Double the state gas tax, with credits for those below an established income level and for those who drive for a living. Use the revenue to fund technology schools and students of the automotive industry.
2. Charge no sales tax for those cars made in Michigan that get above 30mpg combined. This will serve to spur sales and manufacturing in this state. Make this a mpg level increase every three years or so so the program continues.
3. Remove the ridiculous tax credit given to those who buy large pickups and SUV's to use for "work"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]